About three years ago, Connecticut changed its approach to promoting renewable energy: It decided to act more like a bank than like a state government. Gone were many of the subsidies that had propped up the regional clean-energy market for years. In their place, Connecticut officials started to lend money to fund commercially viable green projects. The goal was to combine public financing with private loans from community banks and other financial institutions to help create a renewable-energy marketplace.
(Andy Potts)This marks a shift in the argument for clean energy from a moral to a capitalist one. “Connecticut is trying to demonstrate that clean energy is an arena where money can be made,” says Daniel Esty, the former commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a professor at Yale Law School. “It’s not just a story about clean energy. It’s a story about cheaper, cleaner energy, and that has much broader appeal.”
Among the enterprises that the green bank has funded thus far is a 15-megawatt fuel-cell project in the aging industrial city of Bridgeport, built on the site of an old brownfield. The bank pumped roughly $6 million of state money into the $67 million endeavor; over the course of the 12-year-loan, it expects to earn almost $1.5 million in interest.
Meanwhile, other states are following suit. New York started its own green bank in December 2013 and is now evaluating various proposals to fund. Officials in California, Hawaii, and New Jersey have plans to create entities similar to green banks.
In 2012, Reed Hundt—a former Clinton administration official and onetime Obama adviser—founded the Coalition for Green Capital, a D.C.-based nonprofit that offers free consulting services for states interested in learning more about the green-bank phenomenon. Hundt believes the best path for renewable-energy innovation and financing lies outside the paralysis of Washington. “Energy markets are largely regional and very localized,” he says. “Most energy is made and consumed within a radius of a few hundred miles, so it makes sense to have regional and local solutions.”
Hundt and other proponents argue that if green banks can help to fund projects that ultimately create a competitive marketplace and bring down the cost, then consumers will easily move to cleaner forms of energy. “The lesson is that if you ask consumers to pay for all of the switch themselves, then they revolt,” Hundt says. “If you say to them, ‘You’ll have cleaner and cheaper energy,’ then they’ll switch.”
This approach is not just a blue-state trend. Increasingly, global corporations (even ones not typically thought of as progressive or particularly green) have started to pay attention to the risks and costs associated with climate change. Many of them assume that at some point, they will be heavily regulated in their ability to use traditional energy, and so they are looking for ways to invest in clean energy as a strategic, long-term plan.
The newish market for green bonds—which allow people to borrow money, provided it goes toward funding environmentally friendly and sustainable projects—is a symptom of this trend. In 2013, the green bond market stood at $11 billion; Standard & Poor’s estimates it could increase to $40 billion or $50 billion in 2014. And global investors took note this year when the French power company GDF Suez issued a $3.4 billion green bond, one of the largest bonds of this type to date. Of course, the green bond market is still tiny compared with the overall global bond market of roughly $90 trillion, but it shows the strong growth of an entirely new type of asset class built around acknowledging and tackling climate-change solutions.
The takeaway from all of this green-energy financing? Washington may be stuck arguing over the very existence of climate change, but plenty of other actors—states, local governments, and global financial markets, which are not typically familiar bedfellows—are forging ahead.
What We're Following See More »
Trump, in a statement: “Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. ... I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.”
"It's about time for unity," said UAW President Dennis Williams. "We're endorsing Hillary Clinton. She's gotten 3 million more votes than Bernie, a million more votes than Donald Trump. She's our nominee." He called Sanders "a great friend of the UAW" while saying Trump "does not support the economic security of UAW families." Some 28 percent of UAW members indicated their support for Trump in an internal survey.
"Donald Trump on Thursday reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, completing an unlikely rise that has upended the political landscape and sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign. Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party's unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention."
"Clinton and Bernie Sanders "are now devoting additional money to television advertising. A day after Sanders announced a new ad buy of less than $2 million in the state, Clinton announced her own television campaign. Ads featuring actor Morgan Freeman as well as labor leader and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta will air beginning on Fridayin Fresno, Sacramento, and Los Angeles media markets. Some ads will also target Latino voters and Asian American voters. The total value of the buy is about six figures according to the Clinton campaign." Meanwhile, a new poll shows Sanders within the margin of error, trailing Clinton 44%-46%.