June 2012

NEW TECHNOLOGYArray Power: getting more out of solar.

CARBON WAR ROOMBillions for the battle: 1 gigaton at a time.

GREEN LIGHT ENERGYYoung entrepreneurs trading on carbon.

New DiamondsWealth Creation through Carbon Reduction

Letter from the publisher.

3

The carbon we use to create energy -- whether natural gas, petroleum or coal -- takes millennia to create from decayed plant matter. Take a few more millennia, and that coal becomes diamonds. In the past, fortunes were made in the extraction and use of carbon. But for many forward thinking companies, searching for and finding ways to reduce the amount of carbon we use to create energy is the next great path to wealth creation.

In this issue, we focus directly on some of the strategies being used to create that wealth. The Carbon War Room wages a calculated battle by bringing together people and money to find ways to reduce carbon at the gigaton level. One young company is betting on the RECs (Renewable Energy Credits) that are helping utilities to bypass the lengthy carbon cycles by going directly to natural resources such as sun, water and wind. And California’s cap and trade program is putting a price on carbon, and planning on generating capital for new industries as well as to reduce air and water pollution.

Carbon reduction – as well as the careful use of natural resources – is the next generation’s revolution. That revolution will transform the planet in unexpected ways. As Jose Maria Figueres, President of the Carbon War Room puts it, recognizing that the planet has limitations does not mean an end to corporate growth – in fact he believes the reverse. Corporations that do not recognize planetary limitations are the ones that will become the dinosaurs of the future. One has only to look at companies like Panasonic, Veolia, Duke Energy and GE Ecoimagination to see that future.

THE GREEN ECONOMY is proud to bring you these stories. Our circula-tion is now over 20,000 and climbing. We have gone from being in the top 2.5 million web sites to being in the top 1 million in the last year. We have exponentially grown our Twitter, Facebook and Linkedin groups, and are planning more in the coming months. Our Linkedin group has helped form the discussions that we put in our magazines, so we can hear what you think about the topics we are following and publish your responses. Some of our most frequent contributors started as Linkedin chats and have turned into important articles for our eMagazine and website. We recently went through a face-lift online, and will be launching an iPad and Android app in September, so you can read us on your favorite tablet.

We appreciate our readers and look forward to your comments and sug-gestions. You can reach me directly at Tana@thegreeneconomy.com. Thanks.

A. Tana Kantor, Publisher

Letter from the publisher.

4 Features

06. Readers SpeakShould companies get rewarded for carbon reduction?

28. Array PowerDC-AC: New technology for increasing efficiency and lowering costs.

31. GM: New IdeasGM looks to reinvent the automobile for an urban future.

34. Long-Term GreedyRushton Atalnatic thinks for the long term.

Stay Connected Join the Conversation

Each month THE GREEN ECONOMY posts questions to be included in the next issue

of the eMagazine. Questions are posted on Facebook, our Linkedin group, and our

monthly eNewsletter.

You can respond by sending letters to editor@theGreenEconomy.com, or joining any of the

social networks listed below. Some letters are edited for brevity. Readers must include

name, title and affiliation.

TGEink: Follow us

TGEFlash: News we follow

Green Econ

Green Economy Group

Our RSS

5

THE GREEN ECONOMYJune | 2012

THIS ISSUE

Demystifying Carbon

08. Strategic Moves to Climate Wealth- Interview with the Carbon War Room’s President.

- Carbon War Room’s Creating Climate Wealth symposium.

- $1 Billion in Tax Credits, 40,000 jobs.

14. Demystifying CarbonWhat is a carbon?

16. Green Light EnergyYoung entrepreneurs diving into Carbon Markets.

18. Who Cares?Research on corporate attitudes about carbon reduction.

22. GlossaryClimate Terms

24. Cap ‘n TradeAll eyes are on California.

6

What Readers Should businesses be rewarded for reducing their carbon footprint? If so, how?

Follow the discussion on Linkedin and Facebook.

Businesses should be rewarded for managing their impact on natural capital and reducing their carbon footprint. The eco-commerce economy needs to begin where the [old] economy began, from land management resources. Government, NGO and Industry are saying they want sustainability, but are reluctant to pony up together to create an effectual demand for ecosystem services. The ecosystem is a bigger deal [than] projects and programs, [and] needs to be an integral part of the economy. [M]ost people today do not sense that natural capital and ecosystems are a very large part of the economy — possibly because it is ubiquitous, hiding in the wide open every where. It is more than carbon emissions.

Tim Gieseke, President Ag Resource Strategies, LLC

“Free market” is a theoretical construct that cannot exist due to human nature – a false premise in any argument. Consider a baseball game: Would you buy a ticket, or even bother to watch a baseball game with no rules and no umpires to enforce the rules?

Pollution reduction can realistically be considered either a common good with all-cost / no-profit to private sector, or a very, very, long-term and subtle brand value to private sector. Hence, the population/citizenry as a whole needs to act on it through the government. [I think] Cap ‘n trade –carbon credits – would be good policy. [However] I believe the real name for the policy should be “Hey, either don’t make a mess of our air, land

and water; or clean up your mess; or we’ll clean it up and make you pay us”.

Steve Reichenstein, CEOBioMART

Corporations will not act on a “public good” unless there is a clear reason to do so. Most buyers (businesses or consumers) do not place “public beneficence” at the top of the list of criteria for selecting either products or services -- hence there is no clear marketing benefit to companies to justify investing millions in carbon footprint reduction.

That leaves us with the choice of carrot or stick. A penalty approach will simply make a group of lawyers rich and take years to enforce (if the courts in fact uphold it). Further, if we take the auto industry as an example, required improvements get watered down in Congress. What you get in the end may not be worth the effort. The carrot that other countries use is the carbon credit, which gives us a way of converting carbon reduction into a monetary asset. The size of that asset can be enough to affect behavior. It’s not perfect, but it has a positive track record.

Victor Crain, Senior Partner Crain Associates Research

It occurs to me that the investment in processes [and] equipment should be tax deductible in the year(s) they occur. As long as those processes/equipment remain in place, an additional tax credit based on the carbon based savings divided

7

What Readers Should businesses be rewarded for reducing their carbon footprint? If so, how?

Follow the discussion on Linkedin and Facebook.

by the number of years it is projected to be in place.

Chris Byrne, Owner & PresidentNHT

As Wal-Mart drives all its suppliers to be more energy efficient in their production, they can lower costs while at the same time lowering carbon emissions per unit sold. (Offset a bit because at lower prices they are probably selling MORE stuff.) So their reward is more revenue for being more carbon friendly.

