I explore this question and more from the floor of Con Ed's Energy Efficiency Summit on The Energy Collective blog.
Read more
Showing posts with label Efficient energy use. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Efficient energy use. Show all posts
03 June 2011
Energy Efficiency Needs to Be the "New Normal" | The Energy Collective
I explore this question and more from the floor of Con Ed's Energy Efficiency Summit on The Energy Collective blog.
Read more
07 March 2011
An Economist Offers "Some Hard Truths About Energy"
Peter Treadway, a principal at the consulting and investment management firm Historical Analytics LLC and Chief Economist at CT RISKS, has a guest post on Barry Ritholz's The Big Picture blog.
Treadway lists "Some Hard Truths About Energy" (some of which will be familiar to Green Skeptic readers).
It's worth reading the whole piece (go here), but here are the points in list form:
1. Energy independence, a.k.a., energy autarky, is an impossible and undesirable dream.
2. A major objective of US (and all importing nations) foreign policy should be to secure reliable energy supplies.
3. The free market—not the government – should be making the choice among various energy sources.
4. Domestic conventional sources of energy offer great promise.
5. So called-green energy alternatives are not necessarily easier on the environment.
6. Don't worry about peak oil.
7. Increasing energy efficiency results in the use of more energy.
Readers of The Green Skeptic will know that I agree with points 1-4, but 6-7 are a bit problematic -- and 5, well, he's only partly right.
Read his supporting arguments in the full post: Some Hard Truths About Energy. And then tell me what you think.
Treadway also writes The Dismal Optimist blog.
Treadway lists "Some Hard Truths About Energy" (some of which will be familiar to Green Skeptic readers).
It's worth reading the whole piece (go here), but here are the points in list form:
1. Energy independence, a.k.a., energy autarky, is an impossible and undesirable dream.
2. A major objective of US (and all importing nations) foreign policy should be to secure reliable energy supplies.
3. The free market—not the government – should be making the choice among various energy sources.
4. Domestic conventional sources of energy offer great promise.
5. So called-green energy alternatives are not necessarily easier on the environment.
6. Don't worry about peak oil.
7. Increasing energy efficiency results in the use of more energy.
Readers of The Green Skeptic will know that I agree with points 1-4, but 6-7 are a bit problematic -- and 5, well, he's only partly right.
Read his supporting arguments in the full post: Some Hard Truths About Energy. And then tell me what you think.
Treadway also writes The Dismal Optimist blog.
19 October 2010
Tendril Acquires GroundedPower, Raises $23 Million
 |
The strategic acquisition and additional investment will accelerate the development and roll-out of Tendril’s comprehensive end-to-end energy management and consumer engagement solution for energy providers.
Here is how Tendril CEO, Adrian Tuck, describes the acquisition:
Additional details can be found at www.tendrilinc.com/groundedpower/
27 September 2010
Philadelphia Innovation Cluster Seen as "Key to Future"
 |
| Rendering of Greater Philadelphia Innovation Cluster at Navy Yard |
The Mayor's reference to the city's major league baseball team seemed a good analogy for a championship he has long wanted, the title of "Greenest City in America."
The sentiments weren't lost on the other dignitaries, academics, industry leaders, and cleantechies gathered in a tented area on the pier of the Navy Yard's Cruise Ship Terminal to celebrate the launch of the Greater Philadelphia Innovation Cluster for Energy Efficient Buildings (GPIC).
The Mayor opened and closed the ceremonies, which also featured speeches by Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Assistant Secretary of Commerce John Fernandez, and Vice President Henry Foley of Penn State.
Penn State led the application for the energy efficiency hub, marshaling a consortium that featured other universities, major corporations such as United Technologies and Turner Construction, as well as a panoply of associations and other businesses.
The result was a successful bid for the nation's only energy efficiency cluster, and $129 million in funding from the Department of Energy (DOE) and other agencies.
The Navy Yard has plenty of old buildings on its 1200 acres and its own micro electricity grid to test new technologies. And the list of players and supporters of the proposal were just too hard to ignore, remarked Secretary Chu, who said that it was "a dream in my eye long before I was at DOE for such a center."
The Secretary confessed that he would have liked the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory win the bid, where he worked prior to becoming the 12th US Secretary of Energy. "But the fact that two of my former grad students are at Penn State makes up for the fact that they didn't get it," Chu quipped.
The GPIC is expected to develop and test new technologies for energy efficiency in buildings, first by renovating an existing structure on the campus.
Poor cooling and ventilation in the facility where the announcement was held provided a good example of the issues that will be addressed by technologies developed at the new innovation cluster.
The GPIC will be led by Penn State in partnership with the City of Philadelphia through its Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation, along with Ben Franklin Technology Partners of Southeastern Pennsylvania, the Delaware Valley Industrial Resource Center, the Wharton Small Business Development Center, and numerous other public, private, and academic partners.
"This is the type of research and technologies that will propel the US going forward," Secretary Chu said. "And this type of broad cooperation exemplified here in Philadelphia will make it work."
(Disclosure: The author is co-founder of the Cleantech Alliance Mid-Atlantic, which provided a letter of support for the Energy Innovation Hub application and is an industry association partner in that effort.)
19 January 2010
CREE LED Market Leader, Continues to Impress
I've been long LED lighting manufacturer $CREE for a long time, as readers of this blog know. Today, Cree continued to impress me with its quarterly earnings release, beating estimates and generating record revenue.
