A Reduction in Emissions
4.28 In addition, grant funds per tonne of carbon abated was considered in comparison
to similar emissions reduction measures and with reference to the carbon price. Following the then Government’s decision to bring forward the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in July 2013, the department advised the CTIC that the: reference point for value for money had changed from 23 to 6 per tonne; assessment of value for money needed to be ‘tougher’; and approval ratings were expected to go down significantly.4.29 This advice prompted a committee member to identify that the changes to
the assessment, in terms of value for money, would mean that certain types of emissions reduction measures would not be able to achieve a grant dollars per tonne of carbon abated that was acceptable under the programs. This was not, however, communicated to prospective applicants. Relative weightings of indicators4.30 As the department did not establish clear benchmarks in regard to the reduction
in emissions intensity or the grant funds per tonne of carbon abated, ANAO examined the extent to which the scoring framework reflected: the published performance indicator of a reduction of five per cent in carbon emissions intensity; and applications seeking grant funds per tonne of carbon abated being more likely to receive funding if closer to the carbon price of 23. 1184.31 Table 4.4 shows that the nominated weightings of 60 per cent on indicator
one and 40 per cent on indicator two were not consistently applied through the scoring methodology. 118 Grant funding per tonne of carbon abated of 23 was selected as it was the carbon price from the commencement of the programs. The reference point for grant funding per tonne of carbon abated did, however, fall to 6 following the then Government’s decision to bring forward the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in July 2013. 4.28 4.29 Relative weightings of indicators 4.30 4.31 ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology ProgramParts
» 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