SAM «Veicināt efektīvu energoresursu izmantošanu, enerģijas patēriņa samazināšanu un pāreju uz AER apstrādes rūpniecības nozarē» , Uzraudzības komitejas sēde

SAM ieviešanas pamatojums Apstrādes rūpniecība ir trešā lielākā enerģijas patērētāja pēc mājsaimniecībām un transporta nozares Ņemot vērā, ka 70% no apstrādes rūpniecības nozares ražotās produkcijas tiek eksportēta, enerģijas cenu svārstības ietekmē Latvijas uzņēmumu konkurētspēju Komersantu pašu spēja finansēt energoefektivitātes paaugstināšanas projektus bez valsts atbalsta ir ierobežota 2

SAM ieviešanas modelis Atbalsta mērķis: Veicināt efektīvu energoresursu izmantošanu, enerģijas patēriņa samazināšanu un pāreju uz AER apstrādes rūpniecības nozarē Kopējais pieejamais finansējums: 38 milj. EUR (KF+ valsts budžets) Atbalsts tiek sniegts ražošanas ēku energoefektivitātes paaugstināšanas pasākumu īstenošanai, kā arī iekārtu nomaiņai uz energoefektīvākām iekārtām Atlases veids: Atklāta projektu iesniegumu atlase Finansējuma saņēmēji: Apstrādes rūpniecības komersanti (NACE 2.red. C sadaļa, izņemot C12 – Tabakas izstrādājumu ražošana) Granta intensitāte: 30% Maksimāli pieļaujamais publiskais finansējums vienam projektam: 600 tūkst. euro (maksimālais kopējais viena projekta apjoms: 2 milj. euro) Nepieciešamības gadījumā ALTUM finansējums – ilgtermiņa aizdevumi (līdz 15 (+5) gadiem) 3

SAM ieviešanas modelis Atbalstāmās darbības: Ēku energoefektivitātes paaugstināšana Energoefektivitātes paaugstināšana esošajās ražošanas tehnoloģiskajās 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 – MWh/ gadā No atjaunojamiem energoresursiem ražotā papildjauda – 5,4 MW Aprēķinātais siltumnīcefekta gāzu samazinājums gadā – t/gadā 4

Paldies! Ekonomikas ministrija Adrese: Brīvības iela 55, Rīga, LV-1519 Tālrunis: Fakss: E-pasts: Mājaslapa: Youtube: Facebook:

Institūciju iebildumiAtbildīgā iestāde European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy « The ex-ante assessment is not sufficiently clear in explaining the demand of the manufacturing sector for the current programming period. According to data provided in chapter 4 (table 4.2), around 152 manufacturing buildings were already renovated in the programming period. From the information included in chapter 3, it cannot be clearly understood if the demand can be considered as being high in the 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 the difference between period of investment return in both cases – with and without the program support. We would like to provide an insight of the actual demand as the actual percentage of beneficiaries granted the support within the Climate Change Financial Instrument (administered by Environmental Protection and Regional Development) totals in around 57% since the first granted support in Additionally the ex-ante assessment report reveals that there are almost 33 thousand industrial buildings in Latvia that require maintenance of energy microclimate (please see p.21), therefore the number of renovated industrial buildings from the Climate Change Financial Instrument is relatively small and shows that the demand of this support is still significantly larger than the support available. To make the necessary clarification, we have added additional information regarding this matter (please see p.64). European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy «It is also recommended to improve the assessment of the financial supply available on the market and its costs. It is said that for companies with good credit-history a bank loan would be 1.%-1.5%+ EURIBOR, which could be considered a low price for financial resources. The reference on the average interest rate of 6% + EURIBOR does not look useful as the data covers years , thus including the years of deep economic crises in Latvia. We consider that only the latest market trends should be analysed. With more updated data, the conclusion could indeed be that there is no market failure from the supply side, and thus no reason to set- up a Financial Instrument. However the justification is not clear, because at the same time it is proposed to provide preferential loans for companies who cannot attract private co-financing.» The reference market rate of 1.0%-1.5%+EURIBOR applies to medium and large enterprises while micro, small and partly medium enterprises are disposed to much higher interest rates of 6%+EURIBOR. Although provided data cover the reference period of , they still demonstrate the latest market trends and provide clear evidence that in the micro and small enterprises’ segment loan interest rates are higher compared to the segment of medium and large enterprises. As explained in the ex-ante assessment report, a Financial Instrument is not needed because 90% of energy consumption is generated by large and medium enterprises which have very good access to financial markets. However, a Financial Instrument is needed for micro and small enterprises in case if their credit worthiness is limited to benefit from the proposed industrial energy efficiency programme. This is not related to energy efficiency of enterprises but rather a credit risk assessment of the overall business performance of an enterprise. This Financial Instrument is outside the scope of financial envelope provided under specific objective No as well as not financed by ESIF. It will provide equal opportunities for manufacturing industry enterprises to benefit from the programme. 6

Institūciju iebildumiAtbildīgā iestāde European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy «In the funding gap calculation provided in chapter 4 (table 4.6) it is not clear how the expert assessment to evaluate the "Private financing" (own resources) has been performed. In particular, energy efficiency investments (financed by the ESIF) should complement other investments by the beneficiary companies, triggering a sensible leverage (334%, according to the study). In table 4.6. it is calculated that to achieve the necessary energy savings in accordance with the national strategy, investments of around EUR 40.5 million are needed and EUR 38.3 million would come from ESI funds. This would mean that the ESIF OP would cover 95% of the financial needs of the investments. However, in section of the study around EUR 70 million are foreseen to be made available form financial market, which is not reflected in 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. It refers to energy efficiency activities not requiring substantial capital investments (usually financed from own funds of manufacturing industry enterprises) and is excluded from calculation of financial leverage. The purpose of this calculation is to demonstrate that with available public funding (ESIF) Latvia will reach the primary energy savings target in the manufacturing industry until In Section calculation of the financial leverage also includes incremental financing related to implementation of the industrial energy efficiency programme: debt financing of micro and small enterprises (limited creditworthiness) and pre-financing of the energy efficiency programme. European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy «It should be also clarified if support is principally intended for large and medium enterprises (verifying the intensity of resources they can attract on their own) or if also micro and small size enterprises are targeted, even if most probably these have difficulties attracting financing (as it appears from the study).» Specific objective No has no target regarding the size of the companies. We aim to support companies with qualitative projects with the highest possibility of reducing energy consumption and saving energy resources, i.e. we are aiming to support projects and companies with the smallest proportion between necessary investment and planned energy savings (please see quality criterion No.1). Within the ex-ante assessment report, we have acknowledged that the beneficiaries might be all-sized manufacturing companies and one of the specific eligibility criteria (please see specific eligibility criterion No.1) requests the beneficiaries to have at least 25% equity capital (proportion against the total eligible costs of the project), therefore ensuring that the beneficiaries qualifying for the support within the specific objective No do not have any obstacles to obtain a loan for co-financing. However, we recognize that SMEs are subject to problems with acquiring financial means from financial institutions and taking that into consideration the Ministry offers to involve support from the already existing loan program “SMEs growth loans”. 7