Jeremy Kranowitz, Director, Education Policy Roundtable, Keystone Center

Businesses will be rewarded for their sustainable efforts (reducing their GHG emissions as part of this larger picture) by default by way of better corporate image (works for some), maybe by increased sales (how well they market their efforts), and possibly by NGOs tracking their transparent efforts (via their sustainability reports, unless it is perceived as greenwashing).Basically, the reward businesses should seek is how their employees feel about their efforts.

Gabe Crognale, Owner & Founder MCG Associates

No, subsidized programs are not sustainable. This is not to say corporate carbon reduction is a bad idea. Let the free market decide. There is definitely [a push] from consumers in supporting CSR [Corporate Sustainability Reporting] efforts.

Victor Coppola, Environmental Advisor GreenWorks Environmental, LLC

The concept of lowering taxes is important to me so I would vote in favor of decreasing subsidies to ALL types of energy companies (polluting and non-polluting).

Dr. Maximo Gomex Nacer, President Zoo-Mechanics, Inc

If the taxation system taxed “bads” (like CO2 emissions) instead of “goods” (like income, and actual, physical goods for that matter), then companies wouldn’t need rewards/incentives for reducing emissions - it would happen as a normal part of doing business.

Daniella Leifer, Program Manager, CUNY Building Performance Lab

The objective behind tax shifting is to stop taxing the things we do want (like income and savings) and shift towards taxing things people collectively do not want (like waste and pollution). The current tax system encourages the depletion of natural resources and the unsustainable degradation of the environment, while discouraging job creation. Ideally, a shift toward taxing unwanted effects over desired ones, without increasing the total tax burden, will use market mechanisms to influence and reward more sustainable behavior without more government regulations.

Dictionary of Sustainable Management Click here

Interview with José María Figueres, President of the Carbon War Room. Interview by A. Tana Kantor, Edited by Maryruth Priebe

9

10 Businesses that ignore the potential for profiting from carbon reduction will miss out on the greatest opportunity for wealth creation our society has seen in a generation, according to José María Figueres, former President of Costa Rica and current President of the Carbon War Room.

That’s the view of the founders of the Carbon War Room, an inter-national non-profit organization focused on empowering entre-preneurs to unlock market driven solutions to climate change at the gigaton level.

From where they sit, the chal-lenges of climate change rep-resent a substantial opportunity for profit-making. The Carbon War Room is determined to help innovative, forward-thinking businesses seize the chance to win big by making markets work more effectively, unlocking mas-sive capital.

“There is no miracle trend,” ex-plains Figueres. “There is only an opportunity to push ahead and make progress toward a low-carbon economy by encour-aging a winning spiral of produc-tivity and competitiveness that combine to create greater effi-ciency and reductions in carbon. Environmental issues shouldn’t be considered a cost anymore, but should be seen as an op-portunity to break out of older molds.”

What logically follows in this model is an increase in sustain-ability, which boosts wealth, thereby helping communities

overcome poverty and develop greater wellbeing. Firmly rooted in capitalism, this is a view that sees efficiency, productivity, sus-tainability, and wellbeing mutu-ally reinforcing one another in a very happy union.

One of the primary areas of focus for the Carbon War Room is technology, but they’re not as interested in emerging solutions. Instead, they favor tested and proven technologies already in existence — ones that hold the greatest potential for loosen-ing capital in favor of a greener economy.

Modeled after Winston Churchill’s Cabinet War Rooms, which functioned as protected, intelligence-gathering spaces used for the Prime Minister to direct the war, the Carbon War Room is a highly-focused entity fighting a war against climate change. Though a not-for-profit, the Carbon War Room is single-minded in its desire to achieve higher profits for its clients. The name of the game is helping businesses achieve carbon emis-sions reductions in a way that provides them with greater prof-its than business as usual would lead them to believe possible.

11

Stimulating Transportation

and BeyondTo date, the Carbon War Room has been active on a number of fronts. They’re working with the aviation industry to help develop renewable jet fuels, and predict between 10% and 20% of all fuel used for mid-sized airlines could be replaced by renew-ables. Maintaining their focus on proven technologies, the Carbon War Room has produced actionable research on jet ap-propriate fuel sources, including hydro-processing renewable oil (HRO), thermochemical conver-sion of biomass, and advanced biological conversion systems using algae or yeast.

Working with both suppliers and buyers of renewable jet fuels, the Carbon War Room hopes to overcome some of the bigger obstacles to proliferation of these types of fuels, including access to pricing information, scalability of the technology, and industry confidence in alternative fuels. Their work has culminated in a comprehensive resource online: www.renewablejetfuels.org.

Attacking transportation from another angle, the Carbon

War Room has been collabo-rating with organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Clean Shipping Coalition, and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to help the floundering shipping indus-try stay afloat during a serious global trade slowdown. By de-veloping a ground-breaking Energy Efficiency Design Index to measure fuel efficiency of the global fleet, the aim is to allow the industry to accurately test, compare, and improve their ves-sels’ performance for the first time.

Using existing technologies such as hull coatings, propeller “Boss Cap Fins”, air lubrication systems, and alternative power through wind, solar, and fuel cells, the projected potential savings in improved fuel effi-ciency are $50 billion annually. This recent work builds on the Carbon War Room’s previous achievement of creating the first-ever eco-labeling program for the shipping industry, with an online tool that lets industry leaders see the status of 70,000 of the world’s commercial ships: www.shippingefficiency.org.

“Stop whining about the costs of environmental sustainability and open your eyes to the prospect of achieving higher profits through the more efficient use of natural resources.”

12

Rewarding Businesses: the

Gigaton AwardsThe Carbon War Room’s annual Gigaton Awards are handed out to best-in-class businesses that have chosen to make carbon reductions central to their activi-ties. Offering awards in five cate-gories — consumer discretionary, consumer staples, industrials, telecommunications, and utilities — the Gigaton Award nominees receive their honors based on their emissions disclosures and progress toward reducing their

carbon footprint compared to the previous year. All nominees are measured first against the Carbon Disclosure Project S&P 500 Report and then evaluated based on ethical and carbon-re-lated criteria by an independent panel of judges.

Like everything else the Carbon War Room does, the Gigaton Awards were created to inspire and challenge businesses to run in the most carbon-efficient way possible, and the leaders are making impressive strides. The 2011 nominations went to companies such as Fiat for set-ting carbon cuts of 35% starting

in 2009, which they are achieving through the purchase of certi-fied renewably-sourced projects, energy efficient manufacturing systems, and improved em-ployee awareness. Danone was also recognized, not least be-cause the company has chosen to offer incentives to managers and directors by incorporating emissions reductions into the bonus system. Their carbon re-duction efforts resulted in a 22% decrease in emissions from 2008 to 2010.

