Final Program Evaluation: Environmental Cooperation-Asia 
Clean Development and Climate Program 
FINAL REPORT, PART I 
APRIL 30, 2011 
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International 
Development. It was prepared by Management Systems International. 
FINAL PROGRAM EVALUATION 
REPORT: PART I
Contracted under AID-486-O-11-00018 
Environmental Cooperation – Asia Clean Development and Climate Program 
DISCLAIMER 
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency 
for International Development or the United States Government. 
Final Program Evaluation i 
Report: PART I 
CONTENTS 
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
A. Background, Overview, and Program Data ................................................................... 5
ECO-Asia CDCP Program Information ................................................................. 6
B. Evaluation Purpose, Scope, and Methodology ............................................................... 6
C. Background: Regional Energy and GHG Challenges and Trends ................................. 7
II. Program Objectives and Developmental “Hypothesis” ........................................................ 8
A. Findings.......................................................................................................................... 8
B. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 8
III. Evaluation of Program Components ..................................................................................... 9
A. Private Sector Financing -- Private Financing Advisory Network (PFAN) ................... 9
Introduction ................... ........................................................................................ 9
Results and Responsiveness to Stakeholder Needs: .............................................. 9
Findings: Major Programmatic Accomplishments .............................................. 10
Findings: Stakeholder Perspectives ..................................................................... 13
Conclusions: ................. ...................................................................................... 15
B. Supporting Public Sector Financing of End-Use Energy Efficiency ........................... 17
Introduction ................... ...................................................................................... 17
Public Sector Financing -- Results and Responsiveness to Stakeholder 
Needs ............... ...................................................................................... 17
Findings: Activities in India ................................................................................ 17
Achievements of Kerala State Energy Conservation Fund .................................. 18
Findings: Activities in China ............................................................................... 18
Conclusions: Public Sector Financing ................................................................. 19
C. Energy Efficient Lighting............................................................................................. 21
Introduction: Energy Efficiency Lighting ............................................................ 21
Findings: ....................... ...................................................................................... 22
Conclusions: ................. ...................................................................................... 23
D. Regional Policy and Regulatory Dialogue ................................................................... 25
Results and Responsiveness to Stakeholder Needs: ............................................ 26
Findings: ....................... ...................................................................................... 26
Conclusions -- Policy and Regulatory Dialogue .................................................. 27
E. Regional Knowledge-Sharing ..................................................................................... 28
Findings ........................ ...................................................................................... 28
Conclusions: ................. ...................................................................................... 28
IV. Overall Lessons Learned from CDCP ................................................................................. 31
A. Technical results—Lessons Learned ........................................................................... 31
Private Financing: -- PFAN- Asia ....................................................................... 31
Public Sector Financing ...................................................................................... 31
Final Program Evaluation ii 
Report: PART I 
Energy Efficient Lighting: ................................................................................... 31
Regional Dialogues and Knowledge Sharing ...................................................... 31
B. Implementation Issues ................................................................................................. 32
C. RDMA’s key strengths and weaknesses in undertaking a regional 
clean energy program—Lessons learned. ............................................... 32
Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 33
STATEMENT OF WORK .......................................................................................................... 34
Summary of Program Indicators, Performance Targets, and Actual Results ....................... 44
ECO-Asia CDCP -- Interview Guide ......................................................................................... 48
Final Program Evaluation iii 
Report: PART I 
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 1. PFAN-Asia Summary: Countries, Projects, and Investments .......................................... 2
Figure 2. PFAN-Asia Summary: Countries, Projects, and Investments ........................................ 10
Figure 3. P-FAN-Asia Summary: Technologies, Projects, and INvestments ................................ 11
Figure 4. Matrix Showing Individual P-FAN-Asia Projects by Country ....................................... 12
Figure 5. CDCP Lighting Efficiency Goals over Life of Project ................................................... 24
Figure 6. CDCP Targets for Technical Reports ............................................................................. 29
Final Program Evaluation iv 
Report: PART I 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
ACEBA Asia Clean Energy Business Accelerator 
ACEF Asia Clean Energy Forum 
ADB Asian Development Bank 
ADS Automatic Directives System 
ALC Asia Lighting Compact 
APP Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate 
ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nations 
BEE Bureau of Energy Efficiency 
CFL Compact Florescent Lamp 
CLASP Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program 
CO2 Carbon Dioxide 
CO2e CO2 equivalent 
COTR Contractor Officer’s Technical Representative 
CTI Climate Technology Initiative 
DQA Data Quality Assessment 
DRC Development and Reform Commission 
DSM Demand-Side Management 
ECO-Asia CDCP Environmental Cooperation-Asia Clean Development and Climate Program 
EE Energy Efficiency 
EGAT Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade 
EMC Energy Management Center 
EPIQ II IQC Environmental Policy and Institution Strengthening II IQC 
ESCO Energy Services Company 
ESS Energi Sakti Santosa 
GHG Greenhouse Gas 
GoC Government of China 
GWh Gigawatts 
I&E Bureau of Infrastructure and Engineering 
I&E/E Bureau of Infrastructure and Engineering Energy Team 
ICED Indonesia Clean Energy Development 
IEA International Energy Agency 
IEC International Electronic Commission 
IFI International Financial Institution 
IPO Initial Public Offering 
IRG SSA International Resources Group, SSA, a sub-contractor of IRG 
IRG International Resources Group 
KSECF Kerala State Energy Conservation Fund 
KSECF Kerala State Energy Conservation Fund 
LED Light Emitting Diode 
MEPS Minimum Energy Performance Standards 
MSI Management Systems International 
MW Megawatts 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization 
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 
PFAN Private Financing Advisory Network 
PMP Performance Management Plan 
PPP Public-Private Partnership 
Final Program Evaluation v 
Report: PART I 
RCL Regional Centre for Lighting 
RDMA Regional Development Mission for Asia 
RDMA Regional Development Mission for Asia 
REO Regional Environment Office 
SECF State Energy Conservation Fund 
SOW Scope of Work 
SuperESCO Super Energy Service Company 
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
USG United States Government 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Purpose and Program Information 
The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the performance and effectiveness of the USAID Regional 
Development Mission for Asia (RDMA) Environmental Cooperation-Asia Clean Development and Climate 
Program (ECO-Asia CDCP) against its goals, objectives, and performance targets. 
Total Funding obligated to date: $15,710,382. 
Period of performance: September 29, 2006 to September 30, 2011. 
Implementing Partner: International Resources Group (IRG) 
Objectives and program components 
Since 2006, the Environmental Cooperation-Asia Clean Development and Climate Program (ECO-Asia 
CDCP) has worked to scale up clean energy investment to address Asia’s energy challenges and reduce 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The program works in six countries—China, India, Indonesia, the 
Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam -- in five substantive areas: (i) Private sector financing activities which 
have included developed the Private Financing Advisory Network (PFAN) in Asia, a public-private 
partnership that works with financial institutions to facilitate financing for clean energy projects. (ii) Activities
to scale up government capacity to support financing for energy-efficiency projects in government 
facilities. (iii) Energy efficient lighting activities which have included work with the private sector to
promote adoption of voluntary regional standards for energy-efficient lighting, (iv) A regional policy and 
regulatory dialogue, which facilitates regional cooperation and conducts exchanges on policy and regulatory 
approaches that promote clean energy, and (v) Regional knowledge-sharing, which builds awareness and 
shares information to facilitate scaling-up of clean energy policies and investments.
1
 
Methodology 
The Evaluation Team was composed of six individuals, five of whom were USAID employees, and two of 
whom had been closely associated with the implementation of the ECO-Asia CDCP program. The team 
spent 15 days in the field in February, when they traveled to Thailand, China, India, Indonesia, the 
Philippines, and Singapore. 
Project Background 
The impetus for the ECO-Asia CDCP Program stems from the critical importance of addressing Asia’s 
contribution to global climate change. If Asia’s current heavy dependence on fossil fuels continues, the 
region’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are expected to increase by 300 percent over the next 30 years, with 
                                                            
1
  Cleaner coal was a component of the ECO-Asia CDCP program during its initial three years. However, the FY 2009 clean 
energy earmark no longer allowed activities related to fossil-based power generation, and thus coal was excluded from this 
evaluation.
Final Program Evaluation 2 
Report: PART I 
major implications for global climate change. Developing countries are expected to surpass industrialized 
countries in total GHG emissions within 15 years, with developing Asia contributing the largest share. 
Developmental Hypothesis 
ECO-Asia CDCP’s purpose is to “implement a program to promote policy and market transformation in 
Asia that leads to reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to address climate change, reduced air 
pollution, and improved use of energy resources.” The Evaluation Team concluded that this hypothesis 
remains broadly valid. 
Evaluation of Program Components 
Private Sector Financing 
PFAN is a multilateral, public-private partnership whose primary purpose is reducing emissions of CO2 and 
other GHGs by building the capacity of businesses to develop innovative high-quality clean energy projects 
and to match these projects with sources of financing. PFAN projects generally involve local small and 
medium-sized renewable energy initiatives. 
Findings: Over two years (FY 09 and 10), PFAN-Asia reached out to a total of 456 companies. From this, a 
total of 98 projects and businesses were inducted into the PFAN-Asia pipeline to receive coaching and 
mentoring. Almost all stakeholders said that PFAN-Asia activities are important and should continue. 
Bilateral USAID Missions in Indonesia, Philippines, and India all had positive views about PFAN-Asia. In 
Jakarta, a USAID energy expert said: “Traditionally, USAID’s work stopped with the pre-feasibility element 
of an intervention, but PFAN-Asia now gives us links to the investors and financing community.” With a 
program investment of approximately $2 million, as of March 2011, PFAN-Asia had secured investments for 
17 projects. Its major accomplishments are summarized below: 
FIGURE 1. PFAN-ASIA SUMMARY: COUNTRIES, PROJECTS, AND INVESTMENTS 
Conclusions: Over the past two years, ECO-Asia CDCP has made substantial progress. By investing $2 
million, it has leveraged more than $200 million for investments (for a ratio of more than 100:1), with a 
capacity to produce nearly 100 MW of clean energy. 
Public Sector Financing of End-Use Energy Efficiency 
This component has included work in Hebei Province, China and the State of Kerala, India. 
Findings: Hebei is one of China’s more industrialized provinces, with high energy demand and significant 
GHG emissions. Since 2009, ECO-Asia CDCP has been assisting the Hebei Fakai Energy Services Company 
Final Program Evaluation 3 
Report: PART I 
(ESCO), a SuperESCO,2
 to avoid the need for 600 megawatts (MW) of new electricity generation capacity 
through energy efficiency projects in public sector institutions. ECO-Asia CDCP helped develop Fakai’s 
business plan, scale up its operations, and provided guidance on developing agreements with the investors. 
The program has helped design the SuperESCO, and prepare for a $100 million loan from the Asian 
Development Bank (ADB). Plans exist to expand the idea of a SuperESCO to five additional provinces in 
China. 
The program supported the design of the Kerala State Energy Conservation Fund (KSECF), the first 
dedicated state fund for energy efficiency in India. It took around two years for the fund to be officially 
established. The program is judged to have accelerated the establishment of the fund by 3-4 years. The 
KSECF is starting to make grants, but is not yet operating as a revolving fund. It primarily is supporting heat 
recovery at steel mills, rice mills, and rubber factories. 
Conclusions: Developing a model to work with the public sector to achieve energy efficiency appears to be 
making good progress. In China, the establishment of the SuperESCO model is expected to lead to 
measurable GHG reductions, and may suggest lessons for other SuperESCOs in other countries. If China’s 
SuperESCO model proves viable, it may be replicable across Asia. In India, the State Energy Conservation 
Fund model of energy efficiency promotion could be replicated, but this work probably would be best suited 
for a bilateral program activity.3
 
Energy Efficient Lighting 
ECO-Asia CDCP’s primary focus in the area of energy efficient lighting has been to promote the adoption of 
harmonized product quality standards, primarily for compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), working through 
lighting manufacturers and industry associations. A principle focus has been to establish the Asian Lighting 
Compact (ALC). It has also helped to establish lites.asia, a regional standardization body composed of 
government representatives, focused on policy issues. 
Findings: Given the challenges for governments to harmonize regional standards, the program focused on 
working with private companies to develop voluntary standards. The program helped establish Asia Lighting 
Compact (ALC) in March 2010. By February 2011, the ALC had 18 members and expects to add 
approximately 20 new paying members and 6 honorary (non-paying) members in 2011. In 2009, the program 
also played a meaningful role in establishing lites.asia as a regional standardization body focused on 
governance and policy issues4 that provides a forum for policy makers to exchange information. As of 2011, 
there remain many competing perspectives on the issue of how best to deal with lighting standards. More 
than 90% of Asia’s CFLs, for example, are manufactured in China, although it does not regulate its standards 
for its exports, and it is unlikely to follow any regional standards. 
Conclusions: While ECO-Asia CDCP has made some progress with this component by helping to stand up 
the ALC and develop standards for CFLs, energy efficient lighting remains an intractable political and 
economic issue across Asia and the program is still searching for the right lever with which to have 
significantly impact. The verdict it out on whether the ALC will succeed in becoming self-sustaining. It is 
also exploring ways to diversify its program. Work to date has provided an important platform for regional 
cooperation, dialogue, and relationship-building. However, achieving harmonized regional standards will 
                                                            
2
 The term ESCO is used to designate a wide range of different types of organizations that may offer “performance contracting” 
mechanisms. ESCOs generally need to develop working relationships with commercial financial firms, and work with them to 
arrange the needed financing on energy efficiency projects. A SuperESCO, in turn, is an entity that (i) is established by the 
government; (ii) promotes energy efficiency for public sector institutions; and (iv) facilitates access to project financing. 
3
 At present, USAID/India has no plans to work in this area. 
4
 For details, see lites.asia, where “lites” stands for Lighting Information and Technical Exchange for Standards. 
Final Program Evaluation 4 
Report: PART I 
continue to be a challenge. Other strategies to promote market adoption of energy efficient lighting products 
may need to be explored. 
Regional Policy and Regulatory Dialogue 
In FY10, USAID/RDMA added a new component that supports regional cooperation on common policy 
and regulatory challenges to promoting clean energy. ECO-Asia CDCP brings together a wide range of 
stakeholders to seek solutions to policy and regulatory barriers that inhibit investment in energy efficiency and 
renewable energy projects. To date, the program has conducted a series of roundtable discussions to identify 
priority energy policy issues, as well as an Asian Pacific Dialogue on Clean Energy Governance and 
Regulation in Manila. In 2011, two technical workshops are scheduled. 
Findings: Today stakeholders report more dialogue than two years ago. Through its various activities the 
program engaged nearly 300 participants at various policy dialogue forums. Stakeholders said that in some 
cultures having the ECO-Asia CDCP program convene the Forum enabled them to sit down and talk about 
policy priorities, which otherwise they would have found hard to do. In Thailand and in Indonesia, for 
example, it is not always easy to hold such talks. Beyond the issue of dialogue, stakeholders pointed out, 
policy implementation is also critical. Dialogue by itself, they said, is not sufficient to create meaningful 
change. 
Conclusions: To date minimal effort and resources have been put into this component. Nevertheless, 
ECO-Asia CDCP has created momentum to promote regional cooperation and information exchange on key 
challenges related to policy and regulatory incentives for clean energy.
Regional Knowledge-Sharing 
Since 2007, ECO-Asia CDCP has organized the Asia Clean energy Forum (ACEF), widely seen as the 
premier event in Asia for clean energy practitioners to share effective practices and present new findings. The 
program has also generated 24 technical reports and knowledge management products. 
Findings and Conclusions: ADB for its part regards partnering with the program on ACEF as a success 
story, because it provides an important venue for countries to share information about what they are doing.
Several of the program’s written reports have been well received, and have facilitated knowledge sharing. The 
program’s research and technical reports have helped policy-makers and donors in the region better target 
interventions and funding. 
Additional Conclusions 
PFAN Asia: ECO-Asia CDCP has developed a successful model to bridge the gap between clean energy 
project development entrepreneurs and financial investors. By giving project developers and potential 
investors the right tools to communicate and work together, the program has pioneered a new model for the 
delivery of development assistance to address clean energy priorities. 
Public Sector Financing: Important potential linkages exist between PFAN-Asia and financing for public 
sector institutions. It is important to find ways to take advantage of the commonalities between the two 
program components. Part of RDMA’s comparative advantage may be with developing, nurturing, or 
demonstrating an initial model. Once the model is proven, it can be turned over to bilateral missions, the 
private sector, or national governments. 
Energy Efficient Lighting: Work with lighting and standards needs to be carefully analyzed further. The 
future directions for energy efficient lighting are difficult to predict. 
Regional Dialogues and Knowledge Sharing: Regional dialogue and knowledge sharing both have 
important potential to reinforce other program components and activities. 
Final Program Evaluation 5 
Report: PART I 
I. INTRODUCTION 
A. Background, Overview, and Program Data 
Since 2006, the Environmental Cooperation-Asia Clean Development and Climate Program (ECO-Asia 
CDCP) of the United States Agency for International Development Regional Development Mission for Asia 
(USAID/RDMA) has worked to scale up clean energy investment to address Asia’s energy challenges and 
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Key partners for the program include national policy institutions, 
utilities, energy ministries, state-level governments, banks, investors, and clean energy project developers. 
Active in six countries—China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam—ECO-Asia CDCP 
works to reduce energy demand and associated emissions while improving energy security through targeted 
assistance and training, and enhancing regional cooperation and knowledge-sharing among its partner 
countries. ECO-Asia CDCP takes a regional approach in its activities. By bringing together actors from 
across the region to share knowledge and best practices, the program aims to accelerate the rate of learning, 
and help countries develop effective and harmonized solutions to Asia’s common clean energy challenges. 
The program has worked in the following six areas: 
1.) Activities supporting Private Sector Financing have primarily served to develop the Private Financing 
Advisory Network (PFAN) in Asia. PFAN is a multilateral, public-private partnership whose primary 
purpose is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases by building the capacity 
of businesses to develop high-quality clean energy projects and by matching these projects with sources of 
financing. The ECO-Asia CDCP program has taken the lead in introducing PFAN in Asia. A number of 
multi-million dollar projects in Asia have already attained financing through the PFAN process, all of which 
when combined have achieved a leverage ratio of more than 100:1 against USAID’s investments in PFAN (as 
of March 2011). PFAN-Asia works with financial institutions to facilitate financing for clean energy projects 
and companies. Building off of the original PFAN approach, the program in Asia also provides banks with 
capacity-building tools that can be customized for individual institutions or countries. These materials are 
designed to help financial institutions take advantage of opportunities offered by renewable energy and 
energy-efficiency business models and projects. 
2.) End-Use Energy Efficiency activities aim to scale up government capacity to support public sector 
financing for energy-efficiency projects. The program has supported the establishment of mechanisms in 
India and China to scale up financing for energy efficiency projects. The program has helped China’s Hebei 
Province to design and launch a “SuperESCO” (energy services company), while also supporting the scaling￾up of the province’s demand-side management (DSM) fund. In India, it supports the Kerala State Energy 
Conservation Fund, the first dedicated state fund for energy efficiency in India. 
3.) The program’s Energy Efficient Lighting component works with the private sector to promote 
adoption of voluntary regional standards for energy-efficient lighting, primarily compact fluorescent lamps 
(CFLs) to address significant weaknesses in product quality and market adoption. Research conducted under 
the program has shown that at least one-third of CFLs tested in Asian markets fail to meet minimum 
performance standards. To address this, the program has spearheaded the establishment of the Asia Lighting 
Compact (ALC), an independent, non-profit organization established through a public-private partnership 
between three of the world’s largest lighting manufacturers, regional lighting associations, and government 
agencies. ALC is dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by improving the quality of lighting 
products and encouraging harmonization of lighting standards in Asia. 
4) The Regional Policy and Regulatory Dialogue component works to facilitate regional cooperation and 
conduct exchanges on policy and regulatory approaches that promote clean energy. For this component, 
ECO-Asia CDCP brings together a wide range of stakeholders to identify, share, and address solutions to 
Final Program Evaluation 6 
Report: PART I 
policy and regulatory barriers that inhibit investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. 
Participants include policymakers, regulators, and representatives of civil society, as well as entrepreneurs, 
equipment and service providers, investors, and bankers. 
5.) The Regional Knowledge-Sharing component works to build awareness and share information and 
knowledge resources to facilitate the scaling-up of clean energy policies and investments. Since 2007, ECO￾Asia CDCP has partnered with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to organize the Asia Clean Energy 
Forum (ACEF), widely seen as the premier event in Asia for clean energy practitioners to share effective 
practices and present new findings. ECO-Asia CDCP’s research and technical reports also help policymakers 
and donors in the region better target interventions and funding. 
6.) Cleaner Coal was initially a component of the ECO-Asia CDCP program. While ECO-Asia CDCP 
supported cleaner coal activities in its first three years, USAID’s clean energy earmark starting with the FY 
2009 budget no longer allowed for activities related to fossil-based power generation. All relevant coal-related 
activities were previously addressed in the program’s mid-term evaluation, and thus the issue of coal was 
excluded from this evaluation.
ECO-Asia CDCP Program Information 
 Program Title: Environmental Cooperation-Asia Clean Development and Climate Program (ECO-Asia 
CDCP) 
 Contract No: EPP-I-00-03-00013, Task #9 under the Environmental Policy and Institution Strengthening 
II IQC (EPIQ II IQC) 
 USAID/RDMA Assistance Objective: Improved Response to Regional Environmental Conditions 
 Total Funding Obligated to Date: $15,710,382 
 FY06: $1,947,781 (RDMA regional funding) 
 FY07: $3,864,000 (RDMA regional: $864,000 (FY07 $721,000 and FY08 $143,000); ESF: 
$200,000 for clean energy workshop; RDMA funding using good governance exemption for 
China: $1,400,000; EGAT: $1,400,000 for activities in India under the Asia Pacific 
Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP) 
 FY08: $2,625,000 (RDMA regional: $2,000,000; RDMA China earmark: $400,000; EGAT: 
$225,000 for APP activities in China) 
 FY09: $3,879,761 (RDMA regional: $1,800,000; RDMA China earmark: $1,200,000; 
State/OES: $184,606 (obligated in FY 2010); USAID/Indonesia $695,155 (obligated in FY 
2010) 
 FY10: $3,393,840 (RDMA regional: $2,193,840; RDMA China earmark: FY09 $600,000 and 
FY10 $600,000) 
 Period of Performance: 
 Effective Start Date: September 29, 2006 
 Completion Date: September 30, 2011 
 Implementing Partner: International Resources Group (IRG) 
B. Evaluation Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 
1. The Purpose of this evaluation is: (i) to assess the program’s performance and effectiveness against its 
goals, objectives, and performance targets; (ii) to recommend any strategies that can potentially ensure 
smooth transition and enhance program sustainability in preparation for program completion; and (iii) to 
Final Program Evaluation 7 
Report: PART I 
identify priorities and other considerations for the design of a possible follow-on regional clean energy 
program, including possible new or alternative technical areas, programming approaches, geographic focus 
areas, and partnerships. 
2. The Statement of Work for this evaluation is provided in Appendix 1. 
3. Methodology: USAID/RDMA initiated a participatory evaluation, to be conducted during February 2011. 
The Evaluation Team was composed of six individuals, five of whom were USAID employees, and several of 
whom had been closely associated with the implementation of the ECO-Asia CDCP program. The members 
of the team included the following: Orestes Anastasia, Regional Environment Advisor with RDMA’s 
Regional Environment Office (USAID/RDMA/REO) and the COTR for the program; Khan Ram-Indra, a 
USAID Program Development Specialist working with USAID/RDMA/REO; Corina Warfield, a 
USAID/RDMA Program Officer; Simone Lawaetz, an Energy Advisor, and Sharon Hsu, a Clean 
Technology Advisor, with USAID’s Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade Bureau Office of 
Infrastructure and Engineering, Energy Team (USAID/EGAT/I&E/E) in Washington. David Garner, a 
senior development planner working as a consultant through Management Systems International (MSI) was 
the Team Coordinator. 
This six-person team spent 15 days in the field during February 11-26, during which time they traveled to 
Thailand, China, India, Indonesia, and the Philippines, as well as Singapore.5
 The Team divided into two sub￾teams to cover the five countries outside Thailand as efficiently as possible. (See Appendix VI for a copy of 
the team’s schedule, showing who went to which country and individual stakeholders with whom team 
members met.) The team had two days together in Bangkok at the beginning of the field work, and then two 
days at the end to synthesize findings. 
The evaluation process involved identifying findings (meaning statements of fact) and then drawing 
conclusions based on those findings. Working together in Bangkok at the end of the evaluation exercise, the 
team also sought to capture lessons learned and formulate program recommendations. In virtually all cases, 
two or more members of the evaluation team were present for each interview. Following completion of the 
field work phase, a draft evaluation report was prepared by the Team Coordinator, which was circulated 
electronically to the five remaining team members for their comments, which have been incorporated herein. 
Part I of this evaluation includes findings and conclusions. Part II, which is available for circulation only 
within the US Government contains the Team’s recommendations. 
C. Background: Regional Energy and GHG Challenges and Trends 
The impetus for the ECO-Asia CDCP Program stems from the critical importance of addressing Asia’s 
contribution to global climate change, significant air pollution problems, rapidly increasing energy demand, 
and worldwide energy security concerns. To address these problems, Asia needs to transition to clean energy 
as quickly as possible. Energy consumption in Asia’s fastest-growing economies is expected to rise by over 
200 percent over the next 30 years. If Asia’s current heavy dependence on fossil fuels continues, the region’s 
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are expected to increase by 300 percent over the next 30 years, with major 
implications for global climate change.6
The rapid growth of Asia’s developing economies has led to enormous environmental challenges, particularly 
in managing air pollution from the energy sector and motor vehicles. Greenhouse gas emissions from these 
sources are contributing to global climate change, threatening to destabilize climate and weather systems, 
                                                            
