Figure 4.3: Scores allocated for the merit criterion one indicators
Source: ANAO analysis. 50
100 150
200
0-10 10-20
20-30 30-40
40-50 50-60
60-70 70-80
80-90 90-100
Number of applications
approv ed
50 100
150 200
0-10 10-20
20-30 30-40
40-50 50-60
60-70 70-80
80-90 90-100
Number of applications
not
approv ed
Percentage of total score available for each merit criterion one indicator
Indicator one Indicator two
ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program
105
Merit score as a predictor of funding outcomes
4.34 The
scoring methodology did not define a minimum reduction in carbon
emissions intensity that was considered acceptable under the programs.
For example, between June 2012 and July 2014 an application with a reduction
in carbon emissions intensity of between two and four per cent and less
than 10 in grant funding per tonne of carbon abated, would score 36.4 out of
70. In the context of merit criterion one only, the department would have considered
this score sufficient to be approved for funding.
4.35 In
addition, the department did not draw a distinction between whether
an investment that generates a reduction in emissions intensity of between
two and four per cent, for example, was considered to be a ‘business as
usual’ investment or an investment in low emissions technology. In this respect,
replacing a piece of equipment that is at the end of its effective life may
result in a reduction in emissions intensity, but a greater reduction may be achieved
if the fuel used in the manufacturing process is changed or a process is
re‐engineered so that it is more efficient. The predicted percentage reduction in
carbon emissions intensity was:
less than five per cent for eight successful applications with a total
value of 797 872;
between
five and 10 per cent for 49 successful applications with a total value
of 14 893 290;
between 10 and 15 per cent for 70 successful applications with a total
value of 17 997 758; and
between
15 and 20 per cent for 61 successful applications with a total value
of 27 690 168.
119
119 This reduction in carbon emissions intensity used to perform this analysis was drawn from the departmental assessment.
ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program
106
4.36 Further,
the inclusion of the value for money indicator in merit criterion
one impacted on those applicants that were awarded funding, and those
that were unsuccessful. Specifically, as shown in Figure 4.4, had the merit
criterion one score solely related to each application’s assessed performance
in terms of the predicted percentage reduction in carbon emissions
intensity:
57 successful applications may not have been awarded funding, at a
saving of 31 million or an average of 545 000 for each application;
and
126 unsuccessful applications may have been awarded funding at a cost
of 61 million or an average of 486 800 for each application.
120
4.37 There
were also 64 successful applications that received a score of 50
per cent against indicator one and were awarded 17 million in funding or an
average of 262 345 for each application.
4.38 This
situation highlights that the implementation of the scoring methodology,
using the rating scales for indicators one and two, assisted the department
to increase the amount of financial assistance that was provided to manufacturers.
However, the assessment scoring methodology did not ensure that
only those projects which delivered a significant reduction in carbon emissions
intensity could be funded. Such a result was at odds with the rationale
behind the weightings of the merit criteria see paragraph 4.1.
120 The 126 applications identified scored at least 50 per cent against each of the merit criteria and were rated as having at least adequate evidence by the department’s assessors.
Figure 4.4: Scores allocated to applications for indicator one, merit criterion one and the overall merit score
121
Source: ANAO
anal ys
is.
121 The
