Efficiency is a generally considered a good thing. Good politics. Good business. That’s why efforts from national mileage standards for cars to rules requiring your refrigerator to use less energy have proven popular and effective, quietly spurring the gradual replacement of outdated technology with better-performing alternatives.
And that’s why, back in 2007, barely anyone raised an eyebrow when Congress applied efficiency standards to an energy guzzler that hadn’t changed much in more than a century: the light bulb.
A requirement that would make bulbs at least a third more efficient starting next year passed Congress as part of theEnergy Independence and Security Act of 2007 in a 3-to-1bipartisan vote. Half of House Republicans supported the bill; Rep. Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican who now chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee,called the legislation a “common sense, bipartisan approach … to save energy as well as help foster the creation of new domestic manufacturing jobs”; and President George W. Bush duly signed it into law.
The lighting industry welcomed the bill, which gave it time to work on meeting the new standards and set out a schedule gradually phasing them in, starting New Year’s Day 2012. First to be replaced will be the bulbs we’ve long know as “100-watt” incandescents. Over the next two years, today’s 75-, 60-, and 40-watt bulbs will have to likewise cut there energy use by about a third.
And guess what? The new rules have worked just as intended, accelerating the development of a variety of new lighting offerings, all of which save consumers money in the long run. In addition to improved CFLs, the new options include low-energy halogens that look like today’s incandescents, as well as LED bulbs that last for years. They’re already on sale at your local hardware store or Home Depot. You’re probably using some of them in your house, perhaps without even realizing there’s a difference.
“Efficiency is a desirable thing, and this type of standard has been a part of our body politic for a long time,” said Randall Moorhead, vice president of government affairs at Philips,as quoted at ThinkProgress.org. “The reality is, consumers will see no difference at all. The only difference they’ll see is lower energy bills because we’re creating more efficient incandescent bulbs.” The National Electrical Manufacturers Association and General Electric have also voiced support for the new rules.
So who’s got a problem with lighting efficiency standards now? Not business, certainly. And not the consumers reaping the benefits (which are estimated to reach $6 billion a year). It’s some of the same House Republicans (including Upton, whose statement crowing about the 2007 law as a “common sense, bipartisan approach” that will create jobs has disappeared from his website) who think they can score cheap political points with fans of Rush Limbaugh — who decries efficiency standards as “nanny state-ism” — and Glenn Beck, who apparently thinks anything that saves consumers money is “all socialist.”
On Tuesday night those House Republicansfailed to pass a law known as the “Better Use of Light Bulbs Act,” or BULB Act, that would have repealed state and municipal rights to set efficiency standards for light bulbs. Business and consumers can hope this signals the end of a misguided effort to roll back progress. That’s never been a very bright option.
UPDATE 7/14/2011: Not the end! On Thursday, House Republicans launched yet another misguided attack on light bulb efficiency. Sigh.
Even as the number of tablet computers, electric vehicles and Internet data centers multiply rapidly, electricity demand is barely growing. Low-power processors, smarter manufacturing plants, rooftop solar panels and other technologies are keeping a lid on electricity use.
The slowdown is spurring a fresh cycle of deal-making among publicly traded utilities. Not unlike the wave of consolidation that came after deregulation in the 1990s, major electricity players are looking to get bigger to protect their bottom lines.
So far this year, utilities in the United States have announced mergers and acquisitions with a total value of $44 billion. That compares with $30 billion in all of 2010, according to Thomson Reuters.
A Progress Energy nuclear plant in New Hill, N.C. The utility’s merger with Duke Energy is pending.
The surge of deals “marks the acceleration of a long-awaited consolidation of the U.S. electric utility industry,” said Todd A. Shipman, credit analyst of utilities and infrastructure ratings at Standard & Poor’s.
By his take, today’s deal-making will pick up from the previous era of consolidation. Since deregulation, the industry has shrunk to roughly 50 publicly traded companies, from 100. That number could be halved to 25 in as little as five years, Mr. Shipman said.
While the usual financial pressures to fortify balance sheets and improve credit quality are once again pushing mergers and acquisitions, environmental dynamics are playing a bigger role than in the past. Utilities — facing pending regulation on greenhouse gas emissions and renewed enforcement of older rules on air pollution — must reckon with the rising costs of compliance.
