Budget Review 2021–22 Index
Stephen McMaugh
The Government has stated its commitment
to reducing Australia’s emissions through technology investment, with the Technology
Investment Roadmap a core element of Australia’s long-term emissions
reduction strategy. The 2021–22 Budget provides funding to support
initiatives under this roadmap and the priority low-emissions technologies
identified in the First
Low-Emissions Technology Statement 2020—including the
development of hydrogen capabilities and carbon capture and storage (CCS), as discussed
below.
In Budget
Measures: Budget Paper No. 2: 2021–22 (pp. 138–9) the Government made
an overall commitment of $1.6 billion over ten years from 2021–22 (including
$761.9 million over four years from 2021–22) to incentivise private investment
in technologies identified in the Government’s Technology Investment Roadmap
and Low Emissions Technology Statement. The Recycling
and Clean Energy and Resources
Technology and Critical Minerals Processing road maps, developed under
the Modern
Manufacturing Strategy, were announced
by the Prime Minister in October 2020 and funded in the
2020–21 Budget (see Budget
Measures: Budget Paper No. 2: 2020–21, p. 120 and the
Parliamentary Library’s Budget
Review 2020–21). These road maps also outline some of Australia’s
expertise and opportunities to develop and deploy low-emissions technologies.
As announced in April 2021, the three major funding themes for
the initiatives (over ten years) are:
The Budget provides $643.4 million over four years ($1.2 billion
over ten years) for these three major themes as well as towards efforts to
reduce the cost of soil carbon measurement, new agricultural feed technologies,
developing a carbon-offsets scheme in the Indo-Pacific region and to further support
implementation of the Technology Investment Roadmap and Low Emissions
Technology Statements.
The Prime
Minister said ‘Australia is already collaborating with our trading and
strategic partners, including Germany, Japan, Korea, Singapore, the UK and the
US’. The Budget provides an additional $565.8 million over ten years from
2021–22 to back low emissions technology and international partnerships and
initiatives by co-funding research and demonstration projects. The Prime Minister
appointed Australia’s former Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, as Special
Adviser to the Australian Government on Low Emissions Technology in
December 2020. Dr Finkel will play
a key role in brokering these new international partnerships.
The Budget also provides $81.7 million over four years (part
of a $279.9 million commitment over ten years) to help realise emissions abatement
activities in large industrial facilities by establishing a ‘below baseline
crediting mechanism’ through adjustments to the Emissions Reduction Fund, as
discussed below (Budget
Paper No. 2: 2021–22, p. 138).
Hydrogen
In December 2018 the Council of Australian Governments
Energy Council established a Hydrogen Working Group, chaired by Australia’s
then Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, to develop a Hydrogen Strategy. Implementing
the strategy is intended to deliver a clean, innovative, safe and competitive
hydrogen industry, and help Australia to become a major global player in the
hydrogen market by 2030. The Government released the National
Hydrogen Strategy in 2019 and has continued to outline its support for
hydrogen through the First
Low-Emissions Technology Statement 2020.
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) has funded
a number of hydrogen
projects and recently announced
conditional approval of $103.3 million for three commercial-scale renewable
hydrogen projects using large-scale electrolysis at Karratha and Warradarge
(Western Australia) and Wodonga (Victoria). The Clean Energy Finance
Corporation also has a $300 million Advancing
Hydrogen Fund that will initially prioritise investment in projects from
the ARENA funding round that are eligible for CEFC funding.
Through the 2021–22 Budget, the Government is providing $61.8 million
over four years for the development of four additional clean hydrogen hubs in
regional Australia (Portfolio
Budget Statements 2021–22: Budget Related Paper No. 1.9: Industry, Science,
Energy and Resources Portfolio, p. 50). This builds on $70.2 million provided
in the 2020–21 Budget to support the development of a technology-neutral
regional hydrogen export hub (Budget Paper
No. 2: 2020–21, p. 119). As announced
by the Prime Minister in April 2021, the new measures are for ‘clean
hydrogen’. The 2019 Hydrogen
Strategy defines clean hydrogen as being ‘produced using renewable
energy [green hydrogen] or using fossil fuels with substantial carbon capture
and storage (CCS) [blue hydrogen]’ (p. xiv).
