Proiect RBI-GCI-1

Project Bioenergy Suceava
for Raiffeisen International Bank AG
April 24th 2015
1
Raiffeisen International Bank AG
Attn: Gnther Sssenbacher
Am Stadtpark
1030 Vienna, Austria
Project Bioenergy Suceava
22nd April 2015
Dear Mr. Sssenbacher,

This report summarizes our work which you have asked us to undertake in connection with Bioenergy Suceava SRL (thereafter BS) as agreed in
our engagement letter dated 24th February 2015. It has been prepared on the basis of data and information received until April 2nd and further
analysis carried out up to 20th of April. The content of the report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of work defined in the
engagement letter, specifically the focus areas, which also form the structure of this report.
We trust that the results contained herein cover all of the aspects as defined in our scope of works, unless it has been specifically modified
thereafter (i.e. ORC). We nevertheless have titled this report as draft to allow for a review after the material has been studied by the relevant
parties. Unless we receive further queries or comments that need to be reflected in the report, we would send out a final version within 10
calendar days.
We have carried out our work subject to the General Terms and Conditions of GCI Management GmbH as agreed in our engagement letter which
has been attached as Enclosure to this report. The General Terms and Conditions are valid both between our company and the client and in
relation to third parties.
The procedures carried out by us might not necessarily meet all issues which may be relevant for your needs or for the needs of other parties
involved in Project Suceava. The decision whether and on what terms to proceed with the transaction is therefore entirely your responsibility. The
important notice on the adjacent page should be read in conjunction with this letter.
Our draft report is for the benefit and information of the addressee only and should not be quoted or referred to, in whole or in part, without prior
written consent, except as specifically provided in our engagement letter. We will not accept responsibility or liability to any party to whom the
report may be shown or who may acquire a copy of the report.
Yours faithfully
Roman Pongracz
Managing Partner
GCI Management GmbH
Stadiongasse 6-8/10
1010 Vienna, Austria
Telephone +43 (1) 512 37 55 - 0

Telefax
+43 (1) 512 37 55 - 42
e-mail
gci.vienna@gci-management.com
Erste Bank
BLZ: 20 111
Konto-Nr.: 280 649 516/00
Handelsgericht: Wien
Firmenbuchnr.: 233250s
UID: ATU 63580912
DISCLAIMER
Important notice
Our work started March 2nd 2015, fieldwork was completed April 7th
and further analysis / research done until April 20th 2015. Our report
has not been updated for events arising after that date.
We must emphasize that the realization of the prospective financial

information presented in the draft report is dependent on the
continuing validity of the assumptions on which it is based.
The management of Bioenergy Suceava is responsible for the

accuracy and completeness of the information supplied and
presented to us. This includes the maintenance of adequate
accounting records and internal controls and the selection and
application of appropriate accounting policies.
The assumptions will need to be reviewed and revised to reflect such

changes as trading patterns, cost structures or direction of the
business. We accept no responsibility for the realization of the
prospective financial information. Actual results are likely to be
different from those shown in the prospective financial information
because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as
expected and the differences may be material.
In preparing our draft report, our primary source has been internal
management information and representations made to us by
management of Bioenergy Suceava and key employees. We do not
accept responsibility for the correctness of such information which
remains the responsibility of Bioenergy Suceavas management.
In addition we have researched other information form public sources
and to some extent other market experts; we have used these data to
do plausibility checks and to verify other assumptions. While we
informally related with IC-P, we did not have at our disposal the report
prepared by them on technical matters.
We have satisfied ourselves, so far as possible, that the information
presented in our draft report is consistent with other information which
was made available to us in the course of our work in accordance with
the terms of our engagement letter. We have not, however, sought to
establish the reliability of the sources by reference to other evidence.
The scope of our work was different from that for an audit and,
consequently, we do not issue any opinion or any other certificate or
confirmation relating to the financial statements, tax position or the
internal control systems of the company.
We do not warrant or express that the information presented in the
report is sufficient or appropriate for the purposes of financial
institutions in making their decision on the underlying project.
Our report makes reference to GCI analysis; this indicates only that
we have (where specified) undertaken certain analytical activities on
the underlying data to arrive at the information presented; we do not
accept responsibility for the underlying data.
ABBREVIATIONS
ANRE
National Authority for Regulation in Energy
HS
Holzwerke Schweighofer
B4P
Biomass 4 Power
IBR
Independent Business Review
BS
Bionergy Suceava SRL
IC-P
iC projecte Project Development GmbH
CFADS
Cash flow available for debt service
LHV
Lower heating values
CF
Cash flow
MWh
Megawatt hour
CHP
Combined heat power plant
OPCOM
DAP
Delivered at place
Romanian gas and electricity market

operator
EBIT
Earnings before interest and taxes
p.a.
per anno
EBITDA
Earnings before interest taxes and

depreciation
P&L
Profit & Loss statement
SB
Steam boiler
EON
E.ON Energie Romnia
sqm
square meter
EUR / mEUR / kEUR
Euro, Euro million, Euro thousand
to
tons
FY
Financial year
TWh
Terrawatt hour
GC
Green Certificate
WC
Working capital
Gcal
Giga calories
YTD
Year to date
GCI
GCI Management GmbH
BASIS OF PREPARATION
GCI used BS internal documents as well as own

research results for this report
Basis of preparation
Documents and information
Contacts and meetings held
Our primary sources of information in course of our analysis

(received from RBI and BS) included:
o Management accounts (FY 2014 and YTD 2015) BS on:
Biomass consumption, supplier and market statistics,
stock development, etc.
Heat and power production
Plant production efficiency including information on
technical specifications (ash content, humidity, etc.)
Development of GCs and underlying calculations
o P&L and balance sheet for 2014
o Controlling report 2014 and revised controlling report 2014
o Trial balances from controlling reports until YTD 2/2015
o Budget for 2015 and 2016 (several times revised)
o EON contracts and selected other contracts (e.g. supplier)
We have researched information on following topics:
o Biomass market (particularly on potential alternative
suppliers)
o Power and GC market
o Heat transport and delivery companies
o Termica and positions of stakeholders
Our primary contact persons in course of our analysis:

o Mr. Vasile Ilie, managing director of BS in Suceava
o Mrs. Monica Rusu, financing manager of BS in Bucharest
o Mrs. Diona Oica, commercial manager of BS
o Mr. Cristian Panaite, external purchasing manager of BS
o Mr. Lungu, mayor of the city of Suceava
o Mr. Matei, insolvency administrator Termica of MGA
Insolvency SPRL
We attended the following meetings with representatives of BS:
o Meeting with Mrs. Rusu on 4th March 2015 in Bucharest
o Meeting with Mr. Ilie on 9th 12th March 2015 in Suceava
o Interview with Mr. Panaite and Mrs. Oica on 11th March
2015 in Suceava
o Meeting with Mr. Ilie and Mrs. Rusu on 25th March 2015 in
Bucharest
We attended the following meetings with representatives of other
relevant parties involved:
o Meeting with Mr. Lungu on 10th March 2015 in Suceava
o Meeting with Mr. Matei on 10th March 2015 in Suceava
AGENDA
Executive summary
Procurement
Green certificates
Termica & Thermical supply
Current trading and forecast
Business plan and sensitivity analysis
Assumptions
Business Plan Scenarios
Controlling & Reporting standards
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In our project we have been asked to concentrate on

the operational basis of BS (1/2)
Scope of work (1/2)
Key areas
Raw material /
biomass
GreenCertificates
(GC)
Reporting /
Controlling
(BS to banks)
Elements
Short overview of market (volume, prices, supply security) for biomass in the region of Suceava
Alternative sources outside the direct catchment area - influence of transportation costs on the competitive environment
Procurement within BS; critical review of internal organization and process quality (in the past/currently/improvement option)
Contracts with suppliers; specifically longer term if any (commercial review1); not legal)
Plausibility check of procurement consumption of biomass (i.e. contracts, supply, stock consumption, energy balance, etc.)
Critical evaluation, plus recommendation (if any)
Verification of GC quota realized and in process of realization in 2015

The IBR is based upon the assumption that the maximum of 3 GC per MWh electricity sold is obtained by BS. It is however not
fully clear if the conditions have been (and will be) met and accepted by the relevant authorities
Revenue generation from GC timeline of secured vs. open quotas
Review of opportunities to take-off excess electricity production/GC in addition to the EON contract
Internal management and administration of GC at BS
Critical evaluation of status and recommendation for improvement (if any)
(ORC was excluded as basic data was not available for rechecking)
Status of reporting structure and process
Recheck of data plausibility of past reports with BS internally generated data
Recommendation for optimization of template and reporting process (if any)
1) Excluded due to confidentiality reasons
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In our project we have been asked to concentrate on

the operational basis of BS (2/2)
Scope of work (2/2)
Key areas
Elements
Thermic supply /
Termica S.A
Parameters of the business relation of BS/Termica S.A. (from beginning 2015); status insolvency process, position of main
creditors, position of the insolvency administrator
Special item 110 KV Grid-Connection
(Other aspects that might be relevant in connection with the insolvency process)
External benchmarking of Termica S.A. to assess efficiency and potential (i.e. high level analysis as outside-in-view of Termica,
via a comparison of cost/pricing mechanisms, organizational structures, etc. with similar Romanian institutions )
Interpretations of results, alternative options and recommendations
Remark: while we have researched and summarized the findings accordingly, we want to clearly state that we will not accept
any responsibility or liability in relation to our interpretation of the status and prospect of the legal processes or any matter
related thereto. We understand that various experienced legal advisors have been retained; any action or decision should only
be taken after having obtained their opinion
Business Plan
The results of our work on the before mentioned items, may lead to changes in some of the fundamentals of the business plan
as presented in the IBR
In this case, we will point out the most critical deviations and re-assess the base scenario using the logic and key data as
shown in the PWC IBR
Remark:
after having done the in-depth analysis of the operational model, we have designed a bottom-up financial model, based upon
technical parameters rather than budgeted numbers (therefore fundamentally different from the model used in the IBR)
GCI has evaluated three scenarios that differ in the way the plant is run; for each of these scenarios GCI has analyzed the
most probable relation of input, performance and regulatory effects (GCs)
All of these scenarios are based on the continuity of the main elements of the BS business model and setup
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overall satisfactory progress and good, open

cooperation in the project
General observations & limitations
Summary
Overall cooperation with BS was constructive and efficient
GCI has received data in time and had the opportunity to check for
plausibility
Together with its local Romanian team information from BS and other
sources in Romanian language has been evaluated and translated by
GCI
Some relevant information such as controlling report 2014 and budget
2015 and 2016 had to be corrected by BS as we identified
inconsistencies and some minor errors in calculation
In the context of a very tight time frame, GCI had to focus on the key
parameters that determine the earning power and ability for BS to
redeem the credit facilities
In addition to company information, GCI did perform an independent
research on some aspects, such as technical parameters of biomass,
pricing schemes of municipal heating, etc.
During the visits on site in Suceava, GCI was granted access and
received an acceptable insight into the operational processes
However GCI has not performed any longer-term verification; therefore
recommendations are based upon the assumption of business
continuity
With reference to the insolvency process GCI has taken information

from various resources; this process is moving continuously and
influenced by judicial and political decisions
GCI assumed that the information, specifically the technical data
received was complete, not misleading and accurate
Wherever needed we have been given the opportunity to ask additional
questions and received adequate answers
IC-P was engaged in parallel to GCI to assess some technical aspects
of the plant; to a limited degree GCI incorporated findings and / or
remarks from the experts of IC-P
GCI did not have access to the findings of IC-P (to be released after this
report)
We did not consult with the shareholders; however ADREM, particularly
Mrs. Rusu acting as controller of BS, is involved deeper in the
management of BS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Further professionalization of purchasing activities to

realize potential and reduce risks
Procurement (1/2)
Key issue
Summary
Recommendations
Page
History
Originally via one of its Romanian units, Holzwerke Schweighofer

(HS) was contracted by BS for 3 years to deliver biomass
The original conditions, a fixed price of 91 EUR per atro ton
biomass and 14 days payment period were considered
unfavorable; this contract was cancelled end of 2014
However we were informed that the shareholder agreement states
that HS is obliged to be the first key supplier
Recheck obligation (legal opinion)

as per shareholder agreement
Provide opportunity to HS to place
bids on regular basis
Protect confidentiality of alternative
suppliers via a neutral platform
25
Organisation
Purchasing activities today are handled by an external party, SC

ForstPan SRL, owned and managed by Mr. Panaite, who acts as
BS representative on basis of a fixed fee contract (4 kEUR pm.)
Mr. Panaite displays know-how and has credible access to
alternative suppliers. We are not aware of a direct connection
between SC ForstPlan SRL and Adrem / Mr. Bodea
Dependency and risk via single-person sourcing
Need to integrate procurement as

decisive core function within BS
organization (management rank)
Continue relationship and use Mr.
Panaite to establish know -how at BS
Conceptualize and step-by-step build
up internal capacity
28
Prices / costs
The contract with HS was based upon a fee of 91 EUR / atro ton
with a fixed price increase of EUR 1 per year
Through widening of sourcing contacts the current price reduced
to 77 EUR / atro ton (February 2015)
The gain of approximately 14 EUR / atro ton (on basis of 130 k
atro ton as per management plan) would result in savings of 1.8
mEUR in 2015
Increase efforts to further reduce

costs of biomass via regular
sourcing and via procurement
schedule
Establish costs per atro ton as
regular KPI
24ff
10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Medium term additional opportunities by

implementing adequate sourcing strategies
Procurement (2/2)
Key issue
Summary
Recommendations
Page
Sourcing
strategy /
alternatives
Biomass costs and quality are THE operational factors with a

decisive influence on results
Todays limited liquidity leads to a minimum stock policy (along
with heat driven plant management) at BS
The low stock of biomass increases the risks of stock-out
Optimization of mixing in order to run the production efficient is
rather difficult / impossible
The suppliers today are mostly smaller / medium firms in vicinity
There is a need to re-establish BS as reliable partner for
suppliers (payments to suppliers are currently done by cheque)
Opportunity to develop network also outside of the catchment area
of BS; GCI identified additionally numerous alternative suppliers
Interesting opportunities for increased value addition for BS if
sourcing can get closer to forest owners
Need to develop procurement as key value driver of BS
Define procurement as key value

driver at BS
Implement procurement policy as
part of short- and medium-term
management plan
Determine minimum stock-policy (on
assumption that WC requirement can
be managed)
Develop key suppliers and define
supplier categories (include other
categories than price)
Mr. Panaite to recheck GCI research
results of alternative suppliers
Start piloting alternative sourcing
models (once operations run stable)
24ff
Sourcing is currently based upon framework contracts (> 3

months duration) with suppliers
Deliveries arrive at BS at irregular intervals; there is no accurate
delivery schedule in place
Sometimes interventions are required to receive deliveries
Process at BS clearly structured, some data noted manually
Define contracts in more detail

Schedule deliveries / advance notice
Quality check manual notes at
regular intervals
26ff
Sourcing process
11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EON ensures the purchase of most power and green

certificates produced by BS
Energy sales & Green certificates (1/3)
Key issue
Summary
Recommendations
Page
Organization
Responsible for energy and GC trading is the commercial director

of BS, currently Mrs. Oica, assisted by one employee
They handle the daily sales process, the official reporting and
communication with authorities (Transelectrica, ANRE, etc.)
Processes done adequately, in line with regulatory requirements
Recheck dependency and back-up in

order to meet the reporting
requirements
Maintain process quality
38f
EON energy sales

contract
BS has concluded an energy selling contract with EON (dated 4.

June 2014) for the sale of total 68,165 MWh to 368,091 MWh for
the period June 2014 Dec 2015 at a price of 31.5 EUR per MWh
(incl. Transelectrica costs of 1.7 EUR per MWh)
The contract will expire in December 2015. We are not aware of
renewed initiatives by BS to extend the contract
However based on the good relationship to EON, management is
confident to be able to extend or renew on same terms
Start re-negotiation process with

EON in a timely manner to secure
energy and GC sales in the future
In parallel check alternative
opportunities
36ff
Day ahead power

market
BS sells part of its electrical power on the day ahead market, at

fluctuating prices
We understand that most of the electrical power produced is sold
through the existing EON contract. However there might be some
additional potential by selling on the day-ahead market (e.g. in the
second half of 2014 the average monthly price on the DAM was
approx. 160 LEI per MWh; the EON contract pays 140 LEI per
MWh)
Continue to optimize ratio between

power sold to EON and on the day
ahead market
38f
12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Sound basis to achieve and sell close to 3 GCs also

medium term
Key issue
Summary
base GCs
As per the subvention scheme for green energy, BS is eligible to 2

GCs (so called base GC) per MWh delivered to the network
In FY 2014 this ratio has been transferred from 69,570 MWh to a
total number of 139,140 GCs for BS
GCs have to be claimed from authorities (Transelectrica) in a strict
process (comply with the official reporting standards)
Continue accurate reporting to

Transelectrica, the issuing authority
38ff
high efficiency
3rd GC
One additional GC (high eff. GC) can be granted for

cogeneration plants that are high efficient as defined by the
Regulatory Authority
BS has received 0.98 high efficiency GC per MWh in 2014
In order to fully benefit from high efficiency certificates, also with
higher power output, excess heat has to be used
For this purpose BS can use the existing dryer (internal use)1); this
will also result in a more efficient plant performance
Higher power output plus the additional use of the dryer will lead
to the need of an increase of storage space
In GCI business plan scenarios 2015 to 2028, BS nearly reaches
the maximum quota in most of the relevant years (in the
Balanced scenario it can achieve an average high efficiency
quota of 0.96 GC per MWh, in the Power driven scenario of 0.90
GC per MWh)
Continue activities to reach 3rd GC

Check assumptions and technical
parameters of dryer (some caution
by BS management in initial talks)
Depending on technical assessment,
evaluate an upgrade of the dryer
Prepare conceptually to increase
storage capacity to 35,000 atro tons
(Balanced Scenario) or 45,000 atro
tons (Power Scenario)
36ff
1) Alternatively also external uses such as drying of fruits, corn, etc. for third parties could result in a high efficiency
Recommendations
Page
13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Sound basis to achieve and sell close to 3 GCs also

medium term
Key issue
Summary
Recommendations
Page
EON GC sales
contract
BS has concluded a long-term contract with EON (2014 - 2023)

for the sale of
115,000 GC in 2014 and
300,000 GC p.a. thereafter at the minimal legal price set by the
regulator
The price realized per GC is approximately 29 EUR; therefore the
value per MWh is determined by the ability to sell the GCs
BS expects to exceed the threshold of 300,000 GC in 2015 and
2016 (according to mgmt. budgets 316,748 and 390,000
respectively)
According to management a sale of excess GCs to EON could be
realized, however we are not aware of preliminary negotiations
There are currently no initiatives by management to evaluate
alternative bilateral GC selling alternatives
We strongly recommend to evaluate

the extension of the EON contract to
cover excess GCs (to be seen in
conjunction with energy contract)
As per management plans the
offtake of 300,000 GCs will be
surpassed in 2015 need for timely
preparation with EON
In parallel check alternatives
36ff
ORC
IBR suggested the opportunity to invest in a rankine turbine / ORC

