Most renewable projects do not lose bank interest because the technology is unfamiliar. They lose it because the lender cannot see a clean path from permits, grid rights, revenue, construction risk, and sponsor equity into repayable cash flow.
Short answer: Banks financing renewable energy projects usually look for late-stage assets with committed sponsor equity, secured site rights, credible grid and permit evidence, a bankable revenue route, experienced EPC and O&M counterparties, insurance, environmental and social risk controls, and a data room that supports debt sizing. The faster those items are proven, the shorter the lender conversation becomes.
That is the practical point for developers, sellers, investors, EPCs, and procurement teams.
A bank does not start by asking whether renewable energy is attractive. It starts by asking whether this specific project can survive delay, underperformance, curtailment, contract failure, equipment problems, tax or incentive uncertainty, and a downside case without missing debt service.
If your answer is buried across emails, draft permits, old grid studies, and an optimistic model, the bank will slow down.
If your answer is clear, evidenced, and sequenced, the bank can underwrite.
Which banks finance renewable energy projects?
Short answer: the right lender depends on project stage, technology, country, revenue route, sponsor balance sheet, debt size, and whether the project needs commercial debt, public credit support, concessional capital, equipment finance, or a refinancing path.
For a developer, the first mistake is to ask, “Which bank is best?”
The better question is, “Which lender type is structurally able to say yes to this risk?”
| Lender type | Best fit | What they will test first | Common mismatch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial project finance bank | Late-stage solar, wind, BESS, hydro, geothermal, or hybrid projects with predictable cash flow | Revenue contract, grid rights, permits, EPC package, sponsor equity, downside DSCR, security package | Approaching before permits, interconnection, or revenue strategy are credible |
| Infrastructure or development bank | Strategic projects, emerging-market assets, grid, storage, regional transition programs, public-private structures | Development impact, bankability, procurement process, E&S standards, government or offtaker risk | Treating public finance as a substitute for project readiness |
| Green bank or climate finance entity | Underserved markets, distributed generation, community or state-backed clean energy programs, credit enhancement | Public benefit, leverage of private capital, target market gap, borrower eligibility, program rules | Assuming every green bank is a deposit-taking bank or a universal project lender |
| Export credit agency or equipment-linked lender | Projects tied to eligible equipment, country exports, large procurement packages, manufacturer-backed supply | Supplier eligibility, country risk, buyer credit, delivery schedule, warranties, local-content rules | Using the lender too late after the supplier package is already locked |
| Debt fund or private credit lender | Bridge capital, construction risk, smaller portfolios, special situations, merchant or nonstandard structures | Collateral, margin of safety, exit route, sponsor quality, control rights | Expecting bank pricing for risks that banks cannot yet underwrite |
| Corporate lender | Balance-sheet-backed sponsors, EPCs, asset owners, developers with recurring cash flow | Borrower credit, corporate covenants, asset base, liquidity, portfolio performance | Trying to finance a standalone project that needs true project finance treatment |
This is why a financing strategy should be built before the lender list.
If you are still deciding whether the asset is ready for lender diligence, start with the renewable energy project finance guide. If the model itself is the weak point, use the renewable project finance model template before sending a package to banks.
Why does bankability matter more in 2026?
Renewable energy is no longer a small financing niche. That helps good projects. It also makes weak projects easier for lenders to reject.
Market context: IRENA reported that renewable power capacity reached 5,149 GW at the end of 2025 after 692 GW of additions, with solar and wind accounting for 96.8% of net renewable additions. The IEA’s 2026 investment context points to total energy investment of about USD 3.4 trillion in 2026, with clean energy at about USD 2.2 trillion.
Sources: IRENA Renewable Capacity Highlights 2026 and IEA financing context.
Those numbers create opportunity, but they do not remove lender discipline.
Banks still need a project that can be monitored, controlled, insured, built, operated, and repaid. In markets where capital is more expensive, the lender will also ask whether project risks have been allocated to parties that can actually carry them.
The IEA and IFC have warned that emerging and developing economies outside China need a far larger flow of private finance for clean energy, and that higher cost of capital often reflects real and perceived country, sector, and project risks. That does not mean banks are closed to renewables. It means the project has to earn bank attention with evidence.
For a seller, bankability can lift buyer confidence.
For an investor, bankability can reduce wasted diligence.
