Jim Lane

Will BioAmber complete its IPO?
As the industry waits, fingers crossed, the biosuccinic developer sweetens the pot with warrants, lower share prices.

In Canada, BioAmber has reduced the proposed price range for its IPO to $10-$12 per share, down from a $15-$17 range — as it seeks to keep the initial public offering on track.

Overall, the company now proposes to raise between $80 million and $110.4 million in the offering, now scheduled for May 13th according to the latest calendar from NASDAQ.

At the offering’s midpoint — and excluding the sale of up to 1.2 million shares in over-allotments — the company would raise $88 million, or 31% less than its previous SEC filing.

The company’s common stock has been approved for listing on the New York Stock Exchange, where it would trade under the symbol “BIOA” and the company also intends to list the stock on the Professional Segment of NYSE Euronext in Paris.

Credit Suisse, Societe Generale and Barclays are acting as bookrunners on the deal.

With the revised S-1A filing with the SEC yesterday, which revealed the lower target and can be read in its entirety here, the company said that each share of common stock would be sold in combination with a warrant to purchase half of one share of common stock at an exercise price of $11.00 per whole share of common stock.

JOBS Act.

BioAmber Inc. is the first industrial biotech company to attempt an IPO, defined as an “emerging growth company” under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012. More than 75 percent of companies that completed IPOs in the past year elected that designation — which provides, among other benefits, a five-year phase-in until the company has to fully comply with Sarbanes-Oxley provisions.

Complete coverage

BioAmber’s IPO: The 10-Minute Version.

We’ll explore the impact of the JOBS Act on IPOs, plus the impact of the warrants provisions in the revised filing — what it means, and how those work — in BioInvest Digest, where you can find a special report on BioAmber.

Jim Lane is editor and publisher  of Biofuels Digest where this article was originally published. Biofuels Digest is the most widely read  Biofuels daily read by 14,000+ organizations. Subscribe here.

Posted by Guest Contributor at 09:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tom Konrad CFA

Monday morning, Finavera Wind Energy (TSXV:FVR, OTC:FNVRF) announced that it had finalized its agreement with Pattern Energy Group  to sell two of its four Canadian wind energy projects for $28 million.  This should come as a relief to shareholders, who had been concerned when the original date by which they had expected to ratify the deal, March 31st came and went.

Since the start of March, when shareholders would reasonably have expected to have heard an announcement of the meeting date and the circulation of proxy materials, Finavera’s stock had drifted down 15% (from C$0.20 to C$0.17.)  Some of investors’ worries seem to have been justified, in that the original agreement outlined in December had been for the purchase of all four projects.

Meet The New Deal. (Pretty Much) Same as the Old Deal

I spoke to Finavera’s CEO, Jason Bak, to try to better understand the changes.

A view of Finavera's Miekle Wind Energy project.  Photo Source: Finavera

The revised agreement is only for the purchase of Finavera’s 47 MW Tumbler Ridge and 117 MW Meikle Wind Energy Projects.  Pattern retains an option (but not an obligation) to purchase the 77 MW Wildmare and 60 MW Bullmoose projects for the remaining C$12 million of the C$40 million originally envisioned for the four projects.  According to Bak, these latter two projects had run into a number of obstacles in discussions with the local utility (BC Hydro) and “other stakeholders.” Because of this, Finavera will not be able to bring them to financial close as quickly as hoped.  Since Pattern’s purchase had always been contingent on the projects reaching financial close, the downgrade of the agreement from an obligation to purchase the projects to an option is less of a change in Pattern’s position than it may seem at first.  The real problem are the difficulties bringing these projects to financial close in the near term.

Despite this change, the most important aspects (for Finavera and its shareholders) of the December agreement remain in place:

• Pattern will still forgive Finavera’s C$9.3 million in debt when Finavera’s shareholders ratify the agreement at a shareholder meeting to be scheduled before the end of June.
• Pattern will provide Finavera with a credit facility at a 10% interest rate to cover its liquidity needs until the end of 2013.
• Finavera will receive 70% of the compensation originally envisioned in exchange for only 54% (on a per-MW basis) of the projects.

Most importantly, the revised deal alleviates the liquidity problems which forced Finavera to seek a deal to pay off an overdue loan to GE late last year.  With the ability to repay outstanding liabilities and still put cash in the bank, Finavera will be in a much stronger position when it comes to acquiring attractive development projects, or even returning some cash to its long-suffering shareholders.  Bak says the use of the funds will be put to a shareholder vote after the cash is in hand and Finavera has potential projects to present to shareholders.

Timeline

Finavera still expects to receive approximately C$9.4 million for bringing its Cloosh wind project in Ireland to financial close in the fourth quarter of this year.  This, along with the C$9.3 million of debt forgiveness from Pattern upon shareholder and exchange approval of the deal should be enough to cover Finavera's outstanding liabilities.

The Tumbler Ridge project already has completed environmental and construction permits, and Finavera will submit Meikle for environmental permitting later this year.  Bak expects both projects will achieve financial close in the second half of 2014, at which point Pattern will pay the approximately C$19 million balance.

Bak says that Finavera will issue an information circular with details on the agreement in the next couple of weeks, after which he will hold a shareholder conference to address shareholder questions.  A shareholder meeting and a vote on the contract will take place by the end of June.

Valuation

In the press release, Bak said, “Based on the Pattern transaction and the value of the Cloosh Valley Wind Project assets, and using a set of conservative working assumptions, Finavera estimates the Company’s net asset value to be $0.41 per share.”  I asked him to walk me through the calculation, in order to assess if I also felt he was being conservative.

• C$28 million from Pattern
• C$19 million in debt
• C$10 million payment for Cloosh
• C$3 to C$4 million residual value for 10% interest in Cloosh.
• No value attributed to Wildmare or Bullmose projects.
• Minus ongoing expenses to achieve the payments listed.

That sums to about C$22-3 million in net cash and assets expected before the end of 2014.  Finavera has 39.6 million shares outstanding after a debt-for-share swap announced in March.  Management and the Board have options exercisable at C$0.205 a share for an additional 1,783,800 shares.  After exercise, Finavera would have 41.4 million shares outstanding and an additional C$365,679 in cash.

At 41.4 million shares, Bak’s C$0.41 per share comes to a net asset value of C$17 million, compared to my C$22 to C$23 million, minus the time value of money and two years of operating expenses.   Finavera’s free cash flow in the first 9 months of 2012 was an outflow of C$1.6 million, so two years of operations and project development should easily be covered by the C$5 to C$6 million difference in Bak’s C$0.41 per share estimate and my back-of-the-envelope calculations.

