Published name
Question 2.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed eligibility requirements. Are there any other eligibility requirements the Program should consider?
Support for regional communities
Question 2.2: Does a minimum deployment size of 50 MW seem appropriate for the Program?
smaller sized projects should be considered as smaller, local, regional projects will benefit local business, especially relating to farming operations - big business can usually source funding without assistance
Question 2.3: Are there benefits to considering a suite of project sizes, with large and smaller scale projects (for example less than 50MW) being eligible?
yes = local and possibly community based should be considered
Question 2.4: Are there benefits to considering projects that may only have scale if aggregated across multiple, but related sites?
potentially
Question 2.5: Other international schemes have sought to implement additional requirements of the renewable energy used in hydrogen projects such as new-build or time matched renewable energy. Please provide your views on any additional requirements the Government should consider for the Program in relation to renewable energy?
any and all government funding must only be available to projects that are 100% green / renewable energy based
Question 2.6: Some international schemes have limitations on proposed end uses of hydrogen such as the UK scheme which specifically excludes gas blending. Should any limitations be placed on the end uses eligible for the Program?
no- to exclude things like "gas blending" may limit the viability of projects, as gas blending is often a viable use in the early stages of such development until other key markets are fully developed. Also as long as they are "green" h2 projects, and energy replaced is a good things we move to net zero
Question 2.7: Other international schemes consider both export and domestic use of hydrogen as eligible while others specifically exclude export projects. How should the Program consider projects with proposed export offtake and the extent to which this export offtake may support the development of an Australian hydrogen industry or other additional benefits to Australia?
both local and international projects should be considered eligible, as Australian companies may need export to be viable - also we all live in the one planet, and climate change affects us all globally.
Question 2.8: The proposed GO Scheme will be used to support the verification of hydrogen production. Are there projects where this would not be suitable? Should the Program apply a maximum emissions intensity for hydrogen production on a project lifecycle basis?
main criteria should be green energy - no support for further non green H2 production
Question 4.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed funding mechanism.
Funding should be in 3 stages, with each stage and the associated funding subject to the outcomes of the previous stages;
1) Funding for thorough feasibility assessments - financial and environmental
2) Funding for the design and pilot system testing
3) based on 1 & 2, if viable funding for construction and commissioning
Funding should be some grant (say 25%) and some low, or interest free loan (say another 50%)
Question 4.2: Are there other design features or structures for the proposed Program that you think could be more impactful or efficient to catalyse large scale hydrogen production in Australia?
must be green h2 projects, and best to be based in regional areas with linkage to road, rail and pipeline assets.
Question 4.3: How should the Program treat additional Commonwealth or State Government funding or other support for the same project?
should be scope to look at the combined funding to arrive at the system outlined in 4.2 above
Question 4.4: How should the Program treat a project that has been able to attract international government investment such as that under H2Global? How can the Program best leverage this support?
small business needs to be the key target for funding, not larger / multinational companies that can raise funding from other sources
Questions 4.5: How should the HPC consider inflation?
reasonable inflation over the life of the loan (say 2.5%)
Question 5.1: Other international schemes have varying upside sharing arrangements such as the UK scheme which requires projects to share 90% of upside back to the Government. Please provide your views on the proposed upside sharing arrangements for the Program, including with reference to the methodology for sharing upside (a reduction in the HPC).
upside sharing is an equitable way for payback, but it must not to too great as to impact the viability of the biusiness - say 50% upside share
Question 5.2: Please provide any additional feedback on the proposal for recipients to repay Government support in the event the market price increases materially during the 10-year period.
repayment via an upside share is reasonable and would better insure that a project remains viable.
Question 6.1: Do you think the Program should include volume risk support? If so, why?
any such risk should be thoroughly assessed during the feasibility and due diligence phase, and volume should be a key parameter- but failure to meet realistic targets should be monitored
Question 6.2: If volume risk support is required, what is the preferred structuring of the mechanism?
should be assessed in the feasibility phase, under volume should be monitored and measures put in place (may be similar to a company receiver) BEFORE the wheels fall off. Higher volume would normally benefit both parties if upside sharing was implemented
Question 7.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed payment frequency and term.
- 5 year honeymoon period - just upside sharing
- 10 year for the balance, but upside sharing should be counted in the repayments
Question 9.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed merit criteria.
1) feasibility / viability / sustainability- especially water resources
2) green - net zero benefit
3) stability, community and social benefit, and employment, especially in rural and regional communities
Question 9.2: How should merit criteria be structured or weighted to ensure the success of delivery of hydrogen from projects?
1) feasibility / viability / sustainability - especially water resources - 30%
2) green - net zero benefit - 40%
3) stability, community and social benefit, and employment, especially in rural and regional communities - 30%
Question 9.3: Should an applicant be required to have at least a conditional offtake arrangement in place before applying to the Program? What standard should be applied to determine the reliability of such an arrangement?
the feasibility phase should thoroughly and rigorously assess potential market potentials, and secured markets for at least portion of production (say 50% of initial production) should score highly in the merit / assessment
Question 9.4: What additional outcomes should be incorporated into the formal merit criteria for the Program in order to deliver broader benefits?
all of the above
Question 9.5: What other aspects of an export-oriented proposal should be assessed to ensure the Program funds demonstrate tangible benefits to Australians?
export should be in conjunction with Australian interests- eg green H2 for shipping Australian commodities - but the bottom line is that any replacement with green energy is a benefit to the global well being
Question 9.6: How should emissions abatement calculations consider the different end uses of hydrogen and greenfield vs brownfield facilities?
In my view any government should ONLY be put toward "Green H2) projects, OR any funding should be proportional to the green percentage of production- Governments should not fund anything but green projects - otherwise we are NOT contributing to a better global environment
Question 16.1: Does the timing proposed for the Program appear appropriate? If not, please note in your view an appropriate alternative.
ok
Question 17.1: Do the proposed EOI information requirements seem reasonable? Are there any additional items you would add to the EOI information list, or items that may be subject to different interpretations / challenging to provide?
- more emphasis on "green only H2 " projects, and more emphasis on supporting rural and regional communities
Question 17.2: Do the proposed Full Application information requirements seem reasonable? Are there any additional items you would add to the Full Application information list?
seem OK
Question 18: Is there any additional feedback you would like to provide that has not been covered in the above questions?
for green projects you need land (ie for solar wind etc) and there are farmers and landholders that are passionate about greener outcomes and are willing and able to make land available for such projects[redacted]