This technology allows the recovery of excess heat to generate
additional power; it is doubtful from an energy usage perfective
but might be economically valuable if it qualifies for a 3rd GC
No further details on the suggested technical specifications and /
or investment details have been provided
As per our research there is no ORC working in Romania today
Any such initiative would require the prior consent from regulatory
authorities that an ORC would qualify for a 3rd, high efficiency GC
RBI decided to exclude the ORC

option from the scope of works, as
results would be too speculative
14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Termicas debts increased in the last two years; debts

to BS amounting currently 4.3 mEUR
Termica (1/3)
Key issue
Summary
Recommendations
Current Status
Termica
Termica is owned by the municipality of Suceava and responsible

for the distribution and transport of heat to the City of Suceava
Termica is under receivership since 2013. Reorganization
initiatives from the city of Suceava and also from one major
creditor (Unicom) have failed. In March 2015 based on a decision
of the court in Iasi a liquidation process can now be initiated by
the creditors
The heat distribution and transport concession between the city of
Suceava and Termica was initially cancelled, however to secure
the supply of the city, Termica maintained its activities until a new
contract partner is found
It is expected that the tender process will start in April 2015 (2-3
month of negotiations)
(information on status and most

probable development)
Prepare for various scenarios of the
concession award
44ff
Liquidation
process Termica
The liquidation process is based on a decision of the court in Iasi

in relation to legal proceeding submitted by Acet (one major
creditor)1)
In the liquidation scenario all assets of Termica will be sold
through a tender procedure or direct negotiation
BS has priority status in that procedure and will be satisfied from
liquidation proceeds right after Termicas employees and before
fiscal authorities
Obtain legal advise on how to

proceed in the ongoing bankruptcy
process and how to safeguard BS
interests and rights (particularly
secure access to power network
110kV transformer station and
pumping station and pipes)
45
1) ACET SA Suceava is a regional water facility operator providing drinking water, sanitation and sewage treatment. The majority is owned by
the city of Suceava (63.8%), while the rest is owned by other regional municipalities
Page
15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Termicas debts increased in the last two years. Debts

to BS amounting currently 4.3 mEUR
Termica (2/3)
Key issue
Summary
Recommendations
Page
Debts to BS
At beginning of March 2015 the open invoices to Termica

amounted to approximately 4.3 mEUR
Through an initiative of the municipality of Suceava, BS received
payments of approximately 2.6 mEUR in the period Oct 2014 to
Feb 2015 from Termica (the municipality passed a resolution
allowing the city to advance subsidy payments determined to buy
biomass for heating to Termica)
Due to the fact that Termica will most probably be liquidated, it is
unclear if all open amounts will be covered by the liquidation
proceeds (BS obtains a preferred status in the bankruptcy
process)

proceed in the ongoing bankruptcy
process and how to safeguard BS
interests and rights
49
Other relevant
trials
&
bankruptcy
Beside the Acet case (decision made by court in Iasi) there are
two additional legal proceedings against Termica ongoing. Both
cases are sued by BS for filing the bankruptcy of Termica
Decisions are expected in April. According to Mr. Ciurtin it is
assumed that the court in Suceava will follow the decision in Iasi

proceed in the ongoing trials
45
Unicom
Unicom is the largest creditor of Termica with over 5 mEUR of

open receivables
The reorganization plan proposed by Unicom has been valid until
March 2015, when it was cancelled by court decision in Iasi (Acet
case)
Evaluate if there are unfavourable

decisions of Termica made under the
cancelled reorganization plan that
can be now revoked / attacked
44ff
16
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bankruptcy of Termica is very likely, liquidation

process could start end of Q2/2015
Termica (3/3)
Key issue
Summary
Recommendations
Page
Pricing Termica
Termica receives 57 EUR (256 Lei) net per Gcal delivered to the
end-consumer, thereof 41% as subvention from the municipality of
Suceava. These revenues were below costs for heat, losses and
own internal costs, as the debts of Termica increased in the last 2
years
We understand that a new tender of the heat distribution and
transportation concession will be issued by the city of Suceava in
April 2015. From our understanding a new Termica could operate
on a more efficient and cost optimized way, thus leading to a
improved profitability
If applicable, re-negotiation of the

pricing mechanism between BS and
Termica new to reflect adequately
the thermic service and risks taken
over by BS
Initiate joint sales efforts (BS,
Termica new and city of Suceava) to
acquire and connect additional
(large) customers to the heating
network
48
Pricing BS to
Termica
The heat price invoiced by BS per Gcal to Termica with 116 LEI is
currently one of the lowest prices in Romania. The price is fixed
until Q4 2019 and should also remain if a new Termica will be set
up as the former contract was erected with the city
Re-negotiate a more flexible price

model (e.g. inflation adjusted, etc.)
with the City of Suceava and / or
Termica new
48
Benchmarking
Currently over 250 people are employed at Termica which is far

more than deemed necessary. Market insiders state that a about
120 people should be able to operate the transport and
distribution network
A benchmarking analysis showed that the share of total expenses
to employees of Termica Suceava are the highest in the peer.
Almost all Termica companies are performing negatively
Not considered relevant due to

insolvency and re-tendering process
50
17
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The business plan analysis indicates the necessity of

financial restructuring measures to redeem bank debts (1/2)
Business plan (1/2)
1)
2)
Key issue
Summary
Recommendations
Page
Business
planning results
Business plan scenarios have been developed based on an

operational and technical bottom-up approach
Input parameters and other underlying assumptions were
gathered from BS management and own research (e.g. biomass
supplier, GC and energy market, heat demand)
3 main business concepts have been modelled to reflect different
strategies to operate the plant:
o Heat driven scenario: current operational mode, securing heat
demand, business model with the lowest CF generation
(minimum scenario)
o Power driven scenario1): focused on energy production, rather
than heat, highest amount of available cash, but significantly
increased operational risk
o Balanced scenario: operational optimal and design oriented
production mode, with lower operational risk but longer
repayment period
The scenarios face a lack of financial funds (in minimum bridge
financing for working capital is required) to fully recover bank
debts until provided due dates (cash flow shortage varies in time
and value depending on the scenario)
Nevertheless, from our perspective and from a technical /
theoretical point of view the Balanced scenario would be the
preferred and most realistically business model (in line with the
original plant specifics)
Discuss the results of the business

plan scenarios within the financing
institutions
Evaluate potential options with
shareholders
Recheck technical parameters in
more detail (specifically potential
limitations of dryer and/or cutter);
input IC-P required
Run various scenarios2), potentially
with help of probability patters (i.e.
Monte-Carlo-Simulations) to get
even better feeling for most reliable
scenario
Integrate concurrent develop of
insolvency process and concessiontender in evaluations
55ff
In the Power driven scenario the accumulated CFADS surpasses bank debt, however this scenario requires also significant wc financing and is
not recommended due to high operational risks
Factors such as costs for biomass, price increase, etc.
18
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The business plan analysis indicates the necessity of

financial restructuring measures to redeem bank debts (2/2)
Business plan (2/2)
Key issue
Summary
Business plan
sensitivities
In all scenarios the most critical single factor determined by BS

management is the cost (and quality) of biomass (assumed to be
77 EUR per atro ton, increased annually at a rate of 1.5% which is
lower than the inflation rate of 2.7% pa. in Romania)
We understand from management that the target price defined for
biomass is 72 EUR per atro ton (to be realized in 2015)
A further purchase price decrease by -5% (approx. 73 EUR)
would have an effect of about +10.1 mEUR on EBITDA and +8.6
mEUR on CFADS (2015 to 2028) in the Balanced scenario.
Based on the latest information received for March 2015 the
average biomass price amount to 75.7 EUR per atro ton
The most relevant revenue factor is GC sales. Based on our
sensitivity analysis a price increase for GCs of +5% would have a
similar effect as the decrease in the cost of biomass
However, a price increase for GCs is doubtful (there is a risk of
negative impacts due to over supply of GCs)
Business plan
limitations
The business plan is among others based on several technical

assumptions including ash content, humidity of biomass, lower
heating value, usage of the dryer, etc.
Recommendations
Continue improving sourcing /

procurement capabilities at BS to
further raise the significant cash flow
potentials
Integrate probability of biomass cost
range into further simulations
(Monte-Carlo simulation)
Evaluate incentive scheme at BS
Continue improving sourcing /

procurement capabilities at BS to
further raise the significant potentials
and increase cash flows
Page
55ff
55ff
19
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Improvement potential in the controlling and reporting

process currently handled very pragmatically
Controlling, Budgeting and Reporting (1/2)
Key issue
Summary
Financial
controlling
Controlling function is currently with Mrs. Rusu who is situated in

Bucharest at Adrem headquarters. She is employed by BS but
also by Adrem (related company owned by Mr. Bodea)
Her responsibilities are:
o preparation of the monthly and annual accounts
o liquidity planning and cash management
o other financial aspects
o reporting to banks
No controlling function is installed directly at the plant in Suceava.
There is only one accountant responsible for incoming and
outgoing invoices. Controlling is only done in Bucharest
From our discussions with management and Mrs. Rusu we feel
that due to the double role of Mrs. Rusu controlling and reporting
is done in a very pragmatic way
Recommendations
Consider the establishment of a

specific (separated from Adrem)
controlling & reporting function and
manager at the plant in Suceava
Page
85ff
20
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Current reporting formats can be significantly

improved in terms of transparency and consistency
Controlling, Budgeting and Reporting (2/2)
Key issue
Summary
Reporting and
budgeting
Reporting (controlling reports for actual figures, budget and

forecast) was established at BS upon assistance of the financing
partners. The templates used for reporting purposes were
originally provided by HS and made available to BS
Controlling reports are prepared on a monthly basis based on trial
balances. Reports do not include any Actual vs. Plan variances
Forecasts and budgets are primarily prepared in Bucharest by
Mrs. Rusu. We did not got a full picture how much the local
Suceava management is involved in that process, but feel that this
is at a minimum level (IBR figures prepared by PWC have not
been discussed with BS management)
Templates used for controlling, forecasting and budgeting are all
in the same format in excel
In our opinion and based on our analysis performed in the last
weeks the reports are not fully consistent in the way calculations
are treated. Partly there are fixed values inserted in the excel
sheets followed by linked calculations. We identified an error of
0.4 mEUR in the controlling report for FY 2014 (actual figures)
There is no integrated forecast or budget model in place showing
profit and loss statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement
We specifically lacked a transparent (short-term) liquidity plan
In total the actual controlling and reporting process and the reports
prepared show significant improvement potential
Recommendations
Page
Consider the implementation of an

integrated planning tool including
profit and loss statement, balance
sheet and cash flow calculation to
get consistent and transparent
figures
Re-design the reporting format to
increase readability
Include Actual vs. Plan variances
analysis (monthly and aggregated) in
a new reporting format
Establishment of a short-term
liquidity planning tool to improve
liquidity management
Extend the report to include
operational KPIs
Extend the report to include
management comments
85ff
21
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There are some uncertainties about the open payments

to plant construction suppliers (covered by IC-P)
Other observations
1)
Key issue
Summary
Lease contract
BS with HS
We understand that there is a lease contract (dated 30. May 2014)

between BS (lessor) and HSR (lessee) in place. The lease
agreement refers to the usage of 17,000 sqm of industrial land on
the land of BS and gives the lessee the right to use the land for
storage of biomass deliveries to the lessor
Lease price is agreed to be zero. The lessor can terminate the
contract before 31. December 2015 with one month notice to the
end of the month under the condition that the stock stored has
been taken-over and paid by lessor
According to management the space for HS was reduced to 5,700
sqm. but is still under lease. To date there is no biomass stored by
HS on BS land
For your information
Plant
construction
supplier and cost
overrun
We understand from management that there are currently

discussions regarding several payments for the finalization of the
plant and cost overuns (2.0 mEUR) with construction suppliers
ongoing
As per the agreement on scope of works with RBI that this issue is
covered by IC-P and GCI did not perform a in-depth analysis
Based on the information by management we included open
payments to suppliers of 1.6 mEUR in the business plan
Potential cost overruns are not included in our calculations as this
is an open issue
Perform in-depth analysis of the

questioned amounts / contractual
specifications on guarantees and
warranties to gain confidence on
potential further supplier payments1)
We understand that this is within the scope of IC-P
Recommendations
Page
64
22
AGENDA
Executive summary
Procurement
Green certificates
Assumptions
23
PROCUREMENT
Wood cutting capacity in the North-East region

should secure adequate supply
Wood market Romania and North-East region (SUPPLY)
Overview available wood resources and annually wood cutting volume
Romania
Bacau
Botosani
Iasi
Neamt
Suceava
Vaslui
Nord-East
Romania
Wood cutting - annually (in Tm)

Forest in
various
various
ha Softwood Beech Oak hardwood softwood
7.521 6.175 1.747
1.946
1.315
220.000
302
393
43
88
58
56.000
5
15
25
44
29
97.000
8
40
36
99
84
259.000
700
385
20
61
34
435.000
2.114
334
8
57
18
65.000
1
22
21
72
52
1.132.000
3.129 1.189
153
421
The annual wood cutting volume of 5,167,000

m (3.3 million atro tons at 650 kg/m) in the
North-East region leads to an annual capacity
of approximately 1.2 million atro tons
biomass
Source: Management information
275
Total
in Tm
18.705
883
119
267
1.201
2.531
168
5.167
28%
Comments
The total wood cutting volume in Romania

amounts to total 18,705,000 m annually and
5,167,000 m in the North-East region
Wood cutting volume in the North-East

(Carpathian mountains) equals 28% from the total
cutting volume in Romania
The sourcing capacity in comparison to other

regions and access from Suceava (from a
geographical point of view) is quite good
Based on the average density of dry wood (650

kg/m) the annual cutting volume in the region
equals 3,358 million atro tons
Wood usage in industry is:

o Timber: 46-54%
o Wood waste: 46-54%
About 70% of the wood waste is used for energy

production (biomass)
Thus out of 3,358 million atro tons of wood

approximately 1.2 million atro tons of biomass
(36% from 3,358 million atro tons) can be derived
24
PROCUREMENT
Highly competitive sourcing environment, with

Schweighofer and Egger as important players
Relevant competitors and market volume (DEMAND)
Overview competitors
Company
County Facilities
North-East region
Bionergy Suceava SV
Cogeneration plant 30 MW
Egger Romania
SV
Chipboard plant
Kastamonu Romania MS
Chipboard plant
Egger Romania
SV
HSR Radauti
SV
General Energetic
NT
Cogeneration plant 6,7 MW
Forestar
NT
Central region
Kronospan Sebes
HSR Sebes
HSR Reci
SCR Dej
Sortilemn Gherla
AB
AB
CV
CJ
CJ
Chipboard plant
Total North-East and South-East region
Consump.
pa. (atro to)
160.000
360.000
240.000
130.000
130.000
50.000
10.000
1.080.000
600.000
130.000
130.000
65.000
10.000
935.000
2.015.000
Comparable non integrated plants to BS:
S.C. General Energetic S.A. situated in Pangarati, Neamt, about 120 km south west of
Suceava; production 43 MWh
SCR Dej (company A6 Impex S.A.) located in Dej, Cluj county, about 250 km west of Suceava;
production 67 MWh; company controlled by Stefan Vuza, well known business man from Cluj,
owner of a group of companies named SCR, Romanian Commercial Services
Source: Management information; GCI analysis
Comments
Relevant sourcing competitors are mainly chipboard plants

and cogeneration plants
The majority of cogeneration plants are backward integrated;

there are only a few non-integrated players like BS
Backward integrated plants (mainly wood processing industry

with integrated cogeneration plants like Egger and/or with own
forests like Schweighofer) are in a favorable position to source
biomass
The majority of biomass raw material is therefore not available

to the trading market
Chipboard plants are more flexible in their raw material

sourcing
Non-integrated power producers which need to / want to use

the Romanian GC subsidy regulation are limited in their
sourcing to certified Romanian biomass origin
Alternative sourcing from the Ukraine is not possible for nonintegrated biomass power plants
Sourcing by railway would be an option (higher volumes 50

atro tons by wagon); no direct railway connection available but
load station in reasonable distance to the plant
As per Mr. Panaite BS is in contact with one supplier from

Constanta for a transfer of 40 wagons at a price of 45-50 EUR
per atro ton (transport not included)
25
PROCUREMENT
Sourcing shifted frequently in 2014; since end 2015

managed externally with significant price decrease
Biomass consumption and prices paid (1/2014 2/2015)
18,000
16,000
Price
14,000
(EUR per
12,000
atro
to)
10,000
91
91
Biomass was sourced via Holzwerke

Schweighofer, as the preferred supplier
(also stated in shareholder agreement)
90
85
80
79
100
92
84
79
84
80
90
85
77
76
80
70
8,000
13,296
6,000
4,000
Volume
(atro
to)
2,000
92
Holzwerke
Schweighofer raised
prices again
15,604
11,595
8,682
6,032
8,132
8,437
7,047
7,517
Aug-14
Sep-14
4,379
12,568
12,177
11,527
10,194
60
50
5,534
40
Jan-14
Feb-14
Mar-14
Apr-14
May-14
Jun-14
Jul-14
Oct-14
Consumption FY 2014 110,000 atro to

(75% purchased from Schweighofer)
Holzwerke Schweighofer
stopped delivering biomass
due to open amounts of over
1.0 mEUR from BS
Source: Management information; GCI research and analysis
After negotiations Schweighofer restarted to sell

biomass ; price of 80 EUR per atro ton but on
advanced payment basis;
In the meanwhile Adrem / Mr. Bodea started to
source biomass for BS via Biomass 4 Power but
we understand that B4P was not able to cover the
relevant sourcing needs
Nov-14
Dec-14
Jan-15
Feb-15
Mar-15
Consumption YTD 1-2/2015 23,720 atro to

(17% purchased from Schweighofer)
BS procurement via SC ForstPan/ Mr.

