As The Reduction in Emissions
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. ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 101 Table 4.3: Indicator two rating scale: grant funds requested per tonne of carbon abated Date applicable: Start of the programs to June 2012 Date applicable: June 2012 to July 2013 Date applicable: July 2013 to the end of the programs Rating Score tonne tonne tonne 1 2.8 100 and over 90 and over 22.5 and over 2 5.6 90 to 100 80 to 90 20 to 22.5 3 8.4 80 to 90 70 to 80 17.5 to 20 4 11.2 70 to 80 60 to 70 15 to 17.5 5 14 60 to 70 50 to 60 12.5 to 15 6 16.8 50 to 60 40 to 50 10 to 12.5 7 19.6 40 to 50 30 to 40 7.5 to 10 8 22.4 30 to 40 20 to 30 5 to 7.5 9 25.2 20 to 30 10 to 20 2.5 to 5 10 28 0 to 20 0 to 10 0 to 2.5 Source: ANAO analysis of the department’s carbon scoring tool.4.27 The
application of a single fixed scale to determine the score allocated for grant funds per tonne of carbon abated also presented challenges in differentiating the degree of merit associated with applications. Specifically, the indicator value was primarily influenced by the amount of funding requested by the applicant, which was capped at: 50 per cent for applicants that: had covered emissions from facility operations of 25 000 tonnes or more, but less than 100 000; or were seeking less than 500 000 and had a turnover of less than 100 million in the last financial year;; 33 per cent for applicants that sought between 500 000 and 10 million or sought less than 500 000 and had a turnover of more than 100 million in the last financial year; or 25 per cent for applicants that sought more than 10 million. 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