{"id":"BILL-s1344","name":"Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2]S","slug":"environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-amendment-climate-trigger-bill-2022-no-2-s","collection":"bill","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":445972,"registerId":"commonwealth-BILL-s1344-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-05-05","status":"introduced","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[],"analysis":{"summary":{"status_summary":"The bill has been introduced in the Senate and is at the second reading stage.","complexity_score":5,"likely_questions":["What projects are likely to trigger the new assessment requirements?","What role does the national carbon budget play in approval decisions?"],"complexity_factors":["Introduction of specific emissions thresholds for mandatory assessment","New obligations on the minister and the Climate Change Authority"],"plain_english_summary":"The Bill adds a “climate trigger” to the EPBC Act so actions with substantial scope 1 greenhouse emissions are subject to national‑level assessment: projects emitting 25,000–100,000 tCO2e/year face Part 9 approval with the minister required to consider Australia’s carbon budget and reduction targets, while actions over 100,000 tCO2e/year must be refused. The Climate Change Authority must set and annually review a national carbon budget to 2050. This directly affects high‑emitting project proponents and could bar major new emitters."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Bill materially expands the scope of the EPBC Act from its prior focus on impacts to matters of greenhouse gas emissions policy by making direct (scope 1) emissions a statutory trigger for assessment and by authorising the Minister to refuse the largest direct‑emitting projects. It centralises a climate‑policy input (a statutory national carbon budget) into environmental approval decisions. That is an expansion beyond the EPBC Act’s original operating focus on protecting matters of national environmental significance by adding an explicit emissions‑floor and emissions‑cap mechanism and by embedding a national carbon budget as a decision factor."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple numeric thresholds (25,000 tCO2e/year referral floor; 100,000 tCO2e/year absolute prohibition) creating stepwise rules.","Narrow scope: application limited to scope 1 (direct) emissions only — requires precise measurement definitions to implement.","Cross‑references to existing EPBC Act processes (Part 9 approvals, conservation agreements) and to alternative approval pathways — increases cross‑statutory complexity.","New mandatory consideration for the Minister (national carbon budget and targets) tied to a dynamically updated instrument (annual Climate Change Authority assessment).","Prohibition on use of alternative approval processes subject to exceptions — nested conditional logic and exception handling.","New offences and penalties tied to factual predicates (significant impact / likely significant impact) that are fact‑intensive and litigation‑prone.","Implementation dependence on an external independent body (Climate Change Authority) to supply the core policy input (national carbon budget), creating sequencing and administrative risk.","Potential for project‑structuring avoidance (split projects) which requires anti‑avoidance drafting or guidance, adding to legal complexity."],"plain_english_summary":"**What this Bill changes (mechanical effects)\n\n- Inserts a \"climate trigger\" into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Under the Bill, certain proposed actions that emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) must be assessed under the EPBC Act's formal approval process (Part 9 of the Act).\n- Sets two emission thresholds for scope 1 emissions (direct emissions from the action itself): actions that would emit between 25,000 and 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide‑equivalent (tCO2e) in any one year must be referred and assessed; actions that would emit more than 100,000 tCO2e in any one year must be refused approval.\n- Requires the Minister to take Australia’s national carbon budget and greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets into account when deciding whether to approve an action or to enter into a conservation agreement.\n- Requires the Climate Change Authority to prepare a national carbon budget out to 2050 and to review that budget each year.\n- Restricts the Minister’s ability, subject to specified exceptions, to use alternative approval pathways (for example, some bilateral assessment arrangements or other non‑Part 9 procedures) for actions that meet the emissions thresholds.\n- Creates penalties for undertaking certain emissions‑intensive actions without the required EPBC approval, where the action has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment.\n\nOfficial stated purpose\n\n- The Bill’s explanatory material says the aim is to ensure large direct‑emitting projects are considered under the EPBC Act and that approval decisions align with Australia’s national carbon budget and emissions reduction targets. That is the stated policy rationale.\n\nTesting the stated purpose against costs, incentives and implementation mechanics\n\n- Who pays: developers and project proponents that exceed the thresholds pay directly through compliance costs (time and money to refer, prepare assessments, and meet any conditions), and indirectly if approvals are refused. There are also public administration costs for the Climate Change Authority and the Department to administer additional referrals and assessments.