5
 Because of time and logistical constraints, as well as the reduced overall level of activities in Vietnam since the mid-program 
evaluation, the evaluation team did not visit Vietnam, but conducted a joint telephone interview with relevant USAID staff in 
Hanoi. 
6
 The background on Asia’s Regional Energy Challenge comes from the contractor’s Scope of Work (EPP-1-00-03-00013-00), p. 
2, circa 2006. 
Final Program Evaluation 8 
Report: PART I 
disrupt economics and ecosystems, and increase sea level around the world over the next 25-100 years. 
Developing countries are expected to surpass industrialized countries in total GHG emissions within 15 
years, with developing Asia contributing the largest share. As a result of its high levels of coal consumption 
and swelling petroleum imports, China is currently ranked second only to the US in total annual GHG 
emissions, and the gap is closing.7
 India is ranked fifth in the world, and Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, 
and Thailand all add significantly to the region’s GHG emissions from fossil fuel use.8
 Asia’s urban 
metropolises likewise face severe air quality challenges as a result of increased energy consumption and 
growing reliance on motor vehicles. Particulate matter (PM) from fossil fuel combustion is among the most 
critical pollutants. Twelve of the world’s 15 cities with the highest PM levels are located in Asia. Urban air 
pollution accounts for an estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 deaths in the region per year. These represent some 
of Asia’s biggest environmental challenges, together with a need to address waste and inefficiency for its 
energy and industrial sectors and to reduce reliance on imported foreign oil. 
II. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND DEVELOPMENTAL 
“HYPOTHESIS” 
Does the hypothesis for the ECO-Asia CDCP strategy and programmatic approach remain valid for achieving stated goals and 
objectives? 
A. Findings 
ECO-Asia CDCP’s original Task Order, which was made effective in September, 2006, states that its purpose 
is to “implement ECO-Asia Clean Development, a program to promote policy and market transformation in 
Asia that leads to reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to address climate change, reduced air 
pollution, and improved use of energy resources.” Nevertheless, the Evaluation Team could find no 
document or evidence showing the existence of an explicit developmental hypothesis, although the ECO￾Asia CDCP Program did have a series of additional goal and objective statements, which were revised at 
various times over the life of the Program. (See Appendix 2 for a compilation of these statements.) 
 During an initial interview in Washington with the IRG Home Office, one senior manager for the 
contractor stated that ECO-Asia CDCP did not really start with a hypothesis. Instead, he said, it started 
with a problem statement, saying that the Program “would find new ways” [to reduce GHG emissions] and 
“…learn by doing.” 
 A senior member of the USAID Mission staff in India said of the ECO-Asia CDCP Program, “there was 
no clear blueprint.” Instead, he said, “there was an ‘open’ design.” 
B. Conclusions 
Working from the ECO-Asia CDCP’s goals and objectives, the Evaluation Team has generated a statement 
that represents the program's implicit development hypothesis: 
                                                            
7 In terms of CO2 emission from fuel combustion China is the world largest annual emitter according to International Energy 
Agency (IEA) study on CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion: Highlights published in 2010.
8 Op cit., Contractor’s Scope of Work, p. 2, circa 2006. 
Final Program Evaluation 9 
Report: PART I 
“Policy and market transformation in Asia’s energy and transportation sectors will promote 
clean development by mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reducing pollution, 
increasing economic productivity, and improving energy security.” 
The Evaluation Team concluded that this hypothesis remains broadly valid for the current work of ECO-Asia 
CDCP.9
 Policy and market transformation mechanisms remain important tools that RDMA can legitimately 
seek to use to address GHG emissions and pollution reduction targets. 
III. EVALUATION OF PROGRAM COMPONENTS 
Each of the five ECO-Asia CDCP Program components is evaluated below. 
A. Private Sector Financing -- Private Financing Advisory Network 
(PFAN) 
Introduction 
PFAN is a multilateral, public-private partnership whose primary purpose is reducing emissions of CO2 and 
other GHGs by building the capacity of businesses to develop innovative high-quality clean energy projects 
and by matching these projects with sources of financing. PFAN is a global effort, funded by 11 countries, 
including the United States. It was initiated by the Climate Technology Initiative (CTI) to support the goals of 
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The International Energy Agency (IEA) 
oversees CTI. 
PFAN projects generally are local small and medium-sized renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives 
that provide important energy security and development benefits to the areas where they are located as well as 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 
In Asia, ECO-Asia CDCP has pioneered an expanded version of the original PFAN model. For its operating 
methodology, PFAN-Asia has developed a 10-step strategy that allows a flexible approach that can be tailored 
to meet the needs of different types of projects. From beginning to end, the approach encompasses the 
following steps: (1) project identification; (2) screening; (3) selection; (4) group mentoring; (5) one-on￾one coaching; (6) a pre-forum workshop; (7) investor forums; (8) one-on-one meetings; (9) 
deal flow facilitation; and (10) deal or financial closure.
The Evaluation Team’s major findings relating to PFAN-Asia are given below, followed by Conclusions. 
Recommendations are given in Part II, which is not being publicly circulated. Findings are given under two 
general categories: (i) results and responsiveness to stakeholder needs; and (ii) program sustainability and 
transition.
Results and Responsiveness to Stakeholder Needs: 
ECO-Asia CDCP private finance activities started under an activity called the Asia Clean Energy Business 
Accelerator (ACEBA) which was later transformed to PFAN. ECO-Asia CDCP, in turn, fleshed out and 
                                                            
9
 Since ECO-Asia CDCP has done no work in transportation, for possible future programming initiatives, the Team concluded 
that RDMA may want to delete the words ‘transportation’ from the clause “Policy and market transformation in Asia’s energy 
and transportation sectors.” Future efforts to directly address the challenges of GHG emissions connected to transportation may 
prove beyond the manageable interests of a future ECO-Asia CDCP-type Program. 
Final Program Evaluation 10 
Report: PART I 
operationalized the basic international world-wide model for PFAN in coordination with RDMA, and 
adapted it for the Asian context. For purposes of differentiating the Asian model, it is generally referred to 
throughout this document as “PFAN-Asia.” 
Findings: Major Programmatic Accomplishments 
With a program investment of approximately $2 million, as of March 2011, PFAN-Asia efforts had secured 
investments for 17 projects, with a combined value of $207 million, representing a leverage ratio of 
approximately 100 to 1. The 17 projects cumulatively will save more than 174,450,000 Gigawatts (GWh) of 
energy over the project lifetime, and mitigate approximately 376,200 metric ton of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per 
year. Over the 20 year estimated life of project, it is estimated that these individual investments will mitigate 
7,471,000 metric tons of CO2e. 
Some additional major accomplishments include the following: 
 The Philippines was one of the big winners in PFAN-Asia, with six out of seventeen projects, worth a 
combined total of more than $123 million, or more than 50% of all the PFAN-Asia funding that has been 
secured to date. Further, the Philippines will be able to mitigate more than 2,700,000 metric tons of CO2e, 
or nearly 37% of the GHG mitigation that is expected for all PFAN-Asia activities during the Life of 
Program for ECO-Asia CDCP. 
 In China, PFAN-Asia activities started with about 100 proposals. In 2009, 20 companies were mentored 
and 10 were selected to present at the Forum. In 2010, 70 proposals were received, and 45 people were 
mentored at three workshops. Then 12 finalists received one-on-one mentoring and preparatory 
workshops/ rehearsals. Five projects have closed in China, worth a total of $24 million. 
 PFAN in India organized one round of PFAN-Asia forums, which included six workshops throughout the 
country, plus mentoring, and then the forum itself. More than 300 project proposals were submitted. The 
program short-listed 75 proposals of which 13 were presented at the Forum in Mumbai in Oct 2010. One￾on-one mentoring and capacity building was provided. Two deals closed worth a total of $9 million. Over 
350 people attended the events. 
 Major accomplishments for PFAN-Asia are summarized in the tables and sections below. 
FIGURE 2. PFAN-ASIA SUMMARY: COUNTRIES, PROJECTS, AND INVESTMENTS 
Final Program Evaluation 11 
Report: PART I 
FIGURE 3. P-FAN-ASIA SUMMARY: TECHNOLOGIES, PROJECTS, AND 
INVESTMENTS 
 
 
Final Program Evaluation 12 
Report: PART I 
FIGURE 4. MATRIX SHOWING INDIVIDUAL P-FAN-ASIA PROJECTS BY COUNTRY 
Final Program Evaluation 13 
Report: PART I 
As part of its operating methodology, PFAN-Asia issues calls for business proposals through various media 
and mechanisms. PFAN-Asia also organizes “road shows” in each country to introduce PFAN-Asia services, 
types of financing, and components of a good business plan to participants. 
In FY 2009 and FY 2010, over a period of approximately two years, PFAN-Asia reached out to a total of 456 
companies through its events, road shows, and mentoring workshops. PFAN solicited and reviewed scores of 
proposals in each country, using its own team for initial screening and in-country partners and experts as the 
final selection panel. From this process a total of 98 projects and businesses were inducted into the PFAN￾Asia pipeline.10 These companies received coaching and mentoring support by the PFAN-Asia team as well 
as by in-country partners. 
Peter Storey, the PFAN Global Coordinator, said that the PFAN initiative overall would not have had the 
impact it did in Asia without the assistance it received from ECO-Asia CDCP. 
Findings: Stakeholder Perspectives 
A wide variety of stakeholders stressed that PFAN-Asia activities are important and they should be 
continued. Stakeholders felt that the forums in particular are the only events that bring together investors and 
project developers. At the same time, key informants expressed a range of perspectives about specific aspects 
of PFAN-Asia. 
Some positive observations about PFAN-Asia included: 
 In Jakarta, a USAID energy expert said: ‘Traditionally, USAID’s work stopped with the pre-feasibility 
element of an intervention. But with PFAN-Asia, this gives us links to the investors and financing 
community.’ The implication was that this opened up many new opportunities for USAID programming. 
 Most stakeholders saw great value from the networking, since PFAN-Asia provides a platform where 
project developers can introduce themselves and meet potential investors. Many felt that the mentoring 
helped project developers learn how to interact with investors and improve their feasibility studies and 
business plans. 
 Some stakeholders observed that banks became more comfortable with project developers who have gone 
through a PFAN coaching and due diligence process, and that working with PFAN also increased a 
company’s visibility, because information gets posted onto the PFAN website. 
 Bilateral USAID Missions in Indonesia, Philippines, and India all expressed positive views about PFAN￾Asia.11 USAID/Indonesia asked the program to focus on bank capacity building, for example, and hopes to 
incorporate PFAN-Asia approaches into its new bilateral Indonesia Clean Energy Development (ICED) 
program. USAID/Philippines is very supportive of PFAN-Asia and sees PFAN raising awareness between 
project developers, banks, and investors. USAID/Philippines wants to continue PFAN-Asia in Philippines, 
and to expand the approach to include small clean energy rural electrification. USAID/Philippines also 
noted that the current format where prospective developers are required to compete in front of judges 
                                                            
10 The 456 companies included: 118 in China; 230 in India; 34 in Indonesia; 50 in the Philippines; and 15 from other countries 
Sometimes countries from beyond the core 6 attend PFAN-Asia events, and submit proposals. Two examples include Singapore, 
which submitted four proposals and Cambodia, which submitted one, and received financing for it. From the 456 companies, 
PFAN-Asia provided business mentoring to 98 companies including: 22 in China; 14 in India; 33 in Indonesia; 16 in the 
Philippines; and 13 from other countries. 
11 Vietnam had only limited involvement with PFAN or with the broader CDCP. In a telephone call with the Mission, a 
spokesperson said the Mission had not been well positioned to address energy efficiency issues, “but Private Financing [PFAN] 
could be of interest to us.” 
Final Program Evaluation 14 
Report: PART I 
works well in their country and is consistent with the culture. USAID/India said that the potential for 
PFAN-Asia in India is huge. 
 J.P. Huang,12 Chairman (Emeritus) and Chief Strategic Advisor of the JPI Group, Inc. described JPI 
Group as a Chinese partner of PFAN-Asia. Speaking from this perspective, he characterized PFAN-Asia 
as ‘essentially investment banking,’ and said he thought that PFAN-Asia needed to develop deeper 
relationships with the Chinese investor community, which he suggested might be done through the 
establishment of PFAN ‘hubs’ in different key centers of China. Over time, these could be managed 
through commercial investor groups.13 He also said that in order to get more funding for new types of 
energy start ups, it would be necessary to find “angel” investors who would have appetites for higher risk 
projects. Also, he suggested that there should be more PFAN activities throughout the year in order to 
keep the momentum going. 
Some concerns expressed by stakeholders and areas that could be improved included: 
 Many stakeholders wanted support for more targeted networking together with follow-on relationship￾building between businesses and investors. One specific area might involve working more closely with 
more “angel investors.”14 
 Banks in at least four PFAN-Asia focus countries expressed interest in learning about regional or global 
best practices through twinning and case studies, including on topics such as deal structuring and terms 
and conditions. 
 A staff person from an international financial institution (IFI) noted mixed quality in projects presented at 
the two PFAN-Asia forums he attended, and thought some projects were not sufficiently conservative in 
their financial assumptions. 
 Some bankers thought some projects presented at PFAN-Asia forums were presented prematurely, before 
they were ready to go to potential investors. 
 Several informants questioned the role of competition, since the real objective was to gain financing, not 
the nominal approval of the judges in the competition. In addition, the competitive aspect of the forum 
was incongruent with the cultural norms and preferences in Indonesia. Other stakeholders believed that 
the competition aspect of the forum was positive and should be continued. 
 Some stakeholders believed that mentoring could be improved, particularly if mentors had more 
experience in raising capital, structuring deals, etc. 
And one neutral finding about PFAN-Asia included: 
                                                            
