SAM 4.1.1. «Veicināt efektīvu energoresursuizmantošanu, enerģijas patēriņa samazināšanu unpāreju uz AER apstrādes rūpniecības nozarē»
06.07.2016., Uzraudzības komitejas sēde
SAM 4.1.1. ieviešanaspamatojums
•Apstrādes rūpniecība ir trešā lielākā enerģijaspatērētāja pēc mājsaimniecībām un transporta nozares
•Ņemot vērā, ka 70% no apstrādes rūpniecības nozaresražotās produkcijas tiek eksportēta, enerģijas cenusvārstības ietekmē Latvijas uzņēmumu konkurētspēju
•Komersantu pašu spēja finansēt energoefektivitātespaaugstināšanas projektus bez valsts atbalsta irierobežota
2
SAM 4.1.1. ieviešanas modelis
•Atbalsta mērķis: Veicināt efektīvu energoresursu izmantošanu,enerģijas patēriņa samazināšanu un pāreju uz AER apstrādesrūpniecības nozarē
•Kopējais pieejamais finansējums: 38 milj. EUR (KF+ valstsbudžets)
•Atbalsts tiek sniegts ražošanas ēku energoefektivitātespaaugstināšanas pasākumu īstenošanai, kā arī iekārtu nomaiņaiuz energoefektīvākām iekārtām
•Atlases veids: Atklāta projektu iesniegumu atlase
•Finansējuma saņēmēji: Apstrādes rūpniecības komersanti(NACE 2.red. C sadaļa, izņemot C12 – Tabakas izstrādājumuražošana)
•Granta intensitāte: 30%
•Maksimāli pieļaujamais publiskais finansējums vienamprojektam: 600 tūkst. euro (maksimālais kopējais vienaprojekta apjoms: 2 milj. euro)
•Nepieciešamības gadījumā ALTUM finansējums – ilgtermiņaaizdevumi (līdz 15 (+5) gadiem)
3
SAM 4.1.1. ieviešanas modelis
Atbalstāmās darbības:
•Ēku energoefektivitātes paaugstināšana
•Energoefektivitātes paaugstināšana esošajās ražošanastehnoloģiskajās iekārtās
•Pāreja uz AER
•Energopārvaldības sistēmas ieviešana (attiecināms tikai MVU)
•Tehniskās dokumentācijas sagatavošana
•Vadības un uzraudzības nodrošināšana
Sasniedzamie rādītāji līdz 2023.gada 31.decembrim:
•Atbalstītu saņēmušo komersantu skaits – 65
•Enerģijas ietaupījums atbalsta saņēmušajiem komersantiem – 4395 MWh/ gadā
•No atjaunojamiem energoresursiem ražotā papildjauda – 5,4 MW
•Aprēķinātais siltumnīcefekta gāzu samazinājums gadā – 6 757t/gadā
4
Paldies!
Ekonomikas ministrija
Adrese: Brīvības iela 55, Rīga, LV-1519Tālrunis: +371 6 7013 100Fakss: +371 6 7280 882E-pasts: pasts@em.gov.lv
Twitter: @EM_gov_lv, @siltinam
Institūciju iebildumi
Atbildīgā iestāde
European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and UrbanPolicy
«The ex-ante assessment is not sufficiently clear in explaining the demandof the manufacturing sector for the current programming period.According to data provided in chapter 4 (table 4.2), around 152manufacturing buildings were already renovated in the 2007-2013programming period. From the information included in chapter 3, it cannotbe clearly understood if the demand can be considered as being high in the2007-2013 period (around 90% of project applications were approved).We would therefore recommend to detail the analysis.»
The Ministry would like to clarify that the table No.4.2 is used to show thedifference between period of investment return in both cases – with andwithout the program support. We would like to provide an insight of theactual demand as the actual percentage of beneficiaries granted the supportwithin the Climate Change Financial Instrument (administered byEnvironmental Protection and Regional Development) totals in around57% since the first granted support in 2010. Additionally the ex-anteassessment report reveals that there are almost 33 thousand industrialbuildings in Latvia that require maintenance of energy microclimate(please see p.21), therefore the number of renovated industrial buildingsfrom the Climate Change Financial Instrument is relatively small andshows that the demand of this support is still significantly larger than thesupport available. To make the necessary clarification, we have addedadditional information regarding this matter (please see p.64).
European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and UrbanPolicy
«It is also recommended to improve the assessment of the financial supplyavailable on the market and its costs. It is said that for companies withgood credit-history a bank loan would be 1.%-1.5%+ EURIBOR, whichcould be considered a low price for financial resources. The reference onthe average interest rate of 6% + EURIBOR does not look useful as thedata covers years 2009-2015, thus including the years of deep economiccrises in Latvia. We consider that only the latest market trends should beanalysed. With more updated data, the conclusion could indeed be thatthere is no market failure from the supply side, and thus no reason to set-up a Financial Instrument. However the justification is not clear, becauseat the same time it is proposed to provide preferential loans for companieswho cannot attract private co-financing.»