They announced record revenue of $199.5 million for its second quarter of fiscal 2010, ended December 27, 2009, which is a "35 percent increase compared to revenue of $147.6 million reported for the second fiscal quarter last year and an 18 percent increase compared to the first quarter of fiscal 2010," according to a company press release.
“We continued to execute very well in Q2, as we delivered record revenue and net income,” stated Chuck Swoboda, Cree chairman and CEO. “LED lighting adoption continues to gain momentum and our near term focus is on factory execution and capacity expansion. Our strong balance sheet further enhances our leadership position and supports our mission of leading the LED lighting revolution.”
Here are other highlights from the press release:
Q2 2010 Financial Metrics:
* Cash and investments increased $65.6 million from Q1 of fiscal 2010 to $954.1 million.
* Cash flow from operations was $21.5 million. Free cash flow (cash flow from operations less capital expenditures) was ($19.9) million as we spent $41.4 million on capital expenditures.
* Accounts receivable (net) increased $20.3 million from Q1 of fiscal 2010 to $113.4 million, resulting in days sales outstanding of 51, an increase of 1 day from Q1 of fiscal 2010.
* Inventory (net) increased $7.3 million from Q1 of fiscal 2010 to $93.3 million and represents 80 days of inventory, a decrease of 1 day from Q1 of fiscal 2010.
Recent Business Highlights:
* Awarded $39 million in tax credits as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to support our investment to build energy efficient LED lighting
* Announced that Cree LED lamps have been selected for an initial deployment in approximately 650 Walmart stores
* Set a new standard for indoor LED lighting with the XLamp® MX-6 LED, the industry’s first lighting-class PLCC LED
* Demonstrated an A-lamp LED light bulb with the highest lumen output and efficacy reported in the industry
* Achieved industry-best reported R&D results of 186 lumens per watt from a white high-power LED
* Purchased a facility for manufacturing expansion in Huizhou, China
Business Outlook:
For its third quarter of fiscal 2010 ending March 28, 2010, Cree targets revenue in a range of $215 million to $225 million with GAAP net income of $37 million to $40 million, or $0.35 to $0.37 per diluted share. Non-GAAP net income is targeted to increase quarter-over-quarter to $44 million to $47 million, or $0.41 to $0.44 per diluted share, based on an estimated 107.5 million diluted weighted average shares. Targeted non-GAAP earnings exclude expenses related to the amortization of acquired intangibles of $0.02 per diluted share, and stock-based compensation expense of $0.04 per diluted share.
Here's a link to the full press release: CREE Earnings Q2 2010
(Disclosure: I hold a long position in CREE. This post is for informational purposes only and is neither intended to be investment advice nor an offer, or the solicitation of any offer, to buy or sell any securities.)
They announced record revenue of $199.5 million for its second quarter of fiscal 2010, ended December 27, 2009, which is a "35 percent increase compared to revenue of $147.6 million reported for the second fiscal quarter last year and an 18 percent increase compared to the first quarter of fiscal 2010," according to a company press release.
“We continued to execute very well in Q2, as we delivered record revenue and net income,” stated Chuck Swoboda, Cree chairman and CEO. “LED lighting adoption continues to gain momentum and our near term focus is on factory execution and capacity expansion. Our strong balance sheet further enhances our leadership position and supports our mission of leading the LED lighting revolution.”
Here are other highlights from the press release:
Q2 2010 Financial Metrics:
* Cash and investments increased $65.6 million from Q1 of fiscal 2010 to $954.1 million.
* Cash flow from operations was $21.5 million. Free cash flow (cash flow from operations less capital expenditures) was ($19.9) million as we spent $41.4 million on capital expenditures.
* Accounts receivable (net) increased $20.3 million from Q1 of fiscal 2010 to $113.4 million, resulting in days sales outstanding of 51, an increase of 1 day from Q1 of fiscal 2010.
* Inventory (net) increased $7.3 million from Q1 of fiscal 2010 to $93.3 million and represents 80 days of inventory, a decrease of 1 day from Q1 of fiscal 2010.
Recent Business Highlights:
* Awarded $39 million in tax credits as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to support our investment to build energy efficient LED lighting
* Announced that Cree LED lamps have been selected for an initial deployment in approximately 650 Walmart stores
* Set a new standard for indoor LED lighting with the XLamp® MX-6 LED, the industry’s first lighting-class PLCC LED
* Demonstrated an A-lamp LED light bulb with the highest lumen output and efficacy reported in the industry
* Achieved industry-best reported R&D results of 186 lumens per watt from a white high-power LED
* Purchased a facility for manufacturing expansion in Huizhou, China
Business Outlook:
For its third quarter of fiscal 2010 ending March 28, 2010, Cree targets revenue in a range of $215 million to $225 million with GAAP net income of $37 million to $40 million, or $0.35 to $0.37 per diluted share. Non-GAAP net income is targeted to increase quarter-over-quarter to $44 million to $47 million, or $0.41 to $0.44 per diluted share, based on an estimated 107.5 million diluted weighted average shares. Targeted non-GAAP earnings exclude expenses related to the amortization of acquired intangibles of $0.02 per diluted share, and stock-based compensation expense of $0.04 per diluted share.
