Thailand ESCO Development Project: Industrial/Commercial ... · Table 7.15 62 Areas Where Facilities Could Benefit from ESCO Services Table 7.16 62 Barriers to ESCO Implementation

Thailand ESCO DevelopmentProject: Industrial/Commercial

Energy Efficiency MarketAssessment

Final Report

Submitted to:Thai-German Energy Efficiency Promotion Project (ENEP)

andDepartment of Energy Development and Promotion (DEDP)

21 December 2000

Partners for Sustainable Energy and Environmental SolutionsAn Affiliate of the Civil Engineering Research Foundation

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................. 71.1 Review of Energy Audits and Literature.....................................................................71.2 Macroeconomic Review............................................................................................71.3 Barriers to Lending for EE Projects............................................................................81.4 DEDP’s Designated Facilities Program......................................................................9

1.4.1 Feedback on the Program........................................................................................................................... 91.4.2 Recommendations to Improve the Program (based on Focus Groups and Site Interviews.) ........11

1.5 Applicability of the ESCO Concept in Thailand........................................................121.6 Potential for EE Investments in Designated Facilities ................................................131.7 CO2 Mitigation Potential.........................................................................................131.8 Quick-Start Demonstration Phase ............................................................................14

2 Introduction........................................................................................................... 15

3 Task 1: Review of Audit Reports, Existing Literature,

and International ESCO Experience ...................................................................... 183.1 Summary of Results from Task 1 Report ..................................................................18

3.1.1 Review of Preliminary Audit Reports ......................................................................................................183.1.2 Review of Existing Literature ...................................................................................................................193.1.3 Review of International ESCO Experience ............................................................................................20

3.2 Additional Data Related to Task 1 ...........................................................................203.2.1 Chulalongkorn University Assessment of Designated Facilities Program.......................................203.2.2 Timing of Audit Reports and Approvals..................................................................................................223.2.3 Recommendations for RCs.........................................................................................................................233.2.4 Evaluation of Accredited Consultants.....................................................................................................233.2.5 Evaluation of the ENCON Act ..................................................................................................................243.2.6 TDRI Assessment of Energy Savings at 25 Factories...........................................................................25

3.3 Estimated Energy Savings Potential Due to Production Process Improvements ...........28

4 Task 2: Sub-Sector, Financial, and Macroeconomic Review.................................. 304.1 Summary of Results from Task 2 Report ..................................................................304.2 Macroeconomic Review..........................................................................................304.3 Bank Interviews......................................................................................................314.4 Additional Results Related to Task 2........................................................................32

4.4.1 Lessons Learned from Special EE and Environmental Funds............................................................324.4.2 IFCT’s New Environment and Energy Development Center ..............................................................36

5 Overview of Task 3 ................................................................................................ 385.1 Introduction............................................................................................................385.2 Focus Groups..........................................................................................................385.3 Site Visits...............................................................................................................38

6 Task 3: Focus Groups ............................................................................................ 406.1 Methodology ..........................................................................................................40

6.1.1 Topic 1: Investment Criteria for Energy Efficiency Projects .............................................................406.1.2 Topic 2: Barriers to Energy Efficiency Investments ............................................................................416.1.3 Topic 3: Feedback on DEDP’s Designated Facilities Program.......................................................426.1.4 Topic 4: Feedback on the ESCO Concept ..............................................................................................436.1.5 Overall Focus Group Recommendations................................................................................................44

7 Task 3: on-Site Interviews ..................................................................................... 487.1 Investment Decision-Making...................................................................................497.2 Energy Usage .........................................................................................................507.3 Implementation of Energy-efficiency measures ........................................................537.4 Energy-Efficiency Budgeting and Investment ...........................................................557.5 Barriers to Energy-Efficiency Investment .................................................................56

7.6 Solutions to Increase Energy-Efficiency Investment ..................................................567.7 Designated Facilities Program .................................................................................577.8 Feedback on the ESCO Concept ..............................................................................61

8 Task 4: Analysis of EE and Investment Potential ................................................... 648.1 Introduction............................................................................................................648.2 Methodology ..........................................................................................................64

8.2.1 Step 1: Screen and Tabulate Energy Efficiency Measures .................................................................658.2.2 Step 2: Estimate Average Whole-Facility Energy Consumption .......................................................658.2.3 Step 3: Weight Data Sources for Measure Energy Savings Potential ..............................................658.2.4 Step 4: Estimate Economic Potential for Process Efficiency (Industrial Sector Only).................668.2.5 Step 5: Translate Economic Potential to Achievable Potential.........................................................668.2.6 Step 6: Estimate Achievable Energy Saving Potential for Each Measure......................................688.2.7 Step 7: Estimate Achievable Energy Saving Potential for Each Measure for Entire Sub-sector698.2.8 Step 8: Estimate Achievable Investment Potential for Each Measure for Entire Sub-sector......698.2.9 Step 9: Estimate Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Avoidance............................................................................70

8.3 Main Results of This Analysis .................................................................................728.3.1 Range of Achievable Market Sizes for EE Investment and ESCOs ....................................................728.3.2 CO2 Mitigation Potential...........................................................................................................................73

8.4 Sensitivity Analysis.................................................................................................738.4.1 Sensitivity of Data Source Weighting......................................................................................................738.4.2 Sensitivity of Changes in Achievability Assumptions...........................................................................74

8.5 Experience with Other EE and Environmental Funds.................................................748.6 The Quick-Start Option: A Demonstration Phase ......................................................758.7 Summary of Investment Potential Results.................................................................76

9 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 779.1 Steps to Increase Lending for EE Investment Projects ...............................................779.2 Improvements in DEDP’s Designated Facilities Program..........................................779.3 Promotion of the ESCO Business Model in Thailand.................................................789.4 Establishment of EE Revolving Fund .......................................................................79

10 Appendices............................................................................................................. 81

List of Tables

Table # Page TitleTable 3.1 21 Assessment of RC Audit ReportsTable 3.2 22 Recommended and Implemented Energy Savings from a Survey of 40 Factories and

47 BuildingsTable 3.3 24 Some Barriers to Successful Implementation in the ENCON ActTable 3.4 25 Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Energy Efficiency and the ENCON ActTable 3.5 26-27 Summary of Energy Savings Data from 25 FactoriesTable 3.6 29 Assumed Values of Energy Savings Due to Process Improvements in the Industrial

Sub-SectorsTable 4.1 32 Lending for Environmental Protection Projects from the Bank of Thailand 4 and 7

Credit FacilitiesTable 4.2 33 Summary of Lending through the OECF 4 and OECF 4 Credit FacilitiesTable 6.1 41 Summary of EE Investment Criteria as Discussed in Focus GroupsTable 6.2 42 Summary of Barriers to EE Investment Criteria as Discussed in Focus GroupsTable 6.3 43 Feedback on DEDP’s Designated Facilities Program as Discussed in Focus GroupsTable 6.4 44 Summary of Responses to ESCO Concept as Discussed in Focus GroupsTable 6.5 45 Focus Group Recommendations on Increasing EE InvestmentTable 6.6 46 Focus Group Recommendations on DEDP’s Designated Facilities ProgramTable 6.7 47 Focus Group Recommendations on ESCO ConceptTable 7.1 48 List of Industrial Companies Selected for On-Site InterviewsTable 7.2 49 List of Commercial Facilities Selected for On-Site InterviewsTable 7.3 49 Overview of RespondentsTable 7.4 51 Monthly Energy Bills for Surveyed FacilitiesTable 7.5 52 Energy Cost as a Percentage of Total Operation CostTable 7.6 52 Breakdown of Industrial and Commercial Energy End UsesTable 7.7 53 Most Frequently-Implemented Energy-Efficiency Measures in the Industrial SectorTable 7.8 54 Most Frequently-Implemented Energy-efficiency measures in the Commercial SectorTable 7.9 58 Energy-Efficiency Measures Recommended by Registered Consultants in the

Industrial SectorTable 7.10 59 Energy-Efficiency Measures Recommended by Registered Consultants in the

Commercial SectorTable 7.11 60 Attitude of Respondents Towards Potential for Energy SavingsTable 7.12 61 Level of Satisfaction for the Compulsory Program for Designated FacilitiesTable 7.13 61 Barriers Encountered by Participants in the Compulsory Program for Designated

FacilitiesTable 7.14 61 Respondents’ Suggestions for Improving the Compulsory ProgramTable 7.15 62 Areas Where Facilities Could Benefit from ESCO ServicesTable 7.16 62 Barriers to ESCO ImplementationTable 7.17 63 Suggestions for Improving the ESCO ConceptTable 8.1 65 Summary of Data Availability of Different SourcesTable 8.2 67 Achievability Assumptions Used in Conservative and Optimistic Scenarios for EE

and Investment PotentialTable 8.3 71 Carbon Emission FactorsTable 8.4 71 Fraction of Carbon Oxidized in CombustionTable 8.5 71 CO2 Emission Factors of EGAT FacilitiesTable 8.6 72 Achievable Market Potential for EE Investment in Large Factories and Buildings in

ThailandTable 8.7 72 Summary of EE Investment Potential (million baht)Table 8.8 75 Fund Size and Results from Past EE and Environment Funds in ThailandTable 8.9 76 Summary of “Quick-Start” Option for EE Investment FundTable 8.10 76 Summary of Industrial and Commercial EE Investment Potential (million baht)

List of Figures

Figure # Page TitleFigure 2.1 15 Market Actors Affecting Decisions on EE InvestmentFigure 2.2 16 Overview of Project Tasks, Data Collection, and AnalysisFigure 3.1 28 Energy-Saving Potential Due to Production Process Improvements in the

Cement IndustryFigure 3.2 29 Energy Saving Potential Due to Production Process Improvements in the Other

IndustriesFigure 7.1 50 Most Important General Investment Decision-Making Criteria for the Industrial

SectorFigure 7.2 50 Most Important General Investment Decision-Making Criteria for the

Commercial SectorFigure 7.3 53 Breakdown of Electricity End Uses in Industrial FacilitiesFigure 7.4 53 Breakdown of Electricity End Uses in Commercial FacilitiesFigure 7.5 54 Breakdown by Type of All Implemented Measures Mentioned by Industrial

RespondentsFigure 7.6 54 Breakdown by Type of All Implemented Measures Mentioned by Commercial

RespondentsFigure 7.7 55 Most Important Energy-Efficiency Investment Decision-Making Criteria for the

Industrial SectorFigure 7.8 55 Most Important Energy-Efficiency Investment Decision-Making Criteria for the

Commercial SectorFigure 7.9 56 Most Important Energy-Efficiency Investment Barriers for the Industrial SectorFigure 7.10 56 Most Important Energy-Efficiency Investment Barriers for the Commercial

SectorFigure 7.11 57 Industrial Respondents’ Suggested Solutions for Overcoming Energy-Efficiency

Investment BarriersFigure 7.12 57 Commercial Respondents’ Suggested Solutions for Overcoming Energy-

Efficiency Investment BarriersFigure 7.13 60 Comparison of Recommended and Implemented Industrial Energy-Efficiency

MeasuresFigure 7.14 60 Comparison of Recommended and Implemented Commercial Energy-Efficiency

MeasuresFigure 8.1 64 Schematic of Approach to Developing Range of Estimates of EE and Investment

PotentialFigure 8.2 74 Sensitivity Analysis: Changes in Total Energy Savings (GJ) Based on Changes

in Weighting of Savings EstimatesFigure 8.3 74 Sensitivity Analysis: Changes in Investment Potential Based on Changes in

Achievability Assumptions

List of Abbreviations

A/C air-conditioningAC accredited consultantAEPCA Australasian Energy Performance Contracting AssociationBERC Bureau of Energy Regulation and ConservationBOT Bank of ThailandCFC chlorofluorocarbonCFL compact fluorescent lampCO2 carbon dioxideDEDP The Department of Energy Development and Promotion of ThailandDSM demand-side managementECCT Energy Conservation Center of ThailandEE energy efficiencyEGAT Electricity Generating Authority of ThailandENCON energy conservationENEP Thai-German Energy Efficiency Promotion ProjectESCO energy service companyFDI foreign direct investmentGDP gross domestic productGEF Global Environment FacilityGJ gigajouleGWh gigawatt-hourHVAC heating, ventilation and air-conditioningIFCT Industrial Finance Corporation of ThailandIIEC International Institute for Energy ConservationIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangekWh kilowatt-hourM&V measurement (or monitoring) and verificationMWh megawatt-hourNAESCO National Association of Energy Service CompaniesNEF National Environmental FundO&M operation and maintenanceOECF Overseas Economic Cooperation FundPRE person responsible for energy under the Designated Facilities ProgramRC registered consultantROI return on investmentSME small and medium enterpriseTDRI Thailand Development Research InstituteTJ terajouleUSEPA United States Environment Protection Agency

Thailand ESCO Development Project: Page 7 Industrial/Commercial Energy Efficiency Market Assessment

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Review of Energy Audits and Literature

The IIEC project team reviewed a sample of 50 commercial and industrial energy audits inorder to assess the potential for EE improvements and investment in Thai DesignatedFacilities. We also reviewed past studies and reports for additional data on energy savingspotential in order to provide a comparison with the data derived from the analysis of energyaudit reports. In comparing the energy savings data for the commercial sector, we made thefollowing main observation: the energy savings data derived from energy audits generallytend to be lower than that of the literature (i.e. the energy audits tend to underestimate thepotential for energy savings). The comparison shows that the data derived from energy auditstends to be at the low end of the energy savings range of the literature data. In addition, theaudit reports tend to ignore the potential for process efficiency savings in industry, and thisalso leads to an underestimate of the potential for profitable EE investments in industrialfacilities.

1.2 Macroeconomic Review

Impact of the crisis on industrial production. The Thai manufacturing sector was devastatedby the economic crisis that began in 1997. GDP from manufacturing dropped 30% from 1998to 1999. It is expected to take another five years (until 2005) for manufacturing GDP to reachits pre-crisis levels.

Sector strength. The strongest sub-sectors are beverages and petroleum products, both ofwhich increased production by more than 40% over the period from 1995 to 1999. Foodproduction also increased, by 14% over the same period. Textile production was flat and theremaining sectors (iron and steel, construction materials, tobacco, and transportationequipment) experienced a sharp decline in production, ranging from 20% to 37% over theperiod from 1995 to 1999.

Drop in capacity utilization. Capacity utilization is an indicator of the economic health of anindustrial sub-sector. An industry with a higher capacity utilization rate is more likely to havecapital to invest for either production expansion or for capital equipment to improve energyefficiency. The tobacco, food, petroleum products, iron & steel, and beverage sub-sectors allhad capacity utilization rates of less than 55% in 1999. The first quarter of 2000 saw arecovery for two of these sub-sectors, however: the capacity utilization rate was 70% forpetroleum products and 81% for beverages in the first quarter of 2000.

Decline in property investment. Energy-efficiency (EE) investments in the commercial andindustrial sectors are negatively affected by the overall decline in investment in propertydevelopment. The value of land transactions in the kingdom fell by 59% between 1996 and1999. Similarly, the number of commercial land development licenses fell by 93% between1994 and 1999. Occupancy rates for Bangkok commercial buildings bottomed out in mid-1999 at 61% and rose slightly to 64% in June 2000.

Decline in overall investment. Overall gross domestic investment fell by 51% from 1996 to1998. Private sector investment fell by 59% during this period, while public sector


investment increased somewhat to compensate for the economic crisis. Public sectorinvestment increased by 20% during the period from 1995 to 1999. During 1999, foreigndirect investment (FDI) in the textile, petroleum, and chemical industries fell sharply, in therange of 80-90%. In addition, there was a net outflow of FDI in the construction industry in1999 of more than 5 billion Baht, reflecting the complete collapse of the new constructionmarket.

The credit crunch is over. Industry analysts examining bank profitability expect that the creditcrunch in the Thai banking sector bottomed out in 1999 and that conditions will improve.They expect overall loans to decrease by 13.4% in 2000 due to write-offs to meet Bank ofThailand requirements. However, they stress that they do not expect a credit crunch, whichthey define as “both a pulling back of loans and a reluctance to lend.” Taking both new loansand write-offs into consideration, they expect overall loans to increase by 10.9% in 2001.

1.3 Barriers to Lending for EE Projects

The IIEC project team interviewed senior bankers at Krung Sri Ayudhaya Bank, SiamCommercial Bank, and the Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand (IFCT). The goal ofthe interviews was to better understand the lending process and to identify the key barriers toincreased investment in EE projects. Below we summarize the main findings andrecommendations.

Energy efficiency is a low priority for bankers. Energy efficiency was generally seen as a lowpriority among the bankers we interviewed. Of the three banks we interviewed, only IFCThad people assigned to develop and monitor EE and environmental loans (a total of three staff,soon to be increased to seven). The banks lack experience in analyzing the technical aspectsof EE projects, and they do not have confidence in the performance of EE technologies andprojects. The commercial bankers said that EE components account for not more than 1-2%percent of their total project lending. For IFCT, the estimate was slightly higher, but still lessthan 5%.

Concessionary EE funds are not working. The overall impression we gained was that thespecial, concessionary funds for environmental and EE lending are not working. They havehigh transaction costs and are often hindered by bureaucracy and red tape. These fundstypically provide reduced interest rates compared to market rates, and in some cases offerstreamlined loan approval procedures. However, the interest rate differentials are not largeenough to overcome the perceived risk and high transaction costs of these projects.

IFCT’s new center. In August 2000, IFCT established the Environment and EnergyDevelopment Center to manage and promote lending for EE and environmental projects. TheCenter will be responsible all kind of environmental and EE projects. It will be the first suchcenter of its kind at a Thai financial institution. Initially, the Center will have seven full-timestaff: two engineers, three financial analysts (including a team leader), and two additionalbank staff. Initially, the Center will manage three funds valued at approximately 2.6 billionBaht ($65 million).

Banker recommendations. After discussing the barriers to increased investment in EEprojects, we asked the bankers for their suggestions on policies or actions that could be takento develop solutions and increase the flow of capital to EE projects in large commercial andindustrial facilities. Their primary recommendations are listed below:


• Establish a credit guarantee scheme. DEDP should work with Thai commercial banks,the World Bank, and the ENCON Fund Committee to establish a credit guaranteescheme that would help to avoid collateral problems and minimize risk.

• Maximize flexibility and minimize red tape. Experience with special funds for EE andenvironmental projects has shown that, to be successful, funds should increase theflexibility in their regulations and minimize the amount of red tape.

• Enhance bank incentives. In order for the private sector to actively participate in EElending, DEDP should work with other government agencies and the ENCON FundCommittee to enhance the incentives for bank managers to lend for EE projects. Thecurrent incentives are not adequate for commercial banks to effectively manage andmarket EE funds. The only Thai bank that is actively pursuing EE lending as a part ofits business strategy is the Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand (IFCT). Theinterest rate differentials on concessionary EE and environmental funds have not beenhigh enough to overcome the high perceived risks and transaction costs associatedwith these projects.

• Develop strategic work plans for EE funds. EE funds must be structured so that theyare strategic and provide the right incentives for bank managers. A strategy and workplan must be drawn up before establishing a special EE or environment fund. Banksmust allocate resources to effectively market and disseminate information about theirfunds. In addition, technical advisory services must be made available to banks as partof the design of an EE fund. For example, the basic elements of a strategic work planfor the EE fund could include the following:⇒ Estimate of market potential in terms of number of customers, number of likely

projects, and size of investment projects.⇒ Estimate of creditworthiness of large firms within each targeted sub-sector.⇒ Plan for hiring (on full-time or consulting basis) technical experts who can provide

technical evaluations of the proposed projects.⇒ Pro-forma budget showing amount of expected loans, bank fees, and profit to the

fund manager.⇒ Consideration of incentives for bank loan managers to bring in or refer clients to

apply for new EE loans from the fund.⇒ Marketing plan laying out how the bank or fund manager intends to publicize the

EE fund and sets targets for lending amounts in order to provide feedback on aregular basis (e.g., quarterly or semi-annually)

• Establish EE fund as revolving fund. EE funds should aim to be revolving funds, sothat the fund is replenished from internal sources of income.

1.4 DEDP’s Designated Facilities Program

The IIEC project team gathered data on DEDP’s Designated Facilities Program through aseries of focus groups with industrial and commercial end users, trade allies (manufacturers,RCs, ESCOs, engineering firms), and Accredited Consultants. IIEC also conducted on-siteinterviews with managers at 30 Designated Factories and 12 Designated Buildings.

1.4.1 Feedback on the Program

In the focus groups and site interviews with factory and building managers, we found a veryhigh level of awareness and understanding of the Designated Facilities Program. All of the


facilities that we interviewed had completed a preliminary audit, and roughly half were in theprocess of conducting a detailed energy audit. Despite some frustrations with the bureaucracyand red tape involved in the program procedures, most respondents supported the DesignatedFacilities Program Nearly two-thirds of the end users we surveyed (64%) were either “verysatisfied” or “more or less satisfied” with the DEDP program.

On average across the 42 factories and buildings we surveyed, approximately a quarter of themeasures recommended in the audits had been implemented. For the measures implemented,the actual savings were greater than estimated in the audit reports. In addition, we found ahigh level of “free riders” among the facilities we interviewed. The industrial respondentsindicated that they would have implemented about three-quarters of the measures theyimplemented anyway (regardless of the audit); and the commercial respondents indicated thatthey would have implemented slightly more than half of the measures they implementedanyway (regardless of the audit). Similarly, the Chulalongkorn evaluation (see below) foundthat roughly one-third of measures recommended in the industrial audits were either alreadyplanned or would have been implemented by the factories as part of their regular maintenanceand replacement policy. One possible explanation for this is that the audits concentrate onlighting and air-conditioning measures, which are relatively easy to implement. For example,the factory managers whom we interviewed indicated that many of the measures areconsidered as a part of their maintenance, housekeeping, equipment replacement, or otherroutine optimization activities.

The audit reports tend to focus on easier-to-implement measures such as lighting and airconditioning measures. In the facilities we visited, we found that most of the industrialmeasures implemented (65%) and nearly all of the commercial measures implemented werelighting and air conditioning measures. However, the Registered Consultants tend to lackexperience in industrial process efficiency, and as a result, the industrial audits largely ignorethe potential to save energy through process efficiency improvements specific to each sub-sector.

In this report, we also review and summarize a major evaluation of the Designated FacilitiesProgram conducted by the Energy Research Institute of Chulalongkorn University. TheChulalongkorn University Study supports many of the findings noted above, and focused onthe need to improve the quality of both the Registered Consultants and Accredited Consultantsassociated with the program. The quality of the audit reports was generally rated as adequateor better. However, the quality of the investment analysis for industrial audits was rated asvery poor: two-thirds of the industrial audits assess were rated as having investment analysisthat was either inadequate or needed improvement.

The study found widespread conflict of interest in the business linkages between the RCs andACs, concluding that only two of the ACs were actually independent of an RC firm. One ofthe most significant findings of the Chulalongkorn report, in the context of this study of EEinvestment potential, is that facility energy managers (PRE, or person responsible for energy)rarely have the authority to approve and push through EE projects. Only 17% of the factoriessurveyed and 5% of the buildings surveyed said that the energy manager had the authority toapprove projects.


1.4.2 Recommendations to Improve the Program (based on Focus Groups and SiteInterviews.)

• Streamline the procedures and approval processes. The program procedures should beless bureaucratic, and the project and funding approval process must be streamlined toavoid delays and frustration. To achieve this goal, the documentation and otherprocesses related to the program should be revised to be more user-friendly.

• Change perception of DEDP’s role. DEDP should strive to emphasize its role as asupporter and enabler of EE, rather than strictly an enforcer and controller. DEDP hasmeans to support EE investment projects, such as financial support, training, and othermarket development activities. DEDP should increase and improve its public relationsand information dissemination campaign to educate end users and the public about theprogram. DEDP can provide technical and other assistance to Designated Facilities tosupport development of their EE investment plans.

• Train experts in industrial process efficiency. Currently, the recommendations fromthe Registered Consultants (RCs) for industrial customers rarely cover process-relatedenergy efficiency measures for each specific sub-sector. DEDP should develop atraining curriculum covering process efficiency measures specific industrial sub-sectors (e.g., industrial processes). The training courses could be provided by anumber of sources, including ACs, university engineering departments, etc. – withassistance from ESCOs and international experts where necessary. Building up a baseof process efficiency expertise among factories themselves and among Thai energyconsultants, is an important prerequisite before Thai industry can begin to tap its largeprocess efficiency potential.

• Improve the technical quality of Registered Consultants. The RCs need to improve thequality of their technical work and become more customer service oriented. This canbe achieved by increasing and improving training for RCs, especially in the area ofinvestment analysis.

• Re-evaluate the two-tiered system of RCs and ACs. Our research for this projectindicated that there is a conflict of interest for many of the ACs who are reviewing thework done by RCs. DEDP should consider revising and improving its procedures forevaluating the quality of the audit reports and assessing whether the current two-tiersystem of RCs and ACs is appropriate for enhanced implementation of EE investmentprojects.

• Consider revising the cumbersome audit procedures. DEDP should consider revisingits current procedures, which require a fairly detailed preliminary audit, followed by acumbersome review process and payment, and then a detailed audit, followed by asimilarly slow review process. We recommend a simpler approach in which DEDPwould provide a partial incentive (e.g., 50% of cost) for a walk-through audit andinitial consultation, to identify the biggest areas for EE improvements. These couldthen be followed by investment-grade audits, which could be conducted by an ESCOor any other qualified firms, and subsidized by the ENCON fund. This subsidy, orincentive, should be paid to the firm only after independent verification that themeasures are installed.

• Emphasize performance-based over prescriptive approach. In terms of emphasis, werecommend that DEDP shift its emphasis away from the current prescriptive approachto an approach based on overall performance of the EE retrofit. In terms of theapproach to requiring audits, DEDP could require an initial walk-through audit and


then simply require implementation of an EE plan, without prescribing the specificaudits or criteria, but instead specifying certain performance targets. This would fitwell with the performance-based approached typically used by ESCOs.

• Promote performance contracting as a way to improve audit quality. The increaseduse of EE performance contracting would reduce the need for “checklist” reviews ofthe preliminary and detailed audits. The performance contract itself acts as a check onthe quality of the audit and implementation. DEDP should assess the ways thatperformance contracting can be promoted in Thailand so that the procedures of theDesignated Facilities program can be modified to be more compatible with the waythat ESCOs and other private-sector EE developers work.

1.5 Applicability of the ESCO Concept in Thailand

The IIEC project team gathered feedback on the ESCO concept through a series of focusgroups with industrial and commercial end users, trade allies (manufacturers, RCs, ESCOs,engineering firms), and Accredited Consultants. In our site interviews with managers at 30Designated Factories and 12 Designated Buildings, we also sought feedback on the ESCObusiness model. Our primary recommendations are listed below.

• ESCO reputation. ESCOs should be reputable companies or joint-ventures withdemonstrated sector-specific expertise. They need to develop a portfolio of reliablereferences and successful projects in order to increase end-user confidence in thisconcept.

• Performance guarantee. In order to overcome the perceived project risk, ESCOs willhave to guarantee the performance or savings of the EE measures that they install.

• ESCO specialization. To be successful in the industrial sector, ESCOs should developspecialized expertise and credibility in specific sub-sectors.

• Monitoring & verification. ESCOs need to demonstrate that they have a clear,practical, and proven methodology for measuring of energy savings.

• Voluntary ESCO implementation. The ESCO concept should be implemented on avoluntary basis, rather than be incorporated into DEDP’s compulsory program. Thestakeholders we interviewed felt that voluntary EE programs would be moresuccessful than mandatory EE programs.

• Industry certification or accreditation of ESCOs. In order for ESCOs to succeed inThailand, they will have to be seen as a credible business model, and they will need tobuild confidence among customers in their ability to perform high-quality work anddeliver measurable energy and cost savings. Thailand can draw upon examples ofESCO certification in Australia and the United States. In Australia, the AustralasianEnergy Performance Contracting Association (AEPCA), which was formed in 1998,have a procedure for accrediting ESCOs and have defined a standard performancecontract.1 The ESCO industry association in the U.S. is the National Association ofEnergy Service Companies (NAESCO). NAESCO requires that its members verify(as opposed to estimate) the energy savings from their projects. NAESCO has adopteda protocol for verifying energy savings and is working with a number of states in thehope to make it a national standard.2

1 More information on the Australian example can be provided by Mr. Yves Lemoine, an independent consultant inAustralia. Fax: +61(2) 9484-2142; e-mail: [email protected] More information about NAESCO training and accreditation can be found by contacting them at 15 M Street, NW, Suite800, Washington, DC 20036. Fax: +1 202 822 0955. Web: www.naesco.org.


• Public relations to support ESCOs. Since the ESCO concept is new in Thailand,public relations is an essential tool to raise awareness and interest about this conceptamong end users and banks. It was felt that the government should take the lead onthis PR effort to support the work of ESCOs, trade allies, and other firms supportingthe development of performance contracting and other types of EE projects.

• Promote cooperation between ESCOs and RCs. ESCOs should cooperate withregistered consultants (RCs) to do energy audits in facilities. This will save the cost ofhaving to do the energy audit a second time.

1.6 Potential for EE Investments in Designated Facilities

In order to provide a reasonable range of estimates for the EE investment potential, wedeveloped two different scenarios that represent (based on available information) lower- andhigher-end estimates of achievable energy savings and number of facilities. The totalachievable potential over five to seven years ranges from 14,000 to 30,000 million baht ($320to $700 million) in the conservative and optimistic scenarios, respectively.

These potential amounts to not necessarily represent the market potential for ESCOs, per se.In any country, there are a range of actors that can energy delivery energy savings, andESCOs are just one such actor. ESCOs have a disproportionate influence and high profile,because they are solely focused on energy efficiency. However, there are a range of other EEservice providers, including lighting and HVAC 3 contractors, architect and engineering firms,engineering consultants and other intermediaries such as distribution channels and retailers.In the U.S., for example, the total market for energy services is in the range of $3 to $4 billionannually, of which approximately 15-20% is captured by ESCOs.4 Based on the experience inNorth America, the strong interest of ESCO firms into the Thai market, and our interviewswith commercial and industrial customers, we estimate that the portion of the above marketthat could be captured by ESCOs in Thailand may be as high as 25-30% of the total marketestimates. Thus, we estimate that the five- to seven-year market potential specifically forESCO investment is in the range of 4,000 million to 9,000 million baht.

1.7 CO2 Mitigation Potential

From a policy perspective, one of the main benefits of a large-scale ESCO investment fundwill be the reduction of carbon dioxide and the resulting climate change mitigation impacts.Using the methodology described earlier, we estimated the CO2 mitigation potential for theEE investments. The results are included in Table 8.6. The amount of CO2 reduction for alarge-scale ESCO investment fund over 5-7 years would range from 2.1 to 5.7 million tonnesof carbon. By comparison EGAT’s DSM programs reduced CO2 emissions by 1.1 milliontones through the end of 1998.5

3 HVAC stands for heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning.4 Charles Goldman, Staff Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA. Personal Communication.5 Agra Monenco, Inc. DSM Program Evaluation – Conservation Program. Final Report: Volume 1. Executive Summary andOverview . March 2000.


1.8 Quick-Start Demonstration Phase

The above estimate of investment potential cannot be realized without significant marketdevelopment and promotional activities. For that reason, we recommend a Quick StartDemonstration Phase Option that will target 5 to 10 facilities per sub-sector over three-yearperiod.6 We recommend that in the initial phase, an ESCO or EE revolving fund should be inthe range of 1,000 million baht (~$23 million). We believe that this level of investment islikely to be achieved within three years, given the current level of interest in EE in the Thaimarket, the number of ESCO and other EE project development firms in the market, and theavailability of a low-interest revolving fund to finance EE investments.

In the current economic climate, many firms do not have a healthy balance sheet or adequatecreditworthiness to borrow the funds needed for large-scale EE investments. For the “QuickStart” Demonstration Phase, the fund should focus on a few large firms with strong balancesheets. In our macro-economic review, the industrial sub-sectors with the highest capacityutilization were the petrochemical, food processing and beverage sub-sectors. In general,commercial facilities have been more severely affected by the economic crisis than industrialsector facilities. However, there are significant savings available in all commercial sub-sectors. We recommend that the fund initially target the healthiest firms in the hospital andhotel sub-sectors.

6 This recommendation is patterned loosely on the World Bank’s Chiller Replacement Fund, which as a demonstration phaseof 210 million baht ($5 million) followed by a second phase of 3,100 million baht ($75 million).


2 INTRODUCTION

This is the Final Report for the Thailand ESCO Development Project: Industrial/CommercialEnergy Efficiency Market Assessment. The project was funded by Thai-German EnergyEfficiency Promotion Project (ENEP) and intended to support the Thailand Department ofEnergy Development and Promotion (DEDP) in its ongoing program to support thedevelopment of an energy-efficiency (EE) investments and energy services companies(ESCOs) in Thailand.

The project has four primary objectives:

• Assess the potential market for EE equipment and services in large commercial andindustrial facilities (Designated Facilities).

• Document the barriers to increased EE investments.• Provide concrete recommendations on how to overcome the barriers to EE investment

(from the end user perspective) and EE lending (from the banker perspective).• Assess the applicability of the ESCO concept in Thai commercial and industrial

facilities

Figure 2.1 shows the market environment and actors for EE investments. We designed thisstudy to employ multiple research methods and tools in order to develop a broadunderstanding of the market and perspectives of each actor. We gathered data from the actorsin the following manner:

• industrial and commercial end users: focus groups and on-site interviews.• Accredited Consultants: focus group;• Registered Consultants: review of audit reports and literature review;• trade allies and ESCOs: focus groups and desk research; and• bankers: interviews and desk research.

E n d U s e r sIndustrial, Commercial

G o v e r n m e n tDEDP, EGAT , NEPO

T r a d e A l l i e sSuppliers, Service Providers

C o n s u l t a n t sA C s , RCs

E S C O s

B a n k e r s

Finance

Finance

Finance

Finance

Services

Services

Services

Equipment





E S C O s

B a n k e r s

Finance

Finance

Finance

Finance

Services

Services

Services

Equipment






E S C O s

B a n k e r s





E S C O sE S C O s

B a n k e r sB a n k e r s

Finance

Finance

Finance

Finance

Finance

Finance

Finance

Finance

Finance

Finance

Finance

Services

Services

Services

Equipment

Services

Services

Services

Equipment

Services

Services

Equipment

Services

Equipment

Figure 2.1: Market Actors Affecting Decisions on EE Investment.


Task 1

Review of50 Audits

LiteratureReview

Audit EE Potential

Independent Estimate of EE Potential

Task 2

MacroeconomicReview

Banker Interviews

Investment Trends &Subsector Potential

Barriers & Solutions

Task 3

4 Focus Groups

40 Site Visits

• Feedback on Desig. Facilities• Feedback on ESCO concept

• Barriers & Solutions

• EE Potential and Implementation• Feedback on Desig . Facilities• Feedback on ESCO concept• Barriers & Solutions

T a s k 4 A n a l y s i s :

• EE and investment Potential

• CO2 savings

• Recommendations onDesig. Facilities

• Applicability of ESCO Concept

• Proposed Solutions

Task 1

Review of50 Audits

LiteratureReview

Audit EE Potential


Task 2

MacroeconomicReview

Banker Interviews



Task 3

4 Focus Groups

40 Site Visits






• CO2 savings




Task 1

Review of50 Audits

LiteratureReview

Audit EE Potential


Task 1

Review of50 Audits

LiteratureReview

Audit EE Potential


Task 2

MacroeconomicReview

Banker Interviews



Task 2

MacroeconomicReview

Banker Interviews



Task 3

4 Focus Groups

40 Site Visits




Task 3

4 Focus Groups

40 Site Visits






• CO2 savings






• CO2 savings




Figure 2.2: Overview of Project Tasks, Data Collection, and Analysis

Figure 2.2 provides a schematic overview of the four major tasks in this project, the dataoutputs from each task, and the analysis and recommendations provided in Task 4. Theprojects tasks are summarized below:

In Task 1, the IIEC project team conducted a technical review of 50 commercial and industrialaudit reports in order to develop an estimate of the EE potential (both savings and investment)as presented in audits by Registered Consultants. We also conducted a review of relevantstudies of EE potential in the Thai commercial and industrial sector, and compared the EEpotential from the literature review to the EE potential as analyzed from the audit reports.

In Task 2, we conducted a macroeconomic review of the Thai commercial and industrialsectors in order to assess investment trends and the potential for investment in EEimprovements in Designated Factories and Buildings. We also conducted interviews withsenior managers at three Thai banks in order to identify barriers to lending for EE investmentsand to develop a set of proposed solutions for increasing bank lending for EE projects.

In Task 3, we carried out a phased research project in order to fully understand the perspectiveof a range of decision-makers involved in the market for EE equipment and services. We firstorganized a set of four focus groups with managers from Designated Factories, managersfrom Designated Buildings, Accredited Consultants (ACs), and trade allies (providers of EEequipment and services). We used the results from the focus groups to design an appropriatesurvey form for site visits to a sample of 40 Designated Factories and Buildings. This taskprovided us with feedback on actual EE projects implemented at the sample facilities, barriersand solutions for increased investment in EE projects, feedback on the Designated Facilitiesprogram, and feedback on the ESCO business concept.


In Task 4, we used the data from Tasks 1 and 3 to estimate the potential investment andenergy savings in Thailand’s Designated Facilities and the associated potential carbon dioxideCO2 reductions. We also use the results from Tasks 2 and 3 to provide recommendations forincreasing investment in EE projects at Designated Facilities and for improving some aspectof DEDP’s Designated Facilities Program. Finally, we conclude with an assessment of theapplicability of the ESCO concept for the commercial and industrial sector in Thailand.

This Final Report provides a comprehensive overview of the project results. It begins bysummarizing the results from the Task 1 and Task 2 reports. In each case, we begin bysummarizing the report and then provide additional information and analysis of data that arerelated to the task but that we received after the Task 1 and Task 2 reports were completed.We then have a section presenting the results of the Task 3 activities: the four focus groupsand 40 on-site interviews. We conclude the report with the Task 4 results: the potentialinvestment and energy savings in Thailand’s Designated Facilities and the associated potentialcarbon dioxide CO2 reductions; recommendations for increasing investment in EE projects atDesignated Facilities and for improving some aspect of DEDP’s Designated FacilitiesProgram; and an assessment of the applicability of the ESCO concept for the commercial andindustrial sector in Thailand.


3 TASK 1: REVIEW OF AUDIT REPORTS, EXISTINGLITERATURE, AND INTERNATIONAL ESCO EXPERIENCE

3.1 Summary of Results from Task 1 Report

The Intermediate Report for Task 1 provided a review of data from two main sources ofavailable information on technical and economic energy savings potential within the Thaiindustrial and commercial sectors. The two sources are: (1) preliminary energy audit reportsthat have been prepared as part of the Designated Facilities Program, and (2) past reports,studies, and other literature.

3.1.1 Review of Preliminary Audit Reports

In selecting preliminary energy audit reports for review, we based our sub-sector sampling ondata from the Department of Energy Development and Promotion (DEDP) and theCompulsory Program for Designated Facilities. After analyzing the data, we are able toconclude the following about the Thai industrial sector:• Within the overall industrial sector (not just designated facilities), the largest total energy

consumption (electricity and fuels) occurs in the food and beverage sub-sector (33%),followed by the non-metallic sub-sector (24%).

• The textile sub-sector has the largest electricity consumption within the overall industrialsector (18%).

• Within Designated Factories, the largest total energy consumption (electricity and fuels)ranking appears to be chemical, followed by non-metallic, fabricated metal, utility, textile,and paper.

As for the Thai commercial sector, we are able to conclude the following:• Office buildings appear to have the largest sub-sectoral electricity consumption, followed

by shopping centers and hotels.• Shopping centers are by far the most electricity-intensive sub-sector, followed by hotels,

and office buildings.

Based on these conclusions, we were able to recommend sub-sectoral samples consisting of36 factories and 14 buildings for the review of preliminary energy audits. The objective ofanalyzing the audit data is to estimate the economic potential for energy savings at the facilitylevel, as analyzed by the registered consultants participating in the Designated FacilitiesProgram.

The following main observations are made from the energy audit data:7

Industrial Sector:• Boiler efficiency improvement measures have the highest potential for fuel savings per

facility in the paper (8.1%) and textile (7.2%) sub-sectors.

7 All energy savings mentioned in these observations are economic potentials.


• Among the heat-related measures, the sub-sectors that have the highest potential forfuel savings per facility are paper (8.1%), textile (7.2%), and food & beverage (5.3%)sub-sectors.

• Overall, air-conditioning and lighting measures do not have very high potential forelectricity savings per facility among the industrial sub-sectors.

• Overall, the industrial sub-sectors that appear to have the highest potential forelectricity savings per facility are textile (10.5%), fabricated metal (7.4%) and non-metallic (4.3%).

• Commercial Sector:

• For air-conditioning measures, the hotel sub-sector has the highest electricity savingpotential per facility at 9.5%, followed by shopping center at 6.8% and office at 4.2%.

• Lighting measures have the highest potential for electricity savings per facility in theoffice (17.0%) and hotel (10.9%) sub-sectors.

• Overall, the hotel and office sub-sectors have the highest potential for electricitysavings per facility at 21.6% and 21.2% respectively.

In addition, the energy audit data indicate that production processes consume a large portion(59 to 97 %) of designated factories’ total electricity consumption. However, the preliminaryenergy audits generally do not focus on production process change or modification, becausesuch changes require process-specific knowledge and also may not be a viable retrofit option.As a result, the audit recommendations are focused on the very small percentage of electricityused for non-process-related end-uses such as air-conditioning and lighting.

3.1.2 Review of Existing Literature

IIEC reviewed past studies and reports for additional data on energy savings potential in orderto provide a comparison with the data derived from the analysis of energy audit reports. Ingeneral, it is difficult to compare the energy savings potential from the two sources. Thereason is that the data on energy-savings potential derived from the energy audit reports arefor the facility level, whereas the potential data obtained from literature sources are generallyfor the end-use level.

Given the difference in available data from the industrial audit review and from past reports, itis clear that if we were to extrapolate the literature data to the facility level, we would expectthat the industrial energy-saving potential figures should be lower than that reported for theend-use level. It thus appears that the energy savings potential for industrial boiler and motorefficiency measures reported in the literature is lower than the savings potential derived fromthe energy audits. However, the audit figures greatly underestimate total energy savingspotential because the audits largely ignore the potential for industrial process efficiencyimprovements, and process energy accounts for the majority of industrial energyconsumption.

In comparing the energy savings data for the commercial sector, we made the following mainobservation: the energy savings data derived from energy audits generally tend to be lowerthan that of the literature (i.e. the energy audits tend to underestimate the potential for energysavings). At best, the comparison shows that the data derived from energy audits is at the lowend of the energy savings range of the literature data.


3.1.3 Review of International ESCO Experience

Finally, in the Task 1 Report, we examined international experience with the energy servicecompany (ESCO) concept. In particular, we focused on experience in the United States,Canada, and Australia. In the U.S., the market today is primarily made up of large customerswith multiple buildings and/or large monthly energy bills, including the government, which isthe fastest growing client sector. The government in particular, which accounted for 30% ofthe U.S. market in the 1980’s, now comprises 60% as a result of the Federal EnergyManagement Program (FEMP) push for performance contracting. The U.S. industry is nowfirmly established. Even though ESCOs in the U.S. are not very profitable currently, morethan $5 billion has gone into ESCO projects since their inception in the 1970’s and the marketis growing at an annual rate of approximately 20%.

In Canada, the government formed a close relationship with the budding ESCO industry andgranted ESCOs immediate access to large public sector contracts. The credit rating of thegovernment as a client made financing projects easy, and the industry grew quickly. Roughly90% of ESCO contracts in Canada are currently for government installations. The Canadianmarket has recently been estimated to have the following potential: federal government, C$2billion (US$ 1.36 billion); provincial and local government, C$3 billion (US$ 2.04 billion);commercial sector, over C$5 billion (US$ 3.4 billion); industrial sector, C$10 billion (US$ 6.8billion); total, over C$20 billion (US$ 13.6 billion).

In Australia, companies dedicated solely to ESCO projects have only recently come intoexistence. The Australasian Energy Performance Contracting Association (AEPCA), wasformed in 1998 to give all firms involved in the ESCO industry a single voice. Specific tasksthat AEPCA is working on include developing an ESCO accreditation procedure and defininga standard performance contract for ESCOs. Although no detailed study has been made, theAustralian market is estimated to be approximately A$10 billion (US$ 5.9 billion).

3.2 Additional Data Related to Task 1

After we completed the Task 1 Report, we received additional data relevant to the task. At therequest of DEDP and ENEP, we have reviewed two important additional reports: anevaluation by Chulalongkorn University of the Designated Facilities Program; and anassessment by TDRI of 25 industrial energy efficiency case studies. Below we provide asummary and analysis of the results of each study.

3.2.1 Chulalongkorn University Assessment of Designated Facilities Program

The Energy Research Institute of Chulalongkorn University conducted a major evaluation andassessment of the ENCON Act Program for Factories and Buildings.8 This evaluation reportwas prepared for the Energy Conservation & Renewable Energy Section, National EnergyPolicy Office. The purpose of the report was to assess the results of the Designated Facilitiesprogram on both a technical and logistical level.

8 Evaluation of the Program for Existing Designated Factories and Designated Buildings (Thai language). Energy ResearchInstitute, Chulalongkorn University. Prepare for the National Energy Policy Office. 5 July 2000.


In conducting the assessment, the Chulalongkorn team interviewed and surveyed a number offactories, buildings, accredited consultants (ACs) and registered consultants (RCs). Thereport is divided into two parts. The first part evaluates the quality of the RCs and the auditreports in terms of technical recommendations, technical capability, recommendedtechnologies, and investment analysis. The second part of the report presents an overallevaluation of the program itself. It identifies the reasons for the program delay, by evaluatingACs, RCs, DEDP, and the ENCON Act and related regulations.

3.2.1.1 Quality of Registered Consultants (RCs)

The Chulalongkorn team evaluated the RC audit reports and compared them to therequirements of the ENCON Act. The team conducted site visits to a number of factories andbuildings in order to compare the audit recommendations to the actual situation at the facility.The team also interviewed facility managers in order to assess their attitudes toward theprogram. Finally, the team interviewed Accredited and Registered Consultants in order toassess the technical quality of their staff, their tools and test equipment, and to solicit theirfeedback and recommendation on the program.

Table 3.1 summarizes the results of the assessment of RC quality. In general, the quality ofthe commercial audit reports was higher than for the industrial audit reports. Only 5% ofindustrial audit reports and none of the commercial audit reports were rated as inadequate (i.e.below standard). Roughly one-quarter of both the industrial and commercial audit reports(27.5%) were rated as needing improvement. The majority of the audit reports – 67.5% forindustry and 83% for buildings were rated as either adequate or good. None of the auditreports were rated as very good.

The quality of the investment analysis was rated as much worse in the industrial sector: two-thirds (67.7%) of the audit reports were rated as having investment analysis that was eitherinadequate or needed improvement. By contrast, only one-sixth (17%) of the commercialaudit reports were rated as needing improvement, and the vast majority (83%) were rated aseither adequate or good.

Table 3.1: Assessment of RC Audit ReportsRATING

Sector IndicatorInadequate Adequate,

but needsimprove-

ment

Adequate Good Verygood

Quality of reporta 5% 27.5% 32.5% 35.0% 0%

Ability to use tools &measurement equipment

25% 75% 0% 0% 0%

IndustrialAudits andAuditors

Investment Analysis 35.5% 32.2% 6.5% 25.8% 0%Quality of reporta 17% 62% 21% 0%Commercial

Audits Investment Analysis 27.5% 25%% 47.5% 0%

Note: The table is based on an assessment of 40 industrial audit reports from 24 RCs, and 47 commercial audit reports from44 RCs.a Refers to quality of report compared to ENCON Act requirements and quality of measures recommendedSource: Energy Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University

The Chulalongkorn team also assessed the ability of the industrial auditors to use audit toolsand measuring equipment, and the results are disturbing: one-quarter (25%) were rated asinadequate and three-quarters (75%) were rated as needing improvement.


