TranslateFilename
7 What sector are you in?
Other: "Environmental legal advocacy"
8 Electricity, gas, water and waste services
Not answered
9 Mining
Not answered
10 Manufactuing
Not answered
11 Transport, postal and warehousing
Not answered
12 What do you use to help your organisation or corporation understand
and comply with its reporting requirements under the scheme?
Not answered
13 [Blank question text]
Are the current corporate group reporting thresholds under the NGER scheme
appropriate?: Thresholds are about right
Are the current facility reporting thresholds under the NGER scheme appropriate?:
Thresholds are about right
14 Are there any sectors not currently part of the scheme that should be
added?
I'm not sure
15 If so, what?
Not answered
16 If you responded yes, please provide reasoning why the NGER scheme
2 of 11
Collec , manage and analyse surveys and consul a ion da a converlens.com
should be expanded to include additional sectors.
Not answered
17 Currently only constitutional corporations can have obligations under
the NGER scheme. Should the NGER scheme be expanded to other
entities?
Government managed waste facilities
All government
18 Please list any potential benefits or drawbacks you believe may arise
from expanding the NGER scheme to include additional entities.
From our understanding, the vast bulk of emissions covered by the Safeguard Mechanism
(and reported under the NGER scheme overall) are produced from a small number of
highly emissions-intensive facilities within a select group of industries. In this context,
lowering the threshold to expand the breadth of SM coverage seems like a less effective
or efficient way to address problematic greenhouse gas emissions than other changes
(i.e., to baseline decline rates and compliance flexibility). Having said that, if there is
currently a dearth of data about the emissions intensity of particular industries or
production processes that are currently not covered by the NGER Scheme, that would be
a compelling reason to extend the scheme to cover those sectors. However, this lies
outside our area of expertise and we do not have any immediate examples of such sectors.
19 Should the NGER scheme be expanded to include scope 3 emissions?
Yes
20 Why should the NGER scheme be expanded to include scope 3
emissions?
The NGER scheme itself is about corporate emissions reporting, but the overall purpose
of that reporting is to support and inform government, corporate and public decision-
making relevant to climate change and emissions reduction.
Each tonne of emitted greenhouse gas pollution contributes to global climate change,
regardless of where it is produced. Companies producing goods whose extraterritorial
use leads to additional GHG emissions should be obliged to report on those emissions so
that policymakers, shareholders and the public can understand the full picture of
Australian industrial emissions, and make informed decisions on the basis of that full
3 of 11
Collec , manage and analyse surveys and consul a ion da a converlens.com
picture. Notably, the downstream emissions impact of goods produced in Australia is not
otherwise robustly calculated or reported in one readily accessible place. In these
circumstances, it is difficult for the public (or policymakers) to understand the actual
extent of the role Australian industry plays in the climate crisis.
Although there may be practical challenges in robustly accounting for scope 3 emissions,
these challenges are not insurmountable, and equivalent supply chain oversight
procedures exist, and are complied with, in relation to, for example, modern slavery and
competition law.
It should be noted that concerns that may be raised about 'double-counting' are
irrelevant from the perspective of transparency and data collection, and immaterial in the
absence of an obligatory international framework for corporate emissions reduction.
21 Why shouldn't the NGER scheme be expanded to include scope 3
emissions?
Not answered
22 Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the NGER scheme
thresholds or coverage?
Not answered
23 Does your organisation or corporation report fugitive emissions to the
NGER scheme?
Not relevant
24 How does your organisation rate the current NGER methods for
reporting fugitive emissions in terms of:
Accuracy: Very inaccurate
25 [Blank question text]
Ease of use: Not relevant
26 Is your organisation currently using top-down measurements for
reconciliation or verification of the fugitive emissions you report under
4 of 11
Collec , manage and analyse surveys and consul a ion da a converlens.com
the NGER scheme?
Not answered
27 Does your organisation intend to use top-down measurements for
reconciliation or verification of source-based measurements in the
future?
Not answered
28 Has your organisation joined the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP) 2.0?
Not relevant
29 Does your organisation intend to join the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) Metcoal Methane Partnership (MMP) when it
launches?
Not relevant
30 Does your organisation face any of the following barriers in moving
from Method 1 to higher order methods for measuring fugitive
emissions?
Not answered
31 What changes to the NGER scheme would you suggest to make it easier
or less costly to move from Method 1 to higher order methods?
Not answered
32 Is there anything else you would like to tell us about methane
measurement, reporting or verification within the NGER scheme?