Government Financing:

Doing WithoutAnd if you think the Carbon War Room is advocating increased government involvement to achieve its dreamy goals, think again. In its view, real progress can be made outside of policy making when it is led by vision-aries who seek out and snatch up opportunities others have overlooked.

As Figueres put it, “Fifty percent of global carbon can be reduced without any need for govern-ment regulation or legislation. That is the space in which the Carbon War Room operates.”

“Fifty percent of global carbon can be reduced without any need for government regulation or legislation. That is the space in which the Carbon War Room operates.”

1 gigaton is the equivalent of 142,857,142 African elephants.

CREATING CLIMATE WEALTH

13

About PACE video here

NY Times: Tax Plan to Turn Old Buildings ‘Green’ Finds Favor

PACE Commercial Consortium: Ygrene PDF

$1B in Tax Benefits, 40,000 Jobs CreatedThat’s the results from the Carbon War Room’s par-ticipation in PACE, the Property Assessed Clean Energy program. Bringing together key partners, the PACE Commercial Consortium includes:

� Lockheed Martin and Barclays Bank have helped drive expansion of the commercial and industrial markets with over $160 million invested in the Sacremento, CA and Miami-Dade County, FL communities.

� Ygrene Energy Fund sets up funding programs under a city’s auspices for enabling borrowers to qualify to receive money for making energy efficiency retrofits secured by an assessment on their property.

� Energi Holdings Inc. provides insurance, guaranteeing returns in the event of unexpected energy market fluctuations.

Carbon War Room research has concluded that every $1 million invested in building efficiencies creates $4 million in tax revenue, $10 million in eco-nomic activity, and 60 jobs. Using this multiplier in their work with two city-based programs in Miami-Dade, FL and Sacramento, CA, PACE was able to deploy $650 million in investments, which created 40,000 jobs and $1 billion in tax benefits.

Their hope is that PACE will cross the $1 billion investment mark in the next few months, firmly es-tablishing their program as an international exam-ple that can be applied in other countries. Ygrene is already on its way to China.

The Carbon War Room annual symposium, “Creating Climate Wealth” brings together hun-dreds of industry leaders in a two day marathon of breakout ses-sions, focus groups and round-tables. Those groups — through teams and sub-teams — select a topic for the War Room to focus on in the coming year. The War Room awards $20,000 in seed funds for the project. Their crite-ria are:

� Are the opportunities presented profitable and at a gigaton scale?

� Have the market failures been identified and does

solving them play to our unique assets?

� Do we see a strong chance of catalytic verifiable success?

� Do we feel the time is ripe for this project, and is there internal and external appetite to get started?

� Would $20,000 invested be cost effective?’

Once selected, the team crafts next steps for actions that can make a difference. In the last year, the focus was on develop-ing PACE programs in cities (see below), and this year the focus is on transportation fuels. Going

forward, they will invest their re-sources in order to:

� Enlist an interim project leader to scope out a potential operation in more detail.

� Disseminate research on the efficiency potential of the Information Communications Technology in the Trucking sector and fuel use in North America.

� Hold targeted convenings in both North America and the United Kingdom to refine the action plan with all CCW (Creating Climate Wealth) delegates.

DEMYSTIFYING CARBON

“WE DON’T REALLY NEED TO KNOW WHETHER CARBON DIOXIDE IS CAUSING THE EARTH TO WARM BECAUSE PHOTONS CAN’T ESCAPE THE ATMOSPHERE. THE POINT IS, WE NEED TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CARBON USED TO CREATE ENERGY.”

Robert Preston in THE GREEN ECONOMY

15

Carbon is sunlight stored in biomass for weeks (switch grass) or millenia (coal, natural gas and oil). Combined with hydrogen, carbon is used as fuel. The higher the number of hydrogen atoms to carbon, the more efficient — and cleaner — the fuel.

The byproduct of fuel production is gas in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and other gases known as CO2e, or carbon dioxide equivalents. It is primarily these gases which pollute the environment and have lead to local and regional govern-ments to make efforts to reduce or mitigate the use of carbon. When successful, these new procedures result in lower energy costs, as well as reducing air and water pollution and other side effects of the high use of carbon.

In the United States, corporations are mea-suring their carbon footprint for a variety of reasons. Once measured, they can take steps to reduce emissions and to find ways to mon-etize emissions through carbon offsets or RECs. For some, the journey begins with re-alizing their own cost savings. New processes can lead to new products and services to sell in a growing market. For a few large corpora-tions, developing new approaches to carbon mitigation assures them a voice as agencies promulgate new regulations.

In this section, THE GREEN ECONOMY takes a look at early stage carbon strategies, pro-vides a glossary of terms, an animation on offsets and RECs and research on how com-panies are thinking about carbon and carbon reduction.

16 New Markets have a Green LightYoung entreprenuers dive into carbon markets

17

Kelly Bennett is

one of the young

generation staking

their future on new

markets in the green

economy. In 2003 she

started Green Light

Energy (GLTenergy.

com), a company

that sells RECs

(Renewable Energy

Credits) and Carbon

Credits to far-sighted

corporations, colleges

and universities, and

municipalities.

She admits that when she started in 2003, RECs were selling at an all-time low, which made for a challenging start. She and her partner, Joe Barclay, hung on and have built a thriving busi-ness, primarily selling RECs to a roster of clients from small mom-and-pops to large corporations.

Green TagsA Renewable Energy Certificate (RECs), or “Green Tag”, repre-sents proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was gener-ated from an eligible renewable energy resource. RECs incentiv-ize carbon-neutral renewable energy by providing a produc-tion subsidy to electricity gen-erated from renewable sources. A green energy provider (such as a wind farm) is credited with one REC for every 1,000 kWh (kilowatt per hour) or 1 MWh of electricity it produces (for refer-ence, an average residential cus-tomer consumes about 800 kWh in a month). A certifying agency gives each REC a unique iden-tification number to make sure it doesn’t get double-counted. The green energy is fed into the electrical grid, and the accom-panying REC can then be sold on the open market to compli-ance buyers (such as utilities that are required to purchase RECs) and voluntary buyers such as

businesses, colleges and univer-sities, and individuals.

