For Green Energy Investors, a Particularly Tough Ride

In a bad market, the stock prices of many alternative energy firms have been hit even harder

March 4, 2009 RSS Feed Print
Solar energy market chart

If there is a lesson to be learned from the precipitous fall in "green" stocks last year, it's this: Combining greed with good intentions can make for a poor investment strategy.

Once among the hottest names on Wall Street, makers of solar panels, wind turbines, and other environmentally friendly gear are in for a difficult year. In 2008, almost every stock in the green space fell harder than the rest of the market during an all-around terrible year for equities. While the S&P 500 index declined by more than a third, several popular green indexes fared worse, slumping between 60 percent and 70 percent. Now, as many of those stocks languish near record lows, alternative energy appears to have stalled. Nervous investors are waiting until money begins to flow from the government's $787 billion stimulus package. Even when the spigot opens, it's not clear that a new commitment to renewable energy will be enough to revive the fortunes of an entire industry.

Simply put, problems in the green space go beyond the ongoing recession and the credit crisis. An even bigger drag is overly sunny expectations for sales of wind turbines and solar panels. A bit of history: Earlier in the decade, a mix of generous subsidy plans and easy money sparked a miniboom, fueled by a flood of venture capital and a seemingly unquenchable demand for shares of a small number of publicly traded companies. Between 2004 and 2007, private-sector investments in solar jumped almost 20-fold. As money poured in, output soared—just as demand was about to be hit by a devastating one-two punch. First, subsidy rollbacks in key markets like Spain hurt. And then the credit crisis froze financing for new projects. Suppliers suddenly found themselves with too many solar panels. Proposed wind farms went begging for start-up funding.

Soon, Wall Street darlings like SunPower and SunTech were announcing job cuts. OptiSolar, a thin-film solar panel maker, slashed 300 jobs, or half of its staff, in January. VeraSun, an ethanol maker, filed for bankruptcy and is selling off several plants in the Midwest. Even wind's most visible backer, Texan oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens, has scaled back his plans to develop "America's wind corridor." At the same time, with oil prices dipping below $40 a barrel (more than $100 cheaper than last year's peak), the economics of all sorts of clean energy are far less attractive.

The industry's fortunes are likely to get worse before they get better, with 2009 shaping up as a "shakeout year." Ted Sullivan, an analyst at Lux Research, sees a stark demarcation, particularly among large, publicly traded solar companies facing a near collapse in demand. "You could have every solar company fail but the top 15 and still have a little too much supply," he says. The market, he says, is already picking winners. Valuations remain relatively high for just a few companies. Industry leaders First Solar, SunPower, and Energy Conversion Devices have so far managed to hold some of their value. But Wall Street is beginning to count some of the other players out. Many analysts expect less-well-capitalized firms without substantial technological advantages to fall by the wayside over the next few years.

"Ambitious goal." The brightest hope for an overall recovery in green energy remains an environmentally friendly president. The Obama administration's pledge to double clean-energy production over three years would have been scoffed at as conservative just a year ago, says Ethan Zindler, head of North American Research for New Energy Finance. "Now that's a pretty ambitious goal," he says. The massive stimulus could help, but the billions of dollars targeted for clean energy cannot offset all the losses. Analysts at Merrill Lynch say fleeing investment already renders last year's passage of a key solar-related tax credit "impotent."

The stimulus bill is designed in part to let project developers apply for grants directly from the federal government. That could prove a lifeline for replacing a vital source of funding destroyed by the credit crisis. Before the crunch, investors, often big banks, helped fund large chunks of solar or wind projects by purchasing tax credits from developers to offset their own tax bill. As profits disappeared, so have most of those so-called tax equity investors.

Already, the industry is feeling the difference. Mark Morelli, president and CEO of Energy Conversion Devices, says, "Last year, everything was getting financed. Every project you could put on the market was snapped up immediately. Clearly, things are much more selective." For now, government help may very well allow the green energy industry to survive. For it to thrive, however, both financing and demand will have to recover.

Tags:
stocks,
energy,
environment,
investing

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Kris Childress,

Quite right on all points, at least we can hope so. But all energy sources are substitutes at some price level. For example, I use electric heatpumps for heating rather than oil or gas. And the French have a great train system powered by nuclear energy, whereas the Germans have a great train system powered by a variety of electric sources, including wind.

I just depends on how you want to spend your money. We have been spending it the wrong way.

James Fox of PA 8:07AM March 06, 2009

While I agree with James Fox's analysis of US energy failures over the last 30 years. (For years, I advocated an escalating gasoline tax to provide incentives to move to alternatve, more efficient transport, and was roundly boo'ed) I think that the situation has changed for the following reasons (and others):

1) "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I don't think that Americans, as a whole, will be as naive going forward.

2) The twin spectres of climate change and geopolitical peak oil are changing the debate on energy in general and oil in particular. Witness the rhetoric and action from the new administration in Washington.

3) This is now a *global* problem with many nations weighing in and pressuring for fundamental change. Even the Middle Eastern "petro states" are quietly funding renewable research and commercialization.

4) Business and consumers are recognizing the huge bottom-line and PR value of reducing energy use.

It is important to note that the solar/wind renewables focus mainly impacts electricity and will not, in the current regime, offset much gasoline/diesel (i.e., petroleum) consumption. Renewables - with the exception of biofuels - will substantially reduce gasoline/diesel only when significant numbers of the automobiles are powered by electricity - probably 10-15 years at the earliest. This confusion of energies ("electrons versus liquids" as one pundit puts it) has muddied debate on energy issues for years.

Kris Childress 11:18PM March 05, 2009

How quickly we forget. The Saudis have a saying that the best energy pricing strategy is $100/barrel for several years, followed by $40/barrel for one year. They know perfectly well that the U.S. will shelve its energy-independence programs instantly, leaving us vulnerable to the next spike in prices. In the meantime, the right-wingers will work hard to convince us that we need to spend another $1T in defending the Middle East (actually defending the Saudi royal family), even though most of their oil now goes to China. You would think that the U.S. would wise up. But it didn't happen after the first oil embargo in 1973, and the U.S. has not learned much since.

James Fox of PA 10:41PM March 05, 2009

U.S. News Rankings & Research

U.S. News delivers quality analysis and clear objective rankings to help you make informed financial decisions.

advertisement

Follow U.S. News Money

Latest Video

advertisement