Bottom Line

While less attractive as the original deal, the finalized agreement with Pattern still relieves Finavera’s liquidity problems, and Bak’s reasonably conservative valuation for the company at C$0.41 a share should still produce decent upside for investors who buy today at C$0.17 a share, or even investors who bought at the C$0.225 the stock was trading at when I analyzed the original deal in December.

The 24% decline in price since then more than compensates for not selling Wildmare and Bullmoose.  If Pattern eventually exercises its option to buy those projects as well, that will just be gravy.

Disclosure: Long Finavera

This article was first published on the author's Forbes.com blog, Green Stocks on April 30th.

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 09:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Doug Young

I’ve been trying to avoid writing about the latest punitive tariffs for Chinese solar panels that look set to come from the European Union this week, since the story has dragged on for more than a year now and the outcome was almost inevitable. But that said, it would be a bit remiss of me not to write at least something on this latest move, which is expected to see European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht formally recommend the introduction of anti-dumping tariffs for solar panels supplied from China. (English article) The latest reports say the recommended levies are likely to be set at 40 percent or higher, even though industry insiders say anything above 30 percent could seriously hurt China’s already struggling solar panel sector. [Ed. Note: Recommended Tariffs were release on Thursday, averaging 47.6% in a range from 37.3% to 67.9%.  More here.]  But instead of focusing on this tired old story, I’d like to move my attention to China’s predictable reaction, which was to lash out with a warning to the EU on the risks of levying such tariffs.

Personally speaking, I do believe that China regularly engages in the kinds of unfair support for its solar sector that prompted the initial US and EU investigations. That’s just the way that Beijing does things: it picks industries it wants to promote, especially in emerging high-tech areas, and then showers them with all kinds of benefits like tax rebates, free or cheap land and other forms of policy support.

But instead of acknowledging this problem, which gives Chinese firms an unfair advantage over companies in other markets, China simply continues to do nothing to address the source of the complaints. Instead, its approach is always reactionary, whereby it sits back and watches momentum slowly build against its solar panel makers, and then reacts angrily at each negative development.

China certainly can’t say it didn’t see this coming, as this clash has been building for nearly 2 years now. It all began with the bankruptcy of a US solar panel maker in 2011, which led to a congressional hearing because the failed company had received a government-backed loan. That hearing resulted in the launch of a formal investigation, which ended with the decision to levy punitive tariffs last summer, and the finalization of those tariffs in November. (previous post)

In the meantime, the EU launched its own investigation since many European solar panel makers also struggled for similar reasons. Like the US case, the EU process has been long and involved a number of major milestones, the latest of which will be the recommendation to impose tariffs this week. That move will be followed by a few more administrative steps, before such tariffs are most likely finalized later this year.

In the face of this tired and ultimately destructive cycle, leaders in Beijing should seriously reconsider their approach, taking a more constructive and proactive tack. This kind of angry and reactive approach is actually quite typical for Beijing in many areas, from trade disputes to diplomacy and domestic social issues.

Chinese leaders typical abhor the idea of any kind of “interference” in such issues, and usually just prefer to let matters build to a crisis level before taking any action. The only problem is that usually by that time, the problem has become so great that it’s difficult to solve. What’s more, frustration and anger from all parties make constructive dialogue difficult or impossible, which ultimately results in this kind of destructive deadlock.

At this point in the solar panel dispute, it’s probably already too late for Beijing to take any constructive steps to try and address concerns in the US and Europe. But that doesn’t mean that China shouldn’t at least try to make at least some kind of conciliatory effort, which could perhaps help to end this dispute sooner rather than later. That’s important, since it’s in everyone’s interest to salvage this key sector  that will be critical to creating a sustainable energy environment in the future.

Bottom line: Beijing needs to change its approach to one of constructive dialogue rather than angry warnings to solve its solar panel disputes with the US and EU.

Doug Young has lived and worked in China for 15 years, much of that as a journalist for Reuters writing about Chinese companies. He currently lives in Shanghai where he teaches financial journalism at Fudan University. He writes daily on his blog, Young´s China Business Blog, commenting on the latest developments at Chinese companies listed in the US, China and Hong Kong. He is also author of a new book about the media in China, The Party Line: How The Media Dictates Public Opinion in Modern China.

Photo: Angry sculpture in Majishan Grottoes in Gansu Province, northwest China.  Photo by MarsmanRom via Wikipedia Commons.

Posted by Doug Young at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

James Montgomery

Trade War. photo via Bigstock

The European Commission has decided to recommend duties on Chinese solar panels up to 67.9 percent, according to reports from multiple sources.

Wall Street Journal reports that the tariffs will affect more than 100 companies, and be implemented at a range from 37.3 to 67.9 percent at an average of 47.6 percent, close to projections earlier this week. Companies will face tariffs as follows:

• Suntech (STP) and its subsidiaries: 48.6 percent
• LDK Solar (LDK): 55.9 percent
• Trina Solar (TSL): 51.5 percent
• JA Solar (JASO): 58.7 percent

Other companies that cooperated with the investigation will likely be hit with a 47.6 percent tariff, while those that did not cooperate will face a 67.9 percent tariff.

China strongly opposes the tariffs and is calling for extended dialogue to resolve the situation, according to Bloomberg. The Alliance for Affordable Solar Energy (AFASE) also expressed its concern in a statement, claiming that punititve tariffs at any level will cause "irreversible damage to the entire European Photovoltaic value chain."

Last November the U.S. handed down antidumping and countervailing duties. Europe already was eying actions against China's solar manufacturers in motion for more than a year, before the U.S.' own trade case was finalized, though presumably the U.S.' decision provided momentum.

The EC's preliminary decision on antidumping was scheduled for early June, followed by a preliminary ruling on antisubsidies in August. Both are expected to be finalized in December.

In recent weeks the EC has further tightened the screws on Chinese solar imports, first requiring registration of panels, and more recently initiating antisubsidy and antidumping investigations into solar glass from China. The latter, spawned by a complaint by EU ProSun Glass, is a distinct investigation from the Chinese solar panel investigation, and is said to be not formally affiliated with the SolarWorld (SRWRF)-led "EU ProSun" coalition which launched the broader solar complaint a year ago.

