Prime Minister Andrew Holness (right) greets Lascelles Chin, founder and executive chairman LASCO Affiliates Companies, at the LASCO Releaf Environmental Awareness Programme Awards Ceremony at The Jamaica Pegasus hotel, in New Kingston on Wednesday.

Prime Minister Andrew Holness says the Government will embark on a programme aimed at transforming the collection and management of garbage before the end of the year.

Prime Minister Holness says work is far advanced in examining options for waste-to-energy solutions.

He says the process is being handled by an enterprise team.

Prime Minister Holness was speaking at the LASCO Releaf Environmental Awareness Programme (REAP) Awards Ceremony yesterday in Kingston.

REAP is geared towards helping children become environmentally conscious through fun competition.

The programme incorporates some 120 primary and preparatory schools this year.

Holness says for Jamaica to experience sustainable growth, the practice of protecting the environment for future generations must be embedded in the mindset of children.

He states that the LASCO REAP initiative will add to the national effort in managing waste disposal and protecting the environment.

Gleaner

screen-shot-2016-11-19-at-13-30-04

On Nov. 4, Walmart announced an aggressive plan to increase its investments in renewable energy, pledging to power half its operations from wind, solar, and other renewables by 2025 and to cut the carbon footprint of its operations by 18 percent over the same period. Ten days later, Microsoft made its largest wind-power purchase agreement ever, with a deal to buy 237 megawatts of electricity from turbines in Kansas and Wyoming to run data centers in Cheyenne.

In between those announcements, Donald Trump was elected president, in part by calling climate change a hoax and vowing to gut most of Obama’s clean-energy policies and revive coal mining. If the actions of Walmart and Microsoft are any indication, a Trump administration will do little to dissuade companies from continuing to invest in renewables. “I think fears of a negative impact of Trump on renewable energy are really overblown,” says Thomas Emmons, a partner at Pegasus Capital Advisors, a private asset management firm focused on sustainable and alternative investments.

One reason is timing. The biggest economic incentives for clean energy are federal tax credits for solar and wind projects. Both were set to expire at the end of last year, prompting a surge in investments as companies raced to get in under the deadline. In December, Congress unexpectedly extended both credits (for solar until 2021 and for wind until 2019) as part of a deal to lift the 40-year-old ban on U.S. oil exports. It’s not clear that Trump will try to persuade Congress to repeal the extensions. Wind power is especially popular across the Midwest, a Republican stronghold; in many cases it’s become cheaper than other sources of grid power.

screen-shot-2016-11-19-at-13-14-26

 

Sixty percent of Fortune 100 companies have renewable-electricity or climate change policies, and 81 companies globally have committed to get 100 percent of their energy from renewable sources, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Companies tend to invest in renewable energy in one of three ways: sourcing clean power from wind and solar projects through long-term agreements; purchasing a stake in green power projects; or using renewable-energy credits to offset the dirtier power they consume.

Since 2008, U.S. companies have signed agreements to purchase more than $10 billion worth of wind and solar power— about 10Gw, enough to run almost 2 million U.S. households for a year. BNEF expects that pace to increase over the next decade, with at least 50 U.S. companies signing long-term agreements to buy an additional 22Gw of clean energy. “A Trump presidency does not lower our expectations for the growth of the corporate renewable-energy market,” says Nathan Serota, a clean-energy analyst at BNEF. “If anything, a less ambitious stance on renewables at the federal level could encourage corporations to pick up the slack even further.” With the government providing less support, more businesses may decide the best way to ensure clean-power projects get built is to sign long-term purchase agreements. That way, renewable developers have a guaranteed customer, ensuring they can finance new projects.

These agreements are emerging as the preferred way to invest in clean energy. Locking in electricity prices for up to 15 years, the deals let companies hedge exposure to volatile natural gas and coal prices, which have historically determined wholesale power prices in the U.S. As wind and solar get cheaper, companies are able to lock in renewable power for less than the average wholesale power price, says Swami Venkataraman, senior vice president at Moody’s Investors Service.

