Good morning and welcome to session one of the EU Innovation Fund Masterclass. This is a training session hosted by the Danish Energy Agency delivered to you by Implement. My name is Marian and I will be your host for today's webinar. I personally have worked with the EU Innovation Fund for the last two years, supporting projects across Power2x, CCS, Hydrogen and more. Today I brought with me three wonderful speakers. Number one, Klaus Andersson from the Danish Energy Agency. He's the NCP for Denmark and the team lead for EU funding with over 20 years of experience leading different funding programs. Secondly, I have Sarah and Sophia who are two subject matter experts who worked extensively also on the EU Innovation Fund as well as other public funding schemes. I really look forward to the two hours that we'll have together. To ensure that this session runs smoothly, we have some engagement guidelines for you. So number one, we encourage active participation because we have ample time during this webinar. So participate actively through the questions as well as the polls. Secondly, add questions continuously through the Q&A using the chat. There will be specific times where the Q&A will be addressed where we will pick some questions as well as the polls. Secondly, add questions continuously through the Q&A. Secondly, add questions continuously through the Q&A using the chat. There will be specific times where the Q&A will be addressed where we will pick some of the most relevant questions to be answered here on stage. Third, we highly encourage you to apply these learnings onto your specific projects. However, we will not be taking any specific questions about your projects. So we recommend that you save these for one on ones. And if you have any questions, do reach out to Klaus for the Q&A in the DEA. And finally, we definitely appreciate feedback. We'll have a couple more of these webinars scheduled for the next couple of months. So if you have any future feedback, please reach out to Klaus regarding these specific things. So the EU Innovation Fund is a journey. I like to use the analogy of summiting a mountain. And our journey is just set to start. Here you have a very clear goal and a very clear around what it looks like. But the path up is very much undefined. There may be multiple paths, and definitely a lot of obstacles around the way. During the climb, the view of the summit also changes, meaning that the goal might look different, depending on what angle you're standing on. But in order to get to the top, you need a strong team. Ample resources is also needed, as well as a clear plan of how you're going to actually get up to that top. We hope that from the support from the DEA, as well as these webinars, will provide you a bit more guidance around paving a clear path to reach that summit all the way to the top. And to ensure that you're on the right path, there will be a number of different checkpoints for you and your project teams to be able to get a bit more guidance to reach that. So let's look at what the timeframe of this journey looks like. So the call for proposals is set to be published on December 3rd. And we expect the deadline for the hydrogen auction to be roughly February, if we're looking at what was it this year, and around April for the Innovation Fund. And ahead of the call, the Danish Energy Agency is providing these masterclasses. So we have our first one today, October 24th, the next one in November, and the final one on December 12th, after the call has been published to recap some of the key learnings, as well as So we will also have a national info date that's hosted by Sineia in Denmark in January. The date is to be determined, but it will be hosted and communicated by the DEA. So to tell us a bit more about the support and services offered by the DEA, I will now invite Klaus Andersen to join me here on stage. Welcome Klaus. Thank you, Marianne. It's wonderful to have you here with us. Can you tell us a little bit more about your role in the DEA as well as some of the services that are offered through the partnership with Implement? Again, thank you, Marianne, for this. My name is Klaus Andersen. I am head of Team EU Funding and National Contact Point for the EU Innovation Fund. The Team EU Funding at DEA was established alongside last year's call, the 2023 call, to support the objective of creating more and better Danish proposals for the InnoFund. I think really this event is optimally timed since we just very recently learned the conclusions, the result of last year's call, and we are now also looking into next year's call, which will be published, like Marianne said, beginning of December. And this brings me to make a reference to this press released from DEA just yesterday, which announces that Denmark received impressively seven awards with a total award sum of 3.5 billion Danish kroner and with a total CO2.5 billion Kroner. And with a total CO2 avoidance of more than 30 million tons of CO2 in the lifetime of the projects. So really a significant contribution to the green transition in Denmark. Yeah, definitely. Like Marianne already introduced, we have made this partnership with Implement to introduce some new services to potential applicants to potential applicants. Like in the middle, this series of master classes that should equip potential applicants better to judge whether Innovation Fund is suitable for them and how they should address applying Innovation Fund. But also we are introducing what we call validation assessments, where projects and applicants can receive from us paid by DEA 30 hours of consultancy from implement where projects indicators will be held up against Innovation Fund selection criteria to give a validation of the competitiveness of the proposal and the ground to decide whether to apply or not and to design and choose a strategy, an optimal strategy for the application. Lastly, the National Info Day, together with CINEA in Copenhagen hosted by DEA. It will probably be the 9th of January. We will have the final confirmation quite soon. Here CINEA will present the formalities of next year's call of applying and also there will be the opportunity of one-to-one consultations where applicants will be the opportunity to ask critical questions to CINEA. Great. Thank you so much for all the explanation around what offerings that you have from the DEA. And you mentioned that Denmark was able to win seven different projects this past year. That's quite impressive. But I'm curious to know what your ambition for this year's EU Innovation Fund would look like for Danish candidates. Like said earlier, what our objective would be to create more to be a new and better proposals, more and better proposals. Not just more, they should be better. We still face that a significant part of proposals do not pass threshold or are ineligible. There's room for improvement. So not just more. But I would say if we aim for something like 20 high-quality proposals from Denmark, it should be a good target. Yeah. Thank you so much for sharing that. Well with that said, in order to achieve these 20 high-quality proposals from Denmark, it should be a good target. Yeah. Thank you so much for sharing that. Well with that said, in order to achieve these 20 high-quality proposals from Denmark, proposals. The purpose of today's session as well as the webinars will go through the purpose today. So number one, it's about helping you understand how the program works. So why is the innovation fund designed as it is and how does it actually work in practice? Number two, what does success look like? What are the characteristics of past winning projects? So understanding what characteristics you can apply to your projects. And thirdly, getting started with the big question. So how do you ensure that your project is fit for the fight to really kind of apply some of the key learnings and putting it into this year's fight? But before we get started, we would love to hear a bit more about who's joining us and what your expectations are. So if you can put in the chat what sector you're in or what sector your project is representing, as well as one expectation you have for today's webinar. So feel free to go directly into the chat and write that in. And in the meantime, I wanted to ask you a question, Klaus. You are supporting Danish projects. Could you clarify what qualifies as a Danish project? What qualifies would be a legal entity registered in Denmark and a project that is implemented within Denmark. Okay. And how about if there are two different entities applying together? One could definitely be foreign. But one has to be legal entity within Denmark. Yeah, definitely. So if you're also an international company, as long as the entity applying is a Danish entity, then it's good. Okay. Amazing. Right. We'll just wait to get a few things in the chat. And if I'm looking down, it's because I'm looking at the chat screen. So not because I'm not wanting to look into you guys. Yep. So we have someone from the energy sector. And wanting to learn a bit more projects. Wanting to learn a little bit more about the different types of projects. Definitely we'll be covering some of that today. We have someone from smart energy management. Definitely very relevant. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Additional to the requirements of what are the requirements in the EU Innovation Fund. Definitely. And we will be covering that as well. All right. Well, thank you so much for putting all of your thoughts into the chat. And if you have any questions during the webinar, feel free to put it in there as well. And we would also now love to hear about how well you are familiarized with the EU Innovation Fund. So if you can use the poll to please select the answer that describes you the best with your experience with the fund. So number one, you have direct experience with it. Perhaps you've worked with the fund in the past, submitted an application. Secondly, you know it well, as in you might have interacted with it, supporting a project in your organization. And finally, you don't know too much about it, but are very curious to get to know more. And while you're filling out the poll, I have one more question for you, Klaus. You have worked with many different funding programs in your professional experience. What do you think is most unique about the EU Innovation Fund? It's true. I have worked for 20 years, for instance, with the EU Framework Program. And let me tell you, Innovation Fund is something different. Firstly, it's financed by the EU Innovation Fund. Firstly, it's financed by the emission trading system. And it has the objective to reduce CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. So it's focused on that entirely. It operates at the higher TRL levels. It's meant for developing and implementing technologies with the potential to reduce CO2 emissions. Therefore, it's perhaps not so relevant for academics. And certainly not research as such. It's the higher TRL levels. And it probably the typical applicant would be an industry, a company with the ability to implement and operate a technology. Yeah. And also, you are awarded to deliver CO2 emissions. Yeah. Or reductions. Reductions. Yeah. To deliver reductions. And as such, you should have that ability. Yeah. Definitely. Thank you so much for clarifying that. And I see that a lot of people have put in the poll. So we have 4% saying that you have