In The A The

ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 99 Figure 4.2: The logarithmic scale for indicator one Source: ANAO analysis of logarithmic scale used for indicator one that was developed by the Clean Technology Investment Committee and the department.

4.25 The

use of such a scale, however, did not clearly differentiate between the degree of merit of each application because:  the size of an emissions intensity reduction proposed by an applicant may have had no relationship with whether the applicant had previously implemented emissions reduction measures 115 ;  the emissions intensity reduction levels implicit in the scale were not based on evidence of the reduction in emissions that could be achieved by implementing specific emissions reduction measures and instead reflected the IA committee’s preference for rewarding large reductions while not penalising other applicants. 116 In this regard, the department advised ANAO in November 2014 that, following consultation with industry, Low Carbon Australia and within government, it determined that there was no existing body of evidence that could provide a 115 Previous experience with implementing emissions reductions was also reflected in the assessment of applications against merit criterion two: the capacity and capability of the applicant to undertake the project. 116 For example, there is no level of reduction in carbon emissions intensity at which no score is allocated, suggesting that that there is no carbon intensity reduction considered too small. 20 40 60 80 100 4.2 8.4 12.6 16.8 21 25.2 29.4 33.6 37.8 42 Emissions reduction Score for emissions reduction percentage Version 1: Feb 2012 to Jun 2012 Version 2: Jun 2012 to Oct 2013 ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 100 foundation for benchmarks or key performance indicators for emissions reduction measures in the manufacturing sector; and  the scores allocated to each application did not demonstrate how much better the application was when compared to another. For example, the highest rating of 10 equated to an intensity reduction of at least 80 per cent, but an applicant could achieve half that rating a score of 5 with a reduction of one eighth of the size that is 10 per cent. 117 Grant funds per tonne of carbon abated

4.26 A

maximum of 28 points was available for the grant funds requested per tonne of carbon abated and, as shown in Table 4.3, there were three versions of the rating scale that the department applied to allocate a score for this indicator. The rating scale applicable from June 2012 to July 2013 was used for more than 80 per cent of applications. 117 In this regard, even where the ranking of applications is not undertaken, the use of a scoring methodology to identify the relative merits of applications contributes to a broader understanding of which projects appear to have merit and which projects lack merit.