As The This Program Design

ʹ ʹ ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 69 Reporting on performance

2.72 In

its 2012–13 Annual Report, the department stated that 98.7 per cent of companies assisted under the programs reported a minimum five per cent reduction in carbon emissions intensity. In relation to performance reported under the programs, the department advised ANAO in July 2014 that: This figure [98.7] was calculated using the number of applications approved in 2012–13 from both the Clean Technology Investment Program and Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program. Out of 476 approved projects that accepted the offer, 6 projects predicted less than 5 reduction in carbon intensity.

2.73 However,

the expected outcomes of projects were not: recorded in the IA committee recommendation as discussed in paragraph 5.14 or the decision made by the delegate; or consistently recorded in funding agreements. In this respect, the department advised ANAO in September 2014 that: In any instance where the Committee considered a reframed project, as part of recording the Committee’s recommendation AusIndustry also recorded the agreed carbon metrics that formed the basis for that decision.

2.74 ANAO

examined the spreadsheet of agreed carbon metrics referred to in this audit report as the expected outcomes of the projects and compared this data with outcomes listed in funding agreements. This analysis revealed that:  the agreed metrics provided by the department did not match the metrics stated in 72 funding agreements 13 per cent of executed funding agreements with a total value of 62.2 million. The average difference between these metrics was seven per cent;  expected outcomes, in terms of the reduction in carbon emissions intensity, were not included in 34 funding agreements six per cent of executed funding agreements with a total value of 21.6 million;  for projects that were reframed, the carbon metrics listed in the spreadsheet were not identified as having been revised; and  carbon metrics were entered without a clear explanation of the source of that metric the possible sources included the application form, the departmental assessment or the IA committee assessment.

2.75 In

addition, the KPI aggregates a number of different emissions intensity reductions that are not measured in the same way. Specifically, as ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 70 discussed in paragraphs 4.9 to 4.13, the expected reduction in carbon emissions intensity could be calculated using an equipment, process or site‐wide boundary, with the selected boundary influencing the expected outcomes of projects. As a result, the department is not well placed to measure the outcomes of the programs using this KPI.

2.76 Similarly,

in an earlier audit of another program that was implemented by the department, ANAO found that the indicators did not provide insights into the continuing performance of the program, including measuring the program’s broader impacts and outcomes. 79 The department accepted the resulting recommendation from that audit that it assess the long‐term performance of the program and report against relevant KPIs. Conclusion

2.77 A

range of key program documentation was developed by the department that was informed by extensive stakeholder consultation. While this documentation provided a sound overall foundation for implementation of the programs:  not all of the program documentation clearly identified that the programs were to be focused on reducing carbon emissions rather than assisting entities to maintain their competitiveness;  there were multiple reference points for applicants seeking information about the programs, including separate but related program guidelines and customer guidelines, but only the program guidelines were approved in accordance with the grant program approval requirements; and  there would have been benefits in a probity plan being developed.

2.78 Further,

the assessment and selection method identified in the program guidelines was inconsistent with the approach approved by the then Government, which had referred to a competitive grants program. In this regard, the assessment and selection process that was implemented reflected elements of a merit‐based, non‐competitive program as well as a demand‐ driven program. In particular, the programs were not implemented in a way 79 ANAO Audit Report No. 37 of 2012–13, Administration of Grants from the Education Investment Fund, 22 May 2013.