Who is buying REC’s? “It varies by sector,” remarked Ms. Bennett. Looking at the market, she noted that in 2006-2008, Pepsi Co. bought 2.3 bil-lion kwh. That was a trend setter that influenced a lot of food and beverage companies. Within 8 months, Intel followed with 1.8 billion kwh, and is now buying 2.5 billion. While there hasn’t been another buyer of that magnitude, lots of new compa-nies are purchasing 2% to 20% of their use, enough to test the market and learn what they’re doing, while getting help with their internal goals. She also sited several sectors that have been keen on learning more in order to invest in RECs.

Product Makers“It can be a consumer product company that wants to offset their carbon footprint for a va-riety of reasons,” according to Ms. Bennett. Those reasons range from getting a marketing edge by advertising 100% green or zero emissions, or wanting to ensure a product is compli-ant with foreign regulations.

18(click for website)Ernst & Young / Climate change has become a strategic concern at many

companies, despite a lack of US regulatory requirements to measure, manage or report emissions.

75% of respondents have set greenhouse gas reduction goals

60% report these publicly.

76% publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions

16% said they plan to do so within five years.

38% of respondents believe that equity analysts who cover their company consider sustainability performance in their evaluations.

23% additionally believe this will happen within five years.

Key constituencies asking about sustainable sourcing.

34% ask about procurement of raw materials such as forest products

33% ask about business risks associated with scarcity of water

20% ask about the use of rare earth minerals and metals

Brand firm BBMG 73% of ‘conscious consumers,’ care about the company that stands behind the product.

Edelman 2010 87% of consumers believe that business needs to place at least equal weight on society’s interests as on business interests.

Cone 2010 80% of consumers are likely to switch brands, similar in price and quality, to one that supports a cause.

CorporateRegister.

com48% of S&P companies publish corporate sustainability reports 5,500 such reports are published worldwide

WHO CARES ?

19

Kelly J. Bennett, CEO, has a career in environmental markets and public policy spanning more than 15 years. She has expertise in business devel-opment, corporate climate change strategies and renewable energy markets, as well as an deep under-standing of international, federal, state and municipal energy and cli-mate policies. Ms. Bennett was ap-pointed by New York’s Governor to his Renewable Energy Task Force in 2008, serves on the Steering Committee of the New York State Apollo Alliance, is a board member of the U.S. Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development, is a member of the external review com-mittee of the NYS DEC Environmental Excellence Awards, and a recpient of the Albany Business Review “40 Under Forty”. She has created and taught a climate change course in the MBA for Managing Sustainability program at Marlboro College and is a frequent presenter at national conferences.

Greenlight Energy partner’s market knowledge has helped organizations throughout the country identify and capitalize on emerging market op-portunities, improve the bottom line, maximize CSR and marketing oppor-tunities, and advance environmental and sustainability goals.

“Wal-Mart has been really push-ing to clean their supply chain,” which has provided vendors with an incentive to invest in strate-gies that make them attractive to the big box retailer.

EfficiencySome companies use green house gases as a way to mea-sure their carbon output. They want to invest capital dollars in efficiencies, and they use a va-riety of 3rd party protocols to measure emissions as a starting point to educate themselves and their stakeholders. She finds that sophisticated companies with a longer focus have a good understanding of their options, while many mid sized and small companies don’t understand the role that RECs can play as part of their overall corporate strategy. For them, Green Light Energy provides a first step that includes education in RECs along with some help in start-ing the process. “All they need to know is total kwh usage for

the organization. Not how much spent, but how much used.” It is a simple green house gas inven-tory, providing a good baseline.

Risk Management Ms. Bennett also talked about risk management: large emitter pre-compliance; shareholder; and blogosphere risk.

High emitters and large energy users, like aluminum and cement companies, are concerned that they will fall under a state, re-gional or federal regulatory scheme that will cap emissions. Getting a toe in now to develop options and become sophis-ticated buyers makes a lot of sense for them.

Shareholders are increas-ingly asking questions. The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) started asking companies to report on their climate risk several years ago. Such risks include the impact of

20

weather on raw materials, higher seawater along shoreline areas, and rising prices for all resources. Corporate sustainability prac-tices are also publicly available on sources such as the Carbon Disclosure Project, which pub-lishes results from companies that sign on to their protocols; EPA Climate leaders; and the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. As large institutional investors begin to include such calcula-tions in their long-term strate-gies, companies that are putting in place strategies to mitigate these risks have an edge.

Finally, there is always blogo-sphere risk. Companies, espe-cially consumer companies with high visibility, must match their marketing with actions or risk that could potentially make them targets. Random weather events, such as the droughts in Texas in 2011, can have consumers

starting to look more closely at whether a company is a good corporate citizen. In areas with high population density, air qual-ity can quickly become a focus if corporations are not engaged.

Drivers As to the future, Ms. Bennett sees a growing market. “Thirty plus states already have an RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard), which means that the local util-ity must have a set percentage of the energy from renewable sources,” she said. “That is pro-viding the market with quality product.” She also notes that the Western Climate Initiative (see next article), which will create a cap and trade scheme in California, is a market changer. She believes that there will be a lot of focus on how this works, and states will look for lessons learned as they contemplate

state or regional schemes of their own.

ClientsMost of her clients are larger cor-porations, and her clients often have a sustainability title. “But some are VPs of energy, research and development, or facilities.” she added. Several are signato-ries to the CDP, members of the EPA Climate Leaders, or on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index.

“We now have a nice roster of companies, some in the college and university sector, and the more forward facing compa-nies.” She notes that “consum-ers won’t pay more for green, but they are very loyal to com-panies that are.” It looks like Ms. Bennett and Mr. Barclay’s bet is paying off.

What’s Missing from Your Wind Project?

When Competitive Power Ventures Inc. (CPV), a power generation development and asset management company with extensive wind energy development experience, decided to sell Phase I of its Keenan wind farm project to Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company, CPV turned to Dickstein Shapiro’s experienced wind energy and corporate counsel to structure, negotiate, and document the transaction. CPV continues to rely on Dickstein Shapiro’s energy transactional and regulatory attorneys in connection with all aspects of its wind energy development program to help ensure that it remains a signifi cant player in the North American wind energy sector.

“In today’s ever-changing energy market, the success of our power generation development program requires a unique mix of regulatory and transactional experience, and Dickstein Shapiro excels in both.”

Doug Egan Chairman, Competitive Power VenturesCEO, CPV Renewable Energy Company

WASHINGTON, DC | NEW YORK | LOS ANGELES | IRVINE

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 1825 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20006© 2010 Dickstein Shapiro LLP. All Rights Reserved. (202) 420-2200 | dicksteinshapiro.com

Larry Eisenstat, Energy Practice Leader

(202) 420-2224 I eisenstatl@dicksteinshapiro.com

�

� “Really enjoyed the latest issue of THE GREEN ECONOMY — great stuff. The content reminds me of the reports McKinsey sends out, but focused on environmental issues.”