12 Dr J.P. Huan, is Chairman (Emeritus) of the JPI Group, which he founded more than 20 years ago. He holds a PhD in Finance, 
attended Rutgers University, and now oversees a major Chinese holding company that owns 16 companies, among other things. 
He has worked on Wall Street, seems to have done a lot of pro bono work with PFAN, had attended several PFAN Forums, and 
was well informed about CDCP’s operations. He seemed to be a very knowledgeable informant, who knew Chinese markets, 
other parts of Asia, and the world well. 
13 The JPI Group manages a $100m Clean Energy fund in China, which has not invested in any PFAN projects as it does not 
invest in start-ups. Instead, it invests in “growth,” which has lower risk, with higher returns. 
14 An angel investor or angel (also known as a business angel or informal investor) is an affluent individual who provides 
capital for a business start-up, usually in exchange for convertible debt or ownership equity. A small but increasing number of
angel investors organize themselves into angel groups or angel networks to share research and pool their investment capital 
(source: www.wikipedia.org). 
Final Program Evaluation 15 
Report: PART I 
 In 2010, PFAN-Asia implemented media capacity building workshops, including one in Manila and one in 
Hyderabad. Workshops included about 12 participants each, and provided training for journalists from TV, 
newspapers, and the internet. The activity taught journalists how to write about clean energy stories, relate 
them to regional and international issues, and “sell” the story to their editors. 
Conclusions: 
What progress has PFAN made: (i) toward achieving the program goals of significantly scaling up private 
financing to mitigate GHG emissions? Answer: ECO-Asia CDCP working through its PFAN-Asia 
component has made substantial progress. During the past two years, RDMA has invested around $2 million 
to leverage approximately $207 million dollars of private sector investment in clean energy, for a leverage 
ratio of more than 100:1. Going beyond direct ECO-Asia CDCP funding, the program has helped to 
operationalize the PFAN-Asia initiative, and the potential now exists for PFAN-Asia to expand its impact 
dramatically. 
(ii) …toward initiatives that lead to measurable reductions in GHG emissions? 
Answer: PFAN-Asia, measured by the 17 projects which had “closed” by December 2010 has already 
catalyzed investments estimated to produce a yearly reduction of 376,000 metric tons of CO2e. Since 
individual infrastructure projects are estimated to have a lifetime of 20 years, these 17 projects would produce 
total reductions of 7,471,000 metric ton of CO2e, by 2031.15 
(iii) …toward achieving overall program performance targets? 
Answer: All PFAN-Asia accomplishments to date (described above) were directed at achieving overall 
performance targets, many of which have been substantially met, as shown in Appendix III of this evaluation. 
In terms of specific GHG mitigation, for example, under the Program’s Performance Management Plan 
(PMP) for 2007-2011 PFAN-Asia was expected to mitigate 3,400,000 metric tons of CO2e/year, and it has 
actually exceeded this target by mitigating 5,444,000 metric tons of CO2e/year. This represents 160% of its 
expected contribution to meeting the program’s overall performance target. 
(iv) Are results valid and consistent with the overall program strategic approach? 
Answer: Yes. The results are consistent with the program’s strategic approaches, which are “to promote 
policy and market transformation in Asia’s energy sector by mitigating GHG emissions, [and] reducing 
pollution….” Its contribution towards meeting the Program’s Performance Management Targets are given in 
Appendix III. More significantly, however, in addition to substantially meeting the formal targets for ECO￾Asia CDCP that were established in 2008,16 by facilitating the introduction of project developers to potential 
investors (and by introducing a somewhat revised model for PFAN), the program has pioneered a new model 
for the delivery of development assistance to address clean energy priorities, and reduce GHG emissions. 
This new model potentially could be scaled up dramatically across Asia. 
(v) How responsive have Private Financing [PFAN-Asia] activities been in meeting needs of 
partners and stakeholders in the region (including national governments and other country 
counterparts, USAID Missions, and others? 
Answer: Across the board, virtually all stakeholders interviewed strongly supported PFAN-Asia. 
                                                            
15  In fact most of these clean energy projects will require a couple years of lead time before they are truly operationalized, so at 
this time, these GHG savings are anticipated saving in the future rather than actual, current savings. 
16 The Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) was not finalized until the first half of FY 2008. 
Final Program Evaluation 16 
Report: PART I 
(vi) How responsive have Private Financing [PFAN-Asia] activities been, particularly with respect to 
“niche” areas where USAID is expected to have catalytic impacts that significantly leverage program 
resources? 
Answer: ECO-Asia CDCP has had significant impact in niche areas, where the PFAN-Asia Component has 
leveraged $207 million, or approximately 100 times USAID’s program investment over the past two years, 
and established a new model for catalyzing private sector investments in the clean energy sector. 
(vii) Are the [PFAN-Asia] Program results valid and consistent with the program’s overall strategic 
approach? 
Answer: ECO-Asia CDCP’s results to date from PFAN-Asia are fully consistent with the program’s overall 
strategic approach.
(viii) Additional General Conclusions 
 One of PFAN-Asia’s advantages is that it brings the legitimacy of USAID to the table, which in turn helps 
attract potential funders and reduces the perception of financial risk. 
 Some key informants thought that over time some banks would be willing to pay for PFAN-type services. 
Banks have already begun co-financing some Forums where developers present their ideas. 
 Energy efficiency (at a rate of 3 out of 17 projects) is not a large part of the PFAN-Asia portfolio. except in 
China.17 Opportunities exist to increase the focus on energy efficiency projects. 
(ix) Additional Conclusions about PFAN-Asia Operating Mechanics 
 The larger PFAN-Asia Forums seem important for PFAN itself, and may serve an important corporate 
purpose of enhancing its visibility (“branding”), but may not always serve the direct purposes of all 
participants. Although some stakeholders in both India and Philippines emphasized the positive aspects of 
a large event for networking purposes, other stakeholders expressed a preference for smaller forums. 
Larger forums (100+ people) may not be optimum. 
 There may be some tension between the interest of potential investors and developers. For example, it 
often seemed that project developers preferred smaller, more focused events with more face-time with 
investors. The priority for investors was not so clear, although some stakeholders thought they liked the 
larger venue and the ability to see more projects at one time in one location. Other stakeholders believe 
that investors also generally prefer smaller, more intimate venues where they could see just the projects that 
they were interested in, and having the option of choosing which project developers to meet with. 
 Several stakeholders suggested changes to the PFAN forum format. Longer lead times (6-8 months) could 
be preferable to the current (5-6 months) in order to work with a larger group of proposers for a longer 
period of time. Some stakeholders suggested meeting every 18 to 24 months, (although stakeholders in 
India wanted more frequent forums.) Other formats could include networking events that would take 3-5 
projects on road shows to meet individual investors, while at longer intervals an occasional regional or 
global forum could showcase projects and give a larger number of people the opportunity to network. The 
                                                            
17 Under Component II of ECO-Asia CDCP Program, “Financing for Public Sector Energy Efficiency”, the program is already 
doing significant work in energy efficiency in China. Whether this opportunity is unique to China or whether it could be 
replicated in other countries of Asia remands to be determined. 
Final Program Evaluation 17 
Report: PART I 
principal conclusion is that the format for the PFAN-Asia forum needs to be flexible based on country and 
stakeholder preferences. 
B. Supporting Public Sector Financing of End-Use Energy Efficiency 
Introduction 
In the late 1990s, the World Bank developed the idea of a “Super Energy Service Company” (SuperESCO) 
for economies like China. The idea was that, in China, the Bank wanted a strategy where the Government 
could establish an ESCO as its own agency in order to implement energy performance contracts with public 
sector customers as well as support capacity building of other smaller “private sector” ESCOs. This enabled 
the Bank to have a credit line with an entity that had the support of the country’s Ministry of Finance and 
thus the Bank was willing to extend its sovereign guarantee. This, somewhat indirectly, has lead to ECO-Asia 
CDCP’s work with a SuperESCO in China, in Hebei Province called “Hebei Fakai.” 
In China, Hebei is among the country’s more industrialized provinces, with high energy demand and 
significant GHG emissions. ECO-Asia CDCP has been working in Hebei Province since 2009 to assist the 
Hebei Fakai Energy Services Company (a SuperESCO)18 to reach its goal of displacing 600 megawatts (MW) 
of electricity generation through energy efficiency projects in public sector institutions. ECO-Asia CDCP has 
worked with Hebei Fakai to scale up its operations, capacity, and activities. It has also worked closely with the 
Hebei Power Demand Side Management and Instruction Center to create a strategic business and 
management plan for the new company. The program has provided training to help design the SuperESCO, 
as well as helping it to prepare for a $100 million loan from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). 
In 2008, RDMA received funding19 for the development of a State Energy Conservation Fund (SECF) in an 
Indian state. In Kerala State, India, ECO-Asia CDCP in partnership with the Kerala Energy Management 
Centre (EMC) and the Kerala Department of Power supported the design of the Kerala State Energy 
Conservation Fund (KSECF). Despite the existence of a legal mandate, no other State Energy Conservation 
Fund had been established until the program began working in Kerala. The KSECF was formally set up in 
May 2010 in large part as a result of ECO-Asia CDCP support. It is the first dedicated state fund for energy 
efficiency in India.20 
Public Sector Financing -- Results and Responsiveness to Stakeholder Needs 
Findings: Activities in India 
 ECO-Asia CDCP selected two Indian States as pilots for setting-up State Energy Conservation Funds: 
Kerala and Madhya Pradesh. Kerala was selected because the State was already active on energy efficiency 
                                                            
18 Definitions, ESCOs and SuperESCOs: The term ESCO is used to designate a wide range of different types of organizations 
that may offer ‘performance contracting mechanisms,’ including design and engineering firms, construction management firms, 
equipment manufacturers and suppliers, and in-house ESCOs in large industrial groups. ESCOs generally need to develop 
working relationships with commercial financial firms, and work with them to arrange the needed financing on energy efficiency 
projects. A SuperESCO, in turn, is an entity that (i) is established by the government; (ii) serves as an ESCO to promote energy 
efficiency for public sector institutions (hospitals, schools, municipalities, government buildings and other public facilities); (iii) 
supports capacity development and activities of other ESCOs; and (iv) facilitates access to project financing. Recent World Bank 
studies of public procurement of energy efficiency services describe SuperESCOs as potentially viable models. 
19 Funding originated from the Department of State to implement activities in India supporting the Asia Pacific Partnership for 
Clean Development and Climate (APP).
20 The Kerala State Energy Conservation Fund is not a SuperESCO although there is some overlap in functions, including helping 
to develop the local ESCO industry. KSECF is purely a funding mechanism which can finance ESCO projects, whereas a 
SuperESCO plays a much larger role, including contracting as an ESCO with the public sector to implement (not just fund) 
projects. 
Final Program Evaluation 18 
Report: PART I 
and the State Government was more advanced than other Indian States in their actions to develop a Fund. 
The program provided technical assistance to Kerala to set-up the Fund. This included developing the 
charter and overall rules for the Fund’s operation. 

 ECO-Asia CDCP also provided technical assistance to the Indian State of Madhya Pradesh in setting up a 
State Energy Conservation Fund. Madhya Pradesh was selected because ADB had a plan to invest in 
energy efficiency in that state and the state had a number of large state industries, which by law were 
required to implement energy efficiency projects. The fund was designed to be a revolving fund with a 3- 
to 4-year payback period. 

 Initially USAID/India had recommended that ECO-Asia CDCP focus on the State of Gujarat based on 
the Mission’s on-going energy efficiency activities. However, some stakeholders did not feel that Gujarati 
organizations were responsive, so Gujarat was not selected. 

 Kerala was the first nationally mandated SECF to be established under India’s 2001 Energy Conservation 
Act. India’s Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) has matching funds to provide to States (at a ratio of 1:1) 
to motivate them to establish Funds but to date other Indian States have not done so. 
Achievements of Kerala State Energy Conservation Fund 
 In Kerala it took around two years for the fund to be officially established: one year to design the fund and 
one year for Kerala to approve it. The program is judged to have accelerated the establishment of the fund 
by 3-4 years. 
 The Evaluation Team was unable to determine the current status of the Kerala fund. It appears to be 
making grants, but is not yet operating as a revolving fund. The Kerala Energy Management Center 
reported that 1-2 projects are being implemented through grant funding totaling 10 million rupees 
(approximately US$225,000) primarily in heat recovery at steel mills, rice mills, and rubber factories. The 
next phase is to work with Kerala’s financial institutions for commercial loans for energy efficiency 
projects in buildings. 
 The ECO-Asia CDCP team did not sustain support for an SECF in Madhya Pradesh due to a decision to 
personnel changes at ADB and increased focus on Kerala. This is not seen as a failure to achieve impact, as 
the ECO-Asia CDCP approved work plan only committed to establishing an SECF in one state. 
Findings: Activities in China 
 Hebei Fakai, a SuperESCO, is being established to undertake a range of functions from supporting local 
smaller Energy Service ESCOs, to finding project financing and developing a pipeline of energy efficiency 
projects in Hebei Province. ECO-Asia CDCP helped develop Fakai’s business plan, provided guidance on 
developing agreements with the investors, and helped Fakai to apply for a $100 million loan from ADB. 
ECO-Asia CDCP also helped connect Hebei Fakai to potential investors through its PFAN-Asia activities. 
 Hebei Fakai is being set up under the auspices of the Demand Side Management Instruction Center, which 
is part of the Hebei Development and Reform Commission (DRC), which is overseen by the “Office for 
Power” of the Provincial Government of Hebei. The “Office of Power” exists to oversee public utilities 
and other institutions dealing with power at the Provincial level. The Director of Fakai, who is also 
Director of Hebei’s DSM Center, said that there are plans for Fakai, which is wholly owned by the People’s 
Final Program Evaluation 19 
Report: PART I 
Republic of China, to eventually become a share holding company, or perhaps to be privatized through an 
Initial Public Offering (IPO), sometime within the next five years. He said that Fakai’s activities to date 
have included the following:
 Project financing for Energy Efficiency: At an ACEF event in 2009, ECO-Asia CDCP staff 
helped link Hebei officials with ADB and then worked with both to develop a loan package 
to meet ADB requirements. Typically it takes 2-3 years to prepare a loan for the ADB 
project pipeline, but with the program’s support the loan application was approved in 1.5 
years. 
 Connecting with investors: Hebei provincial officials and Fakai staff were introduced to 
more than 10 investors (70% domestic; 30% international).21 They are working on a $100 
million investment package with 10-20 projects equivalent to 600 MW of energy savings. 
Fakai has also won two PFAN awards as a finalist. 
 In addition, the ECO-Asia CDCP program: (i) assisted with performing due diligence for 
three projects; (ii) organized five training workshops; and (iii) assisted with data collection 
and calculated the potential for emissions reductions for an Energy Efficiency Power Plant 
commercialization initiative. 
 On the financing side, Chinese Banks need training on energy efficiency financing. Typically, banks in 
China specialize in one set of activities, while financial investors specialize in others. The challenge is to 
find ways to help the banks, the developers, and the financial investors to all line up and work effectively 
together. 
 There is no formal system available in China to certify chartered energy auditors. Fakai and other 
stakeholders would like assistance from the US Association of Energy Engineers to help develop a 
chartered energy auditor capacity in China.22
 National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) signed a three-way MOU with ECO-Asia CDCP and 
“Fakai.” NRDC points out that Clean Energy entrepreneurs need a lot of help if they are to work 
successfully with national and international investors. In order for the SuperESCO to succeed, Fakai will 
have to deliver results and demonstrate potential so other provinces can see the results. At the same time, 
with so much strong Government of China (GoC) involvement supporting the initiative, there is potential 
for conflicts of interest, or a potential for a monopoly situation to develop. One challenge will be to find 
ways to get a SuperESCO to treat smaller ESCOs fairly. Another challenge will be to find ways to get 
reliable third party verifications of estimated savings coming from energy efficiency projects. NRDC staff 
concluded by saying that while the number of ESCOs has increased dramatically, the ESCO model itself 
still has not proven itself in China. 
 In Hebei, and in conversations with NRDC, the Evaluation Team was told of potential plans to expand the 
idea of a SuperESCO to five additional provinces in China: Jiangsu, Shanghai, Chongqin, Sichuan, and 
Beijing. 
Conclusions: Public Sector Financing 
What progress has Public Sector Financing for End-Use energy efficiency made: 
                                                            
21 At least one American ESCO was introduced to them, and signed a Memorandum of Understanding. 
22 Note: this may be a problem across Asia
Final Program Evaluation 20 
Report: PART I 
(i) …toward achieving the program goals of significantly scaling up public financing to mitigate 
GHG emissions? 
Answer: Developing a model to work with the public sector to achieve energy efficiency appears to be 
making good progress. In Hebei, China, ECO-Asia CDCP has helped “Fakai” and its government sponsors 
the DSM office and the Office of Power to secure commitments leading to a $100 million loan, which is 
expected to result in energy efficiency savings of 600 MW. This represents a dramatic scaling up of financing 
for energy efficiency for public sector institutions. In India, the program also substantially accelerated the 
design for the Kerala State Energy conservation Fund, the first dedicated state fund for energy efficiency in 
India. 
(ii) …toward initiatives that lead to measurable reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? 
Answer: The establishment of the SuperESCO model in China is expected to lead to measurable GHG 
reductions in China once the activities become fully operational. 
(iii) …toward achieving overall program performance targets? 
Answer: The SuperESCO appears to be making a significant contribution toward achieving overall program 
performance targets. According to the program’s Performance Management Plan, which the contractor has 
submitted to USAID, the program had a target to secure financing in China for four (4) clean energy projects 
or businesses from 2007 to 2011. Today through the Hebei Fakai SuperESCO, the program is exceeding this 
target by securing financing for five clean energy projects.23 
(iv) Are the results valid and consistent with the overall program strategic approach? 
Answer: Yes. ECO-Asia CDCP’s overall strategic approach is “to promote policy and market transformation 
in Asia’s energy sector by mitigating GHG emissions, [and] reducing pollution….” Clearly, Public Sector 
Financing for Energy Efficiency is working to change policies and transform markets with regard to energy 
efficiency. Thus it is fully consistent with the Program’s overall strategies. 
(v) How responsive have public financing activities been in meeting needs of partners and 
stakeholders in the region? 
Answer: The public financing component of ECO-Asia CDCP is an exploratory model for working with the 
public sector to secure financing for energy efficient investments to mitigate GHGs. This work securing 
private sector financing for public sector institutions mirrors in important ways the program’s work with the 
private sector through PFAN-Asia. 
(vi) How responsive have public financing activities been, particularly with respect to “niche” areas 
where USAID is expected to have catalytic impacts that significantly leverage program resources? 
Answer: If the SuperESCO model in China proves viable, as the World Bank believes it might, and 
particularly if it proves to be replicable across Asia, then the program may have found a second important 
niche, where USAID can catalyze impact and leverage program resources by tapping into private sector 
funding through a Public-Private Partnership (PPP). 
(vii) Are effective strategies in place to ensure program sustainability after program close-out? 
                                                            
23 For details of the percent of total targets achieved to date, see Appendix III. 
Final Program Evaluation 21 
Report: PART I 
Answer: The SuperESCO being developed with help from ECO-Asia CDCP in China in Hebei Province is 
leveraging a $100 million loan from the ADB, and reportedly is negotiating with approximately 12 investors 
to yield initial energy savings by reducing power demand by 600 MW. Plans are also under way for it 
eventually to become a share holding company, or perhaps to be privatized through an Initial Public 
Offering. (IPO) 
(viii) Additional Conclusions: Financing for Public Sector Energy Efficiency 
Commonalities between PFAN and Public Sector Financing components: Many of the approaches used in 
PFAN-Asia (described above) are also being used to secure financing for public sector entities with much of 
the focus for both program components being on ways to bridge the difference between those who need 
financing (whether private or public sector) and investors from the private sector. These two program 
components may offer some potential to reinforce one another. 
Future Potential, India: The State Energy Conservation Fund model of energy efficiency promotion in India 
could be replicated in other states, but demand for such activity needs to be stimulated. Despite the matching 
grants being offered by BEE, however, State governments have other priorities. States with the most 
potential include West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. On balance, this work probably would be best suited for a 
bilateral program activity.24 Indian financial institutions including banks also need to be trained or sensitized 
on Clean Energy. 
Replicating SuperESCOs in India: There is some controversy over the potential role of SuperESCOs in 
India. One knowledgeable informant said “Super ESCOs will not work in India. We do not want to over￾bureaucratize the delivery of energy efficiency services. The government’s business is to set the rules of the 
game. The business of the energy efficiency business must be left to the market.” Others disagree with parts 
of this statement, countering that, “India already has a Super-ESCO of sorts (EESL) to address the many 
barriers to improving the EE of the public sector.” 
C. Energy Efficient Lighting 
Introduction: Energy Efficiency Lighting 
ECO-Asia CDCP’s primary focus in the area of energy efficient lighting has been to promote the adoption of 
harmonized product quality standards, primarily for compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), working through 
lighting manufacturers and industry associations. One of the principal efforts of the ECO-Asia CDCP 
program has been to establish the Asian Lighting Compact (ALC). According to its website, the ALC is: 
“… an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by improving 
the quality of lighting products and encouraging the adoption of energy-efficient lighting in Asia. Formed 
through a public-private initiative, the ALC works to reduce barriers to trade and mitigate climate change by 
harmonizing quality and energy-efficiency standards for lighting across the region. The ALC’s membership 
includes national lighting associations in Asia, some of the largest lighting manufacturers in the world, and 
government agencies. The ALC is impartial, and not tied to any particular commercial organization or driven 
by political or corporate motivations.” 
ECO-Asia CDCP has also played a meaningful role in establishing lites.asia, a regional standardization body 
composed of government representatives and focused on policy issues. 
                                                            
