An introduction to the Carbon Emissions Reporting regime in Australia

This is a blog post from a CPA Australia Carbon Emissions Reporting Discussion Group meeting – the inaugural meeting – that I attended on 18th November 2008.  Danny Power from PwC is the convenor. 

There will be an election of office-bearers at the end of the next meeting.  The topics under discussion are going to be quite broad-ranging.  Danny is linking it to the sustainability reporting issues, and Danny seems to think the label might change later.  However, Carbon Emissions Reporting is the current label for the group – thinks we might need to break into several discussion groups at some point (I’m not sure about that – see how popular it is).  There were about 40 people in attendance at this first meeting, though, which is always a good sign. 

Why did Danny set up the discussion group?

  • Compliance issues
  • The accountant’s role as a business advisor and in managing the reporting systems
  • Impacts for all organisations whether direct or indirect
  • “The Science” – still seems controversial, and if you’re going to report on it you need a working knowledge of what the processes are and how it works. 
  • Possibly the most important – to create a support and peer group for each other.

Schemes, coverage, compliance and impacts

This section of the presentation was given by Mick Zeljko of the Climate Change Team of PricewaterhouseCoopers. 

The finance function of most companies will be generally involved it seems in managing the reporting process, which is a substantial – very substantial – part of the new CPRS. 
Emissions Schemes

Current programs:

  • Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET)
  • NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme (GGAS)
  • Qld Gas Electricity Scheme (GECS)
  • Greenhouse Challenge Plus
  • Energy Efficiency Opportunities

The scope of these current programs is fairly limited and tend to be industry-specific.  There is a general feeling that perhaps people have been a little bit lax about the current programs, and it’s been pretty relaxed with the result that there has not been a lot of accuracy in the numbers that are currently being reported.  Probably a lot of companies don’t really have a lot of confidence in their reporting schemes. 

New Schemes:

  • National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System (NGERS)
  • Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS)

NGERS will cover a lot less companies than those that are affected by ETS.  Types of gasses – six Kyoto gasses – CO2 and Methane and so on.  All measured in terms of CO2 equivalency – for example, methane is 20 times stronger than CO2, so 1 tonne of emitted methane is 20 CO2 Tonne Equivalents.

The NGERS does get down to 200 terajoules and 50 kilotonnes in 2010.  ETS will require only 25KT in 2010 so it is a little disconnected from NGERS – you can probably expect that the two programs will come into alignment. 

The Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) is now officially called CPRS – Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.  The feeling is that it sounds better to be reducing carbon pollution than trading the rights to emit pollution.  The scheme generally caps Australia’s emissions, and then identifies industries subject to the cap.  These industries are then allocated permits and at the end of the year have to have permits to cover what they emitted or pay a substantive fine.  If you don’t have the permits, you have to go buy them from someone who does.  This is the essence of the ‘cap and trade’ system.  

Under the scheme:

  • Government allocates or auctions permits up to the cap annually.
  • Companies compete on the market to acquire required permits.
  • Permits can be traded at market prices between firms and third parties.
  • Scheme requires robust monitoring, reporting and assurance of data.
  • Transitional assistance measures are included
  • A number of elements are yet to be finalised
    • Including emissions target trajectories, penalties for non-compliance and complementary measures for non-covered sectors. 

A green paper was released in July.  Everyone affected is throwing a submission at the government.  The government is aiming to have draft legislation ready by the end of the year.  There remains a whole bunch of stuff that is yet to be finalised, particularly emissions trajectories.  We don’t know what the limits will be yet though – what the targets will be. 

Covered sectors:

  • Stationary energy
  • Industrial processes
  • Fugitive emissions (e.g. mining and landfill)
  • Waste
  • Transport
  • Reforestation (opt-in – gets you credits)
  • Agriculture may come in later, around 2015.

Liability generally relies upon the emitter.  Generally it is upstream supply liability.

Emissions covered include:  Scope 1 (i.e. direct for example emissions from a generator) emissions only.  Contrast with NGERS which includes Scope 2 (e.g. indirect such as a factory’s use of electricity) across all 6 Kyoto Greenhouses. 

Threshold

  • Direct emissions of 25,000 tonnes of CO2e (Carbon Equivalents). 

The affected businesses will need to be collecting up systems, processes and governance to get NGERS into place. 

I wonder what the definition of an entity (i.e. a ‘business’ will be in the covered industry?). 

The first NGERS reporting period has commenced, those these systems etc will need to be in place from the point of view of affected NGERS entities.  CPRS Green Paper submissions are now closed.  The draft legislation is due out in early September, and they seem to want to have the legislation in place by the end of the year.  The Government wants to set medium-term national trajectories soon, and are aiming for a 1 July 2010 start.  These trajectories will affect how many permits are available – they will not determine who is affected by CPRS. 
We in Australia will have two full reporting periods and  given thethen full trading will commence under CPRS.  Unless it doesn’t  current financial crisis. 

