Tom Konrad CFA

Renewable energy power producer Western Wind Energy Corp (WNDEF.PK, WND.V) feels it gets no respect.  In particular, they have long felt that the investing public does not recognize the value of the company's existing and nearly completed wind farms. 


Western Wind's Kingman I Wind & Solar park. Photo courtesy of the company.

Independent Valuation

Almost every company will tell you that their shares are undervalued, but what's a bit more unusual in this case is that their assets (Wind farms with a little solar thrown in) are fairly easy to value with a rigorous discounted cash flow (DCF) model.  While wind and solar resources vary from hour to hour and even year to year, the expected energy production from wind and solar farms is fairly predictable over time, and all Western Wind's projects except for Mesa have Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with electric utilities that specify the prices those utilities will pay for as long as 20 years, leading to fairly predictable revenue streams over time, and fairly low uncertainty in asset valuation.  The company is currently selling electricity from Mesa at the spot price, but they are in the process of negotiating a longer term PPA.

Last year, company management decided to back up their words by hiring the independent DAI Management Consultants, Inc to value the company's equity stake in their renewable energy projects.  Western Wind has a 30MW operating wind farm (Mesa), an operating combined wind (10MW) and solar (500kW) farm (Kingman I), a 120 MW wind a farm and that is nearing completion and expected to be fully operational by the December 2011, and a 30 MW solar farm in Puerto Rico (Yabucoa) that is expected to be completed by the end of 2012.  Windstar and Kingman have signed PPAs and debt financing in in place, and Mesa is fully financed and operating under a spot price sale agreement. Yabucoa has a signed PPA and the company expects to close financing for it by the end of 2011.

Assumptions

Western Wind has released the results of DAI's valuation in a series of press releases as the valuation of each project was completed.  The complete valuation is not public because it depends on the terms of the PPAs, which are confidential.  (Confidential PPAs are a practice which I believe is counterproductive as well as counter to free market principles.  Nevertheless, keeping PPAs confidential is standard utility industry practice, and could only be banned by utility regulators; it's not something I or Western Wind have the power to change.)  They did, however, release the assumptions on which DAI's valuation was based.  These assumptions are included in the table below.

Assumptions used by DAI in valuation model.
	Windstar	Kingman I	Mesa	Yabucoa
Project type and size	120MW wind	10MW wind, 0.5MW Solar	30 MW Wind	30MW Solar
Commercial operation date in valuation model	Dec 31, 2011	Dec 31, 2011	Existing operations	Dec 1, 2012
Remaining asset life	30 years	30 years	20 years (older assets)	30 years
Power Purchase Agreement  (PPA)	fixed price for years 1 to 20 via signed PPA and merchant prices thereafter	fixed price for years 1 to 20 via signed PPA and merchant prices thereafter	fixed price per CPUC MPR for years 1-20	fixed price for years 1 to 20 via signed PPA and merchant prices thereafter
Land	Owned	Owned	27 year right of way	40 year lease
Tax incentives	30% cash grant and 100% bonus depreciation	30% cash grant and 100% bonus depreciation	None	30% cash grant, 50% bonus depreciation and 50% Puerto Rico investment tax credit
Source of key assumptions	Independent engineer	Independent engineer	Management	Management
Debt --to-capital ratio	54%	54%	35%	43%
Term of debt	20 years	20 years	15 years	20 years
Cost of debt	6.0%	6.0%	5.1%	6.0%
Discount rate on equity returns	Under PPA: 11.48% Merchant generator:15.75%	Under PPA: 11.51% Merchant generator:15.85%	Under PPA: 10.52% Merchant generator:NA	Under PPA: 10.96% Merchant generator:14.74%
Weighting of income approach vs cost approach	75%	75%	100%	75%
Construction cost contingencies	5%	5%	NA	5%

One assumption that I would have liked to see is the expected capacity factors for each of the wind farms, since that is key to knowing how much energy each project is likely to produce, but otherwise the disclosure seems comprehensive. 

Assuming the capacity factor estimates are accurate, an assumption which shows the fairly conservative nature of the valuation is the second-to-last row "Weighting of income approach vs cost approach."  This row indicates that for each of the incomplete wind farms, only 75% percent of the valuation given is based on a DCF model; the other 25% of the valuation is a replacement cost approach using comparable market transactions.  This is conservative because the DCF model should give a considerably higher value than cost when valuing a wind project because unfinished projects trade at a discount: Why invest money if the expected returns (DCF valuation) are below what you could get by selling the project?

Another row worth noting is the third to last, "Discount rate on equity returns."  This is extremely important because DCF valuations are highly sensitive to the discount rate assumption: a slightly lower discount rate can lead to a much higher project valuation.  Discount rates vary with the riskiness of the project, and with interest rates in the economy in general. (Risky projects should have higher discount rates, and we see this reflected in the fact that when power is to be sold on the spot market rather than under a PPA, DAI used a significantly higher discount rate.) 

As an investor, the simplest way to judge if an equity discount rate is appropriate is to ask yourself if you would be willing to earn that discount rate as an annual return for owning a slice of the project.  For myself, I would be happy to own a slice of a operating or nearly-completed wind farm for 10.5-11.5% per year.  I'm not quite sure why the Yabucoa solar farm is given a lower discount rate than the others even though it is over a year from completion, but I still consider the return to be sufficient.

Given these assumptions, DAI came up with the following project valuations:

Project Valuations from DAI
	Windstar	Kingman I	Mesa	Yabucoa
Project Valuation	$358 million	$32 million	$25 million	$206 million
Project Liabilities	$275 million	$24 million	nil	$152 million
Value of Western Wind's Equity stake	$203 million	$16 million	$24 million	$110 million
Value Per diluted share (70m shares)	$2.90	$0.23	$0.34	$1.57

I then calculated the implicit value per share of Western Wind and adding in the value of the company's tax loss carry-forward, and assuming that all unexercised share options and warrants with exercise prices below the current stock price would be exercised.  This has the effect of increasing the number of shares outstanding from 60 million to 70 million, and adding $12 million dollars of cash to the company's balance sheet to reflect the cost of exercising the options and warrants.  Note that the fully diluted shares given on Western Wind's website are 71.8 million, but this included the exercise of options and warrants with exercise prices above the current share price: the exercise of those options would result in a net gain to investors who buy at the current price.

Share Valuation	Value (millions $)	Value per diluted share  (70 million shares)
Total DAI Company Valuation (including above projects plus project pipeline)	$383	$5.47
Tax Asset (loss carry forward)	$9	$0.13
Value of Cash Paid for Exercise of Warrants & Options	$12	$0.18
Total	$404	$5.78
Share price (10/31/11)		$1.60
Appreciation needed to reach fair value		3.6x

As you can see, I arrived at a per-share valuation of $5.78, three and a half times the current share price.   I think it is unlikely that the company's share price will go quickly to this fair value given the current climate of uncertainty, but even if the company were to remain at this current 3.6x discount, we could still expect the stock to rise over time, for a couple of reasons.

First, if the Windstar is completed on schedule by the end of the year, it should no longer be valued partially based on cost, and should be valued solely based on DCF.  This should lead to an immediate value boost, as discussed earlier.  Kingman is already fully operational, and so should also be valued solely with a DCF model.   Second, as time passes, cash flow will be produced from the operating farms (and Yabucoa will come closer to completion), and this should lead to a gain in value approximately equal to the discount rate on equity returns used in the project valuations. 

Hence, even if a company trading at a 3.6x discount to fair value does not attract takeover offers or the share price does not quickly adjust upwards for other reasons, we can expect at least a 10% annual return just from accrued income and impending project completion.  In fact, since the valuations above were completed in February (Windstar) and May (the other three), the current valuation of the company should be at least $18 million or $0.26 per share higher today than shown in my table above.  But who's counting?

I personally found the calculations above convincing, and began buying the stock in September.

Possible Takeovers

If the relatively slow 10-12% annual growth in the project values is not enough to excite investors, the possibility of a buyout offer seldom fails to do so. 

The first hint we got about takeover offers was on October 1st, when Western Wind asked  the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) to review the large numbers of matched trades which had been occurring over the previous six months.  In the complaint to IIROC, Western Wind stated "it has been made aware in the past few days, that a certain party would like to make a take-over bid of certain or all of the assets of the Company," with the implication that the company's share price had been manipulated down to make a low takeover offer look attractive to investors.

On October 11, the Company revealed that Algonquin Power and Utilities (AQN.TO/AQUNF.PK), a company I also own, had expressed interest in buying the company at $2.50 a share.

I most recently wrote about Algonquin in a review of the larger alternative energy power producers.  I chose not to discuss Western Wind and another Renewable Energy project developer, Finavera Wind Energy (FNV.V/FNVRF.PK) in that article because they are earlier stage companies, because I was in the process of buying shares of both at the time, and I did not want to raise the price for my own purchases in these relatively thinly traded stocks. 

After the Algonquin offer became public, there followed a series of press releases from Western Wind and Algonquin, with Western Wind basically saying that the price was way too low, and that they were looking around for other offers, and Algonquin making it clear that they weren't ready to raise their price significantly.  Western Wind made the point that Algonquin was not the ideal acquirer because, as a Canadian company, they would not be able to realize approximately $1 per share worth of tax deductions in the form of accelerated depreciation on the company's wind farms.  Before making the bid public, Algonquin had entered into a "lock-up agreement"  with a large Western Wind shareholder owning 18.6% of the company.  The shareholder had agreed to support Algonquin's bid, giving the company the confidence they needed to make the bid public.

At Algonquin's request, Western Wind formed a special committee to consider any formal offer for the company, including Algonquin's.  Nevertheless, on October 26th, Algonquin terminated the lock-up agreement and indicated they were no longer interested in pursuing the deal.  I can only speculate as to Algonquin's reasoning, but my feeling is that they were not interested in a prolonged takeover battle which would probably require them to raise their $2.50 initial offer.

