SZKOLENIE

Naruszenie przepisów ruchu drogowego skutkującego przerwaniem egzaminu państwowego

Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Director GRANT AGREEMENT NUMBER — 784960 — SCORE This Agreement (‘the Agreement’) is between the following parties: on the one part, the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), represented for the purposes of signature of this Agreement by Head of Unit, Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, OPERATIONS, H2020 Energy, Vincent BERRUTTO, and on the other part, 1. ‘the coordinator3’ : STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) (EUV), established in GROSSE SCHARRNSTRASSE 59, FRANKFURT 15230, Germany, VAT number: DE152010177, represented for the purposes of signing the Agreement by Head of Human Resource Department, Menekse WENZLER and the following other beneficiaries, if they sign their ‘Accession Form’ (see Annex 3 and Article 56): 2. EC BREC INSTYTUT ENERGETYKI ODNAWIALNEJ SP ZOO (IEO), established in FLETNIOWA 47B, WARSZAWA 03 160, Poland, VAT number: PL5242400349, 3. CLIMATE ALLIANCE - KLIMA-BUENDNIS - ALIANZA DEL CLIMA e.V. (CA), established in GALVANISTRASSE 28, Frankfurt am Main 60486, Germany, VAT number: DE244331692, 4. CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF DEMOCRACY (CSD), established in ALEXANDER ZHENDOV STREET 5, SOFIA 1113, Bulgaria, 5. POLITECNICO DI TORINO (POLITO), established in CORSO DUCA DEGLI ABRUZZI 24, TORINO 10129, Italy, VAT number: IT00518460019, 6. CO2ONLINE GENUETZIGE BERATUNGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH (CO2ONLINE), established in HOCHKIRCHSTRASSE 9, BERLIN 10829, Germany, VAT number: DE233964948, 3 The coordinator shall be the ITD/IADP/TA technical coordinator. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 2 7. PORSENNA O.P.S (PORSENNA), established in BYSTRICKA 522/2, PRAHA 4 140 00, Czech Republic, VAT number: CZ27172392, 8. LA FORESTA SOCIETA' COOPERATIVA (FORESTA), established in REGIONE POLVERIERA 2, SUSA 10059, Italy, VAT number: IT07017110011, 9. MIASTO SLUPSK (Słupsk), established in PLAC ZWYCIESTWA 3, SLUPSK 76 200, Poland, VAT number: PL8391005507, 10. MESTO LITOMERICE (LITOMERICE), established in MIROVE NAMESTI 15/7, LITOMERICE 412 01, Czech Republic, VAT number: CZ00263958, 11. CONSORZIO FORESTALE ALTA VALLE SUSA (CFAVS), established in VIA PELLOUSIERE 6, OULX 10056, Italy, VAT number: IT03070280015, 12. DEUTSCHER CARITASVERBAND EV (CARITAS), established in KARLSTRASSE 40, FREIBURG IM BREISGAU 79104, Germany, VAT number: DE142116307, 13. AMICO SOCIETA COOPERATIVA SOCIALE (AMICO s.c.s.), established in VIA CASATO VICENDONE 17, ALMESE 10040, Italy, 14. FEDERACJA KONSUMENTOW STOWARZYSZENIE (FedKon), established in ULICA ORDYNACKA 11 LOK 1, WARSZAWA 00 364, Poland, VAT number: PL5251082133, Unless otherwise specified, references to ‘beneficiary’ or ‘beneficiaries’ include the coordinator. The parties referred to above have agreed to enter into the Agreement under the terms and conditions below. By signing the Agreement or the Accession Form, the beneficiaries accept the grant and agree to implement it under their own responsibility and in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. The Agreement is composed of: Terms and Conditions Annex 1 Description of the action Annex 2 Estimated budget for the action 2a Additional information on the estimated budget Annex 3 Accession Forms Annex 4 Model for the financial statements Annex 5 Model for the certificate on the financial statements (CFS) Annex 6 Model for the certificate on the methodology Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 3 TERMS AND CONDITIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................. 11 ARTICLE 1 — SUBJECT OF THE AGREEMENT.......................................................................................11 CHAPTER 2 ACTION .................................................................................................................................................11 ARTICLE 2 — ACTION TO BE IMPLEMENTED ......................................................................................11 ARTICLE 3 — DURATION AND STARTING DATE OF THE ACTION....................................................11 ARTICLE 4 — ESTIMATED BUDGET AND BUDGET TRANSFERS.......................................................11 4.1 Estimated budget.................................................................................................................................. 11 4.2 Budget transfers....................................................................................................................................11 CHAPTER 3 GRANT .................................................................................................................................................. 11 ARTICLE 5 — GRANT AMOUNT, FORM OF GRANT, REIMBURSEMENT RATES AND FORMS OF COSTS............................................................................................................................................11 5.1 Maximum grant amount....................................................................................................................... 11 5.2 Form of grant, reimbursement rates and forms of costs......................................................................11 5.3 Final grant amount — Calculation.......................................................................................................12 5.4 Revised final grant amount — Calculation......................................................................................... 14 ARTICLE 6 — ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE COSTS................................................................................14 6.1 General conditions for costs to be eligible.......................................................................................... 14 6.2 Specific conditions for costs to be eligible..........................................................................................15 6.3 Conditions for costs of linked third parties to be eligible................................................................... 21 6.4 Conditions for in-kind contributions provided by third parties free of charge to be eligible...............21 6.5 Ineligible costs......................................................................................................................................21 6.6 Consequences of declaration of ineligible costs.................................................................................. 22 CHAPTER 4 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES ........................................................................ 22 SECTION 1 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO IMPLEMENTING THE ACTION ................ 22 ARTICLE 7 — GENERAL OBLIGATION TO PROPERLY IMPLEMENT THE ACTION.........................22 7.1 General obligation to properly implement the action.......................................................................... 22 7.2 Consequences of non-compliance........................................................................................................ 22 ARTICLE 8 — RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION — THIRD PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE ACTION.........................................................................................................................................22 ARTICLE 9 — IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION TASKS BY BENEFICIARIES NOT RECEIVING EU FUNDING...................................................................................................................................... 23 ARTICLE 10 — PURCHASE OF GOODS, WORKS OR SERVICES..........................................................23 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 4 10.1 Rules for purchasing goods, works or services................................................................................. 23 10.2 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 23 ARTICLE 11 — USE OF IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES AGAINST PAYMENT..................................................................................................................................... 23 11.1 Rules for the use of in-kind contributions against payment.............................................................. 23 11.2 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 24 ARTICLE 12 — USE OF IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES FREE OF CHARGE........................................................................................................................................24 12.1 Rules for the use of in-kind contributions free of charge..................................................................24 12.2 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 24 ARTICLE 13 — IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION TASKS BY SUBCONTRACTORS........................... 25 13.1 Rules for subcontracting action tasks................................................................................................ 25 13.2 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 25 ARTICLE 14 — IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION TASKS BY LINKED THIRD PARTIES....................25 ARTICLE 15 — FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THIRD PARTIES.................................................................. 25 15.1 Rules for providing financial support to third parties........................................................................25 15.2 Financial support in the form of prizes............................................................................................. 26 15.3 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 26 ARTICLE 16 — PROVISION OF TRANS-NATIONAL OR VIRTUAL ACCESS TO RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE.....................................................................................................................26 16.1 Rules for providing trans-national access to research infrastructure................................................. 26 16.2 Rules for providing virtual access to research infrastructure............................................................ 26 16.3 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 26 SECTION 2 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION .............. 26 ARTICLE 17 — GENERAL OBLIGATION TO INFORM............................................................................26 17.1 General obligation to provide information upon request...................................................................26 17.2 Obligation to keep information up to date and to inform about events and circumstances likely to affect the Agreement........................................................................................................................... 26 17.3 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 27 ARTICLE 18 — KEEPING RECORDS — SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION........................................ 27 18.1 Obligation to keep records and other supporting documentation...................................................... 27 18.2 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 28 ARTICLE 19 — SUBMISSION OF DELIVERABLES................................................................................. 28 19.1 Obligation to submit deliverables...................................................................................................... 28 19.2 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 28 ARTICLE 20 — REPORTING — PAYMENT REQUESTS..........................................................................28 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 5 20.1 Obligation to submit reports.............................................................................................................. 28 20.2 Reporting periods............................................................................................................................... 29 20.3 Periodic reports — Requests for interim payments...........................................................................29 20.4 Final report — Request for payment of the balance......................................................................... 30 20.5 Information on cumulative expenditure incurred...............................................................................31 20.6 Currency for financial statements and conversion into euro............................................................. 31 20.7 Language of reports............................................................................................................................31 20.8 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 31 ARTICLE 21 — PAYMENTS AND PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS..........................................................31 21.1 Payments to be made......................................................................................................................... 31 21.2 Pre-financing payment — Amount — Amount retained for the Guarantee Fund............................. 31 21.3 Interim payments — Amount — Calculation....................................................................................32 21.4 Payment of the balance — Amount — Calculation — Release of the amount retained for the Guarantee Fund....................................................................................................................................32 21.5 Notification of amounts due...............................................................................................................33 21.6 Currency for payments....................................................................................................................... 33 21.7 Payments to the coordinator — Distribution to the beneficiaries......................................................33 21.8 Bank account for payments................................................................................................................34 21.9 Costs of payment transfers.................................................................................................................34 21.10 Date of payment............................................................................................................................... 34 21.11 Consequences of non-compliance.................................................................................................... 34 ARTICLE 22 — CHECKS, REVIEWS, AUDITS AND INVESTIGATIONS — EXTENSION OF FINDINGS..................................................................................................................................... 35 22.1 Checks, reviews and audits by the Agency and the Commission..................................................... 35 22.2 Investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)..............................................................37 22.3 Checks and audits by the European Court of Auditors (ECA)..........................................................37 22.4 Checks, reviews, audits and investigations for international organisations....................................... 37 22.5 Consequences of findings in checks, reviews, audits and investigations — Extension of findings.................................................................................................................................................37 22.6 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 39 ARTICLE 23 — EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE ACTION....................................................... 39 23.1 Right to evaluate the impact of the action.........................................................................................39 23.2 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 40 SECTION 3 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO BACKGROUND AND RESULTS ................. 40 SUBSECTION 1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................40 ARTICLE 23a — MANAGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY...................................................... 40 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 6 23a.1 Obligation to take measures to implement the Commission Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities.....................................................................40 23a.2 Consequences of non-compliance.................................................................................................... 40 SUBSECTION 2 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO BACKGROUND ................................ 40 ARTICLE 24 — AGREEMENT ON BACKGROUND..................................................................................40 24.1 Agreement on background................................................................................................................. 40 24.2 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 40 ARTICLE 25 — ACCESS RIGHTS TO BACKGROUND............................................................................ 41 25.1 Exercise of access rights — Waiving of access rights — No sub-licensing......................................41 25.2 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for implementing their own tasks under the action.................41 25.3 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for exploiting their own results.............................................. 41 25.4 Access rights for affiliated entities.................................................................................................... 41 25.5 Access rights for third parties............................................................................................................ 42 25.6 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 42 SUBSECTION 3 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO RESULTS ........................................... 42 ARTICLE 26 — OWNERSHIP OF RESULTS...............................................................................................42 26.1 Ownership by the beneficiary that generates the results................................................................... 42 26.2 Joint ownership by several beneficiaries........................................................................................... 42 26.3 Rights of third parties (including personnel)..................................................................................... 43 26.4 Agency ownership, to protect results.................................................................................................43 26.5 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 44 ARTICLE 27 — PROTECTION OF RESULTS — VISIBILITY OF EU FUNDING................................... 44 27.1 Obligation to protect the results.........................................................................................................44 27.2 Agency ownership, to protect the results...........................................................................................44 27.3 Information on EU funding................................................................................................................45 27.4 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 45 ARTICLE 28 — EXPLOITATION OF RESULTS......................................................................................... 45 28.1 Obligation to exploit the results.........................................................................................................45 28.2 Results that could contribute to European or international standards — Information on EU funding................................................................................................................................................. 45 28.3 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 45 ARTICLE 29 — DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS — OPEN ACCESS — VISIBILITY OF EU FUNDING...................................................................................................................................... 46 29.1 Obligation to disseminate results....................................................................................................... 46 29.2 Open access to scientific publications............................................................................................... 46 29.3 Open access to research data............................................................................................................. 47 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 7 29.4 Information on EU funding — Obligation and right to use the EU emblem.....................................47 29.5 Disclaimer excluding Agency responsibility..................................................................................... 48 29.6 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 48 ARTICLE 30 — TRANSFER AND LICENSING OF RESULTS.................................................................. 48 30.1 Transfer of ownership........................................................................................................................ 48 30.2 Granting licenses................................................................................................................................ 48 30.3 Agency right to object to transfers or licensing................................................................................ 49 30.4 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 49 ARTICLE 31 — ACCESS RIGHTS TO RESULTS....................................................................................... 49 31.1 Exercise of access rights — Waiving of access rights — No sub-licensing......................................49 31.2 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for implementing their own tasks under the action.................49 31.3 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for exploiting their own results.............................................. 50 31.4 Access rights of affiliated entities......................................................................................................50 31.5 Access rights for the EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies and EU Member States................50 31.6 Access rights for third parties............................................................................................................ 50 31.7 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 50 SECTION 4 OTHER RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS .......................................................................................50 ARTICLE 32 — RECRUITMENT AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR RESEARCHERS..................... 50 32.1 Obligation to take measures to implement the European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers......................................................................................50 32.2 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 51 ARTICLE 33 — GENDER EQUALITY.........................................................................................................51 33.1 Obligation to aim for gender equality................................................................................................51 33.2 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 51 ARTICLE 34 — ETHICS AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY.......................................................................... 51 34.1 Obligation to comply with ethical and research integrity principles................................................. 51 34.2 Activities raising ethical issues.......................................................................................................... 53 34.3 Activities involving human embryos or human embryonic stem cells..............................................53 34.4 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 53 ARTICLE 35 — CONFLICT OF INTERESTS.............................................................................................. 53 35.1 Obligation to avoid a conflict of interests......................................................................................... 53 35.2 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 54 ARTICLE 36 — CONFIDENTIALITY...........................................................................................................54 36.1 General obligation to maintain confidentiality.................................................................................. 54 36.2 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 55 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 8 ARTICLE 37 — SECURITY-RELATED OBLIGATIONS............................................................................. 55 37.1 Results with a security recommendation........................................................................................... 55 37.2 Classified information........................................................................................................................ 55 37.3 Activities involving dual-use goods or dangerous materials and substances.....................................55 37.4 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 55 ARTICLE 38 — PROMOTING THE ACTION — VISIBILITY OF EU FUNDING....................................55 38.1 Communication activities by beneficiaries........................................................................................ 55 38.2 Communication activities by the Agency and the Commission........................................................ 56 38.3 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 57 ARTICLE 39 — PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA.............................................................................. 57 39.1 Processing of personal data by the Agency and the Commission..................................................... 57 39.2 Processing of personal data by the beneficiaries............................................................................... 58 39.3 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 58 ARTICLE 40 — ASSIGNMENTS OF CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT AGAINST THE AGENCY................... 58 CHAPTER 5 DIVISION OF BENEFICIARIES’ ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES — RELATIONSHIP WITH COMPLEMENTARY BENEFICIARIES — RELATIONSHIP WITH PARTNERS OF A JOINT ACTION .......................................................................................................................................59 ARTICLE 41 — DIVISION OF BENEFICIARIES’ ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES — RELATIONSHIP WITH COMPLEMENTARY BENEFICIARIES — RELATIONSHIP WITH PARTNERS OF A JOINT ACTION.............................................................................................59 41.1 Roles and responsibility towards the Agency....................................................................................59 41.2 Internal division of roles and responsibilities.................................................................................... 59 41.3 Internal arrangements between beneficiaries — Consortium agreement...........................................60 41.4 Relationship with complementary beneficiaries — Collaboration agreement...................................60 41.5 Relationship with partners of a joint action — Coordination agreement.......................................... 60 CHAPTER 6 REJECTION OF COSTS — REDUCTION OF THE GRANT — RECOVERY — SANCTIONS — DAMAGES — SUSPENSION — TERMINATION — FORCE MAJEURE ............................... 60 SECTION 1 REJECTION OF COSTS — REDUCTION OF THE GRANT — RECOVERY — SANCTIONS .............................................................................................................................................61 ARTICLE 42 — REJECTION OF INELIGIBLE COSTS.............................................................................. 61 42.1 Conditions........................................................................................................................................... 61 42.2 Ineligible costs to be rejected — Calculation — Procedure..............................................................61 42.3 Effects................................................................................................................................................. 61 ARTICLE 43 — REDUCTION OF THE GRANT......................................................................................... 61 43.1 Conditions........................................................................................................................................... 61 43.2 Amount to be reduced — Calculation — Procedure.........................................................................62 43.3 Effects................................................................................................................................................. 62 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 9 ARTICLE 44 — RECOVERY OF UNDUE AMOUNTS............................................................................... 62 44.1 Amount to be recovered — Calculation — Procedure......................................................................63 ARTICLE 45 — ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS..................................................................................... 66 SECTION 2 LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES ........................................................................................................ 66 ARTICLE 46 — LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES.............................................................................................66 46.1 Liability of the Agency...................................................................................................................... 66 46.2 Liability of the beneficiaries.............................................................................................................. 67 SECTION 3 SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION ............................................................................................67 ARTICLE 47 — SUSPENSION OF PAYMENT DEADLINE.......................................................................67 47.1 Conditions........................................................................................................................................... 67 47.2 Procedure............................................................................................................................................ 67 ARTICLE 48 — SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS..........................................................................................67 48.1 Conditions........................................................................................................................................... 67 48.2 Procedure............................................................................................................................................ 68 ARTICLE 49 — SUSPENSION OF THE ACTION IMPLEMENTATION...................................................68 49.1 Suspension of the action implementation, by the beneficiaries.........................................................68 49.2 Suspension of the action implementation, by the Agency.................................................................69 ARTICLE 50 — TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT OR OF THE PARTICIPATION OF ONE OR MORE BENEFICIARIES..............................................................................................................70 50.1 Termination of the Agreement, by the beneficiaries..........................................................................70 50.2 Termination of the participation of one or more beneficiaries, by the beneficiaries..........................71 50.3 Termination of the Agreement or the participation of one or more beneficiaries, by the Agency................................................................................................................................................. 73 SECTION 4 FORCE MAJEURE ..........................................................................................................................77 ARTICLE 51 — FORCE MAJEURE..............................................................................................................78 CHAPTER 7 FINAL PROVISIONS .......................................................................................................................... 78 ARTICLE 52 — COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES...............................................................78 52.1 Form and means of communication...................................................................................................78 52.2 Date of communication...................................................................................................................... 79 52.3 Addresses for communication............................................................................................................ 79 ARTICLE 53 — INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENT.................................................................... 79 53.1 Precedence of the Terms and Conditions over the Annexes..............................................................79 53.2 Privileges and immunities.................................................................................................................. 80 ARTICLE 54 — CALCULATION OF PERIODS, DATES AND DEADLINES........................................... 80 ARTICLE 55 — AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT......................................................................... 80 55.1 Conditions........................................................................................................................................... 80 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 10 55.2 Procedure............................................................................................................................................ 80 ARTICLE 56 — ACCESSION TO THE AGREEMENT............................................................................... 81 56.1 Accession of the beneficiaries mentioned in the Preamble............................................................... 81 56.2 Addition of new beneficiaries............................................................................................................ 81 ARTICLE 57 — APPLICABLE LAW AND SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES.............................................. 81 57.1 Applicable law....................................................................................................................................81 57.2 Dispute settlement.............................................................................................................................. 81 ARTICLE 58 — ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT................................................................ 82 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 11 CHAPTER 1 GENERAL ARTICLE 1 — SUBJECT OF THE AGREEMENT This Agreement sets out the rights and obligations and the terms and conditions applicable to the grant awarded to the beneficiaries for implementing the action set out in Chapter 2. CHAPTER 2 ACTION ARTICLE 2 — ACTION TO BE IMPLEMENTED The grant is awarded for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies — SCORE’ (‘action’), as described in Annex 1. ARTICLE 3 — DURATION AND STARTING DATE OF THE ACTION The duration of the action will be 36 months as of 1 April 2018 (‘starting date of the action’). ARTICLE 4 — ESTIMATED BUDGET AND BUDGET TRANSFERS 4.1 Estimated budget The ‘estimated budget’ for the action is set out in Annex 2. It contains the estimated eligible costs and the forms of costs, broken down by beneficiary and budget category (see Articles 5, 6). 4.2 Budget transfers The estimated budget breakdown indicated in Annex 2 may be adjusted — without an amendment (see Article 55) — by transfers of amounts between beneficiaries, budget categories and/or forms of costs set out in Annex 2, if the action is implemented as described in Annex 1. However, the beneficiaries may not add costs relating to subcontracts not provided for in Annex 1, unless such additional subcontracts are approved by an amendment or in accordance with Article 13. CHAPTER 3 GRANT ARTICLE 5 — GRANT AMOUNT, FORM OF GRANT, REIMBURSEMENT RATES AND FORMS OF COSTS 5.1 Maximum grant amount The ‘maximum grant amount’ is EUR 1,988,625.00 (one million nine hundred and eighty eight thousand six hundred and twenty five EURO). 5.2 Form of grant, reimbursement rates and forms of costs Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 12 The grant reimburses 100% of the action's eligible costs (see Article 6) (‘reimbursement of eligible costs grant’) (see Annex 2). The estimated eligible costs of the action are EUR 1,988,625.00 (one million nine hundred and eighty eight thousand six hundred and twenty five EURO). Eligible costs (see Article 6) must be declared under the following forms ('forms of costs'): (a) for direct personnel costs: - as actually incurred costs (‘actual costs’) or - on the basis of an amount per unit calculated by the beneficiary in accordance with its usual cost accounting practices (‘unit costs’). Personnel costs for SME owners or beneficiaries that are natural persons not receiving a salary (see Article 6.2, Points A.4 and A.5) must be declared on the basis of the amount per unit set out in Annex 2a (unit costs); (b) for direct costs of subcontracting: as actually incurred costs (actual costs); (c) for direct costs of providing financial support to third parties: not applicable; (d) for other direct costs: as actually incurred costs (actual costs); (e) for indirect costs: on the basis of a flat-rate applied as set out in Article 6.2, Point E (‘flat-rate costs’); (f) specific cost category(ies): not applicable. 5.3 Final grant amount — Calculation The ‘final grant amount’ depends on the actual extent to which the action is implemented in accordance with the Agreement’s terms and conditions. This amount is calculated by the Agency — when the payment of the balance is made (see Article 21.4) — in the following steps: Step 1 – Application of the reimbursement rates to the eligible costs Step 2 – Limit to the maximum grant amount Step 3 – Reduction due to the no-profit rule Step 4 – Reduction due to substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or serious breach of obligations 5.3.1 Step 1 — Application of the reimbursement rates to the eligible costs The reimbursement rate(s) (see Article 5.2) are applied to the eligible costs (actual costs, unit costs and flat-rate costs; see Article 6) declared by the beneficiaries (see Article 20) and approved by the Agency (see Article 21). 5.3.2 Step 2 — Limit to the maximum grant amount Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 13 If the amount obtained following Step 1 is higher than the maximum grant amount set out in Article 5.1, it will be limited to the latter. 5.3.3 Step 3 — Reduction due to the no-profit rule The grant must not produce a profit. ‘Profit’ means the surplus of the amount obtained following Steps 1 and 2 plus the action’s total receipts, over the action’s total eligible costs. The ‘action’s total eligible costs’ are the consolidated total eligible costs approved by the Agency. The ‘action’s total receipts’ are the consolidated total receipts generated during its duration (see Article 3). The following are considered receipts: (a) income generated by the action; if the income is generated from selling equipment or other assets purchased under the Agreement, the receipt is up to the amount declared as eligible under the Agreement; (b) financial contributions given by third parties to the beneficiary specifically to be used for the action, and (c) in-kind contributions provided by third parties free of charge and specifically to be used for the action, if they have been declared as eligible costs. The following are however not considered receipts: (a) income generated by exploiting the action’s results (see Article 28); (b) financial contributions by third parties, if they may be used to cover costs other than the eligible costs (see Article 6); (c) financial contributions by third parties with no obligation to repay any amount unused at the end of the period set out in Article 3. If there is a profit, it will be deducted from the amount obtained following Steps 1 and 2. 5.3.4 Step 4 — Reduction due to substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or serious breach of obligations — Reduced grant amount — Calculation If the grant is reduced (see Article 43), the Agency will calculate the reduced grant amount by deducting the amount of the reduction (calculated in proportion to the seriousness of the errors, irregularities or fraud or breach of obligations, in accordance with Article 43.2) from the maximum grant amount set out in Article 5.1. The final grant amount will be the lower of the following two: - the amount obtained following Steps 1 to 3 or - the reduced grant amount following Step 4. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 14 5.4 Revised final grant amount — Calculation If — after the payment of the balance (in particular, after checks, reviews, audits or investigations; see Article 22) — the Agency rejects costs (see Article 42) or reduces the grant (see Article 43), it will calculate the ‘revised final grant amount’ for the beneficiary concerned by the findings. This amount is calculated by the Agency on the basis of the findings, as follows: - in case of rejection of costs: by applying the reimbursement rate to the revised eligible costs approved by the Agency for the beneficiary concerned; - in case of reduction of the grant: by calculating the concerned beneficiary’s share in the grant amount reduced in proportion to the seriousness of the errors, irregularities or fraud or breach of obligations (see Article 43.2). In case of rejection of costs and reduction of the grant, the revised final grant amount for the beneficiary concerned will be the lower of the two amounts above. ARTICLE 6 — ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE COSTS 6.1 General conditions for costs to be eligible ‘Eligible costs’ are costs that meet the following criteria: (a) for actual costs: (i) they must be actually incurred by the beneficiary; (ii) they must be incurred in the period set out in Article 3, with the exception of costs relating to the submission of the periodic report for the last reporting period and the final report (see Article 20); (iii) they must be indicated in the estimated budget set out in Annex 2; (iv) they must be incurred in connection with the action as described in Annex 1 and necessary for its implementation; (v) they must be identifiable and verifiable, in particular recorded in the beneficiary’s accounts in accordance with the accounting standards applicable in the country where the beneficiary is established and with the beneficiary’s usual cost accounting practices; (vi) they must comply with the applicable national law on taxes, labour and social security, and (vii) they must be reasonable, justified and must comply with the principle of sound financial management, in particular regarding economy and efficiency; (b) for unit costs: (i) they must be calculated as follows: {amounts per unit set out in Annex 2a or calculated by the beneficiary in accordance with its usual cost accounting practices (see Article 6.2, Point A) multiplied by Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 15 the number of actual units}; (ii) the number of actual units must comply with the following conditions: - the units must be actually used or produced in the period set out in Article 3; - the units must be necessary for implementing the action or produced by it, and - the number of units must be identifiable and verifiable, in particular supported by records and documentation (see Article 18); (c) for flat-rate costs: (i) they must be calculated by applying the flat-rate set out in Annex 2, and (ii) the costs (actual costs or unit costs) to which the flat-rate is applied must comply with the conditions for eligibility set out in this Article. 6.2 Specific conditions for costs to be eligible Costs are eligible if they comply with the general conditions (see above) and the specific conditions set out below for each of the following budget categories: A. direct personnel costs; B. direct costs of subcontracting; C. not applicable; D. other direct costs; E. indirect costs; F. not applicable. ‘Direct costs’ are costs that are directly linked to the action implementation and can therefore be attributed to it directly. They must not include any indirect costs (see Point E below). ‘Indirect costs’ are costs that are not directly linked to the action implementation and therefore cannot be attributed directly to it. A. Direct personnel costs Types of eligible personnel costs A.1 Personnel costs are eligible, if they are related to personnel working for the beneficiary under an employment contract (or equivalent appointing act) and assigned to the action (‘costs for employees (or equivalent)’). They must be limited to salaries (including during parental leave), social security contributions, taxes and other costs included in the remuneration, if they arise from national law or the employment contract (or equivalent appointing act). Beneficiaries that are non-profit legal entities1 may also declare as personnel costs additional remuneration for personnel assigned to the action (including payments on the basis of supplementary contracts regardless of their nature), if: (a) it is part of the beneficiary’s usual remuneration practices and is paid in a consistent manner whenever the same kind of work or expertise is required; Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 16 (b) the criteria used to calculate the supplementary payments are objective and generally applied by the beneficiary, regardless of the source of funding used. Additional remuneration for personnel assigned to the action is eligible up to the following amount: (a) if the person works full time and exclusively on the action during the full year: up to EUR 8 000; (b) if the person works exclusively on the action but not full-time or not for the full year: up to the corresponding pro-rata amount of EUR 8 000, or (c) if the person does not work exclusively on the action: up to a pro-rata amount calculated as follows: {{EUR 8 000 divided by the number of annual productive hours (see below)}, multiplied by the number of hours that the person has worked on the action during the year}. A.2 The costs for natural persons working under a direct contract with the beneficiary other than an employment contract are eligible personnel costs, if: (a) the person works under the beneficiary’s instructions and, unless otherwise agreed with the beneficiary, on the beneficiary’s premises; (b) the result of the work carried out belongs to the beneficiary, and (c) the costs are not significantly different from those for personnel performing similar tasks under an employment contract with the beneficiary. A.3 The costs of personnel seconded by a third party against payment are eligible personnel costs, if the conditions in Article 11.1 are met. A.4 Costs of owners of beneficiaries that are small and medium-sized enterprises (‘SME owners’) who are working on the action and who do not receive a salary are eligible personnel costs, if they correspond to the amount per unit set out in Annex 2a multiplied by the number of actual hours worked on the action. A.5 Costs of ‘beneficiaries that are natural persons’ not receiving a salary are eligible personnel costs, if they correspond to the amount per unit set out in Annex 2a multiplied by the number of actual hours worked on the action. Calculation 1 For the definition, see Article 2.1(14) of the Rules for Participation Regulation No 1290/2013: ‘non-profit legal entity’ means a legal entity which by its legal form is non-profit-making or which has a legal or statutory obligation not to distribute profits to its shareholders or individual members. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 17 Personnel costs must be calculated by the beneficiaries as follows: {{hourly rate multiplied by the number of actual hours worked on the action}, plus for non-profit legal entities: additional remuneration to personnel assigned to the action under the conditions set out above (Point A.1)}. The number of actual hours declared for a person must be identifiable and verifiable (see Article 18). The total number of hours declared in EU or Euratom grants, for a person for a year, cannot be higher than the annual productive hours used for the calculations of the hourly rate. Therefore, the maximum number of hours that can be declared for the grant is: {the number of annual productive hours for the year (see below) minus total number of hours declared by the beneficiary for that person in that year for other EU or Euratom grants}. The ‘hourly rate’ is one of the following: (a) for personnel costs declared as actual costs: the hourly rate is calculated per full financial year, as follows: {actual annual personnel costs (excluding additional remuneration) for the person divided by number of annual productive hours}. using the personnel costs and the number of productive hours for each full financial year covered by the reporting period concerned. If a financial year is not closed at the end of the reporting period, the beneficiaries must use the hourly rate of the last closed financial year available. For the ‘number of annual productive hours’, the beneficiaries may choose one of the following: (i) ‘fixed number of hours’: 1 720 hours for persons working full time (or corresponding pro-rata for persons not working full time); (ii) ‘individual annual productive hours’: the total number of hours worked by the person in the year for the beneficiary, calculated as follows: {annual workable hours of the person (according to the employment contract, applicable collective labour agreement or national law) plus overtime worked minus absences (such as sick leave and special leave)}. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 18 ‘Annual workable hours’ means the period during which the personnel must be working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his/her activity or duties under the employment contract, applicable collective labour agreement or national working time legislation. If the contract (or applicable collective labour agreement or national working time legislation) does not allow to determine the annual workable hours, this option cannot be used; (iii) ‘standard annual productive hours’: the ‘standard number of annual hours’ generally applied by the beneficiary for its personnel in accordance with its usual cost accounting practices. This number must be at least 90% of the ‘standard annual workable hours’. If there is no applicable reference for the standard annual workable hours, this option cannot be used. For all options, the actual time spent on parental leave by a person assigned to the action may be deducted from the number of annual productive hours. As an alternative, beneficiaries may calculate the hourly rate per month, as follows: {actual monthly personnel cost (excluding additional remuneration) for the person divided by {number of annual productive hours / 12}} using the personnel costs for each month and (one twelfth of) the annual productive hours calculated according to either option (i) or (iii) above, i.e.: - fixed number of hours or - standard annual productive hours. Time spent on parental leave may not be deducted when calculating the hourly rate per month. However, beneficiaries may declare personnel costs incurred in periods of parental leave in proportion to the time the person worked on the action in that financial year. If parts of a basic remuneration are generated over a period longer than a month, the beneficiaries may include only the share which is generated in the month (irrespective of the amount actually paid for that month). Each beneficiary must use only one option (per full financial year or per month) for each full financial year; (b) for personnel costs declared on the basis of unit costs: the hourly rate is one of the following: (i) for SME owners or beneficiaries that are natural persons: the hourly rate set out in Annex 2a (see Points A.4 and A.5 above), or (ii) for personnel costs declared on the basis of the beneficiary’s usual cost accounting practices: the hourly rate calculated by the beneficiary in accordance with its usual cost accounting practices, if: Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 19 - the cost accounting practices used are applied in a consistent manner, based on objective criteria, regardless of the source of funding; - the hourly rate is calculated using the actual personnel costs recorded in the beneficiary’s accounts, excluding any ineligible cost or costs included in other budget categories. The actual personnel costs may be adjusted by the beneficiary on the basis of budgeted or estimated elements. Those elements must be relevant for calculating the personnel costs, reasonable and correspond to objective and verifiable information; and - the hourly rate is calculated using the number of annual productive hours (see above). B. Direct costs of subcontracting (including related duties, taxes and charges such as nondeductible value added tax (VAT) paid by the beneficiary) are eligible if the conditions in Article 13.1.1 are met. C. Direct costs of providing financial support to third parties Not applicable D. Other direct costs D.1 Travel costs and related subsistence allowances (including related duties, taxes and charges such as non-deductible value added tax (VAT) paid by the beneficiary) are eligible if they are in line with the beneficiary’s usual practices on travel. D.2 The depreciation costs of equipment, infrastructure or other assets (new or second-hand) as recorded in the beneficiary’s accounts are eligible, if they were purchased in accordance with Article 10.1.1 and written off in accordance with international accounting standards and the beneficiary’s usual accounting practices. The costs of renting or leasing equipment, infrastructure or other assets (including related duties, taxes and charges such as non-deductible value added tax (VAT) paid by the beneficiary) are also eligible, if they do not exceed the depreciation costs of similar equipment, infrastructure or assets and do not include any financing fees. The costs of equipment, infrastructure or other assets contributed in-kind against payment are eligible, if they do not exceed the depreciation costs of similar equipment, infrastructure or assets, do not include any financing fees and if the conditions in Article 11.1 are met. The only portion of the costs that will be taken into account is that which corresponds to the duration of the action and rate of actual use for the purposes of the action. D.3 Costs of other goods and services (including related duties, taxes and charges such as nondeductible value added tax (VAT) paid by the beneficiary) are eligible, if they are: (a) purchased specifically for the action and in accordance with Article 10.1.1 or Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 20 (b) contributed in kind against payment and in accordance with Article 11.1. Such goods and services include, for instance, consumables and supplies, dissemination (including open access), protection of results, certificates on the financial statements (if they are required by the Agreement), certificates on the methodology, translations and publications. D.4 Capitalised and operating costs of ‘large research infrastructure’2 directly used for the action are eligible, if: (a) the value of the large research infrastructure represents at least 75% of the total fixed assets (at historical value in its last closed balance sheet before the date of the signature of the Agreement or as determined on the basis of the rental and leasing costs of the research infrastructure3); (b) the beneficiary’s methodology for declaring the costs for large research infrastructure has been positively assessed by the Commission (‘ex-ante assessment’); (c) the beneficiary declares as direct eligible costs only the portion which corresponds to the duration of the action and the rate of actual use for the purposes of the action, and (d) they comply with the conditions as further detailed in the annotations to the H2020 grant agreements. E. Indirect costs Indirect costs are eligible if they are declared on the basis of the flat-rate of 25% of the eligible direct costs (see Article 5.2 and Points A to D above), from which are excluded: (a) costs of subcontracting and (b) costs of in-kind contributions provided by third parties which are not used on the beneficiary’s premises; (c) not applicable; (d) not applicable. 2 ‘Large research infrastructure’ means research infrastructure of a total value of at least EUR 20 million, for a beneficiary, calculated as the sum of historical asset values of each individual research infrastructure of that beneficiary, as they appear in its last closed balance sheet before the date of the signature of the Agreement or as determined on the basis of the rental and leasing costs of the research infrastructure. 3 For the definition, see Article 2(6) of the H2020 Framework Programme Regulation No 1291/2013: ‘Research infrastructure’ are facilities, resources and services that are used by the research communities to conduct research and foster innovation in their fields. Where relevant, they may be used beyond research, e.g. for education or public services. They include: major scientific equipment (or sets of instruments); knowledge-based resources such as collections, archives or scientific data; e-infrastructures such as data and computing systems and communication networks; and any other infrastructure of a unique nature essential to achieve excellence in research and innovation. Such infrastructures may be ‘single-sited’, ‘virtual’ or ‘distributed’. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 21 Beneficiaries receiving an operating grant4 financed by the EU or Euratom budget cannot declare indirect costs for the period covered by the operating grant. F. Specific cost category(ies) Not applicable 6.3 Conditions for costs of linked third parties to be eligible Not applicable 6.4 Conditions for in-kind contributions provided by third parties free of charge to be eligible In-kind contributions provided free of charge are eligible direct costs (for the beneficiary), if the costs incurred by the third party fulfil — mutatis mutandis — the general and specific conditions for eligibility set out in this Article (Article 6.1 and 6.2) and Article 12.1. 6.5 Ineligible costs ‘Ineligible costs’ are: (a) costs that do not comply with the conditions set out above (Article 6.1 to 6.4), in particular: (i) costs related to return on capital; (ii) debt and debt service charges; (iii) provisions for future losses or debts; (iv) interest owed; (v) doubtful debts; (vi) currency exchange losses; (vii) bank costs charged by the beneficiary’s bank for transfers from the Agency; (viii) excessive or reckless expenditure; (ix) deductible VAT; (x) costs incurred during suspension of the implementation of the action (see Article 49); (b) costs declared under another EU or Euratom grant (including grants awarded by a Member State and financed by the EU or Euratom budget and grants awarded by bodies other than the Agency for the purpose of implementing the EU or Euratom budget); in particular, indirect 4 For the definition, see Article 121(1)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (‘Financial Regulation No 966/2012’)(OJ L 218, 26.10.2012, p.1): ‘operating grant’ means direct financial contribution, by way of donation, from the budget in order to finance the functioning of a body which pursues an aim of general EU interest or has an objective forming part of and supporting an EU policy. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 22 costs if the beneficiary is already receiving an operating grant financed by the EU or Euratom budget in the same period. 6.6 Consequences of declaration of ineligible costs Declared costs that are ineligible will be rejected (see Article 42). This may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. CHAPTER 4 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES SECTION 1 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO IMPLEMENTING THE ACTION ARTICLE 7 — GENERAL OBLIGATION TO PROPERLY IMPLEMENT THE ACTION 7.1 General obligation to properly implement the action The beneficiaries must implement the action as described in Annex 1 and in compliance with the provisions of the Agreement and all legal obligations under applicable EU, international and national law. 7.2 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 8 — RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION — THIRD PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE ACTION The beneficiaries must have the appropriate resources to implement the action. If it is necessary to implement the action, the beneficiaries may: - purchase goods, works and services (see Article 10); - use in-kind contributions provided by third parties against payment (see Article 11); - use in-kind contributions provided by third parties free of charge (see Article 12); - call upon subcontractors to implement action tasks described in Annex 1 (see Article 13); - call upon linked third parties to implement action tasks described in Annex 1 (see Article 14). In these cases, the beneficiaries retain sole responsibility towards the Agency and the other beneficiaries for implementing the action. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 23 ARTICLE 9 — IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION TASKS BY BENEFICIARIES NOT RECEIVING EU FUNDING Not applicable ARTICLE 10 — PURCHASE OF GOODS, WORKS OR SERVICES 10.1 Rules for purchasing goods, works or services 10.1.1 If necessary to implement the action, the beneficiaries may purchase goods, works or services. The beneficiaries must make such purchases ensuring the best value for money or, if appropriate, the lowest price. In doing so, they must avoid any conflict of interests (see Article 35). The beneficiaries must ensure that the Agency, the Commission, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) can exercise their rights under Articles 22 and 23 also towards their contractors. 10.1.2 Beneficiaries that are ‘contracting authorities’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/18/EC5 (or 2014/24/EU6) or ‘contracting entities’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/17/EC7 (or 2014/25/EU8) must comply with the applicable national law on public procurement. 10.2 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under Article 10.1.1, the costs related to the contract concerned will be ineligible (see Article 6) and will be rejected (see Article 42). If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under Article 10.1.2, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 11 — USE OF IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES AGAINST PAYMENT 11.1 Rules for the use of in-kind contributions against payment If necessary to implement the action, the beneficiaries may use in-kind contributions provided by third parties against payment. The beneficiaries may declare costs related to the payment of in-kind contributions as eligible (see 5 Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public work contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, 30.04.2004, p. 114). 6 Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC. (OJ L 94, 28.03.2014, p. 65). 7 Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ L 134, 30.04.2004, p. 1) 8 Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.03.2014, p. 243). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 24 Article 6.1 and 6.2), up to the third parties’ costs for the seconded persons, contributed equipment, infrastructure or other assets or other contributed goods and services. The third parties and their contributions must be set out in Annex 1. The Agency may however approve in-kind contributions not set out in Annex 1 without amendment (see Article 55), if: - they are specifically justified in the periodic technical report and - their use does not entail changes to the Agreement which would call into question the decision awarding the grant or breach the principle of equal treatment of applicants. The beneficiaries must ensure that the Agency, the Commission, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) can exercise their rights under Articles 22 and 23 also towards the third parties. 11.2 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the costs related to the payment of the in-kind contribution will be ineligible (see Article 6) and will be rejected (see Article 42). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 12 — USE OF IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES FREE OF CHARGE 12.1 Rules for the use of in-kind contributions free of charge If necessary to implement the action, the beneficiaries may use in-kind contributions provided by third parties free of charge. The beneficiaries may declare costs incurred by the third parties for the seconded persons, contributed equipment, infrastructure or other assets or other contributed goods and services as eligible in accordance with Article 6.4. The third parties and their contributions must be set out in Annex 1. The Agency may however approve in-kind contributions not set out in Annex 1 without amendment (see Article 55), if: - they are specifically justified in the periodic technical report and - their use does not entail changes to the Agreement which would call into question the decision awarding the grant or breach the principle of equal treatment of applicants. The beneficiaries must ensure that the Agency, the Commission, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) can exercise their rights under Articles 22 and 23 also towards the third parties. 12.2 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the costs incurred by the third parties related to the in-kind contribution will be ineligible (see Article 6) and will be rejected (see Article 42). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 25 ARTICLE 13 — IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION TASKS BY SUBCONTRACTORS 13.1 Rules for subcontracting action tasks 13.1.1 If necessary to implement the action, the beneficiaries may award subcontracts covering the implementation of certain action tasks described in Annex 1. Subcontracting may cover only a limited part of the action. The beneficiaries must award the subcontracts ensuring the best value for money or, if appropriate, the lowest price. In doing so, they must avoid any conflict of interests (see Article 35). The tasks to be implemented and the estimated cost for each subcontract must be set out in Annex 1 and the total estimated costs of subcontracting per beneficiary must be set out in Annex 2. The Agency may however approve subcontracts not set out in Annex 1 and 2 without amendment (see Article 55), if: - they are specifically justified in the periodic technical report and - they do not entail changes to the Agreement which would call into question the decision awarding the grant or breach the principle of equal treatment of applicants. The beneficiaries must ensure that the Agency, the Commission, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) can exercise their rights under Articles 22 and 23 also towards their subcontractors. 13.1.2 The beneficiaries must ensure that their obligations under Articles 35, 36, 38 and 46 also apply to the subcontractors. Beneficiaries that are ‘contracting authorities’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/18/EC (or 2014/24/EU) or ‘contracting entities’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/17/EC (or 2014/25/EU) must comply with the applicable national law on public procurement. 13.2 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under Article 13.1.1, the costs related to the subcontract concerned will be ineligible (see Article 6) and will be rejected (see Article 42). If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under Article 13.1.2, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 14 — IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION TASKS BY LINKED THIRD PARTIES Not applicable ARTICLE 15 — FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THIRD PARTIES 15.1 Rules for providing financial support to third parties Not applicable Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 26 15.2 Financial support in the form of prizes Not applicable 15.3 Consequences of non-compliance Not applicable ARTICLE 16 — PROVISION OF TRANS-NATIONAL OR VIRTUAL ACCESS TO RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE 16.1 Rules for providing trans-national access to research infrastructure Not applicable 16.2 Rules for providing virtual access to research infrastructure Not applicable 16.3 Consequences of non-compliance Not applicable SECTION 2 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE 17 — GENERAL OBLIGATION TO INFORM 17.1 General obligation to provide information upon request The beneficiaries must provide — during implementation of the action or afterwards and in accordance with Article 41.2 — any information requested in order to verify eligibility of the costs, proper implementation of the action and compliance with any other obligation under the Agreement. 17.2 Obligation to keep information up to date and to inform about events and circumstances likely to affect the Agreement Each beneficiary must keep information stored in the Participant Portal Beneficiary Register (via the electronic exchange system; see Article 52) up to date, in particular, its name, address, legal representatives, legal form and organisation type. Each beneficiary must immediately inform the coordinator — which must immediately inform the Agency and the other beneficiaries — of any of the following: (a) events which are likely to affect significantly or delay the implementation of the action or the EU's financial interests, in particular: (i) changes in its legal, financial, technical, organisational or ownership situation (b) circumstances affecting: Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 27 (i) the decision to award the grant or (ii) compliance with requirements under the Agreement. 17.3 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 18 — KEEPING RECORDS — SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 18.1 Obligation to keep records and other supporting documentation The beneficiaries must — for a period of five years after the payment of the balance — keep records and other supporting documentation in order to prove the proper implementation of the action and the costs they declare as eligible. They must make them available upon request (see Article 17) or in the context of checks, reviews, audits or investigations (see Article 22). If there are on-going checks, reviews, audits, investigations, litigation or other pursuits of claims under the Agreement (including the extension of findings; see Article 22), the beneficiaries must keep the records and other supporting documentation until the end of these procedures. The beneficiaries must keep the original documents. Digital and digitalised documents are considered originals if they are authorised by the applicable national law. The Agency may accept non-original documents if it considers that they offer a comparable level of assurance. 18.1.1 Records and other supporting documentation on the scientific and technical implementation The beneficiaries must keep records and other supporting documentation on scientific and technical implementation of the action in line with the accepted standards in the respective field. 18.1.2 Records and other documentation to support the costs declared The beneficiaries must keep the records and documentation supporting the costs declared, in particular the following: (a) for actual costs: adequate records and other supporting documentation to prove the costs declared, such as contracts, subcontracts, invoices and accounting records. In addition, the beneficiaries' usual cost accounting practices and internal control procedures must enable direct reconciliation between the amounts declared, the amounts recorded in their accounts and the amounts stated in the supporting documentation; (b) for unit costs: adequate records and other supporting documentation to prove the number of units declared. Beneficiaries do not need to identify the actual eligible costs covered or to keep or provide supporting documentation (such as accounting statements) to prove the amount per unit. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 28 In addition, for direct personnel costs declared as unit costs calculated in accordance with the beneficiary's usual cost accounting practices, the beneficiaries must keep adequate records and documentation to prove that the cost accounting practices used comply with the conditions set out in Article 6.2, Point A. The beneficiaries may submit to the Commission, for approval, a certificate (drawn up in accordance with Annex 6) stating that their usual cost accounting practices comply with these conditions (‘certificate on the methodology’). If the certificate is approved, costs declared in line with this methodology will not be challenged subsequently, unless the beneficiaries have concealed information for the purpose of the approval. (c) for flat-rate costs: adequate records and other supporting documentation to prove the eligibility of the costs to which the flat-rate is applied. The beneficiaries do not need to identify the costs covered or provide supporting documentation (such as accounting statements) to prove the amount declared at a flat-rate. In addition, for personnel costs (declared as actual costs or on the basis of unit costs), the beneficiaries must keep time records for the number of hours declared. The time records must be in writing and approved by the persons working on the action and their supervisors, at least monthly. In the absence of reliable time records of the hours worked on the action, the Agency may accept alternative evidence supporting the number of hours declared, if it considers that it offers an adequate level of assurance. As an exception, for persons working exclusively on the action, there is no need to keep time records, if the beneficiary signs a declaration confirming that the persons concerned have worked exclusively on the action. 18.2 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, costs insufficiently substantiated will be ineligible (see Article 6) and will be rejected (see Article 42), and the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 19 — SUBMISSION OF DELIVERABLES 19.1 Obligation to submit deliverables The coordinator must submit the ‘deliverables’ identified in Annex 1, in accordance with the timing and conditions set out in it. 19.2 Consequences of non-compliance If the coordinator breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the Agency may apply any of the measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 20 — REPORTING — PAYMENT REQUESTS 20.1 Obligation to submit reports Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 29 The coordinator must submit to the Agency (see Article 52) the technical and financial reports set out in this Article. These reports include requests for payment and must be drawn up using the forms and templates provided in the electronic exchange system (see Article 52). 20.2 Reporting periods The action is divided into the following ‘reporting periods’: - RP1: from month 1 to month 18 - RP2: from month 19 to month 36 20.3 Periodic reports — Requests for interim payments The coordinator must submit a periodic report within 60 days following the end of each reporting period. The periodic report must include the following: (a) a ‘periodic technical report’ containing: (i) an explanation of the work carried out by the beneficiaries; (ii) an overview of the progress towards the objectives of the action, including milestones and deliverables identified in Annex 1. This report must include explanations justifying the differences between work expected to be carried out in accordance with Annex 1 and that actually carried out. The report must detail the exploitation and dissemination of the results and — if required in Annex 1 — an updated ‘plan for the exploitation and dissemination of the results’. The report must indicate the communication activities; (iii) a summary for publication by the Agency; (iv) the answers to the ‘questionnaire’, covering issues related to the action implementation and the economic and societal impact, notably in the context of the Horizon 2020 key performance indicators and the Horizon 2020 monitoring requirements; (b) a ‘periodic financial report’ containing: (i) an ‘individual financial statement’ (see Annex 4) from each beneficiary, for the reporting period concerned. The individual financial statement must detail the eligible costs (actual costs, unit costs and flat-rate costs; see Article 6) for each budget category (see Annex 2). The beneficiaries must declare all eligible costs, even if — for actual costs, unit costs and flat-rate costs — they exceed the amounts indicated in the estimated budget (see Annex 2). Amounts which are not declared in the individual financial statement will not be taken into account by the Agency. If an individual financial statement is not submitted for a reporting period, it may be included in the periodic financial report for the next reporting period. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 30 The individual financial statements of the last reporting period must also detail the receipts of the action (see Article 5.3.3). Each beneficiary must certify that: - the information provided is full, reliable and true; - the costs declared are eligible (see Article 6); - the costs can be substantiated by adequate records and supporting documentation (see Article 18) that will be produced upon request (see Article 17) or in the context of checks, reviews, audits and investigations (see Article 22), and - for the last reporting period: that all the receipts have been declared (see Article 5.3.3); (ii) an explanation of the use of resources and the information on subcontracting (see Article 13) and in-kind contributions provided by third parties (see Articles 11 and 12) from each beneficiary, for the reporting period concerned; (iii) not applicable; (iv) a ‘periodic summary financial statement’, created automatically by the electronic exchange system, consolidating the individual financial statements for the reporting period concerned and including — except for the last reporting period — the request for interim payment. 20.4 Final report — Request for payment of the balance In addition to the periodic report for the last reporting period, the coordinator must submit the final report within 60 days following the end of the last reporting period. The final report must include the following: (a) a ‘final technical report’ with a summary for publication containing: (i) an overview of the results and their exploitation and dissemination; (ii) the conclusions on the action, and (iii) the socio-economic impact of the action; (b) a ‘final financial report’ containing: (i) a ‘final summary financial statement’, created automatically by the electronic exchange system, consolidating the individual financial statements for all reporting periods and including the request for payment of the balance and (ii) a ‘certificate on the financial statements’ (drawn up in accordance with Annex 5) for each beneficiary , if it requests a total contribution of EUR 325 000 or more, as reimbursement of actual costs and unit costs calculated on the basis of its usual cost accounting practices (see Article 5.2 and Article 6.2, Point A). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 31 20.5 Information on cumulative expenditure incurred Not applicable 20.6 Currency for financial statements and conversion into euro Financial statements must be drafted in euro. Beneficiaries with accounting established in a currency other than the euro must convert the costs recorded in their accounts into euro, at the average of the daily exchange rates published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union, calculated over the corresponding reporting period. If no daily euro exchange rate is published in the Official Journal of the European Union for the currency in question, they must be converted at the average of the monthly accounting rates published on the Commission’s website, calculated over the corresponding reporting period. Beneficiaries with accounting established in euro must convert costs incurred in another currency into euro according to their usual accounting practices. 20.7 Language of reports All reports (technical and financial reports, including financial statements) must be submitted in the language of the Agreement. 20.8 Consequences of non-compliance If the reports submitted do not comply with this Article, the Agency may suspend the payment deadline (see Article 47) and apply any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. If the coordinator breaches its obligation to submit the reports and if it fails to comply with this obligation within 30 days following a written reminder, the Agency may terminate the Agreement (see Article 50) or apply any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 21 — PAYMENTS AND PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS 21.1 Payments to be made The following payments will be made to the coordinator: - one pre-financing payment; - one or more interim payments, on the basis of the request(s) for interim payment (see Article 20), and - one payment of the balance, on the basis of the request for payment of the balance (see Article 20). 21.2 Pre-financing payment — Amount — Amount retained for the Guarantee Fund The aim of the pre-financing is to provide the beneficiaries with a float. It remains the property of the EU until the payment of the balance. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 32 The amount of the pre-financing payment will be EUR 1,590,900.00 (one million five hundred and ninety thousand nine hundred EURO). The Agency will — except if Article 48 applies — make the pre-financing payment to the coordinator within 30 days, either from the entry into force of the Agreement (see Article 58) or from 10 days before the starting date of the action (see Article 3), whichever is the latest. An amount of EUR 99,431.25 (ninety nine thousand four hundred and thirty one EURO and twenty five eurocents), corresponding to 5% of the maximum grant amount (see Article 5.1), is retained by the Agency from the pre-financing payment and transferred into the ‘Guarantee Fund’. 21.3 Interim payments — Amount — Calculation Interim payments reimburse the eligible costs incurred for the implementation of the action during the corresponding reporting periods. The Agency will pay to the coordinator the amount due as interim payment within 90 days from receiving the periodic report (see Article 20.3), except if Articles 47 or 48 apply. Payment is subject to the approval of the periodic report. Its approval does not imply recognition of the compliance, authenticity, completeness or correctness of its content. The amount due as interim payment is calculated by the Agency in the following steps: Step 1 – Application of the reimbursement rates Step 2 – Limit to 90% of the maximum grant amount 21.3.1 Step 1 — Application of the reimbursement rates The reimbursement rate(s) (see Article 5.2) are applied to the eligible costs (actual costs, unit costs and flat-rate costs ; see Article 6) declared by the beneficiaries (see Article 20) and approved by the Agency (see above) for the concerned reporting period. 21.3.2 Step 2 — Limit to 90% of the maximum grant amount The total amount of pre-financing and interim payments must not exceed 90% of the maximum grant amount set out in Article 5.1. The maximum amount for the interim payment will be calculated as follows: {90% of the maximum grant amount (see Article 5.1) minus {pre-financing and previous interim payments}}. 21.4 Payment of the balance — Amount — Calculation — Release of the amount retained for the Guarantee Fund The payment of the balance reimburses the remaining part of the eligible costs incurred by the beneficiaries for the implementation of the action. If the total amount of earlier payments is greater than the final grant amount (see Article 5.3), the payment of the balance takes the form of a recovery (see Article 44). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 33 If the total amount of earlier payments is lower than the final grant amount, the Agency will pay the balance within 90 days from receiving the final report (see Article 20.4), except if Articles 47 or 48 apply. Payment is subject to the approval of the final report. Its approval does not imply recognition of the compliance, authenticity, completeness or correctness of its content. The amount due as the balance is calculated by the Agency by deducting the total amount of prefinancing and interim payments (if any) already made, from the final grant amount determined in accordance with Article 5.3: {final grant amount (see Article 5.3) minus {pre-financing and interim payments (if any) made}}. At the payment of the balance, the amount retained for the Guarantee Fund (see above) will be released and: - if the balance is positive: the amount released will be paid in full to the coordinator together with the amount due as the balance; - if the balance is negative (payment of the balance taking the form of recovery): it will be deducted from the amount released (see Article 44.1.2). If the resulting amount: - is positive, it will be paid to the coordinator - is negative, it will be recovered. The amount to be paid may however be offset — without the beneficiaries' consent — against any other amount owed by a beneficiary to the Agency, the Commission or another executive agency (under the EU or Euratom budget), up to the maximum EU contribution indicated, for that beneficiary, in the estimated budget (see Annex 2). 21.5 Notification of amounts due When making payments, the Agency will formally notify to the coordinator the amount due, specifying whether it concerns an interim payment or the payment of the balance. For the payment of the balance, the notification will also specify the final grant amount. In the case of reduction of the grant or recovery of undue amounts, the notification will be preceded by the contradictory procedure set out in Articles 43 and 44. 21.6 Currency for payments The Agency will make all payments in euro. 21.7 Payments to the coordinator — Distribution to the beneficiaries Payments will be made to the coordinator. Payments to the coordinator will discharge the Agency from its payment obligation. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 34 The coordinator must distribute the payments between the beneficiaries without unjustified delay. Pre-financing may however be distributed only: (a) if the minimum number of beneficiaries set out in the call for proposals has acceded to the Agreement (see Article 56) and (b) to beneficiaries that have acceded to the Agreement (see Article 56). 21.8 Bank account for payments All payments will be made to the following bank account: Name of bank: SPARKASSE ODER-SPREE Full name of the account holder: STIFTUNG EUV Full account number (including bank codes): () IBAN code: DE82170550503003003002 21.9 Costs of payment transfers The cost of the payment transfers is borne as follows: - the Agency bears the cost of transfers charged by its bank; - the beneficiary bears the cost of transfers charged by its bank; - the party causing a repetition of a transfer bears all costs of the repeated transfer. 21.10 Date of payment Payments by the Agency are considered to have been carried out on the date when they are debited to its account. 21.11 Consequences of non-compliance 21.11.1 If the Agency does not pay within the payment deadlines (see above), the beneficiaries are entitled to late-payment interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations in euros (‘reference rate’), plus three and a half points. The reference rate is the rate in force on the first day of the month in which the payment deadline expires, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union. If the late-payment interest is lower than or equal to EUR 200, it will be paid to the coordinator only upon request submitted within two months of receiving the late payment. Late-payment interest is not due if all beneficiaries are EU Member States (including regional and local government authorities or other public bodies acting on behalf of a Member State for the purpose of this Agreement). Suspension of the payment deadline or payments (see Articles 47 and 48) will not be considered as late payment. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 35 Late-payment interest covers the period running from the day following the due date for payment (see above), up to and including the date of payment. Late-payment interest is not considered for the purposes of calculating the final grant amount. 21.11.2 If the coordinator breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43) and the Agreement or the participation of the coordinator may be terminated (see Article 50). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 22 — CHECKS, REVIEWS, AUDITS AND INVESTIGATIONS — EXTENSION OF FINDINGS 22.1 Checks, reviews and audits by the Agency and the Commission 22.1.1 Right to carry out checks The Agency or the Commission will — during the implementation of the action or afterwards — check the proper implementation of the action and compliance with the obligations under the Agreement, including assessing deliverables and reports. For this purpose the Agency or the Commission may be assisted by external persons or bodies. The Agency or the Commission may also request additional information in accordance with Article 17. The Agency or the Commission may request beneficiaries to provide such information to it directly. Information provided must be accurate, precise and complete and in the format requested, including electronic format. 22.1.2 Right to carry out reviews The Agency or the Commission may — during the implementation of the action or afterwards — carry out reviews on the proper implementation of the action (including assessment of deliverables and reports), compliance with the obligations under the Agreement and continued scientific or technological relevance of the action. Reviews may be started up to two years after the payment of the balance. They will be formally notified to the coordinator or beneficiary concerned and will be considered to have started on the date of the formal notification. If the review is carried out on a third party (see Articles 10 to 16), the beneficiary concerned must inform the third party. The Agency or the Commission may carry out reviews directly (using its own staff) or indirectly (using external persons or bodies appointed to do so). It will inform the coordinator or beneficiary concerned of the identity of the external persons or bodies. They have the right to object to the appointment on grounds of commercial confidentiality. The coordinator or beneficiary concerned must provide — within the deadline requested — any information and data in addition to deliverables and reports already submitted (including information Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 36 on the use of resources). The Agency or the Commission may request beneficiaries to provide such information to it directly. The coordinator or beneficiary concerned may be requested to participate in meetings, including with external experts. For on-the-spot reviews, the beneficiaries must allow access to their sites and premises, including to external persons or bodies, and must ensure that information requested is readily available. Information provided must be accurate, precise and complete and in the format requested, including electronic format. On the basis of the review findings, a ‘review report’ will be drawn up. The Agency or the Commission will formally notify the review report to the coordinator or beneficiary concerned, which has 30 days to formally notify observations (‘contradictory review procedure’). Reviews (including review reports) are in the language of the Agreement. 22.1.3 Right to carry out audits The Agency or the Commission may — during the implementation of the action or afterwards — carry out audits on the proper implementation of the action and compliance with the obligations under the Agreement. Audits may be started up to two years after the payment of the balance. They will be formally notified to the coordinator or beneficiary concerned and will be considered to have started on the date of the formal notification. If the audit is carried out on a third party (see Articles 10 to 16), the beneficiary concerned must inform the third party. The Agency or the Commission may carry out audits directly (using its own staff) or indirectly (using external persons or bodies appointed to do so). It will inform the coordinator or beneficiary concerned of the identity of the external persons or bodies. They have the right to object to the appointment on grounds of commercial confidentiality. The coordinator or beneficiary concerned must provide — within the deadline requested — any information (including complete accounts, individual salary statements or other personal data) to verify compliance with the Agreement. The Agency or the Commission may request beneficiaries to provide such information to it directly. For on-the-spot audits, the beneficiaries must allow access to their sites and premises, including to external persons or bodies, and must ensure that information requested is readily available. Information provided must be accurate, precise and complete and in the format requested, including electronic format. On the basis of the audit findings, a ‘draft audit report’ will be drawn up. The Agency or the Commission will formally notify the draft audit report to the coordinator or beneficiary concerned, which has 30 days to formally notify observations (‘contradictory audit procedure’). This period may be extended by the Agency or the Commission in justified cases. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 37 The ‘final audit report’ will take into account observations by the coordinator or beneficiary concerned. The report will be formally notified to it. Audits (including audit reports) are in the language of the Agreement. The Agency or the Commission may also access the beneficiaries’ statutory records for the periodical assessment of unit costs or flat-rate amounts. 22.2 Investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) Under Regulations No 883/201314 and No 2185/9615 (and in accordance with their provisions and procedures) the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) may — at any moment during implementation of the action or afterwards — carry out investigations, including on-the-spot checks and inspections, to establish whether there has been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the EU. 22.3 Checks and audits by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) Under Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 161 of the Financial Regulation No 966/201217, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) may — at any moment during implementation of the action or afterwards — carry out audits. The ECA has the right of access for the purpose of checks and audits. 22.4 Checks, reviews, audits and investigations for international organisations Not applicable 22.5 Consequences of findings in checks, reviews, audits and investigations — Extension of findings 22.5.1 Findings in this grant Findings in checks, reviews, audits or investigations carried out in the context of this grant may lead to the rejection of ineligible costs (see Article 42), reduction of the grant (see Article 43), recovery of undue amounts (see Article 44) or to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. Rejection of costs or reduction of the grant after the payment of the balance will lead to a revised final grant amount (see Article 5.4). Findings in checks, reviews, audits or investigations may lead to a request for amendment for the modification of Annex 1 (see Article 55). 14 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 248, 18.09.2013, p. 1). 15 Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/1996 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 2). 17 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 38 Checks, reviews, audits or investigations that find systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud or breach of obligations may also lead to consequences in other EU or Euratom grants awarded under similar conditions (‘extension of findings from this grant to other grants’). Moreover, findings arising from an OLAF investigation may lead to criminal prosecution under national law. 22.5.2 Findings in other grants The Agency or the Commission may extend findings from other grants to this grant (‘extension of findings from other grants to this grant’), if: (a) the beneficiary concerned is found, in other EU or Euratom grants awarded under similar conditions, to have committed systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud or breach of obligations that have a material impact on this grant and (b) those findings are formally notified to the beneficiary concerned — together with the list of grants affected by the findings — no later than two years after the payment of the balance of this grant. The extension of findings may lead to the rejection of costs (see Article 42), reduction of the grant (see Article 43), recovery of undue amounts (see Article 44), suspension of payments (see Article 48), suspension of the action implementation (see Article 49) or termination (see Article 50). 22.5.3 Procedure The Agency or the Commission will formally notify the beneficiary concerned the systemic or recurrent errors and its intention to extend these audit findings, together with the list of grants affected. 22.5.3.1 If the findings concern eligibility of costs: the formal notification will include: (a) an invitation to submit observations on the list of grants affected by the findings; (b) the request to submit revised financial statements for all grants affected; (c) the correction rate for extrapolation established by the Agency or the Commission on the basis of the systemic or recurrent errors, to calculate the amounts to be rejected if the beneficiary concerned: (i) considers that the submission of revised financial statements is not possible or practicable or (ii) does not submit revised financial statements. The beneficiary concerned has 90 days from receiving notification to submit observations, revised financial statements or to propose a duly substantiated alternative correction method. This period may be extended by the Agency or the Commission in justified cases. The Agency or the Commission may then start a rejection procedure in accordance with Article 42, on the basis of: - the revised financial statements, if approved; Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 39 - the proposed alternative correction method, if accepted or - the initially notified correction rate for extrapolation, if it does not receive any observations or revised financial statements, does not accept the observations or the proposed alternative correction method or does not approve the revised financial statements. 22.5.3.2 If the findings concern substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or serious breach of obligations: the formal notification will include: (a) an invitation to submit observations on the list of grants affected by the findings and (b) the flat-rate the Agency or the Commission intends to apply according to the principle of proportionality. The beneficiary concerned has 90 days from receiving notification to submit observations or to propose a duly substantiated alternative flat-rate. The Agency or the Commission may then start a reduction procedure in accordance with Article 43, on the basis of: - the proposed alternative flat-rate, if accepted or - the initially notified flat-rate, if it does not receive any observations or does not accept the observations or the proposed alternative flat-rate. 22.6 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, any insufficiently substantiated costs will be ineligible (see Article 6) and will be rejected (see Article 42). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 23 — EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE ACTION 23.1 Right to evaluate the impact of the action The Agency or the Commission may carry out interim and final evaluations of the impact of the action measured against the objective of the EU programme. Evaluations may be started during implementation of the action and up to five years after the payment of the balance. The evaluation is considered to start on the date of the formal notification to the coordinator or beneficiaries. The Agency or the Commission may make these evaluations directly (using its own staff) or indirectly (using external bodies or persons it has authorised to do so). The coordinator or beneficiaries must provide any information relevant to evaluate the impact of the action, including information in electronic format. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 40 23.2 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the Agency may apply the measures described in Chapter 6. SECTION 3 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO BACKGROUND AND RESULTS SUBSECTION 1 GENERAL ARTICLE 23a — MANAGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 23a.1 Obligation to take measures to implement the Commission Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities Beneficiaries that are universities or other public research organisations must take measures to implement the principles set out in Points 1 and 2 of the Code of Practice annexed to the Commission Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities17. This does not change the obligations set out in Subsections 2 and 3 of this Section. The beneficiaries must ensure that researchers and third parties involved in the action are aware of them. 23a.2 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches its obligations under this Article, the Agency may apply any of the measures described in Chapter 6. SUBSECTION 2 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO BACKGROUND ARTICLE 24 — AGREEMENT ON BACKGROUND 24.1 Agreement on background The beneficiaries must identify and agree (in writing) on the background for the action (‘agreement on background’). ‘Background’ means any data, know-how or information — whatever its form or nature (tangible or intangible), including any rights such as intellectual property rights — that: (a) is held by the beneficiaries before they acceded to the Agreement, and (b) is needed to implement the action or exploit the results. 24.2 Consequences of non-compliance 17 Commission Recommendation C(2008) 1329 of 10.4.2008 on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and the Code of Practice for universities and other public research institutions attached to this recommendation. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 41 If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 25 — ACCESS RIGHTS TO BACKGROUND 25.1 Exercise of access rights — Waiving of access rights — No sub-licensing To exercise access rights, this must first be requested in writing (‘request for access’). ‘Access rights’ means rights to use results or background under the terms and conditions laid down in this Agreement. Waivers of access rights are not valid unless in writing. Unless agreed otherwise, access rights do not include the right to sub-license. 25.2 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for implementing their own tasks under the action The beneficiaries must give each other access — on a royalty-free basis — to background needed to implement their own tasks under the action, unless the beneficiary that holds the background has — before acceding to the Agreement —: (a) informed the other beneficiaries that access to its background is subject to legal restrictions or limits, including those imposed by the rights of third parties (including personnel), or (b) agreed with the other beneficiaries that access would not be on a royalty-free basis. 25.3 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for exploiting their own results The beneficiaries must give each other access — under fair and reasonable conditions — to background needed for exploiting their own results, unless the beneficiary that holds the background has — before acceding to the Agreement — informed the other beneficiaries that access to its background is subject to legal restrictions or limits, including those imposed by the rights of third parties (including personnel). ‘Fair and reasonable conditions’ means appropriate conditions, including possible financial terms or royalty-free conditions, taking into account the specific circumstances of the request for access, for example the actual or potential value of the results or background to which access is requested and/or the scope, duration or other characteristics of the exploitation envisaged. Requests for access may be made — unless agreed otherwise — up to one year after the period set out in Article 3. 25.4 Access rights for affiliated entities Unless otherwise agreed in the consortium agreement, access to background must also be given — under fair and reasonable conditions (see above; Article 25.3) and unless it is subject to legal restrictions or limits, including those imposed by the rights of third parties (including personnel) — Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 42 to affiliated entities18 established in an EU Member State or ‘associated country’19, if this is needed to exploit the results generated by the beneficiaries to which they are affiliated. Unless agreed otherwise (see above; Article 25.1), the affiliated entity concerned must make the request directly to the beneficiary that holds the background. Requests for access may be made — unless agreed otherwise — up to one year after the period set out in Article 3. 25.5 Access rights for third parties Not applicable 25.6 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. SUBSECTION 3 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO RESULTS ARTICLE 26 — OWNERSHIP OF RESULTS 26.1 Ownership by the beneficiary that generates the results Results are owned by the beneficiary that generates them. ‘Results’ means any (tangible or intangible) output of the action such as data, knowledge or information — whatever its form or nature, whether it can be protected or not — that is generated in the action, as well as any rights attached to it, including intellectual property rights. 26.2 Joint ownership by several beneficiaries 18 For the definition see Article 2.1(2) Rules for Participation Regulation No 1290/2013: ‘affiliated entity’ means any legal entity that is: - under the direct or indirect control of a participant, or - under the same direct or indirect control as the participant, or - directly or indirectly controlling a participant. ‘Control’ may take any of the following forms: (a) the direct or indirect holding of more than 50% of the nominal value of the issued share capital in the legal entity concerned, or of a majority of the voting rights of the shareholders or associates of that entity; (b) the direct or indirect holding, in fact or in law, of decision-making powers in the legal entity concerned. However the following relationships between legal entities shall not in themselves be deemed to constitute controlling relationships: (a) the same public investment corporation, institutional investor or venture-capital company has a direct or indirect holding of more than 50% of the nominal value of the issued share capital or a majority of voting rights of the shareholders or associates; (b) the legal entities concerned are owned or supervised by the same public body. 19 For the definition, see Article 2.1(3) of the Rules for Participation Regulation No 1290/2013: ‘associated country’ means a third country which is party to an international agreement with the Union, as identified in Article 7 of Horizon 2020 Framework Programme Regulation No 1291/2013. Article 7 sets out the conditions for association of non-EU countries to Horizon 2020. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 43 Two or more beneficiaries own results jointly if: (a) they have jointly generated them and (b) it is not possible to: (i) establish the respective contribution of each beneficiary, or (ii) separate them for the purpose of applying for, obtaining or maintaining their protection (see Article 27). The joint owners must agree (in writing) on the allocation and terms of exercise of their joint ownership (‘joint ownership agreement’), to ensure compliance with their obligations under this Agreement. Unless otherwise agreed in the joint ownership agreement, each joint owner may grant non-exclusive licences to third parties to exploit jointly-owned results (without any right to sub-license), if the other joint owners are given: (a) at least 45 days advance notice and (b) fair and reasonable compensation. Once the results have been generated, joint owners may agree (in writing) to apply another regime than joint ownership (such as, for instance, transfer to a single owner (see Article 30) with access rights for the others). 26.3 Rights of third parties (including personnel) If third parties (including personnel) may claim rights to the results, the beneficiary concerned must ensure that it complies with its obligations under the Agreement. If a third party generates results, the beneficiary concerned must obtain all necessary rights (transfer, licences or other) from the third party, in order to be able to respect its obligations as if those results were generated by the beneficiary itself. If obtaining the rights is impossible, the beneficiary must refrain from using the third party to generate the results. 26.4 Agency ownership, to protect results 26.4.1 The Agency may — with the consent of the beneficiary concerned — assume ownership of results to protect them, if a beneficiary intends — up to four years after the period set out in Article 3 — to disseminate its results without protecting them, except in any of the following cases: (a) the lack of protection is because protecting the results is not possible, reasonable or justified (given the circumstances); (b) the lack of protection is because there is a lack of potential for commercial or industrial exploitation, or (c) the beneficiary intends to transfer the results to another beneficiary or third party established in an EU Member State or associated country, which will protect them. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 44 Before the results are disseminated and unless any of the cases above under Points (a), (b) or (c) applies, the beneficiary must formally notify the Agency and at the same time inform it of any reasons for refusing consent. The beneficiary may refuse consent only if it can show that its legitimate interests would suffer significant harm. If the Agency decides to assume ownership, it will formally notify the beneficiary concerned within 45 days of receiving notification. No dissemination relating to these results may take place before the end of this period or, if the Agency takes a positive decision, until it has taken the necessary steps to protect the results. 26.4.2 The Agency may — with the consent of the beneficiary concerned — assume ownership of results to protect them, if a beneficiary intends — up to four years after the period set out in Article 3 — to stop protecting them or not to seek an extension of protection, except in any of the following cases: (a) the protection is stopped because of a lack of potential for commercial or industrial exploitation; (b) an extension would not be justified given the circumstances. A beneficiary that intends to stop protecting results or not seek an extension must — unless any of the cases above under Points (a) or (b) applies — formally notify the Agency at least 60 days before the protection lapses or its extension is no longer possible and at the same time inform it of any reasons for refusing consent. The beneficiary may refuse consent only if it can show that its legitimate interests would suffer significant harm. If the Agency decides to assume ownership, it will formally notify the beneficiary concerned within 45 days of receiving notification. 26.5 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such breaches may also lead to the any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 27 — PROTECTION OF RESULTS — VISIBILITY OF EU FUNDING 27.1 Obligation to protect the results Each beneficiary must examine the possibility of protecting its results and must adequately protect them — for an appropriate period and with appropriate territorial coverage — if: (a) the results can reasonably be expected to be commercially or industrially exploited and (b) protecting them is possible, reasonable and justified (given the circumstances). When deciding on protection, the beneficiary must consider its own legitimate interests and the legitimate interests (especially commercial) of the other beneficiaries. 27.2 Agency ownership, to protect the results If a beneficiary intends not to protect its results, to stop protecting them or not seek an extension of Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 45 protection, the Agency may — under certain conditions (see Article 26.4) — assume ownership to ensure their (continued) protection. 27.3 Information on EU funding Applications for protection of results (including patent applications) filed by or on behalf of a beneficiary must — unless the Agency requests or agrees otherwise or unless it is impossible — include the following: “The project leading to this application has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 784960”. 27.4 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such a breach may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 28 — EXPLOITATION OF RESULTS 28.1 Obligation to exploit the results Each beneficiary must — up to four years after the period set out in Article 3 — take measures aiming to ensure ‘exploitation’ of its results (either directly or indirectly, in particular through transfer or licensing; see Article 30) by: (a) using them in further research activities (outside the action); (b) developing, creating or marketing a product or process; (c) creating and providing a service, or (d) using them in standardisation activities. This does not change the security obligations in Article 37, which still apply. 28.2 Results that could contribute to European or international standards — Information on EU funding If results are incorporated in a standard, the beneficiary concerned must — unless the Agency requests or agrees otherwise or unless it is impossible — ask the standardisation body to include the following statement in (information related to) the standard: “Results incorporated in this standard received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 784960”. 28.3 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced in accordance with Article 43. Such a breach may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 46 ARTICLE 29 — DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS — OPEN ACCESS — VISIBILITY OF EU FUNDING 29.1 Obligation to disseminate results Unless it goes against their legitimate interests, each beneficiary must — as soon as possible — ‘disseminate’ its results by disclosing them to the public by appropriate means (other than those resulting from protecting or exploiting the results), including in scientific publications (in any medium). This does not change the obligation to protect results in Article 27, the confidentiality obligations in Article 36, the security obligations in Article 37 or the obligations to protect personal data in Article 39, all of which still apply. A beneficiary that intends to disseminate its results must give advance notice to the other beneficiaries of — unless agreed otherwise — at least 45 days, together with sufficient information on the results it will disseminate. Any other beneficiary may object within — unless agreed otherwise — 30 days of receiving notification, if it can show that its legitimate interests in relation to the results or background would be significantly harmed. In such cases, the dissemination may not take place unless appropriate steps are taken to safeguard these legitimate interests. If a beneficiary intends not to protect its results, it may — under certain conditions (see Article 26.4.1) — need to formally notify the Agency before dissemination takes place. 29.2 Open access to scientific publications Each beneficiary must ensure open access (free of charge online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to its results. In particular, it must: (a) as soon as possible and at the latest on publication, deposit a machine-readable electronic copy of the published version or final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in a repository for scientific publications; Moreover, the beneficiary must aim to deposit at the same time the research data needed to validate the results presented in the deposited scientific publications. (b) ensure open access to the deposited publication — via the repository — at the latest: (i) on publication, if an electronic version is available for free via the publisher, or (ii) within six months of publication (twelve months for publications in the social sciences and humanities) in any other case. (c) ensure open access — via the repository — to the bibliographic metadata that identify the deposited publication. The bibliographic metadata must be in a standard format and must include all of the following: Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 47 - the terms “European Union (EU)” and “Horizon 2020”; - the name of the action, acronym and grant number; - the publication date, and length of embargo period if applicable, and - a persistent identifier. 29.3 Open access to research data Regarding the digital research data generated in the action (‘data’), the beneficiaries must: (a) deposit in a research data repository and take measures to make it possible for third parties to access, mine, exploit, reproduce and disseminate — free of charge for any user — the following: (i) the data, including associated metadata, needed to validate the results presented in scientific publications as soon as possible; (ii) other data, including associated metadata, as specified and within the deadlines laid down in the 'data management plan' (see Annex 1); (b) provide information — via the repository — about tools and instruments at the disposal of the beneficiaries and necessary for validating the results (and — where possible — provide the tools and instruments themselves). This does not change the obligation to protect results in Article 27, the confidentiality obligations in Article 36, the security obligations in Article 37 or the obligations to protect personal data in Article 39, all of which still apply. As an exception, the beneficiaries do not have to ensure open access to specific parts of their research data if the achievement of the action's main objective, as described in Annex 1, would be jeopardised by making those specific parts of the research data openly accessible. In this case, the data management plan must contain the reasons for not giving access. 29.4 Information on EU funding — Obligation and right to use the EU emblem Unless the Agency requests or agrees otherwise or unless it is impossible, any dissemination of results (in any form, including electronic) must: (a) display the EU emblem and (b) include the following text: “This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 784960”. When displayed together with another logo, the EU emblem must have appropriate prominence. For the purposes of their obligations under this Article, the beneficiaries may use the EU emblem without first obtaining approval from the Agency. This does not however give them the right to exclusive use. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 48 Moreover, they may not appropriate the EU emblem or any similar trademark or logo, either by registration or by any other means. 29.5 Disclaimer excluding Agency responsibility Any dissemination of results must indicate that it reflects only the author's view and that the Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. 29.6 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such a breach may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 30 — TRANSFER AND LICENSING OF RESULTS 30.1 Transfer of ownership Each beneficiary may transfer ownership of its results. It must however ensure that its obligations under Articles 26.2, 26.4, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 also apply to the new owner and that this owner has the obligation to pass them on in any subsequent transfer. This does not change the security obligations in Article 37, which still apply. Unless agreed otherwise (in writing) for specifically-identified third parties or unless impossible under applicable EU and national laws on mergers and acquisitions, a beneficiary that intends to transfer ownership of results must give at least 45 days advance notice (or less if agreed in writing) to the other beneficiaries that still have (or still may request) access rights to the results. This notification must include sufficient information on the new owner to enable any beneficiary concerned to assess the effects on its access rights. Unless agreed otherwise (in writing) for specifically-identified third parties, any other beneficiary may object within 30 days of receiving notification (or less if agreed in writing), if it can show that the transfer would adversely affect its access rights. In this case, the transfer may not take place until agreement has been reached between the beneficiaries concerned. 30.2 Granting licenses Each beneficiary may grant licences to its results (or otherwise give the right to exploit them), if: (a) this does not impede the access rights under Article 31 and (b) not applicable. In addition to Points (a) and (b), exclusive licences for results may be granted only if all the other beneficiaries concerned have waived their access rights (see Article 31.1). This does not change the dissemination obligations in Article 29 or security obligations in Article 37, which still apply. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 49 30.3 Agency right to object to transfers or licensing The Agency may — up to four years after the period set out in Article 3 — object to a transfer of ownership or the exclusive licensing of results, if: (a) it is to a third party established in a non-EU country not associated with Horizon 2020 and (b) the Agency considers that the transfer or licence is not in line with EU interests regarding competitiveness or is inconsistent with ethical principles or security considerations. A beneficiary that intends to transfer ownership or grant an exclusive licence must formally notify the Agency before the intended transfer or licensing takes place and: - identify the specific results concerned; - describe in detail the new owner or licensee and the planned or potential exploitation of the results, and - include a reasoned assessment of the likely impact of the transfer or licence on EU competitiveness and its consistency with ethical principles and security considerations. The Agency may request additional information. If the Agency decides to object to a transfer or exclusive licence, it must formally notify the beneficiary concerned within 60 days of receiving notification (or any additional information it has requested). No transfer or licensing may take place in the following cases: - pending the Agency decision, within the period set out above; - if the Agency objects; - until the conditions are complied with, if the Agency objection comes with conditions. 30.4 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such a breach may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 31 — ACCESS RIGHTS TO RESULTS 31.1 Exercise of access rights — Waiving of access rights — No sub-licensing The conditions set out in Article 25.1 apply. The obligations set out in this Article do not change the security obligations in Article 37, which still apply. 31.2 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for implementing their own tasks under the action Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 50 The beneficiaries must give each other access — on a royalty-free basis — to results needed for implementing their own tasks under the action. 31.3 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for exploiting their own results The beneficiaries must give each other — under fair and reasonable conditions (see Article 25.3) — access to results needed for exploiting their own results. Requests for access may be made — unless agreed otherwise — up to one year after the period set out in Article 3. 31.4 Access rights of affiliated entities Unless agreed otherwise in the consortium agreement, access to results must also be given — under fair and reasonable conditions (Article 25.3) — to affiliated entities established in an EU Member State or associated country, if this is needed for those entities to exploit the results generated by the beneficiaries to which they are affiliated. Unless agreed otherwise (see above; Article 31.1), the affiliated entity concerned must make any such request directly to the beneficiary that owns the results. Requests for access may be made — unless agreed otherwise — up to one year after the period set out in Article 3. 31.5 Access rights for the EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies and EU Member States The beneficiaries must give access to their results — on a royalty-free basis — to EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, for developing, implementing or monitoring EU policies or programmes. Such access rights are limited to non-commercial and non-competitive use. This does not change the right to use any material, document or information received from the beneficiaries for communication and publicising activities (see Article 38.2). 31.6 Access rights for third parties Not applicable 31.7 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. SECTION 4 OTHER RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS ARTICLE 32 — RECRUITMENT AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR RESEARCHERS 32.1 Obligation to take measures to implement the European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 51 The beneficiaries must take all measures to implement the principles set out in the Commission Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers21, in particular regarding: - working conditions; - transparent recruitment processes based on merit, and - career development. The beneficiaries must ensure that researchers and third parties involved in the action are aware of them. 32.2 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches its obligations under this Article, the Agency may apply any of the measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 33 — GENDER EQUALITY 33.1 Obligation to aim for gender equality The beneficiaries must take all measures to promote equal opportunities between men and women in the implementation of the action. They must aim, to the extent possible, for a gender balance at all levels of personnel assigned to the action, including at supervisory and managerial level. 33.2 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches its obligations under this Article, the Agency may apply any of the measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 34 — ETHICS AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY 34.1 Obligation to comply with ethical and research integrity principles The beneficiaries must carry out the action in compliance with: (a) ethical principles (including the highest standards of research integrity) and (b) applicable international, EU and national law. Funding will not be granted for activities carried out outside the EU if they are prohibited in all Member States or for activities which destroy human embryos (for example, for obtaining stem cells). The beneficiaries must ensure that the activities under the action have an exclusive focus on civil applications. 21 Commission Recommendation 2005/251/EC of 11 March 2005 on the European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (OJ L 75, 22.3.2005, p. 67). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 52 The beneficiaries must ensure that the activities under the action do not: (a) aim at human cloning for reproductive purposes; (b) intend to modify the genetic heritage of human beings which could make such changes heritable (with the exception of research relating to cancer treatment of the gonads, which may be financed), or (c) intend to create human embryos solely for the purpose of research or for the purpose of stem cell procurement, including by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer. The beneficiaries must respect the highest standards of research integrity — as set out, for instance, in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity22. This implies notably compliance with the following essential principles: - honesty; - reliability; - objectivity; - impartiality; - open communication; - duty of care; - fairness and - responsibility for future science generations. This means that beneficiaries must ensure that persons carrying out research tasks: - present their research goals and intentions in an honest and transparent manner; - design their research carefully and conduct it in a reliable fashion, taking its impact on society into account; - use techniques and methodologies (including for data collection and management) that are appropriate for the field(s) concerned; - exercise due care for the subjects of research — be they human beings, animals, the environment or cultural objects; - ensure objectivity, accuracy and impartiality when disseminating the results; - allow — in addition to the open access obligations under Article 29.3 as much as possible and taking into account the legitimate interest of the beneficiaries — access to research data, in order to enable research to be reproduced; 22 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity of ALLEA (All European Academies) and ESF (European Science Foundation) of March 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 53 - make the necessary references to their work and that of other researchers; - refrain from practicing any form of plagiarism, data falsification or fabrication; - avoid double funding, conflicts of interest and misrepresentation of credentials or other research misconduct. 34.2 Activities raising ethical issues Activities raising ethical issues must comply with the ‘ethics requirements’ set out as deliverables in Annex 1. Before the beginning of an activity raising an ethical issue, each beneficiary must have obtained: (a) any ethics committee opinion required under national law and (b) any notification or authorisation for activities raising ethical issues required under national and/ or European law needed for implementing the action tasks in question. The documents must be kept on file and be submitted upon request by the coordinator to the Agency (see Article 52). If they are not in English, they must be submitted together with an English summary, which shows that the action tasks in question are covered and includes the conclusions of the committee or authority concerned (if available). 34.3 Activities involving human embryos or human embryonic stem cells Activities involving research on human embryos or human embryonic stem cells may be carried out, in addition to Article 34.1, only if: - they are set out in Annex 1 or - the coordinator has obtained explicit approval (in writing) from the Agency (see Article 52). 34.4 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43) and the Agreement or participation of the beneficiary may be terminated (see Article 50). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 35 — CONFLICT OF INTERESTS 35.1 Obligation to avoid a conflict of interests The beneficiaries must take all measures to prevent any situation where the impartial and objective implementation of the action is compromised for reasons involving economic interest, political or national affinity, family or emotional ties or any other shared interest (‘conflict of interests’). They must formally notify to the Agency without delay any situation constituting or likely to lead to a conflict of interests and immediately take all the necessary steps to rectify this situation. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 54 The Agency may verify that the measures taken are appropriate and may require additional measures to be taken by a specified deadline. 35.2 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43) and the Agreement or participation of the beneficiary may be terminated (see Article 50). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 36 — CONFIDENTIALITY 36.1 General obligation to maintain confidentiality During implementation of the action and for four years after the period set out in Article 3, the parties must keep confidential any data, documents or other material (in any form) that is identified as confidential at the time it is disclosed (‘confidential information’). If a beneficiary requests, the Agency may agree to keep such information confidential for an additional period beyond the initial four years. If information has been identified as confidential only orally, it will be considered to be confidential only if this is confirmed in writing within 15 days of the oral disclosure. Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, they may use confidential information only to implement the Agreement. The beneficiaries may disclose confidential information to their personnel or third parties involved in the action only if they: (a) need to know to implement the Agreement and (b) are bound by an obligation of confidentiality. This does not change the security obligations in Article 37, which still apply. The Agency may disclose confidential information to its staff, other EU institutions and bodies. It may disclose confidential information to third parties, if: (a) this is necessary to implement the Agreement or safeguard the EU's financial interests and (b) the recipients of the information are bound by an obligation of confidentiality. Under the conditions set out in Article 4 of the Rules for Participation Regulation No 1290/201323, the Commission must moreover make available information on the results to other EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies as well as Member States or associated countries. The confidentiality obligations no longer apply if: 23 Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 laying down the rules for participation and dissemination in "Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)" (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013 p.81). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 55 (a) the disclosing party agrees to release the other party; (b) the information was already known by the recipient or is given to him without obligation of confidentiality by a third party that was not bound by any obligation of confidentiality; (c) the recipient proves that the information was developed without the use of confidential information; (d) the information becomes generally and publicly available, without breaching any confidentiality obligation, or (e) the disclosure of the information is required by EU or national law. 36.2 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 37 — SECURITY-RELATED OBLIGATIONS 37.1 Results with a security recommendation Not applicable 37.2 Classified information Not applicable 37.3 Activities involving dual-use goods or dangerous materials and substances Not applicable 37.4 Consequences of non-compliance Not applicable ARTICLE 38 — PROMOTING THE ACTION — VISIBILITY OF EU FUNDING 38.1 Communication activities by beneficiaries 38.1.1 Obligation to promote the action and its results The beneficiaries must promote the action and its results, by providing targeted information to multiple audiences (including the media and the public) in a strategic and effective manner. This does not change the dissemination obligations in Article 29, the confidentiality obligations in Article 36 or the security obligations in Article 37, all of which still apply. Before engaging in a communication activity expected to have a major media impact, the beneficiaries must inform the Agency (see Article 52). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 56 38.1.2 Information on EU funding — Obligation and right to use the EU emblem Unless the Agency requests or agrees otherwise or unless it is impossible, any communication activity related to the action (including in electronic form, via social media, etc.) and any infrastructure, equipment and major results funded by the grant must: (a) display the EU emblem and (b) include the following text: For communication activities: “This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 784960”. For infrastructure, equipment and major results: “This [infrastructure][equipment][insert type of result] is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 784960”. When displayed together with another logo, the EU emblem must have appropriate prominence. For the purposes of their obligations under this Article, the beneficiaries may use the EU emblem without first obtaining approval from the Agency. This does not, however, give them the right to exclusive use. Moreover, they may not appropriate the EU emblem or any similar trademark or logo, either by registration or by any other means. 38.1.3 Disclaimer excluding Agency and Commission responsibility Any communication activity related to the action must indicate that it reflects only the author's view and that the Agency and the Commission are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. 38.2 Communication activities by the Agency and the Commission 38.2.1 Right to use beneficiaries’ materials, documents or information The Agency and the Commission may use, for its communication and publicising activities, information relating to the action, documents notably summaries for publication and public deliverables as well as any other material, such as pictures or audio-visual material received from any beneficiary (including in electronic form). This does not change the confidentiality obligations in Article 36 and the security obligations in Article 37, all of which still apply. If the Agency’s or the Commission’s use of these materials, documents or information would risk compromising legitimate interests, the beneficiary concerned may request the Agency or the Commission not to use it (see Article 52). The right to use a beneficiary’s materials, documents and information includes: (a) use for its own purposes (in particular, making them available to persons working for the Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 57 Agency, the Commission or any other EU institution, body, office or agency or body or institutions in EU Member States; and copying or reproducing them in whole or in part, in unlimited numbers); (b) distribution to the public (in particular, publication as hard copies and in electronic or digital format, publication on the internet, as a downloadable or non-downloadable file, broadcasting by any channel, public display or presentation, communicating through press information services, or inclusion in widely accessible databases or indexes); (c) editing or redrafting for communication and publicising activities (including shortening, summarising, inserting other elements (such as meta-data, legends, other graphic, visual, audio or text elements), extracting parts (e.g. audio or video files), dividing into parts, use in a compilation); (d) translation; (e) giving access in response to individual requests under Regulation No 1049/200125, without the right to reproduce or exploit; (f) storage in paper, electronic or other form; (g) archiving, in line with applicable document-management rules, and (h) the right to authorise third parties to act on its behalf or sub-license the modes of use set out in Points (b), (c), (d) and (f) to third parties if needed for the communication and publicising activities of the Agency or the Commission. If the right of use is subject to rights of a third party (including personnel of the beneficiary), the beneficiary must ensure that it complies with its obligations under this Agreement (in particular, by obtaining the necessary approval from the third parties concerned). Where applicable (and if provided by the beneficiaries), the Agency or the Commission will insert the following information: “© – [year] – [name of the copyright owner]. All rights reserved. Licensed to the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) and the European Union (EU) under conditions.” 38.3 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 39 — PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA 39.1 Processing of personal data by the Agency and the Commission Any personal data under the Agreement will be processed by the Agency or the Commission under 25 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 58 Regulation No 45/200126 and according to the ‘notifications of the processing operations’ to the Data Protection Officer (DPO) of the Agency or the Commission (publicly accessible in the DPO register). Such data will be processed by the ‘data controller’ of the Agency or the Commission for the purposes of implementing, managing and monitoring the Agreement or protecting the financial interests of the EU or Euratom (including checks, reviews, audits and investigations; see Article 22). The persons whose personal data are processed have the right to access and correct their own personal data. For this purpose, they must send any queries about the processing of their personal data to the data controller, via the contact point indicated in the privacy statement(s) that are published on the Agency and the Commission websites. They also have the right to have recourse at any time to the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). 39.2 Processing of personal data by the beneficiaries The beneficiaries must process personal data under the Agreement in compliance with applicable EU and national law on data protection (including authorisations or notification requirements). The beneficiaries may grant their personnel access only to data that is strictly necessary for implementing, managing and monitoring the Agreement. The beneficiaries must inform the personnel whose personal data are collected and processed by the Agency or the Commission. For this purpose, they must provide them with the privacy statement(s) (see above), before transmitting their data to the Agency or the Commission. 39.3 Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under Article 39.2, the Agency may apply any of the measures described in Chapter 6. ARTICLE 40 — ASSIGNMENTS OF CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT AGAINST THE AGENCY The beneficiaries may not assign any of their claims for payment against the Agency to any third party, except if approved by the Agency on the basis of a reasoned, written request by the coordinator (on behalf of the beneficiary concerned). If the Agency has not accepted the assignment or the terms of it are not observed, the assignment will have no effect on it. In no circumstances will an assignment release the beneficiaries from their obligations towards the Agency. 26 Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.01.2001, p. 1). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 59 CHAPTER 5 DIVISION OF BENEFICIARIES’ ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES — RELATIONSHIP WITH COMPLEMENTARY BENEFICIARIES — RELATIONSHIP WITH PARTNERS OF A JOINT ACTION ARTICLE 41 — DIVISION OF BENEFICIARIES’ ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES — RELATIONSHIP WITH COMPLEMENTARY BENEFICIARIES — RELATIONSHIP WITH PARTNERS OF A JOINT ACTION 41.1 Roles and responsibility towards the Agency The beneficiaries have full responsibility for implementing the action and complying with the Agreement. The beneficiaries are jointly and severally liable for the technical implementation of the action as described in Annex 1. If a beneficiary fails to implement its part of the action, the other beneficiaries become responsible for implementing this part (without being entitled to any additional EU funding for doing so), unless the Agency expressly relieves them of this obligation. The financial responsibility of each beneficiary is governed by Articles 44, 45 and 46. 41.2 Internal division of roles and responsibilities The internal roles and responsibilities of the beneficiaries are divided as follows: (a) Each beneficiary must: (i) keep information stored in the Participant Portal Beneficiary Register (via the electronic exchange system) up to date (see Article 17); (ii) inform the coordinator immediately of any events or circumstances likely to affect significantly or delay the implementation of the action (see Article 17); (iii) submit to the coordinator in good time: - individual financial statements for itself and, if required, certificates on the financial statements (see Article 20); - the data needed to draw up the technical reports (see Article 20); - ethics committee opinions and notifications or authorisations for activities raising ethical issues (see Article 34); - any other documents or information required by the Agency or the Commission under the Agreement, unless the Agreement requires the beneficiary to submit this information directly to the Agency or the Commission. (b) The coordinator must: (i) monitor that the action is implemented properly (see Article 7); (ii) act as the intermediary for all communications between the beneficiaries and the Agency Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 60 (in particular, providing the Agency with the information described in Article 17), unless the Agreement specifies otherwise; (iii) request and review any documents or information required by the Agency and verify their completeness and correctness before passing them on to the Agency; (iv) submit the deliverables and reports to the Agency (see Articles 19 and 20); (v) ensure that all payments are made to the other beneficiaries without unjustified delay (see Article 21); (vi) inform the Agency of the amounts paid to each beneficiary, when required under the Agreement (see Articles 44 and 50) or requested by the Agency. The coordinator may not delegate or subcontract the above-mentioned tasks to any other beneficiary or third party (including linked third parties). 41.3 Internal arrangements between beneficiaries — Consortium agreement The beneficiaries must have internal arrangements regarding their operation and co-ordination to ensure that the action is implemented properly. These internal arrangements must be set out in a written ‘consortium agreement’ between the beneficiaries, which may cover: - internal organisation of the consortium; - management of access to the electronic exchange system; - distribution of EU funding; - additional rules on rights and obligations related to background and results (including whether access rights remain or not, if a beneficiary is in breach of its obligations) (see Section 3 of Chapter 4); - settlement of internal disputes; - liability, indemnification and confidentiality arrangements between the beneficiaries. The consortium agreement must not contain any provision contrary to the Agreement. 41.4 Relationship with complementary beneficiaries — Collaboration agreement Not applicable 41.5 Relationship with partners of a joint action — Coordination agreement Not applicable CHAPTER 6 REJECTION OF COSTS — REDUCTION OF THE GRANT — RECOVERY — SANCTIONS — DAMAGES — SUSPENSION — TERMINATION — FORCE MAJEURE Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 61 SECTION 1 REJECTION OF COSTS — REDUCTION OF THE GRANT — RECOVERY — SANCTIONS ARTICLE 42 — REJECTION OF INELIGIBLE COSTS 42.1 Conditions The Agency will — after termination of the participation of a beneficiary, at the time of an interim payment, at the payment of the balance or afterwards — reject any costs which are ineligible (see Article 6), in particular following checks, reviews, audits or investigations (see Article 22). The rejection may also be based on the extension of findings from other grants to this grant (see Article 22.5.2). 42.2 Ineligible costs to be rejected — Calculation — Procedure Ineligible costs will be rejected in full. If the rejection of costs does not lead to a recovery (see Article 44), the Agency will formally notify the coordinator or beneficiary concerned of the rejection of costs, the amounts and the reasons why (if applicable, together with the notification of amounts due; see Article 21.5). The coordinator or beneficiary concerned may — within 30 days of receiving notification — formally notify the Agency of its disagreement and the reasons why. If the rejection of costs leads to a recovery, the Agency will follow the contradictory procedure with pre-information letter set out in Article 44. 42.3 Effects If the Agency rejects costs at the time of an interim payment or the payment of the balance, it will deduct them from the total eligible costs declared, for the action, in the periodic or final summary financial statement (see Articles 20.3 and 20.4). It will then calculate the interim payment or payment of the balance as set out in Articles 21.3 or 21.4. If the Agency rejects costs after termination of the participation of a beneficiary, it will deduct them from the costs declared by the beneficiary in the termination report and include the rejection in the calculation after termination (see Article 50.2 and 50.3). If the Agency — after an interim payment but before the payment of the balance — rejects costs declared in a periodic summary financial statement, it will deduct them from the total eligible costs declared, for the action, in the next periodic summary financial statement or in the final summary financial statement. It will then calculate the interim payment or payment of the balance as set out in Articles 21.3 or 21.4. If the Agency rejects costs after the payment of the balance, it will deduct the amount rejected from the total eligible costs declared, by the beneficiary, in the final summary financial statement. It will then calculate the revised final grant amount as set out in Article 5.4. ARTICLE 43 — REDUCTION OF THE GRANT 43.1 Conditions Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 62 The Agency may — after termination of the participation of a beneficiary, at the payment of the balance or afterwards — reduce the grant amount (see Article 5.1), if : (a) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf) has committed: (i) substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or (ii) serious breach of obligations under the Agreement or during the award procedure (including improper implementation of the action, submission of false information, failure to provide required information, breach of ethical principles) or (b) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decision on its behalf) has committed — in other EU or Euratom grants awarded to it under similar conditions — systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud or serious breach of obligations that have a material impact on this grant (extension of findings from other grants to this grant; see Article 22.5.2). 43.2 Amount to be reduced — Calculation — Procedure The amount of the reduction will be proportionate to the seriousness of the errors, irregularities or fraud or breach of obligations. Before reduction of the grant, the Agency will formally notify a ‘pre-information letter’ to the coordinator or beneficiary concerned: - informing it of its intention to reduce the grant, the amount it intends to reduce and the reasons why and - inviting it to submit observations within 30 days of receiving notification If the Agency does not receive any observations or decides to pursue reduction despite the observations it has received, it will formally notify confirmation of the reduction (if applicable, together with the notification of amounts due; see Article 21). 43.3 Effects If the Agency reduces the grant after termination of the participation of a beneficiary, it will calculate the reduced grant amount for that beneficiary and then determine the amount due to that beneficiary (see Article 50.2 and 50.3). If the Agency reduces the grant at the payment of the balance, it will calculate the reduced grant amount for the action and then determine the amount due as payment of the balance (see Articles 5.3.4 and 21.4). If the Agency reduces the grant after the payment of the balance, it will calculate the revised final grant amount for the beneficiary concerned (see Article 5.4). If the revised final grant amount for the beneficiary concerned is lower than its share of the final grant amount, the Agency will recover the difference (see Article 44). ARTICLE 44 — RECOVERY OF UNDUE AMOUNTS Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 63 44.1 Amount to be recovered — Calculation — Procedure The Agency will — after termination of the participation of a beneficiary, at the payment of the balance or afterwards — claim back any amount that was paid, but is not due under the Agreement. Each beneficiary’s financial responsibility in case of recovery is limited to its own debt, except for the amount retained for the Guarantee Fund (see Article 21.4). 44.1.1 Recovery after termination of a beneficiary’s participation If recovery takes place after termination of a beneficiary’s participation (including the coordinator), the Agency will claim back the undue amount from the beneficiary concerned, by formally notifying it a debit note (see Article 50.2 and 50.3). This note will specify the amount to be recovered, the terms and the date for payment. If payment is not made by the date specified in the debit note, the Agency or the Commission will recover the amount: (a) by ‘offsetting’ it — without the beneficiary’s consent — against any amounts owed to the beneficiary concerned by the Agency, the Commission or another executive agency (from the EU or Euratom budget). In exceptional circumstances, to safeguard the EU’s financial interests, the Agency may offset before the payment date specified in the debit note; (b) not applicable; (c) by taking legal action (see Article 57) or by adopting an enforceable decision under Article 299 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and Article 79(2) of the Financial regulation No 966/2012. If payment is not made by the date specified in the debit note, the amount to be recovered (see above) will be increased by late-payment interest at the rate set out in Article 21.11, from the day following the payment date in the debit note, up to and including the date the Agency or the Commission receives full payment of the amount. Partial payments will be first credited against expenses, charges and late-payment interest and then against the principal. Bank charges incurred in the recovery process will be borne by the beneficiary, unless Directive 2007/64/EC27 applies. 44.1.2 Recovery at payment of the balance If the payment of the balance takes the form of a recovery (see Article 21.4), the Agency will formally notify a ‘pre-information letter’ to the coordinator: - informing it of its intention to recover, the amount due as the balance and the reasons why; 27 Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ L 319, 05.12.2007, p. 1). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 64 - specifying that it intends to deduct the amount to be recovered from the amount retained for the Guarantee Fund; - requesting the coordinator to submit a report on the distribution of payments to the beneficiaries within 30 days of receiving notification, and - inviting the coordinator to submit observations within 30 days of receiving notification. If no observations are submitted or the Agency decides to pursue recovery despite the observations it has received, it will confirm recovery (together with the notification of amounts due; see Article 21.5) and: - pay the difference between the amount to be recovered and the amount retained for the Guarantee Fund, if the difference is positive or - formally notify to the coordinator a debit note for the difference between the amount to be recovered and the amount retained for the Guarantee Fund, if the difference is negative. This note will also specify the terms and the date for payment. If the coordinator does not repay the Agency by the date in the debit note and has not submitted the report on the distribution of payments: the Agency or the Commission will recover the amount set out in the debit note from the coordinator (see below). If the coordinator does not repay the Agency by the date in the debit note, but has submitted the report on the distribution of payments: the Agency will: (a) identify the beneficiaries for which the amount calculated as follows is negative: {{{{beneficiary’s costs declared in the final summary financial statement and approved by the Agency multiplied by the reimbursement rate set out in Article 5.2 for the beneficiary concerned} divided by the EU contribution for the action calculated according to Article 5.3.1} multiplied by the final grant amount (see Article 5.3)}, minus {pre-financing and interim payments received by the beneficiary}}. (b) formally notify to each beneficiary identified according to point (a) a debit note specifying the terms and date for payment. The amount of the debit note is calculated as follows: {{amount calculated according to point (a) for the beneficiary concerned divided by the sum of the amounts calculated according to point (a) for all the beneficiaries identified according to point (a)} multiplied by the amount set out in the debit note formally notified to the coordinator}. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 65 If payment is not made by the date specified in the debit note, the Agency will recover the amount: (a) by ‘offsetting’ it — without the beneficiary’s consent — against any amounts owed to the beneficiary concerned by the Agency, the Commission or another executive agency (from the EU or Euratom budget). In exceptional circumstances, to safeguard the EU’s financial interests, the Agency may offset before the payment date specified in the debit note; (b) by drawing on the Guarantee Fund. The Agency or the Commission will formally notify the beneficiary concerned the debit note on behalf of the Guarantee Fund and recover the amount: (i) not applicable; (ii) by taking legal action (see Article 57) or by adopting an enforceable decision under Article 299 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and Article 79(2) of the Financial Regulation No 966/2012. If payment is not made by the date in the debit note, the amount to be recovered (see above) will be increased by late-payment interest at the rate set out in Article 21.11, from the day following the payment date in the debit note, up to and including the date the Agency or the Commission receives full payment of the amount. Partial payments will be first credited against expenses, charges and late-payment interest and then against the principal. Bank charges incurred in the recovery process will be borne by the beneficiary, unless Directive 2007/64/EC applies. 44.1.3 Recovery of amounts after payment of the balance If, for a beneficiary, the revised final grant amount (see Article 5.4) is lower than its share of the final grant amount, it must repay the difference to the Agency. The beneficiary’s share of the final grant amount is calculated as follows: {{{beneficiary’s costs declared in the final summary financial statement and approved by the Agency multiplied by the reimbursement rate set out in Article 5.2 for the beneficiary concerned} divided by the EU contribution for the action calculated according to Article 5.3.1} multiplied by the final grant amount (see Article 5.3)}. If the coordinator has not distributed amounts received (see Article 21.7), the Agency will also recover these amounts. The Agency will formally notify a pre-information letter to the beneficiary concerned: - informing it of its intention to recover, the due amount and the reasons why and Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 66 - inviting it to submit observations within 30 days of receiving notification. If no observations are submitted or the Agency decides to pursue recovery despite the observations it has received, it will confirm the amount to be recovered and formally notify to the beneficiary concerned a debit note. This note will also specify the terms and the date for payment. If payment is not made by the date specified in the debit note, the Agency will recover the amount: (a) by ‘offsetting’ it — without the beneficiary’s consent — against any amounts owed to the beneficiary concerned by the Agency, the Commission or another executive agency (from the EU or Euratom budget). In exceptional circumstances, to safeguard the EU’s financial interests, the Agency may offset before the payment date specified in the debit note; (b) by drawing on the Guarantee Fund. The Agency or the Commission will formally notify the beneficiary concerned the debit note on behalf of the Guarantee Fund and recover the amount: (i) not applicable; (ii) by taking legal action (see Article 57) or by adopting an enforceable decision under Article 299 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and Article 79(2) of the Financial Regulation No 966/2012. If payment is not made by the date in the debit note, the amount to be recovered (see above) will be increased by late-payment interest at the rate set out in Article 21.11, from the day following the date for payment in the debit note, up to and including the date the Agency or the Commission receives full payment of the amount. Partial payments will be first credited against expenses, charges and late-payment interest and then against the principal. Bank charges incurred in the recovery process will be borne by the beneficiary, unless Directive 2007/64/EC applies. ARTICLE 45 — ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS In addition to contractual measures, the Agency or the Commission may also adopt administrative sanctions under Articles 106 and 131(4) of the Financial Regulation No 966/2012 (i.e. exclusion from future procurement contracts, grants and expert contracts and/or financial penalties). SECTION 2 LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES ARTICLE 46 — LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES 46.1 Liability of the Agency The Agency cannot be held liable for any damage caused to the beneficiaries or to third parties as a consequence of implementing the Agreement, including for gross negligence. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 67 The Agency cannot be held liable for any damage caused by any of the beneficiaries or third parties involved in the action, as a consequence of implementing the Agreement. 46.2 Liability of the beneficiaries Except in case of force majeure (see Article 51), the beneficiaries must compensate the Agency for any damage it sustains as a result of the implementation of the action or because the action was not implemented in full compliance with the Agreement. SECTION 3 SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION ARTICLE 47 — SUSPENSION OF PAYMENT DEADLINE 47.1 Conditions The Agency may — at any moment — suspend the payment deadline (see Article 21.2 to 21.4) if a request for payment (see Article 20) cannot be approved because: (a) it does not comply with the provisions of the Agreement (see Article 20); (b) the technical or financial reports have not been submitted or are not complete or additional information is needed, or (c) there is doubt about the eligibility of the costs declared in the financial statements and additional checks, reviews, audits or investigations are necessary. 47.2 Procedure The Agency will formally notify the coordinator of the suspension and the reasons why. The suspension will take effect the day notification is sent by the Agency (see Article 52). If the conditions for suspending the payment deadline are no longer met, the suspension will be lifted — and the remaining period will resume. If the suspension exceeds two months, the coordinator may request the Agency if the suspension will continue. If the payment deadline has been suspended due to the non-compliance of the technical or financial reports (see Article 20) and the revised report or statement is not submitted or was submitted but is also rejected, the Agency may also terminate the Agreement or the participation of the beneficiary (see Article 50.3.1(l)). ARTICLE 48 — SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS 48.1 Conditions The Agency may — at any moment — suspend payments, in whole or in part and for one or more beneficiaries, if: Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 68 (a) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decision on its behalf) has committed or is suspected of having committed: (i) substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or (ii) serious breach of obligations under the Agreement or during the award procedure (including improper implementation of the action, submission of false information, failure to provide required information, breach of ethical principles) or (b) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decision on its behalf) has committed — in other EU or Euratom grants awarded to it under similar conditions — systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud or serious breach of obligations that have a material impact on this grant (extension of findings from other grants to this grant; see Article 22.5.2). If payments are suspended for one or more beneficiaries, the Agency will make partial payment(s) for the part(s) not suspended. If suspension concerns the payment of the balance, — once suspension is lifted — the payment or the recovery of the amount(s) concerned will be considered the payment of the balance that closes the action. 48.2 Procedure Before suspending payments, the Agency will formally notify the coordinator or beneficiary concerned: - informing it of its intention to suspend payments and the reasons why and - inviting it to submit observations within 30 days of receiving notification. If the Agency does not receive observations or decides to pursue the procedure despite the observations it has received, it will formally notify confirmation of the suspension. Otherwise, it will formally notify that the suspension procedure is not continued. The suspension will take effect the day the confirmation notification is sent by the Agency. If the conditions for resuming payments are met, the suspension will be lifted. The Agency will formally notify the coordinator or beneficiary concerned. During the suspension, the periodic report(s) for all reporting periods except the last one (see Article 20.3), must not contain any individual financial statements from the beneficiary concerned. The coordinator must include them in the next periodic report after the suspension is lifted or — if suspension is not lifted before the end of the action — in the last periodic report. The beneficiaries may suspend implementation of the action (see Article 49.1) or terminate the Agreement or the participation of the beneficiary concerned (see Article 50.1 and 50.2). ARTICLE 49 — SUSPENSION OF THE ACTION IMPLEMENTATION 49.1 Suspension of the action implementation, by the beneficiaries 49.1.1 Conditions Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 69 The beneficiaries may suspend implementation of the action or any part of it, if exceptional circumstances — in particular force majeure (see Article 51) — make implementation impossible or excessively difficult. 49.1.2 Procedure The coordinator must immediately formally notify to the Agency the suspension (see Article 52), stating: - the reasons why and - the expected date of resumption. The suspension will take effect the day this notification is received by the Agency. Once circumstances allow for implementation to resume, the coordinator must immediately formally notify the Agency and request an amendment of the Agreement to set the date on which the action will be resumed, extend the duration of the action and make other changes necessary to adapt the action to the new situation (see Article 55) — unless the Agreement or the participation of a beneficiary has been terminated (see Article 50). The suspension will be lifted with effect from the resumption date set out in the amendment. This date may be before the date on which the amendment enters into force. Costs incurred during suspension of the action implementation are not eligible (see Article 6). 49.2 Suspension of the action implementation, by the Agency 49.2.1 Conditions The Agency may suspend implementation of the action or any part of it, if: (a) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf) has committed or is suspected of having committed: (i) substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or (ii) serious breach of obligations under the Agreement or during the award procedure (including improper implementation of the action, submission of false declaration, failure to provide required information, breach of ethical principles); (b) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf) has committed — in other EU or Euratom grants awarded to it under similar conditions — systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud or serious breach of obligations that have a material impact on this grant (extension of findings from other grants to this grant; see Article 22.5.2), or (c) the action is suspected of having lost its scientific or technological relevance. 49.2.2 Procedure Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 70 Before suspending implementation of the action, the Agency will formally notify the coordinator or beneficiary concerned: - informing it of its intention to suspend the implementation and the reasons why and - inviting it to submit observations within 30 days of receiving notification. If the Agency does not receive observations or decides to pursue the procedure despite the observations it has received, it will formally notify confirmation of the suspension. Otherwise, it will formally notify that the procedure is not continued. The suspension will take effect five days after confirmation notification is received (or on a later date specified in the notification). It will be lifted if the conditions for resuming implementation of the action are met. The coordinator or beneficiary concerned will be formally notified of the lifting and the Agreement will be amended to set the date on which the action will be resumed, extend the duration of the action and make other changes necessary to adapt the action to the new situation (see Article 55) — unless the Agreement has already been terminated (see Article 50). The suspension will be lifted with effect from the resumption date set out in the amendment. This date may be before the date on which the amendment enters into force. Costs incurred during suspension are not eligible (see Article 6). The beneficiaries may not claim damages due to suspension by the Agency (see Article 46). Suspension of the action implementation does not affect the Agency’s right to terminate the Agreement or participation of a beneficiary (see Article 50), reduce the grant or recover amounts unduly paid (see Articles 43 and 44). ARTICLE 50 — TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT OR OF THE PARTICIPATION OF ONE OR MORE BENEFICIARIES 50.1 Termination of the Agreement, by the beneficiaries 50.1.1 Conditions and procedure The beneficiaries may terminate the Agreement. The coordinator must formally notify termination to the Agency (see Article 52), stating: - the reasons why and - the date the termination will take effect. This date must be after the notification. If no reasons are given or if the Agency considers the reasons do not justify termination, the Agreement will be considered to have been ‘terminated improperly’. The termination will take effect on the day specified in the notification. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 71 50.1.2 Effects The coordinator must — within 60 days from when termination takes effect — submit: (i) a periodic report (for the open reporting period until termination; see Article 20.3) and (ii) the final report (see Article 20.4). If the Agency does not receive the reports within the deadline (see above), only costs which are included in an approved periodic report will be taken into account. The Agency will calculate the final grant amount (see Article 5.3) and the balance (see Article 21.4) on the basis of the reports submitted. Only costs incurred until termination are eligible (see Article 6). Costs relating to contracts due for execution only after termination are not eligible. Improper termination may lead to a reduction of the grant (see Article 43). After termination, the beneficiaries’ obligations (in particular Articles 20, 22, 23, Section 3 of Chapter 4, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43 and 44) continue to apply. 