Download Mediation Tools for Resolving Community Planning and

Focus on the Regional Economy
and
The Green/Carbon Economy
Welcome
Mary Ryan
Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP
Upcoming Programming
 May 9 – Regional Environmental Summit – Climate
Change/Green Economy
 May 13 – EBC C & D Committee
 May 15 – EBC Wind Energy Development Committee
 May 19 – EBC RI Breakfast – US Senator Whitehouse
 May 22 – EBC Solid Waste Forum – Jim Colman
 May 29 – Land Based Wind Energy – 2nd Session
 June 5 – EBEE Awards Celebration
 June 20 – Breakfast Program w/ Deerin Babb-Brott
 June 23 – LID Conference
 July 11 – 3rd Annual EBC Ocean Management
Conference - Climate Change Impacts on Ocean and
Coastal Resources
EBC Member Survey
Regarding strategic issues/challenges, please rank each
of the following in terms of importance to your
company over the next three years.
1 - not important, 9 very important
• Hiring/Recruiting/Retaining Staff 7.86
• Business Development
7.86
• Economy - Domestic
7.70
• Growth
7.18
• Energy Industry Trends
6.82
• Environmental Industry Trends
6.00
• Economy - Global
6.00
• Regulatory/Legislative Developments 5.27
• Company Operational Issues
5.00
Member Survey – Early 08
On a scale of 1 to 5, how strong was your company's
business activity in 2007?
WEAK
STRONG
1. 0.0% 2. 5.9% 3. 23.5% 4. 41.2% 5. 29.4%
On a scale of 1 to 5, how strong do you anticipate your
company's business activity will be in the 1st
quarter of 2008?
WEAK
1. 0.0% 2. 8.7%
3. 17.4%
STRONG
4. 52.2%
5. 21.7%
The New England Regional
Economic Outlook
Bo Zhao
Economist
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
Regional Economic Overview
Bo Zhao, Senior Economist
New England Public Policy Center
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
Presented to the Environmental Business Council of New
England
The “Focus on the Regional Economy and the Green/Climate
Change Economy” Event
May 8, 2008
The views expressed in the presentation are not necessarily those of either the Federal Reserve Bank of
Boston or the Federal Reserve System.
Overview
• Job market
• Personal income
• Housing market
• Prices and consumer
confidence
• Economic outlook
New England
employment slipped
I
Monthly Employment Change in New England
Thousands of Jobs
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
Mar01
Sep01
Mar02
Sep02
Mar03
Sep03
Mar04
Sep04
Mar05
Sep05
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Mar06
Sep06
Mar07
Sep07
Mar08
9
The year-over-year employment growth was small
Percent Change from
Year Earlier
4
3
United States
2
1
0
-1
New England
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
Apr-90
Apr-92
Apr-94
Apr-96
Apr-98
Apr-00
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Apr-02
Apr-04
Apr-06
Apr-08
10
Rhode Island is experiencing large job
losses
Percent Change
from Year Earlier
Maine
Rhode Island
4
4
2
2
0
0
-2
-2
-4
-4
-6
Last 12 months:
-2.0%
-8
Mar-92 Mar-94 Mar-96 Mar-98 Mar-00 Mar-02 Mar-04 Mar-07 Mar-08
-6
Last 12 months:
+0.1%
-8
Mar-92 Mar-94 Mar-96 Mar-98 Mar-00 Mar-02 Mar-04 Mar-06 Mar-08
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
11
CT’s and VT’s labor markets are weakening
Percent Change
from Year Earlier
Vermont
Connecticut
4
4
2
2
0
0
-2
-2
-4
-4
-6
Last 12 months:
+0.6%
-8
Mar-92 Mar-94 Mar-96 Mar-98 Mar-00 Mar-02 Mar-04 Mar-06 Mar-08
-6
Last 12 months:
+0.08%
-8
Mar-92 Mar-94 Mar-96 Mar-98 Mar-00 Mar-07 Mar-07 Mar-07 Mar-08
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
12
MA and NH have continuing and steady job growth
Percent Change
from Year Earlier
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
4
4
2
2
0
0
-2
-2
-4
-4
-6
Last 12 months:
+0.7%
-8
Mar-92 Mar-94 Mar-96 Mar-98 Mar-00 Mar-07 Mar-04 Mar-07 Mar-08
-6
Last 12 months:
+1.5%
-8
Mar-92 Mar-94 Mar-96 Mar-98 Mar-00 Mar-02 Mar-04 Mar-07 Mar-08
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
13
Employment growth by industry: mixed results
Percent Change, March 2007 – March 2008
(Seasonally Adjusted)
Construction
-4.6
United States
-1.8
-2.2
Manufacturing
New England
-1.4
-0.1
-0.2
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities
1
-0.7
1
Information
2.5
-1.3
Financial Activities
-1.3
0.9
Professional & Business Services
1.1
3.0
Private Education & Health Services
2.2
2.5
Leisure and Hospitality
0.7
0.7
Other Services
-0.6
1.1
Government
1.1
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
1
New England data for CT, MA, and NH. Seasonally adjusted
data are not available for ME, RI, or VT.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
14
NE unemployment rate increased,
but was still below the national average
Percent
9
8
7
United States
6
5
New England
4
3
2
1
0
Apr-94 Apr-95 Apr-96 Apr-97 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Apr-04 Apr-05 Apr-06 Apr-07 Apr-08
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
15
Unemployment rates within New
England
4.4
United States
5.1
Mar-07
Mar-08
4.4
New England
4.8
4.4
Connecticut
5.3
4.6
Maine
5.0
4.6
Massachusetts
4.4
3.8
New Hampshire
3.9
4.9
Rhode Island
6.1
4.0
Vermont
4.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Percent
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
16
Job postings in print ads were down
Help Wanted Index
Index 1987 =100
100
80
60
United States
40
20
New England
0
Mar-99
Mar-00
Mar-01
Mar-02
Mar-03
Mar-04
Source: The Conference Board.
Mar-05
Mar-06
Mar-07
Mar-08
17
Online job postings fell sharply
Percent change in total online postings,
April 2007 – April 2008
0
-5
-10
-12.5
-15
-16.4
-18.1
-20
-25
-24.8
-30
United States
New England
Boston
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
NE less Boston
18
Personal income growth slowed
Percent Change
from Year Earlier
15
10
United States
5
0
New England
-5
90Q1
91Q3
93Q1
94Q3
96Q1
97Q3
99Q1
00Q3
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
02Q1
03Q3
05Q1
06Q3
08Q1
Personal income growth within the
region: mixed performance
Percent Change, Q4 2006 – Q4 2007
7
6
6.6
5.9
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.7
5
4.1
4
2.9
3
2
1
0
United States
New England
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
New
Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Per capita personal income levels and
growth
State
Per capita
personal income
(dollars)
Rank in
the U.S.
Percent
change
2006-2007
Rank of
percent
change
2006
2007
2006 2007
U.S.
36,714
38,611
CT
50,762
54,117
1
1
6.6
4
ME
32,095
33,722
36
35
5.1
27
MA
46,299
49,082
3
3
6.0
8
NH
39,753
41,512
7
8
4.4
39
RI
37,523
39,463
17
17
5.2
23
VT
34,871
36,670
22
23
5.2
25
5.2
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
House prices continued to be soft
Percent Change
from Year Earlier
OFHEO House Price Purchase Only Index
20
15
United States
10
5
0
New England
-5
-10
Feb92
Feb93
Feb94
Feb95
Feb96
Feb97
Feb98
Feb99
Feb00
Feb01
Feb02
Feb03
Source: Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight / Haver Analytics.