About the same time, Western Wind announced that it was discussing a buyout of a 100 MW wind project, in order to remind investors that there was a lot more to the company than the possibility of a takeover from Algonquin.

It concerned me that Western Wind was considering the acquisition of a wind project if they thought their own shares were so far undervalued.  Why not just buy up the company's own undervalued shares instead? 

I tried to get some details from Western Wind's investor relations contact, but he could not reveal any details of the negotiations, which are at a very early stage.  He did say that the reason the project's owners are willing to sell is because they cannot get the capital to develop it.  Western Wind expects that, if the company proceeds with the deal, it could find a way to develop the property with minimal or no share dilution.  Lack of dilution is no guarantee that such an acquisition would create more value than a share buyback, but it is comforting that they are paying attention to shareholder value.

What it Means

As a long-time Algonquin shareholder, I'm pleased to see that the company was only interested in buying Western Wind at a knock-down bargain price, and hope that they continue to take that approach to all future acquisitions.

As a Western Wind shareholder,  I was a bit disappointed that the deal did not go through.  I'm not immune to the lure of a considerable and very quick profit on my WNDEF shares.  On the other hand, I did not buy those shares because I was expecting a near-term takeover.  Instead, I bought them because I expected (and still expect) long term appreciation based on the fundamental value and earning power of a company with large wind projects just now coming online.
 
The IR spokesman also pointed out that the company is considering a share buyback in 2012 using some of the proceeds of the Windstar and Kingman federal cash grants, as announced last December.

Give Western Wind Some Respect

Western Wind became profitable only in 2010, and is right in the middle of the transition from being primarily a renewable energy developer to a renewable energy power producer with strong cash flow.  This change means this Rodney Dangerfield of a company will begin to get some respect from a new class of investors, and the attention brought by the takeover offer seems to have attracted the attention of a few such.

Although Western Wind's shares fell when Algonquin decided not to pursue its offer, the shares are still trading higher than they were in September.  But at $1.50-$1.60 per share, there is still considerable room for appreciation to fundamental value. 

In the near term, the free cash flow after operational expenses from Windstar and Kingman alone should be $14 million annually, with the potential for another $4-5 million from Mesa and Yabucoa, or 26 cents a share before company level expenses and the benefits of accelerated depreciation and cash grants.

For that alone, Western Wind deserves a lot more respect from investors.

DISCLOSURE: Long AQUNF, WNDEF, FNVRF.

DISCLAIMER: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results.  This article contains the current opinions of the author and such opinions are subject to change without notice.  This article has been distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product.  Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.

Posted by Tom Konrad at 09:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Tom Konrad CFA

Almost every stock market sector fell significantly in late July and August this year, and such market declines send me searching for value stocks paying good dividends which I can hold for the long term.  In mid-July, I found some decent values by sifting through the trash, but I was less enthused by the value proposition of conglomerates involved in the clean energy space.  Today I'll take a look at a group of companies you might expect to be good income producers: renewable energy power producers.  These companies operate wind and solar farms, hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass power plants, as well as cogeneration and recovered heat facilities.

They typically also develop such renewable energy facilities, but here I've chosen to focus on the ones that already have significant capacity under operation, as opposed to the ones which are tilted more towards development, because I'm interested in companies that have a chance to produce a significant income stream from dividends.  Although some of these also have regulated utility operations, I've chosen to focus on independent power producers because regulated utilities tend to have a high proportion of fossil fuel assets.

Renewable Power Producers

The seven companies I've found that meet these criteria are:

1. Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp (AQN.TO/AQUNF.PK), which owns hydroelectric, wind, landfill gas, cogeneration, and biomass generators, as well as some regulated water and wastewater utilities and an electric distribution business.
   
2. Boralex (BLX.TO/BRLXF.PK) develops and owns wind, hydroelectric, solar, and biomass generation, as well as natural gas cogeneration facilities.
   
3. Innergex Renewable Energy (INE.TO/INGXF.PK) owns 20 run-of-river hydroelectric plants and 3 wind farms, and is developing more hydro, and wind, as well as a solar farm.
4. Capstone Infrastructure Corp (CSE.TO/MCQPF.PK) owns gas cogeneration, wind, hydroelectric, biomass and solar farms in Canada, and operates a district heating facility in Sweden
5. Northland Power (NPI.TO/NPIFF.PK) owns wind farms, wood biomass, gas combined cycle and cogeneration plants mostly in Ontario.
   
6. Brookfield Renewable Power Fund (BRC-UN.TO/BRPFF.PK), an owner of hydroelectric and wind farms.
   
7. Ormat Technologies (ORA) is the vertically integrated geothermal industry leader, and also develops and owns recovered energy generation worldwide
8. Covanta Holding (CVA) owns several energy-from-waste facilities in the US an Canada as well as a California based insurance company.

Below, I have compared the dividend yield, earnings yield, operating and free cash flow (OCF and FCF) yields, as well as Equity to Debt and Equity to Price ratios.  The last two ratios have been inverted from their traditional forms (Debt/Equity and Price/Book) and scaled by a factor of 10.  I inverted them so that larger numbers would reflect better value as with the other measures, and the scaling makes them easier to compare on the graph.


Many of these companies (Boralex, Capstone, Innergex, Northland, and Ormat) exhibit large negative FCF because of heavy investment in new generation facilities, so OCF probably gives a better comparison of these companies' ability to generate cash from existing facilities, while FCF gives a better idea of the companies' ability to pay dividends without raising additional funds.  Capstone and Innergex's dividends (9.5% and 13.64%) seem at first glance too high to be sustainable based on the ratios here, so much more research would be warranted before I would consider investing in either of these.

The Best Options for Income

Investors looking for current income will want to avoid those companies with large negative free cash flow.  Algonquin Power and Brookfield Renewable Power both offer healthy dividends and have strong balance sheets with low Debt to Equity (high Equity/Debt) ratios and trade at modest Price to Book (Equity/Price) ratios.  Both also seem to have the earnings and cash flow to maintain payouts given the flexibility afforded by their modest use of debt.

Value Stocks

Investors looking for value stocks will be attracted to Boralex, with its high Earnings yield and a Price to Book ratio of 0.7, despite the lack of dividend.  Boralex may be somewhat volatile, however, given its relatively heavy use of debt, with more than twice as much debt as equity.

Conclusion

In the absence of retail Climate Bonds, Algonquin Power and Brookfield Renewable Power look like good options for the income investor wishing to add some clean energy to his or her portfolio, while Boralex deserves further research as a possible value play, so long as the current low price does not turn out to be the product of deeper financial problems.

DISCLOSURE: Long AQUNF.

DISCLAIMER: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results.  This article contains the current opinions of the author and such opinions are subject to change without notice.  This article has been distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product.  Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.

Posted by Tom Konrad at 03:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tom Konrad, CFA

Boralex Inc. made an offer to buy out the Boralex Power Income Fund on May 19.  The price is reasonable. 

Boralex (BLX.TO, BRLXF.PK) announced on May 2 that it would offer C$5 per share in convertible bonds for all outstanding shares of the Boralex Power Income Fund (BPT-UN.TO, BLXJF.PK) that it did not already own in an acquisition approved by both boards.  As usual with mergers, the Boralex Power Income Fund's ("the Fund's") unit price jumped from C$4.61 to C$4.90 the next day, but then if started to fall back as people had time to review the precise terms, dropping as low as C$4.51 on May 13 before recovering and always holding over its average values from before the deal was announced.  The market particpants seem to believe that this deal adds value for unitholders, but only by a thin margin.  What follows is my analysis.



Bid Premium

C$5.00 represents an 11% premium over the Fund's average unit price of C$4.50 for the preceding 60 trading days.  That's low compared to average bid premiums, which have recently averaged in the low 20%'s.  However, the Fund is an income investment, with most earnings returned directly to investors.  Becasue of this, investors cannot reasonably expect much appreciation in the fund's unit price, and a small buyout premium seems justified in this case. 

Income

If the Fund's owners accept a low premium for their income investment, they should not be expected to accept a large drop in income.  On the other hand, some drop in income may be justified because of the additional security they will receive as bondholders of Boralex rather than equity holders in the Fund.  The Fund is currently paying a C$0.03333 monthly dividend, or C$0.40 annually per unit.  The C$5.00 face value, 6.25% debenture offered in exchange will pay C$0.3125 annually, meaning that unit holders who accept the offer will suffer a 21.875% loss of income. 

Using the pre-merger average share price of C$4.50, Fund unit holders were previously receiving an 8.89% annual yield, and will now be receiving a 6.94% annual yield, which seems on its face like a bad deal.  Yet, as discussed above, the Fund's unit holders cannot reasonably expect price appreciation given the fund's current structure, and hence the C$5 face value (which will be redeemed for cash five years after the merger date) should be included in the return calculation.  Using a spreadsheet, I calculated the internal rate of return (IRR) of paying C$4.50 today for C$0.3125 for five years, plus C$5 at the end of the period (the "Debentures" column) as well as the same price calculation with the Fund units' current C$0.40 annual income but no price appreciation.

Debentures	Year	Fund Units
-$4.50	T=0	-$4.50
$0.3125	T=1	$0.40
$0.3125	T=2	$0.40
$0.3125	T=3	$0.40
$0.3125	T=4	$0.40
$5.3125	T=5	$4.90
8.81%	IRR	8.89%

As you can see, the internal rate of return of the offer is 8.81%, within a gnat's whisker of the expected return without the offer (8.89%).  Differing tax rates for some unit holders between the current distributions and interest income may make the offer less attractive to those investors, but the increased security of bondholders compared to unitholders may more than compensate for risk-adverse investors.

