Published name
Question 2.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed eligibility requirements. Are there any other eligibility requirements the Program should consider?
Creative solutions should form part of the overall package where such solutions could offer 'distributed green hydrogen' supply.
Question 2.2: Does a minimum deployment size of 50 MW seem appropriate for the Program?
Smaller systems down to 10 MW may better align with distributed regional support solutions.
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?
Distribution and availability options across a wider parameter may offer acceptance benefits vs a few outlets spaced across Australia that limit uptake.
Question 2.4: Are there benefits to considering projects that may only have scale if aggregated across multiple, but related sites?
Distribution and availability limitations are less of a restrictive issue.
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?
Support and encouragement of large and small solutions would add to the popularity and uptake.
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?
In the short term, all solutions should be considered to achieve positive outcomes.
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?
Export options should not be excluded, including the use of hydrogen to produce exportable benefits.
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?
All projects should be considered on their particular merits. There could be unseen benefits at the beginning that are demonstrated when in action over time.
Question 4.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed funding mechanism.
Flexibility should be paramount and restrictive perspectives set aside.
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?
A collective PR register of benefits should be distributed to encourage more participation.
Question 4.3: How should the Program treat additional Commonwealth or State Government funding or other support for the same project?
Co-operatively.
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?
Co--operatively.
Questions 4.5: How should the HPC consider inflation?
This is an international impacting force that should be accommodated wherever possible, but also having due regard of an expanding range of options that could reduce the bottom line.
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).
Tax, R&D and regional-assist initiatives together with defence parameters can all contribute to a range of commercial and strategic gains.
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.
Commercial structures and payback schemes need to be known and stated clearly from the outset.
Question 6.1: Do you think the Program should include volume risk support? If so, why?
Depends on the market uptake.
Question 6.2: If volume risk support is required, what is the preferred structuring of the mechanism?
There should be some form of 'minimum supply basis' to ensure a viable entity is established for long term supply security ... which can lead to measures to encourage and promote supply volume targets for all to benefit from.
Question 7.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed payment frequency and term.
Different arrangements maybe required for different (and remote location) projects, particularly if there is a defence component in the availability and supply volume contracts established for immediate and long term delivery security.
Support by super funds may also require guaranteed returns to encourage initial, long term support.
Question 9.1: Please provide any feedback on the proposed merit criteria.
Flexibility and encouragement of distributed availability needs to be part of the support criteria.
Question 9.2: How should merit criteria be structured or weighted to ensure the success of delivery of hydrogen from projects?
Depends on the situation and location, not forgetting the need to support those uses that have made a down-the-line commitment to use the energy source.
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?
Flexibility needs to be part of any agreement including provisions to allow the encouragement of a reliable energy source.
Question 9.4: What additional outcomes should be incorporated into the formal merit criteria for the Program in order to deliver broader benefits?
Flexibility of size of delivered energy and locations, together with strategic purposes like communications, climate/flood control and defence end uses.
Question 9.5: What other aspects of an export-oriented proposal should be assessed to ensure the Program funds demonstrate tangible benefits to Australians?
Storage and delivery options need to be flexible.
Question 9.6: How should emissions abatement calculations consider the different end uses of hydrogen and greenfield vs brownfield facilities?
No.
Question 16.1: Does the timing proposed for the Program appear appropriate? If not, please note in your view an appropriate alternative.
The detail of the Sydney and Perth information sessions was published AFTER the events. More care needs to be taken about notices etc. Today is July 28 .... the Perth and Sydney events were apparently last week!?
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?
Who is to say that 1x 50MW system is better that 10x0.5MW systems? A number of smaller units may offer efficiency and safety benefits with no transport and storage issues.
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?
The flexibility to take on new customers not initially considered.
Question 18: Is there any additional feedback you would like to provide that has not been covered in the above questions?
ARENA needs to be flexible