3.2.1.2 Energy-Saving Potential

Table 3.2 shows the uptake of measures identified in the RC audits. For the 87 factories andbuildings surveyed, a total of more than 800 million baht of investments were identified in theaudits. The per-facility investment potential was ten times higher in the industrial sector thanin the commercial sector. However, nearly half of the measures (46.2%) identified in theindustrial sector could not be implemented, due to either errors in the audit (e.g., calculationerrors resulting in an increase in the payback period to uneconomic levels) or because thetechnologies recommended were inappropriate or impractical. In addition, roughly one-thirdof measures recommended in the industrial audits were either already planned or would havebeen implemented by the factories as part of their regular maintenance and replacementpolicy.

The results were somewhat better for the commercial sector: nearly all of the measures(87.7%) were deemed as appropriate; however, they had not been implemented due to avariety of reasons, including factors such as a low return on investment (which would makethe measure less attractive) or that the manager was too busy to carry out the project. Thevery low rate of implementation of the audit measures indicates that the quality of the auditrecommendations needs to be improved.

Table 3.2: Recommended and Implemented Energy Savings from a Survey of 40Factories and 47 Buildings

Sector

Potentialsavingsidentifiedin audit

Savingsachievedbased onauditrecommen-dation

Savings formeasures thatcannot beimplementeda

Savings formeasures notyet implem-entedb

Savingsformeasuresthat ownerdoes notwant toimplement

Savingsachievedbased onexistingplans orpolicy c

Energy savings(MB/YR)

742.09 15.45 342.62 127.11 - 256.93Industrial

% of total 100% 2.1% 46.2% 17.1% - 34.6%Energy savings(MB/YR)

62.47 2.95 - 59.79 4.73 -Building

% of total 100% 4.7% - 87.7% 7.6% -a Includes measures for which there is a calculation error, the payback period is too long, or impractical technologies wererecommended, such as installation of cogeneration when there is no supply of piped gas in the area.b Includes cases in which measures require high investment without a clear payback period, in which there is no energymanager, or in which the energy manager/management has not had time to implement the measure.c Includes measures where an existing project or technology replacement was already planned, or would have beenimplemented as part of the firm’s existing maintenance and replacement policy.Source: Energy Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University

3.2.2 Timing of Audit Reports and Approvals

The Chulalongkorn team assessed the time it took to submit and approve audit reports for 38factories and 59 buildings. According to the ENCON Act, preliminary reports are to besubmitted and approved with 180 days. In practice, it has taken more than twice as long:

• For the buildings surveyed, it took an average of 464 days to submit and approve theaudit reports. On average it took 203 days to submit the audits, 261 days for DEDP toapprove the audits, and an additional 117 days for the RCs to receive payment.


• For factories, it took an average of 370 days to submit and approve the audit reports.On average it took 224 days to submit the audits, 146 days for DEDP to approve theaudits, and an additional 154 days for the RCs to receive payment.

However, the Chulalongkorn report was based on data collected in 1997 and 1998. Morerecent data from DEDP indicate that the time required to approve reports decreasedsignificantly during 1999.9

For buildings, the amount of time it took to approve preliminary audits decreased by 27%between December 1999 and December 2000. The approval time decreased from 197 days to144 days.

• For buildings, the amount of time it took to approve preliminary audits decreased by27% between December 1999 and December 2000. The approval time decreased from197 days to 144 days.

• For factories, the amount of time it took to approve preliminary audits decreased by35% between December 1999 and December 2000. The approval time decreased from276 days to 181days.

3.2.3 Recommendations for RCs

The report made a number of recommendations to build the strength of RCs and to improvetheir technical capabilities. These include the following:

• DEDP should establish an improved procedure for checking and approving auditreports.

• Qualified ACs can be used to train and verify the work output of RCs.• DEDP should develop a list of registered EE specialists. DEDP could do this by

certifying EE professionals with expertise in specific areas (such as certaintechnologies, industrial sub-sector processes, etc.) The experts could come from anumber of sources, including ACs, university engineering departments, etc.

3.2.4 Evaluation of Accredited Consultants

Thirteen AC firms have signed contracts with DEDP -- six for buildings and seven forindustrial facilities. The Chulalongkorn team met with 8 of the AC companies. Theyconcluded that most of the ACs had links to RC firms, and that some RCs had established newcompanies in order to bid as an AC firm that would appear separate from the RC firm. Onlytwo of the ACs were deemed to be completely independent of an RC. The report alsoconcluded the following:

• A number of the AC personnel were unqualified and a number of the RC firms did notrespect the technical quality and authority of the ACs. The report suggested that, inorder to address this problem, an evaluation should be conducted to assess the qualityof the AC firms, their work output, and their staff.

• A number of ACs benefited by overseeing the work of their associated RC firms,resulting in unfair competition, and a reduction in the program benefit.

9 Data provided by the ENEP program on behalf of DEDP’s Bureau of Energy Regulation and Conservation.


• DEDP requires the ACs to perform additional tasks and to work beyond what wasoutlined in the Terms of Reference (ToR) for AC firms. The report recommended thatDEDP do a better job of closely following the scope of work for ACs as identified inthe scope of work in the ToR.

3.2.5 Evaluation of the ENCON Act

The report indicated that there is no penalty under the ENCON Act for fraud among RCs, andthat such a penalty would be a useful and necessary deterrent. It also found that the languagein the Act concerning the preliminary and detailed audit requirements was unclear, and thatthis resulted in operational delays and too many steps in the process of review and approval.DEDP officers concentrate on the mechanics of checking the documents rather than onassessing and upgrading the quality of the work. Table 3.3 lists some barriers to successfulimplementation of the ENCON Act. For each barrier, the report recommends a solution.

Table 3.3 Some Barriers to Successful Implementation in the ENCON ActBarriers Recommendations

Only one facility per street address.DEDP pays 100,000 baht per street address.However, there are a number of cases where morethan one different factory exists at the same address.The result is that, if for example, three differentfactories have the same address, they can receive atotal of only 100,000 baht for the preliminary audits.

The law should be amended so that an audit paymentis made by DEDP for each independent factory –even if they share the same mailing address.

New audits required every three years.Designated Facilities are required to conduct a set ofpreliminary and detailed energy audits every threeyears. In most cases, the benefit of doing anadditional audit after three years is minimal, andthere is little additional EE potential. In addition, thefacilities will not have fully experienced andmeasured the impact of the first round of audits andimplementation.

In specifying the requirement for a second round ofaudits, buildings and factories should be grouped bytheir potential for energy saving.Facilities should be classified into the followingcategories:

• Government buildings (for-profit)• Government buildings (non-profit)• Private-sector buildings• Factories with high EE potential

The Act could be amended to list “exceptions” thatwould not require a second round of audits.

Detailed audit required in all cases.The Act requires that a detailed audit must beconducted after the preliminary audit has beencompleted. However, in some cases, the preliminaryaudit indicates little or not potential for energysaving. In these cases, there is no need to conduct afollow-on detailed audit.

The Act should be amended to allow an exceptionwhereby a detailed audit is not necessary if atechnically competent preliminary audit identifieslittle or no potential for energy savings.

Re-sale of inefficient equipment.When EE equipment is installed in buildings andfactories, the existing, inefficient equipment is firstremoved. Most of this used, inefficient equipment issold and re-circulated in the market. This reducesthe benefit and savings from the program.

The Act should be modified so that it does not allowthe re-use of inefficient equipment after it isremoved. Second-hand equipment sold in the marketshould be tested and required to meet certain energy-efficiency standards.

Source: Energy Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University

Table 3.4 shows the responses to a number of questions covering knowledge and attitudestoward energy efficiency and the ENCON Act. Most facilities learn about the ENCON Act ismostly from RCs or ACs; however, when companies have questions about energy


conservation, a majority of the firms surveyed tend to consult with DEDP first, rather thanwith RCs or ACs. Nearly all of the respondents from buildings and factories (~95%) said thatthey would implement an energy saving program anyway even if there were no ENCON Act.The results of this question should be viewed with some suspicion however, since it is aleading question and is biased toward a “yes” answer. Roughly half of the facilities (42% offactories and 50% of buildings) indicated that they regularly implemented EE programs priorto the passage of the ENCON Act. One of the most important findings is that a very smallpercentage of the energy managers (PREs) have the authority within the company to approveEE project implementation. For factories, only 17% of the energy managers have theauthority, and for buildings only 5% do.

Table 3.4: Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Energy Efficiency and the ENCON ActQuestion Factories BuildingsHow do Designated Facilities learn about theENCON Act

33.3% from ACs, and25% from RCs

50% from RCs, and25% from DEDP &ACs

When the Designated Facilities havequestions or problems related to energyconservation, whom do they contact?

37.5% contact DEDP16.6% contact RCs

45% contact DEDP30% contact RCs

If the ENCON Act did not exist, would youplan and implement energy-saving projects inyour facility?

95.8% said “yes” 95.2% said “yes"

Before the ENCON Act, did you implementprojects or programs to save energy?

41.6% = regularly33.3% = some time25% = no

50%= regularly25% = sometimes25%= no

Does the EE personnel (e.g., PRE) have theauthority to approve and push for projectimplementation?

17% said “yes” 5% said “yes”

Does management pay the same level ofattention to energy use in the buildingcompared to other issues such asmaintenance or marketing?

37% said the same levelof attention

66% said the same levelof attention

Source: Energy Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University

3.2.6 TDRI Assessment of Energy Savings at 25 Factories

The IIEC project team also reviewed a recently published report on 25 industrial EE casestudies.10 The Department of Energy Development and Promotion (DEDP) contracted withthe Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) to conduct a detailed assessment of theinvestment, implementation and energy savings in energy-efficiency projects that have beenimplemented in a sample of 25 industrial factories in seven industrial sub-sectors.

The size of investments for these projects ranged from less than 1 million baht ($24,000) tonearly 4,000 million baht ($95 million). The average size for projects where data areavailable is 350 million baht ($8.3 million). However, two very large projects (one at SiamCement Industry and one at Thai Kraft Paper Industry) skew the average upward. If theseprojects are excluded, the average investment size per facility was about 46 million baht ($1.1million).

10 Case Studies of 25 Sample Factories: Report to Study and Analyze Sample Factories that Have Successfully ImplementedEnergy-Efficiency Projects. Thailand Development Research Institute. Prepared for Department of Energy Development andPromotion. September 2000.


Table 3.5: Summary of Energy Savings Data from 25 Factories

Indus tr ia l Sec tor Improvement I n v e s t m e n t ( T H B ) Savings (THB/yr)

C h e m i c a l1. Thai Bridge Stone Co., Ltd. Improve of boiler feed water, automatic control and change voltage from

69 KV to 115 KV45,815,808 16,317,477

2. Thai Plastic and Chemicals Public Co., Ltd.

Lighting, A/C, VSD & measure, temp & pressure control, DSM,condensate recovery, skylight roof

2,388,000 4,085,822

3. TOA Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. Reduce batch time of alkyd resin production line by implementing solvent process and poly acid ratio adjustment

no data no data

Fabr i ca t ed Me ta l4. Bangkok Steel Industry Public Co., Ltd.

Furnace improvement, invest in continuous casting machine, use bunker oil preheated instead of diesel oil

102,000,000 >> 108,000,000

5. The Siam Navaloha Foundry Co., Ltd. DSM of peak demand, air compressor & cooling tower operation management, fix air leaks

no data >>10,470,000

6. Siam Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. Furnace improvement, installation of Recuperator, distributed control system and engineering work station

no data save energy >20%

F o o d & B e v e r a g e7. Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd. Reduce pump sizes, condensate water recovery, recycle vacuum and

waste water> 671,381 2,996,280

8. Nestles Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Reduce excess lighting intensity, install sun-light roof, turn off A/C on holidays, install heat recovery system at boiler

544,056 496,363

9. Pakpanang Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd.

Stop air compressor during peak hour to reduce demand charge0 under evaluate

10. Thai Fermentation Industry Co., Ltd. Use MVR evaporator, replace fuel oil boiler with stoke boiler, heat recovery, change direct to indirect sterilization, hang 69 KV to 115 KV Voltage

122,500,000 save 85% steam + 30% OP cost + 90% water + >

1,000,00011. Surapol Foods Public Co., Ltd. DSM demand charge, reduce freeze time, improve cold storage, replace 2-

set evaporative condenser to 1 set, capacitor bank (power factor correction)

1,900,000 398,076

12. Thai Amarit Brewery Co., Ltd. New factory with EE design: brewhouse vapor condenser plant, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket waste water treatment plant, high eff. screw compressor; reduce peak demand

12,500,000 8,576,082

13. Thai President Foods Public Co., Ltd. Improve of machinery & equipment, process control & measurement, heat recovery system, condensate water recovery, waste water recycle, reduction of energy wastage

13,780,802 15,259,869

14. Thai Union Frozen Product Public Co., Ltd.

Operate generator during on-peak, lighting circuit separation, electronic ballast, power factor correction

115,000 14,458,176

15. Thanakorn Vegetable Oil Products Co., Ltd.

Heat recovery system, economizer, replace surface condenser with plate condenser, replace steam jet vacuum pump with liquid ring vacuum pump, increase capacity of flanker & cracker, power factor correction, reduce lighting intensity, electronic ballast, timer for A/C

no data no data


Industrial Sector Improvement Investment (THB) Savings (THB/yr)

Non-Metallic16. Bangkok Glass Industry Co., Ltd. Install IEG pre-cooling at air compressor of furnace#5 10,000,000 1,578,77117. Saraburi Cement Co., Ltd. Improvement of separator, replace VS-motors with inverters for

separators & screw feeders, replace label#3 with label#5 A/Cs

9,543,600 7,749,212

18. Siam Cement Industry Co., Ltd.Improve of kiln, clinker cooler, burner, use secondary fuel & lignite, install sepax separator for cement mills, install raw mill classifier, use

inverter for draft fan, change supply voltage from 69 KV to 115 KV

3,818,810,000 >> 1,001,900,000

19. Siam Refactory Industry Co., Ltd. Improve of unidan mill system, capacitor bank, air compressors sequence

control, inverter for waste gas fan motor

589,000 > 227, 852.00

20. Thai Gypsum Products Public Co.,

Ltd.

Invest in cogenerator plant, replace old motors with EE motors, install

lighting sensor

100,000,000 11,764,705

21. Thai Asahi Glass Public Co., Ltd. Preventive Maintenance, Recycle of Waste Energy, DSM peak demand

control, EE equipment

no data no data

Textile22. Thai Kraft Paper Industry Co., Ltd. Cogenerator boiler with circulation fluidized bed boiler, fluidized bed

incinerator, use bark & sludge waste as secondary fuel, shoe press and

closed hood in dry operation system

1,596,500,000 > 20,157,846

23. Thai Union Paper Public Co., Ltd.Invest in cogenerator plant, fuel oil ratio improvement, fix air & steam leak, condensate recovery, use sludge waste as secondary fuel, reduce core

loss & copper loss of transformer, reduce peak demand

162,829,459 93,116,636

Paper24. Teyin Polyester Co., Ltd.

Invest in cogenerator plant, fuel oil ratio improvement, fix air & steam leak, condensate recovery, use sludge waste as secondary fuel, reduce core

loss & copper loss of transformer, reduce peak demand

243,234,000 > 187,220,000

Utility25. Bangchak Petroleum Public Co., Ltd. Reduce excess operation, reduce flare, minimize excess oxygen, reduce

slop, internal rerun, heat exchanger cleaning, invest in new steam turbine

generator

no data no data

Source: Case Studies of 25 Sample Factories: Report to Study and Analyze Sample Factories that Have Successfully Implemented Energy-Efficiency Projects. Thailand Development Research Institute. Prepared for Department of Energy Development and Promotion. September 2000.


One important result of these 25 case studies is that most of them were very cost effective.They provide clear evidence that large savings with relatively low payback times are clearlyachievable in the Thai industrial sector. IIEC used the data available from the case studies,and made estimates of energy costs where necessary, in order to try to summarize and analyzeproject profitability. For the 16 cases where data on payback time could be calculated, therewas an average payback time of just 2.6 years. However, if one looks at the detailed list ofmeasures for each factory, there were a very large number of measures with very lowpaybacks on the order of one year or less.

3.3 Estimated Energy Savings Potential Due to Production Process Improvements

Within the industrial sector, the electricity and fuel consumed in production processes accountfor the largest portion of energy end use. As a result, improvements in the energy efficiencyof production processes will result in the largest energy savings. However the energy auditreports prepared as part of DEDP’s Compulsory Program for Designated Facilities generallydo not include production process improvements in the list of recommended energy-efficiencymeasures. Therefore, we needed to conduct a literature review in order to develop reasonableestimates of the significant potential for process energy savings within the industrial sector.

We relied on the data available from existing studies and reports to obtain an estimate of theenergy-saving potential due to production process improvements. Unfortunately, most of theinformation available are not specific to Thailand. Appendix 1 includes a table listing the datawe were able to obtain. Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 show the whole-facility energy savingpotential due to production process improvements in several industrial sub-sectors.

Cement Industry

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

OECD East.Europe

LatinAmerica

APEC Thailand

Efficiency Process Change Cumulative

Figure 3.1: Energy-Saving Potential Due to ProductionProcess Improvements in the Cement Industry

In Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2, "efficiency" refers to the use of more efficient components (e.g.machinery, motors, pumps, boilers, etc.) and practices (e.g. maintenance, electronic controls,etc.) that improve the energy efficiency of the existing production process. "Process change"refers to changing to a more energy-efficient production process altogether. For example inthe chemical industry, there are three methods of producing caustic soda: mercury process,


diaphragm process and membrane process. Of these three alternatives, the membrane processconsumes the least amount of electricity per ton of caustic soda produced. However, themembrane process is the most expensive in terms of capital investment.

Other Industries

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

EU

Paper

Thailand

Paper

EU

Petrochemical

Thailand

Petrochemical

EU

Iron & Steel

Thailand

Iron & Steel

USA

Iron & Steel

Thailand

Food & Bev.

Thailand

Textile

Thailand

Machinery


Figure 3.2: Energy Saving Potential Due to ProductionProcess Improvements in the Other Industries

Based on the data available, we developed the estimates in Table 3.6 as our best estimate thepotential for cost-effective process energy-efficiency improvements in the six industrial sub-sectors covered in this study. We use these estimates in Task 4 to develop estimates of whole-facility energy savings and overall EE investment potential in large industrial facilities.

Table 3.6: Assumed Values of Energy Savings Due to Process Improvements in theIndustrial Sub-Sectors

Sub-Sector Chemical FabricatedMetal

Food &Beverage

Non-Metallic

Textile Paper

Energy SavingPotential(Cumulative)

20% 20% 15% 30% 35% 20%


4 TASK 2: SUB-SECTOR, FINANCIAL, AND MACROECONOMICREVIEW

4.1 Summary of Results from Task 2 Report

The Task 2 Report had two primary objectives: (1) to present macroeconomic data on theThai economy in order to understand the investment climate for energy efficiency and (2) topresent the results of interviews with a range of Thai banks in order to understand the lendingprocess and barriers to increased investment in EE projects.

The main findings of the Task 2 report were the following:

4.2 Macroeconomic Review

Impact of the crisis on industrial production. The Thai manufacturing sector was devastatedby the economic crisis that began in 1997. GDP from manufacturing dropped 30% from 1998to 1999. It is expected to take another five years (until 2005) for manufacturing GDP to reachits pre-crisis levels.

Sector strength. The strongest sub-sectors are beverages and petroleum products, both ofwhich increased production by more than 40% over the period from 1995 to 1999. Foodproduction also increased, by 14% over the same period. Textile production was flat and theremaining sectors (iron and steel, construction materials, tobacco, and transportationequipment) experienced a sharp decline in production, ranging from 20% to 37% over theperiod from 1995 to 1999.

Drop in capacity utilization. Capacity utilization is an indicator of the economic health of anindustrial sub-sector. An industry with a higher capacity utilization rate is more likely to havecapital to invest for either production expansion or for capital equipment to improve energyefficiency. The tobacco, food, petroleum products, iron & steel, and beverage sub-sectors allhad capacity utilization rates of less than 55% in 1999. The first quarter of 2000 saw arecovery for two of these sub-sectors, however: the capacity utilization rate was 70% forpetroleum products and 81% for beverages in the first quarter of 2000.

Decline in property investment. Energy-efficiency (EE) investments in the commercial andindustrial sectors are negatively affected by the overall decline in investment in propertydevelopment. The value of land transactions in the kingdom fell by 59% between 1996 and1999. Similarly, the number of commercial land development licenses fell by 93% between1994 and 1999. Occupancy rates for Bangkok commercial buildings bottomed out in mid-1999 at 61% and rose slightly to 64% in June 2000.

Decline in overall investment. Overall gross domestic investment fell by 51% from 1996 to1998. Private sector investment fell by 59% during this period, while public sectorinvestment increased somewhat to compensate for the economic crisis. Public sectorinvestment increased by 20% during the period from 1995 to 1999. During 1999, foreigndirect investment (FDI) in the textile, petroleum, and chemical industries fell sharply, in therange of 80-90%. In addition, there was a net outflow of FDI in the construction industry in1999 of more than 5 billion Baht, reflecting the complete collapse of the new constructionmarket.


The credit crunch is over. Industry analysts examining bank profitability expect that thecredit crunch in the Thai banking sector bottomed out in 1999 and that conditions willimprove. They expect overall loans to decrease by 13.4% in 2000 due to write-offs to meetBank of Thailand requirements. However, they stress that they do not expect a credit crunch,which they define as “both a pulling back of loans and a reluctance to lend.” Taking both newloans and write-offs into consideration, they expect overall loans to increase by 10.9% in2001.

4.3 Bank Interviews

Energy efficiency is a low priority for bankers. Energy efficiency was generally seen as a lowpriority among the bankers we interviewed. Of the three banks we interviewed, only IFCThad people assigned to develop and monitor EE and environmental loans (a total of three staff,soon to be increased to seven). The banks lack experience in analyzing the technical aspectsof EE projects, and they do not have confidence in the performance of EE technologies andprojects. The commercial bankers said that EE components account for not more than 1-2%percent of their total project lending. For IFCT, the estimate was slightly higher, but still lessthan 5%.

Concessionary EE funds are not working. The overall impression we gained was that thespecial, concessionary funds for environmental and EE lending are not working. They havehigh transaction costs and are often hindered by bureaucracy and red tape. These fundstypically provide reduced interest rates compared to market rates, and in some cases offerstreamlined loan approval procedures. However, the interest rate differentials are not largeenough to overcome the perceived risk and high transaction costs of these projects.

IFCT’s new center. In August 2000, IFCT established the Environment and EnergyDevelopment Center to manage and promote lending for EE and environmental projects. TheCenter will be responsible all kind of environmental and EE projects. It will be the first suchcenter of its kind at a Thai financial institution. Initially, the Center will have seven full-timestaff: two engineers, three financial analysts (including a team leader), and two additionalbank staff. Initially, the Center will manage three funds valued at approximately 2.6 billionBaht ($65 million).

Banker recommendations. After discussing the barriers to increased investment in EEprojects, we asked the bankers for their suggestions on policies or actions that could be takento develop solutions and increase the flow of capital to EE projects in large commercial andindustrial facilities. Their primary recommendations are listed below:

• A credit guarantee scheme should be established to avoid collateral problems andminimize risk.

• EE funds should have more flexibility and have less red tape.• Increased incentives are needed for commercial banks to effectively manage and market

EE funds.• A strategic work plan must be drawn up before establishing a special EE or environment

fund.• A special institution may be needed to effectively manage an EE fund.• EE funds should aim to be revolving funds.• Banks must work hard to effectively market and disseminate information about their

funds.• Technical advisory services must be made available to banks as part of the design of an

EE fund.


4.4 Additional Results Related to Task 2

Based on feedback from ENEP and DEDP during our presentation of the Task 2 report, weprovide below additional data and analysis of the lessons learned from implementation ofspecial EE and environmental funds over the past ten years.

4.4.1 Lessons Learned from Special EE and Environmental Funds

In the Task 2 Report for this project, we reviewed past experience with special EE andenvironmental funds in Thailand. The size, conditions, and results of these funds aresummarized in a table that appears in Appendix 2 of this report.

4.4.1.1 Bank of Thailand ( BOT ) Credit Facilities

Bank of Thailand funding has been made available to IFCT over the past decade in a series often tranches, with a total funding of B45,000 million. The first tranche was called BOT 1, andthe current tranche is called BOT 10. Each tranche has had a different purpose, differentregulations, and different budget amounts, depending on the needs and priorities of the currentThai Government. Due to government policy, it is not possible for IFCT to disclose acomplete list of customers and projects participating in the BOT credit facility.

Most of the BOT tranches have had special purpose related to the environment. However,only BOT 4 and BOT 7 were focused specifically on energy-saving and environmentalprotection projects. The credit available in these two tranches was B1,750 million and B4,000million, respectively. However, these two special credits facilities are also eligible for otherpurposes such as small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and projects located in Board ofInvestment Zones 2 and 3 (in the provinces surrounding Bangkok). Both tranches have beenused up without any funds being lent for energy-efficiency projects. A total of B1,605.45million in loans was granted for environmental protection projects. The rest of the projectswere for other purposes. The amount of lending for environmental projects is broken downby sub-sector in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1: Lending for Environmental Protection Projects from the Bank of Thailand 4and 7 Credit Facilities

Industry Sector Number ofProjects

Loan Amount(million baht)

Paper 5 650.0Construction materials 5 152.5Metals 7 244.5Food 8 127.0Chemical 5 150.3Others 9 281.2

Total 39 1,605.5

4.4.1.1.1 Lesson Learned

• Applications for funding that were rejected did not meet the fund eligibility criteria.The main reason for not being eligible was lack of collateral.


• Most of the projects funded were large-scale projects with companies that have strongbalance sheets and a positive public image.

• Nearly all of the projects funded were projects related to wastewater treatmentsystems.

• The BOT funding mechanism is straightforward, simple, clear and flexible enough tomake it workable. BOT allowed IFCT to disburse the funds independently by givingIFCT an authorized allocation amount. There is no intervention from BOT in the loanprocedure. The project identification, preparation , appraisal , approval and follow-upare all handled by IFCT.

4.4.1.2 OECF Credit Facilities

This OECF funds come from a Japanese government agency, the Overseas EconomicCooperation Fund. Two tranches of OECF funds – OECF 4 and OECF 5 -- have been usedto develop a program called the “Pollution Prevention Program”. This program is aimed atlending for energy efficiency and environmental protection projects, and the total fundingmade available has been B2,100 million.

There is a fundamental difference between the OECF 4 and OECF 5 funds. The OECF 4 fundwas initiated in 1996 and is focused primarily on end-of-pipe waste treatment systems and islent in Thai baht denomination, with a very low interest rate compared to the market interestrate (10.5% vs. the current market interest rate of 16%). Meanwhile, the OECF 5 fund, whilehaving more flexible rules than the OECF 5 fund. For example, the fund criteria are notlimited to end-of-pipe waste treatment technology, but include energy-saving projects, supportfor manufacturers of energy-efficient and environmental protection equipment, cleanproduction projects, relocation projects, and vehicles that reduce emissions. However, theOECF 5 fund suffers from one significant drawback: the loans are denominated in Japaneseyen. Table 4.2 shows the status of lending from the OECF 4 and OECF 5 funds. It indicatesthat no money has been lent through the OECF 5 fund. This is in part because IFCT does notwant to take the risk of lending to borrowers whose income is not in yen, and, similarly. Thaifirms do not want to borrow funds in yen.

Table 4.2: Summary of Lending through the OECF 4 and OECF 4 Credit Facilities

Source of Funding OECF 4 OECF 5Year Established 1996 1998Budget 900 1,200Amount Lent 800a 0Funds Available 100 1,200

Source: IFCT, October 2000Units: million bahta A total of 8 projects have been financed through OECF 4.


• The OECF 4 fund has been much more successful. The failure of OECF 5 is dueto two factors: a combination of the Asian economic crisis of 1997 and thedecision to make yen-denominated loans. After the economic crisis, IFCT becameeven more cautious about currency devaluation and decided to issue only yen-denominated loans through this Fund.


• Even though the OECF 5 eligibility criteria are much more flexible than the OECF4 criteria, the most significant barrier is the yen-based loans in OECF 5.

• Collateral has not been a problem for the OECF 4 fund because it targeted onlylarger firms with strong balance sheets and relatively large-scale projects. Theaverage loan size for OECF 4 is B100 million (B800 million for 8 projects ).

• The fund regulations are quite flexible, simple, clear and practical. IFCT canapprove all projects itself, except for the first 2 projects, which must be approvedby OECF. Moreover, IFCT has complete authority to disburse the funds howeverit deems appropriate. OECF may send experts to evaluate and cross-check thewhole program during its last year. This evaluation mechanism has evolved sinceOECF established the OECF 1 fund more than 15 years ago.

• While technical assistance has been built into the OECF funds, it has not beencritical, since most of customers joining the program are large firms and have theirown in-house experts and engineers.

4.4.1.3 Thailand National Environmental Fund (NEF)

The fund was established as part of the new Environmental Conservation Promotion Actsimultaneously with the establishment of Energy Conservation Promotion Act in 1992 (B.E.2535). According to a World Bank study, 11 the NEF, as currently designed and managed,suffers from many constraints among which the following ones can be clearly identified:

• weak implementation of environmental law and regulations;• limited and discretionary sources of revenues;• limited use of market-based instruments;• lack of clear rules on disbursement mechanisms;• unfavorable lending conditions, especially for private sector;• focus on end-of-pipe pollution control investments;• limited in-house capacity for fund managers to perform technical and financial project

appraisal;• long and complex project submission requirements;• discretionary project evaluation criteria and processes; and• lack of strong fund identity and business strategy.

For the NEF to become a viable financing mechanism, the World Bank report recommendedthe following changes in the NEF:

• it should become a revolving fund -- the fund should increasingly be replenished frominternal sources of income;

• it should adopt clear and simple rules and guidelines;• it needs to develop strong technical and financial appraisal capacity;• increase the openness and transparency of its operation -- the fund’s policy,

disbursement and performance should be regularly monitored, evaluated and theresults made available to all interested parties;

• identify clear priorities to guide the fund’s allocation of resources;• build local capacity to raise revenues, cover costs, and improve local financing; and• appoint an independent Management Board and Chief Executive.

Since the fund’s establishment in 1992, it has only allocated 30% of the B16,000 millionavailable in the fund. Roughly 800 million baht has been allocated for private loans Atpresent, the fund has also approved an additional six projects with loans amounting to

11 Environmental Financing Mechanisms in Thailand: Assessment and Agenda for Reform. The World Bank.


approximately B150 million. The fund has also committed more than 9,000 million baht tomostly public projects in the form of grants. The fund is under restructuring: a marketingsurvey, business plan, and strategic plan, are in process.

4.4.1.4 The Ozone Projects Trust Fund

This fund is the first of its kind: contributions are made from signatory members of theMontreal Protocol agreement to reduce the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in order toprotect the Earth’s ozone layer. It provides 100 % grant funding to support the incrementalcosts for enterprises to phase out the use of CFCs in the manufacturing process.

The World Bank is one of the Implementing Agencies of the Ozone Fund, and IFCT wasappointed as a financial intermediary in Thailand to channel funding to Thai enterprises

The Executive Committee of the fund has allocated nearly $40 million for CFC phase-outprojects in Thailand since 1996. At present, roughly $ 20 million has been committed, ofwhich $ 15 million has been disbursed.


• This fund is quite successful and has been largely implemented according to plan.• Initially, the fund moved very slow, because there were no specific guidelines or

templates. IFCT had to develop templates and guidelines after the fund was alreadyoperational.

• One successful aspect of the fund was that it provided resources to hire experts toprepare proposals and make recommendations because there is no one absolute or besttechnology to replace existing applications. Most of the CFC-replacementtechnologies are still under development.

• The procedures for submitting loan applications to IFCT are quite simple, clear anduser-friendly.

• The World Bank has given IFCT a high degree of flexibility in implementing the fund.

4.4.1.5 Chiller Replacement Fund

The Chiller Replacement Fund has incorporated a number of design features to overcome thedrawbacks of some of the previous funds mentioned above and in the Task 2 report. The fundwas launched in early 2000, but is still in the very early stages of implementation. In Phase 1,$5 million in loans will be provided to replace 24 chillers. In Phase 2, an additional $75million (~3 billion Baht) will be provided to replace 420 chillers. The total number of chillersin Thailand is estimated by IFCT to be between 1,600 and 3,000 units.12

The sources of funding come from the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol and TheGlobal Environment Facility. The fund has two primary objectives: (1) to phase-out ofozone-depleting substances (e.g., CFCs) and (2) to achieve energy savings and consequentreduction in CO2 emissions in Thailand’s power sector. The amount budgeted for Phase 1 isquite small (about US$ 4 million) because this is a demonstration stage, with just 24 projects(chiller replacements). Phase 1 of the Chiller Replacement Fund is expected to be becomefully operational in November 2000, after the World Bank signs an Agreement with the Thai

12 The lower estimate is based on import data for 1980 to 1992. IFCT staff believe that the actual number may be closer to3,000 units.


Government. IFCT will be appointed as the financial intermediary to manage the fund. It isexpected that Phase 2 would be funded by the World Bank and/or the Thai Government.

Although this program will not become fully operational until late 2000, IFCT had a softlaunch for the project in March 2000, which was attended by 135 participants. Since thelaunch, nearly 50 firms have requested to join the program. Of these, 28 firms have submittedtechnical data to apply for the program. More than half of the applicants are from the hotelsub-sector, and the rest are in textile and electronics industries. IFCT expects that at least 15-20 participants will be finalized in November 2000, in time for signing of the officialagreement between IFCT and the World Bank.


• The program was initially designed for implementation by the Electricity GeneratingAuthority of Thailand (EGAT), but was later transferred to IFCT because EGAT’sinternal guidelines were not compatible with World Bank guidelines required for fundmanagement and disbursement. As a result, the initial fund design did not fit wellwith IFCT procedures and needed much modification. While some modificationshave been made in the fund design, it still needs more flexibility in order to IFCT tosuccessfully implement it.

• The financial cost of the project is quite high due to its nature as a demonstrationproject with a few, small loans.

• One aspect of the fund design that will improve its chances of success is the provisionof funding for technical consultants. Consultants will be hired to measure the energyconsumption of existing chillers, to help formulate standard terms of reference forsuppliers, to verify the operation of new equipment, and to collecting information forevaluation.

• Program participation is expected to be high because of the low interest rate (4.5%)and the fact that the fund guarantees a minimum level of savings: in the case oftechnical shortfall (if chiller performance does not meet expectations), the fund willpay the difference.

• It is anticipated that there will not be a collateral problem because the fund will targeta small number of participants with healthy balance sheets in the demonstration phase.

4.4.2 IFCT’s New Environment and Energy Development Center

In August 2000, IFCT established the Environment and Energy Development Center tomanage and promote lending for EE and environmental projects. This Center was describedbriefly in the Task 2 report. It will be responsible all kind of environmental and EE projects,and it will be the first such center of its kind at a Thai financial institution. Initially, theCenter will have seven full-time staff: two engineers, three financial analysts (including ateam leader), and two additional bank staff.

Initially, the Center will manage three funds valued at approximately 2.6 billion Baht ($65million). IFCT was recently appointed by the World Bank to be the financial intermediary forthe Ozone Projects Trust Fund (the Multilateral Fund from Montreal Protocol) and the ChillerReplacement program (from the Global Environment Facility and the Montreal Protocol). Inaddition to these activities, IFCT also participates in the Small and Medium Industry (SME)Cost Reduction Program and Cleaner Production programs of both the Ministry of Industryand the Ministry of Science Technology and the Environment, as well as the OECF fundingwindows for EE and the environment described above.


IFCT set up the special Center in part because of the varying conditions and criteria involvedwith the different EE and environment credit facilities and funds. In order to be able toefficiently manage these various funds, IFCT found that it needed to hire outside consultantsand develop a special team that was knowledgeable in the procedures and guidelines of thevarious funds. The cost of operating the unit will vary from fund to fund, and the fundmanagement fee will vary, depending on the fund requirements. IFCT management decidedthat the best way to manage these special activities was to centralize them in a separatedivision with flexible operating procedures.


5 OVERVIEW OF TASK 3

5.1 Introduction

In Task 3, IIEC conducted a series of focus groups and site visits to gather qualitative andtechnical data to be used in the Task 4 analysis of EE investment potential as well asrecommendations for increasing demand for EE investment projects.

5.2 Focus Groups

IIEC carried out a series of focus groups as part of its qualitative research aimed at betterunderstanding the barriers to increased EE investments in large commercial and industrialfacilities. The focus group research was designed to provide useful insights into the decision-making processes related to energy-efficiency investments and to estimate the demand andinterest for energy efficiency investments and ESCO services.

The focus groups had the following objectives:

• To understand the overall investment criteria in industrial establishments andcommercial businesses.

• To understand criteria for investing for in EE projects and the relative importance ofEE related to other investments.

• To understand how managers in large factories and buildings view energy usage intheir facilities.

• To identify barriers to increased investment in EE projects in Designated Facilities.• To explore awareness of, and reactions toward, DEDP’s Designated Facilities

Program.• To assess overall reactions among stakeholders toward energy services companies

(ESCOs) as a business concept.

We used the series of focus groups to help identify key issues related energy-efficiencyinvestments within each sector and sub-sector, as well as to estimate the demand and interestfor energy-efficiency investments and ESCO services. The focus groups were also used todevelop the survey forms for the site visits to industrial and commercial Designated Facilities.

5.3 Site Visits

IIEC and ECCT teamed up to conduct site visits at 30 industrial and 12 commercial sites. Wehad a brief a pilot phase to this task in order to test the effectiveness of the questionnaire andour approach. For the pilot phase, we conducted interviews and site visits at 3 industrial and3 commercial sites. During the pilot phase, the site visit teams were accompanied by Dr. duPont of IIEC and Mr. Pongjaroon Srisovanna of ECCT, who provided suggestions forimprovement after completion of the pilot phase. Each survey team consisted of a technicaland a qualitative researcher. After the pilot phase, we finalized the site survey forms andcompleted the remaining site visits. The finalized survey forms can be found in Appendix 3.The site visits had the following objectives:

• To understand investment decision-making within the organizations.• To characterize the energy use within each facility.• To assess each facility’s implementation of EE measures.• To understand the barriers to increasing EE investment within the facilities.


• To get feedback on DEDP’s Designated Facilities Program.• To get feedback on the ESCO business concept for energy savings implementation.


6 TASK 3: FOCUS GROUPS

6.1 Methodology

IIEC used a focus group technique to gather information from a variety of stakeholders relatedto the above issues. The focus groups were used to gain a broad understanding of the factorsinfluencing investment in EE projects in large factories commercial buildings. They werealso used to as a method for developing questions used in the survey forms that the IIEC teamlater used to conduct interviews during the 40 site visits we conducted for Task 3. There were4-6 participants in each focus group. Each focus group lasted approximately two hours, and atotal of four sessions were held at IIEC office:

Group 1: Industrial EstablishmentsGroup 2: Commercial BuildingsGroup 3: Accredited ConsultantsGroup 4: Trade Allies.

In our proposal, IIEC only planned to conduct two focus groups –factories and buildings.However, at the request of DEDP and ENEP, we added additional focus groups withAccredited Consultants (AC) and Trade Allies. The AC focus group was designed to gatheradditional input on the Designated Facilities program and on the quality of the work andaudits conducted by the Registered Consultants. The Trade Allies focus group was designedto gather input on barriers to the purchase of EE equipment and services from the companiesselling this type of equipment and services.

Below we compare the results from the four focus groups and summarize the barriersidentified, and recommendations made, by the focus group participants. We have organizedthe focus group results into the following broad areas:

Topic 1: Investment criteria for energy efficiency projects.Topic 2: Barriers to energy efficiency investments.Topic 3: Feedback on DEDP’s Designated Facilities Program.Topic 4: Feedback on the ESCO concept.Overall focus group recommendations.

6.1.1 Topic 1: Investment Criteria for Energy Efficiency Projects

Table 6.1 summarizes the feedback on EE investment criteria as discussed in the focus groupswith the four sets of stakeholders – industrial end users, commercial end users, accreditedconsultants, and trade allies. Due to the economic crisis, many companies have encounteredfinancial problems, which have resulted in a drop in overall investment, as well as in EEprojects. Companies said that they typically use the same criteria to evaluate EE investmentsas they do for other investments -- but they said they focus more on investments forplant/building maintenance than for EE. They felt that the payback times (return oninvestment, or RoI) of most EE investments were too long to recoup the investments. Thehighest potential for EE investments was among industrial and commercial buildings withstrong financial position – a minority of the market under current economic conditions.

The Accredited Consultants stressed that company awareness and decision-making were themost influential drivers for EE investments. Support among management was deemedessential but often lacking. The ACs indicated that a knowledgeable energy manager (PRE,


or Person Responsible for Energy) could play an important role in convincing management ofthe importance of EE investments and their technical and financial benefits.

Companies lack confidence in EE technologies, and this reduced the support for EEinvestment decisions. It was felt that successful case studies and examples of EE could be animportant factor in building confidence in the payoff from EE investments. In addition,government incentives were seen as an important factor in helping to increase interest andawareness about energy efficiency.

Table 6.1: Summary of EE Investment Criteria as Discussed in Focus GroupsFocus Group

CRITERIA Industrial Commercial AccreditedConsultants

Trade Allies

Payback time • Payback time(RoI) is maindriver …• BUT paybacktoo long for mostEE investments

• Payback time(RoI) is mainconsideration

• Payback (RoI)

Knowledge andconfidence in EE

• Managementknowledge of EEmost importantfactor• Knowledge ofPRE (PersonalResponsible forEnergy)

• Confidence inEE technologies

Budget /cashavailability

• Costly projectshard to getapproved

• Now is a badtime b/c of crisis

• Availablebudget

Other • Wait untilequipment broken

• Governmentincentives targetfactories andbusinesses withcash

Source: IIEC focus groups held in July and September 2000

6.1.2 Topic 2: Barriers to Energy Efficiency Investments

Table 6.2 summarizes the barriers to EE investments as discussed in the focus groups. Theindustrial and commercial end users said that their firms tend to emphasize investments inproduct development rather than energy efficiency because of the greater perceived financialbenefits. Apart from the difficulty in securing financing for EE investments, lack ofknowledge and confidence appeared to be the greatest barriers to increased EE investments.This lack of knowledge and confidence results in company policies that either ignore or makeit more difficult to allocate internal funding for EE upgrades.

The stakeholders also felt that the lack of clear government incentives for EE investment (e.g.,tax reductions for imported product, and penalties for not installing EE measures as requiredby law) acted as a barrier to increased EE investment.. The higher cost of EE equipment wasalso seen to be a barrier to EE investment, because most EE equipment is imported fromabroad.


Industrial establishments and trade allies also mentioned a major barrier to increasedinvestments in EE retrofits – the potential for interrupting the production process and cuttinginto profits.

Table 6.2: Summary of Barriers to EE Investment Criteria as Discussed in FocusGroups

Focus Group

BARRIER Industrial Commercial AccreditedConsultants

Trade Allies

Knowledge andconfidence in EE

• Lack ofknowledge andconfidence in EEtechnologies

• Mgt decisionmaking (mgt.lacks awareness)

• Lack ofknowledge andconfidence in EEtechnologies

• Lack ofconfidence in EEtechnologies

Company policyand decision-making

• No EE policy incompany

• Mgt. decision-making process


• High cost of EEequipment;• No govtincentive (taxreduction,penalty)

• Lack of budget • Lack of budget • Lack of budget• High cost of EEequipment

ProcessInterruption

• Can interruptproductionprocess

• Productionprocessinterruption

Other • EE low priority;operationalefficiency moreimportant


6.1.3 Topic 3: Feedback on DEDP’s Designated Facilities Program

The Designated Facilities Program was seen as excellent in theory (designed to raiseawareness about energy efficiency and to help facilities to save energy), but it was viewed aspoor in practice. According to the focus group participants, most facilities have not benefitedfrom the program.

The documentation and processes of the program is too complicated, and procedures wereseen as too bureaucratic i.e. the payment approval process was too slow. The industrial endusers said that financial support for energy audits and EE improvements was unclear and thatthe lack of a meaningful and enforceable penalty limited the program’s effectiveness. TheACs also said the lack of a clear penalty for non-compliance limited the programeffectiveness. The commercial end users complained that the audit recommendations weremostly high investment items, and that as a result, it was difficult to implement them.

The trade allies felt that EE could be an effective marketing strategy for their firms infacilities with a budget available and internal investment policies that support thedevelopment of EE programs. The marketing was deemed an essential first step formanagement to understand the overall Designated Facilities program and to acknowledge thefinancial and technical benefits of EE technologies.


Table 6.3: Feedback on DEDP’s Designated Facilities Program as Discussed in FocusGroups

Focus Group

FEEDBACK Industrial Commercial AccreditedConsultants

Trade Allies

Bureaucracyand slow pace

• Procedure toocomplicated andtakes too muchtime• Financialsupport fromgovt. unclear andslow

• Excellent intheory, poor inpractice

• Procedure toobureaucratic

• Procedure toobureaucratic


• RCs recommendhigh-investmentprojects

Company policyand decision-making

• Lack ofmarketing tomanagementdecision-makers

Other • More suited forolder, existingbuildings

• Lack of clear,enforceablepenalty


6.1.4 Topic 4: Feedback on the ESCO Concept

The ESCO concept was seen as a useful and interesting strategy that could facilitate theprovision of funding for, and confidence in, EE projects. Three of the four stakeholder groupsagreed that a major advantage of ESCOs was their ability to provide high-qualitytechnologies, EE equipment and, potentially locate financing for EE projects. ESCOs werealso seen as a way to stimulate the market and increase confidence in EE technologies.

In the industrial and AC focus groups, there was concern that the work of ESCOs wouldoverlap with the work of the Registered Consultants, would duplicate the work of theDesignated Facilities Program, and would add even more complication to the procedures forfacilities desiring to perform EE upgrades.

Three of the four stakeholder groups emphasized the need for ESCOs to have reliablereferences in order to be able to sell their services. Such references could include examples ofactual ESCO projects in Thailand and endorsements by former customers. Facilities haddoubts about the process for measuring and verifying (M&V) energy savings. ESCOs need tohave a methodology to measure energy saving and sector-specific expertise.

In the AC focus group, it was felt that ESCOs would be more successful in the industrialsector rather than in commercial buildings because of financial problems (lack of liquidity) inthe buildings sector. The AC participants also emphasized that ESCOs should be promoted asa voluntary EE strategy in order to be successful.

The trade allies also emphasized the need for ESCOs to stimulate the market and increaseconsumer confidence by launching a marketing and public relations campaign targeted atcommercial and industrial customers as well as at banks.


Table 6.4: Summary of Responses to ESCO Concept as Discussed in Focus GroupsFocus Group

RESPONSE Industrial Commercial AccreditedConsultants

Trade Allies

ESCOs as full-solutionprovider

• Provide tech,equipment, andfinancial support



Duplication/over-lap with DEDPDesignatedFacilitiesProgram

• Duplicationwith DEDPprogram

• Duplicationwith DEDPprogram (needbetter cooperationbetween RC andESCO)

Need for sector-specificexpertise

• Need to havesector-specificexpertise


Need to buildcredibility andconfidence

• Need reliablereferencesNot sure aboutESCO credibility.Not sure aboutability to measuresavings

• Need reliablereferences

• Need to do PRamong comm andindust customers• Need to educateand market tobanks• Will stimulatemarket andincrease customerconfidence

Other • More applicableto industry b/c offinancialproblems in bldgsector• ESCOs shouldbe voluntary


6.1.5 Overall Focus Group Recommendations

6.1.5.1 How to Increase EE Investment

The recommendations of the focus groups with respect to increasing EE investment aresummarized in Table 6.5. The recommendations fall into three general categories: actions toincrease the level of knowledge and confidence in EE; actions to increase the availablefinancial support for EE investments; and the need to avoid process interruptions duringinstallation of EE retrofits. The key recommendations are listed below:

• Management must have increased knowledge about, and confidence in, EEtechnologies before they will take action to increase the level of EE investment

• Facility managers/owners must see an actual example of successful EE projectimplementation before they will take action.

• Government should play an important catalytic role in supporting EE investment infacilities by instituting measures such as tax reductions for imported EE products,clear penalties for non-complying factories, and easy-to-access (i.e. limited red tape)financial support.