� Arthur Dobelis

� CEO, EVIV.IO

THE GREEN ECONOMY349 Fifth AvenueNew York, NY 10016

Editorial: 212.749.4620Editor@theGreenEconomy.comSales: 609-304-2452Sales@theGreenEconomy.comwww.theGreenEconomy.comTwitter @TGEinkTwitter @TGEexecwww.facebook.com/GreenEcon

:

Advertise With Us

22

Additionality Carbon credits from projects that are “additional to” the business-as-usual scenario. Such projects would NOT have happened anyway.

Allowance Authorization to emit, during a specified year, up to one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Alternative compliance mechanism

Actions to achieve the equivalent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over the same time period as a direct emission reduction. Includes, but not limited to: � Alternative control technology which removes or cleans GHG currently being emitted.

� Process or product change which lowers GHG over previous production.

� Flexible compliance schedule.

Carbon dioxide equivalent

The amount of carbon dioxide by weight that would produce the same global warming impact as a given weight of another greenhouse gas, based on the best available science, including IPCC.

Cost-effectiveness The cost per unit of reduced emissions of greenhouse gases adjusted for its global warming potential.

Direct emission reduction

A greenhouse gas emission reduction action made by a greenhouse gas emission source at that source.

Emissions reduction measure

Any mechanism, authorized by a regulatory agency, applicable to sources designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) Includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexaflouride.

Greenhouse gas emissions limit

An authorization by a regulating entity, during a specified year, to emit up to a level of greenhouse gases expressed in tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.

Greenhouse gas emission source [GHG]

Any source of greenhouse gas emissions whose emissions are at a level of significance, as determined by regulatory agency,

23

GLOSSARYIntergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.

Leakage A reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases within the state that is offset by an increase in emissions of greenhouse gases outside the state.

Market-based Compliance Mechanism

A market-based system for reducing aggregate emissions from sources that emit greenhouse gases. Includes: greenhouse gas emissions exchanges, banking, credits, and other transactions, governed by rules and protocols established by regional, state or local entities.

Offset A project that compensates or an allowance made in order to counterbalance carbon emssions at another location.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and

Forest Degradation (REDD)

Steps designed to use market/financial incentives in order to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation and forest degradation. Actions taken under REDD may be used to offset emissions.

Regional Green House Gas Initiative (RGGI -

Reggie)

The first regional market-based regulatory program in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in subscribing North Eastern states.

Regulating Agency Agency or State Authority responsible for implementing regional, state or local GHG reduction initiatives.

Renewable Energy Certificats (RECs)

Also known as Green tags, Renewable Energy Credits, Renewable Electricity Certificates, or Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs), are tradable energy commodities that represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource (renewable electricity).

Western Climate Initiative (WCI)

The WCI Partner jurisdictions plan to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and spur investment in and development of clean-energy technologies, create green jobs, and protect public health. Current subscribers include California and five Canadian provinces.

24Cap ‘n Trade: There’s a lot to learn from what’s

happening out West

Agencies across the United States are watching California’s implementation

of a state-wide cap and trade. Companies are waiting to see how that program will

impact business, and clean technology industries are hoping that the expected revenues spur innovation

and new industries.

25

Cap and Trade is a fairly simple concept: ‘Cap’ is a legal limit on the quantity of greenhouse gases that a region can emit each year, and ‘trade’ means that companies can swap among themselves the permission — or permits — to emit anything above that cap.

Setting up a reasonable and viable program, how-ever, is hardly simple: what businesses should be targeted; how and what gases will be measured; should there be a gradual decrease of emissions over a period of years — how many years; who will run the program; how will trades be monitored; can some businesses — such as utilities that emit high levels of GHG (Green House Gas) — be given allow-ances as well as the opportunity to buy allowances

until they have time to ratchet up control of their emissions; how much time? Clearly, there are many ways to get it wrong. This is why California’s par-ticipation in the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) is being watched so closely.

Western Climate Initiative The WCI is a collaboration of independent

regions in Canada and the United States that are working together to implement emissions trad-ing policies to tackle climate change. According to WCI, “This is a comprehensive effort to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, spur investment in clean-energy technologies that create green jobs and reduce dependence on imported oil”.

California is the only United States WCI partner with a program that will start in 2013. The plan will affect several facilities, from utilities to cement production. The cap set in 2013 is 2% below the

Cap ‘n Trade: There’s a lot to learn from what’s

happening out West

26emissions level forecast for 2012. Each subsequent year will increase the percentage, with the aim of attaining 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Companies can mitigate their burden of greenhouse gases by:

� Reducing emissions Companies can reduce emissions by lowering output; scrubbing (removing) toxic gases from emissions; creating cleaner processes or products; or by setting long term goals on a schedule that can be approved by the Air Resources Board (ARB), the agency in the CA Environmental Protection Agency that oversees California’s program.

� Receiving allowances Initially, companies receive free allowances that will be set at 90% of that sector’s average

emissions. Companies will be required to buy allowances later in the program. Allowances are tradable permits that will be auctioned quarterly by the ARB. The price has been set at $10 per metric ton of CO2e (carbon equivalents) for 2012 allowances, and $11.58 per metric ton of CO2e for 2015 allowances. There is a purchase limit of 4% per auction. The requirement to reduce GHGs is built into a graduated time frame whereby allowances will become more expensive in subsequent years.

� Purchasing credits (offsets) Entities that either fall below the cap, or that have a process or product that reduces emissions from BAU (business as usual), can sell their “credit”. This creates a market for carbon savings where the offsets become tradable equities.

Impact on BusinessThe major question is: What effect regulatory pol-

icies, such as cap and trade, will have on business?

The WCI is not the first Cap and Trade in the United States. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a collaboration among several East Coast states, was the first market-based regulatory pro-gram to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. RGGI, which held their first auction in 2008, covers mainly utilities. The California plan is much more inclu-sive, since it covers all businesses with emissions over the 25,000 metric tonnes (about the output of 2,300 homes). Although the majority of commercial buildings are not likely to be affected, any change in regulatory activity is bound to create concern.

� Impact on Economy One concern is that pricing green house gas

27

emissions will adversely affect the economy, forcing businesses to vacate. However, a recent report by, Thomson Reuters Point Carbon, Carbon 2012: A Market Waiting for Godot, included the results of their survey that assessed the perceived economic effects of California’s program. “A large majority of emitters in California participating in the survey have no plans to move production out of the state due to carbon costs,” the report concluded.