Panaite; change of biomass sourcing from
HS to other (smaller) market players
resulted in a decrease in prices to EUR
75-77 in March 2015
26
PROCUREMENT
Based on our research we identified several small to

mid-sized biomass suppliers within a reach of 300 km from Suceava
Research results on alternative biomass suppliers (GCI)
Potential alternative suppliers

300 km radius
City of
Suceava
Name of
supplier
1 Supplier
2 Supplier
3 Supplier
4 Supplier
5 Supplier
6 Supplier
7 Supplier
8 Supplier
Price list by biomass quality and key region (BS)

EUR / atro to (DAP)
SV1 SV2 NT BC BT IS Other
Wood waste
56 70 54 68 50 65
43
Chips with bark
70 74 58 72 58 70
50
Sawdust
72 74 61 77 60 70
54
Firewood
76 80 70 83 64 76
56
Residues rocessing
56 70 54 72 52 65
43
Chips exploitation residues 68 74 58 77 54 70
54
Bark
78 85 62 87 62 80
58
* excl. VAT
Source: Management information; GCI research and analysis
Business
Atro to
activity per month
wood
1.000
processing
furniture
1.000
manufact.
logging
700
logging
500
logging
500
wood
processing
500
logging
furniture
manufact.
400
300
Qualities
EUR*
/ atro to
wood waste
90
n/a
wood waste
wood waste,
logs, firewood
chips, dry wood,
waste, firewood
whitewood and
beech waste,
bark
firewood
wood waste
55
66
53
55 (m)
40
37
Comments
Research shows alternative biomass suppliers and allowed plausibility

check of data received by BS (volumes and prices bandwidth)
List was forwarded to BS for further evaluation and follow-up
In addition sourcing from outside region (i.e. Constanta) and shipment

via rail might be a further option
Alternative sourcing opportunities are available with variations in

quality, pricing and availability; professional purchasing
management necessary to realize potential
27
PROCUREMENT
Definition of alternative supply strategy essential to

source on a secure and competitive basis
Supply strategy
Supplier
Ownership
STATE
Forest owners
PRIVATE
Approach
Participate in major auctions to
identify timber buyers or secure
standing wood for own cutting
Future concept to secure

raw material in the right
quality as early as possible;
needs a clear defined
sourcing strategy
Identify potential future partners

(auctions) and form partnerships for
own wood cutting
Same concept as before but

anchor point are service
providers
Individuals
Companies
Harvesting
companies
Wood processing
industry
Wholesalers
PRIVATE
Individuals
Companies
PRIVATE
PRIVATE
Existing suppliers focus

Secure existing partnerships and
find sourcing alternatives
Secure existing partnerships (e.g.

Schweighofer) and find other
sourcing alternatives
Create additional value

via direct sourcing
Comments
Current focus however on a

very pragmatic way;
implementation of a
strategic purchasing mgmt.
necessary
Considering restart of
business relations with
Schweighofer to limit
biomass sourcing risks
Renegotiation of pricing and
sourcing parameters
28
PROCUREMENT
External procurement handled professionally - single

person risk and need for organizational integration
Overview purchasing management
Bioenergy Suceava
direct
contractual
biomass
delivery
relation
SC ForstPan
(Mr. Panaite)
External
intermediary
representing
the BS
purchasing
department
Wood / biomass
suppliers
Comments
Purchasing is currently done by Mr. Panaite / SC ForstPan SRL
(fully owned by Mr. Panaite)
Consulting contract with fixed fee of 4,000,- EUR per month
Mr. Panaite declined to receive fees from suppliers
Mr. Panaite has several years of experience (>12 years) in the
forest, wood processing and biomass industry in Romania
(among others Kronospan Romania)
As per Mr. Fischer from IC-Project, Mr. Panaite is well connected in the
wood industry and is also well known by relevant people in the industry
Mr. Panaite acts as a external advisor managing the total biomass
purchasing procedure at BS:
identifying suppliers
negotiation of contracts, prices
defining volumes.
There are no other employees of BS assisting in the biomass
purchasing process to date
Mr. Panaite is working in the name of BS; all contracts and agreements
with suppliers are agreed between BS and the suppliers directly
From Mr. Ilie we understand that the establishment of a BS internal
purchasing department is considered necessary to medium-term to
handle the biomass procurement fully professionally
reduce dependency and risk
build in-house relationships with the suppliers
Mr. Panaite presented a potential future purchasing department model
(1 manager, 4 biomass buyers, 2 back office assistants, etc.)
GCI supports the plan to develop an in-house purchasing
department
The implementation should be done on a step-by-step basis
29
PROCUREMENT
Pragmatic procurement process focused on securing

biomass volumes significant optimization potential
Procurement sourcing and biomass invoicing process
Stock management
Truck
deliveries
based on
agreed
framework
agreements
Daily
reporting of
deliveries
and stock
levels
Current focus is to
secure production
and qualify BS as a
reliable buyer of
biomass!
Supplier
Sends invoices to
BS based on the
weekly delivery list
send by BS the
purchasing
department
Production
Procurement
Accounting
(Suceava)
Controlling
(Bucharest)
Management delivery process
Information stock levels
Quality checks
Daily reporting to procurement
Technical operation of plan
Planning of future production level
Weekly / monthly reporting to

procurement
Management of purchasing process based

on info from production and stock mgmt.
Development of price lists, negotiation of

supplier contracts, definition supply
strategy
Start of invoicing process: preparation of a

delivery list by supplier for the last week
and sending it to the supplier every MO
Check incoming invoices
Proposal of payments to Mr. Ilie
Re-check with controlling in Bucharest
Final check of invoices
Approval of payments based on the

availability of funds
Comments
Procurement currently
handled very pragmatic
No transparent,
integrated and regular
process in place
Purchasing currently heat
driven to secure
production
Timing of deliveries (FC
delivery schedule),
definition of qualities, etc.
not scheduled
Supplier contracts are
only framework
agreements considering
prices and volumes for a
certain period (3-12
month)
No obligation for
suppliers fulfill their
contracts (only with
intense pressure from BS
side enforceable at the
moment)
30
PROCUREMENT
The reception process is handled quite professionally;

some data processed manually (source of errors?)
5
Not conform
(rejection of
delivery)
Biomass reception procedure
1
BS
triggers
an order
Truck arrival in
the warehouse
3
Compliance
checking of
delivery
documents
Visual
inspection of
biomass
quality
Approval for
unload and
reception
Calculation
biomass volume
c
Unloading
d
e
Comments:
The overall responsibility for the stock management is with Mr. Straton
All truck deliveries has to pass the weighting platform when entering and
leaving the storage area. At the weight all relevant delivery data is
checked, entered in to the computer system and also documented in a
handwritten register (internal registration manual also for internal checks)
A truck can only enter the area, if compliance (official clearance for log
wood necessary) and the quality of the load (inspected physically; 4
pictures to be taken from each load) is approved
Weighing of the
loaded truck
6
Delivery note
Biomass
sampling
Weighing of the
unloaded truck
After weighting and unloading the truck a sample of the delivered

biomass is taken, registered and analyzed over night (quality, water
content, etc.)
Before leaving the stock area the truck gets weighted again; the driver
receives an delivery note and the information is also processed in the
inventory system
31
PROCUREMENT
Actual biomass consumption checked efficient but

not optimal
Monthly biomass consumption by qualities
In atro tons
Total biomass
consumption
humidity in %
Power produced (MWh)
Specific power
production
Ideal specific power
production
Jul-14 Aug-14
Sep-14
Oct-14 Nov-14
Dec-14
Jan-15
Feb-15
8,234
38.2%
8,538
7,047
33.7%
7,034
7,549
31.0%
8,024
5,514
36.8%
4,895
11,702
39.5%
10,836
12,569
42.3%
12,211
12,182
42.7%
12,008
11,527
45.4%
10,803
1.037
0.998
1.063
0.888
0.926
0.972
0.986
0.937
1.039
1.039
1.039
1.039
1.039
1.039
1.039
1.039
7,508
33.0
6,119
34.6
7,148
32.4
4,384
33.2
9,971
36.7
11,398
36.7
11,178
35.3
10,064
34.4
248
212
232
145
366
419
394
347
Total heat MWh (sold)

Price per MWh / EUR
Total heating sales
TEUR
7,144
22.2
4,201
22.2
5,372
22.2
8,946
22.2
27,776
22.2
32,248
22.2
33,183
22.2
30,890
22.2
158
93
119
198
616
715
735
685
GC granted
GC sold
Price per GC / EUR
Total GC sales TEUR
13,808
14,000
29.8
417
14,956
15,000
29.6
444
18,384
15,000
29.6
444
14,226
15,000
29.6
444
8,691
17,000
29.6
503
19,857
31,000
29.6
917
22,695
28,000
29.6
828
22,356
28,000
29.6
828
823
748
794
787
1,484
2,050
1,958
1,859
Total energy output

MWh (sold)
Price per MWh / EUR
Total energy sales
TEUR
Total sales in TEUR
* Optimal considering given biomass
Comments
The specific power production is an
efficiency indicator
Specific power production is defined as
the power produced using one atro ton of
biomass, measured in MWh / atro ton
The indicator is influenced by the quality
of the biomass, operation of the boilers
and load factor of the boilers
According to existing data we had a
biomass with:
o LHV of 4.85 MWh / atro ton,
o 30% water content,
o 5% ash content and
o boiler load of 29 MW biomass
Calculating the specific power production
using this parameters we have an
optimal specific power production of
1.039 MWh / atro tons (4 fully loaded
boilers)
If the specific consumption in
November 2014 would have been
equal to the optimal level, this would
have led to savings of 1,275 atro tons
of biomass, representing about 117
kEUR
32
PROCUREMENT
Liquidity constraints resulted in low stock levels with a

trough in October 2014
Historical development of biomass stocks (6/2014 2/2015)
Monthly stock levels June 2014 - February 2015
atro to
Stock capacity 23,000 atro tons
5,085
2,009
Jun-14
4,021
4,271
3,372
5,991
5,271
2,741
619
Jul-14
Aug-14
Sep-14
Oct-14
Nov-14
Dec-14
Jan-15
Feb-15
Daily stocks January February 2015

6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
stock level 4,100 atro to

stock days 5-10
Comments
Stocks over the last 9 month are low due to liquidity

constraints and difficulties with a major supplier
The reduced amount of biomass stock in October,

caused by Schweighofers biomass delivery stop
forced a plant stop
This event led to an increase of the biomass

consumption per MWh electrical energy (from 0.962)
to 1.12 atro to per MWh) and subsequently to a
decrease of the profit per produced MWh power
In February biomass stock decreased and we

understand that the deliveries were of poor quality
(increased level of water content)
The lack of stock hindered the mixing of biomass in

order to reduce the water content which led to an
increase of the specific consumption (from 0.96 to
1.07 atro to per MWh)
Stock shall be increased to at least 5,000 atro tons in

order to have the possibility to optimize the mix of
biomass feed to the boilers and thereby to keep
biomass consumption as low as possible
1) Specific consumption = amount of atro tons in order to produce 1 MWh power

2) 0,96 atro to/MWh optimal level of biomass consumption considering 30% water content, 4,85 MWh/atro to and 5% ash content
33
PROCUREMENT
Biomass stock policy has significant impact on

operation of the plant, both technically and financially
Stock management & policy
Actual
Improved
Optimal
Lack of working capital financing forces

management to operate on a minimal
stock level (currently 5-6 stock days)
The stock levels between July 2014 and
February 2015 were between 5 30
days
Increase minimal stock level to 10-15

days which would mean:
7,000 to 10,500 atro tons
biomass equivalent of about 0.5
0.8 mEUR
Increase minimal stock level to 60 days

which would mean:
42,000 atro tons
biomass equivalent 3.2 mEUR
Negative
Risk of stock out
Limited mixing possibility leading to
suboptimal plant operation
No opportunity to use price fluctuations
and seasonality
Negative
Limited possibility to use price
fluctuations and seasonality
Optimal plant operation from the point
of view of the biomass available
Negative
Limited storage space by the premises
of BS
Higher working capital need during the
summer months
Positive
Low working capital
Positive
Reduction of stock-out risk
Optimal mixing of biomass possible
Positive
Optimal sourcing price
Excess energy usage for drying the
biomass for future use
34
PROCUREMENT
Readjusting the buying strategy could lead to savings

of 4% (and up to 15%) annually
Purchasing and stock optimization
Current purchasing
Optimized purchasing
1
Jan.
2
120%
17,000
Feb.
Apr.
12,080
95%
11,600
122%
15,120
100%
12,080
95%
120%
17,000
122%
15,120
Mar.
25,800
95%
100%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
100%
95%
100%
95%
May
7,100
95%
Jun.
7,100
100%
Jul.
6,800
100%
Aug.
6,800
102%
7,000
102%
95%
Sep.
7,100
107%
7,000
107%
95%
13,300
8,000
7,000
Oct.
11,600
122%
5,000
122%
95%
Nov.
11,600
122%
5,000
122%
95%
120%
95%
Dec.
120%
16,400
Biomass in atro to
8,000
130,300
130,300
130,300
11,163
10,734
9,531
-4%
-15%
Purchasing costs kEUR

Potential savings in %
Biomass purchases in atro to

Price index
Comments
Basic data from BS
130 k atro tons scenario
The analysis assumes:
price per atro ton of 77
EUR and
storage limit of 23,000
atro tons at BS
1. Scenario 1: current
status of purchasing
(monthly purchases
equals consumption)
2. Scenario 2: assuming
strategic purchasing
and stock build-up
when prices are
comparable low (stock
level <= 2 month)
3. Scenario 3: assuming
contractually secured
procurement of annual
biomass consumption
at a lowest price
35
AGENDA
Executive summary
Procurement
Green certificates
Assumptions
36
GREEN CERTIFICATES
High efficiency cogeneration plants receive up to

one additional GC per MWh electric power
Green certificates subvention scheme
According to the renewable energy subvention scheme, the
Government is offering subsidies to renewable energy producers
under the form of Green Certificates
GCs are granted for a period of 15 years after the start of electrical
energy production. For BS the period will end in 2029
For each MWh electric energy delivered to the National Power Grid
the renewable energy producer receives 2 GCs (base GC)
One additional GC (high eff. GC) can be granted for cogeneration
plants that are high efficient as defined by the Regulatory
Authority
Base GCs are granted in the month after the electrical energy is
produced (refer to the subsequent pages of this report), High eff.
GCs are granted per semester, in three months after the end of the
semester
In the case of power produced from biomass, only energy
produced from wood coming from Romania is eligible for the
subvention scheme with green certificates
High efficiency relevant parameters
In order to receive in full one high efficiency GC per eligible MWh,
large cogeneration plants with electrical power of >25 MW (BS:
29.65 MW) have to meet the following parameters:
o Quality Factor (FC) > 111.112
o Combined efficiency of the cogeneration plant (gl) > 70%
In case the value of the combined efficiency is not met, only a

fraction of the high efficiency green certificate will be awarded
The energy producer have to file to National Authority for Reglementation in Energy (ANRE) each half-year specific information
related to energy production, own energy consumption, energy
delivered to third parties and fuel consumption in order to get the
qualification to receive the high efficiency green certificate. With
this certification Energy producers request the high efficiency GCs
from Transelectrica
For the period May to December 2014 BS delivered 57,028 MWh
of power, 105,136 MWh of heat, internal heat usage was 18,975
MWh and the fuel consumption was 291,947 MWh. So the power
efficiency in total was 21.7% and the heat efficiency 42.5% which
was a combined efficiency of 64.2%. The quality factor was 115.7
and the awarded high efficiency GC amounted to 0.98 GC/MWh
(BS was qualified for 55,429 MWh)
Based on our analysis/calculations the condition of the combined
efficiency is almost fully met. In the Balanced scenario model
(refer to the business plan section of the report) BS can achieve
an average high efficiency quota of 0.96 GC / MWh, in the Power
Driven scenario 0.90 GC / MWh
For the future years we consider an increase of power production
compared to 2014 and the need for using heat in order to
maximize awarded high efficiency green certificates
We consider that the usage of the dryer in the coming years is of
critical importance for the profitability of BS
GREEN CERTIFICATES
37
High efficiency - the calculation of Quality Factor

and the Combined Efficiency
Quality Factor
The Quality Factor of the cogeneration plant is calculate using
total fuel input (CTCC), power produced (EETC), heat delivered
to third parties (ETC) and heat used internally (CSITIC) with the
following algorithm:
The power generation efficiency (e) and heat usage efficiency
(t) are calculated as follows:
e =
( ETC + CSITIC )
EETC
and t =
CTCC
CTCC
The Quality Factor coefficients (X and Y) using the reference

power and heat generation efficiencies that are 33% and 86%,
respectively, for the BS case are calculated using following
formulas:
X=
Y=
e , ref
100
t ,ref
100
100
=
= 304,91
+ 0, 005 ) p pierd .evit ( 0, 33 + 0, 005 ) 0, 979
100
=
= 116, 28
0,86
FC = X e + Y t
Source: Romanian legislation, GCI analysis
The combined efficiency

The combined efficiency of the cogeneration plant is calculated using
the following algorithm:
The combined efficiency of the cogeneration plant is calculated as a
sum of the power generation efficiency and heat supply efficiency
EETC ( ETC + CSITIC )
+
> 70%
gl = e + t =
CTCC
CTCC
In case the combined efficiency of the cogeneration plant is less than
70% than not all the energy is qualified as high efficiency
cogeneration (EEEC). The minimal quality factor initially equal to
111.1 is increased in 0.5% steps until the combined efficiency
exceeds 70%. When this happens the resulting heat usage efficiency
(t,cogE) is used to calculate the Cech for calculating the qualified
power production:
t ,cogE =
Cech =
( FCmin X e )
Y
e
t ,cogE
until e + t ,cogE > 70%
and EEEC = ( ETC + CSITIC ) Cech
38
GREEN CERTIFICATES
For obtaining the basic GCs, BS has to report to

