the company's mission. One is a faculty member. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the second webinar on the EU Innovation Fund. It's a training hosted by Innova and delivered to you by Implement Consulting Group. My name is Marianne, and I'll be your host for today's webinar. I've worked with the Innovation Fund calls for the last two years, supporting various companies in carbon capture and in Power2x and various other industries. With me today, I have four other subject matter experts that will be deep diving further into some of the key criteria that we will look at today. First, we have Sarah. She is an expert on everything to do with public funding. She has extensive experience supporting companies across various industries, both in small scale and large scale sizes. Secondly, we have Valentin, who has multiple years of experience in strategy and project development, and especially working on large renewable energy projects. Then we have Frederick, who has done multiple calculations for GHG emissions, avoidance for numerous projects and applicants for the last couple of EU IF calls. And finally, we have Goldberg, who is an expert in financial modeling, and she's worked on multiple financial maturity and cost efficiency topics for various companies. We have a very good group of knowledgeable and experienced subject matter experts, and I really look forward to sharing some of the key insights that they have prepared with you all today. To ensure that we have a session that runs very smoothly, we have prepared four engagement guidelines. Number one, we encourage active participation throughout questions as well as polls. We have many of these prepared throughout the presentation, so we really encourage you to engage and proactively throughout the webinar. Secondly, use the questions tool continuously. If you want to remain anonymous, please do the Q&A function rather than the chat. But feel free to ask questions continuously as we'll have time in between the sessions where we will pick up some of the questions and facilitate a Q&A together. Third, stay focused and relate to the project. However, we won't be taking any project specific questions, specific questions. So feel free to save that for the one on ones for the info days. And finally, if you have any feedback, feel free to reach out to Innova, and we will make sure to take that in for the next couple of webinars we have. You may have remembered this from the previous webinar that we had, we are already on our way to submitting the EU IF mountain. Let's use this webinar as a step closer to get you all up to speed in order to get the fundamentals of your innovation fund. So here is a brief timeline. We saw that the call opened last week on December 3rd. We are in December 11th. And from now on, the call has been opened and you should be up to speed with getting started with developing your applications. This webinar serves as one of the support pieces. And we have two more coming up in January on the 17th and the 22nd. These two webinars will focus more on financial maturity as well as the hydrogen auction will also have representatives both from Cineia and DG Klima in this webinar. So it's very much worth attending to hear and directly from the EU team. And finally, we know the dates of submission now the deadline. So the hydrogen auction is the 20th of February and 24th of April for the Innovation Fund general calls. As a quick reminder to all of you regarding Innova support to applicants, there are three key services that are offered. So first of all is the project establishment grant. And it is up to 500 Norwegian Kroner for each project. This can cover consultancy hours and other hours to be able to assess the and to provide support for the project and in developing it further. Secondly, the innovation fund academy. So this being the second one out of the four. This will run until January and we will deep dive further into some of the key topics where many applicants have struggled with in the past. And finally, assessment from external consultants. So we have a partnership together with Innova from implement where we provide one on one assessments for projects and for that would want to see the readiness as well as the fit for the applicants. So if that's something of interest, this is highly recommended to take advantage of the Innova services here. Now let's move on to the purpose of today. First of all, it is to understand the Innovation Fund call structure and updates. There's a few minor tweaks and changes that we see this year compared to last year. So let's cover that all together. Secondly, it's to provide an understanding of each of the criteria and its requirements. And then finally sharing insights and best practices on how to build a strong application. So this is the applicant. This is today's agenda will first go into the introduction of the Innovation 24 call. Then we'll look into finding the sweet spot between innovation and maturity. We'll take a five minute break and then move on to the next three criteria, which is the greenhouse gas emissions avoidance, cost efficiency and replicability. And just as a quick reminder, although on the Innova website, it might have said 10 to 12, the website will be able to be able to get a quick reminder. So this webinar is running from 10 to 1230. If you do need to run, no worries. We will also be sharing the recording of this webinar for those who might have to miss the last 30 minutes, but hope you can all stay for the full two and a half hours together. Perfect. So I'll take you through some of the key changes and the structure and requirements of this year's 2024 Innovation Fund call. So these are some of the key figures to get us started. 14%, 38%, and 2.5, 2.4 billion. The first number is the success rate on large scale window in the previous call. This seems like quite a low number. It's definitely higher than some of the calls that we've seen in the past. But this is, and bear in mind that this is for the large scale decarbonization window. Let's see if this is going to be a bit more of a competitive number or a lower number in this year's call. Secondly, 38% on average is the number of projects that fail on the maturity criteria. Year in year, we always see that maturity is one of the key criteria that a lot of applicants struggle with. So we'll definitely spend a bit more time in this webinar as well as in January to dive a bit further into this one. And finally, the 2.5 billion euros is this year's budget for the general decarbonization window. And I think many of us here today are probably focusing on the general decarbonization. So this is an interesting number to look into. Previously, we saw that the budget for this was a bit higher, and it's a bit lower this year. But technically, the overall budget for the IF fund has increased. And we'll deep dive into that soon. So let's start off with this big ambition. The EU has set out this goal to be the first climate neutral continent in the world. The EU Green Deal comprises a package of policy policy initiatives to set the EU on a path to the green transition, aiming to be climate neutral by 2050. And one of the key levers in achieving this goal is public funding schemes. We see that the EU Innovation Fund is one of the largest mechanisms that's support innovative technologies. And this year, we see that it's structured into five different topics with 2.4 billion euros, with a 40% flexibility cost compared to last year, which was 20%. This is a division of the allocation of funds, and depending on what window you're looking into. So first of all, we have 50% of that 2.4 billion allocated to large scale projects, and then roughly 30% allocated to clean tech manufacturing. So the requirements for each of them vary bit by bit. So for example, for the large scale, you'll need to have at least 100 million in CAPEX. And for the other ones, at least 2.5 million, or between 2.5 and 20, and 20 to 100 million. The specifics are in the call documents. So I'll refer you there directly. So taking a look at how the budget has evolved over time. In this year's call, we see that there is a dedicated 1 billion euro pool for battery cell manufacturing, and then 1 .2 for the hydrogen auction. So these are separated out from that general pool of money that we see. This leaves us with a 2.5 billion euro for the general decarbonization window. And the flexibility this year is at 40% whereas previously we've seen 20%. So we can still see a bit more wiggle room, and potentially in the future, and once all the applications are submitted, and in the EU may decide to increase that number a little bit, depending on the pool of applicants and they receive. And although the budget for the general window seems like it's decreased significantly, the overall total funding has increased, as you can see, that we see roughly 5.5 billion dedicated for this year's fund. So you're now at a point to engage with the fund. So we saw that the call was published last week on December 3rd. Maybe you've already made a decision to start applying beforehand and getting started early, even prior to the 3rd of December. Then we are here today on December 11th. And then after that, there's around 134 days, if I'm not mistaken, until we reach 24th of April, which is the deadline for the call. And then we have award announcements, which is likely going to be at the end of 2025, roughly September or October, as per the call document. And then finally, the grant agreement signature and the PDA is going to be happening sometime quarter one in 2026. So it's a crucial point in making that decision internally as a team of whether or not to start gathering those resources and time in order to apply for this fund. So when you decide to apply, let's review the five evaluation criteria for the innovation fund. It is as follows. First of all, the degree of innovation, maturity, greenhouse gas emissions avoidance, we have cost efficiency, and replicability. From previous years, we see that the evaluation criteria are exactly the same. And there's a few minor tweaks, especially on the replicability perspective. However, the general categories remain quite similar. This is an overview of an assessment of the criteria against the key deliverables. We see that part B is reduced from 80 pages to 70 pages from last year. And however, they've taken out some of the key questions there, condensed it, but the rest of the deliverables remained largely the same. As you can see here, just around the waiting, it's for the general window, at least it's, it's pretty much the same. The same with the 20% for most of them, 16% for greenhouse gas emissions, and then 4% for the bonus on the greenhouse gas. I'll just go through this very quickly. So here, this is an overview of the score sheet. And some of the criteria still have that minimum threshold. So for example, on the maturity criteria, you still need to score at least three in order to be able to assess, be assessed for the next, and next criteria. In the replicability, for example, we have seen it being condensed from five different sub criteria into three, so that it really focuses on those around efficiency gains, further deployment, and then especially around positioning Europe to be an industrial leader in the world. In total, this amounts to 76 points. So not so much different than what we have previously. If we look at how the evaluation criteria comes into play when we see that it is being evaluated on projects. First of all, we have the eligibility and admissibility criteria. So as a cascading approach, the first criteria needs to be met in order to be able to go to the next stage of the evaluation. The first stage here, even before going into the criteria, is whether you are eligible as a project, and the documents you have are complete and admissible. So once you pass that, then the evaluators will look into the degree of innovation. Once you pass that, and have a at least a nine out of 15 minimum score to pass the threshold, then you'll be looked into the greenhouse gas emissions avoidance, as well as project maturity. Here again, there are several thresholds that you need to meet in order to be passed and assessed onto the next criteria. We have cost efficiency, and then the last one, is around replicability and bonus points. So the key thing here to remember is that the threshold is a very important factor in assessing whether or not your project will make it to the next criteria of assessment or not. So it's really important that the criteria you do aim for your best in obtaining a really high score. Then we have from the EU, there are a number of documents as well as help along the way to make that journey a little bit easier and more supportive. First of all, it's to understand the call. There is a call for proposal, the relevant cost methodology, as well as the GHG methodology. These are basically your Bibles to be using during the Innovation Fund journey. And it has all of the key mechanisms as well as methodologies, and guidance available for you to make the deliverables possible. Secondly, there is also a toolbox. There are multiple templates provided by the EU, especially on the Part B, the relevant cost calculator, the greenhouse gas emissions calculator, etc. So a lot of these are mandatory documents that you'll need to do without any deviance. And this year, we see that the business plan and the feasibility study also has a template available for the EU. So we also have the model grant agreement to help understand what the contractual conditions linked to the grant are. And then finally, some additional support from the EU. So for example, info days with your national contact point through Innova, as well as the help desk where you can ask away questions and close, not too close to the deadline, but in ample time before that. And they're relatively, easy to get into a hold of and easy to get into a hold of and ask any questions that you might need in terms of clarification. This is an overview of the several template documents to be used for the final deliverable. So these are all documents provided directly from the EU. However, do remember that there are further deliverables such as a detailed financial model, participant information, Gant, etc. that needs to be developed and handed in as a whole package. in addition to some of the templates here. Perfect. So that wraps up the general and decarbonization window. And we see that this year, there is 1 billion euros in funding allocated to the new battery call. So let's take a closer look at what that really entails. So the key objective here is to support projects with in electric vehicle battery cell manufacturing to enhance the EU's industrial capacity and leadership. It's also to ensure that Europe is ready to respond to the demand that we'll see with products and in