� Innovation Much of the regulation and many of the incentives around carbon reduction have attempted to spur innovation in approaches that lower emissions. In California, recent Assembly bill (AB1532) allocates revenue from the sale of allowances, estimated to be in the billions of dollars. The funds will be distributed among four broad categories:

� generation of clean and efficient energy;

� low-carbon transportation and public transportation infrastructure;

� natural resource protection; and � sustainable infrastructure development.

� Uncertainty An ongoing concern of business about environmental legislation has been uncertainty. On and off again subsidies, tax credits, renewable portfolio standards and other mechanisms have made long term planning difficult — if not impossible. For this reason, the long view taken by WCI creates an environment of certainty, which will allow businesses to plan both short and long term plans for carbon reduction. Point Carbon’s survey supported that view, noting

that a significant number of companies are embracing the effort to reduce GHGs, through both purchasing allowances, or outright plans to reduce emissions.

� Public Support Finally, there is concern that environmental legislation is of interest to a small — but vocal — constituency. However, in 2011 Proposition 23 was defeated by the largest majority of any California proposition in years. Prop 23 would have overturned AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which is the basis for California’s participation in the WCI. AB32 itself received broad support, including being championed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The defeat of Prop 23 showed that there is broad public support for cap and trade. While the reasons for the support are varied, the result is that businesses have verification that air and water quality are of significant interest to local communities.

Cap and trade is a market mechanism that could work with business, instead of a regulatory scheme. Meanwhile, there are important lessons to be learned from the successes and failures of different programs. RGGI sold $21 million CO2 permits in June. Past proceeds have been used by Governors and State legislators for paying down debts that are outside the original intent of the plan. The European Union, which has had robust cap and trade schemes since signing the Kyoto protocol, has had a checkered history regarding its use of funds. The business community and the public at large will be more supportive if there is honest and transparent financial responsibility on govern-ment’s part.

28

ARRAY POWER:INCREASING EFFICIENCY AND LOWERING COSTS OF SOLAR ARRAYS

Remember the frustration of getting old Christmas lights to work? When one string failed,

the entire tree went dark.

This is one of the most significant challenges of

modern solar array design — when even one solar panel

stops producing due to shade or malfunction, the energy

produced by entire strings is ignored.

In order for the Direct Current (DC) output of a solar panel to be integrated into an Alternating Current (AC) grid (your home or office), a bottle neck is created at the DC-AC inverter. That bottleneck costs time, effi-ciency, money, system flexibility and reliability.

“DC power continues to rule, especially when it comes to output from solar and wind,” comments Nick Cravalho, VP for Business Development and Marketing of ArrayPower. After the founders encountered dan-gers while installing panels and converters, they began to look for a better solution. They came up with a device that they believe solves the problem.

Installation TimeIntegrating ArrayPower’s silicon-based device into

a solar array is as simple as attaching a small com-ponent to each module at the back. The ArrayPower Sequenced Inverter then takes the 60 volt direct

29

City lights viewed in a motion blurred exposure. The AC blinking causes the lines to be dotted rather than continuous.

ARRAY POWER:INCREASING EFFICIENCY AND LOWERING COSTS OF SOLAR ARRAYS

current energy from the panel and boosts it to 208 volts. That power is then sent through three circuits of resistors and capacitors that send out the cur-rent in pulses, which are then combined at least four at a time into the correct AC wave to feed into a home or the power grid.

Additionally, since modules can be shipped pre-configured and preassembled with the sequenced inverters already integrated into the solar panels during assembly, the plug and play nature of instal-lation with ArrayPower technology is much simpler and faster — as well as safer for personnel working with the equipment.

EfficiencyBased on pulse amplitude modulation, the

technology used by ArrayPower promises to har-vest more energy, increase overall efficiency, sim-plify installation, and lower capital costs. And it’s

based on readily available technology that has been in use in the Ethernet industry and for LED lighting for years.

“Our technology is much like a glass of water. The more water you can get into the glass, the greater the benefit to you. We make it possible to squeeze 5% more energy into that glass that we ever thought possible.”

SavingsSequenced Inverters enable the production

of AC power directly to improve module efficiency but without any additional system components. By removing components like DC junction boxes, cables, and connectors used in conventional DC modules, ArrayPower’s technology reduces overall system costs. And like microinverters, sequenced inverters offer more harvested power but at a price much lower than centralized inverters.

30

Alternating Current Direct Current

Amount of energy that can be carried

Safer to transfer over longer city distances and can provide more power

Voltage of DC cannot travel very far until it begins to lose energy

Obtained from: A.C Generator and mains Cell or Battery

Current: It is the current of magnitude varying with time

It is the current of constant magnitude

Direction: It reverses its direction while flowing in a circuit

It flows in one direction in the circuit

Types: Sinusoidal, Trapezoidal, Triangular, Square

Pure and pulsating

Flow of Electrons: Electrons keep switching directions - forward and backward

Electrons move steadily in one direction or ‘forward’

Cause of the direction of flow of electrons:

Rotating magnet along the wire Steady magnetism along the wire

Source: Alternating vs. Direct Current on Diffen.com

“We estimate that there are about 50% fewer com-ponents needed with ArrayPower’s Sequenced Inverter technology, making systems cheaper and faster to install,” explains Mr. Cravalho.

System FlexibilityFewer components mean a smaller physical

footprint and more space for additional mod-ules, increasing the available roof space for solar collection. It also means that solar systems with integrated ArrayPower technology rely on fewer

technology providers, are bound by fewer warranty restrictions, and are unhinged from other technical requirements, vastly simplifying the entire process and maintenance.

Another key advantage is design flexibiltiy. In tra-ditional systems, one inverter connects a pre-de-signed group of panels, so the system designer is limited in how the panels are arrayed.

ReliabilityGetting back to the Christmas lights, the

ArrayPower systems operate independently, re-moving the “one out — all out” effect.

As important, the ArrayPower systems have already been field tested in the US and Morbach, Germany and have demonstrated higher energy harvest-ing capabilities than conventional string inverters. Backed by a 25-year warranty and millions of dol-lars in Silicon Valley venture capital, ArrayPower has already struck a deal with ShinHa for their Sequenced Inverters to be shipped to Korea.

All in all, ArrayPower expects to make a major con-tribution to the growing Solar industry in the US and abroad.

31

In their own words they are “reinventing

the DNA through the convergence of

electrification and connectivity.” Starting

with a clean sheet, they are designing ultra-small vehicles intended strictly for

short-range intra-city use carrying light

payloads.

