article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (3) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
1 rating - Sign-in to rate this article
November 19, 2009

Recent IPO Activity Puts Wind Back into Renewable Energy Sails

Going public sometimes is the only choice.
by Greg Pfahl, Hein & Associates LLP

The winds are turning favorable for renewable energy companies to seek financing from the public markets and although going public isn't for everyone, it's hard to ignore the capital that is becoming available.

For whatever reason — anticipated turnaround in the economy, loads of cash sitting on the sidelines, endowment funds looking to make up for the losses of 2008 and even the potential for higher energy prices — money is starting to pour into the market in general, and renewable energy companies in particular. It’s not a windfall of money yet, but recent financings have piqued interest in alternatives.

In September, A123 Systems Inc., a Watertown, Mass. manufacturer of electric car batteries that is not profitable, filed papers to raise $175 million in an initial public offering. The shares were bid heavily the first day of trading and the company ended up with $380 million as shares went for $13.50 the first day and then nearly doubled in price the next day.

It was the biggest IPO in the clean-tech industry since 2006 and has the whole industry excited over who will be next to take public investor cash. While there are some people who see this industry as a fad or bubble like technology and telecom, A123’s IPO lends credibility to the argument that renewable energy technology is viable and there are many people willing to put money into the sector.

The Decision To Go Public

Ideally you’d like to tap the public markets with solid multi-million dollar revenues, great technology, big back orders and a terrific, experienced management team but unfortunately, that’s not always the case for companies going public, especially in stronger markets.

A123 Systems had recently lost the battery contract for the Chevy Volt hybrid, although it does have agreements in place to supply batteries for use in other major automobile makers’ vehicles.  The success of its recent offering can be partially attributed to two factors, 1) projected future demand related to electric vehicles, and 2) the recent awarding of significant government incentives.

If your company has great technology, you can’t stick your head in the sand regarding financing. One of the drivers right now is there just aren’t a lot of options. Venture capital funding is at a 15-year low. Angel or other early stage financing doesn’t provide much money. Private equity is yet to be seen in this market, except for more-established companies and component suppliers and a bank is not going to finance many of these companies. Most green companies don’t fit the bank model. There’s little to no revenue stream and if there are hard assets, they’re just too early stage and too risky for banks.

We may reach a point where traditional bank financing is a viable alternative. The Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program is active. Most government funding sources will require some level of matching investments, which may lead to another incentive to look to the public markets. 

In looking at the traditional life cycle of a venture-capital-backed company, there have been two traditional exit plans for venture capitalists, a public offering or a merger or acquisition of the company. Despite the fact that the M&A option is worse on the economy, due to lost jobs and other factors, and the fact that greater value is generally obtained through a public offering, over the past ten years, the trend for venture-backed exit plans has overwhelmingly gone towards mergers and acquisition.

According to the National Venture Capital Association, the top three barriers to companies going public are:

•           Compliance requirements (Sarbanes-Oxley, audit, governance)

•           Increased volatility in public markets

•           M&A as a better alternative (faster and more liquid)

How much of these factors are merely a paradigm versus reality is the source of another debate, but these factors should be considered in determining the direction of your company.

I’m not going to tell you that going public is the way to go or that the recent activity in the public markets is a sign that the markets are recovered. It is an option based on a conversation with the board and your investment bankers. There are high costs associated with public companies and while and IPO shouldn’t be your last option,  in a lot of cases, it is the best and potentially only option.

Greg Pfahl, CPA, is a senior audit manager in the Denver office of Hein & Associates LLP, a full-service public accounting and advisory firm with additional offices in Houston, Dallas and Southern California. He also serves as a local leader for the renewable energy practice area. Pfahl can be reached at gpfahl@heincpa.com or 303.298.9600.

Image Gallery (1)
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

Reader Comments (3)
 
No image available
Anonymous
November 20, 2009
DOES MASSACHUSETTS FACE CLASS ACTION LAW SUITS ?????

This week Attorney General Martha Coakley was quoted in the news: "We are running out of time to look at what we need to do for alternative energies." The article went on about Cape Wind and wind turbines as if commercial wind turbines are the only renewable energy resource in the world .Who made the decision to bypass other sources of renewable energy such as photovoltaic ,geothermal or heat exchangers ?

We have wasted eight years in Massachusetts on the permitting process for 130 commercial wind turbines .Eight years of wishful thinking; bogus projections; no accounting restraints, or transparency; no meaningful future costs savings ; and regulatory agencies changing rules allowing a few to make a great deal of money at everyone else's expense while providing no meaningful service.

It will take twenty-five hundred 450-foot wind turbines, spread over five hundred miles, to mathematically offset a large coal plant like the Brayton Point coal plant in Fall River . This wind business is absurd. In order reach these objectives the executive branch of government wants the legislature to give the Energy Facilities Siting Board through the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act the right to place thousands of wind turbines anywhere in your town regardless of by-laws or zoning . Masachusetts will only be known for buying trophies while no coal plants will be shuttered and little, if any, carbon emissions will be reduced as a result of this project—or thousands of them.

There are people in the executive branch of government that will say or do anything to get renewable energy in Massachusetts .

Would you risk an investment in Massachusetts ? The residents of Massachusetts are well aware of the Evergreen Solar loss of state funds .
Keyword : Gov Patrick Evergreen Solar Failure
Comment 1 of 3
No image available
November 20, 2009
Electric cars are not renewable energy, especially if fueled by coal plants. Renewable energy, other than windpower, is dead and windpower is too unreliable to do anything.
Comment 2 of 3
No image available
Anonymous
November 20, 2009
Greg Pfahl , When you speak about Masachusetts you need to understand why the state has introduced the Massachusetts Wind Energy Siting Reform Act and how the governor of the state has stumbled and lost big on renewable energy . In Massachusetts renewable energy is only refered to as wind turbines period. Every town in Massachusetts lacks a renewable energy committee but does have a wind power committee. How did that happen?

Back in early 2002-2003 the Masssachusetts Technologhy Colaborative started wind studies using metorological towers this is a semi quasi state agency . Studies were done and presented to various towns on the south eastern towns such as Fairhaven Dartmouth and Fairhaven . The MTC provided renewable energy funds for the installation of residential wind turbines . A former state rep Mark Howland from Bristol County started a wind turbine business in which 160 residents lost money because he claimed the MTC studies were done poorly . The Attorney General cut a deal with him where he moved from Freetown Ma to Hawaii and never paid back a nickle .

The towns of the south coast took wind studies done by the MTC and tried to install commercial wind turbines in residents backyards . The result was the residents hired their own expert scientist and attorneys to protect their residential property rights . That ended the installation of commercial wind turbines in SE Mass .

Now in the past few years Gov. Patrick upset his commercial land based wind turbine goal is not being met because there are too many houses on the water along the coast with not enough space for setbacks of at least 1320 feet . The governor has introduced the proposed Wind Energy Siting Reform Act . This act takes away these residents residential property rights and allows the EFSB ,Energy Facilities Siting Board to place the turbines .A resident could under this act appeal to the Supreme Court but who could afford this ?
Gov Patrick wants to take us back to the Magna Carta
Comment 3 of 3
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
ReflecTech, Inc. ABS Energy Research San Luis Valley Energy Fair Ferraz Shawmut Solar Living Institute Marketforce
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo