Tag: energy reduction fund

ERF funding – is it a play on words.

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

The Government is confident it will stem the march of climate change with its $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund and its Green Army of tree-planting enthusiasts. So confident, in fact, that it has commissioned $10 million for a new icebreaker in Antarctica.

At least one problem is solved – broken ice will be served with drinks. It sort of makes sense does it not?

But, where is the money, it was not mentioned at all in the budget speech. Even more interesting is submissions on the draft legislation for the ERF are due to close 23rd May 2014. So how will it be funded if it is to start 1 July 2014? As kids often say, Daddy it will just wish-t-appear – how mature of them to understand the minds of our pollies!

In her coverage of the Federal budget Annabel Crabb makes another point on health – why strip away the ability to service our health in order to fund health research. A similar parody could be said a tipping point is fast approaching that mankind is under threat for its existence – anthropogenic influences of climate change will outpace the ability to research a medical solution. Doesn’t make sense except give the opportunity for a fiddle! On reflection Annabel said something about twiddle – could that be what she meant?

Perhaps the last word should go to the Prime Minister, speaking on August 22, 2011:

“Nothing could be more calculated to bring our democracy into disrepute and alienate the citizenry of Australia from their government than if governments were to establish by precedent that they could say one thing before an election, and do the other afterwards.”

Source – Annabel Crabb is the ABC’s chief online political writer – www.abc.net.au .

Co2land org now asks about the $20 billion to be spent on health research, is that a play on words – a weasel? Another worry is as an Australian entity I am at a disadvantage at influencing the wealth of this country, and it is suggested we should register as an offshore entity and get preferential treatment in Australia? It is not a flippant comment: For example, register in Singapore as a $1 company ($500 setup cost), pass their Directorship rule test and there you go! You can sell back your Australian ideas as a new desirable off-shore package and thumb your nose on paying the correct tax. Albeit the UK now says money shifting will be discouraged via London markets. But I guess that only affects the likes of tech suppliers, mining etc. As they tend to use those markets.

What has this got to do with sustainable futures? Nothing. Even the economics make no sense in terms of society – but maybe a small community might do well from it!

Co2Land org has a theory it reflects in the term ‘hubris’. Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (9780307346827): Michael Isikoff, David Corn: Books

www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Story-Scandal-Selling/dp/030734682X.

The theory is we are being spun the same text book sell on something of an ideal as opposed to a solution. It is even something tried and failed in other political arenas of the world. As in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland – Alice in wonderland grew a mile high after eating one mushroom. She was then subject to rule 42 which says that anyone taller than a mile must leave the court immediately. That thought line then mandates that if you think it is a joke you will be subject to rule 13. And, do not dare to ask what is rule 13. If you paraphrase this you just might understand Joe the Treasurer is a Lewis Carroll fan.

Maybe – yes, we are a fan of the real Malcolm Turnbull. He might just turn bull into hope. For those that did not know, he was a former Environment Minister in the Howard Government and is credited with strongly supporting sustainable solutions.

 

Advertisement

Bidding process – The White – ERF Paper

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Lets talk more about the bidding process, assuming you managed to read the Energy Reduction Fund White Paper released 24 April 2014. We talked about profiling you risk in our post ‘The White – ERF Paper’ on 2 May 2014. It has been attracting worldwide interest. What we don’t know is why it is so. We can only speculate many are expecting a ‘big bang’ or ‘flip flop’ for the policy. Regardless, it is better than doing nothing, so lets assume we can get past the regulatory uncertainty and look at things assuming you business can access the funds, has eligible projects, and has in place safeguard mechanisms.

First question you need to ask is are you strategic or tactical in your approach – or a hybrid. We might suggest hybrid is a good hedge. Why because you can be reactive to changes without being too hung up on risk factors. Also, providing funding could be as easy as the 2014/2015 Federal Budget being approved, without the specialist legislation. Yep, the good ole executive bypass is possible. But that is the government’s risk.

To bid in you need to create a program with a project size that has a prospect of being awarded funding. We note that some say, and repeated by Energetics (a consulting firm that is known to influence policy on Climate), claim 2,000 t CO2 equivalent abatement will get you a jersey. However, remember this is a reverse auction – the lowest price wins! There is no guarantee the best project will win. You could be forgiven for getting a little suspicious over who and what will be rewarded.