The reference market rate of 1.0%-1.5%+EURIBOR applies to mediumand large enterprises while micro, small and partly medium enterprises aredisposed to much higher interest rates of 6%+EURIBOR. Althoughprovided data cover the reference period of 2009-2015, they stilldemonstrate the latest market trends and provide clear evidence that in themicro and small enterprises’ segment loan interest rates are highercompared to the segment of medium and large enterprises.
As explained in the ex-ante assessment report, a Financial Instrument isnot needed because 90% of energy consumption is generated by large andmedium enterprises which have very good access to financial markets.However, a Financial Instrument is needed for micro and small enterprisesin case if their credit worthiness is limited to benefit from the proposedindustrial energy efficiency programme. This is not related to energyefficiency of enterprises but rather a credit risk assessment of the overallbusiness performance of an enterprise. This Financial Instrument is outsidethe scope of financial envelope provided under specific objective No.4.1.1.as well as not financed by ESIF. It will provide equal opportunities formanufacturing industry enterprises to benefit from the programme.
6
Institūciju iebildumi
Atbildīgā iestāde
European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and UrbanPolicy
«In the funding gap calculation provided in chapter 4 (table 4.6) it is notclear how the expert assessment to evaluate the "Private financing" (ownresources) has been performed.
In particular, energy efficiency investments (financed by the ESIF) shouldcomplement other investments by the beneficiary companies, triggering asensible leverage (334%, according to the study). In table 4.6. it iscalculated that to achieve the necessary energy savings in accordance withthe national strategy, investments of around EUR 40.5 million are neededand EUR 38.3 million would come from ESI funds. This would mean thatthe ESIF OP would cover 95% of the financial needs of the investments.However, in section 6.2.4. of the study around EUR 70 million areforeseen to be made available form financial market, which is not reflectedin table 4.6., therefore it is necessary to clarify the ex-ante assessment.»
The private financing is explained in the footnote below Table 4.6. Itrefers to energy efficiency activities not requiring substantial capitalinvestments (usually financed from own funds of manufacturing industryenterprises) and is excluded from calculation of financial leverage.
The purpose of this calculation is to demonstrate that with available publicfunding (ESIF) Latvia will reach the primary energy savings target in themanufacturing industry until 2020.
In Section 6.2.4 calculation of the financial leverage also includesincremental financing related to implementation of the industrial energyefficiency programme: debt financing of micro and small enterprises(limited creditworthiness) and pre-financing of the energy efficiencyprogramme.
European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and UrbanPolicy
«It should be also clarified if support is principally intended for large andmedium enterprises (verifying the intensity of resources they can attract ontheir own) or if also micro and small size enterprises are targeted, even ifmost probably these have difficulties attracting financing (as it appearsfrom the study).»
Specific objective No.4.1.1 has no target regarding the size of thecompanies. We aim to support companies with qualitative projects withthe highest possibility of reducing energy consumption and saving energyresources, i.e. we are aiming to support projects and companies with thesmallest proportion between necessary investment and planned energysavings (please see quality criterion No.1). Within the ex-ante assessmentreport, we have acknowledged that the beneficiaries might be all-sizedmanufacturing companies and one of the specific eligibility criteria (pleasesee specific eligibility criterion No.1) requests the beneficiaries to have atleast 25% equity capital (proportion against the total eligible costs of theproject), therefore ensuring that the beneficiaries qualifying for the supportwithin the specific objective No.4.1.1 do not have any obstacles to obtain aloan for co-financing.
However, we recognize that SMEs are subject to problems with acquiringfinancial means from financial institutions and taking that intoconsideration the Ministry offers to involve support from the alreadyexisting loan program “SMEs growth loans”.
7
Institūciju iebildumi
Atbildīgā iestāde
European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and UrbanPolicy
«In detail, some of the calculations in the ex ante assessment are not fullyclear and estimations are not justified; for example:
1)according to the data in table. 4.2, the saving of 1 MWh costs, onaverage, around 800 EUR (average eligible costs). It is not thereforeclear why in a later calculation 1.500EUR/ MWh is used.
2)Table 4.6 does not provide an estimation of private funding availableon the market (see above). In table 4.6 it is only included the amount of3.25 MEUR, corresponding to "energy efficiency investments of themanufacturing industry, for measures independent from the ESI Fundfor funded projects" (and not included in the calculation of the leverageeffect). This concept is not clear and more detail would be needed.
