Posts Tagged ‘Copenhagen’

2010 Trends in Enterprise Cleantech Finance and Incentives

Monday, December 28th, 2009

During our 2010 business planning we’ve been speculating on trends that may affect our corporate customers (positively or negatively) in the coming 12 months.   In 2009 Groom Energy delivered projects in 25 states and Puerto Rico.  What’s stunning is how much time we spent confirming the incentives available in these states, through utilities, regional ISO’s and Clean Energy trusts.   2010 promises to introduce even great complexity to this already challenging game – in this regard here are four areas we think are worth watching:

1.  PACE rollout across the US – this emerging energy tech financing program, which started in Berkeley, CA as a residential solar PV financing program, has now grown into a much more powerful concept.  PACE (or Property Assessed Clean Energy) financing has broadened, becoming the poster child for enabling both residential and commercial property owners to invest more easily in renewable and energy efficiency upgrades.   Legislation for PACE like programs has now been “enabled” in 17 states, but the devil will be in the details as to how each rolls out their own version, delivering low cost tax exempt debt to property owners.  Regardless, in a market where commercial lending has ground to a standstill, PACE programs have the chance to catalyze lots of projects, providing significant energy and carbon savings – it remains to be seen how fast these programs can be rolled out in a scalable way.

2.  The continued fragmentation of state level PV incentives - While for the past few years CA, NJ, MA and CT have led the nation with developed PV incentive programs, each state has had their formulas for distributing these incentives, and each has experienced intermittent funding for their programs, both for policy and economic reasons.  2010 will bring another level of complication, as incentive programs in several new states will become available.  In these newer programs, confirming incentive formulas will part of the story – continued funding for these programs is a new risk to assess.  As the economics for PV breaks without heavy state incentives, incentive commitment letters for these “approved” projects will be critical.

3.  Carbon Cap’nTrade – Post Copenhagen it’s pretty clear we won’t see 2010 US Federal policy that has immediate economic consequences for Corporate America.  What we’ll be watching is whether Federal policy institutes a “grandfather” clause which encourages action while the policy debate continues in the Senate and the House.  (This grandfather concept was implemented successfully within the energy efficiency code in the EPAct2005).  So in 2010, it could be that state policy overrides lack of Federal policy and defines carbon pricing with vehicles such as RGGI for pricing, although CA will likely not see their program live until 2012.  Guidance for emitters at below the 25MW power plant level might also be forthcoming…

4.  Utility and Trust sponsored Energy Efficiency rebate programs:  While New England and CA have had consistent energy efficiency programs for a number of years, new states and utilities are rolling out more programs in 2010.  Considering we’re still in the Great Recession, free money supporting fast returning energy efficiency investments is clearly worth studying on a state by state level.

So there you have it – maybe next year we can look back on this post and give ourselves a report card on our predictions :)

Enterprise Carbon Accounting – San Fran event

Friday, May 15th, 2009

Yesterday we co-hosted our Enterprise Carbon Accounting (ECA) seminar at the San Francisco Airport Hyatt, bringing our successful Feb 25th Boston event to the Left Coast, this time with our new partner GreentechMedia.   As he had done for Boston event, Paul Baier did another great job at putting together a set of speakers and topics to be discussed.

The ECA idea stems from the belief that as GHG emissions will ultimately have economic consequences  (ie. cap-n-trade or tax), a company’s GHG accounting system needs to be financial grade.   In the extreme, Mindy Lubber, CEO of Ceres, likened using this new metric for corporate performance to the need for understanding off balance sheet risk.  Hence, GHG reporting both now and in the future needs to be transparent and auditable.  Early voluntary corporate reporting through programs like Carbon Disclosure Project shows that these organizations understand the emerging problem and are proactively dealing with it.

However, in listening to Pankaj Bhatia from World Resource Institute and case studies from companies like Allied Materials, Autodesk, HP, Intuit and Symantec, it became clear how very early we are in this journey.  Each of these companies has needed to develop a new process for building their GHG inventory and their comments highlighted how much subjectivity remains in their interpretation of the boundaries for their emissions.   This is especially challenging around Scope 3 reporting.

The speakers also offered commentary about the Waxman/Markey bill and speculation about whether the US would or would not have a strong GHG regulation position going into Copenhagen in December of this year.  Speculation was high that cap and trade will prevail as the vehicle whenever policy gets enacted.

The side story is that cap and trade will work principally for political reasons.  It would be the only program that would allow US policy makers from states who have each different consequences from GHG regulation (coal vs gas power, mfg vs farms, etc) to satisfy their constituents by shifting the battle to “how many GHG credits do I get?”   One can imagine it won’t be as simple as the DOE’s stimulus financed Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program which has been allocated on a $ per capita basis to unsuspecting cities and towns throughout the US, regardless of need.