Feb04
Feb05
Feb06
Feb07
Feb08
Boston had a smaller decrease in home
prices than some major metro areas
S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Index
Percent Change, February 2007 – February 2008
Composite 10
-13.6
Composite 20
-12.7
Boston
-4.6
Chicago
Denver
-8.5
-5.5
-22.8
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Miami
-19.4
-21.7
New York
-6.6
San Diego
-19.2
San Francisco
-17.2
Washington
-24
-13.0
-22
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
Source: S&P Case-Shiller / Haver Analytics.
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
23
NE single-family housing permits continued
to fall
Index, 1988 = 1
2.0
1.5
United States
1.0
0.5
New England
0.0
Feb-84
Feb-86
Feb-88
Feb-90
Feb-92
Feb-94
Feb-96
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Feb-98
Feb-00
Feb-02
Feb-04
Feb-06
Feb-08
NE multi-family housing permits were down
even more
Index, 1988 = 1
2.5
2.0
1.5
United States
1.0
0.5
0.0
New England
-0.5
Feb-84
Feb-86
Feb-88
Feb-90
Feb-92
Feb-94
Feb-96
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Feb-98
Feb-00
Feb-02
Feb-04
Feb-06
Feb-08
Boston inflation rate was lower than the national
average
Percent Change
from Year Earlier
Consumer Price Index
6
United States
5
4
3
2
1
Boston
0
Mar92
Mar93
Mar- Mar94
95
Mar96
Mar97
Mar- Mar98
99
Mar00
Mar01
Mar- Mar02
03
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Mar04
Mar05
Mar- Mar06
07
Mar08
Price changes in major expenditure categories
Consumer Prices Percent Change, March 2007 – March 2008
4.0
All Items
United States
2.9
Boston
4.5
Food
3.0
2.9
Shelter
0.2
6.5
Fuel & Utilities
10.1
8.2
Transportation
5.6
4.6
Medical Care
4.7
1.3
Recreation
2.7
3.1
Education and Communication
9.4
2.4
All Items, Less Food and Energy
1.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
6
7
8
9
10
11
27
Consumer confidence remained weak
1985 U.S. Average = 100
180
160
140
United States
120
100
80
New England
60
40
20
0
Mar-86
Mar-88
Mar-90
Mar-92
Mar-94
Mar-96
Mar-98
Mar-00
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Mar-02
Mar-04
Mar-06
Mar-08
Outlook for the New England employment:
slow growth
Average Annual Change: 2006-11 Total Employment
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
NH
US
RI
NE
Source: NEEP
MA
CT
VT
ME
Summary
• The New England economy is slipping
throughout the first quarter of 2008, mostly in line
with national patterns.
• Economic conditions vary considerably across
the six New England states.
• CPI inflation in the Boston area continues to run
lower than the national average.
• NEEP forecast that the region’s outlook is “slow
growth, below the national average.”
Outlook for the New England housing market
2001-2011 Median House Price Annual Percentage Change
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
MA
NH
2008-09
2009-10
-5.0%
-10.0%
US
CT
ME
Source: NEEP
RI
VT
2010-11
Backup slides
Employment Growth by Industry1
Percent Change, March 2007 – March 2008
(Seasonally Adjusted)
2
MANUFACTURING:
Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
TRADE, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES:
3
Wholes ale Trade
Retail Trade
Trans portation, Warehous ing, & Utilities
FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES:4
Finance and Ins urance
Real Es tate & Rental & Leas ing
PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS SERVICES:
Profes s ional, Scientific & Technical5
Management of Companies and Entrerpris es
Adminis trative & Was te Management
EDUCATION & HEALTH SERVICES:
Educational Services6
Health Care & Social As s is tance
LEISURE & HOSPITALITY:
Arts , Entertainment & Recreation
Accommodation & Food Services
GOVERNMENT:7
Federal
State
Local
-4.0
1
United States
-2.4
-1.3
-2.0
-2.1
New England
1.2
0.9
-0.7
-0.6
-3.1
-2.1
0.0
-1.0
-0.6
3.3
3.1
0.0
0.0
-1.2
-0.3
1.6
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
3.1
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.4
0.0
0.8
-0.1
-0.1
1.1
1.8
1.3
1.1
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
Industries selected based on the availability of seasonally adjusted data for the New England states.
Data not available for CT.
3 Data not available for RI and VT.
4 Data not available for ME, NH, RI and VT.
5 Data not available for CT,ME, NH, RI and VT.
6 Data not available for ME.
7 Data not available for ME, RI and VT
2
0.4
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance
Index 1995 = 1
1.4
United States
1.2
New England
1.0
0.8
0.6
Feb-99
Feb-00
Feb-01
Feb-02
Source: U.S. Employment and Training Administration.
Feb-03
Feb-04
Feb-05
Feb-06
Feb-07
Feb-08
Personal Income
Percent
Change from Year Earlier
15
United States
10
5
0
New England
-5
89Q4
91Q4
93Q4
95Q4
97Q4
99Q4
01Q4
03Q4
05Q4
07Q4
Total Wage and Salary Disbursements
Percent
Change from Year Earlier
15
New England
10
5
0
United States
-5
89Q4
91Q4
93Q4
Percent Change from Year Earlier
95Q4
97Q4
99Q4
01Q4
03Q4
05Q4
07Q4
Percent Change, Q4 2007 – Q4 2008
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Unit e d S t a t e s
N e w E ngla nd
C o nne c t ic ut
M a ine
Pe rs on al In com e
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
M a s s a c hus e t t s
N e w H a m ps hire
W age an d S al ary Di s bu rs e m e n ts
R ho de Is la nd
V e rm o nt
Coincident Indexes
Each State’s Post-Recession Trough = 1
1.20
NH
CT
US
MA
1.15
RI
1.10
VT
ME
1.05
1.00
0.95
Mar00
S ep00
Mar01
S ep01
Mar02
S ep02
Mar03
S ep03
Mar04
S ep04
Mar05
Note: The Rhode Island index does not have a post-recession trough. It is equal to 1 at the U.S. trough.
Source: The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
S ep05
Mar06
S ep06
Mar07
S ep07
Mar08
Consumer Confidence
1985 U.S. Average = 100
180
160
140
United States
120
100
80
60
New England
40
20
0
Mar-86 Mar-88
Mar-90 Mar-92 Mar-94
Mar-96 Mar-98
Mar-00 Mar-02 Mar-04
Mar-06 Mar-08
New England Present Situation and Future Expectations
1985 Average = 100
240
200
Present Situation
160
120
80
40
Future Expectations
0
Mar-86
Mar-88 Mar-90
Mar-92 Mar-94
Mar-96 Mar-98
Mar-00 Mar-05
Mar-05 Mar-06
Mar-08
150
Index (1985 U.S. Average = 100)
135
139
Mar-07
130
Mar-08
120
108
105
91
89
90
88
79
75
60
65
64
57
48
43
45
30
15
0
Consumer Confidence
US
NE
Present Situation
US
NE
Future Expectations
US
NE
Massachusetts Indicators
8
74
U M ass Le ading Inde x (Le ft Axis)
AIM Busine ss Confide nce (Right Axis)
6
68
4
62
2
56
0
50
-2
44
-4
Mar-01
38
S e p-01
Mar-02
S e p-02
Jan -03
S e p-03
Mar-04
S e p-04
Mar-05
S e p-05
Source: Associated Industries of Massachusetts and the University of Massachusetts.