An article from the Streetwise column of Globe and Mail on May 12 was skeptical about the offer.  This article quoted Connor O'Brien, the Chief Investment Officer of a major holder of the trust, Stanton Asset Management.  Mr. O'Brien "calculates that unit holders will receive approximately 50 per cent less after-tax income if they end up holding the convertible bonds, rather that trust units."  This is a red herring.  The Fund's privileged Canadian tax status will end in 2011.  Unitholders do not have the option of continuing to receive distributions under the current regime, even if the merger does not go through.  The change in tax status is not the result of the merger, it's the result of the tax law changes which have caused most Canadian Trusts to reorganize in one way or another over the last three years.

Conversion Option
 
Mr. O'Brian was also concerned about the conversion price.    He was also particularly critical of the C$17 conversion price for the bonds, a "70 per cent premium to where the stock was trading in the 30 days prior to the offer for the trust."  He is right that the conversion option adds very little value for Fund unit holders.  If you're trying to decide if this deal is a good value, you should focus on the value of the cash flows, assuming the debentures are redeemed for C$5.00 after five years.  The value of the conversion option is small, but positive.

Conclusion

Overall, I believe this is a fair value for unitholders.  Maintaining the status quo is not an option.  The Fund's favored tax status will expire at the end of the year, and the fund would have to cut distributions in order to pay the new taxes.  The value of the cash flows from the Boralex Power Income Fund units and the convertible debentures offered by Boralex are roughly equivalent, and the (small) value of the conversion option adds a little spice to the mix.

This conclusion seems to be confirmed by market action.  Fund units have been consistently trading for more than they were before the merger announcement, while the S&P/TSX Composite Index has fallen 5% since the merger was announced.

DISCLOSURE: LONG Boralex Power Income Fund.

DISCLAIMER: The information and trades provided here are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full disclaimer here.

Posted by Tom Konrad at 12:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Small Fries to Big Shots? (Pt. 2 of 2)

Bill Paul

Here now are two more small alternative energy companies, both of which look to be just starting to hit their stride. How far they'll go only time will tell, but each seems to warrant a closer look.

Take note: like the vast number of other pure-play alternative energy firms with intriguing growth prospects, neither of these is U.S.-based. Rule of thumb: whether you're a big institutional or small individual investor, to succeed in alternative energy, you must scour every corner of the earth.

First up: CBD Energy, an Australian renewable energy firm that trades on the Australian Stock Exchange under the symbol CBD (CBD.AX).

CBD looks to be starting down the road to becoming a fully-diversified renewable energy power producer with solar, wind and energy storage projects across Asia. It just got what the company called "strong" institutional support for a new round of capital that will go toward acquisitions, including the recently-announced purchase of eco-Kinetics Pty. Ltd., another Aussie firm that is involved in solar PV, solar thermal and wind installations, both residential and commercial. CBD also just signed to deliver wind turbines to a Chinese company, another first for the firm. CBD's share price has roughly tripled since last spring; however, it's still selling for only pennies per share. (No, CBD is not yet in the black.)

Next up: Germany's SFC Smart Fuel Cell AG (Symbol SSMFF.PK), which describes itself as the market leader in fuel cell technologies for mobile and off-grid power applications serving the leisure, industrial and defense markets.

In partnership with DuPont (Symbol DD), SFC just got a glowing preliminary review from the U.S. Defense Department for its lightweight portable power packs that soldiers can use in the field. The review isn't complete yet, but so far DOD believes that "This product and its technology could offer a significant advancement in the area of soldier portable power in the field."

SFC isn't in the black yet either, but its third-quarter loss did narrow by more than 50% vs. the year-earlier period.

Click here for Part 1 of this series - which discusses prospects for World Energy Solutions (Symbol: XWES) and Ram Power Corp. (Symbol: RPG.TO, RAMPF.PK).

DISCLOSURE: No position.

DISCLAIMER: This is a news article.  Please read terms and policy.

Bill Paul is Managing Editor of EnergyTechStocks.com.

Posted by Bill Paul at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Charles Morand

On Monday morning, I received an e-copy of a new research note by BofA Merrill Lynch arguing that disclosure by publicly-listed companies on the issue of climate change was becoming increasingly "important". The note claimed: "[w]e believe smart investors and companies [...] will recognize the edge they can gain by understanding low carbon trends." I couldn't agree more with that statement.

It was no coincidence that on that same day the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), a non-profit UK-based organization that surveys public companies each year on the state of their climate change awareness, was releasing its latest report at event organized by BofA/ML in NYC.

I am fairly familiar with the CDP, having worked on one of the reports in 2006. In a nutshell, the CDP sends companies a questionnaire covering various topics such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, programs to manage the identified risks of climate change, etc. (you can view a copy of the latest questionnaire here). The responses are then aggregated and made into a publicly-available report.

The CDP purportedly sends the questionnaire on behalf of institutional investors who are asked to sign on to the initiative but have no other obligation. The CDP currently claims to represent 475 institutional investors worth a collective $55 trillion. Not bad!

Putting Your Money Where Your Signature Is?

Despite their best efforts, initiatives like the CDP or the US-based CERES are mostly inconsequential when it comes to where investment dollars ultimately flow. Investors are asked to sign on but are not required to take any further action, such as committing a percentage of assets under management to low-carbon technologies or avoiding investments in companies with poor disclosure or that deny the existence of climate change altogether.

Case in point, the latest Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment report found that, in 2008, worldwide investments in "sustainable energy" totaled $155 billion. That's about 0.28% of the $55 trillion in assets under management represented by CDP signatories. A mere 1% commitment annually, or $550 billion for 2008, would substantially accelerate the de-carbonization of our energy supply, probably shrinking the time lines;we're currently looking at in several industries to years rather than decades.  

And that's ok. By-and-large, investors are investors and activists are activists. In certain cases, investors can be activists, either from the left side of the political spectrum with socially-responsible funds or from the right side with products like the Congressional Effect Fund. But overall, most sensible people want investors to be investors.

That's because the function that investors serve by being investors rather than activists is a critical one in a capitalist system - they force discipline and performance on firms and their management teams. By having to compete for capital with other firms in other sectors, clean energy companies have an incentive to crank out better technologies at a lower cost, and that process will have positive implications for all of society in the long run.

The problem with the CDP is that it's really an activist organization parading as an investor group. If the Sierra Club were to go around and ask Fortune 500 companies if they wanted to be hailed as environmental leaders in a glossy new report with absolutely no strings attached, I bet you anything they would get 475 signatures in a matter of days. And so it goes for CDP signatories - institutional investors the world over get to claim that climate change keeps them up at night while not having to deploy a single dime or alter their asset allocation strategies.

Approaching Climate Change Like An Investor

Someone approaching climate change like an investor - that is, as a potential source of investment outperformance (long) or underperformance (short or avoided) - isn't likely to care for activist campaigns aimed at forcing large corporates to disclose information on the matter; in fact, they may prefer less public disclosure to more.

That is because one of the greatest asset an investor can have is an informational advantage. In the case of climate change, those of us who believe that it's real and who think they can put money to work on that basis have a pretty good idea where to look and what to look for - we don't need the SEC to mandate disclosure. Those who think it's one giant hoax couldn't care less - they don't need the SEC to get involved, either. Yet this is where such campaigns are going, according to the BofA/ML report.

I like to think of climate change as an investment theme in terms of three main areas: (1) Physical, (2) Business, and (3) Regulatory. All three areas present investment risks and opportunities.

	Opportunity	Risk
Physical	DESCRIPTION: Companies that stand to gain  from strengthening or repairing the physical infrastructure because of an increased incidence of extreme weather events or a changing climate. Examples include electric grid service companies such as CVTech Group (CVTPF.PK), Quanta Services Inc (PWR) and MasTec Inc. (MTZ).  TIMELINE: Medium-term	DESCRIPTION: Companies that stand to be negatively impacted by more frequent and more powerful extreme weather events, or by a changing climate. Examples include ski resort operators, sea-side resort operators and property & casualty insurers.   TIMELINE: Long-term
Business	DESCRIPTION: Companies that provide technologies and solutions to help reduce the carbon footprint of various industries, be it power generation, transportation or the real estate industry. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are two obvious examples. TIMELINE: Immediate	DESCRIPTION: Companies that make products that increase humanity's carbon footprint and that could fall out of favor with consumers on that basis. Examples include car makers with a large strategic and product focus on SUVs and other needlessly large vehicles. TIMELINE: Medium-term
Regulatory	DESCRIPTION: Firms that have direct positive exposure to the regulatory the responses to climate change enacted by governments. Examples include firms that operate exchanges or auction/trading platforms for carbon emission credits such as Climate Exchange PLC (CXCHY.PK)  and World Energy (XWES). TIMELINE: Near-term	DESCRIPTION: Companies that are in the  regulatory line of fire for carbon emissions. Coal-intensive power utilities are a good example, as are other energy-intensive industries that might have a limited ability to pass costs on to consumers because of high demand elasticity or fierce competition. TIMELINE: Near-term

This categorization provides a high-level framework for thinking about what may be in store for investors as far as climate change goes. However, with the exception of Business/Opportunity and Regulatory/Opportunity, the investment case is not necessarily clear-cut and requires some thinking.

For instance, oil would seem like a perfect candidate for the Business/Risk category were it not for another major and more powerful price driver: peak oil. As for Regulatory/Risk, the European experience thus far has shown how open a cap-and-trade system is to political manipulation, and firms there have been able to withstand the regulatory shock more because of achievements on the lobbying side than on the operational side. That is why I have stressed in the past that understanding emissions trading was more about understanding the rules and the politics than about understanding the commodity.

Nevertheless, these trends are worth following for people who: 1) like investing and 2) think that climate change is not the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. For instance, CVTech Group (CVTPF.PK), a small Canadian electrical network services company, reported that in fiscal 2008 around 58% of its annual revenue increase (C$23.0 MM) was due unscheduled electricity infrastructure repairs as a result of hurricanes in Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina. In the annual report, management noted: "Since 2005, an increase in the occurrence of hurricanes has resulted in growing demand for our services in these states."