Solving the ProblemThe ongoing challenge in de-signing electric cars has been overcoming the energy density problem. There is simply much more energy available in a tank of liquid fuels than in electric batteries of the same size and weight. This means that elec-tric cars achieve neither the horsepower nor the mileage of gasoline cars, which explains the emer-gence of hybrid solu-tions and the failure of purely electric ones.

General Motors EN-V Electric Network Vehicle concept, shown

at the Lux Executive Summit in Boston, addresses some of these concerns. Christopher Borroni-Bird, Director of the EN-V pro-gram at GM was armed with data that show most vehicle miles are driven by a single passenger for short trips, not the SUV model of a car built for many passengers traveling for 300 or so miles.

Considering that crowded cities the world over face the dual

WHAT is GENERAL MOTORS up to?

By Ed Dodge, Special to

THE GREEN ECONOMY

32

problems of pollution and over-crowding, GM has decided to prioritizing zero-emissions and minimal land use, while embrac-ing network connectivity to en-hance the safety and efficiency of vehicular travel.

Communications allow the EN-V’s to find the best routes, maintain safe distances for colli-sion avoidance, avoid emergency vehicles, and even drive autono-mously and park themselves.

With video-conferencing and social network capabilities, the vehicle becomes an extension of the smart-phone.

New MarketsSince many Americans may scoff at the ultra-small vehicle that appears to be more space-age golf cart than Detroit steel, GM is looking at global markets. Particularly in Asia, where crowd-ing and pollution are far more

extreme, the infrastructure less mature, and the expectations for vehicular style are more flex-ible, GM sees new opportunities. Prototypes are being tested in the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City in China, a blank slate new city where GM has signed a memorandum of understanding to help develop the infrastruc-ture. In the West, GM is explor-ing being first to market the EN-V to campuses, resorts, and other enclosed communities.

33

See Video

There is a brave new world coming and it may not be built in America first. It is encouraging to see that there are businesses — including what many think of as staid old corporations — em-bracing the future.

Green solutions are not simply good business or the latest trend, but an irresistible wave sweeping us along, addressing our need for clean air, water and soil to survive.

Communications allow the EN-V’s to find the best routes, maintain safe distances for collision avoidance, avoid emergency vehicles, and even drive autonomously and park themselves.

34

LONG-TERM G R E E D YSmart Corporations Prof i t ing In The Green Economy.

The p o w e r of maximizing profits over the long term, while acknowledging that the world will not always look as it does today.

35

The phrase “long-term greedy,”

is attributed to the late Gus Levy.

Mr. Levy was a senior partner of

Goldman Sachs, in the pre-IPO

days when the partners’ own capi-

tal was at risk every day.

Long-term greedy is a central con-

cept in a changing economy: it’s

the motivation for buggy whip

companies to start making belts for

drive shafts, or utilities to invest in

renewable energy and smart grids.

Yet long-term greedy can be hard

for managers, who may be in-

cented on a quarterly basis and re-

luctant to bet their careers on the

unknown future: even when that

future is banging on the door.

This article was originally posted on-line in May, 2012.

36

In the green economy, accepted business objectives don’t always produce short-term financial returns under current market conditions. Such objectives can include:

� energy-efficient operations, � preference for the use of

renewable energy over fossil fuels,

� judicious use of natural resources,

� minimization of environmental pollution, and

� the provision of products and services that would enable customers to achieve the same goals.

These objectives can be met in a number of ways, including specific investments, business processes, sourcing of raw ma-terials, or logistical adjustments.

Some green initiatives can be justified on a purely financial basis, focusing only on current cash costs and revenues. Others require increases in the cost of fossil fuel to generate a profit. Still others become profitable when potential external costs, such as carbon taxes or addi-tional regulations, are factored into the economics of fossil fuel use.

There are a number of strate-gies businesses can adopt in the green economy, respond to eco-nomic incentives and increase

profitability. Some require nei-ther a particularly long-term out-look nor a green sensibility, but reflect common sense manage-ment practices, including:

� Taking advantage of attractive green investment opportunities related to existing business operations

� Compliance with environmental laws

� Taking advantage of existing governmental incentives

Other categories of green busi-ness decisions would require more foresight, and would be more consistent with a long-term greedy worldview, including:

� Making investments in a green brand or reputation, regardless of immediate financial returns.

� Anticipating changes in market conditions which would make green initiatives more profitable.

� Anticipating changes in environmental regulation and the cost of noncompliance

Taking advantage of green investment opportunities related to existing business operationsA number of green agenda items are good business decisions on a purely financial basis. A prime example is energy conservation.

There are a number of strategies

businesses can adopt in the

green economy, which respond

to economic incentives

and increase profitability.

Some require neither a

particularly long-term

outlook nor a green

sensibility, but reflect

common sense management

practices.

37

For example, combined heat and power (CHP) projects pay for themselves very quickly, given the significant increases in energy efficiency compared to operating separate dedicated heating and generation plants. Smart buildings, using comput-erized controls and sensors to manage lighting and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), can adjust buildings’ energy use around time of day, weather and occupancy patterns, provide a comfortable working environment while generating significant energy savings.

Compl iance with environmental laws

Compliance with environmen-tal laws and regulations, in theory, isn’t a business decision. However, in reality businesses have to analyze the cost of com-pliance. Regulators should bear in mind that if fines for noncom-pliance are lower than the cost of meeting a regulation, they can create an incentive to violate the rule and pay the fine. However, regulations do make it easier for businesses to do the right thing in competitive industries, where the cost of compliance can be the difference between profit and loss. One example is the regulations that require treat-ment of SOx (Sulfur Oxides) and NOx (Nitrous Oxides). Without industry conformity through

regulation, the costs could not have been incorporated into pricing models.

Taking advantage of existing governmental incentives

Some investments, that do not make economic sense on a free-standing basis, benefit from federal and state incentives. The most obvious example is renewable energy generation – notably wind and solar – which has not reached grid parity: i.e. the ability to provide electric-ity profitably at a price com-petitive with fossil generation. Arguably, neither producers nor consumers pay the full cost of conventionally generated power, especially with regard to the true cost of carbon-based fuels. Those costs include “externali-ties”, which is the price paid by consumers and industry, through taxes, for the cleanup of pol-luted air, water and land, as well as health care costs from asthma and related diseases. While the political will does not currently exist to impose a carbon tax to help defray the costs of these externalities, Congress has es-tablished a number of subsidies in the form of investment and production tax credits, and ac-celerated depreciation. States have established tax subsidies and tradable renewable energy credits. While renewable energy

incentives have been successful in terms of the volume of sub-sidized deals, the stop-and-go nature of these programs has made long-term planning diffi-cult for corporations that wish to expand their renewable genera-tion portfolios.

