Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 6:03:10 to 6:09:04
The committee examines the assessment process for a grant awarded to Pilot Energy's Midwest Clean Energy Project, following FOI disclosures regarding its technical rating.
Topics: Grants administration, Renewable energy
Speakers: Steph Hodgins-May, Bruce Edwards, Paul Murphy, Hon Tim Ayres, Unknown Speaker
>> Not in relation to this agreement.
>> No, not in relation to the agreement. Um, in particular, I've got questions in relation to the grant given to Pilot Energy for its Midwest Clean Energy Project. Um, Daer released FOI61 last week in relation to this grant. Um, those documents say as per the guidelines, the decision maker for the CCTP stage 2 is a senior executive in the department of climate change, energy, the environment, water with policy responsibility for the program. Um, can you please confirm the role that DQ played in assessing and approving that grant?
>> I'm sorry, Senator, could I just didn't quite hear the beginning of the question. Which project is this in relation to?
>> Uh, it's uh Pilot Energy's Midwest Clean Energy Project,
>> right?
>> And FOI 6 361.
>> Senator. my colleagues just getting some material together but just to explain probably at a high level um so we are responsible for the program um it's delivered through the business grants hub which is in the department of industry resources um uh science um we would um generally there'll be an assessment um process um that's facilitated by the business grants hub uh there'll be a panel that assists with that um we would work with business grants hub through that process and then as I've indicated um a departmental delegate in our department in that instance for that program is the final decision maker that receives recommendations. But I'll just see if Mr. Murphy's got any detail about that particular project.
>> Yeah. Um Paul Murphy, branch head for decarbonization initiatives. Um the CCTP program um as Mr. Edwards has said is um assessed under the grants hub and then um decisions are delegated uh to DQ.
>> Um the FOI documents show pilot energy was assessed as only technically satisfactory. Given that qualified assessment, why did the department consider a pilot uh consider pilot a sound investment of public money?
Um well the the grant approved to pilot um would have had to have met the guidelines uh to be eligible and to be approved by the
>> technically satisfactory. Okay. On notice, can you provide the committee with the grant assessment report, the delegates decision and statement of reasons, the financial due diligence material and the payment milestones report for pilot energy? be
happy to take that on notice.
based on the FOI docs, the merit assessment committee did not reach consensus on which two or which of the two projects in the lowest technical band should be funded, including pilot and an unnamed project. What ultimately tipped the decision in pilot's favor and who made that decision? Is it
>> Senator? I think we would again have to look at that assessment documentation be able to come back to you on that one. Couldn't could we have any detail with us about the decision- making for each of these projects?
>> Can you tell are you able to tell me how much of the 6 and a half million awarded has actually been paid to pilot >> and what milestones were achieved to in order to reach that um release of payment?
>> Um the payment to pilot energy from the grant amount as of the 16th of October was 3.549 580
>> 3.589 roughly. Was it >> Um, and do you have any information on what milestones were achieved to support the release of that payment?
>> I I don't have that information because
>> taken on notice,
>> but also the grants hub administer the the payments. So, we don't receive the information about the milestones that
under the grant agreement, the government can require a repayment of funds spent outside the agreement. Um the agreement prevents use of funds for carbon storage. Have you assessed whether any of the funds already paid to pilot are recoverable? If
certainly DQ has not done that assessment. So the way it works is the the grants hub make payments when milestones are met and as long as it's eligible under the guidelines and the contract with pilot energy then they would process the grants. They really only come to the department if there is a you know a contested issue. Um I
suppose when did the department become aware that pilot was experiencing financial difficulties?
>> I'd have to take that on notice.
>> Yeah, I don't think we have date on that. And just further Mr. Murphy's comment is then we are aware the business grants hub has been engaging with the administrator. Um so they'll be working through whatever contractual um uh provisions they have available to them and they will recover or recommend a recovery to the extent that they're able to. But I think that's an active um conversation at the moment.
>> So sorry, can you just clarify me for me whether DHQ has the power under the grant agreement to suspend or withhold payments um or is that you're saying that's not the Q who would make that decision?
>> We generally would, but it would be a business grants hub making an assessment and making a recommendation to us. So again, they administer um uh in some instances they'll just move ahead and make those types of decisions. in others they'll see fit to engage with us and ask ask for our views
>> and they haven't >> my last question >> yeah and have they >> call back >> have they approached you on on in relation to this
>> I think this project is paused because my understanding is it's in administration I don't have the detail
about the conversation >> you could provide yeah provide that on notice and I'll return after um this block thanks and >> thank you Senator Henson very much just