We consider that there should be a thorough review of all NGER methods to ensure that
they are as scientifically robust as possible (based on the latest data, broadest and most
representative sample size, etc.), fit-for-purpose, and either reflective of, or able to be
updated to align with, emerging international standards and practices in emissions
measurement and reporting. This recommendation has been prompted by consistent
evidence illustrating that fugitive methane emissions from a range of fossil fuel
5 of 11
Collec , manage and analyse surveys and consul a ion da a converlens.com
production activities are likely under-reported in Australia due to faulty NGER methods,
including some based on very small sample sets from unrepresentative sources. However,
we consider that the review should cover all NGER methods, especially 'tier 1' methods
involving emissions factors, to ensure that NGER reporting is as accurate as possible.
As another general point, the lack of incentive or other mechanism for encouraging or
requiring reporting entities to use more robust methods does not promote, and may even
impede, progress towards better practice in emissions measurement and reporting. In
circumstances where almost all emissions sources can, in fact, be directly measured or
derived from on-site sampling, it is unclear why 'tier 1' methods should still be available
for use across so many emissions-producing activities.
Finally, there needs to be consistent and comprehensive verification of company reported
emissions, ideally involving a combination of company-led and regulator-led verification
activities. The CER should be appropriately resourced to undertake this function, and
there should be clear 'feedback' mechanisms to respond to the findings of verification
activities - both in terms of compliance action against individual reporting entities, but
also in terms of identifying and addressing problems in measurement and reporting
methods that may be leading to incorrect results identified through verification
programs.
33 [Blank question text]
How well does the current publicly available data meet your data needs?: Partially meets
needs
34 Please tell us in a few words the reasons for your response:
We strongly consider that corporate reported emissions should be made public, for
reasons discussed in our responses to earlier questions. However, the current format in
which emissions are reported does not meet our organisation's data needs, nor those of
other organisations working to promote actions to address the climate crisis, to identify
and develop ways to reduce corporate emissions, or to uphold corporate accountability
for greenhouse gas pollution.
The current approach where public reporting is limited to each entity's aggregated
emissions total means that 'hotspots' for particular GHGs within particular industries
cannot readily be identified, nor can the relative climate impact of different entities be
fully understood (given the different short-term global warming potential of different
GHGs). Company performance in reducing the emissions intensity of distinct steps in the
supply and production chain cannot be compared to other Australian entities in the same
6 of 11
Collec , manage and analyse surveys and consul a ion da a converlens.com
sector or to international competitors. The lack of attribution of company group
emissions to specific facilities also impedes comparison of company performance, and
inhibits the identification of non-compliance with obligations that may exist outside the
NGER scheme (for example, environmental approval conditions on GHG emissions
levels).
Further, the fact that public reporting does not indicate the NGER method used to
calculate emissions means there is a lack of knowledge and transparency about where
Australian industry sits in relation to international competitors, standards and/or
emerging best practice, and the overall reliability of NGER reported emissions data is
unknown and unassured (given the clear disparity in the reliability of 'tier 1' vs 'tier 4'
methods).
In our view, company emissions should be reported in a disaggregated way that identifies
each source of emissions and how the reported figure was calculated. There should be a
readily accessible way for members of the public to see where facility and corporate
group emissions have increased or decreased year-on-year.
Critically, and this applies across other areas of this survey as well, there should be a clear,
structured and transparent way for increases in NGER reported emissions feed back into
other relevant policy and administrative decisions, like baseline decline rates, the
Safeguard Mechanism coverage threshold, setting emissions reduction targets, guidance
for when and how audits are conducted, and so on.
35 Thinking about the current publication threshold and the impacts of
publishing data on reporting corporations, data users and meeting our
climate targets, what changes would you recommend to government?
The publication threshold should stay the same
36 Thinking about the current content of the publicly available data and
the impacts of publishing data on reporting corporations, data users
and meeting our climate targets, what changes would you recommend
to government?
Publish emissions data at the facility-level data
Publish estimation methods
Publish emissions by greenhouse gas
Publish time series data
7 of 11
Collec , manage and analyse surveys and consul a ion da a converlens.com
37 What would be an appropriate publication threshold for emissions data
at the facility level?
In our view, the publication threshold is not a critical issue with respect to the public
reporting of NGER data in comparison to the other problems identified above.
38 What are your views on the current test for determining whether
NGER data has commercial value in section 25 of the National
Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act (2007)?
The test needs to more clearly define the characteristics of data that has commercial
value
39 On what basis should NGER reporters be able to have data excluded
from publication?