“Companies are investing in sustainability, not because they’re making a political statement, but because they have a fiduciary duty to protect shareholders and make money,” says Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, a nonprofit sustainability advocate. Even if Trump rolls back Obama’s commitment to the Paris climate accord and his signature clean-energy initiative, the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which directs states to lower carbon emissions from power plants, it’s unlikely to influence investment decisions. “Renewable developers weren’t building a business model premised on the CPP,” Serota says.

On Nov. 16, 300 U.S. businesses, including General Mills, EBay, and Intel, called on Trump to support the Paris accord. “The sustainable investing trend has global momentum and big players such as Goldman Sachs and Bill Gates,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, executive director for energy and sustainability at the University of California at Davis, in an e-mail. “Corporate America has lots of millennial customers, and they want to buy from companies with sustainable supply chains and a commitment to renewable energy. I don’t see that changing.”

Bloomberg

Elon Musk’s Clean Energy Vision Includes a Strong Role for Utilities

In this August 2016 photo, New Fortress Energy (NFE) hosts a tour of its Montego Bay terminal. Walking the port are (from left) Brendan McElmurray of NFE, Minister without Portfolio in the Ministry of Economic Growth and Job Creation Dr Horace Chang, Attorney General and Member of Parliament for West Central St James, Marlene Malahoo Forte, Ed Marsh of the Port Authority of Jamaica, Johnathan Klion of NFE, and chairman of the Montego Bay Free Zone, Mark Hart.

The plan to build and operate a liquefied natural gas marine terminal and pipeline by American company New Fortress Energy (NFE) will place the facility five kilometres offshore within the Portland Bight area or close to the Goat Islands, according to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) released this month.

New Fortress will execute the marine terminal and pipeline project through affiliate NFE South Holdings Limited. A public consultation on the project is set for September 28 in Old Harbour.

The environmental report done by CL Environmental Consultants Limited on behalf of New Fortress also estimates that the project will provide nearly US$1 billion worth of value over its lifetime and create about 300 direct jobs in the process. Indirect jobs are estimated at 200 to 600.

“Based on this analysis, the final net present value of the project, after application of social cost benefit analysis, turns out to be US$953.4 million. Hence, the project should be undertaken as it has multiple social benefits which are reflected in the final positive NPV of the project,” the report stated.

In arriving at that final figure, the EIA considered the financial profitability measured at market prices; the net benefit of the project measured in terms of economic prices; then adjusted for the impact of the project on savings and investment, income distribution, the impact of the project on merit goods and demerit goods, and the environmental impact.

LNG plan

The project forms part of the wider plan to bring LNG to the national grid. The marine terminal will feed gas to the new 190MW plant that Jamaica Public Service Company is developing at Old Harbour. New Fortress is also supplying gas to JPS’ Bogue plant from a terminal developed in Montego Bay.

The marine terminal EIA report reasoned that consumers, but in particular the manufacturing sector, would benefit from the lower cost of electricity and the establishment of a more reliable power supply.

“This will lead to more possibility of manufacturing that will lead to creation of employment opportunities for unskilled and skilled workers. This is hard to quantify and hence the number are not adjusted for it. Which means that the social benefit stayed below is a lower bound,” the report stated.

The NFE project involves constructing a marine terminal comprising of a vessel berth and offshore offloading and regasification platform.

“The location will be up for approval by the Port Authority of Jamaica in the Portland Bight area of Jamaica,” said the environmental report.

It adds that the facility will accommodate a floating storage unit or FSU vessel for LNG storage and a LNG carrier delivering gas to the FSU. The platform would contain equipment to regasify LNG as well as related process and safety equipment.

“The liquid gas from the FSU would be carefully regasified and the gas would then be released into an undersea pipeline which will be mostly directionally drilled in basically a straight line from the platform to the vicinity of the JPS plant,” stated the EIA, which adds that the pipeline, at some five kilometres in length, would connect to the JPS gas power plant on shore.