Conclusion

I have nothing against the concept of activist organizations going after corporations with various demands, be they influenced by left- or right-wing thinking; after all, we live in a free, open society and it's everyone's right to do so within the confines of the law.

What I don't like quite as much is hypocrisy and greenwashing. As far as I go, if an institutional investor truly believes that climate change can be a worthwhile investment theme, they should put a couple of analysts on it and figure out how to put money to work. If they don't believe that it is, then they should just go on doing what they do best: manage money.

What they shouldn't do is pretend to see an investment risk or opportunity where they really don't just to appease a handful of vocal stakeholders. Lobbying to get the SEC to force disclosure on climate change is nothing more than window dressing; investors who think this is real already know where to look and what to look for and - surprise, surprise - it's not rocket science!

DISCLOSURE: None

Posted by Charles Morand at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Tom Konrad, Ph.D., CFA

The Algonquin Power Income Fund (AGQNF.PK) has been one of my star performers in an excellent year.  Is it still a good investment at these prices?

 Since I recommended the Algonquin Power Income Fund (AGQNF.PK/APF-UN.TO) in January as a renewable energy income stock for 2009, the company is up 69%, in addition to the C$0.02 monthly dividend, worth approximately another 8% through August on the US$1.82 purchase price, making it the second-best performing of my ten picks (after Cree, Inc (CREE).)  However, since the major basis for my recommendation at the time was the stock's extremely cheap valuation and high yield, I thought it was worth revisiting, on the occasion of the company's Q2 update [pdf]. 

Major events in the first half  were Algonquin's planned acquisition of a 50% stake in California Pacific Electric Company (Calpeco), the former California assets of NV Energy (NVE), and the fund's plan to convert into a corporation and acquire some tax loss assets through a deal with Hydrogenics Corporation (HYGS).

Calpeco

The Calpeco deal gives Algonquin some exposure to electricity transmission and distribution (in which their partner Elmira has management expertise) in addition to their current exposure to renewable energy generation.  Since I like the potential opportunities in electricity transmission, I think this was a step in a good direction for Algonquin.  Furthermore, about half of Algonquin's stake in Calpeco will be financed with an equity investment in Algonquin from Elmira at C$3.25 per unit.  Since this is only slightly below the current price, and well above the price at which I recommended the stock, the transaction will be non-dilutive for both me and my readers, and a reasonable exchange for more recent investors.

Hydrogenics

In July, a reader worried that the deal with Hydrogenics was a bad idea because Hydrogenics is a fuel cell company, an alternative energy sector neither of us is enthusiastic about.  In fact, this is a short term deal, and shareholders need not be concerned with ending up owning a fuel cell company when they thought they owned a renewable energy power producer.  Despite the legal complexity, this deal is not a tie-up with Hydrogenics, but rather a way for Algonquin to acquire corporate status, and Hydrogenics' tax loss assets at the same time.  Because Algonquin is profitable, and Hydrogenics is not, these tax loss assets are valuable to Algonquin, but not Hydrogenics, allowing both companies to benefit. Algonquin will gain the benefit of Hydrogenics previous losses in exchange for a cash payment, which will allow the cash-poor, unprofitable company to continue operations. The transaction has been approved by Algonquin unitholders and Hydrogenics shareholders, and awaits regulatory approvals.

Results

The Trust's first half revenue was down compared to 2008, which management attributes to lower natural gas prices.  Gas prices affect the trust's revenues through lower contract prices for the heat from their thermal generation units.  I find this to be a good sign, since I expect that low current natural gas prices will rebound because they do not provide sufficient incentive for natural gas companies to drill and replace the gas supply from depleting wells. Although I expect that low natural gas prices will depress revenues in the short term, Algonquin's operating cash flow and earnings should continue to be easily sufficient to fund distributions to unit holders with plenty left over to fund Algonquin's growth plans.

At current prices of C$3.32 for APF-UN.TO and US$3.07 for AGQNF.PK, with a yield of 7.2%, I consider Algonquin to be reasonably valued, and continue to hold my positions.  However, because I currently expect a market decline, I would only suggest buying Algonquin today if you also hedge your position against general market moves.

DISCLOSURE: Tom Konrad and/or his clients have long positions in AGQNF.

DISCLAIMER: The information and trades provided here and in the comments are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full disclaimer here.

Posted by Tom Konrad at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Charles Morand

Last Friday, the WSJ's Environmental Capital blog noted how, according to HSBC, growing government efforts to de-carbonize the electricity supply across the developed world would hurt makers of power generation technology with high exposure to coal.

Yesterday, the EIA released its Electric Power Monthly report for April 2009. In it, the agency notes the following:

The drop in coal-fired generation was the largest absolute fuel-specific decline from April 2008 to April 2009 as it fell by 20,551 thousand megawatthours, or 13.9 percent [...] The April decline was the third consecutive month of historically large drops in coal-fired generation from the same month in the prior year  [...]

Coal's drop is larger than the national decline at 5% between April 2008 and April 2009, and that of all other fuel sources but petroleum liquid:

Generation from conventional hydroelectric sources was the largest absolute increase in April 2009 as it was up by 3,918 thousand megawatthours, or 18.4 percent from April 2008. [...] Nuclear generation was up 3.1 percent. Generation from natural gas-fired plants was down by 1.5 percent. Net generation from wind sources was 34.8 percent higher. [...] Petroleum liquid-fired generation was down by 26.5 percent compared to a year ago [...]

The main culprit for the fall overall fall in generation is the significant decline industrial production:

 For April 2009, sales in the residential and commercial sectors both decreased by 0.7 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively, while sales in the industrial sector decreased by 13.6 percent, as compared to April 2008.

Yet coal remains the single most widely-used fuel in power generation in the US, accounting for more than nuclear, gas and renewables combined:

Year-to-date, coal-fired plants contributed 46.1 percent of the Nation’s electric power. Nuclear plants contributed 21.0 percent, while 20.5 percent was generated at natural gas-fired plants. Of the 1.2 percent generated by petroleum-fired plants, petroleum liquids represented 0.9 percent, with the remainder from petroleum coke. Conventional hydroelectric power provided 7.0 percent of the total, while other renewables (biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind) and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining 4.1 percent of electric power [...]

Coal is indeed public enemy number 1 in the fight to de-carbonize the electricity supply and, as noted in the HSBC report, the elusive (I think illusive is actually more appropriate here) quest for carbon capture and storage is unlikely to change that.

The next two years are going to be interesting as a number of currents converge: (1) a price will be placed on carbon across America; (2) billions of dollars in subsidy money for environmental industries are going to trigger a significant amount of activity both in alternative energy and in energy efficiency; and (3) an economic recovery will eventually get underway and industrial production will rebound, raising the demand for electricity.

Are we truly witnessing the beginning of the end or is King Coal set to rebound with a vengeance as soon as demand picks up again? If coal declines in the U.S. abd Europe, will that make any difference at all given China's love affair with the black stuff?         

Power generation, transmission, distribution and management in North America offer very attractive investment opportunities for investors, and something tells me that the age of coal will end here before the world runs out of it, much like the stone age ended with plenty of stones left.

Posted by Charles Morand at 12:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the emerging wood pellets industry and how this form of biomass was experiencing rapid growth as a coal substitute in power generation, mostly in Europe as a result of renewable energy and climate regulations. In the time since I wrote that article, I have been looking for ways to invest in the global wood pellets sector. Unfortunately, my search came up mostly empty (except for 1 stock discussed below).

In response to my previous post, a reader pointed me to an article Joe Romm at Climate Progress had recently written about biomass co-firing. In that article, we learn that co-firing biomass with coal has the technical and economic potential to replace at least 8 GW of America's coal-based generating capacity by 2010 (~2.4% of  the 2007 nameplate coal installed capacity), and as much as 26 GW by 2020 (probably somewhere between 5 and 8% by then). We also learn that demonstrations and trials have shown that biomass can replace up to about 15% of the total energy input at coal-fired plants with only minor modifications - this is thus probably a good figure to go by given that international trade in pellets can overcome supply limitations in the US.

As I was searching for ways to invest in the wood pellets sector, I came across some additional information on the current state of the market provided by Andritz Group. In 2008, the global market for wood pellets was estimated at around 9 million metric tons in volume, which replaced around 6.3 million metric tons of coal (you thus need around 1.43 metric ton of pellets per ton of coal displaced). Whereas coal packs in about 24 gigajoules of energy per metric ton, wood pellets contain about 17 GJ/metric ton (17 x 1.43 = 24.31). To put the volume numbers into perspective, over the past few years, the US electric power sector has been using around 1.04 billion short tons of coal per year, or about 944 million metric tons. 15% of this total would represent around 144 million metric tons of coal, or about 206 million tons of pellets. There is thus plenty of theoretical room to grow in the US alone, even if you cut that number down by 50%.        

The fuel substitution from those 9 million metric tons of pellets has helped save around 7.5 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. Assuming CO2 prices of €25 ($33)/metric ton, this could be worth around $248 million gross, from which the fuel cost difference would be subtracted to get to a net figure. Although I did not run the numbers, it is safe to assume this difference yields a positive amount given how popular wood pellets have become in Europe for exactly that purpose (i.e. meet regulatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions). 

What drew my attention to wood pellets the most is that they offer a standardized means of moving carbon-neutral energy around, much in the same way crude oil or coal are used to transport carbon-positive energy (of course neutral and positive are relative terms in this context, but let's leave that discussion for another time).