50.2 Termination of the participation of one or more beneficiaries, by the beneficiaries 50.2.1 Conditions and procedure The participation of one or more beneficiaries may be terminated by the coordinator, on request of the beneficiary concerned or on behalf of the other beneficiaries. The coordinator must formally notify termination to the Agency (see Article 52) and inform the beneficiary concerned. If the coordinator’s participation is terminated without its agreement, the formal notification must be done by another beneficiary (acting on behalf of the other beneficiaries). The notification must include: - the reasons why; - the opinion of the beneficiary concerned (or proof that this opinion has been requested in writing); - the date the termination takes effect. This date must be after the notification, and - a request for amendment (see Article 55), with a proposal for reallocation of the tasks and the estimated budget of the beneficiary concerned (see Annexes 1 and 2) and, if necessary, the addition of one or more new beneficiaries (see Article 56). If termination takes effect after the period set out in Article 3, no request for amendment must be included unless the beneficiary concerned is the coordinator. In this case, the request for amendment must propose a new coordinator. If this information is not given or if the Agency considers that the reasons do not justify termination, the participation will be considered to have been terminated improperly. The termination will take effect on the day specified in the notification. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 72 50.2.2 Effects The coordinator must — within 30 days from when termination takes effect — submit: (i) a report on the distribution of payments to the beneficiary concerned and (ii) if termination takes effect during the period set out in Article 3, a ‘termination report’ from the beneficiary concerned, for the open reporting period until termination, containing an overview of the progress of the work, an overview of the use of resources, the individual financial statement and, if applicable, the certificate on the financial statement (see Articles 20.3 and 20.4). The information in the termination report must also be included in the periodic report for the next reporting period (see Article 20.3). If the request for amendment is rejected by the Agency, (because it calls into question the decision awarding the grant or breaches the principle of equal treatment of applicants), the Agreement may be terminated according to Article 50.3.1(c). If the request for amendment is accepted by the Agency, the Agreement is amended to introduce the necessary changes (see Article 55). The Agency will calculate — on the basis of the periodic reports, the termination report and the report on the distribution of payments — calculate the amount which is due to the beneficiary and if the (pre-financing and interim) payments received by the beneficiary exceed this amount. The amount which is due is calculated in the following steps: Step 1 — Application of the reimbursement rate to the eligible costs The grant amount for the beneficiary is calculated by applying the reimbursement rate(s) to the total eligible costs declared by the beneficiary in the termination report and approved by the Agency. Only costs incurred by the beneficiary concerned until termination takes effect are eligible (see Article 6). Costs relating to contracts due for execution only after termination are not eligible. Step 2 — Reduction due to substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or serious breach of obligations In case of a reduction (see Article 43), the Agency will calculate the reduced grant amount for the beneficiary by deducting the amount of the reduction (calculated in proportion to the seriousness of the errors, irregularities or fraud or breach of obligations, in accordance with Article 43.2) from the grant amount for the beneficiary. If the payments received exceed the amounts due: - if termination takes effect during the period set out in Article 3 and the request for amendment is accepted, the beneficiary concerned must repay to the coordinator the amount unduly received. The Agency will formally notify the amount unduly received and request Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 73 the beneficiary concerned to repay it to the coordinator within 30 days of receiving notification. If it does not repay the coordinator, the Agency will draw upon the Guarantee Fund to pay the coordinator and then notify a debit note on behalf of the Guarantee Fund to the beneficiary concerned (see Article 44); - in all other cases, in particular if termination takes effect after the period set out in Article 3, the Agency will formally notify a debit note to the beneficiary concerned. If payment is not made by the date in the debit note, the Guarantee Fund will pay to the Agency the amount due and the Agency will notify a debit note on behalf of the Guarantee Fund to the beneficiary concerned (see Article 44); - if the beneficiary concerned is the former coordinator, it must repay the new coordinator according to the procedure above, unless: - termination takes effect after an interim payment and - the former coordinator has not distributed amounts received as pre-financing or interim payments (see Article 21.7). In this case, the Agency will formally notify a debit note to the former coordinator. If payment is not made by the date in the debit note, the Guarantee Fund will pay to the Agency the amount due. The Agency will then pay the new coordinator and notify a debit note on behalf of the Guarantee Fund to the former coordinator (see Article 44). If the payments received do not exceed the amounts due: amounts owed to the beneficiary concerned will be included in the next interim or final payment. If the Agency does not receive the termination report within the deadline (see above), only costs included in an approved periodic report will be taken into account. If the Agency does not receive the report on the distribution of payments within the deadline (see above), it will consider that: - the coordinator did not distribute any payment to the beneficiary concerned and that - the beneficiary concerned must not repay any amount to the coordinator. Improper termination may lead to a reduction of the grant (see Article 43) or termination of the Agreement (see Article 50). After termination, the concerned beneficiary’s obligations (in particular Articles 20, 22, 23, Section 3 of Chapter 4, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43 and 44) continue to apply. 50.3 Termination of the Agreement or the participation of one or more beneficiaries, by the Agency 50.3.1 Conditions The Agency may terminate the Agreement or the participation of one or more beneficiaries, if: (a) one or more beneficiaries do not accede to the Agreement (see Article 56); Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 74 (b) a change to their legal, financial, technical, organisational or ownership situation is likely to substantially affect or delay the implementation of the action or calls into question the decision to award the grant; (c) following termination of participation for one or more beneficiaries (see above), the necessary changes to the Agreement would call into question the decision awarding the grant or breach the principle of equal treatment of applicants (see Article 55); (d) implementation of the action is prevented by force majeure (see Article 51) or suspended by the coordinator (see Article 49.1) and either: (i) resumption is impossible, or (ii) the necessary changes to the Agreement would call into question the decision awarding the grant or breach the principle of equal treatment of applicants; (e) a beneficiary is declared bankrupt, being wound up, having its affairs administered by the courts, has entered into an arrangement with creditors, has suspended business activities, or is subject to any other similar proceedings or procedures under national law; (f) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf) has been found guilty of professional misconduct, proven by any means; (g) a beneficiary does not comply with the applicable national law on taxes and social security; (h) the action has lost scientific or technological relevance; (i) not applicable; (j) not applicable; (k) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf) has committed fraud, corruption, or is involved in a criminal organisation, money laundering or any other illegal activity; (l) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf) has committed: (i) substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or (ii) serious breach of obligations under the Agreement or during the award procedure (including improper implementation of the action, submission of false information, failure to provide required information, breach of ethical principles); (m) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf) has committed — in other EU or Euratom grants awarded to it under similar conditions — systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud or serious breach of obligations that have a material impact on this grant (extension of findings from other grants to this grant; see Article 22.5.2). (n) despite a specific request by the Agency, a beneficiary does not request — through the coordinator — an amendment to the Agreement to end the participation of one of its linked Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 75 third parties that is in one of the situations under points (e), (f), (g), (k), (l) or (m) and to reallocate its tasks. 50.3.2 Procedure Before terminating the Agreement or participation of one or more beneficiaries, the Agency will formally notify the coordinator or beneficiary concerned: - informing it of its intention to terminate and the reasons why and - inviting it, within 30 days of receiving notification, to submit observations and — in case of Point (l.ii) above — to inform the Agency of the measures to ensure compliance with the obligations under the Agreement. If the Agency does not receive observations or decides to pursue the procedure despite the observations it has received, it will formally notify to the coordinator or beneficiary concerned confirmation of the termination and the date it will take effect. Otherwise, it will formally notify that the procedure is not continued. The termination will take effect: - for terminations under Points (b), (c), (e), (g), (h), (j), (l.ii) and (n) above: on the day specified in the notification of the confirmation (see above); - for terminations under Points (a), (d), (f), (i), (k), (l.i) and (m) above: on the day after the notification of the confirmation is received. 50.3.3 Effects (a) for termination of the Agreement: The coordinator must — within 60 days from when termination takes effect — submit: (i) a periodic report (for the last open reporting period until termination; see Article 20.3) and (ii) a final report (see Article 20.4). If the Agreement is terminated for breach of the obligation to submit reports (see Articles 20.8 and 50.3.1(l)), the coordinator may not submit any reports after termination. If the Agency does not receive the reports within the deadline (see above), only costs which are included in an approved periodic report will be taken into account. The Agency will calculate the final grant amount (see Article 5.3) and the balance (see Article 21.4) on the basis of the reports submitted. Only costs incurred until termination takes effect are eligible (see Article 6). Costs relating to contracts due for execution only after termination are not eligible. This does not affect the Agency’s right to reduce the grant (see Article 43) or to impose administrative sanctions (Article 45). The beneficiaries may not claim damages due to termination by the Agency (see Article 46). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 76 After termination, the beneficiaries’ obligations (in particular Articles 20, 22, 23, Section 3 of Chapter 4, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43 and 44) continue to apply. (b) for termination of the participation of one or more beneficiaries: The coordinator must — within 60 days from when termination takes effect — submit: (i) a report on the distribution of payments to the beneficiary concerned; (ii) a request for amendment (see Article 55), with a proposal for reallocation of the tasks and estimated budget of the beneficiary concerned (see Annexes 1 and 2) and, if necessary, the addition of one or more new beneficiaries (see Article 56). If termination is notified after the period set out in Article 3, no request for amendment must be submitted unless the beneficiary concerned is the coordinator. In this case the request for amendment must propose a new coordinator, and (iii) if termination takes effect during the period set out in Article 3, a termination report from the beneficiary concerned, for the open reporting period until termination, containing an overview of the progress of the work, an overview of the use of resources, the individual financial statement and, if applicable, the certificate on the financial statement (see Article 20). The information in the termination report must also be included in the periodic report for the next reporting period (see Article 20.3). If the request for amendment is rejected by the Agency, (because it calls into question the decision awarding the grant or breaches the principle of equal treatment of applicants), the Agreement may be terminated according to Article 50.3.1(c). If the request for amendment is accepted by the Agency, the Agreement is amended to introduce the necessary changes (see Article 55). The Agency will calculate — on the basis of the periodic reports, the termination report and the report on the distribution of payments — calculate the amount which is due to the beneficiary and if the (pre-financing and interim) payments received by the beneficiary exceed this amount. The amount which is due is calculated in the following steps: Step 1 — Application of the reimbursement rate to the eligible costs The grant amount for the beneficiary is calculated by applying the reimbursement rate(s) to the total eligible costs declared by the beneficiary in the termination report and approved by the Agency. Only costs incurred by the beneficiary concerned until termination takes effect are eligible (see Article 6). Costs relating to contracts due for execution only after termination are not eligible. Step 2 — Reduction due to substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or serious breach of obligations In case of a reduction (see Article 43), the Agency will calculate the reduced Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 77 grant amount for the beneficiary by deducting the amount of the reduction (calculated in proportion to the seriousness of the errors, irregularities or fraud or breach of obligations, in accordance with Article 43.2) from the grant amount for the beneficiary. If the payments received exceed the amounts due: - if termination takes effect during the period set out in Article 3 and the request for amendment is accepted, the beneficiary concerned must repay to the coordinator the amount unduly received. The Agency will formally notify the amount unduly received and request the beneficiary concerned to repay it to the coordinator within 30 days of receiving notification. If it does not repay the coordinator, the Agency will draw upon the Guarantee Fund to pay the coordinator and then notify a debit note on behalf of the Guarantee Fund to the beneficiary concerned (see Article 44); - in all other cases, in particular if termination takes effect after the period set out in Article 3, the Agency will formally notify a debit note to the beneficiary concerned. If payment is not made by the date in the debit note, the Guarantee Fund will pay to the Agency the amount due and the Agency will notify a debit note on behalf of the Guarantee Fund to the beneficiary concerned (see Article 44); - if the beneficiary concerned is the former coordinator, it must repay the new coordinator according to the procedure above, unless: - termination takes effect after an interim payment and - the former coordinator has not distributed amounts received as pre-financing or interim payments (see Article 21.7). In this case, the Agency will formally notify a debit note to the former coordinator. If payment is not made by the date in the debit note, the Guarantee Fund will pay to the Agency the amount due. The Agency will then pay the new coordinator and notify a debit note on behalf of the Guarantee Fund to the former coordinator (see Article 44). If the payments received do not exceed the amounts due: amounts owed to the beneficiary concerned will be included in the next interim or final payment. If the Agency does not receive the termination report within the deadline (see above), only costs included in an approved periodic report will be taken into account. If the Agency does not receive the report on the distribution of payments within the deadline (see above), it will consider that: - the coordinator did not distribute any payment to the beneficiary concerned and that - the beneficiary concerned must not repay any amount to the coordinator. After termination, the concerned beneficiary’s obligations (in particular Articles 20, 22, 23, Section 3 of Chapter 4, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43 and 44) continue to apply. SECTION 4 FORCE MAJEURE Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 78 ARTICLE 51 — FORCE MAJEURE ‘Force majeure’ means any situation or event that: - prevents either party from fulfilling their obligations under the Agreement, - was unforeseeable, exceptional situation and beyond the parties’ control, - was not due to error or negligence on their part (or on the part of third parties involved in the action), and - proves to be inevitable in spite of exercising all due diligence. The following cannot be invoked as force majeure: - any default of a service, defect in equipment or material or delays in making them available, unless they stem directly from a relevant case of force majeure, - labour disputes or strikes, or - financial difficulties. Any situation constituting force majeure must be formally notified to the other party without delay, stating the nature, likely duration and foreseeable effects. The parties must immediately take all the necessary steps to limit any damage due to force majeure and do their best to resume implementation of the action as soon as possible. The party prevented by force majeure from fulfilling its obligations under the Agreement cannot be considered in breach of them. CHAPTER 7 FINAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 52 — COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES 52.1 Form and means of communication Communication under the Agreement (information, requests, submissions, ‘formal notifications’, etc.) must: - be made in writing and - bear the number of the Agreement. Until the payment of the balance: all communication must be made through the electronic exchange system and using the forms and templates provided there. After the payment of the balance: formal notifications must be made by registered post with proof of delivery (‘formal notification on paper’). Communications in the electronic exchange system must be made by persons authorised according to the Participant Portal Terms & Conditions. For naming the authorised persons, each beneficiary must Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 79 have designated — before the signature of this Agreement — a ‘legal entity appointed representative (LEAR)’. The role and tasks of the LEAR are stipulated in his/her appointment letter (see Participant Portal Terms & Conditions). If the electronic exchange system is temporarily unavailable, instructions will be given on the Agency and Commission websites. 52.2 Date of communication Communications are considered to have been made when they are sent by the sending party (i.e. on the date and time they are sent through the electronic exchange system). Formal notifications through the electronic exchange system are considered to have been made when they are received by the receiving party (i.e. on the date and time of acceptance by the receiving party, as indicated by the time stamp). A formal notification that has not been accepted within 10 days after sending is considered to have been accepted. Formal notifications on paper sent by registered post with proof of delivery (only after the payment of the balance) are considered to have been made on either: - the delivery date registered by the postal service or - the deadline for collection at the post office. If the electronic exchange system is temporarily unavailable, the sending party cannot be considered in breach of its obligation to send a communication within a specified deadline. 52.3 Addresses for communication The electronic exchange system must be accessed via the following URL: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/projects/ The Agency will formally notify the coordinator and beneficiaries in advance any changes to this URL. Formal notifications on paper (only after the payment of the balance) addressed to the Agency must be sent to the following address: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises H2020 Energy COV2 10/112 B-1049 Brussels Belgium Formal notifications on paper (only after the payment of the balance) addressed to the beneficiaries must be sent to their legal address as specified in the Participant Portal Beneficiary Register. ARTICLE 53 — INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENT 53.1 Precedence of the Terms and Conditions over the Annexes The provisions in the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement take precedence over its Annexes. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 80 Annex 2 takes precedence over Annex 1. 53.2 Privileges and immunities Not applicable ARTICLE 54 — CALCULATION OF PERIODS, DATES AND DEADLINES In accordance with Regulation No 1182/7128, periods expressed in days, months or years are calculated from the moment the triggering event occurs. The day during which that event occurs is not considered as falling within the period. ARTICLE 55 — AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT 55.1 Conditions The Agreement may be amended, unless the amendment entails changes to the Agreement which would call into question the decision awarding the grant or breach the principle of equal treatment of applicants. Amendments may be requested by any of the parties. 55.2 Procedure The party requesting an amendment must submit a request for amendment signed in the electronic exchange system (see Article 52). The coordinator submits and receives requests for amendment on behalf of the beneficiaries (see Annex 3). If a change of coordinator is requested without its agreement, the submission must be done by another beneficiary (acting on behalf of the other beneficiaries). The request for amendment must include: - the reasons why; - the appropriate supporting documents; - for a change of coordinator without its agreement: the opinion of the coordinator (or proof that this opinion has been requested in writing). The Agency may request additional information. If the party receiving the request agrees, it must sign the amendment in the electronic exchange system within 45 days of receiving notification (or any additional information the Agency has requested). If it does not agree, it must formally notify its disagreement within the same deadline. The deadline may 28 Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time-limits (OJ L 124, 8.6.1971, p. 1). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 81 be extended, if necessary for the assessment of the request. If no notification is received within the deadline, the request is considered to have been rejected An amendment enters into force on the day of the signature of the receiving party. An amendment takes effect on the date agreed by the parties or, in the absence of such an agreement, on the date on which the amendment enters into force. ARTICLE 56 — ACCESSION TO THE AGREEMENT 56.1 Accession of the beneficiaries mentioned in the Preamble The other beneficiaries must accede to the Agreement by signing the Accession Form (see Annex 3) in the electronic exchange system (see Article 52) within 30 days after its entry into force (see Article 58). They will assume the rights and obligations under the Agreement with effect from the date of its entry into force (see Article 58). If a beneficiary does not accede to the Agreement within the above deadline, the coordinator must — within 30 days — request an amendment to make any changes necessary to ensure proper implementation of the action. This does not affect the Agency’s right to terminate the Agreement (see Article 50). 56.2 Addition of new beneficiaries In justified cases, the beneficiaries may request the addition of a new beneficiary. For this purpose, the coordinator must submit a request for amendment in accordance with Article 55. It must include an Accession Form (see Annex 3) signed by the new beneficiary in the electronic exchange system (see Article 52). New beneficiaries must assume the rights and obligations under the Agreement with effect from the date of their accession specified in the Accession Form (see Annex 3). ARTICLE 57 — APPLICABLE LAW AND SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES 57.1 Applicable law The Agreement is governed by the applicable EU law, supplemented if necessary by the law of Belgium. 57.2 Dispute settlement If a dispute concerning the interpretation, application or validity of the Agreement cannot be settled amicably, the General Court — or, on appeal, the Court of Justice of the European Union — has sole jurisdiction. Such actions must be brought under Article 272 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). If a dispute concerns administrative sanctions, offsetting or an enforceable decision under Article 299 TFEU (see Articles 44, 45 and 46), the beneficiaries must bring action before the General Court — or, Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 82 on appeal, the Court of Justice of the European Union — under Article 263 TFEU. Actions against enforceable decisions must be brought against the Commission (not against the Agency). ARTICLE 58 — ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT The Agreement will enter into force on the day of signature by the Agency or the coordinator, depending on which is later. SIGNATURES For the coordinator For the Agency [--TGSMark#signature-996853869_75_210--] [--TGSMark#signature-service_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises H2020 Energy ANNEX 1 (part A) Coordination and support action NUMBER — 784960 — SCORE Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Table of Contents 1.1. The project summary.................................................................................................................................3 1.2. The list of beneficiaries..............................................................................................................................4 1.3. Workplan Tables - Detailed implementation..............................................................................................5 1.3.1. WT1 List of work packages........................................................................................................... 5 1.3.2. WT2 List of deliverables................................................................................................................ 6 1.3.3. WT3 Work package descriptions.................................................................................................10 Work package 1......................................................................................................................... 10 Work package 2......................................................................................................................... 13 Work package 3......................................................................................................................... 17 Work package 4......................................................................................................................... 21 Work package 5......................................................................................................................... 25 Work package 6......................................................................................................................... 29 1.3.4. WT4 List of milestones................................................................................................................ 34 1.3.5. WT5 Critical Implementation risks and mitigation actions........................................................... 35 1.3.6 WT6 Summary of project effort in person-months........................................................................37 1.3.7. WT7 Tentative schedule of project reviews.................................................................................38 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 1.1. The project summary Page 3 of 38 Project Number 1 784960 Project Acronym 2 SCORE One form per project General information Project title 3 Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies Starting date 4 01/04/2018 Duration in months 5 36 Call (part) identifier 6 H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI Topic EE-06-2016-2017 Engaging private consumers towards sustainable energy Fixed EC Keywords RES consumers, Information & awareness-raising, Energy efficiency - general Free keywords Prosumership in Renewables, Consumer Co-ownership in Renewables, Demand Side Flexibility, Energy Efficiency, Low-Emission Economy, Renewable Energy Resources, Sustainable Energy Investments Abstract 7 The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy (RE) sources requires motivating consumers to change their consumption habits so as to balance demand with a volatile energy supply and to accept new technologies like smart meters. Consumer co-ownership in RE – “Citizen Energy” – has proved successful in engaging consumers in financing RES, thus becoming “prosumers” which in turn induced positive behavioural changes in energy consumption. “Prosumer” models, however, are still not widely implemented across Europe. Guaranteed feed-in tariffs have facilitated the repayment of RE installation loans, but now a shift to auction systems favouring large-scale projects threatens this powerful incentive to citizens' investment. Moreover, the typical “prosumer” is male, middle aged and with a higher in-come whereas the participation of women and social groups vulnerable to fuel poverty is uncommon. The rebound effect and insufficient use of ICT solutions are additional problems. SCORE • Facilitates consumers to become prosumers of RE, firstly in three pilot regions in Italy, Poland and the Czech Republic, secondly in cities across Europe following the pilot projects. It applies Consumer Stock Ownership Plans (CSOPs) utilising established best practice up-dated by inclusive financing techniques and combined with energy efficiency measures. • Activates local authorities and consumers demonstrating the positive impact co-ownership has on consumer behaviour. It shows the ability of this democratic participation model to include women as well as low-income households, in particular unemployed. • Empowers consumers and municipalities in a capacity-building program through the launch of an interactive online “RE Prosumer Investment Calculator” and seminars in the five partner countries (DE, IT, BG, PL, CZ). • Formulates policy recommendations to promote prosumership and to remove barriers for consumers to become active market players at the EU and national levels. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 1.2. List of Beneficiaries Page 4 of 38 Project Number 1 784960 Project Acronym 2 SCORE List of Beneficiaries No Name Short name Country Project entry month8 Project exit month 1 STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) EUV Germany 1 36 2 EC BREC INSTYTUT ENERGETYKI ODNAWIALNEJ SP ZOO IEO Poland 1 36 3 CLIMATE ALLIANCE - KLIMABUENDNIS - ALIANZA DEL CLIMA e.V. CA Germany 1 36 4 CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF DEMOCRACY CSD Bulgaria 1 36 5 POLITECNICO DI TORINO POLITO Italy 1 36 6 CO2ONLINE GENUETZIGE BERATUNGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH CO2ONLINE Germany 1 36 7 PORSENNA O.P.S PORSENNA Czech Republic 1 36 8 LA FORESTA SOCIETA' COOPERATIVA FORESTA Italy 1 36 9 MIASTO SLUPSK Słupsk Poland 1 36 10 MESTO LITOMERICE LITOMERICE Czech Republic 1 36 11 CONSORZIO FORESTALE ALTA VALLE SUSA CFAVS Italy 1 36 12 DEUTSCHER CARITASVERBAND EV CARITAS Germany 1 36 13 AMICO SOCIETA COOPERATIVA SOCIALE AMICO s.c.s. Italy 1 36 14 FEDERACJA KONSUMENTOW STOWARZYSZENIE FedKon Poland 1 36 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 1.3. Workplan Tables - Detailed implementation Page 5 of 38 1.3.1. WT1 List of work packages WP Number9 WP Title Lead beneficiary10 Personmonths11 Start month12 End month13 WP1 Project management 1 - EUV 27.00 1 36 WP2 Preparation of pilot projects, and legal & financial due diligence 2 - IEO 71.00 1 12 WP3 Implementation of pilot projects 3 - CA 91.00 9 24 WP4 Empowering consumers and follower cities 4 - CSD 52.00 15 30 WP5 Enabling policies on prosumership 5 - POLITO 32.00 20 36 WP6 Dissemination, communication and networking 6 - CO2ONLINE 38.00 1 36 Total 311.00 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 6 of 38 1.3.2. WT2 list of deliverables Deliverable Number14 Deliverable Title WP number9 Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination level16 Due Date (in months)17 D1.1 Risk Management Plan (RMP) WP1 1 - EUV Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 4 D1.2 Data Management Plan (DMP) WP1 1 - EUV ORDP: Open Research Data Pilot Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 4 D1.3 Progress Report WP1 1 - EUV Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 10 D2.1 Country update report on investment conditions WP2 1 - EUV Report Public 3 D2.2 Briefing on legal and financial analysis WP2 2 - IEO Websites, patents filling, etc. Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 7 D2.3 Feasibility study (focus: technical properties) WP2 3 - CA Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 7 D2.4 Draft investment plans, contracts WP2 2 - IEO Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 11 D2.5 Test version of the online calculator WP2 6 - CO2ONLINE Other Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 12 D3.1 Report on needs and resources incl. manual avoiding WP3 5 - POLITO Report Public 12 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 7 of 38 Deliverable Number14 Deliverable Title WP number9 Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination level16 Due Date (in months)17 rebound effects / energy refurbishing D3.2 Summary of feedback from interviews WP3 4 - CSD Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 12 D3.3 Pilot projects’ action plans WP3 3 - CA Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 17 D3.4 Progress report on each pilot project WP3 2 - IEO Report Public 24 D4.1 Report on focus groups WP4 12 - CARITAS Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 20 D4.2 Assessment on pilot projects compliance with consumer protection rules WP4 14 - FedKon Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 20 D4.3 Launch of the “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” on the follower cities websites WP4 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Public 20 D4.4 Feedback webinar for “follower cities” and “How to” Technical Paper CSOP financing incl. manual to include vulnerable consumers WP4 3 - CA Report Public 30 D5.1 Report impacts of consumer co-ownership incl. recommendations on fine-tuning WP5 5 - POLITO Report Public 24 D5.2 Critical policy brief EU/national/local and mapping of policy options WP5 4 - CSD Report Public 26 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 8 of 38 Deliverable Number14 Deliverable Title WP number9 Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination level16 Due Date (in months)17 D5.3 Catalogue of prerequisites for a transfer WP5 1 - EUV Report Public 27 D5.4 RE prosumership poliy recommendations WP5 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Public 36 D6.1 Corporate campaign design framework WP6 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Public 4 D6.2 Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan WP6 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 6 D6.3 Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 1 WP6 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 18 D6.4 Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 2 WP6 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 25 D6.5 Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 3 WP6 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 30 D6.6 Online platform with database and online calculator tool including an editorial content concept WP6 6 - CO2ONLINE Other Public 6 D6.7 Online platform with database and online calculator tool update 1 WP6 6 - CO2ONLINE Other Public 24 D6.8 Online platform with database and online calculator tool update 2 WP6 6 - CO2ONLINE Other Public 36 D6.9 Promotion material (printed and online including audio-visual) WP6 6 - CO2ONLINE Websites, patents filling, etc. Public 36 D6.10 Press releases, websites, blogs and publication WP6 3 - CA Report Public 36 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 9 of 38 Deliverable Number14 Deliverable Title WP number9 Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination level16 Due Date (in months)17 of articles in scientific journals and magazines D6.11 Final publishable report WP6 1 - EUV Report Public 36 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 10 of 38 1.3.3. WT3 Work package descriptions Work package number 9 WP1 Lead beneficiary 10 1 - EUV Work package title Project management Start month 1 End month 36 Objectives This work package guarantees the effective management and coordination of all project activities. It ensures that all tasks are performed according: (a) to the previously defined quality; (b) within the established budget; (c) to the European Commission (EC) rules and procedures; and (d) are firmly on schedule. Monitoring and risk management are therefore integral components of the WP activities. Description of work and role of partners WP1 - Project management [Months: 1-36] EUV, IEO, CA, CSD, POLITO, CO2ONLINE Approach All partners sign a Consortium Agreement before the project starts. While focussed on efficiency, our management and coordination approach is collaborative, based on iterative work and on institutionalized and frequent communication. In particular, WP1 will include the following activities: • Adjusting the internal project roadmap and procedures to the project progress. • A quick and flexible communication within (i.e. coordination and sharing knowledge between WPs) and outside the consortium through a joint working space with a file-hosting service and regular email exchange on progress (project status email every fortnight), skype/telephone conferences, meetings and other coordination activities. • Organising project meetings back-to-back with dissemination events in order to create synergies that maximise staff effort and minimise travel costs. • Administrative and financial reporting (including reporting on evaluations, dissemination) and account for validation of these issues by the EC at each stage of the project. • Quality control of the project deliverables and evaluation of the effectiveness of the overall project methodology regarding the expected impact. Description of work Task 1.1 Management and coordination – Start: month 1 – End: month 36 The project manager (PM) supported by the lead partners and in cooperation with all consortium members will: (a) establish and maintain the project implementation plan; (b) monitor and supervise the work progress; (c) implement quality control measures; (d) resolve potential conflicts in and around the consortium; (e) provide technical support for internal and external communication; (f) manage and report on administrative and financial aspects; (g) manage communication and regular reporting of work progress to the EC. Besides weekly WP calls and additional to the kick-off meeting in month 1 (M1), the PM will organise and coordinate meetings to exchange on and assess current developments and results: • all project partners will participate in two Consortium Committee (CC) meetings (i) to follow up on the 1st interim report in month 19, and (ii) at the occasion of the final conference in month 32; • the six WP leaders meet in two Steering Committee (SC) meetings at the occasion of (i) the exchange workshop in month 12 and (ii) the last of the national seminars in month 27. The PM will contribute, upon invitation by EASME, to common information (such as reporting on impact indicators) and dissemination activities to increase synergies between, and the visibility of, H2020 and European Commission supported actions. Task 1.2: Risk management – Start: month 1 – End: month 36 The PM supervises risk management activities laid out in a detailed Risk Management Plan (RMP). The RMP (a) identifies internal/external risks and their probability; (b) introduces risk-reducing measures; (c) establishes the mitigation plan; and (d) specifies roles and responsibilities of consortium members. Task 1.3. Privacy Impact Assessment and Data Management – Start: month 1 – End: month 36 Acknowledging the vitality of personal data for consumers involvement and sensitivity of other data collected within SCORE, the privacy impact assessment determines ethical rules for handling information. The PM is responsible for Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 11 of 38 the creation of a Data Management Plan (DMP) that includes the privacy impact assessment and guidelines on how data are safely stored, exploited and made accessible for verification and re-use. Task 1.4: Liaise and consult with Advisory board as well as dissemination and communication trips to EC - Start: month 1 – End: month 36 The PM will liaise and consult with an international Advisory Board of highly competent stakeholders and experts, who will advise SCORE throughout the process. Task 1.5: Internal evaluation - Start: month 1 – End: month 36 Evaluation, i.e. (a) assessment of project results, esp. by introducing a self-assessment questionnaire, and (b) an evaluation will monitor the progress and results of the project. Role of participants: EUV is responsible for all management activities; co2online and CA are supporting EUV in these activities while the other three WP leaders help to supervise the national pilots POLITO (IT), IEO (PL), CSD (CZ). Participation per Partner Partner number and short name WP1 effort 1 - EUV 22.00 2 - IEO 1.00 3 - CA 1.00 4 - CSD 1.00 5 - POLITO 1.00 6 - CO2ONLINE 1.00 Total 27.00 List of deliverables Deliverable Number14 Deliverable Title Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination level16 Due Date (in months)17 D1.1 Risk Management Plan (RMP) 1 - EUV Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 4 D1.2 Data Management Plan (DMP) 1 - EUV ORDP: Open Research Data Pilot Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 4 D1.3 Progress Report 1 - EUV Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 10 Description of deliverables D1.1: Risk Management Plan (RMP) (month 4, within T1.2) Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 12 of 38 D1.2: Data Management Plan (DMP) including privacy impact assessment (month 4, within T1.3) D1.3: Progress Report (month 10, within T1.1) D1.1 : Risk Management Plan (RMP) [4] Risk Management Plan (RMP) (month 4, within T1.2) D1.2 : Data Management Plan (DMP) [4] Data Management Plan (DMP) including privacy impact assessment (month 4, within T1.3) D1.3 : Progress Report [10] Progress Report (month 10, within T1.1) Schedule of relevant Milestones Milestone number18 Milestone title Lead beneficiary Due Date (in months) Means of verification MS1 Kick-off meeting 1 - EUV 1 Kick-off meeting. Means of verification: protocol, all partners present. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 13 of 38 Work package number 9 WP2 Lead beneficiary 10 2 - IEO Work package title Preparation of pilot projects, and legal & financial due diligence Start month 1 End month 12 Objectives WP2 will identify the conditions for the successful implementation of RE-prosumer investments at the national and local level in the five partner countries and develop tailor-made prosumer investment models for the pilot projects. In particular, it deals with the following activities: • Inform municipalities and consumers in the pilot projects on the conditions for the prosumer investments on the basis of both already available expertise and additional project gained experience documented online (current regulatory framework for RE-prosumer investments, main advantages and challenges); • Check structural problems of the pilot projects against regulatory conditions, settle the final technical specifications and key parameters of planned new RE installations (esp. to match the existing RE in-stallations); • Adapt best practices for RE-prosumer investments across the EU to the pilot projects and – where possible – link the prosumer investments with energy efficiency measures, esp. refurbishing of buildings; • Develop CSOP financing plans (involving where suitable commercial investments and risk sharing) and adapt the corporate and financing structure to national law (e.g., corporate law, fiscal treatment, taxation); • Provide ready-to-use financial and technical modelling, and adapt both parameters and structure of the online “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” to enable consumers and municipalities to model investment, financing and amortisation derived from the pilot prosumer RES projects. Description of work and role of partners WP2 - Preparation of pilot projects, and legal & financial due diligence [Months: 1-12] IEO, EUV, CA, CSD, POLITO, CO2ONLINE, PORSENNA, FORESTA, Słupsk, LITOMERICE, CFAVS Approach WP2 requires an interdisciplinary and comprehensive approach that involves both practitioners and academics. In particular the EUV has built a considerable expertise on conditions for RE prosumers schemes in previous work as demonstrated in the book “Energy Transition – Financing Consumer Co-ownership in Renewables” (forthcoming May 2018 with Palgrave/McMillan). Building thereon, WP2 develops for each pilot project an optimised prosumer-investment financing plan and draft contracts. To prepare groundwork for transferring and disseminating the technique, we accustom an innovative and interactive online tool for calculating feasibility of prosumer investments. Description of work Task 2.1: Update of the investment conditions – Start: month 1 – End: month 3 This task updates previous analysis conducted in the publication “Energy Transition – Financing Con-sumer Coownership in Renewables” encompassing: (a) EU energy law; (b) current market situation; (c) specific legal issues for biomass /wind/solar; (d) financing/insurance/risk management; (e) regulatory framework for smart meters; (f) compliance with consumer protection rules; (g) grid access; (h) feed-in tariffs/net metering/other support instruments; and (i) RE prosumership best practice, for each partner country. To enable a like-to-like country comparison, all partners will be provided with access to the project internal web-based knowledge platform with information on the current regulatory framework for RE prosumership. Task leader: EUV / Partners involved: CSD, POLITO, IEO Task 2.2: Strategic due diligence of pilot projects PL/CZ/IT – Start: month 4 – End: month 7 The due diligence is conducted taking into account market, technical, legal and financial issues. A risk analysis in all those areas will be performed for prosumers. Based on technical parameters and project-specific properties (new RE technologies, existing conventional and RE installations, degree of integration, size and type of planned installations, level of self-consumption, ownership) of the pilot projects, this task aims to: (a) assess (i) currently applicable legal regulations and (ii) available subsidies, or incentives, as well as to (iii) analyse problems and weaknesses of existing installations on pilot sites; (b) analyse projects for new regulations and strategies; and check compliance with prerequisites for prosumers to apply for available grants / loans / subsidies and submit applications; (c) identify barriers for prosumers project bankability achievement in different financial models (access to bank credit, fulfilment of criteria for local subsides) and check compatibility with public investments; and Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 14 of 38 (d) analyse the market situation and availability of technology suppliers (equipment and services). Task leader: IEO / Partners involved: POLITO, PORSENNA, FORESTA Task 2.3: Economic conditions for RE prosumership – Start: month 4 – End: month 7 Against the background of T2.1 and T2.2, this task calculates the economic feasibility of “prosumer options” (selfconsumption patterns, rules for surplus electricity sale to the grid, or both), taking into account: (a) energy tariffs for households, small businesses, and public buildings with a focus on their fixed parts and variable; (b) economic conditions for energy self-consumption, net metering opportunities and potential obstacles (including balancing cost sharing and incentives for storage); (c) conditions for supplying energy excess production to the grid and barriers on electricity markets; (d) energy balances, and daily and seasonal energy profiling; and (e) technical/economic possibilities of physical grouping (prosumer community, within the framework of Renewable Energy Communities according to art. 32 of the RED II EC proposal “Winter Package”) and shared thermal energy storage of RE surplus (the concept of small local district heating systems and micro grids). Recognising the importance of EE measures to maximise ecological / economic output of RE installations, this task further checks the local EE strategy for energy refurbishing of buildings for synergies with the new RE installations. To coordinate the activities of T2.2 and T2.3 one meeting of key actors involved in each of the pilots is taking place in IT/PL/CZ (M2, month 4). Task leader: IEO / Partners: IEO, SŁUPSK, POLITO, FORESTA, CFAVS, PORSENNA, LITOMĚŘICE Task 2.4: Investment modelling and drafting contracts – Start: month 4 – End: month 11 Based on the briefing on the legal and financial analysis of the existing projects in the pilots and their Feasibility Studies (D2.3), this task develops for each pilot an optimised prosumer investment plan – improved by CSOP financing with the involvement of municipalities and/or commercial investors; an example of this approach is the partnership of the City of Slupsk with IKEA Poland in 0% credit financing of photovoltaic installations. Drafting investment models, guidelines, technical elements of tender specifications and model contracts for technology supply and installations as well as for bank and financial services (bankability and risk analysis) follow. Task leader: EUV / Partners involved: POLITO, FORESTA, PORSENNA, CA Task 2.5: Accustom and test prosumer investment calculator - Start: month 6 – End: month 12 Aim of the task is adapting the already existing technology (offline application), incl. software solution and backend for the online version of the calculator. After implementing the technical concept, the application is fed with data which entails (a) aggregating and integrating pilot project data to test the working version of the online calculator and (b) updating the integrated List of Eligible Materials and Equipment (LEME) and List of Eligible Suppliers and Installers (LESI) including PV, solar collectors, wind and biomass focusing on adjusted and “prosumer-ready” control systems with technical and cost parameters. Finally, the “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” is tested with the pilot communities and subsequently on the partners’ websites. The data feed for the calculator will be updated throughout the project. An external subcontractor carries out the technical implementation of the online calculator on the basis of a closed call for tender. Task leader: co2online / Partners involved: EUV, IEO, CA Role of participants: Leading WP2 (as well as T2.2) IEO coordinates partners’ expertise building on experience from developing software dedicated to planning, sizing and a web based expert system software for prosumers. EUV provides legal expert input (together with external experts, where needed), leads T2.1 as the expert on national frameworks for prosumership and leads T2.4 with its legal knowledge and expertise on CSOP financing. As online expert co2online leads T2.5 and supervises the software programming by the IT subcontractor supported by EUV building on the experience from the CETREPS online calculator developed for the EC. In each pilot region local partners cooperate closely supporting each other: In Poland IEO and SŁUPSK; in Italy POLITO, CFAVS, and FORESTA, in the Czech Republic PORSENNA and LITOMĚŘICE. Building on experience from the on-going H2020 project CITYnvest CA contributes to T2.4 and 2.5 with regard to capacity building. Participation per Partner Partner number and short name WP2 effort 1 - EUV 7.00 2 - IEO 12.00 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 15 of 38 Partner number and short name WP2 effort 3 - CA 3.00 4 - CSD 2.00 5 - POLITO 4.00 6 - CO2ONLINE 3.00 7 - PORSENNA 10.00 8 - FORESTA 10.00 9 - Słupsk 6.00 10 - LITOMERICE 8.00 11 - CFAVS 6.00 Total 71.00 List of deliverables Deliverable Number14 Deliverable Title Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination level16 Due Date (in months)17 D2.1 Country update report on investment conditions 1 - EUV Report Public 3 D2.2 Briefing on legal and financial analysis 2 - IEO Websites, patents filling, etc. Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 7 D2.3 Feasibility study (focus: technical properties) 3 - CA Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 7 D2.4 Draft investment plans, contracts 2 - IEO Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 11 D2.5 Test version of the online calculator 6 - CO2ONLINE Other Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 12 Description of deliverables D2.1: One update report on investment conditions per country (month 3, end of T2.1) D2.2: Briefing on legal and financial analysis of existing projects in pilot communities including weaknesses and proposed risk mitigation measures (month 7, end of T2.2) D2.3: Feasibility study for each pilot project (focus: technical properties) (month 7, end of T2.3) D2.4: Draft investment plans; tender, contract and legal documents pilot projects (month 11, end of T2.4) D2.5: Test version of the online calculator (month 12, end of T2.5) Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 16 of 38 D2.1 : Country update report on investment conditions [3] One update report on investment conditions per country (month 3, end of T2.1) D2.2 : Briefing on legal and financial analysis [7] Briefing on legal and financial analysis of existing projects in pilot communities including weaknesses and proposed risk mitigation measures (month 7, end of T2.2) D2.3 : Feasibility study (focus: technical properties) [7] Feasibility study for each pilot project (focus: technical properties (month 7, end of T2.3) D2.4 : Draft investment plans, contracts [11] Draft investment plans; tender, contract and legal documents pilot projects (month 11, end of T2.4) D2.5 : Test version of the online calculator [12] Test version of the online calculator (month 12, end of T2.5) Schedule of relevant Milestones Milestone number18 Milestone title Lead beneficiary Due Date (in months) Means of verification MS2 One meeting in each pilot municipality IT/PL/CZ 2 - IEO 4 One meeting in each pilot municipality IT/PL/CZ to confirm agenda setting of key experts involved. Means of verification: Protocol, agenda setting confirmed. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 17 of 38 Work package number 9 WP3 Lead beneficiary 10 3 - CA Work package title Implementation of pilot projects Start month 9 End month 24 Objectives This work package implements the RE prosumer investments in the three pilot regions (IT/PL/CZ) applying the CSOP financing technique. These pilot projects are at the core of SCORE as they demon-strate the practical feasibility of optimised joint prosumer investments with local municipalities. In particular WP 3 aims to: • Assess and address knowledge, expertise and training needs among the key actors of the pilot projects. • Develop a local engagement strategy with pilot municipalities esp. to activate vulnerable groups, namely low-income households (focus: the unemployed), as well as women to participate and become prosumers. • Assess the risk of rebound effects, and implement measures to counteract and coordinate the prosumer investment with energy efficiency measures (esp. refurbishing buildings) in the pilot pro-jects. • Apply the legal / economic CSOP financing model of WP2 to kick off pilot project implementation. • Monitor the process and first results to draw up and implement recommendations for continuous improvement in coordination with work carried out within WP4. Description of work and role of partners WP3 - Implementation of pilot projects [Months: 9-24] CA, EUV, IEO, CSD, POLITO, CO2ONLINE, PORSENNA, FORESTA, Słupsk, LITOMERICE, CFAVS, CARITAS, AMICO s.c.s., FedKon Approach The first step of the initiation of the pilot projects is agenda setting with pilot municipalities and developing action plans. All three pilot municipalities will receive necessary support on the establishment and preparation of their implementation strategy. Taking into account differences in development level and type of already existing RE installations as well as in national, political, and legal framework, etc., each project will be dealt with individually. To ensure synergies among the projects a close information exchange will be established. An essential element of our strategy is to activate consumers in the pilot municipalities to become prosumers, with a focus on previously underrepresented groups, i.e., low-income households and women. Description of work Task 3.1: Agenda setting with pilot municipalities – Start: month 9 – End: month 12 Based on the previous experiences and resources, T3.1 assesses the needs of pilot municipalities in terms of legal and financial expertise to develop and implement CSOP financing. Moreover, it will identify additional information and tools in order to involve low-income households and women. In the framework of this task the deliverables of WP 2 directly feed into the processes of WP 3. One meeting with staff involved in the pilot projects and the work package leader (CA) prepares the ground for the kick-off of WP3. The agenda setting will includes issues of EE as assessed in task T2.3. In particular, (a) it will harmonise EE measures planned by pilot municipalities for energy refurbishing of buildings with new RE installations and calculate EE effects to determine energy consumption of participating prosumers – synergies, if available, will be an additional incentive and increase the number of participating con-sumers; (b) pilot municipalities and their local consultant will assess possible rebound effects in the pilot projects and develop strategies to mitigate them and implement measures to reduce energy waste. A report draws general conclusions on needs and resources of municipalities before implementing CSOP financing used for further developments of the project. Task leader: POLITO / Partners involved: co2online, IEO, SŁUPSK, PORSENNA, LITOMĚŘICE, FORESTA, CFAVS Task 3.2: Involve consumers - Start: month 9 – End: month 15 The objective of task T3.2 is to activate consumers in the pilot communities with an emphasis on the focus groups. It involves in particular contacting local consumer organisations, local authorities and partners already working with vulnerable groups on the ground providing services in the social sector. This way we use already established channels of social work to add the EE and prosumership dimension. We collect feedback via questionnaires and interviews among focus groups and other local channels. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 18 of 38 To activate consumers, citizens’ panels from the focus groups – tailored to low-income households, esp. unemployed and women – are set up, customizing them for the pilot regions and “follower cities”. To involve consumers, and in particular focus groups, the project team relies on the cooperation with local authorities, i.e., social policy departments, public employment agencies etc. In the citizens’ panels, consumers will be recruited through on-site information and communication activities (e.g. flyers and advertising materials, info-points/reception rooms, etc.) and by online and offline tools (e.g. social media, postal recruitment, etc.). The aim will be to recruit at least 150 panel members in each pilot. Citizens’ panels’ activities will start in this task but will continue in Task 4.1 and Task 4.3 (Project months 6 to 24). (See Tasks 4.1 and 4.3 for description of focus groups). The task corresponds to task T3.1. Task leader: CSD / Partners involved: co2online, CARITAS, AMICO, FedKon, LITOMĚŘICE Task 3.3: Develop action plans and initiate pilot projects – Start: month 12 – End: month 17 On the basis of the analysis of local conditions (see D2.2 – D2.3) and pilots specific characteristics (D3.1) we will develop an action plan for each pilot project that (a) formulates timelines for the specific tasks to be completed; (b) allocates existing personal and financial resources over the lifetime of the pilot projects necessary to fulfil the goals; and (c) develops a communication and PR-strategy. • A joint workshop for all pilot municipalities with the relevant consortium partners will be organised in order to share and compare first experiences between the pilot municipalities and provide peer-to-peer learning, as well as guidance by the consortium partners (month 12). • Subsequent meetings in each of the pilot regions accompany the initiation of the implementation process with consortium experts. Representatives of a best practice cases (to be found among CA members) participate to convince consumers and other key actors of the feasibility of the approach (months 13-16). Furthermore, this task includes (a) securing financing commitment and concluding contracts between municipality and contractors as well as with consumers and (b) initiating the local operating process, permitting procedure and application for the grid access permit as well as registering investment commitments (M3, month 12). Due to the differences of the RE installations in the pilot cities and country-specified length of procedures, the pilot projects may start at different points of time within this work package. Task leader: CA / Partners involved: IEO, SŁUPSK, LITOMĚŘICE, PORSENNA, CFAVS, FORESTA, EUV Task 3.4: Monitor and evaluate pilots, fine-tune implementation – Start: month 12 – End: month 24 After the initiation of the local operating process specific monitoring procedures will be put in place in order to check and fine-tune the implementation of the pilots: • A scheme for evaluating and monitoring pilots is designed, data collection system established • Each pilot is assessed after three months. A comparative analysis of the results will facilitate transfer of experience between pilots and to selected “follower cities” and to other communities across the EU. • This task gathers data on the involvement of previously underrepresented groups in line with consumer protection rules; the aim is to develop a strategy to improve their involvement (see tasks T4.1 and T4.2). • Data gathered in this task will also be used to update and adjust the interactive online calculator created in task T2.5. • The state of the art will be monitored before pilots start and after completion of the project. For each pilot project specific objectives for the two reporting periods to the Commission are jointly defined with the involved partners. Criteria for subsequent monitoring are the planned targets for each pilot project (e.g., participating consumers, inclusion of vulnerable groups, investment volume, renewable energy produced, energy savings achieved, etc.) using a uniform questionnaire with a checklist (details concerning energy balances and profiling however will depend on the metering and data acquisition system in each pilot projects). The criteria for evaluation (Key Performance Indicators, KPI) for the implementation of the pilot projects are project processing without turbulence, fast reacting to any problems arising, completed deliverables, and objectives reached, number of consumers involved. Task lead: IEO / Partners involved: SŁUPSK, LITOMĚŘICE, CFAVS, EUV Role of participants: CA leads WP3 and task T3.3: As an association of local authorities across the entire EU, CA is familiar with the needs and working processes of the pilot municipalities and will be able to effectively advise them throughout the process. CA has ample experience in coordinating international projects (e.g., CITYnvest). In planning, implementing and monitoring the pilot projects (tasks T3.1, T3.3, T3.4) the municipalities play the main role: SŁUPSK, LITOMĚŘICE and CFAVS, supported on a day-by-day basis by respective project partners: IEO, FORESTA, PORSENNA and POLITO; SŁUPSK contributes an energy consultant for vulnerable groups and CARITAS longstanding experience in activating unemployed. CSD and co2online contribute their expertise to activate consumers, while IEO and EUV contribute theirs on legal and economic matters. Participation per Partner Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 19 of 38 Partner number and short name WP3 effort 1 - EUV 4.00 2 - IEO 6.00 3 - CA 12.00 4 - CSD 3.00 5 - POLITO 3.00 6 - CO2ONLINE 3.00 7 - PORSENNA 6.00 8 - FORESTA 7.00 9 - Słupsk 11.00 10 - LITOMERICE 13.00 11 - CFAVS 11.00 12 - CARITAS 4.00 13 - AMICO s.c.s. 4.00 14 - FedKon 4.00 Total 91.00 List of deliverables Deliverable Number14 Deliverable Title Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination level16 Due Date (in months)17 D3.1 Report on needs and resources incl. manual avoiding rebound effects / energy refurbishing 5 - POLITO Report Public 12 D3.2 Summary of feedback from interviews 4 - CSD Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 12 D3.3 Pilot projects’ action plans 3 - CA Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 17 D3.4 Progress report on each pilot project 2 - IEO Report Public 24 Description of deliverables D3.1: Report on municipalities’ needs and resources including a manual for avoiding rebound effects and combining energy refurbishing of buildings (month 12, end of T3.1) D3.2: Summary of feedback from interviews conducted with consumers and recommendations on how to mobilise them for each pilot project (month 12, end of T3.2) Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 20 of 38 D3.3: Pilot projects’ action plans (i.e., operational schedule, financing plan, PR strategy) with docu-mentation of financing, contracts and investment commitments (month 17, end of T3.3) D3.4: Progress report on each pilot project incl. structural comparison and “Action Papers” (best prac-tice / storytelling / step by step); (month 24, end of T3.4) D3.1 : Report on needs and resources incl. manual avoiding rebound effects / energy refurbishing [12] Report on municipalities’ needs and resources including a manual for avoiding rebound effects and combining energy refurbishing of buildings (month 12, end of T3.1) D3.2 : Summary of feedback from interviews [12] Summary of feedback from interviews conducted with consumers and recommendations on how to mobilise them for each pilot project (month 12, end of T3.2) D3.3 : Pilot projects’ action plans [17] Pilot projects’ action plans (i.e., operational schedule, financing plan, PR strategy) with documentation of financing, contracts and investment commitments (month 17, end of T3.3) D3.4 : Progress report on each pilot project [24] Progress report on each pilot project incl. structural comparison and “Action Papers” (best practice / storytelling / step by step); (month 24, end of T3.4) Schedule of relevant Milestones Milestone number18 Milestone title Lead beneficiary Due Date (in months) Means of verification MS3 Initiation of the local operating process 3 - CA 12 Initiation of the local operating process, permitting procedure, application for grid access permit. Means of verification: Protocol, permitting procedures launched. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 21 of 38 Work package number 9 WP4 Lead beneficiary 10 4 - CSD Work package title Empowering consumers and follower cities Start month 15 End month 30 Objectives The main objectives of WP4 are (a) to empower consumers in the follower cities to become prosumers and (b) to increase the involvement of previously underrepresented / vulnerable groups of consumers in CSOP-financing while ensuring compliance with consumer protection standards in the pilot projects. WP4 aims to: • Evaluate the actual involvement of vulnerable groups affected by fuel poverty, in particular unemployed, as well as women to become prosumers and draw conclusions for the strategy for follower cities. • Check compliance with consumer protection requirements in the implementation of the pilot projects. • Launch the online “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” (developed in T2.5 and tested in the pilot projects) as “plugin” on follower cities’ websites and improve user-friendliness esp. for vulnerable groups. • Coordinate a group of 10 – 20 “follower cities” closely following the developments in the pilot cities with a focus on the role of municipalities as a pacemaker for prosumer investments to prepare rollout and transfer to other cities (e.g., Gorna Malina, Chrudim / Frankfurt / Barcelona / Mechelen / Turośń Kościelna). Description of work and role of partners WP4 - Empowering consumers and follower cities [Months: 15-30] CSD, EUV, IEO, CA, POLITO, CO2ONLINE, PORSENNA, Słupsk, LITOMERICE, CFAVS, CARITAS, AMICO s.c.s., FedKon Approach In order to foster the engaging of “follower cities” and the replication of the CSOP approach, WP4 empowers consumers to become prosumers using both off-line and online tools and will keep special attention to the needs of vulnerable groups. It will do so by building on the results of the monitoring of pilot projects in WP3 and of previous own research, for instance on the factors that influence individual and collective energy choices applied to vulnerable consumers and women in becoming prosumers. The WP will also leverage the results of previous EU projects (including ENABLE.EU outcomes and deliverables). Description of work Task 4.1: Strategies to increase involvement of underrepresented groups – Start: month 15 – End: month 30 Based on findings from interviews among focus groups accomplished in WP3 (see T3.4 and D3.2) T4.1 will evaluate the participation of specific vulnerable groups, affected by fuel poverty, namely low-income households (focus unemployed) as well as women in the pilot projects and assesse potential obstacles to participation. Moreover, it will develop pilot specific strategies to enhance the participation of vulnerable groups that will account for both the experience of partner stakeholders and the already existing policies on inclusion and support to vulnerable groups regarding their energy needs (e.g., energy subsidies, publicly funded support schemes, etc.). The task will be accomplished following three steps: (a) informing and communicating (flyers and advertising materials, info-points / reception rooms in local municipalities, etc.); (b) working with intermediaries / multipliers (managers of home-owners’ associations, NGOs, public servants from local authorities, staff working with vulnerable groups in well-established Caritas channels); (c) supporting members of the focus groups interested in involvement in the pilot projects (advising and transferring knowledge, know-how, and good practices). These actions will provide stakeholders in follower cities with best practice measures to avoid obsta-cles when activating groups of vulnerable consumers. The task addresses all directly involved stakeholders, i.e., local governments, consumer protection and vulnerable groups’ associations, NGOs and citizens’ initiatives. It fosters participation through the organisation of one Inclusive CSOP Financing Workshop in Germany with respective stakeholders and representatives of vulnerable groups and women (M5, month 27). Task leader: CARITAS / Partners involved: CSD, SŁUPSK, FedKon, LITOMĚŘICE, AMICO, CFAVS, co2online Task 4.2: Compliance with consumer protection – Start: month 15 – End: month 20 T4.2 monitors and evaluates the observance of consumer and data protection standards focusing on (a) the contractual arrangements, and on (b) transparency, information and ethics. For each pilot project the evaluation covers a review of Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 22 of 38 the respective national standards, and develops recommendations for optimising the contractual arrangements in the pilot projects as specified in T2.2, T2.3 and T2.4, as well as for improving rules and procedures for information dissemination and sharing as specified in T3.1, T3.3 and T3.4. Particular attention is paid to the protection of vulnerable groups. One report on compliance for the three pilot projects (D4.2) feeds the legal assessment for transfer countries (T4.3). Task leader: FedKon / Partners involved: CSD, IEO Task 4.3: Launch “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” on follower cities’ websites – Start: month 15 – End: month 25 T4.3 has the aim of tailoring the “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” to the consumers’ user habits. After being tested in the pilot projects the tool will be (a) integrated as a “plugin” in existing websites of the follower cities (M4, month 20) and (b) – based on the feed back from the follower cities – continuously improved in order to make it more user-friendly esp. for vulnerable groups. Task leader: co2online / Partners involved: EUV, IEO, CA Task 4.4: Transferring lessons learned to 10 - 20 “follower cities” – Start: month 15 – End: month 30 In this task the consortium members will coordinate the work with “follower cities” across the EU that have been chosen as hosts for prosumer initiatives mostly among CA members and drawing on experience from previous and on-going EU projects, in which SCORE partners participated (i.e. CITYnvest, CITIZENENERGY). A shortlist of cities is prepared to contact relevant stakeholders, request their participation as “follower cities” and provide them with the analysis and documentation generated in WP2 – WP4 to secure a base for developing tailored prosumer investments in these cities. We already gathered seven “follower cities” (see letters of support). A “How to” Technical Paper on the implementation of inclusive CSOP financing for local authorities in seven languages will be published including country-specific recommendations and guidelines focused on the inclusion of vulnerable consumers (the latter based on T4.1). In order to facilitate peer-to-peer learning, we organise two back-to-back meetings of pilot projects’ representatives and “follower cities” (month 24) and a feedback webinar for “follower cities” (month 30). Task leader: CA / Partners involved: CARITAS, CSD, POLITO, IEO, FedKon, LITOMĚŘICE Role of participants: Its wide expertise both on fuel poverty and on specific methodologies for best investigating vulnerable consumers makes CSD an the ideal partner for leading WP4. Because of its longstanding and encompassing practical experience with activating unemployed in the context of the unique programme StromSparCheck CARITAS will be the leader of T4.1 and together with CSD coordinates AMICO, and FedKon and the Dpt. of inclusion of the Government Office in LITOMĚŘICE. Central in this task is also the participation of the three pilot municipalities – SŁUPSK, LITOMĚŘICE and CFAVS as an association of municipalities – that will help formulating recommendations based on their experience gained in the pilot projects. Participation per Partner Partner number and short name WP4 effort 1 - EUV 2.00 2 - IEO 2.00 3 - CA 3.00 4 - CSD 11.00 5 - POLITO 2.00 6 - CO2ONLINE 2.00 7 - PORSENNA 6.00 9 - Słupsk 6.00 10 - LITOMERICE 4.00 11 - CFAVS 3.00 12 - CARITAS 4.00 13 - AMICO s.c.s. 3.00 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 23 of 38 Partner number and short name WP4 effort 14 - FedKon 4.00 Total 52.00 List of deliverables Deliverable Number14 Deliverable Title Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination level16 Due Date (in months)17 D4.1 Report on focus groups 12 - CARITAS Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 20 D4.2 Assessment on pilot projects compliance with consumer protection rules 14 - FedKon Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 20 D4.3 Launch of the “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” on the follower cities websites 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Public 20 D4.4 Feedback webinar for “follower cities” and “How to” Technical Paper CSOP financing incl. manual to include vulnerable consumers 3 - CA Report Public 30 Description of deliverables D4.1: Report on focus groups’ inclusion and strategies to increase their participation (month 20, within T4.1) D4.2: Assessment on pilot projects compliance with consumer protection rules (month 20, end of T4.2). D4.3: Online launch of the “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” on the follower cities website (latest by month 20, within T4.3) D4.4: Feedback webinar for “follower cities” and “How to” Technical Paper on implementation of inclusive CSOP financing for local authorities (seven languages) incl. recommendations and manual to include vulnerable consumers (month 30, end of T4.4) D4.1 : Report on focus groups [20] Report on focus groups’ inclusion and strategies to increase their participation (month 20, within T4.1) D4.2 : Assessment on pilot projects compliance with consumer protection rules [20] Assessment on pilot projects compliance with consumer protection rules (month 20, end of T4.2). D4.3 : Launch of the “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” on the follower cities websites [20] Online launch of the “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” on the follower cities website (latest by month 20, within T4.3) D4.4 : Feedback webinar for “follower cities” and “How to” Technical Paper CSOP financing incl. manual to include vulnerable consumers [30] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 24 of 38 Feedback webinar for “follower cities” and “How to” Technical Paper on implementation of inclusive CSOP financing for local authorities (seven languages) incl. recommendations and manual to include vulnerable consumers (month 30, end of T4.4) Schedule of relevant Milestones Milestone number18 Milestone title Lead beneficiary Due Date (in months) Means of verification MS4 Launch “SCORE Prosumer- Investment Calculator” on follower cities’ websites 6 - CO2ONLINE 20 Launch “SCORE Prosumer- Investment Calculator” on follower cities’ websites. Means of verification: Calculator online and validated by a user group. MS5 “Inclusive CSOP financing workshop” 12 - CARITAS 27 In Germany, organised by CARITAS (with representatives of Consortium, pilot cities, relevant experts). Means of verification: protocol, assessment of inclusion done. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 25 of 38 Work package number 9 WP5 Lead beneficiary 10 5 - POLITO Work package title Enabling policies on prosumership Start month 20 End month 36 Objectives The aim of WP5 is twofold: • to identify impact drivers and barriers of consumer co-ownership from the experience of the pilot projects to fine-tune prosumer financing and transfer the CSOP financing technique to other EU-Member States • based thereon to formulate policy recommendation to promote RE prosumer investments both at the national as well as at the EU level. Description of work and role of partners WP5 - Enabling policies on prosumership [Months: 20-36] POLITO, EUV, IEO, CA, CSD, CO2ONLINE, CARITAS, FedKon Approch The recommendations generated in WP5 relate to the important role that innovative bottom-up initiatives such as those implemented in the pilot projects may have for investment in RE as a key driver of the energy transition towards energy efficiency and sustainable European energy production. In particular these recommendations will empower stakeholders to formulate their own proposals to promote prosumership. The focus is on the possibilities and means of an inclusion of prosumership schemes facilitating a de-centralized ownership structure, namely CSOP financing, in these policies. This includes an evaluation how the CSOP financing that we have implemented and tested for transfer on a national scale in WP4 can be boosted through a renewal of policy schemes. Description of work Task 5.1: Fostering co-ownership in RES and boosting commitment – Start: month 20 – End: month 24 T5.1 concentrates on the impact of prosumership on consumer behaviour. The approach followed here includes three dimensions (“devices”) of consumer co-ownership under a common methodologi-cal framework: • Description of impact on consumers’ readiness to (a) actively engage in the pilot projects and (b) increase demandside flexibility including the acceptance of ICT, e.g., smart meters (incentive device); • Estimation of the impact of the pilots on energy efficiency with regard to: (a) citizens’ raised awareness and (b) reduced emissions / lesser impact of energy production on the climate (learning device); • Impact assessment of co-ownership models in the pilot projects with regards to: (a) acceptance for the Energy Transition and (b) overcoming resistance against new RE facilities, i.e., NIMBY (commitment device). POLITO supervises the DR approach where story ‘spines’ will provide the guiding framework for the story whilst remaining flexible to which end users / type of action is of interest to participants. Participants create their end of project success story, again from an end-user perspective. The impact estimates on buildings’ energy efficiency in the pilot projects will be delivered by using GIS-based methodology and energy support systems such as the dashboard from the DIMMER project; this visual analysis will help end users to identify preferred energy efficient solutions. Task leader: POLITO / Partners involved: co2online, IEO, CSD, CA Task 5.2: Legal and socio-economic assessment for transfer – Start: month 20 – End: month 30 T5.2 identifies the necessary conditions (incl. social, ecological and economic issues and regulations) for a successful transfer of CSOP financing for prosumer projects into other countries. In particular, it will point to similarities, differences and additional specific conditions that may facilitate or hinder a transfer. Based on the outcomes of the legal and socio-economic assessment this task prepares a Catalogue of Prerequisites for a Transfer of CSOP Financing for Prosumer Projects in other countries (D5.2). A “CSOP financing transfer workshop”, in Bulgaria organised by CSD with representatives of the Consortium, pilot cities, relevant experts, etc. (M6, month 30) digests the results. Task leader: EUV / Partners involved: IEO, CSD Task 5.3: Assess policy measures in place and map policy options – Start: month 24 – End: month 32 The identification of both barriers and obstacles to prosumership, as well as national best practices, enable us to identify opportunities to develop tailor-made national approaches to promote RE prosumer investments as well as set trends at the EU level. We provide a comprehensive, up-to-date picture of RE policy measures in the partner countries and at the EU level and make this information accessible in a systematic way, e.g., through our partners’ websites. Other than Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 26 of 38 specific topics dealt with in the pilot projects fields of interest are energy law, public procurement, market regulation, and communal administration. Therefore T5.3: • Assesses the policy measures in place at national and EU levels and maps the policy options to promote RE prosumership including their feasibility as a prerequisite of the development of alternative new policy perspectives. Policy options are mapped according to the instruments available and grouped with regard to different levels of regulation (e.g. recommendation; interpretation of legal acts; secondary legal acts; laws). • Develops strategies for policy advocacy at local, national and EU level for engaging vulnerable consumers and implementing CSOP financing based on results of WP4. Relying on all partners’ expertise (municipalities, practitioners, and scholars) and on the expertise developed throughout the project, we review traditional strategies and identify new ones able to promote RE prosumer investments. • Describe how stakeholders involved in the pilot projects can widespread the best practices experienced, and be empowered to become structuring forces for organising consumer co-ownership in RES. Five national seminars to share results, build capacities, discuss the learning effects, mobilise stakeholders are organised by month 32 in the partner countries. Task leader: CSD / Partners involved: co2online, CA, EUV, FedKon, CARITAS Task 5.4: Formulate policy recommendations – Start: month 30 – End: month 36 The objective of T5.4 is to provide stakeholders as well as policy actors and decision makers at all levels of policymaking with high-quality information and professional scientific advice on future policy actions that facilitate RE prosumer investments. A particular emphasis is put on questions concerning • the relationship between the different “prosumer options” (i.e. self-consumption and/or sale of surplus electricity to the grid) and the regulatory environment favouring or hindering them, as well as • the inclusion of underrepresented groups. Policy briefs, scientific advice, and other informational measures produced within this task will not only help actors and decision makers to find new solutions, but also provide a basis for an educated public discussion on how to advance RE prosumership and how to open it to include underrepresented groups across Europe. This contributes to improving the conditions for RE prosumer investments and potentially counterbalancing the deterioration of financing conditions for small investors (in particular consumers) that occurred recently. To this end, – in a foresighted approach – the task defines necessary steps for policymaking. Task leader: co2online / Partners involved: EUV, POLITO, CA Role of participants: Because of its, longstanding research experience on the correlation of social processes on sustainable development, POLITO is the natural candidate to lead WP5 and T5.1. In particular, it contributes the experience of successful tools from previous EU projects such as DIMMER and POCACITO. EUV, IEO, CSD, co2online, CA, and CARITAS all contribute experience in policy advice in different relevant areas. EUV has more than 15 years of experience in drafting of laws and policy advice to all EU institutions. POLITO and CA can draw on various HORIZON/FP7 projects that produced policy recommendations in the field of RE, EE, and sustainability. CA and co2online work with municipalities and consumers on a day-to-day basis in the field of stakeholder empowerment and will ensure practical consumer-oriented approaches. Participation per Partner Partner number and short name WP5 effort 1 - EUV 5.00 2 - IEO 3.00 3 - CA 4.00 4 - CSD 3.00 5 - POLITO 12.00 6 - CO2ONLINE 2.00 12 - CARITAS 2.00 14 - FedKon 1.00 Total 32.00 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 27 of 38 List of deliverables Deliverable Number14 Deliverable Title Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination level16 Due Date (in months)17 D5.1 Report impacts of consumer co-ownership incl. recommendations on fine-tuning 5 - POLITO Report Public 24 D5.2 Critical policy brief EU/national/local and mapping of policy options 4 - CSD Report Public 26 D5.3 Catalogue of prerequisites for a transfer 1 - EUV Report Public 27 D5.4 RE prosumership poliy recommendations 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Public 36 Description of deliverables D5.1: Report on impacts of consumer co-ownership in the pilot projects as incentive, learning and commitment device including recommendations on fine-tuning (month 24, end of T5.1) D5.2: Critical brief on current EU / national / local policies and mapping of policy options for the sup-port of RE prosumership with a focus on the inclusion of underrepresented groups (month 26, end of T5.3) D5.3: Catalogue of prerequisites for a transfer of prosumer CSOP financing (month 27, end of T5.2) D5.4: Policy recommendation paper for RE prosumer investments derived from the mapping and poli-cy briefs (month 36, end of T5.4) D5.1 : Report impacts of consumer co-ownership incl. recommendations on fine-tuning [24] Report on impacts of consumer co-ownership in the pilot projects as incentive, learning and commit-ment device including recommendations on fine-tuning (month 24, end of T5.1) D5.2 : Critical policy brief EU/national/local and mapping of policy options [26] Critical brief on current EU / national / local policies and mapping of policy options for the support of RE prosumership with a focus on the inclusion of underrepresented groups (month 26, end of T5.3) D5.3 : Catalogue of prerequisites for a transfer [27] Catalogue of prerequisites for a transfer of prosumer CSOP financing (month 27, end of T5.2) D5.4 : RE prosumership poliy recommendations [36] Policy recommendation paper for RE prosumer investments derived from the mapping and policy briefs (month 36, end of T5.4) Schedule of relevant Milestones Milestone number18 Milestone title Lead beneficiary Due Date (in months) Means of verification MS6 “CSOP financing transfer workshop” 4 - CSD 30 In Bulgaria, organised by CSD (with representatives of the Consortium, pilot cities, relevant experts, etc.). Means of verification: protocol, Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 28 of 38 Schedule of relevant Milestones Milestone number18 Milestone title Lead beneficiary Due Date (in months) Means of verification “How to” Technical Paper ready. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 29 of 38 Work package number 9 WP6 Lead beneficiary 10 6 - CO2ONLINE Work package title Dissemination, communication and networking Start month 1 End month 36 Objectives This WP will ensure that all activities and tools developed within SCORE will be disseminated and communicated to the widest possible audience. The main objective of WP6 is to set up and implement an effective dissemination and communication plan. Its priority is to put in place communication as well as dissemination and exploitation strategies that maximise the impact of the project among the target audiences, including the general public, policy makers, local key actors (local governments, SMEs, civil society, etc.) in particular in the “follower cities” and the research community. WP 6 thus aims to: • Increase the impact of the project among target audiences. • Enhance cooperation between citizens, local stakeholders, local authorities, SMEs operating in RES, the research community, and others with regards to RES investment-related activities. • Ensure the maximum visibility of the SCORE initiative, particularly at the European level. • Plan and manage all external project communication with media partners in the most effective way. More in general, the WP will ensure an increase of the available knowledge about and assertion of renewable energy CSOP projects and prosumership. Description of work and role of partners WP6 - Dissemination, communication and networking [Months: 1-36] CO2ONLINE, EUV, IEO, CA, CSD, POLITO, PORSENNA, FORESTA, Słupsk, LITOMERICE, CFAVS, CARITAS, AMICO s.c.s., FedKon Approach All elements of the dissemination and communication strategy are complementary to each other. This requires careful coordination and timing of both activities and information releases to maximise synergies. Our overall approach to dissemination of project results builds on existing channels and networks, and uses both direct interactions of the partners with the target audiences as well as online appearance. Among others, we provide an open communication platform (website) and the “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” to facilitate interaction and exchange among project partners, the general public, and others. Description of work Task 6.1: Corporate design and dissemination, exploitation and communication plan – Start: month 1 - End: month 36 A corporate design framework will be developed in the very early phase in order to define unified elements for external appearance, including corporate colours, typography and graphic elements. The design framework will provide solutions for the integrated web tools, project hubs on national and EU level, a logo and promotional material. The WP leader will implement an integrated plan with detailed recommendations for dissemination, communication and exploitation with the aim of reaching all the different target groups that may be interested in or relevant for the messages transferred by the project. This will be accomplished after having identified appropriate cluster of actors and target groups and having produced practical guide-lines for press releases and other forms of communication that will be updated periodically. It will include an exploitation and communication plan that will address the responsibility of all the partners on IPR issues that will be updated periodically (D6.2, months 6, 18, 25, 30). Task leader: co2online / Partners involved: CA, EUV, CSD Task 6.2: Production of promotion material (digital and printed) – Start: month 3 – End: month 36 The objective of T6.2 is to increase the project’s visibility and dissemination of results via online and interactive appearance as a key outreach. In particular this includes: (a) A website with information about the project and database for project partners. The website is dedicated to the public, but it ensures a proper networking with the research community and relevant stakeholders. It will also link with other relevant projects. The WP leader will elaborate an editorial content concept with timetable, project’s public deliverables, promotion material, milestones and proposals for topics about energy saving at home in English to support the work of all partners. This content will be translated and managed by the partners in different countries. The website will be launched in month 6. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 30 of 38 (b) Information about the projects appearance on social media as well as links to webinar training sessions for the network´s partners. (c) Promoting the online “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” developed in T2.5 and updated throughout the project duration as “plugin” to be embedded in an unlimited number of host-websites. (d) A series of articles and infographics for social media and web use regarding energy saving in households (details on consumption and saving potentials, related to specific energy saving tips, energy labels explained in brief, etc.). (e) The “SCORE dialogue path” combining above content with personalized communication (e.g. phone, online form) and newsletters, providing project updates and a feedback option to partici-pants. Task leader: co2online/ Partners involved: EUV, CA, FedKon Task 6.3: Public relations, media cooperation and networking – Start: month 6 – End: month 36 All partners, esp. in the pilot cities, will be in charge of maintaining contacts and public relations to the media (networks, journalist, blogs, initiatives, etc.) throughout the project using the communication and exploitation plan as guidance. The project will enrich and differentiate its online presence, through the development of different formats for dissemination (viral videos, audio) and policy advice. T6.3 will develop leaflets and brochures for consumers in pilot cities to raise awareness for RE prosumership and energy efficiency. All formats used in this WP should target a large audience of citizens and practitioners (used for five national seminars in partner countries at the occasion of already planned events in the field of RE; month 32). Bilateral and/or multilateral meetings on the project results and policy perspectives will be arranged by project partners with elected representatives from local authorities and national / European parliaments (building on the network of the partners already involved in research-action programmes or advocacy activities), civil society organisations’ representatives, and representatives from local authorities and SMEs operating in RE. Task leader: CA / All partners involved Task 6.4: National and European activities of dissemination “off-line” – Start: month 6 – End: month 36 Major events at EU level will be used to promote the SCORE project. Events like the annual Sustainable Energy Week (EUSEW) in Brussels, the ECEEE conference 2018 & 2019, and BEHAVE 2018, etc. will provide an optimal expert level setting for promoting the project and outcomes. One project meeting will be organised, if possible side-by-side to such an event, enabling all partners to network and benefit from an exchange of experience with stakeholders. Beyond that every partner will present the project on a conference or workshop on national level. At the end of the grant period (M7, month 32), we will organise a final dissemination conference as a closing and summarising event. The final conference will be organised in Brussels; the European Economic and Social Committee which takes a great interest in RE prosumer investment (see 2015 Study, “Changing the future of Energy: Civil Society as a main player in renewable energy generation”) could host the event as at previous occasions (e.g. “Week of EFP at the EESC” in 2011, organised by Prof. Lowitzsch). Task leader: CA / Partners involved: POLITO, co2Online, EUV, IEO, CSD Role of participants: Because of its large network, wide outreach and experience in online activities, organising events of different types, etc., all related to community energy co2online, will lead WP6 and T6.1 and T6.2. CA will lead T6.3, which is aimed at mainly organising scientific and political events, and publishing high-quality scientific papers, policy briefs, analyses, etc. on urgent economic, social, legal, and political issues. CA will play a leading role in T6.4 by bringing in its experience in online activities (especially in developing the investment calculator tool). The pilot municipalities SŁUPSK, LITOMĚŘICE, and CFAVS are key actors to reach out to local actors and consumers through targeted dissemination activities. All project participants contribute to tasks within this work package by providing their contacts, participating in events within the project and representing it outside, informing on project activities of respective websites, publishing papers, etc. Participation per Partner Partner number and short name WP6 effort 1 - EUV 5.00 2 - IEO 3.00 3 - CA 4.00 4 - CSD 2.00 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 31 of 38 Partner number and short name WP6 effort 5 - POLITO 2.00 6 - CO2ONLINE 11.00 7 - PORSENNA 1.00 8 - FORESTA 1.00 9 - Słupsk 2.00 10 - LITOMERICE 2.00 11 - CFAVS 2.00 12 - CARITAS 1.00 13 - AMICO s.c.s. 1.00 14 - FedKon 1.00 Total 38.00 List of deliverables Deliverable Number14 Deliverable Title Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination level16 Due Date (in months)17 D6.1 Corporate campaign design framework 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Public 4 D6.2 Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 6 D6.3 Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 1 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 18 D6.4 Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 2 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 25 D6.5 Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 3 6 - CO2ONLINE Report Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 30 D6.6 Online platform with database and online calculator tool including an editorial content concept 6 - CO2ONLINE Other Public 6 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 32 of 38 List of deliverables Deliverable Number14 Deliverable Title Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination level16 Due Date (in months)17 D6.7 Online platform with database and online calculator tool update 1 6 - CO2ONLINE Other Public 24 D6.8 Online platform with database and online calculator tool update 2 6 - CO2ONLINE Other Public 36 D6.9 Promotion material (printed and online including audio-visual) 6 - CO2ONLINE Websites, patents filling, etc. Public 36 D6.10 Press releases, websites, blogs and publication of articles in scientific journals and magazines 3 - CA Report Public 36 D6.11 Final publishable report 1 - EUV Report Public 36 Description of deliverables D6.1: Corporate campaign design framework (month 4, within T6.1) D6.2: Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan (month 6, within T6.1) D6.3: Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 1 (month 18, within T6.1) D6.4: Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 2 (month 25, within T6.1) D6.5: Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 3 (month 30, within T6.1) D6.6: Online platform with database and online calculator tool including an editorial content concept (month 6 within T6.2) D6.7: Online platform with database and online calculator tool update 1 (month 24, within T6.2) D6.8: Online platform with database and online calculator tool update 2 (month 36, within T6.2) D6.9: Promotion material (printed and online including audio-visual) (month 36, end of T6.2) D6.10: Press releases, websites, blogs and publication of articles in scientific journals and magazines (month 36, end of T6.3) D6.11: Final publishable report (month 36, end of T6.4) D6.1 : Corporate campaign design framework [4] Corporate campaign design framework (month 4, within T6.1) D6.2 : Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan [6] Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan (month 6, within T6.1) D6.3 : Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 1 [18] Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 1 (month 18, within T6.1) D6.4 : Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 2 [25] Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 2 (month 25, within T6.1) D6.5 : Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 3 [30] Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan update 3 (month 30, within T6.1) D6.6 : Online platform with database and online calculator tool including an editorial content concept [6] Online platform with database and online calculator tool including an editorial content concept (month 6, update 24, 36 within T6.2) D6.7 : Online platform with database and online calculator tool update 1 [24] Online platform with database and online calculator tool update 1 (month 24, within T6.2) Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 33 of 38 D6.8 : Online platform with database and online calculator tool update 2 [36] Online platform with database and online calculator tool update 2 (month 36, within T6.2) D6.9 : Promotion material (printed and online including audio-visual) [36] Promotion material (printed and online including audio-visual) (month 36, end of T6.2) D6.10 : Press releases, websites, blogs and publication of articles in scientific journals and magazines [36] Press releases, websites, blogs and publication of articles in scientific journals and magazines (month 36, end of T6.3) D6.11 : Final publishable report [36] Final publishable report (month 36, end of T6.4) Schedule of relevant Milestones Milestone number18 Milestone title Lead beneficiary Due Date (in months) Means of verification MS7 Final conference 1 - EUV 32 Final conference. Means of verification: protocol, list of attendants. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 34 of 38 1.3.4. WT4 List of milestones Milestone number18 Milestone title WP number9 Lead beneficiary Due Date (in months)17 Means of verification MS1 Kick-off meeting WP1 1 - EUV 1 Kick-off meeting. Means of verification: protocol, all partners present. MS2 One meeting in each pilot municipality IT/ PL/CZ WP2 2 - IEO 4 One meeting in each pilot municipality IT/PL/CZ to confirm agenda setting of key experts involved. Means of verification: Protocol, agenda setting confirmed. MS3 Initiation of the local operating process WP3 3 - CA 12 Initiation of the local operating process, permitting procedure, application for grid access permit. Means of verification: Protocol, permitting procedures launched. MS4 Launch “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” on follower cities’ websites WP4 6 - CO2ONLINE 20 Launch “SCORE Prosumer- Investment Calculator” on follower cities’ websites. Means of verification: Calculator online and validated by a user group. MS5 “Inclusive CSOP financing workshop” WP4 12 - CARITAS 27 In Germany, organised by CARITAS (with representatives of Consortium, pilot cities, relevant experts). Means of verification: protocol, assessment of inclusion done. MS6 “CSOP financing transfer workshop” WP5 4 - CSD 30 In Bulgaria, organised by CSD (with representatives of the Consortium, pilot cities, relevant experts, etc.). Means of verification: protocol, “How to” Technical Paper ready. MS7 Final conference WP6 1 - EUV 32 Final conference. Means of verification: protocol, list of attendants. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 35 of 38 1.3.5. WT5 Critical Implementation risks and mitigation actions Risk number Description of risk WP Number Proposed risk-mitigation measures 1 Withdrawal of partner WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6 The Steering Committee (SC) decides whether tasks can be redistributed among partners or if a replacement is needed; the EUV’s transnational network offers a wide range of alternative partners that might be suitable for any necessary replacement with no long-lasting negotiation. Problems of coordination and distribution of tasks in a period without the new partner will be solved by the remaining partners, who will involve substitute competences from their organisations. 2 Key staff or skills leaving the project WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6 Search for similar competences among existing staff. If not internally replaceable, advertise for external replacement. An important internal rule is that every key competence area is to be shared by at least two persons; this is not only to make a better quality management possible but as well to minimise or neutralise the impacts of important staff or skill losses. 3 Pending unilateral breach of consortium agreement (e.g. underperformance) WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6 Regularly monitor partner performance, seeking early meditation to assure future compliance; possibly redistribute tasks to assure timely completion of deliverables; if necessary timely seek replacement for defaulting partner. 4 Delays in key milestones and/or deliverables WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6 Setting clear priorities, monitor partners work through self-assessment questionnaire due three months prior to every key milestone due, organizing regular information and progress exchange, as well as coordination meetings. 5 Conflict among partners WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6 Organising regular communication and coordination meetings; in case a conflict emerges, PM to seek settlement among conflicting partners to reach an agreement; if unsuccessful, AB could mediate. 6 Lack of internal communication WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6 Regular meetings, appropriate tools (including website, mailing list), reporting, and communication flow process described above should provide the right level of internal communication; adapt communication tools and meeting calendar if needed; the Assistant Coordinator ensures an appropriate information flow among partners. 7 Change in general direction of technology WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6 Seeking for alternative solution with all partners; arrange an SC meeting to reach agreement on project changes; propose and negotiate changes with the European Commission. 8 Transfer of the model not possible WP2, WP3 Transferability to the implementing countries and the given legal framework has been sufficiently explored; issues with a transfer to other Member Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 36 of 38 Risk number Description of risk WP Number Proposed risk-mitigation measures States need to result in recommendations of how to adopt the model adequately. 9 Non-availability of software and hardware platforms WP2, WP6 The prosumer investment calculator tool is based on existing software and does not require specific hardware to be installed on many websites; a prototype calculator for a different area of application is already online and tested. 10 Reassessment of indicators/ inclusion of new indicators WP2, WP6 Additional analysis needed; using competencies of the partner(s). 11 Erroneous calculator output (e.g. flawed input data) leading to indemnification WP2, WP6 Quality management of data input; legal disclaimer to exclude responsibility / guarantee for the accurateness of the content. 12 Pilot projects analysis incomplete WP2, WP3 On-going quality management throughout the project. 13 Municipality withdraws from pilot WP2, WP3 Replacement from our “follower cities” if necessary; CA & Energy Cities’ network and national partners provide us with fall-back options. 14 Chosen RE tech-nology not appropriate for chosen pilot municipality WP2, WP3 Pilot municipalities were primarily chosen according to their local conditions and the technical properties of the pre-existing installations; should plans for the new installations be proven flawed or incompatible, an adaptation of the RE technology will be taken into consideration. 15 Residents of pilot municipality not willing to cooperate WP3, WP4 Seek early residual stakeholder exchange to assure compliance; appropriately disseminate knowledge about the project; timely prepare additional engagement actions as a measure of last resort. 16 Dissemination strategy does not reach target groups WP6 Intermediate (month 24) and a final (month 36) Communication Assessment for the evaluation of the communication strategy implemented so far will be carried out during WP6. 17 Budget insufficient for the necessary technology Technology expenses for the pilots are mainly met by the CSOPs methods of financing; the instrument is flexible in responding to changes in liquidity requirements. 18 Complications during technology implementation Only technologies at highest TLR are chosen, for which a range of potential external partners possesses a sufficient level of expertise. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 37 of 38 1.3.6. WT6 Summary of project effort in person-months WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 Total Person/Months per Participant 1 - EUV 22 7 4 2 5 5 45 2 - IEO 1 12 6 2 3 3 27 3 - CA 1 3 12 3 4 4 27 4 - CSD 1 2 3 11 3 2 22 5 - POLITO 1 4 3 2 12 2 24 6 - CO2ONLINE 1 3 3 2 2 11 22 7 - PORSENNA 0 10 6 6 0 1 23 8 - FORESTA 0 10 7 0 0 1 18 9 - Słupsk 0 6 11 6 0 2 25 10 - LITOMERICE 0 8 13 4 0 2 27 11 - CFAVS 0 6 11 3 0 2 22 12 - CARITAS 0 0 4 4 2 1 11 13 - AMICO s.c.s. 0 0 4 3 0 1 8 14 - FedKon 0 0 4 4 1 1 10 Total Person/Months 27 71 91 52 32 38 311 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Page 38 of 38 1.3.7. WT7 Tentative schedule of project reviews No project reviews indicated Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 1. Project number The project number has been assigned by the Commission as the unique identifier for your project. It cannot be changed. The project number should appear on each page of the grant agreement preparation documents (part A and part B) to prevent errors during its handling. 2. Project acronym Use the project acronym as given in the submitted proposal. It can generally not be changed. The same acronym should appear on each page of the grant agreement preparation documents (part A and part B) to prevent errors during its handling. 3. Project title Use the title (preferably no longer than 200 characters) as indicated in the submitted proposal. Minor corrections are possible if agreed during the preparation of the grant agreement. 4. Starting date Unless a specific (fixed) starting date is duly justified and agreed upon during the preparation of the Grant Agreement, the project will start on the first day of the month following the entry into force of the Grant Agreement (NB : entry into force = signature by the Commission). Please note that if a fixed starting date is used, you will be required to provide a written justification. 5. Duration Insert the duration of the project in full months. 6. Call (part) identifier The Call (part) identifier is the reference number given in the call or part of the call you were addressing, as indicated in the publication of the call in the Official Journal of the European Union. You have to use the identifier given by the Commission in the letter inviting to prepare the grant agreement. 7. Abstract 8. Project Entry Month The month at which the participant joined the consortium, month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all other start dates being relative to this start date. 9. Work Package number Work package number: WP1, WP2, WP3, ..., WPn 10. Lead beneficiary This must be one of the beneficiaries in the grant (not a third party) - Number of the beneficiary leading the work in this work package 11. Person-months per work package The total number of person-months allocated to each work package. 12. Start month Relative start date for the work in the specific work packages, month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all other start dates being relative to this start date. 13. End month Relative end date, month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all end dates being relative to this start date. 14. Deliverable number Deliverable numbers: D1 - Dn 15. Type Please indicate the type of the deliverable using one of the following codes: R Document, report DEM Demonstrator, pilot, prototype DEC Websites, patent fillings, videos, etc. OTHER ETHICS Ethics requirement ORDP Open Research Data Pilot 16. Dissemination level Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Please indicate the dissemination level using one of the following codes: PU Public CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) EU-RES Classified Information: RESTREINT UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC) EU-CON Classified Information: CONFIDENTIEL UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC) EU-SEC Classified Information: SECRET UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC) 17. Delivery date for Deliverable Month in which the deliverables will be available, month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all delivery dates being relative to this start date. 18. Milestone number Milestone number:MS1, MS2, ..., MSn 19. Review number Review number: RV1, RV2, ..., RVn 20. Installation Number Number progressively the installations of a same infrastructure. An installation is a part of an infrastructure that could be used independently from the rest. 21. Installation country Code of the country where the installation is located or IO if the access provider (the beneficiary or linked third party) is an international organization, an ERIC or a similar legal entity. 22. Type of access VA if virtual access, TA-uc if trans-national access with access costs declared on the basis of unit cost, TA-ac if trans-national access with access costs declared as actual costs, and TA-cb if trans-national access with access costs declared as a combination of actual costs and costs on the basis of unit cost. 23. Access costs Cost of the access provided under the project. For virtual access fill only the second column. For trans-national access fill one of the two columns or both according to the way access costs are declared. Trans-national access costs on the basis of unit cost will result from the unit cost by the quantity of access to be provided. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 1 PART B History of changes Date Shortcomings Changes 06 Nov Editorial change The continuously updated deliverables "Communication, dissemination and exploitation plan" and "Online platform with database and online calculator tool" in WP6 are split into four separate deliverables each. 08 Nov Request from EC - Added following wording in Task 1.1: "The PM will contribute, upon invitation by EASME, to common information (such as reporting on impact indicators) and dissemination activities to increase synergies between, and the visibility of, H2020 and European Commission supported actions." - WP1 (objectives, T1.5, D1.5) and Section 4.2: deleted references to external evaluation of deliverables and project effectiveness by an independent subcontractor. - Deliverable D1.3: renamed as Progress Report and due date updated to Month 10 - D1.4 & D1.6: these are formal Periodic Reports and no longer listed as deliverables. 10 Nov Editorial change M4.1 changed to M4, M4.2 to M5, M5 to M6, M6 to M7. 03/04/ 11 Nov Request by EC Revised table 3.4b to remove external audit cost from partner EUV. 03/04/ 11/29 Nov Request from EC & correction by consortium Revised table 3.4b: - Deleted item "consumables and supplies (office supply)" from all partners as deemed to be covered by indirect costs. - The cost items "dissemination costs (conference materials)" is clarified as "dissemination costs (conference materials /materials for visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.). - Correction: we by mistake allocated only 3.000,- EUR instead of 6.000,- EUR to PORSENNA as in each of the pilot projects at least one partner has to ensure both tasks covered by external experts, i.e., a) to ensure legal and administrative compliance and b) to provide support services for events (only in the case of the Czech pilot project both partners implementing the pilot had the limited budget of 3.000,- EUR). 14/21/ 27 Nov Update by consortium Added new staff to section 4.1: - Prof. Raimund Schwarze, Ms Claire Gauthier and Mr Lucas Roth to participant No. 1 EUV while removing Mr. Tom Reutemann; - Mr Andy Deacon to participant No. 3 CA. 21 Nov ESR: a) Intensify involvement of financing institutions; b) Further specify monitoring activities; c) reduce number of MMs for EUV in WP1 - Changes under section 2.1. Expected impacts by inserting mention of contact to financial institutions as follows: "The consortium is in the process of ensuring the involvement of banks/commercial investors (e.g., the EIB, the Polish Bank Association, Czech-Moravian Guarantee and Development Bank Unicredit, GLS Bank) to facilitate the financing of the pilot projects seeking Letters of Support or similar."; and references to the PPP IKEA Poland – City of Słupsk (https://ikea.geosolar. pl). - EUV: transfer of 1 MM from WP1 to WP2 (1 MM as EUV takes lead in Task 2.4 & contributes additional focus on PPP and financing institutions as per request of ESR) and 1 MM from WP1 to WP3 (as EUV is inserted in Task 3.4 to coordinate monitoring activities). Timing of Task 2.4 is updated to months 4-11 to allow work to start earlier in the project, and a reference to the PPP IKEA Poland is added in the Task. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 2 History of changes Date Shortcomings Changes - CA now involved in T2.5 to include Mr Deacon’s expertise in EE & retrofit project finance to calculator. - T3.4 amended with regard to monitoring criteria and approach. 21 Nov ESR: Add estimated consumption baseline figures for each project country & target group Added sentence in section 2.1 "Expected impacts" that "baseline figures for each pilot project country and selected target groups are updated in the first month of project and included in D2.1". 21 Nov Editorial correction Lead of Task 6.4 allocated to CA to correct error (budget was already calculated with CA as lead). 21 Nov Editorial correction Figures 5 & 7 and GANNT chart corrected and/or updated. 21 Nov Update by consortium Section 3.3: Mrs Hasberg (Aalborg IT-University Copenhagen) deleted. 21 Nov ESR: some deliverables are defined as confidential, which is not sufficiently justified D2.1, D3.1, D3.4 & D4.3 changed to "public". 22 Nov Request from EC In section "Handling of data, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Exploitation", the wording "and subsequent licensing for exploitation" was added, in reference to Art 28 of the Grant Agreement. 24 Nov Ambiguity of indicated deliverables Inserted numbers of deliverables in section 2.2, table “Handling of data, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Exploitation”. 29 Nov Clarification by IOE Reference added in T2.3 “prosumer community, within the framework of the Renewable Energy Communities according to Commission “Winter Package” proposal”. 29 Nov ESR: Further specify monitoring activities Task 3.4 updated as follows: “For each pilot project specific objectives for the two reporting periods to the Commission are jointly defined with the involved partners. Criteria for subsequent monitoring are the planned targets for each pilot project (e.g., participating consumers, inclusion of vulnerable groups, investment volume, renewable energy produced, energy savings achieved, etc.) using a uniform questionnaire with a checklist (details concerning energy balances and profiling however will depend on the metering and data acquisition system in each pilot projects). The criteria for evaluation (Key Performance Indicators, KPI) for the implementation of the pilot projects are project processing without turbulence, fast reacting to any problems arising, completed deliverables, and objectives reached, number of consumers involved.” 03 Dec Update by consortium Sect. 3.1, Table 3.2 a, GANTT chart: Final conference (M7) and second Consortium Committee meeting re-scheduled from month 34 to month 32, consequently also Milestone 7 was updated to month 32. 13 Dec Request by EC Revised table 3.4b adjusting the costs related to "other goods and services" of the partner CSD to be in line with the total declared (decreased "translation" by EUR 4,000, "external experts" by EUR 3,000, increased catering/rent for 2 seminars by EUR 1,000). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 3 Table of contents 1. EXCELLENCE ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 RELATION TO THE WORK PROGRAMME ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 CONCEPT AND METHODOLOGY, QUALITY OF THE COORDINATION AND SUPPORT MEASURES ........................................ 7 2. IMPACT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.1 EXPECTED IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 MEASURES TO MAXIMISE IMPACT ............................................................................................................................... 18 a) Dissemination and exploitation of results .............................................................................................................. 19 b) Communication activities ....................................................................................................................................... 25 3. IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................................................... 27 3.1 WORK PLAN – WORK PACKAGES AND DELIVERABLES ................................................................................................ 27 3.2 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................... 29 3.3 CONSORTIUM AS A WHOLE .......................................................................................................................................... 31 3.4 RESOURCES TO BE COMMITTED ................................................................................................................................... 35 4. MEMBERS OF THE CONSORTIUM ............................................................................................................................. 38 4.1. PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 38 4.2. THIRD PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT ................................................................................................................. 68 5. ETHICS AND SECURITY ................................................................................................................................................ 70 5.1 ETHICS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 70 5.2 SECURITY .................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 4 1. Excellence The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources (RES), the Energy Transition, requires financial, technical and social innovation. Not only must a new energy infrastructure be built, but consumers motivated to change consumption habits so as to balance demand with a volatile energy supply and to accept new technologies like smart meters.1 Consumer co-ownership in RES2 – “Citizen Energy” – has proved successful in engaging consumers in financing RES, thus becoming “prosumers” which in turn induced positive behavioural changes in energy consumption. 3 Prosumer models, however, are still not widely implemented across Europe. Guaranteed feed-in tariffs have facilitated the repayment of RES installation loans, but now a shift to auction systems favouring large-scale projects threatens this effective incentive to citizens’ investments.4 Moreover, the typical prosumer is male, middle aged, and with a higher income whereas the participation of women and low-income households is uncommon. 5 The rebound effect and insufficient use of ICT solutions are additional problems. We believe that both local authorities as well as consumers and organisations representing them have an important role to play in facilitating these prosumer models, bringing together all key stakeholders while protecting consumer rights. The former are charged with fulfilling energy efficiency and climate policy goals with these responsibilities straining their limited budgets; the latter – as the key target group – have an important future role as active market players. Our project aims to increase the knowledge and the capacities of both municipalities, as well as consumers and their organisations to develop and custom design financing models for prosumers – models that are at the same time attractive to local energy providers as well as to commercial investors. 1.1 Objectives The core objectives of SCORE are: • to facilitate consumers to become prosumers of renewable energy (RE) by investments extending existing RE-installations based on established best practice but modernised by inclusive financing techniques in three pilot projects in Poland (Słupsk), Italy (Susa Valley) and the Czech Republic (Litoměřice); • to demonstrate the ability of these low-threshold participation models to include women and households affected by fuel poverty, especially unemployed (both groups underrepresented under traditional models); • to show the positive impact of co-ownership on consumer behaviour as an incentive-, learning-, and commitment device, and empower municipalities and consumers in the partner countries (DE, IT, BG, PL, CZ) as well as in follower cities across the EU to facilitate prosumers role as active market players; and • to facilitate the development of new legal and financial solutions to stimulate the participation of low income households in the RES market (e.g., microcredit mechanisms or specific incentives). Our approach of community financing is based on the already proven logic of the Consumer Stock Ownership Plan (CSOP). The CSOP is an inclusive financing technique based on established best practices designed to facilitate scalable investments with strategic local partners. It empowers consumers to realise marketoriented RE investments together with both municipal utilities and commercial investors. CSOPs thus increase the financial participation of consumers in RE across the EU while at the same time permitting scalability of investments. The pilot projects are based on the extension of existing RE installations representing the diversity of prosumership (photovoltaic installations and power-to-heat district heating systems fuelled by wood). To advance successfully implemented models like, e.g., cooperatives is of particular relevance as some of their inherent characteristics have proven to be an obstacle to compatibility with traditional commercial market models. Our activities therefore focus on five main areas: 1 Cf. the proposal for a Directive on Common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity, COM(2016) 864 final/2 (2016), Ch.III art. 17 (demand-response), art. 19 to 21 (smart metering). 2 Ibid., Ch.III art. 15 (active consumers), art. 16 (local energy communities); proposal for a Directive on Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources, COM(2016) 767 final/2 (2016), art. 21 (renewable self-consumers), art. 22 (renewable energy communities). 3 Roth, L., Lowitzsch, J., Yildiz, Ö., Hashani, A. (2016). The impact of (co-)ownership of renewable energy production facilities on demand flexibility. An empirical study, MPRA Paper no. 73562, Sept. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/73562/1/MPRA_paper_73562.pdf. 4 E.g. in: DE, Reform of the EEG in 2017; PL, Reform of Law on renewables 2015; tendering systems entail risks for investors requiring capital or bank guarantees and are a barrier market entrance for private, especially small investors, hampering small-scale investments. 5 Fraune, C. (2015). Gender matters: Women, renewable energy, and citizen participation in Germany; ER&SS, 7, 55-65. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 5 1. Using the CSOP financing technique we implement innovative prosumer models in three pilot regions, i.e., Susa Valley (IT), Słupsk (PL) and Litoměřice (CZ) with our expert pool supporting local authorities in planning and realisation. This will result in investments worth more than EUR 9.03 million involving 2,650 households bringing energy savings of 29.9 GWh/year and a potential reach to further 20,000 consumers. 2. We analyse and compare existing prosumer models, e.g. Renewable Energy Cooperatives (2,397 in 17 MS in 2014) or limited partnerships across Europe. Based on this assessment and our experience from the pilot projects, we develop best practice manuals and templates for “prosumer financing”. 3. To empower municipalities and consumers we conduct a large-scale capacity building programme. Through a series of seminars and events as well as on-going dissemination work we address a large number of all key actors in the five partner countries and at EU level to roll out best practices for prosumer investments. Provided with best practice manuals and templates they are activated as multipliers for the project’s results to in turn inform consumers in their home communities (an estimated number of 1,000 local communities and municipalities reaching out to 10,000 consumers and 100 SMEs in the field of RES). 4. To determine key success factors and develop recommendations, we monitor and evaluate the three pilot prosumer investments implemented during the project involving local authorities and consumers. 5. Through integrated communication and dissemination work at national and EU-Level we promote prosumer models and share best practices to facilitate the replication of the pilot projects and to activate 10 – 20 “follower cities” in across the EU. We launch an open, interactive, online “RE Prosumer Investment Calculator” which allows 10,000 stakeholders without specific expertise and technological know-how (i.e. local authorities, individuals, consumer associations, micro-enterprises, etc.) to simulate the economic feasibility of RE prosumer investments supported by aid of graphic demonstration. Furthermore, besides a constantly updated website with the main project results a detailed communication and public relations plan is realised. Regional scope The project focuses on five core countries representative of the groups of settings present in old and new EU Member States with differing prevalent political priorities: • Germany: pioneering prosumership in RES, sustainability, pull-out from nuclear energy; • Italy: puts technological progress and low carbon economy first, strong tradition of cooperatives; • Bulgaria: heavily affected by fuel poverty while having vast, untapped potential for RE; • Poland: domestic coal, energy security, diversification of sources, independence from gas and oil imports; • Czech Republic: compulsory renewable energy assessment for refurbishing public buildings. In the three pilot municipalities (PL/CZ/IT) SCORE implements prosumer investments extending an existing RE project to include local consumers with the active involvement of the local government bodies. Germany as a pioneer in prosumership (47% of installed RE capacity were 2014 in citizen ownership helping to propel renewables to 28% and becoming its largest share in the national energy mix6) serves as a reference country. Bulgaria with the highest rate of households affected by fuel poverty in Europe is central for developing an approach for their inclusion.7 The project addresses primarily citizens and therefore energy consumers of local communities. Wider aims Turning consumers into co-owners of RE installations provides a genuine motivation to increase energy efficiency and trigger an awareness and learning process among citizens which in turn contributes to: • Facilitating the use of ICT solutions (e.g. smart meters) and fostering better matching of consumption with the volatility of RE production, i.e. increasing demand side flexibility (economic); • Fostering acceptance for the Energy Transition in particular the grid extension as well as the installation of new production facilities, e.g. wind turbines and offering practical information to new possible actors in this field incl. public procurers (social); • Accelerating the Energy Transition, reducing emissions, the impact of energy production on climate and current externalities contributing to sustainability goals (ecologic). 6 For citizens’ ownership stake in RE see Agora Energiewende (2015): The Energiewende in the Power Sector: State of Affairs 2014; Data from Eurostat http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Energy_from_renewable_sources 7 Pye, St., Dobbins A. et al. (2015). Energy poverty and vulnerable consumers in the energy sector across the EU: analysis of policies and measures. INSIGHT_E Observatory, http://www.insightenergy.org/static_pages/publications#?publication=15, accessed 30 Aug. 2016. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 6 In general the project encourages citizen engagement and makes the topic of “energy policy” practical and relevant to the average citizen. This in turn increases the chances of success for good policy measures, because a more educated electorate will be more willing to support necessary policy changes. This building of broad societal support can be reinforced with further awareness raising programmes for citizens, and due to the tangible nature of the pilot projects the participation in and impact of such programmes will be greatly enhanced. 1.2 Relation to the work programme SCORE responds to EE-06-2017“Engaging private consumers towards sustainable energy” that aims to encourage energy efficiency (EE), energy savings, and increased use of locally produced RE and addresses fuel poverty. SCORE assists consumers in becoming co-owners of RE installations empowering them and their municipalities. Concrete assistance for RE investments employing the inclusive CSOP financing technique aims at motivating citizens to increase EE and triggering a learning process among them. In addition to low-income households, the project addresses women as being underrepresented and often belonging to the former. The following tables summarise how SCORE addresses the specific challenges and scope of the call: Specific Challenge How SCORE Addresses It Consumers should be considered at the heart of the energy system and become active market players. Consumers, individually and organised as well as prosumer organisations, are in the project’s focus. The future private consumer should be more aware, active, energy sufficient, as well as being prosumers producing energy for their own consumption. The project is aimed at the activation / participation of a wide range of consumers with emphasis on the inclusion of underrepresented and vulnerable groups. EE, energy savings and increased use of locally produced – including own produced – RE are key tools in addressing fuel poverty. Researchers and practitioners specialised in low-income households, esp. unemployed persons and inhabitants of regions affected by structural energy poverty are involved. Engagement actions are needed across Europe in order to achieve behavioural change towards more sustainable choices and decisions for energy. Municipalities (responsible for achieving sustainability goals) cooperate with RE consultants to citizens and experts for behavioural economics. Such action is still hampered by a number of barriers, incl. financial and regulatory barriers and inconsistencies in grid integration practice. Partners experienced in RE policy advice covering all relevant disciplines directly reach out to policy makers and key stakeholders. Insufficient use of relevant ICT solutions and insufficient understanding of energy bills contribute to hampering the achievement of a more sustainable energy system. RE Consultants/SMEs skilled in ICT solutions as well as organisations specialised in advice and communication of energy efficiency for private households play a key role in the project. Scope How SCORE Addresses It Empower and facilitate actions for consumers to become prosumers (addressing EE, RE, and energy storage, with a focus on action). CSOP financing empowers those who so far lacked the capacity to actively involve in the prosumership of their own accord. Support clearly defined groups of vulnerable consumers in tackling fuel poverty by facilitating more sustainable energy behaviour and choices. This should also aim at achieving structural changes of national policies to specifically address fuel poverty and could include transfer of best practices for active engagement of vulnerable consumers. We focus on: (a) low-income groups, esp. unemployed; (b) regions affected by energy poverty, and (c) women therein when facilitating sustainable energy behaviour/choices. Promoting an inclusive, low-threshold and low-risk prosumer investment approach, tested for transfer within the EU and coupled with an engagement strategy for vulnerable consumers. Facilitate wider deployment and consumer adoption of ICT-based solutions, for EE and information on energy consumption and costs, with a focus on action and resulting in improved understanding of ICT interfaces and information depiction (incl. smart metering). Emphasis lies on providing economic incentives for prosumers to adapt to smart meters and on RE counselling for consumers to inform and assist with choices enhancing EE and acceptance of ICT solutions while protecting their rights (we use tools for the understanding of electricity bills and household consumption, e.g., www.stromspiegel.de). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 7 1.3 Concept and methodology, quality of the coordination and support measures SCORE’s concept Existing business models in the context of citizen financial participation in RES fall into two categories: (1) genuine prosumer schemes which are more egalitarian, like energy cooperatives that typically apply to small- or medium-scale projects but face the problem of “sub-scale” investments8; (2) profit-oriented, market-centred investment schemes, such as closed-end funds that raise money for large-scale projects but do not allow for participation in decision making. To combine prosumer projects with active citizens’ participation, both financially and in operative decision-making, organisational advances are vital. The question is how to retain the benefits of individual consumer participation, when moving to economies of scale, while including low-income households at the same time. Therefore our approach to consumer co-ownership in RES first and foremost aims at creating a level playing field. The aim is "equality of arms" for RE prosumership at the local/regional level. In an environment of changing regulatory conditions that favour large investments (i.e. the EU-wide trend to direct marketing and auction models), it is crucial to facilitate citizen energy models that can co-exist with commercial competitors to preserve the diversity of actors on the energy markets. Against this background, the following specific features of the CSOP approach for financing consumer co-ownership in RES stress its potential to both modernise and adapt best practices models to these purposes. Involving citizens in local RE projects – The "local" reference is not determined by the business model, per se, but by its design; we believe that rooting prosumership in the local community will increase acceptance of RE projects if the concept is open to all citizens, independent of their income. Instead of being solely profit-oriented (as, e.g. bonds or silent partnerships), it is precisely the ownership-oriented participatory approach (also in decision- making) that distinguishes the CSOP financing from conventional investment models. Our approach facilitates the involvement of municipalities as a pacemaker of the energy transition.9 The (optional) inclusion of minority stakes of commercial investors in itself is nothing new, as citizens’ energy models, e.g. in the wind sector, in the legal form of limited partnerships, often involve professional partners. Depending on the underlying technology, it may be useful to include professional operators, as operation and maintenance of infrastructure can be very complex; this concerns above all wind energy and especially bioenergy. Mitigating rebound effects – The rebound effect describes the paradox that increased efficiency goes hand in hand with increased consumption.10 When applied to prosumership, increased savings from RE production lead the end-user to the assumption that he is already saving enough energy/money, thus decreasing his willingness to adjust his energy demand to production levels in order to save even more. The effect is exacerbated when he can only self-consume the produced energy, as storage may not be available or too expensive, leading to a waste of excess production he cannot absorb. Based on a sample of 2,143 completed questionnaires from an online survey, we empirically tested the prediction that (co-)ownership has a positive influence on demand side flexibility in a study recently published.11 Our results show a statistical correlation between (co-)ownership of RE production facilities and the willingness of private households to adjust their consumption behaviour to match their electricity demand to production levels. However, the relation is complex: Only when prosumers have the choice between self-consumption and sale of the surplus electricity production to the grid, do we observe a statistically significant effect on consumption behaviour. The explanation is that only when prosumers have this choice, every kilowatt-hour not consumed is a kilowatt-hour potentially sold to the grid. This is a strong incentive for energy- efficient behaviour. A sound prosumership model coupled with the counselling activities of our partners specialised in advice and communication of energy efficiency for private households is thus crucial to mitigate rebound effects while at the same time harnessing the potential of increased consumer energy efficiency. 8 I.e., optimisation of size of the technical installation: e.g., a 100 kW “citizen wind turbine” is economically not sound; CSOP-financing helps small investors pool their investment, boost it with leverage and build a more efficient standard industrial 1.2 MW wind turbine. 9 This role of local authorities has been underlined in the EP amendments in the Draft Report “on the Governance of the Energy Union” of the ITRE Committee of the EP (Rapporteurs C. Turmes and M. Rivasi) of 18 May 2017. 10 European Energy Agency (2013). Achieving energy efficiency through behaviour change: what does it take? Technical Report 5/2013. 11 Roth, L., Lowitzsch, J., Yildiz, Ö., Hashani, A. (2016). The impact of (co-)ownership of renewable energy production facilities on demand flexibility. An empirical study, MPRA Paper no. 73562, Sept. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/73562/1/MPRA_paper_73562.pdf. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 8 Energy efficiency (EE) and ICT solutions – EE is a highly effective method of meeting demand, and as levelised cost analysis demonstrates cheaper than any other conventional or alternative energy source. Prosumership fosters involvement, commitment, and responsibility and thus contributes to increase EE. To take full advantage of the benefits of EE, broader and smarter use of Consumer Engagement Programs (CEP) is needed. In comparison to conventional Technology Installation Programs (TIPs), which are characterised by high barriers to entry for consumers and a lack of scalability, behaviour-based programs are found to leverage innovative engagement strategies more effectively. In many energy markets for large industrial customers, direct participation in responsive demand schemes has long been possible, but pushing this direct market participation model to residential consumers, remains a challenge. On the one hand end consumers will mostly neither have the capacity or the motivation to take action. On the other hand given the substantial costs they will be reluctant to install the necessary ICT infrastructure since – as a rule, being customers of big suppliers – they lack an economic incentive to do so. This changes when consumers become prosumers and have an intrinsic motivation to install smart meters, to be able to decide when to absorb their RE production by own consumption in times of low prices on the markets due to oversupply. Moreover, prosumership is a holistic approach to activate a group of actors, which so far has been difficult to include. Since men are still considered more technology-affine due to gender socialisation and consequently more receptive, it is vital to make CEPs accessible also to women via co-ownership. Energy consumers are a heterogeneous group, when it comes to their social settings and behaviours, but combining ownership-driven incentives with such different motivations as sustainability, energy autonomy, and the incentive to maximise revenue can help tap the enormous potential of consumer-driven EE. The reform of energy markets must actively engage the demand side – In conventional settings divergent incentives of investors and consumers are left separate and distinct with the only link between the two being the contractual supplier-customer relationship. To respond to supply-side volatility of solar and wind energy fed into the grid, and to mitigate resulting excessive peaks both in production and consumption economic incentives are crucial. When citizens become producers of the energy they themselves (partly) consume, the incentives of a consumer-producer become complementary: The main benefit of planning and matching consumer behaviour with market demand resulting in an optimal price for the energy produced goes to the prosumer. Instead of creating price effects with conflicting incentives on energy markets, consumption behaviour is aligned with the production capacities and such can unfold its full potential. Furthermore, responsive demand can be achieved by making cogeneration facilities (combined heat and power CHP) more flexible using distributed thermal energy storage systems. Here, the provision of heating or cooling to consumers can be physically decoupled from the CHP plant employing thermal energy storage to make the production of electricity more flexible in response to the needs of the power system. While it is technically feasible and relatively inexpensive to apply this technique directly to thermal appliances at consumer premises the main barrier to implementation is a lack of incentives. The CSOP approach as an inclusive financing technique Under the Third Energy Package, Member States need to identify vulnerable consumers and put measures in place that among others address energy poverty. It is estimated that about 54 million EU citizens (10.8% of the EU population) have been affected by energy poverty in 2012.12 However, less than a third of the Member States explicitly recognise the concept of energy/fuel poverty13 and treat it as a linked yet distinctive problem from protection of vulnerable consumers in their national policies. Where addressed, the issue is included in social policies mainly through supportive subsidies while policies to encourage behavioural changes within vulnerable groups or to transform them into prosumers are limited across Europe. Furthermore, existing studies show that women’s contribution to climate change is significantly lower than men’s.14 Gender-sensitive aspects in the context of climate change are mostly addressed in research of developing countries, whereas in the indus- 12 Pye, S., Dobbins A. et al. (2015). Energy poverty and vulnerable consumers in the energy sector across the EU: analysis of policies and measures. INSIGHT_E Observatory, http://www.insightenergy.org/static_pages/publications#?publication=15, accessed 5 May 2017. 13 The EC distinguishes energy poverty as including electricity and gas only, while fuel poverty includes other energy sources. For some countries, esp. in CEE with a high share of population using coal, wood for heating fuel poverty captures the problem better. 14 European Institute for Gender Equality (2012): Review of the Implementation in the EU of area K of the Beijing Platform for Action: Women and the Environment. Gender Equality and Climate Change. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 9 trialised countries, there is a lack of awareness for the link between these two issues. According to empirical data, women: (1) are less represented in employment in the energy and transport sectors; (2) tend to travel less than men, e.g. due to lower car ownership; (3) feel less informed about RE; (4) invest less in RE projects than men, because their income in the EU is only about 80 % of men’s and they tend to be more risk averse.15 The CSOP concept deliberately addresses such gender inequalities as an inclusive opportunity to invest regardless of one’s financial situation. Gaining an intrinsic economic incentive prosumers are expected to change their consumption into more efficient and environmentally friendly behaviours. Both mentioned groups are underrepresented among prosumers for reasons, ranging from (i) socio-economic (lower education and general literacy) in the case of low-income households and long-term unemployed, to (ii) psychological and behaviour-based with regard to women. SCORE addresses this complicated issue with the CSOP financing technique as an inclusive low-threshold financing model also open to vulnerable consumers. Turning (vulnerable) consumers into prosumers has an important impact on their consumer behaviour improving energy efficiency, as well as providing them with an additional source of income, two important steps to improving their economic situation and thus help them to overcome fuel poverty. This involves an inclusive approach in the financing model that, one the one hand, does not require savings and, on the other hand, builds on proven channels to reach out to the unemployed. Local authorities often attempt to strengthen their role to improve the quality of life and the living environment of their citizens, but due to limited financial resources and scarcity of know-how, they often lack the means to initiate new and innovative projects. This is where the CSOP financing technique helps to overcome the financing and know-how gap. How CSOP financing is implemented A CSOP can buy into an existing or invest in a new RE plant, which is important for municipalities that often lack the funding for investment. In particular, citizens with low income – who as a rule do not dispose of savings necessary for conventional investment schemes – are enabled to repay their share of the acquisition loan from the future earnings of the investment: A fiduciary trust set up under this concept, e.g. by the local community, managed by independent trustees is authorised to borrow funds for the acquisition of shares in the RE plant on behalf of the participating energy consumers. The funds are often provided by a state bank under a specific program to promote RE investments, e.g. KfW’s “Renewable Energy Standard”, and channelled through a commercial bank. The shares acquired by the trust are allocated among the CSOP consumer-beneficiaries in proportion to their respective energy purchases. Income in excess of depreciation associated with the CSOP shares must be distributed to the CSOP and is used to repay the acquisition loan assumed by the CSOP-trust. Once this debt is amortised the revenue to the CSOP is distributed as income to the consumer-beneficiaries. Under continental law, the financing structure employing two limited liability companies – one as a holding and one as a trust – pools individual investments while benefiting from the borrowing power of the corporate vehicle. At the same time, individual liability of citizens is avoided while the participating consumers acquire capital ownership, providing them with an additional source of income. Furthermore, indirect share ownership using a separate intermediary entity, which manages the shares held in trust for the consumer-beneficiaries and pools the voting rights executed by the trustee, implies a due “professionalization” of management: Participation in decision- making is channelled through the trustee while individual consumer-shareholders may execute control rights on a supervisory board or an advisory council. Finally, municipalities (or external investors) can buy into the project acquiring shares in the holding while being guaranteed corresponding voting rights. Pooling consumers’ rights as co-owners in the newly founded CSOP trust (CSOP-LLC) also reduces transaction cost with regard to changes of participating individuals, e.g. when consumer-beneficiaries move away from the region and transfer their share to new residents. To ensure easy tradability of the shares, the CSOP-LLC’s shareholding is facilitated through a trust entity. Thus, consumer shareholding in the CSOP-LLC is “brokered” by a limited liability company (Trust-LLC); a trust agreement between the consumers and the Trust-LLC is sufficient to render consumer shares fungible: It is the Trust LLC, which – entering into a trust agreement with the consumer-trustors – now holds the shares of the CSOP-LLC on behalf of the consumers. In the event of a change 15 See http://www.genanet.de/: A Powerful Connection: Gender & Renewables. Gender Perspectives in Industralised Countries; details on the gender pay gap: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics; both accessed 5 May 2017. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 10 of the consumer-shareholder, the buyer or heir simply steps into the trust agreement in lieu of the former trustor. Unlike in the case of direct shareholding of consumers in the CSOP holding, changes of shareholders need not be registered and the amount of participation held by the trustee is flexible, can fluctuate and can be easily administrated. The basic mechanism is a trusteeship contract as proven in other investment settings (see Figure 1). Figure 1: CSOP financing in practice – The corporate structure underlying CSOP financing described above is a standard solution in Germany and other EU Member States tested many times by so-called public companies (“Publikumsgesellschaften“) in real estate investments, who face a similar problem: A very large number of small investors intends to participate in the equity of a company where every change in ownership, be it due to death, sale of shares, or seizure has to be signed into the commercial register in a formal procedure. We have checked transferability of the model to other EU Member States. This financing model goes back to the American investment banker and lawyer Lois O. Kelso who invented the CSOP technique with the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) in the 1950s. Today Kelso's best-known financing technique, the ESOP, is an integral part of corporate America. At the end of 2016 there were 6,717 ESOP and ESOP-like plans in the USA, with about 14 million employees participating (13% of private sector employees) holding around USD 1.3 trillion in assets.16 Methodology Against this background the specific challenge of the project is to: (i) define the key factors determining conditions for the successful implementation of RE prosumer investments and to develop tailor-made prosumer investments; (ii) implement the RE prosumer investments in the three pilot regions in Italy, Poland, and Czech Republic, applying the CSOP financing technique; (iii) assess the involvement of vulnerable groups of consumers in the pilot projects CSOP, implement measures to increase their engagement while ensuring compliance with consumer protection standards; (iv) identify impact drivers and barriers of consumer co-ownership against the experience of the pilot projects on the Energy Transition and to derive consequences for the fine tuning of prosumer financing; (v) formulate concrete policy recommendations to promote RE prosumer investments both at the national as well as at the EU level; and (vi) to put in place a dissemination and exploitation strategy that maximises the impact of the project among the target audiences, including the general public, local key actors, research community, and others. 16 Cf.: NCEO statistics, http://www.nceo.org/articles/esops-by-the-numbers, accessed 5 May 2017. State Bank (EIB/KfW) E.g., Program "Renewable Energy Standard“ (no.270) Households Coop-members / Consumer-shareholders Commercial Bank 1. long-term loan to finance investment 4. monthly payments for energy 1. provides low interest loan through commercial bank 2. invests in new or expansion of existing renewable energy plant 3. Revenues + Profits from excess energy production sold on regulated market 2. pledge of shares / assets to secure repayment of loan 4. Dividends amortise individual loan (principal and interest) CSOP-LLC operates RE-plant; allows investment of co-investors with beneficial consumer-owners Renewable Energy Plant Solar Panel / Biogas Reactor / Wind turbine / Geothermic Drill 3. supplies energy at fixed price Municipality / External Investor 2. acquire shares in CSOP-LLC Trust-LLC facilitates capital participation proportional to energy consumption Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 11 The call specifically refers to “Engaging private consumers towards sustainable energy (…) The future private consumer should be more aware, active, energy sufficient, as well as being a prosumer producing energy for their own consumption.” Therefore, the project employs a specific participative methodology for development and kick-off of RE prosumer investment, as well as for the activation of municipalities and the inclusion of consumers. Researchers in social sciences, including sociologists, political scientists, lawyers, and economists as well as engineers, IT experts, architects, and city planners achieve a shared diagnosis with all key stakeholders. Crucial for engaging the two target groups (i.e. low-income households, focus unemployed, and women) in the implementation of prosumership-oriented projects is proved to be addressing their social needs and concerns (values, beliefs, and goals) at an early stage of the project and technological development17, as well as to create mutual trust between the key stakeholders driving the projects and the consumers’ representatives.18 The discourses of becoming prosumers, are multi-dimensional going beyond purely financial and technical aspects to encompass social, behavioural, cultural, and political issues that are intertwined. Moreover aspirations to “roll out” successful prosumer-led initiatives, even consistent with broader policy goals for energy transition, are often challenged by discourses of local uniqueness and “bottom-up” engagement.19 To encompass this uniqueness and the bottom-up discourse, SCORE applies an engagement strategy, customised according to the two specific target groups, as identified above; main drivers and barriers with regard to those key factors are picked up to facilitate its custom-made implementation. The backbone of this strategy to involve previously underrepresented groups via consumers organisations and charitable organisations already working with vulnerable groups on the ground providing services in the social sector; this way we use already established channels of social work to adding the energy efficiency and prosumership dimension (e.g., a childcare service for single mothers could add an offer for energy saving). An important part of this process is the involvement of target groups’ representatives already in the design of the engagement strategy through participation in meetings and online discussions, applying a backcasting planning approach.20 Effective and innovative engagement actions are tailored to the target group’s needs. An assessment within the consortium will facilitate a better understanding of consumers’ perception, motivation and behaviour in order to implement different approaches needed to influence them. Market segmentation and taking gender issues into account is considered as a crucial prerequisite in the development of the detailed “concept for marketing campaign” as well as in the “dissemination and exploitation plan”. To digest the effects on consumer behaviour in the pilot projects, this task using questionnaires, interviews and online surveys and assesses the learning curve of the households participating in the pilot projects. We build on Design Research (DR) techniques, including proven storytelling methodology to facilitate acceptance. Grounded in anthropology and sociology, DR’s method focuses on jointly bringing the end user’s perspective into discussion. It provides ways to understand the impact of an initiative or policy on end users. The tools for in-depth informed discussion on the mentioned drivers and barriers include a guide for discussion with background materials and a how-to-manual for the organising consortium members. This method allows the organisers of these meetings and online discussions to have a greater understanding of how people's views change as they are given new information or deliberate on an issue. Each meeting and online discussion is followed up with a feedback and summary session (organised online where possible), so that participants can check and validate points that are being interpreted as the main results. In addition, the chosen approach also allows for the transfer of best practices for the activation of vulnerable consumers among the pilot projects in the making. Based on outcomes of preceding and on-going EU projects with the participation of SCORE partners, and also based on current research, the multi-dimensional factors affecting individual and collective energy choices of each of the three target groups are identified for each pilot case. 17 Mengolini, A. and J. Vasiljevska. (2014). Consumer and community in the future electricity network: an insight from smart grid projects in Europe. Int. Symposium for Next Generation Infrastructure p. 189-193, UCL, London (http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1469416/) 18 Rathnayaka, D. et al. (2011). Identifying Prosumers’ Energy Sharing Behaviours for Forming Optimal Prosumer-Communities, Paper presented at the 2011 International Conference on Cloud and Service Computing. 19 Devine-Wright, P. and Wiersma, B. (2013). Opening up the “local” to analysis: exploring the spatiality of UK urban decentralised energy initiatives. In: Local Environment, vol. 18, No. 10, 1099–1116. 20 Backcasting approaches are planning methods that asks "If we want to attain a certain goal, what actions must be taken to get there?" Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 12 Previous research and innovation activities directly relevant to the project – In a communal context, leveraged financing has already been put to work for RE in the EU-funded project 2020 TOGETHER21, enabling energetic modernization of Torino, Italy. As a low-threshold concept, CSOP financing embraces citizens with low income so far underrepresented in RE. Engaging citizens through ownership increases their knowledge on RE, which in turn will increase their acceptance. Similar efforts were already successfully funded in the WISEPOWER (http://wisepower-project.eu/) project, concerning wind power. Furthermore, additional income from RE production increases tolerance for such projects in one’s “backyard.” The pilot project on rural selfsufficiency, ENSRC22, targeted citizen inclusion in a similar fashion. Building on cooperative principles CSOP financing progresses from there, extending conventional models like in particular RE co-ops in the tradition of previous ALTENER projects, e.g. RESCOOP (http://rescoop.eu/), that promoted citizen participation in RE. Relevant projects of SCORE partners The described approach builds on ten directly related FP7/HORIZON/EU projects dealing with different aspects of RE prosumership, energy efficiency, and security implemented with the participation of our project partners, i.e. MILESECURE-2050, DIMMER, POCACITO, SHAPE-ENERGY, CITYnvest, CITIZENENERGY, ENABLE. EU, EFFICIENCY_2.1, YEFF/SMERGY Caritas StromSpar-Check and Together4Energy. Prof. Lombardi (POLITO), Dr. Kress (CA), Mrs. Potthoff (CARITAS), Dr Galev (CSD), Mr. Demrovski (co2online) and Mrs. Kosińska-Pyter (FedKon), who all have key roles in SCORE have been / are personally involved in these projects and contribute valuable experience from running FP7 and HORIZON projects. The FP7 project MILESECURE-2050 (http://www.milesecure2050.eu, 2013-2015) coordinated by POLITO and directed by Prof. Lombardi aimed to understand and overcome the political, economical and behavioural traits and trends that led Europe to its difficulties in reducing fossil fuel consumption. It analysed possible pathways for the energy transition in EU countries and thus is directly relevant to one of the main objectives of SCORE, i.e. to accelerate the energy transition. Analysing in depth more than 90 successful projects in Europe the project determined the human factor as crucial for this transition dealing among others with potential barriers and sociocultural stress related to the energy transition. The project also published two tools for energy scenarios’ creation, one developed by engineers and one by economists, that analyse, in a holistic way, potentials for the EU energy transition. For SCORE, the results of this project are a concrete starting point in defining social surrounding, market barriers and possible development of energy transition. The FP7 project DIMMER (www.dimmerproject.eu, 2013 – 2016) is also coordinated by POLITO. The DIMMER system integrates BIM and district-level 3D models with real-time data from sensors and user feedback to analyse and correlate buildings’ utilisation and provide real-time feedback about energy-related behaviours; Prof. Lombardi’s role is to support the development of innovative business models. As the project deals with technical problems of smart grids and proposes solutions, it fosters another main objective of SCORE, namely to facilitate the implementation of ICT in order to increase demand flexibility. The project developed tools and algorithms for control, management, and visualisation of energy flows in smart grids that allow real-time visualisation of energy impact and real time control of heating and electric systems, increasing demand-side flexibility. For SCORE, it lays the groundwork for the demand-side flexibility analysis. POCACITO (http://pocacito.eu, 2014 – 2016) developed an evidence-based 2050 roadmap for EU post-carbon cities; Prof. Lombardis role is to support the POCACITO approach using participatory scenario development as a mutual learning and living-lab environment strategy. It facilitates the transition of EU cities to a forecasted sustainable or “post-carbon” economic model. The project focuses on towns, cities, megacities, metropolitan areas, and urban clusters. With its focus on mutual learning it is an ideal starting point for the questions related to co-ownership as a driver for behavioural change to be assessed in SCORE. A connected upcoming project of POLITO is SHAPE-ENERGY “Social Sciences and Humanities for Advancing Policy in European Energy” which develops EU research expertise to accelerate the delivery of the EU Energy Union Strategy. CITYnvest (www.citynvest.eu, 2015 – 2018) is a Horizon 2020 project coordinated by CA that aims at building lasting capacities in local authorities regarding innovative financing models for energy efficiency in the building 21 See https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/2020together. 22 See https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/ensrc. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 13 stock. Via analysing a state-of-the-art overview of best practices with a mature pipeline, CITYnvest implements innovative financing models in three pilot regions [Rhodope (BG), Murcia (ES), and Liege (BE)] and conducts a wide-scale, capacity-building programme in 10 focus countries. In particular, the online tool to help municipalities to find the most suitable financing model, and the “One-Stop Shop on Energy Retrofitting,” provide a link to combine prosumer investments with energy efficiency measures. SCORE incorporates best practices into its analysis and builds upon the experience of the capacity-building programme; as such, CITYnvest will be a potential multiplier for CSOP financing and an additional platform to promote prosumership with cities. CA is a partner of CITIZENENERGY (www.citizenergy.eu, 2014 – 2017), a project that builds on know-how developed within the EU by different organisations and initiatives to implement citizen RE projects – from cooperatives to investment intermediation – and provides them with a European dimension. It promotes synergies between projects, identifies barriers to citizen investment, promotes the European transfer of main business models and, most importantly, matches citizen investors with new RE projects in Europe. For SCORE, this project provides RE prosumer investments with both, possible complementary financing sources as well as a platform for promotion and dissemination. Core aims of co2online’s EU-funded project EFFICIENCY_2.1 (www.myeconavigator.eu, 2013 – 2015) were to support consumers in their purchase decisions by providing up-to-date information about the most energy efficient products on the market and to help them leading an energy efficient and eco-conscious lifestyle. The initiative’s main output was a free of charge smartphone app, ecoGator. The app offers in all 10 countries covered by this campaign an impartial personal advisor for energy-saving shopping and lifestyle choices. ecoGato guides consumers on two different levels: a shopping assistance mode and a day-to-day mode. The specific online expertise and experience are of particular value for SCORE’s “RE-Prosumer Investment Calculator”. YEFF/SMERGY (www.be-smergy.eu, 2014 – 2016), a co2online European energy-saving campaign for young adults from 18-29 years to communicate energy saving potential and encourage energy efficiency measures at home. Through diverse promotions and competitions, the target group was actively engaged in the campaign and informed and motivated others through the use of social networks. A personalized energy check tool enabled them to compare their energy habits with those of others to reach tangible energy-saving results. Special emphasis was placed on young adults who are moving into their own apartment or into a shared-apartment for the first time, as from now on they will be able to see the economic impact of their habits via their electricity and heating bills. SCORE benefits from this experience in particular with regard to campaigning in social networks. CARITAS is the federal coordinator of “Stromspar-Check Kommunal” (Energy savings check municipal, www.stromspar-check.de, since 2008) a project that since 2008 has been made available in 190 German municipalities with 220 000 checked households and a CO2-reduction of more than 401 000 t (2008-2015). The genuine approach involving the training of long-term unemployed as energy consultants and using established channels of social work to add the energy efficiency dimension is crucial to activate vulnerable consumers. Stromspar-Check is one of the few successful projects in the area of activating vulnerable consumers to save energy and changing their behaviour with its approach being recommended for the EU 28 in the ITRE study “Energy Efficiency for Lo-Income Households” of Nov 2016. In particular the experience of two EU projects eclinc (www.ec-linc.info/) and Achieve (www.achieve-project.eu/) investigating the transferability of the Caritas approach to other EU Member States is crucial for SCORE as we are transferring CARITAS’ expertise and approach to our target groups in the pilot projects. CSD is a partner of ENABLE.EU (www.enable-eu.com 2016 – 2019) aiming to define key determinants of individual and collective energy choices in three key consumption areas – transportation, heating & cooling, and electricity – and in the shift to prosumership. The project investigates the interrelations between individual and collective energy choices and their impact on regulatory, technological, and investment decisions. The analysis is based on national household and business surveys in 11 countries as well as research-area-based comparative case studies. It aims to strengthen the knowledge base for energy transition patterns by analysing existing public participation mechanisms, energy cultures, social mobilisation, and scientists’ engagement with citizens. Gender issues and concerns regarding energy vulnerability and affluence will be given particular attention. The focus on gender issues and groups vulnerable to fuel poverty gives SCORE an ample resource of information and research results directly relevant to implementing the consumer activation and inclusion strategy. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 14 FedKon is partner of ASSIST (www.assist2gether.eu 2017 – 2020), a Horizon 2020 project to engage social and energy actors in the creation of an innovative European Network of Vulnerable Consumers Energy Advisors (VCEAs). It offers a twofold approach to actively engaging consumers in the energy market, positively changing their behaviour in relation to energy consumption and to influencing policy design to tackle fuel poverty: a) creating unique and specialized services for vulnerable communities through a network of trained active VCEAs; and b) increasing the knowledge of political stakeholders on consumers’ vulnerability and energy poverty so as to promote the take up of policies to tackle the phenomena. For SCORE, this strategy is directly relevant and complementary to reaching out to underrepresented consumers and in particular to vulnerable groups. 2. Impact 2.1 Expected impacts Fields of delivery The RE prosumer investment in the pilot regions benefit greatly from the sector’s advanced state in technology in recent years. Both for solar energy facilities or wood chip thermal heating systems, proven, practical solutions at the highest technology readiness level exist. Once successfully implemented, the pilot projects, as model RE prosumer investments, will have prepared the ground for replication in interested municipalities, in particular from the group of “follower cities.” As such, our pilot projects push the grounds for a future-proof, smart, ecological, reliable and affordable prosumer energy supply scheme, which at the same time reduces the use of fossil energy sources in the EU contributing to the Energy Transition. Preparing the ground for investment – It is an additional feature of the CSOP financing concept to harness the largely unexploited potential of citizens to invest in renewable energy plants. A fraction of this potential is best illustrated by the unprecedented large share of consumers in the ownership structure of renewables in Germany: By continuing this trend in Germany and spreading it to other Member States, RE prosumership projects can open previously dormant investment opportunities. Enabling widespread capital ownership of citizens in RE projects naturally increases the investment capacity for the RE sector as such. Since RE prosumership investments make projects possible, which would have otherwise faced opposition, they do not crowd out or replace other market participants, and thus expand the renewable building capacity. Furthermore, in addition to the efficiency of its management structure (trust) as well as the stability of its investment strategy (direct involvement in sustainable energy production), CSOP financing constitutes a financial instrument exempt from new regulatory measures, especially from the capital and liquidity requirements (Basel III), which confers on it a considerable attractiveness in financial markets. As a direct impact, we expect an initial investment of EUR 9.03 million for the three pilot projects (for specifics of each pilot see the following sub-chapter, “Energy related impact”). The consortium is in the process of ensuring the involvement of banks/commercial investors (e.g., EIB, Polish Bank Association, Czech-Moravian Guarantee and Development Bank, Unicredit, GLS Bank) to facilitate the financing of the pilot projects, seeking Letters of Support or similar. Building capacities and skills – In addition to those primary impacts, a decentralised ownership structure could further affect the energy sector through its “learning effects.” Proliferating an owner's mind-set in previously mere consumers would create policy opportunities for increased energy efficiency and modernisation in the energy sector. A numerous collective of small owners – pooled through CSOP financing and thus reducing transaction costs and avoiding fragmentation – would hold significant political capital and could help to promote previously difficult topics such as grid extensions. Finally, supported by off- and online dissemination (see esp. online calculator tool) the CSOP’s decentralised structure would trigger a learning process rooted in civil society: • Firstly, consumers becoming owners would lead to an increased awareness of energy issues and offer an incentive for energy efficiency, as energy saved would not only reduce bills but also generate income. • Secondly, as the prosumership model promotes small-scale facilities on a community level, it would entail a local increase in technical skills, both in technical maintenance jobs created through the projects as well as in owners interested in the workings of their capital. As the project aims for a total of 2,650 participating households in the pilot regions and under the assumption that on average, each household consists of two people, we expect at least 5,300 people to be affected by behavioural impacts of co-ownership in RE production (this conservative estimate excludes newly trained technical Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 15 personal as well as the multiplier effect of households influencing their social environment). Additionally the “SCORE Prosumer Investment Calculator” will empower an estimated 10,000 users in the 10-20 “follower cities” (on average 500 per city) to simulate RE investments. Enabling policy – Briefings of national legislative as well as executive bodies in all five project countries will take place in WP6. The already existing fruitful cooperation of the Consortium members on the EU level with the European Parliaments’ ITRE committee will be intensified and expanded to other European governance bodies. In exchange with the ITRE committee, contact has been established with a total of 15 members and advisors, among those the committee’s chair Jerzy Buzek, vice chair Patrizia Toia, as well as Frederick Federlay and Claude Turmes. In approaching national parliaments and ministries in a similar way, the project’s advisory board members will have an integral part. Assembling the former vice president of the European Commission, Günther Verheugen, as well as the president of the European Sustainable Development Observatory and coauthor of the EESC study, “Changing the future of Energy: Civil Society as a main player in renewable energy generation,”23 Lutz Ribbe, provides the project with the necessary edge to go beyond simply addressing those governance bodies by engaging them in the projects’ topic to trigger debate and gather responses of substance. Seeking the dialogue with all five project’s countries’ parliaments as well as with at least one apt national ministry per country, and additionally with the EPs ITRE committee, the Commission and the EESC for a preliminary statement, we expect a final total of at least 15 statements by those various governance bodies. Field of Delivery Project Performance Indicator Quantification Measurement Unit Enabling policy Policies and strategies created/adapted to include sustainable energy issues at all governance levels 15 Number of citations / statements from governance bodies Preparing the ground for investments Cumulative investments made by European consumers in sustainable energy 9.03 Million EUR Building capacities and skills Market stakeholders with increased skills / capabilities / competencies on energy issues 5,300 Number of people with increased capacity The Italian pilot project – The Italian Pilot is located in Susa Valley (TO), an Alpine zone counting about 90,000 inhabitants. The core of the project is substituting existing heating facilities run on diesel oil with new ones using local biomass (wood chips) as a heating source and in some cases insulating the existent buildings.24 Implementation is foreseen in ten communities all situated in Val de Susa summarized in the table below. Municipality Capacity installed (in MW) Households Production (in GWh) Overall investment (in thousand EUR) Public co-financing (in thousand EUR) Private cofinancing (in thousand EUR) Prosumer investment (in thousand EUR) Oulx 0.45 300 0.9 1,200 Conto termico 750 100 350 Bardonecchia 0.5 105 0.42 400 Regional funding 80 100 220 Almese 0.2 170 0.27 240 Conto termico 63 80 97 Meana di Susa 0.13 200 0.2 200 Conto termico 45 50 105 Susa 3 750 3.6 2,900 Conto termico 500 2000 400 Bussoleno 0.8 120 1.1 350 Conto termico 80 100 170 Borgone 0.8 125 1.15 650 Conto termico 200 100 350 Mattie 0.5 50 0.6 400 Conto termico 40 200 160 San Giorio 0.15 200 0.28 140 Regional funding 40 0 100 Novalesa 0.5 3 1 400 Conto termico 150 140 110 Total 7.03 2,203 9.52 6,880 1,948 2,870 2,062 Consorzio Forestale, a well-known company in the Susa Valley founded in 1953 and owned by the municipalities of the zone, coordinating public authorities and private firms in harvesting the woods, develops the project design; La Foresta, a cooperative forestry society founded in 1996 that extended its expertise five years ago to installing and managing heat power plants of small and medium size (20-300 kW) and already operates 0.84 23 Ribbe et al. (2015), http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/eesc-2014-04780-00-04-tcd-tra-en.docx. 24 Energy costs related to building heating in Susa Valley is almost triple than that related to electricity consumption. The transformation of the building into “near zero energy” is subsidized by the “Conto Termico” program that will refund around 60% of the investment. LCOE of off grid diesel generators amounts to 0.5 USD/kWh in average, which is around five times higher than the LCOE of biomass approximately resulting in an 80% price reduction for the benefiting end users. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 16 MW in the Susa Valley implements the installations. The social cooperative AMICO, a well-known non-profit organisation related to Catholic Church reaches out to low-income families involving disabled employees. The Oulx pilot requires the smallest amount of prosumer financing, since the “conto termico” subsidy is already sufficient to start the project (ca. 62% of the total EUR 1.2 million investment) while in the other nine projects, implementation partly relies on the participation of consumers: All projects are partially subsidised by public funding and co-financed by private investments; the remaining amount will be covered by the participating consumers using the CSOP financing technique. A parallel aim is to decrease the primary energy consumption for heating, e.g. in Oulx for the biggest local primary school (P.P. Lambert school).25 All measures will be explained to the end users of the buildings, to improve the synergy between heating systems and consumer behaviour. It is planned to reach out to more than 2,200 households in the ten communities, with the heating produced from added capacity estimated at a total of 9.52 GWh. The Czech pilot project – Litoměřice, a municipality of 25,000 located northwest from Prague, develops since 2000 photovoltaic projects. Today 1.2 MWp installed capacity on private houses and 150 kW on public buildings covers an area of 3,500 m2. PV facilities were combined with energy savings measures and energy refurbishing of buildings, reducing energy consumption in these buildings to low energy (50 kwh/m2) and passive energy (15 kwh/m2) standards. The project was co-financed from Structural Fund under Integrated Regional Operational Programme (IROP) and the national Green for Savings scheme. The Czech pilot project envisages an extension on public and private buildings with a new capacity of 1.5 MWp, securing a higher level of energy self-sufficiency for the households and the municipality. The newly installed capacity is expected to be three times higher than the total annual electricity consumption of the 250 households involved in the pilot with the excess production to be consumed by public and administration buildings. The Pilot will be co-financed from (a) external sources: Operational Programme Environment (OPE), IROP, national scheme Green for Savings; (b) internal sources: municipal subsidy for solar collectors and Energy Saving Fund; and (c) consumers to the estimated amount of up to EUR 3,400 per household. It is expected that the external sources will cover some 40% of the investments, municipal subsidies 30%, and consumers the remaining 30%. The Polish pilot project – Słupsk located in Pomerania with a population of 90,000 aspires to eliminate energy poverty and become one of the cleanest cities as regard to the EU/WHO air quality standards in Poland.26 The sustainability strategy includes increasing energy efficiency in buildings and removing individual coal stoves (especially for poorest citizens), promoting non-motorised transport and low-emission public transport. Already 0.18 MWp PV facilities were installed on public buildings financed partially from the Structural Fund under Pomeranian Regional Operational Programme (PROP 2007 – 2014). All buildings additionally underwent energy savings measures and were refurbished through financial support by the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (NFEP&WM) and Voivodship Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (VFEP&WM). Recently Słupsk initiated a joint project with IKEA increasing energy efficiency in communal buildings and households (exchange of lighting, energy audits etc.) – the first of this kind in Poland. So far 5,000 LED lamps were installed lowering the need for power of PV energy installations and resulting in some 0.25-0.5 million PLN/year of “negawatts” savings, monies to facilitate investments in new PV installations. As of now only very few private buildings in Słupsk – mostly owned by housing cooperatives – have solar panels. It is envisaged that the Polish pilot project will add 0.78 MWp to the existing PV installations involving prosumer investments of at least 200 households. For citizens wanting to equip their houses with PV installations and energy efficiency measures the city plans a special credit program without own contribution of citizens taking into account income-levels based on a Municipal Revolving Fund with a compulsory energy efficiency audit to maximise the outcome. The so-called “Green Point" offering advisory services for inhabitants and the Smart Energy Manager will reach out to activate the consumers. Słupsk will apply to receive additional funds from PROP 2014–2020, VFEP&WM in Gdańsk, as well as a national scheme for prosumers by the NFEP&WM. 25 Both envelope and heating system of the building are involved: On one hand external insulation on roof and walls will be installed; on the other hand the – then reduced – heating consumption will be provided by a new wood chips based heating station (with boiler certificated by EN 303-05:2012). The refurbishments together will permit to transform the school into a near zero energy building. 26 According to a recent study by the WHO and the OECD, Polish cities are amongst the most polluted in Europe. WHO Regional Office for Europe, OECD (2015): Economic cost of the health impact of air pollution in Europe: Clean air, health and wealth. Copenhagen. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 17 Energy-related impact – In each of the three pilot regions existing projects will be extended under consideration of the regional environmental and legal conditions, resulting in the following base calculations: • In the Susa Valley (IT), the RE installed capacity will be with biomass power increased by 7 MW (increase by about ten times). According to the experience with the existing facilities, the price per kW capacity is decreasing with growing size requiring an overall investment of EUR 6.8 million. • In Litoměřice (CZ), the capacity of the existing solar power installations will be increased by 1.5 MWp (increase by about 125 %). According to the experiences with the existing facility, the price per kWp for this capacity currently amounts to EUR 1,000, requiring an investment of EUR 1.5 million. • In Słupsk (PL), the capacity of the existing solar power plant will be increased by 0.78 MWp (increase by about 433 %). According to the experiences with the existing facility, the price per kWp capacity is currently EUR 1,000, requiring an investment of EUR 0.78 million. These investments cumulatively will trigger an energy production from renewable sources of 10.97 GWh annually, thus replacing the equivalent amount of fossil energy. This consists of the following assumptions: a) The planned expansion of the biomass power plant in Susa Valley (IT) will result in an additional 1.3 MWh per installed MW annually (9.52 GWh RE in total). Around 2,200 households are expected to participate. The energy produced from biomass will decrease the fuel usage (diesel oil) and the energy cost; yearly annual saving will account to around 800,000 EUR facilitating to refinance the investment. b) The energy output of the solar power plant depends on the local sun hours and its intensity; for the Czech Republic and Poland, we can expect to realise 1,000 kWh per installed kWp annually.27 Assuming an average household consumption of about 3,000 kWh per year: • Installing an additional 1.5 MWp in Litoměřice (CZ) resulting in an annual production of 1.5 GWh, could cover the demand of ca. 550 households. It is expected to engage 250 households in the project. Subtracting their self-consumption the excess production amounts to 1.1 GWh / year (74 % of total production) and will be fed into the grid to help refinance the investment costs. • In Słupsk (PL), the additional installed capacity of 0.78 MWp results in an annual production of 0.78 GWh and could cover the demand of around 350 households, while at least 200 are expected to participate. In this scenario the excess production of 0.35 GWh / year (40% of total production) will bed fed into the grid at a remuneration based on a 0,8 coefficient rate (each kWh fed to the grid in summer provides a prosumer with 0,8 kWh from the grid in winter) to contribute refinance the investment costs. To facilitate CSOP financing in the pilots and in particular to include low-income households we envisage public private partnerships in the financing sector. An example of this approach is the agreement between IKEA Poland and the city of Słupsk (now available at https://ikea.geo-solar.pl;) which not only offers 0% credit financing for acquiring photovoltaic installations to citizens but also a special discount program (“-15% dla klubowiczow”). As one of the courses of changed consumer behaviour, we expect the consumers – as prosumers – to save electricity within the estimates of user awareness impact, as analysed by co2online (2017).28 The average estimates of reduced electricity consumption is about 14%. On average, a household consumes about 3,000 kWh per year; baseline figures for each pilot project country and selected target groups are updated in the first month of the project and included in D2.1.29 Thus, the remaining electricity consumption amounts to 3,000 / 1.14 = 2,632 kWh. Finally, the saved amount per household is 3,000 – 2,632 = 368 kWh per year. As the three pilot projects involve a total of 2,650 households, the total amount of saved energy is 368 * 2,650 = 975,200 kWh = 0.975 GWh per year. Taking into account an EU-wide energy production efficiency of around 40%30, the primary energy savings of the reduced electricity consumption add up to a total of 975,200 kWh * (1/0.4) = 2.438 GWh. At the same time the primary energy savings of the renewable energy production turn out to be 10.97 GWh * (1/0.4) = 27.425 GWh. The total sum of primary energy savings is 2.438 GWh + 27.425 GWh = 29.863 GWh. 27 See Kost et al. (2013). 28 Cf. CO2Online (2017) funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, http://www.die-stromsparinitiative.de/stromkosten/stromverbrauch-pro-haushalt/index.html. 29 Cf. CO2Online (2016), funded by the German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, http://www.die-stromsparinitiative.de/stromkosten/stromverbrauch-pro-haushalt/2-personen-haushalt/infografik-2-2-personen-haushalt/index.html. 30 For savings in kWh electricity we apply a default coefficient of 2.5 reflecting these 40% as in previous H2020-EE calls. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 18 Project Performance indicator Quantification Measurement unit Energy savings triggered by the project within its duration 29.86 GWh / year Primary energy savings triggered (GWh / year) Renewable Energy production triggered by the project within its duration 10.97 GWh / year Renewable Energy production triggered (GWh / year) In case of unexpected but possible changes in national regulatory frameworks (e.g. as regard to support schemes and subsidies for RE investments), SCORE – drawing on the partners’ competencies – will adapt the financing plan of the concerning pilot project to these changes. Although citizens in the pilot regions already signalled their interest to participate, problems gathering the necessary capital might occur in which case the amount of the investment could be decreased as all three pilots are scalable. Of course, flexibly responding to unfavourable developments by adjusting financing structure or investment volume might reduce the expected impact. Independently of the impact described above, SCORE also seeks to respond to the European Buildings Initiative (part of COM(2016) 860 final “Clean Energy For All Europeans”) and in particular to the challenge to develop flexible EE and RE financing platforms at national or regional level targeting grants towards vulnerable consumers as laid out in its annex. In this context an additional lever for both EE and prosumership is expected from combining EE measures with prosumer investments – a frequent practice also in the projects our pilots are based on. Therefore the dimension of synergies between prosumer investments and energy refurbishing of buildings is included in WP2 and WP3; of course the implementation of the pilot projects does not depend on them. 2.2 Measures to maximise impact SCORE triggers the implementation of three pilot RE prosumer investments facilitated by the CSOP financing technique, putting emphasis on the inclusion of vulnerable and so far underrepresented groups. A core element of the project is to initiate further projects following the positive examples of the pilots. For this multiplier effect, disseminating the potential of CSOP financing, concrete assistance for RES investment implementation and exchange of experience, as well as stimulating debates on the promotion of consumer investment in RES, are key to success. The dissemination and exploitation plan covers two successive layers: 1. We reach stakeholders involved in RE prosumer investment projects, i.e. municipalities, consumers (individuals, energy cooperatives, small businesses, etc.) and their organisations as well as civil society organisations and SMEs operating in the field of RES: (a) in the three pilot regions (IT/PL/CZ) through the “SCORE dialogue path”, i.e., continuous contact with the consumers – Contact will not only consist of single visits to websites and consultation through online tools, but also through a regular, personalized contact with the consumer. At various points of the campaign, the user is given the opportunity to sign up for the sending of regular information about energy efficiency and possible savings via E-mail (see T6.2); and (b) in other municipalities from the five project countries, as well as from the other 23 Member States through our “Follower Cities” approach – A series of events (workshops and seminars) as well as webinar training sessions for partners’ network are organised to scale-up the dissemination potential and involve community groups from different fields at local, regional, national, and international levels. 2. We also cover a wider public across the EU through our communication activities – As the project has wide implications on civil society in the context of the energy transition, in particular, in view of the role of the prosumer on the European energy markets, raising awareness and placing the recommendations of the project on the policy agenda at local, regional, national, and European levels is important. The involvement of a high number of end-users along with partners specialised in communication and dissemination (CA as an association of municipalities and co2Online as a consumer organisation for the promotion of RE and EE as well as FORESTA, IEO, and PORSENNA as service providers to consumers, energy cooperatives and small businesses and CARITAS and FedKon to underrepresented groups of consumers) ensure optimal dissemination and exploitation of project results. We estimate that additional to the three pilot municipalities activating 2,650 households the network of Val di Susa will reach out to about 20,000 consumers while through the Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 19 five national seminars we reach about 1,000 local communities and municipalities which in turn reach out to ca. 10,000 consumers31 as well as 100 SMEs operating in the field of RE. The dissemination and exploitation capabilities of the SCORE consortium are one of the key strengths of this proposal. All consortium members are committed to communication and advertisement of the project. We will use a variety of channels for the communication, taking into account cost-effectiveness of each channel and their suitability to different target audiences. Key to this strategy at national and European levels are: • Climate Alliance (CA) – a network of 1,700 local authorities in 26 European countries, CA reaches a large number of municipalities, districts, regions etc., committed to implementing the energy transition on their territories and fully deploying the RE potential. As coordinator of the Covenant of Mayors capacity building and helpdesk activities, CA is in close contact with its 6,900 signatories. CA also holds an annual international conference with more than 250 representatives from local authorities from all over Europe, and a dedicated working group on climate financing gathering more than 30 of its most active members. CA is part of EU energy policy stakeholder networks, e.g., the Coalition for Energy Savings and the Community Energy group. Close cooperation with and support by the other important city network “Energy Cities” is an additional lever for SCORE (see letter of support). • co2Online – focuses on online campaigns and interactive advisory services, including comprehensive mobile applications (iOS and Android) for the advice on energy efficiency and modernization, as well as on extensive co-operation agreements. Around its online activities co2online designs media campaigns comprising inter alia public relations, events and printed matter as well as email marketing campaigns. Especially the campaign “Die Stromsparinitiative” is coordinated by co2online addressing German households to reduce their electricity consumption. Within this campaign the web based StromCheck and the print format “Stromspiegel” (http://www.stromspiegel.de) have been successfully established with more than 140,000 users annually. SCORE can build up on these available products and more broadly on the expertise and experience of co2online. • EUV (Kelso-Professorship) – next to its teaching and research activities, the Kelso-Professorship established a wide academic network of over 60 individual cooperating researchers from more than 30 countries (50% lawyers, 50% economists). For the past 15 years, the Kelso Professorship has been active in policy advice to the European Commission and Parliament on comparative law, civil law, consumer protection law, privatisation law, and financial participation of consumers and employees. Next to landmark publications and online activities (website, social media), EUV’s experts are present within the media (radio and TV interviews). For popularizing its projects, the Kelso Professorship uses different attractive formats, such as animated videos and interviews with experts. This powerful dissemination team promotes local action for global sustainability and supports cities: to involve consumers in innovative RE prosumer financing; to become sustainable, resource-efficient and low carbon; and to develop an inclusive, green urban economy. Through the contacts of our international Advisory Board, we involve members of leading organisations and platforms that will allow disseminating the projects’ results in the networks of civil society all around Europe. As such, SCORE provides a new vision for RES investments that allows for direct cooperation between municipalities, consumers, and third-party investors at national and European levels. It supplies a strategy and a toolkit for local authorities and communities to collaborate with citizens/ consumers to tackle the major challenges of energy transition, such as underinvestment and acceptance. a) Dissemination and exploitation of results The dissemination of the project outcomes will be carried out through a dedicated work package (WP6) that is closely interlinked with all other work packages to achieve the widest possible dissemination of information at both of the mentioned layers. A backbone of the SCORE project is the plan for dissemination and exploitation of the project's results to be implemented in association with consumers and municipalities to maximise the impact of the coordination and support action throughout all Work Packages. This plan, as introduced in WP6, follows the “Guide to successful communication” of the European Commission, is based on the summary 31 The underlying assumption is that we activate 10%, i.e. 100 municipalities to take action reaching about 100 citizens/consumers each. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 20 provided in this section and will be compiled by co2Online as the responsible task leader. Main target groups of the dissemination and exploitation plan are: • National, regional and local public bodies and relate networks of municipalities; • Consumers, consumer associations, energy agencies and independent energy advise services; • Energy utilities and cooperatives, housing property companies; • Association and clubs, NGOs and not for profit initiatives; • Academic and scientific level. In particular individual consumers, consumer associations, and energy cooperatives collaborate with local authorities in RES investments in each country to contribute ideas and feedback on the development of CSOPfinancing to get involved in the pilot implementation and to share their experiences with other communities. Over the lifetime of the project, different types of events adjusted to the targeted audience will ensure direct communication, e.g. seminars, webinars, workshops and trainings for consumers and representatives of municipalities in the partner countries; conferences for stakeholders, scholars, and the general public in partners’ countries and at the EU level; national dissemination seminars to enhance cooperation between local communities, consumer associations and cooperatives, as well as commercial investors and financing institutions (all planned events are listed in Section 3.1). To reach municipalities, local authorities and policy makers at national and EU-level as well as consumers in the pilot regions, in adjacent municipalities and in the partner countries we resort to CAs multilingual website with section on urban climate financing instruments, their experience in webinars from H2020 projects esp. CITYnvest as well as co2online expertise in online campaigning. In the pilot regions and adjacent municipalities our local parterns Litoměřice, Słupsk, CFAVS complement this expertise by municipal websites, local newspapers and TV channels, information and advisory centres as well as “Energy days” organised to raise awareness of EE and RE. Examples for planned local media coverage are: news on pilot projects in local newspapers (e.g. Valsusa Oggi) & TV channels (e.g. TV Slupsk); video materials on prosumership on the municipal websites; project brochures / flyers in information centres, such as Green Point in Słupsk. Our three RE consultants – IEO, PORSENNA, and FORESTA have a large network of local clients, SMEs and municipalities implementing RE projects. Additionally IEO provides a Web-based software for prosumers, a blog on RE as well as postgraduate studies “RE-Investments” to reach interested consumers. On a more broader scale we plan: • Regularly updated information on the project and its activities on the CA and the Covenant of Mayors website, reaching together more than 7,000 local and regional authorities; • Participation in the Sustainable Energy Week in Brussels (3,000 participants each year), and the European Week of Cities and Regions; • Dissemination conferences and meetings with municipal representatives at the CA Annual International Conference and the CA German National Conference; • Webinar for follower cities (example with over 300 views: http://citynvest.eu/content/watch-citynvestteam- sharing-experience-webinars) and consumers, their organisations and citizen energy projects; • National dissemination seminars in the five partner countries at occasion of national event of our partners; • Dissemination conferences and meetings with consumer organisations from partner network; • Exchange workshop back-to-back with annual Citizen Energy Congress in Warsaw, Poland. With regard to previously underrepresented groups (women and vulnerable groups) we resort to the specific expertise and experience of CARITAS (EnergieSparCheck) and AMICO with their approach of outreach social work and FedKon through disseminating project results at a low-threshold level, e.g. brochures, flyers for consumers. These efforts are support by CSD on a day-to-day basis with backup information and through the “Inclusive CSOP financing workshop” in Frankfurt, Germany with representatives of the Consortium, pilot cities, relevant experts and representatives of the targeted consumers etc., ca. 50 participants. co2online finally boosts these activities with online offers and through social media channels tailored to the specific target group. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 21 Focus: Website and online “SCORE Prosumer Investment Calculator” All project results, relevant background information on consumer investments in RES, especially with regard to the regulatory environment and best practices, as well as tools, will be published on a designated website. This SCORE website will provide (1) a database containing analysis reports, guidelines, prospects, and sample calculations, as well as (2) an online calculator tool that can also be embedded into any other website. An off-line version of the “SCORE Prosumer Investment Calculator” has already been developed and tested by EUV for Germany; furthermore, the “plug-in” programming (http://cetreps.3pc.de/app_dev.php/calculatorform) as well as the country comparison tool technique (http://efp-virtual.intercentar.de/countryreport/) have already been successfully implemented by EUV in a Pilot Project for DG MARKT32: The online calculator will enable potential prosumer-investors to make a scenario analysis for any kind of possible scenario (encompassing wind/biomass/ hydro/solar regimes, amortisation settings, subsidy law issues and, e.g., turbine/biomass/hydro technology/solar cell specifics). Regular updates of the information are managed centrally through the back end. Updates are automatically pushed to the front end on the host websites without risk of human error. Lines of communication are as short as possible, which results in a quick response to change. Updates are automatically implemented without further maintenance of the web application. Development of the web-based tool (plug-in/widget) – When consumers wish to become prosumers among other obstacles they face the financial hurdle of the cost of assessing the feasibility of prosumer projects in their communities. The “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” provides them with an easy-to-generate preliminary assessment of their project and enables them to simulate different scenarios for the planned investment. In this way they can avoid sunk costs resulting from buying external expertise when the initial assessment of a given project is negative. To effectively empower consumers to become prosumers this online tool is tailored to consumers online user-habits and in particular the needs of vulnerable groups. The calculator has three elements that build upon each other: first the database with its pull-down-menus (see Figure 2); second the window with the results and its deep analysis tools (see Figure 3); and third a project comparison tool. Figure 2: 32 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/150828-study-for-dg-markt_en. pdf; http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/company-law/corporategovernance/ index_en.htm. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 22 Essential prerequisites for successful implementation of the “SCORE Prosumer Investment Calculator” are design and conceptual planning. The complex interconnections between the data sets are processed to be easily and intuitively queried and understood by users. Complex calculations are performed in the background, with the user not being overwhelmed with information at first sight. On the landing page, the user is initially required to determine few assumptions like the choice of the country, the RE technology, its type and local conditions. To make usage easier, the starting page first provides background information corresponding to the initial assumptions chosen, e.g. the capacity of the chosen power plant is displayed. The second page provides the project’s results. The most important and intuitive calculation results are displayed immediately; for a more detailed outcome, the user has the opportunity to subsequently look into all related financial aspects step by step. A range of data, relating to operating costs, cash flows, credit repayments, tax burden, and financial ratios is provided (also available in the form of figures). For a more intuitive usage, sliders are integrated, allowing the user to dynamically change parameters (i.e. inflation rate, number of participants, etc.) online (dragging the sliders with a mouse). In this way, laymen without specific expertise and technological know-how get an impression of the impact of changing a parameter immediately. In a third stage, the user has the opportunity to load the project data into a cache. Afterwards, he can create new calculations in order to compare them. For making this tool useable with easy entry, the third stage will offer a variety of analysis tools and present the most important results automatically. Overall, the “SCORE Prosumer Investment Calculator” employs all research results of all different countries, providing the user not only with the possibility for comparison between countries and different sources of RE, but also with a wide range of parameters to simulate different economic environments. Figure 3: Technical concept, programming, and implementation – The basic layout will be implemented in a crossbrowser compatible HTML-based template. All other templates will be built onto it to ensure a uniform interface. To define fonts, colours, and layouts central CSS sheets compliant to W3C standards will be used. Browsing, including links, data creation, and the naming of individual HTML pages, will be based on HTML. According to current standards the source code is structured and commented to be easily understood by third parties. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 23 Content integration – Previously delivered and verified Excel tables will be integrated into the application. The aim is in hosting, data maintenance, and presentation for a provider, with the possibility of having other providers, possibly partners, implementing the calculator as a widget on their websites. To expand the use of the calculator, it is possible to further enhance the transferability of the application as a widget or plugin by the implementation of: (1) an API to access the existing database; (2) a responsive layout supporting various devices ranging from desktop computers to smartphones; and (3) individually customized widget graphics. Publications As part of the dissemination of project results, SCORE partners publish the main project results as well as relevant content on associated topics in RE-related journals. Our publication strategy includes different types of articles including project presentation, review articles, case studies, and more general analytical approaches, as this strategy allows publishing results and findings from the project already in an early stage. Accordingly, articles in an early stage will have the character of project presentations and review articles that introduce the topic of SCORE and the current status quo to a broader audience. These types of publications will be followed by case studies that subsume the experiences and findings from the pilot projects. Finally, more general analyses will recap the overall findings and through this foster the dissemination of SCORE. co2Online as the WP6 leader will ensure that all contents produced within the project (articles, presentations, videos, etc.) will be uploaded on the project webpage and archived in repositories of the partner institutions (green way), however, considering the potential embargo set by the publishers. Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/) is particularly suitable also for materials other than journal articles. As part of its Open-Access Strategy the EUV also offers the opportunity to archive publications in its own repository Opus4 (https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4- euv/home). Analogously to Zenodo, Opus4 can be harvested by the search browser OpenAire. Researchers also upload working papers and publications in the Social Science Research Network (http://www.ssrn.com/en/), which is the most important open access repository in the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Concerning scientific publication the project follows an open access policy and has planned adequate resources in the budget for financing potential open-access publication fees (gold open access). In particular, publications on the following topics in the following RES related journals are scheduled: Publication type Title/ Topic Relevant International Journals (Publisher) Review articles / surveys 1.) „Key factors determining conditions for the successful implementation of RE prosumer investments – An analysis on national and local levels in the six countries” (five partner countries of SCORE) 2.) “Best practices for RE prosumer investments across the EU” 3.) “An overview on underrepresented / vulnerable groups of consumers in the context of RE prosumer investments” 1a. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; 1b. Renewable Energy; 1c. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions (all: Elsevier); 2a. Int. Journal of Energy Research; 2b.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy & Environment (all: Wiley&Ss); 3. International Journal of Green Energy (Taylor and Francis); 4. Energy, Sustainability and Society (Springer Science); 5. Sustainability (MDPI Open Access Publishing) Case studies from the pilot projects 1.) “Structural problems & weaknesses of prosumership in the context of national regulatory conditions” 2.) “Local engagement strategies in (pilot) municipalities to activate vulnerable consumer groups” 3.) “The involvement of previously underrepresented / vulnerable consumers – Examples in IT,PL,CZ” 4.) “The implementation of CSOP financing in different countries” 5.) “An analysis of consumers’ readiness become prosumers and to increase demand side flexibility” 1a. Energy Policy; 1b. Energy Research and Social Science; 1c. Renewable Energy (all: Elsevier); 2. Sustainable Development (Wiley&Ss); 3. International Journal of Green Energy (Taylor and Francis); 4. Energy, Sustainability and Society (Springer Science); 5a. Sustainability; 5b. Energies (all: MDPI Open Access Publishing) Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 24 General analyses 1.) “Strategies for the inclusion of so far underrepresented consumer groups to facilitate prosumership” 2.) “Consumers’ readiness to actively engage in CSOP projects and to increase demand side flexibility” 3.) “Potentials to reduce energy consumption by raising awareness of citizens and actively engaging consumers in RE projects” 4.) “Policy options and policy recommendation to promote prosumer investments in RES at the national and the EU level” 1a. Applied Energy; 1b. Energy Policy; 1c. Energy (The International Journal); 1d. Renewable Energy (all: Elsevier); 2. Sustainable Development (Wiley&Ss); 3. International Journal of Green Energy (Taylor and Francis); 4. Energy, Sustainability and Society (Springer Science); 5a. Sustainability; 5b. Energies (all: MDPI Open Access Publishing) In addition, the following national journals address RE-related topics and are suited for the above mentioned articles: France – Systemes Solaires, Le Journal des Énergies Renouvelables; Le Journal de l'Éolien; Le Journal du Photovoltaique. Germany – Et-Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen; Ökologisches Wirtschaften; Energie + Zukunft. Italy – Rivista di Studi sulla Sostenibilita; Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment. Poland – GLOBEnergia; Czysta Energia; Odnawialne Źródła Energii; Acta Energetica. Bulgaria – Energy Review; Economic Thought; Economic Studies; Utilities. Czech Republic – Pro města a obce; Svaz měst a obcí ČR. Handling of data, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Exploitation All matters related to confidentiality, publication, dissemination, IPR issues, access rights to the ownerships and exploitation of the results will be defined in the Consortium Agreement33 to be established before the beginning of the project and approved by all partners. The partners will draw on university internal IPR expertise in their own legal department as well as – if necessary – on external IPR consulting. In the context of WP6 the main legal partner of the project, i.e. EUV, has the task of identifying project results with potential for industrial exploitation and of monitoring IPR implementation during the lifetime of the action to be discussed with university internal and external IPR experts, in case a concrete exploitation by third parties is envisaged. A dedicated budget for data curation and preservation for a period of five years after the end of the project is foreseen. The following table summarises exploitable project results and IPR protection. Project Result Planned Exploitable Results (Deliverables) Related Intellectual Property Rights Type of Protection and Suitable (Geographical) Scope of Protection Pilot project assessment Report on needs and resources of municipalities (D3.1) Data of concerned participants protected Confidentiality agreement between partners concerning business know-how Manual: Avoiding rebound effects & energy refurbishing (D3.1) Copyright of authors on text Copyright (international protection / open source optional) Pilot prosumer investments Due diligence (D2.2) Data of concerned participants protected Confidentiality agreement between partners concerning business know-how. Feasibility study (D2.3) Copyright of authors Copyright (international protection / open source optional) “SCORE RE Prosumer Investment Calculator” Online interactive platform with underlying database for online calculator tool (D6.6, D6.7, D6.8) Right sui generis protecting the producer of database EU-wide protection by Directive 96/9/EG Software design, program and graphic design of the online calculator tool (D6.6, D6.7, D6.8) Copyright on software Trade mark on name; copyright on software & layout (international protection) Confidentiality agreement between partners concerning business know-how Transferability analysis Manual to activate and include vulnerable consumers (D4.4) Copyright of authors Copyright (international protection) 33 http://www.desca-2020.eu/fileadmin/content/Documents/20140508_DESCA_2020.pdf. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 25 Project Result Planned Exploitable Results (Deliverables) Related Intellectual Property Rights Type of Protection and Suitable (Geographical) Scope of Protection Documentation of CSOP approach “How to” Technical Paper on implementation of inclusive CSOP financing (D4.4) Copyright on text Copyright (international protection / open source optional) Report on impact of consumer co-ownership in pilots (D5.1) Copyright on text Protected Data Copyright (international protection / open source optional) Webinars Feedback Webinar for “follower cities” (D4.4) Copyright on contents Copyright (international protection / open source optional) Audiovisual material Animated videos (D6.9) Copyright of artist Copyright (international protection); rights for exploitation and use Image films (D6.9) Copyright of screenplay, director, actors Copyright (international protection); rights for exploitation and use New results and findings produced during the project depend in part on the expertise field of each partner and will advance the state of the art relative to the beginning of the project. Thus, the guidelines regarding IPR will be the following: • In line with the Annotated General Grant Agreement (Ch. 4, Art. 26), significant new results worth protecting will be the property of the partner(s) carrying out the work (individual ownership or joint ownership). • In line with the Annotated General Grant Agreement (Ch. 4, Art. 28), where these results/foreground are capable of industrial or commercial application, the owning partner(s) will be responsible for providing adequate and effective protection (patent or copyright and subsequent licensing for exploitation). Any direct and/or indirect market use by a partner co-owner of the joint new project results shall be subject to financial compensation being paid to the co-owner(s). Of all project results the “SCORE RE-Prosumer Investment Calculator” offers the most complex exploitation options. Programmed as a web-based plug-in, the prototype of the online calculator can be easily integrated into an unlimited number of existing websites. Since wellestablished information channels used by the target groups have a multiplier effect, the coverage is potentially wide and the cost low. The service could be offered free of charge or there could be a service fee. Willingness to pay for a service generally depends on how much the customer values the service. Hence, the fee level could limit use if it is too high. In principle, there are two options: • Free service for all data would result in the widest usage. The financing of a no-fee structure could be done through a central institution or by the local agents that implement the tool on their website. • A more preferable option might be for users to partially pay for the service that they actually use. For instance, general information on RE prosumer investments as well as the simulator function of the calculator might be provided free of charge. However, access to the data underlying the calculator might be made available only by subscription over a certain period. Users requiring a higher level of information and who wish to download this data (e.g. municipalities or SMEs that actually plan to implement a RE prosumer scheme) and make it available to their accountants or tax consultants would be charged a fee. The second option seems preferable, as it provides a self-funding system, making external funding after the lifetime of the project no longer necessary while ensuring sustainability of the tool. The fee could be digressive with an increasing number of users resulting in a potentially larger impact over time as more and more RE prosumer projects emerge. Of course, once the online calculator is optimised and possibly extended in its functionality – after a testing phase – IPR can be licensed to interested municipalities or other third parties. b) Communication activities The second activity in WP6 is to develop a detailed and on-going media communication plan for promoting the action itself and its results to a multitude of audiences, including the media and the public. It will contain the time scale of dissemination and PR measures, related formats and main messages and practical guidance for press work and define specific responsibilities for all partners. The communication plan will be created collaboratively by the Project Consortium during the first 4 months of the project and will cover the communication Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 26 methods to be used, the audiences to be targeted and the dissemination messages. The following communication activities in this regard are planned: • Writing press releases (at least 3 per partner); • Writing articles for related websites, blogs and magazines; • Establishing links to existing communication campaigns of consumer / environmental organisations, to maximise media exposure. WP6 with the overall aim to facilitate CSOP financing and promote prosumership as well as to support evidence- based policymaking and an open societal dialogue, acknowledges communication as a continuous and multi-way process of primary importance from the beginning of the project to be continued beyond its duration: • The proposed communication activities will increase users to SCORE online calculator and websites; strengthen consumer knowledge and awareness of energy efficiency and financing measures. • Policy makers at local, regional, national, and European levels will be presented with the outcomes / recommendations of the SCORE project. Both practical outcomes of the pilot projects as well as the overall research results of SCORE are published in academic journals but also in other lead print media, giving reference to the scientific publications; think tanks and policy advice institutions are supplied with briefs and background information. Regular press releases, and newsletters provide the project with the necessary visibility in the industrial community. Online activities are based on a dedicated project website. Additionally, all SCORE partners are present on the internet and active in social media (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) and use their already established channels for promotion of the project and its outcomes. To cover all target audiences with maximum impact, SCORE mobilises a set of specific tools, already established by consortium members and proven successful depending on the targeted audience (see WP6). Concrete examples of communication activities are summarised in the table below. Partners Specific Access to Target Groups and Main Communication Channels Communication activities in SCORE and Expected Impact Longstanding cooperation with all EU institutions in policy advice to reach EU level decision-makers CA - Bilateral meetings, policy/stakeholder conferences, stakeholder consultations, position papers; - “Community Energy” group and “Coalition for Energy Savings” - Mapping of policy options and development of policy briefs; - Dissemination of policy briefs and recommendations to policy makers and other stakeholders via membership in coalitions and groups, bilateral meetings and participation in conferences such as European Sustainable Energy Week. EUV - Videos in previous projects (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v =5BjQtjkKX10 www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgrX _FtNEkY); - Expert and academic network in all EU Member States as a multiplier - Policy briefs and advocacy with policy makers such as Commissioners and MEPs, DG Officers and representatives of national administrations; - Bilateral and/or multilateral meetings with policy makers such as Commissioners and MEPs, Commission Officers from various DGs and representatives of the national administrations; - Participation in scientific congresses. Worldwide network of architects, planners, engineers, sociologists, lawyers, economists, to reach academe POLI TO - H2020 network, newsletter - Project website from previous and current H2020 projects; - Workshops on urban development in other projects, incl. POCACITO; - Curricula: urban studies, spatial planning, built environment, regional development, etc. - Dissemination at annual urban development conference “Urbanpromo” in Italy (over 2,000 participants, 150,000 website views); - Promote project materials / results within other on-going projects (e.g. SHARE-ENERGY). - Dissemination via RE networks: EERA- Energy EU Research Alliance, AIREN - Alleanza Italiana per la Ricerca sull’Energia and SEEIT- EU Strategic Partnership. EUV - Regular participation at diverse scientific congresses; - Publications high-ranking journals. - Publicizing results at scientific congresses (min. 5 each year); - “CSOP financing workshop” with Consortium representatives, pilot cities, renowned lawyers, economists, ca. 50 participants. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 27 3. Implementation 3.1 Work plan – Work packages and deliverables The SCORE project is composed of six work packages: - Work package 1: Project management - Work package 2: Preparation of pilot projects, and legal and financial due diligence - Work package 3: Implementation of pilot projects - Work package 4: Empowering consumers and follower cities - Work package 5: Enabling policies on prosumership - Work package 6: Dissemination, communication and networking SCORE starts with the kick-off meeting as part of WP1 as its first milestone (M1) where – with all partners present – last minute developments can be taken account of including them in the decision-making process. Furthermore all project partners meet in two Consortium Committee meetings (month 19) and at the occasion of the final conference (month 32). In between the six WP leaders meet in two Steering Committee meetings at the occasion of the exchange workshop (month 12) and the last of the national seminars (month 27). WP2 being in large parts an on-the-desk assignment with limited involvement of consumers prepares the pilot implementation and includes the confirmation of agenda setting in each pilot municipality as second milestone (M2, month 4). The Initiation of the local operating process, in particular the granting of necessary permits (M3, month 12), are the milestone of WP3 as the core of pilot implementation. One exchange workshop between the pilot cities on development of action plans (month 12) and one meeting in each pilot project (around month 15) with experts from the consortium and consumers ensure swift pilot implementation. WP4 tracks the involvement of consumers – in particular of our specific target groups – in interaction with WP3 and implements the capacity building program to empower consumers across the EU; milestones are the launch of the “SCORE Prosumer-Investment Calculator” on our follower cities’ websites (M4, month 20) and the “Inclusive CSOP financing workshop” (M5, month 27) where the results of our inclusion strategy are digested. WP5 building on these results provides policy recommendations / advice to enable policies promoting prosumer-ship with the “CSOP financing transfer workshop” (M6, month 30) and its “How to Technical Papers” as milestone; also, five national seminars are planned (ca. month 32). WP6 accompanies all previous WPs ensuring maximum exploitation, dissemination and communication with the final conference (M7, month 32) as milestone. The work packages are conceived as interacting and building upon each other as show in the following Figure 5. Figure 5: WP 5 Policy Recommendations for RE-Prosumer Investments -> Transferability of CSOP-Financing -> Potential for Behavioral changes -> Activating Vulnerable Consumers WP 1 Project Management WP 6 Dissemination & Communication WP 3 CSOP Implementation Joint Prosumer Investments with local municipalities (Litomerice / Slupsk / V.di Susa) WP 4 Empowering Consumers WP 2 Preparation of the three Pilot Projects: Fact finding / Legal & Financial Due Diligence / Kick-off Pilot Italy Poland Czech Rep. Follower Bulgaria Germany Belgium Spain Austria ... Best practice manuals Templates Prosumer Financing RES Investment Calculator Monitoring Capacity Building (in Partner Countries & Follower Cities) -> Peer-to-peer learning incl. feedback webinar -> Back-to-back meetings with representatives of pilots -> Launch RES-Investment Calculator Enhance Vulnerable Consumers Engagement -> Low-income households -> Long-term unemployed -> Women Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII I II III WP1 Project management T1.1 Management and coordination T1.2 Risk management T1.3 Privacy impact assessment and data management T1.4 Liaise and consult with Advisory board T1.5 Internal evaluation WP2 Preparation of pilot projects, legal & financial due diligence T2.1 Update of the investment conditions T2.2 Legal / financial due diligence of pilot projects PL/CZ/IT T2.3 Economic conditions for RE prosumership T2.4 Investment modelling and drafting contracts T2.5 Accustom and test prosumer-investment calculator WP3 Implementation of pilot projects T3.1 Agenda setting with pilot municipalities T3.2 Involve consumers T3.3 Develop action plans and kick-off pilot projects T3.4 Monitor and compare pilots, fine-tune implementation WP4 Empowering consumers and follower cities T4.1 Strategies to involve underrepresented groups T4.2 Compliance with consumer protection T4.3 Launch “Prosumer-Investment Calculator” on follower cities’ websites T4.4 Transfer lessons learned to 10 - 20 “follower cities” WP5 Enabling policies on prosumership T5.1 Fostering co-ownership in RES and boosting commitment T5.2 Legal and socio-economic assessment for transfer T5.3 Assess policy measures in place and map policy options T5.4 Formulate policy recommendations WP6 Dissemination, Communication and Networking T6.1 Corporate design / Dissemination exploitation & communication plan T6.2 Production of promotion material (digital and printed) T6.3 Press work, media cooperation and networking T6.4 National and European activities of dissemination “off-line” 2nd year 3rd year Project breakdown = Deliverable = Milestone 3rd quarter 4th quarter Work packages 1st quarter 2nd quarter 3rd quarter 4th quarter 1st quarter 2nd quarter 3rd quarter 4th quarter 1st quarter 2nd quarter 1st year D1.1 D5.3 D6.9 D6.10 D1.2 D1.4 D2.1 D2.2 D2.3 D2.4 D2.5 D3.1 D4.1 D4.2 D4.3 = M4 D5.1 D5.2 D3.4 M5 D6.2 M2 D6.6 M3 D5.4 M6 ReporLng D4.4 D6.1 D3.2 D1.5 D3.3 M1 D6.11 Management body meeLng M7 D1.3 D6.3 D6.4 D6.5 D6.7 D6.8 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 29 3.2 Management structure and procedures The SCORE project involves 14 partners in five EU countries. It harnesses high expertise and knowledge on economics and European law in general, as well as on energy transition and social change, in particular to kickoff innovative, sustainable RE-prosumer investments in three different countries. Such interdisciplinarity requires a management structure designed to ensure a responsive and flexible administration with lean decisionmaking bodies that ensure efficient cooperation between the partners. Adequate tools and procedures for quality control will be applied from earlier successfully run projects, and further developed for SCORE. Expected results are project processing without turbulence, fast reaction to problems should they arise, timely evaluation and verification of deliverables due date, as well as punctual delivery of the results for each project phase to the Commission. The activities related to this task are: (1) Project management; (2) Project coordination; (3) Project administration; (4) Quality assurance; (5) Communication; (6) Information flow; and (7) Self-assessment. The calculated number of person months for the EUV’s project staff in WP1 also includes the costs that are incurred after the project ends, in the reporting phase. In order to achieve this the project will implement the following main levels of management: At the centre, the Project Coordinator (PC) is in charge of the overall leadership, chairs the Steering Committee, and supervises all project activities. The Assistant Coordinator, the Project Manager, and the Accounting Officer assist him. All four compose the Project Office, which is responsible for matching the Consortium’s legal obligations towards the Commission. The PC carries out the following tasks: (1) communication with the European Commission on important and sensitive issues; (2) creating conditions necessary for successful collaboration, anticipating and managing potential conflicts; (3) organizing the foreseen partner meetings (Consortium Committee and Steering Committee meetings) and convening, when required, extraordinary meetings. Prof. Dr jur. Jens Lowitzsch will take on the role of PC. He is an outstanding candidate for this position due to his extensive experience in project management and expertise as well as his abundant language skills. He can build on long-term assignments within legal and economic advice to federal and local decision makers, and training projects covering the whole EU-28. Prof. Lowitzsch has managed a variety of projects concerning legal drafting, legal reform, transformation issues, and especially financial participation of employees. Most recently, he worked as project director in the EU Commission Service contract (European Commission, DG MARKT): “Implementation of the Pilot Project – Promotion of Employee Ownership and Participation” (MARKT/2013/0191F2/ST/OP). Previous assignments as project director include the EU Projects, “Information and Communication Project – Promoting Employee Financial Participation in the EU-27 ‘ProEFP’” (VP/ 2010/013), “Assessing and Benchmarking Financial Participation in the EU-25” (VS/2006/770), “A European Platform for Financial Participation of Employees” (VS/2005/0510), and “Financial Participation of Employees in the New Member and Candidate Countries” (VS/2004/0478). He also worked as team leader in the project “Employee Financial Participation in Companies’ Proceeds” [FWC No. IP/A/ECON/FWC/2010-109 (Lot 5)] and within World Bank financed projects, most recently in the World Bank Project “Comparative Assessment Study on the Current Insolvency Status in Romania and Worldwide” (IBRD Loan No 4491) in 2002. The Project Manager (PM) assists the Project Coordinator in all day-to-day project management, particularly with regard to administrative questions and the communication with WP leaders and the Commission. This includes: (1) reference partner in routine communication with the European Commission (submission of reports, etc.); (2) collect audits, reports, and deliverables from the WP Leaders; (3) regular communication with partners; (4) compliance check on administrative aspects according to the Commission’s legal requirements and to the Consortium Agreement in cooperation with WP leader; (5) prepare the Kick-Off Meeting, the Mid-Term Project Meetings, and the Final Project Meeting. The Accounting officer is responsible for all financial issues, for instance: (1) collecting receipts; (2) compliance check on expenditures; (3) periodic financial reports; (4) liquidity management and financial risk assessment; and (5) report on the distribution of the EU financial contribution. Furthermore, an assistant specialised in RE prosumership issues supports the PC in the: (1) supervision of the project’s timetable, especially the timely submission of reports and deliverables for the Commission; (2) review and approval of reports and deliverables for the European Commission; and (3) quality and compliance check on Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 30 substantial aspects according to the Commission’s legal requirements and the Consortium’s contract. Two colleagues experienced in the management of HORIZON/FP7 projects, Prof. Patrizia Lombardi from POLITO and Andreas Kress from CA will directly support the PC in advising on project activities from their respective field of expertise, i.e., academe and dissemination, and capacity building. The Consortium Committee (CC) is the highest project authority supervising the project’s realisation and implementation. It is composed of one authorised representative of each consortium partner. The CC provides the strategic directions of the project and coordinates two main functions of the project – project development and successful completion. The management structure is outlines in Figure 6 below. Figure 6: At the occasion of the project kick-off meeting, it agrees on a detailed action plan, including schedules for the entirety of its follow-up meetings. Regular CC meetings ensure on-going full-team discussion, assessing successful steps taken as well as the project’s effectiveness taking them. If necessary, it will also be responsible for adopting later amendments to the work plan. Additional meetings may be requested by each WP leader. Participation (physical or virtual) in CC meetings is mandatory for all representatives. Should a representative find himself unable to attend, he/she may assign a replacement. Any meeting’s agenda must be distributed prior to the meeting, admitting all participants a due chance for preparations. Decision-making procedure: It is expected that all decisions will be made by consensus. In case of disagreement, decisions will be approved by a majority of 2/3 votes. The Steering Committee (SC) comprised of the WP leaders and chaired by the PC monitors the project’s overall implementation at operational level (tasks performed, production of deliverables, and timely completion of milestones). Details of progress within WPs have to be communicated by each WP leader to the Project Manager for evaluation at six-month intervals. The SC is expected to anticipate any modification to the work plan and will refer those to the PMC if any important decisions must be taken that could lead to any amendment requests. The Advisory Board (AB) consists of eight world-renowned experts on the issues addressed in the SCORE project (practitioners and scholars). Throughout the project’s lifetime, the AB will function as an unbiased observer and adviser. As its members remain external to the project, the AB’s involvement can take on variable forms as needed. In its exchanges with the PC, the AB can offer recommendations concerning the project. Consequently, it will promote the project’s capability for reflexive self-review. Working with the SC, the AB will offer advice WP5 Leader WP6 WP3 Leader Leader WP2 Leader Chair PC = WP1 leader Steering Committee Accounting Officer Project Coordinator All partners Consortium Committee EU Commission WP4 Leader Project Manager Assistant Coordinator Advisory board Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 31 on strategic decisions and especially provide active and continuous communication and exchange of best practices. The AB will thus assure contact and exchange as effective liaison with the scientific community. Functioning also as an external observer, the AB gives regular accounts on the advancement of the project, and commission expertise work or policy briefs to be posted on the SCORE website. While regular communication with the AB is to be realised, its advice will be crucial at central milestones of the SCORE project. Consequently, the AB’s physical meetings should take advantage of those workshops organised around the project’s important milestones. Eventually, the AB should also bolster the dissemination of project results to the scientific and civil communities, for which it should also be consulted with regards to the Dissemination and Exploitation Plan. A dedicated budget will be available for the AB and managed by EUV. The Consortium Agreement (CA) based on the DESCA model further details and describes the project organization and governance structure, responsibilities and authority of each party, financial planning and reporting, confidentiality including communication, liability in regard to each other and third parties, force majeure, intellectual property rights, conflict dispute procedures and applicable law. This section outlines the potential risks that can affect the realization of the scientific and technical objectives of the SCORE project, and the associated contingency plans. Potential risks can be classified as follows: project risks are related to the management activities of SCORE, while technical risks are about the research, implementation and technical activities. Depending on the risk identified a suitable strategy for avoiding and/or minimising the impact of the identified risks is defined. Three types of strategies are sought for: • avoidance strategies, targeting at reducing the likelihood of the risk, • minimisation strategies, targeting at reducing the impact of the risk in system development, • contingency strategies, targeting at finding a back-up solution should the worst happens. It should be noted that, based on the liaison, reporting and reviewing procedures to be established by the project, each of the identified risks will be regularly assessed rectifying accordingly the risk strategies. 3.3 Consortium as a whole The composition of the consortium strictly results from the challenges of the coordination and support focus of the proposal. In order to effectively facilitate implementation and roll out of RE prosumer financing we needed to strike a balance between practical and theoretical know-how, as well as between established networks and pioneering partners choosing an approach driven mainly by complementarity. The resulting high level of complementarity will be all the more effective since the approach for the CSA developed in the project is based on close cooperation between scholars and practitioners already in the phase of formulating the proposal. SCORE involves 14 partners in five EU countries from four categories, namely: (i) municipalities and their RE consultants; (ii) consumers and their organisations; (iii) academe and think tanks; as well as (iv) supranational organisations representing cities across Europe. The focus is on practitioners – municipalities, SMEs and dissemination experts account to two thirds of the project partners. As stressed in Figure 7 above, all consortium members are necessary for: a) designing and implementing the tailor made RE prosumerinvestments in the pilot regions; b) dissemination and multiplication of the results and capacity building; as well as c) the definition of policy perspectives and recommendations. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 32 Figure 7 All partners of the consortium have a clear task in the project as WP Leader or as Task Leader respectively with their profiles and expertise necessary to fulfil these activities corresponding. All academic partners are experienced in research as well as coordination and support action projects, at regional, national and European levels. All practitioners in the project have previously participated in international projects. While the skills provided by the practitioners are more specific to the concerned functional domain, each WP relies on complementary expertise from the different other partners: • In each pilot region, the chosen municipality (SŁUPSK, LITOMĚŘICE and CFAVS as an association of municipalities) closely cooperates with a local partner (consultant / SME) operating in RE (supported by local organisations who signed letters of support see list below). • Each pilot project can rely on the assistance from our pool of academic partner teams (POLITO, EUV, CSD), respectively bringing along a different set of expertise from all relevant disciplines: law, economics, engineering, planning, sociology, political science. • Communication and dissemination are concentrated within two organisations representing the two key actors, i.e., municipalities (CA) and consumers and their organisations (co2online). • With CARITAS, FedKon and AMICO we supply specific expertise for the activation of low-income groups, unemployed as well as women both from day-to-day practice as well as from academe. With regard to academic partners the interdisciplinary perspective will allow the consortium to produce relevant outputs on: (i) issues of changes in consumer behaviour; (ii) the question of policy advice (in particular from the perspective of political science and law); and (iii) those of innovative investment mechanisms (with a key role for economics and law). A similar approach has led to the choice of non-academic partners that covers the feasibility analysis, planning and project implementation on the one hand and offers selected expertise in IT/programming, dissemination and social networking on the other. To be consistent with our willingness to have practitioners as full partners, a significant part of the budget (about two thirds) is allocated to them. The complementarity of the partners relies on various disciplines mobilised as key inputs for the project as shown in the following table. Susa CFAVS Litome Slupsk -rice IEO RES Consultant PORSENNA RES Consultant Academe / Think Tanks La Foresta, RES Coop G E N E R A L P U B L I C MUNICIPALITIES C O N SU M E R S Unemployed F o l l o w e r C i t i e s F o c u s G r o u p s DE Climate Alliance Co2Online CARITAS Stromsparcheck Federacja Konsumentów AMICO POLITO EUV CSD Women BE IT PL BG ES A Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 33 Participant Engineering IT Planning Economics Sociology Political science Finance Law EUV X X X X X IEO X X X X CA X X X CSD X X X X POLITO X X X X X X co2online X X X X PORSENNA X X X X FORESTA X X X SŁUPSK X X X X LITOMERICE X X X X CSVA X X X X CARITAS X X X AMICO X X FedKon X X X X Three partners contribute experience and know-how directly relevant to the “SCORE Prosumer Investment Calculator”: (1) The “CETREPS Effective Tax Rate Calculator” that EUV developed for the European Commission in a pilot project comparing employee financial participation across the EU-28 allows a comparison of the effective tax burden of different participation schemes: http://cetreps.3pc.de/calculator-form (for a demo video of CETREPS’s functionality see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjQtjkKX10); (2) IEO has developed software dedicated directly to planning, sizing, designing and assessment of solar collectors (“Kolektorek 2.0”) and software for prosumers (web based expert system “Obywatel z Energia”). Furthermore, it developed and adopted to all RE technologies a method of comparative economic assessment based on levelised cost of energy production (LCOE). Every year IEO is hosting at least several trainees and postgraduate students working with the use of IEO software and methods; (3) co2online is specialised on all types of online applications. CARITAS (supported by CSD with research expertise) is the strategic partner coordinating the outreach to underrepresented and vulnerable groups by FedKon, AMICO and LITOMĚŘICE (with the Dpt. for Inclusion (Agency) of the Czech Office of the Government, with their local representative; see letter of support) as well as various civil society organisations (see letters of support). CARITAS contributes longstanding practical experience with activating unemployed for EE measures: The Energy-Saving-Project “Stromspar-Check Kommunal” in Germany is a lighthouse project to reach vulnerable groups of consumers affected by fuel energy34 with two core elements: (1) Long-term unemployed are qualified to become „energy assistants“ which leads to their qualification and reintegration into labour market (25 %); (2) low income households are advised to save energy with an efficiency starter-kit and as result receive financial relief which at the same time results in energy savings and CO2 reductions. In its daily work FedKon is close to consumers, while through projects tackling energy poverty (esp. H2020 ASSIST) it focuses on practical cooperation with vulnerable consumers. With regard to dissemination and exploitation capabilities CA, co2online and EUV in particular have both key expertise and longstanding experience: (1) CA is a network of 1,700 local authorities in 26 European countries, with the head office in Frankfurt (Main), a Brussels office and coordination offices in Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxemburg and in Switzerland, providing targeted support to its members. These offices supply member municipalities with information on innovative ways of financing RE and EE via up-to-date web presence, social media channels (Twitter, Facebook) and regular newsletters. CAs Brussels office represents members at the EU level advocating the key role of local authorities and their citizens in EU energy policy, in policy debates, EU consultations, policy briefings for decision makers, etc. CA is also one of the city networks running the office of the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy on behalf of the EU Commission. (2) co2Online a German non-profit, has campaigned since 2003 for EE and climate protection. The common purpose of its campaigns, projects and action programs is to inform consumers on an individual basis about an energy-efficient lifestyle and to encourage them to take further action. The company manages contacts to consumers through 34 In the course of this longstanding project since 2008 more than 220,000 households were provided with advice leading to more than 401,000 tons of CO2-reduction over its lifetime; the service is available in 190 municipalities in Germany. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 34 previous dialogue-contact (current: 40,000 direct contacts only for the topic „save electricity“; 180,000 contacts for the topic energy efficiency in general), which it regularly expands. co2online employs a staff of about 40 energy consultants, engineers, editors, environmental scientists, campaigners and communication consultants. (3) At EUV Prof. Lowitzsch leads the Inter-University Centre “Intercentar”, a platform of EUV, Free University of Berlin (DE), University of Split (HR) and Panthéon-Sorbonne University (FR) where academic cooperation and research are complemented by policy advice and consulting for all EU institutions during the past 15 years. The creation of the consortium has also considered gender balance. Given the fact that the proportion of women holding key positions in law, economics and the engineering sciences is limited we have a representation of women that is significantly above the average in these professions: Female staff represents 42% of the overall permanent staff of our partner institutions involved directly in SCORE; Three of our eight Advisory Board members are women. From the geographical perspective, the consortium includes participants from Southern countries (IT), Central European countries (DE), as well as countries from Eastern Europe (PL, CZ) and South- Eastern Europe (BG). Finally, the geographical extension of the project can also be considered through the network of the partners, and in particular that of CA that represents cities from across Europe. Each member of the consortium is presented in Sections 4-5 of the proposal. The role of the AB is presented in below. Institutions that signed a letter of support (for details see annex) • Municipalitites, their organisations and follower cities: Commune di Almese IT; Commune di Oulx IT; Gorna Malina, BG; Mechelen (IGEMO) BE; Chrudim, CZ; Frankfurt a. Main, DE; Barcelona, ES; Turosn Koscielna, PL; Polska Siec Energie Cités, PL; Energy Cities, EU. • Key actors Renewable Energy: European Renewable Energies Federation, EU; European Federation of Renewable Energies cooperatives, EU; Bulgarian National Assembly, BG; Bulgarian Energy Agency, BG; RE-Chamber, CZ; Ministry of the Environment CZ. • Civil society organisations: Greenpeace Poland, PL; World Wildlife Fund, PL; UCEEB Prague, CZ; Polish Bank Association PL. • (Vulnerable) Consumer organisations: Energiereferat Frankfurt (Main), DE; Spaces of Dialog Foundation, PL; SocialFare, IT; Office of the Government, CZ. The Advisory Board will be comprised of: Prof. Günter Verheugen (former vice president of the European Commission) teaches European governance at the Viadrina University Frankfurt (Oder). Directly after finishing studying history, sociology, and political sciences in Cologne, he entered a political career that led him from the German Federal Ministry of the Interior to the Commission. In over 50 years of political experience, during which he held several leading party positions, he witnessed the success and failure of innumerable policy projects. For over a decade, he was member of the German parliament, and as a European Commissioner, decided upon issues and policies in business and industry. Lutz Ribbe chairs the EESC’s Observatory for Sustainable Development. He studied town and country planning after which he became vice president of the German environmental, NGO BUND. Later he switched positions to become department head at the EuroNatur foundation. As a renowned expert on environmental protection and agrarian policy, he was appointed to the European Economic and Social Committee, where he keeps an intensive contact to parliamentarians, governance bodies, and environmental NGOs. For the EESC, he was also co-author of the study, “Changing the Future of Energy – Civil Society As a Main Player in Renewable Energy Creation.” Dirk Vansintjan is director of the Belgian RE cooperative, Ecopower. Since early on he has been an active part of civil society as part of the Christian youth organisation Chiro and committed himself to promoting bicycle as an ecological means of transportation. During his studies of German philology, he co-founded the Belgic green party’s student body. As part of his commitment for (energy) cooperatives, he initiated and leads the Horizon 2020 project REScoop to foster the European-wide communication and cooperation on the topic. He remains an active member of the green party and has served on party positions and public offices for over 20 years. Patricia Hetter Kelso is President of the Kelso Institute for the Study of Economic Systems in San Francisco, California, USA. With her late husband, Louis O. Kelso, she pioneered the CSOP and the ESOP. She coauthored with Mr Kelso “Two-Factor Theory: The Economics of Reality and Democracy” and “Economic Pow- Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 35 er: Extending the ESOP Revolution Through Binary Economics,” as well as numerous articles, monographs, occasional papers, and congressional submissions. She served as vice president of Kelso & Company, a merchant bank, which she co-founded in 1971 with Mr Kelso simultaneously with the Kelso Institute. Mrs Kelso holds a BA degree in government and philosophy from the University of Texas at Austin. Dr Thomas Engelke, born in Hannover, Germany, studied biology in Regensburg, Bielefeld and London. After finishing his PhD in 1991, he was engaged by the German Regional Government of Schleswig-Holstein and as a national expert by the European Commission. Starting in 2004, he worked for the Hanse-Office, the Joint Representation of Schleswig-Holstein and Hamburg to the EU. In 2016, he joined the Federation of German Consumer Organisations, holding the position Team Leader Energy and Construction. Dr Engelke gathered ample experience in governmental institutions and in lobbying work. He initiated, organized and participated in several national and EU projects and is familiar with EU and national energy policies. Important recent working priorities comprise EE, renewable energies, prosumers and the impact of the Energie Transition on consumers. Dr Jean-François Renault coordinates the strategic team on resource (incl. energy) efficiency at Projektträger Jülich. He studied geology, town and country planning, and entrepreneurship in France, India, and Germany and earned his PhD in environmental geology at the Berlin University of Technology / Mines Paris Tech. As a project manager, he has been involved in more than 25 international projects dealing with resource management and policy, as well as with capacity building, knowledge transfer, innovation management, financial instruments and business models for research and innovation. He was the scientific coordinator of the European ECOPOL InnoNet project and is currently leading the study, “The international state of the transition to a Green Economy” for the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building, and Nuclear Safety. Pia Saraceno has been appointed member of the Board of Directors of the Italian think tank REF-4e as independent director since March 2013. She obtained her degree in Economics at the Bocconi University and specialised in development economics at Cambridge in the UK. She joined the IRS in 1976 after a period working for Montedison and became a director in 1980, and president between 1998 and 2000. She was chief executive of REF from 2000 to 2011 and now serves as the chairman of REF-4e, following its establishment in 2012. She has also carried out research on macroeconomic analyses, and sponsored and advised on research into federalism and technical assistance for transition economies. In 1999, Saraceno set up Osservatorio Energia and began to promote further research into the liberalisation of the energy sector and environmental issues. 