The Clean Energy Future Blog

By Coalition for Green Capital

A New York Times article today reported that President Obama was readying regulations that will impose carbon dioxide emissions limits on power plants. Carbon standards on existing plants will be so costly, coal-powered facilities in America may be under pressure to close, leaving a huge void to be filled by wind, solar and natural gas. This step would emphasize CGC’s work to continue lowering the price of renewables in order to ensure a more attractive option once the prices of carbon-fuels are on the rise. Coupling these emissions limits with a move to green banks, states will be able to rapidly shift to clean energy without raising consumer prices. 

John Broder of the New York Times notes Obama’s reiteration in a recent speech in Berlin that “the United States and the world have a moral imperative to take ‘bold action’ to slow the warming of the planet.” He goes on to say that “Mr. Obama had decided the risks from climate change outweighed the potential economic and political costs from taking steps to address it.” These words symbolize a huge step in the fight against climate change in America, and CGC is excited to be a part of this important social and environmental leap forward.

See the full article here.

By Coalition for Green Capital

Earlier this week, CNN’s Fortune interviewed Jonathan Silver – previous head of the U.S. Department of Energy Loan Program (November 2009-October 2011). Here is an excerpt from that interview, where Silver recommends a long-term federal green bank that would help promote scale and consistency.

How do you currently view the loan program’s performance? Leaving aside the politics and PR, do you believe the performance justifies renewal?

The program has been a significant success. That success has, unfortunately, been obscured a bit by some of the politics around the program. To date, something like 95% or 98% of the funds invested are money good. Less than 10% of the funds Congress appropriated to pay for loan losses has been tapped and several detailed , independent reviews of the program suggested that it would never tap the full amount (even in a worst-case scenario). Much of the technology and construction risk embedded in these transactions is now largely gone and nearly half the projects are already operational. The first few successes, like Tesla (TSLA), are now coming to fruition.

Markets will always have difficulty deploying innovative technologies at scale. Fundamentally, a program like this is necessary to address that market failure. 

In an ideal world, the federal government would leverage these programs to create a long-term, self-sustaining infrastructure bank, to provide low-cost loans to innovative technologies on a consistent basis and on a schedule which reflects when both the technology and the company are ready. Other countries are already doing this and have provided meaningful funding for institutions with a much longer time horizon. That approach makes more sense than ours and we are at a comparative disadvantage as a result. It should not be easier to build a clean energy project, particularly with US funding, in India than in Indiana. Full interview available here. 

By Coalition for Green Capital

I recently received an invitation to sign a petition from students at my Alma mater urging divestment from fossil fuels. Colorado College is one of more than 200 campuses that have taken a stand against endowment investments in fossil fuels. The movement started on Swarthmore’s campus in 2010 and is designed after the 1980s anti-apartheid campaigns. Students argue that universities are investing in the future through education, so they should keep that mission in mind when investing for their endowment.

A recent study by the research firm S&P Capital IQ for the Associated Press found that divestment will not hurt endowments. In fact, the study shows that a $1 billion investment 10 years ago excluding fossil fuel investments would be worth $2.26 billion today; whereas, the same $1 billion investment including fossil fuel stock, would only be worth $2.14 billion today.Other feedback suggests otherwise. Analysis by those who oversee the endowment at Swarthmore college found that fossil fuel divestment would cost $11 to $14 million a year.  Furthermore, as Harvard Professor Daniel Schrag suggests, it may not be fair to solely target fossil fuel companies as many of us (if not all of us) “bear some of the blame for continued use of fossil fuels.”[2]

Although I ultimately signed the petition for divestment, I too have my reservations.  As I recently read in a transcript of an interview with Billy Parish, founder of Mosaic, the divesting movement has been great for building pressure, however, there has been no corresponding investment movement. Should college boards start investing in Tesla stock? Would solar investments be too risky? I sincerely hope that the divestment movement continues to gather steam; however, I hope even more that those instigating the movement can discover a socially-responsible yet profitable alternative.

The divestment campaign has even begun to spread to religious networks. On May 22nd, E&E News’ Climate Wire reported that the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City became the first Unitarian Congregation in the country to vote in favor of divesting from oil, gas, coal, oil sands, and oil shale. Reverend Tom Goldsmith commented, “We did the math, and we realized that the difference between green investments and fossil fuels is minuscule.” The church has already invested in multiple solar panels. To better understand the topic, church members gathered to explore the question, “What would Jesus divest?”

Original article available from The Salt Lake Tribune.

*CGC is not religiously affiliated.

By Coalition for Green Capital

Given last week’s post “Utilities for Dummies,” we would like to present an article that just came out in the Wall Street Journal. According to Roberts’ article, many see the American utility as a long-time follower of the status quo with little incentive to innovate. Is this about to change?

In Ryan Tracy’s article “Utilities Weigh a Turn to the Sun,” he suggests that utilities may be starting to recognize disruptive renewable energy technologies – specifically solar – as a “potential threat” to the decades-old business model. Some utilities are even beginning to recognize solar as an opportunity and are investigating the market for solar panel installation and leasing.

With demand for electricity gradually slowing and the solar industry growing, now is the time for both utilities and solar developers to figure out how to achieve scalable and affordable solar.

By Coalition for Green Capital

If you want an easy-to-read but informative summary of how utilities in America work, check out David Roberts’ “Utilities for dummies: How they work and why that needs to change.”

Plus his summary randomly includes cute pictures of quokkas.

By Coalition for Green Capital

A Science Daily article this week grabbed me with a headline suggesting “Solar Panels as Inexpensive as Paint?” Reading on, this doesn’t refer exactly to the price point of paint, but to the ease with which solar technology could be installed in the near future. The article details research being done at the University of Buffalo to create a “new generation of photovoltaic cells that produce more power and cost less to manufacture than what’s available today.” These cells do not yet equal the energy production of existing solar panels, but they are processed in a liquid form, meaning they could “one day be applied to surfaces as easily as paint to walls,” said researcher, Qiaoqiang Gan. This thinner substance is also much cheaper to manufacture than traditional crystalline cells, therefore if scientists can reach higher levels of efficiency with this new technology, it will be competitive on the market. 

Here at CGC, we take a policy approach to making renewable energy more affordable and accessible  Nevertheless, it’s important to remember that without innovative work in the fields of physics, engineering, chemistry and others, solar technology wouldn’t even have a place in the market.  More than just the extremely cool notion of painting photovoltaic cells onto a building to supply energy, we appreciate the scientific research that goes into the ever-advancing technologies behind renewable energy. We recognize that it is the combination of innovation in both the science and policy fields that enable the shift we’d like to see in energy production and consumption.

Read the full Science Daily article here.