Three Signs Of A Ripening Market For Alternative and Distributed Energy
7.17.06   Jamie Wimberly, CEO, Distributed Energy Financial Group
“Schlop. Schlop. Beautiful schlop.
Beautiful schlop with a cherry on top!”
-- Dr. Seuss, Oh, The Thinks You Can Think

 

For many who follow alternative and distributed energy market developments, the past five years have been a roller coaster ride, with steep rises, falls, and twists of every sort. However, over the past year, the alternative and distributed energy market seems to be ripening in a real and sustainable manner, and the market could be closer to a tipping point than anytime beforehand.

Exogenous factors are driving this changed market, including: higher energy prices (by far, the most important driver), reliability and security concerns, and environmental challenges. In turn, these factors are intensifying a trend towards favorable regulatory and political treatment. Many states are now branding themselves in terms of their comparative advantages and support for particular alternative energy technologies, with an eye towards economic development and 21st century jobs.

 

In turn, customers are buying alternative and distributed energy technologies and solutions. Energy technology companies have restructured their marketing and sales efforts by narrowing their offerings, improving the mix of direct sales as compared with distribution partnerships or other channels, and providing a total value solution from a customer’s perspective. As a result, a majority of companies in the sector have seen improving top line results, with revenue growing at 15 percent or more on an annual basis.

 

The Distributed Energy Financial Group’s recent market research is consistently showing a ripening market for alternative and distributed energy. This article offers three signs of that trend: 1) positive market trends, 2) growing investor interest and availability of capital, and 3) favorable regulatory treatment as embodied in a ratcheting up of resource portfolio standards, incentives and subsidies, and environmental policies that, directly or indirectly, support alternative and distributed energy technologies and solutions.

Market Is Bullish On Distributed Energy

 

The Distributed Energy Financial Group in partnership with Market Strategies Inc. (MSI), recently completed the second annual DE market survey. Approximately 550 stakeholders responded to the survey representing all facets of the industry, including utilities, vendors, regulators, developers, investors and other interested stakeholders.

Over 75% of the respondents felt that revenue would grow in 2006. This year, slightly more respondents (45% v.s. 42% in 2005) feel that sector revenue will grow by over 5 %. Investors (60%) and executives (52%) are aligned on growth potential. 42 % percent of respondents rate the sector as a buy, and only 5% rate the sector as a sell.

 

While DEFG has a very broad definition of the distributed energy sector that includes integrated systems and controls to provide a full value proposition to customers, the market is much more focused on specific facets of the distributed energy sector, namely, renewable energy technologies and demand management. The survey, therefore, asked respondents what specific segments would be the most profitable from their perspective.

In regard to business issues, the survey examined the business issues from the perspective of the customer, the criteria that the customer used to make an investment, and then from the vendor perspective, the top issues facing executives at companies that provide DE solutions.

There is one obvious finding, energy prices matter a great deal and that directly leads to total expected rate of return. In the market, there is every expectation that we have entered into a new era of relatively high energy prices, including electricity prices as rate caps come off and a record wave of utility rate cases in progress or planned.

 

Survey respondents also indicated that vendors must continue to improve their technological advantage (23% of respondents) and reduce their cost of production (17% of respondents) in order to be successful in the future.

 

Admittedly, this is a tall order, with respondents basically telling vendors to spend money on R&D and operations, and on the other hand, to cut costs. No wonder then that so many DE companies have trouble finding the right mix of investment and cutting costs in order to increase operating margins.

In addition to improving the technological performance and functionality of the offering, respondents highlighted the importance of the entire offering, which would include the presentation of the offering, the contracting process, implementation, and service and maintenance after the contract is signed. These are all components of the value proposition that technology vendors, eager to sign deals, have somewhat downplayed in the past.

When asked what are the most important issues for customers purchasing DE solutions, respondents clearly stated “economic advantage/ payback” and a “reduction in energy costs” were the most important.

This finding has many important implications that are further reflected in survey responses, including:

     

  • Branding of products and the vendor offering should reflect the value proposition from the customer perspective (“Power Save” was chosen by close to 60 percent of the respondents from a list of hypothetical brand names);

     

     

  • For DE vendors discussing cost savings as part of the offering is very important, with approximately half the respondents indicating that the cost savings offered must be 15 percent or higher as compared with current energy expenditures for the customer to be very interested;

     

     

  • Large commercial was the customer segment that respondents indicated would represent the most growth for the DE sector, and to be effective with C&I customers, a short payback (50% of respondents) and “reliable” technology (15% of respondents but 46% when factoring in for top two responses) are paramount.

     

     

  • For residential customers, “simple and easy to use” was more significant, with 32% of respondents indicating this response.

Investor Interest In The Sector Is High

 

The Distributed Energy Stock Index (DESI, pronounced Deh-Zee) performed strongly with a 17 percent gain over its first year (Q3 2005 through Q2 2006), outperforming all the major benchmark indices by a wide margin over the same period. For Q2 2006, the DESI lost 6 percent for the quarter, even after reaching a record high in May.

The DESI is comprised of six segments and a total of 42 companies divided up between the six segments. A few of the segments accounted for most of the gain, especially the renewable energy segment with a 76 percent gain for the year, and the steady upward progress exhibited by the prime movers and project developers segment.

 

But as indicated by the Q2 results, a roller coaster ride of volatility is expected over the next year. The alternative fuels segment, for example, gained 60 percent in the early part of Q2, and then had loss almost all the gains by the end of the quarter.

 

Even so, with the prospect of double digit returns and with many companies beginning to approach profitability after many years of development, investor interest is expected to remain high over the coming years. With new products and funds, such as Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) and a growing number of private equity funds, institutional investors are beginning to also place money in the sector. Look for this trend to intensify.

Favorable Regulatory and Political Trends

 

The third sign of a ripening market is that there is an intensifying trend for favorable regulatory and political treatment of alternative and distributed energy.

Various states have enacted resource portfolio standards (RPS) which will require an increasing amount of renewable and other alternative energy resources to be added to their energy portfolio over fairly short periods of time. Wind, ethanol and other sources of alternative energy are boosted by an increasing amount of tax credits and subsidies.

 

The top regulatory driver, however, was “innovative rates.” The market is beginning to recognize that we have entered into a historic period of utility rate cases. Three major factors are driving these rate cases: 1) many utilities have not gone in for a general rate case for many years, especially for T&D; 2) under the “back to basics” strategy, utilities have cut costs and have delayed investments but this strategy has run its course, and utilities are now looking to shore up their operations and for revenue growth opportunities; and 3) rate caps are coming off in restructured states which lead to rate cases.

 

Each rate case presents an opportunity to push for more programs and/ or subsidies, incentives or other means to support alternative and distributed energy. As importantly, utilities are beginning to look at alternative and distributed energy differently than even a few years ago, less as a threat and more as an opportunity to defer capital expenditures or increase top line revenue.

 

An interesting finding from the 2006 DEFG MSI DE market survey was that demand response, demand management and energy efficiency have gained a great deal of traction over the past year.

The Distributed Energy Market Index (DEMI) is a tool that we use with clients to refine their commercialization strategies and to undertake strategic planning. As the DEMI map above shows, there is growing regulatory and political support for demand response and demand management in California, the Midwest and the Northeast. The recently passed Energy Policy Act 0f 2005 also has strong language in the law supporting demand response across the nation.

 

Given that demand management and energy efficiency technologies are proven technologies, are supported by regulatory and political trends, including meeting environmental goals, and with these projects and programs being oftentimes quickest to implement, the demand management, metering and energy efficiency segment should experience strong growth over the next three to five years.

 

Conclusions

Contrary to what many observers believe, a majority of the publicly-traded companies in the distributed and alternative energy sector -- such as those in the DESI -- are not even close to being profitable. "Ripening" of the sector does not mean that the distributed and alternative energy sector is mature, or even close to it. If anything, the market may be even more turbulent and volatile in the future, and many of the companies that exist today may be acquired or cease to exist in the future.

 

While the intention is not to oversell the sector, our market research is pointing to growing evidence that this time is different, and that current trends could be more sustainable and supported by fundamentals than before.

 

Specific conclusions include:

     

  • Market conditions, e.g., high energy prices and reliability concerns, are ripening the market opportunity.