Not all of Europe is united in this solar dispute. The Solar Trade Association (STA), a collection of EU national industry associations — UK, Italy, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Sweden, and Slovakia — has expressed "deep concerns" and "overwhelming opposition" in an open letter to European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, arguing that the EC's investigation into Chinese solar manufacturers already has been damaging. "The impact on employment and EU value added will far outstrip any impact that the duties may have on EU photovoltaic producers, particularly because these producers are struggling with structural issues that cannot be efficiently addressed through the imposition of duties," they say. "Duties at any level are already having a significant impact, dwarfing any possible benefit for European solar producers and setting back the objective for grid parity for years." Meanwhile, China and France have been formally discussing broader "economic relations and the cooperation of common interest," including having the French urge the EU "to cautiously utilize trade remedy measures" regarding the PV investigations.

And China has repeatedly suggested it might retaliate with its own probe into US and European polysilicon suppliers. "I continue to not understand the logic" of a retaliatory Chinese penalty on silicon imports, said Thomas Gutierrez, president and CEO of GT Advanced Technologies (GTAT), which makes equipment for producing the silicon starting material for solar cells and modules, days ago during the company's quarterly results conference call. "China can't support itself in high-quality production of polysilicon. And if they put tariffs on polysilicon, they're going to increase the cost of their already profitless wafer and cell manufacturing industry."

Among the arguments lobbed in the EU/China trade dispute is the issue of jobs at risk, as it was in the U.S./China dispute. A report earlier this year suggested nearly a quarter of a million jobs might be at stake across several European countries, potentially wiping out €18.4-€27.2 billion of market activity. Chong Quan, deputy international trade representative with China's Ministry of Commerce, has suggested 400,000 Chinese workers could be affected by Europe's solar trade decision. The STA acknowledges the European Photovoltaic Industry Association's calculation of a €39.4 billion value in the PV value chain and "no less than 265,000 jobs — but that the companies behind Europe's antidumping investigations "represent no more than a maximum of 8,700 jobs," or at most 3 percent of all jobs in the PV value chain, according to the STA.

Both types of trade disputes have dangerous consequences on the overall global market. "If domestic requirements are forced to be abandoned and incentive policies changed radically, that would change demand in specific countries," explained Michael Barker, senior analyst at Solarbuzz. The upstream trade disputes, meanwhile, could change supply arrangements across key regions; placing duties on products "could change investments going forward and short-term supply."

"Trade issues are big — but PV demand is driven more by local policy and regulatory movements than by cost," Barker said. As costs come down, so do incentive policies — even down to the city level. "While the cost portion is certainly very important, it's also what countries are doing at the local level to make it easier, or harder, for PV to be competitive or get ample returns," Barker said. "Local regulations and policies will be the ones enabling end-market demand, or hindering it."

Jim Montgomery is Associate Editor for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, covering the solar and wind beats. He previously was news editor for Solid State Technology and Photovoltaics World, and has covered semiconductor manufacturing and related industries, renewable energy and industrial lasers since 2003. His work has earned both internal awards and an Azbee Award from the American Society of Business Press Editors. Jim has 15 years of experience in producing websites and e-Newsletters in various technology.

This article was first published on RenewableEnergyWorld.com, and is reprinted with permission.

Posted by Guest Contributor at 09:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Jeff Siegel

It was boasted as an energy breakthrough.

Bloom Energy's Bloom Box paraded around the media — including a very generous piece aired by 60 Minutes as some kind of new, game-changing magical energy creation device that would change the world.

Problem is, it's not really “new.” And it's certainly not going to change the world.

But don't tell that to the folks who are looking to take the company public, perhaps as soon as this year.

Now, I'm not saying a Bloom Energy IPO would fail. In fact, based on the hype surrounding the company, I imagine it would do quite well. And as far as getting these things in the field, Bloom has been more successful than any other fuel cell company before it.

But is that enough to justify all the praise?

When Gas Heads North

Bottom line: Bloom Energy is fuel cell company, no matter how anyone tries to spin it.

Bloom Energy Servers debut at eBay headquarters in San Jose, CA. Photo by Jakub Mosur

Bloom's distinguishing advantage, however, is its fuel flexibility.

In other words, it's not dependent upon one resource, unlike most other fuel cell manufacturers that are married to hydrogen. And with natural gas so cheap these days, it certainly makes the economics of Bloom a lot more attractive.

The question is, how long can that last? Moreover, will dirt-cheap natural gas actually impede growth in the near term?

While the news keeps getting better and better for natural gas reserve numbers, the debate over decline rates continues. And the truth is no one really knows how steep the decline rates are for these shale gas wells.

But there's plenty of data that suggest it could be a lot worse than industry cheerleaders and bureaucrats are letting on...

As oil and gas expert Chris Nelder wrote last year:

... the decline rates of shale gas wells are steep. They vary widely from play to play, but the output of shale gas wells commonly falls by 50% to 60% or more in the first year of production. This is why I have called it a treadmill: you have to keep drilling furiously to maintain flat output.

In the U.S., the aggregate decline of natural gas production from both conventional and unconventional sources is now 32% per year, so 22 bcf/d of new production must be added every year to keep overall production flat, according to Canadian geologist David Hughes. That's close to the total output of U.S. shale gas, after nearly a decade of its development. It will require thousands more shale gas and tight oil wells to keep domestic gas production flat.

One way or another, natural gas prices are going to head north again — whether it's because of rapid decline rates, a transition of our trucks and buses to run on natural gas, or the export of our bounty to other nations that are wiling to pay five times as much for it.

So at the end of the day, for the sake of long-term planning, we simply can't ignore the inconvenient truth of finite resources. Or maybe we can. Certainly we've been doing it for years.

For consumers, this is a constant headache. For investors, however, it's a mentality that can make you rich.

But how does this affect Bloom's growth prospects?

When the Grid Is Down

The Bloom Box can use natural gas as a fuel, as well as a number of other fuels, including methane.

But when using cheap natural gas, Bloom's fuel cells allow us to stretch out our already abundant supply of natural gas while allowing the company to provide a more profitable distributed generation solution.

Though when we do finally see natural gas prices head north again, which I believe will be sooner than later, it will become harder for the economics to make sense, not to mention incentives that exist today won't be around forever.

Of course, from a practicality standpoint, the biggest advantage to a system like the Bloom Box is its ability to provide uninterrupted power.

You see, Bloom and other fuel cell manufacturers often make the claim that these systems serve as safety mechanisms that allow homes and businesses to operate when the grid is down — something that is going to happen more and more as the intensity and extremity of weather events become more common.

