investor days 2016 - bpiebpie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/investordays2016_panel2_feb23_all.pdficp...

MAKING MONEY FLOW – STRATEGIES TO INCREASE ENERGY INVESTMENTS IN THE

EUROPEAN BUILDING SECTOR

F E B R U A R Y 2 2 - 2 3 R E P R E S E N T A T I O N O F T H E S T A T E O F N O R T H R H I N E - W E S T P H A L I A T O

T H E E U

P A N E L 2 - E M E R G I N G S O L U T I O N S – M A R K E T B E S T - P R A C T I C E S D E V E L O P E D T O R E S P O N D T O I N V E S T O R N E E D S A N D I M P R O V E

D E A L F L O W M o d e r a t i o n : R ü d i g e r L o h s e ( I E A - E B C A n n e x 6 1 )

A d r i e n B u l l i e r ( E A S M E ) , P a n a m a B a r t h o l o m y ( I n v e s t o r C o n f i d e n c e P r o j e c t ) , J a n B l e y l ( E n e r g e t i c S o l u t i o n s / I E A - E B C A n n e x 6 1 ) ,

E l i s e S t e y a e r t ( C l i m a t e A l l i a n c e ) a n d M i g u e l C a s a s ( E n e r g I n v e s t ) f o r C I T Y n v e s t

Investor Days 2016

Adrien BULLIER Senior Project Advisor Intelligent Energy Europe and Horizon 2020 programmes European Commission, Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (EASME) Investors Day, Brussels 23 February 2016

EU support to improving the deal flow on energy efficiency

Intelligent Energy Europe programme

and Horizon 2020 Energy Efficiency call

2

Financial sector

Project developers

???

Adapted from C. MILIN, ECEEE 2013

Risk-sharing schemes

Equity provision

Dedicated credit lines

EU structural funds

Intelligent Energy Europe

& Horizon 2020

Benchmark investments

Awareness of investors

Organise dialogue

Capacity building

European Fund for Strategic

investments

Project dvpt assistance

Energy performance contracts

Local financing schemes

We’ve got money, but… we’re looking

for projects!

We’ve got projects, but…

we’re looking for money!

Green bonds market forecast at

USD 66bn for 2015 (CBI)

“Investment project” for the

financial sector: • technical black box

• standardized product

• cash-flows, IRR, NPV

• predictability of risks

• transaction costs

“Investment project” for many project developers: • technical design tailored to

physical constraints • state-of-the-art technology • energy payback times • “no financing” = “no

subsidy”?

Finance and sustainable energy:

filling the gap through EU programmes

• MLEI / PDA (EASME): investments of €7-50m

• ELENA EIB: investment >€30m

• Over 80 projects expected to trigger

• >€4 billion investments in EE/RES

EU Project Development Assistance facilities

3

EASME projects

EIB ELENA projects

• Energy performance contracts on public buildings and street lighting:

Italy: PARIDE (Teramo), MARTE (Marche), 2020TOGETHER (Turin), FESTA (Matera), LEMON (Emilia

Romagna), ENERSHIFT (Liguria)

Spain: Accelerate (Huelva), BEENERGI (Giron)

Portugal: GLEE AM (Alto Minho)

• Private housing:

PadovaFIT (IT), PSEE Alsace (FR), Efidistrict (ES)

• Investment funds, citizen financing:

Cambridge, Oxford (UK)

• Forfaiting fund for EPC on condominiums:

SUNSHINE (LV)

• District heating:

GeoKec (HU), Energy4flexibility (NL)

• Complete list: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/files/mlei-projects-2011-12.pdf

PDA projects with direct investment opportunities

4

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/files/mlei-projects-2011-12.pdf








• EPC facilitation services: developing an EPC pipeline with public authorities EESI 2020: Antwerp, Barcelona, Berlin, Dublin, Graz,

Prague, Oslo, Sofia or Zagreb

Streetlight EPC: 10 regions in DE, AT, CZ, HR, PL, UK, SE, SI, FYROM, ES

• SEAF, led by Joule Assets: IT based framework for valuation and benchmarking of

small-sized projects (EE, RES, demand response)