24 Also, at present, USAID/India has no plans to work in this area. 
Final Program Evaluation 22 
Report: PART I 
Findings: 
According to Steven Zeng, the China Director for the Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards 
Program (CLASP) and the previous ECO-Asia CDCP Country Manager in China, the program initially tried 
to encourage different governments to harmonize standards but that task proved too difficult. As a result, the 
program team changed its approach and began working with private companies to develop voluntary 
standards. He suggests that the ALC needs to generate a wider group of stakeholders, along with a good 
business plan. He thought that ALC could work on Light Emitting Diode (LED) lighting, for example, where 
standards have yet to be developed. China has developed incentives for promoting s and has a national plan 
for LED development. 
Asia Lighting Compact. After preparatory work by ECO-Asia CDCP, ALC was formally established in 
Singapore in March 2010. As of February 2011, the ALC had 18 members across various segments of the 
lighting industry. Membership is open to all stakeholders, including government energy, efficiency, and 
standards-setting agencies; testing laboratories; research institutions; professional societies, and bulk 
purchasers of lighting products. The ALC expects to add approximately 20 new paying members and 6 
honorary (non-paying) members in 2011. 
ALC currently has four private sector sponsors—Philips, General Electric, Sylvania, and Danson, a mid-size 
Chinese manufacturer. These four sponsoring organizations contributed $100,000 in 2010, and are expected 
to contribute $125,000 for 2011. ALC’s additional planned revenue streams include membership fees ($300 
per ordinary member) and product registration fees. (To date no fees have been collected.) ALC is also 
considering expanding its services to include market verification, serving as a third-party consultant to 
conduct audits of manufacturers to ensure compliance with ALC standards. 
In 2009, the program drafted ALC’s Business Plan, and now the ALC’s Executive Director is working to 
update it. According to the ACL’s Board’s meeting minutes of December 2010, its budget for 2011 is 
$175,000. The Executive Director thought that projected revenues for 2011 are sufficient to cover this year’s 
projected costs. 
Based on its current mandate, the Executive Director sees ALC as an organization that could have a lifespan 
of 5-7 years. Once the groundwork is laid for the CFLs, she suggested, there may not be a need to continue 
ALC in its current form. Instead one possible end goal could be for national governments in Asia to adopt 
ALC’s standards as their own mandatory standards, with ALC’s “tier 3” standards serving as minimum 
performance standards. 
Some important international organizations are currently using the ALC standards. For example, the ADB 
said that it used ALC standards for its $13 million CFL procurement in the Philippines and $1 billion 
procurement in Pakistan. 
A spokesperson for the Energy Research and Testing Laboratory at the Philippines Department of Energy 
said that the Philippines supports the ALC. They feel that harmonization of standards is important, since the 
Philippines imports but does not manufacture CFLs. For them, having harmonized regional standards would 
make it easier to manage the market and could reduce testing costs. However, the spokesman acknowledged 
that regional standards will not address the issue of poor quality bulbs entering its market illegally. She 
acknowledged that some lighting standard issues are actually enforcement problems, which should be the 
responsibility for the Bureau of Customs. She also said that ALC’s standards (“good, better, best”) have 
“unspoken acceptance” from countries across the region. The Philippines could adopt standards through 
formal Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) procedures, or adopt them unilaterally at a 
national level. 
Final Program Evaluation 23 
Report: PART I 
India’s activities for this component have focused on CFL quality and standards.25 In India, the key to 
progress in lighting standards is a program disseminating information to households to assist them in 
choosing the right CFL by publicizing testing results in a national magazine called “Voice”. (Publication 
seems limited, however, since it was said to be ten thousand copies.) 
More than 90% of Asia’s CFLs are manufactured in China. According to Mr. Zeng of CLASP, while China 
has domestic Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS), it does not regulate its standards for its 
exports, and it is unlikely to follow any regional standards. China’s bulk procurements follow different 
specifications that are higher than their MEPS, but tailored to budgets and individual conditions. In general, 
Mr. Zeng feels that the ALC should work towards harmonizing regional testing standards, using International 
Electronic Commission (IEC)26 criteria, rather than product standards. 
According to Hebei’s Power Office, Hebei Province has procured 13 million CFLs. The province sets their 
own specifications, and provincial officials think it is still too early for regional harmonization. Different 
countries have different needs, they say, and thus standards could complicate and not simplify the process. 
Lites.asia. The ECO-Asia CDCP program played a meaningful role in establishing lites.asia in October 2009 
as a regional standardization body focused on government/policy issues.27 It provides a forum for policy 
makers to exchange information. The idea behind lites.asia was to bring together countries’ technical 
standards’ departments to understand the IEC’s process and to coordinate their inputs. It brings different 
groups together twice a year, including technical standards departments, manufacturers, policymakers, and 
NGOs. According to its website, “the objective of lites.asia is to facilitate a greater involvement by Asian / 
APEC countries in the development of IEC standards.” 
Conclusions: 
What progress has this Program component made: (i) …toward achieving the program goals of 
significantly scaling up energy efficient lighting to mitigate GHG emissions? 
Answer: While ECO-Asia CDCP has made some progress with this component by helping to stand up the 
ALC and develop standards for CFLs, this component is proving to be a challenge. Two specific program 
goals for lighting efficiency are shown in the contractor’s Performance Management Plan (PMP)28 and copied 
below as Table 4. As of February 2011, according to the contractor, the program had achieved between 78 
and 85% of the Life of Program goals, as shown in the Table, below: 
                                                            
25 Information for India is based on an interview with Bhaskar Natarajan (now at C Quest Capital) who was country coordinator 
managing the full India Program from 1/2008-10/2009] 
26 The International Electrotechnical Commission is an international body that prepares and publishes International Standards for 
all electrical and electronic technologies, including lighting products.
27 Lites.asia, where “lites” stands for Lighting Information and Technical Exchange for Standards. For more detail see: 
http://lites.asia. Lites.asia arose out of a meeting in October 2009, when representatives from Australia, China, India, Indonesia, 
Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam met to discuss the potential benefits of regional co-operation on the development 
of lighting standards. Although most Asian countries have a commitment to adopting international IEC standards, in many cases 
these standards are subsequently changed to suit local conditions. This jeopardizes global harmonization efforts and results in
potential barriers to trade. The objective of lites.asia is to facilitate a greater involvement by Asian / APEC countries in the 
development of IEC standards. This should result in standards which are more appropriate for regional needs, thus enabling 
Asian / APEC countries to adopt IEC specifications with minimum local variations. 
28 USAID’s Automatic Directives System (ADS) requires the Agency to carry out Data Quality Assessments (DQA) on projects and programs 
every three years. Since the evaluation team had only a short period of time within which to evaluate this program, the available data which had 
been generated under the PMP is given above, and the contractor’s full PMP response is given in Appendix III. The evaluation team did not have 
time or resources to independently verify the qualify of the data captured in the PMP systems, and does not stipulate or independently confirm 
that the data is accurate. 
Final Program Evaluation 24 
Report: PART I 
FIGURE 5. CDCP LIGHTING EFFICIENCY GOALS OVER LIFE OF PROJECT 
2b Number of lighting 
companies and associations 
adopting or implementing 
regional standards (Custom) 
Target 34 Achieved 85% of life-of￾program target by end of FY10. 
Actual to 
Date 29 
2c CFL market share (for Asia) 
of companies adopting or 
implementing regional standards 
(Custom)
Targets 45% Achieved 78% of life-of￾program target by end of FY10. 
Actual to 
Date 35%
At the present time, energy efficient lighting remains an intractable political and economic issue across Asia, 
and while the program has made some progress towards reaching its nominal goals, it is still searching for the 
right formula with which to significantly impact this sector. Further, the nominal goals which have been 
reached may not prove meaningful in the near- or even the medium-term, or perhaps the PMP has 
established inappropriate metrics. With reference to the first performance target given above in Table 4, for 
example, many of the ALC’s current members are NGOs that are not in a position to “adopt” or 
“implement” ACL’s standards. Some members of the evaluation team suggest that it is more appropriate to 
count only manufacturers and lighting associations in this total and not NGOs. By this criterion, there could 
be fewer than 29 adoptees. Similarly, the Executive Director of the ALC was not able to say what percentage 
of market share is represented by ALC’s members. On balance, some members of the evaluation team 
question the validity of the numbers in Table 4. 
(ii) …toward initiatives that lead to measurable reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? 
Answer: While it represents an important objective, it is hard to show how work to date with the ALC has 
led to directly measurable reductions in GHGs during the course of the current program. However, the ALC 
may achieve more traction in the future. Or there may be other ways to address the issues of standards and 
energy efficient lighting.
(iii) …toward achieving overall program performance targets? 
Answer: According to data provided by the contractor, the program has come close to meeting its two 
nominal program performance targets over the Life of Program. (See Appendix III.) 
(iv) How responsive have lighting activities been, particularly with respect to “niche” areas where 
USAID might have catalytic impacts that significantly leverage program resources? 
Answer: The program has helped facilitate the establishment of the Asian Lighting Compact, which may 
develop into a sustainable institution. At this time, however, it is premature to know clearly what will happen 
with the ALC, or even to know clearly what should happen with the issue of lighting standards. 
According to one expert consultant working with the International CFL Harmonization Initiative, the ALC 
“will either sink or swim in the next two years. Either it will become a full fledged organization that can 
completely support itself or it will shrivel and die.” He went on to say, “It has a structure in place, but it needs 
to work hard to get more products and consumers. To succeed, it will require a sustainable number of 
members and customers, including the World Bank, the ADB, and governments, which all engage in bulk 
Final Program Evaluation 25 
Report: PART I 
procurements of millions of CFLs.” The interview with the ALC Executive Director confirmed these views, 
and the evaluation team concurs with this conclusion.
(v) Are effective strategies in place that will ensure program sustainability after program close-out? 
Answer: The ALC has been established, is registered in Singapore, and has hired an Executive Director. It is 
receiving funding from four (4) major CFL manufacturers, has other revenue streams, and is exploring 
additional sources of funding. While it has sufficient funding for 2011, it needs to broaden its base. The 
Executive Director is working on a revised Business Plan. Thus, the short answer to this question is that the 
ALC still has not achieved full sustainability and it is unclear whether it will succeed in doing so. 
(vi) Are strategies in place that will smooth transition to follow-on activities? 
Answer: ALC is working to become self-sustaining. The verdict it out on whether it will succeed. It is also 
exploring ways to diversify its program, possibly moving into certification of testing procedures, and working 
with LEDs, and/or with appliances. 
vii) What actions are recommended to ensure effective sustainability and transition? 
Answer: ALC will need to continue to expand its membership, sponsor additional forums on issues relating 
to lighting, and perhaps move beyond CFLs to address standards for LEDs. To improve its potential revenue 
stream, it may need to carry out ‘market verification,’ activities. It may be possible for the ALC to support 
development of standards for other types of appliances, like air conditioners, although organizations such as 
CLASP are already working in this area. 
(viii) Additional Conclusions: Energy Efficient Lighting: 
 Work to date has provided an important platform for regional cooperation, dialogue, and relationship￾building. However, achieving harmonized regional standards will continue to be a challenge across Asia. 
Other strategies to promote market adoption of energy efficient lighting products may merit exploration. 
 Close coordination between the Regional Centre for Lighting (RCL), in Colombo, Sri Lanka and the ACL 
remains a priority. ALC would prefer to take on the role of advisor over compliance (for example, through 
spot checks) while it believes that the RCL should provide the primary testing role for the region. Although 
the RCL is being supported by USAID’s SARI/Energy Program, evaluating the role of the RCL falls 
outside the mandate of this evaluation. 
 Coordination can be improved with the UN’s en.lighten program. Opportunities may exist to leverage 
Australian Government resources for lighting and appliances. 
D. Regional Policy and Regulatory Dialogue 
Introduction: In 2009, RDMA incorporated new activities into the ECO-Asia CDCP Scope of Work (SOW) 
to initiate a “Regional Policy and Regulatory Dialogue” that promoted regional cooperation on common 
policy and regulatory challenges to promoting clean energy. ECO-Asia CDCP brings together a wide range of 
stakeholders to seek solutions to policy and regulatory barriers that inhibit investment in energy efficiency and 
renewable energy projects. Participants typically include policy makers, regulators, and representatives of civil 
society, as well as entrepreneurs, equipment and service providers, investors, and bankers. In June 2010, 
Final Program Evaluation 26 
Report: PART I 
ECO-Asia CDCP and ADB partnered to organize the Asia-Pacific Dialogue on Clean Energy Governance 
and Regulation. ADB strongly supports USAID efforts in this area. 
Results and Responsiveness to Stakeholder Needs: 
Findings: 
 To support the Regional Policy and Regulatory Dialogue, the ECO-Asia CDCP team conducted 
roundtables, including a “policy dialogue” in Manila in November 2009, following by a “listening tour” in 
China, India, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam in early 2010. These discussions identified four energy 
policy issues as priorities: (1) developing or strengthening grid systems for renewable energy resources; (2) 
promoting feed-in tariffs to incentivize renewable energy investment; (3) promoting demand side 
management (DSM) to reduce energy consumption; and (4) promoting Energy Service Companies 
(ESCOs) for enhancing energy efficiency.
 In June 2010, the program supported an Asian Pacific Dialogue on Clean Energy Governance and 
Regulation in Manila, directly preceding the Asia Clean Energy Forum. Because of the program’s budget 
situation, however, only one policy workshop has been scheduled for 2011, with no additional follow-up 
activities. In 2011, the program has also scheduled two technical workshops: one focused on energy 
efficiency policy and regulation; the other on feed-in tariffs. ECO-Asia CDCP also sponsored some 
regulators to attend an ACEF event. 
 Today stakeholders report more dialogue than two years ago. Through its various activities the program 
engaged nearly 300 participants at various policy dialogue forums. 
 In some cultures and political systems, stakeholders said that having the program convene the Forum 
enabled them to sit down and talk about policy priorities, which otherwise they would have found hard to 
do. In Thailand and in Indonesia, for example, it is not always easy to hold such talks. Stakeholders report 
that the program has helped catalyze such discussions. 
 The policy dialogue activities in India were viewed as important. The activity in India was attended by 10 
regulators. Generally, these participants rarely discuss and share their ideas among their counterparts, but 
with USAID’s intervention there were several useful discussions. For example, a “one-stop-shop” idea was 
jointly initiated as a means of streamlining the government’s clean energy development process. The policy 
discussions were also closely related to PFAN-Asia, since policy makers in several states of India presented 
their policies and regulations which benefited clean energy project developers. 
 Beyond the issue of dialogue, stakeholders pointed out, policy implementation is also critical. Dialogue by 
itself, they said, is insufficient to create meaningful change. Instead, dialogue needs to be paired with 
technical assistance, and perhaps combined with other activities (like the ACEF Forums, or other special 
events). With regard to learning best practices, one professor noted that “to learn what is good is not 
enough.” Instead, he said, “more emphasis should be placed on capacity building” in order for 
policymakers and planners to actually implement policy measures. Policy dialogue is important for framing 
the issues. USAID/Indonesia also said the exchange of best practices across the region had been good, 
but there needs to be more action, and not just people going to workshops. The Indonesian planning 
agency BAPPENAS said “we have enough brains to make good policy. The point is how to successfully 
implement it.”
 Stakeholders thought that policy dialogues should have a clearer focus. One ECO-Asia CDCP program 
staff person in the Philippines noted that regional dialogues should be structured so they are not too broad; 
Final Program Evaluation 27 
Report: PART I 
instead they should be focused to address specific problems, with a clear outcome and follow-up actions 
resulting after the dialogue. 
Conclusions -- Policy and Regulatory Dialogue 
What progress has ECO-Asia CDCP made: 
(i) toward achieving the program goals of significantly scaling up Regional Policy and Regulatory 
Dialogue to mitigate GHG emissions? 
Answer: To date minimal effort and resources have been put into this component. Nevertheless, ECO-Asia 
CDCP has engaged nearly 300 individuals from six key countries as part of a process to begin a regional 
dialogue on GHG and energy conservation. One result of work under this component to date is that ECO￾Asia CDCP has identified common energy efficiency and Regional Energy policy priorities across Asia, 
although this is not yet a result with any on-the-ground impact. Since this program component just started in 
2009, this development could provide a platform for work in the future. 
 (ii) …toward initiatives that lead to measurable reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? 
Answer: It is hard to show a direct causal measureable relationship between policy dialogue to date and a 
reduction in GHG emissions, particularly for an initiative that just started in 2009. Still, policy dialogue 
remains a necessary and important element of a larger USAID/RDMA approach for reducing GHG 
emissions over the long term.
(ii) Are the results valid and consistent with the overall program strategic approach? 
Answer: The PMP states that “ECO-Asia CDCP is a policy-based program that supports the creation … of clean energy 
policies that are expected to catalyze market transformations and lead to significant energy savings and 
associated reductions in GHG emissions over the medium to long term.”29 The potential results of policy 
dialogue are valid and consistent with the program’s overall strategic approaches. 
(iv) How responsive have regional policy and regulatory dialogues been in meeting needs of partners 
and stakeholders in the region? 
Answer: The program made a good start by identifying four policy priorities for the region. Stakeholders say 
that policy dialogue needs to be suitably focused on specific topics, and should also include issues relating to 
policy implementation. In many cases, dialogues may also need to include civil society representatives. 
(v) How responsive have these activities been, particularly with respect to “niche” areas where 
USAID might have catalytic impacts that significantly leverage program resources? 
Answer: At a regional level, it is a challenge for individual countries to convene regional groups for policy 
discussions. Even within a country, it can be difficult to bring civil society groups to the table as part of a 
dialogue with relevant technical policy makers. RDMA’s convening authority, which represents an important 
part of the United States Government’s (USG) comparative advantage when it comes to stimulating policy 
dialogue, has helped address these problems.. 
(vi) Are effective strategies in place that will ensure program sustainability after program close-out? 
Answer: Policy dialogue between and among the countries of Asia will need to continue indefinitely, 
although at this point it is difficult for such efforts to be fully self sustaining. For the near to medium term, 
                                                            
29 USAID, IRG, “Performance Management Plan (DRAFT) Modification X, Environmental Cooperate-Asia, Clean Development 
and Climate Program,” January 25, 2011, p. 7.
Final Program Evaluation 28 
Report: PART I 
USAID and RDMA’s convening authority need to be used to bring stakeholders together to discuss complex 
and sensitive matters which otherwise may not be discussed. This is particularly true when it comes to cross￾border dialogue, which is an important strength of RDMA. While ASEAN theoretically exists to help fill this 
niche, it may not represent an optimum vehicle. Thus, since reduction of GHG emissions is a priority for the 
USG, some additional USG resources will be required to facilitate policy dialogue. 
(vii) Other Conclusions: Policy Dialogue 
In India, USAID’s neutrality is regarded as a key strength. In many circumstances, according to Indian 
stakeholders, policy dialogues are organized in order to convince policy makers about certain issue. USAID—
at least in India—is viewed as having no hidden agenda. Stakeholders said, “USAID does not even promote 
American technology.” 
E. Regional Knowledge-Sharing 
Introduction: Since 2007, ECO-Asia CDCP has organized the Asia Clean energy Forum (ACEF) in close 
collaboration with the ADB. ACEF is widely seen as the premier event in Asia for clean energy practitioners 
to share effective practices and present new findings. The program’s research and technical reports also help 
policy-makers and donors in the region better target interventions and funding. 
Findings 
To date, ECO-Asia CDCP has generated 24 technical reports and knowledge management products. Recent 
reports have included a study on black carbon emissions in Asia, a benchmarking study of the quality of 
energy-efficient lighting in the region, and a report on prospects for sustainable biofuels in Asia. 
IRG/Washington management said that one of the program’s niches was in networking and knowledge 
sharing. By working through vehicles like ACEF, the program has enabled an exchange of lessons learned 
and various new approaches to clean energy. 
ADB for its part regards partnering with the program on ACEF as a success story, in part because it provides 
an important venue for countries to share information about what they are doing. ADB pointed out that 
there were positive impacts and outcomes from ACEF, but as with most such ventures, they are difficult to 
track, measure, and report on, because the outputs are defuse and are quickly dispersed as the participants 
scatter after the event is over. Program staff in the Philippines received feedback from ACEF participants at 
the end of the last event, who essentially asked, “What now?” Some participants clearly were looking for 
continuity from year to year. 
The ADB acknowledged that ECO-Asia CDCP has done the bulk of the work to organize the ACEF. ADB 
itself has limited resources to fund future events and the 2011 Forum will require participants to pay 
registration fees. ADB would also like to broaden the event to look at broader energy issues, climate change, 
low carbon development, carbon trading, etc. ADB would like to link the Asian Clean Energy Forum with 
other international financial institutions. ADB currently is conducting a review of ACEF and expects to share 
results with USAID shortly. 
Conclusions: 
Results and Responsiveness to Stakeholder Needs: What progress has Regional Knowledge-Sharing 
made: 
(i) …toward achieving the program goals of significantly scaling up clean energy to mitigate GHG 
emissions? 
Answer: It is hard to quantify in meaningful ways any mitigation of GHG emissions which can be directly 
attributed to diffuse events, where people come together for a few days to share information, or various 
Final Program Evaluation 29 
Report: PART I 
knowledge products (reports) get written and disseminated. To answer this question, a different metric would 
be required that could measure the impact of ‘knowledge sharing.’ In any case, the contractor reports in the 
PMP that the ECO-Asia CDCP program had achieved 83% of its nominal life-of-program target for 
knowledge management products by end of FY 10,30 as shown in Table 6, below: 
FIGURE 6. CDCP TARGETS FOR TECHNICAL REPORTS 
4d Number of technical reports 
and knowledge management 
products (Custom) 
Total Targets 29 Achieved 83% of life-of-program 
target by end of FY10. 
Actual To Date 24
(ii) …toward initiatives that lead to measurable reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? 
Answer: Several of the program’s written reports have been well received, and have facilitated knowledge 
sharing. However, since they are information products, it is essentially impossible to generate any direct cause 
and effect attributions for reductions in GHG emissions. 
(iii) …toward achieving overall program performance targets? 
Answer: Knowledge-sharing is an important element for a program that seeks to reduce GHG emissions, 
and promote clean energy use. The emphasis, however, is on the process. Policy dialogue and knowledge 
sharing should both be treated as cross cutting initiatives to support the program’s larger specific technical 
agendas. 
(iv) Are the results valid and consistent with the program’s overall strategic approach? 
 
Answer: Yes. Knowledge-sharing is an important component of any program that seeks to promote policy 
and market transformation across Asia. The PMP says, “For programs such as ECO-Asia CDCP, the real 
targets are the development of human capital—that is, the knowledge and institutional structures that will 
enable clean energy reforms to endure and be replicated across the vast energy industry in Asia.”31
(v) How responsive have Regional Knowledge Sharing activities been in meeting needs of partners 
and stakeholders in the region? 
Answer: The ACEF Forum itself has been characterized by the Director of RDMA as “the premier regional 
event on clean energy in Asia.” Other key stakeholders including the ADB have said they believe there has 
been significant value in supporting ACEF. ADB continues to be interested in focusing on knowledge￾sharing, and believes it has been important to engage developing country decision-makers. The program’s 
written reports have been well regarded, and widely circulated. To date, two principal beneficiaries of 
technical reports were RDMA, and the program itself, which has used the reports to help guide the general 
direction of technical activities. 
(vi) How responsive have Knowledge Sharing activities been, particularly with respect to “niche” 
areas where USAID is expected to have catalytic impacts that significantly leverage program 
resources? 
                                                            
30 This data has not been independently confirmed by the evaluation team. 31 Ibid. p. 7. 
Final Program Evaluation 30 
Report: PART I 
Answer: The program has prepared several important technical reports, starting with their first study: “From 
Ideas to Action: Clean Energy Solution for Asia to Address Climate Change,” followed by “Black Carbon 
Emissions in Asia” and “Biofuels in Asia,” as well as reports on lighting, finance, and coal. These studies are 
technically important, and also contribute in important ways to regional dialogue, but it is infeasible to 
determine their direct impact upon GHG emissions. The program has helped establish websites, including 
“www.cleanenergyasia.net,” as well as a website for PFAN-Asia and one for the ALC dealing with lighting. 
These are all important niche areas, where USAID/RDMA has been able to have catalytic impact. 
(vii) Are effective strategies in place that will ensure program sustainability after program close-out? 
Answer: Knowledge-sharing, like policy dialogue, will go on indefinitely, and at this time it can not be 100% 
self sustaining. Because it is an important priority, RDMA needs to carefully target its strategies for 
knowledge-sharing, to make sure they conform with other technical components of its larger program. 
Final Program Evaluation 31 
Report: PART I 
IV. OVERALL LESSONS LEARNED FROM CDCP 
What lessons have been learned from ECO-Asia CDCP’s overall program implementation?
A. Technical results—Lessons Learned 
Private Financing: -- PFAN- Asia 
Working through PFAN-Asia, ECO-Asia CDCP has generated a model to bridge the gap between clean 
energy project development entrepreneurs and financial investors. By helping to introduce project developers 
to potential investors (and by developing a somewhat revised model), the program has pioneered a new 
model for the delivery of development assistance to address clean energy priorities, and mitigate emissions of 
GHGs. Pioneering a specific model such as PFAN was not part of the program’s initial objective, although it 
fits within the broader objectives of the program. This new model may have the potential to be scaled up 
dramatically across Asia. An important lesson is that RDMA should be somewhat opportunistic in urging its 
contractors to look for such opportunities, and perhaps not set nominal benchmarks too narrowly. A related 
lesson learned may be that for some of its programs RDMA should adopt the approach of venture capitalists, 
who bet on several ventures (i.e., program components) in the hope that one or two of them may pay off big. 
This seems to have been the case for ECO-Asia CDCP, which bet on PFAN-Asia, and seems to have won 
handily. 
Public Sector Financing 
There appear to be important linkages between private financing and financing for public sector institutions. 
It is important to find ways to take advantage of the commonalities between the two program components. 
Just as private financing seems to have identified a potential model that can be replicated and scaled up across 
Asia, public sector financing may also be working towards a similar scalable, replicable model. These efforts 
merits continued support, although the role for RDMA in the future of public sector financing needs to be 
carefully assessed. The lesson here may be that part of RDMA’s comparative advantage should be focused on 
developing, nurturing, or demonstrating the initial model. Once the model is proven, it can be turned over to 
bilateral missions, the private sector, or national governments. 
Energy Efficient Lighting: 
Work with lighting and standards needs to be carefully analyzed. At this point in time, the future direction of 
energy efficient lighting and what systems will work most effectively are hard to determine with certainty. 
Regional Dialogues and Knowledge Sharing 
Regional dialogue and knowledge sharing both have important potential to reinforce other program activities. 
These components have not supported the rest of the program as explicitly as they might have. When 
possible, individual components should explicitly reinforce one another. Such potential reinforcement might 
be nurtured while putting work plans together. 
Final Program Evaluation 32 
Report: PART I 
B. Implementation Issues 
Budget Oversight: In India, the Evaluation Team learned from interviews that payments for salaries and 
social security for staff, vendors, rent, hotels, and consultant fees had not been made by IRG’s subcontractor, 
International Resources Group SSA (IRG SSA), for the previous five to six months. Individuals were told by 
program management to contact IRG SSA for payment but IRG SSA had not been responsive. A PFAN￾Asia mentor in India reported that he was asked to reduce his fees after he had signed a contract and 
provided services. This non-payment (as well as the general, unexpected curtailment of the program) has 
harmed USAID and PFAN-Asia’s reputations and caused a loss of trust and credibility that will take time to 
repair. This situation would worsen if not immediately addressed. However, the evaluation team was 
subsequently told by IRG that the problem resided entirely with the subcontractor and was being resolved. 
Monitoring and Evaluation: The program does not seem to have had sufficient feedback about what was 
happening on the ground. For example, potential cross linkages between Private Financing (PFAN-Asia) and 
Public Sector Financing may not have been fully captured during the course of the program. Ways to weave 
together Policy Dialogue and Knowledge sharing with other components of the program may not have been 
explored. The program-level learning that was going on between or across Components or across countries 
may have gone primarily to the program staff, and may not have been shared as broadly as possible with 
other relevant stakeholders. 
Bilateral Mission Engagement: Close coordination between RDMA and bilateral missions (from design 
through implementation) is vital, including coordination on potential buy-ins. In China, the Embassy called 
for better integration with the Embassy functions, especially the Foreign Commercial Service which could 
help identify US companies and investors to participate in PFAN-Asia and other activities. The State 
Department also suggested coordinating with DOE’s $75m China program. 
C. RDMA’s key strengths and weaknesses in undertaking a regional clean energy 
program—Lessons learned. 
RDMA has multiple strengths, most of which involve the ‘regional’ element of RDMA’s mandate. Strengths 
include being perceived as neutral, with important convening authority, coupled with RDMA’s proven ability 
to reach across borders and bring together multiple stakeholders. It also has an ability to facilitate cross 
border learning, the sharing of information, and the ability to precipitate regional-level dialogue among policy 
makers and stakeholders. RDMA has an ability to arrange twinning between two or more countries. It can 
explore ways to address issues that may involve setting regional standards. Finally, it has some ability to stand 
back and look at the countries of Asia and see how they may be influencing one another, and then arrange 
discussions (or policy dialogue) about what such influence might mean. 
However, in order to take advantage of RDMA’s convening authority, RDMA also needs to have substantive 
programs. To the extent that it proves possible, RDMA programs should have clearly defined components 
that work together to reinforce one another. 
In addition, local national staff represent important assets. A significant strength of RDMA’s ECO-Asia 
CDCP program has been its local, on-the-ground staff with local knowledge. 
END 
Final Program Evaluation 33 
Report: PART I 
APPENDICES 
1. Statement of Work 
2. Statements of ECO-Asia CDCP’s goals and objectives [from Khun 
Khan, in original] 
3. Summary of Program Indicators, Performance Targets, and Actual 
Results 
4. Interview Guide 
5. List of Stakeholders Contacted [paraphrase Evaluation Schedule. 
From Khun Khan] 
6. Travel Schedule 
Final Program Evaluation 34 
Report: PART I 
STATEMENT OF WORK 
I. Background
RDMA’s Regional Environment Office (REO) intends to conduct a Final Program Evaluation of the 
Environmental Cooperation-Asia Clean Development and Climate Program (ECO- Asia CDCP) during 
January-March 2011, with field visits during February 2011. The evaluation will assess program performance 
and effectiveness against its goal and indicators; provide recommendations that can potentially ensure smooth 
transition and enhance program sustainability; and provide recommendations that assist the Mission in 
planning future regional clean energy program activities that build from activities to date. 
In September 2006, RDMA awarded a Task Order under the Environmental Policy and Institution 
Strengthening Indefinite Quantity Contract (EPIQ) II with International Resources Group (IRG) Ltd. to 
implement ECO-Asia CDCP. The Task Order was established for a three year period, ending September 
2009. RDMA has modified this Task Order a number of times to accommodate increased interest and 
funding for clean energy activities in the region, as well as in China, and extended the Task Order to 
September 2011. 
Since the program is due to conclude in 2011, RDMA requires a final program evaluation to address program 
performance and effectiveness, ensure smooth transition, enhance program sustainability, as well as identify 
new strategic opportunities for a follow-on program. 
REO has prepared a draft logic framework (logframe) that describes overarching structure and approach for 
its regional clean energy programs, and includes the principal objective of “transition to resilient low 
emissions energy production and end-use systems.” The approach followed by the ECO-Asia CDCP 
program is to develop policy and market-based solutions that will lead to increased investment in, and 
implementation of, clean energy technologies, projects, and businesses. The program plans, develops, and 
assists in the implementation of these solutions using a partnership approach—working in tandem with 
regional and national actors and stakeholders. The program takes a fundamentally regional approach, 
bringing together stakeholders both virtually and physically in order to address and solve common problems 
related to clean energy, climate change, and energy security. 
To date, the program has supported the following activities: 
leveraging clean energy investment through private sector financing and bank capacity building in connection 
with the Private Financing Advisory Network (PFAN); 
strengthening and expanding the market for energy efficient lighting products; 
Facilitating the development of energy efficiency financing mechanisms; 
facilitating a regional clean energy policy dialogue; 
support for increased investment in cleaner coal technologies and practices;32
regional knowledge-sharing including convening the Asia Clean Energy Forum and preparing comprehensive 
studies relating to regional energy and emissions trends, biofuels, black carbon, energy efficient lighting, 
energy efficiency financing, and coal power generation. 
                                                            