• The level of bureaucracy must be greatly reduced in order for all government EEprograms to work effectively.


• EE measures must not interrupt production and operation processes, which are thebiggest concern among facilities.

Table 6.5: Focus Group Recommendations on Increasing EE InvestmentFocus Group

RECOMMEN-DATION

Industrial Commercial AccreditedConsultants

Trade Allies

Increaseknowledge andconfidence in EE

• Need to haveconfidence andknowledge inEE technologies

• Need to haveknowledge andconfidence in EEtechnologiesamong mgt.

• Need to haveknowledge andconfidence in EEtechnologiesamong mgt. andenergy manager• Need to have asuccessfulexamples of EEinvestment

• Need to haveknowledge andconfidence in EEtechnologiesamong mgt.

Need for financialsupport

• Need to havegovt. incentives(i.e. financialsupport, taxreduction,enforcement)

• Need to havefinancial support

• Need to havefinancial support

• Need to havefinancial support• Need to havegovt incentives(i.e. financialsupport, taxreduction,enforcement)

Need to avoidprocessinterruption

• No productprocessinterruption

• Noinconveniencecaused by EEtechnologies

Other • Need to havelow-cost EEequipment


6.1.5.2 DEDP’s Designated Facilities Program

The recommendations of the focus groups with respect to DEDP’s Designated FacilitiesProgram are shown in Table 6.6. The consensus recommendation is that the programprocedures need to be streamlined in order to reduce bureaucracy and red tape and to speed upimplementation of facility EE upgrades. Additional recommendations cover the quality of theRC audits, the need for DEDP to switch to a service orientation, the need for sector-specificrecommendations from RCs for industrial customers, and the need for clearer penalties.

The key recommendations are listed below:

• Government should be a supporter of EE, not the controller, in terms of financialsupport, enforcement, and training.

• The program procedures should be less bureaucratic, and the project and fundingapproval process must be streamlined to avoid delays and frustration.

• The documentation and other processes related to the program should be more user-friendly.

• DEDP should increase and improve its public relations and information disseminationcampaign to educate end users and the public about the program.

• Recommendations from the registered consultants (RCs) for industrial customersshould cover more process-related energy efficiency measures for each specific sub-


sector. This would increase the EE potential identified in the audits and make therecommendations more useful for the industries.

• The RCs need to improve the quality of their technical work and become morecustomer service oriented.

Table 6.6: Focus Group Recommendations on DEDP’s Designated Facilities ProgramFocus Group

RECOMMEN-DATION


Trade Allies

Need forstreamlinedsystems

• Need to havequick approvalprocesses (i.e.audits report,financial support)

• Need to makeprocedures lessbureaucratic

• Need to makeprocedures lessbureaucratic

Quality of RCwork andrecommen-dations

• Need to improvequality of RCwork andcustomer service• Need to havelow investmentrecommendationsfrom RC

Change toserviceorientation

• Need govt to bea supporter withservice-orientedscheme

Other • Need to havesector-specificrecommendationsfrom RC

• Need to haveclear penalty

• Need to havegovt. incentives


6.1.5.3 The ESCO Concept

The recommendations of the focus groups with respect to the ESCO concept in Thailand areshown in Table 6.7. The recommendations fall into four general categories: the need forESCOs to establish the quality of their work through reliable references; the need for sector-specific expertise; the need for extensive marketing and education; and the need to align RCand ESCO activities in order to reduce the potential for overlap and duplication and toimprove the effectiveness of the program.

The key recommendations are listed below:

• Facilities require reliable references of successful ESCO projects in order to increasetheir confidence in this concept.

• The ESCO should be a reputable company or joint-venture with demonstrated sectorspecific expertise.

• ESCOs need to demonstrate that they have a clear, practical, and proven methodologyfor measuring of energy savings.

• The ESCO concept should be implemented on a voluntary basis. The stakeholders feltthat voluntary programs would be more successful than mandatory programs.

• Since the ESCO concept is new in Thailand, public relations is an essential tool toraise awareness and interest about this concept among end users and banks. It was felt


that the government should take the lead on this PR effort to support the work of ACsand trade allies.

• ESCOs should cooperate with registered consultants (RCs) to do energy audits infacilities. This will save the cost of having to do the energy audit a second time.

Table 6.7: Focus Group Recommendations on ESCO ConceptFocus Group

RECOMMEN-DATION


Trade Allies

Quality of ESCOwork andrecommen-dations

• Need reliablereferences• Need to be areputablecompany

• Need reliablereferences (asuccessful ESCOproject)

• Need reliablereferences

Need for sector-specificexpertise



Need formarketing andeducation

• Need to do PRamong comm andindust customers

• Need to do PRamong comm andindust customers• Need to educateand market tobanks

Need to alignRC and ESCOactivities

• Need to havecooperationbetween RCs andESCOs

Other • Need to haveclear M&V plan• Need to be runby private sector

• Need to havecooperationbetween RCs andESCOs• ESCOs shouldbe voluntary


7 TASK 3: ON-SITE INTERVIEWS

Overall, IIEC visited and conducted interviews with managers at a total of 30 factories and 12buildings. The survey form and questionnaire used is located in Appendix 3. We selected thefactories from six industrial sub-sectors: chemical, fabricated metal, food and beverage, non-metallic, paper, and textile. We selected the buildings from four commercial sub-sectors:office buildings, shopping centers, hotels, and hospitals. We employed the same selectionmethodology as that used in Task 1 of this study (in which we selected energy audit reportsfor review). The main selection criteria were to select the sub-sectors that are the mostenergy-intensive in terms of total energy consumption and quantity of facilities, so as toobtain the most accurate representation of the Thai industrial sector. In fact, we tried to selectthe same proportion of facilities in each sub-sector that we used in review of energy auditreports. All of the facilities that we visited are located within the Bangkok metropolitan area.The following Table 7.1 shows the list of factories that we selected for the site visits. Table7.2 shows the list of buildings that we selected for the site visits.

Table 7.1: List of Industrial Companies Selected for On-Site Interviews

Company Sub-Sector Breakdown [%]

1. Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical

2. Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical

3. Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical

4. Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical

5. Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical

6. Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical

20 %

1. Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal

2. Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal

3. Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal

4. Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal

5. Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal

6. Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal

20 %

1. Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage

2. Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage

3. Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage

4. United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage

5. Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage

17 %

1. Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal

2. Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal

3. Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal

4. Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal

13 %

1. Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper

2. Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing

3. Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper

10 %

1. Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile

2. Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile

3. Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile

4. Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile

5. Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile

6. Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile

20 %


Table 7.2: List of Commercial Facilities Selected for On-Site Interviews

Company Sub-Sector Breakdown [%]

Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building

CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Bangkok Thai Tower) Office Building

Central Retail Corporation Ltd. (Central Chidlom Tower) Office Building

Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower) Office Building

33 %

Bangkok International Hotels Co., Ltd. (Siam Center) Shopping Center

Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center

World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center

25 %

Queen's Park Hotel Hotel

Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel

Siam City Hotel Hotel

25 %

Central General Hospital Hospital

Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital17 %

Tables containing the interview responses are located in Appendix 4.

7.1 Investment Decision-Making

In setting up appointments for the interviews, IIEC attempted to meet with each company’stop management, such as the general manager or managing director. However, these high-level managers were often unavailable during the timeframe of our on-site visits (primarilyduring August 2000); in such cases we asked to meet with a technical department managerwho would have knowledge of both the company’s energy usage and investment decision-making. Table 7.3 shows the breakdown of the types of respondents that we interviewed.

Table 7.3: Overview of Respondents

Industrial Sector Commercial SectorPosition in Company # of

RespondentsPercent # of

RespondentsPercent

Managing Director or General Manager 2 7 % 2 17 %Other Senior Management 2 7 % 2 17 %Factory / Plant Manager 2 7 % - -Building Manager - - 2 17 %Maintenance / Utility Dept. Manager 6 20 % 2 17 %Energy Department Manager 2 7 % - -Engineering Department Manager 10 33 % 2 17 %Production Manager 3 10 % - -Engineer or Other Technical Staff 1 3 % 1 8 %Person Responsible for Energy (PRE) 2 7 % 1 8 %

Total 30 100.0 % 12 100.0 %

Participate in Company’s Investment Decision-Making ?

“Yes” 20 67 % 7 58 %“No” 8 27 % 3 25 %

Unclear Response 2 7 % 2 17 %

As Table 7.3 indicates, the majority of the industrial respondents we interviewed weremanagers of engineering or maintenance/utility departments. Also, about two-thirds of theindustrial respondents directly participate in their companies’ investment decision-makingprocess and are able to influence the investment decisions. In general, mid-level managersthat reported not being able to directly influence decisions are still able to propose newinvestment projects. Furthermore, 90 % of the industrial respondents we interviewed said that


their company has made some investments during the past 3-5 years, and these investmentsinclude activities such as expanding the production capacity, replacing old machinery, etc.

As for the commercial sector, the respondents consisted of an equal mix of both senior-levelmanagers and department managers. More than half of the commercial sector respondentsdirectly participate in their companies’ investment decisions, and 10 out of 12 (83 %)respondents reported that their companies has made some investments during the past 3-5years.

When asked about the key criteria that influence their companies’ general investmentdecisions, most industrial respondents listed return on investment and the up-front cost astheir most important criteria. This means that they are more likely to invest if they see thatthe proposed investment has a short payback period, a high internal rate of return, and othergood financial performance indicators. Also, they are more likely to invest if it is within theirbudget limitations. Other criteria that respondents identified as the top three most importantinvestment decision-making criteria are: effects on the environment, safety considerations,and effects on production/operation.

Most commercial sector respondents also listed up-front cost and return on investment as theirmost important general investment criteria. Other top-three criteria include: effects on theenvironment, safety, and availability of a financing source.

Many of the industrial and commercial respondents indicated that their companies also takeinto account any possible effects on the environment when making investment decisions.This means that if a project is expected to have harmful effects on the environment, then theyare less likely to invest in that project.

7.2 Energy Usage

Based on data provided by the 30 industrial respondents, the factories in the non-metallic sub-sector have the highest average energy bill at about 14.1 million Baht per month, followed bythe textile sub-sector at about 12.7 million Baht per month. In the commercial sector,shopping centers have the highest average energy bill in our sample – at about 6.5 millionBaht per month, followed by office buildings at about 3.6 million Baht per month. Themonthly energy bill includes the cost of both electricity and fuels. The analysis of themonthly energy bills is summarized in Table 7.4.

Figure 7.1: Most Important General InvestmentDecision-Making Criteria for the Industrial Sector

Figure 7.2: Most Important General InvestmentDecision-Making Criteria for the Commercial Sector

9 0 %

7 0 %

3 0 %

2 7 %

2 3 %

1 3 %

1 3 %

7%

7%

0% 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 %

Inve

stm

en

t C

rite

ria

% o f r e s p o n d e n t s l i s t i n g f a c t o r i n t o p - t h r e e c r i t e r i a

Return on investment

Up-front cost

Effects on environment

Safety

Effects on production / operation

Reduce production / operation cost

Technology / expertise requirement

Availbility of financing source

Government Laws and regulations

8 3 %

7 5 %

2 5 %

2 5 %

1 7 %

1 7 %

1 7 %

1 7 %

0% 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 %

Inve

stm

en

t C

rite

ria


Up-front cost


Safety

Availability of finanicing source

Necessity of the investment

Effects on operation


Needs of the tenant/leasee


Table 7.4: Monthly Energy Bills for Surveyed Facilities

Electricity Fuel Oil LPG / NG DieselIndustrial Sub-Sector

# inSample*

TotalMonthly Bill Amount

[Baht] [kWh]% ofTotalBill

Amount[Baht]

% ofTotalBill

Amount[Baht]

% ofTotalBill

Amount[Baht]

% ofTotalBill

Chemical 6 ß 6,271,373 ß 2,895,340 1,422,945 46% ß 2,781,871 44% ß 2,667 0% ß 520,833 8%

Fabricated Metal 6 ß 3,156,259 ß 3,010,519 1,377,417 95% ß 74,702 2% ß 130,178 4% ß 8,650 0%

Food & Beverage 5 ß 6,658,856 ß 3,880,666 2,028,137 58% ß 2,409,829 36% ß 25,680 0% ß 3,280 0%

Non-Metal 4 ß 14,100,000 ß 8,395,000 1,652,425 60% ß 4,125,000 29% ß 1,500,000 11% ß 80,000 1%

Paper 3 ß 6,800,000 ß 3,093,333 1,431,240 46% ß 3,542,667 52% - 0% - 0%

Textile 6 ß 12,707,823 ß 9,023,888 4,046,989 71% ß 1,235,601 10% ß 2,455,833 19% - 0%

Total Average 30 ß 8,282,385 ß 5,049,791 1,993,192 63% ß2,361,612 29% ß 685,726 5.8% ß 102,127 2%

Electricity Fuel Oil LPG / NG DieselCommercialSub-Sector

# inSample*

TotalMonthly Bill Amount

[Baht] [kWh]% ofTotalBill

Amount[Baht]

% ofTotalBill

Amount[Baht]

% ofTotalBill

Amount[Baht]

% ofTotalBill

Office Building 4 ß 3,556,500 ß 3,556,500 358,000 100% - 0% - 0% - 0%

Shopping Center 3 ß 5,500,000 ß 5,433,333 1,941,053 99% - 0% ß 66,667 1% - 0%

Hotel 3 ß 2,810,201 ß 2,300,000 1,156,667 82% ß 425,867 15% ß 83,979 3% ß 355 0%

Hospital 2 ß 981,817 ß 909,691 421,000 93% - 0% ß 70,877 7% ß 501 0%

Total Average 12 ß 3,212,130 ß 3,049,881 969,180 93% ß 106,467 4% ß 55,381 3% ß 214 0%

* The “number in sample” refers to the number of respondents in each sub-sector that were able to provide data for this particular interviewquestion.

When considering the six industrial sub-sectors together in aggregate, it appears that theelectricity cost account for approximately 63 % of the total monthly energy bill, while fuel oil,gas, and diesel account for approximately 29 %, 6 % and 2 % respectively. Similarly for thefour commercial sub-sectors together in aggregate, electricity accounted for the largest portionof the total monthly energy bill at 93 %. Fuels generally accounted for relatively smallportions of the total monthly energy bill (e.g. fuel oil at 4 % and gas at 3 %).

When asked to compare energy costs to total operating costs, the industries’ response was thatelectricity, fuel oil, gas, and diesel account for about 9 %, 6 %, 2 %, and 1 % respectively ofthe total operating costs. The commercial sector response indicated that electricity, fuel oil,gas, and diesel account for about 46 %, 10 %, 4 %, and 0.3 % respectively of the totaloperation cost. Table 7.5 summarizes this comparison for each of the industrial andcommercial sub-sectors.


Table 7.5: Energy Cost as a Percentage of Total Operation Cost

Industrial Sub-Sector # in Sample * Elec Fuel Oil LPG/NG Diesel

Chemical 3 10 % 5 % 0 % 1 %

Fabricated Metal 5 8 % 0 % 1 % 1 %

Food & Beverage 2 4 % 4 % 0 % 0 %

Non-Metal 2 7 % 2 % 0 % 1 %

Paper 2 8 % 10 % 0 % 0 %

Textile 4 12 % 7 % 4 % 1 %

Total Average 18 9 % 6 % 2 % 1 %

Commercial Sub-Sector # in Sample * Elec Fuel Oil LPG/NG Diesel

Office Building 4 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Shopping Center 3 57 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Hotel 3 41 % 10 % 5 % 1 %

Hospital ** 1 15 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Total Average 11 46 % 10 % 4 % 0 %

* The “number in sample” refers to the number of respondents in each sub-sector that were ableto provide data for this particular interview question. Therefore, companies that were not ableto provide data do not count in the averaging of the percentages.

** Note that this number is lower than other commercial sectors, but is a sample of only 1.

As for the specific energy end-uses in the six industrial sub-sectors, it appears that theproduction processes account for the largest portion of electricity and fuel consumption.Motors are one of the most significant electrical end uses, while heat/steam is the mostsignificant fuel end use in production processes. For the four commercial sub-sectors, air-conditioning is the largest electrical end-use, while laundry is the largest fuel end-use. Table7.6 shows the breakdown of energy end-uses for the industrial and commercial sub-sectorsindividually and in aggregate.

Table 7.6: Breakdown of Industrial and Commercial Energy End Uses

Electricity End Uses 1

Fuel End Uses 1

Industrial Sub-Sector

# inSample

2 Light. A/CProd-uction Motor Pump

Proc.Heat.

Proc.Cool.

OtherProc. Other

Prod-uction

Heat/Steam

Proc.Cool.

OtherProc.

Elec.Gen.

Chemical 6 7% 11% 80% 22% 13% 1% 3% 42% 2% 83% 78% - 5% -Fabricated Metal 6 19% 24% 57% 6% 5% - 1% 44% - 80% 40% - 40% -Food & Beverage 5 5% 23% 64% - 4% - - 60% 8% 100% 80% - 20% -Non-Metal 4 5% 13% 73% 8% 7% - - 58% 8% 75% 25% - 50% -Paper 3 6% 15% 75% - - - - 75% 4% 67% - - 67% -Textile 6 7% 15% 71% 16% 8% - - 47% 6% 83% 83% - - -

Total Average 3 30 9% 17% 70% 10% 7% 0% 1% 53% 4% 83% 57% - 26% -

CommercialSub-Sector

# inSample

2 Light A/CElev/Escal. Pump

PlugLoad Other

HotWater

Laun-dry

Disin./Sani.

Elec.Gen. Other

Office Building 4 21% 48% 5% 3% 9% 15% - - - 25% 75%

Shopping Center 3 25% 51% 3% 5% 8% 8% - - - - 100%

Hotel 3 22% 55% 3% - 3% 17% 28% 60% - - 12%

Hospital 2 15% 65% 1% 1% 1% 17% - 40% 5% 55% -

Total Average 3 12 21% 53% 3% 3% 6% 14% 7% 22% 1% 18% 53%

Notes:1. For each sub-sector, the percent breakdown of electricity and fuel energy-uses is averaged across all facilities in the sample, including

those that do not have that particular end-use and those with incomplete data .2. The “number in sample” refers to the number of facilities that were included in the percent breakdown of energy end-uses for each industrial

or commercial sub-sector.3. The “total average” percent breakdown of energy end-uses was calculated by including all 30 factories from the six industrial sub-sectors (or

all 12 buildings from the four commercial sub-sectors). Therefore, facilities that, for instance, did not have pumps were also included in thetotal average pump end use. This type of calculation results in a more useful representation of all sub-sectors in aggregate.


7.3 Implementation of Energy-efficiency measures

All 30 industrial respondents and 11 out of 12 (92 %) of the commercial respondentsindicated that there is potential to further improve the energy efficiency of their factories. Infact, 28 of the 30 (93 %) industrial respondents and all 12 of the commercial respondentsindicated that they are currently implementing energy-efficiency measures, have implementedthem in the past, or plan to implement such measures in the future. Tables 7.7 and 7.8 showthe 10 most frequently-mentioned energy-efficiency measures that are being implemented orunder consideration for the future, and their reported potential energy savings. Thebreakdown of all implemented energy-efficiency measures mentioned by the respondents isillustrated in Figures 7.5 and 7.6.

Table 7.7: Most Frequently-Implemented Energy-Efficiency Measures in the Industrial Sector

Energy-efficiency measure

% of 30RespondentsImplementing

Measure

Reported EnergySavings

(% of facilityenergy use)*

1 Lighting – Install electronic ballast 33 % 1.4 %2 Lighting – Install reflector 33 % 3.9 %3 Lighting – Reduce quantity of lamps (de-lamping) 23 % No Data4 Boiler/Furnace – Improve combustion efficiency 23 % 13 %5 Lighting – Install compact fluorescent lamp 20 % 2.9 %6 Lighting – Control/Reduce operation time of lighting 20 % 2.7 %7 A/C – Install high efficiency chiller 17 % 1.4 %8 Steam System – Recover condensate 17 % 5.2 %9 Steam System – Reduce steam leakage 13 % 4.6 %

10 Others – Reduce compressed air leakage 13 % 2.0 %

Notes:“No Data” indicates that the respondents were unable to supply an estimate of the energy savings resulting from the

implementation of the energy-efficiency measure.* The “reported energy savings” is an average percentage of the factory’s total electricity or fuel consumption (depending on the

type of energy-efficiency measure).

Figure 7.4: Breakdown of Electricity End Uses inCommercial Facilities

Figure 7.3: Breakdown of Electricity End Uses inIndustrial Facilities

Motor10%

Pump7%

Other4%A/C

17%

Other Processes

53%

Lighting9%

Pump3%

A/C53%

Plug Load6%

Other14%

Elev. / Escal.

3%

Lighting21%


Table 7.8: Most Frequently-Implemented Energy-efficiency measures in the Commercial Sector

Energy-efficiency measure

% of 12RespondentsImplementing

Measure

Reported EnergySavings

(% of facilityenergy use)*

1 Lighting – Install compact fluorescent lamp 58 % 4.5 %2 A/C – Control/Reduce operation of air-conditioning 50 % 8.7 %3 Lighting – Control/Reduce operation time of lighting 25 % 1.0 %4 A/C – Cleaning and maintenance 25 % No Data5 Others – Control/Reduce elevator operation 25 % 2.5 %6 Lighting – Install low-loss ballast 17 % 3.0 %7 Lighting – Install electronic ballast 17 % 3.0 %8 Lighting – Reduce quantity of lamps (de-lamping) 17 % 1.0 %9 A/C – Install high efficiency chiller 17 % 3.0 %

Notes:“No Data” indicates that the respondents were unable to supply an estimate of the energy savings resulting from the

implementation of the energy-efficiency measure.* The “reported energy savings” is an average percentage of the building’s total electricity or fuel consumption (depending on the

type of energy-efficiency measure).

Among the total of 30 industrial respondents, installation of electronic ballasts and lightingreflectors are the most frequently-implemented energy-efficiency measures. These measureswere implemented in one-third of the factories interviewed. For the 12 commercialrespondents, installation of compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) is the most frequentlyimplemented energy-efficiency measure, followed by controlling/reducing the operation ofthe building’s air-conditioning system.

Of the energy-efficiency measures implemented by the 30 industrial factories interviewed,lighting measures comprised 45 % of all measures, followed by air-conditioning (19 %),steam system (16 %), and boiler/furnace (14 %) measures. Of the energy-efficiency measuresimplemented by the 12 commercial buildings interviewed, lighting and air-conditioningmeasures comprised 49 % and 40 % of these measures respectively.

Figure 7.5: Breakdown by Type of All ImplementedMeasures Mentioned by Industrial Respondents

Figure 7.6: Breakdown by Type of All ImplementedMeasures Mentioned by Commercial Respondents

Lighting45%

A/C19%

Steam System

16%

Motor2%

Other4%

Boiler/ Furnace

14%

Lighting49%

A/C40%

Other11%


7.4 Energy-Efficiency Budgeting and Investment

Eighteen of the 30 (60 %) industrial respondents and 7 of the 12 (58 %) commercialrespondents indicated that their company generally considers energy-efficiency investmentsas a part of their operation and maintenance (O&M) expenditures. However, many alsoindicated that there is a threshold amount above which investments no longer can beconsidered as O&M and must come from the capital budget.

It was difficult for most respondents to specify what percent of the total O&M or capitalbudget is allocated to energy efficiency investments. This is because many of the respondentswere mid-level managers who do not have access to the accounting figures. Most of therespondents were only able to provide a rough estimate at best. Based on data from thoserespondents that were able to provide an estimate, it appears that energy-efficiency measuresaccount for an average of 6 % of the factories’ annual O&M budget, and 11% of the factories’capital budgets.13 For commercial buildings, energy-efficiency measures account for anaverage of 10 % and 19 % of the annual O&M and capital budgets respectively.14

When asked about energy-efficiency investment criteria, most industrial and commercialfacilities responded with answers that are very similar to the responses for the question ongeneral investment criteria. The industrial respondents listed return on investment and up-front cost as two of the most important decision-making criteria. Similarly, the commercialrespondents also identified the up-front cost and return on investment as two of the mostimportant decision-making criteria. Other important criteria that were mentioned by theindustrial respondents include effects on the environment, technology and expertiserequirement, and safety considerations. The commercial respondents also mentioned effectson the environment, safety, and availability of financing. Figures 7.7 and 7.8 illustrate theresults of the question on energy-efficiency investment criteria.

Two-thirds (67 %) of industrial respondents indicated that their companies would give ahigher priority to general investments such as production capacity expansion, facilityimprovement and renovation, replacement of old machinery, etc., over energy-efficiency

13 Twenty-one (21) of the 30 industrial respondents were able to provide an estimate of the percentage of O&Mor capital budget allocated to energy efficiency investments.14 Nine (9) of the 12 commercial respondents were able to provide an estimate of the percentage of O&M orcapital budget allocated to energy efficiency investments.

Figure 7.7: Most Important Energy-EfficiencyInvestment Decision-Making Criteria for theIndustrial Sector

Figure 7.8: Most Important Energy-EfficiencyInvestment Decision-Making Criteria for theCommercial Sector

9 3 %

6 7 %

3 0 %

2 0 %

1 7 %

1 7 %

1 7 %

1 0 %

1 0 %

0% 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 %

En

erg

y E

ffic

ien

cy

In

ve

stm

en

t C

rite

ria



Up-front cost


Safety


Reduce production / operation cost


Potential to result in actual energy savings

Government Laws and regulations

9 2 %

8 3 %

5 8 %

1 7 %

1 7 %

0% 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 %

En

erg

y E

ffic

ien

cy

In

ve

stm

en

t C

rite

ria



Up-front cost


Availability of source of financing



investments. As for the commercial respondents, one-third (33 %) indicated that theircompanies would give higher priority to energy-efficiency investments, while 25 % wouldgive higher priority to other types of investments, and 42 % said that it is not clear which theywould select over the other.

More than half of the industrial respondents cited manufacturers and suppliers as their chiefsource of information when making energy-efficiency investment decisions. Other importantsources of information are journal and magazines, government agencies, registeredconsultants, and trainings/seminars/exhibitions. Commercial respondents also cited journaland magazines, manufacturers and suppliers, and government agencies as important sourcesof information when making energy efficiency investment decisions.

7.5 Barriers to Energy-Efficiency Investment

Figures 7.9 and 7.10 show the barriers to energy efficiency investment according to theindustrial and commercial respondents. Respondents from both sectors indicated that theircompanies’ lack of a specific budget for energy-efficiency investments is one of the top-threemost important barriers. According to the industrial respondents, other important barriers arethat energy-efficiency projects often have poor return on investment, and that the installationor operation of energy-efficiency measures often interrupts their normal production/operation.The commercial respondents also cited a similar barrier where the installation or operation ofenergy-efficiency measures disturb and are an inconvenience to the building’s occupants.

7.6 Solutions to Increase Energy-Efficiency Investment

Since the lack of a specific budget is one of the most important barriers to energy-efficiencyinvestments, many industrial and commercial respondents suggested that the governmentshould do more to financially support energy-efficiency implementation. More specifically,many respondents suggested that the government should establish a fund that companiescould access for financing energy-efficiency projects. Many respondents from both sectorsalso suggested that the government should conduct more information dissemination throughtraining and seminars in order to address the barriers posed by the lack of technicalknowledge and expertise.

Figures 7.11 and 7.12 show a summary of the respondents’ suggested solutions forovercoming the energy efficiency investment barriers. In the industrial sector, informationand training was the highest-ranked solution. Creation of a financing source was ranked

Figure 7.9: Most Important Energy-EfficiencyInvestment Barriers for the Industrial Sector

Figure 7.10: Most Important Energy-EfficiencyInvestment Barriers for the Commercial Sector

5 0 %

5 0 %

3 7 %

2 7 %

2 3 %

1 3 %

0% 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 5 0 % 6 0 %

En

erg

y E

ffic

ien

cy

In

ve

stm

en

t

Ba

rrie

r

% o f r e s p o n d e n t s l i s t i n g f a c t o r i n t o p - t h r e e b a r r i e r s

Poor return on investment

Lack of budget


Uncertainty of energy savings

Lack of information / advice on energy efficiency

Lack of expertise / technology

6 7 %

5 8 %

2 5 %

2 5 %

1 7 %

0% 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 %E

ne

rgy

Eff

icie

nc

y I

nv

es

tme

nt

Ba

rrie

r% o f r e s p o n d e n t s l i s t i n g f a c t o r i n t o p - t h r e e b a r r i e r s

Inconveniences / Disturbances to building occupants

Lack of budget

Lack of expertise / technology

Energy-efficient technologies too expensive

Lack of support from top management


fourth, mentioned by 11 % of respondents. In contrast, creation of a financing source was thehighest-ranked solution among commercial respondents.

7.7 Designated Facilities Program

All 30 of industrial respondents and 11 out of 12 commercial respondents know about therequirements of DEDP’s Compulsory Program for Designated Facilities. In fact, all industrialand commercial respondents that we interview reported that their facilities are participating inthe program. All of the industrial and commercial facilities that we interviewed hadconcluded at least a preliminary energy audit. Slightly more than half of the industrialrespondents (16 out of 30) indicated that their preliminary audits have been approved andpayment received and they are in the process or planning a detailed energy audit. Two-thirdsof the commercial respondents indicated that their preliminary audits have been approved andpayment received and they are in the process or planning a detailed energy audit.

Tables 7.9 and 7.10 on the following pages summarize the energy-efficiency measuresrecommended by registered consultants in the energy audit reports for the 30 industrial and 12commercial facilities.

Figure 7.11: Industrial Respondents’ SuggestedSolutions for Overcoming Energy-EfficiencyInvestment Barriers

Figure 7.12: Commercial Respondents’ SuggestedSolutions for Overcoming Energy-EfficiencyInvestment Barriers

1 8 %

1 3 %

1 3 %

1 1 %

1 1 %

7%

0% 5% 1 0 % 1 5 % 2 0 %

So

luti

on

s f

or

Ov

erc

om

ing

EE

Inv

es

tme

nt

Ba

rrie

rs


More info. / training / seminar on energy efficiency

More financial + policy support from govern.

No disruption of production / operation

Emphasize simple and high return measures

Conduct more demonstration projects

Create a source of financing for EE projects

1 9 %

1 4 %

1 0 %

1 0 %

1 0 %

1 0 %

0% 5% 1 0 % 1 5 % 2 0 %

So

luti

on

s f

or

Ov

erc

om

ing

EE

Inv

es

tme

nt

Ba

rrie

rs


Create a source of financing for energy efficiency projects

More info. / training / seminar on energy efficiency

Promote energy service companies

More internal EE project selling

Return money saved to the company's staff

More financial + policy support from gov.


Table 7.9: Energy-Efficiency Measures Recommended by Registered Consultants in the Industrial Sector# of Responses

(out of 30 respondents) % Energy Saving 1

Energy-efficiency measure EnergyAudit

2Implementedby Facilities

3EnergyAudit

4Reported byFacilities

5

1 Lighting - Install low-loss ballast 7 0 0.8 % -2 Lighting - Install electronic ballast 14 6 0.8 % 0.5 %3 Lighting - Install reflectors / Improve luminaire 11 5 3.3 % 1.3 %4 Lighting - Use compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) 1 0 0.6 % -5 Lighting - Use more efficient lighting technology 9 0 0.8 % -6 Lighting - Reduce quantity of lamps (de-lamping) 2 3 1.4 % No Data7 Lighting - Control/reduce operation time of lighting 1 1 11 % 5.0 %8 A/C - Cleaning and maintenance 8 2 0.5 % 1.0 %9 A/C - Install high efficiency A/C equipment 17 4 0.9 % 4.6 %

10 A/C - Install high efficiency chiller 7 2 2.5 % 1.5 %11 A/C - Install absorption chiller 1 0 16 % -12 A/C - Use adequate temperature setpoint 1 2 4.9 % 1.0 %13 A/C - Install electronic thermostat 16 2 0.6 % No Data14 A/C - Control/reduce supply air 1 0 0.5 % -15 A/C - Improve/install wall and/or roof insulation 5 2 0.6 % 5.0 %16 A/C - Install window film to reduce solar radiation 4 2 0.1 % 7.2 %17 Boiler/Furnace - Recover heat / use economizer 3 1 3.0 % No Data18 Boiler/Furnace - Improve combustion efficiency 13 6 2.2 % 6.5 %19 Boiler/Furnace - Recover blow-down 1 1 6.3 % No Data20 Boiler/Furnace - Reduce steam pressure in boiler 3 0 2.9 % -21 Boiler/Furnace - Replace boiler 2 0 13 % -22 Steam System - Recover condensate 2 1 3.2 % No Data23 Steam System - Change/Fix steam trap 5 2 2.7 % 13 %24 Steam System - Reduce steam leakage 2 3 0.7 % 3.3 %25 Steam System - Install insulation on steam pipes 9 0 1.1 % -26 Motor - Use appropriately-sized motors 1 0 0.0 % -27 Motor - Install high efficiency motor 4 1 13 % No Data28 Motor - Install inverter to control motor speed (VSD) 6 1 1.0 % 3.0 %29 Electrical - Correct power factor 6 0 0.5 % -30 Electrical - Improve transform system efficiency 3 0 0.1 % -31 Process - Reduce compressed air leakage 4 0 1.1 % -32 Process - Install high efficiency air compressor 3 0 3.7 % -33 Process - Preheat raw material 1 0 3.5 % -34 Others - Install cogeneration equipment 5 1 49 % 30 %35 Others - Install electricity generation equipment 1 0 52 % -

Average ∆∆ : 27 % 6 756 % 7

Notes:• “No Data” indicates that the respondents were not able to supply an estimate of the energy savings resulting from the implementation of

the energy-efficiency measure.

1. The “% energy saving” is an average percentage of each factory’s total electricity or fuel consumption (depending on the type of energy-efficiency measure).

2. This is the number of times a particular energy-efficiency measure was recommended in the energy audit reports of the 30 factories.3. This is the number of times a particular energy-efficiency measure was reported by the respondents as already implemented.4. This is the potential energy saving for each measure as indicated in the energy audit reports of the 30 factories.5. This is the energy saving that has been realized by the industrial facilities after they have implemented the energy-efficiency measure.6. On average, the recommended energy-efficiency measures were implemented 27 % of the time.7. On average, the % energy saving as reported by the industrial respondents is 756 % higher than that indicated in the energy audit

reports.


Table 7.10: Energy-Efficiency Measures Recommended by Registered Consultants in the CommercialSector

# of Responses(out of 12 respondents) % Energy Saving 1

Energy-efficiency measure EnergyAudit

2Implementedby Facilities

3EnergyAudit

4Reported byFacilities

5

1 Lighting - Install low-loss ballast 6 0 1.3 % -2 Lighting - Install electronic ballast 5 2 11 % 1.5 %3 Lighting - Install reflectors / Improve luminaire 6 1 5.2 % 1.0 %4 Lighting - Use compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) 7 5 3.3 % 5.3 %5 Lighting - Use more efficient lighting technology 1 0 0.5 % -6 A/C - Cleaning and maintenance 6 1 1.6 % No Data7 A/C - Install high efficiency A/C equipment 2 0 2.6 % -8 A/C - Install high efficiency chiller 3 1 8.3 % 10.0 %9 A/C - Use adequate temperature setpoint 1 0 0.2 % -

10 A/C - Install electronic thermostat 3 1 1.3 % No Data11 A/C - Improve/install wall and/or roof insulation 4 0 0.9 % -12 A/C - Install window film to reduce solar radiation 2 1 3.4 % No Data13 A/C - Reduce heat due to solar radiation 2 1 2.8 % 20 %14 Boiler/Furnace - Improve combustion efficiency 1 0 3.8 % -15 Motor - Use appropriately-sized motors 1 0 1.2 % -16 Motor - Install high efficiency motor 2 0 2.6 % -17 Motor - Install inverter to control motor speed (VSD) 1 1 3.7 % 5.0 %18 Electrical - Correct power factor 3 0 0.7 % -19 Electrical - Improve transform system efficiency 1 0 0.0 % -20 Others - Reduce compressed air leakage 1 0 1.7% -21 Others - Install key switch 1 0 2.7 % -

Average ∆∆ : 24 % 6 194 % 7

Notes:• “No Data” indicates that the respondents were not able to supply an estimate of the energy savings resulting from the implementation of the

energy-efficiency measure.

1. The “% energy saving” is an average percentage of each building’s total electricity or fuel consumption (depending on the type of energy-efficiency measure).

2. This is the number of times a particular energy-efficiency measure was recommended in the energy audit reports of the 12 buildings.3. This is the number of times a particular energy-efficiency measure was reported by the respondents as already implemented.4. This is the potential energy saving for each measure as indicated in the energy audit reports of the 12 buildings.5. This is the energy saving that has been realized by the commercial facilities after they have implemented the energy-efficiency measure.8. On average, the recommended energy-efficiency measures were implemented 24 % of the time.6. On average, the % energy saving as reported by the commercial respondents is 194 % higher than that indicated in the energy audit

reports.

Two-thirds (67 %) of both the industrial and commercial respondents we interviewedindicated that their facilities have implemented at least one of the energy-efficiency measuresrecommended in the energy audit reports by the registered consultants. However, theindustrial respondents indicated that they would have implemented about three-quarters (76%, or 30 of 49) of the recommended measures anyway. The measures they would haveimplemented anyway generally are measures that the factories consider as a part of theirmaintenance, housekeeping, equipment replacement, or other routine optimization activities.Similarly, the twelve commercial respondents indicated that they would have implementedslightly more than half (8 of 14) of the recommended measures anyway.

As indicated previously in Tables 7.9 and 7.10, on average the industrial and commercialfacilities implemented in the range of 24 to 27 % of the recommended energy-efficiencymeasures that they received in the energy audit reports. In addition, once implemented, theenergy-efficiency measures tended to yield higher energy savings than indicated in the energyaudit reports. This observation supports our earlier finding in Task 1 of this study, where weconcluded that the energy audit reports prepared by the registered consultants tend tounderestimate the potential energy savings.


The respondents’ attitudes towards the potential for energy savings are summarized in Table7.11. Approximately 40 % of industrial and commercial respondents believed that the energysavings potential as calculated and presented in the energy audit report is an accurate estimateof the savings that would result from the actual implementation of the recommended energy-efficiency measures. One-third of respondents thought that the measures would yield lessenergy savings than that indicated in the energy audit reports. Only one-sixth of respondents(17 %) believe that the measures would yield more energy savings once actuallyimplemented. It thus appears that respondents may have underestimated potential energysavings from the recommended audit measures; this may act as a barrier against moreimplementation of energy-efficiency measures.

Table 7.11: Attitude of Respondents Towards Potential for Energy SavingsAttitude Industrial Commercial Ind.+Com.“Actual energy savings > calculated in energy audit report” 17 % 25 % 17 %“Actual energy savings < calculated in energy audit report” 33 % 25 % 33 %“Actual energy savings = calculated in energy audit report” 40 % 17 % 41 %“Don’t know” 10 % 33 % 10 %

Figures 7.13 and 7.14 show the breakdown of the energy-efficiency measures recommendedand implemented in the industrial and commercial facilities we interviewed. The predominanttypes of energy-efficiency measures recommended by registered consultants are lighting andair-conditioning-related measures. Interviews with industrial and commercial respondentsalso revealed that the facilities also implemented more lighting and air-conditioning-relatedmeasures than any other types of energy-efficiency measures recommended by the registeredconsultants. On average, 27 % and 24 % of recommended measures were actuallyimplemented in factories and buildings respectively.

Overall, the majority of the industrial and commercial respondents indicated that they aresatisfied with DEDP’s Compulsory Program for Designated Facilities. Nearly two-thirds ofrespondents (64 %) were either “very satisfied” or “more or less satisfied”. Most are satisfied

because they feel that the Program is helping their facilities to save energy and reduce costs,and to raise awareness about the importance of energy efficiency and conservation. The mainreason that some respondents were dissatisfied is because they feel that DEDP’s process ofapproving the energy audit reports and payment is very slow. Table 7.12 summarizes therespondents’ level of satisfaction with the Program.

45

60

2218

11 9 8 61

8 62

15 16

0

20

40

60

Light

ing A/C

Boile

r/Fur

nace

Steam

Sys

tem

Mot

or

Electri

cal

Other

Pro

d. P

roce

ss

Oth

ers

# o

f M

easu

res

Recommended Implemented25

23

14 4

25

8

1

0

10

20

30

Light

ing A/C

Boile

r/Fur

nace

Mot

or

Elec.

Sys

tem

Oth

ers

# o

f M

easu

res

Recommended Implemented

Figure 7.13: Comparison of Recommended andImplemented Industrial Energy-EfficiencyMeasures

Figure 7.14: Comparison of Recommended andImplemented Commercial Energy-EfficiencyMeasures


Table 7.12: Level of Satisfaction for the Compulsory Program for DesignatedFacilities

Attitude Industrial Commercial Ind.+Com.“Very satisfied” 17 % 25 % 19 %“More or less satisfied” 47 % 42 % 45 %“Unsatisfied” 23 % 33 % 26 %“Greatly Unsatisfied” 13 % 0 % 10 %

Table 7.13: Barriers Encountered by Participants in the Compulsory Program for Designated Facilities

Barriers % of RespondentsMentioning Barrier

Industrial Sector1 DEDP’s process of approving reports and payment is too slow 21 %2 The facility did not received good recommendations from registered consultant 18 %3 The Program’s process is too cumbersome / complicated 13 %4 Not enough coordination or follow-up by DEDP and registered/accredited consultants 10 %5 The registered consultant need to bring more complex technologies / expertise 8 %6 The registered consultant is of poor quality and lacks of expertise 8 %

Commercial Sector1 DEDP’s process of approving reports and payment is too slow 21 %2 Not enough coordination or follow-up by DEDP and registered/accredited consultants 15 %3 The Program’s process is too cumbersome / complicated 12 %4 The registered consultant need to bring more complex technologies / expertise 9 %5 The facility did not received good recommendations from registered consultant 9 %

As can be seen in Table 7.13, the barriers encountered by industrial and commercialrespondents mainly have to do with the DEDP’s slow approval of energy audit reports andpayment, and the overall dissatisfaction with the registered consultants’ quality of work andexpertise. Table 7.14 summarizes the most frequently mentioned suggestions the respondentshad for improving the Compulsory Program for Designated Facilities.

Table 7.14: Respondents’ Suggestions for Improving the Compulsory Program

Suggestion % of RespondentsMentioning Suggestion

Industrial Sector1 More financial support from DEDP 16 %2 DEDP should be more involved in advising the facilities 16 %3 DEDP should speed up process for approving reports and payments 11 %4 DEDP should check quality and workmanship of the registered consultants 11 %5 Registered consultants should make recommendations that are specific to the type of

factory / industrial process11 %

Commercial Sector1 DEDP should check quality and workmanship of the registered consultants 19 %2 DEDP should disseminate more news / updates of the Program 15 %3 DEDP should speed up process for approving reports and payments 15 %4 More financial support from DEDP 11 %

7.8 Feedback on the ESCO Concept

During the interviews, we asked respondents to provide feedback on the concept of energyservice companies (ESCOs). Approximately 57 % of the industrial respondents and two-thirds (67 %) of the commercial respondents we interviewed already knew about the ESCOconcept. Most of the respondents that knew about ESCO either learned about them in aseminar, workshop or exhibition, or have been previously contacted by an ESCO. A greatmajority of the respondents we interviewed believe that the idea of ESCOs is a good conceptbecause ESCOs can help to arrange financing and access to new technologies to helpovercome the barrier of the initial capital investment.


A vast majority of the industrial and commercial respondents we interviewed (83 %) indicatedthat their facilities would benefit from the services of an ESCO. Table 7.15 lists the mostfrequently mentioned areas where facilities could benefit from ESCO services.

Table 7.15: Areas Where Facilities Could Benefit from ESCO Services

Service % of RespondentsMentioning Service

Industrial Sector1 Introduction of new technologies 20 %2 Help facility to make initial investment 16 %3 Energy-efficient motor 11 %4 Help facility to locate source of financing for energy efficiency projects 7 %5 On-site electricity generation 7 %6 Help facility to increase awareness & knowledge of energy efficiency 5 %7 Energy-efficient boiler 5 %8 Energy-efficient production process 5 %

Commercial Sector1 Help facility to control electricity costs 19 %2 Help facility to locate source of financing for energy efficiency projects 14 %3 Introduction of new technologies 14 %4 Energy-efficient chiller 14 %5 Help facility to make initial investment 10 %6 Energy-efficient air-conditioning 10 %

Other than helping facilities to locate sources of financing and make initial investments forprojects, the industrial respondents also frequently indicated that they would like an ESCO totarget motors, boilers, on-site electricity generation, and production processes as specific areasfor improving the energy efficiency. The commercial respondents specifically mentionedchiller and other air-conditioning equipment as areas where an ESCO can help to improve theenergy efficiency.

According to both the industrial and commercial respondents, a foreseeable barrier to ESCOimplementation is that, once one gets into the details, the shared savings and performancecontracting schemes are very complicated, especially if there is a complex monitoring andverification methodology attached to the contract. Facilities owners and management couldbe daunted and overwhelmed by the complexity of such as arrangement that they decide notto go further with the ESCO project. Few of the industrial and commercial respondents wereable to provide suggestions to how the ESCO concept can be improved, mainly because theyhave not had direct experience with ESCO before. One of the most-often mentionedsuggestion was that there should be a track record of successful ESCO pilot projects inThailand that they can use as an example and learn from the successes. Tables 7.16 and 7.17summarize the barriers to and suggestions for improving the ESCO concept as indicated bythe industrial and commercial interview respondents.

Table 7.16: Barriers to ESCO Implementation

Barrier % of RespondentsMentioning Barrier

Industrial Sector1 Shared savings / performance contracting is complicated 22 %2 Not enough info./ experience to comment 17 %3 Uncertainty of energy saving 11 %4 Lack of a clear monitoring and verification methodology 11 %5 ESCO lack good references / track record 8 %

Commercial Sector1 Shared savings / performance contracting is complicated 28 %2 Lack of a clear monitoring and verification methodology 17 %3 ESCO need to have good reference / track record 11 %


Table 7.17: Suggestions for Improving the ESCO Concept

Suggestion % of RespondentsMentioning Suggestion

Industrial Sector1 Not enough info / experience to comment 19 %2 ESCO need to have good reference / track record 13 %3 Need to see an ESCO pilot project in Thailand 11 %4 Savings guarantee is necessary 9 %5 ESCO need to be specialized for a particular industry 8 %6 ESCO need to perform its own energy audit 8 %

Commercial Sector1 Not enough info / experience to comment 21 %2 ESCO need to have good reference / track record 14 %


8 TASK 4: ANALYSIS OF EE AND INVESTMENT POTENTIAL

8.1 Introduction

In the previous three tasks (Tasks 1, 2 and 3) the IIEC project team collected data andinformation on the potential for energy saving and energy-efficiency investment in the Thaiindustrial and commercial sectors. In Task 1, we collected this information through a reviewof energy audit reports and existing literature. In Task 2, we performed a macroeconomicreview and assessment of the market barriers to increased EE lending. In Task 3, we collectedfurther quantitative data through focus group meetings and on-site interviews. In this section,we consolidate all the data collected in the previous three tasks in order to estimate thepotential for energy savings and the amount of investment required in order to achieve thosesavings.

8.2 Methodology

We drew on the data from the audit reviews, the literature review, and site visits to largecommercial and industrial facilities in order to estimate the potential for energy savings andinvestment requirements in each industrial and commercial sub-sector. Figure 8.1 is aschematic showing the steps in our approach.

Figure 8.1: Schematic of Approach to Developing Rangeof Estimates of EE and Investment Potential

The following sub-sections outline in detail the specific steps involved in the development ofthe estimate of EE and investment potential.