direct experience with it. We have around 12% of people that know it quite well. And I think majority, 83% of you say that you don't know too much about it. And so that's really great. And this first session is really here to equip you with the foundational knowledge of what the EU Innovation Fund entails. So we're glad to hear that we'll be able to maybe upskill a couple of you through this webinar. So now that we have a good idea of who's in the room, let's dive into today's session and today's agenda. So the first part consists of the basics of the EU Innovation Fund. So we'll go through its origin, the ambition, ways of working, and how it's all constructed. We will then jump into a five minute break. And then when we're back, we will go into the rest of the retrospective aspects of the fund, going through some of the key lessons from past projects, as well as application rounds. And then from there, we will wrap it up with some key takeaways and close the section. To walk you through the basics of the EU Innovation Fund, I will now invite my colleague Sarah to take us through. Hello, everyone. I'm very happy to be here with you today to guide you through what the EU Innovation Fund is about. And to start on the basics, I thought it would be a good idea to start by understanding the bigger picture and what does the EU actually want to achieve? with this fund. With this fund. With the EU Green Deal, the ambition has been set. Whoops. We're going a bit too fast, maybe. And the ambition has been set that Europe is on the path to become the first climate neutral continent in the world by 2050. This has been the big ambition that has been set with the EU Green Deal. And to be able to reach this ambition, the EU has several tools in the box. Public funding is one of them and the EU Innovation Fund specifically. However, the story with the EU Innovation Fund doesn't start with the Green Deal. It actually starts, as Klaus mentioned it, with the ETS. The ETS has been created back in 2005 as the world's first emission trading scheme in the world. It has, yeah, the carbon price has raised, raised immensely in the last couple of years, as you may have seen if you follow this closely. And in while at the start of the funding of the ETS, the carbon price was rather low, it has really increased to become a huge emission trading scheme. So when the auctioning revenues amounted to about 5 billion euros in 2017, those have reached 30 billion euros in 2022. The revenues from auctioning emission allowances are mostly redirected towards member states that reinvest those revenues into investments in climate, renewable energy and energy efficiency. But a part of the revenue is also directed towards EU funding schemes like the modernization fund and the EU innovation fund. During the second, the first and second phase of the ETS, not much has happened. If we look at it frankly, on the ETS, a lot of the allowances were given for free to emitters. But we've seen the first change with the third phase of the ETS that started in 2013. At this point in time, auctioning has become the default method for allocating allowances, and we've seen an increase in the carbon price. The EU has then set the new entrant reserve that has allocated 300 million ETS allowances to fund low carbon technologies. This is basically the predecessor of the EU innovation fund. With those 300 million allowances, it had a total budget of 2.1 billion euros to fund low carbon technologies. The problem is the carbon price was actually rather low, and a lot of those projects faced a lot of difficulties. So when the EU court of auditors looked at the impact of the NER 300 project, the EU program concluded that it did not achieve the intended progress in supporting the demonstration of low carbon technologies. And in fact, when we look at it, it is quite true. About 20 of the 39 projects that were selected by the program ended up not being operational, and about 35% of this 2.1 billion euro budget was not spent. So if you are at the EU, you have a background of a program that did not quite succeed in reaching its goal, and you're now entering phase four of the ETS with an EU innovation fund. The way that we look at it is that the EU innovation fund is also a path to redemption. The EU is looking for success. And in a way, what helps or what has helped a lot the EU innovation fund is that when it was created, the carbon price was the EU innovation fund was about 25 euro per tonne of CO2, which was about 25 euro per tonne of CO2. So not quite extraordinary. But then it increased at some point to 100 euro per tonne of CO2, and is now settling in a level around 70 euro per tonne of CO2. This means that based on the allowances that are allocated to the EU innovation fund, we're talking about 530 million ETS allowances, the program is expected to be expected to have a total budget envelope of 40 billion euros. So if we look back, the NER 300 program had 300 million allowances for a budget of 2.1 billion. And now we're talking of allowances of 530 million that will yield a budget of 40 billion plus. So this is a beast of a funding instrument, to say the least. And is expected to create a lot more impact. I understand from the poll that a lot of you are not familiar with it. So you may not have experience with the first calls that have been launched by the EU innovation fund. To date, there's been about 12 billion of those 40 expected billion euros that have been spent in the first four calls. With the fifth call, that is the one that opens in December 3rd, another 5 billion euros will be on the table. This means that concretely, now the EU still has up to the horizon of 2030, about 70% of the budget to allocate. And they are free to do so and distribute the political priorities every year. So for the year that comes, the total budget of the EU innovation fund is of 5 billion. And we'll have 2.4 billion that will be allocated for grants that we usually talk about when we talk about the EU innovation fund. But we will also have a dedicated window for EV battery cell manufacturers with 1 billion euro on the table, and another 1.2 billion euros for the hydrogen auction. We're not going to talk too much about the hydrogen auction today. We're not going to talk too much about the hydrogen auction today, but we will have a session later in the year where we will deep dive a bit more in the mechanics of that specific scheme. But overall, if you've been part of the EU innovation fund from the first year, you are used to see a very steep increase in the budget. It's not quite the case this year. And we also see that the budget allocated for the EU innovation fund grant per se has decreased, while the overall allocation for the program is technically still at a comparable level to last year. So as I said, the total budget for the EU innovation fund is really much linked to the ETS price. So if it stays around the 70 to 75 euro per ton of CO2, we will have about 40 billion euros. up to 2030. But a lot of forecast estimates that the carbon price will increase, especially towards the 2030 date. So in theory, the budget of the EU innovation fund could increase. But that does create a small paradox in the fact that we may see this program get more funding closer to 2030, when technically the carbon price will be higher, higher, higher, higher, and the case for public funding may be lesser for a lot of the projects that will have an incentive de facto to switch. So this little step back in history on the ETS and the NER 300 is interesting because it puts a bit of perspective in terms of how does the EU innovation fund comes into the picture. The goal is the same. As with the NER 300 program, the EU innovation fund aims to fund low carbon technology. technologies and their deployment on the market. This means that if you work with Horizon Europe and likely program at EU level, we are not aiming at the same end TRL. We want new technologies that will decarbonize Europe to reach TRL 9. So that purpose remains the same as with the NER 300. The main difference is that the EU has something to prove. 20 of the 39 NER 300 project failed. This means we want to minimize the failure rate with the EU innovation fund. As you will see when we speak about the evaluation criteria in the fund, the focus is on maturity. The name of the fund talks about innovation, but you actually win by having a very mature project when you give guarantees to the EU that the project will be executed. That also means that the application is quite different from other funding programs and that the maturity is really, as we call it at implement the killer criterion. Another difference as well, and that comes when a funding program gains such a huge budget, is that policy every year influences a bit how the program looks like. When the EU announced the hydrogen bank, then suddenly they look at the funding available under the funding available under the EU innovation fund to create an auction mechanism. When the EU talks about the net zero industry act, it turns into a higher focus on bringing clean tech technologies up to market. So that is also something to be aware of. And that's also what we see with the call that is coming, that when there is a focus on batteries, then there is a budget that kind of will be able to get the funds allocated for that funds allocated for that specific topic. Altogether, the two programs share the similarity that we are aiming at supporting businesses that will invest in clean tech, that will boost industry economic growth and create future proof jobs. So if you are here today because this fund may be of interest for your project, then we look now a bit more in terms of who who is the EU targeting. And in terms of sectors, because it is funded through the ETS. Naturally, if you are covered by the ETS, you will be eligible in the EU innovation fund. So that could be if you are a cement plant like Allbrook Portland that has just received the funding, you would be eligible. If you are a refinery looking at decarbonizing your operations, you will be very much in the scope of what the program intends to do. So that is a lot of the ETS to fund. With the expansion of the ETS to the transport and building sector projects within this field. So in the maritime transport and aviation and in construction are also within scope. But it doesn't mean you need to be a polluter to apply. You can also technically come from the green energy space, renewables, energy storage and so on to be eligible for the funds. The common characteristic between all the projects that apply and get funding is that we are looking at flagship projects that will take a low carbon technology and bring it to market. So it's really this space where we're looking at first or second of its kind demonstration where you are bringing carbon capture, green hydrogen production and so on to the market. And the point is that the EU innovation fund will act as an accelerator for those projects to take FID and reach financial close. The portfolio of the EU innovation fund has really increased every year. The budget has has increased. This means we have more projects in the in the UIF pipeline. I think this year about 85 projects were selected. And just to give you an idea. And just to give you an idea, there's a lot of diversity in the portfolio in terms of technologies and so on. Don't need to be cement manufacturing plants. You don't need to be carbon storage