The added expenses come just as growth in electricity demand is being crimped by efficiency gains. Electricity usage increased 0.5 percent a year on average for the decade that ended 2010, down from 2.4 percent a year during the 1990s, according to the Energy Information Administration.
The anemic figures represent the tail end of a six-decade deceleration of electricity demand. The rate peaked in the 1950s, at 9.8 percent a year, during a period of supercharged industrial growth and home construction.
Customers’ plans reflect a secular shift. Nine out of 10 businesses and 70 percent of consumers have set specific goals to lower their electricity costs, according to a recent study by the Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions with the Harrison Group, a research services firm. Nearly a third of companies polled have goals to self-generate electricity, whether through solar panels, reuse of wasted heat or other methods.
Utilities are adjusting to the new reality. With customers tapering their electricity use, Consolidated Edison is deferring the installation of transformers and other costly capital equipment in New York, said Rebecca Craft, the company’s director of energy efficiency and demand management. Con Ed trimmed its outlook for how much the city’s appetite for power will grow in the coming decade to 1 percent a year, from 1.7 percent.
“Practically every utility today is thinking about flattened growth of demand for energy,” said Gregory E. Aliff, a vice chairman of energy and resources at Deloitte.
“In the last wave of utility mergers, it was more offensive — companies were seeking growth,” he said. “Today is different: the industry is more on the defensive. Companies face a question of how to grow, and consolidation is a way to grow earnings.”
New environmental regulations are only heightening the growth challenge. The industry faces potentially sizable bills to meet a raft of air pollution rules being pushed by the White House.
Utilities with a big reliance on coal face the steepest emissions penalties. American Electric Power, which derives about 85 percent of its power from coal, recently estimated the new rules could cost $6 billion to $8 billion in coming years. The money would pay for adding filters to power plant smokestacks, closing coal-fired generators and switching to lower-emission natural gas generators.
Some merger-minded utilities are shedding assets to lower their exposure to such rules. As part of its $7.9 billion deal to buy Constellation Energy, Exelon plans to sell a batch of coal-fired plants. While coal fuels 12 percent of their current generation, the companies aim to halve that share after the merger.
A.E.P., Duke and Exelon declined to comment.
Unlike in previous periods of consolidation, regulators seem more willing to approve deals, given the sluggish economy and job market. Previously, the process could drag on for years, but recent mergers have been moving along more quickly.
This month Connecticut regulators effectively approved Northeast Utilities’ tie-up with NStar, despite opposition from the state’s attorney general. When the $6.9 billion deal including debt was announced last October, the companies pledged that “no broad-based, corporatewide layoffs or early retirements are planned.”
Said Mr. Shipman of S.&P., “In most of these deals, executives have been careful to emphasize that jobs will be spared, rather than cut.”
When Charlie Yarbrough, a Santa Rosa, Calif., software engineer, decided to put solar panels on the roof of his newly purchased home, he took advantage of a novel funding program known as PACE, short for property assessed clean energy. Working with local installers, he was able to borrow the $25,000 cost at the equivalent of 7.25 percent annually from the Sonoma County Energy Independence Program, a pool of public money, to be paid back over 20 years with his property taxes.
Yarbrough estimates the solar panels have cut annual power costs for his three-bedroom, 1,800-square-foot home by $1,000, while boosting by $40,000 the value of the home he bought for $300,000 in 2009. As energy costs rise in coming years, he expects his savings will grow. “Back of the envelope, this is like a 4 percent loan for an improvement which is the right thing to do,” he says, factoring in the energy savings and property appreciation.
Now, it looks like Yarborough and thousands like him got in just under the wire. PACE all but ground to a halt last July in the wake of the housing bust and mortgage crisis. The Federal Housing Financing Agency (FHFA) — which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — characterized PACE as a threat to existing mortgages. It was a signal to banks that the housing finance giants, which together buy and resell the majority of U.S. mortgages, would refuse to buy any mortgages with PACE financing attached. Simultaneously, the Office of the Comptroller of Currency issued similar guidance, further chilling lending activity…
When it comes to reducing fossil fuel use, increasing energy efficiency has obvious appeal: help the environment, boost energy security and save money, too—without the grit-your-teeth-and-get-by-without attitude of 1970s-style energy conservation. Not only that, but boosting the amount of work we squeeze out of each kWh or Btu is the cheapest, most plentiful and fastest tool we have for moving toward a more sustainable energy future. Many efficiency fixes, experts point out, save so much it would be foolish to ignore them.