Transelectrica on a monthly basis
Monthly reporting for basic GC awarding process
Ongoing month
Previuos month
19
14 days
BS invoices EON for the

sale of GC according to
monthly quota agreed
Transelectrica issues the

GC for the prevoius
month
Filing of information to Transelectrica regarding

previous months. This includes documents
about the power sold according to forecast,
power excess, power deficite and the proof for
biomass provenience (Romania, mandatory).
BS has the possibility to

transfer the GCs
ANRE: National Authority for Regulation in Energy
Comments
Procedure for the basic GC (2 GC per
MWh eligible delivered to grid):
o Transelectrica SA is the issuing
authority for Green Certificates
o Until the 5th of each month BS has to
file the delivered power figures to
Transelectrica (the power transport
company) for the previous month.
o Transelectrica proofs the
documentation and has 14 days to
issue the GCs
o Within BS responsible for the
reporting to the authorities and the
trades of BS is the Commercial
Manager (currently Mrs. Doina Oica)
Documents check performed at the
site in Suceava: according to the letter
10396 dated 16.03.2015 Transelectrica
granted BS 20,129 basic GCs based on
the production of February 2015 and
49,223 high efficiency GCs for the period
July to December 2014. This confirms a
well functioning reporting at BS
39
GREEN CERTIFICATES
The high efficiency Green Certificates are issued twice

a year in April and in October
Annually reporting for high efficiency awarded 3rd GC
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
6
Transelectricaa
issues high eff.
GCs
3
Transelectrica
issues high eff.
GCs for Jan-Jun
5
ANRE issues a
notification of power
qualified as high
efficiency for past year
2
ANRE issues a
notification of power
qualified as high
efficiency for Jan Jun
1
Filing to ANRE: First
semester qualification
documents to High
efficiency cogeneration
4
Filing to ANRE: Annually
qualification to High
efficiency cogeneration
Comments
GCs are sold through OPCOM (the
operator of the energy market) to EON
according to the bilateral agreement
between BS and EON
Currently BS sells only very less GCs on
the open market of OPCOM. The open
market OPCOM matches demand and offer
1-2 times per calendar month and GC are
sold pro rata. E.g. offer for January 2015
has been 1 million GC and demand has
been 10,300 GC, so the sellers sold 1% of
the GCs at the offered price of 131 LEI
Within BS responsible for the reporting to
ANRE and the trades of GCs is the
Commercial Manager (currently Mrs. Oica)
The process of GC reporting is performed
well. The qualification for high efficiency
was received in March 16th, 2015 being a
proof that the reporting was completed
accurately and in time
40
GREEN CERTIFICATES
In 2014 BS received 0.98 high eff. GC / MWh and has

bought 12k GC to meet contractual obligations
Development of GCs FY 2014
Power sale (MWh)
Power eligible for GC (MWh)
GC granted
Basic GC granted (GC)
3rd GC granted (GC)
GC bought (GC)
GC sold (GC)
GC sold to E-ON
GC sold to 3rd Parties
GC stock
Jan.15
-
Feb.15
9,801
9,801
-
Mar.15
11,502
11,502
9,801
9,801
9,801
9,801
0
Apr.15
4,471
4,598
11,502
11,502
11,502
May15
3,500
3,413
4,598
4,598
7,526
7,526
8,574
Jun.15
7,000
6,904
6,825
6,825
8,435
8,000
435
6,964
Jul.15 Aug.15
7,508
6,119
7,478
6,089
13,808 14,956
13,808 14,956
14,000 15,000
14,000 15,000
6,772
6,728
Sep.15
7,148
7,113
18,384
12,178
6,206
15,000
15,000
10,113
Oct.15
4,384
4,346
14,226
14,226
15,000
15,000
9,338
Nov.15
9,971
9,929
8,691
8,691
17,000
17,000
1,030
Dec.15
11,398
11,348
19,857
19,857
12,000
31,000
31,000
1,887
Total
82,802
82,520
122,649
116,443
6,206
12,000
132,762
115,000
17,762
Comments
BS is entitled to receive 2 GCs per eligible MWh sold and up to one more per eligible MWh sold if it qualifies for high efficiency
as defined by the regulatory authority
During test runs (February to April 2014) the plant was eligible only for 1 GC per MWh sold. The qualification for high efficiency
can be made only after the commissioning of the plant
For the year of operation (FY 2014) BS received 0.98 GCs per eligible MWh sold; high efficiency production started end of April
BS has concluded a long-term contract with EON (2014 - 2023) for the sale of 115,000 GC in 2014 and thereafter 300,000 GC
per anno at the minimal legal price set by the regulator. In FY 2014 a total number of 115,000 GCs were sold to EON at a price
of 130.7 Lei (about 29 EUR)
To meet the contractual quota in 2014 BS had to buy additional 12,000 GCs on the open market in December. This was due to
the low stock of GCs as an effect of the production stop in October resulting from a lack of biomass
Expenses for GC purchases are accounted for in other operating expenses in the P&L; the GCs bought on the open market
were sold to EON at the same price
Selling on the open market is not an option due to the over-supply of GCs; we expect that trading of GCs on the open market
within the next 12 to 18 month will be limited
Comment: Power eligible for GC - not all sold energy is eligible for GCs, due to network balancing costs. In case of BS approximately 99% of the sold
electrical energy is considered eligible for GC
In FY 2014
BS had to buy
12,000 GCs
on the open
market to
fulfill the EON
contract
41
GREEN CERTIFICATES
In the management forecast for 2015 BS will get full

allowance of high efficiency GC
Development of GCs FC 2015
Power sale (MWh)
Power eligible for GC (MWh)
GC granted
Basic GC granted (GC)
3rd GC granted (GC)
GC bought (GC)
GC to be sold (GC)
GC E-ON quota
GC to be sold to 3rd Parties
GC stock
Jan.15
11,224
11,178
22,695
22,695
4,991
28,000
28,000
1,573
Feb.15
10,097
10,064
22,356
22,356
5,000
28,000
28,000
929
Mar.15
9,797
9,700
69,351
20,128
49,223
35,000
35,000
35,280
Apr.15
8,835
8,748
19,400
19,400
35,000
35,000
19,680
May15
8,596
8,511
17,496
17,496
20,000
20,000
17,176
Jun.15
8,319
8,237
17,023
17,023
20,000
20,000
14,199
Jul.15 Aug.15
8,596
4,298
8,511
4,256
16,474 17,023
16,474 17,023
20,000 19,000
20,000 19,000
10,672
8,695
Sep.15
8,319
8,237
64,949
8,511
56,438
20,000
20,000
53,644
Oct.15
10,124
10,024
16,474
16,474
20,000
20,000
50,118
Nov.15
12,799
12,672
20,048
20,048
20,000
20,000
50,166
Dec.15
17,193
17,023
25,344
25,344
35,000
35,000
40,510
Total
118,199
117,160
328,632
222,971
105,661
9,991
300,000
300,000
-
Comments
In order to meet the contractual demand of EON, at the beginning of 2015 BS had to buy about 10,000 GCs on the open market
This is mainly due to the fact that high efficiency GCs are not granted until March for the last year
We understand from BS that no further GC purchases are expected in the future, based upon the latest forecast
At the end of 2015 BS is expected to have in stock 40,000 GCs which will expire in Nov 2016
For the sale of excess GCs BS need to increase the quota with EON or alternatively conclude bilateral contracts with other buyers
Energy sales:
BS has a power supply contract with EON, valid until 31.12.2015 (20 days notice period)
The power has to be between 5 MW and 27 MW, 24h a day, for all days of the year
The price is set at 140 Lei/MWh, including transport costs (7.8 Lei/MWh) for introducing the power in the grid, according to ANRE ordinance
nr.51/2014
We understood from the BS management that EON would want to buy for each 3 GC bought 1 MWh electrical energy
This contract gives on the one hand predictability of revenues but also might limit the volumes of energy that can be sold on the next day
market to higher prices. So its a trade off between securing sales of power and GC versus obtaining higher prices
42
GREEN CERTIFICATES
In order to sell GCs exceeding the current EON quota,

BS shall consider agreements with other buyers
Potential alternative GC buyer
Nr. Company
1 Electrica Furnizare SA
Bucharest
Turnover 2013
(mLEI)
4,441
2 Enel Energie Muntenia SA
Bucharest
2,069
230
3 Enel Energie SA
Bucharest
2,007
336
4 CEZ Vanzare SA
Craiova
1,560
45
5 Tinmar Ind SA
Bucharest
1,387
59
6 Alpiq Romenergie SRL
Bucharest
821
12
7 Transenergo Com SA
Bucharest
722
19
8 Axpo Energy Romania SA
Bucharest
550
53
9 Repower Furnizare Romania
Bucharest
510
13
10 KDF Energy SRL
Bucharest
181
22
11 ICCO Energ SRL
Brasov
139
108
12 EURO P.E.C. SA
Galati
44
56
Source: GCI analysis
Headquarters
No.
employees
1,165
Comments
Power suppliers are potential further business
partners for energy and GC trading
For each MWh sold, the energy suppliers have
to show 0.218 GCs. This value is set annually
by ANRE and shall increase next years. It is the
main influence factor for the demand of green
certificates
We estimate that this demand covers 70%-80%
of 2015 GC market
Currently the market is only for business clients
deregulated, the market for private clients is still
regulated (captive customers)
Power suppliers can supply to any non-captive
customer in Romania
EON is the power supplier of captive customers
(house-holds) for the North-East region of
Romania, region where BS is located
Enel is in the South-East and West part, CEZ in
the South West. Electrica delivers to the captive
customers of the rest of the regions
43
AGENDA
Executive summary
Procurement
Green certificates
Assumptions
44
TERMICA & THERMICAL SUPPLY
Termica case is still a Moving target
Termica historical overview and major issues

Historical timeline Termica case
In June 2014 the
reorganization plan of
the shareholders was
rejected by the
creditors. Unicom
(major creditor) filed a
new reorganization
plan; existing
administrators
exchanged
Bioenergy
Suceava was
finalized
2013
Insolvency
proceedings
started 28th
June 2013
2014
Termica contract with

Suceava originally to
expire on 31st March
2014, was extended as
no other party
participated on the new
tender
Operational and commercial issues to be considered

Starting of
new tender
process for
heating
distribution
15th of April
2015
Unicom reorganization
plan rejected by court;
definite executable
decision for liquidation
of Termica (Acet
against Termica case)
Open invoices from Termica in the amount

of approximately 4.3 mEUR
(collectability?)
Ownership of pipes and equipment

(Heating distribution)
Ownership of 110kV transformer station

(Grid connectivity and electricity sales)
Source: Interview with Insolvency administrator, the mayor of Suceava, Cuirtin Associates, Management information, GCI research
45
Rejection of restructuring plan by court will most

likely trigger the liquidation process for Termica
Legal actions against Termica
SC ACET SA
against Termica
Acet filed a case against Termica to cancel restructuring plan proposed

by Unicom
The definitive and executable decision was declared on 20th March
2015 in favor of ACET. From our discussion with Mr. Ciurtin (legal
advisor of Adrem) we understand that due to the fact that all relevant
deadlines to introduce a new restructuring plan are expired long time
ago the consequence for Termica is the bankruptcy and liquidation.
Termica has the possibility to raise objection at the High Court of
Bucharest but it is assumed that the appeal will not be successful
closed
Bioenergy Suceava
against Termica
BS opened an enforcement proceedings against Termica at the court of

Suceava
The decision was postponed several times - decision expected in April
2015
open
Bioenergy Suceava
against Termica
BS launched legal proceedings against Termica to enforce bankruptcy

The court hearing is expected on 28th April 2015
open
46
The liquidation process was initiated by decision of

the court in Iasi (Acet case)
Reorganization process vs. Liquidation process
Reorganization process (cancelled)
Liquidation process
Status
Until recently Termica was operating under the umbrella of an
insolvency / reorganization process
Reorganization plan proposed by Unicom (admitted on 17th June
2014) included the following tasks:
o 100% coverage of the claims of creditors
o possibility for the initial creditors of trade-in of Termica
assets (e.g. heat supply equipment and installations, 110
kV station)
The reorganization plan proposed by Unicom has been cancelled
by the Court of Iasi on 20th March 2015. The motivation of the
court is expected to be published in 2-4 weeks after the sentence
have been announced
Next steps
Court has to appoint the liquidator. Usually it is the former
judiciary administrator. Creditors assembly has the right to
change the liquidator. Assets can, but must not be re-assessed
The liquidator shall present to the committee of creditors a report
which shall include the assessment of assets and the modality of
sale
Creditors will then vote for auction or direct negotiation, lump or
by item
According to Mr. Ciurtin a liquidation process can last about 3 to
6 months
In the liquidation process, the claims of BS have priority
status compared to the claims of the initial creditors (BS
became creditor during the insolvency process)
Potential consequences
BS will use the latest court decision in its own trial
Operational and commercial consequences remain open,
however we understand that the creditor status will improved in a
liquidation process
Potential consequences
BS can participate in the liquidation process and buy relevant
assets (e.g. 110 kV transformer)
BS may claim satisfaction of its claim from assets involved in the
insolvency proceeding
47
Specific Termica assets are of high importance to

operate the BS plant
Ownership Termica assets
110
kV
Pump
station
Boiler
house 3
Boiler
house 1
Termica area
Chipper
and dryer
Boiler
house 2
Relevant assets to
operate the plant
on Termica land
Comments
In our understanding the following Termica
assets are relevant for BS:
o 110 kV transformer station: currently
rented by BS for 41 kEUR per month; rent
is currently not paid out but charged
against the open amounts from Termica;
we understand that a new investment in a
transformer station would amount to about
1.5 to 2.5 mEUR; a disconnection from
the network is according to Mr. Ciurtin not
possible (EU regulation and local laws)
o Pipelines and pumping equipment: we
learned that the pumping station including
equipment and the pipelines from Termica
to the City connection (about 3-4 km) is
pledged to ACET (ACET partly owned by
the municipality of Suceava)
o Land under these pipelines: pledged to
fiscal authority
In the bankruptcy process BS disposes a
priority status. Mr. Ciurtin stated that BS
improved significantly its status in comparison
to the reorganization proceedings before
48
The payment scheme of Termica might change due to

the retendering process
Heating payment scheme (per Gcal without VAT)
<150 LEI
Real estate
administration
Termica ows about

4.5 mEUR to BS
<150 LEI
116 LEI
Bioenergy
Suceava
Heat
Termica
(total price
256 LEI)
150 LEI
Heat
Consumer
106 LEI
Tender to replace Termica
for district heating service
to start on April 16th
(decision to be expected
until July 2015
Termica keeps
140 Lei from
256 Lei / Gcal
distributed
City of Suceava
Heat losses
currently 40%
between BS
and endconsumer
Subvention is provided only for

households; one-time payments to
Termica for the purchase of fuel
were provided in the last month to
secure heat coverage of the city
Collectabil
it is said to
be about
80%
Comments
The price for the heat delivery to Termica was
originally fixed in course of the energy production
tender with the city of Suceava at 116 LEI / Gcal
until Q4 of 2019 (agreed between BS and city of
Suceava); renegotiation of terms of payment as
soon as the tender for heat distribution and
transport is finalized and a new customer fixed
The price received by Termica for the transport
and distribution of heat is approved by ANRSC and
amounts to total 256 LEI / Gcal. The chargeable
price is related to the total internal cost basis of
Termica. The consumer price depends on the
subvention granted by the city council
The heat price of 116 LEI invoiced by BS per
Gcal to Termica is currently one of the lowest
prices in Romania. As mentioned before the
price is fixed until Q4 2019 and should also
remain if a new Termica will be set up as the
former contract was erected with the city
The city of Suceava plans to further improve the
heat transport network. An investment project of
about 50 mEUR was applied by the EU and a
decision is expected in the next 12 month1)
A tender for heating and transport distribution
will start in April 2015
1) Our research shows that Suceava has not filed for an improvement project yet and is currently not listed as municipality with projects in implementation;
It seems that the new Large Infrastructure Operational Program will primarily be provided for 7 cities (Iasi, Bacau, etc.) already in the program
Source: Interview with the mayor of Suceava, Management information, GCI research
49
Termica payments in the period Oct 14 Feb 15

covered 72% of the invoiced amounts
Termica invoices and collection
Payment collection from Termica 2014-2015
No. Delivery
Invoice
period
issued
1
Mar-14 1-Apr-14
2
Apr-14 30-Apr-14
3 May-14 30-May-14
4
Jun-14 30-Jun-14
5
Jul-14 31-Jul-14
6
Aug-14 1-Sep-14
7
Sep-14 30-Sep-14
8
Oct-14 31-Oct-14
9
Nov-14 30-Nov-14
10 Dec-14 31-Dec-14
11 Jan-15 31-Jan-15
12
Feb-15 28-Feb-15
TOTAL
Heat sold
(Gcal)
23,285
15,659
6,534
6,544
6,143
3,613
4,619
7,692
23,883
27,728
28,532
Invoiced amount
kLEI
kEUR
3,349
744
2,252
501
940
209
941
209
884
196
520
115
664
148
1,106
246
3,435
763
3,988
886
4,104
912
Open amount
kLEI
kEUR
731
163
880
195
520
115
664
148
1,106
246
3,435
763
3,988
886
4,104
912
26,561
3,821
849
3,821
849
180,793
26,005
5,779
19,250
4,278
In the period October 2014 until beginning of March