provider. You can be green steel manufacturer, electrolyzer manufacturers like Topso that got funding last year or a producer of green ammonia and so on. So if we look now in what is coming on December 3rd. The EU will be looking at finding the next generations of flagship decarbonization projects. And they will do that first with through the general innovation fund call where there is a total budget of 2.4 billion euros where the EU has a 20% flexibility. So they can increase this budget. So they can increase this budget by up to 20%. This is technically a decrease for this call. And the requirement in there, we're yet to see if they will keep a similar structure. But it is likely that we will look at funding small, medium, large scale projects, as well as pilots and clean tech manufacturing. The way you define where you apply very much depends on the volume of your capex. So there is a minimum requirement across all of your capex. So there is a minimum requirement across all of those topics that you reach at least 2.5 million euros of capex. And then according to how big the volume is, you may apply to small, medium, large. I have talked earlier that the end goal is TRL 9. This is true for all of those topics except for pilot, where there we aim at a TRL 7 or 8 at the end of the project. Next to this general EU innovation fund call, we have this new topic that will be launched about EV battery cell manufacturing, where we have a budget of 1 billion euros that is allocated. And we'll also have now the second round of the hydrogen auction with a budget of 1.2 billion euros. That's an increase of 400 million euros compared to last year. What's interesting to note is that when you apply in the general bucket, there will be a focus on innovation. When you are applying in the EV battery cell manufacturing or in the hydrogen auction, the EU actually doesn't really quite look at the innovation of the project, but wants to fund projects that will deliver fast and deliver high volume, in terms of batteries or in terms of batteries or RF and bio hydrogen. So if you are a hydrogen producer with when you're using a technology that is rather mature and not too innovative, the auction might be a better suited scheme compared to the general innovation fund grants. That is the very high level introduction. We'll deep dive in the next bits of today in terms of what the requirements are and so on. But the goal with the masterclass is that through the sessions, we will look progressively in terms of understanding what the fund is up to the point where we understand what it takes to win. My key takeaways for now and why this historical view on the NER 300 program is important is that when you apply to the EU innovation fund, the success of your project defines the success of the EU in the EU in securing that it could become the first climate neutral continent by 2050. So they will screen your application to make sure that your project is mature enough to actually be implemented. The second thing to have in mind, and that's also comes with the ETS price development, is that the budget allocation has shifted. And that's also showing a bit more more conservative take on the budget increase. That should not cause for despair if you are going to apply in the general window, but it calls for maybe a higher focus on strategizing on your project. And lastly, because the new call will be 2.2 billion euros and not 4.8 as it was last year, competition will likely be tough. We will see a lot of good applications. So this is really an encouragement to start early in the process. So if you're tuning in today, it's a very good idea. And of course, aim for quality when you are in the application process. So that is the crash course in the world of the EU innovation fund. I'm curious to know, Marianne, if we have any questions at this point. Yeah, I think feel free to use the chat if you have any questions on what Sarah has presented. And there was one question around the TRL level. You mentioned that at the end of the project, ideally, the project hits TRL 9. What do you think about what TRL level should projects be now around when they're applying for the fund? That really comes down to the maturity. At the end of the day, the lower your start TRL, the harder it will be to prove to the EU that you have the sufficient level of maturity to bring it to TRL 9. We see often projects that start at around TRL 7 when they aim for the non-pilot topics. Great. I have one more question. Just mentioning that this year, because there's a separate budget for EV battery cell manufacturers, as well as the hydrogen auction, there is a decreased budget for the general window. I was wondering what are your takes on the competition for that? Because there's a decreased budget, but there's also another budget for the other sectors. So, yeah, what do you foresee the competition to be like in that general window? I think it will very much depend on the topic that you apply in. My hypothesis would be that if you are applying in the large-scale window, competition will remain very tough. In the smaller topics like small-scale, medium-scale pilot, it will likely remain quite good. This is also where we've seen the better success rates. If you are producing batteries, but not for EV, and apply in the clean-tech window, it may be a bit more difficult to make a case against other clean-tech technologies, considering the EU is looking to fund battery in a separate call. Right. Yeah. See, we have one question regarding, are you able to apply to both the EU IFN24 general call as well as the hydrogen auction, or is it an either-or? You can technically apply to both. You will need to tick a little box to inform the EU that this is what you are doing. The deadline for the hydrogen auction is earlier than the innovation fund, and you will also hear the results of the auction before. At that time, you will have up to two months to say yes or no to the grant, the auction grant, and this will likely not give you sufficient time to hear back from the EU. The EU innovation fund grant. So if you get the hydrogen auction and apply for the EU innovation fund, you will likely, your plan A will have to be the hydrogen auction. If you fail on the hydrogen auction, you will still have then the backup solution on the innovation fund. Yeah. That being said, the projects should be relatively different because in the innovation fund, there is a focus on innovation that we do not see in the hydrogen auction. Right. And, another question from the chat we see that, could you share a few more examples of different types of applicants? I know we talked about the green ammonia manufacturer, we had the electrolyzer manufacturer, are there any other kind of archetypes of projects that you have seen in the past? Yeah. I mean, it covers the full spectrum of the energy transition space. I think if we look more in terms of what type of entities, we see it's like a vast majority is channeled to private companies and within this space also the larger companies. I think it is the EU intent with the small scale pilot and so on to also give room for SMEs. But the focus on maturity de facto gears it a bit more towards the bigger company with bigger financial strength. Yeah, yeah, strength. Yeah. And I think you can also find a list of all of the awarded projects on the CineA EU website if you're curious to know a bit more about the types of projects. And then one last question to address, is the EU funding relevant for universities and research groups? In itself, not really. There is no restriction in terms of the type of entity that can apply, but I, I would not see a set up where a university could be a lead on an application. They could be a supporting partner, but it is very much geared to the entities that will be executing on the project rather than academia. Gotcha. Great. I think that is all we have time for questions for this section. We will have more time later on throughout the session. So keep those questions coming. And if your question wasn't addressed now, we will aim to address it later on. But we'll wrap up this part here and now hand it over to Sophia, who will be talking a bit more about how projects are selected based on the different evaluation criteria. Perfect. Well, welcome. So happy to have you with us today. In this session, we will be looking at how are projects selected. Now, quite a few of you have asked about the requirements and the criteria. I will caveat just now, as Marian has mentioned earlier, we won't be answering specific questions on specific questions on specific projects. And given that this is an intro session, we will be covering it at a high level. And so we won't be going into the nitty gritty of exactly how do we tick off this box with which piece of paper. But at the end of this session, what we hope for you to have is a fuller understanding of what do these criteria look like? What are some of the sub criteria? And then what are the minimum thresholds as well? Because for some of them, there really are some minimum thresholds. thresholds without which a project will not be eligible. So let's get started. When you decide to apply, your project will be scrutinized against five main evaluation criteria. And these are the ones we're going to explore today. So the first being the degree of innovation. Now, Sarah has touched on it already. And as the name itself states, it is an innovation fund. So this is naturally very important. But as Sarah has also alluded to, this needs to be balanced. And this needs to be balanced with the maturity of the project. This is looked at through some sub criteria, which we'll come on to. But essentially, the interplay between these two are very important. The third one, again, at the center of the EU Innovation Fund, especially coming from the ETS funding, is the emissions avoidance that is achievable. Now, this plays directly into the fourth criteria. That is the cost efficiency. Now, that is to say, for the grant that you are requesting, how much emissions are you avoiding? So what is the cost per tonne of CO2 or CO2 equivalent in euros that your project will be able to achieve with the funding? And the final one, I know only some of you have come across EUIF before, but this one is changing this year. This is replicability. We will be having a look at some of the key foundational principles. But what I would also encourage is that for those of you who are staying tuned to join us back on the 12th of December, when we have some more clarity on exactly what this will look like. But let's get started. We're diving first into the degree of innovation. Now, the degree of innovation is fundamentally on two axes. So that is the level of innovation, but also the development of maturity. That is to say, how much are you maturing the technology readiness level or, as some people have referred to it already, TRL through your project? For this, there is a threshold. For this, there is a threshold. That is to say, if you do not meet the threshold, you are ineligible for EU funding. Now, let's have a look at what is below and above. So to start with, what is ineligible is what we refer to as incremental innovation. So there's only minor changes or minor improvements to existing processes or existing technologies, contributing no significant new knowledge. So that would be ineligible. In other words, if your project falls here, please do not. Do not spend the time