Institūciju iebildumiAtbildīgā iestāde European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy «In detail, some of the calculations in the ex ante assessment are not fully clear and estimations are not justified; for example: 1)according to the data in table. 4.2, the saving of 1 MWh costs, on average, around 800 EUR (average eligible costs). It is not therefore clear why in a later calculation 1.500EUR/ MWh is used. 2)Table 4.6 does not provide an estimation of private funding available on the market (see above). In table 4.6 it is only included the amount of 3.25 MEUR, corresponding to "energy efficiency investments of the manufacturing industry, for measures independent from the ESI Fund for funded projects" (and not included in the calculation of the leverage effect). This concept is not clear and more detail would be needed. 3)In addition it should be noted that historical investments show that the total eligible costs of an energy efficiency project were around EUR , however the estimated number of 65 supported enterprises gives a calculation of ESI fund support of around EUR , which with co-financing rate of 30% would mean a total cost of a project of around EUR 2 million. This difference should be clearly explained and justified.» 1)Table 4.2 of the ex-ante assessment report includes historical data of the Climate Change Financial Instrument during The funding gap calculation in Table 4.6 includes a maximum estimated value 1,500 EUR/MWh considering the current district heating tariff and maximum planned investment payment period of 20 years (excluding 30% grant effect). According to opinion of SJSC “Development Financial Institution Altum” engineering experts, 1,500 EUR/MWh is more reliable benchmark value. In projects financed by the Climate Change Financial Instrument reported energy savings were in certain cases overestimated. As mentioned in the ex-ante assessment report, it is not excluded that some investment projects will be more energy efficient requiring less investment per saved MWh. 2)Please refer to explanation above. Private funding included in Table 4.6 is outside the calculation of the leverage effect because this funding (own funds of manufacturing industry enterprises used for small scale energy efficiency activities) will not directly contribute to co-finance the proposed industrial energy efficiency programme. Besides, it`s impact of EUR 3.25 million is rather negligible compared to the total calculated leverage. 3)The average value of an investment project depends on the investment amount (EUR 1,500) per saved MWh of energy consumption. As the additional energy efficiency requirements are in place, as well as we have to take into consideration that the technologies and solutions used in energy efficiency measures evolve and are getting more expensive, investment cost EUR 2 million per project is a reasonable investment for medium and large enterprises (considering the fact that energy efficiency of equipment is included in eligible costs). These are also calculations that are used to set the result indicators within the Operational Program “Growth and Employment”, where the number of support enterprises is 65, but taking into consideration that not all companies will apply for maximum available funding, the number of beneficiaries could be higher. 8

Institūciju iebildumiAtbildīgā iestāde Latvijas Lielo pilsētu asociācija Vēršam uzmanību, ka arvien vairāk sīko (mikro), mazo, vidējo vai lielo Latvijas komersantu apstrādes rūpniecības telpas nomā no industriālo parku attīstītājiem, nevis paši iegulda resursus infrastruktūrā. Lai pilnvērtīgi sasniegtu Darbības programmas specifisko atbalsta īstenošanas mērķi – “Veicināt efektīvu energoresursu izmantošanu, enerģijas patēriņa samazināšanu un pāreju uz atjaunojamiem energoresursiem apstrādes rūpniecības nozarē”, lūdzam papildināt apstrādes rūpniecības nozares energoefektivitātes paaugstināšanas finanšu pieejamības ex ante izvērtējuma punktu šādā redakcijā: “ Uz atbalstu var pretendēt komersanti vai industriālo parku attīstītājs (speciālās ekonomiskās zonas vai brīvostas pārvalde, nodibinājums, vai komersants), kas ir iznomājis telpas apstrādes rūpniecības komersantiem, kuru darbības nozare atbilstoši NACE 2. red. klasifikācijai ir “Apstrādes rūpniecība” un, kuri plāno veikt energoefektivitātes paaugstināšanas pasākumus, tostarp, ēku energosertifikāciju un būvdarbus energoefektivitātes paaugstināšanai, jaunu un efektīvu AER izmantojošu siltumenerģijas ražošanas iekārtu iegādei un uzstādīšanai, tehnoloģisko iekārto nomaiņai uz energoefektīvākām iekārtām.” Minētajiem finansējuma saņēmējiem ir iespējams saņemt atbalstu Ekonomikas ministrijas pārziņā esošajā specifiskā atbalsta pasākuma «Atbalsts ieguldījumiem ražošanas telpu un infrastruktūras izveidei vai rekonstrukcijai» ietvaros pasākuma ietvaros atbalsts ir pieejams gan ražošanas telpu rekonstrukcijai, gan izveidei un īstenojot sekojošās darbības finansējuma saņēmējiem ir jānodrošina energoefektivitātes prasības, kas jau ir paredzētas Latvijas būvniecības normatīvos. Paplašinot finansējuma saņēmēju loku rodas vairāki riski: -dubultais finansējums, jo pārklājas attiecināmās izmaksas SAM un ; -nesasniedzamas uzņemtās saistības attiecībā uz iznākuma rādītāju sasniegšanu, kas noteiktas Darbības programmā «Izaugsme un nodarbinātība». Ņemot vērā augstāk minēto, Ekonomikas ministrija šobrīd neredz iespēju finansējuma saņēmēju loka paplašināšanai SAM ietvaros. 9