“In addition, the project will construct a new, or refurbish an existing, automotive diesel oil line from storage tanks to the renovated power plant in order to enhance the reliability of the facility in case of LNG delivery interruptions.”

The marine terminal will be constructed offshore in the western side of Portland Bight, at a distance about 200 metres from the shipping channel to Port Esquivel in approximately 14 metre of water depth. “This location offers sufficient depth to berth the FSU and the LNG carrier vessels without the need for dredging, yet has sufficient protection from storm wave impacts as a result of the shape of the Bight,” stated the report.

Energy Policy

NFE is expected to supply JPS as well as potential future industrial users with natural gas. The main objective is to provide the Jamaica Public Service Company’s Old Harbour Plant with a cleaner and more cost-effective fuel in furtherance of the goals of the National Energy Policy.

NFE will conduct the project through its NFE South Holding and with the sponsorship of Fortress Investment Group, a global asset management firm with approximately US$70.64 billion of assets under management and an experienced investor in transportation, infrastructure and energy assets around the world, the environmental report said.

The annual fuel savings from the project is projected at US$74.2 million which represents a 38 per cent reduction in cost. The report adds that, assuming a 75 per cent pass-through to the consumer and a 25 per cent mixed of the generating capacity of the JPS, it will result in a seven per cent reduction is consumer prices. This figure matches the fuel savings published in a separate EIA report on the JPS Old Harbour plant upgrade released in April, as the projects are complementary.

JPS, which has a licence from the Jamaican Government to operate the national electricity grid, is constructing the 190MW plant adjacent to its existing Old Harbour facility in St Catherine, which has the capacity to generate 220MW of power. The current plant will be dismantled once the new one is commissioned.

Gleaner

Consulting engineer Howard Chin is making the case for the Alpart plant, which was recently acquired by Chinese firm Jiuquan Iron and Steel Company Ltd (JISCO), to be operated entirely using renewable energy.

JISCO has announced plans to invest US$2 billion to expand the plant which will see the addition of an aluminium smelter powered by a coal-fired plant.

Chin has, however, argued that the heat that would be generated from the coal-fired plant could be detrimental to aquatic, plant and animal life in and around the Black River area, and as such, renewable-energy sources should be considered.

“Cooling the power plant and running the bauxite refinery requires a lot of water. How hot would the Black River become downstream of Alpart? Hot enough to kill animal life? Certainly, NEPA (National Environment and Planning Agency) is not answering these questions which have to be answered. Nor do they have the technical capability to do so,” Chin said in an emailed response to The Gleaner.

STORAGE POWER PLANT

In recognition of the problem of storage capacity associated with renewables, Chin explained that a large pumped hydroelectric storage power plant could be used to power the alumina plant in the first instance.

“It could be done using a large renewable energy system backed up by a pumped storage system,” he said.

Pumped hydroelectric storage facilities store energy in the form of water in an upper reservoir, pumped from another reservoir at a lower elevation. During periods of high electricity demand, power is generated by releasing the stored water through turbines in the same manner as a conventional hydropower station. During periods of low demand, the upper reservoir is recharged by using lower-cost electricity from the grid to pump the water back to the upper reservoir.

Turning his attention to the Bayer Process, which would be used to produce aluminium should the Chinese go ahead with plans to build a smelter at Alpart, Chin observed that the heat given off could be transferred to the alumina refinery, which requires it in large quantities. According to the former Jamaica Institution of Engineers president, the smelter could also be powered by renewable energy.

“The alumina refinery needs a lot of heat. The aluminium smelter needs electricity and ends up giving off a lot of heat. Frankly, it might be possible to run the combined alumina and aluminium refining plant on a mostly very large renewable-energy system and a very large pumped storage system, and moving the heat from where it is produced to where it is needed,” he said.

Gleaner

JMMB Group Limited will spend US$420,000 ($53 million) on a solar energy system to power various offices across Jamaica this year.

The project forms part of a wider move by JMMB to reduce its carbon footprint.