2015 a total amount of 2.6 mEUR (approximately 11.8
mLEI) was paid by Termica. However there is still an
open amount of 4.3 mEUR open due
1) From an accounting perspective the amounts received were booked against the oldest invoices (also before March 2014)
Comments
Termica had a bad payment history and
overdue payments to BS amount to 4.3 mEUR
at the beginning of March 2015
Payments in the period October 2014 to
February 2015 were received from Termica in
the amount of 2.6 mEUR, which represents
about 72% of the heat invoiced from BS in that
period.1) We understand that the payments
were triggered originally by the City of Suceava
in order to secure heat supply
Considering the likely scenario of bankruptcy
starting with May or June 2015 the currently
open amounts from Termica are at risk. No
specific allowance was considered by
management in the books so far
50
Minor relevance of Benchmarking as the heating

distribution service will be retendered (Termica new)
Benchmarking Termica
Benchmarking Termica*
Company
County
Termica SA
Suceava
CET SA Bacau
Bacau
R.A.M. Buzau
Buzau
SC TERMO
Arges
SC TETKRON SRL Brasov
SC MODERN CALOR Botosani
SC ENET SA Focsani Vrancea
Existing
Connected
operating
apartments
connections
#
1,654
2,133
1,491
3,181
1,232
1,332
3,084
Selling price
(incl. VAT)
#
LEI/Gcal
19,564
185 biomass
16,594 155 gas, biomass
185 gas
15,326
24,428
200 gas
200 gas
11,462
170 gas, coal
12,063
240 gas, coal
14,017
Comments
The benchmarking is based on our rough research on public
available information. We tried to select cities comparable in
size of operating connections, connected apartments and
revenues
A direct comparison is limited due to different supply sources in
place however it could give at least some hints about the cost
structure of the companies presented
Based on the information gathered from our research Termica
Suceava shows the highest share of expenses in relation to the
number of employees. From our understanding this could be
due to the fact that Termica still employs people from the former
coal plant to close the operation
*Finacial figures for 2013, last fiscal year available
Source: Source: The National Regulatory Authority for Local Public Services; GCI research
Turnover
kLEI
58,297
69,117
44,145
60,402
20,620
43,983
36,750
Total
Net
expenses profit
kLEI
147,393
146,811
47,595
73,756
43,617
45,396
59,547
kLEI
-58,745
-65,292
-1,689
-9,878
-14,432
1,597
-21,035
EmpExpenses /
Turnover / Turnover / Turnover /
loyees
employees
employee connec.
apartm.
#
393
466
220
421
184
219
300
kLEI/#
148
148
201
143
112
201
123
kLEI/#
35
32
30
19
17
33
12
kLEI/#
3
4
3
2
2
4
3
Except for SC Modern Calor, all selected companies show

negative results
The main factors for the negative performance of Termicas are
network losses, the disconnection of apartments and oversized
personnel base. The network losses and the disconnection of
apartments are interrelated
In case of Termica Suceava we understand that the high
number of employees is due to the fact that Termica belongs to
the city and Termica took over people from the former coal-fired
heating plant (some closure activities are still in progress)
kLEI/#
375
315
216
175
237
207
198
51
AGENDA
Executive summary
Procurement
Green certificates
Assumptions
52
CURRENT TRADING & FORECAST
Forecast figures 2015 and Budget 2016 show

significant deviations from IBR business plan
Profit & loss statement 2014-2016 (BS calculation)
Year ended 31.12.
in kEUR
Electric energy
Price (EUR/MWh)
Volume (MWh)
Revenue (kEUR)
Green certificates
Price (EUR/GC)
GCs sold
Revenue (kEUR)
Heating energy
Price (EUR/Gcal)
Volume (Gcal)
Revenue (kEUR)
Biomass consumption
Price (/atro to)
Volume (atro to)
Cost of materials (kEUR)
Revenue
Cost of materials
Purchased services
Gross margin
Personnel expenses
Other operating expenses
EBITDA
Depreciation
EBIT
Financial result
Profit before tax
Income taxes
Net income
PWC IBR calculation
Deviation IBR / BS
2014
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
Actual
FC
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
33.4
84,040
2,796
34.5
117,173
4,045
34.5
137,885
4,764
31.13
151,000
4,700
31.79
151,000
4,800
3.38
(33,827)
(655)
2.72
(13,115)
(36)
30.9
155,380
4,796
29.0
359,117
10,426
29.0
390,399
11,337
(0.33)
(93,883)
(2,874)
(0.32)
(62,601)
(1,963)
26.1
202,083
5,253
25.8
199,615
5,144
25.8
217,764
5,612
26.19
240,517
6,300
26.48
237,931
6,300
(0.42)
(40,902)
(1,156)
(0.71)
(20,167)
(688)
85.5
108,823
9,425
77.0
126,033
9,707
75.0
141,074
10,581
87
159,000
13,800
82
159,000
13,000
(10)
(32,967)
(4,093)
(7)
(17,926)
(2,419)
12,846
(9,425)
(925)
2,496
(626)
(2,393)
(523)
(1,943)
(2,466)
(4,371)
(6,837)
(6,837)
19,615
(9,707)
(328)
9,581
(660)
(1,857)
7,391
(3,481)
3,910
(4,311)
(401)
(401)
21,713
(10,581)
(325)
10,807
(876)
(1,745)
8,512
(3,481)
5,030
(4,664)
366
366
24,300
(13,800)
10,500
(650)
(1,550)
8,300
(3,300)
5,000
(4,500)
500
500
1,000
24,400
(13,000)
11,400
(700)
(1,600)
9,100
(3,300)
5,800
(3,700)
2,100
2,100
4,200
(4,685)
4,093
(2,687)
2,419
(10)
(307)
(909)
(181)
(1,090)
189
(901)
(500)
(1,401)
(176)
(145)
(588)
(181)
(770)
(964)
(1,734)
(2,100)
(3,834)
29.36
453,000
13,300
Source: Management information; PWC IBR Revised draft December 2014; GCI analysis
29.36
453,000
13,300
Comments
The information in the adjacent table is
based on the controlling report 2014 (we
identified an error in the calculation of
GCs in 2014 in the amount of about 0.4
mEUR which then was corrected by Mrs
Rusu in that report), FC 2015, budget
2016 and the IBR from PWC December
2014
FY 2014 shows a significant loss of -6.8
mEUR. This was mainly driven by the
problematic situation with Termica, the
comparable warm winter and the
unfavorable biomass purchasing terms
achieved in that period
FC 2015 (Jan-Feb 2015 actual and MarDec FC) and Plan 2016 from
management shows significant deviations
from the IBR provided in December 2014.
Major differences result from the
optimistic and not with the local
management re-checked assumptions
applied in the IBR (mainly prices and
volumes to be realized and lower costs
estimated)
Includes a payment of 2.5 mLEI
(0.6 mEUR) for not accepted VAT
based on an official audit by
financial authority
53
CURRENT TRADING & FORECAST
IBR assumptions for FY 2015 and FY 2016 are too

optimistic in comparison to the current management view
EBITDA IBR PWC vs. EBITDA BS
8.300
511
Lower heating demand by

Termica assumed by
management
-11%
-1.167
-148
2.540
-2.726
-102
-1.054
Price
effect
Vol.
effect
Price
effect
-307
7.388
1.552
Assumed production model in

IBR led to significant higher
output (MWh and GCs)
EBITDA
15 IBR
-10
FC 2015 by management
assumes lower biomass
purchase prices
Vol.
effect
Price
effect
Vol.
effect
Price
effect
Vol.
effect
PE
OE
EBITDA
15 BS
EBITDA IBR
EBITDA BS
Electricity
-7%
9.100
411
-453
-145
GCs
-1.818
1.344
-169
-520
-176
-145
1.075
8.506
Heating
Biomass
Costs
Further price improvements to

75 EUR per atro ton on
average are assumed by
management (IBR 82 EUR)
Lower heating demand than in

IBR is expected by
management in FY 2016
EBITDA
16 IBR
Price
effect
Vol.
effect
Price
effect
Vol.
effect
Price
effect
Vol.
effect
Source: Management information; PWC IBR Revised draft December 2014; GCI analysis
Price
effect
Vol.
effect
PE
OE
EBITDA
16 BS
54
AGENDA
Executive summary
Procurement
Green certificates
Assumptions
55
BUSINESS PLAN & SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Business plan based on a technical and commercial

bottom-up approach in three scenarios
III: Power driven scenario
II: Balanced scenario
Basic concept business plan and scenarios
I: Heat driven scenario
Revenue
Costs
Electricity
(MWh)
Price basis contractual agreement with EON and market prices (adjusted for inflation)
Volumes based on plant operation and defined technical parameters (eg. boilers, ash)
Green certificates
(# GCs)
Price based on EON contract; market price (adjusted for inflation)

No. of GCs based on energy production; high efficiency achieved in most years
Heating
(MWh)
Prices according to the current pricing scheme (fixed until FY 2029)

Decreasing heat demand (reduction of losses, refurbishments, disconnections, etc.)
Biomass costs
(atro tons)
Average price of last three month (excl. HS), adjusted for inflation over planning period
Biomass consumption based on plant operation and defined technical parameters
Based on the existing employees base and additional costs for purchasing department
Existing operating cost base increased by expected annual maintenance costs
Adjusted for inflation
Receivables from Termica of 4.3 mEUR in FY 2015 as upside potential
Liabilities to Schweighofer from biomass purchases in the amount of 1.6 mEUR
considered as equity/shareholder loan
Based on existing financing facilities and defined interest and payback parameters
Shareholder loans subordinated priority in terms of debt service
Technical parameters based on the current plant performance and plant design
Energy balance parameters defining plant production and biomass consumption
Personnel costs
Other costs
Bank
Financing
Shareholders
Production
model
Energy balance
56
Basic technical and commercial assumptions
Basic assumptions
Technical parameters
Commercial parameters
Price of power = 34 EUR/MWh for 2015, increases with the
inflation rate
Energy balance of the CHP (combined heat power plant):

Number of boilers
Biomass consumption (MW)
29.0
58.0
87.0
116.0
7.5
13.5
20.5
28.5
17.5
36.5
54.5
71.5
Power production (MW)

Heat production (MW)
Biomass characteristics:
Lower heating value = 4.88 MWh/atro to

Ash content = 5%
Water content = 30%
Heat demand:
# of apartments decreases: 2.0% in 2016, 1.75% in 2017, 1.5%

in 2018ff until 0.25% in 2023, then constant
Thermal losses 37% in 2015, reduction of 0,50 % points p.a.
until 32%, then constant (still far above technical benchmark)
Commercial/industrial offtake plus 0.25% p.a. 2018 to 2023
Production stop for 2 weeks in August due to district heating
revisions
Comment: All prices without VAT

Price power exceeding forecast = 8.89 EUR/MWh (in case the

power notified to the dispatcher is exceeded, only this price will be
paid for the difference)
Price GC = 29.13 EUR/GC for 2015 (minimum price defined by
ANRE), increases with the inflation rate
Price heat = 22.16 EUR/MWh, fixed until 2018; one time increase
10% in 2019 (re-negotiations of prices with new Termica)
Price for biomass = 77 EUR (3 month average January-March
2015 without HS), increases at 1.50% (below inflation due to
installed purchasing department and optimized sourcing)
Exchange rate = 4.50 LEI for 1.0 EUR
Inflation rate = 2.7% (2.7% acc.to National Commission for
Prognosis, in average for next 3 years)
Business plans are based on the actual figures 1-2/2015 and FC
figures 3/2015 adjusted for already accounted items. Beginning of
April 2015 figures are calculated according to the assumptions
made for the planning period until end of 2029
57
Energy balance of the cogeneration plant
Basic assumptions plant performance

Energy balance of BS
4 SB
3 SB
2 SB
H0 Fuel heat
MW
116
MW
87
MW
58
H1 Boiler heat
100
75
50
H2 Heat production
71.5
54.5
36.5
60
45
11.5
11.5
9.5
12
H0p Boiler losses
16
12
H2p Heat losses
13
28.5
20.5
13.5
P2 Delivered power
26
18.5
12
Power used for

internal services
2.5
1.5
H3 Delivered heat
H4
Heat used internally

(dryer)
P1 Power production
P1p
Comments
Based on our discussions with BS management and the production manager we
derived the energy balance as shown in the adjacent table
The business plan models are based on this energy balance however defer in the
number of steam boilers (SB) used monthly (eg. winter season 4 SB and summer
season 2 SB)
P2
P1
H1
H2
H2
p
H0
p
Winter
P1
CHP plant energy flows
Summer
H4
H3
Biomass
Heat
H0
Usage of heat
Electric power
SB = Steam boiler
58
The business plan models are based on the

operational parameters of the CHP plant
Basic assumptions plant performance - CHP plant operation diagram
Comments
Based on the energy balance presented in the previous slide
operational laws / curves for biomass power and heat can be
defined and used in the production modelling
The fuel (biomass) power (MW) of the plant is depending on the
number of used boilers (N) according to the following law:
H 0 = 29 N
The power production (MW) of the plant is dependent on the
P1 = 0,5 N 2 + 4,5 N + 2,5

The heat production (MW) of the plant is dependent on the
H 2 = 0,5 N 2 + 20,5 N 2,5

As an example if the plant uses 3 boilers the biomass used, power
and heat production have the following values:
H 0 = 29 3 = 87 MW
P1 = 0,5 32 + 4,5 3 + 2,5 = 20,5 MW
H 2 = 0,5 32 + 20,5 3 2,5 = 54,5 MW

59
Price of electricity is assumed to increase in line with

inflation
TWh
Basic assumptions electric power
60.0
50.0
52.7
51.5 53.0 52.2 49.7 51.2 51.1 51.1 51.2 51.7 52.1 52.6
47.9
40.0
48.0 49.3
45.6 46.8
43.2 44.4
42.1
41.0
38.8 39.9
35.8 36.8 37.8
33.1 34.0 34.9
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Volume assumptions
Romanian market internal consumption is assumed to remain
stable in the following years with a slight increase of 0.9% starting
from 2018
The estimated consumption will reach about 52.6 TWh in the year
2020*
The average income level in Romania is relatively low compared
to the EU average making the power price sensitive to political
decisions
*National Comision for Prognosis, Energy Balance Prognosis, December 2014

Source: Management information; Electricity Strategy of Romania 2015-2025, GCI analysis
Price assumptions
After years of steep increases, the average price in the last
semester of 2014 was 36.7 EUR per MWh for bilateral contracts
(including Transelectrica costs of approximately 1.5 to 2.0 EUR
per MWh)
Energy prices are assumed to increase at inflation
The management policy is to secure the GC sale and energy
sales through bilateral contracts
60
In all scenarios the plant is operated to maximize the

number of high efficiency GCs
Basic assumptions GCs
GC assumptions
As producer of energy from renewable sources, BS receives the
incentives according to the law 220/2008 in form of GCs
The renewable energy producer receives this incentives for 15
years, in BS case until beginning of 2029
GCs are traded by BS via a bilateral contract with EON. The price
specified in the contract is linked to the prices communicated by
ANRE (minimum price)
In the business plan analysis the price of GC is assumed to
remain at the minimum price
Source: ANRE Decisions, Law 220/2008 with subsequent modifications
Quality factor
41.2 42.3
39.0 40.1
38.0
36.0 37.0
34.2 35.1
32.4 33.3
31.6
29.9 30.7
28.2 28.9 29.3 29.1
140
135
70%
130
65%
125
60%
120
55%
115
50%
110
45%
Quality Factor ("FC")
Minimum quality factor
Total Efficiency
Minimum global efficiency
Global efficiency
High efficiency calculation (power scenario)
Minimum GC price (EUR)
High efficiency
Energy producer have to file to ANRE specific information related
to energy production, own energy consumption, energy delivered
to third parties and fuel consumption
In order to receive the full high efficiency GC per eligible MWh
large CHP plants with electrical power >25 MW (BS has 29.7
MW) have to meet the following parameters :
Quality Factor (FC) >111.1 and
Combined efficiency of the cogeneration plant (gl) >70%
The award ration of 3rd GC in the scenarios varies from 1 to 0.86
per MWh until 2028
61
Heat demand: assumed to decrease steadily, due to a

reduction of connections and increase of network efficiency
45,000
Number of apartments
40,000
360
380
326
312
35,000
20,000
261
235
30,000
25,000
330
274
23,605 22,800
232
255
250
246
242
239
236
232
231
231
231
231
231
231
GWh
Basic assumptions heating demand
280
230
22,158
20,769 19,564
19,173 18,837 18,554 18,322 18,139 18,003 17,913 17,868 17,868 17,868 17,868 17,868 17,868 17,868 17,868
15,000
180
130
10,000
80
5,000
30
-20
Heating assumptions
The number of apartments will decrease over the planning period. The decrease will slow down from 2% in 2015 to 0.25% in 2022.
Thereafter the number of apartments is considered constant. This dynamic is due to the fact that more apartments will be reconnected to the
network as the quality of services will improve that will partially compensate from the disconnections from the network
Heat consumption from companies will increase starting from 2017 at 0.25% pa. From 2023 onwards consumption will remain constant
Heat consumption is formed by the sum of apartments, household consumption and companies consumption with the additions of network
losses. The losses are considered to decrease from 37% in 2015 to 32% in 2025 (investments of 50 mEUR planned by the City of Suceava)
The average heat consumption for each month, for one apartment was based on average value in 2010-2013 based on the consumption
data gathered from Termica
1) Based on our research and analysis of the current funding programms, an impact of EU-funding will have less effect within the next foreseeable
future; Suceava has not filed for an improvement project yet and is currently not listed as municipality with projects in implementation
62
Fixed costs were increased in the BP scenarios
Basic assumptions fixed costs and VAT

Personnel expenses:
Personnel expenses are based on the current cost level,

increased by 4,000 EUR per month for new purchasing experts
and annually adjusted for inflation
Other operating expenses:
Other operating expenses are based on FC 2015 provided by

management adjusted for inflation over the planning period
We increased the maintenance costs to 155 kEUR in 2015 and

185 kEUR in 2016. An amount of 157 kEUR for spare-parts,
mainly for the chipper is also included in 2015, thereafter with
123 kEUR
As the future situation with Termica is currently unclear we did

not consider a potential effects of a write-off on the open
receivables from Termica in the amount of 4.3 mEUR in the p&l
of the business plan model. We also did not include a potential
cash-in from the starting liquidation process of Termica
Leasing payments (41 kEUR pm.) to Termica for the

transformer station are currently deducted from the open
receivables (non-cash effect); in the BP we do not assume
cash payments to Termica until the end of 2015 but included an
amount of 16 kEUR pm. thereafter for lease payments to a new
Termica1)
All costs are increased over the planning period by 2.7% pa.
Depreciation:
The depreciation is based on actual figures and kept constant

over the planning period. We understand from IC-P that no
major overhaul investment (typically 10% of total investment
after 8-10 years) are required before 2029
Corporate income tax
The corporate income tax is 16% (losses carried forward are

not taken in consideration in the calculation as we do not know
in what extent the losses carried forward will be accepted by
the tax authority, conservative approach)
VAT
Except biomass firewood, all expenses are VAT bearable but

only heating sales carry VAT
Therefor BS in general is in a VAT receivable position
According to the management we understand that VAT will be

recovered within 3-4 month from submission of VAT receipts.
From Mrs. Rusu we understand that a significant VAT amount
(1.5 mEUR) was recovered in Q1 2015
All business plan figures are calculated excluding VAT

Remark: VAT in the business plan pro-forma cash flow statement is
the net result from time differences in VAT calculation
1) Considering an investment of about 1.5 to 2.5 mEUR for a new transformer station BS could re-finance a new investment with 41 kEUR pm. within 5
years; as the current lease fee is comparable high we assumed that BS is able to re-negotiate terms
Source: Management information; IC-P information; GCI analysis
63
Financial liabilities according to provided terms and

conditions
Basic assumptions financing
Overview financial liabilities to banks (in EUR)
Bank Loan facility
RBI
RBI
RBI
RBI
RBI
RBI
Purpose
Facility A
CAPEX
Facility A hedged CAPEX
Facility B
CAPEX
Facility B hedged CAPEX
VAT bridge loan VAT
WC facility
WC
Contract
date
Orig.
amount
21.03.13 54,400,000
21.03.13
3,350,000
21.03.13
21.03.13
2,950,000
5,000,000
65,700,000
Overdue
Open amount
Total due as Urbas payment
Total open
interest and
as of 31.03.15
of 31.03.15 invest.capex1) amount 20152)
instalments
23,388,514
4,517,854 27,906,369
4,788,000
32,694,369
23,388,514
2,284,990 25,673,504
25,673,504
1,529,348
443,250
1,972,598
1,972,598
1,529,348
177,420
1,706,768
1,706,768
1,024,889
1,024,889
1,024,889
5,000,000
4,968,977
4,968,977
55,860,613
7,423,514 63,253,103
4,788,000
68,041,103
Financing banks
Liabilities to banks are planned according to the agreed conditions

including accrued interest to RBI and OeKB
Repayments start in FY 2016 on a yearly basis, conservative
approach (an upside potential on interest payments could be achieved
by considering quarterly principal repayments)
Interest payments on bank loans are taken into account beginning
from Q2 / 2015
EURIBOR 3M kept constant at 0.2% pa.
The business plan assumes a repayment of the VAT bridge loan
within 2 years
The WC facility is assumed to be granted over the total planning
period
1) To be drawn
2) A conservative approach was applied and the total amount considered in the business plan
OeKB
Repayment Original
Interest parameters guaranty
parameters maturity
fee
35 quarters 15.03.23 EURIBOR 3m +3.0% 3.377%
35 quarters 15.03.23
1,27% +3.0% 3.377%
23 quarters 15.03.20 EURIBOR 3m +6.9%
23 quarters 15.03.20
1,27%+6.9%
8 quarters 28.02.15 EURIBOR 3m +5.2%
- 31.03.15 EURIBOR 3m +5.2%
-
Shareholder loans
Liabilities to shareholders are subordinated in terms of debt service

and will be redeemed after the full coverage of the existing banking
liabilities (bullet repayment assumed after bank debt repayment)
Interest on shareholder loans are accrued and added to the loan

amounts
There is currently a dispute between BS and Bio Electrica Transilvania

SRL (HS company) in place regarding the open receivable of 1.6
mEUR. As a conservative approach we assumed that this receivable
will be considered as equity / subordinated shareholder loan (no
repayment considered in the cash flow calculation) in the business
plan. We understand that the latest discussions could also result in an
installment based payment schedule
64
Amounts due to plant construction suppliers are not

finally clear to date; we considered 1.6 mEUR to be paid in FY 2015
Basic assumptions plant construction suppliers
Plant construction supplier
Open amount
in EUR
31.03.2015
Urbas
9,287,954
JCR
344,000
RZ
0
1.6 mEUR
GC
653,000
Adrem
670,000
Total
10,954,954
Cost
overrun
200,000
0
800,000
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
Total
9,487,954
344,000
800,000
653,000
1,670,000
12,954,954
Comments
We understand that the outstanding payments to Urbas will be covered

via the existing reserve account (4.5 mEUR) and by drawing the last
tranche of RBI facility A (about 4.8 mEUR). We assumed that this will
be conducted until the end of FY 2015 (conservative approach)
Based on the discussions with BS management we understand that

there is also an amount of about 1.6 mEUR to JCR, GC (General
Construct) and Adrem open:
o The amount of 0.3 mEUR to JCR is confirmed by management
and is expected to be paid in FY 2015
o BS is currently in a dispute with General Construct about the
quality of services delivered and the charged amount of about 0.7
mEUR; we understand from management that it is not willing to
pay the full amount; case pending!
o The amount of 0.7 mEUR to Adrem is also under discussions;
management is not willing to pay this amount; case pending!
We were also informed that a total cost overrun of 2.0 mEUR resulted
from the erection of the plant. Management considers this amount to be
covered by the fixed investment budget or warranties agreed or
shareholders. Cost overruns are not included in the business plan
Due to the ongoing discussions on the final payments to

construction supplier, we included the full amount of 1.6 mEUR in
the cash flow calculation
65
BS business plan analysis is based on three

scenarios
Heat driven plan
No. boilers
No. boilers
120%
8
100%
7
100%
6
75%
80%
5
63%
100%
7 94%
6
75%
5
4
3
Balanced plan
Power driven plan

Efficiency
Efficiency
50%
60%
25%
100%
75%
50%
40%
80%
40%
2
20%
1
0
0%
Heat driven scenario

It is assumed that the steam boilers are
operated according to the yearly heat
demand curve (representing the
operational mode for the last 6 month)
This scenario would not have any heat loss
at the cooler and would yield the minimum
amount of power produced and minimum
of biomass used (lowest working capital)
The share of heat revenues of total sales is
the highest in comparison to other
scenarios
This scenario is close to the current
running of the plant and does not use the
full potential
20%
0%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Balanced scenario
This scenario is linked to the original plant
design. It is balanced between the power
production and heat demand (loosely
following the heat demand curve)
This scenario would increase the power
production and the related GCs. The high
efficiency of the plant is mostly obtained
Profitability in that scenario would
increase; the influence of fixed costs will
be lower
From an operational point of view this
would be safest scenario
Usage from installed total boiler capacity

Source: Management information; Information IC-Project; GCI analysis
120%
100%
100%
7
75%
100%
80%
5
4
60%
40%
8
6
60%
120%
100%
75%
Efficiency
No. boilers
Number of steam boilers
20%
1
0
0%
Power driven scenario

In the Power driven scenario the main
driver is the power production. The plant
will be running on 4 boiler in the winter and
3 boilers (only because of maintenance
requirements) in the rest of the year
This scenario would yield the highest
revenue and profitability but will increase
working capital
The high performance would result in a
higher operational risk for plant
components.
The heat loss at the cooler is the highest
and with the risk of not fully receiving the
high efficiency GC
66
The business scenarios require different working

capital investments to operate the plant
Comparison of biomass stock development by scenario (in atro tons)
45,000
atro tons2)
Start WC investment
Balanced
2.1 mEUR
Heat
1.9 mEUR
Power
1.6 mEUR
Balanced
Power
Heat
Stock KPIs in atro tons

Min
Max
Swing
2,000
35,455
33,455
2,000
48,653
46,653
0
28,855
28,855
Average
21,841
30,332
15,065
Scenario:
Balanced
Power
Heat
23,000
atro tons1)
2017
2018
Comments
The stock development is cyclic for all the operating scenarios
Plant operation will require mixing wet biomass delivered by
the suppliers with dried biomass in stock to obtain the target
30% water content; the use of the dryer is a basic technical
assumption in the business plan models
Currently only wood chips can be dried at BS; although
storage is open, dried chips keep water content even under
difficult conditions
As most of the stock build up is made during a wet season, the
assumed water content of the dry biomass is 20%
All three scenarios require additional storage capacities in
certain months (stock build-up)

1) Current maximum capacity
2) Assumption: increase of maximum storage capacity via renting of additional space or further investments
67
A proper debt re-coverage is not feasible under all three

scenarios (lack of funds at the beginning of debt service)
Key figures for the 3 business plan scenarios
Typical forecast year - FY 2017
Heat
Balanced
driven
KPIs production
Produced power, MWh
Power sales, MWh*
Green certificates, GC*
Heat demand, MWh
Biomass, atro to
Specific biomass consumption, atro to/MWh
KPIs sales (in kEUR)
Electric energy revenue
GC revenue
Heating revenue
Total revenue
Biomass costs
KPIs cash flow (in kEUR)
EBITDA
EBITDA, accumulated (2015-26)
CFADS, accumulated (2015-26)
Debt service, accumulated (2015-26)
A coverage of financial debt
services from available CFADS is
not possible in the Heat driven
scenario
Power
Heat
Power
Balanced
driven driven
driven
120,540
108,396
346,316
254,790
116,066
0.9629
177,684
159,431
473,512
254,790
175,228
0.9862
200,700
179,685
533,667
254,790
197,624
0.9847
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
147%
147%
137%
100%
151%
102%
167%
166%
154%
100%
170%
102%
3,858
10,640
5,647
20,146
-9,207
5,674
14,548
5,647
25,870
-13,759
6,396
16,224
5,647
28,267
-15,536
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
147%
137%
100%
128%
149%
166%
152%
100%
140%
169%
8,216
79,645
70,809
-87,515
9,302
97,245
84,079
-87,515
9,923
102,520
94,006
-87,515
100%
100%
100%
100%
113%
122%
119%
100%
121%
129%
133%
100%
At first sight debt can not be recovered

from operations; however, considering
financial restructuring measures and
upside potentials (e.g. biomass costs, price
increases) debt recovery is within reach
Major revenue driver influenced mainly

from the plant performance; no price
modifications internally possible
Most critical earnings and cash flow
driver of BS; the improvement in the
internal sourcing process already
resulted in a positive effect; prices in
the business plan models are assumed
to be 77 EUR per atro ton; BS internal
target is 72 EUR
Bank debt covered but need of

additional working capital
funding and caution advised
due to operational / technical
risks
68
OPERATION SCENARIOS PROS AND CONS
Operation scenarios have a significant impact on

CFADS and loan repayment
Pros and Cons of the three business plan scenarios
Heat Driven
Balanced
Power Driven
The steam boilers usage is configured

to produce and secure the required heat
demand of the city
This represents the operating mode of
BS since October 2014
The steam boilers are operated

according to the plant design operation
mode (4 steam boilers during the winter
and 2 steam boilers during the summer)
This operation mode was used at BS in
summer 2014
The steam boilers are operated full time

except for scheduled revisions
The dryer and the chipper are used
intensively
Power production is the main driver for
plant operation
Negative
Dependency on heat sales
Lowest CFADS leading to longer loan
repayment
Negative
Increases stock requirement in order to
maximize the high efficiency GC
awarded
Need for higher storage area and
potentially coverage of parts to maintain
water content in dried biomass
Negative
Highest stock required to maintain the
water content of input biomass at 30%
The ancillary equipment used
intensively - higher maintenance costs
Unclear performance of dryer
Positive
Low working capital
High efficiency GC is fully awarded
All heat is used either for sale or to
reduce biomass specific consumption
Reduced risk for GC sale
Positive
Increase of CFADS leading to a shorter
loan repayment period
Decrease of the dependency on heat
sales
Optimal plant running
Positive
Highest CFADS which leads to a further
reduction of the loan repayment period
Lowest dependency on heat sales
The best biomass efficiency
69
Heat driven scenario: business model with the lowest

CF generation focused on securing the heat demand (minimal scenario)
Biomass heat usage
Total efficiency
80.4%
EBITDA in kEUR
86.2%
7,763
6,642
70.0%
Heat
Power for sale
Internal power
Heat demand
Dryer
Cooler
Fuel used
Comments
The biomass heat is used only for power
generation and the fulfilling of heat demand of
the city
During the summer the excess heat generated
by the only working steam boiler is used to
increase the stock of dried biomass
The produced power is minimal, the operation
of the CHP plant is driven by heat demand.
Therefore the cooler is not used
avg 7.810
Target
Comments
This scenario of CHP plant operation is fully
compliant with the high efficiency requirement
for all the years in the analysis. BS will receive
3 GC for each notified MWh power sold
Because the driver for the scenario is the heat
demand, the power production is the smallest
of the three scenarios
The biomass consumption is the smallest from
the three scenarios
The biomass specific consumption is the
highest from the three analyzed scenarios
Heat driven
business case
1,345
Comments
This scenario will generate the lowest EBITDA
of the analyzed scenarios with an average of
7.8 mEUR over the planning period
In order to build up the stock in the first years
there more boilers are used in order to
produce enough heat to increase the
operation hours of the dryer
This scenario is the minimal scenario that the
plant can be operated considering the
requirement to deliver heat to Suceava
70
Profit and loss statement

Year ended 31.12.
'000
Electric energy
Price (/MWh)
Volume (MWh)
Revenue
33,7
34,7
35,6
36,6
37,5
38,6
39,6
40,7
41,8
42,9
44,1
45,2
46,5
47,7
49,0
104.834 124.494 108.396 106.979 106.979 106.979 106.979 102.527 102.527 102.527 102.527 102.527 102.527 102.527 112.508
3.538
4.315
3.858
3.911
4.016
4.125
4.236
4.170
4.282
4.398
4.516
4.638
4.764
4.892
5.514
Green certificates
Price (/GC)
Volume (GC)
No. GCs
Revenue
29,1
29,9
30,7
31,6
32,4
33,3
34,2
35,1
36,0
37,0
38,0
39,0
40,1
41,2
42,3
349.604 361.045 346.316 317.728 317.728 317.728 317.728 304.505 304.505 304.505 304.505 304.505 304.505 304.505 123.627
3,00
3,00
3,00
3,00
3,00
3,00
3,00
3,00
3,00
3,00
3,00
3,00
3,00
3,00
3,00
10.184
10.801
10.640
10.026
10.296
10.574
10.860
10.689
10.977
11.274
11.578
11.891
12.212
12.542
5.229
Heating energy
Price (/MWh)
Volume (MWh)
Revenue
22,2
22,2
22,2
22,2
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
221.550 260.534 254.790 249.830 245.528 241.845 238.751 236.219 234.231 232.496 232.496 232.496 232.496 232.496 230.786
4.911
5.775
5.647
5.537
5.986
5.897
5.821
5.759
5.711
5.669
5.669
5.669
5.669
5.669
5.627
Biomass consumption
Price (/dry tons)
Volume (dry tons)
Biomass costs
77,0
78,2
79,3
80,5
81,7
83,0
84,2
85,5
86,7
88,0
89,4
90,7
92,1
93,4
94,8
117.194 133.558 116.066 114.799 114.799 114.799 114.799 109.813 109.813 109.813 109.813 109.813 109.813 109.813 121.052
(9.024) (10.438)
(9.207)
(9.243)
(9.382)
(9.523)
(9.666)
(9.384)
(9.525)
(9.668)
(9.813)
(9.960) (10.110) (10.261) (11.481)
Revenue
Cost of materials
Purchased services
Gross margin
Other operating revenue
Personnel expenses
EBITDA
Depreciation
EBIT
Financial result
Profit before tax
Income taxes
Net income
KPIs
Gross margin (in %)
EBITDA margin (in %)
EBIT margin (in %)
2015
Plan
2016
Plan
2017
Plan
2018
Plan
2019
Plan
2020
Plan
2021
Plan
2022
Plan
2023
Plan
2024
Plan
2025
Plan
2026
Plan
2027
Plan
2028
Plan
2029
Plan
18.633
(9.024)
(378)
9.231
20.891
(10.438)
(388)
10.064
20.146
(9.207)
(399)
10.540
19.474
(9.243)
(409)
9.821
20.299
(9.382)
(421)
10.496
20.596
(9.523)
(432)
10.641
20.917
(9.666)
(444)
10.808
20.618
(9.384)
(456)
10.778
20.970
(9.525)
(468)
10.977
21.340
(9.668)
(480)
11.192
21.763
(9.813)
(493)
11.457
22.198
(9.960)
(507)
11.731
22.644
(10.110)
(520)
12.014
23.102
(10.261)
(534)
12.307
16.370
(11.481)
(549)
4.340
(700)
(2.003)
6.642
(3.481)
3.161
(4.417)
(1.256)
(1.256)
(736)
(1.566)
7.763
(3.481)
4.282
(4.416)
(134)
(134)
(743)
(1.581)
8.216
(3.481)
4.735
(3.886)
849
(136)
713
(751)
(1.621)
7.450
(3.481)
3.968
(3.357)
612
(98)
514
(758)
(1.664)
8.074
(3.481)
4.593
(2.838)
1.755
(281)
1.475
(766)
(1.708)
8.167
(3.481)
4.686
(2.319)
2.367
(379)
1.988
(773)
(1.754)
8.281
(3.481)
4.799
(1.800)
3.000
(480)
2.520
(781)
(1.794)
8.202
(3.481)
4.721
(1.293)
3.428
(548)
2.880
(789)
(1.842)
8.346
(3.481)
4.865
(823)
4.042
(647)
3.396
(797)
(1.891)
8.504
(3.481)
5.022
(353)
4.670
(747)
3.923
(805)
(1.942)
8.710
(3.481)
5.229
5.229
(837)
4.392
(813)
(1.994)
8.924
(3.481)
5.443
5.443
(871)
4.572
(821)
(2.047)
9.146
(3.481)
5.665
5.665
(906)
4.759
(829)
(2.101)
9.376
(3.481)
5.895
5.895
(943)
4.952
(837)
(2.157)
1.345
(3.481)
(2.136)
(2.136)
(2.136)
49,5%
35,6%
17,0%
48,2%
37,2%
20,5%
52,3%
40,8%
23,5%
50,4%
38,3%
20,4%
51,7%
39,8%
22,6%
51,7%
39,7%
22,8%
51,7%
39,6%
22,9%
52,3%
39,8%
22,9%
52,3%
39,8%
23,2%
52,4%
39,8%
23,5%
52,6%
40,0%
24,0%
52,8%
40,2%
24,5%
53,1%
40,4%
25,0%
53,3%
40,6%
25,5%
26,5%
8,2%
(13,0)%
71
Pro-forma cash flow statement

Year ended 31.12.
'000
Cash-in from Termica
Cash-in from sale of heat (New Termica
Cash-in from sale of Electric energy
Cash-in from the sale of Green Certificates
Total Cash-in excl. VAT
Raw materials
Fuel and lubricant supplies
Energy, Fuel, Gas
Ash disposal
Personnel
Total cash out, direct prod. costs, excl. VAT
Total cash out before interest and corp. tax
Interest paid banks
Interest paid Shareholders
Corporate tax
Net operating cash inflow/(outflow)
2015
Plan
3,703
979
3,392
7,366
15,440
2016
Plan
5,755
4,117
9,679
19,551
2017
Plan
5,630
4,031
9,940
19,602
2018
Plan
5,523
3,898
10,209
19,629
2019
Plan
5,972
4,003
10,484
20,459
2020
Plan
5,885
4,111
10,767
20,763
2021
Plan
5,811
4,222
11,058
21,091
2022
Plan
5,751
4,155
11,356
21,262
2023
Plan
5,704
4,267
11,716
21,688
2024
Plan
5,663
4,382
12,033
22,078
2025
Plan
5,669
4,501
12,357
22,527
2026
Plan
5,669
4,622
12,691
22,982
2027
Plan
5,669
4,747
13,034
23,449
2028
Plan
5,669
4,875
13,386
23,929
2029
Plan
5,621
5,496
5,229
16,346
(9,057)
(217)
(122)
(147)
(711)
(1,259)
(11,512)
3,928
(3,360)
569
(11,220)
(231)
(157)
(197)
(736)
(1,566)
(14,106)
5,445
(4,416)
1,029
(9,207)
(237)
(161)
(175)
(743)
(1,581)
(12,105)
7,497
(3,886)
(102)
3,509
(9,243)
(244)
(166)
(178)
(751)
(1,621)
(12,202)
7,427
(3,357)
(107)
3,963
(9,382)
(250)
(170)
(182)
(758)
(1,664)
(12,407)
8,052
(2,838)
(235)
4,979
(9,523)
(257)
(175)
(187)
(766)
(1,708)
(12,616)
8,147
(2,319)
(354)
5,474
(9,666)
(264)
(180)
(192)
(773)
(1,754)
(12,829)
8,262
(1,800)
(455)
6,008
(9,384)
(271)
(184)
(191)
(781)
(1,794)
(12,607)
8,656
(1,293)
(531)
6,831
(9,525)
(278)
(189)
(196)
(789)
(1,842)
(12,820)
8,867
(823)
(622)
7,422
(9,668)
(286)
(195)
(201)
(797)
(1,891)
(13,038)
9,040
(353)
(722)
7,965
(9,813)
(294)
(200)
(207)
(805)
(1,942)
(13,260)
9,267
(814)
8,453
(9,960)
(302)
(205)
(212)
(813)
(1,994)
(13,486)
9,496
(862)
8,634
(10,110)
(310)
(211)
(218)
(821)
(2,047)
(13,716)
9,733
(898)
8,836
(10,261)
(318)
(216)
(224)
(829)
(2,101)
(13,950)
9,979
(934)
9,045
(11,481)
(327)
(222)
(230)
(837)
(2,157)
(15,254)
1,092
(236)
857
Fixed assets suppliers

