The tables below, shows the detailed analysis of the financial performance of various Public Private Partnership contracts on the basis of the risk adjusted extra returns for the relevant stakeholders and considering the energy efficiency interventions described in the technical section.
Slovenian Pilot : Detailed Comparision Financial Performance Public Private Partnership (PPP) Contracts
Considering the risk adjusted extra returns, the shared savings PPP contract is the most remunerative PPP contract to fund energy efficiency intervention for all the involved parties (social housing company, ESCO, tenants, private owners, financial institutions and civil society).
Below we present the financial evaluation of all possible PPP contracts: Shared savings, Guaranteed savings, Direct credit line, Energy supply contract.
| PPP | Social housing company (50% owned through Spikter) | ESCO | Tenants | Financial Institution | Civil Society | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Shared Savings |
||||||
|
Cost
|
No cost involved |
Is responsible for covering the investment costs using funding provided by financial institutions (debt financing) or by the government (grants). |
No cost involved |
Offers a loan for funding the energy efficiency project |
20% of the refurbishment cost is covered by Government grants |
|
|
Benefit
|
“If energy savings are higher than the minimum guaranteed savings, the social housing company gets 35% of the extra energy savings (energy savings – minimum guaranteed savings).
If energy savings are lower than the minimum guaranteed savings, the social housing company gets 0 The energy savings are then directly transferred to the tenants but the social housing company benefits from the increased value of the building after the energy efficiency intervention.
“ |
“If the energy savings are higher than the minimum guaranteed savings, the ESCO gets the minimum guaranteed savings + 65% (energy savings – minimum guaranteed savings)
If the energy savings are lower than the minimum guaranteed savings, the ESCO gets all the energy savings
“ |
energy savings |
The financial institution gets the interest rates on loan plus, at maturity, the repayment of the loan itself |
Environmental benefits measured in terms of lower CO2 emissions. |
|
|
Risk adjust extra return
|
Very good |
Excellent |
Good |
Very reasonable, better than investing in S&P500 |
Excellent |
|
|
Rank |
8 |
9 |
7 |
6 |
9 |
| PPP | Social housing company (50% owned through Spikter) | ESCO | Tenants | Financial Institution | Civil Society | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Guaranteed Savings |
||||||
|
Cost
|
Is responsible for covering the investment costs using funding provided by financial institutions (debt financing) or by the government (grants). |
Is responsible for covering the maintenance and operating costs of the energy efficiency technologies. |
No cost involved |
Offers a loan for funding the energy efficiency project |
20% of the refurbishment cost is covered by Government grants |
|
|
Benefit
|
If the energy savings are higher than the minimum guaranteed savings, the social housing company gets the minimum guaranteed savings + 20% (energy savings – minimum guaranteed savings)
If the energy savings lower than the minimum guaranteed savings, the social housing company gets the minimum guaranteed savings
The energy savings are then directly transferred to the tenants but the social housing company benefits from the increased value of the building after the energy efficiency intervention.
|
If the energy savings are higher than the minimum guaranteed savings, the ESCO gets 80% (energy savings – minimum guaranteed savings)
If the energy savings are lower than the minimum guaranteed savings, the ESCO repays the difference between the energy savings and the minimum guaranteed savings. |
energy savings |
The financial institution gets the interest rates on loan plus, at maturity, the repayment of the loan itself |
Environmental benefits measured in terms of lower CO2 emissions. |
|
|
Risk adjust extra return
|
Very good |
Good |
Good |
Very reasonable, better than investing in S&P500 |
Excellent |
|
|
Rank |
8 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
9 |
| PPP | Social housing company (50% owned through Spikter) | ESCO | Tenants | Financial Institution | Civil Society | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Direct Credit Line
|
||||||
|
Cost
|
Is responsible for covering the investment costs using funding provided by financial institutions (debt financing) or by the government (grants). |
Not involved |
No cost involved |
Offers a loan for funding the energy efficiency project |
20% of the refurbishment cost is covered by Government grants |
|
|
Benefit
|
Gets 100% of energy savings.
The energy savings are then directly transferred to the tenants but the social housing company benefits from the increased value of the building after the energy efficiency intervention. |
Not involved |
Energy savings |
The financial institution gets the interest rates on loan plus, at maturity, the repayment of the loan itself |
Environmental benefits measured in terms of lower CO2 emissions. |
|
|
Risk adjust extra return
|
Very good |
Reasonable |
Good |
Very reasonable, better than investing in S&P500 |
Excellent |
|
|
Rank |
8 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
9 |
| PPP | Social housing company (50% owned through Spikter) | ESCO | Tenants | Financial Institution | Civil Society | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Energy Supply Contract |
||||||
|
Cost
|
Is responsible for covering a fraction (somewhere between 10% and 50%) of the investment costs using funding provided by financial institutions (debt financing) or by the government (grants).
The social housing company is also responsible for covering a fraction (somewhere between 10% and 50%) of the maintenance and operating costs of the energy efficiency technologies. |
s responsible for covering a fraction (somewhere between 50% and 90%) of the investment costs using funding provided by financial institutions (debt financing) or by the government (grants).
The ESCO is also responsible for covering a fraction (somewhere between 50% and 90%) of the maintenance and operating costs of the energy efficiency technologies.
|
No cost involved |
Offers a loan for funding the energy efficiency project |
20% of the refurbishment cost is covered by Government grants |
|
|
Benefit
|
Receives a fraction (somewhere between 10% and 50%) of the energy savings.
The energy savings are then directly transferred to the tenants but the social housing company benefits from the increased value of the building after the energy efficiency intervention.
|
Receives a fraction (somewhere between 50% and 90%) of the energy savings. |
Energy savings |
The financial institution gets the interest rates on loan plus, at maturity, the repayment of the loan itself |
Environmental benefits measured in terms of lower CO2 emissions. |
|
|
Risk adjust extra return
|
Very good |
Very reasonable |
Very reasonable |
Good, better than investing in S&P500 |
Excellent |
|
|
Rank |
8 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
9 |
