r2cities: co-financing issues in fp7 smart cities projects · 24/10/2013 3 type of funding scheme:...

R2CITIES: Co-Financing issues in FP7 Smart Cities Projects

Rubén García Pajares R2CITIES Project Co-ordinator

Fundación CARTIF October, 2013

24/10/2013 2

R2CITIES BRIEF OVERVIEW

R2CITIES: “Renovation of Residential urban spaces: Towards nearly zero energy CITIES”

24/10/2013 3

Type of funding scheme: Collaborative Project – Scale of Unit

Topics addressed: EEB.ENERGY.2012.8.8.3: “Demonstration of nearly Zero Energy Building Renovation for cities

and districts”

Technical Coordination Team: Rubén García, Sergio Sanz, Ali Vasallo, Ana Quijano, Ainhoa González


24/10/2013 4

Two parallel expected outcomes: Methodology / Demonstration


VALLADOLID, KARTAL and GENOA demo-sites

24/10/2013 5

[A]. Integrated and Systemic renovation of

Resisdential districts

[B]. Selection of Low Energy Techologies

and Solutions

[C]. Systemic and Integrated Strategy for NZE renovation

of districts

[D]. Execution, supervision of construction works and

monitoring and evaluation

[E]. Exploitation and market deployment

[F]. Awareness, dissemination and

training


PROJECT FIGURES

24/10/2013 6

Start Date: 1st July, 2013

End Date: 30th June, 2017

Coordination: CARTIF

Total Number of Partners: 16

Nationalities: 6

Budget: 14,861,750.85 €

Requested EC Funding: 9,011,330.87 €


EXPECTED SAVINGS

Total building Energy Demand: Expected reduction in Valladolid-Cuatro de Marzo: 61.41%

Expected reduction in Genova-Lavatrici: 51.05%

Expected reduction in Yakacik-Kartal(Istanbul): 63.66%

Average reduction: 60.71%

CO2 EMISSIONS 2,024.53 tons CO2 emissions avoided per year

24/10/2013 7 R2CITIES: “Renovation of Residential urban spaces: Towards nearly zero energy CITIES”

24/10/2013 8

FP7 FINANCING SCHEMES



(*)

(*): Smart Cities & Communities INFO-SESSION (DG ENER Brussels, 26 October 2012)


(*)


24/10/2013 R2CITIES: "Renovation of Residential urban spaces: Towards nearly zero energy CITIES" 11

- CONCERTO Ends

- PPP EeB ongoing projects

- EIP SC first call: end 2013

(*)



CO-FINANCING PROBLEMS: LESSONS LEARNT

CO-FINANCING OWNERSHIP TYPOLOGIES <-> BUSINESS MODELS


Ownership

Private (Family ownership)

Direct Investments from Owners

Public + Private Investments

ESCO Model

Shared Investments (and Risks) Model (ESCO + Private Construction Company)

Private (Company)

Direct Investments from Company


ESCO Model


Public (Social Housing)

Public Investments


CO-FINANCING OWNERSHIP TYPOLOGIES <-> BUSINESS MODELS


Ownership

Private (Family ownership)

Direct Investments from Owners

ESCO Model

Private (Company)

Direct Investments from Company

ESCO Model


Public (Social Housing)

24/10/2013 15

CASE STUDY 1:

Valladolid, Cuatro de Marzo district

Valladolid (SP): Cuatro de Marzo District

Total area: 81,000 m2 (at least 21,000 retrofitted)

Citizens involved: 550

• Estimated Energy saving: 61 %

• CO2 emissions avoided: 635 tons/yr

Energy efficient measures:

• Integrated ventilated façade

• Shading elements

• Solar thermal and PV

• Advanced control systems


CASE 1 (CALL 2012): Public Promoter + Private ownership. Families organized in Homeowners' Association or condominium owners' association


Area of Intervention: 81,000 m2

R2CITIES renovation: 21,000 m2

-Public promotion

-Private Intervention

-Buildings split in Groupal Units

Investment:

-Public + Private investments

-Open to ESCO model

- Open to share benefits from EE measures

- Avoid excessive investments from owners

-SoU covers building related interventions

24/10/2013 17

CASE 1 (CALL 2012): Public Promoter + Private ownership. Families organized in Homeowners' Association or condominium owners' association




-Public promotion

-Private Intervention

-Buildings split in Groupal Units

Investment:

-Public + Private investments

-Open to ESCO model


- Avoid excessive investments from owners

-SoU covers building related interventions

24/10/2013 18

Genoa (IT): Lavatrici District

Total area of District: 64,000 m2

Area of Intervention: 18,000 m2 (160 dwellings)

Social housing district developed during 1980-1990

Citizens involved: 450-500

• Expected Energy saving: ± 50 %

• CO2 emissions avoided: ± 400-450 tons/yr


• Solar energy

• Natural ventilation

• Day natural light

• Insulation facade


CASE STUDY 2:

Genoa, Lavatrici Disctrict

CASE 2 (CALL 2012): 100% public Investment. Public Social Housing owned by Municipality




-Social Housing

-Buildings in poor insulation conditions

-More ambitious interventions than “business

as usual” renovations

Full Public investment model:

- Avoid increase of rents

- Benefits: Tenants

CASE STUDY 3: Kartal-Istanbul, Yakacık District

24/10/2013 20

Kartal-Istanbul (TK): Yakacık District

Total area:18,813 m2 retrofitted

• Citizens involved: 900

• Expected Energy saving: 63 %

CO2 emissions avoided: 991.8 tons/yr


• Insulation improvement

• Efficient equipment-appliances

• Efficient lighting

• Renewable energies


CASE 3 (2013): Public Promoter + Reconversion of use of Elderly House

24/10/2013 21



- Huge Building + 2 additional residential blocks.

- Perfect idea of heterogeneous district

- Elderly building currently not used to be reconverted

for Social Housing.

100% Public investment

- Municipality: LT investment

- Tenants: Appropriate rents, comfort, etc.

- Open to ESCO model



CASE 4 (2013): Shared Risks private intervention + Private ownership (families organized in Homeowners' Association or condominium owners' association)

24/10/2013 22

Shared Risks

- Three pillars of intervention.

- Lack of insulation

- Renovated District Heating

- Smart Grid + CHP plant

- Full Private Shared Risks Model:

- ESCO model

- Construction Company

- LT Contract

- No necessary investments from apartment

owners

- Innovative financial scheme




Shared Risks






- ESCO model


- LT Contract


owners


CASE 5 (2013): Public Investment (Social Housing) + Utility Investment Tenants Rents + New detailed bills + Improve District Heating

24/10/2013 25

Public + Private Cooperation

- Buildings owned by Public Entity (Real Estate)

- Interventions aimed at district and city level:

- Retrofitting

- Smart Grids improvement

- RES contribution to existing DH

Public investment

• Private Investment (Utility)

• Private investments from tenants

• New billing practice

Energy savings Shared


CASE 6 (2012): Public Promoter + Private ownership (Thermal Company) Municipality: New DH from Waste Heat Recovery

24/10/2013 26

Public + Private Cooperation

- Heterogeneous building typologies

- Public investment (DH Waste Heat

Recovery)

- Private investments from Thermal

Company

- Good example of synergies among

public and private partnerships


24/10/2013 27

CONCLUSIONS


CO-FINANCING PROBLEMS – NEW BUSINESS MODELS?

6 different experiences

• Key Factor: Who is the building owner? Who saves € from Savings?

• Private ownership: ESCO model + Construction Company. Shared Risks Model could be the most appropriate. Owners, ESCO and Construction Company shares the risks and benefits.

• Public ownership: Essential that Public Institutions are involved in the project. Open to ESCO Model: Interesting but probably difficult to be applied. ROI? from rents, savings, maintenance cost reduced…

• Reconversion of use from Tertiary building to Residential Important initial public investment. Generate new business. Reduce maintenance.

Cooperation, Replication, Market Deployment


Thanks for your attendance

[email protected] [email protected]

r2cities: co-financing issues in fp7 smart cities projects · 24/10/2013 3 type of funding scheme:...

Documents