Bloomberg new energy finance

Report
SOLAR MARKET
UPDATE
MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE TESTIMONY
ETHAN ZINDLER, HEAD OF POLICY ANALYSIS
2 APRIL 2013, ST. PAUL, MN
/ / / / / / // // /// / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
1
BLOOMBERG NEW ENERGY FINANCE:
200 STAFF IN 13 OFFICES WORLDWIDE
London
San Francisco
North America
(39)
New York
Washington
Beijing
Zurich
New Delhi
Tokyo
Hong Kong
Africa
(29)
South America
(5)
Asia Pacific
(24)
Europe
(88)
Singapore
Sao Paulo
Cape Town
Sydney
Objective: Be the definitive source of insight, data and news on the transformation
of the energy sector.
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
2
Clean energy investment overview
Global solar trends
US solar trends
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
3
GLOBAL TOTAL NEW INVESTMENT IN CLEAN ENERGY
2004–12 ($BN)
20%
-11%
$302bn
$269bn
34%
$251bn
-2%
16%
$191bn
$187bn
2008
2009
45%
$164bn
43%
48%
$114bn
$80bn
$54bn
2004
2005
2006
2007
Note: Includes corporate and government R&D, and small distributed capacity. Adjusted
for re-invested equity. Does not include proceeds from acquisition transactions
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
2010
2011
2012
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
4
NEW INVESTMENT IN CLEAN ENERGY BY TRADE BLOCK
2004–12 ($BN)
3%
7%
5%
6%
17%
20%
22%
7%
6%
6%
6%
25%
27%
26%
27%
9%
14%
35%
ROW
BASIC
OECD
84%
77%
74%
73%
68%
66%
68%
67%
57%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Note: Excludes corporate and government R&D
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
2011
2012
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
5
NEW INVESTMENT IN CLEAN ENERGY BY SECTOR IN 2012
AND % CHANGE ON 2011 ($BN)
Solar
137.68
Wind
76.56
Biomass & Waste
Small hydro
9.03
7.35
-9%
-13%
-28%
18%
Energy smart technologies
3.24
-33%
Biofuels
2.81
-50%
Geothermal
1.58
-41%
Marine
0.19
52%
Other
0.06
84%
Note: Excludes corporate and government R&D
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
6
Clean energy investment overview
Global solar market trends
US solar market trends
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
7
DYNAMICS OF THE GLOBAL SOLAR SECTOR
• Massive supply-demand imbalance with far more capacity available than
currently being demanded.
• Plummeting equipment prices due to technology advancements and the
supply-demand imbalance.
• Major demand coming from the EU in recent years with strong growth in
Japan (post-Fukushima) and China.
• Commoditization of solar equipment with China now playing a dominant role
in manufacturing.
• Consolidation, bankruptcies, and value destruction well underway.
• Trade skirmishes!
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
8
DEMAND VS. HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED MODULE
PRODUCTION (GW)
60
Current cell manufacturing capacity
Historical
Future
50
40
30
20
10
2006 2007 2008 2009
Supply - crystalline silicon
Supply - thin film non-silicon
Demand - optimistic
2010
2011 2012 2013 2014
Supply - thin-film silicon
Demand - conservative
Note: Supply scenarios based on continued 2012 utilisation rates.
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
2015
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
9
PV INSTALLATION BY YEAR, HISTORICAL AND CENTRAL
FORECAST, 2007-2015 (MW)
Historical
Forecast
52.1GW
45.6GW
36.7GW
28.7GW 30.2GW
18.2GW
6.6GW 7.7GW
2.8GW
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Western Europe
Eastern Europe
China
India
2012
2013
Japan
Rest of World
Note: Few countries have yet finalised their 2012 data, hence the spread here. Table
with all major countries in Appendix. The conservative forecast is the sum of the first
quartiles of the spread between conservative and optimistic for each country.
