Thanks to new technologies and incentives, more U.S. companies now see generating their own electricity and other alternative energy projects as viable options.

But as c-suite executives mull these exciting possibilities, they should be sure their checklists of potential pros and cons fully reflect the realities of today’s energy markets, write two members of LeClairRyan’s Energy Industry Team in the latest issue of Executive Counsel.

In “Weighing the Pro & Cons of Power Co-Generation,” published in the magazine’s Dec. 2011/Jan. 2012 issue, Roy M. Palk, a 40-year veteran of the energy business and the firm’s senior energy industry advisor, and Samuel R. Brumberg, a veteran associate in LeClairRyan’s Glen Allen, Va., office, provide a clear-eyed look at the types of questions c-suite executives should ask as they explore more diverse sources of energy supply.

Companies now stand to gain additional freedoms, reap new revenues and enjoy substantial cost savings by embarking on the likes of distributed generation or large cogeneration projects. Doing so, however, requires an informed and deliberate strategy, even in cases where power generation is not part and parcel of the company’s core business. These issues of cost and risk are not just “bottom line” questions—likely they are lawyers’ questions, too, the attorneys note.

“Ideally, the team studying and potentially executing the project should include members who can answer questions that require specific expertise—on technology, markets, legal considerations and more,” write Brumberg and Palk. “All of these considerations can have a major bearing, not only on the ease or difficulty of securing financing for the project, but also on its overall risk profile.”

Indeed, without proper mitigation of inherent risks, lenders may not be keen on pumping money into unknown or unproven technologies, they advise. Nor are they enthusiastic about backing firms that lack experience in operating, maintaining or repairing alternative energy equipment. “A well rounded team of experts, and proper maintenance and warranty contracts, can help make sure the project’s financial modeling is informed and realistic,” they explain.

Renewable energy projects also tend to come with unique risks. “Imagine a company that bought a fuel cell for $250,000. From the perspective of the c-suite, the fuel cell is essentially a black box: It can be turned off or on, but the company cannot break it open to conduct routine repairs or maintenance,” write Palk and Brumberg.

“This has important implications for the contract itself. Does the fuel cell come with a warranty? Does the deal include a service contract? If the fuel cell ends up being, essentially, a big paperweight sitting outside of the building, what kind of recourse does the company have?”

Likewise, the risk assessment for renewable projects must take operational concerns into account, including the potential power-replacement costs if the unit fails, where executives should go to buy that replacement power, and regulatory constraints, they note. The team should also take a close look at the potential liability, insurance and installation and maintenance risks.

Brumberg and Palk additionally discuss risks related to the deal itself, such as the tendency to cling to ill-advised transactions for the sake of perceived branding benefits. “Ensure that any particular deal rises or falls based on its business merits, even if it does happen to mesh perfectly with a high-priority corporate strategy,” they write.

Lastly, Brumberg and Palk discuss dynamics related to today’s energy incentives, from the possibility that they might change or expire to state-specific allowances for the likes of “net metering”–the ability to sell power back to the grid. “Oftentimes, executives forget about the potential role of tax credits or the sale of renewable energy certificates in offsetting some of the capital expense associated with renewable projects,” they note.

“Depending on the local utility’s tariff rate, the company could not only save on its energy costs, it might also receive credits for staying off the grid for certain periods of time and using its own supplemental power. Various renewable energy credits are sometimes available for specific types of technologies as well.”

The article CEOs Should Weigh Risks of Alternative Energy Plans appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The abundance of shale gas resources may spark a U.S. manufacturing renaissance with economic benefits that include cost savings, greater investments to expand U.S. manufacturing facilities and increased levels of employment, according to a new report released December 14 by PwC titled, Shale Gas: A renaissance in US manufacturing? .

To achieve these results, however, PwC says that manufacturers must help manage the environmental, regulatory and tax concerns created by shale gas resources.

PwC expects an estimated $11.6 billion in cost savings by 2025 by combining recent natural gas consumption levels with potential natural gas prices under high shale recovery scenarios. Additionally, manufacturing employment could increase by approximately one million workers by 2025 in high shale recovery scenarios.

“An underappreciated part of the shale gas story is the substantial cost benefits that could become available to manufacturers based upon estimates of future natural gas prices as more shale gas is recovered,” said Bob McCutcheon, U.S. industrial products leader, PwC .

He continued, “In fact, the number of U.S. chemicals, metals and industrial manufacturing companies that disclosed shale gas potential and its impact so far in 2011 easily surpassed that of the last three years combined, indicating this is of growing importance in the outlook of U.S. manufacturers.

The significant uptick in shale gas commentary among the manufacturing community reflects the positive influence that shale gas is having from investment, operational and demand standpoints.”

Resulting from production of a stable supply of shale gas, manufacturing industries are able to lower feedstock and energy costs, and are looking to shale gas as a source of growth for their own products. For example, companies that sell goods such as metal tubular products, drilling and power generation equipment should experience a near-term growth in sales as domestic natural gas production rates move higher.

“Manufacturers and communities throughout the country are beginning to see and recognize the real economic benefits of shale gas,” said National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO Jay Timmons. “Shale gas development is a bright spot in our economy and it has the potential to boost manufacturing employment by one million jobs, which are badly needed.”

Shale gas has already contributed to greater manufacturing investments in the U.S., particularly with chemical companies seeking cost advantages by using cheaper ethane, a natural gas liquid derived from shale gas, differentiating themselves from foreign competitors who rely more on oil-based naphtha.

Manufacturers outside the chemical industry have also announced expansion plans due to incremental energy resources, and plan on making investments in the U.S. based upon the opportunity to sell equipment for shale gas plays, according to PwC.

The relatively inexpensive and stable long-term source of natural gas is helping manufacturing companies expand and open more facilities in the U.S., presenting an opportunity to create more jobs in the industry.

“Lower natural gas prices resulting from incremental shale gas production have the potential to add over one million manufacturing jobs in the U.S. by 2025. The expectation of the new shale gas resource providing a significant long-term boost to move the U.S. manufacturing employment needle shines a light across the nation amid the current labor market woes,” added McCutcheon.

Environmental and regulatory concerns of shale gas resources include the rapid decline in production rates for shale as compared to conventional gas, which requires drilling more new wells to offset decline in existing wells. Also, there is a need to build out infrastructure in regions that haven’t already produced significant amounts of natural gas.

“The economic benefits to U.S. manufacturers can’t happen if shale gas is not extracted in a profitable and safe manner. To achieve these significant outcomes, manufacturing companies must effectively communicate the value that shale gas can create for U.S. workers and communities,” concluded McCutcheon.

The article Shale Gas Could Revive US Manifacturing appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.