the for demand for electrical vehicles. And then finally, also to ensure that it is in line with the CO2 emissions performance standards. And so ensuring that the manufacturing footprint is lower, and that it performs well on an environmental aspect. So we have the key activities that can be funded. So number one, electrical vehicle batteries define and secondly, horizontally integrated projects. And secondly, horizontally integrated projects. So these are the firstly the definition of what can be funded for an electrical vehicle battery. And these are following the different vehicle categories outlined in the battery regulation. So I would highly encourage you to go directly into that regulation to see whether or not it qualifies. And then secondly, the option for horizontally integrated projects. So various cathode anode materials, separator, electrolyte and freight, indexes,powete as well as battery recycled materials. And second in także the same stack is used for the purposes of using the upstream recycling kit and tous it can cover all the way. will be out of scope so it must be, it can't go beyond the 100%. And also with any patents that are originating from this project that needs to be patented in the EU as a EU member state or EEA country. And the project key requirements are quite similar to what we've seen before. So it's at least 2.5 million in CAPEX. The financial close is within a maximum of four years after grant signature. And then operating for at least three years as a minimum reporting period for the greenhouse gas emissions reporting. So this is a high level understanding of what the IF24 battery call entails. And let's take a closer look at the evaluation criteria. It's quite different from what we see in the general D-CARB. And so there is much more of an emphasis on the maturity. As we see, almost a third of the criteria is dedicated to maturity. As well, there is a big focus on sustainability and replicability. We also see that there's two additional criteria. So one on the manufacturing carbon footprint, and then secondly on the security and encountering dependency from outside of the EU. So if we look at this a little bit further, the degree of innovation, it is 10 points. And with a threshold of six, we see that innovation can come in two main forms, the final product performance. So it's looking at energy density, storage performance, fast charge and mechanisms, and reduced use of raw materials and more. Secondly, it can come in the form of manufacturing processes. So can you make the techniques a little bit more efficient? Is there an application of innovative digital technology and perhaps integration of recycled materials in that manufacturing process? So the EU will be scrutinizing the project based on some of these key factors under innovation. For the greenhouse gas emissions avoidance, the scoring stays relatively the same for what we've seen previously. And on this new criteria around manufacturing carbon footprint, the greenhouse gas emissions, the greenhouse gas emissions, and the GHG emissions of the greenhouse gas emissions of the greenhouse gas emissions. And the GHG emissions of the reference scenario. We'll take a deeper look into this when we go to the GHG section later. We then have maturity. This is the same different three types of criteria underneath it, but it has a much greater weighting. So it is weighed double than what we see before. And replicability here. And replicability here is the same as what we've seen. And security of supply and countering dependency is basically looking at the degree of diversification of the supply of the anode and cathode materials from China. So it's directly saying that the materials that are projects that source less from China and are a bit more diversified, they will score a higher amount. This is the criteria specifically for the just around how best to score the points is to diversify as much as possible and source outside of that region. And finally cost efficiency, here we see that it's only six points. It's much smaller than what we've had previously. So it's definitely less of a focus, but not to mention that it's still a very important one. And in total there is a maximum of 108 points. So the scoring definitely looks a little bit different. And in total there is a maximum of 108 points. And we will probably need to upscale some of the teams within your projects to make sure some of the key criteria are covered, especially the new ones. So that wraps it up for the EU Innovation Fund call for 2024. And we saw various changes in the call, the budget, as well as minor changes in the criteria, and then explored the battery call that is very, very new this year. So let's move on to the next session here, which is around finding the sweet spot between innovation and maturity. For this section, Sarah, my colleague, will take us through the innovation parts, as well as the technical and operational maturity criteria. Good morning, everyone. So now we're going to go into the first deep dive in some of the evaluation criteria for the EU Innovation Fund general call. So we will not be looking into so much the specificities of the battery call, but where relevant will provide some perspectives for this. And the first thing, when you look at the scorecard that Mayan presented, is that you see this contrast, or at least the balance that the EU thrives to make between innovation. So it's in the name of the fund, we're looking at innovative projects, but we're also looking at mature projects. And as we have said in the previous session, we've had together, maturity has actually turned out to be the criteria where most projects have failed in the past. So it's all about finding that sweet spot. To do so, I'm going to first run you through what the degree of innovation is, and then we'll look into the maturity where I'll present you the technical and operational perspectives before my colleague Valentin will really drill down into what we mean with financial maturity. On the degree of innovation, what is important to note, and I think the EU has made this very clear, is they are really interested to support innovation that will support decarbonisation of the continent. We are to be the first climate neutral continent after all. The way they define innovation is a bit different depending on the call you are looking into. So when you look at the eligible activities in each of the call you may be applying, there are some nuances. The first, when you apply either in the small, medium or large scale, what you see in the description provided by the EU is that they are looking at projects that will be advancing low carbon technologies and processes in the sectors that are covered in the ETS annexes. They're also looking at advancing renewable energy and energy storage technologies, as well as advancing carbon capture and storage projects. So the focus on innovation that they try to fund really much looks at technology technologies and processes. For the clean tech. So clean tech manufacturing here, the scope of innovation is defined slightly differently where they're looking at projects that will be either producing innovative products and or deploying innovative production processes. So we're looking here at the output. Are you producing innovative type of better technology technology or electrolyzer technology or are you deploying some new production processes that can cut costs or provide other performance benefits on those net zero technologies defined by the EU? Next, if you apply in the pilot window, here we are looking at the crème de la crème of innovation. So disruptive or breakthrough technologies with a very technology centered definition of innovation. And lastly, if you apply in the battery call, the EU had first expressed that those projects would need to be less focused on innovation. They have, however, made it a criterion in the battery call, looking at innovation in the final product performance, looking at innovation in battery manufacturing processes, as well as defining innovation as scaling up innovative technologies. So that's the key to the deployment of batteries in EV applications. So that's the key to the production steps specifically. And what is not mentioned fully in the call, but detailed in the annex is that your project can also be deemed innovative by having business model innovations. That being said, if you only have business model innovation, your project may likely not be strong enough to apply for the innovation fund. So that is the key takeaway number one on the innovation. The second thing is, the definition is different in the course, but the role it plays in the evaluation will also depend on the topic you apply. So if we look at the scorecard, total amount of points allocated per window, as well as the points given on innovation, what we see is if you apply in pilot or clean tech, the degree of innovation will count for about a third of the evaluation. While if you apply in pilot, while if you apply in pilot, while if you apply in the general, this is about 20%, so very much balanced with the other evaluation criteria. But if you apply in the battery call, innovation only matters for 9% of the points. So you will likely not win in the battery call by being the most innovative project. So yeah, the degree of innovation, it looks differently depending on the call you apply. What is important to know. What is important to note is there is a minimum threshold that we look into. What is also important to note is that there is a balance to find with maturity. And often what we see is that there is something about bringing together technologies that are relatively close to market. So we're not looking at very early stages innovation. I'll also get back on that. And the innovation characteristics of the project will need to be balanced with the maturity. When you apply, so innovation will count for between 9 to 30 plus percent of your evaluation. What you concretely need to deliver to the EU on innovation is really much located in part B, the first section, where you will need to describe the state of the art and how your innovation is going to be. So the conclusion goes beyond state of the art. So the concrete deliverable you have to do is located in the 70 pages part B application, but it will build on top of KPIs, indicators, analysis that you will bring in some of the other documentation like the feasibility study, the business plan and any other documents that you bring into the picture as technology due diligence and so on. So the task is pretty clear from the EU. You need to define the state of the art that is really the foundation on how you build your argumentation for your innovation. There is several ways to understand the state of the art and you need to approach it across all of those dimensions. The first thing is that you will ask you to consider what is the commercial state of the art. That is what is the commercial available solution on the market that is closest to the proposed innovation. The second thing is it will ask you to consider the technological state of the art. That is what is the technologies that are currently at the highest TRL level without being on the market that your project should compare to. The EU has also invested now in a number of projects. So it also wants to understand how you push the boundary of innovation and how your project is distinct from previously selected innovation fund projects. And lastly, it also adds a geographical dimension, asking you to compare your innovation and send the benchmark for what is currently going on in Europe. That is, if you are deploying a technology that is mature in outside of Europe, which is technically outside of the scope of your state of the art analysis. If you apply in the small scale call, you have the option to define the state of the art at a national level, which can be an advantage for some projects. Then once the state of the art is defined across the different dimensions, you need to explain the EU how your project is innovation. The way to do it, they define it in the annex to the call is really to show how your project is different from what is currently offered on the market, how your project brings a new technology product or process that is currently not offered in the EU market, that the expected outcomes of the projects goes well beyond what currently exists, and that you will be contributing to the EU. So advancing the technology readiness level, that is also key. That is also key. We'll get back to that in a minute. And lastly, they say, optimally, you would also bring a technology that outperforms competing innovations. So there is very much several ways to first present the state of the art, but also position your innovation. One of the key words that is in the call, and also in this very specific topic, is the key word of innovation. very simple definition of innovation is that the EU looks at this notion of advancement in technology, commercial and system readiness level. So what we want to see is understand the starting point. But we also want to see how you bring technologies, processes and so on to new readiness levels from a technological perspective, from a business perspective, but also from a system readiness. That is if you combine. That is if you combine mature technologies that have potentially high TRL together, you can still apply to the innovation fund as long as you show that you are increasing the system readiness level. The advancement will be different depending on the type of window you apply to. I'll get back on that. And also your score will depend on the level of advancement that your project will bring. And if you have any questions on anything that is presented, please feel free to use the Q&A function and at the end of the section, I'll address some of the questions with my end. The one thing to note on. So now you know what is to be done. The question is, how is this evaluated? So the EU has made it clear that it does not intend to fund what it calls incremental innovation. That is projects that is projects that would bring only minor improvements and that will not contribute to create significant new knowledge. So if you were to apply with a project that is deemed incremental, you will receive a scoring below threshold and be taken out of the race, no matter how good your project would be on other criteria. Then you can receive a score, a passing score and more typically around. 12, 12, 13 points. If your project is deemed to be intermediate to strong innovation. And that is defined as projects that have new or considerably new technologies and processes, novel combination of mature technologies that you're scaling up, innovative technologies, or that you are doing second or more of a kind commercialization projects. Then, and that is particularly relevant when you are applying for instance, in the pilot window, less so if you apply in the battery. The EU defines very strong to breakthrough innovations and that includes new technologies and processes that are completely new and have the potential to transform entire markets and industries. Those are projects where we will see the strongest increase in the TRL. And this is also what we will see in the TRL. And this is also what would qualify as a first of a kind innovation. So as you will see, there is something about what type of project or innovation are we talking about, but also how big of an advancement in the TRL or system readiness level that the project contributes to. Often projects are a bit scared of the innovation criteria. If we look at the data provided previously, the EU, there is actually relatively few projects that fail on innovation. So of about the 50% of applicants that fail on meeting one of the minimum threshold, only 13 fail on the degree of innovation. For perspective, 50% of those 50% fail on financial maturity alone. And that's why we will put so much emphasis today on what do we understand as financial as financial maturity. But to wrap up first on the degree of innovation. One of the key takeaway is that the more you wait to apply, the higher the benchmark because the number of innovation fund projects, innovation fund funded projects increases. So they set the benchmark on innovation. No matter if the project has yet reached operation, you need to benchmark your project to what has been selected. The second thing is, yes, there is a strong focus on the technology and the TRL. But do not forget to argue on system readiness level advancement and commercial readiness advancement. We see that the evaluators look very positively when projects also bring business model innovation. And lastly, we are not looking at making bold claims in the degree of innovation, we are looking at doing a benchmark, doing a benchmark that is fact based and where all of your assumptions are as substantiated as possible. This is really the gold standard on innovation. Once you have defined your innovation, we'll need to put this in perspective with maturity. And now I'm going to explain a bit on how does the EU approach operational and the technical. So as a first maturity is understood on three dimensions. So technical, that is, how feasible it is, how feasible it is that the project will achieve the project outputs. So how feasible it is that the project will produce this volume of hydrogen, ESAF, store this amount of carbon, and so on. It will look at the operational maturity of the project. That is, how credible is your plan to reach those milestones, financial close and entry into operation. And lastly, on the financial maturity, it's really much about your ability to reach the financial close as soon as possible. So maturity also has a dimension that you should be relatively close to market, as well as the credibility of your contractual agreements. So there is a balance between the advancement in your project compared to the credibility of it. So maturity is a mix of credibility, ability, and feasibility. I'll drill down on the first two criteria. On the technical, what they want to see is we have an innovative project that will be technically feasible. That is, your project is located on a site where you have access to the required infrastructure to bring your project to life. That can be if you produce hydrogen, that you have sufficient additional renewable electricity available to power your plant. If you plan to expand, that you have the physical footprint to do so on your site. If you are to connect different emitters, that you have the logistics framework and connections for the project to happen. The second thing is it will look at the plant, the plant design, and how the project is constructed. Here I'm talking of a plant, of course, if you are in the maritime sector, then we will be looking at the vessel or whichever unit the project is implemented on. And then they will zoom in to understand the technology and processes that are core to the project. So what are the key input materials and feedstock? How sustainable some of this is? How do you manage logistics flow and so on? Quality of input and so on. It will also look at the technology characteristics and performance. Looking at your mass energy balance and can the project reach the operating hours that is presented in there. And can you produce the expected output that you bring and that directly feeds into your greenhouse gas calculations. So to do this, to demonstrate your technical maturity, there are several things to have in mind. This is really the place where engineers need to shine. So we are really looking to establish the engineering fundamentals in the project and to show that those are in place. We have a mass energy balance. We have a very clear understanding of the qualities of the feedstock and the properties of the output we create and so on. What's important to note is that throughout the application, we need to see a one to one coherent picture between what the engineering documents and what the engineering documents are. brings us compared to the greenhouse gas model, we need to see a one to one coherent picture between what the engineering documents brings us compared to the greenhouse gas model, financial model, and the business plan. We sometimes see discrepancy on the pace of ramp up of the production facility that the volumes may differ or that the asset lifetime is not considered equally in the technical perspective compared to commercial assumptions. The second, the third thing to understand is that a feasibility study in the in the EU innovation fund term is not quite the same as what you would do in the real world. There is a bit more considerations to have in there and that would include to consider the construction plan, the procurement and supplier management, as well as permitting strategy, IP strategy, public acceptance and stakeholder management. And what we really want to see in feasibility study is like technically originating cost assumptions that will inform the commercial track of your application. So we need to have an anchor in terms of what are the costs assumptions for the project. And lastly, I will get back to this, but we really want to see that the cost assumptions for the project. And lastly, I will get back to this, but we really want to see that the cost assumptions for the project. So we really want to see that if you have an innovative project, technically mature, yet uncertain projects that you really have identified, analyzed and mitigated the technology and technical risk that pertain to your project. On the operational side, I think the key message from us is really that realism trumps optimism. So that is to say, yes, there is an encouragement for projects to reach financial close fast, enter operation fast. They do say this can bring you additional potentially points on the maturity, but it needs to be credible. The way that you do this is really by outlining what your strategy to reach the milestones will be. So how do you reach financial close within? Six months, six months, six months, six months, six months, a year? What are the conditions and steps for you to do so? What would be the steps from a procurement, construction, EPC perspective for your plant to be operational and so on? We also need to see a very strong project governance to bring that project to the finish line. That is particularly relevant where you have a lot of project on project risk or that you are looking at new value chains, working in a consortium, working in a consortium, working in a consortium and so on, where we really want to see that there is a clear interface management, clear decision making process and so on and alignment between the partners. We want to see as well in many organizations how you will grow the capabilities that are relevant for the project. We want to see how you deal with uncertainties that could be from the regulatory framework, and so on, and so on, and so on. And lastly, risk management is really important as well on your operational maturity to show that again, you have this under control. And the reason why we emphasize risk management today is when we look at evaluation summary reports. One of the top shortcoming or weakness that is pointed out by evaluators often relates to risk management. So, in the application, you are really encouraged to show you have identified all of the risks that can impact your project. You have analyzed and assessed them. What is also good to have in mind is that if the evaluator may think of some risk that belong or that would potentially impact your project, it's always good to address those in the application. So, you need to present them, you need to analyze them, but you also need to show how you're going to manage those risks long term to mitigate and make sure that your project is fit for being implemented despite the presence of those risks. What is not a viable risk management strategy is to underplay the presence of the risks. So, those are the main points in terms of best practices and things to have in mind on the technical and operational perspective. Before I conclude on this first section, I just like to bring some perspectives regarding the timing that pertains to also the operational maturity. So, on operational, we are looking at your ability to reach the milestones, your strategy to do so. And in the innovation fund, there's really two milestones that matter. Those are financial close and entry into operation. Before that, you need your project to start. And in the EU way, we are looking at a project start when your grant agreement with the EU has been signed. Right now in the call, this date is expected by March. 26. So, your project should typically start after grant agreement signature. There is an option to start before, but not earlier than the first day of the month following submission. So, first of May. Then you will have maximum four years to reach financial close. And here, this is defined as that moment in the project development cycle, where all of the projects and financing contractual terms are in contractual terms are in place are in place and the conditions in them are met. So, we are looking at projects that will, of course, get to market as fast as possible. But we want to see credibility in how you get to this point. What are the conditions and how do you intend to meet them? And lastly, the last milestone looked at the EU is the entry into operation, where there you will be required for the project to operate. For minimum three to five years, depending on the window you apply in. And this is defined again, very specifically as the moment in the project development cycle, where all of the elements and systems are tested and ready to be operational and where the greenhouse gas avoidance will start. So, do not start your greenhouse gas model before that definition of entry into operation is met. And for projects that are set. And for projects that have several steps. So, if you have different production lines that go into operation, it's only at the time where the last production line and the full system is installed and ready to go. What has maybe changed a tiny bit or at least a nuance from the last call is that we no longer speak about this notion of start of works that should not have happened before application deadline. Now, the call says you should not reach financial close before you apply. The grant agreement signature is expected in March. So, that's also important to bear in mind when you model your financial case and relevant cost. The total project duration will be between three to 15 years max. And do note that your greenhouse gas and relevant cost monitoring periods are not the same costs modeling period in the sense that you will model your absolute greenhouse gas avoidance on a theoretical 10 years. But from an operational perspective, you will report to the EU for the first five years only. So, those are really the different points in time that we're looking into. The grant agreement the signature in March, four years to financial close, then entry into operation and then minimum three to five years of operation. You are encouraged to build on speed to argue for your maturity as long as it's credible. So, maximum 48 months to financial close, ideally 24 months if you are in the clean tech or pilot and ideally up to 12 months if you are in the battery call. Then there are specific timelines also that can be favoured in the evaluation if you are in the clean tech pilot or battery. And in terms of the grant payment, you are only receiving the innovation fund grant when you reach a milestone. That is, if your project does not reach financial close, your project will not receive any grant from the innovation fund. That also means that when you apply and set this date for the financial close. At that point of time, you can ask in theory maximum 40% of the grant that you're asking, but it needs to be proportional to the expenditures and the activities that are carried out in this first work package. So, if you only have two months to financial close, you may not be able to ask the maximum 40% of the grant. So, that's the first requirement of the payment. Then they also say, we would like you to still allocate 10% of the grant in the operation period. So, minimum 2% per year for the first five years. And the rest is completely up to you and the project characteristics to define where does the grant payment make most sense. Do note that there will be an audit on the relevant cost by the time you enter operation. And I let my colleague Gullberg tell you a bit more about this. And also note that at the end of the monitoring period, they will also check that the project has reached at least 75% of the absolute greenhouse gas. And I let my colleague Frederick tell you more about that. So, key takeaways on this. We want to balance an innovative project with a technically feasible and operationally credible project design. That means we want to bank on consistency that all of our story elements in the application package align from a technical, commercial, operational perspective. We want to show credibility. So, that is if you think your bank will not fund it or if your shareholders will not accept those terms, then the EU probably won't neither. So, you need to ensure that we really propose a credible strategy to financial close and entry into operation. And lastly, this is really an invitation to be very realistic, conservative and critical of some of the key assumptions and timeline you may have for your projects. There are many things that can go wrong. There are many things that can go wrong. The EU does not give you points for being optimistic, but for actually showing that you can deliver on what you're promising. So, that is the brief crash into innovation and technical and operational maturity. I'm curious to hear if there's any questions. And for that, I'll bring Marian back on stage. Great. Thank you so much. Sarah. And so, we had a couple of questions and one on the innovation. I know that incremental innovation is not funded or illegible. Do you have an idea of what TRL and the technologies must be roughly in order to qualify? There's no specific requirement. Typically, what we have seen is that projects that apply in the general window would be at a starting TRL 7 or 8. Yeah. While if you apply in the pilot, you can have a starting TRL that is a bit lower, typically a TRL 6. Yeah. The end TRL will also be a bit different. In pilot, you may aim at a TRL 8, 7 or 8. While in the general, you have to aim basically for a TRL 9. Yeah. Perfect. And we had one question regarding the timeline of all of the activities. So, can financial close be reached after submission but before grant award? Technically, yes. Technically, yes. But it needs to be duly justified. And this is a risk that the project needs to take. You can also technically set it after the award announcement. But here again, it will be conditional on the actual grant agreement signature. Yeah. So, you cannot call the EU in August and say you have reached financial close and expect the grant now. Yeah. Perfect. I think that's all for the questions that we have. And so, this section wraps up the first part of the project. Finding the sweet spot between innovation and maturity. And now we'll dive a bit further into the last criteria on maturity, which is on the financial. Welcome, Valentin. Great to have you here. And thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. certainly the most important parts of building case that is to be out of info that shows financial maturity. One of the questions that we are actually facing, especially when projects like talk about financial maturity in the context of profitability or unprofitability. First of all, what I would like to make clear from the beginning is that profitability is not the whole story. That means that both profitable and unprofitable projects can get a high score. This is also what we see from the historical data on financial maturity scores on past applications. What we also see is that projects with a break-even or a slightly negative MPV have scored highest on financial maturity. There are proposals, projects with strong profitability, but despite that, they can also get heavily penalized because their businesses or financing plan lack credibility in the assumptions. Equally, there can also be proposals with low financial returns that meet scoring thresholds. And they do so if specifically the funders, the project owners and the funding entities demonstrate a strong commitment to the project. So they would acknowledge that there is this challenge with profitability and show their commitment despite the challenge of profitability. These are some considerations you need to make. Of course, you need to look at the profitability of a project and see where the MPV lies for the project. But the main message here is that profitability is not the whole story. However, credibility of the business plan and the financing plan is actually key to demonstrating the financial maturity. This is again looking at the previous data from previous applications. And we can see here that 37% of applications that failed on financial maturity lack business plan credibility. This credibility are related mainly from unrealistic assumptions about revenue projections, about market growth, about operational and commercial capabilities. Equally heavy on failing applications is the credibility of the financing plan. This financing plan also ended in being 37% of the reasons why financial maturity did not meet the thresholds. This is mainly due to the results of lacking commitment and evidence of repayment capacity. Unprofitable projects. Unprofitable projects. They often show a lack of commitment from shareholders. And this is one of those points that actually can weaken and also end up with a score that is not over the threshold for the applications. So remember, a low profitability needs to be backed up by an understanding of that low profitability and the commitment despite the low profitability in the project. So now, if credibility is so important, how do we ensure this in the business plan? And we'll start with the business plan and then we're going to look at the financing plan because these are the core elements of proving the financial maturity. A credible business plan requires that the potential challenges are clearly understood and addressed. It is natural to think of all the opportunities and it is, of course, important to show the potential challenges that the potential challenges are clearly understood and addressed. So, we can also see that the opportunities and it is more difficult to address the challenges. And it is important to show a balanced picture and to show that you understand the challenges and you can address them. So it's a more of a reminder that addressing the challenges is equally important as addressing the opportunities. So, looking again, looking again at different types of projects and the strategic challenges these projects face, we can see that there is some variation, but there are also some common denominators. If we look at the energy intensive industries, we can see that the typical challenges are delays and disruptions in the supply chain, then remaining competitive within the markets for these green products that energy intensive industries are willing and interested in selling. And of course, there is uncertainty in the final price and the premium that customers are willing to pay. For hydrogen projects, it's about securing essential equipment, particularly for electrolyzers. That is a challenge. Of course, also equally important is ensuring RFMBO compliance. And we also see that it is challenging to secure the power purchase agreements in markets that are illiquid and also securing those long-term agreements to back up the project and the business case. For carbon capture and storage, here it's about the limited availability of CO2 storage sites. It's also about the storage cost and the complexity of contracting and the complexity of contracting and aligning the whole value chain to handle these kind of projects. And on the revenue sides, it is also a challenge to monetize on selling, for example, negative emission certificates. For renewable energy, although it's a bit more established than other sectors, we do see a big challenge with the cost increases due to surging prices of raw materials, raw materials, raw materials, and the transportation of goods. There is also difficulties in securing off-take contracts at attractive prices. And we also see that some of the challenges there is also related to the local authorities' lack of experience in regulatory matters. Last but not least, on energy storage, we have seen disruptions of the supply chain being one of the core challenges these projects are facing. That results in higher costs, prolonged times due to the shortages. It's also difficult sometimes with energy storage to define a business model because these business models, in many of these business models, are quite innovative. So we also see a challenge with that. And of course, there is also a challenge with the different regulations and requirements from different countries, especially when thinking of these projects should that be scaled beyond the local projects that are being presented in the application. So these are some of the challenges we have seen, some of the most important challenges that is important to address in the application. And the common denominators here are challenges regarding supply. So consider they're diversifying the supplier portfolio, and the risk and the risk and the financial plan to show that you understand these challenges. For the off-take challenges, you need to engage early with off-takers. You need to diversify the portfolio, the revenue stream, and then also think of adopting flexible agreements. And the last point is the regulatory challenges that would require you to engage early with regulators. And establish the strong communication channels, and establish strong communication channels, also while developing the application. So with this in mind, if we move from the must-haves and the strategic level to showing excellence in the application, there is an important consideration that you need to remember here. So with the innovation fund, you have some activities happening before you apply. You send the application, and then you have some other activities and commercial activities happening towards final investment decision. Typically, the innovation fund application is a step on the process on the way to final investment decision. What you see before the innovation fund application is that typically you do project feasibility, the business model validation, develop the business plan, you set up the consortium, and the partnership. You develop the business plan, you set up the consortium and the partnership. You ensure that you have some customer LOIs, including the deal structure, supplier LOIs, and then the financing plan and preparation. Typically, after the innovation fund application is submitted, what you do to reach a financial investment decision is that you sign the customer contract, of course, pending the FID. You would need to sign the supplier and contractor contracts, and then also you need to sign the financing contracts. What is important here to prove the excellence or show excellence in financial maturity is that you would need to see how can you accelerate some of these processes that typically happen after the innovation fund application and as a prerequisite final investment decision, how to accelerate this and what can you do about that. It could be on customer contracts, for example, that you can be more successful. In terms of customer-specific in terms of customer-specific in terms of volume, price, conditions, and it could be the LOI or the MOU can actually be a very close contract to actually being signed and give the guarantee that actually you have engaged with the different counterparties and have understood the complexity that lies between this contractual agreement. So consider accelerating as much as possible. Of course, you do not need to sign the final contracts by the application deadline, but to prove excellence, you should be as close as possible to that. Concretely, to give an example, and also an example based on our experience with some of the typical questions and challenges we see in the applications, if you look at the business cases. If you look at the business cases, usually they have different revenue streams. Sometimes, besides the main revenue stream, you have some secondary revenue streams. It could be a byproduct. It could be that you provide ancillary services through the asset that you're building. And there is also some revenue from growth that is more tapping into the replicability part. What you can do here and need to make sure you cover is for the main revenue streams that you have matured the customer pipeline and provide supporting documentation. So while developing the application, make sure that it's a must to have all the LOIs, MOUs, and agreements in place to back up the assumptions made here. This can be in different forms, of course, but they need to be specific. When financial close is in the near future, ensure that, as I mentioned, that these terms and conditions are comprehensive and detailed. For the secondary revenue streams, although they are secondary, remember also to reach out to potential customers and get some initial indications on price, volumes, and so on. And for the last part, you don't need to provide LOIs, MOUs, and show the contractual agreements. But make sure you substantiate the assumptions made on future growth with market forecasts or other market indications that you think are relevant for substantiating these assumptions. In addition to all of these more strategic considerations, tactical considerations, of course, there is some must-have checks or checkboxes that you need to have in place. And I'm just going to briefly go through them. They're also very much part of the call documents. But you need to ensure that there is alignment with project scope. So the business model and the application, of course, of course, is that there is a lot of information that you need to be able to do with the business model and the business model. And then, of course, ensure that risks and mitigations are understood. So besides showing the risk and listing the risks that you also provide a sensitivity analysis showing how you impact the business case. So that is on credibility of the business plan. And now looking at the financial plan, which is the second part of it. The first overall consideration that you have here, is what is the balance between equity and debt financing, the capital structure for your project. There are pros and cons with either of them. For equity financing, of course, you'll have a more reduced financial pressure because you don't have debt providers asking you to commit or deliver according to the payment terms. You have a more flexibility. You have a more flexibility. You have, of course, the alignment with the long-term goals of the equity providers. And then you also have an increased credibility because you have a project that is backed up by institutions or equity providers that actually believe and have done a strong due diligence on a project and are willing also to take the risk for the project. The cons, of course, the cons, of course, the cons, of course, is that equity financing can be more expensive relative to debt financing in the long run. And it can be quite challenging if you have a startup or a scale-up that is not backed up by a large company or an entity that has an established balance sheet or has an established business that can actually commit to actually lifting these risks that you might have in the project. So if you're in that startup situation, it could be challenging to get the right equity investors. For the debt financing, the pros are that you would retain the ownership. You have predictable costs because you know when the different interest payments are coming in, for example. And then, of course, you would have a quicker access to funds with the cons that there is a perceived higher risk from the debt providers. And then, of course, you would have a better investment. And then, of course, you would have this repayment obligations that you need to make independent of what. Key takeaways here is that overall, you need to think of having, at least in theory, a balanced mix of debt and equity. That is ideal to