Under NGERS – compliance is about registering and reporting.  Penalties apply for corporations and CEOs.

Project Definition

There are a a whole lot of rules and legislation around wh`o effectively owns the emissions.  A big mining site will have a lot of issues just working out what are we reporting on.

Systems Implementation

  • Collect greenhouse and energy data
  • Calculate greenhouse and energy data – there is a measurement determination that tells you how you work out how much CO2 you emit.  There are proxy things in place. 
  • Got to have good storage of records for any audit down the track.

Maybe I have a large IT bent, but I can see that this is going to be a problem for anybody seeking to implement Greenhouse Gas Reporting Systems and implement it through the accounting information system.  Or even if they don’t. 

Clearly it will have an impact upon reporting processes, and who does it – and I suspect this job will often fall to the finance function. 

Reporting

  • Register with GEDO
  • Prepare and submit data using OSCAR.  (See Greenhouse Challenge Plus).
  • There will be a lot of internal reporting as well particularly for companies that are CPRS-liable. 

Governance

  • Need a whole lot of things covering all of this to make sure it keeps ticking along. 

Companies will have to be NGERS compliance at a minimum. 

Assurance – large emitters (>125KT CO2) will require third party assurance of the information prior to submission.  Beyond these core issues we don’t know much around how it is taxed and so on.  The draft legislation hasn’t come out yet.  There are thousands of submissions being put in place.

If you are liable there are serious financial implications and also some compliance costs.  Indirect impacts will result in price increases it seems – which will be the main issue for SME’s. 
Indirect impacts are going to be increasing on just about everyone.  Transport and logistics – may see a complete change in the competitive position between transport for example.  For instance you will need to reconsider where you get your services from e.g. road vs rail.

Need to do a risk assessment now.  Carbon due diligence.  Green paper submissions were a big thing a little while ago.

Strategic Response – can do a lot of stuff now.  There are opportunities for new services and products – carbon market planning and financial advice.

CPRS Accounting Issues:

  • Permits acquired to satisfy obligation = intangibles
  • Permits acquired for trading = inventory
  • Measurement choices available
  • Impact of CPRS on impairment calculations
  • Accounting disclosures which may be required.
  • How to account for forward purchase agreements of carbon pollution permits
  • Broadly – what impact will the acquisition, trading, hedging and surrender of carbon plollution permits on reporting.
  • Tax treatment?  Still yet to be decided. 

We also noted in the presentation that cashflow issues exist potentially for people that have to buy permits up front. 

There will be another meeting in February, probably, of the Discussion Group.  It was a very interesting discussion and it will be interesting to see where these compliance issues around the Carbon Emission Emissions Reporting processes take us.  And as we can see above – there are assurance implications (although supposedly only for >125KT emitters?).

More notices as events warrant.

HP 2133 Mini-Note Six-Cell Battery

A few weeks ago I bought an extended six-cell battery for my HP2133 Mini-Note. I had originally thought that the three-cell battery would be enough for me, but I was spectacularly wrong.  As I’ve just started my PhD, I am finding that I have a lot of two-hour seminar sessions that I have to complete, and the three-cell battery was battling to get to an hour or so, tops, when I ran it on the ‘high-performance’ settings. 

And running the HP2133 Mini-Note on low-power use is not recommended if you need to do anything substantive, although it’s fine for tapping out a few notes.

With the extended battery, and on low-power mode, I’m easily getting 3 or more hours of practical use out of the notebook.  The battery is very good, although I don’t like the way that the higher battery makes the machine sit up – it’s far less ergonomic if you’re typing on a flat surface (which is what you should be aiming for).  With the six-cell battery, and if you keep the three-cell charged up and carried around with you, you’ll get through a day interspersed with meetings and presentations and plane flights very easily in my view. 

If you’ve got the mini-note, the extended battery is a must-have. 

GenY and the Workplace

This morning I had the pleasure of presenting to the Southbank Institute of Tafe’s COTAH (College of Tourism and Hospitality), helping out one Nicole Jensen who I met on twitter.  As I understand it the exercise is to ensure practical experience regarding event management – i.e. run an event, rather than take in what the subject matter was.  I am probably wrong though, and I thoroughly enjoyed hearing about fireworks and the shoe-wearing exploits of Jenny Gaskell.

Incidentally I wonder how long it will take Jenny to find this reference given that the subject of my discussion was GenY and the Workplace, and the impact of online social networking upon business :). 

Anyway – if you’ve come here for the slides be disappointed no longer.  The slides are reproduced below on SlideShare and for download as a PDF:  GenY and the Workplace.

GenY and the Workplace

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: online social)

As always, feedback welcome.

Business impact of online social networking

Last Thursday I had the pleasure of presenting a three-hour workshop at CPA Congress in Melbourne on the ‘Business Impact of Online Social Networking’.  Partly my presentation was regarding the business risk of online social networking, but also considering the positives and how online social networking can be used to make growing your enterprise.

@micktleyden was there, as was @alex_d13 from time to time.  I think it went fairly well – I have to say that three hours is a long time for any workshop.

Overall I was happy with it – as usual my opinion though doesn’t count so if you attended please feel free to email me or leave a comment either here on my blog or at the CPA Congress community.  Incidentally, I have to say that having the OSN to support the conference has been a different and good idea – it allows you to get expectations sorted out a little earlier and provides a framework for an ongoing discussion outside of the three-hour workshop.  Depending on your perspective that may or may not be a good thing.

Anyway, as usual you can download the ‘Business Impact of Online Social Networking’ workshop notes here.

Incidentally, the PR machine at CPA Australia has been working overtime – there’s been an interview with a journalist at Melbourne MX and apparently I am to appear on ABC radio in Melbourne with Richard Stubbs, about 2.30pm Melbourne time.

As it’s radio I probably won’t have to shave…

All good fun.  Hey, if I run out of things to say about online social networking perhaps I can talk about budgeting (did a thesis in it), database querying (did a thesis in it), technology dominance (doing a phd in it) or IT governance (lecture in it)

I am a dilettente.

Technorati Tags:

Session Review – AIFRS and beyond: contentious and emerging issues in accounting standards

I had the honour of chairing Richard Wanstall’s session today at the Brisbane Convention Centre on the topic of AIFRS. Richard is the lead partner for the Accounting Advisory Services Group for Deloitte, and addressed the following issues in his presentation today:

The agenda addressed included the following:

  • Current changes in financial reporting
  • Impact of new standards in 2008
  • Lessons learnt from June 2008
  • On the horizon
  • Over the horizon

I liked how Richard distinguished between what’s ‘on’ the horizon and what’s ‘over’ it!

Richard did have a lot of references to standards I haven’t looked at in years, so I was not able to follow all of it (my fault, not his!), but it was interesting to hear that the Australian version of IFRS seems to be moving back towards the IFRS Standard (a little, anyway) and that the Australian version is being modified so that we are really ending up with multiple GAAPs depending on the type of entity (e.g. not-for-profits etc).

I must admit that I am also a little concerned to hear that IASB are thinking of extending IFRS to SME’s in some way. I can’t believe that that’s going to reduce compliance costs for anyone. Not, I am sure, that that was the point.

The ‘lessons learned’ part of the presentation detailing key misunderstandings of IFRS was very valuable, as were the ‘on the horizon’ and ‘over the horizon’ sections. I think these last two sections suffered a little as Richard was running out of time. Also they don’t consider the presenters when they go and have economic crises – Richard’s slides were still referencing interest rate increases (which since about last week we now seem to think are off our agenda). In the current environment it seems your slides will be out of date by morning tea!

As for the over-the-horizon issues, I was stunned to hear of potential modifications to lease agreements (bring operating leases onto the balance sheet? Sacrilege!).

As for the overall session, the facilities are excellent as is to be expected at the Brisbane Convention Centre, and the audience was very good. I thought the Chair was a bit ordinary – seemed to think he was funny and forgot to introduce himself (I can say that, as I was the chair!) :).

Richard’s session was very informative and helpful, and Richard clearly knows his stuff. These days, I think I’m doing pretty well if I remember what IASB stands for.

I think the session was hampered by the fact that slides weren’t provided prior to the session (apparently they’re coming), and I think this is particularly helpful if you have a great deal of technical detail to talk to. Something for me to remember next time my sldies are running late.

I do think there was a great deal of information that was provided as a list of changes; I think that as a result of not having slides provided to the audience Richard was compelled to give us an opportunity to absorb the information presented. As a consequence, we didn’t get to hear as much from Richard as to what the implications of the changes actually were – Richard has a lot to add in that space and I think we simply ran out of time.

I liked how Richard was able to answer the only question I could come up with – whether there was an impact on accounting information systems, and Richard was straight onto that one immediately. I hope that made some members of the audience sit up and think about what these AIFRS changes might mean for their accounting systems.

A good session, well worthwhile attending. Richard’s a good presenter and knowing how much time it takes to put those slides together, I know that a lot of work went into preparing for this presentation. Very much appreciated, and I certainly got something out of this very valuable session.

I have some photos of the venue but this computer in the presenter’s room doesn’t have an SD card reader so I’ll add them later.Â