Hydrogen has received a lot of interest in the last few
years. In addition to targeted research, the CSIRO is supporting hydrogen
technology in Australia through Hyresource,
a collaborative knowledge sharing platform covering the wide range of hydrogen-related
activities under way. A summary report
of the Hyresource database (pp. 7, 11) shows that since 2018, financial support
for activities related to hydrogen technology approximates $325 million from
the states and territories, $920 million (including the 2021–22 budget) from
the Commonwealth and $245 million from industry, supporting around 61 projects.
The Australian Energy Market Commission also lists
48 projects (pp. 27–33) in various stages of development, with most focused
on producing green hydrogen.
Australia is not alone in its efforts to develop hydrogen as
an economically viable energy carrier. Other nations are making significant investments
which also offer opportunities for international collaboration. For example, in
February 2021, S&P
Global reported on 228 large-scale projects with a combined $300 billion
of proposed investment through to 2030. Projects worth about $80 billion were either
in advanced planning, had passed a final investment decision, or were already under
construction or commissioned. Germany released its National
Hydrogen Strategy in 2020 with actions on both demand and supply to
establish hydrogen in its economy, with funding to 2024 worth €8.8 billion,
with an additional €2 billion for international cooperation.
Carbon Capture and Storage
CCS refers
to the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from a source, such as coal
and natural gas production facilities and power plants, steel mills, cement
plants and refineries, and its long-term storage so that it does not enter or
remain in the atmosphere. Carbon Capture Use and Storage differs in that some,
or all, of the captured CO2 is used for industrial processes.
According to the Global CCS Institute’s Global
Status of CCS Report 2020, commercial CCS facilities operating in 2020
captured 40 million tonnes of CO2. The report maps CCS projects and
shows that around half of the facilities are capturing emissions from natural
gas processing. The Gorgon Carbon Dioxide Injection facility on Barrow Island,
Western Australia, is currently the largest in the world—with a capacity to
store up to 4 Million tonnes per annum CO2, although it
has suffered
some technical problems and delays.
The development of carbon capture technologies and hubs, announced
in April, is supported within the Emissions Reduction and New
Investments under the Technology Investment Roadmap measure in the 2021–22 Budget
(Budget
Paper No. 2: 2021–22, pp. 138–9). This builds on the $50
million provided in the 2020–21 Budget for a CCUS Fund (Budget Paper
No. 2: 2020–21, p. 119). This new funding follows the Technology
Investment Roadmap, which sets related stretch goals for CCS. It extends
previous support from governments for the development of CCS, including in Australia
and the USA,
where more than US$5 billion has been appropriated for CCS-related
activities.
The Global CCS Institute report Technology
Readiness and Costs of CCS outlines a number of factors affecting the
cost of CCS, including: the capital intensive nature of the technology;
economies of scale; the relative concentration of the CO2 stream;
the cost of energy required for compression; the amenity of the available
geological storage; and the distance the CO2 needs to be
transported. It concludes that the lowest cost opportunities will be large-scale
natural gas processing, whereas relatively dilute sources of CO2, such
as the flue gas from a gas power station, are more technically difficult and
more expensive to capture. The report also indicates that support is required
to make the technology viable, including that the ‘strong importance of capital
cost on overall CCS costs means that there are financial and policy levers
available to make capital more available and lower cost for large-scale CCS
projects. Tax policies also play a vital role in the incentivisation of CCS
projects’ (p. 5).
Below-baseline crediting mechanism
The Emissions
Reduction Fund is a voluntary scheme which credits carbon abatement which
can be purchased through a reverse auction process. The scheme has a safeguard
mechanism that is intended to ensure that emissions reductions purchased
through the ERF are not displaced by significant increases in emissions
elsewhere in the economy. The safeguard mechanism applies to large industrial
facilities where the annual emissions exceed 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide
equivalents per annum.