32
Note, coal activities were suspended following the adoption of new language associated with the clean energy earmark in the FY2009 budget.
Final Program Evaluation 35 
Report: PART I 
II. Evaluation Objective 
The objectives of the evaluation include: 
To assess the program’s performance and effectiveness against its goals, objectives, and performance targets; 
To recommend any strategies that can potentially ensure smooth transition and enhance program 
sustainability in preparation for program completion; and 
To identify priorities and other considerations for the design of a new follow-on regional clean energy 
program, including possible new/alternate technical areas, programming approaches, geographic focus 
areas, and partnerships. 
III. Scope of Evaluation and Key Questions 
The evaluation team led by an independent external consultant, must assess the performance of ECO-Asia 
CDCP activities from inception of the program through the present. While the evaluation should evaluate 
past performance, the RDMA Regional Environment Office (REO) is particularly interested in forward￾looking recommendations on possible strategies for ensuring smooth transition and enhance sustainability of 
the program as well as recommendations on existing and/or new areas that should be addressed by a new 
follow-on program. 
Note, the issue of coal will not be considered as part of the evaluation. While the program supported cleaner 
coal activities in its first three years, USAID’s clean energy earmark starting with the FY2009 budget no 
longer allowed for activities related to energy efficiency in fossil-based power generation. All relevant coal￾related activities, moreover, were previously addressed in the program’s mid-term evaluation. 
The program scope of work requires the evaluating consultant to gather information on the program, analyze 
that information, and provide answers to the following key performance areas and related questions: 
1. Validity of “Hypothesis” (Effectiveness of Programmatic Strategic Approach): Has the hypothesis for 
the ECO-Asia CDCP multi-pronged strategy and programmatic approach remained valid for achieving stated 
goals and objectives? 
2. Confirmation of Results: What progress has been made toward achieving the program goals of increasing 
investments in clean energy technologies, practices, or initiatives that lead to measurable reductions in 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? What progress has been made toward achieving overall program 
performance targets? Are the results valid and consistent with the overall program strategic approach? 
3. Responsiveness to Stakeholder Needs: How responsive have ECO-Asia CDCP activities been in meeting 
needs of partners and stakeholders in the region (including national governments and other country 
counterparts, USAID Missions, and others), particularly with respect to “niche” areas where USAID is 
expected to have catalytic impacts that significantly leverage program resources? 
4. Program Sustainability and Transition: Are effective strategies in place that will ensure program 
sustainability after program close-out, as well as smooth transition to follow-on activities? If not, what actions 
by the contractor and RDMA are recommended to ensure effective sustainability and transition? 
5. Lessons Learned: What are the lessons learned from program implementation, including both technical and 
implementation/management considerations? What are RDMA’s key strengths in undertaking a regional clean 
energy program? 
Final Program Evaluation 36 
Report: PART I 
6. Potential Areas for a Follow-on Program: What activities should be carried forward or modified for the new 
follow-on program? What new technical areas or programming approaches should be considered and possibly 
adopted in a follow-on program to effectively address regional GHG mitigation and clean energy challenges? 
In assessing the program’s effectiveness and potential areas of improvement, the evaluation team will also 
consider the following: 
challenges and opportunities in implementing geographically diverse activities through a combination of 
regional- and national-level activities;
supporting RDMA regional program objectives to strengthen regional partners (e.g., ASEAN) and to address 
transnational issues (such as transboundary pollution); 
ability to promote catalytic change through focusing on enabling conditions such as policy measures and 
access to financing; and 
opportunities for increasing buy-in to the follow-on activity, such as from USAID bilateral missions or other 
USAID or USG sources. 
A draft list of illustrative interview questions is provided in Attachment 2. 
IV. Scope of Work and Roles of the External Consultant 
The independent external consultant, with support from a technical evaluation team comprised of 
representatives from USAID (RDMA and Washington), must lead this evaluation. A total contract length of 
35 calendar days (including travel days) of full-time effort is anticipated for the consultant to carry out the 
evaluation responsibilities outlined here. 
The consultant must work in conjunction with the evaluation team to plan and implement the proposed 
evaluation. While the evaluation team will be heavily involved with design, planning, and logistics, the 
consultant must provide significant leadership and direction, and has the final responsibility for the following 
major duties: 
Leading the overall coordination, planning, preparation, and completion of the evaluation; 
Preparation of a questionnaire, with input from the evaluation team, to be distributed to stakeholders in 
advance of consultations; 
Preparation of an interview guide that includes questions to be asked during consultations; 
Synthesizing and finalizing, with input from the evaluation team, draft evaluation reports and the final report 
addressing the evaluation objectives and scope described above and including specific findings and 
recommendations; 
Preparing, with input from the entire team, a PowerPoint presentation summarizing initial evaluation findings 
and conclusions to be delivered to RDMA at the conclusion of the field consultations. 
Participation in the field consultations in Beijing and Jakarta, in addition to Bangkok. 
Responsibilities of the entire evaluation team members, including the external consultant team leader, include: 
Determining the organizations and people to be consulted and develop the evaluation questions. 
Reviewing the program Concept Statement, Task Order SOW and subsequent SOW modifications/additions, 
current and previous annual Work Plans, current and previous drafts of the Performance Management 
Plan (PMP), progress reports, Success Stories, deliverables, and other program documents; 
Developing the evaluation schedule and make appointments with respective parties. 
Final Program Evaluation 37 
Report: PART I 
Performing the evaluation, which may include, but is not limited to, interviews with parties involved, site 
visits, etc. 
Based on the evaluation results, making recommendation to RDMA that address the evaluation’s objectives 
and scope. 
Based on the evaluation results, identifying lessons learned from the program as well as key strengths of 
RDMA in developing clean energy programs. 
Prepare initial presentation of preliminary evaluation results to the RDMA/REO Director, program 
Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR), and other RDMA staff, and preparing a final 
evaluation for the COTR to present final results; 
Preparing the draft and final evaluation reports addressing evaluation objectives and scope provided above. 
Key stakeholders/organizations to consult during the evaluation must include, at a minimum: 
USAID/RDMA Regional Environment Office, Mission Director and/or Deputy Mission Director, and 
Program Development Office; 
USAID/India, USAID/Indonesia, USAID/Philippines, and USAID/Vietnam energy/environment staff; 
US Embassy Beijing Environment, Science, Technology, and Health (ESTH) staff; 
USAID Development Counselor at US Embassy Beijing; 
Climate change/energy/environment staff with USAID’s Asia Bureau, Climate Change Team 
(EGAT/ESP/GCC) and Energy Team (EGAT/I&E/E) in Washington; 
State/OES Office of Global Change and Office of Environmental Policy; 
Asian Development Bank (ADB) (Manila); 
World Bank; 
Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE); 
California Air Resources Board (CARB); 
Selected private sector partners, particularly those partners contributing resources to program activities, 
including: 
o PFAN partners in China, India, Indonesia, and the Philippines; 
o lighting manufacturers and associations in Shanghai, Hong Kong, and/or other program 
countries; 
Selected national and subnational government agencies, including the Beijing Environmental Protection 
Bureau (EPB), National Lighting Testing Center (NLTC) in Beijing, Hebei Province Demand-Side 
Management Center and Electricity Office (China), and Kerala State Energy Conservation Fund, and 
Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) in India, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) in India; 
Non-governmental (NGO) and university partners, including the Institute for Clean Energy Technology 
Transfer (ICETT) in Japan, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), King Mongkutt 
University Joint Graduate School for Energy and Environment (JGSEE) in Bangkok, Efficient Lighting 
Initiative (ELI), Asia Lighting Council (ALC) in Singapore, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency 
Partnership (REEEP), Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP), World Resources Institute (WRI); and 
Regional organizations including APEC and the ASEAN Secretariat. 
Telephone interviews may be arranged to minimize unnecessary travel. 
V. Deliverables 
Results of the evaluation will be in the form of findings and recommendations to the USAID/RDMA REO 
Director and the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) of ECO-Asia CDCP. The 
consultant is expected to ensure timely completion of all deliverables, including a summary of results to the 
RDMA in the form of out-briefing and an evaluation report responsive to the scope of work stated above. 
Final Program Evaluation 38 
Report: PART I 
The deliverables for this request for proposal are as follows (and further explained below): 
1. Attend the evaluation Kick-Off meeting in Bangkok, Thailand on o/a February 14, 2011 
2. Out-briefing to RDMA on initial findings in Bangkok o/a February 25, 2011 
3. Draft written report submitted to RDMA for comments o/a March 10, 2011 
4. Final report o/a March 24, 2011. 
The consultant must provide a summary of results to RDMA in the form of an out-briefing (at the end of 
field consultations) and evaluation report in two sections. The main report must consider points 1-5 listed 
above under III. Scope of Evaluation and Key Questions. The consultant must prepare a summary of 
Opportunities for a Potential Follow-on Regional Clean Energy Program, addressing point 6 above, will be 
prepared as a separate document. The main report will be used internally within USAID and also shared with 
the ECO-Asia CDCP contractor. The section describing point 6 will be used internally only and not shared 
outside of the US Government. The consultant must provide the draft reports to RDMA in an electronic 
version in Microsoft Word format. 
Following this review, and within 7 day of receipt of the draft report, USAID will provide to the consultant 
its comments and suggestions for additions or modifications. These will be discussed collegially with the 
consultant for incorporation, in the final version, as appropriate. As a guideline, the draft report should have a 
minimum of 25 pages and a maximum of 40 pages using standard one-inch margins, single-spaced text, 
paragraphs separated by 12 points of space, and 12-point Times New Roman font (or equivalent sized font). 
Within 7 days of receipt of USAID’s comments and suggestions, the consultant must submit to the Regional 
Environment Office, USAID/RDMA an electronic version in Microsoft Word format and via expedited 
delivery 5 sets of the final reports. As a guideline, the final report should have a minimum of 25 pages and a 
maximum of 40 pages. 
 VI. Payment schedule 
Full payment of the fixed price – cost reimbursement hybrid type contract shall be made to the consultant 
upon submission and acceptance of the final report. 
It is anticipated that the labor will be quoted as a fixed price. Travel, transportation, and per diem costs will 
be on a cost reimbursement basis. 
VII. Period of Performance 
The evaluation will be performed during January-March 2011, and field consultations will take place during 
February 14-25. See Table 1. Team members must visit (together, in smaller groups, or individually) selected 
ECO-Asia CDCP program staff, partners, and stakeholders in Bangkok, New Delhi, Beijing, Hebei Province 
(China), Manila, Jakarta, and possibly another city TBD. The team will consult with partners in Hanoi via 
teleconference. Consultations may also be conducted in Washington by Washington, DC-based team 
members, as well as via teleconference involving all team members, prior to the field consultations. 
Table 1: Illustrative Schedule 
Date (o/a) Task 
Review 
Dec. 2010-Jan. 2011 Evaluation Team review of program documentation 
Questionnaire 
Final Program Evaluation 39 
Report: PART I 
January 17 Questionnaire prepared and stakeholders to receive it are identified 
January 24 Questionnaire disseminated to selected partners and stakeholders 
February 9 Questionnaire results compiled and analyzed 
Consultations 
January 21 List of consultation stakeholders completed 
January 28 Consultation schedule finalized; make appointments with stakeholders 
February 4 Interview guide completed 
Jan. 31-Feb. 11 Consultations in DC 
February 14-25 Consultations in Asia 
 Feb. 14-15 Bangkok – coordination and planning 
 Feb. 16-18 Team 1 – Beijing and Hebei Team 2 – Manila 
 Feb. 21-23 Team 1 – New Delhi Team 2 – Jakarta and TBD 
 Feb. 24-25 Bangkok – Regrouping and RDMA presentation of initial findings 
Evaluation Report 
Feb. 24-Mar. 10 Prepare draft evaluation report 
March 10 Draft evaluation report due 
March 17 Comments from RDMA 
March 24 Final report due 
Approximate LOE for the Team Leader Consultant is 35 days, estimated as follows: 
 Preparations, Review of Documents and In-briefing in Bangkok (o/aJan. 2 - Feb. 13, 2011) 9 person days 
 Field consultations within ECO-Asia CDCP countries (o/a Feb. 14-25, 2011) 13 person days 
 Out-briefing at RDMA and Draft Report Preparation (o/a Feb. 24-25, 2011) 3 person days 
 Final Report Preparation (o/a Feb. 26-Mar. 24, 2011) 10 
person days 
 -------------------
-------- 
TOTAL 35 
person days 
Following is tentative travel schedule. The Contractor shall work with the COTR to finalize the travel plan. 
Travel from USA to Bangkok, February 11-12, 2011 
Bangkok: 
o Rest day, February 13 
o Coordination and planning at RDMA, February 14-15 
Travel to Beijing, evening of February 15 with selected team members 
Beijing: 
o Consultations, February 16-17 
Travel to Hebei Province, China on February 17 with selected team members 
Hebei Province: 
o Consultations, February 18 
Travel from Beijing to Jakarta, February 19 with selected team members 
Jakarta: 
o Rest day, February 20 
o Consultations, February 21-23 
Travel from Jakarta to Bangkok on February 23 to rejoin entire team 
Bangkok: 
o Regrouping and RDMA presentation of initial findings, February 24-25 
Travel from Bangkok to USA, February 26 
Final Program Evaluation 40 
Report: PART I 
VIII. Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) 
 The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative is the COTR of ECO-Asia CDCP or his designee, 
USAID/Regional Development Mission for Asia, Bangkok, Thailand 10330. 
IX. Government Furnished Information 
Background briefings shall be provided by the RDMA technical officers. 
X. Proposed Evaluation Team Members (Roles and Responsibilities) 
1. Team Leader (Independent Consultant) – Evaluation team lead and lead author; focus on overall program and 
strategy issues. 
2. USAID Energy Advisor – Focus on clean energy technologies, policy and regulation, and sectoral strategies 
(e.g., sustainable cities; green buildings). 
3. USAID Clean Technology Advisor – Focus on clean energy financing and GHG mitigation strategies. 
4. USAID Program Officer – focus on knowledge-sharing and strategic partnerships, selected technical areas, and 
overall program and strategy. 
5. USAID Environment Advisor – policy and regulation, sectoral strategies, GHG mitigation strategies and 
overall program and strategy. 
6. USAID Program Development Specialist – Logistics, information collection and distribution, clean energy 
technologies and financing, and overall program and strategy. 
XI. Evaluation Criteria 
The proposal received in response to this RFP will be evaluated in accordance with the technical evaluation 
criteria set forth below. The relative importance of each criterion is indicated by descending order. 
The following bullets demonstrate required qualifications of the successful consultant: 
Responsiveness of the applicant’s proposed evaluation plan to the statement of work, with regard to the 
applicant’s ability to fulfill the responsibilities of the evaluation team leader and ensure the timely 
completion of the evaluation. 
Experience and knowledge in clean energy and climate change issues in Asia, particularly with regard to clean 
energy financing, policy frameworks, technology transfer, and/or capacity building. 
Demonstrated ability to plan, design, and implement results-based program evaluations, including leading an 
evaluation team to effectively facilitate technical meetings, discussions, and interviews. 
Demonstrated understanding of development assistance programming challenges and opportunities, 
particularly with respect to regional programming..
Possess superior analytical and written and verbal communication skills to synthesize and present evaluation 
findings into a final report with recommendations. 
Final Program Evaluation 41 
Report: PART I 
Illustrative Interview Questions
Evaluation of ECO-Asia CDCP 
 How effective has the program been overall? 
 How aware of or involved with specific components has your institution been? How effective have 
specific components of the program been? How catalytic has the program been in promoting 
increased investment in clean energy technologies and practices? 
o PFAN; lighting; energy efficiency finance; clean energy policy and regulation; knowledge 
sharing 
 How effective have program activities been in the specific country where your organization works, 
or at the regional level with regional institutions, in terms of: 
o Coordination with USAID bilateral missions, US Embassies, US Consulates, other US 
Government agencies, or other institutions? 
o Effectiveness of technical activities? 
o Effectiveness of the program’s management and oversight? 
o How catalytic the program has been in the country in promoting increased investment in 
clean energy technologies and practices? 
 Are there particular strengths/weaknesses/opportunities for improvement regarding the regional 
nature of the program? 
 In what ways could impact of specific program components, and a regional USAID-funded clean 
energy program overall, be improved in the future? 
Future Clean Energy Programming 
 Should USAID/RDMA consider adding or dropping any countries in a future regional clean energy 
program, as compared with the current program countries (China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, 
Thailand, Vietnam)? 
 Should USAID/RDMA expand/decrease/add/drop any specific activities in a future regional clean 
energy program? What areas have the potential to be the most catalytic use of program 
resources? 
o Existing components: PFAN; lighting; energy efficiency finance; clean energy policy and 
regulation; knowledge sharing 
o Possible new areas of focus: sustainable urban development; transportation planning; 
low-emission vehicles/cleaner fuels; green buildings; energy efficient appliances; GHG 
accounting in the energy sector; co-benefits such as air quality; access to energy; etc. 
 Potential future leverage from USAID Bilateral Missions, other USG agencies, multilateral and 
bilateral donors, etc.: 
o What are your organization’s primary activities in clean energy? 
o Are there specific opportunities or areas of interest to cost-share or buy into a future 
USAID/RDMA-funded regional clean energy program? 
Final Program Evaluation 42 
Report: PART I 
STATEMENTS OF ECO-ASIA CDCP’S GOALS AND 
OBJECTIVES 
1. Concept Statement: Environmental Cooperation-Asia Clean 
Development Program 
(ECO-Asia Clean Development) 
Date: August 11, 2006 
The goal of the ECO-Asia Clean Development Program is to promote policy and market transformation 
necessary for clean development in Asia’s energy and transportation sectors. ECO-Asia’s support for clean 
development will focus on mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in combination with efforts to reduce 
pollution, increase economic productivity and improve energy security. 
To help achieve the goal of clean development, the program will support a combination of regional and 
country-specific activities that address the following objectives: 
promote policy reforms that remove barriers to and increase incentives for clean technology investment; 
build institutional capacity to support policy and market reforms; 
improve access to financing for clean technology investment; 
improve regional data management and information sharing on clean technologies and policies; 
facilitate Asia-Asia and U.S.-Asia public-private alliances that demonstrate clean technologies and practices; 
and 
promote opportunities to replicate best practices and share lessons learned at a regional level. 
2. Statement of Work 
Date: September 30, 2006 
The goal of the ECO-Asia CDCP is to promote clean development in Asia’s energy and transportation 
sectors. ECO-Asia’s support for clean development will focus on mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions in combination with efforts to reduce pollution, increase economic productivity, and improve 
energy security. 
The Concept of “clean development” encompasses a range of environment and development objectives. 
ECO-Asia will work to advance common solutions that maximize synergies between multiple sustainable 
development priorities, including: 
mitigating GHG emissions that contribute to global climate change; 
reducing local air pollution and, as a result, reducing associated health risks from airborne pollutants and 
carcinogens; 
promoting energy alternatives, conservation, and efficiency; 
improving energy security by reducing foreign oil dependence; 
promoting cleaner industrial production; 
increasing economic productivity and competitiveness; 
improving local livelihoods through greater economic development and job creation; and 
Final Program Evaluation 43 
Report: PART I 
promoting international cooperation and trade. 
To help achieve the goal of clean development, the program will support a combination of regional and 
country-specific activities that address the following objectives: 
promote policy reforms that remove barriers to and increase incentives for clean technology investment; 
improve access to financing for clean technology investment; 
build institutional capacity to support policy and market reforms; 
improve regional data management and information sharing on clean technologies and policies; 
demonstrate clean technologies and practices through Asia-Asia and U.S.-Asia public-private alliances; and 
promote opportunities to replicate best practices and share lessons learned in clean technology 
demonstrations, policy reforms, and market incentives at a regional level. 
3. IRG Strategic Statement 
Date: December 03, 2008 
Ultimate Goal: Significant scaling up of clean energy to mitigate GHG emissions 
Encourage major shift to cleaner coal technologies for rehabilitation and new plants in six countries (China, 
India, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia) 
Improve quality of Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs) produced in Asia 
Unblock financing for small scale clean energy projects (renewable energy and energy efficiency), principally 
in China, Indonesia, and the Philippines 
Determine potential for sustainable biofuels 
Final Program Evaluation 44 
Report: PART I 
 
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM INDICATORS, PERFORMANCE 
TARGETS, AND ACTUAL RESULTS 
The material in this appendix comes from the FY11 PMP, prepared by IRG, submitted to USAID on 4 Feb 
2011. The data in this appendix has been formally submitted to the COTR as part of IRG’s contract, but has 
not been independently verified by the evaluation team, and USAID has not conducted a Data Quality 
Assessment of the materials. 
According to data submitted by the contractor in response to USAID’s ADS requirements, the ECO-Asia 
CDCP Program has already met or exceeded its targets for 10 out of 19 indicators relative to its life-of￾program (October 2006 - September 2011) targets. For three indicators where ECO-Asia CDCP has not 
already met its targets, results currently are at 85% of the target or greater. For 2 other indicators, results 
currently are at 75%-85% of target. For two indicators, cumulative results currently are pending, and no 
‘actuals’ are shown. However, IRG reportedly expects to meet its targets by the end of the program. ECO￾Asia CDCP performance against key indicators is shown graphically in the figure below. 
Final Program Evaluation 45 
Report: PART I 
The original data from which this table is derived is based on data available as of February 4, 2011. Further, no 
Performance Targets were set for FY 2007, since the PMP was not finalized until the first half of FY 2008. Also, for 
a number of activities, there were no “actuals” in FY 07 or FY 08, due to the time needed to develop partnerships 
and facilitate program and investment commitments. 
 
