The EC has prepared a fourth edition of its FAQ. DG CLIMA apparently sent it in the evening of 27 June to people whose questions had been answered since the last FAQ but by 29 June, four and a half days before the deadline to submit applications to the Second Round, it is still not available to all on DG CLIMA’s NER300 website.

The EC addressed a question from NER300.com in its answer to FAQ 52. FAQ 52 explains how to perform relevant cost calculations compliantly, particularly concerning investment costs that are incurred over several years. NER300.com’s guidance note, interpreting the EC’s answer, is provided here.

The third edition of the FAQ has been published, with answers to previous questions renumbered compared to the previous edition.

1. NER300.com’s commentary:

   Three of the new answers in the latest edition are worthy of comment.

   Question: The NER300 Decision states that geothermal Combined Heat and Power (CHP) applications with the same electricity threshold are eligible. Is the heat produced taken into account in the projected amount of energy produced, in addition to the electricity generated?
   Answer: Yes

   The EC’s answer is a little too brief. To clarify, what the EC means is, ‘Yes, heat produced should be taken into account to the extent that it is valorised and generates an income — aka “operating benefit” — to the project. The same goes for the costs associated with generating and delivering that heat. But, as stated at the bottom of page 40 of the Call text, for the purpose of determining CPUP, performance should be calculated as the total energy content of the final product(s) explicitly mentioned in the description of the sub-categories, therefore excluding any additional energy streams which might be produced by the demo plant (example: heat).’

   Contradictory answers appear next to each in other current edition. Compare FAQ 20:

   Question: Would a geothermal project generating heat which is then transported to customers located in a neighbouring Member State be considered as a trans-boundary project?
   Answer: A geothermal project generating heat which is afterwards transported to customers located in a neighbouring Member State would not be considered as a trans-boundary project, when the generation of heat and electricity is intended to take place in a single Member State.

   with FAQ 21:

   Question: Would a geothermal project with parts of the cooling cycle of the power plant located across the national border qualify as trans-boundary project?
   Answer: Yes

   It appears the EC does not realise that the distribution of heat from a geothermal plant is part of its cooling cycle.

At this stage in the first call, when the carbon price was 15 EUR/tonne, the EC had received notice of 22 intentions to submit CCS projects and 131 intentions to submit RES projects. This time, with the carbon price between 4.5 and 5 EUR/tonne, 9 intentions to submit CCS projects have been notified and 64 intentions to submit RES projects.

Further analysis is available to NER300.com clients.