There Further, Program Design
2.67 As
outlined at paragraph 1.16, the audit scope did not include the department’s measurement and verification regime for completed projects. Program performance indicator2.68 The
key performance indicator KPI reported in the department’s 2012–13 Portfolio Budget Statements was the ‘proportion of companies assisted under the Clean Technology Investment Programs reporting projects with a minimum five per cent reduction in carbon intensity’. In July 2014, the department advised ANAO that this target: was developed in consultation with the then Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism; was selected because it aligned with the then Government’s plans to reduce carbon pollution by five per cent from 2000 levels by 2020; and reflected the outcomes of the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program.2.69 This
KPI was appropriate in the context of the primary merit criterion, which was ‘the extent of the reduction in carbon emissions intensity, including through improvements in energy efficiency arising, from the project’. However, it was not consistent with the then Government’s broader policy objective to reduce carbon pollution by five per cent from 2000 levels by 2020. Specifically, total carbon emissions had increased by 13.2 per cent from 2000 to 2010, as demonstrated by Figure 2.4, but the starting point for calculating the reduction in carbon emissions under the funding agreements was not based on 2000 levels. As a consequence of that change, a reduction of 16 per cent from 2010 emissions levels would have been required to be consistent with the broader policy target set by the then Government. ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 68 Figure 2.4: Total carbon emissions produced in Australia, 2000–2010 Source: The World Bank.2.70 After
ANAO pointed out that the program’s KPI was not consistent with the then Government’s broader policy objective to reduce carbon pollution by five per cent from 2000 levels by 2020, the department advised ANAO in October 2014 that: It was never the intent to directly link the program to the Governmentʹs target. Rather, the program indirectly supported the achievement of the Government ʹs policy objectives through helping manufacturers invest in low pollution technologies.2.71 In
Parts
» The After The Program Design
» The The Program Program Design
» The However, A Program Design
» The situation in relation to the programs was similar to that identified in
» The department accepted the subsequent recommendation made in the earlier
» The program guidelines and IA’s disclosure of interest guidelines set out
» Notwithstanding the requirements of IA disclosure of interest guidelines,
» There Further, Program Design
» The The Performance Program Design
» Effective In In Access to Funding
» Relatively Access to Funding
» Determining Access to Funding
» However, The Access to Funding
» Consistent Access to Funding
» Specifically, In Access to Funding
» In Consistent Access to Funding
» Cabinet In The Access to Funding
» Accordingly, The Reduction in Emissions
» The The Reduction in Emissions
» In This The Reduction in Emissions
» In November 2013, the department noted in a review of the programs that:
» For example, one applicant that received funding under the programs initially
» In The Reduction in Emissions
» Another Reduction in Emissions
» As In In Reduction in Emissions
» However, The Reduction in Emissions
» As The Reduction in Emissions
» The In Reduction in Emissions
» Further, Reduction in Emissions
» There This Reduction in Emissions
» Agreed. Reduction in Emissions
» The In In Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» In Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Given Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» The The Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» In The Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Further, following the then Government’s decision to bring forward the introduction
» From the information provided in paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10, it is clear that
» However, this indicator was inconsistently applied in assessing applications,
» A Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» In In In Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Overall, Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» The Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Following The Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» The most common reason recorded for not recommending an application
» As Against A Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Nevertheless, Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» To Part Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» Part Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions
» The Reporting and Funding Distribution
» Website In Reporting and Funding Distribution
» Reporting In Reporting and Funding Distribution
» Publication The Reporting and Funding Distribution
Show more