General overhaul
Net investing cash inflow/(outflow)
(1,600)
(1,600)
Free cash flow
(1,031)
1,029
3,509
3,963
4,979
5,474
6,008
6,831
7,422
7,965
8,453
8,634
8,836
9,045
857
(67)
(7,823)
(7,890)
162
(7,823)
(7,661)
(8)
(7,311)
(7,318)
(8)
(7,311)
(7,319)
(9)
(7,311)
(7,319)
(9)
(7,151)
(7,159)
(9)
(6,671)
(6,679)
(9)
(6,671)
(6,680)
(9)
(5,003)
(5,012)
(9)
(9)
(6,861)
(4,152)
(3,355)
(2,339)
(1,845)
(1,152)
152
(8,149) (12,300) (15,656) (17,995) (19,841) (20,992) (20,840)
743
(20,097)
2,953
(17,144)
8,443
(8,701)
VAT
Bank loan repayments
Shareholder loans repaiments
Net financing cash inflow/(outflow)
Total net cash inflow/(outflow)
aggregated cash flow
181
181
(850)
(1,288)
Significant negative cash flow development as

operating cash flows in this scenario do not
generate sufficient cash surplus to repay financial
debts
(10)
(23,000)
(23,010)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(78)
(78)
(14,376)
8,826
(23,077) (14,251)
9,035
(5,216)
778
(4,437)
72
Pro-forma CFADS calculation

Year ended 31.12.
'000
Operating cash flow
Construction supplier
Overhaul
Cash flow from investment
CFADS
Interest paid banks (incl. OeKB)
Repayment - CAPEX facility A
Repayment - CAPEX facility B
Repayment - CAPEX facility VAT
Bank debt service
Cash flow after bank debt service
Interest payments shareholders
Repayment shareholder loans
Shareholder debt service
Total cash flow after debt service
aggregated Cash flow
2015
Plan
4,110
(1,600)
(1,600)
2016
Plan
5,378
-
2017
Plan
7,557
-
2018
Plan
7,312
-
2019
Plan
7,809
-
2020
Plan
7,784
-
2021
Plan
7,799
-
2022
Plan
8,116
-
2023
Plan
8,236
-
2024
Plan
8,309
-
2025
Plan
8,443
-
2026
Plan
8,624
-
2027
Plan
8,826
-
2028
Plan
9,035
-
2029
Plan
778
-
2,510
5,378
7,557
7,312
7,809
7,784
7,799
8,116
8,236
8,309
8,443
8,624
8,826
9,035
778
(3,360)
(3,360)
(4,416)
(6,671)
(640)
(512)
(12,239)
(3,886)
(6,671)
(640)
(512)
(11,709)
(3,357)
(6,671)
(640)
(10,667)
(2,838)
(6,671)
(640)
(10,148)
(2,319)
(6,671)
(640)
(9,629)
(1,800)
(6,671)
(480)
(8,950)
(1,293)
(6,671)
(7,963)
(823)
(6,671)
(7,493)
(353)
(5,003)
(5,356)
(850)
(6,861)
(4,152)
(3,355)
(2,339)
(1,845)
(1,152)
152
743
2,953
8,443
8,624
8,826
9,035
778
(6,861)
(4,152)
(3,355)
(2,339)
(1,845)
(1,152)
152
(8,149) (12,300) (15,656) (17,995) (19,841) (20,992) (20,840)
743
(20,097)
2,953
(17,144)
8,443
(8,701)
(14,376)
8,826
(23,077) (14,251)
9,035
(5,216)
778
(4,437)
(850)
(1,288)
The Heat driven scenario would need significant

restructuring efforts to redeem all financial liabilities
within the provided maturities
(23,000)
(23,000)
73
Sensitivity analysis
Heat scenario
Sensitivity on accumulated EBITDA in kEUR (2015-2028)

-5%
+/-0%
+5%
GC price
-7,592
29.13
7,592
Power price
-2,939
34.00
2,939
Heat price
-3,969
Balance power price
Biomass price
-8
6.669
22.16
8.89
77.00
Sensitivity on accumulated CFADS in kEUR (2015-2028)

-5%
+/-0%
29.13
-6,697
-3,312 22.16
-7
-6.669
5.744
Revenues from GC account for more than 50% of

revenues and is therefore a major revenue driver1)
(+/-5% change in GC price results in gain/loss of 7.6
mEUR in accumulated EBITDA)
High sensitivity of biomass price on accumulated
EBITDA (+/-5% change in Biomass price results in
loss/gain of 6.7 mEUR)
1) Prices at the moment are set on the minimum; price adjustments are very limited
6,697
34.00
-2,503
3,969
+5%
8.89
77.00
2,503
3,312
-5.744
GC price and biomass price by far the most

sensitive variables
+/-5% change in GC price results in gain/loss of
6.7 mEUR in accumulated CFADS
+/-5% change in Biomass price results in
loss/gain of 5.7 mEUR in accumulated CFADS
prices as of 03.2015 in EUR
74
Power driven scenario: highest amount of available

cash, but at significantly increased operational risk
Biomass heat usage
EBITDA kEUR
Total efficiency
70.0%
avg
10.558
9,770
67.6%
63.6%
4,636
5,831
Power
Power for sale
Internal power
Heat demand
Dryer
Cooler
Fuel used
Comments
In this scenario the operation is driven by
power production, heat being a by-product
The excess heat is lost at the cooler in all
months except February when heat demand
requires operation with all steam boilers
The stock is built from March through the heat
used at the dryer. In order to reduce the peak
amount of biomass stock before the winter
season the operation of the dryer is reduced
gradually during the winter period
Target
Comments
The requirement for total efficiency is not fully
met; the ratio of 3rd GC awarded for the
produced power varies from a maximum of
2.97 in 2015 to 2.86 in 2028
The reduction of the green certificates
awarded for each MWh power notified to the
system is offset by the increased power
production
This scenario will have the highest power
production, the highest specific power
production, and the highest stock of all
scenarios
Heat driven
business case
Power driven
business case
Comments
This scenario will generate the highest
EBITDA of all analyzed scenarios with an
average of 10,559 kEUR
In order to reduce the build up of the stock the
dryer is used less and less each year
therefore total efficiency of the plant
decreases
This scenario has the highest operational risk,
the plant runs at full capacity and the error
margin is slim
75

Year ended 31.12.
'000
Electric energy
Price (/MWh)
Volume (MWh)
Revenue
33,7
34,7
35,6
36,6
37,5
38,6
39,6
40,7
41,8
42,9
44,1
45,2
46,5
47,7
49,0
154.931 179.685 179.685 179.685 179.685 179.685 179.685 179.685 179.685 179.685 179.685 179.685 179.685 179.685 113.002
5.229
6.228
6.396
6.569
6.746
6.928
7.115
7.307
7.505
7.707
7.915
8.129
8.349
8.574
5.538
Green certificates
Price (/GC)
Volume (GC)
No. GCs
Revenue
29,1
29,9
30,7
31,6
32,4
33,3
34,2
35,1
36,0
37,0
38,0
39,0
40,1
41,2
42,3
410.038 528.862 528.040 525.379 516.251 517.433 516.530 514.922 513.524 511.868 511.868 511.868 511.868 511.868 203.909
2,97
2,97
2,95
2,90
2,91
2,90
2,89
2,89
2,88
2,87
2,87
2,86
2,86
2,86
3,00
11.944
15.822
16.224
16.578
16.729
17.221
17.655
18.075
18.512
18.951
19.463
19.988
20.528
21.082
8.625
Heating energy
Price (/MWh)
Volume (MWh)
Revenue
22,2
22,2
22,2
22,2
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
221.550 260.534 254.790 249.830 245.528 241.845 238.751 236.219 234.231 232.496 232.496 232.496 232.496 232.496 230.786
4.911
5.775
5.647
5.537
5.986
5.897
5.821
5.759
5.711
5.669
5.669
5.669
5.669
5.669
5.627
Biomass consumption
Price (/dry tons)
Volume (dry tons)
Biomass costs
77,0
78,2
79,3
80,5
81,7
83,0
84,2
85,5
86,7
88,0
89,4
90,7
92,1
93,4
94,8
171.958 195.841 195.841 195.841 195.841 195.841 195.841 195.841 195.841 195.841 195.841 195.841 195.841 195.841 121.052
(13.241) (15.306) (15.536) (15.769) (16.005) (16.245) (16.489) (16.736) (16.987) (17.242) (17.501) (17.763) (18.030) (18.300) (11.481)
Revenue
Cost of materials
Purchased services
Gross margin
Personnel expenses
EBITDA
Depreciation
EBIT
Financial result
Profit before tax
Income taxes
Net income
KPIs
Gross margin (in %)
EBIT margin (in %)
2015
Plan
2016
Plan
2017
Plan
2018
Plan
2019
Plan
2020
Plan
2021
Plan
2022
Plan
2023
Plan
2024
Plan
2025
Plan
2026
Plan
2027
Plan
2028
Plan
2029
Plan
22.084
(13.241)
(378)
8.465
27.824
(15.306)
(388)
12.130
28.267
(15.536)
(399)
12.333
28.684
(15.769)
(409)
12.506
29.462
(16.005)
(421)
13.036
30.045
(16.245)
(432)
13.368
30.591
(16.489)
(444)
13.659
31.142
(16.736)
(456)
13.950
31.728
(16.987)
(468)
14.273
32.327
(17.242)
(480)
14.604
33.047
(17.501)
(493)
15.053
33.786
(17.763)
(507)
15.516
34.545
(18.030)
(520)
15.995
35.325
(18.300)
(534)
16.490
19.790
(11.481)
(549)
7.760
(700)
(2.050)
5.831
(3.481)
2.350
(4.417)
(2.068)
(2.068)
(736)
(1.624)
9.770
(3.481)
6.289
(4.416)
1.873
(300)
1.573
(743)
(1.667)
9.923
(3.481)
6.441
(3.886)
2.555
(409)
2.146
(751)
(1.711)
10.044
(3.481)
6.563
(3.357)
3.206
(513)
2.693
(758)
(1.757)
10.521
(3.481)
7.040
(2.838)
4.202
(672)
3.530
(766)
(1.804)
10.798
(3.481)
7.317
(2.319)
4.999
(800)
4.199
(773)
(1.852)
11.033
(3.481)
7.552
(1.800)
5.752
(920)
4.832
(781)
(1.902)
11.267
(3.481)
7.786
(1.293)
6.493
(1.039)
5.454
(789)
(1.953)
11.531
(3.481)
8.050
(823)
7.228
(1.156)
6.071
(797)
(2.005)
11.803
(3.481)
8.322
(353)
7.969
(1.275)
6.694
(805)
(2.058)
12.189
(3.481)
8.708
8.708
(1.393)
7.315
(813)
(2.113)
12.590
(3.481)
9.108
9.108
(1.457)
7.651
(821)
(2.170)
13.004
(3.481)
9.523
9.523
(1.524)
7.999
(829)
(2.228)
13.433
(3.481)
9.952
9.952
(1.592)
8.360
(837)
(2.287)
4.636
(3.481)
1.154
1.154
(185)
970
38,3%
26,4%
10,6%
43,6%
35,1%
22,6%
43,6%
35,1%
22,8%
43,6%
35,0%
22,9%
44,2%
35,7%
23,9%
44,5%
35,9%
24,4%
44,6%
36,1%
24,7%
44,8%
36,2%
25,0%
45,0%
36,3%
25,4%
45,2%
36,5%
25,7%
45,5%
36,9%
26,4%
45,9%
37,3%
27,0%
46,3%
37,6%
27,6%
46,7%
38,0%
28,2%
39,2%
23,4%
5,8%
76

Year ended 31.12.
'000
Raw materials
Energy, Fuel, Gas
Ash disposal
Personnel
Interest paid banks
Corporate tax
General overhaul
Free cash flow
VAT
2015
Plan
3,703
979
4,902
10,337
19,922
2016
Plan
5,755
6,211
15,629
27,595
2017
Plan
5,630
6,378
16,051
28,060
2018
Plan
5,523
6,550
16,484
28,558
2019
Plan
5,972
6,727
17,413
30,113
2020
Plan
5,885
6,909
17,883
30,677
2021
Plan
5,811
7,095
18,366
31,273
2022
Plan
5,751
7,287
18,862
31,900
2023
Plan
5,704
7,484
19,467
32,655
2024
Plan
5,663
7,686
19,993
33,341
2025
Plan
5,669
7,893
20,532
34,094
2026
Plan
5,669
8,106
21,087
34,862
2027
Plan
5,669
8,325
21,656
35,650
2028
Plan
5,669
8,550
22,241
36,459
2029
Plan
5,621
5,776
8,625
20,022
(12,884)
(217)
(122)
(185)
(711)
(1,298)
(15,416)
4,505
(3,360)
1,146
(16,088)
(231)
(157)
(255)
(736)
(1,624)
(19,091)
8,504
(4,416)
(225)
3,863
(15,536)
(237)
(161)
(262)
(743)
(1,667)
(18,606)
9,454
(3,886)
(382)
5,186
(15,769)
(244)
(166)
(268)
(751)
(1,711)
(18,909)
9,649
(3,357)
(487)
5,805
(16,005)
(250)
(170)
(276)
(758)
(1,757)
(19,217)
10,896
(2,838)
(632)
7,426
(16,245)
(257)
(175)
(283)
(766)
(1,804)
(19,530)
11,147
(2,319)
(768)
8,060
(16,489)
(264)
(180)
(291)
(773)
(1,852)
(19,849)
11,424
(1,800)
(890)
8,734
(16,736)
(271)
(184)
(299)
(781)
(1,902)
(20,173)
11,727
(1,293)
(1,009)
9,425
(16,987)
(278)
(189)
(307)
(789)
(1,953)
(20,503)
12,152
(823)
(1,127)
10,202
(17,242)
(286)
(195)
(315)
(797)
(2,005)
(20,839)
12,502
(353)
(1,245)
10,904
(17,501)
(294)
(200)
(323)
(805)
(2,058)
(21,181)
12,914
(1,364)
11,550
(17,763)
(302)
(205)
(332)
(813)
(2,113)
(21,528)
13,333
(1,441)
11,892
(18,030)
(310)
(211)
(341)
(821)
(2,170)
(21,882)
13,768
(1,507)
12,261
(18,300)
(318)
(216)
(350)
(829)
(2,228)
(22,242)
14,217
(1,575)
12,642
(11,481)
(327)
(222)
(360)
(837)
(2,287)
(15,514)
4,508
(537)
3,972
(1,600)
(1,600)
(454)
3,863
5,186
5,805
7,426
8,060
8,734
9,425
10,202
10,904
11,550
11,892
12,261
12,642
3,972
(15)
(15)
267
(7,823)
(7,556)
168
(7,823)
(7,655)
46
(7,311)
(7,264)
9
(7,311)
(7,302)
9
(7,311)
(7,301)
(11)
(7,151)
(7,162)
(16)
(6,671)
(6,687)
(21)
(6,671)
(6,691)
(24)
(5,003)
(5,027)
446
446
1,071
1,071
(470)
288
(3,692)
(3,404)
(2,470)
(5,874)
(1,459)
(7,333)
124
(7,209)
759
(6,450)
1,572
(4,878)
2,738
(2,139)
3,511
1,371
5,877
7,248
13,089
32,982
5,043
38,024
(26)
(26)
11,524
18,773
(24)
(23,000)
(23,024)
(11,132)
7,641
(8)
(8)
12,253
19,893
The Power driven scenario show annual cash flow shortages at the
beginning of the repayment period but would generate positive cash flows
starting from FY 2019 (additional working capital funding required, but
higher operational risks))
77

Year ended 31.12.
'000
Operating cash flow
Overhaul
CFADS
Repayment - CAPEX facility VAT
Bank debt service
2015
Plan
4,490
(1,600)
(1,600)
2016
Plan
8,547
-
2017
Plan
9,240
-
2018
Plan
9,208
-
2019
Plan
10,273
-
2020
Plan
10,388
-
2021
Plan
10,522
-
2022
Plan
10,702
-
2023
Plan
11,004
-
2024
Plan
11,233
-
2025
Plan
11,524
-
2026
Plan
11,868
-
2027
Plan
12,253
-
2028
Plan
13,089
-
2029
Plan
5,043
-
2,890
8,547
9,240
9,208
10,273
10,388
10,522
10,702
11,004
11,233
11,524
11,868
12,253
13,089
5,043
(3,360)
(3,360)
(4,416)
(6,671)
(640)
(512)
(12,239)
(3,886)
(6,671)
(640)
(512)
(11,709)
(3,357)
(6,671)
(640)
(10,667)
(2,838)
(6,671)
(640)
(10,148)
(2,319)
(6,671)
(640)
(9,629)
(1,800)
(6,671)
(480)
(8,950)
(1,293)
(6,671)
(7,963)
(823)
(6,671)
(7,493)
(353)
(5,003)
(5,356)
(470)
(3,692)
(2,470)
(1,459)
11,868
12,253
13,089
5,043
(470)
288
(3,692)
(3,404)
(2,470)
(5,874)
(1,459)
(7,333)
124
759
1,572
2,738
3,511
5,877
11,524
(23,000)
(23,000)
124
(7,209)
759
(6,450)
1,572
(4,878)
2,738
(2,139)
3,511
1,371
5,877
7,248
11,524
18,773
(11,132)
7,641
12,253
19,893
13,089
32,982
5,043
38,024
Cash flow short falls at the beginning of the

repayment period of financial debts; additional wc
financing required
78
Power scenario