     

  • Market awareness is growing of the value proposition offered by alternative and distributed energy technologies, slowly translating into actual sales, and ultimately, the expectation of profitability.

     

  • The value proposition is being continuously improved even while vendors work to improve operating margins. Focusing on commercial and industrial customers and refocusing the offering on fewer products, more R&D focused on that narrow offering, resulting in lower costs but improved customer service, are key reasons for this improvement.

     

  • Investor interest in the sector is very high. Billions of dollars of capital are expected to enter the market over the next three to five years. Institutional investors are becoming much more active. The alternative and distributed energy sector has outperformed other sectors and benchmark indices in the stock market, and even with increased volatility expected, should continue to perform strongly.

     

  • Resource portfolio standards, incentives and subsidies, especially for renewable energy and alternative fuels, will be increasing substantially, and therefore will have a major impact on the development of the market as it evolves over the short term.

     

  • A unique opportunity exists to bolster the value proposition through innovative rate design and tariff structures because regulators, customers and utilities are aligned on the solutions that provide the most value. Environmental regulations could also bolster this opportunity.

 

The sector is not a pretty one to analyze sometimes. Because of the need to bring together different areas of expertise – business/ financial, technical/ engineering and regulatory – in order to fully understand trends and market opportunities, the alternative and distributed energy sector can be maddeningly difficult to predict. The past has been littered with broken promises and experiments. To use a favorite word from Dr. Seuss, it is like watching “schlop.” But it could very well turn out to be “beautiful schlop with a cherry on top.”

The Distributed Energy Financial Group, LLC recently released the results of its 2006 Distributed Energy Market Survey that tracks market developments in the distributed and alternative energy sector. Over 540 stakeholders responded to the survey, providing a benchmark to analyze the progress of this important sector. An article summarizing the results is now available on the DEFG web site. To obtain a copy of the article at no charge, go to: www.defgllc.com.

Readers Comments

Date Comment
William Schenewerk
7.18.06
From: William E. Schenewerk 5060 San Rafael Avenue Los Angeles CA 90042-3239 To: Jamie Wimberly Re: Distributed generation Ms Wimberly Distributed generation is all about tax credits and mandates. Just like wind energy. Tax credits go away when they start costing the government too much money. Mandates go away when the ratepayer is paying too much. DWP is asking for more money when it is paying more for "renewable energy" than for natural gas. Household distributed generation has never been demonstrated. It requires drying your hair while in the shower. Industrial distributed generation is what is called Qualified Facilities (QF) in California. Low megawatt producers that burn natural gas. These have been around for years and the easy applications are probably already done. Approximately 1/4 of California generation is QF. Two major disadvantages are load matching and use of natural gas. The naked emperor is heat pumps. Instead of generating your own power and servicing a low temperature heat load, heat pumps use electricity to directly service the low-temperator heat load. Right now nobody seems to sell heat pumps that product low-pressure steam from electricity. COP of 2.5 seems possible when making 15 psig steam. Power would come from coal or atomic power at perhaps 8 cents/kWh. That would make thermal energy cost 3.2 cents/kWh, or 9 USD/MMBtu as steam. With typical boiler efficiency, that would be equivalent to 12 USD/MMBtu natural gas. Of course heat pumps do not get tax credits. Perhaps because they would use atomic power or coal. I have not seen anything on low pressure steam production using a compressor with flash evaporation or an air-water heat exchanger. Research on something that might actually work is not politically correct. Heat pumps are presently in widespread domestic use. So far I have only heard of using heat pumps for home heating. I seem to remember seeing a heat pump water heater some years ago. A heat pump water heater would be particularly useful in warm climates if it sat in the kitchin. Perhaps someone should make a combination refrigerator-water heater.

 

Jason Makansi
7.18.06
I teach my kids (and anyone else who will listen) to pay as much attention to the source of information as the information itself. In this case, let's be honest, DE Financial Group was formed to give definition and focus to distributed energy (DE) within the investment community. "Not (as Seinfeld's gang would say) that there's anything wrong with that." This is one of those articles that positions DE within the investment community against other better defined sectors (like public utilities, oil/gas, etc). Lumping everything but the kitchen sink into DE does not add clarity to the situation. I define DE as power generating or management devices that function on the customer's side of the meter and tend to exclude large industrial plants mostly dedicated to providng power to a single facility.