The North American forest industry is currently facing a difficult time, and using biomass for power generation is one means of killing two birds (the environment and the economy) with one pellet, although as the numbers above indicate it is no a panacea. In fact, wood biomass will most likely never account for more than 10-15% of total power production and is unlikely to be cost competitive with coal without a price on carbon. However, given that a price on carbon is forthcoming in the US, it is fair to assume that wood pellets will represent one of those fundamental bridge solutions to reduce the costs of moving to a de-carbonized economy. This is a point Joe Romm makes in his articles on the topic.    

However, the trade in wood biomass for power generation cannot be expected to scale up if a standard isn't adopted around which transportation logistics and technology requirements can be established. Wood pellets provide this standard. This is why I have left other wood biomass sources such as wood chips or waste wood from logging operations out of my analysis. If a sizeable market for wood biomass is to emerge, it will have to be in the form of a market for pellets. 

A Wood Pellet Stock

The wood pellet production process is relatively simple (see video below): (1) wood material is dried and turned into a dough-like mass by being passed through a hammer mill; (2) and this mass is then squeezed through a high-pressure die with holes of the size required (i.e. standard pellet size) - the pressure causes a rise in temperature which causes the lignin in the wood to plastify and hold the pellet together.    

Andritz Group (ADRZF.PK) currently has, according to itself, an about 50% share of the global market for wood pellet production equipment. Andritz is an Austrian firm that provides equipment and services for the global hydro power, pulp & paper, steel, animal feed & biofuels and other industries. In fact, following the acquisition of a large chunk of GE Energy's hydro power operations, Andritz cemented its position as a dominant player in large hydro globally.

The main problem with Andritz is that its US listing is on the Pink Sheets Grey Market (this is common for foreign shares), making it hard for some investors to trade the stock through their brokers. Moreover, trades on the Grey Market are not always efficient as the lack of a Market Maker for the security can result in lower liquidity and higher prices. The quality of the company is not problematic however, as Andritz is a blue chip stock in Austria.

Despite this limitation, Andritz is, in my view, an interesting beast. In 2008, revenue (€3.61 billion/$4.85 billion) was broken down as follows between the business segments: Hydro (electromechanical systems and services for large hydro power stations), 33%; Pulp & Paper (equipment and services for all forms of pulp and paper production), 37%; Metals (production and finishing lines for metallic strip), 16%; Environment & Process (equipment and services for solid/liquid separation for various industries), 10%; and Feed & Biofuel (equipment and services for production of animal feed and biomass pellets), 4%.   

Balance sheet-wise, the company is well-positioned to weather the current storm: although it had gross debt (bonds, bank debt and leases) of about €432 million ($580 million) as at the end of 2008, its €822 million ($1.1 billion) in cash and marketable securities gave it ample net cash (debt minus cash & equivalents) of about €390 million ($524 million). The current ratio is only 1.29. However, around 35% of current liabilities are accounted for by a revenue recognition liability which has no bearing on liquidity. Dividing only cash and equivalents €822 million ($1.1 billion) by accounts payable (€306 million/$411 million) plus the current portion of debt and lease obligations (€37 million/$50 million) yields a ratio of around 2.4, which is very healthy and even begs the question: what is the company planning on doing with all this cash?.

Operationally, Andritz has been stable over the past five years, maintaining stable EBITDA, EBIT and net margins in the neighborhood of 7.5%, 6.0% and 4.2% respectively. However, cash flow from operations has been somewhat volatile, standing at €255 million ($343 million) in 2008 but only €33 million ($44 million) in '07.

The stock is currently off around 65% from its high of May 2008 (the Pink Sheets listing). Andritz is trading at a trailing 12-month PE of about 7.9x and price-to-book of about 2.08x. On a PE basis, that is a cheap stock, especially given that the company's scale and market share in the hydro segment probably confer it a certain amount of earnings power. The stock pays a dividend per share of €1.10 for a yield of 5.08%, which is quite attractive in my view (this information is for the Frankfurt listing so one would need to inquire to his/her broker to know what the figures are for US investors purchasing the Pink Sheets security).

Conclusion

Although the wood pellets concept is attractive (I certainly thought so when I first attended a workshop on it), the global trade in them remains comparatively small and largely Europe-focused for the time being. As a result, finding ways to play this emerging sector in the stock market is rather difficult. However, if activity by private firms is any indication of the future of this industry, then it could turn out to be interesting niche to be in, although it will not grow past a certain point and is no panacea.

The one stock I identified as global leader in wood pellets, Andritz, is actually attractive for a number of other reasons. The exposure to large hydro is very interesting, in my view. Although certain greens find large hydro objectionable, most individuals and organizations concerned about climate change agree that it's better than the fossil-fuel alternatives, and the sector is forecasted to get a boost from installations in China and India over the next few years. The focus on industrial energy efficiency should also be of interest given the focus this area received in the Obama Stimulus Package.

But this is a stock that will unfortunately be hard or impossible to trade for many small investors. You might just have to wait a few more years to see more interesting plays on wood pellets emerge on a stock exchange near you!

The Wood Pellet Production Process: A Vid!

DISCLOSURE: Charles Morand does not have a position in Andritz.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a registered investment advisor. The information and trades that I provide here are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full disclaimerhere.

Posted by Charles Morand at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Last week, I mentioned that I had attended a conference focused on opportunities in the biomass and bioenergy sectors. One of the article ideas I got from this conference was on the emerging market for wood pellets (tightly packed sawdust and other wood shavings) for heat and electricity. How interesting that, over the weekend, the magazine Science published an article suggesting that the US should ramp up its use of wood for small-scale heat and electricity production (the article is not available free of charge but you can find a summary here).

The Wood (Pellet) Advantage

It must be stated from the get-go that wood harvested at sustainable levels will never account for a significant percentage (i.e. >20%) of total energy consumption. The Science article states that total US energy consumption currently stands at around 100 quads annually, and that wood-based energy makes up about 2% of this. At sustainable harvest levels, the authors estimate that wood could represent about 5 quads, or roughly the amount of energy contained in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That number is for all wood-based energy and not only pellets, so the potential market for the latter is even smaller.

That said, wood pellets are rapidly gaining acceptance as a readily-available, carbon-neutral fuel source that can be used on its own or co-fired in coal plants. The global trade in wood pellets is not especially extensive just yet, so pricing data can be a little difficult to obtain. Various sources I looked at seem to put the price range at between $150-200/ton. The International Energy Agency conducted a detailed study of the global marketplace for wood pellets in 2007, and reported that pellets cost in the neighbourhood of $11.50/million BTU. It is therefore no surprise that with residential fuel oil and, increasingly, nat gas prices pushing above that level in 2007 and 2008, wood pellets bbecame a popular option in the colder US Northeast and Northwest.

Environmentally, wood pellets are considered greenhouse-gas neutral as wood is existing biomass (i.e. not ancient biomass trapped beneath miles of Earth's crust) and it is assumed that forest re-growth will, in time, sequester the carbon dioxide emitted through photosynthesis.

With regards to conventional air pollutants, SOx emissions are reduced almost on a 1-to-1 basis when pellets are co-fired with coal (i.e. a 20% pellet/80% coal mix will reduce SOx emissions by 20%). The relationship between wood and NOx is apparently not as straight forward and I didn't find a good source on this.  

The Science article claims that advanced wood combustion technologies can reach thermal efficiencies of around 90%, which compares very favorably with other fossil-fired technologies.

The Wood Pellet Trade

At the end of 2006, pellet demand in the US stood at around 1.4 million tons, a >200% jump on 2002. Pellets in the US are used mostly in residential and small-scale applications and very little if at all in large-scale power generation. Although pellet popularity is growing, the US market remains comparatively small.  

The real story volume-wise has been occurring in Europe, where renewable power generation and greenhouse-has emissions regulations have triggered a boom in wood pellet use. Current EU commitments call for 20% of final energy consumption to come from renewables by 2020 and the meeting of the Kyoto Protocol's targets. It is estimated that the EU currently supplies about 4% of its total electricity from wood waste (vs. 2% in the US) and this number is expected to double by 2010. Current consumption is now greater than 6 million tons annually.

In 2006, EU nations consumed around 5.5 million tons of pellets, but produced only 4.5 millions, an 18% 'deficit'. Canada is currently the largest pellet exporter to the EU but there is also significant export potential in the US, as evidenced by the fact that pellet manufacturing capacity has been expanding rapidly.

In the US, the low price of coal and its prominence in power generation (coal accounted for roughly 48% of electricity generated in the US in 2008) present the biggest challenges to the growth of the wood pellets market. However, upcoming greenhouse gas regulations could change this. Because wood pellets are considered greenhouse gas neutral, co-firing them with coal reduces CO2 emissions on a 1-to-1 basis.

This has been one of the major drivers in Europe, and can represent a comparatively cheap way of transitioning toward cleaner power generation technologies. Given the relative abundance of biomass across North America (don't forget Canada, the biomass superstore to the North), federal greenhouse gas caps could jump start the wood pellets market here.

Wood Pellets Stocks

This is admittedly a sector I knew very little about, so ramping up my industry knowledge alone took a bit of time. When I started my search for stocks on this, nothing evident jumped at me. I therefore thought I would break this article into two, with the next part dedicated only to company analyses. I will publish it next week. In the meantime, if you know of stocks related to this, please let me know.

Posted by Charles Morand at 09:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Dedicated legislations have been at the core of some of the most impressive regional growth stories in alternative energy, most notably in Germany with the Renewable Energy Sources Act or in California with the various legislative solar initiatives. On Monday, the Canadian province of Ontario became the latest jurisdiction to join the fray as lawmakers introduced the Green Energy and Green Economy Act. Why should investors care? Because such legislations have been at the core of some of the most impressive regional growth stories in alternative energy. 