Develop estimates of EE potential

Review of audit reportsAudit review at site visitsLiterature review:

specific measuresprocess efficiency

Estimates of averageEE potential

of whole facilities

Estimates of EE Potential at all

Designated Facilities

OUTPUT:Range of estimates of EE savings and

investment potentialConservative scenario

Optimistic scenario

Applyweighting

factors

Apply estimates of whole-facility

energy useEnergy audit reportsBERC Designated Facilities databaseECCT client database

E C O N O M I C P O T E N T I A LA C H I E V A B L E P O T E N T I A L

Applyachievability

weightingfactors

Develop estimates of EE potential

Review of audit reportsAudit review at site visitsLiterature review:

specific measuresprocess efficiency

Estimates of averageEE potential

of whole facilities

Estimates of EE Potential at all

Designated Facilities

OUTPUT:Range of estimates of EE savings and

investment potentialConservative scenario

Optimistic scenario

Applyweighting

factors

Apply estimates of whole-facility

energy useEnergy audit reportsBERC Designated Facilities databaseECCT client database

E C O N O M I C P O T E N T I A LA C H I E V A B L E P O T E N T I A L

Applyachievability

weightingfactors


8.2.1 Step 1: Screen and Tabulate Energy Efficiency Measures

We used the data collected during the different tasks in this project to establish a list ofenergy-efficiency measures that are usually recommended and implemented in each industrialand commercial sub-sector. We screened measures using a 5-year simple payback period.Measures that were reported to have a payback of longer than 5-years were not included inthis list, since facilities are not likely to implement those measures. This list includes data onwhole-facility energy saving potential, capital investment, and payback period for eachmeasure.

In general, data on whole-facility energy saving potential were taken from the energy auditreports reviewed in Task 1 and Task 3, with supplementary data from the literature review inTask 1 and on-site interviews in Task 3. Data on capital investment and payback period ofeach measure were obtained only from the energy audit reports reviewed in Task 1. Thefollowing table summarizes the data sources.

Table 8.1: Summary of Data Availability of Different SourcesData Available ?

Data Source Task Energy Savings Investment andPayback Period

Energy Audit Reports Task 1 Yes YesEnergy Audit Reports Task 3 Yes NoLiterature Task 1 Yes* NoSite Interviews Task 3 Yes* No

Note that site interview and literature data were only available for some of the measures.

8.2.2 Step 2: Estimate Average Whole-Facility Energy Consumption

We used the following data sources to estimate the average whole-facility energyconsumption (electricity and fuels) for designated facilities in each industrial and commercialsub-sector:• Data from BERC / DEDP computerized database for Designated Facilities (Task 1);• Energy audit reports (Task 1) – industrial facilities only;• Data from the Energy Conservation Center of Thailand’s (ECCT) industrial-facility client

database.

8.2.3 Step 3: Weight Data Sources for Measure Energy Savings Potential

We calculated a final estimate of the average whole-facility energy saving potential byassigning a weighting factor to each of the four data sources. In this way, we obtained anaverage energy saving potential for each of the energy efficiency measures in the differentindustrial and commercial designated facilities sub-sectors. The measure energy savingpotential is expressed as a percentage of the average whole-facility energy use for each sub-sector. We used the following weighting factors (this calculation can be found in Appendix5):

• Data from review of energy audit reports (Task 1) = 25 %;• Data from review of energy audit reports during on-site interviews (Task 3) = 25 %;• Data from literature (Task 1) = 25 %;• Data from on-site interviews (Task 3) = 25 %.


We also e carried out a sensitivity analysis to test the impact of this weighting scheme on ourenergy savings estimates. The analysis showed that changing the weighting to be more or lessdependent upon the audit reports only affected the energy savings estimates by +/- 10%. SeeSection 8.3

8.2.4 Step 4: Estimate Economic Potential for Process Efficiency (Industrial SectorOnly)

For each of the industrial sub-sectors, it was necessary to create an additional generic energyefficiency measure that takes into account process efficiency improvements. This wasnecessary because data on process efficiency potential are not available from the energy auditreports. Therefore, we estimated the whole-facility energy saving potential due to productionprocess improvements for each industrial sub-sector based on international comparisonstudies and literature. We have performed this activity in Task 1, and more details can befound in Section 3.3 of this report.

Within the scope of this study, we were unable to develop cost estimates for processefficiency improvements for each industrial sub-sector. In order to estimate the investmentrequirement for process efficiency improvements in each industrial sub-sector, we “backedout” the investment costs. We did this by relying on the equation that simple payback time =investment cost / annual cost savings. If we assume a three-year payback period for theprocess efficiency investments, and if we estimate the annual cost savings based on avoidedfuel costs, then we can calculate an approximate investment cost for process efficiencyimprovements. We made the following assumptions:• The avoided costs of EE investments were based on an assumed fuel mix for the entire

Thai industrial sector. We did not have the time or resources to separately estimate theaverage fuel mix for all six industrial sub-sectors.

• Fuel and electricity costs are based on average 1999 prices in Thailand;• Process efficiency improvements will have a three-year payback period;• Investment amount of the process efficiency improvements is equal to the cost of avoided

fuel and electricity during the time of the payback period.These assumptions allowed us to estimate the investment necessary to achieve a three-yearpayback on the industrial process efficiency improvements.

8.2.5 Step 5: Translate Economic Potential to Achievable Potential

Up until this step, all estimates of the measure energy saving potential based on energy auditreports, on-site interviews, and literature represent economic potential. In reality, there arebarriers to implementation represented by human actors, institutional factors, and the need forcapital investment. Thus we need to downgrade our economic potential estimates to reflectthese barriers. The resulting, lower potential figure is called the achievable potential.

8.2.5.1 Achievability Weighting Factors

We developed estimates of achievable potential by applying two achievability weightingfactors:

Achievable savings. This refers to the fraction of the economic measure energy savingpotential that is achievable given all the various external barriers that are uncontrollable andunpredictable, such as technology performance and reliability, uncertainty in energy savingmeasurements, poor implementation, lack of supporting policies, etc.


Achievable facilities. This refers to the fraction of all designated facilities in each sub-sectorthat will actually implement the energy-efficiency investment projects. This represents thefact that not all 100% of facilities in any sub-sector will implement energy efficiencymeasures, due to barriers such as lack of budget, lack of confidence, perception of risk, lack ofmanagement awareness, or poor creditworthiness.

8.2.5.2 Conservative and Optimistic Scenarios

In order to provide a reasonable range for the energy efficiency investment potential, wedeveloped two different scenarios that represent (based on available information) lower- andhigher-end estimates of achievable energy savings and number of facilities. In the scenarios,we applied the achievability weighting factors in order to develop a “conservative” and an“optimistic” estimate of EE and investment potential. The following sub-section providesdetails of the assumptions we used in developing the conservative and optimistic scenarios.These assumptions are summarized in Table 8.2. The detailed calculations behind this tableare shown in Appendix 6.

Table 8.2: Achievability Assumptions Used in Conservative and Optimistic Scenariosfor EE and Investment Potential

ConservativeScenario

OptimisticScenario

General Energy EfficiencyAchievable Energy Savings 60 % 80 %Achievable No. of Facilities 20 % 40 %

Production Process ImprovementAchievable Energy Savings * 30 % 40 %Achievable No. of Facilities 10 % 20 %* The potential for process efficiency improvements is described in Section 3.3 of this report. Theassumption for achievable energy savings due to production process improvements is lower than that forgeneral energy efficiency measures because it is necessary to screen out process improvements that are notcost-effective. For example in the U.S. cement industry, screening out process improvement measures thatare not cost-effective reduces the energy saving potential by 60-76 % (see Appendix 1). The processimprovement energy saving data obtained from literature are technical potential and generally have notbeen screened for cost-effectiveness.

8.2.5.2.1 Assumptions Used in Conservative and Optimistic Scenarios

Assumptions for Achievable Savings -- General Efficiency Measures :• Conservative scenario: We assumed that actual savings achieved for each energy

efficiency measure will be 60% of the economic potential, for facilities that choose toimplement this measure.

• Optimistic scenario: We assumed that actual savings achieved for each energy efficiencymeasure will be 80% of the economic potential, for facilities that choose to implement thismeasure.

• Rationale: It is not practical to assume that 100% of estimated savings will be achievedfor EVERY measure. Picking 80% and 60% achievable savings provides a reasonablemargin for unrealized savings and makes it unlikely that we will overestimate savings.

Assumptions for Achievable Savings – Industrial Process Efficiency Improvement :• Conservative scenario: We assumed that actual savings achieved for process energy

efficiency improvements will be 30% of the economic potential, for factories that chooseto implement this measure.


• Optimistic scenario: We assumed that actual savings achieved for process energyefficiency improvements will be 40% of the economic potential, for factories that chooseto implement this measure.

• Rationale: It is not practical to assume that 100% of estimated savings will be achievedfor EVERY measure. Furthermore, we believe that the achievable savings for processefficiency will be much lower than that of the general efficiency measures because of theThai industry’s lack of experience in implementing process efficiency measures.

Assumptions for Achievable Facilities -General Efficiency Measures :• Conservative scenario: We assumed that only 20% of Designated Facilities in any sub-

sector will implement EE investment projects in the next 5-7 years.• Optimistic scenario: We assumed that only 40% of Designated Facilities in any sub-sector

will implement EE investment projects in the next 5-7 years.• Rationale: Because of the economic crisis, many firms are overextended, have poor

liquidity, and are not creditworthy (estimated > 50%). These estimates provide areasonable and conservative range of estimates for the share of facilities that arecreditworthy and whose management will commit to investing in significant energyefficiency projects.

Assumptions for Achievable Facilities – Industrial Process Efficiency Improvement :• Conservative scenario: We assumed that only 10% of Designated Factories in any

industrial sub-sector will implement process energy efficiency improvement projects inthe next 5-7 years.

• Optimistic scenario: We assumed that only 20% of Designated Factories in any industrialsub-sector will implement process energy efficiency improvement projects in the next 5-7years.

• Rationale: We believe that the share of facilities that implement process efficiencyretrofits will be much lower than that of the general efficiency measures, because of theThai industry’s lack of experience in implementing process efficiency measures.

8.2.6 Step 6: Estimate Achievable Energy Saving Potential for Each Measure

We used the average energy savings potential (Step 3) and whole-facility energy consumption(Step 2) to calculate the whole-facility energy savings for each energy efficiency measure interms of kWh per building or GJ per factory. The following equation shows this calculation.

=

A c h i e v a b l e

s a v i n g s p o t e n t i a l

f o r o n e m e a s u r e i n

a v e r a g e f a c i l i t y i n

s u b s e c t o r

( k W h / b l d g o r

G J / fac to r y )

C a l c u l a t e d

v a l u e

% e c o n o m i c


f o r o n e m e a s u r e

(a v e . f o r

s u b s e c t o r)

To ta l f a c i l i t y

e n e r g y

c o n s u m p t i o n

(a v e . f o r

s u b s e c t o r)

X

D a t a f r o m

e n e r g ya u d i t

r e p o r t s ,

i n t e r v i e w s ,l i te ra tu re

D a t a f r o m

B E R C /D E D Pd a t a b a s e a n d

E C C T i n d u s t r i a l

c l i e n t d a t a b a s e

X

A c h i e v a b l e

s a v i n g s

w e i g h t i n g

f a c t o r

C a p t u r e s f a c tt h a t n o t 1 0 0 % o fe c o n o m i cs a v i n g s w i l l b ea c h i e v e d f o r a n yo n e m e a s u r ed u e t o b a r r i e r ss u c h a se q u i p m e n ts e l e c t i o n ,e q u i p m e n tf a i l u r e , i m p r o p e ro p e r a t i o n , e t c .


The actual calculations that we performed for the conservative and optimistic scenarios can befound in Appendix 7.

8.2.7 Step 7: Estimate Achievable Energy Saving Potential for Each Measure forEntire Sub-sector

We used the estimated achievable energy savings potential for each measure at the facilitylevel (Step 6) to calculate the achievable energy savings potential for each measure at the sub-sector level. The following equation shows this calculation.

Once we have the achievable energy saving potential for each measure at the sub-sector levelin terms of kWh or GJ, we summed up the figures to obtain the total achievable energy savingpotential for all measures at the sub-sector and sectoral levels. The actual calculations that weperformed for the conservative and optimistic scenarios can be found in Appendix 7.

8.2.8 Step 8: Estimate Achievable Investment Potential for Each Measure for EntireSub-sector

Following Step 7, we performed a parallel calculation to estimate the achievable investmentpotential. We used the investment requirement for each measure that was tabulated in Step 1to calculate the achievable investment potential for each measure at the sub-sector level. Thefollowing equation shows this calculation.

=

A c h i e v a b l e



e n t i r e s u b - s e c t o r

(kW h o r G J )

C a l c u l a t e dv a l u e

T o t a l n u m b e r o f

d e s i g n a t e d

fac i l i t i es in

s u b - s e c t o r

X

D a t a f r o mB E R C /D E D P

d a t a b a s e

X

A c h i e v a b l e



a v e r a g e f a c i l i t y i n

s u b s e c t o r

( k W h / b l d g o r

G J / f a c t o r y )

A c h i e v a b l e

f a c i l i t i e s

w e i g h t i n g

f a c t o r

C a p t u r e s f a c t t h a tn o t 1 0 0 % o ffac i l i t ies in anys u b - s e c t o r w i l l n o ti m p l e m e n t E Em e a s u r e s d u e t ob a r r i e r s s u c h a sl a c k o f b u d g e t ,l a c k o fc o n f i d e n c e , l a c ko f m g t a w a r e n e s sa n d p o o rc r e d i t w o r t h i n e s s

C a l c u l a t e d

b a s e d o n

e n e r g y a u d i t

r e p o r t s ,

i n t e r v i e w s , a n d

l i t e r a t u r e


Once we have the achievable investment potential for each measure at the sub-sector level, wesummed up the figures to obtain the total achievable investment potential for all measures atthe sub-sector and sectoral levels. The actual calculations that we performed for theconservative and optimistic scenarios can be found in Appendix 7.

8.2.9 Step 9: Estimate Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Avoidance

Guidelines for the estimation of CO2 emissions from electricity generation, transmission anddistribution are provided by a variety of organizations including (among others) the WorldBank, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), and the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (US EPA). Generally, theseorganizations use similar methodologies for estimating an emission factor in terms of CO2 perkWh of electricity. The difference lies in whether the emission factors are derived at thetechnology, sectoral, or national levels. The same emission factors that are used forestimating the CO2 resulting from electricity generation can be used to estimate the CO2

avoidance of energy efficiency projects.

In this study, we used the CO2 emission factor that was derived in the project called“Demand-Side Management (DSM) Program Evaluation – Conservation Program”, whichwas submitted to the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) by Agra Monenco,Inc. in March 2000. The methodology for estimating the CO2 emission factors used in theDSM Program Evaluation is given in the following sub-sections.

8.2.9.1 Methodology for Estimating CO2 Emission Factors

The DSM Program Evaluation used the following methodology to estimate the CO2 emissionfactors:

1. Obtain the average annual fuel consumption for each of the EGAT generating facilities.This data is aggregated according to fuel type and geographical location of the differentpower plants (central, northeastern, southern and northern Thailand);

2. Convert the average annual fuel consumption data into tonnes of carbon emissions usingthe conversion factors provided in the IPCC guidelines (see Table 8.3);

=

A c h i e v a b l e

I n v e s t m e n t

p o t e n t i a l f o r o n e

m e a s u r e i n e n t i r e

s u b - s e c t o r

(B a h t)

C a l c u l a t e dv a l u e

T o t a l n u m b e r o f

d e s i g n a t e d

fac i l i t i es in

s u b - s e c t o r

X

D a t a f r o mB E R C /D E D P

d a t a b a s e

XI n v e s t m e n t

r e q u i r e m e n t f o r

o n e e n e r g y

e f f i c i e n c y

m e a s u r e

(B a h t/fac i l i ty )

A c h i e v a b l e

f a c i l i t i e s

w e i g h t i n g

f a c t o r

C a p t u r e s f a c t t h a tn o t 1 0 0 % o ffaci l i t ies in anys u b - s e c t o r w i l l n o ti m p l e m e n t E Em e a s u r e s d u e t ob a r r i e r s s u c h a sl a c k o f b u d g e t ,l a c k o fc o n f i d e n c e , l a c ko f m g t a w a r e n e s sa n d p o o rc r e d i t w o r t h i n e s s

D a t a f r o m

e n e r g y a u d i t

r e p o r t s


Table 8.3: Carbon Emission FactorsFuel Type Tonnes of Carbon per Terajoule (TJ)Natural Gas 15.3Diesel 20.2Fuel Oil 21.1Lignite 27.6Average * 21.1Source: IPCC Guidelines* Calculated in this study.

3. Adjust the carbon emissions for the amount of carbon not oxidized during combustion.The oxidation fractions used are according to the World Bank’s Greenhouse GasAssessment Handbook (see Table 8.4);

Table 8.4: Fraction of Carbon Oxidized in CombustionFuel Type Fraction of Carbon OxidizedGas 0.995Oil and oil products 0.990Coal 0.980Average * 0.988Source: World Bank, Greenhouse Gas Assessment Handbook.* Calculated in this study.

4. Multiply the adjusted carbon emissions by the ratio of the molecular weights of CO2 tocarbon (44/12) to obtain an estimate of annual CO2 emissions;

5. Divide the total annual CO2 emissions by the average annual electricity generation toobtain the CO2 emission factors. The emission factors are aggregated according to fueltype and geographic location of the different power plants (see Table 8.5 for a summary ofthe derived CO2 emission factors).

Table 8.5: CO2 Emission Factors of EGAT FacilitiesRegion Tonnes of CO2 per kWhCentral (Region 1) 0.00061Northeast (Region 2) 0.00044Southern (Region 3) 0.00019Northern (Region 4) 0.00090Total EGAT Generation 0.00068Source: Agra Monenco, DSM Program Evaluation – Conservation Program, Final

Report, March 2000.

8.2.9.2 Applicability to This Study

In this study, we evaluated the CO2 avoidance resulting from energy efficiency measures forboth electricity and fuel end-uses. The total EGAT emission factor from Table 8.5 can bedirectly used to find the CO2 avoided due to electricity-related energy-efficiency measures.

In the case of fuel-related measures, we generally do not know the type of fuel that is beingdisplaced by the energy-efficiency measures. Thus, we used the average value of carbonemission factors from Table 8.3 to derive an average CO2 avoidance factor for fuel-relatedmeasures. This is done by multiply the average carbon emission factor by the averageoxidation factor from Table 8.4, and then multiply this adjusted carbon emission factor by theratio of the molecular weights of CO2 to carbon (44/12) to obtain an estimate of the CO2

avoidance in terms of tonnes of CO2 per terajuole (TJ) of fuel. This calculation results in anemission factor of 76.3 tonnes of CO2 per TJ of fuel.


Once we have the CO2 emission factors for both electricity and fuel, we simply multiply theachievable energy savings potential by the corresponding emission factor to obtain the amountof CO2 avoidance.

8.3 Main Results of This Analysis

8.3.1 Range of Achievable Market Sizes for EE Investment and ESCOs

The calculation we used to estimate the energy savings and investment potential was doneusing the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software, and a print-out can be found in Appendix 6.Table 8.6 presents a summary of the results of these calculations.

Table 8.6: Achievable Market Potential for EE Investment in Large Factories andBuildings in Thailand

Source: Results of analyses conducted in this study.

The results of the scenario analysis indicate that the Thai industrial sector has an achievablepotential for EE investment within the range of 10,800 to 23,700 million baht ($251 to 551million), while the Thai commercial sector has potential for EE investment within the range of3,100 to 6,300 million baht ($72 to 147 million).

Table 8.7 summarizes the range of market estimates from our EE investment analysis shownin Table 8.6. In the Achievable Market Option, the total market size ranges from 13,918 to30,000 million baht ($324 to $698 million) in the conservative and optimistic scenarios,respectively.

Table 8.7 Summary of EE Investment Potential (million baht)Achievable EE Investment Potential

Sector Conservative OptimisticIndustrial 10,773 23,716Commercial 3,145 6,289Total (in million Baht) 13,918 30,006

Total (in million US$) $324 Million $698

General Measures

Process Improvement

General Measures

Process Improvement

Chemical 76 2,499,917 675,790 2,695,963,197 354,278 151 6,666,445 1,802,107 5,653,799,745 944,741

Fab. Metal 105 1,826,903 861,137 2,105,096,046 410,882 211 4,871,740 2,296,366 4,769,302,851 1,095,684

Food & Bev. 103 2,572,454 519,723 3,514,964,625 285,445 207 6,859,876 1,385,927 7,275,730,020 761,187

Non-Metal. 24 730,305 628,490 403,440,604 127,957 48 1,947,481 1,675,973 939,498,629 341,218

Textile 63 4,661,799 1,790,049 1,838,663,168 711,943 126 12,431,463 4,773,464 4,582,954,725 1,898,515

Paper 16 766,551 248,517 214,928,334 92,602 32 2,044,135 662,712 494,937,936 246,938

Total Industrial 387 13,057,928 4,723,706 10,773,055,974 1,983,106 775 34,821,141 12,596,549 23,716,223,907 5,288,284

Office 115 91.1 GWh 1,087,093,549 61,965 230 243.0 GWh 2,174,187,098 165,240

Shop. Center 40 52.1 GWh 1,216,599,936 35,394 80 138.8 GWh 2,433,199,872 94,385

Hotel 51 69.3 GWh 638,639,718 47,114 102 184.8 GWh 1,277,279,437 125,639

Hospital 41 23.0 GWh 202,356,700 15,644 83 61.3 GWh 404,713,400 41,718

Total Commercial 248 235.5 GWh 3,144,689,903 160,118 495 627.9 GWh 6,289,379,807 426,981

Grand Total 635 13,905,528 4,723,706 13,917,745,877 2,143,224 1270 37,081,409 12,596,549 30,005,603,713 5,715,265

18,629,234 49,677,957

CO2 Mitigation [tonne of CO2]

Conservative Scenario Optimistic Scenario


# of

Achievable Facilities

Sub-Sectoral Energy Savings [GJ] Total Investment

[Baht]


[Baht]

Ind

ust

rial

Com

mer

cial

# of

Achievable Facilities


These potential amounts to not necessarily represent the market potential for ESCOs, per se.In any country, there are a range of actors that can energy delivery energy savings, andESCOs are just one such actor. ESCOs have a disproportionate influence and high profile,because they are solely focused on energy efficiency. However, there are a range of other EEservice providers, including lighting and HVAC 15 contractors, architect and engineeringfirms, engineering consultants and other intermediaries such as distribution channels andretailers. In the U.S., for example, the total market for energy services is in the range of $3 to$4 billion annually, of which approximately 15-20% is captured by ESCOs.16 Based on theexperience in North America, the strong interest of ESCO firms into the Thai market, and ourinterviews with commercial and industrial customers, we estimate that the portion of theabove market that could be captured by ESCOs in Thailand may be as high as 25-30% of thetotal market estimates. Thus, we estimate that the five- to seven-year market potentialspecifically for ESCO investment is in the range of 4,000 million to 9,000 million baht.

8.3.2 CO2 Mitigation Potential

From a policy perspective, one of the main benefits of a large-scale ESCO investment fundwill be the reduction of carbon dioxide and the resulting climate change mitigation impacts.Using the methodology described earlier, we estimated the CO2 mitigation potential for theEE investments. The results are included in Table 8.6. The amount of CO2 reduction for alarge-scale ESCO investment fund over 5-7 years would range from 2.1 to 5.7 million tonnesof carbon. By comparison EGAT’s DSM programs reduced CO2 emissions by 1.1 milliontones through the end of 1998.17

8.4 Sensitivity Analysis

How robust are our estimates of energy savings and investment potential? How would theresults be affected by changes in our assumptions? To answer these questions, we performedtwo sensitivity analyses. First, we conducted a sensitivity analysis of the estimates of measuresavings. We also did a sensitivity analysis to show how changes in our achievabilityassumptions would affect the estimate of achievable EE investment potential.

8.4.1 Sensitivity of Data Source Weighting

We performed a sensitivity analysis to consider the effect of having different weighting of thedata sources for measure savings in Step 3. For this analysis, we considered the followingtwo cases where the measure energy savings potential is based entirely on: (1) the data fromenergy audit reports reviewed in Tasks 1 (50 %) and Task 3 (50 %), and (2) the data fromliterature (50 %) and on-site interviews (50 %). The results of this sensitivity analysis areshown in Figure 8.2. The results indicate that the total achievable energy saving potentialvaried only +/-10 % compared to the case where all four data sources were given equalweighting. Note that the sensitivity analysis ONLY affects the estimated energy savings. Itdoes not affect the investment amount or payback period, since only the energy audit dataprovided estimates of per-measure investment amounts.

15 HVAC stands for heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning.16 Charles Goldman, Staff Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA. Personal Communication.17 Agra Monenco, Inc. DSM Program Evaluation – Conservation Program. Final Report: Volume 1. Executive Summaryand Overview. March 2000.


Figure 8.2: Sensitivity Analysis: Changes in Total Energy Savings (GJ)Based on Changes in Weighting of Savings Estimates

8.4.2 Sensitivity of Changes in Achievability Assumptions

To assess how changes in achievability assumptions would affect the estimate of EEinvestment potential, we plotted EE investment requirement under a number of differentscenarios. Figure 8.3 shows the results of this analysis. It allows policymakers to see how theinvestment potential figure would change if one were to make higher or lower assumptionsabout the potential for getting investment in EE projects. The range covered by ourassumptions and our “conservative” and “optimistic” scenarios – scenarios that we feelrepresent a reasonable range of probability – is shown the in the rectangular box on the lowerleft-hand side of the figure.

Sensitivity of Achievability Factors

-

20,000,000,000

40,000,000,000

60,000,000,000

80,000,000,000

100,000,000,000

120,000,000,000

140,000,000,000

160,000,000,000

180,000,000,000

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Achievable Facilities [%]

Inve

stm

ent R

equ

irem

ent [

Th

ai B

aht]

Achievable Savings = 100%





Sensitivity of Achievability Factors

-

20,000,000,000

40,000,000,000

60,000,000,000

80,000,000,000

100,000,000,000

120,000,000,000

140,000,000,000

160,000,000,000

180,000,000,000

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%


Inve

stm

ent R

equ

irem

ent [

Th

ai B

aht]






Figure 8.3: Sensitivity Analysis: Changes in Investment Potential Based on Changes inAchievability Assumptions

8.5 Experience with Other EE and Environmental Funds

In order to place the proposed ESCO revolving fund in perspective, we briefly review here thesize of special EE and environmental funds that have operated, or are still operational, inThailand. Table 8.8 summarizes the experience with other EE and Environmental Funds.These funds were discussed in the Task 2 report and earlier in this report. Most of the special

0

1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

3 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

4 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

5 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

6 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

GJ

C o n s e r v a t i v e O p t i m i s t i c

C a s e 1 C a s e 2 C a s e 3


funds have been endowed in the range of 1,000 to 4,000 million baht (~$23 to $100 million).Two large funds have dwarfed the others: the Environmental Fund and the EnergyConservation Promotion Fund. These funds were established in the early 1990s throughlevies on petroleum sales, without any real marketing or business plan, and the administrationof the funds has not been able to match the fund size, leading to low disbursement rates.

In terms of realistic planning, the Chiller Replacement Fund is the most practical: it has a pilotphase of 210 million baht (US$5 million), which will be followed by a second phase of 3,100million baht ($75 million). It is thus reasonable that, at least in the initial phase, an ESCO orEE revolving fund focused specifically on EE investment projects would target a smallnumber of facilities in order to demonstrate success and then publicize the success storiesamong end users and the banking industry.

Table 8.8: Fund Size and Results from Past EE and Environment Funds in ThailandFund Administrator Fund Endowment

or BudgetComments

EnvironmentalFund MoSTE (Bt 16,000 million)

~US$ 380 million Only ~30% disbursement.

EnergyConservationPromotionFund

NEPO and MoSTE>Bt 15,000 million(~US$ 360 million) < 25 % disbursement

Bank ofThailand 4and 7

IFCT Bt 5,750 million(~$140 million)

Both tranches used up. Bt 1,605million baht used for environmentalproject. No EE projects. Balancefunded non-EE and non-environmental projects.

OECF 4 IFCT Bt 900 million(~$21 million)

Bt 800 million lent for 8 largeprojects, including EE andenvironmental components.

OECF 5 IFCT Bt 1,200 million(~$29 million)

No funds loaned because of economiccrisis and Yen denomination of loans.

OzoneProjects TrustFund

IFCT $40 million(~Bt 1,700 million)

$20 million committed, of which $15million disbursed. Funds phase-out ofCFCs in manufacturing processes.

ChillerReplacementFund(Phase 1)

IFCT$5 million(~Bt 210 million)

24 chillers to be replaced in Phase 1.Expected to start before end of 2000.

ChillerReplacementFund(Phase 2)

IFCT$75 million(~Bt 3,100 million) 420 chillers to be replaced in Phase 2

8.6 The Quick-Start Option: A Demonstration Phase

The achievable investment potential we have estimated for Designated Facilities cannot beachieved without significant market development over a number of years. Given the past fiveyears of experience in Thailand, and the apparent delays in implementation of EE projects inlarge facilities, we recommend against establishment of a much larger initial allocationwithout a pilot phase focused on achieving successful EE investment projects at a handful offinancially strong firms.


We believe that the initial stages of the ESCO promotion project in Thailand should target themost cost-effective measures and facilities with a strong balance sheet that have a highlikelihood of financing the EE projects and serving as successful demonstration projects.

We thus developed a “Quick Start Demonstration Phase” option in which we project theinvestment and savings for pursuing EE measures with only a handful of facilities in eachsub-sector. We repeated the same scenario analysis for the “Quick-Start” option, using 5facilities per sub-sector as the conservative scenario and 10 facilities per sub-sector as theoptimistic option. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 8.9.

Table 8.9: Summary of “Quick-Start” Option for EE Investment Fund

General Measures

Process

ImprovementGeneral

Measures

Process

Improvement

Chemical 5 165,338 35,756 173,108,544 22,469 10 440,902 119,187 373,928,555 62,483

Fab. Metal 5 86,665 32,681 91,905,257 18,270 10 231,107 108,936 226,247,763 51,977

Food & Bev. 5 124,393 20,105 166,403,501 13,203 10 331,715 67,018 351,824,469 36,808

Non-Metal. 5 153,425 105,629 76,398,188 24,599 10 409,135 352,095 197,373,662 71,684

Textile 5 368,813 113,294 123,969,514 52,734 10 983,502 377,647 362,575,532 150,199

Paper 5 239,547 62,129 61,063,736 27,475 10 638,792 207,097 154,668,105 77,168

Total Industrial 30 1,138,183 369,594 692,848,740 158,750 60 3,035,154 1,231,981 1,666,618,086 450,320

Office 5 4.0 GWh 47,347,280 2,699 10 10.6 GWh 94,694,560 7,197

Shop. Center 5 6.5 GWh 151,318,400 4,402 10 17.3 GWh 302,636,800 11,739

Hotel 5 6.8 GWh 62,367,160 4,601 10 18.0 GWh 124,734,320 12,269

Hospital 5 2.8 GWh 24,439,215 1,889 10 7.4 GWh 48,878,430 5,038

Total Commercial 20 20.0 GWh 285,472,055 13,592 40 53.3 GWh 570,944,110 36,244

Grand Total 50 1,210,131 369,594 978,320,795 172,341 100 3,227,015 1,231,981 2,237,562,196 486,564

1,579,725 4,458,996




# of Achievable

Facilities


[Baht]


[Baht]

Ind

ust

rial

Com

mer

cial

# of Achievable

Facilities

Source: Results of analyses conducted in this study.

8.7 Summary of Investment Potential Results

Table 8.10 summarizes and compares our estimates of the total achievable EE investmentpotential with the Quick Start Demonstration Phase option. The total achievable EEinvestment potential estimated in this study cannot be realized without significant marketdevelopment and promotional activities. For that reason, the Quick Start DemonstrationPhase represents an investment amount that is likely to be achieved within two to three years,given the current level of interest in EE in the Thai market, the number of ESCO and other EEproject development firms in the market, and the availability of a low-interest revolving fundto finance EE investments. They key results are summarized below:

• The five- to seven-year achievable potential for EE investment is in the range of14,000 to 30,000 million baht.

• The Quick Start Demonstration Phase, which would focus on five facilities in eachsub-sector, and would be implemented over a three-year time period, is in the range of1,000 to 2,200 million baht.

Table 8.10 Summary of Industrial and Commercial EE Investment Potential (millionbaht)

Achievable Market “Quick Start” OptionSector Conservative Optimistic Conservative OptimisticIndustrial 10,773 23,716 693 1,667Commercial 3,145 6,289 285 571Total (million baht) 13,918 30,006 978 2,238Total (in US$) $324 million $698 million $23 million $52 million


9 RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Steps to Increase Lending for EE Investment Projects

• Establish a credit guarantee scheme. DEDP should work with Thai commercial banks,the World Bank, and the ENCON Fund Committee to establish a credit guaranteescheme that would help to avoid collateral problems and minimize risk.

• Maximize flexibility and minimize red tape. Experience with special funds for EE andenvironmental projects has shown that, to be successful, funds should increase theflexibility in their regulations and minimize the amount of red tape.

• Enhance bank incentives. In order for the private sector to actively participate in EElending, DEDP should work with other government agencies and the ENCON FundCommittee to enhance the incentives for bank managers to lend for EE projects. Thecurrent incentives are not adequate for commercial banks to effectively manage andmarket EE funds. The only Thai bank that is actively pursuing EE lending as a part ofits business strategy is the Industrial Finance Corporation of Thailand (IFCT). Theinterest rate differentials on concessionary EE and environmental funds have not beenhigh enough to overcome the high perceived risks and transaction costs associatedwith these projects.

• Develop strategic work plans for EE funds. EE funds must be structured so that theyare strategic and provide the right incentives for bank managers. A strategy and workplan must be drawn up before establishing a special EE or environment fund. Banksmust allocate resources to effectively market and disseminate information about theirfunds. In addition, technical advisory services must be made available to banks as partof the design of an EE fund. For example, the basic elements of a strategic work planfor the EE fund could include the following:⇒ Estimate of market potential in terms of number of customers, number of likely

projects, and size of investment projects.⇒ Estimate of creditworthiness of large firms within each targeted sub-sector.⇒ Plan for hiring (on full-time or consulting basis) technical experts who can provide

technical evaluations of the proposed projects.⇒ Pro-forma budget showing amount of expected loans, bank fees, and profit to the

fund manager.⇒ Consideration of incentives for bank loan managers to bring in or refer clients to

apply for new EE loans from the fund.⇒ Marketing plan laying out how the bank or fund manager intends to publicize the

EE fund and sets targets for lending amounts in order to provide feedback on aregular basis (e.g., quarterly or semi-annually)

• Establish EE fund as revolving fund. EE funds should aim to be revolving funds, sothat the fund is replenished from internal sources of income.

9.2 Improvements in DEDP’s Designated Facilities Program

• Streamline the procedures and approval processes. The program procedures should beless bureaucratic, and the project and funding approval process must be streamlined toavoid delays and frustration. To achieve this goal, the documentation and otherprocesses related to the program should be revised to be more user-friendly.

• Change perception of DEDP’s role. DEDP should strive to emphasize its role as asupporter and enabler of EE, rather than strictly an enforcer and controller. DEDP hasmeans to support EE investment projects, such as financial support, training, and other


market development activities. DEDP should increase and improve its public relationsand information dissemination campaign to educate end users and the public about theprogram. DEDP can provide technical and other assistance to Designated Facilities tosupport development of their EE investment plans.

• Train experts in industrial process efficiency. Currently, the recommendations fromthe Registered Consultants (RCs) for industrial customers rarely cover process-relatedenergy efficiency measures for each specific sub-sector. DEDP should develop atraining curriculum covering process efficiency measures specific industrial sub-sectors (e.g., industrial processes). The training courses could be provided by anumber of sources, including ACs, university engineering departments, etc. – withassistance from ESCOs and international experts where necessary. Building up a baseof process efficiency expertise among factories themselves and among Thai energyconsultants, is an important prerequisite before Thai industry can begin to tap its largeprocess efficiency potential.

• Improve the technical quality of Registered Consultants. The RCs need to improve thequality of their technical work and become more customer service oriented. This canbe achieved by increasing and improving training for RCs, especially in the area ofinvestment analysis.

• Re-evaluate the two-tiered system of RCs and ACs. Our research for this projectindicated that there is a conflict of interest for many of the ACs who are reviewing thework done by RCs. DEDP should consider revising and improving its procedures forevaluating the quality of the audit reports and assessing whether the current two-tiersystem of RCs and ACs is appropriate for enhanced implementation of EE investmentprojects.

• Consider revising the cumbersome audit procedures. DEDP should consider revisingits current procedures, which require a fairly detailed preliminary audit, followed by acumbersome review process and payment, and then a detailed audit, followed by asimilarly slow review process. We recommend a simpler approach in which DEDPwould provide a partial incentive (e.g., 50% of cost) for a walk-through audit andinitial consultation, to identify the biggest areas for EE improvements. These couldthen be followed by investment-grade audits, which could be conducted by an ESCOor any other qualified firms, and subsidized by the ENCON fund. This subsidy, orincentive, should be paid to the firm only after independent verification that themeasures are installed.

• Emphasize performance-based over prescriptive approach. In terms of emphasis, werecommend that DEDP shift its emphasis away from the current prescriptive approachto an approach based on overall performance of the EE retrofit. In terms of theapproach to requiring audits, DEDP could require an initial walk-through audit andthen simply require implementation of an EE plan, without prescribing the specificaudits or criteria, but instead specifying certain performance targets. This would fitwell with the performance-based approached typically used by ESCOs.

• Promote performance contracting as a way to improve audit quality. The increaseduse of EE performance contracting would reduce the need for “checklist” reviews ofthe preliminary and detailed audits. The performance contract itself acts as a check onthe quality of the audit and implementation. DEDP should assess the ways thatperformance contracting can be promoted in Thailand so that the procedures of theDesignated Facilities program can be modified to be more compatible with the waythat ESCOs and other private-sector EE developers work.

9.3 Promotion of the ESCO Business Model in Thailand

• ESCO reputation. ESCOs should be reputable companies or joint-ventures withdemonstrated sector-specific expertise. They need to develop a portfolio of reliable


references and successful projects in order to increase end-user confidence in thisconcept.

• Performance guarantee. In order to overcome the perceived project risk, ESCOs willhave to guarantee the performance or savings of the EE measures that they install.

• ESCO specialization. To be successful in the industrial sector, ESCOs should developspecialized expertise and credibility in specific sub-sectors.

• Monitoring & verification. ESCOs need to demonstrate that they have a clear,practical, and proven methodology for measuring of energy savings.

• Voluntary ESCO implementation. The ESCO concept should be implemented on avoluntary basis, rather than be incorporated into DEDP’s compulsory program. Thestakeholders we interviewed felt that voluntary EE programs would be moresuccessful than mandatory EE programs.

• Industry certification or accreditation of ESCOs. In order for ESCOs to succeed inThailand, they will have to be seen as a credible business model, and they will need tobuild confidence among customers in their ability to perform high-quality work anddeliver measurable energy and cost savings. Thailand can draw upon examples ofESCO certification in Australia and the United States. In Australia, the AustralasianEnergy Performance Contracting Association (AEPCA), which was formed in 1998,have a procedure for accrediting ESCOs and have defined a standard performancecontract.18 The ESCO industry association in the U.S. is the National Association ofEnergy Service Companies (NAESCO). NAESCO requires that its members verify(as opposed to estimate) the energy savings from their projects. NAESCO has adopteda protocol for verifying energy savings and is working with a number of states in thehope to make it a national standard.19

• Public relations to support ESCOs. Since the ESCO concept is new in Thailand,public relations is an essential tool to raise awareness and interest about this conceptamong end users and banks. It was felt that the government should take the lead onthis PR effort to support the work of ESCOs, trade allies, and other firms supportingthe development of performance contracting and other types of EE projects.

• Promote cooperation between ESCOs and RCs. ESCOs should cooperate withregistered consultants (RCs) to do energy audits in facilities. This will save the cost ofhaving to do the energy audit a second time.

9.4 Establishment of EE Revolving Fund

• Develop an Quick Start Demonstration Phase for the EE revolving fund 1,000 millionbaht (~$23 million). Our estimates of the achievable market potential for EEinvestments in large factories and buildings over a five- to seven-year period rangesfrom 14,000 to 30,000 million baht ($320 to $700 million) in the conservative andoptimistic scenarios, respectively. However, this amount of investment cannot berealized without significant market development and promotional activities. For thatreason, we recommend a Quick Start Demonstration Phase Option that will target 5 to10 facilities per sub-sector over three-year period.20 We thus recommend that in theinitial phase, an ESCO or EE revolving fund should be in the range of 1,000 millionbaht (~$23 million). We believe that this level of investment is likely to be achievedwithin three years, given the current level of interest in EE in the Thai market, thenumber of ESCO and other EE project development firms in the market, and theavailability of a low-interest revolving fund to finance EE investments.

18 More information on the Australian example can be provided by Mr. Yves Lemoine, an independent consultant inAustralia. Fax: +61(2) 9484-2142; e-mail: [email protected] More information about NAESCO training and accreditation can be found by contacting them at 15 M Street, NW, Suite800, Washington, DC 20036. Fax: +1 202 822 0955. Web: www.naesco.org.20 This recommendation is patterned loosely on the World Bank’s Chiller Replacement Fund, which as a demonstrationphase of 210 million baht ($5 million) followed by a second phase of 3,100 million baht ($75 million).


• Target sub-sectors with the highest potential. In the current economic climate, many firmsdo not have a healthy balance sheet or adequate creditworthiness to borrow the fundsneeded for large-scale EE investments. For the “Quick Start” Demonstration Phase, thefund should focus on a few large firms with strong balance sheets. In our macro-economic review, the industrial sub-sectors with the highest capacity utilization were thepetrochemical, food processing and beverage sub-sectors. In general, commercialfacilities have been more severely affected by the economic crisis than industrial sectorfacilities. However, there are significant savings available in all commercial sub-sectors.We recommend that the fund initially target the healthiest firms in the hospital and hotelsub-sectors.


10 APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Potential for Energy Savings Due to Improving Production ProcessesAppendix 2 Summary of Special Funds with Social, Environment, and Social

Development ObjectivesAppendix 3 On-Site Interview Questionnaire – Thai and English VersionsAppendix 4 On-Site Interview Results – Industrial and Commercial FacilitiesAppendix 5 Weighted Energy Savings CalculationAppendix 6 Scenario Weighting FactorsAppendix 7 Industrial and Commercial Energy Savings and Investment Calculation

Appendix 1:

Potential for Energy Savings Due to Improving Production Processes

Summary Table:Potential for Energy Savings Due to Improving the Production Process in Various Industrial Sub-Sectors

EfficiencyProcess Change

Cumulative

OECD 17% 9% 20%East. Europe 42% 8% 47%Latin America 27% 1% 28%APEC 28%Thailand 45%Total Average 29% 6% 34%EU 29%Thailand 7% 7%

EU 19%

Thailand 6% 21%

EU 30%

Thailand 2% 40%

USA 43% 14%

Total Average 23% 27% 30%

Fo

od

& B

ev.

Thailand 8% 12%

Tex

tile

Thailand 6% 35%

Mac

hin

ery

Thailand 6% 18%

Notes:* "Efficiency" refers to the use of more efficient components (e.g. machinery, motors, pumps, boilers, etc.) and practices

(e.g. maintenance, electronic controls, etc.) that improves the energy efficiency of the existing production process.** "Process change" refers to changing to a more energy-efficient production process altogether. For example in the

chemical industry, there are 3 methods of producing caustic soda: mercury process, diaphragm process and membraneprocess. Of these three alternatives, the membrane process consumes the least amount of electricity per ton of causticsoda produced. However, the membrane process is the most expensive in terms of capital investment.

Su

b-S

ecto

r

CountryTechnical Energy Saving Potential

Iro

n &

Ste

elP

aper

Pet

roch

emic

alC

emen

t

Other Industries

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

EUPaper

ThailandPaper

EUPetrochemical

ThailandPetrochemical

EUIron & Steel

ThailandIron & Steel

USAIron & Steel

ThailandFood & Bev.

ThailandTextile

ThailandMachinery


Cement Industry

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

OECD East. Europe LatinAmerica

APEC Thailand


Potential for Energy Savings Due to Improving the Production Process in Various Industrial Sub-Sectors

Literature Source 1: Energy Efficiency and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduction Opportunities in the U.S. Cement Industry , September 1999.Literature Source 2: International Comparison of Energy Efficiency Improvement in the Cement Industry , 1995.Literature Source 3: Energy Efficiency Indicators: A Study of Energy Efficiency Indicators for Industry in APEC Economies, March 2000.Literature Source 4: Energy Consumption by Industrial Processes in the European Union , February 1994.Literature Source 5: Thailand Promotion of Elec Energy Efficiency, Pre-Investment Appraisal, Technical Annexes , November 1992.Literature Source 6: Energy Efficiency and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduction Opportunities in the U.S. Iron and Steel Sector , July 1999.

Literature Source 3

Literature Source 4

Technical Potential

Technical Potential

Technical Potential

Cost-Effective Potential

Efficiency *Process

Change **Efficiency *

Process Change **

Efficiency *Struc.

Change ***

Efficiency + Struc.

Change

Efficiency * + Process

Change **

Efficiency * + Process

Change **Efficiency *

Process Change **

Efficiency * + Process Change

**

Efficiency * + Process Change

**

USA 40% 45% 11% 18% 33% 24% 49% 37%Belgium 23% 7% 28% 25%Denmark 36% 10% 42% 30%France 21% 2% 22% 19%Germany 9% 19% 26% 0%Ireland 21% 3% 24% 16%Luxembourg 0% 5% 5% 1%Netherlands 4% 0% 4% 30%Portugal 7% 0% 8% 0%Spain 13% 2% 15% 10%UK 25% 25% 44% 21%Avg. OECD 17% 9% 24% 15%

Bulgaria 46% 5% 49%Hungary 35% 6% 39%Poland 43% 16% 52%Slovak Rep. 30% 3% 32%former USSR 57% 12% 62%Avg. E. Europe 42% 8% 47%

Argentina 27% 7% 32%Brazil 24% 1% 25%Colombia 41% 0% 43%Costa Rica 18% 0% 18%El Salvador 23% 0% 23%Guatemala 13% 0% 14%Honduras 27% 0% 29%Uruguay 40% 0% 40%Avg. Latin Am. 27% 1% 28%

Australia 28%Canada 35%Japan 1%Korea 33%Mexico 18%Philippines 28%Thailand 45% 5% 10%Avg. APEC 28%Total Average 40% 45% 11% 18% 26% 6% 31% 28% 15% 5% 10%Belgium 17%Denmark 55%France 22%Germany 17%Greece 55%Ireland naItaly 25%LuxembourgNetherlands 13%Portugal naSpain 19%UK 41%Avg. EU 29%Thailand 7% 7%USATotal Average 29% 7% 7%Belgium 30%DenmarkFrance 21%Germany 28%Greece 35%Ireland 11%Italy 23%LuxembourgNetherlands 16%Portugal 34%Spain 1%UK 18%Avg. EU 22%Thailand 6% 21%Total Average 22% 6% 21%Belgium 1%Denmark 0%France 13%Germany 19%Greece 0%Ireland 41%Italy 8%LuxembourgNetherlands 25%Portugal 13%Spain 27%UK 14%Avg. EU 15%Thailand 6% 21%Total Average 15% 6% 21%Belgium 19%Denmark 55%France 27%Germany 23%Greece 51%Ireland naItaly 36%Luxembourg 20%Netherlands 8%Portugal 27%Spain 42%UK 26%Avg. EU 30%Thailand 2% 40%USA 43% 14%Total Average 30% 2% 40% 43% 14%

Fo

od

&B

ev.

Thailand 8% 12%

Tex

tile

Thailand 6% 35%

Mac

hin

ery

Thailand 6% 18%

Notes:* "Efficiency" refers to the use of more efficient components (e.g. machinery, motors, pumps, boilers, etc.) and practices

(e.g. maintenance, electronic controls, etc.) that improves the energy efficiency of the existing production process.** "Process change" refers to changing to a more energy-efficient production process altogether. For example in the

chemical industry, there are 3 methods of producing caustic soda: mercury process, diaphragm process and membraneprocess. Of these three alternatives, the membrane process consumes the least amount of electricity per ton of causticsoda produced. However, the membrane process is the most expensive in terms of capital investment.

