Clean Energy grants
2012 – The Year Renewable Energy Funds Get Raided?
We’ve seen it happen in the past when times get tough – politicians, desperate to keep funding for critical government programs, consider raiding existing set-asides for renewable energy.
Thus far programs have generally been protected – but how much longer will it last?
In early 2009 Connecticut almost did it. Facing a significant shortfall post the 2008 economic collapse then-Governor Rell was rebuffed in her attempt to grab an additional $26 million by raiding the state’s existing energy efficiency and renewable funding. But the message was loud and clear. We need money – how green do we need to be?
And California (the state with a long standing lead in renewable and efficiency incentives) last year watched as Proposition AB23 got considered and defeated – a bill attempting to repeal the state’s existing AB32 legislation (the Global Warming Act of 2006) which AB23 supporters said was costing too much money.
Like California, existing RPS funding in 30+ other states may be reconsidered as belts are tightened and voters choose between unemployment and healthcare benefits versus previously voter supported clean energy funding programs.
Specific green technology programs are susceptible as well. Yesterday a $1 billion multi-year carbon capture and storage program in the UK came under attack.
So in 2012, when government austerity programs become the norm, will less-green states have the intestinal fortitude to continue to protect their green energy programs?
Cleantech Incentives Will Expire Dec. 31st – Have We Been To This Movie?
As we watch Europe’s financial system teeter on the brink, many are preparing for the US’s own unwelcomed, but necessary austerity effort. Yet with yesterday’s deadlock by the Super Committee, we’re all left wondering if our elected leaders have been watching too much ESPN, detailing the NBA’s own failure to come to an agreement, after over two years of negotiations.
With this latest partisan gridlock in the face of a financial storm, its a fait accompli that we will see a December 31st expiration of the Section 1603 cleantech cash grant incentives. Solyndra alone has put cleantech supporting Democrats on their heels and become a “reckless government spending” lapel button on Republican sport coats. Rightly or not, large bookable losses from the DOE’s attempt to stimulate jobs make it harder for politicians to put Section 1603 in a cleantech jobs creation wrapper.
Which means the cleantech markets will need to rely only on tax credits, as opposed to grants, in order to weather the looming US austerity period, whenever our politicians decide its important enough to address.
The Sputnik moment in US Cleantech? Long term legislation.
Today I attended the Clean Economy Network‘s first conference in Washington, DC, fittingly on the eve of President Obama’s State of the Union address.
The conference covered the latest cleantech policy and legislative debates, as presented by and to venture investors, entrepreneurs, policy makers, NGO and utility executives. The topics were broad ranging, from the EPA’s role in defining GHG rules, to the challenges with upgrading our electrical grid, to alternative fuel sources for the next generation of power plants and transportation systems. The speakers were candid about their views.
My favorite nuggets:
From panel speculating on the EPA:
- Don’t expect an attempt at carbon tax/cap-n-trade legislation from the EPA anytime soon. Even if the EPA thinks they have the authority, the fastest it has ever implemented anything is 18 months – and it is always followed by years of litigation.
- However, the EPA is getting dangerously close on attacking carbon, and if it comes to litigation, history tells us Congress will back off immediately as there is no win for politicians once this happens. The better hope is that the EPA’s direction catalyzes the House and Senate to finally pass climate legislation, BEFORE the EPA reaches this point of no return.
- The US’s current implied price of carbon (based on government and utility incentives) is $90/ton for wind, $400/ton for solar PV, $200/ton for ethanol fuel and $4,000 per ton for “cash for clunkers.”
- Consider history lesson where deregulation in railroads, wireline, wireless and cable TV all led to more competitive markets, where innovation ultimately drove greater efficiency. Energy markets are ready to have the same opportunity.
From Ray Mabus, the US Secretary of the Navy’s presentation:
- Secretary Mabus reminded the audience how controversial each fuel source change to the Navy’s fleet has been – going from wind to coal to oil to nuclear. In each shift there was significant tension about whether the new fuel source was reliable enough. Now as the Navy plans to introduce a clean fuel fleet with demonstrations next year he confirms that skepticism is increasing….
