After In Program Design

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. ‐ ‐    ‐ ‐ ‐ ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 71 that applications competed for the available funding. Rather, so long as they were assessed as eligible and as having some merit, and sufficient program funding remained available, they were approved for funding.

2.79 The

decision to establish the program was based on advice that funding would not be provided for projects that were intended to be undertaken privately in the absence of the programs. However, there were no mechanisms in place to prevent the approval of funding for an application that an applicant had committed to or was largely complete at the time of application. In this respect,