My friends, there is some real value to this.

And in an effort to combat a future of increased extreme weather events, distributed generation is a must...

Microgrids, fuel cells, rooftop solar — all of this stuff can serve as a hedge against the fallout from extreme weather events and supply disruptions. Although I have to admit, strictly from a reliable form of power generation when the grid goes down, I'm more fond of solar. The economics are better right now and there is no requirement to “feed” the system.

In comparison, the Bloom Box relies on a direct fuel source — which will most likely come in the form of a finite resource that carries with it price fluctuations. And if, for some reason, that supply is disrupted... well, you're out of luck.

That's not to say the Bloom Box doesn't have its advantages over solar. Certainly if there is no supply disruption, you get 24-hour power generation, whereas solar will leave you high and dry when it gets dark out — assuming you don't have backup storage already in place, which most don't.

In any event, I suspect fuel cell manufacturers like Bloom do have a future. In the near term, however, I'm convinced the dual threat of cheap natural gas and overall complacency on the part of individuals and governments will result in limited interest.

That being said, because Bloom is expected to hit profitability this year — and it seems to get about as much publicity as Lindsay Lohan at a strip club — I would certainly be interested in wetting my beak on the first day of a Bloom Energy IPO, then trade it a bit on hurricane and storm warnings.

As more develops on this Bloom Energy IPO, we'll keep you posted.

To a new way of life and a new generation of wealth...

 

Jeff Siegel is Editor of Energy and Capital, where this article was first published.

Posted by Jeff Siegel at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Marc Gunther.  First Published on Yale Environment 360

Electric bicycles are already popular in Europe and in China, which has more e-bikes than cars on its roads. Now, manufacturers are marketing e-bikes in the U.S., promoting them as a "green" alternative to driving.

Most Americans know about Tesla [NASD:TSLA], the Chevy Volt, and the Nissan Leaf. But what about Evelo, the eZip Trailz, and the Faraday Porteur?

The first three are, of course, electric cars. They benefit from a lot of media attention and generous government subsidies, including a $7,500 tax credit for buyers in the United States. The latter are electric bicycles, and they attract neither.

Yet Americans bought as many electric bicycles as they did electric cars last year. About 53,000 electric bicycles were sold, according to Dave Hurst, an analyst with Navigant Research who tracks the industry. Electric car sales came in at 52,835.

Globally, electric bicycles outsell electric cars by a wide margin. An estimated 29.3 million e-bicycles were sold in 2012, with perhaps 90 percent of those selling in China, which has more electric bikes than cars on its roads. E-bicycles are popular in Europe, too, selling about 380,000 a year in Germany and 175,000 in the Netherlands in 2012. By comparison, about 120,000 electric cars were sold worldwide.

All of which raises a question: Can electric bicycles help solve big environmental problems? The industry — which is making a push to expand its sales in the U.S. — says e-bicycles will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and traffic congestion, while enabling Americans, two-third of whom are obese or overweight, to become more active. In Europe and China, most electric bicycles are sold to commuters, although it’s not clear whether they are replacing conventional bikes, mopeds, or cars.

E-bicycle makers eagerly market themselves as “green.” Dashboards on e-bicycles sold under the Polaris brand and made by a Miami-based company called EVantage include a “carbon footprint savings” function to calculate how many pounds of CO2 are saved by using the bicycle in place of a gasoline-powered car. Evelo, a Boston-based startup, recently launched a 30-day electric bike challenge, asking people to give up their car keys and blog about using their electric bikes. “We don’t want to wean people from bicycles,” says Boris Mordkovich, Evelo’s founder, who previously worked at car-sharing company RelayRides. “We want to wean people from cars.”

Yet if electric bikes end up replacing human-powered bikes, or if they are used only for exercise or fun, they could well add to pollution because they consume electricity, much of which comes from burning fossil fuels. Only if electric bicycles replace cars will their environmental benefits materialize — and that’s the goal, say bike makers.

“Traditionally, people don’t use bikes for transportation,” says Larry Pizzi, the president of Currie Technologies, a leading e-bicyle manufacturer based in Simi Valley, California and part of the international Accell Group (ACCEL.AS). “We’re trying to change a paradigm.” There are reasons to believe that the e-bicycle industry may be able to do just that.

Before explaining why, let’s make clear what we mean by an electric bicycle. These are not mopeds or motorcycles, but bicycles that can be pedaled with or without an assist from an electric motor. They’re sometimes called “pedelecs” or “pedal assist” bicycles because in Europe the boost from the motor only kicks in if you pedal; in the U.S., most e-bicycles also come equipped with a throttle to turn on the motor without any pedaling required. Riding an electric bike feels a bit like riding a conventional bike with a brisk wind at your back; the motor helps you go faster and climb hills, but it’s not the primary source of propulsion. Unlike mopeds or electric scooters, e-bicycles are typically permitted on bike paths, and they can’t travel faster than 20 mph.

Like electric cars, electric bicycles are manufactured by a mix of startup companies and established players, including Schwinn (part of Dorel Industries (DIIBF.PK), Trek (private), and Giant (9921.TW). Industry executives cite several reasons why e-bicycle sales are poised to take off in the U.S. Most important is the fact that more Americans than ever already bike to work, and that cities and towns are building infrastructure to accommodate them. According to the League of American Bicyclists, bike commuting grew by 47 percent nationally between 2000 and 2011, and it grew by 80 percent in communities designated as “bicycle friendly” by the league. Cities including New York, Chicago, Washington, and Los Angeles are building dedicated bike lanes, like those found in northern Europe, to make commuting safer and easier.

“It’s happening in every major city, and a lot of secondary cities around the country, and it’s causing people to think differently about getting around on two wheels,” says Pizzi. “If you don’t have safe infrastructure, people don’t feel as if biking is safe and secure.”

Electric bikes make commutes more inviting by easing worries about hills, headwinds, and fatigue. “They increase the distance that people can ride comfortably,” says Evelo’s Mordkovich. Commuters on e-bicycles are also less likely to arrive at the office dripping with sweat. “It seems like a small detail,” Mordkovich says, “but it’s a big deal to a lot of people.”

 

Chinese Buddhist monk riding an electric bike. Photo by J.G. (Flickr user "clip works")

Baby boomers are an obvious market for electric bicycles. “We’re seeing an aging population, and a growing number of people getting back into cycling,” says Bill Moore, an Internet publisher who recently launched ePEDALER, an electric-assist bicycle retailer. Urbanization will be another driver of electric bike sales, Moore said, as will the obesity crisis, rising health care costs, and the desires of employers to encourage their workers to become more active.