For an EPC, bankability can decide whether the proposal is seen as executable or merely priced.
What should be true before you approach banks?
Short answer: a renewable project should not approach banks with only a pitch deck. It should approach with a lender package that proves the asset is at the right stage, has a defined revenue route, and has an evidence trail for every assumption in the model.
| Readiness gate | What the bank wants to see | What happens if it is weak |
|---|---|---|
| Project stage | Clear development status, target COD, remaining milestones, and stop/go dependencies | The conversation shifts from debt sizing to development-risk capital |
| Sponsor equity | Committed or credible equity plan, not just a hope that debt will fund the gap | The lender assumes the capital stack is not real yet |
| Site control | Land lease, option, rooftop rights, easements, access, and assignment rights | Collateral and step-in rights become uncertain |
| Grid and interconnection | Queue position, study status, cost exposure, curtailment risk, export/import rights for storage | Debt capacity is cut or the bank waits |
| Permits | Issued permits, pending permits, appeal risk, conditions precedent, local approvals | Construction debt may be unavailable until conditions are resolved |
| Revenue route | PPA, CfD, tolling agreement, feed-in mechanism, merchant case, corporate offtake, capacity or ancillary services logic | The bank applies heavier downside cases or rejects the profile |
| EPC and equipment | Bankable contractor, liquidated damages, warranties, delivery dates, supplier evidence, interface responsibility | Construction completion risk moves back to the sponsor |
| Operations plan | O&M scope, asset management, availability guarantees, spare parts, monitoring, cybersecurity where relevant | The lender questions operating cash-flow stability |
| Financial model | Transparent assumptions, debt sizing cases, sensitivity tabs, tax and incentive treatment, source links | The model becomes a diligence problem instead of a decision tool |
| E&S risk | Environmental and social screening, land and community evidence, mitigation plan, lender-standard documentation | The bank may require new studies, delay approval, or decline |
Do not treat this as paperwork.
This is the lender’s map from risk to repayment.
How is this different from an investment bank?
A commercial project finance bank lends money.
An investment bank or adviser helps arrange a transaction, raise capital, sell an asset, run a buyer process, or structure a financing package.
The distinction matters because many searchers use “bank” loosely.
| Question | Commercial lender | Investment bank or adviser |
|---|---|---|
| Primary role | Provide debt or credit support | Advise, arrange, market, negotiate, or coordinate capital |
| Main concern | Will the borrower repay under base and downside cases? | Can the transaction close with the right capital or buyer? |
| Best timing | When project evidence is mature enough for underwriting | Before or during a capital raise, sale, refinance, or strategic process |
| Output | Term sheet, credit approval, loan documents, drawdown conditions | Capital strategy, process materials, lender/buyer outreach, transaction execution |
If you need an adviser-selection framework, read the renewable energy investment banks guide. If you already know you need debt, this page is about preparing for the lender’s decision.
What financing structures do renewable lenders use?
Short answer: banks do not offer one generic renewable energy loan. They match a financing structure to project stage, revenue certainty, construction risk, sponsor support, asset size, and exit route.
| Structure | Where it fits | What must be clear before a bank can move |
|---|---|---|
| Construction loan | Ready-to-build projects moving into EPC notice to proceed | Permits, grid, EPC contract, contingency, insurance, equity funding, completion tests |
| Term loan | Operating or near-COD assets with stable contracted cash flow | COD evidence, production history or resource case, revenue contract, O&M, reserve accounts |
| Mini-perm | Projects that need bank debt now and refinancing later | Refinancing assumptions, tail risk, lender takeout logic, marketability of the asset |
| Back-leverage debt | Sponsor-level borrowing against equity distributions from a project | Distribution forecast, tax equity or senior debt restrictions, holding-company security |
| Tax-equity bridge or incentive bridge | Jurisdictions where tax credits, grants, or incentive receipts arrive after spend | Eligibility, timing, monetization path, transferability, recapture risk, legal opinions where needed |
| Warehouse or aggregation facility | Distributed solar, storage, efficiency, or smaller project portfolios | Standard contracts, repeatable underwriting, portfolio data, customer credit, servicing process |
| Equipment finance or lease | Commercial solar, storage, EV charging, or equipment-heavy owner projects | Equipment title, residual value, supplier strength, installation risk, owner credit |
| Refinancing or project bond | Operating portfolios with seasoning, stable reporting, and larger scale | Performance history, covenant compliance, rating or investor evidence, cash-flow stability |
Do not start by asking for the cheapest structure.
