News

IVACE 2026 and the Energy Savings Ratio: Why Proving That a Machine Consumes Less Is Not Enough

14/09/2026

Aids

The IVACE 2026 energy efficiency grants require projects to generate quantifiable energy savings and CO₂ emissions reductions. However, there is also a particularly important technical requirement: achieving a minimum economic-energy ratio of 150 toe per million euros of eligible investment. Understanding how this indicator works makes it possible to assess from the outset whether an investment has sufficient energy impact to qualify under the call.

 

By Ana González, CEO and Agricultural Engineer – Industrial consultant in energy efficiency and grant management at AGB Ingeniers

 

In many companies, the first impression is straightforward: if a new machine consumes less than the current one, it should be a good candidate for an energy efficiency grant. But under IVACE 2026, the analysis goes much further than simply comparing two consumption figures.

To determine whether a project qualifies, the savings achieved must be related to the eligible investment, the baseline situation must be properly justified and it must be demonstrated that the energy efficiency improvement has sufficient weight within the overall project.

In this post, I clearly explain what the minimum ratio of 150 toe per million euros means, how it should be interpreted and why it can completely change the assessment of an investment. I recommend reading it to the end, because understanding this criterion before investing can help avoid many mistakes.

 

A machine may consume less and the project may still not qualify

When we talk to a company about a potential energy efficiency investment, it is common to begin by comparing the current equipment with the new solution.

The new compressor consumes less. The motor is more efficient. The refrigeration plant will perform better. A pump with a variable frequency drive will adapt its operation more effectively to actual demand.

All of this is important, but for the IVACE 2026 energy efficiency grants, it is not enough simply to demonstrate that savings exist.

The call requires actions to produce quantifiable and documentarily justified energy savings and CO₂ emissions reductions. In addition, it establishes a minimum economic-energy ratio of 150 toe/M€, calculated as annual primary energy savings in relation to the eligible investment.

This requirement introduces a question that I consider fundamental when we assess a project:

Are the savings we will achieve significant enough in relation to the investment we are going to make?

That is where the analysis really begins.

 

What does the IVACE 2026 ratio of 150 toe/M€ mean?

The direct answer is:

For every million euros of eligible investment, the project must achieve annual primary energy savings of at least 150 tonnes of oil equivalent —toe—.

We can express it as follows:

Annual primary energy savings / eligible investment ≥ 150 toe/M€

Therefore, the minimum requirement will vary proportionally according to the eligible amount of the project.

 

 

These examples help explain the economic-energy criterion, although the actual calculation for an application must be carried out using the methodology established for the call.

IVACE states that savings must be measured in accordance with the methodology set out in Annex V of Directive 2012/27/EU.

 

What is a toe and why does IVACE use this unit?

A toe, tonne of oil equivalent, is a unit used to express quantities of energy from different sources using a common reference.

For energy equivalence purposes, 1 toe corresponds to 11,630 kWh.

However, there is an important distinction here.

The call refers to primary energy savings, so we cannot simply take the kWh shown on an electricity bill and divide them by 11,630 to determine whether the project complies.

The type of energy used by the installation must be taken into account and the corresponding methodology and factors must be applied correctly.

That is why I always emphasise that the ratio should not be calculated at the end, once we have already decided which machine to buy. It should be assessed while the project is being defined.

 

Energy savings must be based on a real baseline situation

To demonstrate that an action saves energy, we first need to know how much the current installation actually consumes.

It may seem obvious, but in practice we do not always have this information at the required level of detail.

In an industry in the Valencian Community, we may find a compressor whose rated power is known, but whose actual operating hours are not. A refrigeration installation may have data on the factory's overall consumption, but no independent measurement. A pump may operate for many hours at a load far below its maximum power.

That is why we need to establish a technically defensible baseline situation.

Depending on the project, we analyse aspects such as energy consumption, operating hours, load levels, production, temperatures, pressures, flow rates, production seasons or seasonal behaviour.

The aim is not to find the calculation that produces the highest savings.

The aim is to accurately represent how the installation actually operates.

 

A simple example: two projects with the same investment

Imagine two companies planning an eligible investment of 200,000 euros.

To meet IVACE's minimum ratio, both would need to demonstrate annual primary energy savings of at least 30 toe.

The first company replaces equipment that only operates for a few hours each year. Although the new model is 20% more efficient, the absolute energy savings may be small.

The second replaces an installation that operates almost continuously and accounts for a significant proportion of the plant's energy consumption. Even a smaller percentage improvement could generate much greater annual savings.

The investment is the same.

The technology may be good in both cases.

But the energy performance of the two projects is completely different.