 
Final Program Evaluation 46 
Report: PART I 
Program Indicator Comments 
Energy Use and Emissions Reductions
1a Energy saved as a result of USG assistance 
(kWh/year) (F indicator 4.4.1-2) 
Total Targets 73,912,250 Implementation of CFL program in Andhra Pradesh 
delayed. Expect to achieve savings from CFLs in 
Andhra Pradesh and from Energy Efficiency (EE) 
Finance (in Hebei, China) in FY11. Actual To Date Pending 
1b Anticipated energy savings over years, as a 
result of USG assistance (total kWh) (F 
indicator 4.8.2-24) 
Total Targets 6,195,139,000 Achieved 820% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 50,806,985,304 
1c Quantity of greenhouse gas emissions, 
measured in metric tons CO2 equivalent, 
reduced or sequestered as a result of USG 
assistance (F:F indicator 4.8.2)
Total Targets 381,810 Implementation of CFL program in Andhra Pradesh 
delayed. Expect to achieve savings from CFLs in 
Andhra Pradesh (India) and from EE Finance (in 
Hebei, China) in FY11. Actual To Date 0 
1d Anticipated GHG reductions over years, as 
a result of USG assistance (measured in 
metric tons of CO2 equivalent) 
(F indicator 4.8.2-25) 
Total Targets 9,173,380 Achieved 284% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 26,086,964 
2a Number of laws, policies, agreements, or 
regulations addressing climate change 
proposed, adopted, or implemented as a result 
of USG assistance (F indicator 4.8.2-4) 
Total Targets 12 Achieved 100% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 12 
2b Number of lighting companies and 
associations adopting or implementing 
regional standards (Custom) 
Total Targets 34 Achieved 85% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 29 
2c CFL market share (for Asia) of companies 
adopting or implementing regional standards 
(Custom)
Total Targets 45% Achieved 78% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 35% 
3a Total public and private dollars leveraged 
by USG for energy infrastructure projects (F 
indicator 4.4.1)
Total Targets 208,000,000 Achieved 87% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 181,500,000 
3b Amount of funds from non-USAID 
sources mobilized and applied (REO 1.4) 
Total Targets 10,257,617 Achieved 101% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 10,391,331 
3c Number of clean energy 
projects/businesses financed (Custom) 
Total Targets 18 Achieved 61% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. As of January 2011, had achieved financial 
commitment on six (6) additional projects for total of 
17. Actual To Date 11 
4a Number of people receiving training in 
global climate change as a result of USG 
assistance (F :4.8.2-6) 
Total Targets 7,564 Achieved 103% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 7,807 
4b Number of people receiving USG 
supported training in energy related policy 
and regulatory practices (F indicator 4.8.2) 
Total Targets 6,349 Achieved 93% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 5,936 
4c Number of people receiving USG Total Targets 6,630 Achieved 105% of life-of-program target by end of 
Final Program Evaluation 47 
Report: PART I 
Program Indicator Comments 
supported training in technical energy fields 
(F: 4.4.1-10) Actual To Date 6,937 FY10. 
4d Number of technical reports and 
knowledge management products (Custom) 
Total Targets 29 Achieved 83% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 24 
5a Number of key local, regional and national 
institutions with increased capacity as a result 
of USG assistance ** (Custom) 
Total Targets 36 Achieved 186% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 67 
5b Number of key local and national 
institutions with increased governance 
capacity (China only) ** (Custom) 
Total Targets 9 Achieved 144% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 13 
5c Number of companies with increased 
capacity to access clean energy financing 
(Custom)
Total Targets 250 Achieved 182% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 456 
5d Number of project developers/businesses 
receiving mentoring and technical support 
(Custom)
Total Targets 87 Achieved 113% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 98 
5e Number of professionals from financial 
institutions who have increased capacity for 
CE (Custom) 
Total Targets 125 Achieved 55% of life-of-program target by end of 
FY10. 
Actual To Date 69 
Note: No targets were set for FY 2007, since the PMP was not finalized until the first half of FY 2008. For a number of 
activities, there were no “actuals” in FY07 or FY08, due to the time needed to develop partnerships and facilitate program and 
investment commitments. 
* Note that for institutional capacity building, the number indicates the number of new institutions added during the year; work continues with the institutions where 
partnerships were formed during previous years. 
** Indicator 5a results contribute to REO indicators 2.2 and 4.1. Indicator 5b results contribute to REO indicator 2.2. 
Final Program Evaluation 48 
Report: PART I 
ECO-ASIA CDCP -- INTERVIEW GUIDE 
Part 1. …for Collaborating Institutions, Host Country Officials, and/or 
Donor Agency personnel 
1. Please briefly describe your organization/institution. 
2. What is your current position with this institution/organization? For how long have you worked with this 
institution/organization/agency? 
3. How does your organization relate to ECO –Asia? 
4. What is the nature/extent of your organization’s participation in ECO-Asia activities? 
5. ECO Asia works in six areas: (i) PFAN; (ii) Lighting; (iii) Energy efficiency; (iv) Finance; (v) Clean energy 
policies and regulations; and (vi) Knowledge sharing. 
What is the importance of each of these components to your agency or organization? With which area(s) 
does your organization primarily work? 
6. Does your organization receive program support from ECO-Asia? If so, please describe the nature of this 
support. Do you know the approximate dollar value of the assistance? 
7. Does your agency/organization/institution work regionally in two or more countries in Asia? 
8. How would you characterize the ECO-Asia program? What are your overall impressions of the ECO￾Asia program? From your perspective, are you satisfied with the ECO-Asia program? 
9. If you received support from ECO-Asia CDCP, what has this support allowed your agency/institution to 
do that you would not otherwise have done? What are the consequences of that support? What has your 
organization achieved as a result of that support? 
10. Quality of Assistance: How would you describe the quality of the support your 
agency/organization/institution has received from ECO-Asia? How would you rate it? [Can it be quantified 
on a scale of 1 – 5, with one being lowest, and 5 being highest?] 
11. In your opinion, do you think ECO-Asia is providing the appropriate type of assistance to (i) your 
agency? (ii) your country? And/or (iii) to the larger Asian Region? 
12. Technical Assistance: Has your organization received technical assistance from or thru ECO? Asia? 
How would you describe the quality of this TA? Were you satisfied with the quality of this TA? Was it 
relevant? What did it accomplish? What were the results of this assistance? 
13. Communications: What are your impressions of your agency’s communications with ECO-Asia? Can 
you describe the extent and frequency of this communication. With what part of ECO-Asia do you primarily 
communicate? Have you been satisfied with this communication? 
14. Websites: Are you familiar with the ECO-Asia CECP website? What are your impressions of the 
website? Has it been useful? Do you go there to find information? Do you have suggestions for changes in 
the website, or other communications initiatives connected with ECO-Asia CDCP? 
15. Written reports. What is the quality of ECO-Asia’s written reports? Do you use them? How? Have 
they materially assisted your agency? Can you give an example of how they assisted your agency’s work? 
Final Program Evaluation 49 
Report: PART I 
16. Monitoring & Evaluation: Do you have observations about the ECO-Asia performance monitoring and 
reporting systems? Do you have recommendations for how the performance monitoring and reporting 
systems could be improved? 
17. Bilateral and Regional Programs: Do you have suggestions for how to better harmonize bilateral and 
regional approaches to support and promote clean energy in Asia? 
18. Long-term Impact: Will ECO-Asia have a long-term impact in terms of addressing clean energy 
challenges in Asia? 
19. How sh’d ECO-Asia CDCP prioritize its future assistance in the areas of clean energy? What programs 
in your opinion would be most important? What would provide the highest measurable returns? 
Final Program Evaluation 50 
Report: PART I 
Part 2, [for USG officials, including USAID, Embassy, and others….] 
Questions as above, plus the following additional: 
20. How do priorities for ECO-Asia get determined? To what extent do ECO-Asia priorities reflect your 
institutional priorities? How well do they accord with host government priorities? Do your priorities line up 
well with RDMA’s priorities? 
21. Do you have judgments about ECO-Asia’s budget allocation process? What are your thoughts about the 
levels or predictability of funding? 
22. How regularly do you communicate with ECO-Asia? Do you primarily communicate with the ECO-Asia 
CDCP project staff? With the RDMA program management staff? With both? With others? 
23. Are you satisfied with your quality of communication and coordination with ECO-Asia project staff? 
RDMA Program Management staff? USAID/Washington regarding ECO-Asia CDCP? 
24. To what extent, if any are your ECO-Asia CDCP activities coordinated with other USG programs that 
work with clean energy issues at the country or regional level? 
25. How are ECO-Asia CDCP program activities coordinated with bilateral missions? 
26. How closely do you work with bilateral and multilateral organizations on issues that are relevant to ECO￾Asia CDCP? 
27. How successful has ECO-Asia CDCP’s performance monitoring and reporting system been in capturing 
program results and their developmental impacts? 
28. Do you have observations or recommendations regarding ECO-Asia’s performance monitoring systems? 
29. Do you have recommendations on how regional missions can support a stronger regional approach to 
promoting clean energy in Asia? Can bilateral Missions be better supported to take a more effective regional 
approach to fostering clean energy? 
30. To what extent will ECO-Asia CDCP’s activities have a long-term impact in terms of improving GHG 
or other aspects of clean energy in Asia? 
31. How else can ECO-Asia CDCP help promote clean development and climate programs? 
32. What else could ECO-Asia CDCP do to support your priorities? 
Final Program Evaluation 51 
Report: PART I 
Part 3. …for ECO-Asia Staff 
33. Please briefly describe your current position with ECO-Asia CDCP. For how long have you worked 
with ECO-Asia? 
34. ECO Asia works in six areas: (i) PFAN; (ii) Lighting; (iii) Energy efficiency; (iv) Finance; (v) Clean 
energy policies and regulations; and (vi) Knowledge sharing. 
With which of these areas do you work? 
35. In your opinion, which of ECO-Asia’s program initiatives is having the greatest impact? 
36. Do the various CDCP components reinforce one another? If so, how? If not, why? Should they 
reinforce one another? 
37. What are is your overall impressions of the ECO-Asia CDCP program? How would you rate it? [Can it 
be quantified on a scale of 1 – 5, with one being lowest, and 5 being highest?] 
38. In your opinion, do you think ECO-Asia CDCP is providing the appropriate type of assistance to (i) your 
country? or (ii) to the larger Asian Region? 
39. Are you familiar with the ECO-Asia CDCP website? Do you use it to access information? Is it useful? 
40. Do you relate to RDMA? How regularly do you communicate with RDMA? What are your judgments 
about communications with RDMA? Are you satisfied with the quality of communication and coordination 
with RDMA? With USAID/Washington regarding ECO-Asia? 
41. How do you relate to IRG Home Office? Have you had interactions with the HQ? Do you have 
judgments or observations about the Home Office? 
42. Do you coordinate with or relate to other bilateral USG programs that support clean energy and/or 
climate programs in Asia? 
43. From your perspective, is ECO-Asia CDCP primarily working on a bilateral basis (meaning within one 
country?) Or is it mostly working on a Regional basis (meaning it is working with two or more countries on 
the same specific initiatives?) Does it work in parallel? Is this distinction useful or helpful? 
44. Should ECO-Asia CDCP seek to do more to work on/at a Regional level? 
45. When it comes to establishing priorities: 
What is ECO-Asia doing now that it should continue to do? 
What is it not doing that it should be doing? 
Are there things it is doing that it should stop doing? 
46. If there was one thing you could change about the ECO-Asia program, what would that be? 
47. How else can ECO-Asia help promote CDCP? 
Final Program Evaluation 52 
Report: PART I 
Part 4: [For PFAN related actors and stakeholders] 
ECO-ASIA CDCP FINAL EVALUATION: LIST OF 
STAKEHOLDERS CONTACTED 
Thailand 
ECO-Asia CDCP Program Team – IRG 
Peter Du Pont, Chief of Party 
Suneel Parasnis, PFAN Team Leader 
My Ton, Energy Efficient Lighting Team Leader (by phone) 
Mycle Scheneider, Policy Dialogue Team Leader (by phone) 
Thanaporn Kongsawad, Bangkok Office Manager 
Sunantha Koh-Ten, Senior Administrative Assistant 
Vatcharin Rattananam, Regional Accounting and Finance Manager 
Sanjay Kumar, Program Officer – Communications (AED) 
Fred Schlachter, STTA 
Aalok Awalikar, STTA 
PFAN 
Peter Storey, Global PFAN Coordinator (by phone) 
Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE) 
Dr. Bundit Fungtammasan, Director 
Jeffcott Associates 
Stuart Jeffcott (by phone) 
USAID/Vietnam 
Howard Handler, General Development Officer, General Development Office (by phone) 
Eric Johnson, Education Officer, General Development Office (by phone) 
India 
USAID/India 
Jeremy Gustafson, Director, Clean Energy and Environment Office 
Archana Walia, Senior Urban Development and Climate Change Advisor 
ECO-Asia CDCP Program Team – IRG 
Bhaskar Natarajan, Former Country Manager 
Kavita Kaur, Former Deputy Country Manager 
ICIC Bank 
Jaisingh Dumal, Head, Technology Finance Group (by phone) 
Photonix 
Final Program Evaluation 53 
Report: PART I 
Electric Lamp & Component Manufacturers’ Association of India (ELCOMA) 
Shyam Sujan, Secretary General (by phone) 
Sun Group 
Pankaj Sehgal, Managing Director 
Kerela Energy Management Center 
Dharesan Unnithan, Director 
Others 
Nagraja Rao, PFAN Mentor (by phone) 
Rahul Arora, PFAN Mentor 
Joydeep Gupta, Clean Energy Journalist (by phone) 
Indonesia 
USAID/Indonesia 
Edi Setianto, Energy Specialist, Office of Environment 
Ben Stoner, Senior Environment Advisor 
 Trigeany Linggoatmodjo, Program Specialist 
US Embassy to ASEAN 
Elizabeth Spelsberg, ASEAN Liaison 
Joshua Cartin, ASEAN Officer 
Clare Orvis, ASEAN Affairs Officer 
ECO-Asia CDCP Program Team – IRG 
Irman Boyle, Country Manager 
ADVANCE Technical Assistance and Training Facility 
Tim Buehrer 
 Suzanne Young 
IFC 
Nyoman Yogi, Associate Operations Officer 
PT SMI 
Frans Sukardi, Director 
PT. Selo Kencana 
Suwardi 
Kementerian Energi Dan Sumber Daya Mineral Republik 
Maryam Ayuni, Director for Energy Conservation 
PT Bank Central Asia Tbk 
Wira Chandra, Group Head - Corporate Business 
Yuli Melati, Unit Head 
Ms. Yayi Mustika, Relationship Manager 
BAPPENAS 
Jahdie Adrajat 
Final Program Evaluation 54 
Report: PART I 
Australia’s Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 
Melanie Slade, Division Director, Appliance and Equipment Efficiency (by phone) 
Singapore 
Asian Lighting Compact 
Jag Arora, Managing Director 
China 
US Embassy Beijing 
Erica Thomas, Counselor 
Andrew Shaw, Unit Chief Third Country, Energy & Resources 
ECO-Asia CDCP Program Team – IRG 
Miao Hong, Country Manager 
James Wang, Finance Expert 
Electric Power Office of Hebei Province 
Wang Deliang, Vice President 
Hebei Development and Reform Commission DSM Instruction Center 
Chen Gang, Director 
Hebei Province Power Demanding Side Management and Instruction Center 
Aijun Wang, Director 
Tracy Zhao, Director and Project Manager of EPP 
Hebei Fakai Scientific Power Utilization Service Co., Ltd. 
Haixia Lee, Manager 
CLASP 
Steven Zeng, Director of China Program and former ECO-Asia CDCP’s Country Coordinator 
WRI 
Ranping Song, Program Manager & Associate, GHG Protocol China 
Tsinghua University 
Liu Zhenping, Deputy Director of International Transfer Center (ITTC) 
Jpigroup Inc. 
JP Huang, Chairman Emeritus & Chief Strategic Adviser 
NRDC 
Mona Yew, China DSM & Energy Efficiency Project Director 
Yuqi Li, Chief Engineer & Director, DSM Technical Center 
Philippines 
USAID/Philippines 
Final Program Evaluation 55 
Report: PART I 
Rolf Anderson, Office Chief, Office of Environment & Energy 
Lily Gutierrez, Office of Environment & Energy 
Mary Joy Jochico, Development Assistance Specialist, Office of Environment & Energy 
Enrique Gallardo Jr. , Development Assistance Specialist, Office of Environment & Energy 
ECO-Asia CDCP Program Team – IRG 
Laurie Navarro, Former Country Manager 
ADB 
Woochong Um, Director, Sustainable Infrastructure Division, Regional and Sustainable Development 
Department 
Sam Tumiwa, Principal Planning and Coordination Specialist, Regional and Sustainable Development 
Department 
Aiming Zhou, Energy Specialist, Regional and Sustainable Development Department 
Department of Energy 
Raquel Huliganga 
LGU Guarantee Corp 
Lydia Orial 
Irmina Iya 
Security Banking Corporation 
Joy Supan 
Maki Tingson 
Solutions Using Renewable Energy 
Paul Puthenpurekal, CEO (met in Bangkok)
Amertech Industrial Ventures 
Jayme Ancla 
ASEA One Power Corporation 
Ernesto Tan, Senior Vice President & CFO 
Land Bank 
Noemi dela Paz 
ECO-Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 56
56
3. ITINERARY (Revised on 17Feb11, 09.35hrs) 
Dates Location Itinerary Contact Info Locations/Notes 
Fri. Feb. 11-
Sat. Feb. 12 
Lawaetz, Hsu, 
and Garner
Travel Travel from Washington to Bangkok 
Fri, Feb 11: AA 4418 Depart Washington DCA 9.25 am; Arrive 
New York JFK 10.30 am 
Fri, Feb 11: AA 167 Depart New York JFK 11.35 am; Arrive 
Narita 03.30 pm (Sat, Feb 12) 
Sat, Feb 12: AA 5834 Depart Narita 06.05 pm; Arrive Bangkok 
11.15 pm 
Transport: Bangkok 
Airport to Plaza Atheene 
Hotel by taxi 
Plaza Athenee Hotel 
61 Wireless Road, 
Patumwan 
Bangkok 10330 
Tel. +662 650 8800 
Sun. Feb. 13 Bangkok Rest day
6.00am Team Dinner (optional)
Venue: Cabbages and 
Condoms Restaurant, 8 
Sukumvit 12, Klongtoey 
Bangkok (February 14-15) - All
Mon. Feb. 14 Bangkok 8:30am: Arrive at RDMA, work station set-up POC: 
Nattinee Tel. +662 257 3292 
Khan Tel. +662 257 3260 
Orestes Tel. +662 257 3239 
Venue: 
USAID/RDMA Room 2636 
Athenee Tower, 25th Floor 
63 Wireless Road, 
Patumwan Bangkok 10330 
Tel. +662 257 3000 
9:00am-12:30pm: Evaluation Team Coordination Meeting 
12.30pm-1.30pm: Lunch
2:00pm-2 :15pm: Peter du Pont 
– COP; Short Tour, 
Introductions 
POC: 
Peter du Pont, COP, ECO-Asia CDCP 
Tel. +662 615 5104-6 
Mob. +66 81 700 2860 
Venue: 
Monririn Building, B 301 
60/1 Phaholyothin Soi 8 
Bangkok 10400 
2.15pm 
– 3.45pm: IRG/CDCP Staff Briefing: COP: program 
history, operations, management systems, overall achievement 
of results 
3.45pm-5.00pm: Suneel Parasnis, PFAN Team Leader, ECO￾Asia CDCP 
ECO‐Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 57 57
Dates Location Itinerary Contact Info Locations/Notes 
5 :00pm: return to USAID/hotel Transport: RDMA’s Van
Tue. Feb. 15 Bangkok 9.45am-11.00am: PFAN: Paul Puthenpurekal, CEO SURE 
(Solutions Using Renewable Energy), Philippines, 
He is a PFAN finalist. Has closed several deals with assistance 
of PFAN. [Paul will be in Bangkok on 15 Feb and can meet 
with the team in person, either at RDMA or at ECO-Asia 
CDCP Office] 
(Confirmed) 