A review of the ERF, chaired by Grant King, the former Chair
of the Business Council of Australia, provided its February 2020 Report
of the Expert Panel Examining Additional Sources of Low Cost Abatement
(King review) to the Government. The King review noted that the ERF is not well-suited
to crediting abatement from industrial emitters and made a number of
recommendations to expand the range of abatement activities under the scheme
and increase participation. The Government agreed
with the majority of the 26 recommendations of the King review, including to:
Establish a ‘below-baseline crediting arrangement’ for large
facilities using the Safeguard Mechanism architecture. The arrangement would
provide credits to facilities who reduce their emissions below their Safeguard
baselines by undertaking ‘transformative’ abatement projects. (p. 82)
The Budget commits $81.7 million over four years from 2021–22
($279.9 million over ten years from 2021–22) to establish the below-baseline
crediting mechanism as recommended by the King review. The minister
has indicated that the mechanism is to provide an incentive for facilities to
reduce their emissions below their baseline, including through the deployment
of new technologies.
Stakeholder reception
Stakeholder views on the budget measures were mixed. The gas
industry welcomed the new funding for CCS and hydrogen, whereas the Climate
Council and the Clean Energy Council maintained that the Budget lacked adequate
spending on technologies that would reduce emissions.
The Chief Executive of the Australian
Petroleum Production & Exploration Association, Andrew McConville,
welcomed the support for hydrogen saying:
… ‘support for gas-related strategic basins is a big tick, as
is the announcement for new hydrogen and carbon storage initiatives to help
lower emissions’.
“Natural gas is a pathway to a large-scale hydrogen industry
and our members are already at the forefront of hydrogen development and carbon
capture and storage solutions and the announcement of $1.2 billion over 10
years in a technology co-investment facility will help accelerate development.
The Government’s technology neutral approach also frames a
race between green hydrogen and blue hydrogen to reduce production costs and
achieve its stretch target of $2 per kg. However, some
researchers argue that this is not a race between equals when all related
emissions and costs are accounted for.
The Chief Executive of the Clean
Energy Council stated:
"Overall, tonight's Budget represents a missed
opportunity to utilise our country's extraordinary renewable energy and energy
storage potential to jumpstart Australia's economic resurgence and leaves
leadership in reducing Australia's emissions and trajectory towards net-zero to
the states and territories."
The Climate
Council provided a broader perspective in relation to emissions reduction
spending as part of the COVID recovery:
Data from the Global Recovery Observatory shows that
Australia has spent US$130 billion on COVID recovery efforts but less than two
percent of that money has been spent on solutions to reduce emissions.
In contrast, Germany and France allocated 47% and 50% of
their respective recovery spending to clean solutions.
“Among major economies and our strategic allies, Australia is
right at the bottom of the pack when it comes to spending on solutions that
reduce emissions, create jobs and strengthen our economy,” said Climate Council
spokesperson and economist Nicki Hutley.
The proposed changes to the ERF received a mixed reception
at the time of their announcement. The Carbon Market Institute broadly welcomed
the recommendations of the review in its July 2020 position
paper and raised detailed concerns and proposed remedies relating to
technical aspects of the proposed mechanism. However, the Climate
Council raised concerns more broadly about the Government’s acceptance of
recommendations in the King review relating to opening up the ERF to funding
carbon capture and storage, which is one technology mooted for eligibility
under the changes to the safeguard mechanism:
Mr Taylor released the findings of the King Review this morning,
agreeing to recommendations to open up funding to carbon capture and storage
projects in the Emissions Reduction Fund as well as to big emitters.
“Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is incredibly expensive.
Australian governments have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on
this technology and have very little to show for it. CCS is not a climate
solution, but an attempt to prolong the role of fossil fuels in the energy
system,” said Climate Councillor and energy expert Greg Bourne.
Director of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at
the Australian National University, Professor Frank Jotzo, argued
that the Safeguard Mechanism baselines are set very weakly and this new
measure ‘would create an incentive to do better, rather than just the existing,
muted incentive not to do worse than a very unambitious standard’ (pp. 4–5).