As In In Reduction in Emissions

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 97 reference to dollars per tonne in the customer guide published on 12 December 2012 and merit criteria fact sheet published on 16 October 2012.

4.20 In

light of the approach taken to assess applications using different activity boundaries as discussed in paragraph 4.10 IA placed more emphasis on grant funds per tonne of carbon abated when assessing applications against merit criterion one. In this context, the decision not to publish the second indicator used in assessing applications at the start of the programs reduced the transparency of the assessment process, particularly for those applicants who submitted an application prior to December 2012. Implementation of the scoring methodology for merit criterion one

4.21 The

department implemented the scoring methodology for merit criterion one using two rating scales. These rating scales, and the assessment procedures used by the department, evolved over the life of the programs. In this context, ANAO examined the implementation of the scoring methodology in respect to the two indicators used in assessing applications against this criterion, including the rating scales and the relative weightings that resulted from changes made to those rating scales during the life of the programs. Predicted reduction in carbon emissions intensity

4.22 A

maximum of 42 points was available for the predicted percentage reduction in carbon emissions intensity and, as shown in Table 4.2, there were two versions of the rating scale that the department applied to allocate a score for this indicator. The rating scale most frequently used by departmental assessors was the scale that was applied from June 2012 to July 2013. This scale was used to score over 80 per cent of applications. ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 98 Table 4.2: Indicator one rating scale: predicted reduction in carbon emissions intensity Date applicable: Start of the programs to June 2012 Date applicable: June 2012 to the end of the programs Rating Score reduction reduction 1 4.2 1 2 2 8.4 1 to 2 2 to 4 3 12.6 2 to 3 4 to 7 4 16.8 3 to 4 7 to 10 5 21.0 4 to 6 10 to 15 6 25.2 6 to 8 15 to 20 7 29.4 8 to 11 20 to 35 8 33.6 11 to 15 35 to 60 9 37.8 15 to 20 60 to 80 10 42.0 20 and over 80 and over Source: ANAO analysis of the department’s carbon scoring tool.

4.23 The

second version of the rating scale was adopted following a meeting of the IA committee in May 2012 at which the committee members’ discussion was as follows: [Committee member one] was concerned the current indicator 1 scoring is too “tough”. The applicant would only ever achieve the top score if they achieved 80 reduction which may be unrealistic… However, the 6040 split between indicator