show the commitment both from sponsors and also the ability to access different sources of capital. The reality is what we have seen is that mostly it's equity and innovation fund grants that fund this project. So it's quite limited how much debt financing is coming in for these projects. And one of the main reasons is that it can be that projects are perceived risky by these potential debt investors, especially because there is a lack of historical data and market standards that allows them to price the risk for these projects. There is also higher complexity in managing different sources of funding. So think of how many investors you need to do and also in terms of the capital structure. If you need to secure the debt financing, how many debt financing providers you need to involve. And then also remember to show a solid financial plan is just not sufficient. to show some LOIs, for example, or letters of support from potential debt providers. But you need to, in the financial projections, also have some contingencies and ensure the backing from the project shareholders, especially if you have a business case that is not as profitable or not showing a positive MPV. Besides those more high level or strategic considerations on the capital structure, on the type of investors and complexity of the investor and debt provider landscape, there is again, for the financial plan, there is some must-haves that you need to have in place. And that is, you need to, when building the application, you need to provide a detailed financing structure. So, outlining the, besides the, besides the, outlining the financing structure, you need to specify the debt terms and how this, this debt would be raised. You need to also indicate the extent of recourse to the different project shareholders. And if you have any innovative of, or blended financing mechanisms, make sure that you highlight that and explain how that fits into the, the, the, the business case and the project needs. You need to, you need to, to ensure that assumptions are aligned with the market standards, that those external debt terms are in line with, with, with expectations from the market on interest rates, repayment schedules, and so on. And also that the, the debt level and repayment profiles are supported by the cash flows that are coming from the project. Also ensure that, also ensure that, also ensure that, also ensure that, that, that you provide evidence from financing providers, just like for the business plan from suppliers and off-takers. This is, this is the same story here. And, and, and confirm the credibility of the financing assumptions through these documents. Last, but not least, you also need to demonstrate the financial resilience through risk mitigation. So, identifying those financing risks, doing, identifying those financing risks, so identifying those financing risks, doing those sensitivities, understanding what the strategies are to mitigate these risks, and then explain how your actions to mitigate the risks can, can, can bolster and strengthen the, the financial plan. So, to sum up, on the financial maturity, what I hope you can take away from, so, this part of the session is number one, that to demonstrate the financial maturity, first of all, you need to present a credible and robust commercial and financial plan. And you need to address the underlying risks. Second of all, profitability. When you ask that question in the beginning of the application and considerations whether you should go for the EU Innovation Fund, remember profitability is not the whole story. We have seen both profitable and unprofitable projects getting a high score. However, credibility is key to demonstrating financial maturity. Point number three, a credible business plan requires you to explain and understand not only the opportunities, but also equally the challenges and then you address them. And a credible financial plan relies on a balanced financing structure and must be backed by commitments from providers of capital, especially there where you have a low profitability. That was roughly it. Should I, and I'll invite my colleague here back. Yeah, perfect. And we have a few questions on the financial maturity section, so I hope you are prepared to answer some of them. Let's go. So one question we had is around what is the main difference between financial close and final investment decision and what comes first? Well, I would say that there is no difference between financial close and financial investment decision. It's just a matter of terminology. There is difference though sometimes from project to project on the requirements to reach either financial close or financial investment decision. There are, we have seen projects that are more willing to take risk and they would, for example, for an off-take agreement, they would, the owners and the investors would sign off and agree on the financial close based maybe on an off-take coverage of 50% and accepting an exposure to the market for the rest of 50%. But equally, we have also seen more stricter requirements where you need to have contracts in place for the whole off-take volumes. So just to say that there are variations depending on the investors' needs and owners' needs because they are the ones that sign off at that point in time. Yeah, perfect. Thank you. And on that note of off-take agreements, there was a question also around, it's quite difficult to obtain firm commitment from off-takers before financial close. And some off-take agreements and some off-take agreements and some off-take records might be reluctant to sign a full-on term sheet. So what do you think is the best kind of supporting documentation that applicants can obtain to prove and substantiate the support from the off-takers? A letter of support, a non-binding MOU, what type of document are we talking about here? Yeah, I think the type of document is actually not that important. And what is important is to have as much clarity. And actually, I know that, I mean, it is difficult to get those head of terms clearly explained, but have them in whatever document form, have them explained and show that the counterpart is willing to commit at a later stage, providing some prerequisite to signing that off-take. So the form itself is not that important. Their recommendation here is basically make sure that you develop the project while developing the application. It's equally important to allocate time and work for that. And if you cannot manage to secure that off-take in the details that you would like to, or that commitment in the details you'd like to, think of divisifying the off-take portfolio. Think of reaching out to other potential off-takers. Also think of leveraging maybe some market insights, some market studies. And think also of what is the risk appetite if you do not end up signing the off-take contracts that you need, what would be the backup plan? And are you actually willing to take that market risk? Because it could be sufficient if the investors and the shareholders and the debt providers, they say it is okay to have an off-take strategy. So that has some market exposure. Yeah. Perfect. And one final question is just around financial maturity. Is that measured against the fossil commercial industry? Okay. I think it's measured against the standards that you have for these innovative projects. Yeah. So you cannot be as mature as a project that is subject to an existing market. Yeah. Where technology is known, where there's liquidity in the off-take. So no, I mean, it's the nature of these projects. Yeah. You have the financial maturity needs to cater for the uncertainty and the risk. Yeah. For sure. Perfect. Thank you so much, Valentin. That wraps it up for the financial maturity section. And so we'll wrap it up for the, yeah, finding that sweet spot between innovation and maturity here. And then we'll take a five minute break now before we head into the three next criteria. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, welcome back to the webinar and we are here today with Frederick who will be speaking a bit more about the greenhouse gas emissions avoidance and talking about how to build a path to climate neutrality. To get us started we will have a poll for you all and the question is what is considered more important to maximize competitiveness on the GHG emissions avoidance. So you have three different answers to choose from. Number one being the absolute GHG emissions avoidance, secondly relative GHG emissions avoidance and then the bonus points. So feel free to go directly into the polls and choose your answer. And in the meantime while we wait for your answers I just wanted to ask you a quick question Frederick. You've worked with the GHG criteria for many times before with the EU Innovation Fund. What has been the most challenging aspect about working with the GHG emissions avoidance criteria? It's a good question. I mean I could come up with a couple of big challenges but I think like the main reason I would say is wrapping your general understanding of your project and the emissions related to that project and then fitting it and I'm kind of keen to say squeezing it into the EUIF methodology because it is very much a squeezing exercise because to create a lot of exercise because to create this level playing field because to create this level playing field a lot of adjustments and additional considerations will have to be made. So that exercise is a challenge. So just making sure that it fits the scope of the purpose of the application. Yeah. Perfect. Great. I see a lot of votes coming in at the moment. So I think most a lot of people have been saying the answer B relative GHG emissions avoidance and then we see a third of respondents around absolute GHG emissions and then we don't see anything on the bonus points. So do you mind sharing a bit of your thoughts on what is considered more important? Yeah. I think the crowd got it right. I mean it's a project specific strategic consideration on how to achieve the most points but the way that the mechanics is structured from the commission point of view is basically to reward the efficiency, the relative GHG emissions avoidance. potential of projects and not just volume and size in avoidance. Yeah. For sure. Perfect. Then I will let's wrap up our poll there and let's hear a bit more about your criterion around the GHG emissions avoidance. So pass it over to you. Thanks. Cool. We are going to talk a bit about GHG emissions avoidance potential. Just to outline first the guiding thought from Sinead here and I'm gonna recap a bit on that perspective a couple of times throughout. Basically the exercise with this GSE emissions avoidance is to secure comparability of the GSE avoidance impact across very unique and very different projects that you're all sitting with out there. So that is basically the task from Sinead to create a leveled playing field. To do this they have created the methodology that provides super strict, super detailed, super complex guidance on all the methodological choices, considerations, etc. to make sure that the impact and the GSE emissions avoidance potential that you end up with from your calculations will be comparable. Just before we get started, when deciding under which call to apply you would have to make some rather substantial considerations and you should throughout that exercise always consult the GSE methodology to make sure that you are eligible, that you choose the right sector, the right category, etc. So no mistakes I'm making there and making you uneligible. Good. Starting off, why GHG? This is recapping a bit on the investor perspective that Sarah touched base on in the beginning. Basically, the commission is asking, for what is asked, what do we get of GHG emission avoidance? So, so to speak, so to speak, they want to understand what they have to pay for each ton. So a super simple metric making all the projects comparable based on this cost efficiency sub-criterion. And that is their way of maximizing their return on investment. To do this, they will, as said, have to ensure this comparability and we'll go through a bit of this mechanics behind this methodology, mechanics behind the points. To understand how do we tap into this level playing field that the commission wants to generate. Good. First of all, what are we going to cover here? We're going to discuss a bit how is it going to be evaluated? How is it going to be scored? How does the points distribute? And where do you demonstrate these different aspects of your project? Then we're going to discuss how is it going to be calculated? Then we're going to discuss how is it being calculated? There is a rather firm process for you to follow to basically derive these key metrics, make the calculations, establish the models. The methodology is super thorough in guiding you in all these steps, in all these choices, and will take you through some initial key choices here. Then lastly, we're going to level up a bit and discuss basically looking at the playing field of the different points you can get. How do you maximize those points? And where should you put your focus to increase your chances of winning and securing the most points on this criteria? Cool. Jumping into the first one. As outlined in the beginning by Marion, the GSG emissions avoidance has its own bucket of points to secure. You can secure a total of 12 points, making it a rather impactful criteria that is broken down into the absolute emissions avoidance potential, the relative, and then the quality of calculations. Taking the absolute one first, that is a super simple metric, giving up to two points for how big your absolute emission reductions compared to a reference scenario is. To support that, and basically to level the playing field, making it possible for slightly smaller projects with slightly less absolute emission reductions to compete, the relative GG emission avoidance criteria gives a full five points. That is, regardless of size, that is basically approaching some of the efficiency of the project. So your total emissions avoidance compared to the full reference scenario, how efficient are you at mitigating all these emissions that are in the potential reference scenario. We'll dive into that as well. Then for quality, and this is one of my pet peeves. This is a super important criteria. You can get a full five points, so actually quite many points for just quality. And also, in addition to that, with a threshold of three points. So you have to have at least three points to qualify on this criteria. How is that assessed? How is that assessed? That is basically assessed based on how credible, how detailed, how transparent is the greenhouse gas model that you're building. And this is basically the CINEA providing a rather strong incentive for you to focus on developing a trustworthy, transparent, and de-risk greenhouse gas model. So we're going to dive into it, how you're going to get there. So we're going to dive into it, how you're going to get there. But super important to focus on this one too. In addition to the greenhouse gas emissions avoidance criteria, we have the cost efficient criteria. This is not straightly derived from the greenhouse gas track or criteria, but it's basically greenhouse gas goes in as the denominator in the cost efficiency ratio. So again here, you will be able to do some optimizations. You can assess your project and basically say, okay, we now know our greenhouse gas emissions. What do we end up asking for as a fund? So there are some optimization potentials here and the greenhouse gas component is rather important in understanding this and strategizing around this. Lastly, to round up, on the points side, we have the bonus points. A total of four points can be achieved here. I'll focus on the first two ones primarily. And then the latter two ones are more project specific. First of all, net carbon removals. If your project is able to generate net carbon removals, and this is relevant for CCS and CCUS, for example, you will be able to achieve a bonus point here. And that is calculated in the same way as your relative greenhouse gas emissions. So it's rather straightforward, but it's a point of focus. And if you are doing one of these types of projects that has this potential, it's definitely worth a consideration to go for some of these bonus points. As this is a way to give you edge and give you one additional point, which could again keep you, take you to the threshold of a winning project. Other GSG savings. That is basically from the GSG methodology point of view, a lot of emissions are generally excluded. That could be capital goods, emissions related to the construction of a plant or a factory or any other type of construction. It could be the emissions related to the process of extracting, processing and refining the fossil fuels, fossil fuels used or fossil fuels used or the other types of biogenic fuels used in the process of your project. It could also be any end of life related decommissioning emissions. These are in general excluded from the emissions picture up in the greenhouse gas avoidance criteria, but to incentivize to create some positive impact beyond the project boundary and beyond the project scope, the emissions carbon dioxide. So it's also in general excluded from the process of the greenhouse gas. So the greenhouse gas has put this other greenhouse gas savings criteria here for your project to basically address some of these impact potentials that are beyond the project scope. So if you can, if you can credibly demonstrate that you're going to source your fuels or process your fuels used for your process in a more sustainable way, you will be able to achieve greenhouse gas savings here. So this is a small criteria where there is some more flexibility and creativity and creativity allowed. Good. How do we demonstrate this? That might be a first off question. Quick revisit. Relatively simply, the greenhouse gas emissions avoidance potential is primarily demonstrated in the model, in the emissions calculator, and secondly in Part B in feasibility study, where key metrics is summarized for the Part B and key technical interfaces with the GSG track is summarized in the feasibility study. Cool. So all focus goes to these two deliverables. The first one, the GSG calculator being super strict, the CINEA have pre-designed a very detailed template, sector-specific, for you to fill out in accordance with the methodology. And then I want to stress in accordance with the methodology. No fiddling around with anything here. This is basically, again, a way to demonstrate transparency, traceability, etc., etc., so we can get those quality points. Part B, more straightforward. It's written summarizing exercises, so you're going to get there. The last one that I want to stress is the annexes. So basically, again, to demonstrate credibility, don't forget to attach or also deliver your supporting documents to support all of the assumptions and inputs going into the GSG calculator and to the feasibility study documents. This could be, for example, a EU ETS report supporting your emission factors used. It could be PPA to support your use of additional green electricity, etc., etc. It demonstrates credibility and it demonstrates transparency. So, yeah, go for it. Cool. How it's calculated? So far, so good. The commission outlines a rather simple six-step process to be followed. And I'm going to take you through. And I'm going to take you through. And then we're going to do a small deep dive on some of these steps. Basically, step one is understanding your project and understanding your principal product. So basically, getting the boundary conditions of this project right. What is the main aim? And what is the innovative component of this? And that will later on guide your methodological choices. So it's super key to get this right from the outset. And again, if any questions, the methodology has super detailed supporting guidance to get you through this exercise. Based on your principal product, you define your category and your sector to apply for. Again, make sure that you are eligible and that you've gotten all the requirements right before going there. Then when you have understood what methodology to apply, you can basically take this piece of document and apply to your specific project. And that document will help you set some super important boundaries and system requirements. So basically outlining where, what is the boundaries of our project? Where do we stop accounting for our emissions anymore? And where should we make sure to account for our emissions along the lines of our project? Then we have set the boundaries. Then we have set the boundaries. We have understood what methodology to apply. Then it's about identifying the reference scenario. And this is basically understanding what do we compare our project to? What is the counterfactual scenario that we are demonstrating emissions avoidance compared to? We'll deep dive on that in a second. So I'll jump to that. So I'll jump to the next one. When all of this is understood and we have understood our reference scenario or project scenario. We have identified the right methodology to apply. It's a more mechanical exercise of completing the GSG calculators. We need all the inputs. We need all the assumptions. But this will be, once understood, a more technical exercise. And it will be, of course, a reiterative loop. So it's not a fully straightforward process, but there will be some going back to understanding that if we understand, okay, if this is again our boundaries, then how does that impact our reference case and how does it impact our model? Lastly, we do the simple task of uploading. So, yeah. Good. Just to deep dive a bit into the step two of the process that I just outlined. We have, I want to somewhat give you a hint of this, issue tree, issue tree logic that the commission is trying to put in place for you to fit into. Basically, based on your principal product, you choose your category. Do we apply for the energy intensive industries? This includes CCUS as well. Is it a renewable energy project? Is it related to energy storage or mobility or even buildings that I haven't included in this overview? But this is super key. Basically, again, to understand what sector do I apply to? This is non-exhaustive. So there could be more sectors than listed here. But again, methodology and all the GSG-related considerations are sector-specific. So getting this right is super important and not as novel an exercise as it might seem. There are some considerations going into this. So be firm on understanding the methodology and really making these choices. Yes, we'll dive into the batteries in a bit. They have some special requirements, but we'll get to that. Based on sector, you choose your product. And then again, this all leads to what GSG methodology should guide your project and you building the GSG model for your project. Good. Good. That was a lot. That was basically outlining the process and understanding how do we get at what methodology to apply. Then just deep diving on a few of these key issues or key metrics to understand. First off, the absolute GSG emissions. That is basically the difference over a defined period. This is the 10 years from your project. This is the 10 years from your project starts operation and the first 10 years of operation. Then all the emissions that would occur in the counterfactual reference emission scenario and your project scenario. And just to put a few more words to it. So basically the reference emission scenario is all the emissions related to the conventional production of your product. whatever that is. Whatever that is. By conventional technology. So basically understanding if your project weren't to be implemented, what would what would be a counterfactual scenario here? This is compared to your project scenario. So again, full full scope of your project. What are all the emissions related to your project? Preferably lower than the reference emission scenario, of course, but this makes up your project. But this makes up your absolute GC emissions avoidance. Some considerations to make here. I mean, it is not novel to make a reference emission scenario and it might not also not be a realistic reference emission scenario. But again, here we have the methodology basically to support all of our choices to make. And if you were to choose between a realistic scenario and a fully aligned methodology scenario, go with the methodology. This is like a boring game of rock, paper, scissors where the methodology always wins. Yes. Then, moving beyond the absolute size, the absolute greenhouse gas emissions avoidance potential. And into the more relative one that we discussed in the beginning. Basically allowing you to demonstrate the efficiency of your project to to to to obey the emissions in your reference scenario. This is again, simple metric. This is your absolute emissions that we have just calculated. And then divided by the reference emissions. So basically giving a percentage or a share of the reference emissions that your at that your project is able to mitigate is able to mitigate ranging between zero and 100 and with a continuous score in between that. So this is again, super key. Can we in some way? Can we in some way improve our relative emissions avoidance either by increasing our absolute emissions avoidance or without decreasing our absolute emissions avoidance, decreasing our reference scenario emissions. This could for example, for example, in a carbon capture project. This could for example, in a carbon capture project be leveraging the opportunities of biogenic fuels to decrease the emissions in a reference scenario and hence increasing our relative GSG emissions avoidance potential. To be understood on a per project basis, but I think that was that was sort of the outline of these key concepts. Good. Good. Jumping a bit into the taking a small caveat on the batteries. One addition to be made for for for for batteries is basically that you not only account for your absolute emissions reductions and and your relative emissions reduction potential, but also for your manufacturing carbon footprint reduction. So extending a bit the value chain perspective here to to to include more and to allow for your project. to demonstrate, I would say, more manufacturing efficiency potential. Logic is the same for batteries. You develop a you develop a project scenario for your project and then compare it to a reference scenario here of regular or conventional battery production. You include considerations around raw materials, component production, cell productions and as basically below all of this. Basically below all of this is likely a million methodological choices to make. What do we include? What don't we include? Is it in the scope of our project or isn't it? But here again, I would just keep referring to the to the methodology. It gives really strong guidelines on setting system boundaries include what to include, even though it might be outside project scope. What about our manufacturing processes? All of these considerations. They are firmly guided by the methodology section for batteries here. In addition to the manufacturing carbon footprint reduction, you still calculate the, so to speak, regular absolute emissions reductions and relative emissions reductions that we that we have seen for all other projects. So and here the manufacturing carbon footprint reduction is just a basically a subset of your project scenario. If any specifics on this consult section 7 on the methodology is it's just it's a super strong place to go. Good. Recapping a bit, I'll actually jump to the next one here. So basically where to focus as discussed in the beginning, absolute emissions not too much to to impact and too much to gain. You have a project it has its it has its merits and its system boundaries. So so don't focus too much on that. And similarly for cost efficiency, it will be optimized at some point. But where you can really make a difference with the GSG criteria is is is on them. It's on the relative one. Ensure that you make your project as efficient as possible compared to the reference case scenario. Can we again for now I'm using the carbon capture as an example. Can we can we make sure that we optimize our value change? We optimize our value change so no emissions are lost along the value chain through transport and storage? Can we can we increase the use of any biofuels to to to create some net carbon removals, etc, etc. So really a place to to focus on your relative and relative GSG emissions of our potential. create some some additional points for the project and create some some additional points for the project and reaching this five point score that would would definitely be considered a game changer in the overall application. Net carbon removals, again, if applicable to your project, go for it. It could be an edge relevant for for carbon capture projects. If if storing a biogenic CO2. And lastly, get creative. See if you can get some of those additional points for GSG. Again, just as an example, if we can, in some way, avoid, like deviate some waste streams that would have other otherwise created some some some emissions outlet, and that we can credibly support this and prove that we do it, then we got a case for potentially an additional. additional additional additional additional additional point on other GSG emissions. Good. Important point points around it to the nearest half point in each of these sub criteria and so so be aware of that and and do some some modeling and assessments on the criteria. Cool. To wrap up and give you my key takeaways. And and learnings on this. First one. Quality is is is is is everything. It's key to to basically build and demonstrate this credibility. Focus on ensuring transparency. Put out all your assumptions and sources and inputs out there. Create a clear structure for the commission to to be able to review, be explicit. Anode it to make sure that you it's super clear for any reader and make sure that you reference your methodology wherever you make any key choices. on on on on on on on on your GSG model. Second, I've mentioned a couple of times, I think the GSG methodology is basically your Bible. It has all the answers and all the guidance. So so consult it. and and make sure you reference wherever you make any decisions based on that on the text in there. And lastly, focus on the the low effort and a high impact criteria where you you can actually give your project a competitive edge. as compared to, for example, the absolute one where it's it's it's it's a matter of size of project, etc. So so no, don't waste efforts on on the criteria where you know, know your project wonder, won't be as competitive as for other areas. Good. I think that was basically it. I'll invite the Marianne back in. Yes. Perfect. Thank you so much, Frederick for that very informative session on GG missions. I just have two very quick questions for you. And one asked around how to improve the absolute GG emissions score. But based on what you said, it seems like it's quite dependent on the reference scenario. So there isn't too much wiggle room to improve it. And it's maybe not worth the time to look into too much could be I mean, again, it's it's it's a matter of where do you set your system boundaries? How how how big do you consider your project? And again, here, it still needs to be the innovative main part of your project. But if you can include some additional scope where you you can argue that you that you create some emission reductions with your project, you could increase it slightly. Gotcha. And one final question is around, and can a lifecycle assessment be used as a basis for the GG emissions? It's a it's a super good question. I mean, it's definitely a it's a very valid input. But also as guided by the the methodology, it has a super super firm data hierarchy for for making references for example, for emission factors. So be make sure that you consult the data hierarchy in the methodology. And the lifecycle assessments are definitely in there. But it cannot, like it cannot trump any of the of the highest ending data sources, EUTs reports, etc. So it's it's a valid input, but but use it with with cautiousness. Perfect. Great, then that wraps up the session on GHG. Thank you so much, Frederick. Now we'll move on to the cost efficiency where I'll invite to Goldberg up on stage to talk a bit about the EU's ROI. All right, welcome Goldberg to the stage here and really great to have you here. excited to hear a little bit more about the cost efficiency criteria and how that is kind of on the perspective that EU it's their return on investment. Great to get us started. Let's start off with a poll on the question around do you know how much grant you need or maybe want to make the business case fly? So while our participants are going in there to go answer the poll, I just have a quick question for you. You've worked with a lot of project development and financial modeling for a lot of different projects in the past. What is some of the similarities that you see in project development versus in the EUIF application specifically? Is it similar? Is it very different? Yeah. So I think it's actually quite similar if you think about it. There's the same level of due diligence that you need to be able to show for your project being mature for your project being bankable and so on. But of course, with these innovative technologies, there's an added risk to it. So the proof of showing that your business case is a good one is maybe a bit higher. Yeah, definitely. Perfect. We have a couple of votes that came in. I think we see 60% that say yes and 40% that say no and no one that says as much as possible. So we see that fluctuating. Okay, perfect. And if you want to ask if you want to answer that question, maybe is it should people be asking for as much grant as possible or? And yeah, so that's a really good segue. into the cost efficiency that we're going to be talking about. So how much you ask for will impact how much, how high your cost efficiency is essentially. So it's about a balance of getting the funding that you need, making your project bankable, but at the same time, having a good cost efficiency score. So you need to find that balance. Yeah, perfect. On that note, I'll pass it over to you to take us through the cost efficiency criteria. Thank you so much. Right. So as I said, the grant that you end up asking for will determine how cost efficient your project is. So before we start talking about cost efficiency, we need to look into how much of a grant you will be asking for. The cost efficiency will look at your requested grant amount relative to the avoided GHG emissions. So there's a methodology in how your grant can be determined. So there's a cap to it. For you to arrive at the maximum grant amount, you will first need to create financial projections of the projections of the project for the entire project lifetime. You will then need to use the EU methodology for calculating the relevant cost. There's a template called the financial information file, which we'll be talking about in just a second. And then once you've calculated the relevant cost, 60% of that cost basis will be your maximum grant amount. I'll touch upon the relevant cost in just a second, but essentially your own financial projections and your detailed financial model. will create the basis for this cost item. There are two key deliverables when it comes to the cost efficiency. And they also play a role in the financial maturity, which Valentin talked about earlier. Those are the detailed financial model, which we can see here on the screen. This is a snippet into a balance sheet and a cash flow model of a cash flow model. And then we have the financial information file. So this is the template from the commission, which you need to populate correctly. And there are some locked cells in it, which should provide you with the calculations for the metrics that you need to fill out for your application, including the relevant cost. So before we arrive at your relevant costs so that we can arrive at your cost efficiency, we will start with your detailed financial model. We highly recommend that you justify every single assumption that goes into the model and that you provide evidence for it. As Valentin talked about earlier, it's very important that you show have all the same documentation to show for financial maturity, but that also applies here. You need to be able to show proof of concept of what's going on. So evidence can be anything from a market study to a signed offtake agreement, a letter of intent. And the rule of thumb is that the more you have, the better. What you'll do next is you'll work with the financial information file, the template from the UIF, and you will link that to your detailed financial model. Having a strong linkage between the two files will enable you to work with the relevant cost and the cost efficiency score much better. And it will also make it a lot easier for the evaluators to review your application. And lastly, we highly recommend that you follow as closely as possible the methodology provided by the UIF in the call documentation and the relevant cost methodology document. These assumptions that they want you to use, they might differ from your internal policies, but if you deviate from them, you might be deducted on the quality of your calculations. So now we're getting to the relevant costs. Your relevant cost will set the basis for your grant amount. There are two ways provided to calculate the relevant cost in the financial information file, and you will need to decide which is the right method for you. There's the default option, the no reference plan option. This is the simpler option, and you will not need to justify why you went with this option. And then there's option B, the reference plan methodology. This one requires a bit more workload on your behalf, and you will need to justify and be able to show why this is the right methodology for your project. These two options of methodology apply to all topics and all project sizes. So let's look a bit closer into option A, the no reference plan methodology. And as I said before, this is the default option. Here, your relevant cost is simply calculated as your undiscounted CAPEX, the net present value of your operational expenses and your maintenance CAPEX, and then you deduct the present value of operational benefits and your revenue. So in a theory, it's essentially just your investment plus your operational costs minus your revenue. The pros of using this method is that it is the default option. You don't have to justify why this is the right option for you to work with. And there's a much lighter workload compared to the reference plan methodology. Downside is that in some cases, using this methodology might result in a lower grant, lower relevant cost, and therefore a lower maximum grant than compared to the reference plan methodology. Looking at this formula here, the relevant cost equals CAPEX, OPEX, CAPEX. And all that. We can see that the main drivers are your revenue and cost profiles, both in amount and timing of the project. Other drivers include the ramp up profile, your weighted average cost of capital calculations, the boundaries within the call, inflation, contingencies, and items which are to be excluded according to the EUIF methodology. We will get to this in just a second. So there are some financial items which will be a part of your financial model, but they do not go into the calculation of the calculation of the calculation of the relevant cost. Let's look a bit closer into the other methodology, the reference plant methodology. Here, you will need to use a reference plant or a reference unit, which has a similar size and a similar output capacity, but uses conventional technology. So there's no innovation. In this methodology, you will need to calculate the relevant cost as just described in option A. But you will also need to do that for a reference plant. The documentation for the reference plant. The documentation for the reference plant will need to be publicly available and you will need to be able to provide every single assumption for that plant as well. So as I mentioned before, in some cases, this might result in a larger relevant cost base, but you really need to prove that this is the right methodology for you to use. And as I said, you are essentially doing two financial models. So the work load is much, much heavier. So a reference plant, what is that? That is a plant or project which will be using the conventional technology and no innovation included. As I said, it needs to have a similar output and output capacity and it needs to comply with the EU environmental standards. Also, the financial model of the reference plant will need to be available and added to the project's financial model. So when you are deciding which methodology to use for calculating your relevant cost, I highly suggest that you look into the risk and reward ratio of deviating from the default methodology. Essentially, you will need to show that this is the right way for you to go with and you will need to work much, much harder in providing old documentation and building a whole new financial model. So maybe look into is this worth the potential larger relevant cost base that we could achieve. There is an impact on the weighted average cost of capital of the reference plant as it has no innovation premium. So that would be lower. And you are deviating from the CAPEX and OPEX item of the reference plant and the project because, again, there is no innovation in the reference plant. Okay. So as I mentioned before, not everything can go into your relevant cost calculations. So these are public support received, requested, or planned to be requested. So these are other grants, contracts for difference, feed-in tariffs. The terminal value of your asset cannot be included in your relevant cost calculation. Any write-off of existing assets and technologies to be excluded. Any cost items which occurred before the grant signature or the first month succeeding the application submission, they are not to be included in the relevant cost. Any financing-related cost. Any financing-related cost. Any taxes, royalties to be paid out to shareholders, reorganizing costs, and training expenses. So these are all items which are not to be in your relevant cost. So your cost efficiency will be split. Cost efficiency score has two components. There's the quality of the calculation and then there's the cost efficiency score. So there are a few items which you need to be very aware of when you are calculating your relevant cost, which will impact the credibility and the quality of your calculations. Your application could lose points or score below the minimum threshold if your assumptions and projections of the financial model are not justified. And if you're deviating from the defined methodology by the EUIF in the call. So for example, if you're deviating from the relevant cost. So for example, if you were to include something that I just mentioned in the relevant cost, which should not be there, that would potentially fail you on the quality score. After submission of application, your grant amount might be decreased if the evaluator identifies minor issues in the calculation of your relevant cost. If during grant preparations, the project financials change so that the relevant cost is impacted. And during the mandatory audit and during the audit at entry into operations, if they find that there's revenue or cost items which were misestimated, they might reduce your grant. So you want to be as accurate in estimating your financial projections as you can. Significant mistakes could impact the quality of the relevant cost calculation and it could lead to the failure of your entire application. So now we've looked into relevant cost. So now we've looked into relevant cost and our maximum grant will be 60% of the relevant costs which we have defined. So just a quick recap. You have your own detailed financial model. You combine that with the relevant cost methodology in the financial information file. You get your relevant cost base, multiply that by 60% and then you have your maximum grant amount. So you can apply for up to 60% of the grant amount. But you do not have to ask for that. So here we have an example of a breakdown of the funding structure for a project. So we can see that the total project costs all the way on the left side. CAPEX next to that estimated the relevant costs. And then in this case, they applied for only 40% of the relevant costs requested. So, what you want to think about is that there is a strategy when it comes to looking at how much of a grant you ask for. Because it impacts your score, but also you want to get the right grant for you. So it's a balancing act of how much grant do we need to make this project fly and how much do we need to score on the cost efficiency in order for us to have a good strong application. So, the requested grant amount will impact the project's evaluating process through two components of the awarding criteria. There is the financial maturity, which Valentin touched upon earlier, where your project's profit and loss and profitability will include the internal rate of return and the net present value of the project, that is before the grant and after the grant. There is the financing structure and there is the cash flow profile and the debt repayment schedule. But then there is the cost efficiency. Your cost efficiency is defined as the total grant amount that you ask for, including any other public support, divided by the absolute GHG emission avoidance. That gives you your cost efficiency ratio, which will then be calculated into a score for your application. And let's just look at that because the score is actually different for the different topics. For the pilots, your cost efficiency score will be calculated as 12 minus 12 times the cost efficiency ratio, divided by 2000. If your cost efficiency ratio for the pilots goes above 2000 euros per ton, then you're out. 12 in this formula, 12 in this formula, the reason for that is that 12 is the maximum point you can get for your cost efficiency score. For the EV batteries, it is 3 minus 3 times the cost efficiency ratio, divided by 200 euros. So, in this scenario, or in this topic, you are out if your cost efficiency ratio goes above 200 euros per ton. And in the EV batteries, the score available for the cost efficiency is only 3. For all other projects, it's again, 12 total points that you can get for the cost efficiency score. But if you go over 200 euros, you are disqualified and you're out. Here we can see just examples of cost efficiency ratios or cost efficiency of projects which have gone through in the past. And we can see that for the general topics that the cost efficiency is on average below 50 euros. of ground per tonne CO2 to avoid it. On the lower graph, we can see that the score is much higher. And this is due to the pilots being able to have a much higher cost efficiency score. So, looking very quickly into the scoring. So for the general, the pilot and the clean tech, the total points that you can get for the cost efficiency are 15. There's 12 points for the cost efficiency ratio and there's three points available for the quality of your calculation. The total score, however, is different, meaning that for the general category, the cost efficiency will impact 19.7% of your application, whereas for pilots, it's about 16.5% and for clean tech, it's 13.5%. For the EV batteries, it's different. For the EV batteries, it's different. The total points you can get for the cost efficiency are 6, with three points being awarded for the cost efficiency score and three points being for the quality of your calculation. Out of a total score of 108 points, the cost efficiency for the EV batteries only has a 5.5% impact on the total score. So, what have we learned? We suggest that you select a grant amount that adds value to your project. So, you want to get a grant that enables you to reach FID and makes your project more bankable, makes it more attractive to other investors. Getting all 12 points on the cost efficiency might not have to be your ultimate goal. Of course, you want to get a good scoring on that, but at the same time, if you have to sacrifice some points to be able to get a higher grant to enable your project, your project to go further, then that might be something to look into. And lastly, cost efficiency, that includes all other state aid supports. So, that is any form of state aid that you get, such as contracts for difference, other grants, feed-in tariffs which are planned, have been received or are to be included. So, now I would like to invite my colleague Marion back onto the stage. Yeah. Thank you so much, Goldberg. Thank you. And we actually haven't received any questions from the crowd. So, I think maybe everyone understood cost efficiency very well. Hopefully, that's the case. But we'll wrap up this section here for now. So, thank you so much. And we will jump over to our very final section, which is around replicability, where we'll speak through that in the next couple of minutes together. Great to have you back, Sarah, for this very final criterion on replicability to ensure sustainable growth and competitiveness in the EU. So, I'll pass it over to you to take us through the last criteria together. Super. Thank you. So, now you've had almost two and a half hours of talk on the Innovation Fund. I hope you're feeling energy. And for this last criterion. I'll go very fast because it is the one that I think is also the easiest to understand. But it's a much more, I want to say, a big picture type of criterion that very much looks also at the policy contribution of your project. Very concretely, replicability means a lot of things. It encompasses a lot of different aspects that the EU would like projects to live up to. It contains several sub-criteria and amounts to 15 points, which in the general window equals 20% of the points, just as much as maturity, innovation, and so on. So, the first thing is, please do not underestimate this section simply because it might seem a bit more fluffy. Replicability, the first thing that is behind this word relates to efficiency gains. That is, what type of cost reduction or improvement in material use and so on that your project will lead to, as well as looking at what type of multiple environmental impacts does the project contribute to. So, really taking a slightly different stance from the greenhouse gas evaluation criterion. The second thing is, it will look at the growth plan for you as a company, a consortium, but also for the technology. How do you foresee your project to help deploy more CCS projects around Europe or contribute to the uptake of batteries? The second thing is, it will look at the uptake of batteries. And lastly, it will look at what is your project's contribution to some of Europe's competitiveness and industrial policy goals. So, how do you help build a European technology leadership with your project? To answer all of those questions on replicability and gain those 15 points, just as with innovation, the work is constricted to part B, where you will have four different sections to address the different aspects of this criterion. To support all of the claims that you make in part B, you will of course need to put some of the foundation in the annexes like the feasibility study or the business plan to support the argument that you make. So, for instance, if you foresee cost reduction potential for your technology, we need to have some technical evidence of that in the feasibility study. The first thing is about efficiency gains and multiple environmental impact. Those two do not necessarily go very well together, but we will not question that today. At least on the efficiency gains, what we're really looking to see is, will your project contribute to better use of the efficiency gains? For example, reducing dependency of critical raw materials, enabling recycling and so on. It can also look at how do you overcome potential resource constraints in terms of green electricity, in terms of critical raw materials and so on. We also look at how much would the project contribute contribute to avoid in terms of emissions, but also other environmental negative impacts that the project could have on biodiversity, air and water quality. And we look lastly on potential cost development. So how does your project contribute to lower the cost of those technologies, which will support their deployment on the market? The second thing is we're going to look very precisely at the growth plan for the technology. So how do you plan to deploy the technology, expand it? That could be first on your project site. Do you have any plans to double capacity on site? Is there some considerations on how to expand at regional or national level to create an ecosystem, for instance, around carbon capture? That can also be how will your project contribute to deploy these technologies within your sector? For instance, CCS in cement or waste to energy plants. And then what is the plan to conquer Europe and the rest of the world with this technology? So this is a bit more of scenario planning based on your project to really estimate what the potential could be for Europe. And naturally, if you say, well, from our facility, we could see this technology being deployed in 20 others with similar characteristics in Europe, then you can use the work you've done in your absolute greenhouse gas modeling to then also argue for what could be then the additional avoidance that could be generated should the technology deploy as you plan. The third fundamental criterion under replicability is your project's contribution to Europe's industrial leadership and competitiveness. And that is really very much policy type of sub criterion that looks into the net zero industry act, critical raw material act and the high focus there's been in this years on making sure that the climate and industrial policy agendas. So here we will look at potential of projects to build industrial ecosystems and energy infrastructure. So potential for sector coupling, connecting, creating new value chains. We look at what is the technology know how and knowledge that is created by the project, potential spillover, potential spillover effects, learnings in the market, and so on. We will also look at how the project builds resilience, security in the supply chain. We see this has really become a very hot topic at EU level that wants to reduce dependency on Asia, for instance, electrolyzers, solar, batteries. So there's really something that is about also thinking on how can your project contribute to create local European value chains and then lastly it's also looking at how can you reduce the dependency and ensure that your project sets the ground for other European projects to emerge we really want to see projects that take a leadership role and enable a snowball effect on the market very concretely you'll only have to argue for this within part b so the change compared to last year is that you do not need to supply a knowledge sharing plan at the application stage but once you are invited and during the grant agreement process you will need to supply the knowledge sharing plan this should contain an overview of your strategy for communication and dissemination an activity log and ideally also some key performance indicators on the activities you suggest and once you win then you will need to submit knowledge sharing reports with key indicators to the EU update your knowledge sharing plan and so on the one thing that's key to note is really that all of the claims that you make on replicability the EU will hold you accountable when you are implementing your projects so here again we're not talking about claims we're talking about scenario and planning and educated forecasts on developments so to wrap this up on this criterion it's really about quantification and substantiation we're not about making bold claims we're about making analysis and substantiate how the project will create impact and contribute to policy goals do not underestimate it it is worth 20% of the points so it is important and losing points on replicability is not what we would recommend when there is much higher risk on other criteria and lastly and I think that's also a beautiful way to conclude today if you are applying for the innovation fund it's because you want to make Europe great again so also provide basis for evaluators to feel excited that your project can actually create the impact that you suggest and I think that's the very fast run through on this criterion I'll invite Marianne in case there's any questions otherwise I'll let you wrap up yes we don't have any questions as we see it now and we are slightly over time so I think it's a perfect time to wrap up here so thanks so much for the last criteria here super perfect and then we'll jump right into the wrap up and if you are able to stay with us for the next couple of minutes that would be great and so here let's look at four key takeaways from today's webinar so first of all as Sarah has just mentioned recently just now on the replicability but also before an innovation and many of the other criteria make sure that all of the things that you are putting in your application are going to be done in your application is fact-based well documented and also well substantiated in terms of claims if you are going to put out a claim it needs to be substantiated to some degree so that the EU feels comfortable in putting that fact forward secondly the criterion on the weightings versus the effort required is very different so as we can see maturity is one of the key criteria that a lot of projects actually fail on however the scoring of it is much less compared to replicability for example it's the same scoring mechanism 15 points however it takes much much more effort in my opinion and also based on a lot of the previous experiences we've seen on projects so don't think of the scoring one to one in terms of effort really do the due diligence to see what is required per criterion third think data room rather than application writing I think this is we've said this before in our previous webinar the process and documentation is very very extensive to be able to prove and provide all the documentations in your application however we suggest you approach this like a due diligence process rather than a funding application because this also progresses your project development much much further and so look at it not only in a benefit of applying to a fund but also in terms of the webinars for the webinars for the webinars for this year so we have two more webinars as I mentioned in January one on financial maturity where we'll deep dive further with some representatives from CINEA and DG CLEMA and also on the 22nd of January we'll look into the hydrogen auction a little bit further also with some EU representatives and that marks it for today you have exactly 134 days until the EUIF 2024 submission happening in April 2025 so I'll wrap it up here today thank you very much for joining us today and have a wonderful rest of your day and hope to see you in January