Mar-06
S e p-06
Mar-07
S e p-07
Mar-08
Single-Family Housing Permits
2.0
Index, 1988 = 1
1.5
1.0
United States
0.5
New England
0.0
Feb-84
Feb-86
Feb-88
Feb-90
Feb-92
Feb-94
Feb-96
Feb-98
Feb-00
Feb-02
Feb-04
Feb-06
Feb-08
Multi-Family Housing Permits
2.5
Index, 1988 = 1
2.0
1.5
United States
1.0
0.5
0.0
New England
-0.5
Feb-84
Feb-86
Feb-88
Feb-90
Feb-92
Feb-94
Feb-96
Feb-98
Feb-00
Feb-02
Feb-04
Feb-05
Feb-08
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Construction Statistics Division.
Dollar Value of Residential Construction Contracts
4.0
3.5
United States
Index, 1988 = 1
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
New England
0.0
Mar-84
Mar-86
Mar-88
Mar-90
Mar-92
Mar-94
Mar-96
Source: McGraw-Hill Information Systems Company, F.W. Dodge Division.
Mar-98
Mar-00
Mar-02
Mar-04
Mar-06
Mar-08
The Green & Climate Change
Economic Outlook
Andrew Paterson
Director of Economics
Econergy International Corporation
Climate Policy Outlook and
Carbon Management Business Opportunities
New England Environmental Business Council
Westborough, MA
May 2008
Andrew D. Paterson
Director – North America,
Economics & Finance
Consulting
Washington, DC 202-822-4980
[email protected]
ECONERGY’S BUSINESS (“ECG” on London AIM)
OFFICES & PROJECTS
Boulder (CO)
London
Cambria
Washington D.C.
Renewable Power
Production
Monterrey
San
Jose
Fortaleza
Cochabamba
Belo Horizonte
Rio de Janeiro
São Paulo
Office
Project
CleanTech Fund
• Build, own and operate an asset
base of renewable energy
projects
• Scope, opportunity and inhouse expertise to become a
leading developer of clean
energy assets
• Wind & hydro in Latin America
• Biomass in U.S.
• Raising capital for
small-scale
Carbon Services
generation projects
• Broker carbon credits in Latin America
in regulated and
• Invested in 3
voluntary markets
projects
• Carbon project
Consulting
identification and
• Access deal flow
development support
• Provide intellectual
capital to company
and clients
Raised $100M on London AIM in Feb. 2006
• Support
development of
$25M in revenues for 2007, from $3M in 2005.
U.S. Strategy
42
Climate Policy: Good News / Bad News
Good News:
• No matter the results of the election in 2008, the federal political landscape
will improve dramatically for legislation on GHGs.
– Democrats will likely gain +15 in the House, +5 in Senate in 2008.
– All three presidential candidates will sign climate legislation
•
Voluntary efforts, early action, and state initiatives are underway already.
Bad News:
• A primary excuse for failing to pass GHG legislation vanishes in 2009.
• Regional differences within US are physically vast, making consensus on
environmental policies very elusive, and with clear leaders and laggards.
• China and India + ROW will continue to pump GHGs into the global airshed
faster than we curb emissions… without massive infrastructure overhaul.
• The federal deficit poses a huge barrier to funding new incentives.
• Policy models are not focused well on scale of the fossil economy challenge.
Overview: Environmental Business Opportunities
A.
Environmental Market Update
– Progress and plateaus; Growth Markets vs. Large Markets
B.
Politics 2008: Impact on Policy Outlook
– Democrats will gain in Congress… plus the White House (?)
– But, the country will remain divided: Red vs. Blue
C.
Carbon Policy Options & Financing Issues
– Supreme Court: Impact of Mass v. U.S. EPA (April 2007)
– U.S. and Global Carbon Emission Outlook
– The scale of the fossil economy is daunting worldwide
– Socolow’s Wedges as a basis for Business Strategy
– The WBCSD Framework (long-term) vs. Kyoto (short term)
– The Bond Market: The critical market for financing clean energy
U.S. Environmental Market Growth Rides on Resources
Environmental legislation in 1970s and 1980s helped drive growth, but economic
recovery, manufacturing excellence in the 1990s became larger drivers as
cleanup markets topped out. Exports comprise about 10% of the total market,
concentrated in air, water equipment. Global growth draws on resources.
U.S. Environmental Market 1970-2010
Services
Equipment
Global Growth,
Energy demand
Resources
$350
Economic
Growth,
Redevelopment
$Billions (nominal)
$300
$250
Environmental
Legislation:
RCRA, SF
$200
$150
$100
NEPA,
CAA
$50
$1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
projected
Some Service Sectors Declining; Water, Energy Growing
Backend treatment services – remediation, hazardous waste management, analytical
labs and related consulting peaked in the 1980s and plateaued. Energy and water
niches, process technologies grow with demographic and economic drivers.
Environmental
Industry Segment
Services
Analytical Services
Wastewater Treatment Works
Solid Waste Management
Hazardous Waste Management
Remediation/Industrial Services
Consulting & Engineering
Equipment
Water Equipment and Chemicals
Instruments & Information Systems
Air Pollution Control Equipment
Waste Management Equipment
Process & Prevention Technology
Resources
Water Utilities
Resource Recovery (recycling)
Environmental Energy Sources
U.S. Totals:
1970
70-80
1980 Growth
80-90
1990 Growth
90-00
2000 Growth
00-10
2010 Growth
0.1
4.3
3.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
9.2
8.5
0.6
0.4
1.5
300%
116%
164%
550%
550%
367%
1.5 314%
19.8 116%
26.1 208%
6.3 921%
8.5 1813%
12.5 761%
1.6
30.0
42.0
8.0
10.0
18.0
7%
52%
61%
27%
18%
44%
1.9
44.5
58.8
9.7
13.7
28.8
20%
48%
40%
21%
37%
60%
3.2
0.1
1.0
2.0
0.0
6.9
0.2
3.0
4.0
0.1
117%
100%
196%
105%
259%
13.5
2.0
10.7
10.4
0.4
20.0
4.0
18.0
9.6
1.2
48%
100%
68%
-8%
200%
32.6
6.0
19.1
11.5
2.0
63%
50%
6%
19%
70%
5.7
1.2
0.3
$21.4
11.9
4.4
1.5
$52.6
67%
42.3
37%
25.5
733%
38.2
56% $334.6
28%
42%
155%
46%
109%
19.8
283%
13.1
420%
1.8
145% $146.4
95%
820%
258%
159%
418%
67%
33.0
197%
18.0
15%
15.0
178% $228.4
Source: Environmental Business Journal
Market Traits (Growth, Size) Affect Financing Options
•
Different market traits – growth rate, competitive dominance, nature of
purchasing decisions – call for different financing approaches, incentives.
•
Clean energy and instruments offer much higher growth rates (>20% per
year) to allow recovery of equity investments (Group A).
•
Larger markets, like water treatment and resource recovery with steadier
growth rates, that match the economy and demographic trends, allow for
some debt funding and project finance, often with some public finance
(Group B). Municipal ownership is high in these sectors precluding venture
capital. Tax exempt bonds, international lending are more typical.
•
Declining markets, like remediation and consulting, must rely on asset
conversion, e.g. brownfield development or facility turnaround, to generate
returns since losses on operations are common (Group C).
•
For international markets, project debt financing is a paramount factor
since markets and enforcement mechanisms are not well-developed.
U.S. Enviro Markets 2010 Forecast: Growth vs. Size (I)
A) Small markets growing faster: Process Technology, Instruments, Energy, Water
B) Large markets growing basically with the economy: Infrastructure, Services
C) Shrinking markets: Traditional backend Cleanup and Remediation
U.S. Environmental Markets 2010: Growth vs. Size
160%
A
Clean
Energy
Market Growth 2000-2010
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
Process Tech
Consulting
Instrum ents
Water
Equip
A
40%
20%
0%
$-
Rem ed
HazW
Waste
Mgt.Eq
A.Labs
$10
Wastew ater
Treatm ent
C
AirPC
$20
Solid
Waste
Resource
Recovery
$30
B
Drinking
Water
$40
$50
$60
Market Size in 2010 ($Billion)
Source: EBI
U.S. Enviro Markets 2010 Forecast: Growth vs. Size (II)
A) Small markets growing faster: Process Technology, Instruments, Energy, Water
B) Large markets growing basically with the economy: Infrastructure, Services
C) Shrinking markets: Traditional backend Cleanup and Remediation
U.S. Environmental Markets 2010: Growth vs. Size
A
80%
Process Tech
Clean
Energy
Market Growth 2000-2010
70%
60%
A
Water
Equip
Consulting
Instrum ents
Wastew ater
Treatm ent
Resource
Recovery
50%
B
40%
Rem ed
30%
HazW
10%
0%
$-
Drinking
Water
C
20%
A.Labs
Waste
Mgt.Eq
$10
Solid
Waste
AirPC
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
Market Size in 2010 ($Billion)
Source: EBI
Drivers & Multi-media Linkage
1.
Even with changeover in Congress, traditional environmental
legislation is on a slow track (e.g., no RCRA, Superfund bills).
2. High market segment growth (>2x-3x GDP) drives returns needed
to recover costs and risks of technology innovation.
3. Many environmental sectors are mature and driven by GDP and
demographics: water resources, solid waste, land use.
4. Back-end cleanup, e.g., remediation, air, hazardous waste, are
not high growth niches. Much work has been completed (USTs).
5. Redevelopment of aging infrastructure is becoming a bigger
driver, including energy and grid, water, urban transport, gov’t.
6. Interest rates are low, allowing ample financing for infrastructure.
7. Water shortages have appeared, but have not triggered large
scale budget increases yet, which will be needed for innovation.
8. Linkage: Innovative energy technologies look to be a high growth
niche, creating higher water demands, affected by GHG policy.
9. Regulatory uncertainty freezes investment and market growth.
10. Better long-term policies mobilize more private capital.
U.S. Regional Differences Remain Sharp into 2008
Difficult to frame national solutions when country remains divided.
•
Sharp regional differences drive water resource and environmental
policies, led by Governors / states:
–
–
–
–
–
Energy use patterns, electricity prices, and transmission constraints
Levels of urbanization, air pollution, vehicle use
Availability of renewable resources (hydro, biomass, wind, solar)
Water use and supply, and agricultural (“CAFO”) priorities
Land use management and pressures for suburban development
•
Political leadership at state and local level will differ from federal
agencies regardless of party affiliation.
•
Priorities for urban states diverge from suburbs and rural states.
•
Federal policy (e.g., EPA, FERC, DOI) and funding of key programs will
struggle to balance regional priorities. “Producers” vs. “Consumers”.
•
Hurricane recovery, climate change will aggravate regional differences.
Different regions, different policies
States: “Red” (Bush) vs. “Blue” (Gore/Kerry)
Different priorities will alter market and technology opportunities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Red States
Petrochemicals & NASCAR!
Producer states: Opportunities
for expansion of energy
infrastructure (pipelines, LNG)
Roads & suburbs; SUVs, soccer
Transportation and siting projects
More energy exploration
State PUCs approve “clean coal”
plants (with scrubbers, CCS)
Water + drought management
Real estate development and
more access to federal lands
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Blue States
High-tech & Hockey
User states: Need upgrades of
energy infrastructure: pipelines
and transmission, urban load
Mass transit, traffic congestion
Hybrids and “clean fleets”
More EE, “green energy” policies
More lawsuits on coal power
plants (feud over NSR)
Water infrastructure makeovers
“Restoration Economy” and land
use conservation
B. Race for President: 2008 Outlook
Late Bulletin (from The Onion)…
Bill Clinton: 'Screw It, I'm Running For President'
February 20, 2008 | Issue 44•04
CHARLESTON, SC—After spending four months accompanying
his wife, Hillary, on the campaign trail, former president Bill Clinton
announced Monday that he is joining the 2008 presidential race,
saying he "could no longer resist the urge.“I have to.“Clinton told
reporters Tuesday that seeing so many "Clinton '08" posters
"really got [him] thinking," and said that the fact that he was
already wearing a suit, and smiling and waving on the campaign
trail was an added motivator.
"My fellow Americans, I am sick and tired of not being president,"
said Clinton, introducing his wife at a "Hillary '08" rally. "For seven
agonizing years, I have sat idly by as others experienced the joys
of campaigning, debating, and interacting with the people of this
great nation, and I simply cannot take it anymore. I have to be
president again. He continued, "It is with a great sense of relief
that I say to all of you today, 'Screw it. I'm in.'"
Bill Clinton then completed his introduction of Hillary Clinton,
calling her a "wonderful wife and worthy political adversary,".
Poll: Many Americans
Still Unsure Whom To
Vote Against
2004 Result: “Red” (Bush) vs. “Blue” (Kerry or Gore)
The U.S. remains sharply divided after 2004 election…in Congress also.
Result in 2000
Bush: 271
Gore: 267
2000 Census
+ 7 for red
Result in 2004
Bush: 286
Kerry: 252
Only +8 shifted, net
http://www.2001inaugural.com/2000-election-map.html
2008 Election is the Democrats to lose…
States Won in 2004
Results in 2004
Total Electoral Votes Needed
Likely switches in 2008: OH, IA
More shifts in 2008 ?: MO, NM, NV, VA
Possible Result for 2008:
Dems
19+DC
252
270
+27
+39
318
GOP
31
286
270
-27
-39
220
Alternative Scenario: Puts Election in New House [Each state gets 1 vote]
Results in 2004
252
286
Likely switches in 2008: OH + IA = + 27
279
259
McCain counterpunch: WI or MN = -10
269
269
(or GOP keeps OH, but loses IA, NM, WV)
2004 Results with Voting Tendencies
The electoral battle will be focused on just a few “edge” states.
There are plausible
scenarios for a tie:
269 – 269 in EC.
Dems: IA+NM+NV
Dems: OH +IA, less
MN or WI
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
UPDATE: Scenarios for 2008 Face-off
SCENARIOs
A) “Camelot restored”
Obama wins out,
Hillary loses
Democrats
(not chosen VP)
B) “We Were Soldiers”
Obama survives
against Hillary -doubts emerge.
Economy holds up.
C) “There will be Blood”
Clinton selected by
Super Delegates –
Obama leads protest
(Chicago 1968 ?)
Democrats:
Republicans:
Huge momentum
and turnout. “Yes
we can” rivals
March Madness
70%
Blue Victory:
Low GOP turnout with
“liberal” nominee,
GOP suffers all over.
Elevated turmoil
in Gulf region
brings security
issue back.
GOP surprise: 25%
Democrats lose some
voters in struggle for
nomination. McCain
pulls in OH, PA, WI.
Outrage: “Million
Voter March”.
Black vote stays
home. Chaos.
Divided Gov’t:
5%
Clinton unites
Conservatives.
McCain garners
Independents 3:2.
Dems keep Congress.
Open Market Trading (4/12/08) on “Presidential Futures” (Iowa Biz)
Obama Surges after Super Tuesday
Obama
wins Iowa
Hillary
rallies
in N.H.
80%
Establishment
Democrats break
for Hillary
Obama
internet money
train kicks in
Obama
on fire in
Super
Tuesday
20%
Outlook on Carbon Policy: 2009+, not 2008
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Differences are wide just between Democrats in House vs. Senate.
Regional differences are significant, creating winners and losers.
Recall: Clean Air Act took 12 years (to 1990) – consensus is difficult.
House is less responsive to international pressure vs. district issues.
“Pay-as-you-go” rules in House pose a real fiscal challenge.
– Curbing oil and gas tax benefits to create funds is not easy.
– Possible opportunity with expiration of RE credits at end of 2008.
– Industry not enthusiastic about carbon funds going to Treasury.
– Allocating carbon allowances creates a huge battle.
Next White House will be more disposed toward a climate bill, no
matter what happens in presidential election, but terms vary.
Democrats will pick up seats in House and Senate, so environmental
groups already see they can get a better carbon reg deal in 2009.
Wildcards: More storm damage, oil supply disruptions, heat wave or
drought aggravating electricity prices, a terror attack in Gulf.
C. Energy & Carbon Policy Outlook
EIA recently raised its forecast for more coal use in the wake of rising natural gas prices.
Congress v. WH
Key Agencies
Energy / Climate
2008 Campaign
International
Capital Mkts
Situation Briefing: U.S. Energy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Declining on-shore U.S. oil production for three decades
Moratoriums intensified for off-shore drilling (e.g., Florida, California)
Tighter regional clean air regulations in major urban areas
Currently importing >60% of oil consumption, most of it from unstable – or
even hostile regimes, who explicitly limit supply
– Very grave terrorist threats at supply sources or choke points (2/26/06)
– Steady erosion of global swing capacity of oil production and refining
– No new refineries built in U.S. since 1976; (just expansion at sites)
– Balkanized gasoline markets: 11 formulas in 3 grades = >30 fuels
Global oil consumption hit a record high in 2007: 84 M bbl/day
Substantial local resistance to more LNG capacity
Demand driven by weather, commuting patterns, growth… not price
Carbon regulations on the horizon, but very uncertain terms and timing
Therefore: Energy Security & Reliability >> End-use Market Pricing
After Supreme Court Ruling, no turning back
All blue states
•
•
•
•
Mass v. EPA – “ripple effect”
1. States have standing
2. CO2 is a pollutant under CAA
3. EPA must determine harm
• GHG regulation is coming – no longer if
but:
• What will it look like?
• When will it happen?
• Whom will it effect?
•  Energy from fossil fuels, remains the
dominant source: who will pay ?
Key Players
Massachusetts et al. v. EPA
(U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 05-1120)
Petitioners: the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, the states of California,
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Washington, the District of
Columbia, American Samoa Government, New
York City, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food
Safety, Conservation Law Foundation,
Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense,
Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International
Center for Technology Assessment, National
Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned
Scientists, U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
Respondents: the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
National Automobile Dealers Association, Engine
Manufacturers Association; Truck Manufacturers
Association, CO2 Litigation Group; Utility Air
Regulatory Group, and the States of Michigan,
Texas, North Dakota, Utah, South Dakota, Alaska,
Kansas, Nebraska, and Ohio.
Projected CO2 Emissions, 1990 – 2030
“Major Emitters” (Top 10) matter most. U.S.+China = 50% in 2030
Kyoto signers were 55% in 2002;
but will only be 35% in 2030.
1990
2010
2030
EIA: U.S. CO2 Emissions by Sector, 2010 rev
EIA trimmed emission projections only a bit due to higher gas prices.
Source: EIA,
AEO 2008
600
500
2010
400
300
200
100
NGas
Petro
Coal
Transport
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
0
Electricity
Tons of Carbon emitted
700
Coal
Petro
NGas
EIA: U.S. CO2 Emissions by Sector, 2030 EST
Absent a massive turnover in equipment, CO2 emissions keep rising.
Source: EIA,
AEO 2008
600
500
2030
400
300
200
100
NGas
Petro
Coal
Transport
Industrial
Commercial
Electricity broken
out by end-use
sector.
Residential
0
Electricity
Tons of Carbon emitted
700
Coal fired electricity
continues to rise in
total because of
higher gas prices.
Coal
Petro
NGas
“Where are the U.S. CO2 Emissions”
Baseline: U.S. CO2 Emissions by Sector, 2000
Source: EIA,
AEO 2003
600
500
400
300
2000
200
100
0
Coal
Transport
Industrial
Petro
Commercial
Electricity broken
out by end-use
sector.
Residential
NGas
Electricity
Tons of Carbon emitted
Power sector drew early attention, but transportation is crucial also.
Difficulty in dealing
with transport
sector emissions
plagues EU as well.
Coal
Petro
NGas
Driver: “Life, Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness”
In U.S.:
Drivers
Vehicles
1960
87m
74m
-13m
1980
145m
156m
+11m
2000
190m
220m
+30m
Mass Transit ridership: 10b trips, rising slowly
Public transit use peaked in 1946, when
Americans took 23.4 billion trips on trains,
buses and trolleys, said Donna Aggazio,
spokeswoman for the American Public
Transportation Association. By 1960, it
dropped to 9.3 billion, and it declined further
as roads and car culture gripped the nation.
In 1972, transit ridership hit rock bottom at
6.5 billion trips. Since then, it seesawed until
1995, when it began steadily climbing.
Ridership in 2007 reached 10.7 billion trips.
“Getting the carbon price right” is more important to investors than consumers
Consumer Energy / Electric Use NOT based on Price
Price signals are not effective in driving
consumption, but do affect investment.
Lifestyle, weather, sprawl are bigger factors.
New York Times, March 30, 2007
Drivers Shrug as Gasoline Prices Soar
… As Americans enter the sixth year of rising oil and gasoline prices, their
shift in driving habits this time has been much less extensive. What’s more, in
recent weeks, gas consumption has gone up, not down, and drivers are
changing their daily driving habits only slightly.
“I don’t think about gas prices at all,” said Michael Machat, 48, a lawyer in
West Los Angeles, where gasoline prices are among the highest in the
country. As he filled up his BMW with super unleaded at $3.39 this week, he
added, “I guess maybe if it was $10 a gallon, I’d think about it.”
A recent study that Christopher Knittel, an economics professor at the
University of California, Davis, helped write showed that every time from
November 1975 to November 1980 that gasoline prices went up 20 percent,
consumers changed their driving behavior by cutting gas consumption by 6
percent per capita nationwide.
But from March 2001 to March 2006, drivers reduced consumption just 1
percent when prices rose 20 percent. Prices swung up and down seasonally
during both periods, but Mr. Knittel said the two periods were comparable
because regular gasoline prices increased in both periods by about 66 percent,
to $2.50 from $1.50 in real terms, set at 2000 dollars.
Prices falling
Prices rising
Per capita use steady
1980s
1990s
2000s
Transportation Sector Vital, but Difficult with Growth
“I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding
so America can lead the world in developing
clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.”
President Bush, Jan. 2003
“We have a serious problem: America is
addicted to oil.”
President Bush, Jan. 2006
FORD HYBRID
TOYOTA PRIUS
EPAct 2005
• Biofuels Standards and
tax subsidies
• Loan Guarantees for
fuel plants and Auto
manucturing facilities
EIA: Energy Trade Balance… Unsustainable
EIA: Monthly Energy Review, March 2008
Hitch: recession
related to 9/11
Energy imports aggravate
the US trade balance deficit.
Curbing Carbon Emissions is Smart Anyway…
•
•
•
•
•
•
Resource reserves: We are using up resources within several decades
that took millions of years for the planet to generate. Fossil fuel resources
are NOT renewable. Conservation is vital.
War & Terrorism: Because of where fossil fuels are located, rising prices
end up providing funds for terrorist networks. Some believe resource wars
are already underway… again (See Human History).
Water: Oil and chemical spills threaten vital water supplies and wildlife;
mercury from coal accumulates in lakes and streams.
Urban pollution: As humans increasingly live in cities pollution from
burning fossil fuels is killing us with pollution and vehicle accidents.
So, curbing fossil fuel use or finding more innovative ways to utilize it
efficiently without causing damage to our air and water makes sense.
This will require multiple decades (two generations) to complete a
transition to an economy based on low-carbon sources.
EPRI “Carbon Constrained” Scenario for Electricity
3500
Reaching lower carbon goals requires many technologies:
3000
U.S. Electric Sector
CO2 Emissions (million metric tons)
EIA Base Case 2007
2500
2000
Technology
EIA 2007 Reference
Target
Load Growth ~ +1.5%/yr
Load Growth ~ +1.1%/yr
30 GWe by 2030
70 GWe by 2030
12.5 GWe by 2030
64 GWe by 2030
No Existing Plant Upgrades
40% New Plant Efficiency
by 2020–2030
150 GWe Plant Upgrades
46% New Plant Efficiency
by 2020; 49% in 2030
CCS
None
Widely Deployed After 2020
PHEV
None
10% of New Vehicle Sales by 2017;
+2%/yr Thereafter
< 0.1% of Base Load in 2030
5% of Base Load in 2030
Efficiency
1500
Renewables
Nuclear Generation
1000
500
Advanced Coal Generation
DER
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
* Achieving all targets is very aggressive, but potentially feasible.
2030
U.S. Electricity Sources (2006) – over 24 hours
Natural gas accounts for most growth since 1990; overall demand +33%
U.S. Electricity Sources - 2006 (indexed to 24 hrs)
Coal
Petro
N.Gas
CHP
Nuclear
Pumped
Hydro
Wood (14m)
Waste (6m)
Geo
Solar/PV (0.2m)
Wind (9m)
(5m)
CHP
Nuclear (4.7h)
N.Gas (4.8h)
RE = 34 minutes
a day
Pumped
Wood (14m)
Hydro (1.7h)
Petro (22m)
RE
Waste (6m)
Geo
(5m)
Solar/PV (0.2m)
Wind (9m)
Coal (11.8h)
4,038 TWh
OUTLOOK ON U.S. CLIMATE POLICY TIMING: UTILITY EXECS (2007)
Challenge: New
capacity is needed
before federal
legislation is
expected to be
resolved and
litigated.
themselves
Source: Survey by GF Energy of Utility Executives in North America, April 2007
“Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies”
Opportunity Built on Princeton CMI Wedges
“Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning are projected
to double in the next 50 years (Figure 1), keeping the world
on course to more than triple the atmosphere’s carbon
dioxide (CO2) concentration from its pre-industrial level. In
contrast, if emissions can be kept flat over the next 50
years (orange line), we can steer a safer course. The flat
path, followed by emissions reductions later in the
century, is predicted to limit CO2 rise to less than a
doubling and skirt the worst predicted consequences of
climate change.”
Robert Socolow, Steve Pacala in Science (Aug. 2004)
Figure 1
“Keeping emissions flat for 50 years will require
trimming projected carbon output by roughly 7 billion
tons per year by 2054, keeping a total of ~175 billion
tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere (yellow
triangle). We refer to this carbon savings as the
“stabilization triangle.”
“Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies”
Technology Vital to Business Opportunities
Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative
EPA Role
Category
Technology for savings of 1 GigaTon/Year
Electricity
Fuel
Heat
Carbon
Sink Worldwide results by 2054
Efficiency
1
Major
Efficient vehicles (double mpg worldwide)
2
Minor
Reduced use of vehicles (e.g., telecommuting)
3
Major ?
4
Major
X
60 mpg vs. 30 x 2Bil vehicles
X
X
Curb VMT 50% to 5,000 m/yr
Efficient buildings and industrial facilities
X
X
Lighting, heating, cooling
Efficient baseload coal plants
X
60% efficiency vs. 30%; 13K TWh
Decarbonization of power
5
Minor
Gas baseload power for coal baseload power
X
1400 GW of gas vs. coal
6
Major
Capture CO2 at baseload power plant
X
800 GW of coal with CCS
7
Little
Nuclear power for coal power
X
700 GW of reactors vs. coal
8
Little
Wind power for coal power
X
2000 GW of wind (2 M turbines)
9
Little
PV power for coal power
X
4000 GW of PV v. gas; 40K sq.km
Decarbonization of fuel
10
Major
Capture CO2 at H2 plant
X
400 Mt of H2 (vs. 40 Mt today)
11
Major
Capture CO2 at coal-to-synfuels plant
X
30M bpd with CCS
12
Little
Wind H2 in fuel-cell car for gasoline
X
4000 GW of wind
13
Minor
Biomass fuel for fossil fuel
X
1000 B liters of ethanol (100x today)
Forests & Soils
14
Minor
Reduced deforestation, plus reforestation
X
6m hectares; zero burning
15
Minor
Conservation tillage
X
Low tillage to all cropland
Carbon Cap from Various Proposed Bills
Several bills call for moving below 1990 levels by 2030 or sooner.
How’s Europe doing on Carbon Emissions ?
Recent economic growth and transport fuel use is reversing early GHG
savings from economic contraction and shift from coal to gas.
How’s Europe doing on Carbon Emissions ?
Recent economic growth and transport fuel use is reversing early GHG
savings from economic contraction and shift from coal to gas.
Early savings in
Germany have
been in shutting
down massive
inefficiencies in
old East German
facilities and
shifting to gas.
