CEFC: How to spend $10 billion ….

There is no doubt that the Clean Energy Finance Corp will be one of the lightning rods in the political and business debate about the deployment of clean technology and emission abatements this year.

The depth, and breadth of feeling, was highlighted in many of the submissions to the CEFC, which have not been made public, but have been highlighted in this article.

The Federal Opposition appears to remain implacably opposed to the idea, and of all the measures of the Clean Energy Future legislation, the CEFC appears to be one of the most exposed should the Opposition win government in 2013. However, as Nick Rowley pointed out in the this piece, it is one of the critical institutions that could take the challenge of dealing with climate change and reducing emissions beyond the day-to-day political rhetoric.

But if you had $10 billion to invest in a clean energy future in this country, then how exactly would you spend it? The Clean Energy Council commissioned Deloitte to survey around 40 financial market professionals to see what they thought.

As CEC acting CEO Kane Thornton points out, the main challenge facing the deployment of clean energy projects in Australia is that most Australian investors are used to investing in shopping centres and toll roads, but have little understanding of technologies such as solar thermal, or the risk premium that should be attached to them. Overcoming the “fear of the unknown” would be one of the primary functions of the CEFC.

“Like all new energy technologies, private investors alone won’t deliver the full finance necessary to scale up to commercial operation, he said. “The CEFC should play a role in sharing a part of the risk associated with new technologies, in order to turbo-charge the development of clean energy in Australia. Once our next generation of clean energy technologies becomes more familiar to investors and their track record has been established, there will be much less need for an institution like the CEFC.”

The question is how the CEFC should perform its role – what technologies should it support and with what mechanisms. The report found that the Australian market is beset by some considerable problems. The first has been policy uncertainty and political interference, so there was a strong desire for the CEFC to be independent and at arms length to the government, but its expertise should still be use to allow it to influence decisions regarding regulation on market impediments.

It was also strongly suggested that the CEFC team include professionals with finance and cleantech industry expertise, as opposed to being driven by civil servants, and that minimum bureaucracy should be involved in each investment deal, to encourage the private sector to participate.

Several barriers have to be overcome, including the need to get the finance community to understand risk, and to breach the obvious financing gaps peculiar to Australia – such as finance duration (In Europe, banks and export credit agencies offer debt finance with up to 15 year terms for renewable energy projects, but in Australia, it is seven years), the difficulties gaining power purchase agreements, the challenge of funding demonstration projects, as well as smaller renewable projects.

The report also underlined the importance, given the polemics over the failure of the US solar start-up Solyndra, which was given US government financial support in a similar scheme in the US, that the initial investments by the CEFC should be seen to be successful.

“To cement the success and reputation of the CEFC, it is critical that the first few projects that the CEFC invests in are strong deals with clear objectives and measures of success that are both met and achieved in their defined timeframes,” the report noted. Some stakeholders noted that the CEFC could undertake 2-3 deals in a specific technology or project that successfully demonstrated viability and then move its focus to the next frontier.

The main project and companies that the CEFC could include in its portfolio ranged across the following six key categories of investments;

– Large scale renewable energy infrastructure – including solar PV, solar thermal, geothermal and wind

– Small scale renewable energy projects – including community wind farms and waste to energy projects.

– Commercial scale demonstration of technologies – including ocean, wave and tidal power systems, second generation biofuels and bioenergy

– Mature energy efficiency and low emissions technologies – including cogeneration, trigeneration, green building technologies

– Early stage clean energy technology companies – including a broad range that require equity growth capital to expand their operations

– Enabling technologies – including smart grid, energy storage and transmission.

It also took a stab at how these technologies may appear in a portfolio.

and it looked at some of the financing mechanisms that could be deployed.

Table 6.2: Potential financing mechanisms according to investment asset type

Comments

3 responses to “CEFC: How to spend $10 billion ….”

  1. Rohan Wilson Avatar
    Rohan Wilson

    Kane has some good points -and with a little more depth than the Rowley article – however the point that he can’t make is the problem with the market structure – he can’t make it for 2 obvious reasons their his members and his Acting . We have a clean energy sector dominated by the big three – they have lots of commonality in their respective strategies – particularly on rolling out gas and keeping third party PPA s to a bare minimum.

  2. Tim Buckley Avatar
    Tim Buckley

    Giles
    I agree that the CEFC needs to be built up as a centre of financial and cleantech expertise for the Australian financial industry. The lack of depth means ‘fear of the unknown’. Any review of the enormous number of overseas projects in clean energy suggests the technology risk is well understood in Spain, Germany, Italy, China and the US. As such, it is critical the CEFC overcome the issue of successful deployment of proven technologies at scale in the Australian field, so country specific factors (such as Australian regulatory and financial barriers) can be resolved.
    I would also endorse Rohan’s comment about the need for the CEFC to act as a cataylst to overcome deliberate barriers put up by the incumbents in the Australian power distribution oligoply. Give a solar or wind project a 25 year PPA backed by an AA rated power utility and financing becomes dead-easy.
    Successfully lead, the CEFC can be a powerful catylst for the moderisation and decarbonisation of the Australian power industry. Tim Buckley, Arkx

  3. Neil Lizotte Avatar

    To make the most impact LENR Low Energy Nuclear Reactions will replace fossil fuels with temps reaching 1400 degrees Celsius and with no pollution or waste of any kind.
    Also the word nuclear is used to describe the amount of excess heat generated for LENR system do not generate any harmful radiation or waste bi products.
    Nickel is transformed into cooper which is another reason for the term nuclear.
    Brillouin Energy, BlackLight Power, Industrial Heat, Solar Hydrogen Trends and the list goes on, LENR will replace fossil fuels and all the progress has been made with very little government support.
    In fact governments have been trying to undermine efforts, because LENR systems are affordable to the poor of the world and will give us freedom.
    Dr. Andrea Rossi stated he heated his laboratory for a six month period of time with about $10.00 worth of nickel and hydrogen and produced no pollution or waste.
    A LENR system will cost a fraction of what solar costs and it will heat your home or business and provide hot water and later you will add a module to generate electricity.
    First coal boilers in power plants will be replaced with LENR boilers and factories and large businesses will come first and will reduce Co2 emissions by over 60%.
    Brillouin Energy has a investment of 20,000,000 pending on if they can replace the coal boiler in one of the shut down coal power plants in the US with the Brillouin Boiler.
    The E Cat maintained 1400 degrees Celsius for 32 days while being validated by eleven respected scientists.
    That is hot enough to generate electricity, heat buildings and factories and provide hot water, also air conditioning.
    Please Google is LENR the real deal
    There are sceptics, but these same people probably do not believe in climate change either and are giving false statements.
    The field of LENR deserves R & D investment
    Even NASA is researching LENR

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.