*** In the cement industry, "structural change" refers to the use of different materials and additives to blend cement.The energy required to produce cement is a function of the materials and additives used in the blend. Thus this is a method of increasing the process energy efficiency beyond using the best available produciton technology.

Literature Source 1

Technical Potential Cost-Effective PotentialTechnical Potential - Primary Energy

Saving

Literature Source 2 Literature Source 6

Iro

n &

Ste

elP

ulp

& P

aper

Am

mo

nia

Ref

iner

ies

Su

b-S

ecto

r

Technical Potential

Literature Source 5

Cem

ent

Country

Appendix 2:

Summary of Special Funds with Social, Environment,and Social Development Objectives

EnvironmentalFund

Energy ConservationFund

Regional UrbanFund

Social InvestmentFund

Urban CommunityEnvironmental Project

Starting Date 1992 1992 1998 1996 1996Nature ofAssistance

Combination of loans andgrants

Combination of loans and grants Loans Grants Grants

Lendingconditions

1.For local administrations,the loan amount is assignedby the NEF Committee,and the interest rate is set at6.8 % per year. Themaximum grace period is 2years, and the maximumrepayment period is 10years, including the graceperiod.

2. For State enterprises andthe private sector, the loanamount is assigned by theNEF Committee, and theinterest rate is set at 8% peryear. The maximum graceis 2 years and themaximum repaymentperiod is 7 years, includingthegrace period.

In the Compulsory Program Projectswith an EIRR lower than 9 percentare not eligible for subsidy.

For projects up to 2 million bath thesubsidy cannot be larger than 60percent of the total value of thecapital investment. For projects upto 50 million bath, the ceilingsubsidy is put at 10 million bath,For investments in between, themaximum subsidy available rangesbetween 45 and 12 percent of totalcapital investment.

In the Voluntary Program :Subsidies to make a projectfinancially viable, can increase theFIRR up to 5 percent above theMRR of the Krung Thai Bank andthey should:1. Cover expenses for projectproposal preparation and for thepreliminary audits;2. Cover expenses for theimplementation of the project by theVOPs;3. Cover part of investment costs forenergy conserving equipment or forrenewable energy production.

The RUDF allows PLG to borrow not inexcess of 85 and 90 percent of any givenproject’s total investment cost. PLCis requested to cover project costsbetween 10 and 15 percent throughan equity contribution, and toprovide repayments guaranteesbase on the RUDF/IU’s creditappraisals for RUDF loans. No loanfunds can be used for operations.

RUDF operates on a fixed Interestrate, determined by the cost of theWorld Bank funds + foreignexchange risk + 2% GSBadministrative fee + 1% RUDF/TAadministrative fee – 1% of theaverage MLR of the five majorThai commercial bank.

The interest rate adjustingmechanism is revised on a monthlybasis to allow RUDF to becompetitive with the interest ratesoffered by the major commercialbanks.

The Ministry of Finance, throughthe GSB makes the proceeds of theWorld Bank credit available to SIEon a grant basis. SIE coverage isnationwide and coordinates with theSocial investment Project Program.

The average project costs isestimated to be about US$ 10,000,and the maximum grant amountgiven is US$ 250,000. Applicantsare requested to contribute 10percent of the total project costs.

The amount of money that each memberorganization is allowed to borrow from UCDO,the interest rate at which the loan is givenvaries for each different member organization,and its repayment schedule is set based on thememberorganization’s maturity. Outstanding debtPosition and success of previous financedprojects.

Percentage ofDisbursement

Approximately 30% < 25% >5% 10% <55%

Sources ofrevenues

1. Money from the Fuel Oil Fundin the amount predetermined bythe Prime Minister;2. Money transferred from theRevolving Fund forEnvironmental Development andQuality of Life;3. Service fees and penaltiescollected in virtue of NEQA1992;4. Grants from RTG;5. Money or properties donatedby the foreign and domesticprivate sector. by foreigngovernments or internationalorganizations;6. Interest and benefits accruedfrom the NEF;7. Other money received for theoperation of the NEF.

1. Money from the levy on petroleumsales from the Petroleum PriceStabilization Fund;2. Contribution delivered underSection 35,36, and 37 of the EnergyConservation Promotion Act;3. Surcharges collected under Section42 of the Energy ConservationPromotion Act;4. Subsidies from the RTG asappropriate;5. Money or property received fromthe private sector locally and fromoverseas, and from foreigngovernments or internationalorganizations;6. Interest and other benefits incurredfrom the Fund.

RUDF starting capital isapproximately US$ 30 million.

The SIF starting capital is About US$120 million.

The UCDO originalendowment amounts1.3 million.

Stability ofRevenues

Discretionary and unstable Function of lending performance Unstable Unstable Unstable. Function ofLending performance.

Equity 65% transfers35% OECD loan

Up to 50% from ECFUp to 50% from beneficiaries

85/90% from RUDF10/15% from beneficiaries

90% from SIF10% from beneficiaries

90% from UCDO10% from beneficiaries

CapitalEndowment

US $ 200 millions Us $ 16 millions US$ 30 millions US$ 120 millions US $ 1.3 millions

Management MoSTE NEPO and MoSTE NESDB GSB UCDOBeneficiaries • Central wastewater treatment

plant• Central solid waste disposal

facilities• On-site pollution control

equipment

• Government buildings• State companies• Private enterprises

• Local governments • Community organizations• TAO (Tambon Admin Orgs)• Municipalities• NGOs

• Urban communities

Type ofprojectsfinanced

• Central wastewater treatmentplants

• Central solid waste disposalfacilities

• On-site pollution controlequipment

• Energy conservation projects • Basic Infrastructure,• Facilities and Services• Improvement Projects• Employment Generation• Projects

• Projects for improving access tobasic economic and socialproblems

• Infrastructure for the Poor• Employment generation projects;• Decentralization, capacity

building & community• development Projects.

• Household Income ImprovementProjects

• Community Housing ImprovementProjects;

• Environmental• Community Improvement Projects.

Appendix 3:

On-Site Interview Questionnaire – Thai and English Versions

�ºÉ°�¦·¬´��

�¸É°¥¼n� Ã�¦«´¡�r�

�ºÉ°�¼o�·��n°� �ÎµÂ®�n��

ª´��¸É� Â��

*HQHUDO 4XHVWLRQV

4� °¥µ��¦µ�ªnµ�¦·¬´��ÎµÁ�·��»¦�·��¦³Á£�°³Å¦"

4� °¥µ�Ä®o�»��°�Á�¸É¥ª�´�®�oµ�¸É�ªµ¤¦´��·��°��°��»�Ä��¦·¬´��¸Ê"

$ 0DQDJLQJ 'LUHFWRU RU *HQHUDO 0DQDJHU * (QJLQHHULQJ 'HSDUWPHQW 0DQDJHU

% 2WKHU 6HQLRU 0DQDJHPHQW �H[FHSW 0' RU *0� + 3URGXFWLRQ 0DQDJHU

& )DFWRU\ � 3ODQW 0DQDJHU , (QJLQHHU RU 2WKHU 7HFKQLFDO 6WDII

' %XLOGLQJ 0DQDJHU - 2WKHU -XQLRU 6WDII

( 0DLQWHQDQFH � 8WLOLW\ 'HSDUWPHQW 0DQDJHU . 3HUVRQ 5HVSRQVLEOH IRU (QHUJ\ �35(�

) (QHUJ\ 'HSDUWPHQW 0DQDJHU

4� �»�¤¸°Îµ�µ� � nª�¦nª¤ Ä��µ¦�´�·�Ä�Ä��oµ��µ¦¨��»�®¦º°Å¤n

< � ¤¸ ��´�Ã�¥¨³Á°¸¥�� 4��&RPPHQWV

1 � Å¤n¤¸ ��´�Ã�¥¨³Á°¸¥�� 4��&RPPHQWV

,QYHVWPHQW %DFNJURXQG 4XHVWLRQV

4� °¥µ��¦µ�ªnµÄ��nª� � �e�¸É�nµ�¤µ °µ�µ¦ � Ã¦��µ� �°��»�¤¸�µ¦¨��»�°³Å¦�oµ�Å®¤

< � ¤¸ ��´�Ã�¥¨³Á°¸¥�� 4��&RPPHQWV

1 � Å¤n¤¸ ��´�Ã�¥¨³Á°¸¥�� 4��&RPPHQWV

7KDLODQG (6&2 'HYHORSPHQW

3URMHFW� ,QGXVWULDO � &RPPHUFLDO (QHUJ\ (IILFLHQF\ 0DUNHW $VVHVPHQW ,QWHUYLHZ 4XHVWLRQQDLUH

4� Ä�¤»¤¤°��°��¼o�¦·®µ¦� �»��·�ªnµÁ�µÄ�o®¨´�Á��r � �{��´¥°³Å¦Ä��µ¦¡·�µ¦�µ�µ¦¨��»�Ã�¥�´ÉªÅ�"

�¦»�µ�°�°¥nµ��o°¥ � �o°Â¨³Á¦¸¥�¨Îµ�´��ªµ¤Îµ�´� �Ã�¥�¸É � ®¤µ¥�¹� Îµ�´��¸É»� Â¨³ � ®¤µ¥�¹� Îµ�´��o°¥�¸É»��

��¦»�µ°¥nµÂ�³�Îµ�°� Ä®o�¼o�¼�´¤£µ¬�r�°��oª¥�´ªÁ°��

A ��¦³¤µ�Ã�¦��µ¦ � Á�·�¨��»� 0RVW ,PSRUWDQW &ULWHULD� �� 4��

B £µ¡¡��r�¦·¬´� �� 4��

C �¨�°�Â��¸É�¸�µ��µ¦¨��»� � �»o¤�»� �� 4��

D Â®¨n�ª´��»�·�Ä��µ¦�¨·� �� 4��

E Á��Ã�Ã¨¥¸ � �ªµ¤�Îµ�µ� � �ªµ¤¦¼o �¸ÉÄ�oÄ��µ¦¨��»� �� 4��

F �Îµ�¹��¹��¨�¦³��n°·É�Âª�ö°¤

G �Îµ�¹��¹��ªµ¤�¨°�£´¥

H Â®¨n�Á�·��»��´��»�

I £µ¡�ªµ¤�o°��µ¦�°��¨µ�

J �ªµ¤�ÎµÁ�}�Ä��µ¦¨��»�

K �Ã¥�µ¥�¦·¬´�

L �µ¦�´��´��µ�¦´��µ¨ �/DZV DQG 5HJXODWLRQV�

M �¨�¦³��n°��ª��µ¦�¨·� RU RSHUDWLRQ

N �¦´��¦»��»�£µ¡·��oµ

O �ªµ¤�o°��µ¦�°��¼oÁ�nµ � �Îµ�ª��¼oÁ�nµ

P �µ¦¨�¡¨´��µ�

Q �ºÉ°Á¸¥�Â¨³�ªµ¤�nµÁ�ºÉ°�º°�°� 6XSSOLHU

R ¨��o��»� RU UHGXFH RSHUDWLRQ FRVW

S �µ¦�´��»��µ�¦´��µ¨

(QHUJ\ 8VDJH 4XHVWLRQV

4� °µ�µ¦ � Ã¦��µ� Ä�o¡¨´��µ�°³Å¦�oµ�" Â¨³Ä�o�¦³¤µ�Á�nµÅ¦�n°Á�º°�"

�nµÄ�o�nµ¥�oµ�¡¨´��µ��´Ê�®¤� 4�� µ��Á�º°�

µ¤µ¦�Â¥�¦µ¥¨³Á°¸¥��´��¸Ê

Å¢¢jµ 4�� µ��Á�º°�

Å¢¢jµ 4�� ·Ã¨ª´��r�´ÉªÃ¤��n°Á�º°�

Á�ºÊ°Á¡¨·�°ºÉ�Ç 4�� ®�nª¥ 4�� µ��Á�º°�

4�� ®�nª¥ 4�� µ��Á�º°�

4�� ®�nª¥ 4�� µ��Á�º°�

4� �oµÁ�¦¸¥�Á�¸¥��nµ¡¨´��µ� � Å¢¢jµ �´��nµ�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦ �RSHUDWLRQ FRVW� �·�ªnµ�nµ¡¨´��µ��¸ÉÄ�oÁ�}��¸ÉÁ�°¦rÁ�È��r

Á¤ºÉ°Á�¸¥��´��nµ�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦ Ã�¥�nµ�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦Á�}� �� Á�°¦rÁ�È��r

Å¢¢jµ 4�� Á�ºÊ°Á¡¨·�°ºÉ�Ç 4��

�ÎÊµ¤´�Á�µ 4�� 4��

Â�p� �/3*� 1*� 4�� 4��

4� �nª¥�¦»�µÂ¥�¦µ¥¨³Á°¸¥�Á�¸É¥ª�´��µ¦Ä�o¡¨´��µ�Ä�°µ�µ¦ � Ã¦��µ� �°��»��´��¸Ê

Ã¦��µ�

Å¢¢jµ 4�� Â�ªnµ�

4�� ¦³��¦´�°µ�µ« �Á�n� &KLOOHU� )DQ FRLO� $+8�

4�� ª��µ¦�¨·�Ã�¥¦ª¤

4�� ¤°Á�°¦r

4�� {�¤

4�� µ¦�Îµ�ªµ¤¦o°� � Å°�ÎÊµ

4�� µ¦�Îµ�ªµ¤Á¥È� � Â�nÂ�È�

4�� ª��µ¦Ä�o°ºÉ�Ç �¸ÉÄ�oÅ¢¢jµ

4�� 2WKHU

Ã¦��µ�

Á�ºÊ°Á¡¨·� 4�� ª��µ¦�¨·�Ã�¥¦ª¤

4�� µ¦�Îµ�ªµ¤¦o°� � Å°�ÎÊµ Á�n� ®¤o°�ÎÊµ �%RLOHU�

4�� µ¦�Îµ�ªµ¤Á¥È� � Â�nÂ�È�

4�� ª��µ¦Ä�o°ºÉ�Ç �¸ÉÄ�oÁ�ºÊ°Á¡¨·�

4�� (OHFWULFLW\ JHQHUDWLRQ

°µ�µ¦

Å¢¢jµ 4�� Â�ªnµ�

4�� ¦³��¦´�°µ�µ« �Á�n� &KLOOHU� )DQ FRLO� $+8�

4�� ´�Å�Á¨ºÉ°� � ¨·¢�m

4�� {�¤

4�� °»��¦�rÁ�¦ºÉ°�Ä�oÅ¢¢jµ �¡´�¨¤� Á�¦ºÉ°��nµ¥Á°�µ¦ ²¨²�

4�� ª��µ¦Ä�o°ºÉ�Ç�¸ÉÄ�oÅ¢¢jµ

°µ�µ¦

Á�ºÊ°Á¡¨·� 4�� Á�¦ºÉ°��Îµ�ÎÊµ¦o°� 4�� nµÁ�ºÊ°Ã¦�

4�� ¦³��´�¦¸� 4�� (OHFWULFLW\ JHQHUDWLRQ

4�� °ºÉ�Ç

4� ¤¸�ªµ¤Á�}�Å�Å�oÅ®¤�¸É�³¤¸�µ¦�¦´��¦»��oµ��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�Ä�°µ�µ¦ � Ã¦��µ� �°��»�

A Á�}�Å�Å�o �µ¤�n°�o° �

B Á�}�Å�Å¤nÅ�o �µ¤�n°�o° �� 4��&RPPHQWV

4�� ¸É�nµ�¤µ °µ�µ¦ � Ã¦��µ� �°��»�¤¸�µ¦�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦ � ¤µ�¦�µ¦�oµ��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�®¦º°Å¤n

A ¤¸ �µ¤�n°�o° ��

B Å¤n¤¸ Á¡¦µ³°³Å¦ 4��&RPPHQWV

4�� ¤µ�¦�µ¦°³Å¦�¸É�Îµ¤µÄ�oÄ��µ¦�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦�¦´��¦»��oµ��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ� �´Ê�Ä��{��»�´� � °�µ��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� /LJKWLQJ � ,QVWDOO ORZ�ORVV EDOODVW �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� /LJKWLQJ � ,QVWDOO HOHFWURQLF EDOODVW �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� /LJKWLQJ � ,QVWDOO UHIOHFWRUV �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� /LJKWLQJ � 8VH FRPSDFW IOXRUHVFHQW ODPS �&)/� �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� /LJKWLQJ � 5HGXFH TXDQWLW\ RI ODPSV �GH�ODPSLQJ� �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� /LJKWLQJ � &RQWURO�UHGXFH RSHUDWLRQ WLPH RI OLJKWLQJ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� $�& � &OHDQLQJ DQG PDLQWHQDQFH �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� $�& � ,QVWDOO KLJK ((5 $�& HTXLSPHQW �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� $�& � ,QVWDOO KLJK ((5 FKLOOHU �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� $�& � &RQWURO�UHGXFH RSHUDWLRQ WLPH RI $�& V\VWHP �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� $�& � &RQWURO YHQWLODWLRQ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� $�& � ,QVWDOO ZDOO DQG�RU URRI LQVXODWLRQ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� $�& � ,QVWDOO ZLQGRZ ILOP WR UHGXFH VRODU UDGLDWLRQ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� $�& � 8VH KHDW UHIOHFWLQJ SDLQW RQ EXLOGLQJ H[WHULRU �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� %RLOHU�)XUQDFH � 5HFRYHU KHDW � XVH HFRQRPL]HU �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� %RLOHU�)XUQDFH � ,PSURYH FRPEXVWLRQ HIILFLHQF\ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� %RLOHU�)XUQDFH � 5HFRYHU EORZ�GRZQ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 6WHDP 6\VWHP � 5HFRYHU FRQGHQVDWH �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 6WHDP 6\VWHP � &KDQJH�)L[ VWHDP WUDS �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 6WHDP 6V\WHP � 5HGXFH VWHDP OHDNDJH �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 6WHDP 6\VWHP � &RQWURO�UHGXFH WKH XVH RI VWHDP �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 6WHDP 6\VWHP � ,PSURYH IHHG ZDWHU TXDOLW\ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 0RWRU � 8VH DSSURSULDWHO\�VL]HG PRWRUV �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 2WKHUV � &RQWURO�UHGXFH HOHYDWRU RSHUDWLRQ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 2WKHUV � &RQWURO�UHGXFH XVH RI SXPSV �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 2WKHUV � &RQWURO�UHGXFH FRPSUHVVHG DLU OHDNDJH �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

4�� °¥µ��¦µ�ªnµ °µ�µ¦ � Ã¦��µ� �°��»��´��nµÄ�o�nµ¥Ä��oµ��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�°¥¼nÄ��¦³Á£�°³Å¦

��nª¥�¦»�µÂ��Â��¦µ¥¨³Á°¸¥��

$ �nµ�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦��·�´�·�µ¦ Â¨³�Îµ¦»�¦´�¬µ 4��&RPPHQWV

�2SHUDWLRQ DQG 0DLQWHQDQFH &RVW�

% ��¦³¤µ��µ¦¨��»� 4��&RPPHQWV

�&DSLWDO %XGJHW�

4�� ·�ªnµ�nµÄ�o�nµ¥�oµ��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�Á�}��¸ÉÁ�°¦rÁ�È��rÁ¤ºÉ°Á�¸¥��´��nµ�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦ � �¦´¡¥r·� �RSHUDWLRQ FRVW �

&DSLWDO EXGJHW� Ã�¥�nµ�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦ � �¦´¡¥r·� Á�}� �� Á�°¦rÁ�È��r

4�� °��nµ�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦��·�´�·�µ¦ Â¨³�Îµ¦»�¦´�¬µ

4�� °��¦³¤µ��µ¦¨��»�

4�� °¥µ��¦µ�ªnµ�»�¤¸®¨´�Á��r � �{��´¥°³Å¦Ä��µ¦¡·�µ¦�µ�µ¦¨��»��oµ��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�"



A ��¦³¤µ�Ã�¦��µ¦ � Á�·�¨��»� 0RVW ,PSRUWDQW &ULWHULD� �� 4��

B �Îµ�¹��¹��¨�¦³��n°·É�Âª�ö°¤ �� 4��

C Á��Ã�Ã¨¥¸ � �ªµ¤�Îµ�µ� � �ªµ¤¦¼o �¸ÉÄ�oÄ��µ¦¨��»��oµ��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ� �� 4��

D �Ã¥�µ¥�¦·¬´��¸É �´��»��Å¤n�´��»� �µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ� �� 4��

E �¨�°�Â��¸É�¸�µ��µ¦¨��»� � �»o¤�»� �� 4��

F �Îµ�¹��¹��ªµ¤�¨°�£´¥

G �Ã¥�µ¥�°�¦´��µ¨ �/DZV DQG 5HJXODWLRQV�

H Â®¨n�Á�·��»��´��»�

I �ªµ¤�ÎµÁ�}�Ä��µ¦¨��»�

J �ªµ¤Á�}�Å�Å�o�°��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�

K ¨��o��»�Ä��µ¦�¨·� RU UHGXFH RSHUDWLRQ FRVW

L �¨�¦³��n°��ª��µ¦�¨·� � RSHUDWLRQ ®¦¸°�»�£µ¡·��oµ

M �»�£µ¡°»��¦�r�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�

N �ªµ¤Å¤n³�ª��¸É°µ�Á�·��¹Ê� Á�n� �n°£µ¡Âª�ö°¤�µ¦�Îµ�µ�

O �ªµ¤¥µ��nµ¥Ä��µ¦�ÎµÁ�·�¤µ�¦�µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�

P Áª¨µ�¸ÉÄ�oÄ��µ¦�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦

Q Á�¦ºÉ°��´�¦�o°��Îµ�µ�Å�oÁ®¤º°�Á�·¤

4�� oµ¤¤»�·ªnµ¤¸ � Ã�¦��µ¦�¸ÉÄ®o�»��´�·�Ä�¨��»� Ã�¥Ã�¦��µ¦�¸É� Á�}��µ¦¨��»��oµ��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�

Ã�¦��µ¦�¸É� Á�}�Ã�¦��µ¦¨��»��´ÉªÅ� �»��³�´�·�Ä�¨��»�Ã�¦��µ¦Ä�Á�}�Ã�¦��µ¦Â¦�

A Ã�¦��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ� Á¡¦µ³ 4��&RPPHQWV

B Ã�¦��µ¦¨��»��´ÉªÅ� Á¡¦µ³ 4��&RPPHQWV

4�� »�Å�o¦´��o°¤¼¨�¸ÉÄ�o�¦³�°�Ä��µ¦�´�·�Ä��oµ��µ¦¨��»��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ� Á�n� ¦µ�µ°»��¦�r� Á��Ã�Ã¨¥¸

�µ�Â®¨n�Å®�" Â¨³�nª¥Á¦¸¥�¨Îµ�´��ªµ¤Îµ�´��°�Â�n¨³Â®¨n��o°¤¼¨

A -RXUQDO DQG 0DJD]LQHV ,QIR��'DWD 6RXUFH �� 4��

B *RYHUQPHQW $JHQFLHV ,QIR��'DWD 6RXUFH �� 4��

C 0DQXIDFWXUHUV DQG 6XSSOLHUV ,QIR��'DWD 6RXUFH �� 4��

D 5HJLVWHUHG &RQVXOWDQWV ,QIR��'DWD 6RXUFH �� 4��

E $FFUHGLWHG &RQVXOWDQWV ,QIR��'DWD 6RXUFH �� 4��

F 2WKHU &RQVXOWDQWV

G (QHUJ\ ,QIRUPDWLRQ &HQWHUV

H 7UDLQLQJ � 6HPLQDUV � ([KLELWLRQ

I 8VH RZQ FDSDELOLW\

J ®�´�º°¡·¤¡r ®¦º° Ã�¦�´«�r

K �o°¤¼¨�µ��nµ��¦³Á�«

L ,QWHUQHW

4�� °³Å¦�¸ÉÁ�}�°»�¦¦��¸ÉÎµ�´�Ä��µ¦¨��»�Á�¸É¥ª�´��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�"



A ��¦³¤µ�Ã�¦��µ¦ � Á�·�¨��»�

B �¨�¦³��n°·É�Âª�ö°¤

C Å¤n¤¸�ªµ¤¦¼o�ªµ¤�Îµ�µ� � �µ�Á��Ã�Ã¨¥¸ Á�¸É¥ª�´��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�

D �¼o�¦·®µ¦Å¤nÁ�oµÄ� � Å¤nÄ®o�ªµ¤¦nª¤¤¸° Á�¸É¥ª�´��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�

E �¨�°�Â��¸É�¸�µ��µ¦¨��»� � �»o¤�»�

F �¨�¦³��n°��ª��µ¦�¨·� RU RSHUDWLRQ

G Å¤n¤¸Â¦��¼�Ä� � �µ¦�´��´� �µ�£µ�¦´��µ¨ �Á�n� �µ¦¨�£µ¬¸ ®¦º° �µ¦�¦´��¸É�´�Á��

H °»��¦�r�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�¤¸¦µ�µ¼�

I Å¤nÅ�o¦´��ªµ¤¦nª¤¤º°�µ�¡�´��µ�

J �ªµ¤Å¤n³�ª��¸É°µ�Á�·��¹Ê� 0RVW ,PSRUWDQW %DUULHU� �� 4��

K Å¤n¤¸�µ¦¦´��¦³�´��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ� �� 4��

L Å¤n¤¸�o°¤¼¨ � �ÎµÂ�³�Îµ Á�¸É¥ª�´��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ� �� 4��

M Å¤n¤¸Â®¨n�Á�·��»��´��»� �� 4��

N Å¤n¤¸Á�¦ºÉ°�¤º°ª´�¡¨´��µ� �� 4��

O �{�®µ�oµ�Á��·�

P �Ã¥�µ¥�°�¦´��µ¨Å¤n�´�Á�� ¤¸�µ¦Á�¨¸É¥�Â�¨�

Q VWLOO DEOH WR XVH H[LVWLQJ HTXLSPHQW

R SRRU TXDOLW\ RI HQHUJ\ HIILFLHQF\ HTXLSPHQW

4�� »��·�ªnµ°»�¦¦��nµ�Ç �ª¦Â�oÅ�°¥nµ�Å¦ �¦»�µ�°�°¥nµ��o°¥ � �o°

A °»��¦�r�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ��ª¦¦µ�µ�¼�¨� Â¨³�»�£µ¡�¸ 6ROXWLRQ� �� 4��

B �ª¦¤¸Â®¨n�Á�·��»��´��»� �� 4��

C �ª¦¤¸�´°¤¼¨ � �µ¦°�¦¤ Â¨³�µ¦´¤¤�µÁ¦ºÉ°��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�¤µ��¹Ê� �� 4��

D (VFR &RQFHSW �� 4��

E ¦´��µ¨Ä®o�µ¦�´��»� Á�n� �oµ��µ¦Á�·�� ®¤µ¥� �µ¦¨�£µ¬¸ �� 4��

F ¤¸Ã�¦��µ¦��¨°�Ä®oÁ®È�Á�}�®¨´��µ�

G Ä®o�ªµ¤¦¼oÁ�¸É¥ª�´��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�Â�n¡�´��µ�

H 7KH IDFLOLW\ VKRXOG REWDLQ PHDVXULQJ LQVWUXPHQWV DQG RWKHU HTXLSPHQW � WHFKQRORJLHV VR WKH\ FDQ GR (( SURMHFWV�

I Å¤n¤¸�¨�¦³��n°��ª��µ¦�¨·�®¦º°Å¤n�ª¦¤¸�ªµ¤Å¤n³�ª�Á�·��¹Ê�

J �¦·¬´��¸É�¦¹�¬µ�ª¦Ä®o�ÎµÂ�³�Îµ¤µ��ªnµ�¸Ê

K Á�·��¸ÉÅ�o�µ��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ��ª¦�º�¼n¡�´��µ�

L ¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�nµ¥Â¨³�¨�°�Â��¼�Â¨³Á¦Èª �ª¦Å�o¦´�¡·�µ¦�µÄ®o�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦�n°�

M 6XSSOLHU �ª¦�³�nµÁ�ºÉ°�º°Â¨³�µ¥·��oµ�»�£µ¡

N ¡¥µ¥µ¤�ÎµÄ®o�¼o�¦·®µ¦¤¸�ªµ¤Á�oµÄ�Á¦ºÉ°��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�

'('3V 'HVLJQDWHG )DFLOLWLHV 3URJUDP 4XHVWLRQV

4�� »��¦µ�Á�¸É¥ª�´�Ã�¦��µ¦�ª��»¤°µ�µ¦Â¨³Ã¦��µ� �°��¦¤¡´��µÂ¨³n�Á¦·¤¡¨´��µ�®¦º°Å¤n

< � �¦µ� ��nª¥Á¨nµÃ�¥¨³Á°¸¥�� 4��&RPPHQWV

1 � Å¤n�¦µ� ��nª¥Á¨nµÃ�¥¨³Á°¸¥�� 4��&RPPHQWV

4�� Å¤n�¦µ�ªnµ°µ�µ¦ � Ã¦��µ� �°��»�¦nª¤�´�Ã�¦��µ¦�¸ÊÅ®¤

A Á�oµ¦nª¤ �µ¤�n°�o° ��

B Å¤n¦nª¤ �µ¤�n°�o° �� Á¡¦µ³ 4��&RPPHQWV

4�� ³�¸Ê°µ�µ¦ � Ã¦��µ� �°��»�°¥¼nÄ��´Ê��°�Å®��°�Ã�¦��µ¦"

A ¤¸Á�oµ®�oµ�¸É¦´��·��°��oµ�¡¨´��µ�

B �µ¦Îµ¦ª�¡¨´��µ�Á�ºÊ°��o� �3UHOLPLQDU\ HQHUJ\ DXGLW� �µ¤�n°�o° ��

C �µ¦Îµ¦ª�¡¨´��µ�Ã�¥¨³Á°¸¥� �'HWDLOHG HQHUJ\ DXGLW� �µ¤�n°�o° ��

D �´Ê��·�´�·�µ¦ � �ÎµÁ�·��µ��oµ��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ� �µ¤�n°�o° ��

E °ºÉ�Ç

4�� ®¨´��µ��µ¦Îµ¦ª�� ¤µ�¦�µ¦°³Å¦�¸ÉÅ�o¦´��µ¦Â�³�ÎµÄ®o�Îµ¤µ�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦�¦´��¦»��oµ��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� /LJKWLQJ � ,QVWDOO ORZ�ORVV EDOODVW �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� /LJKWLQJ � ,QVWDOO HOHFWURQLF EDOODVW �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� /LJKWLQJ � ,QVWDOO UHIOHFWRUV � ,PSURYH OXPLQDLUH HIILFLHQF\ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� /LJKWLQJ � 8VH FRPSDFW IOXRUHVFHQW ODPS �&)/� �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� /LJKWLQJ � 8VH PRUH HIILFLHQW OLJKWLQJ WHFKQRORJ\ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� /LJKWLQJ � 5HGXFH TXDQWLW\ RI ODPSV �GH�ODPSLQJ� �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� /LJKWLQJ � &RQWURO�UHGXFH RSHUDWLRQ WLPH RI OLJKWLQJ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� $�& � &OHDQLQJ DQG PDLQWHQDQFH �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É� $�& � ,QVWDOO KLJK ((5 $�& HTXLSPHQW �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� $�& � ,QVWDOO KLJK ((5 FKLOOHU �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� $�& � ,QVWDOO DEVRUSWLRQ FKLOOHU �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� $�& � 8VH DGHTXDWH WHPSHUDWXUH VHWSRLQW �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� $�& � ,QVWDOO HOHFWURQLF WKHUPRVWDW �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� $�& � &RQWURO�UHGXFH VXSSO\ DLU �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� $�& � ,PSURYH�LQVWDOO ZDOO DQG�RU URRI LQVXODWLYH SURSHUWLHV �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� $�& � ,QVWDOO ZLQGRZ ILOP WR UHGXFH VRODU UDGLDWLRQ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� $�& � 5HGXFH KHDW GXH WR VRODU UDGLDWLRQ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� %RLOHU�)XUQDFH � 5HFRYHU KHDW � XVH HFRQRPL]HU �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� %RLOHU�)XUQDFH � ,PSURYH FRPEXVWLRQ HIILFLHQF\ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� %RLOHU�)XUQDFH � 5HFRYHU EORZ�GRZQ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� %RLOHU�)XUQDFH � 5HGXFH VWHDP SUHVVXUH LQ ERLOHU �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� %RLOHU�)XUQDFH � 5HSODFH ERLOHU �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 6WHDP 6\VWHP � 5HFRYHU FRQGHQVDWH �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 6WHDP 6\VWHP � &KDQJH�)L[ VWHDP WUDS �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 6WHDP 6V\WHP � 5HGXFH VWHDP OHDNDJH �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 6WHDP 6\VWHP � ,QVWDOO LQVXODWLRQ RQ VWHDP SLSHV �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 0RWRU � 8VH DSSURSULDWHO\�VL]HG PRWRUV �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 0RWRU � ,QVWDOO KLJK HIILFLHQF\ PRWRU �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 0RWRU � ,QVWDOO LQYHUWHU WR FRQWURO PRWRU VSHHG �96'� �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� (OHFWULFDO � &RUUHFW SRZHU IDFWRU �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� (OHFWULFDO � ,PSURYH WUDQVIRUP V\VWHP HIILFLHQF\ �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 3URFHVV � 5HGXFH FRPSUHVVHG DLU OHDNDJH �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 3URFHVV � ,QVWDOO KLJK HIILFLHQF\ DLU FRPSUHVVRU �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 3URFHVV � 3UHKHDW UDZ PDWHULDO �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 2WKHUV � ,QVWDOO NH\ VZLWFK �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 2WKHUV � ,QVWDOO FRJHQHUDWLRQ HTXLSPHQW �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É�� 2WKHUV � ,QVWDOO HOHFWULFLW\ JHQHUDWLRQ HTXLSPHQW �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�� 4��

4�� ®¨´��µ��µ¦Îµ¦ª�¡¨´��µ�� »��·�ªnµ¤µ��µ¦�¸ÉÅ�o¦´��ÎµÂ�³�Îµ�³µ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�Å�o�¦³¤µ�Á�nµÅ¦"

A �oµ¤¸�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦� �³µ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�Å�o ¤µ��ªnµ �µ¦�µ�®¤µ¥�µ��¦¤²

B �oµ¤¸�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦� �³µ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�Å�o �o°¥�ªnµ �µ¦�µ�®¤µ¥�µ��¦¤²

C �oµ¤¸�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦� �³µ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�Å�o Á�nµ�´� �µ¦�µ�®¤µ¥�µ��¦¤²

4�� :LOO � +DYH \RXU FRPSDQ\ LPSOHPHQWHG DQ\ RI WKH UHFRPPHQGHG PHDVXUHV " �<�1� 4��

Â¨³¤µ�¦�µ¦°³Å¦�¸É�Îµ¨´� � Ä�°�µ�� ÎµÁ�·��µ¦�¦´��¦»��oµ��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ��µ¤�ÎµÂ�³�Îµ

¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸É �µ�®ª´�ªnµµ¤µ¦��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ� �ÎµÁ�·��µ¦Â¤oÅ¤nÅ�o¦´��ÎµÂ�³�Îµ

� /LJKWLQJ � ,QVWDOO ORZ�ORVV EDOODVW 4�� 4��

� /LJKWLQJ � ,QVWDOO HOHFWURQLF EDOODVW 4�� 4��

� /LJKWLQJ � ,QVWDOO UHIOHFWRUV 4�� 4��

� /LJKWLQJ � 8VH FRPSDFW IOXRUHVFHQW ODPS �&)/� 4�� 4��

� /LJKWLQJ � 5HGXFH TXDQWLW\ RI ODPSV �GH�ODPSLQJ� 4�� 4��

� /LJKWLQJ � &RQWURO�UHGXFH RSHUDWLRQ WLPH RI OLJKWLQJ 4�� 4��

� $�& � &OHDQLQJ DQG PDLQWHQDQFH 4�� 4��

� $�& � ,QVWDOO KLJK ((5 $�& HTXLSPHQW 4�� 4��

� $�& � ,QVWDOO KLJK ((5 FKLOOHU 4�� 4��

�� $�& � &RQWURO�UHGXFH RSHUDWLRQ WLPH RI $�& V\VWHP 4�� 4��

�� $�& � ,QVWDOO HOHFWURQLF WKHUPRVWDW 4�� 4��

�� $�& � ,QVWDOO ZDOO DQG�RU URRI LQVXODWLRQ 4�� 4��

�� $�& � ,QVWDOO ZLQGRZ ILOP WR UHGXFH VRODU UDGLDWLRQ 4�� 4��

�� $�& � 8VH KHDW UHIOHFWLQJ SDLQW RQ EXLOGLQJ H[WHULRU 4�� 4��

�� %RLOHU�)XUQDFH � 5HFRYHU KHDW � XVH HFRQRPL]HU 4�� 4��

�� %RLOHU�)XUQDFH � ,PSURYH FRPEXVWLRQ HIILFLHQF\ 4�� 4��

�� %RLOHU�)XUQDFH � 5HFRYHU EORZ�GRZQ 4�� 4��

�� 6WHDP 6\VWHP � 5HFRYHU FRQGHQVDWH 4�� 4��

�� 6WHDP 6\VWHP � &KDQJH�)L[ VWHDP WUDS 4�� 4��

�� 6WHDP 6V\WHP � 5HGXFH VWHDP OHDNDJH 4�� 4��

�� 6WHDP 6\VWHP � &RQWURO�UHGXFH WKH XVH RI VWHDP 4�� 4��

�� 6WHDP 6\VWHP � ,PSURYH IHHG ZDWHU TXDOLW\ 4�� 4��

�� 0RWRU � ,QVWDOO KLJK HIILFLHQF\ PRWRU 4�� 4��

�� 0RWRU � ,QVWDOO LQYHUWRU WR FRQWURO PRWRU VSHHG �96'� 4�� 4��

�� 2WKHUV � ,QVWDOO FRJHQHUDWLRQ HTXLSPHQW 4�� 4��

4�� »�¦¼o¹�°¥nµ�Å¦Á�¸É¥ª�´�Ã�¦��µ¦�¸Ê

A ¡°Ä�°¥nµ�¥·É�

B �n°��oµ�¡°Ä�

C Å¤n¡°Ä�

D Å¤n¡°Ä�°¥nµ�¥·É�

E 1R RSLQLRQ �1HXWUDO�

4�� nª¥�¦»�µ�°�Á®�»�¨ªnµÁ¡¦µ³°³Å¦�»��¹�¦¼o¹�°¥nµ��´Ê� �Ä��o° ��

A 7KH 3URJUDP KHOSV WR UDLVH DZDUHQHVV DERXW HQHUJ\ HIILFLHQF\�FRQVHUYDWLRQ�

B 7KH 3URJUDP KHOSV 7KDLODQG WR VDYH HQHUJ\ DQG FRQVHUYH WKH HQYLURQPHQW� &RPPHQW �� 4��

C 7KH 3URJUDP KHOSV WKH IDFLOLW\ WR VDYH HQHUJ\ DQG UHGXFH FRVWV� &RPPHQW �� 4��

D 7KH 3URJUDP KHOSV WKH IDFLOLW\ WR EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQG WKHLU RZQ HQHUJ\ XVDJH� &RPPHQW �� 4��

E 7KH 3URJUDP KDV PRQH\ WR VXSSRUW HQHUJ\ DXGLWV DQG�RU HIILFLHQF\ LPSURYHPHQWV�

F 7KHUH LV D QHHG IRU D PRUH FRQWLQXRXV LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH 3URJUDP�

G 7KH 3URJUDP LV QRW DQ HIIHFWLYH�HIILFLHQW XVH RI JRYHUQPHQW PRQH\�

H 7KH 3URJUDP GRHV QRW JLYH HQRXJK PRQH\ PRQH\ WR VXSSRUW HQHUJ\ HIILFLHQF\ LQYHVWPHQWV�

I '('3 GRHV QRW FRQGXFW HQRXJK SXEOLF UHODWLRQV DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ GLVVHPLQDWLRQ DERXW WKH 3URJUDP�

J 7KH GRFXPHQWDWLRQ DQG�RU RWKHU SURFHVVHV RI WKH 3URJUDP LV WRR FRPSOLFDWHG�

K 7KH SURFHVV WR DSSURYH HQHUJ\ DXGLW UHSRUWV LV WRR VORZ�

L 'RFXPHQWV VXEPLWHG WR '('3 DUH ORVW�

M 7KH IDFLOLW\ LV QRW VDWLVILHG ZLWK WKH UHJLVWHUHG FRQVXOWDQWV ZRUN DQG�RU FXVWRPHU VHUYLFH�

N 7KH IDFLOLW\ LV QRW VDWLVILHG ZLWK WKH DFFUHGLWHG FRQVXOWDQWV ZRUN DQG�RU FXVWRPHU VHUYLFH�

O 7KH IDFLOLW\ LV QRW VDWLVILHG ZLWK WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKH HQHUJ\ DXGLW�

P 7KH UHJLVWHUHG FRQVXOWDQW UHFRPPHQGV PHDVXUHV WKDW DUH WRR VLPSOLVWLF�

Q 7KH IDFLOLW\ LV DOUHDG\ LPSOHPHQWLQJ WKH PHDVXUHV UHFRPPHQGHG E\ WKH UHJLVWHUHG FRQVXOWDQW�

R 7KH SUHOLPLQDU\ HQHUJ\ DXGLW LV QRW ZRUWK WKH PRQH\ SDLG WR WKH UHJLVWHUHG FRQVXOWDQW�

S 7KH UHJLVWHUHG FRQVXOWDQW QHHG WR UHFRPPHQG PRUH SURFHVV�UHODWHG HQHUJ\ HIILFLHQF\ PHDVXUHV�

T 7KH IDFLOLW\ LV XQDEOH WR IROORZ WKH UHJLVWHUHG FRQVXOWDQWV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV�

4�� »��·�ªnµ�»��³Å�o¦´� �¦³Ã¥��r°³Å¦�µ�Ã�¦��µ¦�¸Ê

A 7KH 3URJUDP KHOSV WR UHGXFH SURGXFWLRQ FRVWV�

B 7KH 3URJUDP KHOSV WR UHGXFH RSHUDWLRQ FRVWV DQG HQHUJ\ ELOO� &RPPHQW �� 4��

C 7KH 3UJUDP KHOSV WKH IDFLOLW\ WR NHHS DEUHDVW ZLWK QHZ GHYHORSPHQWV LQ WHFKQRORJ\� &RPPHQW �� 4��

D 7KH 3URJUDP KHOSV WR LQFUHDVH LQWHUHVW LQ HQHUJ\ HIILFLHQF\�FRQVHUYDWLRQ� &RPPHQW �� 4��

E 7KH 3URJUDP KHOSV WR LQFUHDVH DZDUHQHVV LQ HQHUJ\ HIILFLHQF\�FRQVHUYDWLRQ�

F 7KH 3URJUDP KHOSV WR LQFUHDVH HQHUJ\ HIILFLHQF\�FRQVHUYDWLRQ VWDQGDUGV�

G 7KH 3URJUDP LV JRRG EHFDXVH WKHUH LV PRQH\ WR VXSSRUW HQHUJ\ HIILFLHQF\ LPSURYHPHQWV�

H 7KH 3URJUDP DOORZV WKH IDFLOLW\ WR LGHQWLI\ ZKHUH�KRZ WR LPSURYH WKHLU HQHUJ\ HIILFLHQF\�

I 7KH 3URJUDP KHOSV WKH IDFLOLW\ WR PHHW RWKHUV ZRUNLQJ RQ HQHUJ\ HIILFLHQF\�FRQVHUYDWLRQ�

J 7KH IDFLOLW\ KDV QRW EHQHILWHG IURP WKH 3URJUDP�

4�� »��¦³��{�®µ°»�¦¦�°³Å¦Ä��µ¦Á�oµ¦nª¤Ã�¦��µ¦�¸Ê


A �´Ê��°�¥»n�¥µ�

B �o°��µ¦�ªµ¤�Îµ�µ� � Á��Ã�Ã¨¥¸ Á�¸É¥ª�´��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�¤µ��ªnµ�¸Ê

C Å¤n¤¸��¨�Ã�¬ � �µ¦�¦´��¸É�´�Á�� °�¦´��µ¨

D Å¤nÅ�o¦´��ÎµÂ�³�Îµ�¸�¸ �µ��¼oÁ�¸É¥ª�µ��oµ��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�

E Ã�¦��µ¦�¸ÊÁ®¤µ³�´��ª��»¤°µ�µ¦¤µ��ªnµÃ¦��µ�Á�ºÉ°��µ�Ã¦��µ�¤¸�µ¦��·�´�·�µ¦�oµ��¸Ê°¥¼nÂöª

F Å¤n¤¸Â®¨n�Á�·��»��´��»�

G �¦¤² �Îµ�µ�¨nµ�oµ Á�n� �µ¦°�»¤´�·Á�·�� µ¦°�»¤´�·¦µ¥�µ�� µ¦°�»¤´�·Â�n��´Ê��¼o¦´��·��°�¡¨´��µ�� µ¦¦´�Á°�µ¦

H Å¤n�n°¥¤¸�µ¦�¦³µ��µ�¦³®ªnµ��¼o�¦³�°��µ¦� $& Â¨³ 5& Á�n� �µ¦�·��n°ºÉ°µ¦

I �o°¤¼¨Ä�¦µ¥�µ�Å¤n�n°¥¨³Á°¸¥� RU UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV DUH WRR VLPSOH

J Á�¦ºÉ°�¤º°�¦ª�ª´�¡¨´��µ�Å¤n¡¦o°¤

K Á�·��nª¥Á®¨º°�o°¥Á�·�Å�

L �µ¦�¦´��¦»��oµ��¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ� °µ��³�µ¦³��ª��µ¦�¨·� %DUULHU� �� 4��

M �ÎµÂ�³�Îµnª�Ä®�n�³�o°�Ä�o�»�¼�Â¨³¦³¥³�»o¤�»��µ�Á�·�Å� �� 4��

N $& Å¤n�n°¥¤¸�»�£µ¡Â¨³Å¤n�nµÁ�ºÉ°�º° �� 4��

O �¦¤² Å¤n�ª��»¤�¼Â¨�»�£µ¡ 5& �� 4��

P 5& Å¤n�n°¥¤¸�»�£µ¡Â¨³Å¤n�nµÁ�ºÉ°�º° �� 4��

Q '('3 GRHV QRW GR HQRXJK SXEOLF RXWUHDFK DQG SXEOLF UHODWLRQV�

R QR FOHDU PHWKRG RI PHDVXUHPHQW DQG YHULILFDWLRQ RI HQHUJ\ VDYLQJV�

4�� ·�ªnµ�nµ�³Â�oÅ� � �¦´��¦»�°¥nµ�Å¦Å®¤Á¡ºÉ°Ä®oÃ�¦��µ¦�¸Ê�¸�¹Ê� � �nµ�Ä��¹Ê�Ä�°�µ��"

A ¨��´Ê��°��nµ�Ç¨� Â¨³¦³¥³Áª¨µÃ�¦��µ¦�µ�Á�·�Å�

B ¤µ�¦�µ¦�ª��»¤�µ¦��·�´�·Ä��¸É�Îµ�µ��³Á®È��¨¤µ��ªnµ�µ¦Â�³�ÎµÁ��Ã�Ã¨¥¸ ®¦º°°»��¦�r

C �¦¤² �ª¦�nª¥Á®¨º°�oµ��µ¦Á�·� ®¦º°�µ¥°»��¦�rÄ�¦µ�µ�ÎÉµ

D �Îµ�ª��»��¨µ�¦�°��¦¤² �ª¦¤¸Ä®oÁ¡¸¥�¡°�n°�Îµ�ª�Ã¦��µ� � °µ�µ¦

E �¦¤² �ª¦Â�o��nµªµ¦�nµ� Ä®o¦´��¦µ� Á�n� �µ¦Á�¨¸É¥�Â�¨�� ´Ê��°�Ã�¦��µ¦

F �¦¤² �ª¦�Îµ�µ�Ä®oÁ¦Èª�¹Ê� Á�n� �µ¦°�»¤´�·Á�·� �µ¦�¦ª�°�¦µ¥�µ� 6ROXWLRQ �� 4��

G ¦³¥³�º��»��¸ÉÂ�³�Îµ�ª¦�³Á¦Èª�¹Ê� 6ROXWLRQ �� 4��

H �ª¦¤¸�µ¦�¦ª�°��ª��»¤ 5& Ä�Â�n�»�£µ¡Â¨³ª·�¸�µ¦�Îµ�µ� 6ROXWLRQ �� 4��

I �ª¦¤¸�µ¦�¦ª�°��ª��»¤ $& Ä�Â�n�»�£µ¡Â¨³ª·�¸�µ¦�Îµ�µ� 6ROXWLRQ �� 4��

J ¤¸��¨�Ã�¬�¸É�´�Á��

K �ª¦¤¸Ã�¦��µ¦�¸Ê�´Ê�Â�n�°�¦oµ�Ã¦��µ� � °µ�µ¦

L �¦»��¦»��»�£µ¡�°� HTXLSPHQW DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU �µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�

M �ÎµÂ�³�Îµ�ª¦�³Á�µ³��¦³Á£��»¦�·� Â¨³�nµ¥�n°�µ¦�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦

N �¦¤² �ª¦�·��n°�´��¼o�¦·®µ¦Ã�¥�¦�

O �¦¤² �ª¦�nª¥Á®¨º°�oµ��µ¦°�¦¤ Ä®o�Îµ�¦¹�¬µ

P '('3 VKRXOG SURYLGH PRUH LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WHFKQRORJLHV DQG VXSSOLHUV�

(6&2 &RQFHSW 4XHVWLRQV

4�� »�Á�¥Á®È�Â�ª�ªµ¤�·��¸É¤¸¨´�¬�³°¥nµ��¸Ê¤µ�n°�Å®¤"

< � Á�¥ ��nª¥Á¨nµÃ�¥¨³Á°¸¥�� 4��&RPPHQWV

1 � Å¤nÁ�¥ 4��&RPPHQWV

4�� ®¨´��µ��¸É�»�°nµ�Â�ª�ªµ¤�·� �»��·�°¥nµ�Å¦�´�Â�ª�ªµ¤�·��¸Ê"

A ,Q JHQHUDO� (6&2 LV D JRRG DQG LQWHUHVWLQJ FRQFHSW�

B (6&2 ZLOO EH DEOH WR KHOS WKH IDFLOLW\ WR VDYH HQHUJ\ DQG UHGXFH FRVWV� &RPPHQW �� 4��

C ,W LV JRRG WKDW (6&2 ZLOO EH DEOH WR KHOS ORFDWH D VRXUFH RI ILQDQFLQJ� &RPPHQW �� 4��

D ,W LV JRRG WKDW WKH IDFLOLW\ ZLOO QRW QHHG WR PDNH LQLWLDO LQYHVWPHQW RQ (( SURMHFWV� &RPPHQW �� 4��

E ,W LV JRRG WKDW (6&2 ZLOO EH DEOH WR LQURGXFH QHZ WHFKQRORJLHV� &RPPHQW �� 4��

F 7KH JXDUDQWHHG DQG VKDUHG VDYLQJV DUH JRRG VFKHPHV�

G (6&2 LV JRRG EHFDXVH WKHUH ZLOO EH WHFKQLFDO DQG NQRZOHGJH WUDQVIHU�

H (6&2 LV JRRG IRU IDFLOLWLHV WKDW GR QRW DOUHDG\ KDYH LQ�KRXVH H[SHUWLVH LQ ((�(&�

I (6&2 ZLO SURYLGH JRRG FXVWRPHU VHUYLFH E�F WKH\ DUH QRW OLPLWHG E\ WKH JRYHUQPHQW SURJUDP�

J (6&2 LV JRRG E�F ERWK WKH (6&2 DQG IDFLOLW\ DUH UHVSRQVLEOH IRU PDNLQJ VXUH WKDW HQHUJ\ VDYLQJV RFFXU�

K 7KHUH LV D QHHG WR VHH DQG OHDUQ IURP DQ DFWXDO VXFFHVVIXO (6&2 SURMHFW�

L 0HDVXUHPHQW DQG YHULILFDWLRQ �09� RI HQHUJ\ HIILFLHQF\�FRQVHUYDWLRQ SURMHFWV LV GLIILFXOW�

M (6&2 QHHG WR KDYH D FOHDU PHWKRGRORJ\ IRU PHDVXUHPHQW RI HQHUJ\ VDYLQJV�

N 7KH JRYHUQPHQW QHHG WR PRQLWRU (6&2 VR WKDW WKH\ GR QRW WDNH DGYDQWDJH RI IDFLOLWLHV�

O ,W LV GLIILFXOW WR FRPPHQW EHFDXVH RI ODFN RI H[SHULHQFH LQ GHDOLQJ ZLWK (6&2�

4�� oµ¤¸Ã�¦��µ¦ (VFR Á�·��¹Ê��¦·�� »��·�ªnµÃ�¦��µ¦�¸Êµ¤µ¦��nª¥�¦·¬´��°��»�Å�oÅ®¤" �nª¥�°�Á®�»�¨Â¨³�´ª°¥nµ��¦³�°�

< � Å�o ��´�Ã�¥¨³Á°¸¥��

A +HOS WR PDNH LQWLDO LQYHVWPHQW� 6SHFLILF 6HUYLFH �� 4��

B +HOS WR ORFDWH VRXUFH RI ILQDQFLQJ� 6SHFLILF 6HUYLFH �� 4��

C +HOS FRQWURO RU UHGXFH HOHFWULFLW\ FRVWV� 6SHFLILF 6HUYLFH �� 4��

D +HOS WR PDQDJH WKH IDFLOLW\V HQHUJ\ XVDJH� 6SHFLILF 6HUYLFH �� 4��

E 0HDVXUHPHQW DQG YHULIFDWLRQ RI VDYLQJV� 6SHFLILF 6HUYLFH �� 4��

F ,QFUHDVH DZDUHQHVV NQRZOHGJH RI ((�(&�

G ,QWURGXFH QHZ WHFKQRORJLHV LQ JHQHUDO�

H /LJKWLQJ

I $LU�FRQGLWLRQLQJ

J &KLOOHU

K 0RWRU

L %RLOHU

M )XUQDFH

N 6WHDP V\VWHP

O %XLOGLQJ DXWRPDWLRQ V\VWHP R 3UHYHQWLYH PDLQWHQDQFH

P $LU FRPSUHVVRU S (OHFWULFLW\ JHQHUDWLRQ

Q 3URGXFWLRQ SURFUHVV T &RJHQHUDWLRQ1 � Å¤nÅ�o ��´�Ã�¥¨³Á°¸¥�ªnµ Á¡¦µ³°³Å¦� 4��

4�� °³Å¦�¸É�»��·�ªnµ°µ��³Á�}�°»�¦¦�Îµ®¦´��»� �¸É�³�´�·�Ä�Á�oµ¤µÄ�o�¦·�µ¦�°�Ã�¦��µ¦ (6&2 "

A �´Ê��°� � ´��µ �´��o°�¥»n�¥µ�

B Å¤n¤¸®¨´��µ�°oµ�°·��¸É�´�Á��

C �¨�°�Â�� µ¦Â�n��¨�¦³Ã¥��r Å¤n�´�Á�� Á�n� ¦³��nµ¥Á�·� ¦³¥³Áª¨µ´��µ

D �ªµ¤Á�}�Å�Å�oÄ��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�

E Á�oµÂ�¦�Â��·��µ¦£µ¥Ä��¦·¬´�

F Ä®o�o°¤¼¨�·�¡¨µ��µ��ªµ¤Á�}��¦·� %DUULHU �� 4��

G ¤µ�¦�µ¦�¸ÉÂ�³�Îµ�¦³��ª��µ¦�¨·� %DUULHU �� 4��

H Á�·��ªµ¤Å¤n³�ª�Ä��µ¦�ÎµÁ�·��µ¦ %DUULHU �� 4��

I �{�®µÁ�¸É¥ª�´�°»��¦�r®¨´�®¤�´��µ %DUULHU �� 4��

J ��®¤µ¥ � �Ã¥�µ¥�°�¦´��µ¨ Å¤nÁ°ºÊ°°Îµ�ª¥�n°Ã�¦��µ¦�¸Ê %DUULHU �� 4��

K (VFR Å¤n�Îµ�µ�Á�¡µ³�oµ�

L Å¤n¤¸�µ¦�¦ª�ª´�¡¨´��µ��¸É�´�Á��

M �o°¤¼¨Å¤nÁ¡¸¥�¡°Ä��µ¦�°��Îµ�µ¤

N ¦³¥³�º�®�¸Ê¤µ��ªnµ¦³¥³�º��»�

O (6&2 �Îµ�µ�Á�¡µ³�oµ�

P 7RS PDQDJHPHQW GRQW XQGHUVWDQG � VXSSRUW WKH (6&2 FRQFHSW�

Q /DFN RI ILQDQFLQJ VRXUFH

4�� ·�ªnµ�nµ�³Â�oÅ� � �¦´��¦»�°¥nµ�Å¦Å®¤Á¡ºÉ°Ä®oÃ�¦��µ¦ (6&2 �¸Ê�¸�¹Ê� � �nµ�Ä��¹Ê�"

A �o°¤¼¨Å¤nÁ¡¸¥�¡°Ä��µ¦�°��Îµ�µ¤ 6ROXWLRQ �� 4��

B �o°��µ¦®¨´��µ�°oµ�°·��¸É�´�Á�� 6ROXWLRQ �� 4��

C (VFR �Îµ�µ�Á�¡µ³�oµ� 6ROXWLRQ �� 4��

D �ª¦¤¸Ã�¦��µ¦�¸Ê�´Ê�Â�n�°�¦oµ�Ã¦��µ� � °µ�µ¦ 6ROXWLRQ �� 4��

E �¨�°�Â�� µ¦Â�n��¨�¦³Ã¥��r �´�Á�� 6ROXWLRQ �� 4��

F �ª¦¤¸�µ¦�¦³�µ´¤¡´��rÄ®o¤µ��¹Ê�

G �¦³�´��µ¦�¦³®¥´�¡¨´��µ�

H ¦´��µ¨�´��´�Ä�o (VFR

I �°�Á�¸Ê¥�ÎÉµ

J ¦³¥³Áª¨µ�º��»��¸ÉÂ�³�Îµ�ª¦�³´Ê�

K (6&2 �ª¦Á�oµ¤µ�¦ª�ª´�Â¨³ª·Á�¦µ³®r¡¨´��µ�Ä�Ã¦��µ� � °µ�µ¦ �oª¥��Á°�

L �ÎµÂ�³�ÎµÅ¤n�ª¦¥µ��n°�¼o�¦·®µ¦�¸É�³Á�oµÄ�

M Å¤n�ª¦�n°Ä®oÁ�·��ªµ¤Å¤n³�ª�

N Á�¦ºÉ°��´�¦�ª¦�¨·�Ä��¦³Á�«Å�¥ Á�ºÉ°��µ�°»��¦�r�ÎµÁ�oµ¤¸¦µ�µÂ¡�

O (6&2 ¦´��·��°��nµÄ�o�nµ¥�oµ��nµ�Â¨³�µ¦Îµ¦ª¡¨´��µ�

P (6&2 VKRXOG SURYLGH WHFKQRORJLHV � UHFRPPHGDWLRQV EH\RQG ZKDW WKH\ FDQ DOUHDG\ GR E\ WKHPVHOYHV�

Q 1HHG WR KDYH D FOHDU PHDVXUHPHQW DQG YHULILFDWLRQ PHWKRGRORJ\�

R (6&2 Å¤n�Îµ�µ�Á�¡µ³�oµ�

S (6&2 VKRXOG EH SURIHVVLRQDO�UHOLDEOH�KLJK TXDOLW\

T 1HHG WR VHH DQ (6&2 SLORW SURMHFW LQ 7KDLODQG�

Company Name:Address: Tel:Contact Name: Position:Date: Department:

General QuestionsQ1 What is the business of your company / facility ?

Q2 Could you please tell me about your responsibility in this company / facility ?

Q3 Do you participate in your company's investment-making decisions ?Yes (How ?) Q3-CommentsNo (Probe for more details) Q3-Comments

Investment Background QuestionsQ4 Did your company make any new investments during the last 3-5 years ?

Yes (Probe more details) Q4-Comments

No Q4-Comments

Q5 What are the key selection criteria that influence your overall investment decision?Please answer from the point of view of your company's top management or investment decision-makers.Please provide at least 4 reasons ranked by importance (1 being the most important and 4 being the least important).Do Not Prompt !

A Budget / Capital Most Important Criteria: #1 Q5.1B Positive and negative effects of the investment #2 Q5.2C Economic benefits / return of investment #3 Q5.3D Raw material sources and availability #4 Q5.4E Technology / Expertise #5 Q5.5F EnvironmentG SafetyH Financing sourcesI Others

Thailand ESCO Development Industrial / Commercial Energy Efficiency Market Assessment Interview Questionnaire

Energy Usage QuestionsQ6 How much energy use in this building / factory per month?

Total monthly energy bill Q6.1 Baht/MonthThe energy bill can be broken down as follows:Electricity Q6.2.1 Baht/MonthElectricity Q6.2.2 kWh/Month

Other Fuels Q6.3.1 units Q6.3.2 Baht/MonthOther Fuels Q6.4.1 units Q6.4.2 Baht/MonthOther Fuels Q6.5.1 units Q6.5.2 Baht/Month

Q7 What percent is the energy / electricity cost compared to the total operation cost ?Electricity Q7.1 % Other Fuels Q7.4 %Fuel Oil Q7.2 % Other Fuels Q7.5 %Gas Q7.3 % Other Fuels Q7.6 %

Q8 What is the breakdown of energy / electricity end-use in your facility ?Factories:Electrical End-Uses: Q8.1.1 % Lighting

Q8.1.2 % Air-conditioning system (e.g. Chiller, Fan coil, AHU)Q8.1.3 % Total production processes

Q8.1.3.1 % MotorsQ8.1.3.2 % PumpsQ8.1.3.3 % Process heat / SteamQ8.1.3.4 % Process cooling / RefrigerationQ8.1.3.5 % Other processes that use electricity (Total)

Q8.1.4 % Other

Factories:Fuels: Q8.2.1 % Total production processes

Q8.2.1.1 % Process heat / SteamQ8.2.1.2 % Process cooling / RefrigerationQ8.2.1.3 % Other processes that use fuels (Total)

Q8.2.2 % Electricity generation

Buildings:Electrical End-Uses: Q8.1.1 % Lighting

Q8.1.2 % Air-conditioning system (e.g. Chiller, Fan coil, AHU)Q8.1.3 % Elevator / EscalatorQ8.1.4 % PumpsQ8.1.5 % Plug loadsQ8.1.6 % Other electrical loads

Buildings:Fuels: Q8.2.1 % Hot water boiler Q8.2.3 % Disinfection and sanitation

Q8.2.2 % Laundry Q8.2.4 % Electricity generation Q8.2.5 % Other fuel / heat energy usage

Q9 Is there potential for energy efficiency / conservation improvement within your facility ?A Yes - go to Question 9B No - Why not ? Then go to Question 13 Q9-Comments

Q10 Have you implemented the energy efficiency / energy conservation improvement ?A Yes - go to Question 10B No - Why not ? Q10-Comments

Q11 What energy efficiency / energy conservation measures have been implemented ?Measure 1: Lighting - Install low-loss ballast Expected energy savings: Q11.1 %Measure 2: Lighting - Install electronic ballast Expected energy savings: Q11.2 %Measure 3: Lighting - Install reflectors Expected energy savings: Q11.3 %Measure 4: Lighting - Use compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) Expected energy savings: Q11.4 %Measure 5: Lighting - Reduce quantity of lamps (de-lamping) Expected energy savings: Q11.5 %Measure 6: Lighting - Control/reduce operation time of lighting Expected energy savings: Q11.6 %Measure 7: A/C - Cleaning and maintenance Expected energy savings: Q11.7 %Measure 8: A/C - Install high EER A/C equipment Expected energy savings: Q11.8 %Measure 9: A/C - Install high EER chiller Expected energy savings: Q11.9 %

Measure 10: A/C - Control/reduce operation time of A/C system Expected energy savings: Q11.10 %Measure 11: A/C - Control ventilation Expected energy savings: Q11.11 %Measure 12: A/C - Install wall and/or roof insulation Expected energy savings: Q11.12 %Measure 13: A/C - Install window film to reduce solar radiation Expected energy savings: Q11.13 %Measure 14: A/C - Use heat reflecting paint on building exterior Expected energy savings: Q11.14 %Measure 15: Boiler/Furnace - Recover heat / use economizer Expected energy savings: Q11.15 %Measure 16: Boiler/Furnace - Improve combustion efficiency Expected energy savings: Q11.16 %Measure 17: Boiler/Furnace - Recover blow-down Expected energy savings: Q11.17 %Measure 18: Steam System - Recover condensate Expected energy savings: Q11.18 %Measure 19: Steam System - Change/Fix steam trap Expected energy savings: Q11.19 %Measure 20: Steam Ssytem - Reduce steam leakage Expected energy savings: Q11.20 %Measure 21: Steam System - Control/reduce the use of steam Expected energy savings: Q11.21 %Measure 22: Steam System - Improve feed water quality Expected energy savings: Q11.22 %Measure 23: Motor - Use appropriately-sized motors Expected energy savings: Q11.23 %Measure 24: Others - Control/reduce elevator operation Expected energy savings: Q11.24 %Measure 25: Others - Control/reduce use of pumps Expected energy savings: Q11.25 %Measure 26: Others - Control/reduce compressed air leakage Expected energy savings: Q11.26 %

Q12 Would your company / facility budget energy efficiency / conservation investments and expenses under youroperation & maintenance (O&M) budget or capital budget ?

A Operation and Maintenance Cost Q12-Comments

B Capital Budget Q12-Comments

Q13 What percent is energy efficiency / conservation investments and expenses of your total O&M orcapital budget ?

Q13.1 % Operation and Maintenance CostQ13.2 % Capital Budget

Q14 What are the key criteria that influence your energy efficiency / conservation investment decision? Please answer from the point of view of your company's top management or investment decision-makers.Please provide at least 4 reasons ranked by importance (1 being the most important and 4 being the least important) Do Not Prompt !

A Budget Most Important Criteria: #1 Q14.1B Environment #2 Q14.2C Technology / knowledge #3 Q14.3D Company Policy #4 Q14.4E Return of investment / Economic benefits #5 Q14.5F Others

Q15 Given the choice between two projects/measures that require a similar amount of investment and havesimilar financial attractiveness, but one being an energy efficiency/conservation project and the other being a general investment project. Which of these two projects/measures would your company givehigher investment priority to ?

A Energy Efficiency/Conservation Projects - Why ? Q15-Comments

B Other Investment Projects - Why ? Q15-Comments

Q16 When making energy efficiency/conservation project investment decisions, where do you get information/dataconcerning available technologies, prices, saving potential, etc. ?Please rank the data sources in terms of importance, starting with #1 as your most important data source.

A Journal and Magazines Info./Data Source #1: Q16.1B Government Agencies Info./Data Source #2: Q16.2C Manufacturers and Suppliers Info./Data Source #3: Q16.3D Registered Consultants Info./Data Source #4: Q16.4E Accredited Consultants Info./Data Source #5: Q16.5F Other ConsultantsG Energy Information CentersH Training and SeminarsI Use own capability

Q17 What barriers have you encountered in making energy efficiency / conservation investments ?Please answer from the point of view of your company's top management or investment decision-makers.Please provide at least 4 reasons ranked by importance (1 being the most important and 4 being the least important) Do Not Prompt !

A Budget Most Important Barrier: #1 Q17.1B Environment #2 Q17.2C Technology / knowledge #3 Q17.3D Company Policy #4 Q17.4E Return of investment / Economic benefits #5 Q17.5F Production capabilityG No government motivation (e.g. enforcement mechanism)H Complicated proceduresI Others

Q18 Could you please tell me any possible solutions to overcome the above barriers ?A Solution: #1 Q18.1B #2 Q18.2C #3 Q18.3D #4 Q18.4E #5 Q18.5

DEDP's Designated Facilities Program QuestionsQ19 Are you aware of the DEDP's Designated Facilities Program?


No Q19-Comments

Q20 Does your company / facility participate in this program?A Yes - go to Question 18B No - Why not ? Then go to Question 24 Q20-Comments

Q21 What have your facility already been done under the Designated Facilities Program ?A Person responsible for energy (PRE)B Preliminary energy audit - Go to Question 19C Detailed energy audit - Go to Question 19D Actual implementation of energy efficiency / conservation measures (answer Question 20)E Other

Q22 What measures have been recommended by the energy audit report ?Measure 1: Lighting - Install low-loss ballast Expected energy savings: Q22.1 %Measure 2: Lighting - Install electronic ballast Expected energy savings: Q22.2 %Measure 3: Lighting - Install reflectors / Improve luminaire efficiencyExpected energy savings: Q22.3 %Measure 4: Lighting - Use compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) Expected energy savings: Q22.4 %Measure 5: Lighting - Use more efficient lighting technology Expected energy savings: Q22.5 %Measure 6: Lighting - Reduce quantity of lamps (de-lamping) Expected energy savings: Q22.6 %Measure 7: Lighting - Control/reduce operation time of lighting Expected energy savings: Q22.7 %Measure 8: A/C - Cleaning and maintenance Expected energy savings: Q22.8 %Measure 9: A/C - Install high EER A/C equipment Expected energy savings: Q22.9 %

Measure 10: A/C - Install high EER chiller Expected energy savings: Q22.10 %Measure 11: A/C - Install absorption chiller Expected energy savings: Q22.11 %Measure 12: A/C - Use adequate temperature setpoint Expected energy savings: Q22.12 %Measure 13: A/C - Install electronic thermostat Expected energy savings: Q22.13 %Measure 14: A/C - Control/reduce supply air Expected energy savings: Q22.14 %Measure 15: A/C - Improve/install wall and/or roof insulative propertiesExpected energy savings: Q22.15 %Measure 16: A/C - Install window film to reduce solar radiation Expected energy savings: Q22.16 %Measure 17: A/C - Reduce heat due to solar radiation Expected energy savings: Q22.17 %Measure 18: Boiler/Furnace - Recover heat / use economizer Expected energy savings: Q22.18 %Measure 19: Boiler/Furnace - Improve combustion efficiency Expected energy savings: Q22.19 %Measure 20: Boiler/Furnace - Recover blow-down Expected energy savings: Q22.20 %Measure 21: Boiler/Furnace - Reduce steam pressure in boiler Expected energy savings: Q22.21 %Measure 22: Boiler/Furnace - Replace boiler Expected energy savings: Q22.22 %Measure 23: Steam System - Recover condensate Expected energy savings: Q22.23 %Measure 24: Steam System - Change/Fix steam trap Expected energy savings: Q22.24 %Measure 25: Steam Ssytem - Reduce steam leakage Expected energy savings: Q22.25 %Measure 26: Steam System - Install insulation on steam pipes Expected energy savings: Q22.26 %Measure 27: Motor - Use appropriately-sized motors Expected energy savings: Q22.27 %Measure 28: Motor - Install high efficiency motor Expected energy savings: Q22.28 %Measure 29: Motor - Install inverter to control motor speed (VSD) Expected energy savings: Q22.29 %Measure 30: Electrical - Correct power factor Expected energy savings: Q22.30 %Measure 31: Electrical - Improve transform system efficiency Expected energy savings: Q22.31 %Measure 32: Process - Reduce compressed air leakage Expected energy savings: Q22.32 %Measure 33: Process - Install high efficiency air compressor Expected energy savings: Q22.33 %Measure 34: Process - Preheat raw material Expected energy savings: Q22.34 %Measure 35: Others - Install key switch Expected energy savings: Q22.35 %Measure 36: Others - Install cogeneration equipment Expected energy savings: Q22.36 %Measure 37: Others - Install electricity generation equipment Expected energy savings: Q22.37 %

Q23 In reality, do you think that the potential for energy savings in your facility is:A greater than that presented in the energy audit reports.B less than that presented in the energy audit reports.C equal to that presented in the energy audit reports.

Q24 Will / Have your company implemented any of the recommended measures ? (Y/N) Q24What measures are being / have been implemented ?

Would have implemented anyway (Y/N) ?Measure: Expected energy savings: (if did not receive recommendations)

1 Lighting - Install low-loss ballast Q24.1.1 % Q24.1.22 Lighting - Install electronic ballast Q24.2.1 % Q24.2.23 Lighting - Install reflectors Q24.3.1 % Q24.3.24 Lighting - Use compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) Q24.4.1 % Q24.4.25 Lighting - Reduce quantity of lamps (de-lamping) Q24.5.1 % Q24.5.26 Lighting - Control/reduce operation time of lighting Q24.6.1 % Q24.6.27 A/C - Cleaning and maintenance Q24.7.1 % Q24.7.28 A/C - Install high EER A/C equipment Q24.8.1 % Q24.8.29 A/C - Install high EER chiller Q24.9.1 % Q24.9.2

10 A/C - Control/reduce operation time of A/C system Q24.10.1 % Q24.10.211 A/C - Install electronic thermostat Q24.11.1 % Q24.11.212 A/C - Install wall and/or roof insulation Q24.12.1 % Q24.12.213 A/C - Install window film to reduce solar radiation Q24.13.1 % Q24.13.214 A/C - Use heat reflecting paint on building exterior Q24.14.1 % Q24.14.215 Boiler/Furnace - Recover heat / use economizer Q24.15.1 % Q24.15.216 Boiler/Furnace - Improve combustion efficiency Q24.16.1 % Q24.16.217 Boiler/Furnace - Recover blow-down Q24.17.1 % Q24.17.218 Steam System - Recover condensate Q24.18.1 % Q24.18.219 Steam System - Change/Fix steam trap Q24.19.1 % Q24.19.220 Steam Ssytem - Reduce steam leakage Q24.20.1 % Q24.20.221 Steam System - Control/reduce the use of steam Q24.21.1 % Q24.21.222 Steam System - Improve feed water quality Q24.22.1 % Q24.22.223 Motor - Install high efficiency motor Q24.23.1 % Q24.23.224 Motor - Install invertor to control motor speed (VSD) Q24.24.1 % Q24.24.225 Others - Install cogeneration equipment Q24.25.1 % Q24.25.2

Q25 Your overall satisfaction towards the program.A Very satisfiedB More or less satisfiedC UnsatisfiedD Greatly unsatisfiedE No opinion (Neutral)

Q26 Could you please give us the reasons why you answered as above (Question 20) ?A The Program helps to raise awareness about energy efficiency/conservation.B The Program helps Thailand to save energy. Comment #1: Q26.1C The Program helps the facility to save energy and reduce costs. Comment #2: Q26.2D The Program helps the facility to better understand their own energy usage. Comment #3: Q26.3E The Program has money to support energy audits and/or efficiency improvements.F There is a need for a more continuous implementation of the Program.G The Program is not an effective/efficient use of government money.H The Program does not give enough money money to support energy efficiency investments.I DEDP does not conduct enough public relations and information dissemination about the Program.J The documentation and/or other processes of the Program is too complicated.K The process to approve energy audit reports is too slow.L Documents submited to DEDP are lost.M The facility is not satisfied with the registered consultant's work and/or customer service.N The facility is not satisfied with the accredited consultant's work and/or customer service.O The facility is not satisfied with the quality of the energy audit.P The registered consultant recommends measures that are too simplistic.Q The facility is already implementing the measures recommended by the registered consultant.R The preliminary energy audit is not worth the money paid to the registered consultant.S The registered consultant need to recommend more process-related energy efficiency measures.T The facility is unable to follow the registered consultant's recommendations.

Q27 What benefits could you get from this program?A The Program helps to reduce production costs.B The Program helps to reduce operation costs and energy bill. Comment #1: Q27.1C The Prgram helps the facility to keep abreast with new developments in technology. Comment #2: Q27.2D The Program helps to increase interest in energy efficiency/conservation. Comment #3: Q27.3E The Program helps to increase awareness in energy efficiency/conservation.F The Program helps to increase energy efficiency/conservation standards.G The Program is good because there is money to support energy efficiency improvements.H The Program allows the facility to identify where/how to improve their energy efficiency.I The Program helps the facility to meet others working on energy efficiency/conservation.J The facility has not benefited from the Program.

Q28 What barriers have you encountered in participating in this program ? Do Not Prompt !

A Complicated procedures Barrier: #1 Q28.1B Technology / expertise needed #2 Q28.2C No strong enforcement / penalty #3 Q28.3D No good recommendation from specialists #4 Q28.4E Suitable for building rather than factory #5 Q28.5F No financial supportG Others

Q29 Do you have any suggestions for improving this program in the future?AB Solution #1: Q29.1C Solution #2: Q29.2D Solution #3: Q29.3E Solution #4: Q29.4

ESCO Concept Questions - Let the interviewee read the ESCO concept paper.Q30 Have you seen any concept like this before?


No (Probe more details) Q30-Comments

Q31 What do you think about this concept?A In general, ESCO is a good and interesting concept.B ESCO will be able to help the facility to save energy and reduce costs. Comment #1: Q31.1C It is good that ESCO will be able to help locate a source of financing. Comment #2: Q31.2D It is good that the facility will not need to make initial investment on EE projects. Comment #3: Q31.3E It is good that ESCO will be able to inroduce new technologies. Comment #4: Q31.4F The guaranteed and shared savings are good schemes.G ESCO is good because there will be technical and knowledge transfer.H ESCO is good for facilities that do not already have in-house expertise in EE/EC.I ESCO wil provide good customer service b/c they are not limited by the government program.J ESCO is good b/c both the ESCO and facility are responsible for making sure that energy savings occur.K There is a need to see and learn from an actual successful ESCO project.L Measurement and verification (M&V) of energy efficiency/conservation projects is difficult.M ESCO need to have a clear methodology for measurement of energy savings.N The government need to monitor ESCO so that they do not take advantage of facilities.O It is difficult to comment because of lack of experience in dealing with ESCO.

Q32 Do you think your facility/company could benefit from the services of an ESCO ?Yes (What specific services and/or technologies ?)

A Help to make intial investment. Specific Service #1: Q32.1.1B Help to locate source of financing. Specific Service #2: Q32.1.2C Help control electricity costs. Specific Service #3: Q32.1.3D Help to manage the facility's energy usage. Specific Service #4: Q32.1.4E Measurement and verifcation of savings. Specific Service #5: Q32.1.5F Increase awareness & knowledge of EE/EC.G Introduce new technologies in general.H LightingI Air-conditioningJ ChillerK MotorL BoilerM FurnaceN Steam systemO Building automation systemP Air compressorQ Production procressR Preventive maintenanceS Electricity generationT Cogeneration

No (Why not ?) Q32.2

Q33 What barriers would you have in using the services of an ESCO ?A Barrier #1: Q33.1B Barrier #2: Q33.2C Barrier #3: Q33.3D Barrier #4: Q33.4E Barrier #5: Q33.5

Q34 Do you have any suggestions for improving the ESCO concept ?A Solution #1: Q34.1B Solution #2: Q34.2C Solution #3: Q34.3D Solution #4: Q34.4E Solution #5: Q34.5

Appendix 4:

On-Site Interview Results – Industrial and Commercial Facilities

Code Company Type of Business

Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile

Analysis:

Total # in Sample: 30 100.0%

Total # of Chemical: 6 20.0%

Total # of Fabricated Metal: 6 20.0%

Total # of Food & Beverage: 5 16.7%

Total # of Non-Metallic: 4 13.3%

Total # of Paper: 3 10.0%

Total # of Textile: 6 20.0%

Grand Total 100.0%

Code Company Type of Business Q2

Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical K

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical E

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical G

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical G

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical H

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical K

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal H

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal E

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal G

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal H

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal E

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal G

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage E

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage C

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage F

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage G

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage G

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal A

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal I

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal G

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal G

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper C

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing B

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper E

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile G

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile B

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile A

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile E

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile F

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile G

Analysis:


Total # of A: 2 6.7%

Total # of B: 2 6.7%

Total # of C: 2 6.7%

Total # of D: 0 0.0%

Total # of E: 6 20.0% Maint./Util. Dept. ManagerTotal # of F: 2 6.7%

Total # of G: 10 33.3% Engineering Dept. MangerTotal # of H: 3 10.0% Production ManagerTotal # of I: 1 3.3%

Total # of J: 0 0.0%

Total # of K: 2 6.7%

Grand Total 100.0%


Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical Y

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical Y

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical Y

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical N

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical N

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal Y

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal Y

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal Y

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal N

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal N

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal Y

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage Y

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage Y

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage N

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage Y

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage Y

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal Y

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal Y

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal -

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal Y

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper Y

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing Y

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper Y

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile N

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile Y

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile Y

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile Y

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile N

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile N

Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 20 66.7% Participate in company's invesment decisions.

Total # of "No": 8 26.7% Do not participate.

Total # of No Answer: 2 6.7%

Grand Total 100.0%


Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical Y





Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical Y




FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal Y

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal Y




F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage Y



NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal -


NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal Y









Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile Y

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile Y

Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 27 90.0% Companies surveyed that made investment.

Total # of "No": 2 6.7% Did not make investments.


Grand Total 100.0%

Code Company Type of Business Q5.1 Q5.2 Q5.3 Q5.4 Q5.5

Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical C G M F -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical C A H G E

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical M R C N G

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical C L F G -

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical C L M J -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical C A E M G

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal G F A E C

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal C A G F -

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal I A C E F

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal F A C G E

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal A C M G F

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal C A H G F

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage G F C A -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage A R C L -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage J A C F -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage A C E I G

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage C F A G D

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal C A M - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal F K A C -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal A C G F H

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal A R P G C

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper A C F G -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing A C M G J

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper C G F B A

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile E C A M G

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile C E S A -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile C A G E -

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile N R C E -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile C A F M -

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile M C G F -

Analysis:

Total # in Sample: 30 100%

Total # of C in Top 3: 27 90% Return on investment

Total # of A in Top 3: 21 70% Budget Required

Total # of F in Top 3: 9 30% Environment

Total # of G in Top 3: 8 27% Safety

Total # of M in Top 3: 7 23% Effects on production / operation

Total # of E in Top 3: 4 13% Technology and expertise required

Total # of R in Top 3: 4 13% Potential to reduce production / operation costs

Total # of H in Top 3: 2 7%

Total # of L in Top 3: 2 7%

Total # of I in Top 3: 1 3%

Total # of J in Top 3: 1 3%

Total # of K in Top 3: 1 3%

Total # of N in Top 3: 1 3%

Total # of P in Top 3: 1 3%

Total # of S in Top 3: 1 3%

Total # of B in Top 3: 0 0%

Total # of D in Top 3: 0 0%

Total # of O in Top 3: 0 0%

Total # of Q in Top 3: 0 0%

Check: 300.0%

Q5

Code Company Type of Business Q6.1 Q6.2.1 Q6.2.2 Q6.3.1 Q6.3.2 Q6.4.1 Q6.4.2 Q6.5.1 Q6.5.2

Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical 5,733,333 3,000,000 1,600,000 Fuel Oil 2,000,000 Liter/yr 1,108,333 - - Diesel 1,500,000 Liter/yr 1,625,000

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical 3,817,665 1,137,000 472,667 Fuel oil grade C 349,500 lites 2,680,665 - - - -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd.Chemical 5,310,000 2,300,000 1,200,000 Fuel oil C 430,000 liters 3,010,000 - - - -

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical 6,560,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 Fuel oil grade A 120,000 lites 800,000 LPG 1,600 Kgs. 16,000 Diesel 170,000 lites 1,500,000

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical 1,000,000 1,000,000 520,000 - - - - - -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical 15,207,238 5,935,038 2,745,000 Fuel oil grade A 1,130,000 liters + grade C 1,230 liters 9,092,230 - - - -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal 807,552 634,746 260,000 - - LPG 11,560 Kgs. 120,908 Diesel 4,500 lites 51,897

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal 4,480,000 4,000,000 1,800,000 - - LPG 60 tons 480,000 - -

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal 4,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 - - LPG - - -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal 2,700,000 2,700,000 1,000,000 - - NG - - -

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal 3,000,000 3,000,000 1,200,000 - - LPG - Diesel -

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd.Fabricated Metal 3,950,000 3,728,370 2,004,500 Fuel oil 71,485 lites 448,210 LPG 16.54 tons 180,160 - -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage 13,000,000 8,474,200 4,747,383 Fuel Oil 978,250 lites 4,783,640 - - Diesel 1,633 lites 16,400

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage 7,000,000 3,000,000 1,200,000 Fuel Oil 4,000,000 - - - -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage 9,039,997 6,077,157 2,494,208 Fuel Oil 227,826 litres 1,392,016 - - Diesel -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage 1,471,322 1,050,000 1,350,410 - - LPG 1,920 Kgs. 20,900 - -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage 2,782,963 801,972 348,683 Fuel Oil 266,499.47 lites 1,873,491 LPG 12,000 Kgs. 107,500 - -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal 15,700,000 15,700,000 800,000 - - - - - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal 7,000,000 6,880,000 400,000 Fuel oil - - - Diesel 15,000 liters 120,000

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal 13,000,000 1,000,000 409,699 Fuel oil 850,000 liters 6,000,000 NG 550,000 m3 6,000,000 - -

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal 20,700,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 Fuel oil 1,500,000 lites 10,500,000 LPG 300 tonne - Diesel 20,000 lites 200,000

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper 18,000,000 7,500,000 3,800,000 Fuel oil grade C 1,200,000 lites 10,000,000 - - - -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing 800,000 800,000 - - - - - - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper 1,600,000 980,000 493,720 Fuel oil grade C 108,000 lites 628,000 - - - -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile 7,744,781 7,701,176 3,434,931 Fuel oil 4,500 43,605 - - - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile 8,360,000 8,000,000 - Fuel oil 45,000 360,000 - - - -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile 2,642,154 2,642,154 1,237,000 - - - - - -

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile 4,900,000 1,600,000 710,000 Fuel oil 400,000 3,010,000 LPG 64000 335,000 - -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile 18,000,000 14,000,000 8,000,000 Fuel oil 750,000 4,000,000 - - - -

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile 34,600,000 20,200,000 10,900,000 - - NG 83,000 14,400,000 - -

Analysis:

Sub-Sector # in Sample Total Bill - Baht Elec - Baht [kWh] % of Total Bill Fuel Oil - Baht % of Total Bill LPG/NG - Baht % of Total Bill Diesel - Baht % of Total Bill

Chemical 6 6,271,373ß 2,895,340ß 1,422,945 46.2% 2,781,871ß 44.4% 2,667ß 0.0% 520,833ß 8.3%

Fabricated Metal 6 3,156,259ß 3,010,519ß 1,377,417 95.4% 74,702ß 2.4% 130,178ß 4.1% 8,650ß 0.3%

Food & Beverage 5 6,658,856ß 3,880,666ß 2,028,137 58.3% 2,409,829ß 36.2% 25,680ß 0.4% 3,280ß 0.0%

Non-Metal 4 14,100,000ß 8,395,000ß 1,652,425 59.5% 4,125,000ß 29.3% 1,500,000ß 10.6% 80,000ß 0.6%

Paper 3 6,800,000ß 3,093,333ß 1,431,240 45.5% 3,542,667ß 52.1% -ß 0.0% -ß 0.0%

Textile 6 12,707,823ß 9,023,888ß 4,046,989 71.0% 1,235,601ß 9.7% 2,455,833ß 19.3% -ß 0.0%

Total Average 30 8,282,385ß 5,049,791ß 1,993,192 62.6% 2,361,612ß 29.0% 685,726ß 5.8% 102,127ß 1.5%

Q6

Code Company Type of Business Q7.1 Q7.2 Q7.3 Q7.4 Q7.5 Q7.6

Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical 1.1 0.5 - 0.7 - -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical - - - - - -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd.Chemical - - - - - -

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical - - - - - -

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical 10.0 - - - - -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical 20.0 10.0 - - - -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal 7.7 - 1.5 0.6 - -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal 1.6 - 0.2 - - -

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal 5.0 - - - - -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal 15.0 - - - - -

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal 10.4 - 1.3 1.3 - -

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd.Fabricated Metal - - - - - -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - - - - - -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage 4.0 4.0 - - - -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage - - - - - -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage 2.9 - 0.1 - - -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - - - - - -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal 7.0 - - - - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal 6.6 1.5 - 0.6 - -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal - - - - - -

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal - - - - - -

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper 10.0 10.0 - - - -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing 5.0 - - - - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper - - - - - -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile - - - - - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile - - - - - -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile 25.0 - - - - -

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile 6.0 10.0 1.0 - - -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile 6.0 3.0 - 1.0 - -

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile 11.0 - 6.0 - - -

Analysis:

Sub-Sector # in Sample Elec Fuel Oil LPG/NG Diesel

Chemical 3 10.4% 5.2% 0.0% 0.7%

Fabricated Metal 5 7.9% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%

Food & Beverage 2 3.5% 4.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Non-Metal 2 6.8% 1.5% 0.0% 0.6%

Paper 2 7.5% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Textile 4 12.0% 6.5% 3.5% 1.0%

Total Average 18 8.6% 5.6% 1.7% 0.8%

Q7

Code Company Type of Business Q8.1.1 Q8.1.2 Q8.1.3 Q8.1.3.1 Q8.1.3.2 Q8.1.3.3 Q8.1.3.4 Q8.1.3.5 Q8.1.4 Q8.2.1 Q8.2.1.1 Q8.2.1.2 Q8.2.1.3 Q8.2.2

Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical 2.8 12.6 84.6 - - - - 84.6 - 100.0 100.0 - - -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical 1.0 2.0 97.0 30.0 20.0 - - 47.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd.Chemical 10.0 10.0 80.0 - 30.0 - - 50.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - -

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical 10.0 20.0 70.0 40.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 - - 100.0 70.0 - 30.0 -

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical 8.5 7.2 72.7 - - - - 72.7 11.6 - - - - -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical 8.0 14.0 78.0 60.0 18.0 - - - - 100.0 100.0 - - -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal 16.0 24.8 71.6 37.1 16.0 1.1 5.9 11.2 - 100.0 30.0 - 70.0 -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal 48.1 12.6 61.6 - - - - 21.7 - 100.0 40.0 - 60.0 -

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal 10.0 25.0 48.0 - - - - 48.0 17.0 - - - - -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal No data No data No data - - - - - No data No data - - - No data

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal 15.0 15.0 70.0 - - - - 70.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - -

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd.Fabricated Metal 7.2 44.8 33.2 - 14.7 - - 18.5 14.8 100.0 71.3 - 28.7 -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage 0.6 30.5 44.4 - 16.3 - - 28.1 24.5 100.0 100.0 - - -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage 6.0 8.4 85.6 - - - - 85.6 - 100.0 100.0 - - -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage No data No data No data - - - - - No Data 100.0 100.0 - - -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage 4.2 13.0 75.0 1.6 2.6 - - 70.8 7.8 100.0 - - - -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage 10.0 40.0 50.0 - - - - 50.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal 10.0 25.0 65.0 - - - - 65.0 - - - - - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal 3.1 8.2 88.7 - - - - 88.7 - 100.0 - - - -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal 1.3 2.7 89.2 33.8 27.7 - - 27.7 6.8 100.0 100.0 - - -

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal 7.0 17.0 49.0 - - - - 27.0 27.0 100.0 - - - -

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper 5.0 - 95.0 - - - - 95.0 - 100.0 - - - -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing 6.8 22.1 71.0 - - - - 71.0 - - - - - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper 4.7 23.6 58.9 - - - - 58.9 12.8 100.0 - - - -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile 2.8 24.6 62.1 - 3.3 - - 7.2 10.5 100.0 100.0 - - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile ? ? 85.0 - - - - 85.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile 15.0 5.0 80.0 60.0 20.0 - - - - - - - - -

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile 5.0 3.0 68.0 - - - 68.0 24.0 100.0 100.0 - - -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile 10.0 20.0 70.0 20.0 17.0 - - 33.0 - 95.0 100.0 - - -

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile 4.2 22.5 61.8 - 6.8 - - 55.0 11.4 100.0 100.0 - - -

Analysis:

Sub-Sector # in Sample Lighting A/C Product. Motor Pump Proc. Heat. Proc. Cool. Other Proc. Other Product. Heat/Steam Proc. Cool. Other Proc. Elec Gen

Chemical 6 7% 11% 80% 22% 13% 1% 3% 42% 2% 83% 78% 0% 5% 0%

Fabricated Metal 6 19% 24% 57% 6% 5% 0% 1% 44% 0% 80% 40% 0% 40% 0%

Food & Beverage 5 5% 23% 64% 0% 4% 0% 0% 60% 8% 100% 80% 0% 20% 0%

Non-Metal 4 5% 13% 73% 8% 7% 0% 0% 58% 8% 75% 25% 0% 50% 0%

Paper 3 6% 15% 75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 75% 4% 67% 0% 0% 67% 0%

Textile 6 7% 15% 71% 16% 8% 0% 0% 47% 6% 83% 83% 0% 0% 0%

Total Average 30 9% 17% 70% 10% 7% 0% 1% 53% 4% 83% 57% 0% 26% 0%

Q8 - Electricity End-Uses Q8 - Fuel End-Uses



Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical A

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical A

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical A

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical A

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical A

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical A

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal A

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal A

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal A

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal A

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal A

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal A

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage A

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage A

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage A

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage A

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage A


NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal A

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal A

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal A

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper A

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing A

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper A

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile A

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile A


Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile A

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile A

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile A

Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 30 100.0% There is potential for EE/EC within the facility.

Total # of "No": 0 0.0% There is no potential.


Grand Total 100.0%






Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical B






FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal B




















Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 28 93.3% Have implemented EE/EC.

Total # of "No": 2 6.7% Have not implemented EE/EC.


Grand Total 100.0%

Code Company Type of Business Q11.1 Q11.2 Q11.3 Q11.4 Q11.5 Q11.6 Q11.7 Q11.8 Q11.9 Q11.10 Q11.11 Q11.12 Q11.13 Q11.14 Q11.15 Q11.16 Q11.17 Q11.18 Q11.19 Q11.20 Q11.21 Q11.22 Q11.23 Q11.24 Q11.25 Q11.26

Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical - ? ? - ? - - - - - - - - - 1.9 - 1.2 - - - - - - - - ?

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - ? - - 2.0 - - - - - - - -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd.Chemical - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ? - - - 1.7 - - ? - - ?

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical - 0.5 2.0 - - 5.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0 - - - - - -

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical - - - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40.0 - - - - - - - - - -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal - - 8.8 - ? 1.5 - - - 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal - - 1.0 - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.0 - - - - - - 2.0

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal ? - ? - ? - - - - - 1.3 - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal ? ? ? ? - - - - 1.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal - 3.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd.Fabricated Metal - ? ? - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - ? - - - - - - - -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - - - - - - - - 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.2 - - - - - - - - - -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage - - - - - - - - ? - - - - - - - - - 3.1 - - - - - - -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - 0.1 - - - - - 0.7 - - - - - 1.3 - - - - - - - - - - - -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - 2.0 - 4.8 - - ? 12.8 - - - 1.0 7.2 - 20.0 - 3.0 - - - - 2.0 - - - -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal - - - - - 1.0 - - - 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal - - ? - ? - - - - - - 5.0 - - - 5.0 - - - - - - - - - -

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper - - - 1.0 - 1.0 - - - - - - - - - 5.0 - 10.0 - - 5.0 20.0 2.5 - - -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing - - - - - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.4 3.6 - - - - - - - -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile - ? - - - - - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile - - ? ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile - 0.5 - - - 5.0 - - - 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile - - ? ? ? - - - - - - - - - - ? - ? - ? - - - - - -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile - - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - 2.5 - - 1.1 2.2 - - - - - ?