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
2014
USA
2015
Source: Grid operators, incentive programme
administrators, industry associations, Bloomberg New
Energy Finance
10
INSTALLED PV PER CAPITA, END OF 2012, CONSERVATIVE
SCENARIO (W/PERSON)
450
400
Germany
350
300
Italy
250
Czech Republic
Belgium
200
Greece
150
Spain
Australia
Bulgaria
100
France
Japan
Denmark
Portugal
UK
USA
South Korea
Canada
Romania
Netherlands
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
GDP per capita
Israel
50
India
China
0
0
10,000
Note: GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power, in 2011 $
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
Source: World Bank, Bloomberg New Energy Finance
11
ANNUAL COSTS OF TARIFFS AS SHARE OF GDP VS PV ELECTRICITY
PRODUCTION AS SHARE OF CONSUMPTION, END OF 2011
Annual costs as share of GDP
0.45%
Czech Republic
Italy
0.40%
Germany
0.35%
0.30%
Spain
0.25%
0.20%
0.15%
0.10%
0.05%
Greece
Ontario France
0.00%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
Share of PV electricity production of overall electricity consumption
Bubble size representing 5GW cumulative PV capacity at end of 2011
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Eurostat, Canadian Statistics
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
12
CRYSTALLINE SILICON MODULE SPOT PRICE, 2008–12
($/W)
4.50
Four years
-75%
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
2008
2009
2010
Note: Prior to 11 July 2011 the index collated module prices without differentiating
between mono and multi crystalline
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
2011
2012
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance Solar Spot Price
Index
13
SPOT PRICE OF C-SI MODULES, 2 JANUARY 2012 – 4
MARCH 2013 ($/W)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
2012
Multicrystalline silicon module (c-Si)
25 Feb
11 Feb
28 Jan
14 Jan
31 Dec
17 Dec
03 Dec
19 Nov
05 Nov
22 Oct
08 Oct
24 Sep
10 Sep
27 Aug
13 Aug
30 Jul
16 Jul
02 Jul
18 Jun
04 Jun
21 May
07 May
23 Apr
09 Apr
26 Mar
12 Mar
27 Feb
13 Feb
30 Jan
16 Jan
0.0
02 Jan
0.2
2013
Monocrystalline silicon module (c-Si)
Note: Dates represent first day of the week for which the price has been averaged, ie 8 August
represents quote for the week 8-14 August. Data available here.
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
Module Spot Index
14
CHINESE MULTICRYSTALLINE SILICON MODULE PRICE
BUILD-UP, MARCH 2013
0.094
S
Module
Spot price
-0.07
0.25
0.050
0.13
Cell
$0.68/W
0.003
-0.03
$0.40/W
0.010 0.03
Ingot &
Wafer
Polysilicon
0.09
0.005
$0.91/piece
-0.08
0.14
0.06
-0.04
0.03
Processing cost per W
Depreciation per W
$16.6/kg
SG&A per W
Best-in-class margin per W
Note: Assumes 5.6g of silicon per watt of wafer. Processing cost based on SEC filings of
quoted companies, publically available reports, various discussions and analyst estimates.
SG&A represents sales, general, administration and R&D.
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
15
FORECAST COSTS FOR GROUND MOUNTED PV
PROJECTS, 2010-2020 (2012 $/W)
3.24
0.18
0.41
0.50
2.65
0.18
0.41
0.30
0.50
1.85
0.21
1.35
2010
1.59
0.15
0.32
1.55
0.15
0.31
0.27
0.12
0.73
2011 2012
Module
0.26
0.11
1.52
0.14
0.30
0.25
0.10
1.47
0.14
0.29
0.25
0.10
1.40
0.13
0.28
0.72
0.72
0.70
0.24
0.09
1.34
0.13
0.28
0.23
0.09
1.28
0.13
0.27
0.23
0.08
1.23
0.12
0.26
0.22
0.08
1.19
0.12
0.26
0.22
0.08
0.65
0.61
0.57
0.54
0.52
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Inverter
Balance of plant
EPC
Note: Based on experience curves for each component. Methodology here
http://bnef.com/Insight/1954 though charts updated January 2013
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
2019 2020
Other
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
16
FORECAST COSTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PV PROJECTS,
2010-2020 (2012 $/W)
4.64
0.52
0.64
0.67
0.41
4.16
0.81
0.63
0.68
2.41
0.28
1.76
2.95
0.52
2.59
0.56
2.44
0.31
0.54
2.28
0.26
0.53
2.15
0.22
0.52
0.61
2.04
0.20
0.51
0.59
1.95
0.18
0.49
0.57
1.88
0.16
0.49
0.56
0.55
0.54
0.53
0.19
0.66
0.18
0.61
0.17
0.57
0.17
0.54
0.43
0.60
0.36
0.58
0.65
0.63
0.26
0.91
2010
2.75
2011 2012
Module
0.24
0.87
0.23
0.84
2013 2014
Inverter
0.21
0.79
0.20
0.72
2015 2016
BOP
Note: Based on experience curves for each component. Methodology here