Mob: +63 920 981 6322 Venue: 
USAID/RDMA Room 2635 
11.00am – 12.00pm: EE Lighting: My Ton, Energy Efficient 
Lighting Team Leader, ECO-Asia CDCP 
(Confirmed) 
Tel: +1 503 706 1191 (US)
Email:myton@cleanenergyasia.net 
BY PHONE
1.30pm-2.15pm: PFAN: Peter Storey, Global PFAN 
Coordinator , (Johannesburg -5hr) (Confirmed) 
Tel: +258 84687 7807 (in Mozambique )
Email: peter.storey@ppl-int.com 
BY PHONE
2.30pm – 3.15pm: Policy Dialogue: Mycle Schneider, ECO-Asia 
CDCP 
(Confirmed) 
Tel: +33 1 69 83 23 79 BY PHONE
3.15pm – 4.15pm: Policy Dialogue: Dr. Bundit Fungtammasan, 
Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE) 
(Confirmed) 
Email:bundit@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th Venue: 
USAID/RDMA Room 2635 
4:15 pm – 5:15 pm Stuart Jeffcott, Jeffcott Associates, 
(Confirmed) 
Email:stuart_jeffcott@yahoo.co.uk
Mob: +44 7773 778 019 
BY PHONE
Delhi (Feb 16-19) - Lawaetz, Warfield, Ram-Indra
Wed. Feb. 16 Travel Travel from Bangkok to Delhi
5:00am - taxi to airport 
TG323 depart Bangkok 7.25 am; arrive Delhi 10.20 am 
Transport: Plaza Atheene Hotel to 
Bangkok Airport by taxi 
Transport: Delhi Airport to The 
Imperial Hotel by Hotel Transfer 
(complimentary for three people) 
Delhi 12.00 pm: Hotel Check-in The Imperial Hotel
Janpath, New Delhi. 110001 
Tel. +91 11 2334 1234 and +91 11 
4150 1234 
ECO‐Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 58 58
Dates Location Itinerary Contact Info Locations/Notes 
12.30pm-01.30pm: Lunch at The Imperial Hotel The Imperial Hotel
02.00pm–3.30 pm: Kavita Kaur, Former Deputy Country 
Manager, ECO-Asia CDCP 
(Confirmed) 
Email:kavita.kaur@gmail.com
Mob. 9810194738 
Venue: Lobby, The Imperial Hotel 
4.30 pm–5.30 pm: ECO-Asia: Bhaskar Natarajan. Former 
Country Manager, ECO-Asia CDCP 
(Confirmed) 
Tel: (91) (11) 41076009 Mobile: (91) 
9971491848 
VAN RENTAL - 
Dr Natarajan, 
Managing Director 
C-Quest Capital Green Ventures Pvt. 
Ltd. 
218, DLF Tower B, Jasola, New Delhi 
110025
Venue: Lobby, The Imperial Hotel 
Thu. Feb. 17 Delhi 8.15 am: Leave Hotel
Transport: Van Rental 
Venue: USAID/India 
American Embassy 
New Delhi - 110 021 
9:00am–10:15am: USAID/India, Jeremy Gustafson (Office 
Director, CLEEO), Archana Walia 
(Confirmed) 
POC: Jeremy Gustafson
Email: jgustafson@usaid.gov 
10.30am-11.00am: PFAN: ICICI Bank. Jaisingh Dumal, Head, 
Technology Finance Group. Co-funder of the PFAN India 
Investor Forum. (Based in Mumbai.) 
BY PHONE 
(TBC) 
Given that we plan to have another call with Photonix at 
11.00am, we'll have only 15 mins for the call with ICIC if we 
start at 10.45am. 15 mins may not be sufficient for the meeting. 
Can we switch this call with other call (a call in afternoon or 
even Photonix)? Pls kindly advise. 
Thank you very much. 
Khan 
Tel. +91-11-2419-8000
11.00am-12.00pm: PFAN: Photonix, Square Engineering 
/Photonix These are the PFAN India finalists for 2010 and will 
share about their experiences about being part of PFAN family 
Tel. 022 – 26537827
Cell: +91-9822061262
ECO‐Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 59 59
Dates Location Itinerary Contact Info Locations/Notes 
BY PHONE
(Confirmed) 
12.00pm-13.00am: Lunch
02.15pm-3.15pm: EE Lighting: ELCOMA. (Indian lighting 
association). Shyam Sujan, Secretary General. CFL and lighting 
harmonization, ALC 
BY PHONE
(Confirmed) 
Tel +91-11-41556644
Tel +91-11-41556644 
Telecon Details: 
Access no:(+91) 11 66194444 
Conference id: 1590419 followed by # 
Pin: 0492 followed by #
Venue: Elcoma
A-448, Lower Ground Floor, 
Defence Colony, 
New Delhi - 110024 
3.00pm-4.00pm: PFAN: Pankaj Sehgal, Managing Director, Sun 
Group, PFAN India Partner 
(Confirmed) 
Mob: 9910444769 Venue: Imperial Hotel 
04.30pm-05.15pm: Nagraja Rao PFAN Mentor for 4 companies 
(Confirmed) 
Cell: 9448474814 BY PHONE 
Fri. Feb. 18 Delhi 10.00am-11.00am: EE Finance: Dharesan Unnithan, Director, 
Kerela Energy Management Center , BY PHONE 
(Confirmed) 
Tel. mobile: +91 94470 64618
+91-471-2594921 (O) and Residence: + 
91 - 471- 2464618 
Venue: Lobby or Khan’s room (for 
call), Imperial Hotel 
Phone: SIM Card provided by IRG 
call from Delhi to Bangkok 
11.00am – 12.00pm: PFAN: Rahul Arora, Independent 
Consultant. Experience as a PFAN mentor in India 
(Confirmed) 
Tel. 098 111 47237
12.00pm-1.00pm: Lunch at The Imperial Hotel The Imperial Hotel
1.30pm: Leave The Imperial Hotel Transport: Van Rental
04.00pm – 5.00pm: Joydeep Gupta 
(Confirmed) 
joydeepgupta1@gmail.com
Email 
Mob. Pathumwan Princess Hotel room 
no 2312 +66 (0) 2216 3700 
BY PHONE
call from Delhi to Bangkok 
Sat. Feb 19
Lawaetz, Ram￾Indra Travel x.xx pm: Leave for Airport 
Travel from Delhi to Beijing 
Transport: The Imperial Hotel to 
Delhi Airport by Hotel Transfer￾complimentary 2 trips (Corina) 
ECO‐Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 60 60
Dates Location Itinerary Contact Info Locations/Notes 
CA 948 depart Delhi 03.15 am (Friday night); arrive Beijing 
11.45 am 
and (Khan/Simone)
Transport: Beijing Airport to 
Westin Chaoyang Hotel by Hotel 
Transfer (two trips are provided 
with cost $90 each trip. 1. For 
Khan/Simone 
2. For David) 
2.00pm (Beijing time): Hotel check-in Westin Chaoyang Hotel
7 North Dongsanhuan Road 
Chaoyang District 
Beijing, Beijing 100027 
Tel. (86)(10) 5922 8888 
Warfield Travel x.xx am: Leave for Airport
Travel from Delhi to Manila 
SQ 405 depart Delhi 08.10 am; arrive Singapore 04.10 pm 
SQ 918 depart Singapore 05.00 pm; arrive Manila 08.30 pm 
Transport: The Imperial Hotel to 
Delhi Airport by Hotel Transfer 
complimentary 2 trips (Corina) 
and (Khan/Simone) 
Transport: Manila Airport to the 
Crowne Plaza Galleria Hotel by 
Hotel Transfer-with charge $31 
per trip for Corina
10.00pm (Manila time): Hotel check-in Crowne Plaza Galleria Manila
Ortigas Avenue corner 
Asian Development Bank Avenue 
Quezon City 1100 
Tel. +632 633-7222 
Jakarta – Singapore (Feb 16-20) – Garner, Hsu, Anastasia
Wed. Feb. 16 Travel 05.45 am: Taxi to airport
Travel from Bangkok to Jakarta 
TG433 depart Bangkok 08.20 am; arrive Jakarta 11.55 am 
Transport: Plaza Atheene Hotel to 
Bangkok Airport by taxi 
Transport : Jakarta airport to 
Borobudur Hotel by Hotel Transfer 
(One trip are provided with 
total cost $29 for 
Sharon/Simone and David—
same ride)
Jakarta 1.00 pm: Hotel check-in Borobudur Hotel
Jalan Lapangan Banteng Selatan, 
P.O.Box 1329, Jakarta 10710 
Tel: (62-21) 3805555 
ECO‐Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 61 61
Dates Location Itinerary Contact Info Locations/Notes 
1.00pm – 2.00pm: Lunch
2:30pm – 4:30pm: ECO-Asia CDCP Country Office, Irman 
Boyle, Country Manager 
(Confirmed) 
Email: boyle@pacific.net.id
Mob: +62818745937 
Venue: Executive Lounge, 
Borobudur Hotel 
4.30pm – 5.30pm: ADVANCE Technical Assistance and 
Training Facility, Tim Buehrer and Suzanne Young (Confirmed) 
POC: Suzanne Young
Email syoung@louisberger.com 
Thu. Feb. 17
Thu. Feb. 17 
Jakarta 
Jakarta
07.30am: Leave hotel Transport: Van Rental (Arranged by 
Meilan) 
08.30am – 9:30am: USAID/Indonesia, Alfred Nakatsuma, Edi 
Setianto, Ben Stoner, Trigeany Linggoatmodjo 
(Confirmed) 
POC: Edi Setianto
Email esetianto@usaid.gov 
Tel +62 213435 9361 
Mob +62 811-802-549 
Venue: USAID/Indonesia
American Embassy 
JI. Medan Merdeka Selatan 3-5 
Jakarta 10110 
9:30am – 10:00am: US Embassy to ASEAN, Elizabeth 
Spelsberg, Joshua Cartin, and Clare Orvis 
(Confirmed) 
POC: Elizabeth Spelsberg
Email: SpelsbergEA@state.gov 
11.00am-12.00pm: PFAN: Nyoman Yogi, Associate Operations 
Officer, IFC. Financial Institution Partner (Confirmed)
(After 12pm Yogi has another meeting until afternoon) 
Email:NSugiani@ifc.org
Mob: +62 812 386 5544 
IFC Office: Indonesia Stock 
Exchange Building, Tower 2, 9th 
floor Jl. Jendral Sudirman Kavling 
52 
1.00pm-2.00pm: Lunch Gedung Bursa Efek Jakarta, or
Hotel Borobudur (leave the hotel at 
2 pm for the next meeting with PT 
SMI 
2.00pm-3.00pm: EE Lighting Melanie Slade
TBC with Orestes
Gedung Bursa Efek (25Mins)
Hotel Borobudur (45Mins)
3.00pm-4.00pm: PFAN: Frans Sukardi, Director of PT SMI
SMI is a non-bank financial institution established by the 
Ministry of Finance to provide financings for infrastructure 
projects. In energy sector, SMI focuses its initial efforts on 
minihydro power projects. ECO-Asia CDCP has been 
working with SMI on the due diligence for about 2 minihydro 
power projects. One, the 10 MW Pakkat Minihydrop Power 
Plant in North Sumatera, has successfully reached financial 
close in December 2010, a second project closing for ECO 
Email: Carla@ptsmi.co.id
Tel: +62 21 5785 1313
Gedung BRI 2, 29th Floor
Jl. Jenderal Sudirman Kav. 44-46 
Jakarta 10210 
ECO‐Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 62 62
Dates Location Itinerary Contact Info Locations/Notes 
Asia. ECO Asia is introducing some other minihydro power 
projects for SMI's financing. 
(Confirmed) 
5.00pm:6.00pm: PT. Selo Kencana: Mr. Suwardi and team 
(Confirmed) 
Rudy Sunggoro
Mob: +62 21 3232 0676 
Executive Lounge
Hotel Borobudur 
Fri. Feb. 18 Jakarta 7.00 pm: Leave hotel Transport: Van rental (Arranged by 
Meilan) 
8.00am-9.00am: Meeting to Mrs. Maryam Ayuni
Director for Energy Conservation 
(Mr. Luluk Sumiarso is not available due to overseas travel) 
(Confirmed)
ESDM Office: Kementerian Energi 
Dan Sumber Daya Mineral Republik 
Indonesia. Direktorat Jenderal 
Energi Baru Terbarukan & 
Konseravasi Energi. Jl. Jendral Gatot 
Subroto Kav. 49 Jakarta 
10am – 11am: PFAN: Wira Chandra, Group Head -
Corporate Business, PT Bank Central Asia Tbk. Bank Partner 
, Ms. Yuli Melati – Unit Head, Ms. Yayi Mustika – Relationship 
Manager. 
(Confirmed) 
christina_ruth@bca.co.id BCA Tower (Menara BCA), Grand 
Indonesia 
27th Floor, 
Jl. M.H. Thamrin No. 1, 
Jakarta 10310 
12.00pm-1.00pm: Lunch Grand Indonesia
3.15pm-4.15pm: Jahdie Adrajat, BAPPENAS 
(Confirmed) 
Venue: BAPPENAS Office
Jl. Taman Suropati No. 1 
Jakarta Pusat 
Garner, Hsu, 
Anastasia
Travel 5.00 pm: leave for airport
Travel from Jakarta to Singapore 
(Hsu, Anastasia) SQ 967 depart Jakarta 08.20 p m; arrive 
Singapore 10.55 pm 
(Garner) LH0779 depart Jakarta 08.15pm; arrive Singapore 
10.40 pm 
Transport: Borobudur Hotel to 
Jakarta Airport by Hotel Transfer 
($29 charge for all travellers - 
same ride) (Arranged by 
Manggo/RDMA team) 
Transport : Singapore airport to 
Orchard Hotel by taxi 
Singapore 12.00 am: Hotel Check-in Orchard Hotel
442 Orchard Road 
ECO‐Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 63 63
Dates Location Itinerary Contact Info Locations/Notes 
Singapore 238879
Tel. +65 6734 7766 
Sat. Feb 19 Singapore 09.30 am – 11.30pm: EE Lighting: ALC. Jag Arora, Managing 
Director 
(Confirmed) 
POC: Jag Arora
Email: jag.arora@asialighting.org 
Mob.: +65 900 555 47 
Transport: Taxi
Venue : 
Asia Lighting Compact, 
Strathmore Building, 
Tanglin International Centre, 
352, Tanglin Road, 
#01-10, 
Singapore 247671. 
(directions for driver: enter through 
gate C that is directly opposite the 
Esso petrol station after the Brunei 
Embassy) 
12.00 pm-1.00 pm: Lunch with Jag Arora Venue : TBD
Sun. Feb 20
Hsu, Anastasia Travel
10.00am: Leave for airport 
Travel from Singapore to Manila 
SQ 912 depart Singapore 12.30 pm; arrive Manila 04.00 pm 
Transport : Orchard Hotel to 
Singapore Airport byTaxi 
Transport : Manila airport to 
Crowne Plaza Galleria Hotel by 
hotel transfer ($31 charge for 
Sharon/Orestes-same ride 
06.00 pm (Manila time): Hotel check-in Crowne Plaza Galleria Manila
Ortigas Avenue corner 
Asian Development Bank Avenue 
Quezon City 1100 
Tel. +632 633-7222 
Garner Travel xx.xxam: Leave for airport
Travel from Singapore to Beijing 
TBD 
Transport :Orchard Hotel to 
Singapore Airport by Taxi 
Transport : Beijing Airport to 
Westin Chaoyang Hotel by Hotel 
Transfer 
xx.xx pm (Beijing time): Hotel check-in Westin Chaoyang Hotel
7 North Dongsanhuan Road 
Chaoyang District 
Beijing, Beijing 100027 
Tel. (86)(10) 5922 8888 
ECO‐Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 64 64
Dates Location Itinerary Contact Info Locations/Notes 
Beijing & Shijiazhang (Feb 20-23) – Garner, Lawaetz, Ram-Indra
Sun. Feb 20 Beijing Rest day 
Mon. Feb 21 Beijing x.xx am: Leave hotel for train station Accompanied by Hong
Translator: arranged by IRG 
Transport: Taxi 
Travel 9:29 am – 11:31 am: Travel from Beijing to Shijiazhang (by 2 
hours speed train)( Train reference no.- D4565) 
Ticket : Arranged by IRG
Local Transport in Shijiazhang by 
Hebei Fakai 
Shijiazhang 12.30 pm-1.45 pm: Working (Simple) Lunch Lunch with people whom we are 
going to meet next. 
2.30pm–6.00pm: EE Finance: Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province 
(proposed all in one meeting) 
 Mr. QIAO Xiaolin, Director of Power Office of 
Hebei Provincial DRC 
 Mr. CHEN Gang, Director, Hebei DSM Center 
 Ms. ZHAO Cuicui, Deputy General Manager of 
Hebei Fakai Co
Travel 20.49 pm – 22:52 pm: Travel from Shijiazhang to Beijing (by 2 
hours speed train)(Train reference no.- D4562) 
Beijing 8.00 pm: Leave for hotel Transport: Taxi
Tue. Feb 22 Beijing 8:30 am – 10:30 am: ECO-Asia Country Office
(Confirmed) 
POC: Hong Miao Transport: Van Rental 
Venue: ECO-Asia Country Office 
10.30 am – 11.30 am: EE Lighting: Marti Willemsen. Director 
CFL Lighting Global, Lighting Asia, GE. Founding Chair of ALC 
and current ALC Board Member. (Based in Shanghai) BY 
PHONE 
(Confirmed) 
11.30 pm-1.00pm: Meeting and Lunch with CLASP, Steven 
Zeng, Country Director (Former ECO-Asia CDCP Country 
Manager) 
(TBC) 
Venue: Simple Restaurant around 
ECO-Asia Country Office 
1.45 pm – 3.45 pm: US Embassy ESTH section, DOE, and 
USAID 
(Confirmed) 
POC: Tahra Vose
Email: vosetl2@state.gov 
Tel: 86-10-8531-4793 
Mob: 139-1056-2726 
Venue: US Embassy Beijing
ECO‐Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 65 65
Dates Location Itinerary Contact Info Locations/Notes 
4.00 pm-5.00 pm: WRI 
(Confirmed) 
Venue: Executive Club Lounge, 
Westin Chaoyang Beijing (4.00-5.00 
pm) 
Wed. Feb 23 Beijing 9.00am–10.15am: Others: Mr. LIU Zhengping, Deputy 
Director of ITTC/Coway (Institute Technology Transfer 
Center, of Tsinghua University). 
(Confirmed) 
Venue: Executive Club Lounge, 
Westin Chaoyang Beijing (8.00-
10.00 pm) 
Phone: SIM Card 
provided by IRG 
10.30 am: Hotel Check-out and Leave hotel Transport: Van rental
11.00am–12.00am: PFAN: JP Huang, JPI Group. PFAN China 
partner, who has participated in PFAN China activities over 
the past two years 
(Confirmed) 
Venue: JPI Office
11.45am -12.45pm: Lunch at JP Office Venue: JPI Office
1.00pm-2.00pm Meeting with NRDC
(Confirmed) 
Venue:
2.00pm: Leave for Airport Venue:
Travel Travel from Beijing to Bangkok
TG 615 depart Beijing 5:05 pm; arrive Bangkok 9:20 pm 
Transport: To Beijing Airport by 
Van Rental 
Bangkok Airport to Plaza Atheene 
Hotel by taxi 
11.00 pm (Bangkok time): Hotel check-in Plaza Athenee Hotel
61 Wireless Road, Patumwan 
Bangkok 10330 
Tel. +662 650 8800 
Manila (Feb 20-23) – Hsu, Warfield, Anastasia 
Sun. 20 Feb Manila Rest day
Mon.21 Feb Manila 9.00am-10.00 am: EE Lighting Ms. Raquel Huliganga
(Confirmed) 
Email: raquelh@doe.gov.ph
Tel: +632 4792900 loc. 246 
Mob: + 632 0917 825 0162 
Venue: Crowne Plaza Galleria
10.00 am: Leave hotel TOYOTA INNOVA: PTO 804
DRIVER'S NAME: LENIN RAMOS 
MOBILEPHONE #: 09223063538 
+ 63 917 891 6531 
Transport: Van Rental
Driver Lenin was advised by Ms. 
Len Jimenez to bring list of vege 
restaurants for the guest's 
ECO‐Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 66 66
Dates Location Itinerary Contact Info Locations/Notes 
Coy: Chief Operations Officer
+63 917 590 2269 
Rex: Program Asst. 
+63 939 353 7695 
preference
10.30am-12.00pm: PFAN: Meeting with LGU Guarantee Corp., 
Ms. Lydia Orial and Ms. Irmina Iya 
 (Confirmed) 
Office: +632 7518764 to 68
Email: 
iviya@lgugc.bayandsl.ph 
Venue: 28F Antel Corporate 
Centre, 121 Valero St., Salcedo 
Village, Makati City 
12.30pm-1.30pm: Lunch 
2.30pm-4.00pm: PFAN: Meeting with Security Banking 
Corporation, Ms. Joy Supan and Ms. Maki Tingson (Confirmed) 
Office: +632 888 7243
Email: 
jsupan@securitybank.com.ph
Venue: 18F Conference Room, 
Security Bank Centre, 6776 Ayala 
Avenue, Makati City 
5.30 pm – 7.30 pm: ECO Asia CDCP Team: Laurie Navarro 
(Confirmed) 
Lobby, Crowne Plaza Galleria, 
Ortigas Ave. corner ADB Ave., 
Ortigas Center 
Tue. 22 Feb Manila 8.30am-10.00am Meeting with Amertech Industrial Ventures 
Mr. Jayme Ancla 
(Confirmed) 
Crowne Plaza Galleria, Ortigas Ave. 
corner ADB Ave., Ortigas Center 
Venue: Lobby, Crowne Plaza 
Galleria 
Amertech Industrial Ventures is the 
winner of the Nov. 16 Investor 
Deal Flow Session business plan 
competition 
10.00am: Leave hotel Transport: Taxi
10.30am-12.00pm: PFAN: Meeting with ASEA One Power 
Corporation, Ernesto Tan 
(Confirmed) 
Office: +632 5018916
Email: 
finance_apc@apc.ph 
evtan55@gmail.com 
Venue : 20F Fort Legend Tower, 
3rd Street cor 31st Ave., Fort 
Bonifacio, Taguig 
12.00pm-12.45pm: Lunch
1.30 pm –3.30 pm: Regional Cooperation: ADB (Confirmed)
 Woochong Um, Director, Sustainable Infrastructure 
Division, Regional and Sustainable Development 
Department (RSDD). Senior contact and supervisor 
for Asia Clean Energy Forum and related 
cooperative activities with USAID ECO-Asia CDCP 
(TBC) 
 Sam Tumiwa, Principal Planning and Coordination 
Specialist, RSDD. Main liaison contact for USAID in 
ADB. Co-chair of the Asia Clean Energy Forum for 
POC: Aiming Zhou
Tel: +632 632 5602 
Email: AZHOU@ADB.ORG 
Venue : ADB, Room 4120E
ECO‐Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 67 67
Dates Location Itinerary Contact Info Locations/Notes 
2007-2010.
 Aiming Zhou, Energy Specialist, RSDD. Co-chair of 
the Asia Clean Energy Forum for 2011. 
 Aiming’s boss 
Wed. 23 Feb Manila 07.30 am: Leave hotel Transport: Van Rental 
08.30 am – 09:30: USAID/Philippines/OEE. Rolf Anderson, Lily 
Gutierrez, Mary Joy Jochico, Enrique Gallardo Jr. 
(Confirmed) 
POC: Leonila Gutierrez
Email: lgutierrez@usaid.gov 
Venue: 8/F PNB Financial Center, 
Pres. Diosdado Macapagal Blvd., 
Pasay City 
10.30am-12.00pm: PFAN Meeting with Land Bank of the 
Philippines, Ms. Noemi dela Paz, ( 
Land Bank is a PFAN Partner and they co-sponsored the 16 
Nov. Dealflow session. 
(Confirmed) 
Office: +632 4057340
Email: ndelapaz@mail.landbank.com 
Venue: Land Bank Plaza
1598 M.H. del Pilar cor. Dr. J. 
Quintos Sts., Malate, Manila 
Travel Travel from Manila to Bangkok
TG 621 depart Manila 02.55 pm; arrive Bangkok 05.10 pm 
Transport: To Manila Airport by 
Van Rental 
Bangkok Airport to Plaza Atheene 
Hotel by taxi 
07.00 pm (Bangkok time): Hotel check-in Plaza Athenee Hotel
61 Wireless Road, Patumwan 
Bangkok 10330 
Tel. +662 650 8800 
Bangkok (Feb 24-25) – All
Thu. 24 Feb Bangkok 9.00am-10.00am: Nick Keyes, Team Leader- Communication, 
ECO-Asia CDCP 
(Confirmed) 
USAID/RDMA, Room 2635
10.00am-11.00am: USAID/Vietnam (BY PHONE) (Confirmed) POC: 
Frater, Eric M (Hanoi) 
fraterem@state.gov
Handler, Howard R. (HANOI/GDO) 
hhandler@usaid.gov
Johnson, Eric M (HANOI/GDO) 
ericjohnson@usaid.gov
Tel. +84 4 3935 1244. (Howard) 
+84-4-3850-5017 (Eric F) 
11.00am-12.00am: Evaluation Team coordination meeting
(Confirmed) 
ECO‐Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 68 68
Dates Location Itinerary Contact Info Locations/Notes 
12.00pm-1.00pm: Lunch
1.00pm-5.00pm - presentation preparation, report drafting, ad 
hoc meetings 
Fri. 25 Feb Bangkok 9:00am - presentation preparation, report drafting, ad hoc 
meetings 
(Continued) 
 USAID/RDMA, Room 2635
Lunch 
Presentation preparation, report drafting, ad hoc meetings 
(Continued) 
3.30 – 5.00pm - Evaluation Team presentation to 
USAID/RDMA on Findings and Recommendations 
 USAID/RDMA, Director 
Conference Room 
Sat. 26 Feb
Garner, 
Lawaetz, and 
Hsu 
Travel 
05.45: Leave for airport 
Sat, Feb 26 AA 5835 depart Bangkok 08.15 am; arrive Narita 
04.05 pm 
Sat, Feb 26 AA 154 depart Narita 07.00 pm; arrive Chicago 
Ord 03.50 pm 
Sat, Feb 26 AA 1544 depart Chicago Ord 5.45 pm; arrive 
Washington DCA 08.30 pm 
Transport: Plaza Atheene to airport 
by Taxi 
Travel to DC – AA5835 depart Bangkok 8:15am
ECO-Asia Clean Development and Climate Program: Final Program Evaluation 69 
 
69