Here's a link to the full press release: CREE Earnings Q2 2010
(Disclosure: I hold a long position in CREE. This post is for informational purposes only and is neither intended to be investment advice nor an offer, or the solicitation of any offer, to buy or sell any securities.)
14 December 2009
Not Ready for Cap-and-Trade: US Manufacturers
The carbon cap train may be leaving the station, whether aboard the EPA, White House & Congress Railroad or on the high-speed rail from the Copenhagen Circus.
But left behind and potentially dead on the tracks may be US manufacturers, especially those in the industrial equipment sector.
There are nearly 46,000 industrial manufacturing companies in the US and Canada ranging in focus from machinery, aerospace, and petroleum refining to printing, chemicals, food, and medical devices, to computer systems and peripherals, pharmaceuticals, and paper. (These are the Dunder Mifflins of the world.)
Imagine you are the CEO of a small to mid-size company with under a billion dollars in revenue that supplies a part or product for a larger original equipment manufacturer (OEM).
The OEM is charged with reducing its carbon footprint, but there is only so much it can do at the home office, facilities, and transportation. So the OEM turns to its suppliers and says, "What are you doing to reduce my carbon footprint?"
Suddenly, you are charged with meeting those targets or potentially losing their business. But your company is ill-equipped to track reductions or even to establish a benchmark against which to measure reductions.
"Well," one government official familiar with the situation said to me. "You can use your enterprise software to track various components, just like you do with other management issues."
Maybe, or maybe not.
A new survey conducted by Reed Business Information for IFS North America, a global enterprise applications company, shows that US manufacturers, even large ones, are not ready to measure their environmental impact. (The survey will be available December 28th.)
Many of these companies are currently not tracking environmental metrics, and most lack the technological or management infrastructure to do so in a cost-effective manner.
One survey respondent, who works for an aerospace and defense manufacturing company with more than $2.5 billion in revenue, said his company would "like to have this embedded, versus buying and integrating a third party package or writing my own solution."
Currently, neither Oracle nor SAP, the most widely used enterprise business software applications have built-in environmental footprint management tools.
Oracle recently entered into a partnership with OMRON to "create a solution that will help companies track and reduce energy consumption in manufacturing and non-manufacturing environments," according to a spokesperson with the company.
SAP has several solution modules, including SAP Carbon Impact, but as of this writing it is unclear whether they offer a fully integrated product.
IFS, which commissioned this survey, released a product with an embedded "eco-footprint" tool last February, but they only serve a fraction of this market in a specific niche.
"We are not an ERP solution for every manufacturer," says Chuck Rathmann, a spokesman for IFS North America. "We are kind of a niche player for complex, engineer-to-order manufacturing, asset intensive industry, aerospace and defense and a couple of other verticals."
So, even if the major enterprise solution providers are working on tools to help with the transition, many companies will need time to adjust to new regulations and expectations.
Middle-market companies, especially those doing under $1 billion in revenue, are in a particularly tough position. They simply can't afford the costs of consulting and integration necessary to track environmental metrics.
With only 20 percent of the over 260 mid-size companies in the IFS survey indicating they are tracking their eco-footprint, it could be a long process. And what about companies over $1 billion? Only 36 percent say they are currently tracking it.
Few would argue that tracking this stuff isn't important. In fact, 83 percent of those surveyed said it was important. However, the number one reason for that importance was compliance.
The timeline, however, is a different story. Regulators and government officials need to take into account that people can't just flip a switch and make this happen.
But is anyone in Washington or Copenhagen considering the unintended consequences of their decisions on this sector? I doubt it.
In fact, I'd be surprised if any one of these companies has a seat at the table in the global climate summit in Denmark -- they typically aren't heavy on marketing or lobbying budgets. But once again they may be left out in the cold.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vh5yyiaCR13lcFfmKxLZHn48CXvTaDC6HHtQhq7RHHzb0cfiWevt3y02UKr7bDHwF-Kq71ME1OU4qiXlgrU1CYZxqy8y0PX-UYzuz0le-QP1IhAcNFs-XcQiR-MmWoIVBfvV0cbhCv7lF8FVnnk_mg=s0-d)
But left behind and potentially dead on the tracks may be US manufacturers, especially those in the industrial equipment sector.
There are nearly 46,000 industrial manufacturing companies in the US and Canada ranging in focus from machinery, aerospace, and petroleum refining to printing, chemicals, food, and medical devices, to computer systems and peripherals, pharmaceuticals, and paper. (These are the Dunder Mifflins of the world.)
Imagine you are the CEO of a small to mid-size company with under a billion dollars in revenue that supplies a part or product for a larger original equipment manufacturer (OEM).
The OEM is charged with reducing its carbon footprint, but there is only so much it can do at the home office, facilities, and transportation. So the OEM turns to its suppliers and says, "What are you doing to reduce my carbon footprint?"
Suddenly, you are charged with meeting those targets or potentially losing their business. But your company is ill-equipped to track reductions or even to establish a benchmark against which to measure reductions.
"Well," one government official familiar with the situation said to me. "You can use your enterprise software to track various components, just like you do with other management issues."
Maybe, or maybe not.
A new survey conducted by Reed Business Information for IFS North America, a global enterprise applications company, shows that US manufacturers, even large ones, are not ready to measure their environmental impact. (The survey will be available December 28th.)