http://bnef.com/Insight/1954 though charts updated January 2013
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
2017 2018
EPC
2019 2020
Other
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
17
SMALL PV SYSTEM COST IN JAPAN, GERMANY AND
CALIFORNIA, $/W
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012
Average sub-10kW German system cost
Average California residential system cost
Japanese residential system cost average
Chinese multicrystalline silicon module price
Source: BSW-Solar, California Solar Initiative filings, JPEA,
Bloomberg New Energy Finance
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
18
GLOBAL CRYSTALLINE SILICON CELL MANUFACTURING
CAPACITY (MW/YEAR)
61.1GW
53.2GW
8,294
1,476
7,147
29GW
14.8GW
10.1GW
2.4GW
1,292438 36
2006
5.3GW
2,095 36
952
2,193
2007
China
3,290
116 1,632
5,036
2008
Taiwan
4,936
466
2,057
7,300
2009
Korea
9,344
1,666
7,747
42,303
36,253
6,953
856
4,205
16,944
2010
2011
2012
Rest of world
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
19
PV MODULE PRODUCTION BY COUNTRY, 2010-12 (%, GW)
29.7
18.1
2.7%
1.3%
1.4%
2.1%
12.0%
2.4%
9.4%
30.1
1.0%
0.6%
0.7%
1.3%
2.6%
6.3%
1.2%
0.3%
0.1%
7.4%
9.1%
10.9%
12.7%
Taiwan
Spain
11.2%
India
12.9%
United Kingdom
South Korea
Norway
Germany
71.1%
64.3%
Japan
USA
54.7%
China
2010
Note: Geography calculated by company headquarters, not
manufacturing capacity location
2011
2012
Source: Company reports, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates and enquiries
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
20
c-Si CELL PRODUCTION BY COUNTRY, 2010-12 (%, GW)
20.7
2.4%
4.3%
23.0
0.3%
0.4%
3.0%
3.2%
9.5%
8.6%
10.8%
7.5%
27.4
0.4%
1.7%
2.7%
4.0%
7.6%
2.6%
India
15.3%
South Korea
17.9%
Norway
18.1%
USA
Japan
Germany
67.8%
54.3%
Taiwan
57.8%
China
2010
Note: Geography calculated by company headquarters, not
manufacturing capacity location
2011
2012
Source: Company reports, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates and enquiries
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
21
POLYSILICON PRODUCTION BY COUNTRY, 2010-12 (%,
TONNES)
154000
7.4%
0.5%
1.3%
1.3%
215000
1.9%
1.4%
0.3%
0.6%
8.9%
205000
2.0%
4.9%
9.2%
11.0%
18.6%
19.5%
Taiwan
20.2%
UK
15.4%
Japan
18.5%
Other
Norway
South Korea
28.3%
Germany
32.0%
25.0%
China
USA
29.9%
2010
Note: Geography calculated by company headquarters, not
manufacturing capacity location
20.9%
21.0%
2011
2012
Source: Company reports, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates and enquiries
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
22
INVERTER PRODUCTION BY GEOGRAPHY, 2010-12 (%, GW
AC)
23.0
25.6
3.7%
4.3%
10.0%
17.0%
17.6%
13.7%
Rest of the world
21.4%
21.5%
China
Other Europe
USA
Germany
47.2%
2011
43.4%
2012
Note: here DC-DC optimiser production has been converted into AC, which is estimated to be 85% of
DC, Geography calculated by company headquarters, not manufacturing capacity location
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
Source: Company reports, Bloomberg New Energy
Finance estimates and enquiries
23
Q4 2012 LEVELIZED COST OF ENERGY FOR SELECT
TECHNOLOGIES
CSP - tower & heliostat
CSP - parabolic trough + storage
Wind - offshore
CSP - parabolic trough
Fuel cells
CSP - tower & heliostat w/storage
PV - c-Si
Biomass - anaerobic digestion
PV - c-Si tracking
Biomass - gasification
PV - thin film
Geothermal - binary plant
Biomass - incineration
Wind - onshore
Landfill gas
Municipal solid waste
Geothermal - flash plant
Large hydro
Small hydro
Nuclear
Natural gas CCGT
Coal fired
Natural gas CCGT w/CHP
0
50
100
150
LCOE Range
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Current Mid
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance, EIA
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
24
Clean energy investment overview
Global solar market trends
US solar market trends
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
25
TOTAL NEW US INVESTMENT IN CLEAN ENERGY, 2004-12
($BN)
65.4
70
60
40
20
32.8
32.1
30
44.2
43.5
43.3 43.0
50
17.1
10.6
10
Note: Shows total clean investment in the US across all asset classes (asset finance, public markets,
venture capital/private equity), as well as corporate and government R&D and small distributed capacity.
Values include estimates for undisclosed deals and are adjusted to account for re-invested equity.
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
0
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
26
US CUMULATIVE RENEWABLE CAPACITY (GW)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
85.7
68.9
54.8
43.5
2.8
13.9
1.6
25.3
2.9
14.3
2.0
35.6
60.4
2.9
14.4
2.9
40.1
3.0
14.5
4.9
46.6
3.1
14.7
8.0
Geothermal
Biomass & waste
59.8
Solar
Wind
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance, EIA
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
27
US ELECTRICITY GENERATION BY FUEL TYPE, 2007-12 (%)
100%
Other
80%
60%
Renewables
(including hydro)
Natural gas
40%
Nuclear
20%
Oil
Coal
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
0%
Note: Contribution from ‘Other’ is minimal and consists of miscellaneous technologies including hydrogen
and waste. Values for 2012 are projected, accounting for seasonality, based on latest monthly values from
EIA (actual data available through October 2012).
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
Source: Bloomberg New
Energy Finance, EIA
28
PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION VS. GDP, 1990-2012
Quadrillion Btu
GDP ($bn)
14
90
12
Other
75
10
Hydro
60
8
Natural gas
45
6
Nuclear
30
4
Petroleum
15
2
Coal
0
0
GDP
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
105
Note: Values for 2012 are projected, accounting for seasonality, based on latest monthly
values from EIA (actual data available through September 2012). GDP is real and changed;
2012 value is based on economic forecasts from Bloomberg Terminal.
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, US EIA
29
SHALE GAS EXTRACTION BREAK-EVEN PRICE, BY US
PLAY ($/MMBTU)
1 April 2013
Henry Hub
$4.03/MMBTU
Note: Assumes 15% equity IRR. UK assumes $8m Drilling & Completion cost; 2000-4250 mcfd
dry production (per Marcellus and Eagle Ford); 20% royalty rate; usual tax treatment
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance; Various
30
AVERAGE WIND PPA PRICE RELATIVE TO WHOLESALE
REGIONAL PRICES, 2004–SEPT 2012 ($/MWH)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
PJM West
ERCOT West
MISO (Illinois Hub)
Southwest Power Pool
California
PPA price (signing date)
Note: Price indices are calculated by averaging the hourly price at ISO hubs throughout
a 24-hour day. Quarterly rolling averages are used to eliminate outliers. Small sample
size accounts for some variation in PPA prices in 2011 and 2012.
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance, FERC
31
MIDWEST RPS SUPPLY-DEMAND (TWH)
45
Wind generation in
region (commissioned
or financed)
40
35
30
Non-binding
programmes
25
20
Binding
programmes
15
10
5
0
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
Notes: Demand is split into regions in the Midwest with binding RPS programmes (Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri) and
regions with non-binding programmes (North and South Dakota, Oklahoma). Supply is based purely on wind
capacity in these states, comprised of capacity commissioned (or having secured financing) as of July 2012.
