75561 (2024). Francisco Hernandez to the Minister of Climate Change

75561 (2024). Francisco Hernandez to the Minister of Climate Change: Was there a cost-benefit analysis done on Option One, Option Two, or Option Three of the options outlined in the regulatory impact statement for the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill, if so, what were the Benefit-Cost Cost Ratios for each of these options?

Hon Simon Watts: A cost-benefit analysis was conducted for Option Zero: status quo, followed by a multi-criteria analysis of Options One, Two and Three against the status quo. In summary, the cost/benefit analysis showed that pricing emissions at a processor level in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme has a small positive benefit (Benefit Cost Ratio of 1.24, Net Present Value of $0.97 billion over the next 20 years). However, the applicability of this analysis is limited, as under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (CCRA), processor level pricing would be superseded by farm level surrender obligations in 2027. Amending the CCRA to remove agricultural processor level pricing (as in Options One and Two) will mean that the potential economic net benefit suggested by the modelling conducted would be reversed resulting in a net loss to New Zealand society. Details of the analysis can be found on the Regulatory Impact Statement on the Ministry for the Environment's website at: https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/Regulatory-Impact-Statement-Amending-the-CCRA-to-repeal-Ag.pdf.