Many of these companies are currently not tracking environmental metrics, and most lack the technological or management infrastructure to do so in a cost-effective manner.
One survey respondent, who works for an aerospace and defense manufacturing company with more than $2.5 billion in revenue, said his company would "like to have this embedded, versus buying and integrating a third party package or writing my own solution."
Currently, neither Oracle nor SAP, the most widely used enterprise business software applications have built-in environmental footprint management tools.
Oracle recently entered into a partnership with OMRON to "create a solution that will help companies track and reduce energy consumption in manufacturing and non-manufacturing environments," according to a spokesperson with the company.
SAP has several solution modules, including SAP Carbon Impact, but as of this writing it is unclear whether they offer a fully integrated product.
IFS, which commissioned this survey, released a product with an embedded "eco-footprint" tool last February, but they only serve a fraction of this market in a specific niche.
"We are not an ERP solution for every manufacturer," says Chuck Rathmann, a spokesman for IFS North America. "We are kind of a niche player for complex, engineer-to-order manufacturing, asset intensive industry, aerospace and defense and a couple of other verticals."
So, even if the major enterprise solution providers are working on tools to help with the transition, many companies will need time to adjust to new regulations and expectations.
Middle-market companies, especially those doing under $1 billion in revenue, are in a particularly tough position. They simply can't afford the costs of consulting and integration necessary to track environmental metrics.
With only 20 percent of the over 260 mid-size companies in the IFS survey indicating they are tracking their eco-footprint, it could be a long process. And what about companies over $1 billion? Only 36 percent say they are currently tracking it.
Few would argue that tracking this stuff isn't important. In fact, 83 percent of those surveyed said it was important. However, the number one reason for that importance was compliance.
The timeline, however, is a different story. Regulators and government officials need to take into account that people can't just flip a switch and make this happen.
But is anyone in Washington or Copenhagen considering the unintended consequences of their decisions on this sector? I doubt it.
In fact, I'd be surprised if any one of these companies has a seat at the table in the global climate summit in Denmark -- they typically aren't heavy on marketing or lobbying budgets. But once again they may be left out in the cold.
27 November 2009
The Trouble with Cap and Trade
The California Environmental Protection Agency's Air Resources Board released its scoping plan, which was praised by governor Schwarzenegger, environmentalists, and utilities.
But is all the praise deserved?
The California plan follows the same outline of other such plans: a cap limits the amount of GHG emitted by power plants, refineries, cement factories and the like, and requires a permit for every ton of CO2 released into the atmosphere.
The trouble with a California program -- or a Western States Program or a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative like we have in the Northeast -- is that it's a patchwork approach.
If you're a company with a national footprint, you have to react to all sorts of different regulations, that's why some companies want a national program.
Yet even a national cap-and-trade program is a flawed scheme for dealing with CO2 emissions. Despite the prevailing sentiment that cap-and-trade is market-based, most of the proposed programs will hand out a significant portion of the permits for free, which could have the unintended consequence of keeping the price of permits lower than desirable.
The EPA estimates that the average price per ton will be around $15 for possibly the next two decades. That's until 2030 folks.
Some analysts say that utilities need a carbon price of $50/ton before they'll commit the billions needed for new technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and alternative energy resources. When will we get to a $50 price for carbon? When it's too late.
At that rate, the price of carbon won't be enough to create incentives for investments in low-carbon energy infrastructure, energy efficiency, and transportation.
The potential for gaming the system is equally troubling. There is little agreement about monitoring and accounting of the permits and projects that qualify, which could provide an avenue for unscrupulous speculators to take advantage of the situation.
A cap-and-trade program potentially creates windfall profits for utilities, but it is unclear whether it will generate significant reductions in emissions or investments in clean technology.
And some analysts think it is doubtful that cap-and-trade will even put a dent in fossil fuel's price advantage. Others fear that much of the transactional value of the assets created by any cap-and-trade program will be in the hands of some of the same folks who gave us the subprime mortgage and credit default debacles.
Finally, if we are going to have a cap, and that seems to be the way it's going, I'd rather see a cap-and-invest structure where you auction of the permits to the highest bidder and use profits to create an R & D investment fund rather than giving the permits away for free.
It seems to me these flaws need to be addressed in any scheme that gets adopted before we head down the road of future regrets.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_ttaxARAL_Emi-QpHaVW28B_WON-JYticY8yTP12lkiy0vzpLMGNNQHk425gVw_qGeA_bBB7xmpmoh4CTrHHPRh-bZjTAJqchcoYutXG4XNJnVQE4LpLU7BX2fv2ijKKVy90f4KS4itqhtY9fXFIEM=s0-d)
13 April 2009
Speaking Today at Nationwide Town Hall on a Just and Clean Energy Future , Drexel University
Today, I'm speaking at Drexel's Town Hall on a Just and Clean Energy Future, part of Focus the Nation's Nationwide series of Town Hall meetings.
I'll be part of a panel on the Clean Energy Economy, with Audrey Zibelman, Viridity, LLC, Jason Brady of the Blue Green Alliance, and Kate Houstoun of Sustainable Business Network of Greater Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter is scheduled to lead the a Town Hall style discussion before my panel. I will be interested to hear his remarks and hope the focus is on energy efficiency, innovation, and private sector investments to jump start the new green economy.
Will try to update with a post tonight.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vtO0sw2NLoq7GfW4VPoU2sDkhKXG68tUwBnva5vibLs1kEhmhFNtKF-zRuG9n7zA6wEfNtsCOT_eIOXp6MW-1-qVG8T2rtgbNhRviak169AmEPg8pwWUAHXN6LwDwTt7uRgoJzq26uauKbsciHZ-3A=s0-d)
17 February 2009
Obamulus Rex: President's B787 Ready to Fly the Friendly Skies
After passing with a large majority of Democratic votes and 0 Republicans in favor, the $787B StimPack, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), was signed into law today by President Obama, ringing in what he hopes will be the beginning of the recovery process.
The Administration hopes to kick-start the new green economy by rapidly increasing development of renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency in buildings and appliances, as well as throughout major sectors of the economy.
The major energy investments in the StimPack, include:
-A three-year extension to the production tax credit for wind and an extension until the end of 2013 for geothermal and biomass renewable-energy projects. In addition, the credit has been increased to 30 percent of the investment.
-$4.5 billion in direct funds to modernize the electricity grid with smart-grid technologies.
-$6.3 billion in state energy-efficiency and clean-energy grants, and $4.5 billion to make federal buildings more energy efficient.
-$6 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy systems, biofuel projects, and electric-power transmission facilities.
-$2 billion in loans to manufacture advanced batteries and components for applications such as plug-in electric cars.
-$5 billion to weatherize homes of up to 1 million low-income people.
-$3.4 billion appropriated to the Department of Energy for fossil energy research and development, such as carbon capture and storage underground at coal power plants.
-A tax credit of between $2,500 and $5,000 for purchase of plug-in electric vehicles, to the first 200,000 in service.
Time will tell whether this baby can generate the kind of short-term impact our economy needs, but it should spur some longer-term outcomes, especially in the efficiency and renewables space. (Curious why the market didn't react more positively, especially the renewable energy stocks.)
Read this summary analysis of the StimPack from the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE): Overview (Note: this is a link to a PDF.)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sNSaJgWHln2zaSD3PEKvvvYaWVZSCwe1KErLienp6W-7PD4qeAcXKOM_MT4Rgoavch9eC_iYt6-WCtO7sfpkdlHPaeCxyiJlHUcxfvrRREto3kegulTI2etU80NGe5Az88CsVm6nIvrS5iCeWoABY=s0-d)
The Administration hopes to kick-start the new green economy by rapidly increasing development of renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency in buildings and appliances, as well as throughout major sectors of the economy.
The major energy investments in the StimPack, include:
-A three-year extension to the production tax credit for wind and an extension until the end of 2013 for geothermal and biomass renewable-energy projects. In addition, the credit has been increased to 30 percent of the investment.
-$4.5 billion in direct funds to modernize the electricity grid with smart-grid technologies.
-$6.3 billion in state energy-efficiency and clean-energy grants, and $4.5 billion to make federal buildings more energy efficient.
-$6 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy systems, biofuel projects, and electric-power transmission facilities.
-$2 billion in loans to manufacture advanced batteries and components for applications such as plug-in electric cars.
-$5 billion to weatherize homes of up to 1 million low-income people.
-$3.4 billion appropriated to the Department of Energy for fossil energy research and development, such as carbon capture and storage underground at coal power plants.
-A tax credit of between $2,500 and $5,000 for purchase of plug-in electric vehicles, to the first 200,000 in service.
Time will tell whether this baby can generate the kind of short-term impact our economy needs, but it should spur some longer-term outcomes, especially in the efficiency and renewables space. (Curious why the market didn't react more positively, especially the renewable energy stocks.)
Read this summary analysis of the StimPack from the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE): Overview (Note: this is a link to a PDF.)
03 February 2009
REBN Mid-Atlantic Launches at Cleantech Investment Forum in Philly
The cleantech technological revolution has come to Philly. Of course, it was more of a homecoming, as Tucker Twitmyer of EnerTech Capital pointed out. "Cleantech investing got its start in Philly," Tucker said. "With the formation of the first dedicated cleantech fund in 1996."
.jpg)
(Photo: Tucker Twitmyer, EnerTech Capital, Ronald Fisher, Blank Rome, and Barry Yerger, Jessup & Lamont Securities)
Today Blank Rome's Energy Industry Group, in conjunction with Fairmount Partners and the Renewable Energy Business Network (REBN) hosted the Mid-Atlantic Cleantech Investment Forum, featuring a panel of experts and thought leaders discussing cleantech venture and corporate investing.
The program featured a panel of industry veterans, including
-Tucker Twitmyer, Managing Partner, EnerTech Capital
-Baruch Levy, Bank of America Strategic Investments Group
-Mark Stancroff, General Manager of Commercial Roofing, CertainTeed Roofing
-Ying Wu, Senior Analyst, Lux Research
Presentations by several cleantech companies followed the panel, including Comverge (COMV), Field Diagnostics, and IQWind. A reception to launch REBN's Mid-Atlantic Chapter was held immediately after in Blank Rome's Comisky Center.