3.4 Resources to be committed The budget seeks to find a balance between the partners of different size, taking into account their functions, task or work package leadership, host of events, consortium lead. The share of EUV as consortium leader amounts to 22% of the overall budget. 6% of the costs are management cost due to the consortium lead, namely the staff costs of the project manager (EUR 120,000). Without them, the share of EUV amounts to 15%. Table 3.4b ‘Other direct cost’ items (travel, equipment, other goods and services) 1 / EUV Cost (€) Justification Travel 9,350 Travelling to project events Other goods and services 27,300 Translations 10,000; publications (open access) 7,500; external experts (to ensure legal and administrative compliance / to provide support services for events) 6,000; catering/ rent (Kick-off meeting) 1,500; conference fees 800; dissemination costs (conference materials /materials for visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 1,500 Total 36,650 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 36 2 / IEO Cost (€) Justification Travel 9,350 Travelling to project events Other goods and services 19,800 Translations 10,000; external experts (to ensure legal and administrative compliance / to provide support services for events) 6,000; catering/rent (Exchange workshop/SC Meeting 1, National seminar PL) 1,500; conference fees 800; dissemination costs (conference materials / visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 1,500 Total 29,150 3 / CA Cost (€) Justification Travel 8,800 Travelling to project events Other goods and services 22,700 Catering/rent (final event) 7,500; translations 6,000; external experts (to ensure legal and administrative compliance / to provide support services for events) 6,000; dissemination costs (conference materials / visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 2,400; conference fees 800 Total 31,500 4 / CSD Cost (€) Justification Travel 6,600 Travelling to project events Other goods and services 11,650 Translations 2,000; external experts (to ensure legal and administrative compliance / to provide support services for events) 3,000; catering/rent (National seminar BG, CSOP financing transfer seminar) 4,250; conference fees 800; dissemination costs (conference materials / visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 1,600 Total 18,250 5 / POLITO Cost (€) Justification Travel 4,400 Travelling to project events Other goods and services 29,350 Publications (open access) 7,500; translations 6,000; external experts (to ensure legal and administrative compliance / to provide support services for events) 6,000; catering/ rent (National seminar IT, Back-to-back meeting/SC meeting 2, CC meeting 2) 5,750; dissemination costs (conference materials / visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 3,300; conference fees 800 Total 33,750 6 / co2online Cost (€) Justification Travel 7,700 Travelling to project events Other goods and services 22,200 Translations 6,000; external experts (to ensure legal and administrative compliance / to provide support services for events) 6,000; visuals (corporate design) 5,000; catering/ rent (National seminar DE) 2,500; dissemination costs (conference materials / visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 1,900; conference fees 800 Total 29,900 7 / PORSENNA Cost (€) Justification Travel 6,050 Travelling to project events Other goods and services 12,200 External experts (to ensure legal and administrative compliance / to provide support services for events) 6,000; catering/rent (National seminar CZ) 2,500; dissemination costs (conference materials / visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 1,900; translations 1,000; conference fees 800 Total 18,250 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 37 8 / FORESTA Cost (€) Justification Travel 6,600 Travelling to project events Other goods and services 5,700 External experts (to ensure legal and administrative compliance) 3,000; translations 1,000; dissemination costs (visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 900; conference fees 800 Total 12,300 9 / SŁUPSK Cost (€) Justification Travel 8,800 Travelling to project events Other goods and services 8,500 External experts (to ensure legal and administrative compliance) 3,000; catering/rent (Key actors meeting PL; Joint meeting pilot project PL) 2,000; translations 1,000; dissemination costs (conference materials / visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 1,700; conference fees 800 Total 17,300 10 / LITOMERICE Cost (€) Justification Travel 8,250 Travelling to project events Other goods and services 8,500 External experts (to ensure legal and administrative compliance) 3,000; catering/rent (Key actors meeting CZ; Joint meeting pilot project CZ) 2,000; translations 1,000; dissemination costs (conference materials / visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 1,700; conference fees 800 Total 16,750 11 / CFAVS Cost (€) Justification Travel 9,350 Travelling to project events Other goods and services 8,500 External experts (to ensure legal and administrative compliance) 3,000; catering/rent (Key actors meeting IT; Joint meeting pilot project IT) 2,000; translations 1,000; dissemination costs (conference materials / visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 1,700; conference fees 800 Total 17,850 12 / CARITAS Cost (€) Justification Travel 8,250 Travelling to project events (also representatives of the targeted consumers) Other goods and services 7,100 External experts (to provide support services for events) 3,000; translations 1,000; catering/ rent (Inclusive CSOP-financing seminar) 1,000; conference fees 800; dissemination costs (conference materials / visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 1,300 Total 15,350 13 / AMICO Cost (€) Justification Travel 6,600 Travelling to project events Other goods and services 5,700 External experts (to provide support services for events) 3,000; translations 1,000; dissemination costs (visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 900; conference fees 800 Total 12,300 14 / Fedkon Cost (€) Justification Travel 6,600 Travelling to project events Other goods and services 5,700 External experts (to provide support services for events) 3,000; translations 1,000; dissemination costs (visibility of project, e.g., leaflets or videos, etc.) 900; conference fees 800 Total 12,300 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 38 4. Members of the consortium 4.1. Participants Organisation Europa-Universität Viadrina Frankfurt Oder Short name EUV Participant No. 1 Country Germany Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved The Europa-Universität Viadrina Frankfurt Oder (European University Viadrina, EUV) is located at the German-Polish border at the Oder river. More than 6,000 scholars and 160 researchers work and study at the three faculties of the university: The Faculty of Social and Cultural Sciences, the Faculty of Law and the Faculty of Business Administration and Economics. Since its foundation in 1991 the profile of the European University Viadrina has been characterized by a strong focus on European Studies and, in particular, on the process of European integration of East-European economies and societies. Involved in the current project is the Faculty of Business Administration and Economics. The Kelso Professorship of Comparative Law, East European Business Law and European Legal Policy endowed by the Kelso Institute for the Study of Economic Systems, San Francisco, took up its activities on 1 October 2010 at the Faculty of Business Administration and Economics. The professorship is committed to the idea of drawing upon relevant areas of jurisprudence and political economy to create a new sub-discipline devoted to adapting existing legal, economic and business institutions and practices to the needs of a fully-integrated Europe. Since the overlap between disciplines is often the spawning ground for paradigm-changing innovation, this approach aims not only at enriching the parent disciplines, but also to stimulate new ideas and approaches for harmonizing Europe’s diverse laws and practices. The professorship can rely on its international network of researchers and practitioners from different scientific disciplines and regularly operates in an inter-disciplinary environment. The main focus of the chair consists of studies on European legal policy with special emphasis on employee financial participation (EFP) and consumer ownership (Consumer Stock Ownership Plans), property ownership and privatisation, insolvency and reorganisation, financial crises and their impact on the welfare state. The Faculty of Business Administration and Economics has also developed important expertise in the field of Econometrics applied to renewable energies that represents a cornerstone in the project. Qualification of key personnel including previous experience relevant to the tasks assigned in the project Prof. Dr. Jens Lowitzsch (m) holds the Kelso Professorship of Comparative Law, East European Business Law and European Legal Policy at the Faculty of Business Administration and Economics. Furthermore, he directs the Inter-University Centre Viadrina | FU Berlin, Paris 1 and Split (INTERCENTAR). His main fields of expertise are employee financial participation (EFP), privatisation and transformation, insolvency law, European law and legal policy. He earned his PhD from Freie Universität Berlin. He has authored, co-authored and edited various legal and inter-disciplinary books. Since 2005, as project director and team leader, he led various projects on financial participation funded by the European Commission. He is the author of the PEPPER III report, main editor of the PEPPER IV report and published with Palgrave/MacMillan. In 2012, as an expert and team leader, Prof. Lowitzsch oversaw the European Parliament study “Financial Participation of Employees in Companies’ Proceeds” and was the team leader in the project “Employee Financial Participation in Companies’ Proceeds” (FWC No. IP/A/ECON/FWC/ 2010-109 (Lot 5)). Furthermore, he was the project director and team leader of the EU project "Implementation of the Pilot Project – Promotion of Employee Ownership and Participation" (MARKT/2013/ 0191F2/ST/OP), which assessed Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 39 EFP across the EU-28 and aims at the formulation of possible regulatory and nonregulatory actions to promote EFP at EU level. Prof. Dr. Reimund Schwarze (m) is professor for international environmental economics at the European University Viadrina in Frankfurt/Oder and head of climate economics of the Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany. He is coordinating lead author of the Chapter “Economics, Finance, and the Role of the Private Sector” in the upcoming 2nd Assessment Report Climate Change in Cities (ARC3.2) of the Urban Climate Change Research Network (UCCRN). He will be also reporting on the international collaboration strategy of the UFZ & UCCRN. He graduated in the fields of sociology and economics at the faculty of social sciences of the University of Göttingen and at the faculty of economics of the University of Berlin and received his PhD in economics from Technische Universität Berlin in 1995. In 1999, he conducted research with the team of Tom Heller and Stephen Schneider at the Institute for Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford University. In 2002, he assumed the position of a senior researcher at the Germany’s largest Economic Research Institute (DIW) in Berlin, where he was involved in designing the German National Allocation Plan for EU emissions trading. Prof. Dr. Albrecht Söllner (m) is head of the Chair of Business Administration, with a focus on International Management at the Faculty of Economics of the European University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder). From 2002 to 2008, he was the scientific director of the study program for International Business Administration. He studied business administration from 1984 to 1988 at the Free University Berlin and earned his Ph.D. in 1992 from Humboldt University. Following his habilitation in 1999, he acted as representative of the Chair of International Management at the Otto-von-Guericke University, and held a teaching position in marketing at the Aarhus School of Business. In 2000 he was appointed to the Chair of Marketing at the Aarhus School of Business and the Department of Business Administration at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. He is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Gabler Edition Wissenschaft "Business-to- Business Marketing" and the Editorial Review Board of the "Advances in Business Marketing and Purchasing" and the Association for Social Policy and the International Society for New Institutional Economics. As an expert on international management and international marketing his expertise in the project refers on the one hand to questions of cognitive path processes and their impact on consumer behavior and on the other hand on social capital and innovative networks. Furthermore, he works on issues of gender and inclusion and in particular on unintended side-effects of inclusion policies. Katarzyna Goebel (f) is a researcher and PhD candidate at the Kelso Professorship of Comparative Law, East European Business Law and European Legal Policy at the Faculty of Business Administration and Economics. She specializes in financing decentralized energy production with citizen participation schemes in RES, has comprehensive knowledge of the EU energy and climate policy. One of her particular focal points in that context is on measures and strategies for promoting political participation at the local level. She is also skilled in developing policy and action recommendations for various actors. Her regional focus include Central and Eastern Europe, in particular Germany and Poland. 2014-2017 involved in a Polish-German cooperation project funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, which supports municipalities in advancing their strategies and activities for local climate action and the transition to a low-emission economy. She earned a master degree in European Studies from European University Viadrina Frankfurt (O), Germany and political science from the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland, as well as a bachelor in international relations at the Opole University. Her doctoral project was supported by a scholarship from the Hanns Seidel Foundation. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 40 Claire Gauthier (f) is a research associate and PhD candidate at the Kelso Professorship of Comparative Law, East European Business Law and European Legal Policy at the Faculty of Business Administration and Economics. She studied politics, economics, sociology, law and international relations in France, Sweden and Germany. She holds a French- German Master degree of European Studies, major in European Politics and Public Affairs, from the Institut for political studies in Strasbourg, France and the European Viadrina- University in Frankfurt/Oder, Germany. She specializes in European governance and the sociology of (energy) prosumers. Stefan Hanisch (m), Dipl.-Jur., M.A. is a research associate at the Kelso Professorship of Comparative Law, East European Business Law and European Legal Policy at the Faculty of Business Administration and Economics. He studied Law, East European Studies and Central Asian Studies at Humboldt University Berlin, Free University of Berlin and Saint Petersburg State University. Mr Hanisch has long-year experience of interdisciplinary research and consulting on issues of employee financial participation as well as legal and economic development of the post-Soviet states (viz. Russia, Central Asia). Lucas Roth (m) is a research associate and PhD candidate at the Kelso Professorship of Comparative Law, East European Business Law and European Legal Policy at the Faculty of Business Administration and Economics. He earned a Master of Arts in International Business Administration and a Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration from the European University Viadrina in Frankfurt/Oder, Germany. His research focuses on quantitative methods, consumer behavior and energy markets in Europe and Asia. He specializes in consumer financial participation and in particular in the question of the impact of (co-)owner-ship of RE production facilities on demand flexibility. Selected publications relevant to the call content • Lowitzsch, J. (ed.) (2018 forthcoming), Transforming energy consumers into energy producers / Consumer Stock Ownership Plans – Concept and feasibility in 15 Country studies, Palgrave/McMillan, ca. 270 p. • Lowitzsch, J. (2017), Community participation and sustainable investment in city projects: The Berlin Water Consumer Stock Ownership Plan, Journal of Urban Regeneration & Renewal, Vol. 10 Nr. 2 pp. 138-151. • Roth, L., Lowitzsch, J., Yildiz, Ö., Hashani, A. (2016), The impact of (co-)ownership of RE production facilities on demand flexibility. An empirical study, MPRA Paper no. 73562. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/73562/1/MPRA_paper_73562.pdf • Lowitzsch, J. and Goebel, K. (2013), Vom Verbraucher zum Energieproduzenten – Finanzierung dezentraler Energieproduktion unter Beteiligung von Bürgern als Konsumenten mittels sog. Consumer Stock Ownership Plans (CSOPs), (Consumers to energy-producers – Financing decentralised renewable energy production through CSOPs), ZNER, Vol. 3/2013. • Söllner, A.,Haase, M., Roedenbeck, M. (2009), A sketch of a mechanism-based explanation of cognitive path processes, lock-in of individual mental models and institutional rigidity, in: Scherer, A.G., Kaufmann, I.M., Patzer, M. (Eds.), Methoden in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Wiesbaden 2009, 21-46. • Söllner, A., Krohn, M. (2007), Wettbewerbsvorteile innovativer Netzwerke durch Sozialkapital, in: J. Büschken, M. Voeth, R. Weiber (Eds.), Innovationen für das Industriegütermarketing, Stuttgart 2007, 165-183. Relevant previous projects or activities • Research: (1) Employing a Consumer Stock Ownership Plan (CSOP) to purify Berlin City surface water bodies; (2) Employing a Consumer Stock Ownership Plan (CSOP) to finance decentralized production of renewable energy Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 41 • Conference papers: “Consumer Stock Ownership Plans – Financing decentralized production of renewable energy by means of consumer share ownership” in Göttingen (Conference “Economic Growth and Sustainability“, Sulechów (Conference of power industry in the border regions of Poland and Germany) and Strasbourg (Conference “Social Entrepreneurs: Have Your Say!”) • EU service contract (European Commission, DG MARKT): “Implementation of the Pilot Project - Promotion of Employee Ownership and Participation“ (MARKT/2013/0191F2/ST/OP), in consortium with Free University Berlin, Jens Lowitzsch was project director and team leader, Sept. 2013 - Sept. 2014 • EU service contract (European Parliament): Jens Lowitzsch as expert and team leader oversaw the study “Employee Financial Participation in Companies’ Proceeds” (FWC No. IP/A/ECON/FWC/2010-109 (Lot 5)), Dec. 2011 - June 2012 • Information and Communication Project for the EU Commission: “Promoting Employee Financial Participation in the EU-27“ (VP/2010/013), Dec.2010 - Nov. 2011. Organisation Institute for Renewable Energy Short name IEO Participant No. 2 Country Poland Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved Institute for Renewable Energy (IEO) was established in 2001. It is an independent research group and the first private research institute in Poland with an in-depth knowledge of renewable energy issues: wind energy, solar energy, biogas, biomass, energy planning, ranging from politics energy and law, economic and financial analysis, and ending with the technical issues and design and widely understood prosumer energy. IEO is an author and proposer of the so-called “prosumers” amendment (instruments facilitating prosumership) in the Renewable Energy Act. IEO has also an extensive experience as a renewable energy technology and economic advisor for investors (assumptions and concepts of technical solutions, functionality and utility programs, feasibility studies, business plans, terms of reference for a tender, supervision and construction monitoring) in the investment processes in the area of renewable energy implemented by private companis and local governments. Since 2009 IEO conducts postgraduate studies "Investments in renewable energy sources", trainings and conferences in the field of technology, market economics and law on renewable energy sources for national energy companies (e.g. PGE, PKP Power Engineering), municipalities, financial institutions (Alior Bank BGZ, ZBP) and foreign actors (chambers of commerce in Germany and France, energy companies). In addition, as part of its work, the IEO completed a number of expert opinions commissioned by the Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Regional Development and other governmental and commercial projects for business customers. Qualification of key personnel including previous experience relevant to the tasks assigned in the project Grzegorz Wiśniewski (m) is the Managing Director of the Institute for Renewable Energy (IEO) in Warsaw, Poland. He graduated from Warsaw University of Technology in mechanics and process engineering in 1987, and Warsaw University (organisation and management) in 1989. He specialises in research and development of solar, wind and bioenergy technologies, as well as socio-economic studies. He has a considerable experience in management of research establishments (a state-owned renewable energy agency EC BREC/IBMER, NGO- Social Ecological Institute and non-public research centre EC BREC IEO), and project management. He was a project leader and co-ordinator of several EU funded research projects. Aneta Więcka (f) is a solar Energy Expert and Head of the Solar Energy Team. She holds a Master of Science in Engineering in Agricultural and Forest Technology and a Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 42 Master of Science in Engineering in Management and Production. Since 2006, she is involved in research and promotion projects concerning solar energy and transfer of innovative technologies. During her time at IEO she has developed many (also international) projects related to renewable energy, mainly making analysis and elaboration concerning the market of solar energy and its development in Poland, in particular the possibilities to invest in a range of solar collectors and their sale, advice on forms for financing of solar investments for finance institutions, also help producers of solar collectors to elaborate the forms for financing innovative production of solar collectors, maintaining statistical data of solar market and technology in Poland. She worked as a Spokesman for Innovations at the INNOWATOR Mazovian Centre for Management of Knowledge of Innovative Technologies. She has experience in European promotion campaigns and was responsible for directing a European project to provide Solar Energy for Camping sites -SOLCAMP. Selected publications relevant to the call content • Wiśniewski, G. (2016), The paradigm shift in the energy sector - the farmer as the prosumer and producer of energy. Energy, society, politics No/3/2016, Collegium Civitas, 41-68.. • Wiśniewski, G. (2015), Strategic dilemmas of the renewable energy. Energy, society, politics No.1/2015, Collegium Civitas, 37-64. • Oniszk, A., Wiecka, A., Wisniewski, G. (2015), The National Development Plan microinstallations Renewable Energy by 2030, WWF. • Wiecka, A., Golebiowski, S., Kunikowski, G. (2014), A Guide for users of solar collectors, implemented under the project entitled "The installation of renewable energy systems on public buildings and private homes in the municipalities belonging to the Association of Municipalities Wisłoka Basin". Wisloka. • Curkowski, A., Oniszk, A., Wisniewski, G. (2012), Micro-biogas plants in Poland "Analysis of the introduction of criteria and necessary support mechanisms for the development of micro-biogas plants in Poland", Polish Ministry of Economy, Warsaw. Relevant infrastructure and/or major items of technical equipment • IEO has developed software dedicated directly to planning, sizing, designing and assessment of solar collectors (“Kolektorek 2.0”) and software for prosumers (web based expert system “Obywatel z Energia”). • IEO developed and adopted to all RES technologies a method of comparative economic assessment based on levelized cost of energy production (LCOE). • Every year IEO is hosting several trainees and postgraduate students working with the use of IEO software and methods. Since 2009 IEO conducts postgraduate studies "Investments in renewable energy sources". Relevant previous projects or activities connected to the subject of this proposal • Development of business models for independent producers and prosumers - investments in the first commercial renewable energy projects. • Analysis - FIT for RES micro-installations - Implementation of cost analysis for micro- installations for prosumers, which will receive support under the provisions of art. 41 of the Law on renewable energy sources. • Prosumers in Poland - Analysis of the real benefits of the proposed government support mechanisms for prosumers according to the government's draft law on renewable energy sources. • A farmer with energy - Implementation of simplified technical and economic analyses and summary of the results for 6 types of micro-installations, preparation of the guide for investors on issues related to the investment projects, focusing on the determinants of legal, administrative and financial investments, a presentation on the topic "Problems of access to energy and quality of energy services in rural areas and the chance to increase the energy security of households", development of four mini reports. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 43 • The National Development Plan for RES micro installations by 2030 - roadmap of the energy sector for prosumers and citizens, based on the use of micro and small RES installations for the production of electricity and heat in residential, industrial and agricultural sectors (the so-called distributed generation). • European Solar Days - Campaign to promote solar systems in Europe. Organisation Climate Alliance Short name CA Participant No. 3 Country Germany Qualification of key personnel including previous experience relevant to the tasks assigned in the project Dr. Andreas Kress (m) has more than 25 years of professional work experience in local sustainable development. He holds a PhD in Extension and Communication Science. He worked for the United Nations (FAO), the German Development Cooperation (GIZ) and the Humboldt University (Berlin). He joined the European Secretariat of Climate Alliance in February 2001 and since 2008, he is the Head of the Mitigation and Adaptation Department. Since 2014 he is in charge of Climate Alliance’s overall budget. He has been managing large EU Projects in the area of mitigation and adaptation to climate change like Climate Active Neigboorhoods - CAN (INTERREG NEW- actual), PRO-EE, Public Procurement Boosts Energy Efficiency (IEE 2007-2010) or AMICA, Adaptation and Mitigation - an Integrated Climate Policy Approach" project (INTERREG 2005-2007). Andy Deacon (m) is Project Coordinator for the Sustainable Energy Investment Forums project and Policy Coordinator for Climate Alliance. Andy brings more than ten years of experience on energy efficiency, renewable energy and retrofit project finance to this role, including work with the UK’s Energy Saving Trust and for the Mayor of London. Andy has worked as part of a team that produced pan-European guidance on financing energy efficiency in support of implementation of the EED and EPPB and has co-chaired the CAEED working group on funds and financing. He is also a member of the Advisory Group on Energy for the Horizon 2020 programme. Lea Kleinenkuhnen (f) works on the European policy framework for sustainable energy, representing Climate Alliance’s members at the EU level. She has been involved in policy discussions about state aid reforms in the environment and energy field and has been leading Climate Alliance’s policy work on the recast of the EU Renewable Energy Directive as well as the design of the energy market. She also coordinates the capacity building work for local authorities and other stakeholders on innovative financing for energy efficiency in the CITYnvest project and is involved in the coordination of Climate Alliance’s working group on climate financing. Giustino Piccolo (m) completed with honours his studies in environmental engineering & spatial planning at University of Naples Federico II in Italy. He worked for several research institutions in Europe being involved in different projects on the local aspects of the energy transition and the transition to a circular economy. Giustino’s work at Climate Alliance focuses on financing climate action at the local level. He coordinates the CITYnvest project (H2020), the Climate Alliance’s working group on climate financing, and he is also co-leading the financing tasks as part of the Covenant of Mayors Office. Selected publications relevant to the call content • The Covenant of Mayors, managed in part by Climate Alliance, published “Inspirational Financing Schemes - Food for Thought for Covenant Signatories” and a quick reference guide for financing opportunities for local authorities for climate and energy: www.covenantofmayors.eu/IMG/pdf/CoM_Thematic_Leaflet_on_Financing.pdf, http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/IMG/pdf/Quick_Reference_Guide_- _Financing_Opportunities_2016.pdf • The Covenant of Mayors also contributed to publishing a Summary Sheet on ELENA, Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 44 the EIB’s technical assistance facility providing grants for investment programs in European Local Energy Assistance areas; downloadable at: https://www.energimyndigheten.se/Global/Internationellt/IEE/Brochure_ELENA.pdf • Climate Alliance frequently publishes updates and briefings on innovative financing mechanisms for sustainable energy in its section on the Working Group on Financing, which is open-source, all of them can be downloaded here: http://www.climatealliance.org/working_group_financing.0.html) • Climate Alliance frequently publishes policy briefings and position papers on relevant energy policy developments at the EU level, which are developed in cooperation with its member cities and the executive board. http://old.klimabuendnis.org/ fileadmin/ inhalte/dokumente/2016/Climate_Alliance_Position_Paper_RES_Directive.pdf;http://old. klimabuendnis.org/fileadmin/inhalte/dokumente/2016/Energy_Efficiency_Directive_consultation_ final_ClimateAlliance.pdf Relevant previous projects or activities • Sustainable Energy Investment Forums: Supporting an Investment Momentum in the EU. The main objective is to create in (15) Member States a framework that will drive demand to leverage the adequate level of investment in sustainable energy, notably energy efficiency and small scale RES. • CITYnvest: It is a Horizon2020 project that aims at building lasting capacities in local authorities regarding innovative financing models for energy efficiency in the building stock. Via analysing a state-of-the-art overview of best practices with a mature pipeline, CITYnvest will implement innovative financing models in three pilot regions (Rhodope (BG), Murcia (ES) and Liege (BE) and conducts a wide-scale capacity- building programme in 10 focus countries. (www.citynvest.eu) • CITIZENERGY: It is a project that builds on know-how developed within the EU by different organisations and initiatives to implement citizen RE projects – from cooperatives to investment intermediation – and provides them with a EU dimension. It promotes synergies between projects, identifies barriers to citizen investment, promotes the European transfer of main business models and, most importantly, matches citizen investors with new RES projects in Europe (www.citizenergy.eu) • Repowermap: The aim of the project is to promote renewable energies and energy efficiency by raising awareness and facilitating information exchange with an interactive online map. The map shows concrete examples for sustainable energy use and related information to encourage people to follow these examples. Furthermore, the project promotes know-how exchange and the spread of innovative technologies at local level and across borders. The project is supported by the Intelligent Energy Europe programme of the European Union. (www.repowermap.org) • Climate Protection Planner: Development of a harmonized methodology on future data collection for CO2 inventories and development of different scenarios and description of indicators in 12.000 German municipalities. The outcome will be an internetbased tool which offers standardized modules for CO2 monitoring, analysis of local potentials for energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, development of scenarios and benchmarking. Project partners are the IFEU Institute and the Institute for Decentralize Energy Technologies (IdE). (www.klimaschutz-planer.de). • Buy Smart+: Total public procurement i.e. the purchases of goods, services and public works by governments and public utilities – is estimated to be about 19% of the EU’s GDP, or €2 trillion. Buy Smart+ aims to inform public authorities about how to choose the best products with the lowest life cycle cost, as opposed to lowest initial cost, which are more energy efficient and sustainable. Climate Alliance works with the Berlin Energy Agency and several national partners on this project and is responsible for dissemination and technical expertise. (http://www.buy-smart.info/) Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 45 Relevant network: The Coalition for Energy Savings: strives to make energy efficiency and savings the first consideration of energy and economic policies and the driving force towards a secure, sustainable and competitive European Union. Their membership unites businesses, professionals, local authorities, trade unions, consumer and civil society organisations in pursuit of this goal (http://energycoalition.eu/). Community Power: The community power group is a coalition of cooperatives, renewable energy associations, local authority networks, consumer organisations, trade unions and others which strive to create a European policy framework that enables the participation of consumers and communities in local sustainable energy projects. It builds on the Intelligent Energy Europe Project Community Power. http://www.communitypower.eu/en/ Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved Climate Alliance of European Cities with Indigenous Rainforest Peoples is a nonprofit association, founded in 1990 and currently representing some 1,600 European local authorities in 25 countries. Members commit to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% every 5 years and halving of per capita emissions by 2030 (baseline 1990). In order to stimulate exchange and concrete proposals related to financing among member cities, Climate Alliance launched the Working Group on financing on 24 May 2012 in the context of its Annual Conference in St. Gallen, Switzerland. The objective of the Working Group is twofold: to exchange and promote on the local financing solutions and mechanisms; and to influence and to follow-up on the process of negotiations in regard to the new EU budget 2014-2020 in particular showing the funding needs of local authorities in energy and climate related actions. New types of innovative financing instruments that exist in one place may be difficult to transfer to other European regions, thus efforts to step up local awareness, skills and knowledge on the implementation of beneficial financing models are pivotal. The European Commission proposed new types of loans, revolving funds and technical assistance. Nonetheless local authorities require more support to fully benefit from them and the instruments should also further accommodate a beneficial combination of public and private funding. The Working Group on Financing discusses these important issues and seeks to optimize the learning processes amongst its members. Climate Alliance runs the Covenant of Mayors office’s helpdesk and its branch Office Covenant of Mayors Office East (COMO East). It carries out the methodological work, capacity building, guidelines, and monitoring. Since 2008, the Brussels office was established, and focuses on the European policy side, European supporting schemes for cities and liaising with other relevant stakeholders. Climate Alliance is currently coordinating the Horizon 2020 project CITYnvest - Increasing Capacities in Cities for Innovative Financing in Energy Efficiency with a focus on innovative finance solution for energy efficiency in buildings. CITYnvest is extending the portfolio of several projects on procurement and financing e.g. Buy Smart+ (www.buysmart. info ) and the current Green Proca (www.gpp-proca.eu ). Organisation Center for the Study of Democracy Short name CSD Participant No. 4 Country Bulgaria Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved Founded in late 1989, the Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD) is an interdisciplinary research institute, which mission is to build bridges between scholars and policymakers. CSD is a non-partisan, independent think-tank, which combines research excellence with policy advocacy for piloting social innovation and institutional reforms in Bulgaria and in Europe in a number of areas, most notably energy governance and energy security, economic and legal transition, anti-corruption and security, forensics and criminology. With its 27 professional and management staff, including 11 PhDs, CSD possesses a Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 46 unique mix of expertise on economics, comparative legal systems, monitoring and evaluation, sociology, and criminology. Its crosscutting competences enable the delivery of complex projects requiring process and substantive knowledge on EU level. Following Bulgaria’s entry to the EU in 2007, CSD has specialised in energy governance and energy security policy research and advocacy for improving national and European energy policies. In the past few years CSD has published several policy reports and policy briefs on energy related topics, such as conventional and green energy governance, public procurement in energy, sustainable energy policies, energy efficiency, energy strategy, diversification and security. CSD’s specific focus is on good governance and sustainability in the energy sector as well as public procurement in energy. CSD is a member of the European Nuclear Energy Forum’s Transparency Working Group and the Revenue Watch Institute’s network on transparency of gas markets in the Black Sea Region. It collaborates closely with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. CSD has been experienced partner in four FP7 SSH projects, two of them related to energy policy, while recently it is expecting to start working on a Horizon2020 research project ENABLE.EU, which will analyse the factors influencing individual and collective energy choices in the transition towards low-carbon economy and society in Europe. Qualification of key personnel including previous experience relevant to the tasks assigned in the project Ruslan Stefanov (m) is the Director of the Economic Program of the CSD and has more than fifteen years of experience in project development, analysis and research in international and European economic development projects. In the past five years he has been managing a team of in-house and external experts delivering policy research and advocacy on good governance and transparency in the Bulgarian energy sector. More specifically he has done research on public procurement transparency in the energy sector, state-owned energy companies’ management, gas transit transparency and the economics of large-scale energy projects (gas and nuclear). He has experience in implementing multi-country (EU-27) benchmarking and evaluation projects in the areas of competitiveness, EU funds and RTDI. He advised the Bulgarian government on its energy strategy 2020 and published more than 20 articles in local media on related topics. He is a member of the Consultative Council at the Parliamentary Committee on Management and Oversight of European Funds at the Bulgarian National Assembly, the Bulgarian National Council on Innovation to the Minister of Economy and Energy and the Consultative Council at the National Revenue Agency. He holds a master's degree in Economics and Business Administration from the University of National and World Economy, Sofia. Dr. Todor Galev (m) is a Senior researcher at the Economic Program of the CSD and works on research and coordination projects in the field of sociological studies on national and EU competitiveness and innovation policy, national and regional energy security, governance of energy sector, restructuring of justice system, etc. He has over 15-year experience in managing and carrying out research and analytical tasks, incl. research design of surveys and qualitative studies, implementation of complex statistical analyses, large database processing, modeling and analysis, preparation of policy-research reports, and consulting policy makers. Mr. Todor has participated in various national and international projects, conducted in the country and abroad, supported by the EC (DG Research, FP5, FP6, FP7, IPTS, IPA), World Bank, the US German Marshal Fund, national ministries, private multinational companies, etc. Before joining CSD, Mr. Todor defended his PhD in Sociology of Technology at the Institute of Sociology - Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, where he worked for nine years as research fellow with academic specialization in the field of sociology of innovation and science technology studies. His professional background included also teaching of lec- Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 47 tures and seminars in the field of science technology studies and social science research methods at the Sofia University and Plovdiv University. As an approved trainer in the European Science Communication Network (ESConet) and in the Evaluation of Research, Technology and Innovation Network (EVAL-INNO), Mr. Todor deals also with the issue of using social scientists’ expert knowledge in policy decision making. He has published number of academic articles in peer-review publications, and has more than 20 news pieces in the media. Martin Vladimirov (m) is a researcher at the Economic Program of CSD and works on research projects in the field of energy security, efficiency and affordability both on national and EU level; macroeconomic competitiveness, political risk, alternative energy technologies and stability of financial markets. He has four years of experience in carrying out qualitative and quantitative studies, incl. collection of data, implementation of energy statistical and policy analyses, preparation of policy-oriented research papers on energy and macroeconomics, communicating results with stakeholders and consulting policy makers. For the Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD), Mr. Vladimirov has participated in one FP7 project funded by the EC, as well as a project on energy governance funded by the Open Society Foundation. Selected recent projects: Forward Looking Analysis of Grand Societal Challenges and Innovative Policies (FP7, EC); Energy Vision 2020 for Southeast European Cities (South East Europe Transnational Cooperation Programme, EU); Enhancing Transparent Governance Of Energy Security In Bulgaria: Developing Monitoring And Advocacy Tools For Institutional Accountability And Stakeholder Participation (Think Tank Fund, Open Society Foundation); MENA Natural Gas Deficits, (policy paper, Shell). Selected publications relevant to the call content • Shentov, O., Stoyanov, A., Yordanova. M. (ed.) (2014), Energy Sector Governance and Energy (In)Security in Bulgaria, Center for the Study of Democracy, Sofia, Bulgaria. • Shentov, O., Stoyanov, A., Yordanova. M. (eds), (2011), Green Energy Governance in Bulgaria at a Crossroads, Center for the Study of Democracy, Sofia, Bulgaria. • Shentov, O., Stoyanov, A., and Yordanova. M. (ed.), (2011), Energy Sector Good Governance: Problems and Possible Policy Solutions, Center for the Study of Democracy, Sofia, Bulgaria. • Nitzov, B., Stefanov, R., Nikolova, V., Hristov, D. (2010), The Energy Sector of Bulgaria, The Atlantic Council of the US, Washington D.C. • Stefanov, R.(2000), Bulgaria - A Gas Hub for Southeastern Europe. In Altman F.-L. and Lampe, J. eds., Energy and the Transformation Process in Bulgaria and Romania. Bertelsmann Foundation. Relevant previous projects or activities CSD participates / has implemented the following projects under FP 7 and Horizon 2020: • ENABLE.EU (H2020): Enabling the Energy Union through understanding the drivers of individual and collective energy choices in Europe, Period: 2016 – 2019, Coordinator: Jacques Delors Institue, France / ISISNOVA, Italy The ENABLE.EU project will aim to define the key determinants of individual and collective energy choices in three key consumption areas - transportation, heating & cooling, and electricity – and in the shift to prosumption (users-led initiatives of decentralised energy production and trade). The project will also investigate the interrelations between individual and collective energy choices and their impact on regulatory, technological and investment decisions. CSD leads a WP focusing on governance obstacles for social acceptability of the energy transition paradigm of the EU. CSD will also coordinate a case study on so- Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 48 cial mobilisation and governance aspects of the energy transition in all countries participating in the project. Moreover, the Center will develop the methodology for the common household face-to-face survey, as well as the online survey of businesses and will analyse the surveys results. • Strengthening the EU – Turkey Energy Dialogue in the Context of Persistent Energy Security and Governance Risks in the Black Sea Region, (EC, EuropeAid) Period: 2016-2017, Coordinator: OME, France. The project aims to strengthen the energy dialogue between EU and Turkey by organizing a series of site visits, capacity-building workshops and international policy roundtables. CSD will organize and lead capacity-building workshops, thus delivery training to CSOs to participate in decision-making and policy-making based on evidence, research and representation (focusing on energy related issues); as well as participate in the preparation of the policy brief on energy security and in the elaboration of policy recommendations. • FLAGSHIP (FP7): Forward Looking Analysis of Grand Societal Challenges and Innovative Policies, Period: 2013 – 2015, Coordinator: ISIS, Italy. CSD will be responsible for energy security analysis of Bulgaria and the SEE region in the context of developing scenarios for future challenges in terms of governance and new technology implementation. It will also participate in the design of the economic and energy scenarios for the grand societal challenges part of the FLAGSHIP framework, as well as assist in the development of policy applications, through the production of a set of concrete policy recommendations for energy governance at EU level • PLATENSO (FP7): Building a Platform for Enhanced Societal Research Related to Nuclear Energy in Central and Eastern Europe, Period: 2013 – 2016, Coordinator: Karita Research, Sweden. Within this project CSD identified and described national research capacity in the field of societal research on nuclear energy and elaborate national strategy for strengthening the societal research on nuclear energy. Organisation Politecnico di Torino Short name POLITO Participant No. 5 Country Italy Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved Politecnico di Torino (POLITO) represents a leading public university, in Italy and in Europe, in technical-scientific teaching and research. Founded 150 years ago, POLITO offers excellence in technology and promotes the ability to carry out theoretical and applied research and also the capacity to achieve concrete and reliable productive processes or organize services and facilities. The range of studies is broad and ever-widening: it spans space, environment and land, telecommunications, information, energy, mechanics, electronics, chemistry, automation, industrial design, architecture, urban planning, management and construction. Research activities are organized in 11 departments which also provide faculties and teaching staff. POLITO has close relationships with international institutions, companies, local government and other types of association and is strongly committed to collaboration with industry. POLITO is a leading institution in technology transfer (225 patents, 159 start-up and 39 spin off). With 387 co-operational agreements with international universities and 118 double degree agreements, POLITO has moreover links with the most prestigious Universities in Europe. Besides POLITO is part of some of the major European interuniversity networks, such as CESAER, CLUSTER, E.C.I.U, EUA, and CMU. As regards to the EU projects, POLITO is involved in 287 EU projects with a total EU contribution of more than 63 million Euros. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 49 The Interuniversity Department of Urban and Regional Studies & Planning (DIST) of the Politecnico di Torino (http://www.dist.polito.it/) is the result of a joint venture between Politecnico and the other main Turin public university (University of Turin). The core mission of DIST focuses on educational and research activities in the field of urban studies, spatial planning and the built environment, including the management of historical, cultural, economic, technological, environmental, natural and built heritages. Thanks to its unique inter-university structure, the Department of Urban and Regional Studies and Planning joins the scientific and cultural approaches of the Polytechnic (architecture, engineering and management) and the University (political, economic and social sciences). Qualification of key personnel including previous experience relevant to the tasks assigned in the project Prof. Patrizia Lombardi (f) holds a PhD in Sustainable Urban Development Evaluation MSc in Urban Planning, BA/MA in Architecture, and is Full Professor of Sustainable Urban Planning Evaluation and Project Appraisal and Head of the Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning of Politecnico and Universita di Torino (DIST). She is an established figure in the field of evaluating smart and sustainable urban development for over 20 years, publishing widely in the subject area and coordinating, or serving as lead partner, in several Pan-European Projects related to Sustainable built environment, Smart Cities, Post carbon society and Cultural heritage, including: BEQUEST, INTELCITY, INTELCITIES, ISAAC, SURPRISE, PERFECTION, MILESECURE- 2050, DIMMER, POCACITO. She is responsible for the training connected to the research project EEB - Zero Carbon Urban District related to the Programme Smart Cities & Communities launched by the Ministry of Scientific Research (01/05/2013 - 36 months). She is Scientific coordinator of the S3+Lab on Societal challenge of the Politecnico of Turin and Rector’ delegate for the Sustainable campus initiatives. Since 2010, she is Chair of the UNESCO Master "World Heritage and Cultural Projects for Development" managed by the Turin School of development of the International Labour Organization (ILO). Awarded received in 2012 by the Alumni of Salford University of the Great Manchester for her career achievements. Luigi Buzzacchi (m) is full Professor of Industrial Economics at the Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning of Politecnico and Universita di Torino (DIST). His research interests have focused primarily on microeconomic and policy issues, including: analysis of discrimination pricing and screening in oligopoly; contracting issues, with a particular emphasis on the role of transaction costs, adverse selection and moral hazard; firm size and growth and the relationships between firm growth and financial constraints; financial market equilibrium; regulation of market with externalities; venture capital. His work has been published in many papers in economics, insurance and finance journals. He has acted as a referee for various international journals. He has done consulting work for national agencies, such as ISVAP, CONSOB and Banca d'Italia. Luigi Buzzacchi has also served as an expert witness in cases involving antitrust and insurance concerns. Dr. Isabella M. Lami (f) holds a PhD (Real Estate and Urban Planning), MSc (Real Estate and Urban Planning), BA/MA (Architecture), and is Associate Professor of Urban Planning Evaluation and Project Appraisal at Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning of Politecnico and Universita di Torino (DIST). She has a wide expertise in multicriteria analysis methods and spatial decision processes within the context of territorial transformations, and also in managing international participatory processes. She was one of the coordinator of the activities regarding the collaborative assessment process and decision-making on the Corridor 24 development, within the European Project CODE24 - Corridor Development Rotterdam-Genoa (2010-2015). This project was funded under the Strategic Initiatives Framework of the INTERREG IVB NWE programme (www.code-24.eu). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 50 She was a coordinator of the transnational network Urban Planning Systems in Europe - Urbax2 (2002-2004), involving 15 partners from Universities and Public Administrations in 9 different European countries, within the Leonardo da Vinci programme. Dr. Sara Monaci (f) graduated in Communication Sciences in 1997 and received a PhD in Science and Project of Communication in 2001, both from University of Turin. Currently she is Associate Professor in Media and Communication in Politecnico di Torino (DIST); faculty member at PhD School in "Cultural Heritage" at Polytechnic of Turin; she’s the Reference person and she teaches in Cinema and Media Engineering Degree. Her research interests include Virtual Heritage Communication, Cultural Industries, Communication networks, Digital creativity and Transmedia storytelling and design especially referred to the audiovisual sector. She has been principle investigator of different research national projects among which, “INVISIBILIA: The promotion of the artistic and expressive intangible heritage in Piedmont: toward a digital creativity model”, funded by University of Turin, Politecnico di Torino and Compagnia di San Paolo; she is author of 5 books related to digital media and cultural assets; among the most recent: Eventi culturali e media, 2013, Carocci. She is also a member of the European Research Network of Sociology of Communications and Media (ESA – RN 18). Selected publications relevant to the call content • Lombardi, P., Grünig, M. (ed.) (2016), Low-Carbon Energy Security from a European Perspective, Elsevier Academic Press. • Lombardi, P., Ferretti, V. (2015), New Spatial Decision Support Systems for Sustainable Urban and Regional Development. SMART AND SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, Vol. 4 No. 1, 45-66. - ISSN 2046-6099. • Lombardi P., Trossero E. (2013), Beyond energy efficiency in evaluating sustainable development in planning and the built environment, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE BUILDING TECHNOLOGY AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Vol. 4 No. 4, 274-282. - ISSN 2093-761X. • Lombardi P., Giordano S., Farouh H., Wael Y. (2012), Modelling the smart cities performances, INNOVATION, ICCR Foundation, 13, 2012, Vol. 25., ISSN: 1351- 1610. • Brandon P.S; Lombardi P. (2011), Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment. II Edition, Wiley-Blackwell (GBR), 272., ISBN: 9781405192583 (an updated version based on the first edition from 2005). Relevant previous projects or activities connected to the subject of this proposal • H2020: SHAPE-ENERGY - “Social Sciences and Humanities for Advancing Policy in European Energy” will develop Europe’s expertise in using and applying energy-SSH to accelerate the delivery of Europe’s Energy Union Strategy by creating an innovative and inclusive Platform. The project brings together those who ‘demand’ energy-SSH research and those who ‘supply’ that research to collaborate in ‘shaping’ Europe’s energy future. A key deliverable will be a “2020-2030 research and innovation agenda” to underpin post-Horizon 2020 energy-focused work programs. It will highlight how energy-SSH can be better embedded into energy policymaking, innovation and research in the next decade. • FP7: MILESECURE-2050 – “Multidimensional Impact of the Low-carbon European Strategy on Energy Security, and Socio-Economic Dimension up to 2050 perspective” (SSH.2012.2.2-2). Collaborative project - Grant agreement no: 320169. January 2013 – December 2015. Coordinator: POLITO (P. Lombardi). MILESECURE- 2050 project aims to understand and overcome the political, economical and behavioural traits and trends that led Europe to its difficulties in reducing fossil fuel consumption, and in diversifying its energy balance at rates which guarantee European energy security in the next years (more specifically at the horizon Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 51 2050), reduce the threat of climate change, and diminish the risk of an energy gap in the coming decades. http://www.milesecure2050.eu/ • FP7: POCACITO – “Post carbon city of Tomorrow” (SSH.2013.7.1-1). Collaborative project - Grant agreement no: 613286. January 2014 – December 2016. The project “POst-CArbon CIties of TOmorrow – foresight for sustainable pathways towards liveable, affordable and prospering cities in a world context” will develop an evidence-based 2050 roadmap for EU post-carbon cities. POCACITO facilitates the transition of EU cities to a forecasted sustainable or “post-carbon” economic model. The project focuses on towns, cities, megacities, metropolitan areas and urban clusters larger than 1 million people as well as small and medium-sized cities. The role of P. Lombardi is to support the POCACITO’s approach uses participatory scenario development as a mutual learning and living lab environment strategy. http://pocacito.eu/about+ • FP7: DIMMER – “District Information Modeling and Management for Energy Reduction”. European (FP7) ICT Smartcities 2013, Small or medium-scale focused research project (STREP). Grant agreement no: 609084. October 2013 – September 2016. Coordinator: POLITO. The DIMMER system integrates BIM and district level 3D models with real-time data from sensors and user feedback to analyse and correlate buildings utilization and provide real-time feedback about energy-related behaviours. It allows open access with personal devices and Augmented Reality (A/R) visualization of energy-related information to client applications for energy and cost-analysis, tariff planning and evaluation, failure identification and maintenance, energy information sharing. The role of P. Lombardi is to support development of innovative business models. http://dimmer.polito.it/ • Siebel Institute – URBE: Understanding the relations between URBan form and Energy consumption through behaviour patterns. The project aims to study the consumption profiles of urban citizens in terms of energy use (heat, gas and electricity) in buildings and mobility within the city area in relation to both urban morphology (e.g., average distance from home to workplace, inter-distance among services, inter-distance among streets), work habits (e.g., working hours and schedule), preferred means of mobility and building type. (On going). Relevant infrastructure and/or major items of technical equipment • The S3 + LAB is an innovative multidisciplinary laboratory funded by POLITO in the field of Urban Security and Sustainability for Societal challenges, coordinated by Professor Patrizia Lombardi (http://www.s3lab.polito.it/). This Lab includes appropriate tools and equipment for assessing the resilience and security of cities and supporting the decision making in planning. It is also equipped for supporting the research and application of new technologies to protect the security of citizens (health, food, etc.), infrastructure and services (communications, transport, etc.), even in the case of natural disasters. It includes: techniques/methods/algorithms useful for future automation of the process of digital photogrammetric survey also for multispectral/multitemporal applications, recently enriched by technologies related to aircraft unconventional autonomous flight (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) and the use of smartphones for the 'image based location / navigation. The laboratory can propose the application of the latest technologies in special areas (forensic applications, areal monitoring of hydrogeological instability, etc.) and the innovative products for the representation of land and Cultural Heritage (3D City Modeling, design and realization GIS 3D solid images, orthophotos solid and solid video, etc.). The equipment inside this lab can be summarize in several digital plotting systems, some terrestrial laser scanner, various unmanned aerial vehicles (multirotors as hexacop- Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 52 ters, fixed-wing aircraft, etc.), numerous digital camera and video camera for aerial and terrestrial photogrammetric applications, some software tools (commercial and freeware) for GIS, 3d city modelling and webGIS publications. In addition, it includes classical optical mechanics instruments, numerous modern electronic total stations of high accuracy, a new multi-station by Leica Geosystem, some GNSS/GPS receivers and various inertial measurement units (IMU), with the relative processing software (Inertial Explorer). Organisation co2online gGmbH Gemeinnützige Beratungsgesellschaft Short name co2online Participant No. 6 Country Germany Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved co2online, a non-profit company, has campaigned since 2003 for energy efficiency and climate protection. Most of its campaigns, projects and action programs have been funded by government grants. Their common purpose is to inform consumers on an individual basis about an energy-efficient lifestyle and to encourage them to take further action. co2online focuses on online campaigns and interactive advisory services, including comprehensive mobile applications (iOS and Android) for the advice on energy efficiency and modernization, as well as on extensive co-operation agreements. Around its online activities co2online designs media campaigns comprising inter alia public relations, events and printed matter. Regular reporting and evaluations flow continually into the co2online concept. co2online employs a staff of about 40 energy consultants, engineers, editors, environmental scientists, campaigners and communication consultants. co2online’s expertise: • Expert knowledge: The interdisciplinary co2online team offers, on the basis of professional training and project experience, well-founded specialized knowledge in the area of energy efficiency and climate protection. • Strategic approach: co2online has years of experience in the analysis of communicative tasks and the development of communicative approaches suited to particular target groups. • Online expertise: co2online specializes in online and interactive communication campaigns. The team disposes of technical know-how relating to state-of-the-art navigation, search engine optimization and current website trends and mobile apps. • Social Media and mobile experience: co2online was the first environmental organization in Germany to set up an extensive Facebook campaign ("StromCheck"). Since 2009, co2online maintains a successful Twitter channel. In 2012, co2online launched its mobile app “EnergyCheck” which covers a widespread range of advice on energy efficiency and is linked to the monitoring tool “Energy Savings Account”. • Editorial activities: co2online is expert in presenting technically complex subject matter to specific target groups. • Technical know-how: co2online works closely with providers of technical services and undertakes project management concerning the design and realization of online portals. • Network: Individual contact to end-users, as well as to important disseminators, can be utilized for addressing the target group. • Evaluation experience: co2online regularly evaluates its online activities (use of interactive advisers, website use, online surveys and evaluation of user feedback). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 53 Qualification of key personnel including previous experience relevant to the tasks assigned in the project Boris Demrovski (m) is a Senior Expert with a Diploma in Online Journalism. He has 10 years of experience in communication and campaigning in various non-profit organisations (for example BUNDjugend/Young friends of the Earth Germany and Slow Food) in Germany. He worked for campaigns for behaviour change and sustainable lifestyles/ energy saving on a regional (Trenntwende/Berlin), national (Klima sucht Schutz, die Stromsparinitiative / Stromspiegel) and European level (German chapter of Efficiency_ 2.1 and YEFF). He has concepted, written and edited numerous special topics about energy efficiency and sustainable lifestyle for co2online. Currently he is working in the project management of co2online and focuses on European projects. Volker Buhrmeister (m) is a mechanic for computer equipment with 12 years’ experience in process optimization, programming and search engine optimisation. He has extensive experience in management of software projects with the content management system typo3 and in dialogue marketing as well. He is also responsible for all email marketing campaigns at co2online and the technical support and maintenance of the co2online campaign websites "Climate Seeks Protection", "Die Stromsparinitiative", "Energy Saving Club", “ecoGator”, “co2online.de” continuously since 2010 Sebastian Schwarz (m), Master of Environmental Studies, is a Junior Expert and a specialist for environmental communication with consolidated knowledge in natural and social science and is working for co2online since 2016. At co2online he is involved in the project management of national and international campaigns for consumers and businesses. He is working currently on the development of policy tools in the project-framework of the EU-funded project Premium Light Pro. Katy Jahnke (f) studied economics at Technical University Berlin. Main emphasis of her studies was environmental economics especially policy measures. Her thesis focussed on sustainable energy policies for the promotion of renewable energies. While working at the Institute for Ecological Economy Research (IÖW) in Berlin she participated in various projects regarding energy and sustainability and gained first research experiences. 2008 to 2011 Katy Jahnke did research at the Bremer Energie Institut (BEI) on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Since June 2011 she heads co2onlines research department. Filip Milojkovic (m) is an Expert at co2online. He studied economics at Heidelberg University. For his thesis, he has cooperated with the Institut für Wohnen und Umwelt GmbH (IWU) and focused on the socio-economic parameters of building renovation in detached and semidetached houses in Germany, based on data from the socio-economic panel (SOEP). He worked in various energy efficiency projects at the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) and the Housing Initiative for Eastern Europe (IWO e.V.). Since September 2015 he works for co2online in the research department and project development. Selected publications relevant to the call content • The Pendos CO2 counter The manual for a climate-friendly life explains how much CO2 the most important living areas are consuming. For example consumption, heating, mobility etc. Pendo-Verlag / September 2007 / ISBN-13: 978- 3866121416. Information brochure “Climate protection and energy efficiency in Germany”. Publisher: co2online gemeinnützige GmbH, July 2015, 106 Pages, 10.000 printed copies. • The brochure "Climate Protection and Energy Efficiency" shows various ways to save energy. It provides on 108 pages an updated and comprehensive overview of the various measures, fields of action and opportunities for energy efficiency - for buildings, households, mobility and industry. • The interactive Energy Savings Account (iESA) - An online energy monitoring application that evaluates the energy consumption for space heating and electricity Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 54 of households. This tool visualizes the energy consumption (as well as costs and CO2 - emissions), states if consumption is elevated (in comparison to comparable user), forecasts the energy consumption in the future, determines energy saving potentials and proves energy saving success of performed improvements. Users are able to share their energy saving success stories (e.g. consumption diagrams, or saved kwh per year) in common social media networks. The ESA has more than 84,000 users all over Europe and contains data records of 980,000 meter readings and 118,000 invoices (electricity, water or heating). • EnergyCheck app makes saving energy easy. The consumption data for heating, electricity and water can be entered directly at the meter, be evaluated the same time and also be synchronized with the users ESA. With this function the EnergieCheck app is the perfect extension to the ESA on the users mobile device. Some EnergySavingChecks are additionally implemented, for example the StandbyCheck which calculates base power consumption and losses incurred by stand-by functionality of appliances in the users home. It reveals related electricity costs. The Energy Check has been downloaded 32,800 times. • The ecoGator app (already developed and available on iOS and Android) assists consumers when they are looking for electrical appliances (in a real shop). ecoGator presents top efficient products, currently available in the categories lighting, white goods, TV sets and office equipment. This app explains how the EU-energy label works and compares a specific appliance in a shop with an Ecotopten appliance, regarding the differences in energy consumption and long-term energy costs. ecoGator is the first app which can read and process data from the EU energy label by using the smartphones built in camera. The app was released in June 2014. Relevant previous projects or activities • Efficiency 2.1 (myEcoNavigator) (EU-wide/funded by IEE) - The main objective of ‘Efficiency 2.1’ is to support consumers in their purchase decisions by providing up-to-date information about the most energy efficient products on the market. The initiative’s main output is a free of charge smartphone app, ecoGator. The app will be offered in all 10 countries covered by this campaign as an impartial personal advisor for energy-saving shopping and lifestyle choices. • YEFF/SMERGY (EU-wide/funded by IEE) – is a European energy-saving campaign for young adults between 18 and 29 years. The goal of SMERGY is to communicate possible energy saving potential and to encourage young adults to implement EE measures at home. The communication with the target audience is happening in a practical, fun, and fashionable way. Through diverse promotions and competitions, the target group is encouraged to actively participate in the campaign and to inform and motivate others through the use of social networks. Due to the development of a personalized energy check tool, the target group will be able to compare their energy habits with those of others and reach tangible energy-saving results. • European Citizens Climate Cup (ECCC) (EU-wide/funded by IEE), a competition launched in 2011 for householders across Europe encouraging them to compete either against each other at a national level or as part of a team at a EU level. 10,000 participants from 10 EU Member States competed within and between countries. • Campaign “Power saving initiative” (national) - The aim of the power saving initiative is to inform and motivate private households to reduce their electrical power consumption. But not only private household’s also small and medium sized enterprises can reduce their energy costs in the long term. • Campaign “Climate Seeks Protection” (national) is funded by the Federal Ministry of the Environment. The campaign motivates people to reduce their CO2 emis- Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 55 sions. 15 Online Advisers offer quick and competent advice on various aspects of room heating, energy saving, modernisation measures and subsidies, as well as on various aspects of electricity saving. By now over four million online advice sessions have been completed. Organisation PORSENNA o.p.s. Short name PORSENNA Participant No. 7 Country Czech Republic Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved PORSENNA o.p.s. is a non-profit organization which provides services for municipalities, enterprisers and general public in the field of energy management, building construction, passive houses, energy efficiency and energy consultancy. Main task is to put the principles of sustainable development in a common practice, mainly in the field of energy management, sustainable construction and RES utilization. PORSENNA is one of the few organizations in the CZ which are specialized idn Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB), RES and which actively participate in the process of spreading of energy intelligent building concept. PORSENNA o.p.s. is well placed in activities listed as follow: • Guidance in the area of designing energy intelligent buildings (project elaboration, energy audits, NZEB, construction control and etc.). • Organization and realization of training activities in practical realization of sustainable development principles and construction of energy intelligent buildings. • Elaboration of pre-project and feasibility studies in the area of building elaboration, RES exploitation (consultation in the technology selection, economic efficiency assessment, proposal preparation for the desirable subsidy); • Consultation and guidance services for municipalities in strategic development and conceptual documents elaboration (operational / development programmes; strategic plans, action plans, pilot action as well as EE solutions and RES utilization). Energy management, implementation of ISO 50001 in municipalities and enterprises. • Cooperation on the research and development activities in the area of environmental economy, energy management and sustainable architecture. Qualification of key personnel including previous experience relevant to the tasks assigned in the project Dr. Miroslav Šafařík (m) is a technical engineer, director and co-founder of the company. He has experience in NZEB, HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) systems, implementation of SEAP and ISO 50001, methodology of the concept of smart cities in the Czech Republic and specialist on energy management. He has expertise in the use of renewable energy sources in buildings, environmentally friendly technical facilities in buildings and energy management in buildings municipalities and ISO implementation. Vítězslav Malý (m) is manager and economic engineer. He has experience in implementation of SEAP, ISO 50001, organizing of educational and enlightenment activities as well as training programs, as the head of the International project division. He has expertise in energy management and environmentally friendly technical facilities in buildings and has extensive experience in organizing educational activities on the subject. He also has project management skills and experience with ISO implementations. Lucie Stuchlíková (f) is a technical engineer, authorized energy specialist with authorization for energy audits, energy certificates of buildings and with experienc in implementation of ISO 50001. Along with an expertise in energy management in buildings, she has realized several feasibility studies in the field and produced detailed analyses of RES utilization in the field of her work. She delivers energy certificates of buildings and conducts energy audits. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 56 Michal Čejka (m) is a technical engineer, Certified Passive House Designer, Experienced in NZEB, HVAC systems, and head of the Energy performance division. He has experience in environmentally friendly construction and technical facilities in buildings. He is also a “Certified Passive House Designer”, from the Passivhaus Institut Darmstadt. As in-house expert Dr. Roman Matoušek (m) from the Department of Inclusion of the Government Office of the Czech Republic supports the work of PORSENNA to include vulnerable consumers, eps. long-term unemployed. He is an expert in geography of housing in terms of social and spatial justice. His research focuses on the implications of national and municipal housing policies for residential segregation processes (especially Sinti and Roma, and also foreigners) in different urban and rural contexts. Relevant services to the call content PORSENNA cooperates with the Department of Inclusion of the Government Office of the Czech Republic, which has been providing social services since 1999. At that time, the Department of Inclusion introduced a concept of social counselling under the heading Field Work, whose main purpose was to help people from socially deprived areas. PORSENNA is widely experienced in following services relevant for the project: • Energy Audits of Buildings and Facilities • Energy Performance Certificates of Buildings • Free Consulting and Consulting for Passive Houses • Organization of trainings and enlightenment • Energy management, ISO implementation, RES utilization PORSENNA has realized/implemented or designed several significant outputs: • Social study “Potenciál úspor energie v budovách” trained on energy poverty and vulnerable final consumers in CZE. • Methodology of the concept of Smart Cities in the Czech Republic and Methodology of the sustainable energy for the assessment in Local Agenda 21 in municipalities (Healthy Cities nad Towns, Czech Republic) • Energy management systems in Czech municipalities in accordance of ČSN EN ISO50001, conf. proceedings, 187-196: http://www.azecr.cz/cz/program-konference • Energy management software – tool for monitoring and assessment of energy consumption in municipalities; link: http://www.energetickymanagement.cz/ • Implementation of ISO 50 001 in Czech cities - Statutory City of Opava, year of implementation 2013 – 14 - Statutory City of Jablonec nad Nisou, year of implementation 2014 - City of Tábor, year of implementation 2014 - City of Chrudim, year of implementation 2014 Relevant previous projects or activities PORSENNA organized training programs, workshops and seminars aimed at NZEB or passive houses constructions, EE, energy savings measures, utilization of RE etc.: • Most relevant training programs, enlightenment and seminars in last 3 years: - Energy and energy savings training program (2012, ongoing); - Integrated building design with nearly zero energy consumption in the private and public sectors (2015); - Energy and energy savings in public and private sector (2016); - EKIS - Free independent energy advice under the auspices of the Ministry of Industry and Trade (ongoing). • International project ENERGYREGION, 3CE393P3, Project Partner in the INTERREG Central Europe 2007 - 2013, (2012 – 2014). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 57 • International project DYNAMIC LIGHT, Project Partner in the INTERREG Central Europe 2014 - 2020, (2016 – 2019). • Project MODEL, Management of Domains Related to Energy in Local Authorities, Intelligent Energy Europe programme and ADEME; www.energymodel.eu • Research project Indicators of sustainable energy for decision making in town and cities - project for Ministry of Environment Czech Republic • Project for the Ministry of Environment - Environmental management systems for municipalities with focus on energy management. • National project Energy and energy savings training program, (CZ.1.07/3.2.02/04.0036), supported by ESF and dealing with the energy management, strategic and energy planning, use of RES, NZEB and energy efficiency measures in buildings in CZE (2012, ongoing). • National project Integrated building design with nearly zero energy consumption in the private and public sectors, supported by Ministry of Industry and Trade and dealing with the energy management, use of RES, NZEB, (2015). • EKIS - Free independent energy advice under the auspices of the Ministry of Industry and Trade (ongoing). Relevant infrastructure and/or major items of technical equipment • PORSENNA developed and provide energy management tool for municipalities as well as assisted in implementation of ISO 50001, RES utilization, and etc. in several Czech municipalities in the past 5 years. Therefore, it has significant knowledge, practice and a database. At the same time disposes of necessary documents, examples in Czech language, which can be further used: E-manager, software tool for energy management (in use 12 municipalities in CZ). • PORSENNA has a significant knowledge, practice and database in the NZEB topic and RES utilization and has sufficient facilities and infrastructure to host and/or offer a suitable environment for training and transfer of knowledge. • Two conference rooms for trainings and consulting. • PORSENNA NGO is closely connected with company PORSENNA stavebni (building contractor which construct passive and NZEB houses) and therefore has facilities and knowledge in RES deployment. Among others: Passive house Kunice, Passive house Uhrineves, Passive house Jiretice, Passive house Kamik Organisation La Foresta Societa Cooperativa Short name FORESTA Participant No. 8 Country Italy Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved LA FORESTA SCRL is a cooperative forestry society, founded in 1996, that primary task forestry work. The company is highly skilled in wood cutting in alpine region, wood transportation, wood drying and chips cutting. In the last five years the company gained new skills in installing and managing heat power plant of small and medium size (20-300 kW). The company is certified PEFC for wood cutting and wood chips creation. Qualification of key personnel including previous experience relevant to the tasks assigned in the project Giorgio Talachini (m) is the administrator of the Company, he holds a diploma in building and forestry works and managed all the works of the company from the wood acquisition to the heating service delivering. Doriana Talachini (f) is the head of lumberjack department of the company, she is highly skilled on forestry works. Erica Gilli (f) is the financial responsible of the company, she works on the financial aspects of proposed co-financed activities and she will manage the invoice analysis and management for the proposed project. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 58 Relevant infrastructure and/or major items of technical equipment LA FORESTA SCRL owns a 1.500 square meters building used as depot, laboratory and offices. In addition, the company owns more than 50.000 square meters of outer space to deposit wood logs for drying. A complete depot of tubes, valves, pumps and other accessory for heating station is stored by the Company. The Company own a wood chipper self-propelled with autonomous diesel engine, rated at 200 m3/h standard productivity of wood chips. Other machinery owns are: • N°4 Forestry tractors (Max Power 163 kW, Max Torque 650 Nm) • N°2 Forestry cableway (2 km, payload 4’000 kg) • N°1 Forestry Harvester • N°4 Excavator • N°3 Truck (payload 18’000 kg) for logs and wood chips transport Quad and Trial motorcycles for high mountain forest recon. Relevant previous projects or activities La FORESTA was already involved in Regional financed project, specifically: • ENSESBID (2013-2016), 200’000 € project financed by POR FESR Regional founding, with Politecnico di Torino, developing and testing wood logs and wood chips dryer fuelled by biomass. • ALTERPELLET (2013-2016), 120’000 € project on low environmental impact small wood chips production to substitute pellet in existent boiler. LA FORESTA participated in the PEFC certification program in 2012, achieving the PEFC certificate for wood and wood chips production. Organisation Miasto Słupsk Short name SŁUPSK Participant No. 9 Country Poland Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved City of Słupsk develops Green City of New Generation Strategy 2016-2022, which promotes energy poverty minimization and sustainable development through decentralized, democratically controlled renewable energy development with improvement of energy efficiency for all of its more than 90.000 citizens. To accomplish sustainable development of power and heat sector, Słupsk has implemented energy efficiency activities first, including smart management of power and heat purchases, LED lighting installations, thermal insulation of buildings etc. Communal Słupsk Water Company (www.wodociagi.slupsk.pl) developed circular economy project with biogas and natural fertilizer production from wastewater purification process. Secondary school in Słupsk in cooperation with Greenpeace Poland http://www.greenpeace.org/poland/pl/wydarzenia/polska/Szkoaw- Supsku-bdzie-produkowa-energi-ze-soca/ as well as Słupsk Technology Incubator http://www.sit.slupsk.pl/content/elektrownia-fotowoltaiczna-o-mocy-180-36-kwp-na-terenie-slupskiegoinkubatora- technologicznego.html installed first roof public PV power plants. Communal Słupsk Water Company and Słupsk Water Park currently develop green energy cluster to produce biogas and green heat from wastewater plant for water heating in water park. To coordinate all these tasks in a smart way, City of Słupsk employed in 2015 “smart energy manager” who is responsible for energy saving, energy efficiency and local renewable energy development. The City Mayor Robert Biedroń considers energy democracy a priority in strengthening civil society as well as human and social capitals of citizens. Energy democracy means stronger participation and control of citizens over local energy resources and to achieve it Słupsk is active in educating, providing information about energy saving and energy efficiency as well as different types of renewable energy ownership: prosumer, co-operative, communal etc. In 2015 Słupsk started “Green point” with information and education being provided to citizens. “Green point” has also been a tool for inclusion of unemployed Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 59 women with technical qualifications. Currently Słupsk with a team of energy experts plans to make series of energy audit workshops to help citizens lowering their energy (electricity and heat) bills and to educate private and public building managers about energy saving and energy efficiency. Those activities aim in reduction of emissions as well as reduction of energy poverty. Qualification of key personnel including previous experience relevant to the tasks assigned in the project Dariusz Szwed (m) is Słupsk Mayor’s Adviser, member of Słupsk Sustainable Development Council, expert on sustainable development, green economy, energy democracy and international relations. He holds a Master of Economics at the Krakow University of Economics - Foreign Trade Department with specialisation in International Economic Relations as well as postgraduate Studies at the Warsaw University/Harvard Institute for International Development - Economic Principles of Environmental Policy; expert cooperating with among others the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Greenpeace International, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and IUCN; expert and collaborator of Members of Poland’s Parliament, 2003-2004 adviser to Green Group in the EU Parliament. 2000-2002 he was a Senior expert to Ministry of Environment on access to information, public participation and access to justice. Author, co-author of publications, articles, interviews and media appearances on sustainability, green modernisation and green technologies. Beata Maciejewska (f) has been working since 2014 as the Commissioner of the Mayor of the City of Słupsk for Sustainable Development and Green Modernization of the City. The leader of a working group coordinating the city strategy for the years 2016-22. She is consulting, initiating and managing various programs and projects in the area of green modernization, e.g. energy management, ecological education. Responsible for “Green Point”: the first information point in Poland for citizens, institutions and entrepreneurs in energy saving and renewable energy. Previously co-founder of Green Institute Foundation, and head for Spaces for Dialogue Foundation in the years 2004-2015. One of the leaders of social campaign “Energy democracy” since 2011, consisting in publications, films, and conferences organized in the whole country; www.demokracjaenergetyczna.pl. She is also a social educator, author and editor of books and articles on sustainable development. Marek Biernacki (m) is Deputy Mayor of the City of Słupsk, Professional engineer. He was vice-mayor of the city of Ustka and councillor of the regional council (Sejmik) of Pomerania, where he was responsible for environmental issues. He also worked as a chief engineer in Słupsk water company. Awarded for his contribution to the then province of Słupsk. He was a member of the team developing the Strategy for the Development of the City of Słupsk, and was a head of the Municipal Social Construction. He carried off and participated in various projects and infrastructural investments in green energy in the Pomeranian region. Magdalena Komorowska (f) graduated in engineering studies at Gdańsk University of Technology (technologies for environmental protection) and from Warsaw University of Technology (master's degree in environmental protection). Since February 2016 she has been working in the City Hall of Słupsk as the advisor in the Green Point (Zielony Punkt) – information and educational centre for energy and environmental issues opened for all citizens, institutions and businesses. Selected publications relevant to the call content • Kozek B., Maciejewska B., Szwed D. (2010), Green New Deal, Green European Foundation/Green Institute/Heinrich Böll Foundation, Brussels. • Maciejewska B. (2013), Women and green modernization, Spaces For Dialogue Foundation, Gdańsk. • Maciejewska B., Szwed D. (2010), Sustainable Development of Silesia Metropoly, Spaces for Dialogue Foundation, Gdańsk. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 60 • Szulecki K., Ancygier A., Szwed D. (2015), Energy Democratization? Societal Aspects of De-Carbonization in the German and Polish Energy Sectors, ESPRi Working Paper 5, ESPRi Wroclaw. • Szwed D., Maciejewska B. (2010), Energy Democracy, Green Institute, Warsaw. Relevant previous projects or activities • Energy Democracy in Poland – social campaign to promote prosumption, cooperative and communal ownership and citizen’s control over renewable energy. • Women & green modernization – social campaign promoting green jobs for women. • Energy Cities – network of municipalities promoting EE and RE. • Pact of Amsterdam - Urban Agenda for the EU. • Polish Network of Progressive Mayors – network of Polish small and medium size cities promoting progressive political agenda. • EURONET 50/50 MAX – 8 Schools in Słupsk entered the project „EACH watt worth gold” (“Każdy wat na wage złota”) aiming at mobilizing energy savings in public buildings through the implementation of the 50/50 methodology in 500 schools and nearly 50 other public buildings from 13 EU countries. The 9-step methodology increases energy awareness of the building users and actively involves them in energy–saving actions. Achieved financial savings are shared equally between the building users and the local authority, which covers the energy bills. • Słupsk has prepared participatory project of Development Strategy 2022 Green City of the New Generation with several hundred citizens involved in strategy building with a group of expert coaching public participation in the process. Green City Strategy covers participatory energy transformation to low-carbon society. • “Green Point” established in 2015 has trained some hundreds of citizens, entrepreneurs, local NGO leaders etc. in energy efficiency and renewable energy. • Energy audits for local communities are planned for the period of 2016-2018 to show and facilitate installations of LED lighting, change of household appliances to energy efficient ones as well as low-cost improvements in heat efficiency both in public and private places.„Energy bus” – mobile education and information centre of climate changes prevention with the Polish National Energy Conservation Agency (KAPE) provided citizens of Słupsk with energy efficiency and climate change. Organisation Mesto Litomerice (City of Litomerice) Short name LITOMERICE Participant No. 10 Country Czech Republic Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved The royal town of Litoměřice has about 25.000 inhabitants. Since the year 2000 the town is member of the WHO National Network of Healthy Cities, international movement focusing on systematic public health promotion and sustainable development. The most ambitious project, however, is the geothermal project using EGS technology. Project has been preparing since year 2000, with realization of exploratory well in 2007. Since 2009 a major project has been processed together with many partners from the Czech Academy of Science and universities and research institutions aiming at applying for funding from EU programming period 2014-2020. All energy activities since 2011 are part of the overall systematic town energy management, started e.g. with launching smart metering for selected buildings, or the first refurbishment of a public building (kindergarten) in a low-energy and passive standard. Finally, new Municipal Energy plan for 2014-2030 was created and also innovative Energy Savings Fund was launched at the beginning of 2014 to trigger investment into sustaina- Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 61 ble energy measures in public buildings. City of Litoměřice became member of Energy Cities in 2014 and entered the Covenant of Mayors initiative in 2016. Qualification of key personnel including previous experience relevant to the tasks assigned in the project Dr. Jaroslav Klusák (m) finished PhD study program at the University of Economics, Prague, Department of Environmental Economics in 2006. Since 2011 he works as senior energy manager of the City of Litoměřice. He has practical experiences in the municipal energy since 2004,publishes articles in the energy and energy management field. He worked in national and international projects such as MODEL, Sustainable local energy indicators, MARUEL, MAESTRO, READY 21, ProgRESsHEAT, POCACITO and others. He is a member of the Sustainable Energy Board of the Office of the Government of the Czech Republic. Michal Černý (m) completed his study program at the Czech Technical University, Prague, Department of Microenvironmental and Building Services Engineering. He has practical experiences in the municipal energy since 2014, when we started to work as energy specialist in PORSENNA (energy consultancy company). He is experienced in projection of passive and low-energy houses. Since 2016 he works as junior energy manager of the City of Litoměřice. Rita Vlčková (f) works as Healthy city coordinator of the City of Litoměřice since 2012. Rita has practical experiences in public consultation of the projects, involvement of local citizens and organization of local educational events (Car Free Days, Energy Days). She worked in national and international projects such as MAESTRO, READY 21, POCACITO and others. Monika Čapková (f) works as a Healthy City of Litoměřice Fellow since 2010. Monika has practical experiences in project management and work with targeted groups (citizens in need, social and low-income groups). She is also well experienced in organization of local educational events (Car Free Days, Energy Days, international energy conferences). She worked in national and international projects such as MARUEL, MOVECIT, Mobilita 21 and others. Selected publications relevant to the call content • Klusák, J. et al. (2015),Eneregetický management pro města a obce – Energy management of municipalities,; Pro města a obce magazine. • Klusák, J. et al. (2015), Úspory v energetice – Energy Savings, in Sbírka případových studií – Compilation of case studies, Svaz měst a obcí ČR 2015, Union of Towns and Municipalities of the Czech Republic. • Klusák, J. et al. (2014), Školy, učitelé a energetická soběstačnost – Schools, Teachers and Energy Efficiency, Bedrník 2014/3. • Klusák, J. et al. (2014), Litoměřice - Udržitelná energetika a soběstačnost jsou tím správným přístupem – The City of Litomerice – Sustainable Energy and selfsufficiency are the right approach; Moderní obec 2014/1. • Klusák, J. et al. (2009), Litoměřice – Indikátory udržitelné energetiky pro rozhodování měst a obcí – Sustainable Energy Indicators for municipalities decisionmaking, ISBN 978-80-254-5995-9. Organisation Consorzio Forestale Alta Valle Susa Short name CFAVS Participant No. 11 Country Italy Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved CONSORZIO FORESTALE ALTA VALLE DI SUSA is a consortium, own by the 14 municipalities of the Susa High Valley, founded in 1953, that had as primary task forestry and fluvial management. In addition, the CFAVS prepares for the municipalities detailed design of public works, forestry buildings and forestry works. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 62 Qualification of key personnel incl. previous experience relevant to tasks assigned in project Alberto Dotta (m) holds a Msc in forestry. He is the director of the consortium. He participated in numerous postgraduate courses in forestry management and naturalistic engineering in Italy, Switzerland and Germany. Silvia Ambrois (f) holds a Msc Environmental Engineering, Politecnico di Torino. She is specialized in preliminary design and feasibility assessment of works in mountain environment. Relevant services and facilities CFAVS count on 20 persons that represent the technical and administrative core of the consortium. On the other hand, about 20 employees work under seasonal contracts for the forestry and fluvial works. CFVAS owns a depot, laboratory and offices. In addition, the company owns the machinery for forestry and fluvial works. The CFAVS represent an ideal working environment for training both for forestry workers and for technical ones. Organisation Deutscher Caritasverband, Projekt Stromspar-Check Short name Caritas Participant No. 12 Country Germany Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved As a non-statutory welfare association, German Caritas Association plays an active role in socio-political debates. The non- profit organization speaks out for disadvantaged people and develops own ideas on how to create a just society in Germany. Caritas takes responsibility for its role in the development of needs-led social infrastructures, and contributes to providing people with health and social care, education and employment services. The German Caritas Association was founded in 1897. The main office is in Freiburg, and there are also branch offices in Berlin and Brussels. Along with political advocacy and public relations work, the 350 people who work in the main office are also responsible for Caritas’ professional development. They initiate pilot projects, discuss and evaluate results, and make these available in publications and at conferences. The combination of practice, political campaigning and research will continue to enable Caritas to meet the demands of the future. Transparency towards the donors, founders and the public is important to the German Caritas Association. It complies with the norms of the DZI Seal of Approval and is a member of the Transparent Civil Society Initiative. Together with Diakonie, the social welfare organization of Germany’s Protestant churches, it has developed transparency standards for its own services and institutions. Qualification of key personnel including previous experience relevant to the tasks assigned in the project Barbara Kalker (f), MBA and Master of Political Science and Economics, Senior Expert and Regional Coordinator of Stromspar-Check since December 2008. She has been responsible for advising and guiding over 50 local projects in terms of project structure, finances and project development. In addition, she has been the contact person for institutions, communities or jobcentres interested in starting a new Stromspar-Check site, helping and advising how to initiate and run a site, Contact person for communities’ administrations and networking ideas. She was part of the European Project ACHIEVE. Marlene Potthoff (f) is Environmental Pedagogue, Senior Expert and Project Manager of Stromspar-Check in the past eight years, project leader of the local Stromspar-Check in Frankfurt/Main for two years, working in environmental projects and campaigns consumers for more than 20 years. Project leader of the European Stromspar-Check project, called ACHIEVE, where four other countries were bringing the main project idea into their countries. As in-house expert Florian Unger (m), Division Manager of the Energy Agency of the City of Frankfurt supports CARITAS; Mr. Unger was involved in the development of the Stromspar-Check since the very beginning and significantly developed the approach to include long term unemployed. He is responsible for development and implementation of energy saving schemes and services to be delivered to businesses as well as private Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 63 households. He currently works on a number of projects analysing and developing projects on how to most effectively influence consumer behaviour on a larger scale. Since 2011, Mr. Unger is responsible for the development of Frankfurt’s energy saving programs for households and SEM. The program is one a few local grand programs which aim to overcome consumer behaviour barriers by applying a range of different incentive programs. He also corporates with Caritas Frankfurt and the local Stromspar-Check project. He will be a consultant for SCORE and support the workshop in Frankfurt. N.N. - Support from an employee of Stromspar-Check for organizational work to prepare the workshops, the travel issues and deliverables. Selected publications relevant to the call content • Aigeltinger, G., Heindl, P., Liessem, V., Römer, D., Schwengers, C., & Vogt, C. (2015), Zum Stromkonsum von Haushalten in Grundsicherung: Eine empirische Analyse für Deutschland. ZEW Discussion Paper, 15–075, 1–30. • „Energy Efficiency for Low-Income Households“ in November 2016 for European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE)- Introducing SSC in all EU countries is recommended • Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen. Umweltgutachten 2016: Impulse für eine integrative Umweltpolitik Relevant previous projects or activities National project Stromspar-Check Kommunal: Since 2008 Caritas is leading the national project Stromspar-Check, together with the Federal Association of Energy and Climate Agencies, a project for households with low-income. The action contributes to the national objectives towards climate protection, e.g. reducing CO2 emissions by 40 % until 2020 (compared to 1990), defined in the government’s Integrated Climate and Energy Programme. The action is intended to: reduce CO2 emissions, reduce energy costs in lowincome households, save costs for municipalities, qualify long-term unemployed persons, transfer know-how about energy efficiency especially to households with low-income, enable low-income households to self-help. The action is connected with social services, employment market, educational and environmental policy targets. The project consists in training people to provide energy and water saving assistance to low-income householders, to implement the energy saving checks in apartments or houses, to analyse data and to take immediate measures. Households take part voluntarily at about 150 sites. The offer is promoted by employment and social offices, utilities and other projects of the welfare organizations. Each low-income householder who receives unemployment benefits, social welfare, housing benefits or other kinds of transfer payments can take part as long as he or she lives close to one of the sites. An action typically consists of: • Analysis of the household’s consumer behaviour, measuring of consumption of appliances and flow-through of water in taps and shower, acquisition of data from energy and water bills, 48-h-metering of refrigerator if older than 10 years. • Collection and processing of relevant data in the project database and calculation of savings potential using suitable energy and water saving devices (LEDs, switchable plug-connectors, water saving showerheads, tap aerators, thermometers, etc.). • Installation of small energy and water saving devices with an average value of EUR 70; in case the household owns a refrigerator older than 10 years and a savings potential of at least 200 kWh can be achieved when exchanged by an A+++ appliance, presentation of a EUR 150-voucher to purchase a refrigerator of the highest energy efficiency class (payment of voucher, in case the household exchanged the refrigerator and disposed of the old one). • Consultation on consumer behaviour and rational use of energy during washing, cooking, heating, ventilation, etc. and on the exchange of appliances. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 64 • Advice on contacting consumer associations if households have problems with heating and mould probably due to the malfunction of the heating system or insulation. • Monitoring of actual savings after at least 12 months after the consultation in households. Eligible are households who agreed on the third visit and have bills available for a before and after for comparison. The new project Stromspar-Check Kommunal started in April 2016 and is financed until March 2019. In this new approach the partners aim at the establishment of further means to enhance local political and financial support for the projects. This will mainly be done by developing new networking conditions with municipalities, e.g. in terms of local round tables or further agreements with local partners on financial support. In this regard, the benefit for municipalities by saving accommodation costs for recipients of social benefits will be advanced. This shall be accomplished by the installation of small and easy to use equipment to reduce the heat demand of households (e.g. radiator keys, window film, draught stoppers, etc.), which at the same time improve the indoor climate for the residents. Furthermore, many households will receive an even more intensive consultation to change their consumer behaviour. The documentation and analysis of these tips will lead to a better knowledge about the effect of changes in behaviour. Main results: Since 2008 about 3,000 long-term unemployed persons were trained, with 1,100 actively working at the moment. By now, about 255,000 energy saving checks have been accomplished. With CO2-reductions of 460.000 t (long-term over the lifetime of energy savings devices and refrigerators). The evaluation has shown that households receiving social welfare save up to EUR154/year, while those exchanging refrigerators save additionally EUR 94/year. Lessons learned & success factors: The project is very well perceived in Germany, not only throughout the target group, but also on different political levels and within science, due to the large amount of energy related household data collected since 2008. Stromspar- Check probably is the only national energy savings project with an internal monitoring scheme, i.e. households having had their consultation at least 12 months ago can get a further visit to check their energy and water bills, giving feedback about the usability of the installed savings equipment, their saving success and their general opinion about the consultation. The results so far in about 3.300 monitoring checks show that the largest part of the households save even more than assumed, all households are of the opinion that the consultation was useful, 99 % would recommend the service. Implementation: More than 10 energy agencies and more than 150 social service providers are involved in the project, which also benefits from a local/regional network of employment agencies, municipalities and job centres giving political and financial support to the project. The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety finances the project through the National Climate Initiative. Best practice at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 21st Conference of the Parties COP 21 in Paris 2015. Organisation AMICO S.C.S. SOCIETA‘ COOPERATIVA SOCIALE Short name AMICO Participant No. 13 Country Italy Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved AMICO Societa cooperativa sociale, a non-profit Social cooperative, is specialised in the reintegration of disadvantaged and marginalised workers (e.g. disabled, long-term unemployed, former detainees, etc.) through work. AMICO integrates disadvantaged people into the labour market by providing general service of agricultural and forestry works. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 65 With almost thirty years of experience in the Valle di Susa, AMICO is a well-known company trusted by municipalities and private stakeholder in the region. AMICO was registered in 1999, but the activity of its workers to include and work with marginalized people started in 1990 with the “Casa dell’amicizia” meeting point foundation. In the Italian pilot, AMICO will be responsible to integrate at least five marginalized workers into the project (and into the labor market) to become intermediaries with lowincome households (focus long-term unemployed and families with many children). AMICO is well known in the Susa Valley, the participation to the project will help in the recruiting of private investors for the Italian pilot. Using the CARITAS approach AMICO will spread to all their workers the know-how gained during the project, in addition, AMICO will inform to its contact networks of marginalized families the potential savings and benefits of prosumer investments in biomass plants in the Susa Valley. AMICO will provide POLITECNICO DI TORINO a list of bachelor students that will be proposed to join the project (with respect to their studies). Those student will participate to Italian pilot meeting (design, administration, etc...) and will enrich their studies with a practical experience on the field. Qualification of key personnel including previous experience relevant to the tasks assigned in the project Don Luigi Chiampo (m) He is AMICO’s director and founded the operation in 1999. As a priest with thirty years of experience in the Susa Valley territory, he is well in touch with what the vulnerable groups of the region need. Before his leading role at AMICO, he was the director of Caritas Susa. Michela Rapolla (f) is the responsible of administrative office. She will works into the project close to the new hired people defined below for the definition of new business model for prosumers. N.N. (Female, Italian, EU or extra-EU, administrative, Junior) This new employee will be taught by Mr.s Rapolla on administrative aspect of the prosumers new business model. Selected publications relevant to the call content - Relevant previous projects or activities Products and services (data referred to year 2016): • Waste collection and management (bulky waste, vegetable waste) contract with the municipalities of Susa Valley (320’000 € yearly contract); • Forestry services for the mucipalities of: Caprie, Villar Focchiardo, Condove, Vaie, Villar Dora, Casellette (an overall yearly 110’000 € contract); • Other service with the cities of: Bussoleno, Avigliana, Almese, Sant’Ambrogio for an overall contract value of 338’000 yearlyProducts and services. AMICO has contracts for bulk waste collection in various Susa Valley municipalities. Moreover, AMICO owns 400 square meters’ depot, laboratory and office building. In addition, the company owns more than 1.000 square meters of space used as deposit. Machinery owns are: • n°2 truck Fiat Ducato • n°2 tractor • n°1 Mangusta Forest Harvester • n°4 truck • n°8 chainsaws • n°15 brush cutters Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 66 Organisation Federacja Konsumentów Short name FedKon Participant No. 14 Country Poland Description of the Organisation (and Departments) involved Federacja Konsumentów (Polish Federation of Consumers, FedKon) - a nationwide consumer association (non-governmental organization) - was established on July 7, 1981. Since 2004 it is a Public Benefit Organization. Its core activities - free of charge legal counselling and assistance - are provided by thirty FedKon regional branches, acting as centres of consumer advice across the country. Due to those activities and daily work of lawyers, consumer advisors and volunteers, it has won recognition among individual consumers. FedKon initiates, consults, gives opinions and lobbies for laws which regulate and create legal tools to secure not only safety and satisfaction for consumers acting on the market but also shape relations with enterprises in a way enabling market development in accordance with laws and business ethics. It cooperates with committees of the Polish Parliament and members of the European Parliament, it gives opinions on the Strategy on Consumer Policy and other legal acts.. It is involved in public consultations regarding several acts having impact on the situation of consumers on financial, insurance and telecommunication market. Federacja Konsumentów also participates in consultation on the European level. It cooperates with public administration and other institutions in all areas that may be significant for consumers and where it can directly present its opinion regarding necessary legal or institutional solutions. It contributes to activities of several institutions, which in many cases were set up on its initiative, such as consumer courts of arbitration (which function in the framework of the Trade Inspection and under the President of Office of Electronic Communication) with its lawyers as permanent arbiters. Federacja Konsumentów has a status of observer to the Tripartite Commission for Social and Economic Issues. The development of the market requires from consumer organizations to set up specific rules of cooperation with business associations from different industries and sectors. This involves different forms of cooperation, such as information campaigns, conferences, trainings for employees, meetings with entrepreneurs regarding consumer policy and problems addressed by their clients. It is an effective way of influencing business standards, as well as creation, promotion and exchange of good business practices and prevention of unfair practices, while creating a market beneficiary for both parties. Nevertheless, those activities will only have an impact when consumers are aware of their rights and actively participate in the market. For that reason, Federacja Konsumentów constantly highlights the need for consumer education and information. As an organisation, Federacja Konsumentów can be successful only when the consumers are aware of their rights and take steps to enforce them. Therefore, education is an important mission of the FedKon. It conducts numerous measures in the field of dissemination of consumer knowledge. Frequently, the message is directed to selected groups, e.g. children, youth or the elderly. Federacja Konsumentów organises many meetings and training sessions, it releases publications and publishes articles. It also communicates with Polish consumers on its website (www.federacja-konsumentow.org.pl) and Facebook Page (www.facebook.com/dlakonsumentow). Qualification of key personnel including previous experience relevant to the tasks assigned in the project Kamil Pluskwa-Dąbrowski (m) - 15 years of professional experience in consumer protection and policy, including especially telecommunication and energy market. Member of European Consumer Consultative group from 2012. Alternate member of European Economic and Social Committee, representative of FK in BEUC and ANEC. Responsible for specific project (incl. on energy topics), as well as representation, dissemination and lobbying in consumer matters, coauthor of several reports and author of articles on energy market consumers in Poland. He participated in legislation process concerning Polish Energy Law, Renewable Energy Sources Act, Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 67 Consumer Protection Act and many others as an NGO consultant. Constantly cooperating with URE (Polish Energy Market Regulator) for consumer favour and raising of consumer protection level. Mr. Pluskwa-Dąbrowski is Senior Expert in several nationwide projects focused on consumers and energy (i.e. “Smart Consumer in Smart Grids”, “How to became a prosumer”) and of the international project “USmartConsumer (You are a Smart Consumer)”in the framework of IEE. Monika Kosińska-Pyter (f) - 24 years of professional experience in consumer protection and policy, including especially project management. Project manager, who conducted over 30 projects for Federacja Konsumentów. These were both projects conducted by Federacja Konsumentów itself (as a leader) and activities, in which it was involved as a partner. Mrs. Kosińska-Pyter is a coordinator with knowledge on consumers’ issue and experiences in coordinating specific projects and activities on consumer protection and policy, including: local projects, activities and task addressed to individual consumers, domestic and European information campaigns. Longina Lewandowska-Borówka (f) - Spokesperson of Federacja Konsumentów, promoting and PR specialist. She is engaged in: • Building and maintaining contacts of the Polish Consumer Federation with the environment, above all, the media. Preparing and carrying out actions related to PR. • Popularization of consumer knowledge by prepared projects, publications, conferences, articles, including on the Federation website. • Writing and editing texts of articles and publications. • Preparation of publications, books, booklets for printing along with graphic editions. • Preparation of press conferences, meetings, congresses. • Educational activities, e.g., at schools, conducting trainings, including internal ones. • Participation in programs of different types of media, commenting on current consumer problems and initiating dissemination of consumer knowledge via media. Selected publications relevant to the call content Federacja Konsumentów has issued several publications, including leaflets and brochures in the course of our activities, projects and tenders during last few years. The content was dedicated to various issues like digitalization, food marking, credits and insurances. Every time we advise consumers how to behave to made aware and wise choices. Publications were often connected with social campaigns, meetings and lectures addressed to specific consumer groups like youth or elder people. • Brochure “Conscious consumer of electricity” (“Swiadomy konsument energii elektrycznej”) published in 2014 in 180.000 copies. To reach the average consumer, we inserted brochure to nationwide newspapers. Additionally, articles on renewable energy sources and about information campaign conducted by the Federation Konsumentów have been published in newspapers. The brochure contains a quiz with questions related to energy. The main prize for a winner among consumers was a mountain bike. • Internet platform for consumers planning to produce (and use) green energy: www.federacja-konsumentow.org.pl/prosument • Educational film on energy issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnIASqcWsA8 • Educational film on RE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVMkr5MPbXA • Consumer advocacy in Poland: 8,5% of total services complaints in our branch offices work are concerned energy market (7,3% - electricity delivery, 0,8% - gas delivery, 0,4% - heating delivery). 85% of complaints related to energy comes from vulnerable consumers. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 68 Relevant previous projects or activities • Participation of aware consumers in Smart Grids- national project, budget for organization: EUR 110.000, more information: http://www.federacjakonsumentow. org.pl/61,konsument-w-inteligentnych-sieciach-energetycznych.html • Educational project How to become a prosumer;- national project, budget for organization: EUR 120.000, more information: http://www.federacjakonsumentow. org.pl/prosument/ • USmartConsumer. You are a Smart Consumer- European project, budget for organization: EUR 43.400, more information: www.usmartconsumer.eu • Free of charge advising centers for consumers – 5 similar projects cover hole country- national project, budget for organization: EUR 250.000, more information: http://www.federacja-konsumentow.org.pl/63,tu-znajdziesz-pomoc.html • Law for seniors (consumers) - national project, budget for organization: EUR 34.400, more information: http://www.federacja-konsumentow.org.pl/102,dobreprawo- seniora.html 4.2. Third parties involved in the project Partner 1: EUV Does the participant plan to subcontract certain tasks (please note that core tasks of the project should not be sub-contracted) Y The production and editing of the promotional video material will be subcontracted to a video production firm to ensure high quality results (D6.9) Does the participant envisage that part of its work is performed by linked third parties35 N Does the participant envisage the use of contributions in kind provided by third parties (Articles 11 and 12 of the General Model Grant Agreement) N Partner 2: IEO No third parties involved Partner 3: CA No third parties involved Partner 4: CSD No third parties involve Partner 5: POLITO No third parties involved 35 A third party that is an affiliated entity or has a legal link to a participant implying a collaboration not limited to the action. (Article 14 of the Model Grant Agreement). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 69 Partner 6: CO2ONLINE Does the participant plan to subcontract certain tasks (please note that core tasks of the project should not be sub-contracted) Y The technical realisation of the online calculator will be subcontracted. Does the participant envisage that part of its work is performed by linked third parties36 N Does the participant envisage the use of contributions in kind provided by third parties (Articles 11 and 12 of the General Model Grant Agreement) N Partner 7: PORSENNA No third parties involved Partner 8: FORESTA No third parties involved Partner 9: SŁUPSK No third parties involved Partner 10: LITOMERICE No third parties involved Partner 11: CFAVS No third parties involved Partner 12: CARITAS No third parties involved Partner 13: AMICO No third parties involved Partner 14: FedKon No third parties involved 36 A third party that is an affiliated entity or has a legal link to a participant implying a collaboration not limited to the action. (Article 14 of the Model Grant Agreement). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 70 5. Ethics and security 5.1 Ethics The following potential ethical issues could arise in connection with the participation of consumers in interviews during the SCORE lifetime: • Informed consent • Personal data • Involvement of vulnerable groups Informed Consent No personal or sensitive data will be gathered that in any way can be linked to the identity of the participants. The interviews will be conducted with consumers. The participants answer questions to provide the project with information and feedback on their visions, and provide insight and inform the rest of the SCORE project. The participants will participate on a voluntary basis, providing their consent by signing certificates of consent; a copy will be provided alongside information sheets, as attached in Annex 3. Any data collected will be 1) anonymous, 2) without questions relating to the person answering the questionnaire (personal data), 3) treated only as information material without any reference to the answers of single persons, and 4) include the information that the respondent is free to not answer the questionnaire if so desired. Before the interviews with respondents, the consent for recording the interviews will be asked for. Interviews will 1) be treated anonymously, 2) not involve collection of personal or sensitive data, 3) be referred to as anonymous citations, and 4) be initiated with the information that the interviewee is free to not participate, free to not answer questions if so desired, and free to demand an interview without recording. No images or citations will be published without consent. Personal Data To complement these measures, any stakeholder involvement will presuppose their thorough information on the purpose and procedures of potential data generation and data exploitation, as well as the participant’s explicit consent on all related lines of action. All data will be anonymised. Issues of personal data are duly addressed by local authorities to ensure that they do not contravene national laws on the protection of personal data (e.g., the “Brandenburg Act for the Protection of Personal Data” attached in Annex 3, applies for the coordinating organisation EUV). Thus, SCORE takes ethic-related issues into careful consideration and the project will ensure that all activities and deliverables within the project lifetime abide legislation and regulations in this field. No personal or sensitive data will be gathered that can in any way be linked to the identity of the participants. All interview data and technical data will only be stored and communicated using fully encrypted devices, storage, and communications systems at each stage of the research process. After the initial collection of data, the first step will be to remove all personally identifying information before the data is analysed, to ensure that the danger of violating any individual’s privacy is minimised. Following the recommendation of the German Research Foundation (DFG) on long-term archiving, the data will be destroyed 10 years after the official end of the funded project. Storage will take place either on full-disk encrypted devices or on secure and fully encrypted servers at European University Viadrina in Germany. It will not be stored anywhere else or unencrypted at any time during the research process. Providing this extensive information about consent, as well as thorough protections and audits of data collection, processing, and storage, ensures that the proposed research project complies with the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, German Federal Data Protection law, and Brandenburg Data Protection Law.37 37 See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML, http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/, and http://www.lda.brandenburg.de/media_fast/4055/BbgDSG_2010_englisch.pdf. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Proposal number 784960 SCORE – Part B – 71 These storage and communication measures will equally be applied for secondary use data. The secondary data will be obtained through public sources such as: • EU Statistics on Income and Living conditions (EU-SILC) surveys • EUROSTAT (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics) • National Central Statistical Offices in the six partner countries Involvement of vulnerable groups SCORE supports clearly defined groups of vulnerable consumers in tackling fuel poverty by facilitating more sustainable energy behaviour and choices: (a) low-income groups, esp. unemployed; (b) regions affected by energy poverty, and (c) women therein when facilitating sustainable energy behaviour/choices. The mentioned groups are underrepresented among prosumers for reasons, ranging from (i) socio-economic (lower education and general literacy) in the case of low-income households and long-term unemployed, to (ii) psychological and behaviour-based with regard to women. SCORE addresses this complicated issue with the CSOP-financing technique as an inclusive low-threshold financing model also open to vulnerable consumers. The project employs a specific participative methodology at all stages of the project, which includes: • addressing social needs and concerns (values, beliefs, and goals) of the vulnerable groups at an early stage of the project and technological development, • discourses of local uniqueness and “bottom-up” engagement, • using already established channels of social work to adding the energy efficiency and prosumership dimension, • applying a backcasting planning approach and Design Research (DR) techniques including proven storytelling methodology to facilitate acceptance. The aforementioned vulnerable individuals will be contacted by our partner organisations, experienced in the sensitive matters such as but not limited to social disability, low-income and gender inequality, e.g. the Caritas. Their experience on how to and which individuals to include will be of utmost importance to the selection process. The specific participatory methodology ensures fully informed understanding of the implications of participation of the vulnerable individuals (groups) among themselves as well as among the other stakeholders. Finally, their official consent will be embedded in the above described personal data and informed consent procedure, and if needed will be adapted to the needs of a particular vulnerable individual or group by drawing on the experience of the involved partner organisations. 5.2 Security38 Please indicate if your project will involve: • Activities or results raising security issues: NO • 'EU-classified information' as background or results: NO 38 Article 37.1 of the Model Grant Agreement: Before disclosing results of activities raising security issues to a third party (including affiliated entities), a beneficiary must inform the coordinator — which must request written approval from the Commission/Agency. Article 37.2: Activities related to ‘classified deliverables’ must comply with the ‘security requirements’ until they are declassified. Action tasks related to classified deliverables may not be subcontracted without prior explicit written approval from the Commission/Agency. The beneficiaries must inform the coordinator — which must immediately inform the Commission/Agency — of any changes in the security context and — if necessary —request for Annex 1 to be amended (see Article 55). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR THE ACTION (page 1 of 2) 1 Estimated eligible1 costs (per budget category) EU contribution Additional information A. Direct personnel costs B. Direct costs of subcontracting C. Direct costs of fin. support D. Other direct costs E. Indirect costs2 Total costs Reimbursement rate % Maximum EU contribution3 Maximum grant amount4 Information for indirect costs Information for auditors Other information: A.1 Employees (or equivalent) A.2 Natural persons under direct contract A.3 Seconded persons [A.6 Personnel for providing access to research infrastructure] A.4 SME owners without salary A.5 Beneficiaries that are natural persons without salary D.1 Travel D.2 Equipment D.3 Other goods and services D.4 Costs of large research infrastructure Form of costs6 Actual Unit7 Unit8 Actual Actual Actual Flat-rate9 25% Estimated costs of in-kind contributions not used on premises Declaration of costs under Point D.4 Estimated costs of beneficiaries/ linked third parties not receiving EU funding (a) Total (b) No hours Total (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)=0,25x ((a)+(b)+ (c)+(f) +[(h1)+(h2)]- (m)) (i)= (a)+(b)+(c)+ (d)+(e)+(f)+ (g)+(h1)+(h2)+(h3) (j) (k) (l) (m) Yes/No 1. EUV 284700.00 0.00 0 0.00 20000.00 0.00 36650.00 80337.50 421687.50 100.00 421687.50 421687.50 0.00 No 2. IEO 70200.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 29150.00 24837.50 124187.50 100.00 124187.50 124187.50 0.00 No 3. CA 126900.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 31500.00 39600.00 198000.00 100.00 198000.00 198000.00 0.00 No 4. CSD 89100.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 18250.00 26837.50 134187.50 100.00 134187.50 134187.50 0.00 No 5. POLITO 105600.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 33750.00 34837.50 174187.50 100.00 174187.50 174187.50 0.00 No 6. CO2ONLINE 110000.00 0.00 0 0.00 45000.00 0.00 29900.00 34975.00 219875.00 100.00 219875.00 219875.00 0.00 No 7. PORSENNA 59800.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 18250.00 19512.50 97562.50 100.00 97562.50 97562.50 0.00 No 8. FORESTA 64800.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 12300.00 19275.00 96375.00 100.00 96375.00 96375.00 0.00 No 9. Słupsk 60000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 17300.00 19325.00 96625.00 100.00 96625.00 96625.00 0.00 No 10. LITOMERICE 70200.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 16750.00 21737.50 108687.50 100.00 108687.50 108687.50 0.00 No 11. CFAVS 55000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 17850.00 18212.50 91062.50 100.00 91062.50 91062.50 0.00 No 12. CARITAS 77000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 15350.00 23087.50 115437.50 100.00 115437.50 115437.50 0.00 No 13. AMICO s.c.s. 32000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 12300.00 11075.00 55375.00 100.00 55375.00 55375.00 0.00 No 14. FedKon 32000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 12300.00 11075.00 55375.00 100.00 55375.00 55375.00 0.00 No Total consortium 1237300.00 0.00 0.00 65000.00 0.00 301600.00 384725.00 1988625.00 1988625.00 1988625.00 0.00 0.00 Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR THE ACTION (page 2 of 2) 2 (1) See Article 6 for the eligibility conditions (2) The indirect costs covered by the operating grant (received under any EU or Euratom funding programme; see Article 6.5.(b)) are ineligible under the GA. Therefore, a beneficiary that receives an operating grant during the action's duration cannot declare indirect costs for the year(s)/reporting period(s) covered by the operating grant (see Article 6.2.E). (3) This is the theoretical amount of EU contribution that the system calculates automatically (by multiplying all the budgeted costs by the reimbursement rate). This theoretical amount is capped by the 'maximum grant amount' (that the Commission/Agency decided to grant for the action) (see Article 5.1). (4) The 'maximum grant amount' is the maximum grant amount decided by the Commission/Agency. It normally corresponds to the requested grant, but may be lower. (5) Depending on its type, this specific cost category will or will not cover indirect costs. Specific unit costs that include indirect costs are: costs for energy efficiency measures in buildings, access costs for providing trans-national access to research infrastructure and costs for clinical studies. (6) See Article 5 for the forms of costs (7) Unit : hours worked on the action; costs per unit (hourly rate) : calculated according to beneficiary's usual accounting practice (8) See Annex 2a 'Additional information on the estimated budget' for the details (costs per hour (hourly rate)). (9) Flat rate : 25% of eligible direct costs, from which are excluded: direct costs of subcontracting, costs of in-kind contributions not used on premises, direct costs of financial support, and unit costs declared under budget category F if they include indirect costs (10) See Annex 2a 'Additional information on the estimated budget' for the details (units, costs per unit). (11) See Annex 2a 'Additional information on the estimated budget' for the details (units, costs per unit, estimated number of units, etc) (12) Only specific unit costs that do not include indirect costs (13) See Article 9 for beneficiaries not receiving EU funding (14) Only for linked third parties that receive EU funding Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 ANNEX 2a ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE ESTIMATED BUDGET Unit cost for SME owners/natural beneficiaries without salary 1. Costs for a [SME owner][beneficiary that is a natural person] not receiving a salary Units: hours worked on the action Amount per unit (‘hourly rate’): calculated according to the following formula: {{ EUR 4,650 / 143 hours} multiplied by {country-specific correction coefficient of the country where the beneficiary is established} Country-specific correction coefficient (in force at the time of the call): EU Member States country coefficient country coefficient country coefficient country coefficient country coefficient AT 104.8% DK 135.3% HR 97.5% LV 75.9% SE 111.7% BE 100.0% EE 78.3% HU 76.2% MT 89.6% SI 86.1% BG 71.5% EL 92.7% IE 113.5% NL 104.3% SK 82.6% CY 91.8% ES 97.6% IT 106.7% PL 76.4% UK 120.3% CZ 83.8% FI 116.6% LT 73.1% PT 89.1% DE 98.8% FR 111.0% LU 100.0% RO 68.3% H2020 associated countries country coefficient country coefficient country coefficient country coefficient country coefficient AL 76.1% FO 134.1% LI 110.0% MK 68.4% TR 86.6% BA 73.6% IL 108.7% MD 61.1% NO 131.9% CH 113.1% IS 116.6% ME 66.9% RS 67.1% Other countries country coefficient country coefficient country coefficient country coefficient country coefficient AM 89.9% CU 83.8% JP 115.9% NI 57.3% TJ 64.9% AO 114.6% CV 76.4% KE 78.1% NP 73.5% TL 78.3% AR 58.5% DJ 93.4% KG 83.1% NZ 94.1% TN 70.5% AU 105.0% DO 66.9% KH 70.5% PA 57.0% TO 85.0% AZ 93.0% DZ 81.7% KR 105.2% PE 75.5% TT 74.1% BB 116.6% EC 68.8% KZ 100.2% PG 83.0% TW 83.6% BD 47.2% EG 48.6% LA 77.7% PH 65.8% TZ 65.2% BF 93.8% ER 61.2% LB 86.4% PK 49.4% UA 92.3% BJ 92.6% ET 85.2% LK 61.6% PS 100.4% UG 65.7% BM 151.5% FJ 68.1% LR 100.1% PY 71.9% US 99.4% BO 51.3% GA 113.1% LS 56.7% RU 115.5% UY 75.3% BR 92.0% GE 89.5% LY 60.0% RW 87.3% UZ 51.4% BW 55.3% GH 68.2% MA 83.5% SA 84.8% VE 70.0% BY 65.0% GM 67.7% MG 80.0% SB 93.3% VN 51.1% BZ 75.3% GN 60.4% ML 90.4% SD 65.1% VU 112.6% CA 86.4% GT 78.8% MR 64.5% SG 102.5% WS 75.8% CD 127.6% GW 102.7% MU 72.7% SL 85.2% XK 58.6% CF 114.3% GY 58.9% MW 76.0% SN 86.2% YE 68.1% CG 124.9% HK 93.8% MX 70.4% SR 50.6% ZA 55.8% CI 102.0% HN 69.0% MY 71.6% SV 74.3% ZM 66.4% Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 CL 67.1% HT 108.7% MZ 71.6% SY 74.8% ZW 47.2% CM 103.3% ID 75.3% NA 68.3% SZ 56.8% CN 85.0% IN 52.8% NC 128.9% TD 125.3% CO 76.6% JM 94.9% NE 87.9% TG 88.7% CR 76.7% JO 75.5% NG 92.4% TH 65.0% [additional OPTION for beneficiaries/linked third parties that have opted to use the unit cost (in the proposal/with an amendment): For the following beneficiaries/linked third parties, the amounts per unit (hourly rate) are fixed as follows: - Beneficiary/linked third party [short name]: EUR [insert amount] - Beneficiary/linked third party [short name]: EUR [insert amount] [same for other beneficiaries/linked third parties, if necessary] ] Estimated number of units: see Annex 2 Energy efficiency measures unit cost [OPTION if specific unit cost applicable to the grant: 2. Costs for energy efficiency measures in buildings Unit: m2 of eligible ‘conditioned’ (i.e. built or refurbished) floor area Amount per unit*: see (for each beneficiary/linked third party and BEST table) the ‘unit cost table’ attached * Amount calculated as follows: {EUR 0.1 x estimated total kWh saved per m2 per year x 10} Estimated number of units: see (for each beneficiary/linked third party and BEST table) the ‘unit cost table’ attached Unit cost table (energy efficiency measures unit cost)1 Short name beneficiary/linked third party BEST No Cost Amount per unit Estimated No of units Total unit cost (cost per unit x estimated no of units) ] Research infrastructure unit cost [OPTION if specific unit cost applicable to the grant: 3. Access costs for providing transnational access to research infrastructure Units2: see (for each access provider and installation) the ‘unit cost table’ attached 1 Data from the ‘building energy specification table (BEST)’ that is part of the proposal and Annex 1. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 Amount per unit*: see (for each access provider and installation) the ‘unit cost table’ attached * Amount calculated as follows: average annual total access cost to the installation (over past two years3) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ average annual total quantity of access to the installation (over past two years4) Estimated number of units: see (for each access provider and installation) the ‘unit cost table’ attached Unit cost table (access to research infrastructure unit cost)5 Short name access provider Short name infrastru cture Installation Unit of access Amount per unit Estimated No of units Total unit cost (cost per unit x estimated No Short name no of units) ] Clinical studies unit cost [OPTION if specific unit cost is applicable to the grant: 4. Costs for clinical studies Units: patients/subjects that participate in the clinical study Amount per unit*: see (for each clinical study and beneficiary/linked third party) the ‘unit cost table’ attached Estimated number of units: see (for each clinical study and beneficiary/linked third party) the ‘unit cost table’ attached * Amount calculated, for each task described in the protocol, as follows: {Task 1 {unit cost component ‘personnel costs’ + unit cost component ‘costs of consumables’ + unit cost component ‘costs of medical equipment’ + unit cost component ‘costs of other specific services’ + unit cost component ‘indirect costs’} + Task 2 {unit cost component ‘personnel costs’ + unit cost component ‘costs of consumables’ + unit cost component ‘costs of medical equipment’ + unit cost component ‘costs of other specific services’ 2 Unit of access (e.g. beam hours, weeks of access, sample analysis) fixed by the access provider in proposal. 3 In exceptional and duly justified cases, the Commission/Agency may agree to a different reference period. 4 In exceptional and duly justified cases, the Commission/Agency may agree to a different reference period. 5 Data from the ‘table on estimated costs/quantity of access to be provided’ that is part of the proposal and Annex 1. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 + unit cost component ‘indirect costs’} [same for all other tasks]} Unit cost components calculated as follows: Unit cost component ‘personnel costs’ (i.e. ‘personnel costs of doctors’ + ‘personnel costs of other medical personnel’ + ‘personnel costs of technical personnel’) For unit cost component ‘personnel costs of doctors’: {‘average hourly cost for doctors’, i.e.: certified or auditable total personnel costs for doctors for year N-1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ {1720 * number of full-time equivalent for the personnel category doctors for year N-1} multiplied by estimated number of hours worked by doctors for the task (per patient/subject)} For unit cost component ‘personnel costs of other medical personnel’: {‘average hourly cost for other medical personnel’, i.e.: certified or auditable total personnel costs for other medical personnel for year N-1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ {1720 * number of full-time equivalent for the personnel category other medical personnel for year N-1} multiplied by estimated number of hours worked by other medical personnel for the task (per patient/subject)} For unit cost component ‘personnel costs of technical personnel’: {average hourly cost for technical personnel, i.e.: certified or auditable total personnel costs for technical personnel for year N-1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ {1720 * number of full-time equivalent for the personnel category technical personnel for year N-1} multiplied by estimated number of hours worked by technical personnel for the task (per patient/subject)} ‘total personnel costs’ means actual salaries + actual social security contributions + actual taxes and other costs included in the remuneration, provided they arise from national law or the employment contract or equivalent appointing act Unit cost component ‘costs of consumables’ (i.e. ‘costs of consumables category 1 + ‘costs of consumables category 2’ + ‘costs of consumables category 3’, etc) For each category of consumables: {‘average price per item’, i.e.: {certified or auditable total costs of purchase of the consumables in year N-1 for the category of consumables concerned _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ total number of items purchased in year N-1 for the category of consumables concerned} multiplied by estimated number of items used for the task (per patient/subject)} ‘total costs of purchase of the consumables’ means total value of the supply contracts (including related duties, taxes and charges such as non-deductible VAT) concluded by the beneficiary for consumables delivered in year N-1, provided the contracts were awarded according to the principle of best value-for-money and without any conflict of interests Unit cost component ‘costs of medical equipment’ (i.e. ‘costs of medical equipment category 1’ + ‘costs of medical equipment category 2’ + ‘costs of medical equipment category 3’, etc.) For each category of medical equipment: {‘average cost of depreciation and directly related services per unit of use’, i.e.: Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 {certified or auditable total depreciation costs in year N-1 for the category of equipment concerned + certified or auditable total costs of purchase of services in year N-1 for the category of equipment concerned} ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ total capacity in year N-1 multiplied by estimated number of units of use of the equipment for the task (per patient/subject)} ‘total depreciation costs’ means total depreciation allowances as recorded in the beneficiary’s accounts of year N-1 for the category of equipment concerned, provided the equipment was purchased according to the principle of best value-for-money and without any conflict of interests + total costs of renting or leasing contracts (including related duties, taxes and charges such as non-deductible VAT) in year N-1 for the category of equipment concerned, provided they do not exceed the depreciation costs of similar equipment and do not include finance fees Unit cost component ‘costs of other specific services’ (i.e. ‘costs of contracts for specific service 1’ + ‘costs of contracts for specific service 2’ + ‘costs of contracts for specific service 3’, etc.) For each category of specific service: ‘average cost of a specific service per patient or subject’, i.e.: certified or auditable total costs of purchase of a service in year N-1 for the category of specific services necessary for the conduct of clinical studies _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-___________________________________ total number of patients or subjects included in the clinical studies for which the specific service was delivered in year N-1 ‘total costs of purchase of a service’ means total value of the contracts concluded by the beneficiary (including related duties, taxes and charges such as non-deductible VAT) for the specific service delivered in year N-1 for the conduct of clinical studies, provided the contracts were awarded according to the principle of best value-for-money and without any conflict of interests Unit cost component ‘indirect costs’ {25% multiplied by {unit cost component ‘personnel costs’ + unit cost component ‘costs of consumables’ + unit cost component ‘costs of medical equipment’}} The following must be excluded: ? costs of in-kind contributions provided by third parties which are not used on the beneficiary’s premises and ? costs of providing financial support to third parties (if any). Unit cost table: clinical studies unit cost6 [Insert name of clinical study] Tasks and unit cost components Resources per patient Amount per unit for beneficiary /linked third party Amount per unit for beneficiary /linked third party Amount per unit for beneficiary/linked third party 3 [insert short name] … 6 Same table as in proposal and Annex 1. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 1 [insert short name] 2 [insert short name] in-kind contrib utions by third party* Task No. 1 Blood sample Personnel costs doctors ---- 0 0 0 0 other medical personnel Phlebotomy (nurse), 10 minutes 8,33 EUR 11,59 EUR 10,55 EUR 9,76 EUR technical personnel Sample Processing (lab technician), 15 minutes 9,51 EUR 15,68 EUR 13,77 EUR 12,35 EUR Costs of consumables Category 1 Syringe, 1 XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR Category 2 Cannula, 1 XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR Category 2 Blood container, 1 XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR … Costs of medical equipment Category 1 Use of -80° deep freezer, 60 days XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR Category 2 Use of centrifuge, 15 minutes XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR …. Costs of other specific services Category 1 Category 2 … Indirect costs Task No. 2 … Total amount per unit XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR** Estimated No of units (patients/subjects participating in the study) XX XX XX XX Total unit cost for beneficiary/linked third party (total cost per unit x estimated no of units) XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR * Use costs of third party making in-kind contribution. ** Capped at payment to third party, if any. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI 1 ANNEX 3 ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES EC BREC INSTYTUT ENERGETYKI ODNAWIALNEJ SP ZOO (IEO), established in FLETNIOWA 47B, WARSZAWA 03 160, Poland, VAT number: PL5242400349, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned, hereby agrees to become beneficiary No (‘2’) in Grant Agreement No 784960 (‘the Agreement’) between STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies (SCORE)’. and mandates the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement, in accordance with Article 55. By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. SIGNATURE For the beneficiary [--TGSMark#signature-997919414_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI 2 ANNEX 3 ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES CLIMATE ALLIANCE - KLIMA-BUENDNIS - ALIANZA DEL CLIMA e.V. (CA), established in GALVANISTRASSE 28, Frankfurt am Main 60486, Germany, VAT number: DE244331692, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned, hereby agrees to become beneficiary No (‘3’) in Grant Agreement No 784960 (‘the Agreement’) between STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies (SCORE)’. and mandates the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement, in accordance with Article 55. By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. SIGNATURE For the beneficiary [--TGSMark#signature-988679582_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI 3 ANNEX 3 ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF DEMOCRACY (CSD), established in ALEXANDER ZHENDOV STREET 5, SOFIA 1113, Bulgaria, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned, hereby agrees to become beneficiary No (‘4’) in Grant Agreement No 784960 (‘the Agreement’) between STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies (SCORE)’. and mandates the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement, in accordance with Article 55. By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. SIGNATURE For the beneficiary [--TGSMark#signature-999548529_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI 4 ANNEX 3 ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES POLITECNICO DI TORINO (POLITO), established in CORSO DUCA DEGLI ABRUZZI 24, TORINO 10129, Italy, VAT number: IT00518460019, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned, hereby agrees to become beneficiary No (‘5’) in Grant Agreement No 784960 (‘the Agreement’) between STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies (SCORE)’. and mandates the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement, in accordance with Article 55. By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. SIGNATURE For the beneficiary [--TGSMark#signature-999977754_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI 5 ANNEX 3 ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES CO2ONLINE GENUETZIGE BERATUNGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH (CO2ONLINE), established in HOCHKIRCHSTRASSE 9, BERLIN 10829, Germany, VAT number: DE233964948, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned, hereby agrees to become beneficiary No (‘6’) in Grant Agreement No 784960 (‘the Agreement’) between STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies (SCORE)’. and mandates the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement, in accordance with Article 55. By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. SIGNATURE For the beneficiary [--TGSMark#signature-953552875_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI 6 ANNEX 3 ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES PORSENNA O.P.S (PORSENNA), established in BYSTRICKA 522/2, PRAHA 4 140 00, Czech Republic, VAT number: CZ27172392, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned, hereby agrees to become beneficiary No (‘7’) in Grant Agreement No 784960 (‘the Agreement’) between STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies (SCORE)’. and mandates the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement, in accordance with Article 55. By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. SIGNATURE For the beneficiary [--TGSMark#signature-984006413_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI 7 ANNEX 3 ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES LA FORESTA SOCIETA' COOPERATIVA (FORESTA), established in REGIONE POLVERIERA 2, SUSA 10059, Italy, VAT number: IT07017110011, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned, hereby agrees to become beneficiary No (‘8’) in Grant Agreement No 784960 (‘the Agreement’) between STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies (SCORE)’. and mandates the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement, in accordance with Article 55. By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. SIGNATURE For the beneficiary [--TGSMark#signature-918025849_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI 8 ANNEX 3 ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES MIASTO SLUPSK (Słupsk), established in PLAC ZWYCIESTWA 3, SLUPSK 76 200, Poland, VAT number: PL8391005507, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned, hereby agrees to become beneficiary No (‘9’) in Grant Agreement No 784960 (‘the Agreement’) between STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies (SCORE)’. and mandates the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement, in accordance with Article 55. By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. SIGNATURE For the beneficiary [--TGSMark#signature-935054684_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI 9 ANNEX 3 ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES MESTO LITOMERICE (LITOMERICE), established in MIROVE NAMESTI 15/7, LITOMERICE 412 01, Czech Republic, VAT number: CZ00263958, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned, hereby agrees to become beneficiary No (‘10’) in Grant Agreement No 784960 (‘the Agreement’) between STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies (SCORE)’. and mandates the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement, in accordance with Article 55. By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. SIGNATURE For the beneficiary [--TGSMark#signature-964500392_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI 10 ANNEX 3 ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES CONSORZIO FORESTALE ALTA VALLE SUSA (CFAVS), established in VIA PELLOUSIERE 6, OULX 10056, Italy, VAT number: IT03070280015, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned, hereby agrees to become beneficiary No (‘11’) in Grant Agreement No 784960 (‘the Agreement’) between STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies (SCORE)’. and mandates the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement, in accordance with Article 55. By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. SIGNATURE For the beneficiary [--TGSMark#signature-917576060_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI 11 ANNEX 3 ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES DEUTSCHER CARITASVERBAND EV (CARITAS), established in KARLSTRASSE 40, FREIBURG IM BREISGAU 79104, Germany, VAT number: DE142116307, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned, hereby agrees to become beneficiary No (‘12’) in Grant Agreement No 784960 (‘the Agreement’) between STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies (SCORE)’. and mandates the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement, in accordance with Article 55. By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. SIGNATURE For the beneficiary [--TGSMark#signature-939459842_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI 12 ANNEX 3 ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES AMICO SOCIETA COOPERATIVA SOCIALE (AMICO s.c.s.), established in VIA CASATO VICENDONE 17, ALMESE 10040, Italy, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned, hereby agrees to become beneficiary No (‘13’) in Grant Agreement No 784960 (‘the Agreement’) between STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies (SCORE)’. and mandates the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement, in accordance with Article 55. By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. SIGNATURE For the beneficiary [--TGSMark#signature-911766827_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: 784960 — SCORE — H2020-EE-2016-2017/H2020-EE-2017-CSA-PPI 13 ANNEX 3 ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES FEDERACJA KONSUMENTOW STOWARZYSZENIE (FedKon), established in ULICA ORDYNACKA 11 LOK 1, WARSZAWA 00 364, Poland, VAT number: PL5251082133, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned, hereby agrees to become beneficiary No (‘14’) in Grant Agreement No 784960 (‘the Agreement’) between STIFTUNG EUROPA-UNIVERSITAT VIADRINA FRANKFURT (ODER) and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) ('the Agency'), under the powers delegated by the European Commission ('the Commission'), for the action entitled ‘Supporting Consumer Co-Ownership in Renewable Energies (SCORE)’. and mandates the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement, in accordance with Article 55. By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it in accordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out. SIGNATURE For the beneficiary [--TGSMark#signature-953552584_75_210--] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 i print format A4 landscape Receipts Additiona l informati on B. Direct costs of subcontra cting [C. Direct costs of fin. support] E. Indirect costs 2 Total costs Receipts Reimburs ement rate % Maximum EU contributi on 3 Requeste d EU contributi on Informatio n for indirect costs : [C.1 Financial support] D.1 Travel [D.4 Costs of large research infrastruct ure] [C.2 Prizes] D.2 Equipment Flat-rate 5 25% [short name beneficiary /linked third party] m [F.1 Costs of …] [F.1 Costs of …] Actual Actual Actual [Unit][Lump sum] No units n The costs can be substantiated by adequate records and supporting documentation that will be produced upon request or in the context of checks, reviews, audits and investigations (see Articles 17, 18 and 22). Actual Form of costs 4 Unit Unit Actual Unit a [e] l h=0,25 x (a+b+ c+f+[g] + [g] o A. Direct personnel costs [F. Costs of … ] Costs of inkind contributio ns not used on premises A.2 Natural persons under direct contract A.5 Beneficiaries that are natural persons without salary Total [i1] Total [i2] j = a+b+c+d+[ e] +f +[g] + Total b No hours Total c d k Receipts of the action, to be reported in the last reporting period, according to Article 5.3.3 f D. Other direct costs MODEL ANNEX 4 FOR H2020 GENERAL MGA — MULTI FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR [BENEFICIARY [name]/ LINKED THIRD PARTY [name]] FOR REPORTING PERIOD [reporting period] Eligible 1 costs (per budget category) EU contribution A.4 SME owners without salary A.3 Seconded persons [A.6 Personnel for providing access to research infrastructure] D.3 Other goods and services A.1 Employees (or equivalent) 6 Only specific unit costs that do not include indirect costs i Please declare all eligible costs, even if they exceed the amounts indicated in the estimated budget (see Annex 2). Only amounts that were declared in your individual financial statements can be taken into account lateron, in order to replace other costs that are found to be ineligible. The beneficiary/linked third party hereby confirms that: The information provided is complete, reliable and true. The costs declared are eligible (see Article 6). 4 See Article 5 for the form of costs 5 Flat rate : 25% of eligible direct costs, from which are excluded: direct costs of subcontracting, costs of in-kind contributions not used on premises, direct costs of financial support, and unit costs declared under budget category F if they include indirect costs (see Article 6.2.E) 1 See Article 6 for the eligibility conditions 2 The indirect costs claimed must be free of any amounts covered by an operating grant (received under any EU or Euratom funding programme; see Article 6.2.E). If you have received an operating grant during this reporting period, you cannot claim any indirect costs. 3 This is the theoretical amount of EU contribution that the system calculates automatically (by multiplying the reimbursement rate by the total costs declared). The amount you request (in the column 'requested EU contribution') may be less For the last reporting period: that all the receipts have been declared (see Article 5.3.3). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 1 ANNEX 5 MODEL FOR THE CERTIFICATE ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ? For options [in italics in square brackets]: choose the applicable option. Options not chosen should be deleted. ? For fields in [grey in square brackets]: enter the appropriate data TABLE OF CONTENTS TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR AN INDEPENDENT REPORT OF FACTUAL FINDINGS ON COSTS DECLARED UNDER A GRANT AGREEMENT FINANCED UNDER THE HORIZON 2020 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME INDEPENDENT REPORT OF FACTUAL FINDINGS ON COSTS DECLARED UNDER A GRANT AGREEMENT FINANCED UNDER THE HORIZON 2020 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 2 Terms of Reference for an Independent Report of Factual Findings on costs declared under a Grant Agreement financed under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme This document sets out the ‘Terms of Reference (ToR)’ under which [OPTION 1: [insert name of the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)] [OPTION 2: [insert name of the linked third party] (‘the Linked Third Party’), third party linked to the Beneficiary [insert name of the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)] agrees to engage [insert legal name of the auditor] (‘the Auditor’) to produce an independent report of factual findings (‘the Report’) concerning the Financial Statement(s)1 drawn up by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] for the Horizon 2020 grant agreement [insert number of the grant agreement, title of the action, acronym and duration from/to] (‘the Agreement’), and to issue a Certificate on the Financial Statements’ (‘CFS’) referred to in Article 20.4 of the Agreement based on the compulsory reporting template stipulated by the Commission. The Agreement has been concluded under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme (H2020) between the Beneficiary and [OPTION 1: the European Union, represented by the European Commission (‘the Commission’)][ OPTION 2: the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom,) represented by the European Commission (‘the Commission’)][OPTION 3: the [Research Executive Agency (REA)] [European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)] [Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)] [Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME)] (‘the Agency’), under the powers delegated by the European Commission (‘the Commission’).] The [Commission] [Agency] is mentioned as a signatory of the Agreement with the Beneficiary only. The [European Union][Euratom][Agency] is not a party to this engagement. 1.1 Subject of the engagement The coordinator must submit to the [Commission][Agency] the final report within 60 days following the end of the last reporting period which should include, amongst other documents, a CFS for each beneficiary and for each linked third party that requests a total contribution of EUR 325 000 or more, as reimbursement of actual costs and unit costs calculated on the basis of its usual cost accounting practices (see Article 20.4 of the Agreement). The CFS must cover all reporting periods of the beneficiary or linked third party indicated above. The Beneficiary must submit to the coordinator the CFS for itself and for its linked third party(ies), if the CFS must be included in the final report according to Article 20.4 of the Agreement.. The CFS is composed of two separate documents: - The Terms of Reference (‘the ToR’) to be signed by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] and the Auditor; 1 By which costs under the Agreement are declared (see template ‘Model Financial Statements’ in Annex 4 to the Grant Agreement). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 3 - The Auditor’s Independent Report of Factual Findings (‘the Report’) to be issued on the Auditor’s letterhead, dated, stamped and signed by the Auditor (or the competent public officer) which includes the agreed-upon procedures (‘the Procedures’) to be performed by the Auditor, and the standard factual findings (‘the Findings’) to be confirmed by the Auditor. If the CFS must be included in the final report according to Article 20.4 of the Agreement, the request for payment of the balance relating to the Agreement cannot be made without the CFS. However, the payment for reimbursement of costs covered by the CFS does not preclude the [Commission,][ Agency,] the European Anti-Fraud Office and the European Court of Auditors from carrying out checks, reviews, audits and investigations in accordance with Article 22 of the Agreement. 1.2 Responsibilities The [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]: ? must draw up the Financial Statement(s) for the action financed by the Agreement in compliance with the obligations under the Agreement. The Financial Statement(s) must be drawn up according to the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] accounting and bookkeeping system and the underlying accounts and records; ? must send the Financial Statement(s) to the Auditor; ? is responsible and liable for the accuracy of the Financial Statement(s); ? is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the information provided to enable the Auditor to carry out the Procedures. It must provide the Auditor with a written representation letter supporting these statements. The written representation letter must state the period covered by the statements and must be dated; ? accepts that the Auditor cannot carry out the Procedures unless it is given full access to the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] staff and accounting as well as any other relevant records and documentation. The Auditor: ? [Option 1 by default: is qualified to carry out statutory audits of accounting documents in accordance with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC or similar national regulations]. ? [Option 2 if the Beneficiary or Linked Third Party has an independent Public Officer: is a competent and independent Public Officer for which the relevant national authorities have established the legal capacity to audit the Beneficiary]. ? [Option 3 if the Beneficiary or Linked Third Party is an international organisation: is an [internal] [external] auditor in accordance with the internal financial regulations and procedures of the international organisation]. The Auditor: ? must be independent from the Beneficiary [and the Linked Third Party], in particular, it must not have been involved in preparing the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] Financial Statement(s); ? must plan work so that the Procedures may be carried out and the Findings may be assessed; ? must adhere to the Procedures laid down and the compulsory report format; ? must carry out the engagement in accordance with this ToR; ? must document matters which are important to support the Report; ? must base its Report on the evidence gathered; ? must submit the Report to the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 4 The Commission sets out the Procedures to be carried out by the Auditor. The Auditor is not responsible for their suitability or pertinence. As this engagement is not an assurance engagement, the Auditor does not provide an audit opinion or a statement of assurance. 1.3 Applicable Standards The Auditor must comply with these Terms of Reference and with2: - the International Standard on Related Services (‘ISRS’) 4400 Engagements to perform Agreed-upon Procedures regarding Financial Information as issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB); - the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants issued by the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA). Although ISRS 4400 states that independence is not a requirement for engagements to carry out agreed-upon procedures, the [Commission][Agency] requires that the Auditor also complies with the Code’s independence requirements. The Auditor’s Report must state that there is no conflict of interests in establishing this Report between the Auditor and the Beneficiary [and the Linked Third Party], and must specify - if the service is invoiced - the total fee paid to the Auditor for providing the Report. 1.4 Reporting The Report must be written in the language of the Agreement (see Article 20.7). Under Article 22 of the Agreement, the Commission[, the Agency], the European Anti-Fraud Office and the Court of Auditors have the right to audit any work that is carried out under the action and for which costs are declared from [the European Union] [Euratom] budget. This includes work related to this engagement. The Auditor must provide access to all working papers (e.g. recalculation of hourly rates, verification of the time declared for the action) related to this assignment if the Commission [, the Agency], the European Anti-Fraud Office or the European Court of Auditors requests them. 1.5 Timing The Report must be provided by [dd Month yyyy]. 1.6 Other terms [The [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] and the Auditor can use this section to agree other specific terms, such as the Auditor’s fees, liability, applicable law, etc. Those specific terms must not contradict the terms specified above.] [legal name of the Auditor] [legal name of the [Beneficiary][Linked Third Party]] [name & function of authorised representative] [name & function of authorised representative] [dd Month yyyy] [dd Month yyyy] Signature of the Auditor Signature of the [Beneficiary][Linked Third Party] 2 Supreme Audit Institutions applying INTOSAI-standards may carry out the Procedures according to the corresponding International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions and code of ethics issued by INTOSAI instead of the International Standard on Related Services (‘ISRS’) 4400 and the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants issued by the IAASB and the IESBA. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 5 Independent Report of Factual Findings on costs declared under Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme (To be printed on the Auditor’s letterhead) To [ name of contact person(s)], [Position] [ [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] name ] [ Address] [ dd Month yyyy] Dear [Name of contact person(s)], As agreed under the terms of reference dated [dd Month yyyy] with [OPTION 1: [insert name of the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)] [OPTION 2: [insert name of the linked third party] (‘the Linked Third Party’), third party linked to the Beneficiary [insert name of the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)], we [name of the auditor ] (‘the Auditor’), established at [full address/city/state/province/country], represented by [name and function of an authorised representative], have carried out the procedures agreed with you regarding the costs declared in the Financial Statement(s)3 of the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] concerning the grant agreement [insert grant agreement reference: number, title of the action and acronym] (‘the Agreement’), with a total cost declared of [total amount] EUR, and a total of actual costs and ‘direct personnel costs declared as unit costs calculated in accordance with the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] usual cost accounting practices’ declared of [sum of total actual costs and total direct personnel costs declared as unit costs calculated in accordance with the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] usual cost accounting practices] EUR and hereby provide our Independent Report of Factual Findings (‘the Report’) using the compulsory report format agreed with you. The Report Our engagement was carried out in accordance with the terms of reference (‘the ToR’) appended to this Report. The Report includes the agreed-upon procedures (‘the Procedures’) carried out and the standard factual findings (‘the Findings’) examined. 3 By which the Beneficiary declares costs under the Agreement (see template ‘Model Financial Statement’ in Annex 4 to the Agreement). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 6 The Procedures were carried out solely to assist the [Commission] [Agency] in evaluating whether the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] costs in the accompanying Financial Statement(s) were declared in accordance with the Agreement. The [Commission] [Agency] draws its own conclusions from the Report and any additional information it may require. The scope of the Procedures was defined by the Commission. Therefore, the Auditor is not responsible for their suitability or pertinence. Since the Procedures carried out constitute neither an audit nor a review made in accordance with International Standards on Auditing or International Standards on Review Engagements, the Auditor does not give a statement of assurance on the Financial Statements. Had the Auditor carried out additional procedures or an audit of the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] Financial Statements in accordance with International Standards on Auditing or International Standards on Review Engagements, other matters might have come to its attention and would have been included in the Report. Not applicable Findings We examined the Financial Statement(s) stated above and considered the following Findings not applicable: Explanation (to be removed from the Report): If a Finding was not applicable, it must be marked as ‘N.A.’ (‘Not applicable’) in the corresponding row on the right-hand column of the table and means that the Finding did not have to be corroborated by the Auditor and the related Procedure(s) did not have to be carried out. The reasons of the non-application of a certain Finding must be obvious i.e. i) if no cost was declared under a certain category then the related Finding(s) and Procedure(s) are not applicable; ii) if the condition set to apply certain Procedure(s) are not met the related Finding(s) and those Procedure(s) are not applicable. For instance, for ‘beneficiaries with accounts established in a currency other than euro’ the Procedure and Finding related to ‘beneficiaries with accounts established in euro’ are not applicable. Similarly, if no additional remuneration is paid, the related Finding(s) and Procedure(s) for additional remuneration are not applicable. List here all Findings considered not applicable for the present engagement and explain the reasons of the non-applicability. …. Exceptions Apart from the exceptions listed below, the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] provided the Auditor all the documentation and accounting information needed by the Auditor to carry out the requested Procedures and evaluate the Findings. Explanation (to be removed from the Report): - If the Auditor was not able to successfully complete a procedure requested, it must be marked as ‘E’ (‘Exception’) in the corresponding row on the right-hand column of the table. The reason such as the inability to reconcile key information or the unavailability of data that prevents the Auditor from carrying out the Procedure must be indicated below. - If the Auditor cannot corroborate a standard finding after having carried out the corresponding procedure, it must also be marked as ‘E’ (‘Exception’) and, where possible, the reasons why the Finding was not fulfilled and its possible impact must be explained here below. List here any exceptions and add any information on the cause and possible consequences of each exception, if known. If the exception is quantifiable, include the corresponding amount. …. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 7 Example (to be removed from the Report): 1. The Beneficiary was unable to substantiate the Finding number 1 on … because …. 2. Finding number 30 was not fulfilled because the methodology used by the Beneficiary to calculate unit costs was different from the one approved by the Commission. The differences were as follows: … 3. After carrying out the agreed procedures to confirm the Finding number 31, the Auditor found a difference of _____________ EUR. The difference can be explained by … Further Remarks In addition to reporting on the results of the specific procedures carried out, the Auditor would like to make the following general remarks: Example (to be removed from the Report): 1. Regarding Finding number 8 the conditions for additional remuneration were considered as fulfilled because … 2. In order to be able to confirm the Finding number 15 we carried out the following additional procedures: …. Use of this Report This Report may be used only for the purpose described in the above objective. It was prepared solely for the confidential use of the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] and the [Commission] [Agency], and only to be submitted to the [Commission] [Agency] in connection with the requirements set out in Article 20.4 of the Agreement. The Report may not be used by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] or by the [Commission] [Agency] for any other purpose, nor may it be distributed to any other parties. The [Commission] [Agency] may only disclose the Report to authorised parties, in particular to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Court of Auditors. This Report relates only to the Financial Statement(s) submitted to the [Commission] [Agency] by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] for the Agreement. Therefore, it does not extend to any other of the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] Financial Statement(s). There was no conflict of interest4 between the Auditor and the Beneficiary [and Linked Third Party] in establishing this Report. The total fee paid to the Auditor for providing the Report was EUR ______ (including EUR______ of deductible VAT). We look forward to discussing our Report with you and would be pleased to provide any further information or assistance. [legal name of the Auditor] [name and function of an authorised representative] [dd Month yyyy] Signature of the Auditor 4 A conflict of interest arises when the Auditor's objectivity to establish the certificate is compromised in fact or in appearance when the Auditor for instance: - was involved in the preparation of the Financial Statements; - stands to benefit directly should the certificate be accepted; - has a close relationship with any person representing the beneficiary; - is a director, trustee or partner of the beneficiary; or - is in any other situation that compromises his or her independence or ability to establish the certificate impartially. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 8 Agreed-upon procedures to be performed and standard factual findings to be confirmed by the Auditor The European Commission reserves the right to i) provide the auditor with additional guidance regarding the procedures to be followed or the facts to be ascertained and the way in which to present them (this may include sample coverage and findings) or to ii) change the procedures, by notifying the Beneficiary in writing. The procedures carried out by the auditor to confirm the standard factual finding are listed in the table below. If this certificate relates to a Linked Third Party, any reference here below to ‘the Beneficiary’ is to be considered as a reference to ‘the Linked Third Party’. The ‘result’ column has three different options: ‘C’, ‘E’ and ‘N.A.’: ? ‘C’ stands for ‘confirmed’ and means that the auditor can confirm the ‘standard factual finding’ and, therefore, there is no exception to be reported. ? ‘E’ stands for ‘exception’ and means that the Auditor carried out the procedures but cannot confirm the ‘standard factual finding’, or that the Auditor was not able to carry out a specific procedure (e.g. because it was impossible to reconcile key information or data were unavailable), ? ‘N.A.’ stands for ‘not applicable’ and means that the Finding did not have to be examined by the Auditor and the related Procedure(s) did not have to be carried out. The reasons of the non-application of a certain Finding must be obvious i.e. i) if no cost was declared under a certain category then the related Finding(s) and Procedure(s) are not applicable; ii) if the condition set to apply certain Procedure(s) are not met then the related Finding(s) and Procedure(s) are not applicable. For instance, for ‘beneficiaries with accounts established in a currency other than the euro’ the Procedure related to ‘beneficiaries with accounts established in euro’ is not applicable. Similarly, if no additional remuneration is paid, the related Finding(s) and Procedure(s) for additional remuneration are not applicable. Ref Procedures Standard factual finding Result (C / E / N.A.) A ACTUAL PERSONNEL COSTS AND UNIT COSTS CALCULATED BY THE BENEFICIARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS USUAL COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICE The Auditor draws a sample of persons whose costs were declared in the Financial Statement(s) to carry out the procedures indicated in the consecutive points of this section A. (The sample should be selected randomly so that it is representative. Full coverage is required if there are fewer than 10 people (including employees, natural persons working under a direct contract and personnel seconded by a third party), otherwise the sample should have a minimum of 10 people, or 10% of the total, whichever number is the highest) The Auditor sampled ______ people out of the total of ______ people. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 9 Ref Procedures Standard factual finding Result (C / E / N.A.) A.1 PERSONNEL COSTS For the persons included in the sample and working under an employment contract or equivalent act (general procedures for individual actual personnel costs and personnel costs declared as unit costs) To confirm standard factual findings 1-5 listed in the next column, the Auditor reviewed following information/documents provided by the Beneficiary: o a list of the persons included in the sample indicating the period(s) during which they worked for the action, their position (classification or category) and type of contract; o the payslips of the employees included in the sample; o reconciliation of the personnel costs declared in the Financial Statement(s) with the accounting system (project accounting and general ledger) and payroll system; o information concerning the employment status and employment conditions of personnel included in the sample, in particular their employment contracts or equivalent; o the Beneficiary’s usual policy regarding payroll matters (e.g. salary policy, overtime policy, variable pay); o applicable national law on taxes, labour and social security and o any other document that supports the personnel costs declared. The Auditor also verified the eligibility of all components of the retribution (see Article 6 GA) and recalculated the personnel costs for employees included in the sample. 1) The employees were i) directly hired by the Beneficiary in accordance with its national legislation, ii) under the Beneficiary’s sole technical supervision and responsibility and iii) remunerated in accordance with the Beneficiary’s usual practices. 2) Personnel costs were recorded in the Beneficiary's accounts/payroll system. 3) Costs were adequately supported and reconciled with the accounts and payroll records. 4) Personnel costs did not contain any ineligible elements. 5) There were no discrepancies between the personnel costs charged to the action and the costs recalculated by the Auditor. Further procedures if ‘additional remuneration’ is paid To confirm standard factual findings 6-9 listed in the next column, the Auditor: o reviewed relevant documents provided by the Beneficiary (legal form, legal/statutory 6) The Beneficiary paying “additional remuneration” was a non-profit legal entity. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 10 Ref Procedures Standard factual finding Result (C / E / N.A.) obligations, the Beneficiary’s usual policy on additional remuneration, criteria used for its calculation…); o recalculated the amount of additional remuneration eligible for the action based on the supporting documents received (full-time or part-time work, exclusive or non-exclusive dedication to the action, etc.) to arrive at the applicable FTE/year and pro-rata rate (see data collected in the course of carrying out the procedures under A.2 ‘Productive hours’ and A.4 ‘Time recording system’). IF ANY PART OF THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT MANDATORY ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL LAW OR THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT ("ADDITIONAL REMUNERATION") AND IS ELIGIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 6.2.A.1, THIS CAN BE CHARGED AS ELIGIBLE COST TO THE ACTION UP TO THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT: (A) IF THE PERSON WORKS FULL TIME AND EXCLUSIVELY ON THE ACTION DURING THE FULL YEAR: UP TO EUR 8 000/YEAR; (B) IF THE PERSON WORKS EXCLUSIVELY ON THE ACTION BUT NOT FULL-TIME OR NOT FOR THE FULL YEAR: UP TO THE CORRESPONDING PRO-RATA AMOUNT OF EUR 8 000, OR (C) IF THE PERSON DOES NOT WORK EXCLUSIVELY ON THE ACTION: UP TO A PRO-RATA AMOUNT CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE TO ARTICLE 6.2.A.1. 7) The amount of additional remuneration paid corresponded to the Beneficiary’s usual remuneration practices and was consistently paid whenever the same kind of work or expertise was required. 8) The criteria used to calculate the additional remuneration were objective and generally applied by the Beneficiary regardless of the source of funding used. 9) The amount of additional remuneration included in the personnel costs charged to the action was capped at EUR 8,000 per FTE/year (up to the equivalent pro-rata amount if the person did not work on the action full-time during the year or did not work exclusively on the action). Additional procedures in case “unit costs calculated by the Beneficiary in accordance with its usual cost accounting practices” is applied: Apart from carrying out the procedures indicated above to confirm standard factual findings 1-5 and, if applicable, also 6-9, the Auditor carried out following procedures to confirm standard 10) The personnel costs included in the Financial Statement were calculated in accordance with the Beneficiary's usual cost accounting practice. This methodology was consistently Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 11 Ref Procedures Standard factual finding Result (C / E / N.A.) factual findings 10-13 listed in the next column: o obtained a description of the Beneficiary's usual cost accounting practice to calculate unit costs;. o reviewed whether the Beneficiary's usual cost accounting practice was applied for the Financial Statements subject of the present CFS; o verified the employees included in the sample were charged under the correct category (in accordance with the criteria used by the Beneficiary to establish personnel categories) by reviewing the contract/HR-record or analytical accounting records; o verified that there is no difference between the total amount of personnel costs used in calculating the cost per unit and the total amount of personnel costs recorded in the statutory accounts; o verified whether actual personnel costs were adjusted on the basis of budgeted or estimated elements and, if so, verified whether those elements used are actually relevant for the calculation, objective and supported by documents. used in all H2020 actions. 11) The employees were charged under the correct category. 12) Total personnel costs used in calculating the unit costs were consistent with the expenses recorded in the statutory accounts. 13) Any estimated or budgeted element used by the Beneficiary in its unit-cost calculation were relevant for calculating personnel costs and corresponded to objective and verifiable information. For natural persons included in the sample and working with the Beneficiary under a direct contract other than an employment contract, such as consultants (no subcontractors). To confirm standard factual findings 14-18 listed in the next column the Auditor reviewed following information/documents provided by the Beneficiary: o the contracts, especially the cost, contract duration, work description, place of work, ownership of the results and reporting obligations to the Beneficiary; o the employment conditions of staff in the same category to compare costs and; o any other document that supports the costs declared and its registration (e.g. invoices, 14) The natural persons reported to the Beneficiary (worked under the Beneficiary’s instructions). 15) They worked on the Beneficiary’s premises (unless otherwise agreed with the Beneficiary). 16) The results of work carried out belong to the Beneficiary. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 12 Ref Procedures Standard factual finding Result (C / E / N.A.) accounting records, etc.). 17) Their costs were not significantly different from those for staff who performed similar tasks under an employment contract with the Beneficiary. 18) The costs were supported by audit evidence and registered in the accounts. For personnel seconded by a third party and included in the sample (not subcontractors) To confirm standard factual findings 19-22 listed in the next column, the Auditor reviewed following information/documents provided by the Beneficiary: o their secondment contract(s) notably regarding costs, duration, work description, place of work and ownership of the results; o if there is reimbursement by the Beneficiary to the third party for the resource made available (in-kind contribution against payment): any documentation that supports the costs declared (e.g. contract, invoice, bank payment, and proof of registration in its accounting/payroll, etc.) and reconciliation of the Financial Statement(s) with the accounting system (project accounting and general ledger) as well as any proof that the amount invoiced by the third party did not include any profit; o if there is no reimbursement by the Beneficiary to the third party for the resource made available (in-kind contribution free of charge): a proof of the actual cost borne by the Third Party for the resource made available free of charge to the Beneficiary such as a statement of costs incurred by the Third Party and proof of the registration in the Third Party's accounting/payroll; o any other document that supports the costs declared (e.g. invoices, etc.). 19) Seconded personnel reported to the Beneficiary and worked on the Beneficiary’s premises (unless otherwise agreed with the Beneficiary). 20) The results of work carried out belong to the Beneficiary. If personnel is seconded against payment: 21) The costs declared were supported with documentation and recorded in the Beneficiary’s accounts. The third party did not include any profit. If personnel is seconded free of charge: 22) The costs declared did not exceed the third party's cost as Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 13 Ref Procedures Standard factual finding Result (C / E / N.A.) recorded in the accounts of the third party and were supported with documentation. A.2 PRODUCTIVE HOURS To confirm standard factual findings 23-28 listed in the next column, the Auditor reviewed relevant documents, especially national legislation, labour agreements and contracts and time records of the persons included in the sample, to verify that: o the annual productive hours applied were calculated in accordance with one of the methods described below, o the full-time equivalent (FTEs) ratios for employees not working full-time were correctly calculated. If the Beneficiary applied method B, the auditor verified that the correctness in which the total number of hours worked was calculated and that the contracts specified the annual workable hours. If the Beneficiary applied method C, the auditor verified that the ‘annual productive hours’ applied when calculating the hourly rate were equivalent to at least 90 % of the ‘standard annual workable hours’. The Auditor can only do this if the calculation of the standard annual workable hours can be supported by records, such as national legislation, labour agreements, and contracts. BENEFICIARY'S PRODUCTIVE HOURS' FOR PERSONS WORKING FULL TIME SHALL BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS: A. 1720 ANNUAL PRODUCTIVE HOURS (PRO-RATA FOR PERSONS NOT WORKING FULL-TIME) B. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED BY THE PERSON FOR THE BENEFICIARY IN THE YEAR (THIS METHOD IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS ‘TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED’ IN THE NEXT COLUMN). THE CALCULATION OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED WAS DONE AS FOLLOWS: ANNUAL WORKABLE HOURS OF THE PERSON ACCORDING TO THE EMPLOYMENT 23) The Beneficiary applied method [choose one option and delete the others] [A: 1720 hours] [B: the ‘total number of hours worked’] [C: ‘standard annual productive hours’ used correspond to usual accounting practices] 24) Productive hours were calculated annually. 25) For employees not working full-time the full-time equivalent (FTE) ratio was correctly applied. If the Beneficiary applied method B. 26) The calculation of the number of ‘annual workable hours’, overtime and absences was verifiable based on the documents provided by the Beneficiary. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 14 Ref Procedures Standard factual finding Result (C / E / N.A.) CONTRACT, APPLICABLE LABOUR AGREEMENT OR NATIONAL LAW PLUS OVERTIME WORKED MINUS ABSENCES (SUCH AS SICK LEAVE OR SPECIAL LEAVE). C. THE STANDARD NUMBER OF ANNUAL HOURS GENERALLY APPLIED BY THE BENEFICIARY FOR ITS PERSONNEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS USUAL COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICES (THIS METHOD IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS ‘STANDARD ANNUAL PRODUCTIVE HOURS’ IN THE NEXT COLUMN). THIS NUMBER MUST BE AT LEAST 90% OF THE STANDARD ANNUAL WORKABLE HOURS. ‘ANNUAL WORKABLE HOURS’ MEANS THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE PERSONNEL MUST BE WORKING, AT THE EMPLOYER’S DISPOSAL AND CARRYING OUT HIS/HER ACTIVITY OR DUTIES UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, APPLICABLE COLLECTIVE LABOUR AGREEMENT OR NATIONAL WORKING TIME LEGISLATION. 26.1) The Beneficiary calculates the hourly rates per full financial year following procedure A.3 (method B is not allowed for beneficiaries calculating hourly rates per month). If the Beneficiary applied method C. 27) The calculation of the number of ‘standard annual workable hours’ was verifiable based on the documents provided by the Beneficiary. 28) The ‘annual productive hours’ used for calculating the hourly rate were consistent with the usual cost accounting practices of the Beneficiary and were equivalent to at least 90 % of the ‘annual workable hours’. A.3 HOURLY PERSONNEL RATES I) For unit costs calculated in accordance to the Beneficiary's usual cost accounting practice (unit costs): If the Beneficiary has a "Certificate on Methodology to calculate unit costs " (CoMUC) approved by the Commission, the Beneficiary provides the Auditor with a description of the approved methodology and the Commission’s letter of acceptance. The Auditor verified that the 29) The Beneficiary applied [choose one option and delete the other]: [Option I: “Unit costs (hourly rates) were calculated in accordance with the Beneficiary’s usual cost Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 15 Ref Procedures Standard factual finding Result (C / E / N.A.) Beneficiary has indeed used the methodology approved. If so, no further verification is necessary. If the Beneficiary does not have a "Certificate on Methodology" (CoMUC) approved by the Commission, or if the methodology approved was not applied, then the Auditor: o reviewed the documentation provided by the Beneficiary, including manuals and internal guidelines that explain how to calculate hourly rates; o recalculated the unit costs (hourly rates) of staff included in the sample following the results of the procedures carried out in A.1 and A.2. II) For individual hourly rates: The Auditor: o reviewed the documentation provided by the Beneficiary, including manuals and internal guidelines that explain how to calculate hourly rates; o recalculated the hourly rates of staff included in the sample (recalculation of all hourly rates if the Beneficiary uses annual rates, recalculation of three months selected randomly for every year and person if the Beneficiary uses monthly rates) following the results of the procedures carried out in A.1 and A.2; o (only in case of monthly rates) confirmed that the time spent on parental leave is not deducted, and that, if parts of the basic remuneration are generated over a period longer than a month, the Beneficiary has included only the share which is generated in the month. “UNIT COSTS CALCULATED BY THE BENEFICIARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS USUAL COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICES”: IT IS CALCULATED BY DIVIDING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PERSONNEL COSTS OF THE CATEGORY TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE BELONGS VERIFIED IN LINE WITH PROCEDURE A.1 BY THE NUMBER OF FTE AND THE ANNUAL TOTAL PRODUCTIVE HOURS OF THE SAME CATEGORY CALCULATED BY THE BENEFICIARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURE A.2. accounting practices”] [Option II: Individual hourly rates were applied] For option I concerning unit costs and if the Beneficiary applies the methodology approved by the Commission (CoMUC): 30) The Beneficiary used the Commission-approved methodology to calculate hourly rates. It corresponded to the organisation's usual cost accounting practices and was applied consistently for all activities irrespective of the source of funding. For option I concerning unit costs and if the Beneficiary applies a methodology not approved by the Commission: 31) The unit costs re-calculated by the Auditor were the same as the rates applied by the Beneficiary. For option II concerning individual hourly rates: 32) The individual rates re- Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 16 Ref Procedures Standard factual finding Result (C / E / N.A.) HOURLY RATE FOR INDIVIDUAL ACTUAL PERSONAL COSTS: IT IS CALCULATED FOLLOWING ONE OF THE TWO OPTIONS BELOW: A) [OPTION BY DEFAULT] BY DIVIDING THE ACTUAL ANNUAL AMOUNT OF PERSONNEL COSTS OF AN EMPLOYEE VERIFIED IN LINE WITH PROCEDURE A.1 BY THE NUMBER OF ANNUAL PRODUCTIVE HOURS VERIFIED IN LINE WITH PROCEDURE A.2 (FULL FINANCIAL YEAR HOURLY RATE); B) BY DIVIDING THE ACTUAL MONTHLY AMOUNT OF PERSONNEL COSTS OF AN EMPLOYEE VERIFIED IN LINE WITH PROCEDURE A.1 BY 1/12 OF THE NUMBER OF ANNUAL PRODUCTIVE HOURS VERIFIED IN LINE WITH PROCEDURE A.2.(MONTHLY HOURLY RATE). calculated by the Auditor were the same as the rates applied by the Beneficiary. 32.1) The Beneficiary used only one option (per full financial year or per month) throughout each financial year examined. A.4 TIME RECORDING SYSTEM To verify that the time recording system ensures the fulfilment of all minimum requirements and that the hours declared for the action were correct, accurate and properly authorised and supported by documentation, the Auditor made the following checks for the persons included in the sample that declare time as worked for the action on the basis of time records: o description of the time recording system provided by the Beneficiary (registration, authorisation, processing in the HR-system); o its actual implementation; o time records were signed at least monthly by the employees (on paper or electronically) and authorised by the project manager or another manager; o the hours declared were worked within the project period; o there were no hours declared as worked for the action if HR-records showed absence due to holidays or sickness (further cross-checks with travels are carried out in B.1 below) ; o the hours charged to the action matched those in the time recording system. 33) All persons recorded their time dedicated to the action on a daily/ weekly/ monthly basis using a paper/computerbased system. (delete the answers that are not applicable) 34) Their time-records were authorised at least monthly by the project manager or other superior. 35) Hours declared were worked within the project period and were consistent with the presences/absences recorded in HR-records. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 17 Ref Procedures Standard factual finding Result (C / E / N.A.) ONLY THE HOURS WORKED ON THE ACTION CAN BE CHARGED. ALL WORKING TIME TO BE CHARGED SHOULD BE RECORDED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT, ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF THEIR REALITY AND RELIABILITY (SEE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS BELOW FOR PERSONS WORKING EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE ACTION WITHOUT TIME RECORDS). 36) There were no discrepancies between the number of hours charged to the action and the number of hours recorded. If the persons are working exclusively for the action and without time records For the persons selected that worked exclusively for the action without time records, the Auditor verified evidence available demonstrating that they were in reality exclusively dedicated to the action and that the Beneficiary signed a declaration confirming that they have worked exclusively for the action. 37) The exclusive dedication is supported by a declaration signed by the Beneficiary’s and by any other evidence gathered. B COSTS OF SUBCONTRACTING B.1 The Auditor obtained the detail/breakdown of subcontracting costs and sampled ______ cost items selected randomly (full coverage is required if there are fewer than 10 items, otherwise the sample should have a minimum of 10 item, or 10% of the total, whichever number is highest). To confirm standard factual findings 38-42 listed in the next column, the Auditor reviewed the following for the items included in the sample: o the use of subcontractors was foreseen in Annex 1; o subcontracting costs were declared in the subcontracting category of the Financial Statement; o supporting documents on the selection and award procedure were followed; o the Beneficiary ensured best value for money (key elements to appreciate the respect of this principle are the award of the subcontract to the bid offering best price-quality ratio, under conditions of transparency and equal treatment. In case an existing framework contract was used the Beneficiary ensured it was established on the basis of the principle of best value for money under conditions of transparency and equal treatment). 38) The use of claimed subcontracting costs was foreseen in Annex 1 and costs were declared in the Financial Statements under the subcontracting category. 39) There were documents of requests to different providers, different offers and assessment of the offers before selection of the provider in line with internal procedures and procurement rules. Subcontracts were awarded in accordance with the principle of best value for money. (When different offers were not collected the Auditor explains Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 18 Ref Procedures Standard factual finding Result (C / E / N.A.) In particular, i. if the Beneficiary acted as a contracting authority within the meaning of Directive 2004/18/EC (or 2014/24/EU) or of Directive 2004/17/EC (or 2014/25/EU), the Auditor verified that the applicable national law on public procurement was followed and that the subcontracting complied with the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. ii. if the Beneficiary did not fall under the above-mentioned category the Auditor verified that the Beneficiary followed their usual procurement rules and respected the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement.. For the items included in the sample the Auditor also verified that: o the subcontracts were not awarded to other Beneficiaries in the consortium; o there were signed agreements between the Beneficiary and the subcontractor; o there was evidence that the services were provided by subcontractor; the reasons provided by the Beneficiary under the caption “Exceptions” of the Report. The Commission will analyse this information to evaluate whether these costs might be accepted as eligible) 40) The subcontracts were not awarded to other Beneficiaries of the consortium. 41) All subcontracts were supported by signed agreements between the Beneficiary and the subcontractor. 42) There was evidence that the services were provided by the subcontractors. C COSTS OF PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THIRD PARTIES C.1 The Auditor obtained the detail/breakdown of the costs of providing financial support to third parties and sampled ______ cost items selected randomly (full coverage is required if there are fewer than 10 items, otherwise the sample should have a minimum of 10 item, or 10% of the total, whichever number is highest). The Auditor verified that the following minimum conditions were met: a) the maximum amount of financial support for each third party did not exceed EUR 60 000, unless explicitly mentioned in Annex 1; 43) All minimum conditions were met Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 19 Ref Procedures Standard factual finding Result (C / E / N.A.) b) the financial support to third parties was agreed in Annex 1 of the Agreement and the other provisions on financial support to third parties included in Annex 1 were respected. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 20 D OTHER ACTUAL DIRECT COSTS D.1 COSTS OF TRAVEL AND RELATED SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES The Auditor sampled ______ cost items selected randomly (full coverage is required if there are fewer than 10 items, otherwise the sample should have a minimum of 10 item, or 10% of the total, whichever number is the highest). The Auditor inspected the sample and verified that: o travel and subsistence costs were consistent with the Beneficiary's usual policy for travel. In this context, the Beneficiary provided evidence of its normal policy for travel costs (e.g. use of first class tickets, reimbursement by the Beneficiary on the basis of actual costs, a lump sum or per diem) to enable the Auditor to compare the travel costs charged with this policy; o travel costs are correctly identified and allocated to the action (e.g. trips are directly linked to the action) by reviewing relevant supporting documents such as minutes of meetings, workshops or conferences, their registration in the correct project account, their consistency with time records or with the dates/duration of the workshop/conference; o no ineligible costs or excessive or reckless expenditure was declared. 44) Costs were incurred, approved and reimbursed in line with the Beneficiary's usual policy for travels. 45) There was a link between the trip and the action. 46) The supporting documents were consistent with each other regarding subject of the trip, dates, duration and reconciled with time records and accounting. 47) No ineligible costs or excessive or reckless expenditure was declared. D.2 DEPRECIATION COSTS FOR EQUIPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE OR OTHER ASSETS The Auditor sampled ______ cost items selected randomly (full coverage is required if there are fewer than 10 items, otherwise the sample should have a minimum of 10 item, or 10% of the total, whichever number is the highest). For “equipment, infrastructure or other assets” [from now on called “asset(s)”] selected in the sample the Auditor verified that: o the assets were acquired in conformity with the Beneficiary's internal guidelines and procedures; o they were correctly allocated to the action (with supporting documents such as delivery 48) Procurement rules, principles and guides were followed. 49) There was a link between the grant agreement and the asset charged to the action. 50) The asset charged to the action was traceable to the accounting records and the underlying documents. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 21 note invoice or any other proof demonstrating the link to the action) o they were entered in the accounting system; o the extent to which the assets were used for the action (as a percentage) was supported by reliable documentation (e.g. usage overview table); The Auditor recalculated the depreciation costs and verified that they were in line with the applicable rules in the Beneficiary’s country and with the Beneficiary’s usual accounting policy (e.g. depreciation calculated on the acquisition value). The Auditor verified that no ineligible costs such as deductible VAT, exchange rate losses, excessive or reckless expenditure were declared (see Article 6.5 GA). 51) The depreciation method used to charge the asset to the action was in line with the applicable rules of the Beneficiary's country and the Beneficiary's usual accounting policy. 52) The amount charged corresponded to the actual usage for the action. 53) No ineligible costs or excessive or reckless expenditure were declared. D.3 COSTS OF OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES The Auditor sampled ______ cost items selected randomly (full coverage is required if there are fewer than 10 items, otherwise the sample should have a minimum of 10 item, or 10% of the total, whichever number is highest). For the purchase of goods, works or services included in the sample the Auditor verified that: o the contracts did not cover tasks described in Annex 1; o they were correctly identified, allocated to the proper action, entered in the accounting system (traceable to underlying documents such as purchase orders, invoices and accounting); o the goods were not placed in the inventory of durable equipment; o the costs charged to the action were accounted in line with the Beneficiary’s usual accounting practices; o no ineligible costs or excessive or reckless expenditure were declared (see Article 6 GA). In addition, the Auditor verified that these goods and services were acquired in conformity with the Beneficiary's internal guidelines and procedures, in particular: o if Beneficiary acted as a contracting authority within the meaning of Directive 54) Contracts for works or services did not cover tasks described in Annex 1. 55) Costs were allocated to the correct action and the goods were not placed in the inventory of durable equipment. 56) The costs were charged in line with the Beneficiary’s accounting policy and were adequately supported. 57) No ineligible costs or excessive or reckless expenditure were declared. For internal invoices/charges only the cost element was charged, without any mark-ups. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 22 2004/18/EC (or 2014/24/EU) or of Directive 2004/17/EC (or 2014/25/EU), the Auditor verified that the applicable national law on public procurement was followed and that the procurement contract complied with the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. o if the Beneficiary did not fall into the category above, the Auditor verified that the Beneficiary followed their usual procurement rules and respected the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. For the items included in the sample the Auditor also verified that: o the Beneficiary ensured best value for money (key elements to appreciate the respect of this principle are the award of the contract to the bid offering best price-quality ratio, under conditions of transparency and equal treatment. In case an existing framework contract was used the Auditor also verified that the Beneficiary ensured it was established on the basis of the principle of best value for money under conditions of transparency and equal treatment); SUCH GOODS AND SERVICES INCLUDE, FOR INSTANCE, CONSUMABLES AND SUPPLIES, DISSEMINATION (INCLUDING OPEN ACCESS), PROTECTION OF RESULTS, SPECIFIC EVALUATION OF THE ACTION IF IT IS REQUIRED BY THE AGREEMENT, CERTIFICATES ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IF THEY ARE REQUIRED BY THE AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATES ON THE METHODOLOGY, TRANSLATIONS, REPRODUCTION. 58) Procurement rules, principles and guides were followed. There were documents of requests to different providers, different offers and assessment of the offers before selection of the provider in line with internal procedures and procurement rules. The purchases were made in accordance with the principle of best value for money. (When different offers were not collected the Auditor explains the reasons provided by the Beneficiary under the caption “Exceptions” of the Report. The Commission will analyse this information to evaluate whether these costs might be accepted as eligible) D.4 AGGREGATED CAPITALISED AND OPERATING COSTS OF RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE The Auditor ensured the existence of a positive ex-ante assessment (issued by the EC Services) of the cost accounting methodology of the Beneficiary allowing it to apply the guidelines on direct costing for large research infrastructures in Horizon 2020. In the cases that a positive ex-ante assessment has been issued (see the standard factual findings 59-60 on the next column), 59) The costs declared as direct costs for Large Research Infrastructures (in the appropriate line of the Financial Statement) comply with the methodology described in the positive exante assessment report. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 23 The Auditor ensured that the beneficiary has applied consistently the methodology that is explained and approved in the positive ex ante assessment; In the cases that a positive ex-ante assessment has NOT been issued (see the standard factual findings 61 on the next column), The Auditor verified that no costs of Large Research Infrastructure have been charged as direct costs in any costs category; In the cases that a draft ex-ante assessment report has been issued with recommendation for further changes (see the standard factual findings 61 on the next column), ? The Auditor followed the same procedure as above (when a positive ex-ante assessment has NOT yet been issued) and paid particular attention (testing reinforced) to the cost items for which the draft ex-ante assessment either rejected the inclusion as direct costs for Large Research Infrastructures or issued recommendations. 60) Any difference between the methodology applied and the one positively assessed was extensively described and adjusted accordingly. 61) The direct costs declared were free from any indirect costs items related to the Large Research Infrastructure. E USE OF EXCHANGE RATES E.1 a) For Beneficiaries with accounts established in a currency other than euros The Auditor sampled ______ cost items selected randomly and verified that the exchange rates used for converting other currencies into euros were in accordance with the following rules established in the Agreement ( full coverage is required if there are fewer than 10 items, otherwise the sample should have a minimum of 10 item, or 10% of the total, whichever number is highest): COSTS RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNTS IN A CURRENCY OTHER THAN EURO SHALL BE CONVERTED INTO EURO AT THE AVERAGE OF THE DAILY EXCHANGE RATES PUBLISHED IN THE C SERIES OF OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (https://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/index.en.html ), DETERMINED OVER THE CORRESPONDING REPORTING PERIOD. IF NO DAILY EURO EXCHANGE RATE IS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE CURRENCY IN QUESTION, CONVERSION SHALL BE MADE AT THE AVERAGE OF THE MONTHLY ACCOUNTING RATES ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION AND PUBLISHED ON ITS WEBSITE (http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/inforeuro/inforeuro_en.cfm ), DETERMINED OVER THE CORRESPONDING REPORTING PERIOD. 62) The exchange rates used to convert other currencies into Euros were in accordance with the rules established of the Grant Agreement and there was no difference in the final figures. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 24 b) For Beneficiaries with accounts established in euros The Auditor sampled ______ cost items selected randomly and verified that the exchange rates used for converting other currencies into euros were in accordance with the following rules established in the Agreement ( full coverage is required if there are fewer than 10 items, otherwise the sample should have a minimum of 10 item, or 10% of the total, whichever number is highest): COSTS INCURRED IN ANOTHER CURRENCY SHALL BE CONVERTED INTO EURO BY APPLYING THE BENEFICIARY’S USUAL ACCOUNTING PRACTICES. 63) The Beneficiary applied its usual accounting practices. [legal name of the audit firm] [name and function of an authorised representative] [dd Month yyyy] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 1 ANNEX 6 MODEL FOR THE CERTIFICATE ON THE METHODOLOGY ? For options [in italics in square brackets]: choose the applicable option. Options not chosen should be deleted. ? For fields in [grey in square brackets]: enter the appropriate data. TABLE OF CONTENTS TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR AN AUDIT ENGAGEMENT FOR A METHODOLOGY CERTIFICATE IN CONNECTION WITH ONE OR MORE GRANT AGREEMENTS FINANCED UNDER THE HORIZON 2020 RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME INDEPENDENT REPORT OF FACTUAL FINDINGS ON THE METHODOLOGY CONCERNING GRANT AGREEMENTS FINANCED UNDER THE HORIZON 2020 RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 2 Terms of reference for an audit engagement for a methodology certificate in connection with one or more grant agreements financed under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme This document sets out the ‘Terms of Reference (ToR)’ under which [OPTION 1: [insert name of the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)] [OPTION 2: [insert name of the linked third party] (‘the Linked Third Party’), third party linked to the Beneficiary [insert name of the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)] agrees to engage [insert legal name of the auditor] (‘the Auditor’) to produce an independent report of factual findings (‘the Report’) concerning the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] usual accounting practices for calculating and claiming direct personnel costs declared as unit costs (‘the Methodology’) in connection with grant agreements financed under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme. The procedures to be carried out for the assessment of the methodology will be based on the grant agreement(s) detailed below: [title and number of the grant agreement(s)] (‘the Agreement(s)’) The Agreement(s) has(have) been concluded between the Beneficiary and [OPTION 1: the European Union, represented by the European Commission (‘the Commission’)][ OPTION 2: the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom,) represented by the European Commission (‘the Commission’)][OPTION 3: the [Research Executive Agency (REA)] [European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)] [Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)] [Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME)] (‘the Agency’), under the powers delegated by the European Commission (‘the Commission’).]. The [Commission] [Agency] is mentioned as a signatory of the Agreement with the Beneficiary only. The [European Union] [Euratom] [Agency] is not a party to this engagement. 1.1 Subject of the engagement According to Article 18.1.2 of the Agreement, beneficiaries [and linked third parties] that declare direct personnel costs as unit costs calculated in accordance with their usual cost accounting practices may submit to the [Commission] [Agency], for approval, a certificate on the methodology (‘CoMUC’) stating that there are adequate records and documentation to prove that their cost accounting practices used comply with the conditions set out in Point A of Article 6.2. The subject of this engagement is the CoMUC which is composed of two separate documents: - the Terms of Reference (‘the ToR’) to be signed by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] and the Auditor; - the Auditor’s Independent Report of Factual Findings (‘the Report’) issued on the Auditor’s letterhead, dated, stamped and signed by the Auditor which includes; the standard statements (‘the Statements’) evaluated and signed by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party], the agreedupon procedures (‘the Procedures’) performed by the Auditor and the standard factual findings Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 3 (‘the Findings’) assessed by the Auditor. The Statements, Procedures and Findings are summarised in the table that forms part of the Report. The information provided through the Statements, the Procedures and the Findings will enable the Commission to draw conclusions regarding the existence of the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] usual cost accounting practice and its suitability to ensure that direct personnel costs claimed on that basis comply with the provisions of the Agreement. The Commission draws its own conclusions from the Report and any additional information it may require. 1.2 Responsibilities The parties to this agreement are the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] and the Auditor. The [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]: ? is responsible for preparing financial statements for the Agreement(s) (‘the Financial Statements’) in compliance with those Agreements; ? is responsible for providing the Financial Statement(s) to the Auditor and enabling the Auditor to reconcile them with the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] accounting and bookkeeping system and the underlying accounts and records. The Financial Statement(s) will be used as a basis for the procedures which the Auditor will carry out under this ToR; ? is responsible for its Methodology and liable for the accuracy of the Financial Statement(s); ? is responsible for endorsing or refuting the Statements indicated under the heading ‘Statements to be made by the Beneficiary/ Linked Third Party’ in the first column of the table that forms part of the Report; ? must provide the Auditor with a signed and dated representation letter; ? accepts that the ability of the Auditor to carry out the Procedures effectively depends upon the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] providing full and free access to the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] staff and to its accounting and other relevant records. The Auditor: ? [Option 1 by default: is qualified to carry out statutory audits of accounting documents in accordance with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC or similar national regulations]. ? [Option 2 if the Beneficiary or Linked Third Party has an independent Public Officer: is a competent and independent Public Officer for which the relevant national authorities have established the legal capacity to audit the Beneficiary]. ? [Option 3 if the Beneficiary or Linked Third Party is an international organisation: is an [internal] [external] auditor in accordance with the internal financial regulations and procedures of the international organisation]. The Auditor: ? must be independent from the Beneficiary [and the Linked Third Party], in particular, it must not have been involved in preparing the Beneficiary’s [and Linked Third Party’s] Financial Statement(s); ? must plan work so that the Procedures may be carried out and the Findings may be assessed; ? must adhere to the Procedures laid down and the compulsory report format; ? must carry out the engagement in accordance with these ToR; ? must document matters which are important to support the Report; ? must base its Report on the evidence gathered; ? must submit the Report to the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 4 The Commission sets out the Procedures to be carried out and the Findings to be endorsed by the Auditor. The Auditor is not responsible for their suitability or pertinence. As this engagement is not an assurance engagement the Auditor does not provide an audit opinion or a statement of assurance. 1.3 Applicable Standards The Auditor must comply with these Terms of Reference and with1: - the International Standard on Related Services (‘ISRS’) 4400 Engagements to perform Agreed-upon Procedures regarding Financial Information as issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB); - the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants issued by the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA). Although ISRS 4400 states that independence is not a requirement for engagements to carry out agreed-upon procedures, the Commission requires that the Auditor also complies with the Code’s independence requirements. The Auditor’s Report must state that there was no conflict of interests in establishing this Report between the Auditor and the Beneficiary [and the Linked Third Party] that could have a bearing on the Report, and must specify – if the service is invoiced - the total fee paid to the Auditor for providing the Report. 1.4 Reporting The Report must be written in the language of the Agreement (see Article 20.7 of the Agreement). Under Article 22 of the Agreement, the Commission, [the Agency], the European Anti-Fraud Office and the Court of Auditors have the right to audit any work that is carried out under the action and for which costs are declared from [the European Union] [Euratom] budget. This includes work related to this engagement. The Auditor must provide access to all working papers related to this assignment if the Commission[, the Agency], the European Anti-Fraud Office or the European Court of Auditors requests them. 1.5 Timing The Report must be provided by [dd Month yyyy]. 1.6 Other Terms [The [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] and the Auditor can use this section to agree other specific terms, such as the Auditor’s fees, liability, applicable law, etc. Those specific terms must not contradict the terms specified above.] [legal name of the Auditor] [legal name of the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]] [name & title of authorised representative] [name & title of authorised representative] [dd Month yyyy] [dd Month yyyy] Signature of the Auditor Signature Signature of the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] 1 Supreme Audit Institutions applying INTOSAI-standards may carry out the Procedures according to the corresponding International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions and code of ethics issued by INTOSAI instead of the International Standard on Related Services (‘ISRS’) 4400 and the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants issued by the IAASB and the IESBA. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 5 Independent report of factual findings on the methodology concerning grant agreements financed under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme (To be printed on letterhead paper of the auditor) To [ name of contact person(s)], [Position] [[Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] name] [ Address] [ dd Month yyyy] Dear [Name of contact person(s)], As agreed under the terms of reference dated [dd Month yyyy] with [OPTION 1: [insert name of the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)] [OPTION 2: [insert name of the linked third party] (‘the Linked Third Party’), third party linked to the Beneficiary [insert name of the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)], we [ name of the auditor] (‘the Auditor’), established at [full address/city/state/province/country], represented by [name and function of an authorised representative], have carried out the agreed-upon procedures (‘the Procedures’) and provide hereby our Independent Report of Factual Findings (‘the Report’), concerning the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] usual accounting practices for calculating and declaring direct personnel costs declared as unit costs (‘the Methodology’). You requested certain procedures to be carried out in connection with the grant(s) [title and number of the grant agreement(s)] (‘the Agreement(s)’). The Report Our engagement was carried out in accordance with the terms of reference (‘the ToR’) appended to this Report. The Report includes: the standard statements (‘the Statements’) made by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party], the agreed-upon procedures (‘the Procedures’) carried out and the standard factual findings (‘the Findings’) confirmed by us. The engagement involved carrying out the Procedures and assessing the Findings and the documentation requested appended to this Report, the results of which the Commission uses to draw conclusions regarding the acceptability of the Methodology applied by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 6 The Report covers the methodology used from [dd Month yyyy]. In the event that the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] changes this methodology, the Report will not be applicable to any Financial Statement1 submitted thereafter. The scope of the Procedures and the definition of the standard statements and findings were determined solely by the Commission. Therefore, the Auditor is not responsible for their suitability or pertinence. Since the Procedures carried out constitute neither an audit nor a review made in accordance with International Standards on Auditing or International Standards on Review Engagements, we do not give a statement of assurance on the costs declared on the basis of the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] Methodology. Had we carried out additional procedures or had we performed an audit or review in accordance with these standards, other matters might have come to its attention and would have been included in the Report. Exceptions Apart from the exceptions listed below, the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] agreed with the standard Statements and provided the Auditor all the documentation and accounting information needed by the Auditor to carry out the requested Procedures and corroborate the standard Findings. List here any exception and add any information on the cause and possible consequences of each exception, if known. If the exception is quantifiable, also indicate the corresponding amount. ….. Explanation of possible exceptions in the form of examples (to be removed from the Report): i. the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] did not agree with the standard Statement number … because…; ii. the Auditor could not carry out the procedure … established because …. (e.g. due to the inability to reconcile key information or the unavailability or inconsistency of data); iii. the Auditor could not confirm or corroborate the standard Finding number … because …. Remarks We would like to add the following remarks relevant for the proper understanding of the Methodology applied by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] or the results reported: Example (to be removed from the Report): Regarding the methodology applied to calculate hourly rates … Regarding standard Finding 15 it has to be noted that … The [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] explained the deviation from the benchmark statement XXIV concerning time recording for personnel with no exclusive dedication to the action in the following manner: … Annexes Please provide the following documents to the auditor and annex them to the report when submitting this CoMUC to the Commission: 1 Financial Statement in this context refers solely to Annex 4 of the Agreement by which the Beneficiary declares costs under the Agreement. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier] H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016 7 1. Brief description of the methodology for calculating personnel costs, productive hours and hourly rates; 2. Brief description of the time recording system in place; 3. An example of the time records used by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]; 4. Description of any budgeted or estimated elements applied, together with an explanation as to why they are relevant for calculating the personnel costs and how they are based on objective and verifiable information; 5. A summary sheet with the hourly rate for direct personnel declared by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] and recalculated by the Auditor for each staff member included in the sample (the names do not need to be reported); 6. A comparative table summarising for each person selected in the sample a) the time claimed by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] in the Financial Statement(s) and b) the time according to the time record verified by the Auditor; 7. A copy of the letter of representation provided to the Auditor. Use of this Report This Report has been drawn up solely for the purpose given under Point 1.1 Reasons for the engagement. The Report: - is confidential and is intended to be submitted to the Commission by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] in connection with Article 18.1.2 of the Agreement; - may not be used by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] or by the Commission for any other purpose, nor distributed to any other parties; - may be disclosed by the Commission only to authorised parties, in particular the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Court of Auditors. - relates only to the usual cost accounting practices specified above and does not constitute a report on the Financial Statements of the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]. No conflict of interest2 exists between the Auditor and the Beneficiary [and the Linked Third Party] that could have a bearing on the Report. The total fee paid to the Auditor for producing the Report was EUR ______ (including EUR ______ of deductible VAT). We look forward to discussing our Report with you and would be pleased to provide any further information or assistance which may be required. Yours sincerely [legal name of the Auditor] [name and title of the authorised representative] [dd Month yyyy] Signature of the Auditor 2 A conflict of interest arises when the Auditor's objectivity to establish the certificate is compromised in fact or in appearance when the Auditor for instance: - was involved in the preparation of the Financial Statements; - stands to benefit directly should the certificate be accepted; - has a close relationship with any person representing the beneficiary; - is a director, trustee or partner of the beneficiary; or - is in any other situation that compromises his or her independence or ability to establish the certificate impartially. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 8 Statements to be made by the Beneficiary/Linked Third Party (‘the Statements’) and Procedures to be carried out by the Auditor (‘the Procedures’) and standard factual findings (‘the Findings’) to be confirmed by the Auditor The Commission reserves the right to provide the auditor with guidance regarding the Statements to be made, the Procedures to be carried out or the Findings to be ascertained and the way in which to present them. The Commission reserves the right to vary the Statements, Procedures or Findings by written notification to the Beneficiary/Linked Third Party to adapt the procedures to changes in the grant agreement(s) or to any other circumstances. If this methodology certificate relates to the Linked Third Party’s usual accounting practices for calculating and claiming direct personnel costs declared as unit costs any reference here below to ‘the Beneficiary’ is to be considered as a reference to ‘the Linked Third Party’. Please explain any discrepancies in the body of the Report. Statements to be made by Beneficiary Procedures to be carried out and Findings to be confirmed by the Auditor A. Use of the Methodology I. The cost accounting practice described below has been in use since [dd Month yyyy]. II. The next planned alteration to the methodology used by the Beneficiary will be from [dd Month yyyy]. Procedure: ? The Auditor checked these dates against the documentation the Beneficiary has provided. Factual finding: 1. The dates provided by the Beneficiary were consistent with the documentation. B. Description of the Methodology III. The methodology to calculate unit costs is being used in a consistent manner and is reflected in the relevant procedures. [Please describe the methodology your entity uses to calculate personnel costs, productive hours and hourly rates, present your description to the Auditor and annex it to this certificate] [If the statement of section “B. Description of the methodology” cannot be endorsed by the Beneficiary or there is no written methodology to calculate unit costs it should be listed here below and reported as exception by the Auditor in the main Report of Factual Findings: - …] Procedure: ? The Auditor reviewed the description, the relevant manuals and/or internal guidance documents describing the methodology. Factual finding: 2. The brief description was consistent with the relevant manuals, internal guidance and/or other documentary evidence the Auditor has reviewed. 3. The methodology was generally applied by the Beneficiary as part of its usual costs accounting practices. C. Personnel costs General Procedure: The Auditor draws a sample of employees to carry out the procedures indicated in Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 9 Please explain any discrepancies in the body of the Report. Statements to be made by Beneficiary Procedures to be carried out and Findings to be confirmed by the Auditor IV. The unit costs (hourly rates) are limited to salaries including during parental leave, social security contributions, taxes and other costs included in the remuneration required under national law and the employment contract or equivalent appointing act; V. Employees are hired directly by the Beneficiary in accordance with national law, and work under its sole supervision and responsibility; VI. The Beneficiary remunerates its employees in accordance with its usual practices. This means that personnel costs are charged in line with the Beneficiary’s usual payroll policy (e.g. salary policy, overtime policy, variable pay) and no special conditions exist for employees assigned to tasks relating to the European Union or Euratom, unless explicitly provided for in the grant agreement(s); VII. The Beneficiary allocates its employees to the relevant group/category/cost centre for the purpose of the unit cost calculation in line with the usual cost accounting practice; VIII. Personnel costs are based on the payroll system and accounting system. IX. Any exceptional adjustments of actual personnel costs resulted from relevant budgeted or estimated elements and were based on objective and verifiable information. [Please describe the ‘budgeted or estimated elements’ and their relevance to personnel costs, and explain how they were reasonable and based on objective and verifiable information, present your explanation to the Auditor and annex it to this certificate]. X. Personnel costs claimed do not contain any of the following ineligible costs: costs related to return on capital; debt and debt service charges; provisions for future losses or debts; interest owed; doubtful debts; currency exchange losses; bank costs charged by the Beneficiary’s bank for transfers from the Commission/Agency; excessive or reckless expenditure; deductible VAT or costs incurred during suspension of the implementation of the action. XI. Personnel costs were not declared under another EU or Euratom grant (including grants awarded by a Member State and financed by the EU budget and grants awarded by bodies other than the Commission/Agency for the purpose of implementing the EU budget). this section C and the following sections D to F. [The Auditor has drawn a random sample of 10 full-time equivalents made up of employees assigned to the action(s). If fewer than 10 full-time equivalents are assigned to the action(s), the Auditor has selected a sample of 10 full-time equivalents consisting of all employees assigned to the action(s), complemented by other employees irrespective of their assignments.]. For this sample: ? the Auditor reviewed all documents relating to personnel costs such as employment contracts, payslips, payroll policy (e.g. salary policy, overtime policy, variable pay policy), accounting and payroll records, applicable national tax , labour and social security law and any other documents corroborating the personnel costs claimed; ? in particular, the Auditor reviewed the employment contracts of the employees in the sample to verify that: i. they were employed directly by the Beneficiary in accordance with applicable national legislation; ii. they were working under the sole technical supervision and responsibility of the latter; iii. they were remunerated in accordance with the Beneficiary’s usual practices; iv. they were allocated to the correct group/category/cost centre for the purposes of calculating the unit cost in line with the Beneficiary’s usual cost accounting practices; ? the Auditor verified that any ineligible items or any costs claimed under other costs categories or costs covered by other types of grant or by other grants financed from the European Union budget have not been taken into account when calculating the personnel costs; ? the Auditor numerically reconciled the total amount of personnel costs used to calculate the unit cost with the total amount of personnel costs recorded in the statutory accounts and the payroll system. ? to the extent that actual personnel costs were adjusted on the basis of budgeted or estimated elements, the Auditor carefully examined those elements and checked the information source to confirm that they correspond to objective and verifiable information; Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 10 Please explain any discrepancies in the body of the Report. Statements to be made by Beneficiary Procedures to be carried out and Findings to be confirmed by the Auditor If additional remuneration as referred to in the grant agreement(s) is paid XII. The Beneficiary is a non-profit legal entity; XIII. The additional remuneration is part of the beneficiary’s usual remuneration practices and paid consistently whenever the relevant work or expertise is required; XIV. The criteria used to calculate the additional remuneration are objective and generally applied regardless of the source of funding; XV. The additional remuneration included in the personnel costs used to calculate the hourly rates for the grant agreement(s) is capped at EUR 8 000 per full-time equivalent (reduced proportionately if the employee is not assigned exclusively to the action). [If certain statement(s) of section “C. Personnel costs” cannot be endorsed by the Beneficiary they should be listed here below and reported as exception by the Auditor in the main Report of Factual Findings: - …] ? if additional remuneration has been claimed, the Auditor verified that the Beneficiary was a non-profit legal entity, that the amount was capped at EUR 8 000 per full-time equivalent and that it was reduced proportionately for employees not assigned exclusively to the action(s). ? the Auditor recalculated the personnel costs for the employees in the sample. Factual finding: 4. All the components of the remuneration that have been claimed as personnel costs are supported by underlying documentation. 5. The employees in the sample were employed directly by the Beneficiary in accordance with applicable national law and were working under its sole supervision and responsibility. 6. Their employment contracts were in line with the Beneficiary’s usual policy; 7. Personnel costs were duly documented and consisted solely of salaries, social security contributions (pension contributions, health insurance, unemployment fund contributions, etc.), taxes and other statutory costs included in the remuneration (holiday pay, thirteenth month’s pay, etc.); 8. The totals used to calculate the personnel unit costs are consistent with those registered in the payroll and accounting records; 9. To the extent that actual personnel costs were adjusted on the basis of budgeted or estimated elements, those elements were relevant for calculating the personnel costs and correspond to objective and verifiable information. The budgeted or estimated elements used are: — (indicate the elements and their values). 10. Personnel costs contained no ineligible elements; 11. Specific conditions for eligibility were fulfilled when additional remuneration was paid: a) the Beneficiary is registered in the grant agreements as a non-profit legal entity; b) it was paid according to objective criteria generally applied regardless of the source of funding used and c) remuneration was capped at EUR 8 000 per full-time equivalent (or up to up to the equivalent pro-rata amount if the person did not work on the action full-time during the year or did not work exclusively on the action). Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 11 Please explain any discrepancies in the body of the Report. Statements to be made by Beneficiary Procedures to be carried out and Findings to be confirmed by the Auditor D. Productive hours XVI. The number of productive hours per full-time employee applied is [delete as appropriate]: A. 1720 productive hours per year for a person working full-time (corresponding pro-rata for persons not working full time). B. the total number of hours worked in the year by a person for the Beneficiary C. the standard number of annual hours generally applied by the beneficiary for its personnel in accordance with its usual cost accounting practices. This number must be at least 90% of the standard annual workable hours. If method B is applied XVII. The calculation of the total number of hours worked was done as follows: annual workable hours of the person according to the employment contract, applicable labour agreement or national law plus overtime worked minus absences (such as sick leave and special leave). XVIII. ‘Annual workable hours’ are hours during which the personnel must be working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his/her activity or duties under the employment contract, applicable collective labour agreement or national working time legislation. XIX. The contract (applicable collective labour agreement or national working time legislation) do specify the working time enabling to calculate the annual workable hours. If method C is applied XX. The standard number of productive hours per year is that of a full-time equivalent. XXI. The number of productive hours per year on which the hourly rate is based i) corresponds to the Beneficiary’s usual accounting practices; ii) is at least 90 % of the standard number of workable (working) hours per year. XXII. Standard workable (working) hours are hours during which personnel are at Procedure (same sample basis as for Section C: Personnel costs): ? The Auditor verified that the number of productive hours applied is in accordance with method A, B or C. ? The Auditor checked that the number of productive hours per full-time employee is correct. ? If method B is applied the Auditor verified i) the manner in which the total number of hours worked was done and ii) that the contract specified the annual workable hours by inspecting all the relevant documents, national legislation, labour agreements and contracts. ? If method C is applied the Auditor reviewed the manner in which the standard number of working hours per year has been calculated by inspecting all the relevant documents, national legislation, labour agreements and contracts and verified that the number of productive hours per year used for these calculations was at least 90 % of the standard number of working hours per year. Factual finding: General 12. The Beneficiary applied a number of productive hours consistent with method A, B or C detailed in the left-hand column. 13. The number of productive hours per year per full-time employee was accurate. If method B is applied 14. The number of ‘annual workable hours’, overtime and absences was verifiable based on the documents provided by the Beneficiary and the calculation of the total number of hours worked was accurate. 15. The contract specified the working time enabling to calculate the annual workable hours. If method C is applied 16. The calculation of the number of productive hours per year corresponded to the usual costs accounting practice of the Beneficiary. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 12 Please explain any discrepancies in the body of the Report. Statements to be made by Beneficiary Procedures to be carried out and Findings to be confirmed by the Auditor the Beneficiary’s disposal preforming the duties described in the relevant employment contract, collective labour agreement or national labour legislation. The number of standard annual workable (working) hours that the Beneficiary claims is supported by labour contracts, national legislation and other documentary evidence. [If certain statement(s) of section “D. Productive hours” cannot be endorsed by the Beneficiary they should be listed here below and reported as exception by the Auditor: - …] 17. The calculation of the standard number of workable (working) hours per year was corroborated by the documents presented by the Beneficiary. 18. The number of productive hours per year used for the calculation of the hourly rate was at least 90 % of the number of workable (working) hours per year. E. Hourly rates The hourly rates are correct because: XXIII. Hourly rates are correctly calculated since they result from dividing annual personnel costs by the productive hours of a given year and group (e.g. staff category or department or cost centre depending on the methodology applied) and they are in line with the statements made in section C. and D. above. [If the statement of section ‘E. Hourly rates’ cannot be endorsed by the Beneficiary they should be listed here below and reported as exception by the Auditor: - …] Procedure ? The Auditor has obtained a list of all personnel rates calculated by the Beneficiary in accordance with the methodology used. ? The Auditor has obtained a list of all the relevant employees, based on which the personnel rate(s) are calculated. For 10 full-time equivalent employees selected at random (same sample basis as Section C: Personnel costs): ? The Auditor recalculated the hourly rates. ? The Auditor verified that the methodology applied corresponds to the usual accounting practices of the organisation and is applied consistently for all activities of the organisation on the basis of objective criteria irrespective of the source of funding. Factual finding: 19. No differences arose from the recalculation of the hourly rate for the employees included in the sample. F. Time recording XXIV. Time recording is in place for all persons with no exclusive dedication to one Horizon 2020 action. At least all hours worked in connection with the grant agreement(s) are registered on a daily/weekly/monthly basis [delete as appropriate] using a paper/computer-based system [delete as appropriate]; XXV. For persons exclusively assigned to one Horizon 2020 activity the Procedure ? The Auditor reviewed the brief description, all relevant manuals and/or internal guidance describing the methodology used to record time. The Auditor reviewed the time records of the random sample of 10 full-time equivalents referred to under Section C: Personnel costs, and verified in particular: Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 13 Please explain any discrepancies in the body of the Report. Statements to be made by Beneficiary Procedures to be carried out and Findings to be confirmed by the Auditor Beneficiary has either signed a declaration to that effect or has put arrangements in place to record their working time; XXVI. Records of time worked have been signed by the person concerned (on paper or electronically) and approved by the action manager or line manager at least monthly; XXVII. Measures are in place to prevent staff from: i. recording the same hours twice, ii. recording working hours during absence periods (e.g. holidays, sick leave), iii. recording more than the number of productive hours per year used to calculate the hourly rates, and iv. recording hours worked outside the action period. XXVIII. No working time was recorded outside the action period; XXIX. No more hours were claimed than the productive hours used to calculate the hourly personnel rates. [Please provide a brief description of the time recording system in place together with the measures applied to ensure its reliability to the Auditor and annex it to the present certificate1]. [If certain statement(s) of section “F. Time recording” cannot be endorsed by the Beneficiary they should be listed here below and reported as exception by the ? that time records were available for all persons with not exclusive assignment to the action; ? that time records were available for persons working exclusively for a Horizon 2020 action, or, alternatively, that a declaration signed by the Beneficiary was available for them certifying that they were working exclusively for a Horizon 2020 action; ? that time records were signed and approved in due time and that all minimum requirements were fulfilled; ? that the persons worked for the action in the periods claimed; ? that no more hours were claimed than the productive hours used to calculate the hourly personnel rates; ? that internal controls were in place to prevent that time is recorded twice, during absences for holidays or sick leave; that more hours are claimed per person per year for Horizon 2020 actions than the number of productive hours per year used to calculate the hourly rates; that working time is recorded outside the action period; ? the Auditor cross-checked the information with human-resources records to verify consistency and to ensure that the internal controls have been effective. In addition, the Auditor has verified that no more hours were charged to Horizon 2020 actions per person per year than the number of productive hours per year used to calculate the hourly rates, and verified that no time worked outside the action period was charged to the action. Factual finding: 20. The brief description, manuals and/or internal guidance on time recording provided by the Beneficiary were consistent with management 1 The description of the time recording system must state among others information on the content of the time records, its coverage (full or action time-recording, for all personnel or only for personnel involved in H2020 actions), its degree of detail (whether there is a reference to the particular tasks accomplished), its form, periodicity of the time registration and authorisation (paper or a computer-based system; on a daily, weekly or monthly basis; signed and countersigned by whom), controls applied to prevent double-charging of time or ensure consistency with HR-records such as absences and travels as well as it information flow up to its use for the preparation of the Financial Statements. Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 14 Please explain any discrepancies in the body of the Report. Statements to be made by Beneficiary Procedures to be carried out and Findings to be confirmed by the Auditor Auditor: - …] reports/records and other documents reviewed and were generally applied by the Beneficiary to produce the financial statements. 21. For the random sample time was recorded or, in the case of employees working exclusively for the action, either a signed declaration or time records were available; 22. For the random sample the time records were signed by the employee and the action manager/line manager, at least monthly. 23. Working time claimed for the action occurred in the periods claimed; 24. No more hours were claimed than the number productive hours used to calculate the hourly personnel rates; 25. There is proof that the Beneficiary has checked that working time has not been claimed twice, that it is consistent with absence records and the number of productive hours per year, and that no working time has been claimed outside the action period. 26. Working time claimed is consistent with that on record at the humanresources department. [official name of the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]] [official name of the Auditor] [name and title of authorised representative] [name and title of authorised representative] [dd Month yyyy] [dd Month yyyy] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2018)247747 - 15/01/2018 Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Participant Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol.

Darmowy hosting zapewnia PRV.PL