Presentation on theme: "Www.HydroGenLLC.netHYDG-CSU Fuel Cell Forum-12 March 2007 Considerations on the purpose, feasibility, and design of incentives for Alternative Energy adoption."— Presentation transcript:
Fuel Cell Forum-12 March 2007 Considerations on the purpose, feasibility, and design of incentives for Alternative Energy adoption in Ohio Joshua Tosteson President, HydroGen Corporation
Fuel Cell Forum-12 March 2007 Safe Harbor Statement Except for historical information contained herein, the statements in this release are forward-looking and made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of Forward-looking statements are inherently unreliable and actual results may differ materially. Examples of forward-looking statements in this presentation include statements regarding HydroGen's anticipated economically competitive fuel cell systems. Factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements include such factors as fluctuations in demand for HydroGen's products, HydroGen's ability to maintain strategic business relationships, the impact of competitive products and pricing, growth in targeted markets, the adequacy of HydroGen's liquidity and financial strength to support its growth, and other information that may be detailed from time to time in HydroGen’s filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. HydroGen Corp. undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
Fuel Cell Forum-12 March 2007 Contents of presentation *Why “alternative energy” to meet future demands for Ohio’s energy? *Cost and feasibility considerations – would it pay? *A look at initiatives in other states *Considerations for Ohio
Fuel Cell Forum-12 March 2007 Anticipated peak load growth - Ohio ~10,000MW growth over 20 years – 500MW per year!
Fuel Cell Forum-12 March 2007 “Alternative energy can’t get us there” *Conventional arguments »Energy efficiency Personal discount rate too high »Demand response What’s that? »Renewable + Alternative Expensive Immature Too small - Can’t be scaled Insufficient production capacity
Fuel Cell Forum-12 March 2007 Or can they…? A view from Texas Source: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
Fuel Cell Forum-12 March 2007 Direct benefits projected to exceed costs significantly – NO EXTERNALITIES
Fuel Cell Forum-12 March 2007 Other state initiatives *California »Incentives Self Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) Solar Initiative - $2 billion program, $16/year cost to residential ratepayers Numerous others »Regulation AB 32 – Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 *Connecticut »RPS – for which fuel cells qualify as Class 1 ($0.05/kWh RECs) »CT Clean Energy Fund: Project 100, on-site renewable DG program, etc. over $100MM allocated to date »Proposed $100MM fund for fuel cell procurement – in evaluation by legislature *Pennsylvania »Energy Independence Strategy and Fund $100MM for investment in clean energy production/manufacturing $500MM for clean energy projects Capitalized by $850MM bond issue securitized by $0.0005/kWh system benefits charge -- $0.43/month for residential ratepayer, $3/mo for commercial, $74/mo for industrial (capped at $10,000)
Fuel Cell Forum-12 March 2007 CA Self-Generation Incentive Program
Fuel Cell Forum-12 March 2007 Considerations for Ohio *Direct public benefits of EE, DR, and CHP/on-site alternative energy can significantly exceed costs *Indirect benefits make clear that incentive measures – financed voluntarily by ratepayers – generate huge social benefits *The key for Ohio: Capture maximum job growth potential by coupling incentive programs with preference for locally manufactured product »Global market drivers for renewable / alternative energy technology are massive. The world’s 5 th largest economy has unilaterally committed to stabilizing GHGs at 1990 levels… will Ohio become a supplier to this market, or watch it pass by? *The sky is not falling: This is technically and economically feasible. »How many new jobs will be created meeting growth demands with conventional power gen vs. “home grown” new technologies with worldwide application?