\n- Who decides: final approval authority remains the Minister under the EPBC Act. The Bill adds a mandatory consideration (the national carbon budget and targets) to the Minister’s decision‑making checklist and gives the Climate Change Authority a statutory role in producing the national carbon budget.\n- Behaviour changes incentivised: proponents may (a) design projects to emit less than the referral threshold; (b) delay or cancel high‑emitting projects where approvals would be refused; (c) seek to restructure projects (e.g. split activities) to stay below thresholds; or (d) pursue options outside the EPBC regime where possible. The explicit ban on approvals over 100,000 tCO2e introduces a hard limit on the largest direct‑emitting projects under the EPBC regime.\n- Compliance burden and timing risk: adding another mandatory referral and assessment pathway increases administrative workload for proponents and regulators. That can extend project timetables and raise transaction costs; the scale of that delay depends on resourcing and detailed drafting of assessment procedures.\n- Interaction with other laws and pathways: the Bill prevents, with stated exceptions, use of alternative approval processes for emissions‑intensive actions. This centralises decisions in the EPBC process but may create legal and administrative friction where projects previously used bilateral assessments, state approvals or other Commonwealth processes.\n- Measurement scope and avoidance risk: the Bill applies to scope 1 emissions only (direct emissions from the action). That creates a concrete boundary: some emissions (scope 2 and 3) are excluded from the trigger, which both focuses the rule and creates incentives to characterise emissions differently. There is a risk of ‘threshold avoidance’ by breaking projects into parts so each falls below the thresholds unless the Bill or guidance closes that avenue.\n- Enforcement: new criminal/administrative penalties create deterrence but require monitoring and clear evidentiary standards to enforce. Determining whether an action is \"likely to have\" a significant environmental impact is fact‑specific and may generate legal dispute.\n\nPractical trade‑offs and likely effects on markets and contracts\n\n- Investment and project design: firms planning large fossil‑fuel, industrial or infrastructure projects will face additional regulatory risk where scope 1 emissions are high. That can reduce project valuations or increase the cost of capital when the 100,000 tCO2e limit is a realistic ceiling.\n- Competition and entry: the thresholds are absolute (tCO2e/year) rather than relative to project size or output, so capital‑intensive, high‑emission projects face relatively higher regulatory costs. Smaller operators under thresholds face lighter touches, concentrating compliance costs on bigger projects.\n- Contract freedom and certainty: introducing a statutory national carbon budget as a decision factor gives the Minister a new discretionary input tied to that budget. That can be consistent with existing environmental criteria, but it also adds a policy variable (the budget and its annual updates) that affects future approvals and therefore contractual certainty.\n- Concentrated benefits vs diffuse costs: any emission restrictions will concentrate costs on particular high‑emitting sectors and projects, while benefits (lower future emissions risk) are widely distributed. The Bill creates a statutory mechanism that entitles the Minister to refuse the largest direct‑emitting projects outright.\n\nImplementation risks and operational detail that matter\n\n- The Climate Change Authority must produce a credible national carbon budget to 2050 and update it annually. Delays, legal challenge or weaknesses in that budgeting work would directly affect Ministerial decisions under the new clause.\n- Precise measurement rules (how scope 1 is measured, what counting period is used, how multi‑year projects are treated) will determine how the thresholds operate in practice. If those measurement rules are not tightly specified, uncertainty and litigation risk will rise.\n- The Bill’s exceptions to the prohibition on alternative approvals and the criteria for \"significant impact\" will be important operational details; they are the likely focus of administrative policy and any legal challenges.\n\nBottom line (mechanical):\n- The Bill makes direct (scope 1) greenhouse gas emissions a statutory referral trigger under the EPBC Act for actions that exceed 25,000 tCO2e/year and blocks approval of actions that would exceed 100,000 tCO2e/year. It requires the Minister to take a statutory national carbon budget and Australia’s emissions targets into account and gives the Climate Change Authority a statutory role to set and review that budget. These changes raise compliance costs for high‑emitting projects, shift decision criteria for approvals, and concentrate regulatory risk on the largest direct‑emitting proposals.\n"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-amendment-climate-trigger-bill-2022-no-2-s","history":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-amendment-climate-trigger-bill-2022-no-2-s/history","analysis":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-amendment-climate-trigger-bill-2022-no-2-s/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-amendment-climate-trigger-bill-2022-no-2-s/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-amendment-climate-trigger-bill-2022-no-2-s/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-amendment-climate-trigger-bill-2022-no-2-s/documents"}}