That said, the usual suspects for the preparation to be included in the bidding, may actually preclude you too! Namely, the requirement of ‘additionality’ for the projects. Back in 2012, August 14 – CO2Land org looked a little harder at additionality and its association with the word ‘real’ (concluding real was used as a synonym) and found:

  • Specifically ISO 14064-2 (project accounting) does not include ‘Real’ because during development of ISO 14064-2 ‘Real’ was regarded as a programmatic rule/criteria, which is outside the scope of ISO 14064-2.
  • ISO 14064-2 is a standard rather than a program
  • ISO 14064-2 (Clause 5.4) specifies the following requirement in regards to additionality: “The project proponent shall select or establish, justify and apply criteria and procedures for demonstrating that the project results in GHG emissions reductions or removal enhancements that are additional to what would occur in the baseline scenario.”
  • Additionality is incorporated into ISO 14064-2 is based on the core principles of ISO standards in general, i.e. that ISO standards not be a barrier to trade (WTO-TBT – anyone following development of ISO 14067 (product) will know this is a major issue). As such, ISO standards must be policy-neutral (extended to include program-neutrality). This is of course very important for market confidence.
  • ISO 14064 deals with the concept of additionality by requiring that the GHG project has resulted in GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements in addition to what would have happened in the absence of that project. It does not use the term “additionality”…Thus the project proponent may apply additionality criteria and procedures, or define and use boundaries consistent with relevant legislation, policy, GHG programmes and good practice.”
  • Although the concept/requirement of additionality is within the requirements of ISO 14064-2, the simple reason why the ‘term’ additionality is not present within the requirements of ISO 14064-2 is because of certain sensitivities/perceptions/politics of certain parties involved in the development of the standard –

And, the following references helpful in gaining a more complete understanding:

Oh dear, I wonder if they understand the standard says the concept should be policy- neutral. Why to give confidence to the market, elementary is it not?

But, here comes the good news. If you are aware, adopt a pragmatic approach, and are proactive in that you go low first up and go early you might just get there for your funding. All you got to do is keeping improving on your targets into the future.

What projects might have the better chance of winning a place. Energy Efficiency projects are probably the best suited for the auction process and the pre-qualification needs.

The conclusion: If you have done nothing meaningful before about your energy use. You can now be rewarded? Good policy, hey!

To ponder, Mark Jackson – a professional, asked in the Australasian Renewable Energy and Carbon Professionals Group on LinkedIn: “Is anyone else getting a sense that renewables are not getting a fair airing…budget etc”.

The White – ERF paper

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Have you read the Energy Reduction Fund White Paper released 24 April 2014? No, but I heard Hockey say the Clean Energy Regulator is gone – was the reply. Then another said: Isn’t Hunt the Minister. We replied yeah, but it was an interview for the news and you know what that means. But seriously, what does it mean?

The answer may have come from a company that markets itself as emphasising Climate Change Matters. No, not left wing, not opportunist. Just pragmatic of what is best for you to plan for what is ahead and how to best cope with it. So what can you do to cope? How do you position to be safe?

It is not really that simple. But at least it gives you a chance to prepare. So what is the greater risk? The hubris (excessive ambition, self-confidence) of the government, other parties not supporting the government position for the Direct Action Plan and appearing to support the repeal of the carbon pricing mechanism. Add to that those other parties that will not support either plan and you could say now and into the next senate period the legislation to support the Direct Action Plan will not pass the senate vote.

So the risk is prolonged regulatory uncertainty. But, prudent behaviour and textbook risk management says you must assess risk by anticipating that risk has associated alternatives.

What alternative? The bluster of government says the Energy Reduction Fund will be implemented and the related reverse auction process will commence 1 July 2014. Or, the Clean Energy Act – and the regulator stay put. Or, nothing happens – we blunder on and questions remain in terms of price liabilities. And, of course for business that is not good not good for spruiking ‘open for business’.

What methods would you use to profile your risk? I hear some say a scenario-based approach. But, is it really safe to say the stories lines are plausible because the causal relationships can be demonstrated? In these cases when scenario planning is integrated with a systems thinking approach to scenario development, it is sometimes referred to as dynamic. That is the point here the nature of dynamic is difficult to assess as certainty. Maybe good ‘old fashioned’ (Howard era) sensitivity analysis might be a better way to manage your risk profile. Nonetheless it would be remiss to say you can avoid the need to develop your position and become involved.

Assuming the Emissions Reduction Fund is on track as described in the White Paper: The reverse auction, with $300 million to spend, will begin on 1 July 2014. There are a set number of eligible type projects to participate. Methodologies can include a method to enable facilities reporting under NGERS to bid in the auction.

Baselines have a threshold, but what is different is the inclusion of ‘meaningful’. This differs from ‘generic’ and you need to have an understanding of the likelihood of what happens when or if you exceed the baselines. For example in July 2014 you are in one threshold and after 1 July 2015 above the line.

What is your safeguard position – it is up to you to get involved.

We will give you time to read the paper. But shortly, we might talk more on the bidding process.   If we decide to get involved!