Given the overall purpose of the NGER scheme to support informed decision-making,
there should be a broad presumption in favour of data publication.
Any exclusion should be strictly limited. The current test for 'commercial value' is too
vague and, in allowing considerable leeway for companies to avoid the publication of
emissions data, undermines the overall purpose of the NGER scheme. In our view, an
appropriate test would entail companies seeking to have data excluded from publication
being required to demonstrate, with evidence, how and why publication would have a
material adverse impact on their business.
40 Is there anything else you would like to tell us about publishing data
collected under the NGER legislation?
The publication of NGER reported data should reflect, and be capable of adapting to, the
latest scientific understandings of the relative global warming impact of different GHGs.
In particular, we consider that published non-CO2 emissions should be given in CO2-e
totals based on the 20-year GWP figure from the IPCC as well as the 100-year GWP. This
reflects the timeframe in which emissions must be reduced to limit global warming to
comparatively safe levels.
Further, NGER published data should be presented in formats that are accessible to the
public - easily found on the CER (or Department) website; downloadable formats; visual
illustrations included, and so on.
Explanations of corporate groups should be clear, and the facilities owned/operated by
8 of 11
Collec , manage and analyse surveys and consul a ion da a converlens.com
each corporate group should be explained.
41 [Blank question text]
How satisfied are you with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment
and Water’s role in maintaining and updating the NGER scheme?: Somewhat unsatisfied
How satisfied are you with the Clean Energy Regulator’s administration of the NGER
scheme?: Somewhat unsatisfied
42 Do you have any comments about the work of the Clean Energy
Regulator and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the
Environment and Water on the NGER scheme?
It is very unclear what, if any, work is undertaken by the CER to verify company reported
emissions. It is also unclear how the Department determines that an update to an NGER
method may be required (including, for example, the basis on which new scientific
findings about emissions or emissions measurement methods, is used - or not used - to
update NGER methods).
43 [Blank question text]
Not answered
44 Do you have any comments about the Clean Energy Regulator's online
guidance you wish to share?
Not answered
45 [Blank question text]
How would you rate the costs associated with reporting under the scheme? : Not relevant
46 Do you have any comments you wish to share about the balance the
NGER scheme strikes between costs on businesses of reporting and
achieving the NGER scheme’s statutory duties around reporting
emissions and energy data?
No comment.
47 The effectiveness of the NGER scheme depends on robust and reliable
9 of 11
Collec , manage and analyse surveys and consul a ion da a converlens.com
compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. Auditing is a key
compliance monitoring measure under the National Greenhouse and
Energy Reporting Act 2007 (NGER Act). Information about the Clean
Energy Regulator's audit framework can be viewed here.
In your opinion, how effective is the NGER audit framework in ensuring that reporters are
reporting correctly, completely and are fully compliant with their reporting requirements
under the NGER Act?: Not relevant
48 Is there anything you would suggest changing about the audit
framework to make it more effective at ensuring compliance, reducing
the incidence of unnecessary audits or the experience of being audited
less difficult or costly?
No comment.
49 What are your views on the enforcement powers and activities of the
Clean Energy Regulator?
An audit framework inherently based on reviewing companies' reported emissions
calculations based on NGER methods is redundant if the methods themselves are
inaccurate, or if on-site measurement or sampling is inadequate. Ensuring that NGER
methods are robust and fit-for-purpose is the most critical part of ensuring that NGER
reported data is accurate and reliable.
It is unclear from either the framework or other public information about the CER's
activities whether, and to what extent, on-site inspections form a routine part of NGER
audits (see section 1.4.1 of the framework). There does not appear to be any evidence of
the CER undertaking or commissioning emissions verification using, for example, flyover
detection equipment, on-ground surveys, etc. This is a critical part of verifying reported
emissions, and resources should be devoted to these activities.
Further, there is currently no obligation on NGER reporting entities to allow access to
independent researchers and scientists studying industrial emissions, and companies
routinely refuse access to such individuals, impeding both this avenue for verification of
reported emissions and the development of knowledge about Australian industrial
emissions. There is also no clear avenue through which data provided by independent
researchers could prompt or support compliance action by the CER. We submit that this
should be considered by the CCA in its review.
10 of 11
Collec , manage and analyse surveys and consul a ion da a converlens.com
50 Would you like to stay up to date on the Climate Change Authority’s
work?
51 If yes, what is your email address?
11 of 11
Collec , manage and analyse surveys and consul a ion da a converlens.com