-5%
GC price
+/-0%
29.13
-12,303
Power price
-4,986 34.00
Heat price
-13
11.466
-5%
12,303
4,986
22.16
-3,969
Balance power price
Biomass price
+5%
3,969
+/-0%
-10,884
29.13
10,884
-4,196
34.00
4,196
22.16
-3,266
8.89 13
77.00
-11
-11.466
9.721

revenues and is therefore a major driver of revenues1)
(+/-5% change in GC price results in gain/loss of 12.3
mEUR in accumulated EBITDA)
1) Prices at the moment are set on the minimum; price adjustments are very limited
+5%
8.89
77.00
3,266
11
-9.721

sensitive variables
79
Balanced scenario: in line with plant layout - longer

repayment period, with lower operational risk
Balanced scenario
Biomass heat usage
Total efficiency
EBITDA kEUR
avg
10.023
73.2%
70.0%
9,162
67.1%
Balanced
Power for sale
Internal power
Heat demand
Dryer
Cooler
Fuel used
Comments
In this scenario the operation is performed
taking into account both the heat demand and
the power production to enhance the
profitability of the company and lower the
operational risk
Excess heat is lost at the cooler in all months
except February when the heat demand
requires operation with all steam boilers
The stock is built from March on through the
heat used at the dryer
This ensures the operation with a biomass
water content of 30% at the boilers
Target
Comments
The target total efficiency for reaching high
efficiency 3rd GCs is met in the first years of
operation
There is balance between the power produced
and the loss of GCs
The number of GCs awarded per MWh
notified will decrease from 3 GC in the first
years (until 2018) to 2.93 in 2028
5,448
Heat driven
business case
4,770
Balanced
business case
Comments
This scenario will generate a higher EBITDA
than the heat driven scenario with an average
of 10,023 kEUR
In order to reduce the build up of the stock the
dryer is used less and less each year
therefore total efficiency of the plant
decreases
The balanced scenario is also the designed
scenario for operation
80

Balanced scenario
Year ended 31.12.
'000
Electric energy
Price (/MWh)
Volume (MWh)
Revenue
33,8
34,7
35,6
36,5
37,5
38,5
39,6
40,6
41,7
42,9
44,0
45,2
46,4
47,7
49,0
134.677 159.431 159.431 159.431 159.431 159.431 159.431 159.431 159.431 159.431 159.431 159.431 159.431 159.431 113.002
4.551
5.526
5.674
5.827
5.984
6.145
6.311
6.481
6.655
6.835
7.019
7.208
7.402
7.602
5.533
Green certificates
Price (/GC)
Volume (GC)
No. GCs
Revenue
29,1
29,9
30,7
31,6
32,4
33,3
34,2
35,1
36,0
37,0
38,0
39,0
40,1
41,2
42,3
361.007 473.512 473.512 473.512 473.512 471.788 469.152 467.717 466.450 465.528 465.528 465.528 465.528 465.528 207.201
3,00
3,00
3,00
3,00
2,99
2,97
2,96
2,96
2,95
2,94
2,94
2,93
2,93
2,93
3,00
10.516
14.166
14.548
14.941
15.344
15.701
16.035
16.418
16.815
17.235
17.701
18.179
18.669
19.173
8.764
Heating energy
Price (/MWh)
Volume (MWh)
Revenue
22,2
22,2
22,2
22,2
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
221.550 260.534 254.790 249.830 245.528 241.845 238.751 236.219 234.231 232.496 232.496 232.496 232.496 232.496 230.786
4.911
5.775
5.647
5.537
5.986
5.897
5.821
5.759
5.711
5.669
5.669
5.669
5.669
5.669
5.627
Biomass consumption
Price (/dry tons)
Volume (dry tons)
Biomass costs
77,0
78,2
79,3
80,5
81,7
83,0
84,2
85,5
86,7
88,0
89,4
90,7
92,1
93,4
94,8
149.562 173.445 173.445 173.445 173.445 173.445 173.445 173.445 173.445 173.445 173.445 173.445 173.445 173.445 121.052
(11.516) (13.556) (13.759) (13.965) (14.175) (14.387) (14.603) (14.822) (15.045) (15.270) (15.499) (15.732) (15.968) (16.207) (11.481)
Revenue
Cost of materials
Purchased services
Gross margin
Personnel expenses
EBITDA
Depreciation
EBIT
Financial result
Profit before tax
Income taxes
Net income
KPIs
Gross margin (in %)
EBIT margin (in %)
2015
Plan
2016
Plan
2017
Plan
2018
Plan
2019
Plan
2020
Plan
2021
Plan
2022
Plan
2023
Plan
2024
Plan
2025
Plan
2026
Plan
2027
Plan
2028
Plan
2029
Plan
19.978
(11.516)
(378)
8.083
25.466
(13.556)
(388)
11.522
25.870
(13.759)
(399)
11.712
26.306
(13.965)
(409)
11.931
27.315
(14.175)
(421)
12.720
27.743
(14.387)
(432)
12.924
28.167
(14.603)
(444)
13.120
28.658
(14.822)
(456)
13.380
29.182
(15.045)
(468)
13.669
29.739
(15.270)
(480)
13.988
30.388
(15.499)
(493)
14.395
31.055
(15.732)
(507)
14.817
31.740
(15.968)
(520)
15.252
32.444
(16.207)
(534)
15.702
19.924
(11.481)
(549)
7.894
(700)
(2.050)
5.448
(3.481)
1.967
(4.488)
(2.521)
(2.521)
(736)
(1.624)
9.162
(3.481)
5.681
(4.416)
1.265
(202)
1.063
(743)
(1.667)
9.302
(3.481)
5.821
(3.886)
1.935
(310)
1.625
(751)
(1.711)
9.469
(3.481)
5.988
(3.357)
2.631
(421)
2.210
(758)
(1.757)
10.204
(3.481)
6.723
(2.838)
3.885
(622)
3.264
(766)
(1.804)
10.354
(3.481)
6.873
(2.319)
4.554
(729)
3.826
(773)
(1.852)
10.495
(3.481)
7.013
(1.800)
5.214
(834)
4.380
(781)
(1.902)
10.697
(3.481)
7.216
(1.293)
5.923
(948)
4.976
(789)
(1.953)
10.928
(3.481)
7.447
(823)
6.624
(1.060)
5.564
(797)
(2.005)
11.186
(3.481)
7.705
(353)
7.352
(1.176)
6.176
(805)
(2.058)
11.532
(3.481)
8.051
8.051
(1.288)
6.763
(813)
(2.113)
11.890
(3.481)
8.409
8.409
(1.345)
7.064
(821)
(2.170)
12.261
(3.481)
8.780
8.780
(1.405)
7.375
(829)
(2.228)
12.645
(3.481)
9.164
9.164
(1.466)
7.697
(837)
(2.287)
4.770
(3.481)
1.289
1.289
(206)
1.083
40,5%
27,3%
9,8%
45,2%
36,0%
22,3%
45,3%
36,0%
22,5%
45,4%
36,0%
22,8%
46,6%
37,4%
24,6%
46,6%
37,3%
24,8%
46,6%
37,3%
24,9%
46,7%
37,3%
25,2%
46,8%
37,4%
25,5%
47,0%
37,6%
25,9%
47,4%
37,9%
26,5%
47,7%
38,3%
27,1%
48,1%
38,6%
27,7%
48,4%
39,0%
28,2%
39,6%
23,9%
6,5%
81
Balanced scenario
Year ended 31.12.
'000
Raw materials
Energy, Fuel, Gas
Ash disposal
Personnel
Corporate tax
General overhaul
Free cash flow
VAT
2015
Plan
3,703
979
4,222
9,478
18,383
2016
Plan
4,911
5,509
13,663
24,083
2017
Plan
5,775
5,657
14,217
25,648
2018
Plan
5,647
5,809
14,600
26,057
2019
Plan
5,537
5,965
15,285
26,788
2020
Plan
5,986
6,126
15,698
27,810
2021
Plan
5,897
6,291
16,121
28,309
2022
Plan
5,821
6,460
16,557
28,838
2023
Plan
5,759
6,635
17,088
29,482
2024
Plan
5,711
6,813
17,549
30,073
2025
Plan
5,669
6,997
18,023
30,688
2026
Plan
5,669
7,185
18,509
31,363
2027
Plan
5,669
7,379
19,009
32,057
2028
Plan
5,669
7,578
19,522
32,769
2029
Plan
5,669
5,771
8,764
20,204
(11,159)
(217)
(122)
(185)
(711)
(1,298)
(13,692)
4,691
(3,360)
1,331
(14,337)
(231)
(157)
(255)
(736)
(1,624)
(17,340)
6,743
(4,416)
(152)
2,175
(13,759)
(237)
(161)
(262)
(743)
(1,667)
(16,829)
8,818
(3,886)
(283)
4,649
(13,965)
(244)
(166)
(268)
(751)
(1,711)
(17,105)
8,951
(3,357)
(393)
5,202
(14,175)
(250)
(170)
(276)
(758)
(1,757)
(17,386)
9,401
(2,838)
(571)
5,992
(14,387)
(257)
(175)
(283)
(766)
(1,804)
(17,672)
10,138
(2,319)
(702)
7,117
(14,603)
(264)
(180)
(291)
(773)
(1,852)
(17,963)
10,346
(1,800)
(808)
7,738
(14,822)
(271)
(184)
(299)
(781)
(1,902)
(18,259)
10,579
(1,293)
(919)
8,367
(15,045)
(278)
(189)
(307)
(789)
(1,953)
(18,561)
10,921
(823)
(1,032)
9,066
(15,270)
(286)
(195)
(315)
(797)
(2,005)
(18,867)
11,206
(353)
(1,147)
9,706
(15,499)
(294)
(200)
(323)
(805)
(2,058)
(19,179)
11,509
(1,260)
10,249
(15,732)
(302)
(205)
(332)
(813)
(2,113)
(19,497)
11,866
(1,331)
10,535
(15,968)
(310)
(211)
(341)
(821)
(2,170)
(19,820)
12,236
(1,390)
10,847
(16,207)
(318)
(216)
(350)
(829)
(2,228)
(20,149)
12,620
(1,451)
11,169
(11,481)
(327)
(222)
(360)
(837)
(2,287)
(15,514)
4,690
(521)
4,169
(1,600)
(1,600)
(269)
2,175
4,649
5,202
5,992
7,117
7,738
8,367
9,066
9,706
10,249
10,535
10,847
11,169
4,169
(15)
(15)
14
(7,823)
(7,809)
(12)
(7,823)
(7,835)
(13)
(7,311)
(7,323)
(13)
(7,311)
(7,323)
(13)
(7,311)
(7,324)
(13)
(7,151)
(7,164)
(14)
(6,671)
(6,684)
(14)
(6,671)
(6,684)
(14)
(5,003)
(5,017)
(284)
(616)
(5,634)
(6,250)
(3,186)
(2,122)
(1,331)
(207)
574
(9,436) (11,557) (12,889) (13,095) (12,521)
1,683
(10,838)
2,382
(8,456)
4,689
(3,767)
Cash flow development in the Balanced scenario

show a increasing negative development until 2020
as operating cash flows are not sufficient to cover
debt services from the repayment start in 2016
(14)
(14)
10,234
6,467
(15)
(23,000)
(23,015)
(12,479)
(6,013)
(15)
(15)
10,832
4,819
(15)
(15)
11,154
15,973
258
258
4,427
20,399
82
Balanced scenario
Year ended 31.12.
'000
Operating cash flow
Overhaul
CFADS
Repayment - VAT Bridge loan
Bank debt service
2015
Plan
4,675
(1,600)
(1,600)
2016
Plan
6,605
-
2017
Plan
8,523
-
2018
Plan
8,546
-
2019
Plan
8,817
-
2020
Plan
9,423
-
2021
Plan
9,525
-
2022
Plan
9,646
-
2023
Plan
9,875
-
2024
Plan
10,044
-
2025
Plan
10,234
-
2026
Plan
10,521
-
2027
Plan
10,832
-
2028
Plan
11,154
-
2029
Plan
4,427
-
3,075
6,605
8,523
8,546
8,817
9,423
9,525
9,646
9,875
10,044
10,234
10,521
10,832
11,154
4,427
(3,360)
(3,360)
(4,416)
(6,671)
(640)
(512)
(12,239)
(3,886)
(6,671)
(640)
(512)
(11,709)
(3,357)
(6,671)
(640)
(10,667)
(2,838)
(6,671)
(640)
(10,148)
(2,319)
(6,671)
(640)
(9,629)
(1,800)
(6,671)
(480)
(8,950)
(1,293)
(6,671)
(7,963)
(823)
(6,671)
(7,493)
(353)
(5,003)
(5,356)
(284)
(5,634)
(3,186)
(2,122)
(1,331)
(207)
574
1,683
2,382
4,689
10,234
10,521
10,832
11,154
4,427
(23,000)
(23,000)
(3,186)
(2,122)
(1,331)
(207)
574
(9,436) (11,557) (12,889) (13,095) (12,521)
1,683
(10,838)
2,382
(8,456)
4,689
(3,767)
10,234
6,467
(12,479)
(6,013)
10,832
4,819
11,154
15,973
4,427
20,399
(284)
(616)
(5,634)
(6,250)
The preferred model from an operational / technical

point of view (linked to the original plant modification)
would require restructuring measures to repay
financial debts within a reasonable period
83
Balanced scenario

-5%
GC price
+/-0%
-11,137
Power price
-4,415
Heat price
Biomass price
-10
10.134
29.13
11,137
34.00
4,415
22.16
-3,969
Balance power price
+5%
8.89
77.00
-5%
+/-0%
-9,521
8.584
3,709
3,227
22.16
-8
-10.134
9,521
34.00
-3,227
10
+5%
29.13
-3,709
3,969

revenues and is therefore a major revenue driver1)
(+/-5% change in GC price results in gain/loss of
11.1 mEUR in accumulated EBITDA)
1) Prices at the moment are set on the minimum; price adjustments are
very limited
8.89
77.00
-8.584

sensitive variables
84
AGENDA
Executive summary
Procurement
Green certificates
Assumptions
85
CONTROLLING & REPORTING STANDARDS
Controlling and reporting is done on a very pragmatic

way and is mainly done in Bucharest (Mrs. Rusu)
Current controlling and reporting structure
Adrem Invest
Financial Director
(Monica Rusu, Bucharest)
Accountant
(Mihai Rusu, Suceava)
Bioenergy Suceava
Comment
Controlling function is currently with Mrs. Rusu who is situated in Bucharest at Adrem
headquarters. She is employed working for Adrem group and also employed at BS
Her responsibilities include financial management, preparation of the monthly and annual
accounts, liquidity planning and cash management, reporting (mainly to banks), etc.
At BS in Suceava there is no own controlling function installed . One accountant is responsible
for incoming and outgoing invoices and typical accounting activities
Responsible for monthly reporting is Mrs. Rusu. We understand that the reporting templates
were originally provided by HS as there was no own format in place. The controlling reports
are prepared on a monthly basis based on trial balances. The reports do not include any
Actual vs. Plan variances
Forecasts and budgets are primarily prepared in Bucharest by Mrs. Rusu. An involvement of
local Suceava management seems to be limited
The controlling and reporting is currently done in excel. Based on our analysis the reports are
not consistent in the way calculations are treated and are not easy to read and understand.
Partly there are fixed values inserted in the excel sheets followed by linked calculations. We
also identified errors (e.g. 0.4 mEUR in the controlling report for FY 2014) in course of our
analysis
To date there is no integrated forecast or budget model in place showing profit and loss
statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement. There is also no transparent (short-term)
liquidity plan for cash management purposes in place
In our opinion there is significant room for improvement!
86
Reporting is inconsistent and difficult to read; error

identified in the amount of about 0.4 kEUR in actual figures FY 2014
Controlling report Actual 2014
Comments
Actual figures in the
controlling report
are linked to
monthly trial
balances
Energy, Heating
and GC sales and
statistics are
included manually
No monthly and
aggregated actual
and budget
variances are
calculated
Reporting format
difficult to read
Lack of qualitative
information
Operational KPIs
would increase
value for reader
87
Planning done very pragmatically, not yet integrated

(P&L, balance sheet, CF) some inconsistencies
Controlling report Forecast & Budget
Comments
Budgeting is based
on the assumptions
in the production
model (technical
parameters and
commercial
parameters)
Calculation partly
not transparent and
comprehensible
(partly manual
entries)
No integrated P&L,
balance sheet,
cash flow
calculation
No monthly and
aggregated actual
and budget
variances are
calculated
Reporting format
not readable
88
KONTAKT
GCI Wien
Stadiongasse 6-8/10
A-1010 Wien
Telefon: 0043 1 512 37 55
Telefax: 0043 1 512 37 55 42
gci.vienna@gci-management.com
www.gci-management.com
Bozen | Bratislava | Budapest | Bukarest | Denver | Mnchen | Peking | Prag | Sofia | Wien

Proiect RBI-GCI-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proiect RBI-GCI-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Bioenergy Suceava

for Raiffeisen International Bank AG

April 24th 2015

22nd April 2015

Dear Mr. Sssenbacher,

Telephone +43 (1) 512 37 55 - 0

We must emphasize that the realization of the prospective financial

The management of Bioenergy Suceava is responsible for the

The assumptions will need to be reviewed and revised to reflect such

National Authority for Regulation in Energy

Independent Business Review

Bionergy Suceava SRL

iC projecte Project Development GmbH

Cash flow available for debt service

Lower heating values

Combined heat power plant

Romanian gas and electricity market

Earnings before interest and taxes

Earnings before interest taxes and

Profit & Loss statement

E.ON Energie Romnia

EUR / mEUR / kEUR

Euro, Euro million, Euro thousand

GCI Management GmbH

GCI used BS internal documents as well as own

Contacts and meetings held

Our primary sources of information in course of our analysis

Our primary contact persons in course of our analysis:

In our project we have been asked to concentrate on

Verification of GC quota realized and in process of realization in 2015

1) Excluded due to confidentiality reasons

In our project we have been asked to concentrate on

Overall satisfactory progress and good, open

With reference to the insolvency process GCI has taken information

Further professionalization of purchasing activities to

Originally via one of its Romanian units, Holzwerke Schweighofer

Recheck obligation (legal opinion)

Purchasing activities today are handled by an external party, SC

Need to integrate procurement as

Increase efforts to further reduce

Medium term additional opportunities by

Biomass costs and quality are THE operational factors with a

Define procurement as key value

Sourcing is currently based upon framework contracts (> 3

Define contracts in more detail

EON ensures the purchase of most power and green

Responsible for energy and GC trading is the commercial director

Recheck dependency and back-up in

EON energy sales

BS has concluded an energy selling contract with EON (dated 4.

Start re-negotiation process with

Day ahead power

BS sells part of its electrical power on the day ahead market, at

Continue to optimize ratio between

Sound basis to achieve and sell close to 3 GCs also

As per the subvention scheme for green energy, BS is eligible to 2

Continue accurate reporting to

One additional GC (high eff. GC) can be granted for

Continue activities to reach 3rd GC

Sound basis to achieve and sell close to 3 GCs also

BS has concluded a long-term contract with EON (2014 - 2023)

We strongly recommend to evaluate

IBR suggested the opportunity to invest in a rankine turbine / ORC