Public sector “gaming”
Turmoil in EU Carbon Market (May 2006)
Europe hopes to avert a false economy in carbon
By Fiona Harvey, June 28 2006 19:38 | Financial Times of London
“What came close to putting the scheme on life support was data released between late April and midMay which showed that last year – the first the scheme had been in operation – businesses covered by it
had been given more permits than they needed because member states had overestimated demand.”
Several EU states over
estimated the allowances
they might need as
economic growth and
demographics came in
below projections, and
national bureaus also
wanted to create
“headroom” in their
estimates for their
industry to reduce the
impact of carbon
compliance costs.
Lower future demand for
allowances led to a
sudden selloff.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b03dbc7a-06cf-11db-81d7-0000779e2340.html
The next “credit” crisis: carbon credits ? (March 2008)
UK Regulator (FSA) Posts Risks on Carbon Trading
UK watchdog warns on carbon trading / March 2008
By Fiona Harvey and Ed Crooks
Published: March 31 2008 22:05 | Financial Times of London
The fast-growing market in carbon dioxide emissions poses risks that
could threaten other commodities markets, the FSA, Financial Services
Authority, warned on Monday. The watchdog said problems including
investors being sold unsuitable products, confusion over the regulation of
emissions traders, and insufficient official data created risks to both the
fledgling global emissions markets and to related commodities such as
gas and electricity.
EU traders in fossil fuels and electricity, for instance, factor carbon
permit prices into their deals, which can hit consumers. “Cap and trade”
systems, which place a limit on the amounts of carbon that companies
produce, are widely seen as one of the most promising ways of curbing
greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest cost, and have been embraced
since 2005 by the EU. In the EU the market is regulated by the European
Commission. The FSA does not have a direct hand in regulating the
market, and said it had no plans to do so. But it said in a paper published
on Monday that “the emissions markets justifiably demand the FSA’s
continued attention”.
The emissions markets have been beset by difficulties, for example in
2006 when it was revealed that more carbon permits had been issued for
the first phase of the EU’s scheme than were needed. This led to a steep
fall in the price of the permits. Among problems cited by the FSA is that
some companies authorised for other financial markets may have misled
customers by citing their FSA authorisation in relation to carbon trading.
The paper warned: “Aside from being misleading and leading to potential
enforcement action, this type of behaviour undermines confidence in the
market.” There was a strong reputational risk to the carbon market from
unsuitable products being sold to investors, the FSA said.
U.K. FSA lists risks of carbon trading:
The Financial Services Authority does not
govern the carbon market but the watchdog
listed risks in a report on carbon regulation
this week:
• The lack of links between emissions
trading markets globally;
• Some companies authorized for other
financial markets may have misled
customers by citing FSA authorization;
• Unsuitable products being sold to
investors, which could "potentially lead to
damage to consumers or to disorderly
trading, and a lack of confidence in market";
• The potential lack of appropriate
experience among practitioners;
• The quality of information available about
emission quantities and allowances;
• The lack of market liquidity.
(also on p.A1 of WSJ, April 12, 2008)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b03dbc7a-06cf-11db-81d7-0000779e2340.html
Budget Challenge in USA for U.S. EPA
EPA Budget Declining… not funded to regulate CO2
Source:
EPA Budget in Brief, 2009
$7.6?
$7.1
The Game:
White House
OMB cuts state
water grants and
earmarks,
knowing
Congress will
restore them.
Congress will
likely boost
climate budget
also… in 2010.
Drivers in EU vs. USA… and how to engage Asia ?
EU is committed to a cap because:
• They can’t harmonize 27 national
tax systems (social contracts)
• A cap is a policy mandate needed
to prop up coalition parliaments
• They need CDM as a means to
channel funds to emerging nations
• They are shifting from coal to gas,
with market pricing of electricity,
rather than regulated pricing
• EU economies face demographic
decline, and are stagnant
• EU is casting energy security on
Russian/FSU gas, and they want to
tax profits from fossil economy –
some interest in coal with CCS.
USA can choose and engage Asia:
• We have a common federal tax
system (and clever tax lawyers)
• State incentives can supplement and
help tailor approaches
• U.S. will be at 50% coal for power, and
China, India are using more coal
• USA and Asia are still growing ! But,
U.S. growth is concentrated in “Red”
states; …“Blue” states are older,
colder and losing young people
• Asia leads in building new reactors
and we have big stake in nuclear for
national security… and GHG gains
• Our future requires baseload and RE,
including PHEVs (electrify transport)
WBCSD Module: Pathways to 2050
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
Pathways to 2050 - Energy and Climate Change
Pathways to 2050 - Energy & climate change builds on the WBCSD’s 2004
Facts and Trends to 2050: Energy and Climate Change and provides a more
detailed overview of potential pathways to reducing CO2 emissions.
The pathways shown illustrate the scale and complexity of the change
needed, as well as the progress that has to be made through to 2050. Our
“checkpoint” in 2025 gives a measure of this progress and demonstrates the
urgency to act early to shift to a sustainable emissions trajectory.
www.wbcsd.org
The WBCSD has chosen to continue to illustrate the challenges associated
with one particular trajectory, consistent with the discussion already
presented in Facts and Trends ( 1.9 MB). This document therefore looks
closely at the changes needed to begin to stabilize CO2 concentrations in
the atmosphere at no more than 550-ppm (see glossary), which relates to
the “9 Gt world” described in Facts and Trends. As such, and based upon
simplified assumptions and extrapolations, we have made many choices,
some arbitrary, to present this single illustrative story. It is neither a fullyfledged scenario nor does it recommend a target. Moreover, this document
does not discuss policy definitions or options, topics that need to be dealt
with separately.
WBCSD: Opportunity starts at national / sectoral level
A. Opportunity Wedges (National)
B. National/Sectoral Goals & Targets
(Developed Country Example)
Buildings – adopt new country building
standards, design awareness
1000
CO2 Emissions, MT per annum
C. National Policies
Efficiency Buildings
Industry
xx % p.a.
Domestic
through to 20xx
800
Industry – Sectoral agreements, emissions
trading, technology standards
Domestic – carbon labeling, increased
product standards (e.g. standby energy)
Renewable Energy – renewables targets.
600
Power
Renewables xx MW p.a. by 20xx
Generation CCS
xx tonnes CO2 p.a.
400
Mobility
National CO2
trajectory
200
0
2005
Target
Vehicle Efficiency
Renewable Power
Buildings
Domestic
2050
Mobility - Fuels
Mobility Choice
CCS
Industry
Other Actions
CCS – funding for infrastructure, tax cuts
on capital investments, price signals for
carbon via emissions trading
Biofuels – targets, support for
Bio-fuels
xx litres p.a. by 20xx
manufacturing, CO2 labeling
Efficiency
xx mpg by 20xx
Choice
Hybrid / Diesel uptake Vehicle Efficiency - support technology,
incentives, sectoral agreements
Mass transit
Mobility Choice - consumer incentives,
promote public/private partnerships for
transport networks
87
GHG markets are expanding globally
CDM evolves to includes sectors
CDM
Linkages develop
between all
systems and more
systems appear
Japan
technology
standards
Canadian LFE-ETS
Expanding EU-ETS
EU-ETS
2000
2005
Pre-Kyoto
2010
Kyoto
2015
2020
Linkage framework is implemented
US NE-States ETS
Danish-ETS
UK-ETS
2025
California vehicle CO2 & ETS
Australian states ETS
88
A future framework – What is needed?