This explains why the efficiency of a machine cannot be assessed solely on the basis of its technical data sheet.

 

In the agri-food industry, operating hours matter greatly

At AGB Ingeniers, we work especially with agri-food industries in the Valencian Community, and there is another factor that I consider important: production is not always constant throughout the year.

A fruit and vegetable processing centre may concentrate a large part of its activity during specific production seasons. A cold room may operate under different loads depending on the product and the time of year. A pumping system may operate very differently depending on the shift or process.

The opposite can also occur. There are auxiliary installations (refrigeration, compressed air, pumping or ventilation) that accumulate thousands of operating hours, where a relatively small improvement in performance can translate into significant savings.

That is why, when we analyse IVACE 2026 projects, I am much more interested in understanding how a piece of equipment actually operates than simply comparing the power of the old equipment with that of the new one.

 

The other element of the ratio: eligible investment

There is another issue that can completely change the result.

The ratio is not necessarily calculated using the total price that the company will pay for the project.

It uses the eligible investment.

And the two concepts may be different.

The call considers eligible the additional investment costs required to achieve a higher level of energy efficiency. Depending on the project, these may be determined on the basis of the full cost of an exclusively energy-related action or by comparing it with a lower-efficiency reference investment that could have been made without the grant.

In addition, IVACE establishes which items may form part of the eligible investment: certain auxiliary equipment and installations, assembly and commissioning, technical projects, site supervision, strictly necessary civil works, transport, technical assistance and costs directly linked to the project, among others. The eligible investment must exceed 10,000 euros.

Therefore, before checking the ratio, we need to clearly define both sides of the equation:

• how much annual primary energy savings we will achieve;
• and what the eligible investment will actually be.

 

What happens if my project does not reach 150 toe/M€?

If the project does not reach the minimum economic-energy ratio of 150 toe/M€ required by the IVACE 2026 call, it would not meet this technical requirement for accessing the grant.

However, identifying this before submitting the application allows us to reassess the project.

Perhaps the action includes investments that are not directly related to the energy savings. Perhaps the baseline situation has been compared incorrectly. The selected technology may not provide enough improvement in relation to its cost, or there may be another technically more efficient solution.

The aim is not to artificially adjust the figures until the required result is achieved.

The aim is to determine whether the project makes sense from an energy perspective.

 

The technical report must demonstrate it

The savings cannot be reduced to a statement such as «the new equipment consumes 30% less».

It is necessary to explain:

• what the baseline situation is;
• what consumption levels we currently have;
• how the installation currently operates;
• what action we are proposing;
• which assumptions are used to calculate the savings;
• what the subsequent consumption will be;
• what annual savings are achieved;
• and how that result is converted into primary energy.

The call specifically requires the savings to be quantifiable and supported by documentary evidence.

This is where a good energy efficiency technical report makes the difference between an investment intention and a technically defensible project.

 

Our approach at AGB Ingeniers

When we analyse an investment, we do not begin by asking what percentage of grant funding the company may receive.

First, we study what it consumes, where it consumes energy and why it consumes it.

We then analyse the proposed solution and determine what savings it can generate under the plant's actual operating conditions.

Only then does it make sense to calculate the economic-energy ratio and determine whether the relationship between investment and savings meets the conditions of IVACE 2026.

I consider this approach particularly important now that many companies are renewing refrigeration installations, motors, pumps, compressors and control systems.

Efficient technology is a good starting point.

But to turn that investment into an IVACE project, we need something more: data, a reliable baseline and sufficiently significant savings to technically justify the investment.

 

Frequently asked questions about the IVACE 2026 energy ratio

What is the minimum ratio required by IVACE 2026?

The project must achieve a minimum of 150 toe per million euros of eligible investment, calculated as annual primary energy savings in relation to the eligible investment.

What does toe mean?

Toe means tonne of oil equivalent and is an energy unit used to compare different energy sources. One toe is conventionally equivalent to 11,630 kWh.

Does an investment of 100,000 euros have to save 150 toe?

No. If the full 100,000 euros were eligible investment, the proportional minimum would be 15 toe of primary energy per year.

Is the total investment used to calculate the ratio?

Not necessarily. The calculation is based on the eligible investment, which may differ from the total cost of the project.

Is it enough to compare the power of the old and new machines?

No. The savings must be calculated taking into account actual operating conditions and must be supported by documentary evidence.

Until when can applications for the IVACE 2026 grants be submitted?

The call remains open until 29 October 2026. IVACE also states that, if the available budget is exhausted beforehand, subsequent applications may be registered on a provisional reserve list.

Compartir