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile - - - - - - - - 1.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Analysis:

Sub-Sector Q11.1 Q11.2 Q11.3 Q11.4 Q11.5 Q11.6 Q11.7 Q11.8 Q11.9 Q11.10 Q11.11 Q11.12 Q11.13 Q11.14 Q11.15 Q11.16 Q11.17 Q11.18 Q11.19 Q11.20 Q11.21 Q11.22 Q11.23 Q11.24 Q11.25 Q11.26

Chemical - 3 2 - 2 1 - - - - - - - - 2 2 1 1 - 2 - - 1 - - 2

Fabricated Metal 2 3 5 1 3 2 - - 1 1 1 - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1

Food & Beverage - 2 - 1 - - 1 2 2 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 - - 1 - - - -

Non-Metal - - 1 - 1 1 - - - 1 - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - -

Paper - - - 1 - 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 2 - - 1 1 1 - - -

Textile - 2 2 3 1 1 - - 2 1 - - - - - 2 - 1 1 2 - - - - - 1

Total 2 10 10 6 7 6 2 2 5 3 1 2 2 1 3 7 3 5 3 4 1 2 2 - - 4

% Implemented 6.7% 33.3% 33.3% 20.0% 23.3% 20.0% 6.7% 6.7% 16.7% 10.0% 3.3% 6.7% 6.7% 3.3% 10.0% 23.3% 10.0% 16.7% 10.0% 13.3% 3.3% 6.7% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3%


Chemical - 0.5% 2.0% - - 5.0% - - - - - - - - 1.9% 40.0% 1.2% 2.0% - 5.8% - - - - - -

Fabricated Metal - 3.7% 4.9% - - 1.5% - - 1.7% 0.1% 1.2% - - - - - - - 2.0% - - - - - - 2.0%

Food & Beverage - 1.0% - 4.8% - - - 6.7% 1.0% - - 1.0% 7.2% 1.3% 20.0% 13.2% 3.0% - 3.1% - - 2.0% - - - -

Non-Metal - - - - - 1.0% - - - 1.0% - 5.0% - - - 5.0% - - - - - - - - - -

Paper - - - 1.0% - 1.0% - - - - - - - - - 5.0% 0.4% 6.8% - - 5.0% 20.0% 2.5% - - -

Textile - 0.5% - - - 5.0% - - 1.5% 1.0% - - - - - 2.5% - - 1.1% 2.2% - - - - - -

Total - 1.4% 3.9% 2.9% - 2.7% - 6.7% 1.4% 0.7% 1.2% 3.0% 7.2% 1.3% 11.0% 13.1% 1.5% 5.2% 2.1% 4.6% 5.0% 11.0% 2.5% - - 2.0%

Q11

# of Times an EE Measure is Mentioned in Each Industrial Sub-Sector

Potential Whole-Facility Electricity or Fuel Savings as Reported by the Factories in Each Industrial Sub-Sector


Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical B


Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical B

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical B





FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal B

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal B



F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage B







NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal B


Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper -



Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile B




Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile B

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile B

Analysis:


Total # of "A": 18 60.0% O&M Cost/Budget

Total # of "B": 11 36.7% Capital Budget


Grand Total 100.0%

Code Company Type of Business Q13.1 Q13.2

Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical - 20

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical 2 -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical - 7

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical - 1

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical 1 1

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical 20 -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal 2 -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal 0 -

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal - 10

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal - -

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal - 1

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal 1 -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage 10 -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage 2 -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal 5 -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal - 5

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal - -

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper 10 10

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper 1 -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile - -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile 1 -

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile 20 -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile - 30

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile - 20

Analysis:

O&M Cap.

Total # in Sample: 13 10

Sum: 75 105

Average: 6% 11% Percentages

% Responding : 43% 33% of the 30 factilities interviewed

Q13


Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical K E - - -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical E A B C -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical K E B A -

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical E G - - -

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical E A J K -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical E A C F -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal E A C B -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal E A F B -

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal E A L K -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal B A E F C

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal A E - - -

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal E A B H -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage E A C B -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage A K E G -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage I A E - -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage A E M - -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage E B F C -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal E A C - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal G B A E -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal F A B - -

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal A L E C J

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper E B C - -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing J A E - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper E F B - -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile E A L C O

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile E K G C A

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile E L Q N O

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile K E C F B

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile J A E L B

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile L E F B -

Analysis:


Total # of E in Top 3: 28 93% Return on investment


Total # of B in Top 3: 9 30% Environmental considerations

Total # of C in Top 3: 6 20% Technology / Expertise required

Total # of F in Top 3: 5 17% Safety

Total # of K in Top 3: 5 17% Potential to reduce production / operation cost

Total # of L in Top 3: 5 17% Effects on production / operation

Total # of G in Top 3: 3 10% Government laws and regulations

Total # of J in Top 3: 3 10% Likelihood of energy saving


Total # of M in Top 3: 1 3%







Check: 290%

Q14


Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical -


Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical -



FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal B

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal B


FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal B


FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal B

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage B

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage B

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage B

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage B

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal B

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal B


NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal B

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper B





Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile B




Analysis:


Total # of "A": 6 20.0% EE/EC Investment

Total # of "B": 20 66.7% Other Investment


Grand Total 100.0%


Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical - - - - -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical D H C A -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical A C D - -

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical A H K - -

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical D H G - -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical C G - - -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal J - - - -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal A - - - -

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal D - - - -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal B G C - -

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal B D H A C

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal G B C - -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage G A K C -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage A D L - -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage - - - - -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage C - - - -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage C - - - -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal A B - - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal F C H B -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal B H C - -

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal D C A - -

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper C H B A -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing B C - - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper C D E B H

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile C A B - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile G J - - -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile H G - - -

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile A H D C -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile B C K - -

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile C J A - -

Analysis:


Total # of C in Top 3: 16 53% Manufacturers and Suppliers

Total # of A in Top 3: 10 33% Journal and Magazines

Total # of B in Top 3: 9 30% Government Agencies

Total # of D in Top 3: 9 30% Registered Consultants

Total # of H in Top 3: 9 30% Training / Seminars / Exhibitions

Total # of G in Top 3: 7 23% Energy Information Centers



Total # of E in Top 3: 1 3%

Total # of F in Top 3: 1 3%



Check: 230%

Q16


Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical K K L D -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical C K - - -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical K F C E -

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical A E G - -

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical E A - - -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical E K C O -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal M - - - -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal F E A C -

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal O I - - -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal E R - - -

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal F E A - -

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal C E F D -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage F L A - -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage C K - - -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage A N D - -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage A C K G O

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage F E - - -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal G - - - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal N A C - -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal F A E C -

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal B P L N -

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper A F - - -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing A E - - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper A H E J -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile A E - - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile P M - - -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile E H F C -

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile E A C - -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile F A E L -

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile F L R - -

Analysis:


Total # of A in Top 3: 15 50% Budget required


Total # of F in Top 3: 11 37% Effects on production / operation

Total # of C in Top 3: 8 27% Lack of EE expertise / technology

Total # of K in Top 3: 7 23% Uncertainty of measures actually resulting in energy saving

Total # of L in Top 3: 4 13% Lack of information / advice on EE

Total # of G in Top 3: 2 7%





Total # of R in Top 3: 2 7%







Check: 253%

Q17


Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical F - - - -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical C - - - -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical C - - - -

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical E - - - -

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical L - - - -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical L G F - -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal L - - - -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal I L N - -

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal E - - - -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal E M - - -

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal B - - - -

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal C - - - -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage I C B - -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - - - - -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage H - - - -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage B C F E -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage I - - - -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal - - - - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal - C E - -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal N I L - -

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal E - - - -

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper B I - - -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing D - - - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper A J I - -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile B - - - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile C - - - -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile M A - - -

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile G - - - -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile H - - - -

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile C - - - -

Analysis:


Total # of C : 8 18% More information / training / seminar on EE

Total # of E : 6 13% More financial and/or policy support from government

Total # of I : 6 13% EE should not disturb or inconvenient

Total # of B : 5 11% Create source of financing

Total # of L : 5 11% More emphasis on simple and high ROI measures

Total # of F : 3 7% Energy efficiency demonstration projects

Total # of A : 2 4%

Total # of G : 2 4%

Total # of H : 2 4%

Total # of M : 2 4%

Total # of N : 2 4%

Total # of D : 1 2%

Total # of J : 1 2%

Total # of K : 0 0%

Q18






Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical Y













NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal Y


NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal Y





Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile Y





Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile Y

Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 30 100.0% Know about the Designated Facilities Program.

Total # of "No": 0 0.0% Don't know about the Designated Facilities Program.


Grand Total 100.0%












FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal A




















Analysis:


Total # of "A": 30 100.0% Participate in the Designated Facilities Program

Total # of "B": 0 0.0% Don't participate in the Designated Facilities Program


Grand Total 100.0%


Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical C

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical B

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical C

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical B

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical B

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical C

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal C



FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal C

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal C

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal B

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage C

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage C

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage B

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage B

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage C


NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal B


NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal C


Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing C

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper B

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile C


Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile C

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile C

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile C

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile C

Analysis:


Total # of "A": 0 0.0% PRE

Total # of "B": 14 46.7% Preliminary Energy Audit

Total # of "C": 16 53.3% Detailed Energy Audit

Total # of "D": 0 0.0% EE Plan and Actual Implementation


Grand Total 100.0%

Code Company Type of Business Q22.1 Q22.2 Q22.3 Q22.4 Q22.5 Q22.6 Q22.7 Q22.8 Q22.9 Q22.10 Q22.11 Q22.12 Q22.13 Q22.14 Q22.15 Q22.16 Q22.17 Q22.18 Q22.19 Q22.20 Q22.21 Q22.22 Q22.23 Q22.24 Q22.25 Q22.26 Q22.27 Q22.28 Q22.29 Q22.30 Q22.31 Q22.32 Q22.33 Q22.34 Q22.35 Q22.36 Q22.37

Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical - 0.4 - - 0.1 - - 0.4 1.8 - - - - - - - - - 1.3 - - - - - - 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.0 - - - - - - -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical 0.1 - - - - - - 0.3 - - - - 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - 2.2 - - - 7.0 - - - - - - - - -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd.Chemical - 0.4 2.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.7 2.0 - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - - 0.9 - - - - -

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical - - - - - - - - 1.4 ? - - - - 0.2 - - - - - - - 5.6 - - 5.4 - - 2.6 - - 2.0 - - - - -

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical - 0.2 - 0.6 - - - 0.3 0.4 - - - 0.4 - - - - - 0.1 - - - - - - 0.0 - - - 2.0 - - - - - 15.5 -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal - 2.5 15.9 - - - - - 0.6 - - - 2.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal - 0.7 2.0 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.2 - - - 4.1 - 1.2 - - 1.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal - 0.6 - - - 0.9 - - 0.1 2.5 - - 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.3 - - - - - - - -

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal - 1.1 2.9 - - - - - - 2.9 - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.2 - - - - - - -

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd.Fabricated Metal - - - - 1.7 - - - 1.8 - - - 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.2 - - - 6.6 - - - -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 - - - 1.0 1.9 - - 0.2 - - - - 4.3 - - 1.3 - 0.9 - - 0.4 - - 0.6 - - - - - - 62.9 -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - - - - 2.3 - - - 0.0 - - - 0.5 - - - - - 0.5 - - 6.7 - - - 0.2 - - - - - - - - - - -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.8 - - - - 5.0 - 3.2 - - - 0.8 0.1 0.3 - - - - -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - - 1.0 - - - - 0.3 0.7 - - - 0.2 - - 0.1 - - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - 0.1 0.1 - - 1.2 - - - -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - - - - - - - - 2.1 - 15.5 - - - 1.0 0.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal - 1.2 1.2 - - - - - - 5.4 - - - 0.5 ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal - - - - - 2.0 - - 0.2 - - 4.9 - - - - - - 10.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal ? ? - - - - - 0.3 0.7 - - - 0.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12.6 - 0.1 - - - - - - 51.6

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal - - - - 0.6 - 10.7 - - 0.5 - - 0.5 - 1.0 - - 1.0 2.0 - - - - - - - - - 1.2 - - - - 3.5 - - -

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper - - ? - ? - - 0.1 - - - - 0.1 - - - - - 0.7 - - - - - 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - 80.0 -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing - 1.6 3.4 - 0.7 - - 1.5 1.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.2 - - - - 0.1 - 3.2 - - - -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile 3.6 - 1.8 - - - - 1.1 1.2 - - - 1.5 - - 0.2 - - ? - - - - - - - - 32.9 - - - - - - - - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile - 0.4 2.1 - 0.0 - - - 1.9 1.9 - - - - - - - - - - - 18.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25.7 -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile - 0.5 - - - - - - 0.0 - - - 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile 0.4 - - - 0.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.4 6.3 6.3 - - - 0.4 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.5 - - - - 4.5 - - 0.0 - - - 0.0 ? - - - - -

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile 0.7 - 0.9 - - - - - 0.4 - - - 0.4 - - - - - 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 58.9 -

Analysis:

Sub-Sector Q11.1 Q11.2 Q11.3 Q11.4 Q11.5 Q11.6 Q11.7 Q11.8 Q11.9 Q11.10 Q11.11 Q11.12 Q11.13 Q11.14 Q11.15 Q11.16 Q11.17 Q11.18 Q11.19 Q11.20 Q11.21 Q11.22 Q11.23 Q11.24 Q11.25 Q11.26 Q11.27 Q11.28 Q11.29 Q11.30 Q11.31 Q11.32 Q11.33 Q11.34 Q11.35 Q11.36 Q11.37

Chemical 2 3 1 1 1 - - 3 3 1 - - 2 - 1 - - 1 3 - - - 1 1 - 4 - 2 1 2 - 2 - - - 1 -

Fabricated Metal - 5 3 - 1 1 - - 3 2 - - 4 - 1 1 - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - - - - 2 1 - - 1 - - - -

Food & Beverage 1 1 1 - 2 - - 1 4 1 1 - 3 - 1 2 - 1 2 - 1 1 1 2 - 3 - - 2 2 1 1 1 - - 1 -

Non-Metal 1 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 2 2 - 1 2 1 2 - - 1 2 - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 - - - 1 - - 1

Paper - 1 2 - 2 - - 2 1 - - - 2 - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Textile 3 2 3 - 2 - - 1 4 1 - - 3 - - 1 - - 4 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 - - - 2 -

Total 7 14 11 1 9 2 1 8 17 7 1 1 16 1 5 4 - 3 13 1 3 2 2 5 2 9 1 4 6 6 3 4 3 1 - 5 1


Chemical 0.2% 0.3% 2.2% 0.6% 0.0% - - 0.3% 1.2% - - - 0.4% - 0.2% - - 3.7% 1.1% - - - 5.6% 2.2% - 1.5% - 3.7% 2.6% 1.0% - 1.4% - - - 15.5% -

Fabricated Metal - 1.2% 6.9% - 1.7% 0.9% - - 0.8% 2.7% - - 1.0% - 0.2% - - - 4.1% - 1.1% - - 1.4% - - - - 0.7% 0.2% - - 6.6% - - - -

Food & Beverage 0.1% 0.1% 1.0% - 1.2% - - 0.3% 0.9% 1.8% 15.5% - 0.3% - 0.9% 0.0% - 4.3% 0.6% - 1.3% 6.7% 0.8% 2.6% - 1.3% - - 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 1.1% - - 62.9% -

Non-Metal - 1.2% 1.2% - 0.6% 2.0% 10.7% 0.3% 0.4% 2.9% - 4.9% 0.7% 0.5% 1.0% - - 1.0% 6.0% - - - - - - - - 12.6% 1.2% 0.1% - - - 3.5% - - 51.6%

Paper - 1.6% 3.4% - 0.7% - - 0.8% 1.4% - - - 0.4% - - - - - 0.7% - - - - - 1.0% 0.2% - - - - 0.1% - 3.2% - - 80.0% -

Textile 1.5% 0.5% 1.6% - 0.4% - - 1.1% 0.9% 1.9% - - 0.7% - - 0.2% - - 1.8% 6.3% 6.3% 18.8% - 4.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 32.9% - - 0.0% - - - - 42.3% -

Total 0.8% 0.8% 3.3% 0.6% 0.8% 1.4% 10.7% 0.5% 0.9% 2.5% 15.5% 4.9% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.1% - 3.0% 2.2% 6.3% 2.9% 12.7% 3.2% 2.7% 0.7% 1.1% 0.0% 13.2% 1.0% 0.5% 0.1% 1.1% 3.7% 3.5% - 48.6% 51.6%

Q22

# of Times an EE Measure is Recommended in Energy Audit Report for Each Industrial Sub-Sector

Potential Whole-Facility Electricity or Fuel Savings as Reported in Energy Audit Reports for Each Industrial Sub-Sector




Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical B

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical C

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical C

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical -



FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal C



FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal C

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage C


F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage C

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage B


NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal C

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal B

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper C


Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper C





Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile C

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile B

Analysis:


Total # of "A": 5 16.7% E savings should be more than calculated in audit.

Total # of "B": 10 33.3% E savings should be less than calculated in audit.

Total # of "C": 12 40.0% E savings should be equal to calculated in audit.


Grand Total 100.0%

Code Company Type of Business Q24 Q24.1.1 Q24.1.2 Q24.2.1 Q24.2.2 Q24.3.1 Q24.3.2 Q24.4.1 Q24.4.2 Q24.5.1 Q24.5.2 Q24.6.1 Q24.6.2 Q24.7.1 Q24.7.2 Q24.8.1 Q24.8.2 Q24.9.1 Q24.9.2 Q24.10.1 Q24.10.2 Q24.11.1 Q24.11.2 Q24.12.1 Q24.12.2 Q24.13.1 Q24.13.2 Q24.14.1 Q24.14.2 Q24.15.1 Q24.15.2 Q24.16.1 Q24.16.2 Q24.17.1 Q24.17.2 Q24.18.1 Q24.18.2 Q24.19.1 Q24.19.2 Q24.20.1 Q24.20.2 Q24.21.1 Q24.21.2 Q24.22.1 Q24.22.2 Q24.23.1 Q24.23.2 Q24.24.1 Q24.24.2 Q24.25.1 Q24.25.2

Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical Y - - 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd.Chemical Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.7 Y - - - - - - - - - -

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical Y - - - - 2.0 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ? Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal Y - - - - 0.6 N - - - - - - - - ? Y - - ? Y - - - - - - - - - - 10.0 N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal Y - - ? Y ? Y - - ? Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ? Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal Y - - ? Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd.Fabricated Metal N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ? Y - - - - ? Y - - - - ? N - - - - ? Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.2 Y - - - - - - - - - - - -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage Y - - 0.1 N - - - - - - - - - - 0.7 Y - - - - - - - - - - 1.3 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage Y - - - - - - - - - - - - ? Y 12.8 Y - - - - - - - - 7.2 N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0 N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal N - - ? Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ? Y - - - -

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.5 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper Y - - - - ? Y - - - - - - 1.0 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0 Y - - - - - - 5.0 Y - - - - - - - - 30.0 N

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ? N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile Y - - 1.0 N - - - - - - 5.0 Y - - - - - - 1.0 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile Y - - - - ? Y - - ? Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ? Y ? Y - - - - ? Y - - - - - - - - - -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile Y - - - - - - - - ? N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.5 Y - - - - ? N - - - - - - - - 3.0 Y - -

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.5 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 20 66.7% Have implemented some of the recommended measures.

Total # of "No": 10 33.3% Have not implemented any of the recommended measures.


Grand Total 100%

Sub-Sector Q24.1.1 Q24.1.2 Q24.2.1 Q24.2.2 Q24.3.1 Q24.3.2 Q24.4.1 Q24.4.2 Q24.5.1 Q24.5.2 Q24.6.1 Q24.6.2 Q24.7.1 Q24.7.2 Q24.8.1 Q24.8.2 Q24.9.1 Q24.9.2 Q24.10.1 Q24.10.2 Q24.11.1 Q24.11.2 Q24.12.1 Q24.12.2 Q24.13.1 Q24.13.2 Q24.14.1 Q24.14.2 Q24.15.1 Q24.15.2 Q24.16.1 Q24.16.2 Q24.17.1 Q24.17.2 Q24.18.1 Q24.18.2 Q24.19.1 Q24.19.2 Q24.20.1 Q24.20.2 Q24.21.1 Q24.21.2 Q24.22.1 Q24.22.2 Q24.23.1 Q24.23.2 Q24.24.1 Q24.24.2 Q24.25.1 Q24.25.2

Chemical - - 1 - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - -

Fabricated Metal - - 2 2 2 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Food & Beverage - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 1 2 2 1 1 - - - - 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Non-Metal - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - -

Paper - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 -

Textile - - 1 - 1 1 - - 2 1 1 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2 2 1 1 - - 1 - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 - -

Total - - 6 3 5 4 - - 3 2 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 - 6 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 -

% saying they would have implemented anyway : - 50% 80% - 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 50% 100% - 67% 100% 100% 50% 100% - - 100% 100% -

Total # of Measures Implemented: 49

Total # of Measures that would have been implemented anyway: 37

% Measures that would have been implemented anyway: 75.5%

Sub-Sector Q24.1.1 Q24.2.1 Q24.3.1 Q24.4.1 Q24.5.1 Q24.6.1 Q24.7.1 Q24.8.1 Q24.9.1 Q24.10.1 Q24.11.1 Q24.12.1 Q24.13.1 Q24.14.1 Q24.15.1 Q24.16.1 Q24.17.1 Q24.18.1 Q24.19.1 Q24.20.1 Q24.21.1 Q24.22.1 Q24.23.1 Q24.24.1 Q24.25.1

Chemical - 0.4% 2.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0% - - - 1.7% - - - - -

Fabricated Metal - - 0.6% - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0% - - - - - - - - -

Food & Beverage - 0.1% - - - - - 6.7% - - - - 7.2% 1.3% - - - - 13.2% - - - - - -

Non-Metal - - - - - - - 0.5% - - - 5.0% - - - 10.0% - - - - - - - - -

Paper - - - - - - 1.0% - - - - - - - - 5.0% - - - 5.0% - - - - 30.0%

Textile - 1.0% - - - 5.0% - - 1.5% 1.0% - - - - - 2.5% - - - - - - - 3.0% -

Total - 0.5% 1.3% - - 5.0% 1.0% 4.6% 1.5% 1.0% - 5.0% 7.2% 1.3% - 6.5% - - 13.2% 3.3% - - - 3.0% 30.0%

Q24

# of Times a Recommended EE Measure is Implemented for Each Industrial Sub-Sector

Potential Whole-Facility Electricity or Fuel Savings as Reported by Factories for Each Industrial Sub-Sector



Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical B


Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical D

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical C

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical D


FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal D




FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal C

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage D


F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage B

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage C




NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal C

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal C



Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper B




Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile B



Analysis:


Total # of "A": 5 16.7% Very satisfied

Total # of "B": 14 46.7% More or less satisfied

Total # of "C": 7 23.3% Unsatisfied

Total # of "D": 4 13.3% Greatly unsatisfied

Total # of "E": 0 0.0% No opinion (Neutral)


Grand Total 100.0%

Code Company Type of Business Q26.1 Q26.2 Q26.3

Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical A - -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical C - -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical D - -

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical K - -

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical K - -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical R G E

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal K M -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal K I J

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal F - -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal M - -

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal C - -

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal K L -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage K A M

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage - - -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage I - -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage J T -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage K J -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal C - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal B C -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal N M P

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal Q S -

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper A H -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing F - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper C - -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile Q - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile - - -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile M N R

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile C - -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile K - -

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile A - -

Analysis:


Total # of K: 8 17.8% Process to approve audit reports is too slow

Total # of C: 6 13.3% Helped facility to save energy and costs

Total # of M: 5 11.1% Facility not satisfied with RC

Total # of A: 4 8.9% Helped to raise awareness

Total # of J: 3 6.7% Documentation / process too complicated

Total # of F: 2 4.4%

Total # of I: 2 4.4%

Total # of N: 2 4.4%

Total # of Q: 2 4.4%

Total # of R: 2 4.4%



Total # of E: 1 2.2%

Total # of G: 1 2.2%

Total # of H: 1 2.2%

Total # of L: 1 2.2%

Total # of P: 1 2.2%

Total # of S: 1 2.2%

Total # of T: 1 2.2%

Total # of O: 0 0.0%

Q26


Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical I - -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical A - -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical A - -

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical J - -

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical A E -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical G - -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal D - -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal J - -

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal A - -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal A - -

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal A - -

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal J - -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage A H -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage B - -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage - - -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage J - -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage F - -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal B - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal A - -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal J - -

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal A - -

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper H - -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing A - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper A C -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile E - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile H C -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile J I H

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile A - -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile E - -

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile E - -

Analysis:


Total # of A: 12 34.3% Helped reduce production costs


Total # of E: 4 11.4% Helped to increase awareness

Total # of H: 4 11.4% Helped facility to identify EE opportunities







Q27

Code Company Type of Business Q28.1 Q28.2 Q28.3 Q28.4

Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical H I L -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical - - - -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical G - - -

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical D - - -

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical A G H I

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical D G - -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal B D H -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal C D G P

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal Q G - -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal G P - -

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal G P N -

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal A D - -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage G - - -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage B P D -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage B Q - -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage A G - -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage A G - -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal K - - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal A D G H

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal A B D H

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal A P - -

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper D H I -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing L - - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper B M D -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile - - - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile A Q - -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile D G - -

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile - - - -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile G - - -

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile Q O K -

Analysis:


Total # of G: 13 20.6% DEDP too slow

Total # of D: 11 17.5% Did not received good reccommendations from RC

Total # of A: 8 12.7% Process too cumbersome / complicated

Total # of H: 6 9.5% Not enough coordination or follow-up by DEDP, RC, AC

Total # of B: 5 7.9% Need more complex technologies / expertise

Total # of P: 5 7.9% RC is poor quality / lack of expertise






Total # of M: 1 1.6%







Q28


Chem-1 Colgate-Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd. Chemical C - - -

Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical - - - -

Chem-3 Inoue Rubber (Thailand) Public Company Ltd. Chemical F - - -

Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical O G B M

Chem-5 Narong Industry Public Co., Ltd. Chemical A - - -

Chem-6 Thai Central-Chemical Public Co., Ltd. Chemical A - - -

FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal M O - -

FM-2 Daikin Industries (Thailand) Ltd. Fabricated Metal B D F G

FM-3 Fujikura (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal F - - -

FM-4 Kulthorn Kirby Public Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal H - - -

FM-5 Siam Nissan Automobile Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal I - - -

FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal M F E -

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage D C M -

F&B-2 Industrial Enterprises Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage H O - -

F&B-3 Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Food & Beverage E - - -

F&B-4 United Flour Mill Public Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage C o - -

F&B-5 Wan Thai Foods Industry Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage F H I -

NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal C - - -

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal K - - -

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal H I M -

NM-4 Thai Glass Industries Public Co., Ltd. Non-Metal O H - -

Paper-1 Mahachai Kraft Paper Paper C - - -

Paper-2 Si-Phya Publishing Co., Ltd. Paper and Publishing - - - -

Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper - - - -

Tex-1 Alpha Spinning Co., Ltd. Textile - - - -

Tex-2 Bangkok Weaving Mills Co., Ltd. Textile C - - -

Tex-3 Lianghua Co., Ltd. Textile C - - -

Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile - - - -

Tex-5 Toray Nylon Thai Co., Ltd. Textile O D - -

Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile O - - -

Analysis:


Total # of C: 7 15.9% More financial support from DEDP

Total # of O: 7 15.9% DEDP should be more involved in advising the facilities

Total # of F: 5 11.4% DEDP should speed up the work process

Total # of H: 5 11.4% Need to check quality and workmanship of RC

Total # of M: 5 11.4% Recom. should be specific to the type of factory / industrial process












Q29



Chem-2 Eternal Petrochemical Co., Ltd. Chemical N


Chem-4 Kao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Chemical N



FM-1 Bangchan General Assembly Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal N





FM-6 Toshiba Consumer Products (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Fabricated Metal N

F&B-1 Ayinomoto Co., Ltd. Food & Beverage N





NM-1 Siam EMC Safety Glass Co., Ltd. Non-Metal N

NM-2 Siam Pipe Products Co., Ltd. Non-Metal N

NM-3 Siam Plate Glass Industry Ltd. Non-Metal N




Paper-3 Thai Container Ratchaburi (1989) Paper N




Tex-4 Thai Filament Textile Co., Ltd. Textile N


Tex-6 Union Textile Industries Co., Ltd. Textile N

Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 17 56.7% Have heard about ESCO before.

Total # of "No": 13 43.3% Have never heard about ESCO before.


Grand Total 100.0%

Code Company Type of Business Type of Business

Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building Office Building

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)Office Building

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)Office Building

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)Office Building

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)Shopping Center

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center Shopping Center

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)Shopping Center

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel Hotel

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel Hotel

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel Hotel

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital Hospital

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital Hospital

Analysis:


Total # of Office Building: 4 33.3%

Total # of Shopping Center: 3 25.0%

Total # of Hotel: 3 25.0%

Total # of Hospital: 2 16.7%

Grand Total 100.0%

Q2


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building D

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)B

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)G

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)A

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)A

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center B

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)K

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel E

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel I

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel E

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital G

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital D

Analysis:


Total # of A: 2 16.7% MD or GM

Total # of B: 2 16.7% Other Senior Management


Total # of D: 2 16.7% Building Manager

Total # of E: 2 16.7% Maint./Util. Dept. Manager


Total # of G: 2 16.7% Engr. Dept Manager





Grand Total 100.0%


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building N

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)Y

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)Y

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)Y

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)Y

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center N

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)Y

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel N

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel Y

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital Y

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital -

Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 7 58.3% Participate in company's invesment decisions.

Total # of "No": 3 25.0% Do not participate.


Grand Total 100.0%


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building Y



Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)N




Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel Y


Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel Y


Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital Y

Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 10 83.3% Companies that made investments.

Total # of "No": 2 16.7% Did not make investments.


Grand Total 100.0%


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building C G E F -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)A C J E -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)A M H C -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)O H C - -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)A C G E -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center A C M E -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)A C F - -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel A F R E C

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel A C G - -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel C A O - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital A C F G E

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital J A Q C F

Analysis:



Total # of C in Top 3: 9 75% Return on investment

Total # of F in Top 3: 3 25% Environment

Total # of G in Top 3: 3 25% Safety

Total # of H in Top 3: 2 17% Availability of source of financing

Total # of J in Top 3: 2 17% Necessity of the investment

Total # of M in Top 3: 2 17% Effects on operation

Total # of O in Top 3: 2 17% Needs of the tenant / leasee











Total # of S in Top 3: 0 0%

Check: 300.0%

Q5

Code Company Type of Business Q6.1 Q6.2.1 Q6.2.2 Q6.3.1 Q6.3.2 Q6.4.1 Q6.4.2 Q6.5.1 Q6.5.2

Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building 600,000 600,000 280,000 - - - - - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)726,000 726,000 327,000 - - - - - -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)900,000 900,000 400,000 - - - - - -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)12,000,000 12,000,000 425,000 - - - - Diesel 30-60 Liters -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)2,700,000 2,500,000 900,000 - - LPG 200,000 Diesel 20 lites -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center 800,000 800,000 380,000 - - - - - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)13,000,000 13,000,000 4,543,160 - - - - - -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel 3,170,000 2,700,000 1,500,000 Fuel Oil 370,000 LPG 100,000 - -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel 3,564,416 2,800,000 1,300,000 Fuel Oil 700,000 LPG 7,000 Kgs. 64,000 Diesel 416

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel 1,696,188 1,400,000 670,000 Fuel Oil 24,000 Liters 207,600 LPG 9 tonnes 87,938 Diesel 50 Liters 650

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital 763,634 619,381 282,000 - - LPG 13,632 Kgs. 141,753 Diesel 200 lites 3

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital 1,200,000 1,200,000 560,000 - - - - Diesel 1,000

Analysis:

Sub-Sector # in Sample Total Bill - Baht Elec - Baht [kWh] % of Total Bill Fuel Oil - Baht % of Total Bill LPG/NG - Baht % of Total Bill Diesel - Baht % of Total Bill

Office Building 4 3,556,500ß 3,556,500ß 358,000 100.0% -ß 0.0% -ß 0.0% -ß 0.0%

Shopping Center 3 5,500,000ß 5,433,333ß 1,941,053 98.8% -ß 0.0% 66,667ß 1.2% -ß 0.0%

Hotel 3 2,810,201ß 2,300,000ß 1,156,667 81.8% 425,867ß 15.2% 83,979ß 3.0% 355ß 0.0%

Hospital 2 981,817ß 909,691ß 421,000 92.7% -ß 0.0% 70,877ß 7.2% 501ß 0.1%

Total Average 12 3,212,130ß 3,049,881ß 969,180 93.3% 106,467ß 3.8% 55,381ß 2.9% 214ß 0.0%

Q6

Code Company Type of Business Q7.1 Q7.2 Q7.3 Q7.4 Q7.5 Q7.6

Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building 50.0 - - - - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)60.0 - - - - -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)80.0 - - - - -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)10.0 - - - - -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)60.0 - - - - -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center 30.0 - - - - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)80.0 - - - - -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel 3.8 1.7 0.4 - - -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel 60.0 20.0 10.0 1.0 - -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel 58.1 8.6 3.7 0.0 - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital 15.0 - 0.0 0.0 - -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital - - - - - -

Analysis:

Sub-Sector # in Sample Elec Fuel Oil LPG/NG Diesel

Office Building 4 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Shopping Center 3 56.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Hotel 3 40.7% 10.1% 4.7% 0.5%

Hospital 1 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Average 11 46.1% 10.1% 3.5% 0.3%

Q7

Code Company Type of Business Q8.1.1 Q8.1.2 Q8.1.3 Q8.1.4 Q8.1.5 Q8.1.6 Q8.2.1 Q8.2.2 Q8.2.3 Q8.2.4 Q8.2.5

Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building 15.0 55.0 - 1.0 - 29.0 - - - - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)20.0 40.0 18.0 12.0 5.0 5.0 - - - - -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)30.0 39.0 - - 30.0 1.0 - - - - -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)18.0 58.0 - - - 20.0 - - - 100.0 -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)25.0 40.0 5.0 15.0 3.0 12.0 - - - - 100.0

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center 30.0 60.0 - - - 10.0 - - - - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)19.0 54.0 3.0 - 21.0 3.0 - - - - -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel ? 53.0 3.0 1.1 4.0 38.9 50.0 50.0 - - -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel 30.0 60.0 5.0 - 5.0 - 10.0 60.0 - - 30.0

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel 14.0 52.0 - - - 34.0 25.0 70.0 - - 5.0

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital 19.5 67.5 2.1 2.0 1.0 7.9 - 80.0 10.0 10.0 -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital 10.4 63.3 - - - 24.3 - - - 100.0 -

Analysis:

Sub-Sector # in Sample Lighting A/C Elev/Escal. Pump Plug Load Other Hot Water Laundry Disin./Sani. Elec Gen Other

Office Building 4 21% 48% 5% 3% 9% 15% 0% 0% 0% 25% 75%

Shopping Center 3 25% 51% 3% 5% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Hotel 3 22% 55% 3% 0% 3% 17% 28% 60% 0% 0% 12%

Hospital 2 15% 65% 1% 1% 1% 17% 0% 40% 5% 55% 0%

Total Average 12 21% 53% 3% 3% 6% 14% 7% 22% 1% 18% 53%

Electricity End-Uses Fuel End-Uses



Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building A

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)A

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)B



Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center A

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)A

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel A

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel A

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel A

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital A

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital A

Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 11 91.7% There is potential for EE/EC within the facility.

Total # of "No": 1 8.3% There is no potential.


Grand Total 100.0%




Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)A










Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 12 100.0% Have implemented EE/EC.

Total # of "No": 0 0.0% Have not implemented EE/EC.


Grand Total 100.0%

Code Company Type of Business Q11.1 Q11.2 Q11.3 Q11.4 Q11.5 Q11.6 Q11.7 Q11.8 Q11.9 Q11.10 Q11.11 Q11.12 Q11.13 Q11.14 Q11.15 Q11.16 Q11.17 Q11.18 Q11.19 Q11.20 Q11.21 Q11.22 Q11.23 Q11.24 Q11.25 Q11.26

Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building - ? - - - - - - - ? ? - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)- - - 2.0 - - ? - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.4 ? -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)3.0 3.0 ? ? - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)- - - 2.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)? - - - - 1.0 - - 3.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center - - - - ? - - - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)- - - 4.5 - 1.0 - - - 5.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel - - - 4.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel - - - 10.0 - - - - - - - - - 20.0 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel - - - ? - - - - ? ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital - - - - 1.0 ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.0 - -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital - - - - - - ? - - 12.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0 - -

Analysis:


Office Building 1 2 1 3 - - 2 - - 2 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 -

Shopping Center 1 - - 1 1 2 - - 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hotel - - - 3 - - - - 1 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hospital - - - - 1 1 1 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - -

Total 2 2 1 7 2 3 3 - 2 6 1 - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - 3 1 -

% Implemented 16.7% 16.7% 8.3% 58.3% 16.7% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 16.7% 50.0% 8.3% 0.0% 8.3% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 8.3% 0.0%


Office Building 3.0% 3.0% - 2.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.4% - -

Shopping Center - - - 4.5% - 1.0% - - 3.0% 5.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hotel - - - 7.1% - - - - - - - - - 20.0% - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hospital - - - - 1.0% - - - - 12.5% - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.0% - -

Total 3.0% 3.0% - 4.5% 1.0% 1.0% - - 3.0% 8.7% - - - 20.0% - - - - - - - - - 2.5% - -

Q11

# of Times an EE Measure is Mentioned in Each Commercial Sub-Sector

Potential Whole-Facility Electricity or Fuel Savings as Reported by the Buildings in Each Commercial Sub-Sector


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building B


Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)-



Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center -





Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital -


Analysis:


Total # of "A": 7 58.3% O&M Cost/Budget

Total # of "B": 1 8.3% Capital Budget


Grand Total 100.0%

Code Company Type of Business Q13.1 Q13.2

Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)30 -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)20 20

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)10 -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)- -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)10 -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel 10 -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel 5 -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel 2 -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital 0 17

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital 3 -

Analysis:

O&M Cap.

Total # in Sample: 9 2

Sum: 90 37

Average: 10% 19% Percentages

% Responding : 75% 17% of the 12 factilities interviewed

Q13


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building A B K J -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)A E C J -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)A L H E -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)H E C - -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)E A B - -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center A E C N -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)Q A E C -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel A E C B -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel A E C - -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel A E N B -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital A E C - -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital E A C - -

Analysis:




Total # of C in Top 3: 7 58% Technology / Expertise required

Total # of B in Top 3: 2 17% Environmental considerations

Total # of H in Top 3: 2 17% Availability of source of financing













Check: 300%

Q14





Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)-

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)-


Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)B

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel B




Analysis:


Total # of "A": 4 33.3% EE/EC Investment

Total # of "B": 3 25.0% Other Investment


Grand Total 100.0%


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building C - - - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)B D G A -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)I D A - -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)- - - - -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)C F - - -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center H B A - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)H J A C -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel - - - - -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel A C B - -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel - - - - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital G H J - -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital - - - - -

Analysis:


Total # of A in Top 3: 4 33% Journal and Magazines

Total # of B in Top 3: 3 25% Government Agencies

Total # of C in Top 3: 3 25% Manufacturers and Suppliers

Total # of H in Top 3: 3 25% Training / Seminars / Exhibitions

Total # of D in Top 3: 2 17% Registered Consultants

Total # of G in Top 3: 2 17% Energy Information Centers

Total # of J in Top 3: 2 17% Newspaper / Television






Check: 175%

Q16


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building I R H - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)A J Q - -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)H L - - -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)A J C - -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)A J - - -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center A D - - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)J A D - -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel A B - - -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel D M J - -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel A C - - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital E A C J -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital J J - - -

Analysis:



Total # of J in Top 3: 7 58% Inconveniences / Disturbances to occupants

Total # of C in Top 3: 3 25% Lack of EE expertise / technology

Total # of D in Top 3: 3 25% Lack of support from top management

Total # of H in Top 3: 2 17% EE technology too expensive














Check: 250%

Q17


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building A G - - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)B H - - -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)E M - - -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)B C - - -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)L B - - -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center E - - - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)D I K - -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel D - - - -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel N G K - -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel C - - - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital B C - - -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital - - - - -

Analysis:


Total # of B : 4 19% Create source of financing

Total # of C : 3 14% More information / training / seminar on EE

Total # of D : 2 10% ESCO could be a solution

Total # of E : 2 10% More financial and/or policy support from government

Total # of G : 2 10% More internal information dissemination

Total # of K : 2 10% Return money saved to the company's staff

Total # of A : 1 5%

Total # of H : 1 5%

Total # of I : 1 5%

Total # of L : 1 5%

Total # of M : 1 5%

Total # of N : 1 5%

Total # of F : 0 0%

Total # of J : 0 0%

Q18







Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center Y






Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital Y

Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 11 91.7% Know about the Designated Facilities Program.

Total # of "No": 1 8.3% Don't know about the Designated Facilities Program.


Grand Total 100.0%














Analysis:


Total # of "A": 12 100.0% Participate in the Designated Facilities Program

Total # of "B": 0 0.0% Don't participate in the Designated Facilities Program


Grand Total 100.0%



Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)C

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)C

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)C

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)C


Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)C

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel C

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel B

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel C

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital C

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital B

Analysis:


Total # of "A": 0 0.0% PRE

Total # of "B": 4 33.3% Preliminary Energy Audit

Total # of "C": 8 66.7% Detailed Energy Audit

Total # of "D": 0 0.0% EE Plan and Actual Implementation


Grand Total 100.0%

Code Company Type of Business Q22.1 Q22.2 Q22.3 Q22.4 Q22.5 Q22.6 Q22.7 Q22.8 Q22.9 Q22.10 Q22.11 Q22.12 Q22.13 Q22.14 Q22.15 Q22.16 Q22.17 Q22.18 Q22.19 Q22.20 Q22.21 Q22.22 Q22.23 Q22.24 Q22.25 Q22.26 Q22.27 Q22.28 Q22.29 Q22.30 Q22.31 Q22.32 Q22.33 Q22.34 Q22.35 Q22.36 Q22.37

Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building 1.0 22.1 10.4 - - - - 1.8 5.2 - - - - - - - 1.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)1.8 - 3.2 - - - - 2.8 - - - - 1.4 - 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.6 - - - - - - - - -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)2.0 - - 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)- - - 2.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)0.3 - - 0.2 - - - 0.3 0.1 - - - - - - 6.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center - 2.4 5.2 - 0.5 - - 0.1 - 16.4 - - 0.1 - 0.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)- 1.8 - - - - - - - 0.3 - 0.2 - - - 0.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.7 - - - - - - - -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel 1.3 - - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel - 1.1 1.5 13.7 - - - - - - - - - - 0.3 - 4.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.7 0.0 1.7 - - 2.7 - -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel - - - ? - - - ? - ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital - 28.6 10.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.2 4.6 - 1.3 - - - - - - -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital 1.4 - 0.4 0.4 - - - 2.9 - - - - 2.3 - 2.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.2 - - - - - - -

Analysis:


Office Building 3 1 2 2 - - - 2 1 - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - -

Shopping Center 1 2 1 1 1 - - 2 1 2 - 1 1 - 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

Hotel 1 1 1 3 - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 - - 1 - -

Hospital 1 1 2 1 - - - 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 2 - - - - - - -

Total 6 5 6 7 1 - - 6 2 3 - 1 3 - 4 2 2 - 1 - - - - - - - 1 2 1 3 1 1 - - 1 - -


Office Building 1.6% 22.1% 6.8% 1.1% - - - 2.3% 5.2% - - - 1.4% - 0.5% - 1.1% - - - - - - - - - - 0.6% - - - - - - - - -

Shopping Center 0.3% 2.1% 5.2% 0.2% 0.5% - - 0.2% 0.0% 8.3% - 0.2% 0.1% - 0.7% 3.4% - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.7% - - - - - - - -

Hotel 1.3% 1.1% 1.4% 13.7% - - - - - - - - - - 0.3% - 4.4% - 3.8% - - - - - - - - - - 0.7% 0.02% 1.7% - - 2.7% - -

Hospital 1.4% 28.6% 5.3% 0.4% - - - 2.8% - - - - 2.2% - 2.3% - - - - - - - - - - - 1.2% 4.6% - 0.7% - - - - - - -

Total 1.3% 11.2% 5.2% 3.3% 0.5% - - 1.6% 2.6% 8.3% - 0.2% 1.3% - 0.9% 3.4% 2.8% - 3.8% - - - - - - - 1.2% 2.6% 3.7% 0.7% 0.0% 1.7% - - 2.7% - -

Q22

# of Times an EE Measure is Recommended in Energy Audit Report for Each Commercial Sub-Sector

Potential Whole-Facility Electricity or Fuel Savings as Reported in Energy Audit Reports for Each Commercial Sub-Sector





Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)-

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)B


Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)B

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel C


Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital C


Analysis:


Total # of "A": 3 25.0% E savings should be more than calculated in audit.

Total # of "B": 3 25.0% E savings should be less than calculated in audit.

Total # of "C": 2 16.7% E savings should be equal to calculated in audit.


Grand Total 100.0%

Code Company Type of Business Q24 Q24.1.1 Q24.1.2 Q24.2.1 Q24.2.2 Q24.3.1 Q24.3.2 Q24.4.1 Q24.4.2 Q24.5.1 Q24.5.2 Q24.6.1 Q24.6.2 Q24.7.1 Q24.7.2 Q24.8.1 Q24.8.2 Q24.9.1 Q24.9.2 Q24.10.1 Q24.10.2 Q24.11.1 Q24.11.2 Q24.12.1 Q24.12.2 Q24.13.1 Q24.13.2 Q24.14.1 Q24.14.2 Q24.15.1 Q24.15.2 Q24.16.1 Q24.16.2 Q24.17.1 Q24.17.2 Q24.18.1 Q24.18.2 Q24.19.1 Q24.19.2 Q24.20.1 Q24.20.2 Q24.21.1 Q24.21.2 Q24.22.1 Q24.22.2 Q24.23.1 Q24.23.2 Q24.24.1 Q24.24.2 Q24.25.1 Q24.25.2

Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ? N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)Y - - - - - - - - - - - - ? Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)Y - - - - - - ? Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)Y - - - - - - 2.0 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)Y - - 2.0 N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0 N - -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel Y - - - - - - 4.2 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel N - - - - - - 10.0 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.0 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel Y - - - - - - 5.0 Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital Y - - 1.0 N 1.0 N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ? N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 8 66.7% Have implemented some of the recommended measures.

Total # of "No": 4 33.3% Have not implemented any of the recommended measures.


Grand Total 100%

Sub-Sector Q24.1.1 Q24.1.2 Q24.2.1 Q24.2.2 Q24.3.1 Q24.3.2 Q24.4.1 Q24.4.2 Q24.5.1 Q24.5.2 Q24.6.1 Q24.6.2 Q24.7.1 Q24.7.2 Q24.8.1 Q24.8.2 Q24.9.1 Q24.9.2 Q24.10.1 Q24.10.2 Q24.11.1 Q24.11.2 Q24.12.1 Q24.12.2 Q24.13.1 Q24.13.2 Q24.14.1 Q24.14.2 Q24.15.1 Q24.15.2 Q24.16.1 Q24.16.2 Q24.17.1 Q24.17.2 Q24.18.1 Q24.18.2 Q24.19.1 Q24.19.2 Q24.20.1 Q24.20.2 Q24.21.1 Q24.21.2 Q24.22.1 Q24.22.2 Q24.23.1 Q24.23.2 Q24.24.1 Q24.24.2 Q24.25.1 Q24.25.2

Office Building - - - - - - 2 2 - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shopping Center - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -

Hotel - - - - - - 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hospital - - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total - - 2 - 1 - 5 5 - - - - 1 1 - - 1 1 - - 1 - - - 1 - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -

% saying they would have implemented anyway : - 0% 0% 100% - - 100% - 100% - 0% - 0% 100% - - - - - - - - - 0% -

Total # of Measures Implemented: 14

Total # of Measures that would have been implemented anyway: 8

% Measures that would have been implemented anyway: 57.1%

Sub-Sector Q24.1.1 Q24.2.1 Q24.3.1 Q24.4.1 Q24.5.1 Q24.6.1 Q24.7.1 Q24.8.1 Q24.9.1 Q24.10.1 Q24.11.1 Q24.12.1 Q24.13.1 Q24.14.1 Q24.15.1 Q24.16.1 Q24.17.1 Q24.18.1 Q24.19.1 Q24.20.1 Q24.21.1 Q24.22.1 Q24.23.1 Q24.24.1 Q24.25.1

Office Building - - - 2.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shopping Center - 2.0% - - - - - - 10.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0% -

Hotel - - - 6.4% - - - - - - - - - 20.0% - - - - - - - - - - -

Hospital - 1.0% 1.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total - 1.5% 1.0% 5.3% - - - - 10.0% - - - - 20.0% - - - - - - - - - 5.0% -

Q24

# of Times a Recommended EE Measure is Implemented for Each Commercial Sub-Sector

Potential Whole-Facility Electricity or Fuel Savings as Reported by Buildings for Each Commercial Sub-Sector




Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)C


Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)C


Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)C

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel B

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel C


Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital B

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital B

Analysis:


Total # of "A": 3 25.0% Very satisfied

Total # of "B": 5 41.7% More or less satisfied

Total # of "C": 4 33.3% Unsatisfied

Total # of "D": 0 0.0% Greatly unsatisfied

Total # of "E": 0 0.0% No opinion (Neutral)


Grand Total 100.0%


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building C - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)A B -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)P - -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)B K -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)J K -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center E - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)K G M

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel A B -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel J M K

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel B - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital B K M

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital B - -

Analysis:


Total # of B: 6 27.3% Helped Thailand to save energy and environment

Total # of K: 5 22.7% Process to approve audit reports is too slow

Total # of M: 3 13.6% Facility not satisfied with RC

Total # of A: 2 9.1% Helped to raise awareness















Total # of S: 0 0.0%

Total # of T: 0 0.0%

Q26


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building E H -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)H - -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)J - -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)- - -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)H - -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center B - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)- - -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel B - -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel H - -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel D - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital B D -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital B - -

Analysis:


Total # of B: 4 33.3% Helped to reduce operation costs

Total # of H: 4 33.3% Helped facility to identify EE opportunities

Total # of D: 2 16.7% Helped to increase interest

Total # of E: 1 8.3% Helped to increase awareness







Q27


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building B - - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)G H P Q

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)D P R -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)B K G -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)A K G J

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center H Q - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)D G H -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel A G R -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel A D I -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel G H - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital A M - -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital B G H -

Analysis:


Total # of G: 7 21.2% DEDP too slow

Total # of H: 5 15.2% Not enough coordination or follow-up by DEDP, RC, AC

Total # of A: 4 12.1% Process too cumbersome / complicated

Total # of B: 3 9.1% Need more complex technologies / expertise

Total # of D: 3 9.1% Did not received good reccommendations from RC














Q28


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building N - - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)E H K -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)E H L -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)C F - -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)A - - -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center C E - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)F J H I

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel E L P -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel C F H O

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel - - - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital F O - -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital H N - -

Analysis:


Total # of H: 5 18.5% Need to check quality and workmanship of RC

Total # of E: 4 14.8% DEDP should disseminate more news / updates of the Program

Total # of F: 4 14.8% DEDP should speed up the work process

Total # of C: 3 11.1% More financial support from DEDP













Q29












Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital N

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital N

Analysis:


Total # of "Yes": 8 66.7% Have heard of ESCO before

Total # of "No": 4 33.3% Have never heard of ESCO before


Grand Total 100.0%


Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building A - - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)A K - -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)A - - -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)A - - -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)B C - -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center C - - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)M B D -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel N - - -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel D C - -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel D - - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital D K - -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital A - - -

Analysis:


Total # of A: 5 27.8% In general, ESCO is a good and interesting concept.

Total # of D: 4 22.2% Good that faciity don't need to make initial investment.

Total # of C: 3 16.7% Good that ESCO will help locate source of financing.

Total # of B: 2 11.1% ESCO will help the facility save energy and costs.

Total # of K: 2 11.1% Need to see an actual successful ESCO project.











Q31

Code Company Type of Business Q32 Q32.1.1 Q32.1.2 Q32.1.3 Q32.1.4 Q32.1.5 Q32.2

Off-1 Arkane Insurance Co., Ltd. Office Building Y I - - - - -

Off-2 CB Richard Ellis (Thailand) Co., Ltd. Office Building (Bangkok Thai Tower)Y B - - - - -

Off-3 Central Retail Corporation Ltd. Office Building (Cetral Chidlom Tower)Y C F - - - -

Off-4 Gypsum Metropolitan Co., Ltd. Office Building (Gypsum Metropolitan Tower)Y B C - - - -

Shop-1 Bankok International Hotels Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (Siam Center)Y A G - - - -

Shop-2 Merry King Department Store Co., Ltd. Shopping Center Y B G J - - -

Shop-3 World Trade Center Bangkok Co., Ltd. Shopping Center (World Trade Center)Y C - - - - -

Hotel-1 Queen's Park Hotel Hotel - - - - - - -

Hotel-2 Royal Orchid Sheraton Hotel Y G J L O - -

Hotel-3 Siam City Hotel Hotel Y J - - - - -

Hosp-1 Central General Hospital Hospital Y C A I H - -

Hosp-2 Phayathai 1 Hospital Hospital - - - - - - -

Analysis:

Will ESCO be able to help ?


Yes 10 83.3%

No 0 0.0%

No Answer 2 16.7%

How can ESCO help ?


Total # of C : 4 19.0% Help to control electricity costs

Total # of B : 3 14.3% Help to locate source of financing

Total # of G : 3 14.3% Introduce new technologies

Total # of J : 3 14.3% Chiller

Total # of A : 2 9.5% Help to make initial investment

Total # of I : 2 9.5% Air-conditioning

Total # of F : 1 4.8%

Total # of H : 1 4.8%

Total # of L : 1 4.8%

Total # of O : 1 4.8%

Total # of D : 0 0.0%

Total # of E : 0 0.0%

Total # of K : 0 0.0%

Total # of M : 0 0.0%

Total # of N : 0 0.0%

Total # of P : 0 0.0%

Total # of Q : 0 0.0%

Total # of R : 0 0.0%

Total # of S : 0 0.0%

Total # of T : 0 0.0%

Q32

Appendix 5:

Weighted Energy Savings Calculations

Energy Saving Potential for Various SourcesIndustrial Sector Using the Model of (wherever it's possible not to include Audit data) : Interview=50%; Literature=50%

to calculate the Weighted Energy Saving

Chemical Electricity A/C A/C cleaning & maintenance Audit Review 1 0.3% 0.4 54,075 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%Audit Review 2 0.5%Audit Review 1 0.4% 0.3 8,800 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%Audit Review 2 0.5%Audit Review 1 5.8% 0.9 50,850 3.2% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%Audit Review 2 0.5%Audit Review 1 0.6% 0.5 19,000 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%Audit Review 2 0.5%Audit Review 1 0.2% 5.4 2,678,796 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%Audit Review 2 0.9%Audit Review 1 0.5% 8.1 748,301 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%Audit Review 2 0.9%Audit Review 1 0.3% 10.1 569,063 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%Audit Review 2 0.9%Audit Review 1 0.6% 3.9 838,679 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%Audit Review 2 0.9%Audit Review 1 0.5% 5.2 388,498 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%Audit Review 2 0.9%Audit Review 1 0.7% 6.8 672,550 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%Audit Review 2 0.9%Audit Review 1 7.4% 1.3 24,091,206 11.5% 11.5% 0.0% 0.0% 11.5% Proposed for 1 Chemical factoryAudit Review 2 15.5% Proposed for 1 F&B factory

Non-Metal. Electricity Process Air compressor controller install. Audit Review 1 1.1% 2.2 2,800,000 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%Audit Review 1 1.0% 1.5 825,000 1.1% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0%Audit Review 2 1.1%

Interview 2.0%Audit Review 1 6.3% 0.4 690,000 6.3% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3%Audit Review 2 6.3%Audit Review 1 3.0% 8.1 12,000,000 7.9% 7.9% 0.0% 0.0% 7.9%Audit Review 2 12.7%Audit Review 1 9.0% 14.3 6,200,000 10.9% 10.9% 0.0% 0.0% 10.9%Audit Review 2 12.7%Audit Review 1 10.2% 3.2 6,200,000 11.5% 11.5% 0.0% 0.0% 11.5%Audit Review 2 12.7%Audit Review 1 1.1% 3.5 804,600 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%Audit Review 2 0.6%

Centrifugal air compressor Audit Review 1 6.2% 3.3 10,500,000 5.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 3.6%Centrifugal air compressor Audit Review 2 3.7%Energy-efficient air compressor TDRI Cse Stdy 3.6%

Audit Review 1 2.5% 10.6 5,910,000 2.5% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%Audit Review 2 2.5%

Interview 1.4%Audit Review 1 0.3% 7.8 749,000 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%Audit Review 2 2.5%Audit Review 1 0.4% 12.3 413,000 1.5% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%Audit Review 2 2.5%

Interview 1.4%Audit Review 1 1.1% 4.5 254,675 1.7% 13.1% 0.0% 13.1% 0.0% 13.1%Audit Review 2 2.2%




Interview 13.1%Audit Review 1 2.4% 0 36,000 2.3% 13.1% 0.0% 13.1% 0.0% 13.1%Audit Review 2 2.2%


Interview 13.1%Audit Review 1 0.2% 1.8 90,018 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%Audit Review 2 0.8%Audit Review 1 0.7% 0.3 49,500 0.8% 2.9% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 2.9%Audit Review 2 0.8%

Interview 2.9%Audit Review 1 0.3% 1.9 71,397 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%Audit Review 2 0.8%Audit Review 1 3.6% 2.1 12,000,000 3.4% 5.2% 4.7% 0.0% 2.6% 2.4% 5.0%Audit Review 2 3.2%

Interview 5.2%TDRI Cse Stdy 4.7%

Chemical Fuel Steam Sys. Condensate tank retrofit Audit Review 1 2.4% 0.8 300,000 2.4% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4%Food&Bev. Electricity Process Cooling system control improve. Audit Review 1 2.7% 2 10,600,000 2.7% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7%

Audit Review 1 3.6% 4.1 2,400,000 3.3% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3%Audit Review 2 3.0%Audit Review 1 10.2% 0.3 5,000,000 6.6% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 6.6%Audit Review 2 3.0%Audit Review 1 0.3% 6.4 643,418 0.6% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%Audit Review 2 0.8%

Interview 1.4%Audit Review 1 0.6% 10.9 1,641,264 0.7% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%Audit Review 2 0.8%



Interview 1.4%Audit Review 1 0.8% 5 2,037,440 0.8% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%Audit Review 2 0.8%

Interview 1.4%Audit Review 1 1.6% 9 1,378,496 1.2% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%Audit Review 2 0.8%

Interview 1.4%Audit Review 1 0.4% 0.6 103,901 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%Audit Review 2 0.6%Audit Review 1 0.8% 0.9 96,414 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%Audit Review 2 0.6%Audit Review 1 0.5% 0.9 99,100 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%Audit Review 2 0.6%Audit Review 1 0.7% 0.7 158,961 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%Audit Review 2 0.6%Audit Review 1 0.5% 1.3 98,833 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%Audit Review 2 0.6%

Condensate recyc. retrofitSteam Sys.FuelFood&Bev.

ProcessElectricityFab. Metal

Fab. Metal Electricity A/C

Saving due to Interview

Saving due to Literature

Sub-SectorPrimary Energy

End-use Investment

[Baht]

Weighted Energy Saving

CommentsEnergy Efficiency Measure Data SourceFacility Energy Saving

Simple Payback Period

Average E Saving - Audits

E Saving - Interview

Average E Saving - Literature

Saving due to Audits

Non-Metal. Electricity A/C A/C cleaning & maintenance

Textile Electricity A/C A/C cleaning & maintenance

A/C cleaning & maintenanceA/CElectricity Paper

Chemical Electricity A/C A/C package retrofit

A/C package retrofitA/CElectricity Fab. Metal

Food&Bev. Electricity A/C A/C package retrofit

A/C package retrofitA/CElectricityNon-Metal.

Textile Electricity A/C A/C package retrofit

A/C package retrofitA/CElectricity Paper

Chemical Electricity A/C Absorption chiller

Chemical Electricity Process Air pressure leak reduction

Textile Fuel Boiler Blow down system retrofit

Food&Bev. Fuel Boiler Boiler replacement

Boiler replacementBoilerFuelTextile

Paper Fuel Boiler Boiler replacement

Building insulation install.A/CElectricityFood&Bev.

Food&Bev.

Paper

Chiller system retrofit



A/C

A/C

Combustion efficiency improve.



Electricity

Electricity

Boiler

Boiler

Boiler

Fuel

Fuel

Boiler



Fuel BoilerTextile

Paper

Fuel

Fuel

Chemical

Fab. Metal

Food&Bev.

Non-Metal.

Compact fluorescent lamps



Fuel Combustion efficiency improve.Boiler

Food&Bev.

Textile

Paper

Lighting

Lighting

Lighting

Electricity

Electricity

Electricity

Economizer installation

Economizer installation

Boiler

Boiler

Fuel

Fuel

Chemical

Food&Bev.

Electronic ballast

Electronic ballast

Electronic ballast

Electronic ballast

Electricity

Electricity

Lighting

Lighting

Lighting

Lighting

Electronic ballast

Electronic ballast

Lighting

Lighting

Textile

Paper

Electricity

Electricity

Chemical

Fab. Metal

Food&Bev.

Non-Metal.

Electricity

Electricity

Electronic thermostat

A/CElectricity

A/CElectricity





Chemical

A/CElectricity Fab. Metal

Food&Bev.

A/C

A/C

Electricity

Electricity

Non-Metal.

Textile

Energy Saving Potential for Various SourcesIndustrial Sector Using the Model of (wherever it's possible not to include Audit data) : Interview=50%; Literature=50%


Chemical Electricity A/C A/C cleaning & maintenance Audit Review 1 0.3% 0.4 54,075 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%

Saving due to Interview

Saving due to Literature


End-use Investment

[Baht]


CommentsEnergy Efficiency Measure Data SourceFacility Energy Saving






Audit Review 1 2.6% 1.2 284,000 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6%Audit Review 2 0.6%

Food&Bev. Fuel Steam Sys. Feedwater sys. improve. / repair Audit Review 1 1.1% 0 - 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%Textile Electricity Lighting Fluorescent tube lamps Audit Review 1 0.2% 4.1 562,050 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Audit Review 1 8.0% 4.6 1,890,460 10.6% 10.6% 0.0% 0.0% 10.6%Audit Review 2 13.2%Audit Review 1 10.0% 4.2 1,855,136 11.6% 11.6% 0.0% 0.0% 11.6%Audit Review 2 13.2%Audit Review 1 1.5% 3.6 279,820 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%Audit Review 2 1.1%Audit Review 1 0.0% 14.3 182,342 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%Audit Review 2 0.8%Audit Review 1 1.0% 9.7 637,050 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%Audit Review 2 0.8%Audit Review 1 0.4% 6.9 487,940 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%Audit Review 2 0.8%Audit Review 1 0.3% 3.7 463,891 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%Audit Review 2 0.8%Audit Review 1 0.7% 2.6 449,104 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%Audit Review 2 0.8%Audit Review 1 0.1% 4.5 83,418 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%Audit Review 2 0.8%Audit Review 1 1.6% 2.6 1,706,132 2.5% 3.9% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 3.9%Audit Review 2 3.3%


Interview 3.9%Audit Review 1 1.3% 2.1 957,602 2.3% 3.9% 0.9% 0.0% 2.0% 0.4% 2.4%Audit Review 2 3.3%

Interview 3.9%TDRI Cse Stdy 0.9%Audit Review 1 0.1% 3.2 434,032 1.7% 3.9% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 3.9%Audit Review 2 3.3%



Interview 3.9%Audit Review 1 1.2% 1.3 1,732,776 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%Audit Review 2 1.0%Audit Review 1 9.5% 0.4 650,000 5.1% 4.6% 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 4.6%Audit Review 2 0.7%

Interview 4.6%Audit Review 1 1.9% 0 - 2.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4%Audit Review 2 2.9%TDRI Cse Stdy 1.4%

Textile Fuel Steam Sys. Steam pressure reduction Audit Review 1 6.3% 0 - 6.3% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3%Audit Review 1 0.0% 0.1 80,000 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%Audit Review 2 2.7%Audit Review 1 0.7% 0.4 19,000 1.7% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7%Audit Review 2 2.7%Audit Review 1 2.5% 1.3 281,750 2.6% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6%Audit Review 2 2.7%Audit Review 1 1.0% 0.2 28,000 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%Audit Review 2 0.1%

Fab. Metal Electricity Fan Ventilation fan efficiency Audit Review 1 2.3% 0 30,000 2.3% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3%

Note:* "Audit Review 1" refers to data collected during the energy audit report review in Task 1.** "Audit Review 2" refers to data collected during the energy audit report review during the on-site interviews (Task 3).*** " Interview" refers to data that was reported by the on-site interview respondents.**** Other notations refer to specific reports / documents where the data originate.

Luminaire and reflectorLightingElectricityFood&Bev.

Steam pressure reductionSteam Sys.FuelFood&Bev.

Electronic thermostatA/CElectricity Paper

High Efficiency Motors

High Efficiency Motors

Motor

Motor

FuelFood&Bev.

Electricity

Electricity

Non-Metal.

Textile

Low-loss ballast

Low-loss ballast

Insulation installationPiping

Low-loss ballast

Low-loss ballast

Lighting

Lighting

Lighting

Lighting

Lighting

Lighting

Low-loss ballast

Low-loss ballast

Electricity Chemical

Electricity Fab. Metal

ElectricityFood&Bev.

ElectricityNon-Metal.

Electricity Textile

Electricity Paper

Luminaire and reflectorLightingElectricity Chemical

Fab. Metal Electricity Lighting Luminaire and reflector

Luminaire and reflectorLightingElectricityNon-Metal.

Luminaire and reflector


Lighting

Lighting

Electricity

Electricity

Textile

Paper

Motor speed controller (inverter)MotorElectricityNon-Metal.

Steam leakage reductionSteam Sys.FuelChemical

Steam trap repair / replace.



Steam Sys.

Steam Sys.

Steam Sys.

Fuel

Fuel

Fuel

Chemical

Fab. Metal

Textile

Transformer capacity matchingElec. Sys.Electricity Fab. Metal

Energy Saving Potential for Various SourcesCommercial Sector Using the Model of (wherever it's possible not to include Audit data) : Interview=50%; Literature=50%


Audit Review 1 1.5% 0.6 115,575 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% Audit Review 2 1.6% Audit Review 1 8.6% 0.7 455,484 5.6% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 5.3% Audit Review 2 2.6%

NEOS 5.3% Audit Review 1 0.9% 1.1 72,500 1.8% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 8.0% Audit Review 2 2.6%

NEOS 8.0% Audit Review 1 4.3% 4.1 1,507,324 2.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% Audit Review 2 0.9% Energy Future 0.5% Audit Review 1 3.3% 3.8 2,019,250 2.1% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% Audit Review 2 0.9%

NEOS 6.9% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 6.3% Energy Future 5.6% Audit Review 1 13.9% 8.6 13,440,000 11.1% 3.0% 3.8% 0.0% 1.5% 1.9% 3.4% Audit Review 2 8.3%

Interview 3.0% NEOS 3.1% DOE-2 simulation for a department store

Energy Future 4.4% Audit Review 1 2.2% 5.5 4,000,000 5.3% 3.0% 10.8% 0.0% 1.5% 5.4% 6.9% Audit Review 2 8.3%

Interview 3.0% NEOS 11.7%

Energy Future 9.8%Hospital Electricity A/C Chiller system retrofit NEOS 10.9% 10.9% 0.0% 0.0% 10.9% 10.9%

Audit Review 1 1.6% 0.6 4,000 2.7% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% Audit Review 2 3.8% Audit Review 1 3.1% 6.6 26,525 3.2% 4.5% 0.7% 0.0% 2.3% 0.4% 2.6% Audit Review 2 3.3%


Audit Review 1 0.4% 1.3 74,113 1.9% 4.5% 0.4% 0.0% 2.3% 0.2% 2.5% Audit Review 2 3.3%


Audit Review 1 9.0% 1.3 1,190,693 6.2% 4.5% 5.4% 0.0% 2.3% 2.7% 5.0% Audit Review 2 3.3%



Interview 4.5%NEOS 2.0%

Audit Review 1 2.0% 7.5 1,156,320 6.6% 3.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 3.0% Audit Review 2 11.2%

Interview 3.0% Audit Review 1 1.9% 7.1 7,353,140 6.6% 3.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 3.0% Audit Review 2 11.2%



Interview 3.0%Gypsum board and blinds install. Audit Review 1 18.5% 1.7 2,596,603 10.7% 10.7% 0.0% 0.0% 10.7%Reduce heat due to solar rad. Audit Review 2 2.8%









Audit Review 1 12.7% 4.9 5,016,760 9.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% Audit Review 2 5.2% Audit Review 1 4.5% 2.3 1,155,950 4.9% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9% Audit Review 2 5.2% Audit Review 1 1.4% 4 1,097,760 3.3% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% Audit Review 2 5.2% Audit Review 1 2.8% 1.9 1,702,800 2.8% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% Audit Review 2 2.7% Audit Review 1 3.6% 3.5 7,500,000 3.7% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% Audit Review 2 3.7% Energy Future 0.9% Audit Review 1 1.2% 7.4 697,148 2.3% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% Audit Review 2 3.4%

Note:* "Audit Review 1" refers to data collected during the energy audit report review in Task 1.** "Audit Review 2" refers to data collected during the energy audit report review during the on-site interviews (Task 3).*** " Interview" refers to data that was reported by the on-site interview respondents.**** Other notations refer to specific reports / documents where the data originate.

CommentsEnergy Efficiency Measure Investment

[Baht]


Saving due to

Interview

Saving due to

Literature





Data SourceFacility Energy Saving



End-use

A/C cleaning & maintenanceA/CElectricityHospital

A/C package retrofitA/CElectricityOffice

A/C package retrofitA/CElectricityHospital

Office Electricity Lighting Electronic ballast

Hospital Electricity A/C Building insulation

Building insulationA/CElectricityOffice



A/C

A/C

Electricity

Electricity

Office

Shop. Ctr.

Chiller system retrofitA/CElectricityHotel

Combustion efficiency improve.BoilerFuelHotel

Compact fluorescent lampsLightingElectricityOffice

Compact fluorescent lampsLightingElectricityShop. Ctr.

Compact fluorescent lampsLightingElectricityHotel

Compact fluorescent lampsLightingElectricityHospital

Electronic ballastLightingElectricityShop. Ctr.

Electronic ballastLightingElectricityHotel

Electronic ballastLightingElectricityHospital

A/CElectricityHotel

Room key switchesOtherElectricityHotel

Low-loss ballast

Low-loss ballast

Lighting

Lighting

Lighting Low-loss ballast

Low-loss ballastLighting

Office Electricity

ElectricityShop. Ctr.

ElectricityHotel

ElectricityHospital




Lighting

Lighting

Lighting

Electricity

Electricity

Electricity

Office

Shop. Ctr.

Hotel

Variable speed drive (VSD) motorMotorElectricityShop. Ctr.

Window filmA/CElectricityOffice

Appendix 6:

Scenario Weighting Factors

Scenario Assumptions for the Industrial Sector

A/C cleaning & maintenance 60% 20% 80% 40%Absorption chiller 60% 20% 80% 40%Air pressure leak reduction 60% 20% 80% 40%Combustion efficiency improve. 60% 20% 80% 40%Condensate tank retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Economizer for boiler 60% 20% 80% 40%Electronic thermostat 60% 20% 80% 40%Luminaire and reflector retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Steam leakage reduction 60% 20% 80% 40%Steam trap retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Production Process Improvement 30% 10% 40% 20%Energy-efficient air compressor 60% 20% 80% 40%Combustion efficiency improve. 60% 20% 80% 40%Electronic thermostat 60% 20% 80% 40%Luminaire and reflector retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Steam trap retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Transformer capacity matching 60% 20% 80% 40%Ventilation fan retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Production Process Improvement 30% 10% 40% 20%Boiler feedwater system retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Building insulation 60% 20% 80% 40%Combustion efficiency improve. 60% 20% 80% 40%Compact fluorescent lamp 60% 20% 80% 40%Condensate recycling sys. retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Cooling system control improve. 60% 20% 80% 40%Economizer for boiler 60% 20% 80% 40%Electronic thermostat 60% 20% 80% 40%Luminaire and reflector retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Steam piping insulation 60% 20% 80% 40%Steam pressure reduction 60% 20% 80% 40%Production Process Improvement 30% 10% 40% 20%A/C cleaning & maintenance 60% 20% 80% 40%A/C package retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Air compressor retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Combustion efficiency improve. 60% 20% 80% 40%Electronic ballast 60% 20% 80% 40%Electronic thermostat 60% 20% 80% 40%High efficiency motor 60% 20% 80% 40%Low-loss ballast 60% 20% 80% 40%Luminaire and reflector retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Motor speed controller (inverter) 60% 20% 80% 40%Production Process Improvement 30% 10% 40% 20%A/C cleaning & maintenance 60% 20% 80% 40%Blow down system retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Combustion efficiency improve. 60% 20% 80% 40%Compact fluorescent lamp 60% 20% 80% 40%Electronic ballast 60% 20% 80% 40%Electronic thermostat 60% 20% 80% 40%Fluorescent tube lamp (high eff.) 60% 20% 80% 40%High efficiency motor 60% 20% 80% 40%Low-loss ballast 60% 20% 80% 40%Luminaire and reflector retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Steam pressure reduction 60% 20% 80% 40%Steam trap retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Production Process Improvement 30% 10% 40% 20%A/C cleaning & maintenance 60% 20% 80% 40%Boiler retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Combustion efficiency improve. 60% 20% 80% 40%Compact fluorescent lamp 60% 20% 80% 40%Electronic thermostat 60% 20% 80% 40%Low-loss ballast 60% 20% 80% 40%Luminaire and reflector retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Production Process Improvement 30% 10% 40% 20%

Pap

erT

extil

eN

on-M

etal

licF

ood

& B

ever

age

Conservative Scenario Optimistic ScenarioAchievable Energy

Savings [%]Achievable

Facilities [%]Achievable Energy

Savings [%]Achievable

Facilities [%]Measures

Fab

. Met

alC

hem

ical

Scenario Assumptions for the Commercial Sector

A/C package retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Building insulation 60% 20% 80% 40%Chiller system retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Compact fluorescent lamp 60% 20% 80% 40%Electronic ballast 60% 20% 80% 40%Low-loss ballast 60% 20% 80% 40%Luminaire and reflector retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Window film 60% 20% 80% 40%Chiller system retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Compact fluorescent lamp 60% 20% 80% 40%Electronic ballast 60% 20% 80% 40%Low-loss ballast 60% 20% 80% 40%Luminaire and reflector retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Variable speed drive (VSD) motor 60% 20% 80% 40%Building insulation 60% 20% 80% 40%Chiller system retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Combustion efficiency improve. 60% 20% 80% 40%Compact fluorescent lamp 60% 20% 80% 40%Electronic ballast 60% 20% 80% 40%Low-loss ballast 60% 20% 80% 40%Luminaire and reflector retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Room key switches 60% 20% 80% 40%A/C cleaning & maintenance 60% 20% 80% 40%A/C package retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Building insulation 60% 20% 80% 40%Chiller system retrofit 60% 20% 80% 40%Compact fluorescent lamp 60% 20% 80% 40%Electronic ballast 60% 20% 80% 40%Low-loss ballast 60% 20% 80% 40%


Achievable Energy Savings


Achievable Energy Savings

Conservative Scenario Optimistic ScenarioMeasures

Offi

ceS

hopp

ing

Cen

ter

Hot

elH

ospi

tal

Appendix 7:

Industrial and Commercial Energy Savings and Investment Calculation

Industrial Energy Saving and Investment Calculation

* Measure selection criteria = measures with simple payback period of less than 5 years.

A/C cleaning & maintenance Electricity 0.4% 54,075 104,289 378 60% 250 20% 18,922 4,088,070 3,575 80% 334 40% 50,459 8,176,140 9,532 Absorption chiller Electricity 11.5% 24,091,206 104,289 378 60% 7,165 20% 541,646 1,821,295,174 102,321 80% 9,553 40% 1,444,389 3,642,590,347 272,856 Air pressure leak reduction Electricity 2.0% 825,000 104,289 378 60% 1,251 20% 94,611 62,370,000 17,873 80% 1,669 40% 252,295 124,740,000 47,660 Combustion efficiency improve. Fuel 13.1% 254,675 193,679 378 60% 15,223 20% 1,150,871 19,253,430 87,811 80% 20,298 40% 3,068,989 38,506,860 234,164 Condensate tank retrofit Fuel 2.4% 300,000 193,679 378 60% 2,789 20% 210,847 22,680,000 16,088 80% 3,719 40% 562,257 45,360,000 42,900 Economizer for boiler Fuel 3.3% 2,400,000 193,679 378 60% 3,835 20% 289,914 181,440,000 22,120 80% 5,113 40% 773,104 362,880,000 58,988 Electronic thermostat Electricity 0.5% 103,901 104,289 378 60% 313 20% 23,653 7,854,916 4,468 80% 417 40% 63,074 15,709,831 11,915 Luminaire and reflector retrofit Electricity 3.9% 1,706,132 104,289 378 60% 2,440 20% 184,491 128,983,579 34,852 80% 3,254 40% 491,975 257,967,158 92,938 Steam leakage reduction Fuel 4.6% 650,000 193,679 378 60% 5,346 20% 404,123 49,140,000 30,835 80% 7,127 40% 1,077,660 98,280,000 82,225 Steam trap retrofit Fuel 1.4% 80,000 193,679 378 60% 1,569 20% 118,601 6,048,000 9,049 80% 2,092 40% 316,270 12,096,000 24,131 Production Process Improvement Both 20.0% See other sheet 297,967 378 30% 17,878 10% 675,790 392,810,028 72,710 40% 23,837 20% 1,802,107 1,047,493,408 193,893

Chemical Sub-Total 58,059 3,713,467 2,695,963,197 401,701 77,412 9,902,579 5,653,799,745 1,071,203 Energy-efficient air compressor Electricity 3.6% 10,500,000 177,021 527 60% 3,824 20% 403,012 1,106,700,000 76,132 80% 5,098 40% 1,074,699 2,213,400,000 203,019 Combustion efficiency improve. Fuel 13.1% 165,000 95,319 527 60% 7,492 20% 789,663 17,391,000 60,251 80% 9,989 40% 2,105,768 34,782,000 160,670 Electronic thermostat Electricity 0.7% 96,414 177,021 527 60% 743 20% 78,363 10,162,036 14,803 80% 991 40% 208,969 20,324,071 39,476 Luminaire and reflector retrofit Electricity 3.9% 1,177,050 177,021 527 60% 4,142 20% 436,597 124,061,070 82,476 80% 5,523 40% 1,164,258 248,122,140 219,937 Steam trap retrofit Fuel 1.7% 19,000 95,319 527 60% 972 20% 102,475 2,002,600 7,819 80% 1,296 40% 273,268 4,005,200 20,850 Transformer capacity matching Electricity 0.6% 28,000 177,021 527 60% 584 20% 61,571 2,951,200 11,631 80% 779 40% 164,190 5,902,400 31,017 Ventilation fan retrofit Electricity 2.3% 30,000 177,021 527 60% 2,443 20% 257,480 3,162,000 48,640 80% 3,257 40% 686,613 6,324,000 129,706 Production Process Improvement Both 20.0% See other sheet 272,339 527 30% 16,340 10% 861,137 838,666,140 128,724 40% 21,787 20% 2,296,366 2,236,443,040 343,265

Fabricated Metal Sub-Total 36,541 2,990,299 2,105,096,046 430,477 48,722 7,974,131 4,769,302,851 1,147,939 Boiler feedwater system retrofit Fuel 1.1% 0 167,544 517 60% 1,106 20% 114,339 - 8,724 80% 1,474 40% 304,904 - 23,264 Building insulation Electricity 0.9% 804,600 55,848 517 60% 285 20% 29,451 83,195,640 5,564 80% 380 40% 78,536 166,391,280 14,836 Combustion efficiency improve. Fuel 13.1% 596,940 167,544 517 60% 13,169 20% 1,361,673 61,723,596 103,896 80% 17,559 40% 3,631,129 123,447,192 277,055 Compact fluorescent lamp Electricity 0.5% 90,018 55,848 517 60% 168 20% 17,324 9,307,861 3,273 80% 223 40% 46,198 18,615,722 8,727 Condensate recycling sys. retrofit Fuel 5.0% 12,000,000 167,544 517 60% 4,991 20% 516,085 1,240,800,000 39,377 80% 6,655 40% 1,376,225 2,481,600,000 105,006 Cooling system control improve. Electricity 2.7% 10,600,000 55,848 517 60% 905 20% 93,550 1,096,040,000 17,672 80% 1,206 40% 249,467 2,192,080,000 47,126 Economizer for boiler Fuel 6.6% 5,000,000 167,544 517 60% 6,635 20% 686,034 517,000,000 52,344 80% 8,846 40% 1,829,424 1,034,000,000 139,585 Electronic thermostat Electricity 0.6% 99,100 55,848 517 60% 184 20% 19,056 10,246,940 3,600 80% 246 40% 50,817 20,493,880 9,600 Luminaire and reflector retrofit Electricity 2.4% 957,602 55,848 517 60% 803 20% 82,982 99,016,047 15,676 80% 1,070 40% 221,286 198,032,094 41,803 Steam piping insulation Fuel 1.3% 279,820 167,544 517 60% 1,307 20% 135,128 28,933,388 10,310 80% 1,742 40% 360,341 57,866,776 27,494 Steam pressure reduction Fuel 1.4% 0 167,544 517 60% 1,357 20% 140,325 - 10,707 80% 1,809 40% 374,200 - 28,551 Production Process Improvement Both 15.0% See other sheet 223,392 517 30% 10,053 10% 519,723 368,701,153 62,060 40% 13,404 20% 1,385,927 983,203,076 165,494

Food & Beverage Sub-Total 40,961 3,715,670 3,514,964,625 333,203 54,615 9,908,454 7,275,730,020 888,542 A/C cleaning & maintenance Electricity 0.5% 8,800 58,683 119 60% 158 20% 3,771 209,440 712 80% 211 40% 10,056 418,880 1,900 A/C package retrofit Electricity 0.8% 838,679 58,683 119 60% 264 20% 6,285 19,960,560 1,187 80% 352 40% 16,760 39,921,120 3,166 Air compressor retrofit Electricity 1.1% 2,800,000 58,683 119 60% 387 20% 9,218 66,640,000 1,741 80% 516 40% 24,581 133,280,000 4,644 Combustion efficiency improve. Fuel 13.1% 70,000 528,143 119 60% 41,512 20% 987,986 1,666,000 75,383 80% 55,349 40% 2,634,629 3,332,000 201,022 Electronic ballast Electricity 1.4% 195,446 58,683 119 60% 493 20% 11,732 4,651,615 2,216 80% 657 40% 31,285 9,303,230 5,910 Electronic thermostat Electricity 0.7% 158,961 58,683 119 60% 229 20% 5,447 3,783,272 1,029 80% 305 40% 14,525 7,566,544 2,744 High efficiency motor Electricity 10.6% 1,890,460 58,683 119 60% 3,732 20% 88,827 44,992,948 16,780 80% 4,976 40% 236,871 89,985,896 44,747 Low-loss ballast Electricity 0.6% 463,891 58,683 119 60% 194 20% 4,609 11,040,606 871 80% 258 40% 12,290 22,081,212 2,322 Luminaire and reflector retrofit Electricity 3.9% 434,032 58,683 119 60% 1,373 20% 32,681 10,329,962 6,174 80% 1,831 40% 87,151 20,659,923 16,463 Motor speed controller (inverter) Electricity 1.1% 1,732,776 58,683 119 60% 387 20% 9,218 41,240,069 1,741 80% 516 40% 24,581 82,480,138 4,644 Production Process Improvement Both 30.0% See other sheet 586,825 119 30% 52,814 10% 628,490 198,926,133 54,329 40% 70,419 20% 1,675,973 530,469,687 144,877

Non-Metallic Sub-Total 101,544 1,788,263 403,440,604 162,164 135,392 4,768,702 939,498,629 432,438 A/C cleaning & maintenance Electricity 3.2% 50,850 134,874 316 60% 2,549 20% 161,104 3,213,720 30,434 80% 3,399 40% 429,612 6,427,440 81,157 Blow down system retrofit Fuel 6.3% 690,000 404,622 316 60% 15,295 20% 966,626 43,608,000 73,754 80% 20,393 40% 2,577,670 87,216,000 196,676 Combustion efficiency improve. Fuel 13.1% 36,000 404,622 316 60% 31,803 20% 2,009,969 2,275,200 153,361 80% 42,404 40% 5,359,918 4,550,400 408,962 Compact fluorescent lamp Electricity 2.9% 49,500 134,874 316 60% 2,347 20% 148,318 3,128,400 28,018 80% 3,129 40% 395,516 6,256,800 74,716 Electronic ballast Electricity 1.4% 2,037,440 134,874 316 60% 1,133 20% 71,602 128,766,208 13,526 80% 1,511 40% 190,939 257,532,416 36,070 Electronic thermostat Electricity 0.6% 98,833 134,874 316 60% 445 20% 28,129 6,246,246 5,314 80% 593 40% 75,012 12,492,491 14,170 Fluorescent tube lamp (high eff.) Electricity 0.2% 562,050 134,874 316 60% 162 20% 10,229 35,521,560 1,932 80% 216 40% 27,277 71,043,120 5,153 High efficiency motor Electricity 11.6% 1,855,136 134,874 316 60% 9,387 20% 593,273 117,244,595 112,074 80% 12,516 40% 1,582,062 234,489,190 298,863 Low-loss ballast Electricity 0.8% 449,104 134,874 316 60% 607 20% 38,358 28,383,373 7,246 80% 809 40% 102,289 56,766,746 19,323 Luminaire and reflector retrofit Electricity 3.9% 1,487,764 134,874 316 60% 3,156 20% 199,463 94,026,685 37,680 80% 4,208 40% 531,900 188,053,370 100,480 Steam pressure reduction Fuel 6.3% 0 404,622 316 60% 15,295 20% 966,626 - 73,754 80% 20,393 40% 2,577,670 - 196,676 Steam trap retrofit Fuel 2.6% 281,750 404,622 316 60% 6,312 20% 398,925 17,806,600 30,438 80% 8,416 40% 1,063,800 35,613,200 81,168 Production Process Improvement Both 35.0% See other sheet 539,496 316 30% 56,647 10% 1,790,049 1,358,442,582 226,953 40% 75,529 20% 4,773,464 3,622,513,552 605,209

Textile Sub-Total 145,138 7,382,673 1,838,663,168 794,484 193,517 19,687,128 4,582,954,725 2,118,623 A/C cleaning & maintenance Electricity 0.6% 19,000 155,323 80 60% 513 20% 8,201 304,000 1,549 80% 683 40% 21,869 608,000 4,131 Boiler retrofit Fuel 11.5% 6,200,000 362,421 80 60% 24,898 20% 398,373 99,200,000 30,396 80% 33,198 40% 1,062,327 198,400,000 81,056 Combustion efficiency improve. Fuel 13.1% 95,000 362,421 80 60% 28,486 20% 455,780 1,520,000 34,776 80% 37,982 40% 1,215,414 3,040,000 92,736 Compact fluorescent lamp Electricity 0.6% 71,397 155,323 80 60% 513 20% 8,201 1,142,352 1,549 80% 683 40% 21,869 2,284,704 4,131 Electronic thermostat Electricity 1.6% 284,000 155,323 80 60% 1,491 20% 23,858 4,544,000 4,507 80% 1,988 40% 63,620 9,088,000 12,018 Low-loss ballast Electricity 0.5% 83,418 155,323 80 60% 419 20% 6,710 1,334,688 1,268 80% 559 40% 17,893 2,669,376 3,380 Luminaire and reflector retrofit Electricity 3.9% 578,837 155,323 80 60% 3,635 20% 58,153 9,261,392 10,986 80% 4,846 40% 155,075 18,522,784 29,295 Production Process Improvement Both 20.0% See other sheet 517,744 80 30% 31,065 10% 248,517 97,621,902 23,410 40% 41,419 20% 662,712 260,325,072 62,426

Paper Sub-Total 91,019 1,207,792 214,928,334 108,440 121,359 3,220,780 494,937,936 289,174

Grand Total 20,798,165 10,773,055,974ß 2,230,470 55,461,774 23,716,223,907ß 5,947,919

CO2 Conversion Factors:Electricity-related measures: 0.00068 tonne CO2 per kWh

Fuel-related measures: 76.3 tonne CO2 per TJ

Assumptions:1 The investment cost of production process improvement measures in designated factories is equal to the cost of energy for the entire industrial sector of Thailand.2 Production Process Improvement measures have a 3 year pay-back period.3 The CO2 avoidance due to Production Process Improvement is estimated by assuming the same fuel-electricity breakdown as that used to calculate the energy savings.

Weighted Energy Savings

Tex

tile

Pap

erC

hem

ical

Fab

. Met

alF

ood

& B

ever

age

Non

-Met

allic

CO2 Mitigation [tonnes]

Energy Efficiency Measures Energy Saving

[GJ/fclty]

Achievable Fclties (as % of Tot. # of

DF)

Investment [Baht/fclty]

Annual Energy Consump. [GJ/facility]

Achievable Savings (as %

of Econ. Savings)

# of Designated

Facilities (DF)

Primary Energy



Total Sub-Sector Energy Saving [GJ]


of Econ. Savings)

Total Investment [Baht] Total Investment [Baht] Energy Saving

[GJ/fclty]


DF)

Total Sub-Sector Energy Saving [GJ]

Commercial Energy Saving and Investment Calculation

*Measure selection criteria = measures with simple payback period of less than 5 years.

A/C package retrofit 5.3% 455,484 3.732 574 60% 118.674 20% 13.624 52,289,563 9,264 80% 158.232 40% 36.330 104,579,126 24,704 Building insulation 0.5% 1,507,324 3.732 574 60% 11.196 20% 1.285 173,040,795 874 80% 14.928 40% 3.427 346,081,590 2,331 Chiller system retrofit 6.3% 3.732 574 60% 139.946 20% 16.066 - 10,925 80% 186.594 40% 42.842 - 29,133 Compact fluorescent lamp 2.6% 26,525 3.732 574 60% 58.217 20% 6.683 3,045,070 4,545 80% 77.623 40% 17.822 6,090,140 12,119 Electronic ballast 3.0% 1,156,320 3.732 574 60% 67.174 20% 7.712 132,745,536 5,244 80% 89.565 40% 20.564 265,491,072 13,984 Low-loss ballast 3.6% 609,895 3.732 574 60% 79.489 20% 9.125 70,015,946 6,205 80% 105.986 40% 24.334 140,031,892 16,547 Luminaire and reflector retrofit 9.0% 5,016,760 3.732 574 60% 200.402 20% 23.006 575,924,048 15,644 80% 267.203 40% 61.350 1,151,848,096 41,718 Window film 2.3% 697,148 3.732 574 60% 51.500 20% 5.912 80,032,590 4,020 80% 68.667 40% 15.766 160,065,181 10,721 Office Sub-Total 726.599 83.414 1,087,093,549 56,721 968.798 222.436 2,174,187,098 151,257 Chiller system retrofit 3.4% 13,440,000 9.367 201 60% 189.687 20% 7.625 540,288,000 5,185 80% 252.916 40% 20.334 1,080,576,000 13,827 Compact fluorescent lamp 2.5% 74,113 9.367 201 60% 137.699 20% 5.535 2,979,343 3,764 80% 183.598 40% 14.761 5,958,685 10,038 Electronic ballast 3.0% 7,353,140 9.367 201 60% 168.611 20% 6.778 295,596,228 4,609 80% 224.814 40% 18.075 591,192,456 12,291 Low-loss ballast 2.3% 740,477 9.367 201 60% 129.268 20% 5.197 29,767,175 3,534 80% 172.358 40% 13.858 59,534,351 9,423 Luminaire and reflector retrofit 4.9% 1,155,950 9.367 201 60% 272.587 20% 10.958 46,469,190 7,451 80% 363.450 40% 29.221 92,938,380 19,871 Variable speed drive (VSD) motor 0.9% 7,500,000 9.367 201 60% 50.583 20% 2.033 301,500,000 1,383 80% 67.444 40% 5.423 603,000,000 3,687 Shopping Center Sub-Total 948.435 38.127 1,216,599,936 25,926 1,264.580 101.672 2,433,199,872 69,137 Building insulation 10.7% 2,596,603 6.607 256 60% 422.176 20% 21.615 132,946,074 14,698 80% 562.901 40% 57.641 265,892,147 39,196 Chiller system retrofit 6.9% 4,000,000 6.607 256 60% 272.531 20% 13.954 204,800,000 9,488 80% 363.375 40% 37.210 409,600,000 25,303 Combustion efficiency improve. - - Compact fluorescent lamp 5.0% 1,190,693 6.607 256 60% 196.223 20% 10.047 60,963,482 6,832 80% 261.630 40% 26.791 121,926,963 18,218 Electronic ballast 3.0% 1,784,010 6.607 256 60% 118.923 20% 6.089 91,341,312 4,140 80% 158.564 40% 16.237 182,682,624 11,041 Low-loss ballast 1.7% 101,566 6.607 256 60% 67.390 20% 3.450 5,200,179 2,346 80% 89.853 40% 9.201 10,400,358 6,257 Luminaire and reflector retrofit 3.3% 1,097,760 6.607 256 60% 130.815 20% 6.698 56,205,312 4,554 80% 174.420 40% 17.861 112,410,624 12,145 Room key switches 2.8% 1,702,800 6.607 256 60% 109.013 20% 5.581 87,183,360 3,795 80% 145.350 40% 14.884 174,366,720 10,121 Hotel Sub-Total 1,317.070 67.434 638,639,718 45,855 1,756.093 179.824 1,277,279,437 122,280 A/C cleaning & maintenance 1.6% 115,575 3.183 207 60% 29.599 20% 1.225 4,784,805 833 80% 39.466 40% 3.268 9,569,610 2,222 A/C package retrofit 8.0% 72,500 3.183 207 60% 152.770 20% 6.325 3,001,500 4,301 80% 203.693 40% 16.866 6,003,000 11,469 Building insulation 2.1% 2,019,250 3.183 207 60% 40.102 20% 1.660 83,596,950 1,129 80% 53.469 40% 4.427 167,193,900 3,011 Chiller system retrofit 10.9% 3.183 207 60% 208.149 20% 8.617 - 5,860 80% 277.532 40% 22.980 - 15,626 Compact fluorescent lamp 3.3% 181,422 3.183 207 60% 62.063 20% 2.569 7,510,871 1,747 80% 82.750 40% 6.852 15,021,742 4,659 Electronic ballast 3.0% 1,545,120 3.183 207 60% 57.289 20% 2.372 63,967,968 1,613 80% 76.385 40% 6.325 127,935,936 4,301 Low-loss ballast 2.3% 953,976 3.183 207 60% 42.967 20% 1.779 39,494,606 1,210 80% 57.289 40% 4.744 78,989,213 3,226 Hospital Sub-Total 592.939 24.548 202,356,700 16,692 790.585 65.460 404,713,400 44,513

Grand Total 213.522 3,144,689,903ß 145,195 569.393 6,289,379,807ß 387,187

CO2 Conversion Factors:Electricity-related measures: 0.00068 tonne CO2 per kWh

Fuel-related measures: 76.3 tonne CO2 per TJ

Conservative Scenario


Optimistic ScenarioAchievable

Savings (as % of Econ. Savings)

Total Sub-Sector Energy Saving

[GWh] Total Investment [Baht]


DF)

Total Sub-Sector Energy Saving

[GWh]

Annual Energy Consump. [GWh/fclty]

Total Investment [Baht] Energy Saving

[MWh/fclty]Energy Saving

[MWh/fclty]


DF)


Ho

spit

al


of Econ. Savings)

# of Designated

Facilities (DF)

Ho

tel

Weighted Energy Savings

Energy Efficiency Measures

Sh

op

pin

g C

ente

rO

ffic

e

Investment [Baht/fclty]