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
Source: Bloomberg
New Energy Finance
32
AVERAGE PURCHASING PRICE BY OFFTAKER, ALL
PROJECTS 2011–H1 2012 ($/MWH)
0
5
New England Power
Southern California Edison
Snohomish County PUD
Pacific Gas & Electric
NV Energy
Arizona Public Service
Appalachian Power
Tennessee Valley Authority
CA Dept of Water Resources
Associated Electric Coop
First Energy Solutions Corp
PacifiCorp
Omaha Public Power District
Idaho Power Company
Bonneville Power Admin
San Diego Gas & Electric
Exelon
Nebraska Public Power District
S.California Pub Power Authority
Public Service Coof Colorado
NorthWestern Energy
Northern States Power
American Electric Power
Great River Energy
Oklahoma Gas and Electric
NEPOOL
Basin Electric Power Coop
Minnesota Power
Public Service Co of Oklahoma
PJM
NYISO
SPP
Southwestern Pub Service Co
MISO
15
20
25
107
100
76
76
73
72
66
64
61
57
57
55
54
54
52
51
47
46
44
43
42
41
39
38
38
37
35
35
35
34
32
30
26
23
0
Merchant rates
10
25
PPAs
50
75
100
125
Reporting projects
Note: Includes wind, biomass and geothermal PPAs. Does not include solar PPAs.
Only includes offtakers purchasing energy from two or more projects
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
Source: Bloomberg New
Energy Finance, FERC
33
SOLAR PPA PRICES BY SIGNING DATE, H2 2008–2011
($/MWH)
250
Eurus Energy Avenal Park,
Sand Drag, & Sun City Plants
First Solar
Agua Caliente
200
First Solar
Topaz
150
Sempra
Copper Mountain
100
BP Long Island
First Solar Silver
State North
Sempra
Mesquite Solar I
Iberdrola San Luis Valley
Fotowatio
Spectrum
Fotowatio
Apex
Solar Reserve
Crescent Dunes
AZ
CA
CO
NM
NV
NY
PR
AES
Ilumina
Cogentrix
Alamosa
11 solar PPAs
executed
via CA RAM
NextEra Hatch
NRG
Roadrunner
Enel
Stillwater
250MW
50
MW
50
Estimated 2011 CA RFP
shortlist (2016 delivery $70–90)
0
Jul 08
Jan 09
Jul 09
Jan 10
Jul 10
Jan 11
Note: Does not include PPAs under 5MW. ‘Banded’ PPA prices are pegged at the average price over
the period of project operation. The California RFP resulted in 7.5TWh of shortlisted generation, of
which about half was PV. California RFP price estimates are sourced from developers. Topaz PPA
price estimate based on first-year total PPA revenues ($198.8m).
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
Jul 11
Jan 12
Source: Bloomberg New Energy
Finance, FERC
34
COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER
This publication is the copyright of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. No portion of this document may be
photocopied, reproduced, scanned into an electronic system or transmitted, forwarded or distributed in any
way without prior consent of Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
The information contained in this publication is derived from carefully selected sources we believe are
reasonable. We do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness and nothing in this document shall be
construed to be a representation of such a guarantee. Any opinions expressed reflect the current judgment of
the author of the relevant article or features, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg New
Energy Finance, Bloomberg Finance L.P., Bloomberg L.P. or any of their affiliates ("Bloomberg"). The opinions
presented are subject to change without notice. Bloomberg accepts no responsibility for any liability arising
from use of this document or its contents. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed as an offering of
financial instruments, or as investment advice or recommendations by Bloomberg of an investment strategy or
whether or not to "buy," "sell" or "hold" an investment.
/ / / / MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, 2 APRIL 2013
35
THANKS!
ETHAN ZINDLER, [email protected]
TWITTERS: @ETHANALL
MARKETS
Renewable Energy
Carbon Markets
Energy Smart Technologies
Renewable Energy Certificates
Carbon Capture & Storage
Power
Water
Nuclear
SERVICES
Insight: research, analysis & forecasting
Subscription-based news, data
and analysis to support your
decisions in clean energy, power
and water and the carbon markets
Industry Intelligence: data & analytics
News & Briefing: daily, weekly & monthly
Applied Research: custom research & data mining
[email protected]
Knowledge Services: Summit, Leadership Forums, Executive Briefings &
workshops
////////////////////////////

similar documents