As a bit of a backgrounder on Ontario, there is currently about 800 MW of installed renewable power capacity (~95% wind) in the province with around 2,500 MW under power purchase agreement (PPA) and scheduled to be brought into commercial operations in the next few years. In late 2006, the province introduced a renewable power feed-in tariff incentive, the first one in North America. This incentive was suspended in May 2008 due to transmission constraints. By then, there were about 500 MW of solar capacity under PPA linked to the incentive, including one of the world's largest solar PV farms.

To put these numbers into perspective, California, the largest solar PV market in the US by quite a stretch, had around 500 MW of PV installed by the end of '07. Next came New Jersey at 69 MW and New York at 32 MW. None of the 500 MW under PPA in Ontario has yet reached commercial operation, and at least some of it will probably be cancelled given current credit conditions. Nevertheless, these figures provide a good idea of the market's potential is. The Canadian Solar Industries Association estimates that Ontario could install up to 16,000 MW of solar PV by 2025, with the potential on Toronto's rooftops alone estimated at 3,600 MW.   

The Green Energy and Green Economy Act

The Act targets three main areas: (1) renewable power generation; (2) energy efficiency; and (3) the smart grid.

1) Renewable Power Generation

Perhaps the most significant measures here are aimed at removing what had proven to be critical barriers to renewable energy projects reaching commercial operation in the province:

1. Renewable energy projects meeting certain criteria will be guaranteed a connection to transmitters and distributors' networks and will be given priority access over other forms of power generation
2. Transmitters and distributors will have to make the necessary network upgrades to allow for the connection of renewable power projects and the eventual expansion of renewable power capacity
3. Renewable power projects will be exempt from all forms of municipal permit requirements to counter a growing trend of NIMBY groups lobbying their municipal councils to block renewable energy projects  
4. A new office of Renewable Energy Facilitation has been created to help speed up the permitting process (e.g. environmental assessments, etc.)

On the revenue side, the legislation does the following:

1. The feed-in tariff that had been suspended in May 2008 will be reintroduced once new rules have been designed (no timeline provided but Q2 2009 has been thrown around)
2. A system of PPA auctions for large-scale renewable power projects that has been in operation since 2004 will be maintained 

Analysis

The measures aimed at removing barriers to renewable projects are significant. However, until the new rules around the feed-in tariff are released (e.g. pricing, eligible fuels, etc), the exact impact of the law will remain unclear. My own guess is that the government will be very aggressive with ramping up renewable energy installed capacity over the next five years as, as its name indicates, this law is also about the economy. If you believe the government, this bill is as much about creating a counter-cyclical effect as it is about cleaning up the environment. If my thesis is correct and this turns out to be a boon for developers, the following stocks should be watched:

Name	Ticker	Description	Potential Upside Related to Legislation
Algonquin Power Income Fund	AGQNF.PK	Ontario-based renewable power developer with exposure to Ontario (income trust)	V. High
Boralex	BRLXF.PK	Canadian renewable power developer with exposure to Ontario	V. High
Canadian Power Developers	CHDVF.PK	Canadian renewable power developer with significant exposure to Ontario	V. High
Great Lakes Hydro Income Fund	GLHIF.PK	Ontario-based hydro power developer (income trust)	V. High
Innergex Renewable Energy Inc.	INRGF.PK	Canadian renewable power developer with exposure to Ontario	V. High
Macquarie Power & Infrastructure Income Fund	MCQPF.PK	Ontario-based renewable power developer (income trust)	V. High
ARISE Technologies Corporation	APVNF.PK	Ontario-based silicon and PV cell manufacturer with a module installation segment. The module installation segment is focused on the Ontario residential market	V. High
Northland Power Income Fund	NPIFF.PK	Ontario-based power developer with some exposure to renewables (income trust)	High
Brookfield Asset Management	BAM	Infrastructure development firm with exposure to Ontario renewables	Medium
FPL	FPL	FPL Energy unit is one of the world's largest wind park owners and has exposure to Ontario wind	Low

2) Energy Efficiency

The Act introduced a number of energy efficiency measures with a focus on building efficiency:

1. No real property can be sold or leased for an extended period of time without undergoing an energy audit
2. Public agencies will be required to come up with an energy conservation and demand management plan
3. Public agencies will be required to consider energy efficiency when making capital investments or when acquiring goods and services (although the devil will be in the details here with more precise rules to come)
4. Energy distributors will be required to meet efficiency and demand management targets (see the brackets above about the devil)
5. The Building Code will be reviewed to include stronger efficiency measures

Analysis

Energy efficiency measures are clearly targeted at the building stock. There aren't really any good direct plays on this, and won't be until the government releases further information on what it intends to do with its own buildings. Building efficiency firms such as Johnson Controls (JCI) could benefit, although its unclear whether this would be needle-moving. 

3) The Smart Grid

Ontario has been somewhat of a leader in smart grid, with legislation passed back in 2005 requiring every home and business in the province to be equipped with a smart meter by 2010. Hydro One, the largest transmitter, has also begun smartening its network by embedding communication equipment from RuggedCom (RUGGF.PK). The Act contains provisions to expand smart grid capex. The Ontario Smart Grid Forum estimates that C$1.6 billion could be spent on a smart grid ramp up in Ontario over the initial five years of such a program. As I mentioned in a past article, while the absolute amount isn't huge, it is still a fair chunk of change for this emerging industry.

The smart grid measures are:

1. A timeline for rolling out the smart grid and apportioning spending responsibilities to different players (e.g. transmitters, distributors, retailers) will be released
2. Communication standards and other technical aspects will de defined through regulation
3. The regulator (called the Ontario Energy Board, the equivalent of a PUC in the US) will be directed to take actions related to the implementation of the smart grid, although these actions aren't yet defined

Analysis

Once all the rules are released, the legislation will have the effect of formalizing a patchwork of initiatives already underway. In my view, significant smart grid capex can be expected in Ontario over the next few years with a focus on the transmission and distribution infrastructure (rather then end consumers). There are several companies large and small entering the world of smart grid. My personal favorite play on this legislation is RuggedCom (RUGGF.PK): (1) it has already won contracts here; (2) it is part of the home team (based in Ontario); (3) it already generates EBITDA; and (4) even though its stock has withstood the latest storm in equity markets, it's still trading at a reasonable trailing PE compared to peers.   

Conclusion

Many people in the investment world loathe government intervention into anything. However, alt energy has been and continues to be primarily driven by regulation and government policies. In the absence of government support schemes, industry growth rates would be a fraction of what they currently are, and solar PV would not be on the steep cost decline curve it's currently on. It is therefore critical to keep an eye on the policy side to know where growth opportunities will emerge next.

With this new Ontario legislation, my favorite play is the Canadian clean power IPP sector (stocks listed above). The smart grid initiatives will also be worth watching, although more clarity on the rules is required before potential winners can be identified.

DISCLOSURE: Charles Morand does not have a position in any of the stocks discussed above.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a registered investment advisor. The information and trades that I provide here are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full disclaimer here.

Posted by Charles Morand at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last week, Tom brought you a piece on the Algonquin Power Income Fund (AGQNF.PK), in which he opined that shift in investor attention away from capital gains toward yield might eventually provide a catalyst for the prices of yield-focused securities such as income trusts to rise. So-called utility trusts, or income trusts where the underlying corporation is engaged in utility activities such as power generation, are a common feature of the Canadian income trust sector (the mother of all income trust sectors). A sub-set of utility trusts is the clean power utility trust, where the power generation assets consist of technologies such as wind, small hydro, biomass and waste-to-energy (WtE). Though new tax rules have effectively made it impossible for new income trusts to be brought to market (barring certain exceptions such as REITs), existing clean power utility trusts (existing as of Oct. 31, 2006) get to operate under the old tax regime until 2011.

The clean power utility trust model is similar to the clean power Independent Power Producer (IPP, see definition) model, whereby firms are pure-play clean power generators (i.e. they own only generation assets) that sell their electricity to utilities, with the exception that the tax treatment awarded to income trusts allows them to pay higher yields by avoiding double taxation.

While changes in legislation mean that this investment vehicle is dying a slow death, Tom was correct to point out that in times where the prospects for strong capital gains are uncertain and interest rates low, income trusts provide a good way for investors to access high yields. What's more, clean power utility trusts, this most unique of Canadian investment sub-sector, allow investors (including US investors) to play North American clean power in a way that does not entail a risky bet on a technology play but is rather much more akin to a utility investment.

Clean Power Utility Trusts             

Name	Ticker	Related Corp. Entity (Ticker)	Yield (%)*	Assets
Algonquin Power Income Fund	AGQNF.PK	N/A	9.16	Hydro, Cogen, WtE, Wind, Water/Wastewater
Boralex Power Income Fund	BLXJF.PK	Boralex (BRLXF.PK)	19.77	Biomass (wood residue), Hydro, Nat Gas Cogen
Macquarie Power & Infrastructure Income Fund	MCQPF.PK	N/A	18.88	Nat Gas Cogen, Wind, Biomass (wood residue), Hydro, Long-term Care Home
Innergex Power Income Fund	INRGF.PK	Innergex Renewable Energy (INGXF.PK)	10.81	Hydro, Wind
Northland Power Income Fund	NPIFF.PK	Northland Power (not public)	9.44	Nat Gas Cogen, Wind
Great Lakes Hydro Income Fund	GLHIF.PK	N/A	8.01	Hydro

*As at close on Friday Jan. 9, 2008

One of the major risks facing income trusts is distribution cuts, something that generally happens when the fundamentals of the underlying business are severely diminished or distributions were set too high to begin with (in order to attract investors). As can be noted from the table, the yields on some of these trusts (i.e. Boralex Power Income Fund and Macquarie Power & Infrastructure Income Fund) appear to indicate that investors are anticipating distribution cuts and are demanding a risk premium. Yet preliminary screens on both funds don't uncover much evidence that distribution cuts are in the cards (caveat: these were very preliminary screens).  