Being familiar with, or having direct experience in, every incarnation of DE since the early 1970s (Total Energy, Packaged and Micro-Cogeneration, Purpa and small Power, and now distributed power, let me add some pearls of wisdom: 1. You need high electricity prices and low premium fuel prices to make DE economics work. 2. if the incumbent distribution utility isn't working with you, it is working against you, usually in ways you won't discover until too late. (Who else remembers Purpa-killer rates in Southern California?) 3. The distributed computing model does not seem to be analogous for distributed power. Distributed computing broke the paradigm by being faster, better, cheaper. There was also no "incumbent" supplier to deal with, because there was no supplier at all for "computing." 4. The "customer" usually doesn't care about DE because historically (not currently), energy costs are typically a small component of overall costs. Other value elements like reliability don't resonate because the customer really has no way to bencmark it. 5. Most practical DE options are still fuel based (e.g. natural gas) and therefore do not improve the environmental footprint much, especially in the area of global warming. Just because funding for fuel cells comes from a renewable energy budget item doesn't make today's fuel cells a renewable technology. 6. Creative investment ideas have backslided. We're about to embark on a new round of construction of coal and even nuclear power stations, because that is what the financiers understand. Investment doesn't flow to the best ideas; it flows to the most predictable (at the time of the investment anyway) returns. 7. Practical and confident use of DE depends on energy storage devices and power electronics (PE) more than most observers give credit, and most R&D funders are neglecting. Ultimately, this may be the "Achilles heel" of the sector, unless greater resources and attention are devoted to them.

All that said, I think DE does have a future, in the form of micro-grids. Tying multiple devices together, and own/operating them like a "utility" using advanced automation and power electronics allows you to achieve economies of scale, as long as a utility-like entity is still responsible for the customer interface. Once this model is proven to achieve lower rates for the long term, all of the stakeholders should be mollified.

Our multi-decade strategy for electricity infrastructure development should include a "robust backbone" based on the traditional grid model (large centralized plants, long transmission lines, large energy storage facilities, etc) and micro-grids in high population centers, industrial centers, or special reliability situations (telecom, chip-makers, etc) that unify the DE resources, especially for those areas that truly place a value the benefits DE can bring.

 

Todd McKissick
7.18.06
Jamie,

Interesting article. Very good detail on the subjects discussed. However, I am disappointed to not see any information regarding new and/or private startups. Not every entrepreneur with a great alternative solution is planning on going public and swimming with the sharks.

Almost every day, I hear of a new company in startup mode with a promising new technology. Quite a few of them have surprising technical merit too. Almost every other day, I hear of one going under or giving up because of the lack of appropriate funding. These guys (myself included) want a way to finance the last stage of development on a solution. Once proven, they can get further financing to produce their product more easily. The problem is that investors are only looking at proven technologies or ones with a 3-5 year verifiable exit strategy of an IPO or an acquisition. The company owner has no way of maintaining ownership in his/her endeavor. Keep in mind that he is most likely in it to solve the energy crisis 1st and make lots of money 2nd, unlike the potential investors.

As far as government grants/loans/guarantees go, I think Mr. Schenewerk summed it up best with his comment, "Research on something that might actually work is not politically correct." Pick your favorite new technology that can actually make a significant differenct and see how many grants it actually qualifies for. You'll find that it uncannily falls between every crack in the solicitations. Research is an all out joke in this country. There are too many grant stalkers who milk these grants for all the non-producing, continual free money they can get and they consistantly win the grants that should be going to Joe inventor. I personally know of one in his ninth year of business, with 5-8 employees, who has never sold anything, but keeps getting grants. If you do get past these roadblocks, you'll find that grants are usually stretched out timeframes and larger dollar values, and require a 50% cost share. This eliminates everyone who can't come up with half of a million dollar project cost, leaving only big fish once again.

These are the ideas that will change the future and until we can get the big corporation campaign money out of the loop, we're destined to wait for some of these ideas to find their way into some seriously creative money. My amazement is centered on how none of the "venturing" entities have noticed that their current investments will become worthless when the ones "that might actually work" finally do hit the market.