.jpg)
(Photo: Former PA DEP Secretary Kathleen McGinty and Doug Smith of Hobbs & Towne)
Katie McGinty, former Secretary of PA DEP, was the keynote speaker at the event. She said, paraphrasing Dickens, "It is the best of times and the worst of times." After dispensing with the worst (as exemplified by this morning's New York Times article "Dark Days for Green Energy"), Katie quickly moved on to opportunities.
"I think there will be a Federal RPS by the end of the calendar year," Katie told the crowd of 150. That should spur growth in the sector. She offered a cautiously optimistic tone, saying, "Hang in there and be ready."
The event marked the launching of the Renewable Energy Business Network (REBN) in the Mid-Atlantic region. REBN enables business professionals, researchers, entrepreneurs and investors to connect with one another, and to promote the growth of the renewable energy industry. REBN provides opportunities for networking, collaboration, education and business creation.
.jpg)
(Photo: Kevin McPoyle of KMRD Partners and Merle Gilmore, Merle Gilmore & Associates)
"We hope to catalyze your efforts in our region and to spur further development in this sector," REBN MA co-founder Kevin Brown said to the crowd of investors, entrepreneurs, and company representatives. "We believe the Mid-Atlantic region is poised to play a significant role in renewable energy, clean tech, and energy efficiency innovations in the years to come."
REBN Mid-Atlantic will host a series of informal gatherings and build partnerships with others to promote the sector throughout the region.
You can register on REBN.org or sign up for the REBN Group on LinkedIn to get connected with other members in the six other chapters around the country.
(Disclosure: I am co-founder of the REBN Mid-Atlantic Chapter.)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tiy2SB9juXH10_r4YAKWZhSCkvRBrciIohDVcd4nrBZcd0OOyd2vtkQuIfVsx3QV8qzaF0cWgNJtKmgqYRRn0fVGIWXCaQIwXXDs26jb-teirkMCg3uFaYM_J8EMAjKKGnZRkcXSt02MQPEz8xxBtl=s0-d)
.jpg)
(Photo: Tucker Twitmyer, EnerTech Capital, Ronald Fisher, Blank Rome, and Barry Yerger, Jessup & Lamont Securities)
Today Blank Rome's Energy Industry Group, in conjunction with Fairmount Partners and the Renewable Energy Business Network (REBN) hosted the Mid-Atlantic Cleantech Investment Forum, featuring a panel of experts and thought leaders discussing cleantech venture and corporate investing.
The program featured a panel of industry veterans, including
-Tucker Twitmyer, Managing Partner, EnerTech Capital
-Baruch Levy, Bank of America Strategic Investments Group
-Mark Stancroff, General Manager of Commercial Roofing, CertainTeed Roofing
-Ying Wu, Senior Analyst, Lux Research
Presentations by several cleantech companies followed the panel, including Comverge (COMV), Field Diagnostics, and IQWind. A reception to launch REBN's Mid-Atlantic Chapter was held immediately after in Blank Rome's Comisky Center.
.jpg)
(Photo: Former PA DEP Secretary Kathleen McGinty and Doug Smith of Hobbs & Towne)
Katie McGinty, former Secretary of PA DEP, was the keynote speaker at the event. She said, paraphrasing Dickens, "It is the best of times and the worst of times." After dispensing with the worst (as exemplified by this morning's New York Times article "Dark Days for Green Energy"), Katie quickly moved on to opportunities.
"I think there will be a Federal RPS by the end of the calendar year," Katie told the crowd of 150. That should spur growth in the sector. She offered a cautiously optimistic tone, saying, "Hang in there and be ready."
The event marked the launching of the Renewable Energy Business Network (REBN) in the Mid-Atlantic region. REBN enables business professionals, researchers, entrepreneurs and investors to connect with one another, and to promote the growth of the renewable energy industry. REBN provides opportunities for networking, collaboration, education and business creation.
.jpg)
(Photo: Kevin McPoyle of KMRD Partners and Merle Gilmore, Merle Gilmore & Associates)
"We hope to catalyze your efforts in our region and to spur further development in this sector," REBN MA co-founder Kevin Brown said to the crowd of investors, entrepreneurs, and company representatives. "We believe the Mid-Atlantic region is poised to play a significant role in renewable energy, clean tech, and energy efficiency innovations in the years to come."
REBN Mid-Atlantic will host a series of informal gatherings and build partnerships with others to promote the sector throughout the region.
You can register on REBN.org or sign up for the REBN Group on LinkedIn to get connected with other members in the six other chapters around the country.
(Disclosure: I am co-founder of the REBN Mid-Atlantic Chapter.)
29 January 2009
An Obama Stimulus, Not A Futurama Stimulus
The stimulus package that passed in the House -- without a single GOP vote -- yesterday is not as forward thinking as it appears, despite what Nancy Pelosi said in a news conference.
"This is a bill about the future," Pelosi said. "It is a bill that will guarantee that we will create jobs, that there will be good paying green jobs that will transform our infrastructure, transform our energy and how we use it and our dependence on foreign oil."
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council's tally, outlined in the daily green, the StimPack accounts for:
* $3.4 billion for states for clean energy projects
* A grants program for technologies covered by the renewable energy tax incentives
* $6.2 billion for weatherization of low income homes
* $3.5 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (supports clean energy projects primarily at the city and county levels)
* $2 billion for clean energy research & development
* $6 billion for increasing energy efficiency in federal buildings
* $12 billion for transit
* $2 billion for ready-to-go drinking water infrastructure projects
* $6 billion for ready-to-go sanitation infrastructure projects.
But the Bill doesn't go far enough, according to some critics, in support of public transportation, including light and high speed rail. Others, however, do point out that transit is one of the larger ticket items in the green portion of the package.
The Sierra Club praised the House Bill, noting that clean energy spending is at $100 billion. But "the bill isn't all green," according to other critics, and the Senate is apparently putting $4.6 billion for coal and $50 billion for the nuclear industry.
Of course, that depends upon your shade of green. Among the coal provisions outlined in a news release and a committee statement issued by Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va. are:
*$2 billion for "near-zero emissions" power plants designed to capture and sequester CO2
*$1 billion for the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Power Initiative, and
*$1.6 billion for carbon capture at industrial plants.
I'd like to see some investment in such R&D for coal, as it remains the most plentiful resource we've got domestically and comprises such a high percentage of our energy needs today. If we can figure out how to clean it, capture and store it or just reduce its impact, I'm all for it.
And, as for nuclear, I still maintain it needs to be part of the mix.
Another source of criticism of the House Bill may be remedied in the emerging Senate version, which would adjust the alternative minimum tax (ATM), thereby holding down many middle-class Americans' income taxes for 2009.
President Obama's administration has said it would ultimately accept an ATM provision, which may go a long way towards giving the Senate Bill legs. Compromise and consensus may be the key to the Obama presidency.
But with so many other programs stuffed into this StimPack, including many traditional Dem favorites, it's hard to see the future: so much in here looks like the past.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uS9yFjwpUAVG0s-Yo9XT2B-gSbzru17ehljwdX0axzsK2GZDPwLivWJG7PSYRhjBjFWLPYZPhqqBiX86SRo3KV_J1GYcKZPadMq_AEkcT57fr9O7BjhWkU94YU2vjs_IBYKe_Ae1nl0LiX34pEbK8U=s0-d)
"This is a bill about the future," Pelosi said. "It is a bill that will guarantee that we will create jobs, that there will be good paying green jobs that will transform our infrastructure, transform our energy and how we use it and our dependence on foreign oil."
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council's tally, outlined in the daily green, the StimPack accounts for:
* $3.4 billion for states for clean energy projects
* A grants program for technologies covered by the renewable energy tax incentives
* $6.2 billion for weatherization of low income homes
* $3.5 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (supports clean energy projects primarily at the city and county levels)
* $2 billion for clean energy research & development
* $6 billion for increasing energy efficiency in federal buildings
* $12 billion for transit
* $2 billion for ready-to-go drinking water infrastructure projects
* $6 billion for ready-to-go sanitation infrastructure projects.
But the Bill doesn't go far enough, according to some critics, in support of public transportation, including light and high speed rail. Others, however, do point out that transit is one of the larger ticket items in the green portion of the package.
The Sierra Club praised the House Bill, noting that clean energy spending is at $100 billion. But "the bill isn't all green," according to other critics, and the Senate is apparently putting $4.6 billion for coal and $50 billion for the nuclear industry.
Of course, that depends upon your shade of green. Among the coal provisions outlined in a news release and a committee statement issued by Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va. are:
*$2 billion for "near-zero emissions" power plants designed to capture and sequester CO2
*$1 billion for the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Power Initiative, and
*$1.6 billion for carbon capture at industrial plants.
I'd like to see some investment in such R&D for coal, as it remains the most plentiful resource we've got domestically and comprises such a high percentage of our energy needs today. If we can figure out how to clean it, capture and store it or just reduce its impact, I'm all for it.
And, as for nuclear, I still maintain it needs to be part of the mix.
Another source of criticism of the House Bill may be remedied in the emerging Senate version, which would adjust the alternative minimum tax (ATM), thereby holding down many middle-class Americans' income taxes for 2009.
President Obama's administration has said it would ultimately accept an ATM provision, which may go a long way towards giving the Senate Bill legs. Compromise and consensus may be the key to the Obama presidency.
But with so many other programs stuffed into this StimPack, including many traditional Dem favorites, it's hard to see the future: so much in here looks like the past.
09 January 2009
On Obama's Economic Stimulus Plan and Its Discontents
Image by christhedunn via FlickrPrez-elect Obama has wasted no time pulling together a fascinating group of people to be a part of his team, from both sides of the aisle and from a myriad of perspectives.What's impressive about the guy is his love for SmartJocks: brilliant people who played sports. (Almost always a winning combination in my book.)
Equally impressive is how he's been able to jump right into the mix on the economy and bring this diverse group together to hash out a plan to get the country back on track. Or so one hopes.
The danger lies in what David Brooks rightly identified in this morning's New York Times as "Obama's audacious self-confidence."
But audacious self-confidence can easily slide into hubris, and I think Mr. Obama may be in for a reality check. (Remember when the Clintons got to the White House only to discover it wasn't Little Rock.)
Members of his party are questioning such a large tax cut in the stimulus package. And Republicans are concerned about some of the larger spending components, such as $200 billion to states targeted at expanding the federal share of Medicaid. In other words, business as usual in Washington.
Given all this, it will be interesting to see how the dialogue unfolds over the next couple of months. Will tax cuts and increased government spending turn out to be a winning combination? It hasn't thus far, but who knows; Mr. Obama may yet have the Midas touch.