• TrustEE, led by AEE (AT): Investment fund focused on energy efficiency in industrial

process heat

Other projects with direct investment opportunities

5

• Capacity building / development of innovative financing schemes: Infinite Solutions: municipal internal performance contracting and home

renovation loans in PT, HR, DK, IT, DE, BE, FR, LV

CITYnvest: building renovation programmes in BE, ES, BG, analysis of best

practices

• National sustainable energy financing platforms: SEFIPA (Austria), ENERINVEST (Spain), BUILDINTEREST (Netherlands,

France, Italy), RESFARM (Spain, renewables)

• Sustainable Energy Investment forums (service contract, starting 2nd semester of 2016) Kick-starting a dialogue with the financial sector at national level on

sustainable energy finance

Capacity building on innovative financing and project development

Building capacity and mobilising stakeholders

6

• Standardisation and improving confidence: Transparense: European code of conduct for EPC

Trust EPC South: certification for EPC on tertiary buildings (IT, ES, FR, HR, GR, PT)

Investor Confidence Project: standardisation of building retrofits

• Raising awareness of institutional investors SEI Metrics (led by 2 Degrees Investing): benchmarking the

climate performance of investment portfolios

ET RISK (led by 2 Degrees Investing): integrating energy transition risk in asset rating methodologies

Structuring the market for energy efficiency finance

7

• EE-22:Project Development Assistance

• EE-24:Making the energy efficiency market investible

• EE-25:Development and roll-out of innovative energy efficiency services

• All information on the energy efficiency call: bit.ly/1oWPNoX

• We are looking for experts to help us evaluate proposals! Please register on http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/experts/index.html

Next call for proposals: deadline 15 September 2016

8

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/experts/index.html




For all questions on the Energy efficiency call, please contact:

[email protected] or contact your National Contact Point: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/support/national_contact_points.html

Thanks for your attention

9

mailto:[email protected]



http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/support/national_contact_points.html



Increasing capacities in Cities for

innovating financing in energy

efficiency

A review of local authority innovative large scale

retrofit financing and operational models

February, 2016

Miguel A. Casas – Elise Steyaert

EnergInvest – Climate Alliance

2

How to accelerate investments?

No need for reinventing the wheel

Catalyst role for LRA – reflected in current EU directives, but

some remaining challenges

The rationale for CITYnvest

Financiers

- predictability of risks

- standardization

- cash flows (IRR, NPV)

- transaction costs

Local EE projects

- capacity constraints (no core business)

- Bankability mentality

- ESA Accounting rules

- bundling needs

3

1. Analysing successful examples with track records (24 cases)

2. Understanding their business models, key success factors and

replicability

3. Wide-scale capacity-building & Testing/implementation in 3 pilot

regions (BG, ES, BE)

10 focus countries: mobilizing the

whole chain of stakeholders

1. Political commitment: setting

targets

2. From plan to bankable project

3. Align the financing and

operational structure (pooling)

5. Sustain/enlarge scope

Impact:

Building capacities of 650 local

authorities, 10 national

representatives and 300 key

stakeholders

Impact:

Mobilise € 73,3 million

Save 58,6GWh

1,246 sustainable job created

Approach of CITYnvest

4

Analysed 24 existing models that address large scale and deep energy efficiency retrofit programs (including RES) involving public authorities across Europe (11 countries)

• Level of ambition (aimed % of energy reduction, investment intensity, contract duration)?

• Implementation methodology (technically and operationally) used?

• Which operational services are provided to the beneficiaries?

• Which financing schemes have been used?

Provided a benchmark/comparison of the models along the following themes: • Their operational schemes (Facilitation, Integration and Aggregation)

• Their implementation model (Separate Contractor Based (SCB) and EPC/ESC)

• Their financial schemes (financing by Financial Institutions, by the ESCOs, by the Program Delivery Unit, by Investment Funds, by Citizens)

• Attractiveness and risks

• Impact on public balance sheet, staff requirements, scalability, development maturity, challenges and other

Provided guidance material to support local authorities in their search for financing of their EE and RES programs (Recommendation and Decisions matrix)

What have we done?

5

Models involving facilitation are mainly financed via Financial Institutions or ESCOs while

models using integration are mainly financed through the Program Delivery Unit (PDU) or

an investment fund.