Like electric cars, electric bikes are pricey. A basic e-bike can be had for as little as $499 on Amazon, but sturdy, well-designed models with better-quality batteries cost between $2,000 and $3,500. (Conventional bikes sell for an average of about $450 in speciality stores and about $100 in retailers like Walmart and Target where most bikes are sold.) Prices could come down as batteries and electric motors become more efficient, and economies of scale come into play. “The technology is getting better, rapidly,” says Dave Hurst of Navigant.

Unlike drivers of electric cars who are plagued by “range anxiety,” electric bike owners don’t have to worry about running out of electricity: They can travel under their own power, assuming they’ve got the energy to pedal a bike that weighs 45 to 60 pounds. Batteries typically deliver 20 to 40 miles of assisted riding, and they can be recharged in a few hours in ordinary power outlets.

While some companies are emphasizing the practical benefits of electric bikes — they’re good for your health, good for the planet and a low-cost way to get from here to there – others focus on fun and style. They are targeting urban buyers in their 20s and 30s, without a lot of money to spend, for whom the allure of owning a car has diminished.

“We want our bike to be a sexy product, one that everyone will want,” says Daniel Del Aguila, a co-founder of Prodeco Technologies, which is about to open a new factory near Fort Lauderdale. By squeezing efficiencies out of its supply chain, Prodeco sells a number of models for $1,000 to $1,500 that, Del Aguila contends, compare favorably to bikes selling for $2,000 or more.

For the premium buyer, there’s the Faraday Porteur, the brainchild of Adam Vollmer, a mechanical engineer from Ideo, the famed design firm. First launched as a Kickstarter project last year, Faraday is now taking pre-orders for the Porteur, which is priced at $3,500. It weighs less than 40 pounds, features a leather saddle and bamboo fenders, and its Web site promises that it is “crazy fun.” Even more expensive is the $4,000 eFlowE3 Nitro from Currie, which was designed by a Swiss firm, Flow AG, and promises “fast, powerful and nimble handling.” And if you’ve really got money to burn, there’s a German e-bicycle called the Blacktrail BT-1 that claims a top speed of 65 mph and retails for $80,000. Think of it as the Tesla of electric bikes.

DISCLOSURE: None.

Marc Gunther is a contributing editor at FORTUNE magazine, a senior writer at Greenbiz.com and a blogger at www.marcgunther.com.

Posted by Guest Contributor at 09:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By Harris Roen

Five solar stocks announced key updates – three show improved prospects, and two warn of danger.

Power REIT (PW)	More Info
Power REIT will acquire 100 acres of land underlying a 20 megawatt solar array to be developed. The leasee will sell electricity to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE), which should then provide a steady income stream to PW shareholders. The stock price is up 11% for the year, in addition to a yield of 3.9%.	Press release
Advanced Energy Industries (AEIS)	More Info
AEIS issued a respectable, though mixed, earnings report. Profits were up and net income jumped considerably, but revenues dropped slightly and EPS was down 17% from the previous quarter. Q2 2013 guidance was in line with analyst estimates, which are projected to come in 18%-30% above current levels. The stock had a nice bounce on the news, and is up 34% for the year.	Reuters article
SunPower Corp (SPWR)	More Info
A positive earnings report caused a jump in SunPower’s stock price, up 18% yesterday and 171% for the year. Revenues dropped slightly for the quarter, but were 30% higher than the same quarter one year ago. The company also announced it will supply Verizon with rooftop and ground-mounted PV systems in 6 states.	Press release
GT Advanced Technologies Inc (GTAT)	More Info
GTAT stock remains battered on a poor earnings report. The stock dropped 5% in one day on large volume, and is down 43% for the year. The company announced it sill stop offering earnings guidance going forward.	SolarServer article
STR Holdings, Inc. (STRI)	More Info
Losses continue for STRI, with revenues 30% below the previous quarter, and 64% below the same quarter last year. Profits and net income showed improvement compared to losses of the previous quarter, but still remain negative. STRI stock is down around 90% from its highs in late 2010.	Press release

About the author

Harris Roen is Editor of the “ROEN FINANCIAL REPORT” by Swiftwood Press LLC, 82 Church Street, Suite 303, Burlington, VT 05401. © Copyright 2010 Swiftwood Press LLC. All rights reserved; reprinting by permission only. For reprints please contact us at cservice@swiftwood.com. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Roen Financial Report, 82 Church Street, Suite 303, Burlington, VT 05401. Application to Mail at Periodicals Postage Prices is Pending at Burlington VT and additional Mailing offices.

Disclosure

Individuals involved with the Roen Financial Report and Swiftwood Press LLC do not own or control shares of any companies mentioned in this article, but it is possible that individuals may own or control shares of one or more of the underlying securities contained in the Mutual Funds or Exchange Traded Funds mentioned in this article. Any advice and/or recommendations made in this article are of a general nature and are not to be considered specific investment advice. Individuals should seek advice from their investment professional before making any important financial decisions. See Terms of Use for more information.

Remember to always consult with your investment professional before making important financial decisions.

Posted by Guest Contributor at 09:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Doug Young

Solar panel makers are finally seeing signs that the clouds could be lifting from their embattled sector, sparking a stock rally for their volatile shares. Canadian Solar (Nasdaq: CSIQ) led off the upbeat news, releasing preliminary results that included better-than-expected first-quarter sales and margins. But perhaps more importantly, other reports said the industry is seeing some of its first sustained price increases after more than 2 years of declines. Those 2 pieces of good news ignited a rally for solar shares, led by Canadian Solar whose stock rose more than 12 percent to a new high not seen for more than a year and a half. (company announcement) Shares of JA Solar (Nasdaq: JASO) also rose a healthy 11 percent, while Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL) was up 7.5 percent. Even embattled LDK (NYSE: LDK) shared in the gains, rising 8 percent in the rally.

Let’s start with Canadian Solar, which said it now expects to report that first-quarter shipments totaled 335-345 MW, or about 13 percent higher than its previous forecasts. The company also said first quarter gross margins would come in at 9-10 percent, a slight improvement over its previous forecast. Equally important, the latest margin forecast is a significant improvement over the 5 percent gross margins in last year’s fourth quarter, indicating the company’s net loss is likely to show strong improvement when it releases its final first-quarter results.