 

Dale Steffes
7.18.06
Next year, it will be 40 years ago that I was working with "Total Energy". Mr. Makonsi referenced that term. In 1967, working for a major natural gas transmission company, I was one of two assigned to that effort. The natural gas industry was fearful of losing the residential heating market to "Total Electric". The electric rate was declining with huge additional loads. The rate had been 8 mils and was approaching 6 mils and the natural gas industry was fearful of 4 mil power due to nuclear coming on.

Anyway, my position was eliminated when I told my superiors that we could increase our market 6% next year. Their view was that the U.S. was running out of natural gas, and therefore they discontinued my marketing effort.

I have a lot more on this subject, but will save it for the next generation. (Is that a play on words?)

 

Jamie Wimberly
7.18.06
From: Jamie Wimberly, author of the article and CEO of the Distributed Energy Financial Group. Thank you all for your insightful comments so far. I wanted to take a moment to respond.

We don't disagree with Mr. Schenewerk's assessment of the impact that public incentives have on particular technologies or segments. However, as noted in the article, those incentives have kick started the targeted segments to the point that they are gaining market traction on their own. Customers are seeking out the technologies and offerings. Moreover, these markets are global in nature, with many companies in this space gaining market opportunities and share in countries without the incentives but certainly the need.

I would also agree with Mr. Schenewerk that what qualifies as a "resource" must be expanded. He provides a good example with heat pumps, which should/ could include solar, geothermal (direct access), even more efficient heat pumps, etc.

Jason Makansi put his finger on a debate that has been occurring for years, namely, the definition of what qualifies as distributed energy, or even "green." At DEFG, we prefer to look at how the pieces fit together within an integrated, distributed system that provides a full value proposition to the customer. The difference now than in the past is that this movement is building off the advances in managing networks and information. For example, many energy storage companies look more like the data centers that they serve than your typical energy company.

Otherwise, you get into cat fights about semantics -- which, admittedly, have real economic consequences when considering what gets incentivized and what doesn't. This space has been dominated by a technological and/ or regulatory focus for too long. What's interesting -- and perhaps revolutionary -- is how this all plays out in regard to system/ grid configuration that in turn will produce new products and services that consumers desire. For example, I think AMI, as a platform, has huge potential to drive this kind of change.

Todd McKissick, we do keep track on IPOs and what is going on in the private equity markets. We are co-launching a fund focused on private equity in the alternative energy space. But there is only so much you can put in an article.

Finally, I appreciate Dale Steffes's observation. Again, though, we think this go around might be different than before. Let's hope so.

Jamie

 

Len Gould
7.18.06
Mr. Schenewerk declares "Household distributed generation has never been demonstrated. It requires drying your hair while in the shower. " To that I would juxtapose "anything which is not barred by physics is probable", then point out the physics of burning natural gas as a heat source for home heating or domestic hot water, especially in cold climates. Producing a 1700 degK flame to heat air to 300 degK is a waste of energy quality which only current failures in markets allow, and must soon eliminate. Though it appears it will be left to the Japanese to dominate this market as well, smart investors preferring to wait for Honda to resolve the issue then buy shares. Not because Mckissik didn't warn everyone though. quelle domage

 

david dell
7.20.06
The facts are clear - the glass is half full:

the markets are growing, technology is improving and getting cheaper, the cost of energy is up and extremely likely to remain higher than at the beginning of 2000. Political forces and social pressures are more favorable. Billions in subsidies and tax abatements are shaping the market and more billions are lined up for invesmtent.

The facts are clear - the glass is half empty:

No one is making any serious money, old energy power structures are not going away, the ROI's are not compelling even with subsidies. There are no clear technology winners nor standard interfaces to the grid. The burdens of NIMBY and arcane local regualtions impose a hidden "tax" burden.

Still, whether the glass seems empty or full, we can all admit the glass is getting bigger. Day by day there is more opportunity and upside - to paraphrase chicken little "the sky is rising, the sky is rising!" Personally I bless and applaud the stubborn optimism of Jamie and co. Sure, we all have our agendas and hopes to benefit from growth of alternate and distributed enrgy technologies, but I prefer to applaud the messengers of hope - not shoot them.