The Federal Government is being accused of rigging the outcome in its choice of leaders for the Renewable Energy Target (RET) review.

The Government-appointed expert panel has had to defend itself against conflict of interest claims.

The panel will decide the future of renewable energy investment in Australia, but some members appear to come straight from the industries such investments threaten.

Dr Brian Fisher is one of the experts picked by Prime Minister Tony Abbott to lead the RET review, but questions are being asked about his former role at BAEconomics.

BAEconomics created the modelling previously used to argue for the target to be scrapped.

Critics say it adds to the likely pre-determined outcome of the review.

The RET review will be headed by former Caltex boss Dick Warburton, who has gone against a vast majority of the climate science community by stating that carbon emissions do not cause global warming.

Given that reducing the impact of carbon emissions are a major purpose of the RET, it has been confusing to many that an opponent of the fundamental idea will be asked to objectively assess it.

Shirley In't Veld is another of the four panellists. She has served as director for Alcoa Coal, Verve Energy and Asciano, WA’s biggest coal generator.

The final member is Matt Zema from the Australian Energy Market Operator, which has argued that the RET was killing off existing fossil fuel generators and preventing the building of new ones.

The oil and gas industries that the executives appear to represent has lobbied hard against the RET, since it was set up over four years ago.

Now with sympathetic parties leading the review, some expect a drastic reduction or removal entirely of the plan to move away from fossil fuel energy supplies.

The head of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) has called Dr Fisher “very well-qualified to look at the impacts of a policy.”

There have also been criticisms laid against the modelling in submissions, including those by the APPEA.

Opponents accuse the models of factoring only the costs of renewable energy without the reciprocal benefits; creating a one-sided reading.

Mr Warburton has reportedly stated he did not believe Dr Fisher faced a conflict of interest.