Canadian Solar made its relatively upbeat announcement as other media reported the first sustained pricing gains for solar panels in more than 2 years. The reports cited data tracking firm iSuppli saying the price of Chinese panels shipped to the European Union rose 4 percent in March and another 1 percent in April. (English article) Those increases marked the first monthly rise for the sector in more than 4 years before it entered its current prolonged downturn caused by massive oversupply. iSuppli further predicted that solar panel prices in Europe would rise by an average of 4 percent over each of the next 3 months.

So now the big question becomes: Will these new price increases help companies return quickly to profitability, and what does that mean for these companies’ stocks? The answer is probably quite complex, since this nascent rebound comes just as China embarks on a major overhaul for its solar sector. That retrenchment is likely to see bigger names like Canadian Solar and Trina pressured to take over operations of smaller, less efficient firms as part of a Beijing-led effort to salvage as much of the sector as possible.

I doubt that any of the larger companies will have to take over completely hopeless operations of other companies, which are more likely to simply be shut down as part of this overhaul. Still, the big players will ultimately have to take over at least some other companies’ operations, creating integration issues and also prolonging their own return to profitability.

In terms of stocks, the bigger names like Canadian Solar, Trina and Yingli (NYSE: YGE) do indeed look like strong bets at this point, as most still trade far below the meteoric highs reached just 3 years ago at the height of bullishness on solar energy. Protectionism in the US and Europe remain potential risks, but even those are at least partially offset by expected new demand in developing markets and also in China.

In a world where overly optimistic companies have incorrectly predicted an end to their downturn for much of the last year, it’s hard to say if this time the worst is really finally over. But the recording of the first price increases in more than 4 years by a third party observer like iSuppli is certainly a good sign, and it’s possible we could finally start to see companies’ losses start to shrink later this year.

Bottom line: Recent price increases indicate the solar sector may finally be exiting its prolonged downturn, which could help to spark a rally in solar stocks.

Doug Young has lived and worked in China for 15 years, much of that as a journalist for Reuters writing about Chinese companies. He currently lives in Shanghai where he teaches financial journalism at Fudan University. He writes daily on his blog, Young´s China Business Blog, commenting on the latest developments at Chinese companies listed in the US, China and Hong Kong. He is also author of a new book about the media in China, The Party Line: How The Media Dictates Public Opinion in Modern China.

Photo by Tom Konrad

Posted by Doug Young at 09:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tom Konrad CFA

While the sun was shining on most clean energy stocks in April, my ten clean energy picks for 2013 (introduced here) got relative showers.  The Powershares Wilderhill Clean Energy Index (PBW) was up a sunny 14.1% for April to 19.6% for the year, rising quickly past my picks, which inched up a relatively meager 0.7% to 7.5% for the year so far.  Meanwhile, the broad universe of small stocks gained 2.6% for a year to date gain of 15.1%, as measured by my benchmark the iShares Russell 2000 Index (IWM).

The low volatility of my relatively value-oriented picks is so far looking less attractive than it has in previous years, now that my clean energy benchmark is on track for what looks like excellent performance.  Nevertheless, I remain optimistic that the clouds will pass for many of these stocks which have so far failed to catch investor attention.

The chart and table show individual stock performance for my ten picks plus the six alternative picks I presented in a second article.  Note that the fourth stock in the list is now Ameresco (NASD:AMRC), which I substituted for Maxwell Technologies (NASD:MXWL) last month.  The return shown is that for Maxwell for Q1 and Ameresco for the last month.  Unmixed returns for these two stocks are shown in the 'Six more' section.

 

Significant Events

Below, I highlight significant events I feel affected performance of the stocks in these two lists. 

Ticker	Company	April USD Return
TSX:WFI	Waterfurnace Renewable Energy	-1.1%
NASD:LIME	Lime Energy	0%
TSX:PFB	PFB Corporation	-10.8%
NASD:AMRC	Ameresco, Inc.	-0.6%
Amsterdam:ACCEL	Accell Group	9.8%
NASD:ZOLT	Zoltek Companies, Inc.	6.6%
NASD:KNDI	Kandi Technologies	6.2%
TSX-V:FVR	Finavera Wind Energy	-15.0%
TSX:AXY	Alterra Power	8.9%
NYSE:WM	Waste Management	7.0%
Alternative picks
TSX:NFI	New Flyer Industries	-5.2%
NYSE:LXU	LSB Industries	-0.6%
NASD:MXWL	Maxwell Technologies	13.4%
NYSE:PW	Power REIT	-0.8%
NYSE:HTM	US Geothermal	-13.2%
TSX:RPG	Ram Power Group	-9.3%

Ameresco, Inc. (NASD:AMRC)

Turnkey energy efficiency and renewable energy solution provider and performance contractor Ameresco spent its first month in the main portfolio going nowhere, but I see two developments behind the scenes which bode well for its long-term prospects.  First, there seems to be some bipartisan support in Congress for action on energy efficiency, which is Ameresco's bread and butter. 

Second, in the course of its IPO, Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure (HASI) revealed that it had received a private letter ruling from the IRS which allows HASI to treat the securitized performance contracts it specializes in as mortgages on real estate assets.  This means performance contracts can be held within the in tax-advantaged REIT structure, and, over the next couple years, should open up a new source of low cost capital to be deployed by performance contractors such as Ameresco.

Accell Group (Amsterdam:ACCEL)

Bicycle manufacturer and distributor Accell Group held its annual general meeting (AGM) where shareholders approved its €0.75 (5.6%) annual dividend.  The Stock went ex-dividend on April 29th, but still ended up 4.2% for the month.  Although the annual report was published in March, the stock seemed to be responding to positive comments in the AGM presentation (Google translation).

Accell grew sales by 20% from acquisitions and 3% organically in 2012, despite a tough bike market, led by strong electric bike and North American sales but hurt by slow sales in its Dutch home market, where the company will conduct a reorganization to cut costs. 

The company announced it had arranged for up to €300 million in credit from six banks, which the company intends to use to pursue further acquisitions on top of expected sales and profit growth.  Accell is well placed as an experienced consolidator in a fragmented industry given its access to capital when many smaller brands and distributors are having difficulty raising financing.

Zoltek Companies (NASD:ZOLT)

Carbon fiber manufacturer Zoltek continued to appreciate.  I took the opportunity to reduce my exposure to this stock because the promise of further gains have to be set against the risk that the company's board is using its review of strategic options (discussed in the last update) as a pretext, and is not serious about considering the proposals put forward by turn-around specialist Quinparo group and its allies, or any other outside offers. 

