The The Advice to the Program Delegate and Funding Decisions

ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 114 represent value for money as savings of this magnitude are not commensurate with the level of investment.

5.10 Further, following the then Government’s decision to bring forward the introduction

of an emissions trading scheme in July 2013, the department advised the IA committees that: Before up to 100 level was being considered and now there needs to be an adjustment to this number. Around 30 per tonne is now starting to look like it is no longer value for money. We are just changing [the] reference point for value for money. Committee to exercise judgement where the boundaries of these are applied to each project and to determine what looks meritorious. We expect the approval rating to go down significantly. Political factors to contend with now as well as a result of the lower money pot. There is not much money to be allocated. We have to be tough on value for money. They have to look good to be acceptable now.

5.11 From the information provided in paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10, it is clear that

the focus of the assessment was on grant funds per tonne of carbon abated. This focus was also documented in an internal email, sent by the program management area of the department in July 2013, that stated: The Committee have tended to give less weight to the emissions intensity than the per tonne.

5.12 However, this indicator was inconsistently applied in assessing applications,

as demonstrated by the case studies in Table 5.2. 5.10 5.11 5.12 ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 115 Table 5.2: Case studies reflecting the assessment of ‘grant funds per tonne of carbon abated’ Case Study Program Application assessment Grant funds per tonne of carbon abated Merit score Outcome 1 CTFFIP The departmental assessor rejected this application because the dollars per tonne of carbon abated was too high. The Committee noted that there is ’flexibility to take other matters into consideration, and the project aims to support [the] transition to [a] low carbon environment. There is no firm line drawn around per tonne of carbon’. 123.4 57.4 Supported with conditions 2 CTIP The committee ’liked the application but it was just too expensive in comparison to the carbon price. There were no components that could really be eliminated from the proposal. It is a small grant but too expensive’. 100.3 58.4 Not supported 3 CTFFIP The application was revised after the departmental assessor told the applicant that the dollar per tonne cost of the project was uncompetitive. The committee noted that ’it was not only the dollars per tonne of CO 2 -e that was causing concern to the Committee but the overall size of the grant, more than 1.7m‘. A general discussion followed in which it was suggested that a ’counter offer…of 1 million‘ should be made to the company. 70.6 60.2 Supported reframed project Source: ANAO analysis of departmental records. Recommendations to the program delegate

5.13 A

clear recommendation that identifies whether funding should be approved promotes the transparency of the decision‐making process. In addition,