Start by asking which structure your evidence can support today.
For solar-specific debt, see loans for solar projects. For utility-scale solar capital stacks, see solar farm financing. For C&I onsite projects, see commercial solar financing.
What does a lender test first?
The first bank conversation is not really about a headline loan amount.
It is about whether the bank can see the risk stack clearly enough to spend underwriting time.
The first lender screen:
- Is the borrower or project company clearly identified?
- Is the asset at a financeable stage?
- Is the revenue route contracted, regulated, hedged, or merchant?
- Are land, permits, and grid rights assignable and enforceable?
- Can the EPC and equipment package survive lender diligence?
- Does the base case still work after realistic downside cases?
- Who contributes equity, and when?
- What can the lender control if something goes wrong?
If those answers are vague, the lender will not fix the project for you.
It will ask for more information, lower leverage, require a guarantee, suggest a different product, or step away.
What should be in the first bank data room?
A good bank data room is not the largest possible upload. It is a controlled evidence package that lets the lender move from screening to underwriting without chasing basic facts.
| Folder | Minimum contents | Commercial purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Project overview | One-page project summary, ownership chart, milestone schedule, financing ask, use of proceeds | Shows what the bank is being asked to finance |
| Site and rights | Land lease or option, access rights, easements, title items, rooftop or host agreements where relevant | Supports collateral, construction access, and step-in analysis |
| Grid and permits | Interconnection studies, queue evidence, grid cost estimate, permits, appeal status, compliance register | Controls schedule, cost, and operating risk |
| Revenue | PPA, tolling agreement, offtaker credit support, merchant forecast, certificate treatment, curtailment assumptions | Drives debt sizing and cash-flow stability |
| Technical package | Layout, design basis, resource study, yield report, battery sizing where relevant, independent engineer notes | Tests whether production and availability assumptions are credible |
| EPC and suppliers | EPC contract or heads of terms, supplier quotes, warranties, delivery schedule, liquidated damages, interface matrix | Allocates construction and equipment risk |
| Operations | O&M agreement, asset management scope, monitoring plan, spare parts, insurance, performance reporting | Shows how cash flow will be protected after COD |
| Financial model | Unlocked model, assumptions log, source links, sensitivity cases, drawdown schedule, debt sizing, covenant calculations | Lets credit teams test repayment under downside cases |
| Legal and E&S | Corporate documents, major contracts, permits, land evidence, environmental studies, community records, E&S action plan | Reduces approval, reputational, and enforcement risk |
Use the renewable energy market research guide to date and label market evidence. Use supplier due diligence before you rely on module, inverter, battery, turbine, transformer, or EPC claims in a lender package.
Where do banks usually say no?
Banks rarely reject strong projects for one cosmetic issue.
They reject projects when several small uncertainties combine into an unfinanceable repayment risk.
Common bankability red flags:
- The project says it is ready-to-build, but grid costs or permits are still unresolved.
- The revenue case depends on merchant upside, but the downside case cannot service debt.
- The EPC offer has an attractive price but weak delivery, delay, warranty, or interface protection.
- The sponsor equity is “expected” rather than committed.
- The model has hard-coded assumptions with no source trail.
- The offtaker, host, or buyer credit story is not documented.
- Land, access, permits, or grid rights cannot be assigned to the lender or project company.
- Environmental and social issues are treated as a late legal task instead of a financing condition.
The fix is not a louder pitch.
The fix is a sharper evidence pack.
How do banks look at different renewable technologies?
A solar project, a wind project, a battery storage asset, and a geothermal development do not create the same lender questions.
The bank’s credit lens follows the risk that can break repayment.
| Technology | Lender focus | Prepare this before outreach | Relevant WEM guide |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utility solar | Interconnection, PPA or merchant exposure, EPC price validity, module supply, curtailment, tax or incentive timing | Grid study, land package, EPC quote, yield report, downside model, offtake evidence | Solar project investment |
| Commercial solar | Host credit, roof or site rights, load profile, self-consumption, lease/PPA terms, landlord consent | Interval load, site control, customer contract, roof report, ownership route, equipment package | Commercial solar financing |
| Wind | Resource quality, turbine supply, grid, permitting, community risk, wake losses, curtailment | P50/P90 resource analysis, turbine package, permit status, grid evidence, transport and construction plan | Wind power investments |
| BESS | Revenue stack, degradation, augmentation, fire safety, dispatch rights, merchant exposure, warranties | MW/MWh design, interconnection rights, revenue model, battery warranty, safety package, dispatch strategy | Battery storage investment |
| Geothermal | Resource risk, drilling stage, temperature and flow evidence, capex to next milestone, offtake, subsurface uncertainty | Resource studies, well data, independent technical review, staged capital plan, stop-loss gates | Geothermal investment |
| Green hydrogen | Offtake, power supply, electrolyzer performance, water, policy support, infrastructure, counterparty strength | Offtake term sheet, power sourcing, water and permit plan, technology package, incentive and compliance evidence | Green hydrogen investment |
This is also where procurement affects finance.
A cheap component can become expensive if the warranty is weak, the supplier cannot assign rights, the delivery date is uncertain, or the bank cannot diligence the counterparty. Before you lock the package, use the renewable energy procurement guide and then source through the World Energy Market marketplace when equipment evidence and supplier fit matter.
How do green banks and public finance fit?
Green banks, development banks, and public credit programs can be valuable, but they are not a shortcut around commercial discipline.
The US Environmental Protection Agency describes green banks as public, quasi-public, or nonprofit financing entities that leverage public and private capital for clean energy goals. That definition matters because a green bank may offer credit enhancement, co-investment, subsidized loans, or program support, but it may also be limited by geography, public-benefit mandate, eligible borrower type, or technology rules.
The European Investment Bank’s energy lending policy shows another public-finance lens: lender criteria can be tied to climate alignment, energy infrastructure, innovation, renewable energy, and transition objectives. In practice, this means the application must satisfy both project bankability and policy fit.
| Public finance route | What it can help with | What it will not solve alone |
|---|---|---|
| Green bank | Market gaps, underserved borrowers, local programs, credit enhancement, smaller clean energy portfolios | Weak contracts, missing site rights, unrealistic savings or revenue assumptions |
| Development bank or multilateral lender | Country risk, emerging-market scale-up, blended finance, environmental and social standards, long tenor | Poor procurement, unclear offtaker risk, incomplete permits, unready sponsors |
| Loan guarantee or public credit support | Risk sharing, lower barriers for certain eligible projects, lender confidence | Eligibility gaps, incomplete diligence, lack of repayment capacity |
| Export credit support | Equipment-linked financing, sovereign or buyer credit support, supplier-country backing | Bad project economics, weak installation partner, unclear grid or revenue rights |
Use public finance where it matches the project.
Do not use it as a patch for missing evidence.
What environmental and social standards can affect bank approval?
For larger projects and cross-border lenders, environmental and social risk is not a side file.
It can decide whether the bank can approve the transaction.
The Equator Principles position themselves as a financial-industry benchmark for identifying, assessing, and managing environmental and social risk in projects. The IFC Performance Standards provide lender-recognized guidance for identifying and managing project-level environmental and social risks, including stakeholder engagement and disclosure obligations.
This matters before a deal because lenders want to know whether land, biodiversity, community, labor, cultural heritage, health, safety, and grievance risks have been identified early enough to manage.
If you discover those risks after the credit committee has already shaped a term sheet, you have made the financing harder than it needed to be.
What should the first lender email include?
The first lender approach should be short enough to read and specific enough to qualify.
Do not send a generic deck to twenty banks and hope one replies.
Send a disciplined note to a short list of lenders that already finance your project type, country, stage, and debt size.
Copy-ready lender approach note:
We are preparing debt financing for a [technology] project in [country/market]. The project is at [stage], with [site rights], [grid/interconnection status], [permit status], [revenue route], and [sponsor equity status]. We are seeking [debt type] for [use of proceeds] with target financial close in [date]. A lender data room is ready with project, grid, permit, revenue, EPC, model, legal, insurance, and E&S materials. Would this fit your current power and renewables lending mandate?
That paragraph does more than ask for money.
It lets the lender say, “yes, send the teaser,” “too early,” “wrong market,” “wrong ticket size,” or “we need a different structure.”
That is useful feedback.
How should developers shortlist banks?
A lender shortlist should not be a logo list.
It should be a reasoned match between lender appetite and project evidence.
| Shortlist criterion | Good sign | Weak sign |
|---|---|---|
| Technology fit | The lender has recent activity in your technology or adjacent asset class | The lender says it likes renewables but cannot name its risk lens |
| Stage appetite | It clearly distinguishes development, RTB, construction, operating, and refinancing risk | It asks for fully de-risked terms while marketing itself as flexible |
| Country and currency fit | It understands local offtake, grid, permits, FX, security, and enforcement issues | It underwrites from a different market template without local evidence |
| Ticket size | The requested debt amount fits its published or demonstrated range | The project is too small for the lender’s process or too large for its balance sheet |
| Product fit | It can provide construction, term, bridge, back-leverage, equipment, or portfolio debt as needed | It tries to force every project into one product |
| Execution role | It can lead, club, participate, syndicate, or coordinate agency roles clearly | No clear answer on credit process, timeline, or hold level |
| Due diligence clarity | It explains third-party reports, model standards, E&S requirements, and approval path early | It waits until late process to introduce major conditions |
If the project is heading into a sale process rather than only a debt raise, use WEM Projects to frame the asset for qualified buyers and investors before lender conversations fragment the story.
How do banks compare contracted and merchant revenue?
A contracted project is easier for many banks because repayment can be tied to a defined offtaker, tenor, price formula, and default regime.
A merchant or partially merchant project can still be financeable, especially in mature power markets or for storage revenue stacks, but the bank will ask harder questions.
| Revenue route | Bank question | Evidence to prepare |
|---|---|---|
| Utility PPA or CfD | Is the offtaker creditworthy, enforceable, and aligned with project term? | Signed contract, credit support, curtailment language, change-in-law treatment |
| Corporate PPA | Can the buyer pay, take delivery, and survive market stress? | Buyer credit review, load evidence, contract tenor, termination rights, certificate treatment |
| Merchant power | What happens when prices, capture rates, congestion, or curtailment move against the base case? | Independent market forecast, downside case, hedge options, reserve strategy |
| BESS revenue stack | Which revenue products are contracted, forecast, capped, or dispatch-dependent? | Market rules, dispatch model, degradation case, warranty impact, tolling or floor terms |
| Commercial onsite savings | Is the host credit and site tenure strong enough to support repayment? | Host financials, load profile, tariff evidence, lease or ownership term, consent package |
The lender is not asking for perfection.
It is asking who carries each risk if the base case is wrong.
What does a bankable financial model need?
A lender model should be boring in the best sense.
It should be transparent, traceable, and easy to sensitize.
Every major assumption should answer three questions: where did it come from, who owns it, and what happens if it is wrong?
| Model area | Bank-ready treatment | Common weakness |
|---|---|---|
| Generation or output | Independent resource/yield case, P50/P90 or equivalent downside logic, availability and degradation treatment | Single production number with no sensitivity |
| Revenue | Contracted and merchant revenue separated, curtailment shown, certificates or incentives treated carefully | Revenue blended into one optimistic line |
| Capex | EPC price date, exclusions, contingency, owner costs, grid costs, development costs, taxes where relevant | Old quote with missing interconnection or owner-side costs |
| Opex | O&M, land, asset management, insurance, grid charges, augmentation for BESS, reserves | Opex carried as a rough percentage with no contract support |
| Debt sizing | DSCR and LLCR where applicable, sculpting, reserves, covenant tests, downside cases | Debt amount manually typed into the model with no repayment logic |
| Tax and incentives | Eligibility, timing, monetization, recapture or clawback risk, local adviser input | Incentive value assumed as cash without evidence |
The bank may rebuild or sensitize the model anyway. A clean model still matters because it shows discipline before diligence begins.
What if the project is too early for bank debt?
Then the right answer may be development equity, sponsor funding, grant support, concessional capital, seller preparation, or staged project marketing.
That is not failure.
It is capital-route fit.
Bank debt is more likely when…
- Site, permit, and grid rights are credible.
- The revenue route is contracted or clearly underwritten.
- EPC, supplier, O&M, and insurance packages are lender-reviewable.
- Sponsor equity is real.
- The downside case still supports repayment.
Another capital route may fit when…
- The project still needs permits, grid studies, land control, or offtake.
- The sponsor wants to sell before construction risk is fully removed.