Kandi Technologies (NASD:KNDI)

Chinese EV and off road vehicle manufacturer rallied on announced progress in its joint venture with leading Chinese Auto manufacturer Geely, as well as a series of positive articles from its supporters on Seeking Alpha.  Although the company is exceedingly cheap by any conventional valuation, its shares have long been held back articles alleging improprieties in the way it went public in the US through a reverse merger and misreporting of its US EV sales from 2009 to 2011. I had intended to boost the stock myself by tackling these allegations head-on in an article last month, but instead found myself troubled by the misreported sales.

Kandi's supporters will say that all this is ancient history, and the result of inadvertent errors which have since been corrected..  The problem with history, ancient or otherwise, is that if we don't learn from it, we're doomed to repeat it.  Much of Kandi's recent progress is corroborated by third party sources, and I'm confident that Kandi will benefit from Beijing's push for rapid growth in EV sales if any automaker does.  However, the history of exaggeration by the company has undermined my confidence in Kandi's financial reporting.  The all-important numbers in Kandi's financial reports remain impossible to corroborate.  Did Kandi really sell almost 4,000 EVs in 2012, as the company claims and I relayed in the last update?  I find it impossible to be sure.

Given these doubts, I took advantage of the recent rally to greatly reduce my exposure to the stock.

I still plan to write that article, after interviewing both Kandi's supporters and detractors.  Perhaps one side or the other will help me make up my mind.

Finavera Wind Energy (TSX-V:FVR, OTC:FNVRF)

Wind developer Finavera finalized its long-awaited agreement with Pattern Energy holdings.  The revised deal is smaller than the companies had originally envisioned in December, but still contains the most important aspects which should solve Finavera's liquidity problems.  I interviewed Finavera's CEO and covered the finalized deal in detail here.

Alterra Power (TSX:AXY, OTC:MGMXF)

Diversified renewable energy developer Alterra power seems to have bottomed, with the turn-around likely triggered by a purchase of 15 million shares of stock by well respected mining magnate Ross Beaty.  Beaty, who is Alterra's founder and chairman, says the stock should be worth C$0.90, not the C$0.32 it is currently trading for.  He intended his purchase to demonstrate that conviction, and hinted that the might buy the whole company and take it private if the stock stays at its current levels.

At the end of the month, Alterra announced a partnership with Greenbriar Capital to (TSXV:GRB) develop 100 MW of solar in Puerto Rico.  This fits well with Alterra's strategy of diversifying into solar and wind from its base of geothermal and run-of-river hydropower assets, so I would not have considered it even worth mentioning except that Greenbriar's CEO is none other than Jeff Ciachurski, whom I am all to familiar with after covering Western Wind Energy for over two years.

Ciachurski built up Western Wind from nearly nothing to a sale for C$182 million to Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners (TSX:BEP-UN, OTC:BRPFF) in March while relying entirely on bank financing.  Shareholders like myself who got in at the right time did very well, but a development partnership with Pacific Hydro ended in a lawsuit and eventual settlement, with Western Wind keeping the development assets. My assessment of Ciachurski is that he is good at developing renewable energy projects on a shoestring, and working the system of a public company to pay himself very handsomely for doing so.  Shareholders and development partners may also profit, given good timing and better legal representation.

I trust that Alterra's management is well aware of this, and Alterra's CEO and IR representative have agreed to an email interview in which I hope to get some more insight into their perspective on the Greenbriar partnership.  I suspect they are already aware of my opinion of Ciachurski: When I first inquired about an interview, Alterra's IR representative was confident I could speak with Alterra's CEO, John Carson.  A day later, he got back to me, saying Carson was unavailable for an interview, but he would relay my questions.  I suspect that someone at Alterra made the connection to my rather public disagreement with Ciachurski over the sale of Western Wind to Brookfield in the intervening day, and they were worried I might ask Carson uncomfortable questions about the relationship.

Waste Management (NYSE:WM)

Waste Management was up 7% in April. The company's first quarter results missed expectations by a penny, but analysts liked what they heard about the company's expectations of future profits, based positive pricing trends, an increase in volumes in the first quarter, and cost control. 

Six Alternative Clean Energy Stocks

LSB Industries (NYSE:LXU)

Chemicals and climate control company LSB Industries also seems to have bottomed out.  In the absence of news, I think much of its decline since the start of February may be explained by rising prices for natural gas, but the stock seems to me to have fallen too far.  While I was selling when the company was over $42 in February, I was buying in April when the company was below $32.

Maxwell Technologies (NASD:MXWL)

Ultracapacitor firm Maxwell rallied 13.4% on the back of unaudited financial highlights for the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2012 and first quarter (Q1) of 2013.  Invoiced shipments were down 1.5% compared to reported revenues from the previous year in Q4, but up 19% in Q1 from the previous year's reported revenue.  The company is not currently reporting quarterly revenues because improper revenue recognition is why the company is having to restate previous financial statements.  The company attributes the strong Q1 invoicing to a surge in demand for ultracapicitors for buses in China after a government subsidy program was reinstated, but is unable to predict if this demand will prove durable.

Perhaps Lime Energy's (NASD:LIME) stock would be doing better if they'd taken a page from Maxwell's book and provided unaudited quarterly updates on sales even while they are sorting through the mess of the last several years' financial statements.

Power REIT (NYSE:PW)

Power REIT took one more step along the road to becoming a renewable energy focused Real Estate Investment Trust by signing a term sheet for the acquisition of 100 acres of land underlying approximately 20MW of to-be-constructed solar projects with existing power purchase agreements to sell power to Pacific Gas and Electric (NYSE:PCG) and Southern California Edison (NYSE:SCE.)  PW will pay approximately $1.6 million for the land.  Unlike PW's proof of concept deal for land under a solar farm signed in December, this deal is with an established solar developer with a proven track record. As such, it could lead to a series of future deals with PW providing the financing for land under many solar project in the future.  Such an assembly line approach will be key to PW building its portfolio of renewable assets without excessive demands on management time.

Power REIT plans to finance the deal with a combination of equity and debt.  The equity will be raised under PW's existing At Market Issuance Sales Agreement, meaning that the stock will be sold to ordinary investors bidding on the New York Stock Exchange.  Investors who buy shares in PW over the coming months will have a good chance of having their money go directly to finance these solar projects.