Making investments in a green brand or reputation, regardless of immediate financial returnsBrand and reputation count. And they can be monetized over the long term, so environ-mental image makes sense. For example, a company like Federal Express can run an expensive national television advertising campaign to trumpet its environ-mental initiatives such as electric delivery trucks and fuel-efficient aircraft. Do these activities help deliver a package any faster or cheaper than UPS? It’s hard to tell. Do they make consumers feel better about doing business with an environmentally respon-sible company? I suspect there is considerable market research that says “Yes!”

As another example, consider the purchase of a compact hybrid sedan. Toyota’s Prius cre-ated the segment. Competitors

38

include hybrid versions of the Honda Civic and Nissan Altima, but buyers find that many pas-sengers and passers-by don’t know those are hybrids. What percentage of Prius sales are due to the fact that the buyers want full reputational benefit for their enlightened purchases? It seems reasonable to assume that there is a significant customer base that does indeed identify with – and patronize Toyota – because of its “green” branding and early adopter status.

Antic ipat ing changes in market conditions which would make green initiatives more profitableIn today’s market renewable electricity is not price competi-tive with conventional power and all-electric cars are relatively expensive, small and are range constrained by battery capacity.

But things change.

In 1985, few foresaw computers under $600 or a device the size of a thumb that could store 5 gigabytes. In the utility indus-try, only few anticipated the impact that a disaster, such as Fukushima, would have on the future of the nuclear industry. While no one driving a car in the 70’s will forget the fuel shortages

and gas lines during the Arab oil embargoes, few understood the realities that this would impose - especially the SUV-hungry auto industry that seemed to need a disaster of its own to get around to the smaller, more efficient cars that Asian car makers had been successfully selling for years.

Over recent decades, the price swings of gas and oil have been dramatic, driven by changes in supply and demand as well as financial speculation. An eco-nomically complete price of oil – or natural gas – would include a carbon price and recognition of the cost of subsidies, such as the depletion allowance. For many, this cost would also include the portion of the US defense budget dedicated to attempting to keep the Middle East stable and the Persian Gulf open to tanker traffic.

One of the results of these price pressures is that – even with cur-rent technology – the cost of power required to drive an elec-tric car a mile is a small fraction of the cost of gasoline required to do the same in a conventional car. If ongoing research and development produces a cost-effective car battery with a 300-mile range and relatively quick charging cycle, it won’t take long to change the product mix in the auto business.

Another area for change is natural gas prices -- now at an historic low -- but likely to rise as the costs factor in additional environmental protection associ-ated with hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” The development of a significant United States lique-fied natural gas export industry could also affect North American supply and demand dynamics. These changes in turn could affect the assumption that the marginal price of electricity will continue to be set by gas turbine generation.

History illustrates the virtues of a diversification of energy supply, to minimize the potential for economic disruption resulting from shortages of one fuel or another. It may be asking too much of business to be able pre-dict the future and see around corners. But rather than assum-ing the status quo will persist indefinitely, it is certainly reason-able to assume that the world will change in ways that can’t be predicted, and at the very least, hedge your bets.

Antic ipat ing changes in environmental regulation and the cost of noncompliance

Forward-looking managements anticipate what types of new regulations can reasonably be

39

expected, and in some cases self-regulate or change their behavior to prevent the gov-ernment from stepping in or at least to help moderate new regulations.

For example, with the growth of fracking, to develop shale gas wells, there are concerns about several environmental issues, including potential groundwa-ter pollution from gas wells, the hazards associated with used fracking fluids stored in surface ponds, and the potential leak-age of unburned natural gas – a greenhouse gas twenty-one times more powerful than carbon dioxide when released into the atmosphere. While there has not been a fracking related environ-mental disaster on a par with the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the political environment is such that if the gas industry does not proactively adopt the highest environmental standards, it runs the risk of regulation that could impact its business much more seriously than the cost of addi-tional ecological safeguards.

The extension of renewable port-folio standards (RPS) for utilities, now administered on a state-by-state basis, or an upward adjust-ment of the corporate average fuel economy standards for auto makers are other examples of potential regulatory changes.

Smart managements anticipate these types of changes, rather than having to react to them. Far-sighted companies are moving in advance of regula-tions and then weighing in with regulators in order to preserve a competitive advantage from their pre-compliance. Still others are investing in companies with proprietary technologies that aid in compliance, taking stakes in what they see as long term busi-ness opportunities.

ConclusionMuch of the criticism of business with regard to the environment or other social issues is actually more appropriately directed at the time horizon of some of its decision makers.

Long-term greedy managers know that policies that alienate customers despoil the environ-ment, fail to conserve natural resources, or weaken the econ-omy for short-term gain will ulti-mately destroy their businesses. Enlightened political leaders, likewise, know that social good naturally flows from a healthy and profitable private sector, es-pecially with appropriate incen-tives in place. With courageous leadership and a realistic assess-ment of the capabilities and de-cision-making processes in both the public and private sectors, the green economy will provide

that healthy and profitable pri-vate sector while meeting en-vironmental and sustainability objectives.

Ken Kramer is a frequent contrib-utor to THE GREEN ECONOMY. He is a founding partner of Rushton Atlantic, LLC a valuation consulting practice, based in New York and Chicago, focusing on renewable and conventional energy, infrastructure, manu-facturing and transportation, and a member of Global Asset Valuation Advisory Network, an international consortium of valuation consultancies. Rushton Atlantic’s services support financ-ing, investment, financial report-ing, tax and insurance.

40

Not what you know today.

It’s what’s in the future.

Yesterday it

was enough

to know

a c ce l e r a t e d

depreciation, EBITDA, earnings per share, capital ratio. Today, leading

companies are reporting carbon risk, developing the ROI for efficient

energy and resource management, and looking at ESI statistics. With

all these new initiatives, how do you measure the opportunities and

avoid the risks in new investment strategies?

Finding the right metrics—and having

the tools to analyze them—is the job of

CRD Analytics.CRD reports on the market strength of companies by analyzing their

reporting procedures through a series of metrics including financial,

environmental, social, governance and patent information. The Smart-

Viewtm algorithms give a better, holistic view of corporate perfor-

mance, as well as an index for measuring the competitive advantage

of a company witin their market sector.

For more information, to obtain a listing

of all CRD Analytics indexes, or to find out

more about CRD, please visit us online or

call our office.

www.crdanalytics.com

New York

116 West 23rd Street, 5th Floor

New York, NY 10011

646-375-2122 x2281