“We plan to implement this on a location-by-location basis, with the first implementation taking place at one of our locations in Kingston, in the coming months. The cost is as stated, US$420,000,” the financial conglomerate told the Financial Gleaner.

JMMB estimates the project payback period will span just about five years based on expected energy savings.

The solar plant will generate up to 293,935 kilowatts, hours of electricity per year with the use of clean renewable energy.

“The system is expected to save the company US$90,000 annually, and reduce oil energy dependency by 34 per cent,” JMMB said in its newly released annual report for year ending March 2016.

Roughly three years ago, JMMB embarked on a company-wide initiative coined ‘Go Green’, with one of the primary objectives to change the group’s energy practices in a way that was more environmentally friendly and cost-efficient.

“This investment in a grid-tied solar system is just another step in the direction of making us even more efficient at how we use energy,” the company said via email.

A grid-tied solar system is one where the system itself is tied to the external electricity grid, as opposed to batteries.

“In other words, the system uses the sun to generate our electricity needs, with any unused electricity going back to the external grid, as opposed to being stored in batteries,” said JMMB.

JMMB expects the project to expand over time through exploration of other renewable resources to all JMMB Group locations, where possible.

JMMB Group made $2.3 billion profit off $10.42 billion of net revenue in FY2016.

Gleaner

United States (US) Vice-President Joe Biden has warned regional leaders that volatile oil prices will return. On this basis, he is urging them to use every opportunity to explore clean and alternative energy sources to bolster the prosperity of the Caribbean and Central America.

“This is a moment of opportunity to turn that progress into sustainable energy security that will endure when volatile oil prices return. And they will return,” Biden cautioned the heads of government during the US-Caribbean-Central American Energy Summit in Washington, DC, held earlier this month.

“The good news is that we’re at a nexus for transforming, with transformative opportunities here. Low oil prices mean more money this day is available for investment in new energy infrastructure,” said Biden.

“It’s equivalent to US$1 billion of stimulus just in the region [and] lower energy prices. Our abundance of natural gas provides a critical, clear transition fuel as we’re moving towards adopting renewable technologies.”

Biden said strengthening energy security was among the focus areas for himself and US President Barack Obama.

He noted that North America – Mexico, the US and Canada – is the epicentre of energy production in the world and pointed out that his country recently inaugurated a liquefied natural gas export terminal that has just sent its first cargo of gas to Latin America.

The US had also announced a deal to export natural gas to Jamaica during last year’s staging of the Summit.

“Here’s the truth. We want you to be energy secure so more people across this region can – your region can start businesses, connect to the Internet, generate opportunities, attract foreign investment, grow, grow. The more you grow, the more you prosper, the better off my country is. And it strengthens our security, as well as yours. And it opens up new opportunities for shared economic growth,” he said.

The Gleaner

Amid improving market sentiment and a weakening dollar, the World Bank is raising its 2016 forecast for crude oil prices to $41 per barrel from $37 per barrel in its latest April 2016 Commodity Markets Outlook, as an oversupply in markets is expected to recede.

The crude oil market rebounded from a low of $25 per barrel in mid-January to $40 per barrel in April following production disruptions in Iraq and Nigeria and a decline in non-Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production, mainly US shale.

A proposed production freeze by major producers failed to materialise at a meeting in mid-April, the World Bank said in a release.

“We expect slightly higher prices for energy commodities over the course of the year as markets rebalance after a period of oversupply,” said John Baffes, senior economist and lead author of the April 2016 Commodity Markets Outlook.

“Still, energy prices could fall further if OPEC increases production significantly and non-OPEC production does not fall as fast as expected,” he added.

All main commodity indices tracked by the World Bank are expected to decline in 2016 from the year before due to persistently elevated supplies, and in the case of industrial commodities – which include energy, metals, and agricultural raw materials – weak growth prospects in emerging market and developing economies.

Energy prices, including oil, natural gas and coal, are due to fall 19.3 per cent in 2016 from the previous year, a more gradual drop than the 24.7 per cent slide forecast in January. Non-energy commodities, such as metals and minerals, agriculture and fertilisers, are due to decline 5.1 per cent this year, a downward revision from the 3.7 per cent drop forecast in January, the World Bank said.

COST PROBLEM

According to a March 2016 International Monetary Fund (IMF) working paper titledCaribbean Energy: Macro-related Challenges, the single most important cost problem is the region’s heavy dependence on expensive, imported fossil fuels.

As in the United States, the cost of using petroleum to produce electricity is several times higher than alternative fuels, it said.

Excluding Haiti, biomass represents around 11 per cent of Caribbean energy supply, mostly concentrated in Jamaica, the paper said.

It noted that Jamaica is the second-largest electricity consumer, after Trinidad and Tobago, with aggregate consumption of three billion kilowatt hours in 2012. That represents 32 per cent of total regional electricity consumption, excluding Trinidad and Tobago.

The IMF estimated that the net benefit to Jamaica from a decline in oil prices as a per cent of gross domestic product was four per cent.

 

Gleaner

Ten companies submitted bids to build and operate renewable energy plants that run on solar, wind, water or waste, but two are in danger of being disqualified for non-payment of the bid security.

The Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) received the bids for supply of up to 37 megawatt of renewable power to the grid on Wednesday and will determine the preferred bidders by April.

The bids included a 24.7MW waste-to-energy plant at US$110 million, by Green Waste Energy Inc; a 37MW wind plant at US$61 million by Wigton WindFarm Limited; a 20MW solar plant, at US$33.15 million, by WRB Enterprise Inc and a separate bid to build a 37MW solar plant at US$72.15 million, which contains three options.

Great Valley bid US$50 million to develop a 26.4MW wind farm; Tamarind Energy proposed a 36.3MW at US$76.96 million; and BMR Jamaica bid US$18.27 million for a 9.9MW wind farm to expand the existing wind farm that it is developing in central Jamaica.

The other four bids were a 37MW solar project at US$48.7 million with an alternative option by Eight Rivers Energy Company Limited; a 2MW hydropower project, at US$8.9 million, by Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica; a 37MW solar plant at US$77.14 million by Jamaica Energy Partners; and a 30MW biothermal energy plant, at US$93.8 million by Bio Energy Resources Limited.

“We are happy with the process. It was done in an orderly and professional manner,” said Angella Rainford of Eight Rivers Energy Company following the bid openings held at the OUR.

“The returns are attractive, but it’s also the right fit for the country as it mitigates against the reliance on oil,” said Rainford.

Eight Rivers took no chances and submitted a US$700,000 bid security.

Two of the 10 bidders – Green Waste Energy and Bio Energy Resources – did not put up the required security, OUR legal Chenee Rily disclosed at the bid opening.

The OUR required each bidder to submit security equivalent to one per cent of the project cost.

“The only two bids with firm capacity failed to offer a bid security it’s unfortunate,” said Cecil Gordon, the director of generation at Jamaica Energy Partners, in discussion with the Financial Gleaner at the OUR event. “Waste-to-energy gives a constant output so it’s firm capacity.”

Gordon explained that wind solar and hydro can fluctuate depending on external factors, including weather. He also indicated that waste-to-energy projects are more expensive to operate – “which means a lower return,” he added.

OUR said on Thursday that the decision on whether to disqualify the two waste-to-energy bids would be considered by the bid review committee when it convenes.

Last July, the OUR issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) from local and international interests to supply up to 37MW of electricity generation from renewable energy resources on a build, own and operate basis. Wednesday was the deadline for the receipt of bid documents.

This latest project is to complete an RFP process started in 2012 to identify interested entities to submit proposals for the supply of one or more plants of varying configurations greater than 100kW and up to 115MW of renewable energy. At that time, 78MW was identified from three successful bidders.

The Gleaner

Gov’t oil hedge underwater

In June 2015, the Government of Jamaica booked a hedge transaction to buy six million barrels of oil for delivery 15 months later at a strike price of US$66.74.

The mechanism used in this kind of transaction is called a ‘call option’, which gives the purchaser of the option the right, but not the obligation, to purchase the asset at a specified price the ‘strike price’ within a specified time. A month later, it bought another 15-month futures contract for two million barrels of oil and the average strike price of the two contacts is US$66.53.

We paid about $30 million to Citibank for the privilege of placing this bet on oil prices going higher than our strike price in 15 months.

When these contracts to buy crude oil were booked, prices on the world market was trading at about US$63 a barrel and had rebounded from about US$45 in January 2015. The government placed a bet based on its belief that crude oil prices would continue to rise well above the $66.53 strike price. If that were to happen and oil prices were to increase to, say, US$80-US$90 per barrel, the Government would be in the delightful position of having to pay only about US$66.53 per barrel for oil that would be trading at the much higher spot price on the international commodity market. The Government of Jamaica, senior executives at the Bank of Jamaica, and members of the oversight and technical committees created by the Government to manage the hedges, all seem to have bought into the belief that oil prices would climb higher than US$67 before the expiry date of the options.

The oversight committee is comprised of the financial secretary, Devon Rowe; the governor of the Bank of Jamaica, Brian Wynter; the managing director of the Development Bank of Jamaica, Milverton Reynolds; the managing director the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica, Winston Watson; and Dr Vincent Lawrence. Mr Watson is known to have experience in oil trading and markets. Only Michael Hewett, an executive at Petrojam, was named as a member of the technical committee.

Wrong direction

One has to believe that the intention of the members of the government-appointed committees and all of those involved in the hedge transaction was a good one to try and protect Jamaica against that time in the 15-month period when oil prices might spike above US$67. While there is still considerable time to the maturity of the call options, right now the bet is not looking good and the best projections are for oil prices to fall even lower than the below-US$30 they traded at this week.

This week, three important financial institutions released projections indicating that oil prices could fall to US$10-US$20 per barrel and stay there for sometime. Goldman Sachs’ projection was at US$20, Morgan Stanley’s was US$20 and Standard Chartered, a bank with strong roots and connections in the Middle East and Asia, projected US$10 a barrel oil.

In the futures trading business, which is where these call options reside, when an option is bought with the expectation that the price of the commodity will increase but the opposite occurs, the option is said to be ‘underwater’. Given that these options were booked with the expectation for oil price to rise above US$66, and they are now heading in the direction of US$20, Jamaica’s call options on oil are seriously underwater.

A better alternative

In November 2014, a public official asked me about hedging because someone had written him an email to encourage Jamaica to hedge oil transactions on the upside, based on a scenario the email writer concocted about the state of affairs in the international oil industry. The public official was aware that I had traded oil futures for many years and had lived in the Middle East for more than two decades. I share below an excerpt from my reply:

“The recommendation needs study because taking a position means the Government and Jamaica will be guessing the direction of the movement of the price of this commodity. The writer makes it sound like making money on these bets (options) is a sure thing. It is not.

“There is always a risk. Suppose we bet on a certain price increase in a specific time frame, which we would have to if we are going to hedge, and prices instead of rising to, say, US$70/bbl from US$50 falls to US$35/bbl during our hedge horizon, we would suffer an important loss depending on the size of the contract. This is what apparently happened to that forward position Jamaica took on that futures contract on aluminium with the Russians and/or Glencore, the debilitating result of which you are very familiar.

“When oil went to US$9/bbl in the 1990s, if you had dared to tell anyone about the US$147 per barrel price which occurred in July 2008 they would have declared you mad. It’s a commodity; any card can play. On review, if the writer sees the prices as going one way, down, and OPEC is ‘dead’, why hedge? Do nothing, stay addicted to imported oil and go for the lovely ride to low-oil-price nirvana.

“The better alternative is to wean ourselves off the 98 per cent dependence on petroleum-based fossil fuels for our energy supplies. We really need to develop and use renewable energy from many sources, including bagasse, garbage, wind, water and solar.”

Aubyn Hill is CEO of Corporate Strategies Ltd and chairman of the Economic Advisory Council of the leader of the opposition.

The Gleaner