From John Woolard, CEO, BrightSource Energy’s presentation:
- John described the how the renewable energy legislation vacuum beyond 2016 is already impacting any new utility scale solar thermal power plant projects. Without long term legislation investors can’t make their decisions. While we’ve commented before on the need for predictable utility incentives for energy efficiency year to year, John’s observation really puts the long term need in perspective. The cleantech market requires long term visibility and predictability.
On this last nugget, and as I sit here listening to the State of the Union address, I’m left crossing my fingers that President Obama’s outward determination to address our “Sputnik moment” will lead him to drive US cleantech legislation which outlives his presidency and has a lifetime impact on the industry.
Section 1603 – Is the Grant party over?
Labor Day typically marks the time when our year-end project installation schedule becomes more clear. Our corporate customers, often operating on a fiscal-calendar year for budgeting, also exhibit end-of-year psychology and “get it done by year end” becomes a priority. Normal product lead times, procurement contracts, permits, and even potential interruptions from winter weather means by Labor Day our construction year is pretty much set.
This year many cleantech project developers have even more tension leading up to their 2011 New Year’s party planning. With Section 1603, the US Federal program for renewable Grants in Lieu of an Investment Tax Credit (ITC), set to expire at the end of 2010, projects which are not at least 5% underway by year end will miss the proverbial party. Read the rest of this entry »
SolarTech Conference – coupling Solar PV and Energy Efficiency?
Today I’m attending and speaking at the SolarTech Conference in San Ramon, CA.
The conference format broke the day into working sessions covering all major areas relating to Solar PV: permitting, finance, installation, interconnection, and a new one for the market – energy efficiency (which I’ll come back to later). At the end of the day, the entire audience voted on the key initiatives for each of working session and these rankings become the basis for 2010 SolarTech working agenda. Makes great sense. Read the rest of this entry »
Attention policy makers – Cleantech Grants and Utility Rebates need to be predictable and continuous
In my former life as a early stage venture capitalist I learned a traditional VC bias against investing in start ups where government subsidies were necessary to make the technology’s economic case work. Year’s later I’m scratching my head at how the VC market has thrown out this bias in cleantech investing, an example being their heavy investment in solar PV technology.
While one can’t dispute that the worldwide PV markets are getting larger, anyone who has run PVwatt knows that without significant subsidies the technology doesn’t work as an alternative to kWh from the grid. An incremental improvement in PV’s performance will not change this situation. In the US, the math says that without a relatively high kWh cost AND a belief that kWh cost will inflate at 5-10%/year AND a large State renewable grant AND a 30% Federal grant or ITC, PV just doesn’t pass a reasonable economic test.
Which means that when Federal or State policy makers contemplate any potential change to renewable grant levels, the market gets really bumpy. We experienced this at the end of 2008 when the Federal ITC extension was in question. We’re currently experiencing this again in Massachusetts where the PV incentive program is temporarily suspended as the State transitions to a REC model “sometime in 2010.“ Kind of makes it difficult on a small local solar installer while it’s customer prospects wait for new incentives….here, an absense of policy has slowed one of the fastest developing PV markets in the US.
Like State renewable grants, utility energy efficiency rebates are watched closely for the signaling effect of change. Earlier this year we saw one utility’s energy efficiency program introduce “accelerated” rebates, only to abruptly cancel the program four months later due to over-subscription. Customers who didn’t participate are left to wonder whether they should wait on the sidelines until another accelerated program comes back to the market. Here, the utility’s haphazard policy has stunted market growth.
As the US moves towards more incentives for both broader renewable and energy efficiency upgrades, Federal, State and utility policy makers need to better coordinate the management, introduction and changes to these programs. They should recognize the dual edged sword they hold – whenever they change the incentives, or worse, suggest they might change the incentives, the market adoption rate is slowed.
Just as the stock market rewards companies which produce predictable financial results with higher multiple stock prices, policy makers need to signal the market as they grow incentive programs, making them predictable and long term. The incentive programs need to reward action today, including grandfather clauses for those who would otherwise sit on the sidelines while new policies are being developed. Without this approach, human nature “wait and see” will rule the day.