While growth will be challenging as long as credit conditions remain tight (individual projects typically use over 50% debt), the underlying business model and existing assets of these funds remain largely immune from a slowing economy - they are utilities with a clean twist. Barring another major round of indiscriminate selling in equity markets, investments in one or more of the clean power utility trusts is a good way of generating returns in the form of cash yields (something that's worth a lot more than the promise of future capital gains in this economic environment) from a comparatively low-risk sector.

Some of the things to look for as red flags in assessing these trusts are: liquidity position (cash on hand; quick ratio) and ability to borrow for emergency purposes (undrawn line of credit); leverage level (debt-to-capital ratio) and the need to roll over debt in the next 12 months; any signs that operating conditions have deteriorated (e.g. for wood biomass, indications that pulp/saw mill closures related to the bad economy are decreasing fuel supply).

DISCLOSURE: Charles Morand does not have a position in any of the securities discussed above.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a registered investment advisor. The information and trades that I provide here are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full disclaimer here.

Posted by Charles Morand at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Pendulum Swings to Cash

Over the long term, market cycles are characterized by swings of sentiment, and changes in investor preferences.  The recent cycle was characterized by an emphasis on growth and capital gains.  In the current financial crisis, investors are again learning the value of cash, and companies which produce steady cash flow and dividends.  Since the market tends to overshoot, I expect there will be a time a few years hence when, once again, the first question any investor asks about a stock is "What's the yield?"

If I'm right, companies with strong cash flows that pay high dividends will likely outperform the market as a whole over the next few years.  This is why I've been looking carefully at company's cash flow statements and balance sheet, and we've been bringing you our picks of dividend paying alternative energy and energy efficiency stocks.

Beyond Dividends

Taking this reasoning a step farther, it makes sense to look at the slightly more exotic income trusts.  Income trusts are companies that own mature, cash producing assets, from which substantially all the income is returned to the trust owners.  In many cases, this structure provides the company with favorable tax treatment.  For instance, US REITs are a type of income trust which holds real estate assets on which the income is not taxed at the company level, so long as 90% of that income is returned to investors.

Various types of income trusts may have different tax treatments for different classes of investors, and for different types of income trust.  Both current tax treatment and changes in tax treatment can greatly influence returns.  Nearly two years ago, I brought three renewable energy income trusts to reader's attention because changes in Canadian tax law meant that the funds were changing hands, and I thought there might be future buying opportunities, although at the time I noted "It's impossible to say what good price entry levels are for any of these funds."

Since then, the tax changes and the market meltdown mean that I now think we are seeing at least one such opportunity.  I more than doubled my position in The Algonquin Power Income Fund (AGQNF.PK), at US$1.62 a share in December.

The Algonquin Power Income Fund 

The Algonquin Power Income Fund owns a mix of hydroelectric, wind, cogeneration, waste-to-energy, and water and wastewater facilities in the US and Canada.  The power and services from these facilities are sold under mostly long term contracts, generating mostly stable cash flows, although some contracts are indexed to natural gas prices, and some come up for renewal each year.

In October, the company cut distributions to unit holders by almost three quarters, and the stock price collapsed.  Nevertheless, the price drop means that the yield, even with the lower level of distribution, is still nearly 11% (based on C$2.22 /US$1.83 stock price.)  However, the large cut in distribution means that further cuts are much less likely to be necessary, and the company will have much less need to raise new capital at current low prices.

Given the good yield, the main concern for investors should be the likelihood of any future cuts in distributions.  According to the press release, the fund's trustees believe that the lower distributions will allow them to both internally fund capital investment, and pursue growth opportunities.  

Unless cash flow deteriorates from the level in the third quarter financial results, the new level of distributions should mean that the company will just be able to fund the current level of investment with cash from operations, without having to raise new debt or equity.  Since this agrees with the fund's stated intent in reducing the distribution, I would be surprised if there is any further reduction in the distribution over the next couple years, although there are likely to be further changes when the Canadian tax law changes finally take effect in 2011.  If cash flow falls below expectations, the Fund retains the option of drawing on a revolving credit facility, as well as temporarily curtailing new investments until cash flow recovers. 

Conclusion

If I am correct in my expectation of stable distributions, and a growing preference among investors for income producing securities, the The Algonquin Power Income Fund should be able to appreciate as the business grows with new investment, all the while returning a healthy return from distributions.  

The biggest risk I see is that the financial climate may prevent the fund from rolling over some of its debt (either at the project or company level) at a favorable rate.  However, currently the main problems companies are having with financing are not because of rates on offer, but rather the much higher credit standards lenders expect from borrowers.  Because the fund has debt at both the project level and the company level, there could easily be some project level debt which would be difficult to refinance in the current climate.  That said, borrowers like Algonquin, which have verifiable, steady cash flows are just the type of borrowers most lenders are currently looking for.  If Algonquin proves unable to roll over debt at a large scale, it will only be in a climate even worse than today's, with no one being able to borrow at all.

Spectacular gains seem unlikely, unless market conditions improve dramatically.  Nevertheless, in this climate, I'm happier with a steady distribution over 10% from the sale of clean energy than a chance of a spectacular gain but no expectation of cash anytime soon.

Note: This article was written in late December, and not published until now because I wanted to bring you 2 top ten lists and a 2008 year in review article around New Year's.  I included Algonquin in my 10 Stocks for 2009, when the stock was trading at $1.82.  As I write, the stock has risen to $2.37, meaning the yield is down to about 8.6%, and the potential upside gain is reduced.  On the other hand, Obama has now said that he wants to double renewable energy production as part of his stimulus plan, although he was not specific over what time period he expected that doubling to occur.  Nevertheless, the additional confirmation of Obama's long-standing commitment to renewable energy will be good for Algonquin's projects in the United States, and may explain the recent rally.  At this price, I'm not in a hurry to buy more, although I might still consider it if I did not own any of the stock.

Tom Konrad, Ph.D.

DISCLOSURE: Tom Konrad owns AGQNF.

DISCLAIMER: The information and trades provided here and in the comments are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full disclaimer here.

Posted by Tom Konrad at 04:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)

A few weeks ago, I stumbled upon a presentation that was given by FERC officials on the phenomenon of rapidly rising costs in US power generation (presentation link at the end of this post). The FERC, or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is America's energy watchdog.

The presentation begins by noting that across America's major electricity hubs, power prices are up significantly on last year (between 62% in the Midwest and 123% in NYC) and that, unfortunately, this probably isn't an anomaly. In fact, the presentation argues, there may be something secular at play. Two main trends are noted.

Energy Costs

Because of gas' prevalence in US power generation, the cost of generating a unit of electricity through gas often sets the unit price in the marketplace across fuels - gas is said to be the marginal fuel. Commodity market watchers and anyone who needs to buy gas on spot or futures markets will have noticed a sharp increase in the price of gas over the past five years. This increase is what is responsible for the vast majority of power price increases currently being experienced by US electricity customers.

Of course, it hasn't helped that the price of coal has been rising as well on the back of a weak US currency and an explosion in demand from India and China. In some parts of the US, such as in the Midwest, coal is the marginal fuel. Tom wrote an interesting piece last year on how to play coal shortages.

Capital Costs

The second factor impacting the cost of power generation is a rapid rise in the cost of many key inputs needed to build a power generation facility. Increases in the price of steel and cement, for instance, have appreciably outpaced inflation as whole over the past few years, as have those for other commodities and even labor (albeit to a much lesser extent).

The result is the chart below, which shows the capital costs of building generation capacity in 2008 as compared to 2003-2004. The caveat with this graph is that accurate data on power plant capital costs is hard to come by given the sensitivity of this information. Nevertheless, the results from these estimates show that while the inflationary environment in power generation capital costs has impacted all fuel sources, wind has been impacted to a lesser extent than competing fuels like coal. While combined cycle and combustion turbine gas remains cheaper than wind, wind has made up some ground on the 2003-2004 period.

The effects of this phenomenon on power prices, however, may not be fully felt for a few more years.

Connecting The Dots

Throw these two factors together (rising capital and fuel costs), and the weighted-average levelized cost of electricity across the system - the levelized cost is the present value of the costs of building and operating a power plant and are used to set prices over the plant's economic life - looks like it could favor wind a few short years down the road.

There are two forces at play improving the economics of wind relative to conventional power generation: (a) growing wind manufacturing capacity currently under construction (this is not apparent at the moment because of the inflationary environment discussed above, but once new manufacturing capacity comes on line and the supply chain loosens up wind costs will decrease) and (b) worsening economics for fossil-fired generation due to increases in capital costs but mostly fuel costs.

Add to this regulation to force fossil generators to internalize the cost of carbon and a growing number state mandates for renewable power, and the picture looks even more positive.

But The Real Winner Is...

Unsurprisingly, the FERC expects there to be a response to rising electricity prices - in other words, demand for power is elastic.

What's the main response likely to be initially? An increase in demand-response (technologies that adjust power consumption based on prices). The FERC estimates that the first round of demand-response (the low-hanging fruit) could come in at about $165/kW, which compares rather favorably to the capital costs of the cheapest option on to the graph above, combustion turbine gas, at between $500 and $1,000/kW. And, like renewable energy, there are no fuel costs.

Somewhat paradoxically, one of the main impediments to demand-response growth could be energy efficiency measures more broadly, or reducing power use at any time instead of only at peak times, which is what demand-response does. Available energy efficiency measures would cost in the order of $0.03/kWh, compared to $0.09/kWh for the fuel alone for a combined cycle gas plant.

Demand-response is likely to be more popular in states where most customers have some exposure to fluctuating daily power prices, whereas energy efficiency measures may gain more ground in states where the pricing is more static for most customers.

It's The Economics, Stupid!

One of the biggest beefs alt energy detractors have with the industry is that "the economics don't make sense without state support." (Of course such detractors generally like to avoid conversing about the mammoth tax breaks the fossil industry receives) This could very well change in the years ahead as the burden of fuel costs on the levelized cost of fossil electricity boosts wind and solar's competitiveness.