6

The great majority of the models target Perimeter 1 or “standard market practice”, though factor 2

(50% savings) models gain in attention, factor 4 (75% savings) remain marginal.

7

The attractiveness of the integrator model is very high (especially if it integrates

financing) but comes along with higher risks for the integrator.

8

The success of the models often seem correlated with the

existence of a well-functioning Program Delivery Unit, and…

A clear leadership role of the public partner (ambition and

willingness to invest)

EPC/ESC implemented models are very fit for perimeter 1

energy efficiency ambition levels (<35% savings), mostly

driven by facilitation models

Factor 2 (50% savings) and factor 4 (75% savings) energy

efficiency ambition levels are very often “integration” driven,

both technically as financially.

High energy efficiency ambition levels (factor 2 and factor 4)

do not focus on short to medium pay-back terms

Conclusions

This project has received funding from the European

Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation

programme under grant agreement No 649730.

Thank You

Miguel A. Casas

Energinvest

[email protected]

Elise Steyaert

Climate Alliance

[email protected]

Investor Confidence Project

Panama Bartholomy, Europe Director

Investor Days 2016

Brussels

February 23, 2016

Why are we here?

Energy Efficiency – the first fuel for the EU Economy

Top Demand and Supply Drivers of Energy Efficiency Investment:

Standardisation

Clear Business Case

Increased Investor Confidence & Change in Risk Perception

Transaction costs / simplicity

Measurement, Reporting & Verification (MRV) and Quality Assurance

Lack of Standardisation = Greater Risk

EEFIG Recommendations February 26, 2015

..EU-wide…common set of procedures

and standards for energy efficiency and

building renovation underwriting.

…standards should be “open source” and

establish a common vocabulary across Europe

ICP Funding

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 649836

The sole responsibility for the content of this presentation lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be

made of the information contained therein.

European Commission

Horizon 2020 Programme

Private Foundations

What Owners and Investors Want

• Clear and transparent renovation project plan based on industry best practices

• Evidence of the qualification of professionals

• Third-party measurement and verification

• Consistent documentation

• A project label that

represents these

components and can

live with the project

Lack of Standardisation = Greater Risk

Investor Confidence Project Protocols Standardising the Energy Renovation

BASELINING

• Existing Building

• Drawings

• Weather File

• Energy Usage

• Energy Rates

• Occupancy

SAVINGS

• Model File

• Calibration Data

• Bid Packages

• Certifications

COMMISSION

• Cx Plan

• Cx Authority

• Test Procedures

• Facilities Req.

OPERATIONS

• BMS Points

• Fault Plan

• Maintenance

Plan

MEASUREME

• M&V Model

• Regression

Model

• Adjustments

• Impact

• Baseline

Adjustments

Cx

Standardising the Energy Renovation for the Financial Sector

Pre-financing

Term Sheet

Loan Signing

and Draw

Inspection Servicing

Protocol Building Types

Large

Standard

Targeted

Whole building retrofit,

dynamic modeling

Whole building retrofit, no

dynamic modeling

Single or limited number

of EE measures

Google: ICP Europe Protocols

Apartment Tertiary

What Owners and Investors Want

• Clear and transparent renovation project plan based on industry best practices

• Evidence of the qualification of professionals

• Third-party measurement and verification

• Consistent documentation

• A project label that

represents these

components and can

live with the project

Investor Ready Energy EfficiencyTM

Third-Party

Verification

Project

Development

IREE™ Workflow - Origination

IREE™ Workflow – Project Development

IREE™ Workflow – Certification

IREE™ Workflow – Investment

IREE™ Workflow – Performance

Pan-European Initiative

Investor Ready Energy Efficiency Project

Best Practices

and Standards

Certified

Professional

Third-Party

Quality Assurance

Consistent

Documentation

ICP Europe Network Members

europe.eeperformance.org/join-icp-

europe

http://europe.eeperformance.org/join-icp-europe.html





ICP Investor Network

Summing Up

Timeline

• February

– All six European Protocols done

• March

– Investor Network

• May

– Project Developer and Quality Assurance Training

• June

– First IREE Projects

Near-Term: Increase Deal-Flow

• Increase Confidence in Savings

• Reduce Transaction Costs

• Streamline Origination Process

• Standardized Performance Data

• Project Finance Underwriting

• Enable Portfolios and Securitization

Long-Term: Market Transformation

Panama Bartholomy

+31 681024282

[email protected]


© Jan W. Bleyl – Energetic Solutions ⏐ For requests: [email protected] ⏐ IEA DSM Task 16 „Energy Services“ ⏐ 24-Feb-16⏐ Slide 1

in co-operation

with:

Energetic Solutions

Jan W. Bleyl Task 16 ”Energy Services” www.ieadsm.org

16

Investor Confidence Day, 23 Feb. 2016, Brussels

From ‚NWh‘ to Cash Flows: 1. Pre-feasibility and

2. Bankable Life Cycle Analyses of Building ‚Deep Retrofit‘ Projects

Jan W. Bleyl, Energetic Solutions & IEA-DSM Task 16


Economic Pre-Feasibility Check: Life-Cycle Cost, -Savings & Opportunity Cost

An Economic Approach to Project Pre-Assessment and Development

Economic Model and Case Study Taking ‚Deep Retrofit‘ as example


Goals and questions to be answered

1.  Awareness raising and visualization for building owners: ð  How much do you currently pay for energy? ð  And how might energy cost develop (scenarios)? ð  What if X% (min. – max.) could be saved? ð  And how much does it cost to wait?

2.  Estimation of life-cycle cost saving potentials ð  What is the net present value of a future savings cash flow? ð  How do NPVs compare to investment needs => (co)-financing?

3.  Easy to communicate with decision makers: No technicalities; figures, little text => Cash flows and KPIs

Ø  Build cash flow scenarios and KPIs with easily accessibly input data to communicate with building owners & decision makers


0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

90.000

2015

20

17

2019

20

21

2023

20

25

2027

20

29

2031

20

33

2035

20

37

Energy costs without measures Energy costs with savings Min. Energy costs with savings Max.

815.670

613.587

0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

900.000

Sc3 accumulated savings Sc7 accumulated savings

NPV of savings [EUR]

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

mea

sure

s

Total OPEX [EUR/a]

815.670

613.587

0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

900.000



Sour

ce: [

Bley

l 201

4]

Economic Pre-feasibility check: Baseline, savings scenario ➯ NPV of Savings-CF

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

90.000

2015

20

17

2019

20

21

2023

20

25

2027

20

29

2031

20

33

2035

20

37

Energy costs without measures Energy costs with savings Min. Energy costs with savings Max.

815.670

613.587

0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

900.000



Impl

emen

tatio

n of

mea

sure

s

Total OPEX [EUR/a]

815.670

613.587

0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

900.000



Sour

ce: [

Bley

l 201

4]

975.000 Invest. Passive house (Max.)

727.000 Invest. Low energy (Min.)

=> OpCo Min.: 0,029 - Max.: 0,038 Mio EUR/a


Summary and discussion

1.  Few data inputs needed for LCC pre-feasibility analyses. Can be estimates, benchmarks or from detailed assessments

2.  Economic parameters are not given but chosen (e.g. project term, price development …)

3.  Which of the questions are answered by the pre-feasibility model? What is still missing in your views?

4.  Financial (vs. technical) approach: Which one first? Suitable to inform and convince building owners?

5.  Opportunitiy cost: It costs to wait! 6.  Modernization/savings is (often) not a stand alone business

case => How to factor in multiple / co-benefits?


Investment-grade Life Cycle Cost & Revenue Analyses

of a Building 'Deep Retrofit' Case


Case study office building: Deep Retrofit to Passive House standard

Key figures: ð  Floor area: 1.680 m2 ð  Energy cost baseline: 39,000 EUR/a => price developm.: 2%/a (1,5%/a) ð  CAPEX (energy retrofit only): 560,000 EUR (330 EUR/m2)


Goals and questions to be answered

Detailed technical, economic and financial analyses of a Deep Retrofit business case: Ø  Economic viability and sensitivity analyses? Ø  Finance: Reporting, financial engineering, & due diligence Ø  How to communicate with decision makers?

Other applications: Ø  Economic and technical project management and risk

asessment over life cycle => e.g. sensitive parameters Ø  ESCos: Proposal calculation Ø  Support policy design, e.g. subsidy or funding demand

calculations (amount and timing)


Baseline-, revenue development of heat energy savings (84 EUR/MWh, 2%/a)

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

remaining costs

revenues Investor/ESCo

revenues customers

baseline

EUR/

a

Sour

ce: [

Bley

l 201

6]

baseline + revenue development heat savings

Totals over project cycle: - baseline: 1,23 Mio EUR

- revenues customers: 0,05 Mio EUR - revenues Investor/ESCo: 1 Mio EUR

- remaining costs: 0,19 Mio EUR


Spec. revenue-, cost structure developm.; MWh heat savings/a; LCoH

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

MW

h/a

EUR/

MW

h

Specific costs + revenue development MWh/year heat savings + LCoH-Savings

Specific revenues Investor/ESCo specific production costs CAPEX specific production costs OPEX heating savings

Sour

ce: [

Bley

l 201

6]

Levelized cost of heat savings (LCoH) incl. subsidies: 69,4 EUR/MWh Levelized cost of heat savings (LCoH) without subsidies: 75,4 EUR/MWh


Cash Flow table

unit cumulative average (mean) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

investment

equity capital EUR 82.165 - 82.165 0 0 0 0 0 0

investment costs EUR 547.765 - 547.765 0 0 0 0 0 0

subsidies/construction cost grants EUR 54.776 - 54.776 0 0 0 0 0 0

loan disbursement EUR 410.824 - 410.824 0 0 0 0 0 0

interest + principal payment (debt capital) EUR 548.621 18.287 10.271 14.679 27.628 27.186 26.744 26.302 25.861

loan repayment EUR 410.824 13.694 0 4.417 17.670 17.670 17.670 17.670 17.670

interest on debt capital EUR 137.797 4.593 10.271 10.261 9.958 9.516 9.074 8.632 8.191

sum of sales revenues from regular operation EUR 1.054.128 35.138 0 14.381 29.338 29.925 30.523 29.658 30.251

electricity savings EUR 57.567 1.919 0 752 1.533 1.564 1.595 1.627 1.660

heating savings EUR 996.561 33.219 0 13.630 27.804 28.360 28.928 28.031 28.592

water savings EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

heat sale EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cooling sales EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

sale of electricity to customers EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

sale of electricity to electric supply companies EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

misc. revenues EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

sum of costs from regular operation EUR 190.211 6.340 15.000 1.800 3.635 3.671 3.708 3.745 3.782

purchasing of final energy EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

internal staff costs EUR 79.856 2.662 15.000 914 1.854 1.882 1.910 1.939 1.968

misc. operating costs (external) EUR 110.355 3.678 0 886 1.781 1.789 1.797 1.806 1.814

misc. costs EUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

project cash-flow (P-CF) EUR 370.929 12.364 -507.988 12.581 25.703 26.253 26.815 25.913 26.469

equity cash-flow (E-CF) EUR 233.132 7.771 -107.435 -2.097 -1.925 -932 71 -389 608

cumulative project cash-flow EUR - - -507.988 -495.407 -469.704 -443.451 -416.635 -390.722 -364.253

cumulative equity cash-flow EUR - - -107.435 -109.533 -111.458 -112.390 -112.318 -112.707 -112.099

Cash Flow Available for Debt Service EUR 863.917 28.797 -15.000 12.581 25.703 26.253 26.815 25.913 26.469

Debt Service Coverage Ratio - - - -1,5 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0


Net Project-, Equity- & Debt- Cash Flows; annual profit (annual, cummulative)

-600.000

-500.000

-400.000

-300.000

-200.000

-100.000

0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 EUR

net cash flows (annual and cumulative) + annual profit

Annual profit (EBT) project cash-flow (P-CF) equity cash-flow (E-CF) debt cash flow cumulative equity cash-flow cumulative project cash-flow cumulative annual profit

�

Sour

ce: [

Bley

l 201

6]

key figures: - IRR: P-CF: 3,7%, E-CF: 5,2%

- NPV: P-CF: 0,06 Mio. EUR, E-CF: 0,02 Mio. EUR - PBT: P-CF: 19,4 years, E-CF: 21,9 years


Summary and key figures

project cash-flow equity cash-flow

years

EUR

EUR - 82.165

EUR - 410.824

% 2,9% (WACC) 4,5% (equity interest rate)

EUR 59.847 17.930

% 3,7% 5,2%

years 19,4 21,9

years 17,1 7,8

- 1,3 -

internal rate of return (IRR)

payback period (static)

Loan Life Cover Ratio

invested debt capital

interest rate for discounting

key figures from cash flow

invested equity

net present value

payback period (dynamic)

project duration 30,0

total investment 562.765


Profit & Loss figure

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

EUR profits and losses

revenues from savings capitalized internally produced assets activated construction grants internal staff costs depreciations interest costs misc. costs

Sour

ce: [

Bley

l 201

6]


Debt Services; Cash Flow Available for Debt Service; Debt Service- & Loan Life Cover Ratios

-2,0

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

-15.000

-5.000

5.000

15.000

25.000

35.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

EUR Debt Services, Cash Flow Available for Debt Service (CFADS) and Debt Service Cover Ratio (DSCR)

principal payments interest payment Cash Flow Available for Debt Service Debt Service Coverage Ratio

Sour

ce: [

Bley

l 201

4]

key figures: - effective interest rate debt capital: 2,53 % - loan sum: 0,41 Mio.EUR - interest sum: 0,14 Mio.EUR - Loan Life Cover Ratio: 1,3 - minimal DSCR: -1,5


Financing: Debt services and remaining obligations

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

350.000

400.000

450.000

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

EUR Debt Services and Remaining Obligations

principal payments interest payment remaining obligations

Sour

ce: [

Bley

l 201

6]

key figures: - effective interest rate debt capital: 2,53 % - loan sum: 0,41 Mio.EUR - interest sum: 0,14 Mio.EUR - maximum debt: 0,4 Mio. EUR - maximum debt in year: 1


Sensitivity analyses project IRR

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130%

inte

rnal

rate

of r

etur

n pr

ojec

t cas

h flo

w

change in comparison to the initial value

sensitivity analysis energy saving projects IRR

investment costs (CAPEX)

subsidies/construction cost grants operating costs (OPEX)

project duration

saving revenues

price increase factor baseline

equity interest rate

WACC

Sour

ce: [

Bley

l 201

6]


Sensitivity analyses project NPV

-200.000

-150.000

-100.000

-50.000

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130%

net p

rese

nt v

alue

equ

ity c

ash

flow

change in comparison to the initial value

sensitivity analysis energy saving projects NPV

investment costs (CAPEX)

subsidies/construction cost grants interest on debt capital

operating costs (OPEX)

project duration

saving revenues

price increase factor baseline

Sour

ce: [

Bley

l 201

6]


Summary and conclusions

Ø  Cost structure: High CAPEX, low OPEX shares Ø  Project-Cash flow: 20+ years payback, IRR: 2-4%,

Equity-Cash flow: 20+ years payback, IRR: 4-6% Ø  Low cost of financing needed: Debt: 2,5%, equity <5% Ø  High sensitivity of CAPEX, project duration, price

development scenario Ø  Cash flow risks are low: Savings cash flows are very

steady Ø  Levelized cost of heat savings (LCoH): 70-75 EUR/MWh Ø  Long-term perspectives needed: 25-30 years

=> dynamic Life Cycles Cost & revenue assessment


Outlook and discussion => Challenges and opportunities

Ø  Is Deep retrofit a stand alone business case? Ø  Or an opportunity to (substantially) co-finance

investments? Ø  How to factor in 'Multiple Benefits'? Ø  How to do 25-30 years contracts (regulatory, business

risk …)? Ø  Investors appetite for Deep retrofit projects?

Ø  ... your questions and remarks?


in co-operation

with:

Energetic Solutions

Jan W. Bleyl Task 16 ”Energy Services” www.ieadsm.org

16

Thank you!

Questions and remarks welcome!

What can we do together?

Get in touch: Jan W. Bleyl, Energetic Solutions & IEA-DSM Task 16

Phone: +43 650 7992820, [email protected]

investor days 2016 - bpiebpie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/investordays2016_panel2_feb23_all.pdficp...

Documents