1.
A long-term goal (>2040)… geared to capital markets
 Established by 2010
 Described in terms of carbon equivalent emissions
2.
Technology development and deployment framework
 Expanded support for R&D
 Global standards
 Technology transfer driven by standards
 Risk management
3.
Emissions management at national and sectoral level
 Bottom-up approach aligned with energy policy
 Sector by sector
 Expanded project mechanism
 Progressive inclusion of all countries
4.
Linkage framework to encourage international trading
WBCSD Framework vs. Kyoto Protocol
Kyoto – 2008-2012
WBCSD Revised Framework
Top down reduction obligations
Bottom-up – National / sector policies and
commitments
Short term (5 year) compliance obligation
Longer term (50 year emissions trajectory)
Allocation of a reduction obligation – equitable
allocation difficult to achieve politically
National opportunities and policies aligned with
energy security and climate change priorities
Least cost compliance – not enough certainty for
large investments in new technologies
Technology development and deployment focus
Emissions market
Deeper engagement of capital markets and greater
influence over allocation of capital driven by a wide
range of policies and a broad based emissions
market.
Targets –tons reduced relative to a baseline
Targets still in terms of carbon reductions – but
aligned to specific actions with GHG benefits – e.g.
XX MW of wind power by 20XX.
Bond Market Viewpoints (32 responses; > $2 Trillion under management)
Energy Policy Survey in Lehman Roundtable at NARUC
Strongly Disagree
1.0
Least variance 
(high agreement)
2.0
2.5
3.0
Strongly Agree
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
1) Able to meet most U.S.
needs with EE RE
2) New nuclear on-line by
2020 (EPAct 2005)
3) New GHG bill enacted
by 2012
4) GHG regs likely from
EPA by 2015
5) Cap-and-trade better
than carbon tax
6) Can handle near-term
with natural gas
7) CCS needed at outset
for coal plants
Most variance 
1.5
Maybe;
not sure
8) CCS costs can be
covered by rates
9) States best to regulate
CCS liability
10) State RPS standards
better than Fed RPS
Observations:
• Wide agreement that EE / RE
will not offer enough.
• New nuclear is possible.
• GHG legislation likely,
though regs may take longer
than 2015.
• Not clear that cap-and-trade
is better than tax. Lot of
policy confusion.
• Just building gas will likely
fall short of demand.
• CCS terms, liability, and
recovery of cost not clear
yet. Policy unsettled.
• State RPS clearly better than
federal RPS.
Strong Outlook for Clean Energy Investing
Rapid growth is forecast for investment in clean energy niches.
Source:
Clean Edge
Clean Energy Trends - 2007
“Since the publication of our first Clean Energy Trends report in 2002, we’ve provided an annual snapshot of both the
global and U.S. clean-energy sectors. In this, our sixth edition, we find markets for our four benchmark technologies
— solar photovoltaics, wind power, biofuels, and fuel cells — continuing their healthy climb. Annual revenue for these
four technologies ramped up nearly 39% in one year — from $40 billion in 2005 to $55 billion in 2006. We forecast
that they will continue on this trajectory to become a $226 billion market by 2016.”
Climate & Clean Energy Business Opportunities
Different opportunities emerge at varying paces with varying impact.
A.
1
2
3
B.
C.
CARBON MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
Energy & Sequestration
Energy Efficiency (Practices / Equip)
- Buildings: residential, commercial, community-scale
- Industrial efficiency and co-generation; on-site power
- Smart transmission and distributed generation
- Expanded demand side mgmt.; consumer campaigns
Low Carbon Power Generation
- Power from coal or gas with carbon capture - storage
- More nuclear power
- Renewable power: wind, biomass, solar, geothermal
Transportation
- Vehicles and motors
- Non-grain Biofuels
- Electrified transport (plug-in hybrids)
- Hydrogen fuels (from nuclear or renewables)
- Telecommuting, traffic flows
Sinks and Resource Management (CO2 + Methane)
Aggressive forestry
Agricultural soil management
Landfill gas capture
Livestock management
Adaptation
Coastal building and community measures
Community preparation & Emergency response systems
Now to 2010
2010 - 2020
2020 - 2030
M
M
L
L
M
M
M
L
H
M
H
M
L
L
L
M
L
L
M
H
M
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
L
L
L
H
H
H
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
Wrap-up: Capital Incentives First, + Long-cycle Cap (2040)
•
Accelerating turnover of huge capital stock from carbon intensive assets to lowcarbon, efficient systems is the #1 issue; curbing consumption won’t be enough:
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
Capital incentives stimulate economic growth, which is needed to fund
innovation and regional infrastructure, and change how energy is used.
Capital incentives create demand for engineering / tech services and products.
North American capital markets are largest, most responsive, already in place.
Cap & trade creates bureaucratic inefficiencies and incentives for “gaming” and
widespread difficulties for enforcement in both public and private sectors.
–
–
•
•
•
Power generation (and sequestration) and grid upgrades (300 GW of coal)
Fuel refineries, vehicles, transport infrastructure (300m vehicles; 150B gal.)
End-use efficiency in wide array of buildings (design, use, “smart” systems)
Industrial manufacturing and fuels production in a vast economy
Economy-wide enforcement costs are extensive; bond market is more liquid.
Uneven impact creates large scale winners and losers by region, sector.
Natural sources of carbon and climate drivers are immense and not “capped”
Investment incentives engage big developing economies (BRIC); caps don’t.
A long-term (~2040) cap / permit system geared to the capital cycle is feasible.
Take-Home Message: Policy Approaches Still in Flux
• Aim “price signals” at capital markets first, then consumers
• A massive >$3 Trillion investment ($100B+ a year to 2040) is needed
to overhaul both power and transport sectors.
• A short-term cap (2020) will trigger more volatility of fuel and power
prices, chilling the investment needed.
• Gearing a CO2 emissions limit to the capital cycle (30 years+) enables
the economy to pay the “mortgage”… (recommended by WBSCD)
• Capital incentives can be funded with fuel taxes, fossil royalties, CO2
injection fees – all currently used !
• Alternative fuels and renewables curb our unsustainable import
addiction, while damping oil / gas price volatilities.
• Technology and market factors need risk-based policies.
Questions & Discussion
Andrew Paterson
Director – Economics & Finance Consulting / North America
ECONERGY
www.econergy.com
202-822-4981 x311
[email protected]
Environmental Market data:
www.ebiusa.com
BACKGROUND: ECONERGY COMPANY FOCUS
•
Renewable Project Development
–
–
•
Energy and Carbon Consulting
–
–
–
•
Latin America: Acquisition and development of hydroelectric and wind power projects in
Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Costa Rica and Chile
United States: Renewable energy and carbon offset project development
Completed over 250 assignments in more than 70 countries
Perform market studies, technology assessments, fuel/feedstock resource assessments
and investment performance reviews
Advise corporations, utilities, energy developers, banks, governments and multilateral
institutions on carbon savings and project potential
Carbon Markets
–
–
Originate CERs and VERs from Econergy investments and investments of partners and
clients
Contribute to the development of programs that foster investment in high-quality GHG
emission reduction projects domestically and internationally
96
Open Discussion
Thank You for attending and
Thank you to our Speakers
and sponsor