The The Reduction in Emissions

not ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 93 implemented. Due to the way that this reduction was calculated, departmental assessors were required to consider the assumptions that were made by applicants when using the calculator to estimate the expected outcomes of a project. 4.9 One of the assumptions made by applicants that had a significant impact on the predicted reduction in carbon emissions intensity was the selection of an activity boundary. The department recommended that applicants choose a site‐wide energy baseline to easily align with the information available from utility bills, but also allowed applicants to choose smaller areas in their manufacturing sites to align with a process or a piece of equipment. Figure 4.1 shows the three types of boundaries allowed under the programs. For the 841 applications for which the activity boundary was identified in the departmental assessment, the most commonly used was a site‐ wide boundary. Figure 4.1: Types of boundaries that could be selected for a project Source: CTIP and CTFFIP customer guidelines.

4.10 In November 2013, the department noted in a review of the programs that:

The percentage reduction is highly dependent on the project boundary being nominated by the applicant, with a smaller boundary resulting in a higher percentage reduction. This led to inconsistencies and meant that applicants with projects that delivered the same amount of carbon savings could be scored differently depending on the project boundary selected.

4.11 For example, one applicant that received funding under the programs initially

used a site‐wide boundary to generate a reduction in carbon emissions intensity of 4.1 per cent. This level of reduction would not have been sufficient ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 94 for the project to be recommended for funding without changes to the application. During the departmental assessment, the application was reframed by changing the boundary to a process boundary, which was calculated to deliver a reduction in carbon emissions intensity of 71 per cent and therefore increased the assessment score to a level at which the project could be recommended for funding despite the project not having changed.

4.12 In