3)In addition it should be noted that historical investments show that thetotal eligible costs of an energy efficiency project were around EUR407.000, however the estimated number of 65 supported enterprisesgives a calculation of ESI fund support of around EUR 590.000, whichwith co-financing rate of 30% would mean a total cost of a project ofaround EUR 2 million. This difference should be clearly explained andjustified.»
1)Table 4.2 of the ex-ante assessment report includes historical data ofthe Climate Change Financial Instrument during 2010-2014. Thefunding gap calculation in Table 4.6 includes a maximum estimatedvalue 1,500 EUR/MWh considering the current district heating tariffand maximum planned investment payment period of 20 years(excluding 30% grant effect). According to opinion of SJSC“Development Financial Institution Altum” engineering experts, 1,500EUR/MWh is more reliable benchmark value. In projects financed bythe Climate Change Financial Instrument reported energy savingswere in certain cases overestimated. As mentioned in the ex-anteassessment report, it is not excluded that some investment projects willbe more energy efficient requiring less investment per saved MWh.
2)Please refer to explanation above. Private funding included in Table4.6 is outside the calculation of the leverage effect because thisfunding (own funds of manufacturing industry enterprises used forsmall scale energy efficiency activities) will not directly contribute toco-finance the proposed industrial energy efficiency programme.Besides, it`s impact of EUR 3.25 million is rather negligible comparedto the total calculated leverage.
3)The average value of an investment project depends on the investmentamount (EUR 1,500) per saved MWh of energy consumption. As theadditional energy efficiency requirements are in place, as well as wehave to take into consideration that the technologies and solutions usedin energy efficiency measures evolve and are getting more expensive,investment cost EUR 2 million per project is a reasonable investmentfor medium and large enterprises (considering the fact that energyefficiency of equipment is included in eligible costs). These are alsocalculations that are used to set the result indicators within theOperational Program “Growth and Employment”, where the numberof support enterprises is 65, but taking into consideration that not allcompanies will apply for maximum available funding, the number ofbeneficiaries could be higher.
8
Institūciju iebildumi
Atbildīgā iestāde
Latvijas Lielo pilsētu asociācija
Vēršam uzmanību, ka arvien vairāk sīko (mikro), mazo, vidējo vai lieloLatvijas komersantu apstrādes rūpniecības telpas nomā no industriāloparku attīstītājiem, nevis paši iegulda resursus infrastruktūrā. Laipilnvērtīgi sasniegtu Darbības programmas specifisko atbalsta īstenošanasmērķi – “Veicināt efektīvu energoresursu izmantošanu, enerģijas patēriņasamazināšanu un pāreju uz atjaunojamiem energoresursiem apstrādesrūpniecības nozarē”, lūdzam papildināt apstrādes rūpniecības nozaresenergoefektivitātes paaugstināšanas finanšu pieejamības ex anteizvērtējuma 6.2.1. punktu šādā redakcijā:
“6.2.1. Uz atbalstu var pretendēt komersanti vai industriālo parkuattīstītājs (speciālās ekonomiskās zonas vai brīvostas pārvalde,nodibinājums, vai komersants), kas ir iznomājis telpas apstrādesrūpniecības komersantiem, kuru darbības nozare atbilstoši NACE 2. red.klasifikācijai ir “Apstrādes rūpniecība” un, kuri plāno veiktenergoefektivitātes paaugstināšanas pasākumus, tostarp, ēkuenergosertifikāciju un būvdarbus energoefektivitātes paaugstināšanai,jaunu un efektīvu AER izmantojošu siltumenerģijas ražošanas iekārtuiegādei un uzstādīšanai, tehnoloģisko iekārto nomaiņai uzenergoefektīvākām iekārtām.”
Minētajiem finansējuma saņēmējiem ir iespējams saņemt atbalstuEkonomikas ministrijas pārziņā esošajā specifiskā atbalsta3.1.1.5.pasākuma «Atbalsts ieguldījumiem ražošanas telpu uninfrastruktūras izveidei vai rekonstrukcijai» ietvaros. 3.1.1.5. pasākumaietvaros atbalsts ir pieejams gan ražošanas telpu rekonstrukcijai, ganizveidei un īstenojot sekojošās darbības finansējuma saņēmējiem irjānodrošina energoefektivitātes prasības, kas jau ir paredzētas Latvijasbūvniecības normatīvos.
Paplašinot finansējuma saņēmēju loku rodas vairāki riski:
-dubultais finansējums, jo pārklājas attiecināmās izmaksas SAM 4.1.1.un 3.1.1.5.;
-nesasniedzamas uzņemtās saistības attiecībā uz iznākuma rādītājusasniegšanu, kas noteiktas Darbības programmā «Izaugsme unnodarbinātība».
Ņemot vērā augstāk minēto, Ekonomikas ministrija šobrīd neredz iespējufinansējuma saņēmēju loka paplašināšanai SAM 4.1.1. ietvaros.
9