TurSEFF I phase Final results
April 2013
Index
1. Performance in facility utilization
2. Performance in energy and CO2eq savings 3. Lessons learnt and reccomendations 4. Transition impacts objectives
2 (1) Performance in facility utilization
Cumulative trend of funds utilization for each bank compared with the original cumulative quarterly targets 300 300
250 250
60 60
52 200 200 200 200 200 Vakifbank 41 40 30 175 26 Isbank Million 15 Garantibank 150 150 150 USD Denizbank 34 60 60 57 Akbank 125 55 11 USD million 100 100 16 100 Cumulative Targets 11 44 40 42 42 75 35 24
28 50 50 1 23 50 11 1 3 30 7 60 60 63 63 02 2 21 40 19 19 36 10 0 0 9 8 12 0 70 0 5 0 Q3 2010 Q4 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Loan and investment break-down by PBs
800,000,000 100% 100%
90% 700,000,000
80% 600,000,000 70%
500,000,000 464,108,197 60%
400,000,000 50%
40% 300,000,000 24% 23% 23% 30% 200,000,000 16% 15% 20% 115,768,266 264,475,285 100,000,000 106,837,516 94,780,320 68,061,878 78,660,218 10%
62,686,072 41,670,090 60,000,582 39,998,203 60,120,339 0 0% AB DB GB IB VB Grand Total
Data Sum of Loan Amount, Data Sum of Investment Amount, [USD] Data Sum of Loan Amount, % [USD] Monthly trends of disbursment of PBs
70,000
60,000
Thousands USD Thousands 50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Jan Jan Jan
Oct Oct Oct
Apr Apr
Sep Feb Sep Feb Sep
July July July
Dec Dec Dec
Aug Aug Aug
Nov Nov Nov
Mar Mar
May May
June June June 2010 2011 2012 2013 AKBANK DENIZBANK GARANTI ISBANK VAKIFBANK Break-down of disbursment by type of loan for each Bank 80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00% Akbank Denizbank Garantibank Isbank Vakifbank Commercial Buildings 8.43% 0.00% 1.89% 0.00% 10.77% Large Scale Industrial 55.92% 59.51% 57.20% 67.22% 56.43% Residential 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Supplier 7.59% 13.85% 6.29% 2.70% 11.95% Small Scale 5.59% 14.83% 6.28% 4.88% 18.43% Vendor 22.47% 11.70% 28.34% 25.20% 2.43% Shares of Renewble Energy disbursments for each bank 60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00% Akbank Denizbank Garantibank Isbank Vakifbank Bank's share of Total RE Investments 36.78% 25.67% 18.96% 12.18% 6.41% RE Share in Bank's lending portfolio 51.13% 53.68% 27.53% 35.88% 9.30% Break-down of disbursment by type of RES technology for each Bank
18,000
16,000
14,000 Thousands USD Thousands 12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
- Biomass Geothermal Heat Pump Hydro Power Plant Solar Wind Power Plant Akbank 10,000,000 5,045,464 16,700,000 348,310 Denizbank 3,275,000 7,000,000 27,745 5,000,000 77,651 7,015,929 Garantibank 7,746,300 5,000,000 1,000,000 2,771,389 Isbank 10,612,500 Vakifbank 95,151 5,294,435 215,957 Break-down of disbursment by type of Energy Efficiency technology for each Bank 14,000
12,000
Thousands USD Thousands 10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
- Process Transform High Cogenerati Compress Fuel Heat Heating Machine Pumps/mo er and Trigenerati FMCS Efficient HVAC Insulation Lighting Windows on ed air switch recovery system Replaceme tors electric on Equipment nt system Akbank 4,030,000 67,811 2,600,000 7,740,719 957,161 8,354,071 3,957,167 272,281 2,112,000 83,274 248,732 169,082 Denizbank 55,267 341,930 248,565 2,626,716 1,771,626 4,039,228 779,243 2,828,349 171,079 560,267 5,591,496 Garantibank 5,141,842 218,879 144,567 232,162 7,290,065 312,110 7,145,833 1,673,519 5,518,595 13,267,27 872,613 1,133,390 532,048 Isbank 11,719,15 7,396,984 4,847,270 613,223 4,554,660 254,416 Vakifbank 3,180,485 192,770 2,118,818 217,915 7,948,289 3,011,084 6,245,921 3,161,386 6,028,869 2,275,879 9,083,616 1,236,370 5,437,063 4,219,334 156,996 Regional distribution of disbursment (2) Performance in energy and CO2eq savings
Overall savings for each bank
180,000 180,000
160,000 160,000
140,000 140,000
120,000 120,000
100,000 100,000 toe/year CO2eq/year 80,000 80,000
60,000 60,000
40,000 40,000
20,000 20,000
0 0 Akbank Denizbank Garantibank Isbank Vakifbank Primary energy saving GHG emission savings Break-down of primary energy savings by type of RES technology
1% 8% 10% 1% Biogas plant 6% 6% Biomass gasification 2% Biomass pyrolisys Geothermal Power Plant Heat Pump 13% Hydro Power Plant Landfill gas plant 1% PV Solar system Wind Power Plant Thermal Solar 52% Break-down of primary energy savings by type of EE technology
4% 0% 1% Cogeneration 4% 18% FMCS Fuel switch Heat recovery 19% 1%0% Heating system High Efficient Equipment 11% HVAC Insulation
5% Lighting 2% Process Machine Replacement 5% Transformer and electric system 3% Trigeneration Windows 27% Break-down of primary energy savings by sector
1% 0% 10% 7% Agriculture 0% Architecture 2% 0% Construction 4% 1% Energy Food and Beverage Insulation Machine building 17% Manufacturing Non-ferrous metal Plastics 1%0% 54% Residential 2% Retail Service Break-down of primary energy savings by region
14% 9%
10% 7% Aegean Black Sea Central Anatolia Eastern Anatolia Marmara 22% Mediterranean South Eastern Anatolia
36% 2% (3) Lessons learnt and reccomendations
Lessons learnt…
• The personal dedication and effort of the PB relationship Manager is crucial for the success of the Facility Strong • The selected key person should mainly focus on selling the TurSEFF product commitment of • Incentive programme for loan officers is a good driver for achieving the PB PBs disbursment target
Marketing • Inside and outside marketing activities of the PBs with the support of the PC are key drivers to outreach all Regions in Turkey activities within PBs • Branch visits and branch workshops are efficient and effective activities
• The Engineering Team need to be involved in discussions and meeting with the PBs, even when it is deemed necessary to explain the reasons for delays and the rejection of projects. Engineers in PB • Furthermore, in cases where the data is not easily shared by the sub- meetings and borrower, the engineering team should be pro-active in setting up dedicated discussions visits, to speed-up the process of data collection, which is the most critical link in the project evaluation chain. ..lessons learnt
• Many sub-borrowers (especially in sectors other than Industry) need strong technical assistance to properly evaluate the offer received by suppliers and Technical Vendors. Assistance • The Technical assistance to the final beneficiaries is a key driver for the success of the facility.
• At the beginning of the project, the Engineering team faced several barriers while handling new projects, because there were no standardised tools. Tool • It is crucial, to successfully and quickly complete the Project evaluation standardisation process, to set-up standardised Check-list, standardised calculation-tools and standardised REUP templates for each technology.
•The evaluation process for critical HPP and Wind project takes longer than for “environmental” and “social” friendly projects, in contrast with the short time Environmental required by PBs, which are willing to disburse the money. assessment for •Strong efforts should be made during the Capacity Building stage of PBs to HPPs and Wind emphasize the importance of supporting HPPs and Wind projects that are really “environmental” and “social” friendly.
Reccomendations
• Designation of a local, higher authority official within the Key contact Project Consultant (Project Director) as the main contact with EBRD with EBRD - the person who oversees the trouble-free running of the programme
Engineering • Increased engagement/involvement of engineers during the marketing, project identification and pipeline and marketing development phases and close interaction between activities engineers and the marketing team.
Technical • Increased involvement of the engineering team directly with sub-borrowers, to identify and assist them in their EE/RE assistance to projects and to explore the further potential for EE in their SBs facilities for potential financing.
• Improved management of LEME/LESI projects, making the LEME-LESI tool more user-friendly and visible than it has been over the management life of TurSEFF I (4) Transition impacts objectives
Transition impact objectives
Transition Impact Monitoring Status objectives Timing
- At least 120 industrial energy efficiency projects financed under the facility 2012 220 - At least 40 simplified energy audits SEAs (commercial buildings) 2012 14 - At least 40 residential sub-loans financed under the facility 2012 onwards >30,000* Expected energy and emissions savings (per USD million project financing): 2012 - 3 GWh equivalent per year 5.8 GWh equiv. per year Demonstration - 0.4 MWe equivalent installed RES capacity 0.41 MWe equiv. installed effects of new - 1,000 tCO2 equivalent per annum 1,390 tCO2 equiv. per year products Targeted energy savings achieved by the portfolio 2012 onwards - 20% energy savings for large scale industrial projects >20% - 30% energy savings for commercial buildings projects >30% - Expansion of EE/RE lending from the PBs own resources (at least the same - Current ratio of 1:1.78 2012 onwards volume as under the facility) calculated as the amount of
Transfer of skills - At least 1000 businesses reached through marketing campaigns 2011 >1000 - At least 150 REUPs prepared 2011 126 - At least 100 companies trained for energy management 2011 >100 - At least 100 loan officers trained (25 in each PB) 2010 >1000 Contact details
Asmadalı Sokak No:27 Koşuyolu / Kadıköy, 34718 Istanbul / TURKEY Tel: +90 216 340 0020 Fax: +90 216 339 2444 www.turseff.org