US Geothermal (NYSE:HTM)

US Geothermal's long time CEO Daniel Kunz retired and was replaced by Dennis Giles, who brings with him 23 years of experience at Calpine Corporation (NYSE:CPN), a leading independent natural gas and geothermal independent power producer.  Kunz will stay on as a consultant to advise the transition for one year.  The stock fell on the news, and I used the dip to increase my position because I expect the company to achieve its first full year of profitability in 2013 with earnings in excess of $0.04 per share based on power sales from its operating plants.  At $0.33, that would give HTM a forward price/earnings ratio of 8 or lower, which I consider attractive.

The company also has room for growth from its expansion plans at existing plants, and, longer term, the commencement of drilling at its El Ceibillo project in Guatemala.

Conclusion

My swap of Maxwell for Ameresco last month proved poorly timed, but this portfolio is designed as a tool for infrequent traders.  It's only under extraordinary circumstances that I move any stocks into or out of the portfolio in the middle of the year.  This can be seen from the fact that I sold much of my holdings of both Kandi and Zoltek in April, but I'm leaving both in portfolio.

The blistering performance of my clean energy benchmark PBW in April has much to do with a rally of always volatile solar stocks.  I can't say if that rally will continue for the rest of the year.  I've spent so long focusing on other clean energy sectors because of the poor industry structure I see in Solar that I simply don't have the solar expertise to judge if this current solar rally is the start of something bigger, or will prove to be just one more abortive flash in the pan.

A continued economic recovery along with industry consolidation could continue to allow solar stocks to shine, with other clean energy stocks following close behind.  On the other hand, such trends can reverse as quickly as they started.  This is why I've significantly reduced my exposure to Zoltek  and Kandi.  At Zoltek, price appreciation has reduced the inherent protection of the company's former inexpensive valuation.  At Kandi, the valuation still appears extremely cheap, but I've become more cautious about judging the company solely on appearances. In both cases, discretion seems the better part of valor.

Disclosure: Long WFI, LIME, PFB, ACCEL, ZOLT, KNDI, FVR, AXY, WM, NFI, LXU, AMRC,PW, HTM, RPG.  Short: MXWL.

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 11:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Tom Konrad CFA

Electric Storage Battery Company advertisement for Exide batteries in the journal Horseless Age, January 15, 1918

I sold my position in Exide Technologies (NASD:XIDE) on April 25th after the company was forced to shut down its Vernon secondary lead recycling facility by the California Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC.)  In addition to the known arsenic furnace emissions, the DTSC cited the facility’s underground storm water system as not being in compliance with CA requirements.

When I last wrote about Exide, I felt that the problems at the Vernon facility were not as bad as most investors thought.  This forced shut-down, however, seems like it could be the proverbial straw which broke the camel’s back.  With the company’s liquidity already tight, the lack of revenues from the Vernon facility (in conjunction with the ongoing employee expenses and the expenses of fixing any problems) could rapidly mount.

On the other hand, they might be able to fix the problems in a few days, with minimal impact to revenue or cash flow.  Nevertheless, given the company’s existing difficulties, I feel that the downside risks for shareholders outweigh the possible gains from a quick resolution.

Only time will tell if this turns out to be a good move on my part.  Here are a few other factors behind my decision to consider when you make your own decisions:

• Management is already under pressure to improve margins and cash flow, as well as negotiate with possible lenders the refinance debt.  Can they afford the additional distraction at Vernon?  Would the problems at Vernon have gotten this bad if management had been giving them the attention they deserved?
• Even if Vernon can be reopened promptly, this episode has made Lazard’s job of restructuring Exide’s debt harder.  Exide needs to restructure its debt or sell significant assets if it is to return to a long term sustainable footing.

Given the company’s long term problems, my decision really was, “Should I sell today, or wait until the company’s next conference call, in the hope that some good news allows me to get out at a slightly better price?”

In the end, I decided not to wait, but I admit I don’t have a high degree of confidence it was the right decision.  We’ll probably know in a few weeks.

UPDATE

In the week and a half since this was first published, Exide's 2018 notes have dropped to 65 cents on the dollar, and Exide's stock has fallen from $1.03 when I sold it to $0.75 at the close on May 3rd. So far. getting out looks like a wise, if belated, decision.

Disclosure: No position in XIDE.

This article was first published on the author's Forbes.com blog, Green Stocks on April 25th.

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 08:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

James Montgomery

Joshua trees in Antelope Valley, CA. Photo by Tom Hilton

MidAmerican Solar and SunPower [SPWR] have begun "major construction" at the Antelope Valley Solar Projects (AVSP), two co-located megasolar projects totaling a combined 579 megawatts (AC) generation capacity that MidAmerican bought earlier this year for $2+ billion.

Construction work technically began in January with laying groundwork and putting infrastructure in place, such as trailers and supplies. One MW has already been installed at AVSP, and now efforts will ramp up over the coming weeks with more workers on the ground driving piers for subsequent arrays, according to a MidAmerican spokesperson.

Celebrating this milestone at what MidAmerican Solar and SunPower call "the world's largest solar power development under construction," the two companies hosted a community picnic and celebration at the project site, with representatives of the company and local and state officials discussing the project's construction schedule, environmental values, and technology and community-centered plans for the future.

The AVSP projects, developed by SunPower using its own solar panels and trackers (and eventually SunPower's operations & maintenance services), are on roughly 3200 acres of land spanning Kern and Los Angeles Counties near Rosamond, CA. Both projects are under 20-year power purchase contracts with Southern California Edison (SCE). Construction technically began in January and will continue through the end of 2015; during that three-year stretch the companies expect to employ about 650 workers and generate the majority of an anticipated $500 million in "regional economic impact."

Other large solar projects in the same proximity reportedly have run into delays with problems about environmental impact during construction. AVSP's dust mitigation efforts are "a multi-pronged approach," says the MidAmerican spokesperson. This site won't need massive grading, and road creation will be the only land disturbance, they claim; crews will drive posts where they're needed and then leave the ground as-is. Also there is ongoing spot reseeding of native grass where it's not already growing in, continuing efforts by the previous local property owners.

Jim Montgomery is Associate Editor for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, covering the solar and wind beats. He previously was news editor for Solid State Technology and Photovoltaics World, and has covered semiconductor manufacturing and related industries, renewable energy and industrial lasers since 2003. His work has earned both internal awards and an Azbee Award from the American Society of Business Press Editors. Jim has 15 years of experience in producing websites and e-Newsletters in various technology.

This article was first published on RenewableEnergyWorld.com, and is reprinted with permission.

Posted by Guest Contributor at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)