However, as shown above, the cheapest kW is the kW saved, and regulators are aware of this. Unlike cars, where the entire vehicle has to be changed to gain access to more efficient technologies, energy efficiency measures in commercial, industrial and residential buildings can be implemented fairly painlessly. Now that the "economics make sense", expect such installations to grow in popularity

Access the FERC presentation here (PDF document).

Posted by Charles Morand at 09:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Most alternative energy investors are aware of North American wind power's very bright growth prospects. In past articles, we discussed encouraging projections for the US and Canadian (PDF document) wind markets between now and 2015. While onshore European capacity is fast being exhausted, North America is only beginning its foray into wind and some major capex can be expected in this space over the coming years.

Besides solid expected growth, another phenomenon is currently impacting the wind industry; consolidation. This is a global movement that is affecting all of the power gen sector, and that has no-doubt been aided by easy credit in the past few years. Examples of recent deals in the North American wind industry include EDP's July, 2007 acquisition of Horizon Wind for $2.7 billion, and Suez' July, 2007 acquisition of Ventus Energy (PDF document) for C$124 million.

Playing Growth & Consolidation

Two of the most interesting ways to play growth and consolidation in the North American wind sector lay on the Canadian side of the border. They are two Independent Power Producers (IPPs) with attractive pipelines of projects, good forward-looking revenue visibility because of their exposures to Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with credit-worthy customers, and attractive take-over targets due to their size and the location of their generation assets. These two companies are: Boralex [TSX:BLX or BRLXF.PK] and Canadian Hydro Developers [TSX:KHD or CHDVF.PK].

Boralex

Boralex currently runs a generation portfolio totaling around 350 MW, with 103 MW of wind. Over the next five years, however, Boralex is expected to add another 690 MW of wind to its portfolio. Besides having access to PPAs, Boralex is also active in the US Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) market - in 2005 and 2006, respectively, one of the company's facilities in the US recorded C$8.1 million and C$6.2 million in RECs revenue alone. With 2007E EV/EBITDA of around 12x and 2007E PE of around 21x, Boralex is trading roughly in line with its comps. The company is geographically well-diversified, with operations in Quebec (one of Canada's hottest wind markets), Ontario, the Northeastern US and France.

Canadian Hydro Developers

At upwards of 60x 2007E PE and around 24x 2007E EV/EBITDA, KHD does not come cheap, either as a stand-alone stock or relative to industry peers. However, the company has a very attractive pipeline of wind projects across Canada, and valuations are expected to converge with industry averages over the next three years. Canadian Hydro currently has around 265 MW of generating assets with around 154 MW of wind. The company has a further 384 MW of wind currently under construction and a total project pipeline of about 1,400 MW - one of the most interesting such pipelines of any mid-size North American IPP. While KHD is an expensive buy at the moment, a lot of that has to do with all of the growth the firm is projected to undergo between now and 2010, as well as with a high amount of revenue visibility associated with high exposure to PPAs.

Two Of a Kind...

Both firms belong to a very rare breed - publicly-listed alternative energy generation pure-plays. While there are a number of similar companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, most of them are income trusts with limited growth pipelines or small players with next to no track records. Both companies are increasingly on the radar of public market investors due their projected growth and to the fact that they are potential acquisition targets. Fundamentally-speaking, both look very attractive in the medium term (3 to 5 years) due to their extensive exposure to various schemes by Canadian provincial governments to boost wind generation capacity. These two companies really are, for all intents and purposes, two of a kind.

DISCLOSURE: The author is long Canadian Hydro Developers.

DISCLAIMER: The information and trades provided here are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full disclaimer here.

Posted by Charles Morand at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last weekend, TXU Corporation (NYSE: TXU) made the stunning announcement that it would be acquired by two private equity giants -- Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) and Texas Pacific Group (TPG) -- in a transaction valued at $45 billion.

Press release

Two things leap out at me from the announced deal.

First, the investors are willing to pay a 25% premium over the recent share price, while at the same time committing to a 10% rate reduction for TXU's residential electricity customers in Texas. KKR and TPG are no dummies: it must mean that they truly think they can run TXU much more efficiently than it has been run -- even though TXU has been widely viewed as a glowing success story since the meltdown of the merchant power markets in 2002. If a "good" utility TXU can be taken over by a private equity group at a premium price and earn the required rates of return on invested capital while cutting prices to customers, pretty much any electric utility should be in the same boat. Conclusion: there must be a lot of fat in the utility industry that can be cut with more aggressive management. If I were a large institutional investor in an underperforming utility, I'd be pressing the executives to dress the company up for sale. If I were a senior manager in the utility sector, I'd be expecting to be pushed to a much higher degree of performance for shareholders. If I were a mid-manager or lower level employee at a utility, I'd become increasingly worried about my job.

Second, the investors are the prime movers in axing 8 of 11 announced coal fired powerplants from TXU's growth ambitions, in lieu of increasing expenditures on customer efficiency by $400 million. This will be a major reversal for John Wilder, TXU's CEO, who has been loudly touting a vision for massive coal expansion. I'm certain that Wilder's rich payday from this lucrative deal will help soften the blow to his ego, but it will be interesting to see how Wilder copes under his new owners. These are smart investors, and they seem to be saying that energy efficiency (along with renewables) is a much better investment than new coal fired powerplants -- especially in a world with likely future carbon restrictions. This deal no doubt sends a signal that the capital markets are increasingly unwilling to make big bets on continued status quo in the utility industry. Wall Street is saying that the utility industry must change, and that it isn't just going to keep dumping money into utilities that want to perpetuate the 20th Century.

Based on initial reports, it appears that there are few hurdles to the deal being closed, but I remain curious as to how KKR and TPG expect to monetize their $45 billion investment. It seems like there are three possibilities: simply holding the company and recouping returns via dividends from improved operations, flipping the company to another owner (or re-taking the company public) at a higher price, or breaking the company apart and selling the pieces to more natural owners. I'm sure they have thought through these possibilities in great detail, though it's not obvious to me.

The examples of private equity attempting to earn attractive returns through investments in the U.S. electric utility sector have, to date, been not very successful. Let's hope this deal works out for the investors. I'd love to see many more utilities bought by private equity firms and shaken up. I bet that many utility CEO's and management teams wouldn't last long under the reins of more aggressive owners. And, I'd bet we'd see better environmental performance from these historically lethargic companies. I hope the TXU deal is the beginning of a trend.

Richard T. Stuebi is the BP Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, and is also the Founder and President of NextWave Energy, Inc. Richard is a Contributor to Clean Tech Blog where this story was first published.

Posted by Guest Contributor at 08:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Calpine Corp. (CPNLQ.PK) said it plans to sell about one-fifth of its power plants in a bid to emerge as a leaner company focused on its profitable geothermal and gas-fired operations. The company also said it plans to close three offices and cut about 775 jobs. Without identifying the plants, Calpine said the sale of about 20 facilities would allow it to focus on core assets and key markets. The company's largest power markets are California and Texas. [ more ]

The plans drafted by CEO Robert May should allow the company to save over $150 million a year and also allow the company to focus on profitable segments of the existing business.

Posted by Mark Anderson at 08:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

German utility E.On AG launched a 29.1 billion euro ($34.72 billion) all-cash bid for ENDESA (ELE) on Tuesday, topping a previous offer from Gas Natural by more than 30 percent and threatening to disrupt carefully laid plans for Spanish power-market consolidation.

Endesa said in a statement that the E.On offer was "clearly" the better of the two, but added that it still did not adequately reflect Endesa's true value. [ more ]

Shares of Endesa were up 15% in yesterday's trading.

Posted by Mark Anderson at 08:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

FPL Group Inc (FPL) reported 2005 fourth quarter net income on a GAAP basis of $206 million, or $0.53 per share, compared with $173 million, or $0.47 per share, in the fourth quarter of 2004. FPL Group's net income for the fourth quarter 2005 included a net unrealized after-tax gain of $27 million associated with the mark-to-market effect of non-qualifying hedges. The results of last year's fourth quarter included a net unrealized after-tax loss of $2 million associated with the mark-to-market effect of non-qualifying hedges.

Excluding the mark-to-market effect of non-qualifying hedges, FPL Group's earnings would have been $179 million, or $0.46 per share for the fourth quarter of 2005, compared with $175 million, or $0.47 per share, in the fourth quarter of 2004. [ more ]

FPL fourth-quarter profit rose on gains related to hedges, though earnings were reduced by damages from Hurricane Wilma. Excluding the hedging gains they earned 46 cents a share. The average forecast of analysts was 40 cents. The stock should open up strongly this morning.

Posted by Mark Anderson at 09:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

FPL Group Inc (FPL) is currently in the advanced stages of negotiations to acquire Constellation Energy Group (CEG). An FPL-Constellation merger would create a giant East Coast-based utility with a market capitalization, based on Tuesday's closing stock prices, of $26.97 billion - $16.93 billion for FPL and $10.04 billion for Constellation.

Constellation Energy Group is based out of Baltimore Maryland and is the holding company for Baltimore Gas and Electric. They also have an extensive presence in the wholesale power supply and generation business. The Power Generation Division currently uses 4.6% alternative sources for power generation.

FPL has a strong commitment to alternative energy generation and is one of the largest utilities in the US utilizing extensive wind farms. CEG has a large footprint in Nuclear power generation and the combination of these two companies would make a top-tier producer of power generation for the East coast markets and a potential of 30,000 megawatts of power generation. CEG also gives FPL the ability to enter the wholesale supply side of the power generation business.

Typically you would see shares of the acquiring company down and shares of the acquired company up with this type of announcement. The market is liking this potential merger and CEG is up over 7% and FPL is also trading up 0.6% this morning.

Posted by Mark Anderson at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)