- The technology has high performance or commercialization risk.
- The market needs concessional or public risk-sharing support.
- The project is better packaged as part of a portfolio.
For non-bank capital routes, compare options in funding for clean energy projects and the broader renewable energy investment guide.
How should sellers use bankability before a project sale?
If you are selling a renewable project, bankability is part of buyer confidence.
A buyer does not only ask, “Do I like the project?”
It asks, “Can I finance this asset after acquisition without discovering avoidable problems?”
That makes lender readiness a sale-process advantage.
| Seller action | Why it helps buyers | Why it helps price discipline |
|---|---|---|
| Prepare a bank-style data room before buyer outreach | Buyers can diligence faster and compare risk cleanly | Less uncertainty gets pushed into price discounts |
| Label unresolved lender conditions honestly | Buyers can decide whether they own the risk | Stops late-stage surprises from damaging trust |
| Keep model assumptions sourced | Buyers can test debt capacity quickly | Reduces argument over unsupported upside |
| Show supplier and EPC diligence | Buyers can assess construction bankability | Improves confidence in capex, delivery, and warranty claims |
| Document offtake, grid, and permit transferability | Buyers can assess whether rights survive the transaction | Protects the transaction from legal and lender delays |
If you are preparing an asset for market, WEM can help position it through renewable energy project listings, market context from WEM Intelligence, and transaction support through WEM Services.
What is the best decision flow before contacting banks?
Use this order before sending lender emails.
- Define the capital need. Construction debt, term debt, refinancing, acquisition debt, bridge capital, equipment finance, or portfolio debt.
- Confirm the project stage. Development, late-stage, ready-to-build, construction, COD, operating, or portfolio aggregation.
- Map the revenue route. Contracted, regulated, merchant, hybrid, tolling, onsite savings, or certificate-linked.
- Check lender evidence gaps. Site, grid, permits, EPC, supplier, O&M, insurance, E&S, model, equity.
- Choose lender category. Commercial bank, green bank, DFI, ECA, debt fund, equipment lender, or corporate lender.
- Build the first data room. Keep it concise, indexed, dated, and assumption-led.
- Shortlist lenders by fit. Do not send the same note to every bank with an energy page.
- Ask for mandate fit before a full process. Save time by letting lenders self-select early.
The sequence is simple because the discipline is in the evidence, not the words.
What should you do next?
If the project is already late-stage, start with lender readiness.
If the project is not ready, do not force a bank conversation. Fix the evidence gap, change the capital route, or position the project for a different investor.
Use World Energy Market to route the next step.
For project sale or acquisition positioning, review WEM Projects. For supplier and equipment evidence, use the WEM Marketplace. For market, country, revenue, and counterparty context, use WEM Intelligence. If you need help packaging a lender-ready renewable project, contact World Energy Market.
FAQ
Do banks finance early-stage renewable energy projects?
Sometimes, but early-stage risk usually needs sponsor balance-sheet support, development equity, public programs, or a specialist lender. Traditional project finance banks are more likely to engage when site control, grid, permits, revenue, EPC package, and equity are sufficiently advanced for underwriting.
What project size do banks require?
There is no universal threshold. Some banks publish minimum debt sizes, while local lenders, green banks, development banks, equipment lenders, and portfolio facilities can serve different ticket sizes. Use lender fit, not a single public threshold, as the screening rule.
Can a bank finance a merchant renewable project?
It depends on market maturity, technology, sponsor strength, hedge options, reserves, forecast evidence, and downside repayment capacity. Fully merchant risk normally receives more conservative leverage than contracted revenue. Storage projects also need revenue-stack evidence, degradation treatment, dispatch assumptions, and market-rule analysis.
What is the fastest way to improve bankability?
Build a clean data room and assumption log. Banks move faster when the project summary, site rights, grid status, permits, revenue route, EPC package, O&M plan, financial model, insurance, sponsor equity, and environmental and social materials are indexed and current.
Sources
- IRENA Renewable Capacity Highlights 2026
- IEA Energy Efficiency Policy Toolkit financing section, citing World Energy Investment 2026
- IEA and IFC: Scaling Up Private Finance for Clean Energy in Emerging and Developing Economies
- US EPA: Green Banks
- European Investment Bank: Energy Lending Policy at a glance
- Equator Principles
- IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability