Bloom Energy: Too Big to Fail?

What They Said

Bloom Energy raised an additional $130 million in a continuation of a series G funding round that closed in 2011. This brings Bloom’s total private funding to over $1 billion. Credit Suisse provided $30 million, while an unnamed investor added an additional $100 million. No additional existing investors participated in the round, aside from Credit Suisse.

What We Think

Bloom is a media machine, but every piece of news they generate offers greater insight into the flaws and risks of the company. In the past, the company has revealed that its entire business model and financial viability is dependent on high levels of government incentive and support, so much so that the company has been accused of receiving government protectionism (client registration required). Prior to that, the company revealed that its high level of funding makes it infeasible for the company to offer worthwhile returns to its investor, even if its inflated valuation (client registration required).

This recent news reveals the underlying flaw in its business model. Specifically, the company continues to face cash constraints due to a high burn rate and large capital expenditures to fund its power purchase agreement (PPA) business model (client registration required). Despite significant subsidies and high fixed tariffs, the company lacks the ability to self-finance the deployment of new systems.

While all fuel cell technologies suffer from high total cost of ownership (TCO) on account of high capital cost, high membrane assembly replacement costs (see the report “The Great Compression: The Future of the Hydrogen Economy” — client registration required), other fuel cell applications and technologies are far more appealing than Bloom’s PPA approach. Specifically, remote generation for off-grid commercial customers or telecom customers are viable value propositions for proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells. Ultimately, if a client or a technology developer wishes to garner adoption for a novel generation technology, they must look to compete outside of the utility market for the medium term.

Steven Chu steps down at U.S. Department of Energy, leaving a mixed legacy

Last week brought the widely expected news that Steven Chu will be stepping down as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Chu has been a hero to scientists and clean energy advocates, but on his watch the DOE has made some questionable decisions, particularly from a commercialization and business standpoint. That said, Chu has also laid the groundwork for a strong legacy of energy innovation – if those initiatives produce results, he may justly be regarded as one of the most important DOE Secretaries since the department was created in 1977.

Unfortunately for Chu and DOE, the name “Solyndra” will appear in the first paragraph of most appraisals of his term – the DOE’s ill-fated $535 million loan guarantee (client registration required) to the Silicon Valley solar panel maker became a rallying cry for opposition to the Obama administration’s clean energy investments. Other recipients of DOE loan guarantees and other largesse, including A123 Systems (client registration required), Beacon Power (client registration required), EnerDel, and Abound Solar (client registration required), have also filed for bankruptcy. While there was a case for deploying government funds when private investors largely stopped lending during the financial crisis, the DOE loan guarantee program mixed investments in reliable projects, like solar power plants using established technologies, with funds for firms like Solyndra that faced steep technical and market risks. It was highly likely that several would fail, but DOE either underestimated the risks or wasn’t well prepared for the political fallout (or some combination of both), and arguably hurt the cause of government support for new energy technologies – previously a point of bipartisan consensus.

Chu’s DOE also showed commercial naïveté in its claim that it could help bring 1 million electric vehicles to U.S. roads by 2015 – and President Obama personally cited Chu’s assurances in defending the administration’s focus on electric vehicles. While the DOE target included plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) like the Chevy Volt, as well as all-electric vehicles (EVs), only around 250,000 such vehicles will realistically be in operation in the U.S by the end of 2015 (see the report “Small Batteries, Big Sales: The Unlikely Winners in the Electric Vehicle Market” — client registration required). Anemic sales to date of PH/EVs also belie such optimism, and just before Chu stepped aside, DOE began publicly backing away from the goal – suggesting that DOE’s EV enthusiasm may not have been the best use of its resources.

What’s more, DOE has largely been on the sidelines of the most important energy story of Obama’s first term – the phenomenal boom in domestic gas and oil production, driven by technologies like hydraulic fracturing. To some extent that’s only right – by the time the technology (which had benefitted from DOE support in decades past) was ready for prime time, the industry hardly needed further help from DOE. However, given the impact this production will have on the energy and climate picture in the U.S., and the remaining technology and policy needs to help access these resources safely and make the best use of them, it’s surprising how little focus they’ve received (barely meriting a mention in Chu’s review of his term in his resignation letter).

Despite these stumbles, history may well look kindly on Chu’s tenure, because programs he’s championed have the potential to create a generation of impactful new technologies and keep the U.S. a center of innovation in energy. Through the network of 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers, and especially the new Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E), the DOE is funding research on really novel technologies with a breadth, depth, and purpose beyond its previous basic science efforts. ARPA-E, in particular, is well-positioned to help fill a void left by venture capitalists that are (wisely, by their financial standards) increasingly reluctant to invest in early-stage energy technologies. If these programs help shepherd along impactful energy technologies that that come to the market over the next decade, they’ll have a greater impact than even a successful Solyndra would have, and will validate Chu’s initiatives.

Given the ups and downs of Chu’s tenure, who should Obama tap to replace him? Some favor another academic, like Shirley Jackson of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, or Ernest Moniz of the MIT Energy Initiative, to continue to build DOE’s innovation efforts. Others argue that DOE’s commercial blind spot argues for a businessperson like Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers. While a course correction is needed, and energy business acumen at DOE would be welcome, a utility executive may not be the best steward of Chu’s innovation legacy (and may sit uneasily atop what’s still largely a scientific agency). A business leader with more innovation experience could serve admirably – GE CEO Jeff Immelt has been floated, though seems unlikely to serve. Otherwise, given the controversies DOE has weathered and the need to defend its budget in an era of sequestration and discretionary spending cuts, a more seasoned politician might also be a wise choice to follow Chu. Someone like former (moderate) Republican governor and EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman or past North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan could serve to consolidate Chu’s gains in long-term innovation, but would still be inclined to pivot the agency more toward the pressing issues of the day.

Production Tax Credit Extension in the U.S. a Win For Wind, But of Little Help For Storage

Amidst fiscal cliffs and financial ruin, the U.S. Congress found the time to extend the production tax credit (PTC) for new wind power installations that begin or are “under construction” by December 31, 2013. The PTC provides wind developers with a $0.22 per kWh credit, significantly spurring new wind development for the remainder of 2013 until Congress is faced with the same decision again. Under this legislation, wind developers can opt for an investment tax credit (ITC) instead of the PTC, which offsets the upfront costs of construction rather than providing a long-term subsidy for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. This historically tenuous legislation has been the backbone of blossoming wind industry in the U.S.

Although it is not explicitly stated in the PTC and ITC verbiage, an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ruling from 2011 indicates that a storage unit charged by wind behind the meter can be considered generation and the clean electricity discharged from the storage unit can receive the PTC as if it came from wind farm itself. Although this ruling sounds like a boon for storage, it is misleading because any electricity generated by a PTC-qualifying wind farm and stored before discharge to the grid will be reduced in quantity by the storage unit’s efficiency, resulting in fewer kilowatt-hours of electricity discharge and therefore fewer PTC-bloated electrons to sell for the wind farm owner. The storage unit, may, however, if it is considered a ‘generating asset,’ be eligible for the ITC under this ruling to defray capital costs, although the full lifetime economics of the wind-storage system using either the PTC or ITC must be evaluated to determine overall cost-effectiveness. Wind developers, without storage, are often better off selling electricity to the grid, even at a loss, so long as the loss is not more than the PTC itself. However, revenues from energy arbitrage and ancillary services that can only be captured with a storage unit in the unregulated U.S. electricity markets may be enough to offset the efficiency losses from storing the electricity.

In the long-term, the PTC is valuable for building up the renewables industry in the U.S. which will inevitably support grid storage, but storage developers will have to develop clear and creative business models for proving value before wind developers will risk losing high-value electrons to inefficiencies. One example is for grid storage developers to follow the solar model and lease their systems, sharing the capital cost risk (client registration required) with customers and sharing revenue over the lifetime of the system.

Like watching grass grow? The slow evolution of the hydrogen economy’s $3 billion fuel cell market

Politicians, economists, and environmentalists have dreamt of a hydrogen economy for decades, where hydrogen fuel cells provide a significant portion of our power demand for stationary and transport applications. While such utopian technology visions will always persist, rigorous analysis leads to a different reality. Factoring in all the technology options and competitive solutions, proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells for telecom power and backup will need until 2030 to reach $1 billion, while fuel cells for residential, commercial, and utility generation will not prove cost effective or appealing, even if the hydrogen is free. The automotive fuel cell visionaries may point to their own game-changing potential where a PEM fuel cell market of $2 billion can be projected by 2030, but on the backs of forklifts and light-duty vehicles. Unfortunately, fuel cell buses will remain miniscule. The fate of PEM fuel cell passenger vehicles is even more dire. While the need for infrastructure is a perceived bottleneck, such hydrogen vehicle fueling infrastructure is certainly necessary but ultimately insufficient to overhaul the passenger vehicle market hamstrung by the cost of the fuel cell itself and storage of hydrogen. Corporations looking to benefit off of a potential hydrogen economy will need to win in the handful of countries with very favorable policies towards fuel cells, or tightly defined regions with existing chlor-alkali capacity and islanded grids will offer niche markets for some hydrogen technologies. Fuel cell utopia, as it turns out, is a grand vision that will turn out to be a modest hyper-local reality.

Source: Lux Research report “The Great Compression: The Future of the Hydrogen Economy (client registration required).”