More troubling is that the stimulus package also appears to be more of the same: bailouts, building, and a whole lotta hope. Of course there is a modicum of new initiatives thrown in, such as broadband projects, a new power grid, and new scientific research, as well as an intriguing business tax package.
The good news, from the new green economy perspective, is that Mr. Obama still seems committed to alternative energy and energy efficiency. He proposes to "double the production of alternative energy within three years" and "modernize 75 percent of federal buildings and improve energy efficiency in 2 million homes."
The former is wildly ambitious, given how difficult it is to get energy-related projects off the ground and the latter doesn't seem to be exploiting the opportunity efficiency affords. In other words, it may not be ambitious enough.
And while many roads and bridges are in need of repair, it strikes me that this is Mr. Obama's way of pandering to state governments in order to secure their votes for the plan.
Don't get me wrong, much of this work needs to be done, and those projects certainly keep some people in work for extended periods. (I live in Pennsylvania, birthplace of the endless DOT project.)
I tend to agree with my blogging and StockTwits pal Gregor Macdonald that there are larger gains to be had from investments in light- and commuter rail in many of America's metropolitan areas.
However, I also understand that we are a people and a culture defined by our cars. It took 50 years to make us this way; and it may take another 50 -- and astronomical oil prices -- to change us.
Another blogging buddy, Shari Shapiro over at Green Building Law Blog, makes a very good point about "putting the first dollar of tax payer money into the most cost-effective initiative, to ensure those initiatives that have the greatest cost-benefit calculus get funded first and most robustly."
Shari's conclusion, with which I agree, is that "energy efficiency efforts work with the rule of the first dollar." The Obama stimulus may not be as heavily weighted towards efficiency as we'd like to see -- and that may be a failure of imagination about how to engage the states.
Finally, as Brooks points out in the Times, while "there is wide support for fiscal stimulus...there is no historical experience to tell us how to do it, and there is no agreement on how to make it work."
In the end, I hope Mr. Obama isn't setting himself up for failure by trying to bring a compromise to the table before the table has been set or by biting off more than he can chew before dinner is served.
Perhaps Mr. Obama has the magic to make this work, but I, like Brooks and others, remain skeptical.
"By this time next year," Brooks concluded his editorial this morning, "he'll either be a great president or a broken one."
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vwWIadIiCozDzkVqm0ec187RwN9ypjTzd62cYp5-RXR1B2s_-VIXSo-hcgBzuo_DjA_6UdoO0PSYgKWiuMOw9s3Qo2UspnXeQgirsVnbaoFRQtbuxBnQOX4ITvZdKSH0hdkPDhXAHJ8F4dmvcetg1G=s0-d)
26 November 2008
Review: The Green Collar Economy by Van Jones
"Our very survival will demand invention and innovation on a scale never before seen in the history of human civilization," Van Jones writes in his book The Green Collar Economy.
"Only the business community has the requisite skills, experience, and capital to meet that need...in the end, our success and survival as a species is largely and directly tied to the new eco-entrepreneurs--and the success and survival of their enterprises."
Jones has spent the better part of the past few years calling for "green jobs." A call that is fast becoming part of president-elect Obama's early agenda that may chart the course for his first term.
As founder of Green for All, Jones identifies what he calls "one solution that can fix our two biggest problems." Green jobs.
Jones has written an important book. In part because it puts his message of change and transformation into context as it relates to the great movements of social and environmental change of the last century -- while suggesting a path forward for change in the 21st century.
To Jones, green jobs can help transform our economy, put people to work, and create opportunity for those who have been neglected. He suggests that the new green economy can also help provide pathways out of poverty for many of the disenfranchised.
"That is good news for people who are being thrown out of work in the present recession," writes Jones. "That is good news for people in urban and rural communities who are suffering from chronic lack of work. That is good news for our veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. That is good news for people returning home from prison, looking for a second chance."
He also surveys the range of platforms for dealing with climate change, energy, and economic crises, including those of organizations with which he is involved, such as 1Sky and the Apollo Alliance.
Jones identifies a need for a "Green Growth Alliance" to be formed between the five main interest-partners: labor, social justice activists, environmentalists, students, and faith organizations.
Jones suggests we can't buy and drill our way out of this dilemma. "We can, however, invent and invest our way out," Jones writes. "Choosing to do so on a massive scale would have the practical benefit of cutting energy prices enough -- and generating enough work -- to pull the U.S. economy out of its present death spiral."
There are countless books out there about going green, and tackling climate change and energy issues. What's different about Van's book? Simply put, it is his message that economic progress and environmental protection can be joined with social equity issues to forge a triple-bottom line solution benefiting all three.
"The necessary solution," Jones suggests, is "a crash program in conservation and renewable energy -- so that we can save our ability to survive on the only planetary home we have ever known."
And with president-elect Obama calling for an economic stimulus that includes investments in infrastructure and energy efficiency, Van Jones's message may be getting its green day in the sun.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uv1TVc8MRP1WC7BVC4OUXrh9FcBJm-in1EAedY5KCDliQW83N4qZ9V8tsaQN84uTpW-dOcWA3XTB4xWAKuBun3NagSUyPfaF1LS6vaazW8HHF66_7SHEgQEMLl6TyUp-v13TeA6eCnJrwHrizYgMc=s0-d)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)