to write a large application because unfortunately it would not be accepted. What is eligible is firstly the category of intermediate or strong innovation. So this is new or considerably changed technology. It could also be the scale up of innovative technologies or the combination of processes. For this, the EU is expecting to see that your project will contribute versus where the market is today or where the process is. So this is today some increase in the technology readiness level. And the third and final category that is absolutely eligible is very strong or breakthrough innovation. This is new technology, first of a kind technology. And here the EU is expecting a large progression in the TRL maturity. Again, with the caveat, as Sarah has mentioned, if you are applying to the pilot scale, this naturally isn't necessarily taking your project to TRL 9. This naturally isn't necessarily taking your project to TRL 9. But this is evidencing and viably evidencing a significant increase in TRL. So that is what degree of innovation looks like. Now, as we've mentioned, this has to be balanced with maturity. We don't really want a repeat of NAIR 300. And so the EU is looking to very strongly evaluate the maturity of projects across three main and buckets. The first of this is the operational maturity. Now, there's a few subcategories. And again, there are specific ways of visualising this and submitting this, but we will just have a look at some of the sub criteria. First of which is the team, that is to say, do you have the expertise in place? The second is the processes that is looking at the robustness of the processes for managing your risks and also managing the quality of your tasks. The third is your plan. The third is your plan. Again, this is really hinging on the viability of execution. And the fourth is a comprehensive understanding of barriers within the project environment. So again, if you have an innovative project, it is making sure you understand that what are these operational maturity level and how can you ensure that your project will be viable and you can substantiate that to the EU. The second is the technical maturity. So this is looking at the engineering setup and also the core technology. It's looking at the performance and the cost breakdowns and crucially, the risks and mitigations inherent in any innovation is of course technical risks. And it is very, very crucial. The EU panel are a panel of experts. So it is really crucial to be open about these risks and also to have a plan in place and also to have a plan in place for mitigations. Now, finally, it is the financial maturity. Please do not underestimate this. It is so, so critically important and we'll be coming on to where we unfortunately sometimes see projects fail and a little sneak preview. This is one of them. In this, we need a business case and market prospects. Again, this is really the foundation of why you're the project is so crucial for the market and for the EU in terms of decarbonisation. It's looking at the financing plan. So that's both equity providers and debt providers, the upstream and downstream. So that will be the supply as well as the offtake. And finally, the financial risks. Again, here, please be aware that these are experts reviewing your case and to really have thought through what these financial risks and exposures could be. So this is the maturity criteria against which you will be evaluated. So this is the maturity criteria against which you will be evaluated. Now we are moving on to the core, the GHG emissions avoidance as an innovation fund geared towards decarbonisation of Europe. This is obviously very, very critical for our projects. And what this exactly looks at is the GHG emissions of the GHG emissions of the projects in the first 10 years of operation. To be aware of, this will be monitored by the EU. So it is not something where a hypothesis or a best guess will do. So it does involve detailed modelling. Now this is split under three sub criteria. First of which is the absolute GHG. That is the total amount of emissions avoided in the EU. So the first 10 years of operations by your project in tonnes of CO2 or CO2 equivalent. Then the second one is relative GHG. Now, as I've mentioned, we are staying at a high level today of the criteria. But to be aware of this relative GHG is a comparator between your project and the base case. An example of which would be if one were producing green hydrogen, a relative GHG could look at the emissions and the delta between grey hydrogen and grey hydrogen. This is to say that the EU is trying to look at what is the over and above current status quo that your project would be contributing. Here again, we have a minimum threshold. And this is for the quality of calculations. And here it does need to be in a EU specific format. It is quite a complex calculation. But there are methodologies provided. And this will be specific to your sector. Again, this is not something that we will be covering today. But to be aware of those assumptions and the logic needs to be really clear. Now, why are we looking at this? Again, as I've touched on, it's a comparative metric and it's also the basis for cost efficiency. That is to say that the EU wants to understand where it's putting its money. And for where it's putting its money, what emissions avoidance is it achieving? Is it achieving? Klaus has already touched on the phenomenal results we've seen in Denmark this year. And of course, the EU wants to see this continue to grow across all countries. So this is at a high level, the GHG emissions avoidance. As I've touched on, this is sort of bang for your buck, so to speak. And so we come on to the cost efficiency on which it really hinges. Now, the measurement of your GHG avoidance, so that is the absolute GHG avoidance. And will determine how much grant or how many points can be scored. Now, to give you an example of what this looks like, have a table here. And it is out of a total number of 12 points. So as you see in the first column, that is the maximum points achieved. And what we are looking at is the emissions. So the absolute emissions divided by the grant request. So that would be to say what is the cost per tonne of CO2 equivalent avoided that you are requesting. Again, what you can see in the last two columns, or sorry, in the first two columns, is that a difference of just one cent per ton of CO2 avoided changes your points by 0.5. Now, that might not seem like a lot, but it really can be a make or break. And so it is very important to have done these calculations in advance to understand for the grant that you are requesting, how many points you are likely to get based on your emissions avoided. And here we do see and would encourage projects to be strategic with that number on the grant request. Now, as I have also put in parentheses, the grant request is based on the relevant costs. I will touch on this momentarily, but also just to sum up is that every tonne of CO2 avoidance matters, and the euros requested is not. The euros requested really matter. Now, I can hear you already, I'm sure, from the other side of your screens asking, what about my sector? Now, the grant and the CO2 avoided does vary per sector. And we would encourage looking at previous winners, again, as Marian's mentioned, available on the Cineia database, to understand what this looks like within your sector, and to make sure that you are not trying to benchmark yourself against a large scale carbon capture project, which inherently will have a very different profile. So to come back to the grant requested and what that relevant cost base looks like. Now, we often hear talk about this and the grant request will be based on an eligible cost base. Now, what is that? A lot of people refer to this 60% number and the 60% number is 60% of the eligible cost base. But it is not 60% of your costs, nor is it 60% of your capex, unfortunately. There is a very specific methodology. Again, this is on the front page of the EU cost calculator. And there is detailed explanations there, which we will not be going into today. We will be going into more details of cost efficiency in an upcoming webinar. So do please stay tuned for that. But just to be aware that it's not only about the number of points, that it's not only about the cost efficiency in your GHG avoidance, but it's also about the maximum amount of grant you could request based on your relevant cost base. We have here on the graph an example of a BECCS project to show you that it is absolutely not the full cost base and that you will need to be able to substantiate to the EU that the remainder of your cost base can be covered, be that through debt or equity or otherwise. So that wraps us up for the cost efficiency. And we're now coming on to the final one. This is replicability. As I've mentioned, this is changing. So I know maybe some of you have vaguely seen EUIF just for those of you who have seen it before. The KSP or knowledge sharing plan has been removed. We know that much, but further details will be available post the 3rd of December. But we are going to have a look at some of the key fundamental points. principles of replicability. So replicability is changing, as I've mentioned, but it is looking at the bigger picture of what the project will contribute in the EU. Now, what does that mean? It's generally across three main buckets. The first of which is efficiency gains. That is to say that in the scaling up and the development of your project or the rolling out of further projects based on your initial project, there will be efficiency gains. efficiency gains seen, which you can substantiate and model. The second is technology deployment. So again, that is to say it is not just a single plant. The EU is not looking to fund, however spectacular, a single small RFNBO green hydrogen or RFNBO SAF plant in Denmark. Unfortunately, it is looking for something that can deploy its technology to further sites. that can improve upon the status within for other actors in the value chain across the sector and also the EU. And this is also then building into the wider impact. It's looking at the resilience of the EU industrial system, the economic growth, job creation, emissions avoidance further, and also wider environmental benefits. Another point that's being particularly highlighted this year and most likely next year. that is to say there needs to be a plan in place and analysis done on how this project is going to scale up and what this looks like and how this is going to obviously help the EU. And in terms of timelines, the EU last year and again, subject to confirmation for this year was looking up to 2050 and then beyond naturally with more scrutiny being on the assumptions and calculations up to 2050. And how your project will then function and contribute in a net zero state post 2050. And as I've mentioned or alluded to this is a modeling exercise and it's assumptions driven modeling. There need to be substantiated pathways and there need to be considerations for how this is replicable, scalable, and how this can really contribute not only to your own project, but to the value to your project. But to the value chain, to the sector and to the EU and helping it meet its goals. So we have now covered the five main criteria. Don't worry, I know that you're all clamoring for more. So we will now be having a look at just how important are they? Which brings us on to the weighting of criteria. So this shows you a rough weighting of the criteria based on the general weighting of the criteria. And what we have here is going to be the criteria based on the criteria based on the general window. We are coming onto the next slide where I will show you what the difference is between the different sectors. But this is in general. And what we have here is the scoring sheet. Now, where we have in parentheses, this is where we see the thresholds. Again, these have been alluded to as we have gone through. And I did see earlier in the chat, a question about maritime. And as you can see at the bottom here, there are bonus points. And that is for things such as net carbon removals, maritime, other GHG savings and additional renewable energy. The total points comes to Siaka 76. However, what we would say is we really are aiming for, depending on the window, but a high number of points, 85% and above is really what we're aiming for. And with these thresholds, they must be cleared. If the thresholds are not cleared, there are instances where there is no feedback. It is an ineligible project. And unfortunately, that work cannot be submitted. So what does this look like? In the well-rounded projects for the general window, large, medium, small projects, the focus here is on cost efficiency, degree of innovation, replicability and maturity. They're all fairly weighted, hence our archetyping of well-rounded projects. In breakthrough projects, which we often see or mainly see in the pilot window, you can see here, there's more of a degree of innovation. That is to say, owing to its, owing to the layout and the design of the pilot window, it is more focused on innovation and developing the TRL and therefore less waiting on the maturity. And the final archetype, we're looking at clean tech manufacturing or the both and projects where, I don't know, potentially paradoxically, it's looking at innovation and maturity. Again, for specific questions and how your project may perform, I would encourage you to reach out to Klaus with any of the Danish projects for further support. Now, we've covered the different criteria. We've covered what they're worth and how they're weighted depending on which window you're in. But how does the EU actually look at them? How do they evaluate them? And as I've touched on a couple of times, hopefully, you're not getting sick of me repeating it, but they're looking at eligibility and admissibility first. That is to say, we need to clear those thresholds first. Only after that can we come on to the latter stages. The first of which is the degree of innovation. No innovation fund without innovation. And this is ensuring again, above the required criteria and that it is helping the EU drive to the TRL and FID's goals. The third is the GHG emissions avoidance and the project maturity. Here again, we've got some of these thresholds and that we need at least 50% in the maturity segment. Please, again, I will underline this so many times, don't underestimate what that takes. And don't underestimate how much it's worth for really selling your business case. That is partially what it is. And finally, the replicability. The replicability is looking at the future potential and cost efficiency also sometimes is considered a way of ranking. And without these, the project cannot unfortunately be funded. A final point on the cost efficiency. If the relevant cost base has not been calculated correctly, that is to say, you have asked for more grant or for grant funding that is not considered within relevant costs, regardless of how well you will not be eligible to receive funding. That is to say, if your project could only receive a maximum of 80 million, you have requested 100 million, you would not receive 80 million. You would not receive anything, unfortunately. So please do be very mindful of that. And this brings us on to some other failing points, unfortunately, in some of those trips that we see at some of the projects stumble on. Now we have the latest figures out from 2023. There's not a full breakdown as yet, but the pattern holds in that where we see the majority of projects failing is on the financial maturity. To date, as in prior to two days ago, this was circa 53%. We have seen the EU has released some press release on this, which states it's 47% this year. So again, please, please do not underestimate how important this is. And that it is so important to meet all of these thresholds and meet all of these requirements. Now, what does this look like? So, you know, you need to meet the thresholds, you know, financial maturity is really important. And you understand that there are five criteria with some sub criteria, which will need different levels of modelling. But what does that look like? So for the evaluation criteria, there are then a set of deliverables. And these can be up to around 300 pages in total. And we know that as Sarah's mentioned, the EUIF is a bit of a beast in terms of the production and the resources required to produce this. Not all of these are equal. That is to say, not all of them require the same time investment, the same resource investment. But that in general, there is a part B, which is essentially a, I would say a synopsis, but it's not short. But it is covering all of the different evaluation criteria, answering some specific questions. And we also then have a business plan, budget tables, participant information, etc. There is on here a feasibility study. And for those of you on the more engineering side, this is an EU specific feasibility study and a mature feasibility study. So that is to say it will need to be a new updated feasibility study, meeting the EU specifications and requirements for the finances and the GHG as we've touched on that are templates available. And we would strongly recommend that you study those methodology to ensure that you really are living up to the requirements. Perfect. So that has been, I know, a brief and at some points high level introduction to the evaluation for the EU Innovation Fund. Now some key takeaways. As I mentioned, five main evaluation criteria that have minimum thresholds to pass. These are weighted differently by the window. So do be mindful of which window you're applying to. We will come on later as to what those windows look like and what characterise them. Second is the ratio of points versus effort is not balanced, unfortunately. So some will require, for example, maturity, more effort to substantiate than others such as replicability. And the third is that there is a cascading priority to meet the eligibility and to win the funding, where many are unfortunately falling short on financial maturity. And now hopefully after the webinar, this won't be you. And you will know to look in detail at it. But I am conscious that we have just run through a lot of different things and that you may well have some questions, at which point I would like to invite Marian to join us to have a look at the questions that you may have submitted on the chat. Hello. Yes. And there was one question regarding the consortia. And there was, I think, asking whether consortiums are prioritised. We want to just say that it's not prioritised by any means. There are a lot of single entities that apply with affiliate entities as well. So just to cover that ground. But on the topic of financial maturity, I think that's one of the areas that a lot of projects fail on. Why do you think this is the case? What are the kind of big reasons of why people struggle a lot to meet that threshold? Yep. So I think there are a couple of reasons. I think for one part, the substantiation of sufficient debt funding. I think for the second, also a reasonable financial modelling in terms of pricing. And for the third, also ensuring the eligible cost base. And I think across those, these are some really key portions in ensuring that you have the sign of the cost base. So that's the sign on from your debt and equity providers that is really substantiated. It can be conditional on receiving the funding. But what we do sometimes see in the big disparity in the maturity on the funding is often in that level of support and the level of advancement in those discussions. Yeah. Thank you for that. And please keep the questions coming based on the evaluation criteria that Sophia has mentioned. In the meantime, I have one more question for you. And I think with the innovation fund, you talked about maturity being a factor where a lot of people struggle with. But at the same time, projects need to be innovative. So there's that paradox of being able to be an innovative project, but also be mature enough. So how do you kind of navigate that paradox? Yeah, so I think at the core, it's having an innovative process or technology. And essentially, the way I personally look at the opportunity, the maturity is also a sort of risk mitigation to say, we found this phenomenal new way of either producing something or a new technology that can help solve the problems. But we are backed by experts, we have a good team, we understand the processes, we have good understanding of the technology and how to deliver it. We understand the risks that are inherent in that. And also, we have sufficient backers, financially and an understanding of how to deliver it. And we understand the risks that are inherent in that. And also, we have sufficient backers financially and an understanding of the technology of how this can actually be leveraged in the market. Yeah. Thank you. And I don't think we have any new questions. There was one earlier just regarding the maritime sector. You mentioned that there was a bonus point for the GHG emissions. Could you elaborate a little bit more about that? Yeah. So the bonus point here is to support maritime sector participants. What it isn't, unfortunately, is it isn't a separate pool of funding. So whilst we are seeing in the 2024 pool a specific 1 billion euros for EV cell battery manufacturers, that isn't the case for maritime. But we do see that the EU clearly is setting the precedent that it wishes to support maritime further with those extra points. And I think in this year or the 2023 call, we see that six projects have gotten funding from the maritime sector. And I believe in the upcoming hydrogen auction, 200 million euros is dedicated for maritime sector in terms of securing offtake agreements. So there is definitely a bit more support, but definitely not a dedicated pool of funding or by any means. Absolutely. Great. I think that is all we have in terms of questions. So the next part will cover the retrospective elements of the EU Innovation Fund. So lessons learned from past projects as well as application rounds and also addressing some of the questions I've seen in the chat regarding success rates. So that is well, that will all be covered very soon. But in the meantime, we will be taking a five minute break. So feel free to grab a cup of coffee and be back in five minutes to join us again. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome back everyone to part two of this webinar. We'll be diving now deeper into the retrospective elements of the EU Innovation Fund. Before we get started, we have a quick poll for all of you. The poll is, what is the average success rate of the EU Innovation Fund? And Sophia, can you clarify what time frame we're looking at? Absolutely. So this is between 2020 and 2022 across all windows. What do we think the average success rate is? Yeah. So A, below 5%, B, between 5 and 10, and C, between 10 and 15%. So go into the poll and select which answer you think suits best. And while you're doing that, I have a question for you, Sophia. What are some of the key characteristics of a very successful application in your view? Yeah. So here what we often see, again, is the partnership either directly in the joint venture or special purpose vehicle in the project itself. In other words, support across the value chain and a real mindset of approach of looking across the value chain as to how your project is going to be supplied, implemented, the technology, and also of taken. So to the point around the consortium. So to the point around the consortiums, it is often a very strong project that can draw on those resources knowledge base. Also because the EUIF is a resource intensive process. And so having an understanding of those different perspectives and elements is really critical. So that's one. A second one is also the, obviously, the innovation and an understanding of what your project is bringing to the market. That is to say, what's your innovation? What's your angle? And why is this demanded in the market? So this is picking up on the business case element to show the EU how you're going to contribute towards that decarbonization. So I think those are two key elements that we often see. Great. Thanks for sharing your insights. And looking at the poll, I think it's quite evenly distributed. So we have some people answering 31% answering below 5%. We have 36%, we have 36%, around 5% to 10%, and then the rest in 10% to 15%. Can you tell us the right answer? Absolutely. So the correct answer is 11%. So that would be between 10% to 15%. We do quite often hear people being very nervous when they first approach the EUIF in that they assume that it is all doom and gloom. But it's not. And a little preview coming up, it is getting even better year on year. So stay tuned for that. Yeah. So thank you so much, Sophia. Now I'll pass it over to you to go through some of the key data points of the EU Innovation Fund. Thank you. Thank you, Marianne. Amazing. So yes, I'm back and we're doing the EU Innovation Fund in data, looking at the retrospectives of what we have seen to date, and also some of what does this mean for you. So to start with, we have some bright mustard slides to show us our key messages. And there are three key messages that by the end of this session, I really hope you will be taking away with you. The first being that not all windows have the same attractions and challenges. That is to say that there are vastly different characteristics of the windows, some inherent to what the windows require in terms of capex or innovation, but some also as a result of the applicants. The second success is more achievable than you might think. Now 31% of you were right on the money. But for the other 69% of you, it is actually more attainable. And the third and final one, that this is an excellent opportunity to be a part of the Danish growth journey in EUIF. That is to say, we will be having a little look at Denmark vis-a-vis their neighbours and the growth journey that Klaus has been spearheading. So to get us started, the EU Innovation Fund, the EU Innovation Fund provides a wealth of data, which can help you understand what it takes and to benchmark your project. I did note a question around the GHG benchmarks, and there are sector specific benchmarks provided by the EU Innovation Fund in the application. There is also through Cinea and online, a portfolio overview and a dashboard overview of the project winners to date, with the caveat that this hasn't been updated for the most recent fund, funding round, that is to say for the 1-2 days ago. I think that's very fair. And that will take a little bit of time. When the grants are actually signed, this dashboard will be updated. But it is there for your use. And what will we be looking at today? Today, we're predominantly looking at the 2020 to 2022 windows. And that is due to the granularity of data available for us. We have managed to behind the scenes pull together some overview of the 2020 2023 funding round and we will be having a high level look at this. Now what we can see is that the fundamental structure of the windows within the calls has changed year on year significantly in the most recent funding round and that prior to it. Now we are yet to see what the call coming up on December 3rd will contain but it is highly influenced as every year by the political priorities and this is the reason for the changing structures and what we do already know as we've mentioned a few times now is that there will be 1 billion set aside for EV battery cell manufacturers that is to say if you're a battery cell manufacturer producing for ESS so energy storage systems that is not eligible but for EV battery cells there will be 1 billion and 1.2 billion for the hydrogen auction. Again as Sarah's mentioned we will be looking at the hydrogen auction in a separate webinar so do stay tuned. But let's move on to the windows and what have we seen to date. Now the EU has been has to date or has to 2022 allocated circa 7 billion euros of funding around 64 percent of which was allocated to the large scale projects. Now the EU and Sarah touched on this earlier but just to make sure that everyone understands the EU has an announced budget and it reserves the right for 20 percent flexibility. That is to say it could allocate of the announced budget 20 percent less or 20 percent more. So what we can actually see is that from 2020 to 2022 116 percent of the announced budget was used. This is disproportionately distributed across the sectors with the caveat of the announced budget. The clean tech pilot and electrification were only introduced in 2021. But nevertheless we can see that the large scale is receiving a large proportion of this funding and is utilizing that flexibility actually beyond. And that is to say if you are sat there as someone who might be entering into the small scale and there is a budget or latent budget there that the EU is currently not using. And that could very well be used. There is also the caveat that some projects even though they are selected if they fail to meet and deliver on the promises that they have made across the criteria they can then be terminated. It may be the project's own choice but the grant may also be clawed back and re-put into the pot. So there we can also see that some of the large scale has had that budget terminated. Now the success rate. I know you've already seen that some of the large scale has had that budget terminated. So we've all been dying to know. This is 2020 to 2022 and here we see that 11 percent figure that I have referenced. We have seen 1059 applicants and large large number of applicants and only 117 winners to date. And again the anxiety or the nervousness sometimes around the EUIF in our minds is quite in large part driven by the large scale. And this is for the larger capex over 100 million euros. And this is where we see a much lower success rate of just 5 percent over those three calls. And what you can see again with the caveat that they only existed from 2021 is a much much higher success rate across the different windows. So what this means for you is to be mindful and potentially consider more laterally where you are applying and to understand what does the competition look like and what are the requirements and characteristics of the window that you are entering into. Now another caveat that we will make is that this differs by sector. That is to say if you are sitting in cement and lime and your neighbour is sitting in hydrogen that this may be very very different for you in terms of the number of projects awarded, the funding received and the characteristics that you should be benchmarking yourselves against. Again this is something that we're going to touch on in a later webinar as to the sector specific projects because there are 19 different sectors and that's a large level of granularity with the matrix intersect of the windows as well. But the key takeaway here is that there are different characteristics and success rates. And so to summarise we have this nice overview. We have removed electrification because it was included one year and has since been dropped and it doesn't look like it will return. But what we have are the four main windows that we have seen up to 2022. seeing that the total grant amount as mentioned is predominantly within the large scale. But that also for the average funding size the large scale yes is the largest but cleantech is also significantly larger than the small scale and the pilot. And this window is increasingly being included with much higher success rates seen outside the large scale. Now we touched on cost efficiency and we've also mentioned that we're going to be deep diving on this in future and again this is a point where your sector really matters for the cost efficiency and the intersect between which sector you're applying through and which window you've chosen is very important. But at a high level there is also a variety across the different windows in the cost efficiency scene. Now naturally with clean technology manufacturing there is a very high cost efficiency or low euro per tonne of CO2 of water. So this is also something to be avoided. So this is also something to be mindful when applying. Now what does it look like this year? So fresh off the press, I don't have a piece of paper with a press release I cast it but we have a graph for you instead. And what this here shows is a much higher level of success this year which is phenomenal. Out of our 337 applicants we have seen a 25% success rate overall. The 85 projects Sarah mentioned that have been invited to sign a grant agreement that have been invited to sign a grant agreement or start the grant agreement process. That does not mean that all 85 will continue through and sign and it does not mean of course that all 85 will become operational but these are the preliminary figures. And again what we can see is increases across all sectors. The clean tech here really leading the charge at a 45% success rate and what we're also looking at here to be aware of is that this changes year on year and that there has been a decrease in the number of projects failing to meet the minimum thresholds and requirements in the criteria and so there has therefore been more relevant projects for the EU to fund. So in other words some great news this year and I hope you'll all be excited to work towards boosting those numbers with us for next year. Now Denmark. Denmark here shown in a lovely green colour. Denmark has received less funding between 2020 and 2022 compared to neighbouring countries. We can see that it is less than a quarter of Germany and still significantly behind Norway and Sweden. With the average funding also being lower this is as a result of in 2022. the predominance of the predominance of Danish projects that we're applying applying into the small sector. However again we have some wonderful news and Klaus has already mentioned but we've seen a massive increase this year. We have seen from three projects in 2022 we've seen a new seven totaling 10 Danish projects receiving EUIF to date and this bit has been split across the different segments. You can see here 262 increase in funding. I'm not sure if we can see that year on year Klaus but it would be wonderful. And what we now see is that Denmark is quickly catching up to its neighbours. It is still 65% behind Germany and around 50% of Sweden with Norway also catching up. But what we would love to know is if you're going to be part of that growth journey with us for next year because we would so love to see Denmark really rising to those ranks. So what does this mean for us and what does this mean for you as projects. Now we have three key takeaways. The first is that whilst large scale does get the largest budget is for the projects with the highest capex. It also has the largest competition and that means that every fraction of a point really really counts. We have seen between 85 to 90% of points needing to be scored in that large scale window in order to be a winning application. Second is that the new winners that are being introduced this year we saw a introduction of the medium scale to bridge the gap between small scale and large scale and to spread out the competition. They do have specific requirements for example the pilot and the clean tech and this year especially the EV batteries. targeted towards very specific types of projects. And they do have a smaller budget envelope so there is less funding directed towards them but there is as we've seen a higher chance of success. And finally your window will determine your points weighting. This brings us back to the criteria that we were talking about and in the specific window with all of these archetypes with the caveat that your sector will affect this there are different weightings of the points. So please bear all of these points. So please bear all of this in mind but also choose wisely. Be strategic in your choice of where to apply and how to apply and be ever so mindful of those thresholds and those requirements. So hopefully this has got you all very excited with 69% of you thinking it was going to be below 10% and now having seen a 25% average of success this year I really really hope that you're all thoroughly enthused to get stuck into the EU application round for this year. But I am conscious I've been through a lot of material so we will now bring Marian back on stage to cover some of your questions. Please do pop them in the Q&A. Yes please write in the chat if you have any questions there. And you went through a lot of different data points and looking retrospectively in the EUIF and now looking forward what are your expectations in terms of the success rates for the coming call. What are your expectations in terms of the success rates for the coming call? We've seen various success rates between windows. How do you think that might change or what are your takes on it? So we have seen a trend in more applicants year on year. So this year we saw I think just shy of 400 applicants. And for this we do also expect to see more applications in the coming year. Now with the budget for the general window, so that is to say the large, medium and small scale projects having actually decreased somewhat, there is the potential that either there will be more of a focus on the smaller and medium where there will still be a high success rate or there might unfortunately be a slightly lower success rate. But that is to say we would expect, especially with the increase of focus on the EV battery cells, that there is potentially very, very, very, very, very, very, very much. So I think there's a lot of chances for a lot of projects. And this is a very demanding process. And I would expect potentially around the same with some marginal differences for potentially clean tech where if you are an ESS battery cell manufacturer, it may be more competitive given that there is a separate battery cell pool this year. Great. We have one question in the chat asking, do applications with companies from different countries, so international countries, have a better chance or a lower chance of success? It's a really interesting point on the countries. We haven't actually seen disparity. There generally does need to be a country choice, so to speak, of where the project will be implemented. So that would be to say if your company is headquartered in London, but the project has an entity in Copenhagen and the project will be implemented in Copenhagen would be registered as a Danish project. There is by the EU a commitment to having equitable support across countries. So that would be to say with the ramp up in Danish projects, there is available for the EU funding there for the Danish projects where hypothetically were one a Norwegian project or a German project where they've seen a lot of success. There does also need to be a cap because you can't have a hundred German projects winning. It does need to be spread across. And one final question is why do you think that Denmark has been so far behind compared to its neighbours? Is it a lack of projects per se or lack of knowledge? So I think maybe Klaus might be best positioned for this question. Do we want to bring him on stage? Klaus, would you like to take the question? Yes, thank you. Definitely. I think it's not lack of quality of project. And I think actually we have a very strong base in Denmark in green technology. I think the lack of success has been lack of awareness and lack of willingness to engage into the innovation fund. And this awareness, I think we saw last year, it has been raised and more are now prepared to engage and we should just continue this development. Yeah, definitely. I think we should continue with the exponential increase in the number of projects applying as well as so aiming for the same this year as well. Definitely. No reason why we should not be able to raise even. Exactly. This success from last year. Yeah, completely. Thank you so much for that. And now we'll be moving on to the final part of the webinar, which is around the key learnings and key takeaways around what you should be doing. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We still have some technical constraints and so on. The list goes on. At the end of the day, to win in the EU Innovation Fund application, what they're looking for is not a project that is void of challenges. They're looking for projects that will have the willingness, the courage and the means to overcome those challenges. So it's really about the type of mitigation measures that you will have in place, what are the tools and the advantages that your project will have to overcome those challenges. So that's just to give some perspectives that often we hear we just miss the funding to be implemented. The reality is that's not really the picture we see on the market, even when you get the grant. And this is really how you win by providing the reassurance to the evaluators that you are in a position to overcome that. As we have also hinted when we look at the evaluation and the scorecard, at the end of the day, when you apply, you will see that your project will become a sum of paradoxes. You will need to argue our project is extremely innovative. Therefore, we are venturing in the unknown. We're doing something that has not been seen before. It has high risk. But trust us, we are mature enough to execute on it. And the risks are not that bad. We can mitigate them. You will have to show, yeah, the regulations are not fully in place. There are some things we don't know yet. But we can provide you the reassurance and a credible path to overcome those risks. You will also have to argue our project. You will also have to argue our project has a funding gap. This is why we're here. At the same time, the case for the project is attractive enough to convince our debt providers, to convince our owners, equity partners, and so on. So it's really bridging the gap between those a priori conflicting items. And lastly, and we'll go in much more in depth on this in the next stages. I've seen there were a lot of questions on the funding rate and how do we define the grant, how we split it. This is a matter that will go in more depth in following sessions, because there, there's a lot also of strategic considerations to have in terms of how little can we ask the EU in terms of grants so that they see us as a cost efficient project, while at the same time securing a grant that is attractive enough for us to actually implement and invest in this project. The next point is that so not every project is necessarily a fit for the innovation fund. Your project doesn't have to be perfect. But when you are applying and when you take the decisions, you will need to aim for perfection. Competition is tough. Competition is tough. So it is not barely enough to think we can pass all of those minimum thresholds. The question you should ask yourself is how do we make sure the EU sees us as a top mature project? How do we make sure the EU understand our innovation is strong, very strong breakthrough? How do we make sure the growth plan for our project and our technology? It is clear enough that it brings a clear value to the EU. Competition is tough and you always have to think, oh, I'm at that stage where I can get a lot of support from an offtaker. You have to think competition may be bringing some draft terms with an offtaker. So if I am an evaluator, I will look at whoever has done or put more effort in maturing the projects because it will bring more reassurance the project will be implemented. So it's also an invitation when you look at the scorecard that we're not aiming at passing the thresholds. We're really aiming at how much of those points can we get to put our project in a good position to be considered for an award. And when we work with this, we usually look and see that projects should aim to have about 85 to 90 percent of the points to be in a safe spot in terms of we can make it on that award list. To do that, the reality is when we look at evaluation summary reports that are provided by the EU evaluators, we see projects that are provided by the EU evaluators, we see projects that score extremely well on all criteria besides financial maturity. So a strong commercial engine is key. Projects are failing on this, but this will be your path to success on the market. The reality in the conversations we have is actually even more clear because often when we speak about EU innovation fund, I will see teams that are very technical. Those are cool technologies. It's interesting to see how can we produce hydrogen, e-methanol, ammonia, how can we capture and store carbon. But at the end of the day, the challenge and what will make it on the market is highly commercial. So how do we make sure that the conditions around the project are sound for the project to be implemented? And I think also compared to last year, we've seen a lot of optimism going into energy transition projects in the innovation fund and in general in the industry. And this year feels a bit more like a cold shower with a lot of projects being canceled or postponed or announced and postponed immediately. So there is really something around focusing on being realistic, almost conservative and providing as much reassurance on the project. as possible as possible as to make sure the project will materialize on the market. Lastly, one of the one of the comments I often get, and I think if you also are told, well, this is a 600 page deliverable you need to produce. Good luck. And you will ask me, Klaus and whoever works with the innovation fund, is what is this worth for me to invest time and resources and prioritize the innovation fund? Our teams are busy enough developing the project. Why should they also do this on top? What I want to bring maybe as a thought to change that conversation is that the innovation fund is not just a funding application. It's also work in terms of the project development. And a lot of the requirements, that are laid out in the application are actually touching about deliverables that will happen in your project development cycle. We're talking about in depth financial model. We're talking about feasibility study, a business plan. So there is a lot of those deliverables that are developed in the context of the innovation fund that actually serve the purpose of measuring your project. So to visualize it, often, people have this idea that if you are applying for funding or for the innovation fund, that a lot of the work will be grant specific work. I will be telling the EU about job creation and resilience of supply chain in light of the EU Green Deal. The reality is a lot of the work and a lot of the input that you need for the application are really coming from the project development space. So you are basically investing in terms of maturing and testing all of those assumptions and all of the things you're working in your day-to-day work on bringing a project to market. Nonetheless, the application does take time and starting early is never a bad idea. There was a poll in a stakeholder consultation launched by Cineia that shows most applicants spend over three months developing the application. You could wait for the 3rd of December deadline to initiate the work and understand it. However, we all know how it goes with Christmas holidays, winter holidays and so on. And that deadline approaches really, really fast. So looking at it now, being able to take already some form of stance on the relevance of the fund for the project and what it takes to win is really important to make sure you do not get in full panic mode when the call is published and the deadline is announced. Before concluding, I would maybe give a bit of a direction in terms of what does the timeline look like, taking into account that some of you may have received results two days ago that says you are on the award list or some of you may have received a note that you will not be in the award list. So just to give you some ideas on what does the next step look like. So today you're basically at a point where you need to decide is it worth for me to invest resources, time and efforts in the next round. The call will open on the 3rd of December. And what will happen at that time is you will get a full understanding of how is the budget allocated in the different topic under the general innovation fund grants. You will get updated deliverable package and methodologies provided by the EU. And this is where a lot of the real work can start. That being said, you can already start looking in terms of what do we want our business plan, our business plan, our business plan, feasibility study and financial model to look like. You will, of course, have to submit all of the application package by the deadline. We expect this to be sometime in April, potentially even, yeah, probably April, considering the launch in December. After that, you will get the award list communicated. So for the people that applied in the in April this year, the news have come two days ago, and then you will be invited in the process of signing the grant agreement. As someone who works with a lot of those projects, what I'm always very surprised to see is how the conversation changes depending on the step you're in with your project. So typically, there is a lot of high optimism in the application development stage. We just need the funding and the funding and the project will go live. Then the award list comes. People get disappointed if they're not on it. But sometimes we also see people get their projects awarded, and then they realized, oh, oh, the permits were expected to be in place are not there. The grid connection is delayed by two years. We have decided to change sites. We may want to change the technology we applied with. Those make very interesting conversations with the EU on what can or cannot be changed. But it's also an invitation for you to reflect when you are applying that things may change and that you really want to test and make sure that all of the project content is really robust when you apply. There is, in my view, nothing worse than getting the award and then having to say NITAC because the project has changed in the process. When the project actually starts, then the project faces the reality and things may happen, but then you're back fully on the project development track. If you have gotten any news two days ago, you are probably now trying to decipher what did the evaluators tell you in the evaluation summary report. Note that even when you get the grant and there are any negative markups from the evaluators, those will need to be addressed. And DG, CLIMA and CINEA will need to accept your answers to the shortcomings or weaknesses identified by the evaluators. So here again, it invites you to make sure that the application is as good as possible so that your grant agreement process, if that is the case, becomes as smooth as possible. When you are getting this evaluation summary report, you will get a score. You will also get some comments. They're very high level. But we see there's a lot of elements of language that are used by the evaluators to tell you what they liked, what they did not like, and what they really, really did not like. So when you see that there are some shortcomings that are highlighted by the evaluators, it will not prevent you from being awarded. It is just mistakes or things you have forgotten to address that do not impact the overall evaluation. But that are, if you are resubmitting, definitely things that need to be fixed for the next round. If the EU has flagged any significant weakness, as they call it, this means it's a deal breaker. As long as this is not fixed, we will not even consider you for award, no matter how good you are in any of the other criteria. And the end of the game is, of course, to make sure if you are resubmitting that you are addressing the significant weaknesses, understand them well and find strong mitigation measures to make sure that you address them. Typically, I have not seen a project win with any significant weaknesses marked in their ESR. Shortcomings are OK. Significant weaknesses are an absolute no-no. So that's to give you a bit of perspective if you have received an ESR and if you want to know what the process actually looks like up to the point where you are developing the projects. So on that note, that's what I had for you today. So now is the time, if you have any last minute, very tough question to throw them in the chat so that Marianne can grill me on screen. Thank you, Sarah, for all of your wise key takeaways. And while you think of some questions in the chat, I would like to ask you a question. You've worked with the EU Innovation Fund for many years now and I think you've helped many, many different clients secure a lot of funding over the last years. Looking back at it all, what is one common success factor that kind of ties all of these successful projects together? I think, I mean, so first when I look back and I mean the fund has existed now for four years and I've been there from the get-go, the mood has really changed a lot. Every year has been very different. But I think the common point in all the projects that I worked with is the dedication of the team. And that really shows on the winning side, it's the teams that are really dedicated and want to make that project happen that also work hardest, make sure that they put the extra effort, mature the projects. Yeah. So there is something that it's not about the paper per se, but it's really about the people that are behind and working hard to make sure that the evaluators and the EU will basically love the project as much as they love the project. Yeah. Great. Thank you for that. And looking at the chat, I don't think we have any questions at the moment. So we will wrap up this part of the section and move on to the final closing of today's webinar. All right. So we've reached the end of today's webinar and I have Klaus here with me again to wrap things up. So we would love to hear from you in the chat some of your key takeaways from today's session. And write about what is one key learning you've learned or one key takeaway that you're going to be taking it out. And Klaus, would you mind sharing your final words from this webinar and what you would like to share with the crowd today? Well, first, I would like to acknowledge the effort put in by the implement team into this excellent masterclass, the first in a series of three, where we will get even deeper into the specificities of a quality proposal. So after that, I would really encourage people who consider applying, make use of the offer from DEA together with implement for our assessment. I think this is really a critical thing for you when you make your decisions as if you want to apply or you should apply and what strategy you should then implement. Yeah. Yeah. Great. So the validation assessments are available for Danish candidates. And if you are interested, we are available and please reach out to Klaus for that interest. And information is provided on our homepage. Yeah. Great. Keep the key takeaways coming in the chat. But I've summarized four key takeaways from today's webinar. So first, project maturity is key. Maturity is a key differentiator that many applications can be shown. So really use the application process to focus on. That goes on to my next point. The application itself is project development. As Sarah said, there are specific elements of the application that you need to dedicate resources to. However, the overall application really helps to facilitate that development, the progress of your project itself. So think of this as an investment, not only investment, not only in your project, but also in the team and really pushing that forward. Third, mobilize your resources. As Sarah mentioned, a dedicated team with ample resources as well as buy in from the organization and management is very, very crucial. So start early with finding the right resources and ensuring that you have enough resources to get you through this process. And finally, start early. Time is always of the essence. Time is always of the essence. I think when we're wrapping up and finishing the application every year, all of the teams that we work with say, we should have done this earlier. I think that's a common thing that many people have said. So be ahead of the competition. And as we are running this webinar series, even well before the call publication, we highly encourage all of you to start early and get things going. With that said, this is the timeline that I showed in the very beginning of the webinar. We have the next series of the webinar hosted on the 26th of November, where we will dive a little bit deeper into some of the criteria that we talked about, such as maturity and project development. And we hope to see you there. And just wanted to say thank you so much for joining us today. And if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to us or to Klaus. And enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you. Thank you.