Americans have made some moves to enhance efficiency: Per capita energy use has fallen by 14 percent in the past three decades in the U.S., and since 1970 the energy necessary to create each dollar of GDP has been halved. Still, based on comparisons with other countries, that figure could well be halved again. And a recent report by the National Academies suggests Americans could reduce energy use 17 to 22 percent by 2020 and 25 to 31 percent by 2030 if we adopt existing and emerging energy efficiency technologies.
Why isn’t this “low-hanging fruit,” as efficiency is invariably called, being plucked? In the face of logic, incentives, regulatory mandates, new efficiency-enhancing technologies and even moral imperative, consumers remain surprisingly ambivalent about, or even muddled by, the options. Part of the problem is how human behavior often stymies better intentions. Another factor is the more banal reality that bureaucracy and a lack of capital can slow any revolution in its tracks, no matter how cost-effective it might be.
“The potential to reduce the energy we waste is compelling,” Kenneth J. Ostrowski, a senior partner at global management consulting firm McKinsey & Co., said in announcing a 2009 study of the U.S. economy. “However, to unlock the full potential, we need a coordinated national and regional strategy to overcome barriers and scale up the deployment of existing energy efficiency technologies.”
Consider the Value
First, take a step back and consider the value efficiency offers.
In an influential study published in 2008, psychologists Gerald T. Gardner and Paul C. Stern assessed the impact of around 30 steps households could take toward increasing their energy efficiency, all using currently available technologies. The sum of the efforts, they found, could cut U.S. home energy use by up to 30 percent. Since residences account for nearly one-third of total energy use, these savings could trim 11 percent from overall U.S. energy consumption.
In its 2009 report, McKinsey identified waste and other savings opportunities amounting to 23 percent of the U.S. energy pie, excluding the transportation sector. The cost of energy-saving upgrades, McKinsey found, could be entirely paid for within a few years by the resulting reduction in spending on energy. For a total investment of $520 billion, the U.S. could trim some $1.2 trillion from its energy costs by 2020. “Energy efficiency should be elevated to a national priority,” said Ostrowski.
The savings would be greater still if the calculation considers future innovation, says David Goldstein, energy program co-director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. In his 2010 book Invisible Energy, Goldstein estimated savings of 80 percent are possible by 2050 if we include technologies now in the pipeline, as well as those likely to be introduced given what we know about the pace of innovation.
Commenting on a National Academy of Sciences study estimating that energy savings of 30 percent are possible with today’s technology, Goldstein points out that by factoring in improvements in these technologies, the efficiency resource balloons in size to trillions of dollars of growth potential.
Culprit: Confusion
So if these gains are waiting to be made, what’s holding up the great efficiency revolution?
One culprit seems to be confusion. Consumers face a challenge connecting big, abstract gains with more familiar day-to-day decisions, such as installing CFL lightbulbs. And Americans are — for now, at least — so muddled about energy and efficiency that we’re largely unable to identify best choices about how to cut consumption.
In 2009, a research team led by Shahzeen Attari at Columbia University’s Center for Research on Environmental Decisions surveyed 505 subjects to assess their perceptions of energy consumption and savings for a variety of household, transportation and recycling activities. The team found that subjects sometimes overstated the impact of visible actions that offered relatively little energy savings, while profoundly underestimating the impact of less-visible steps that saved 10 or even 100 times more energy. While the test did not formally include cost estimates, the data suggest that respondents tended to underestimate choices with bigger impacts that were more costly.
Interestingly, respondents who identified themselves as eco-minded tended to be less accurate than the general public. Emphasizing that the study wasn’t testing the causes of these misconceptions, Attari points out, “The well intentioned may focus on behaviors that they do, and pay less attention to the ones they don’t do.”
But the study offers one piece of the puzzle to help encourage efficiency: Enlighten consumers about their consumption. Some utilities, for example, are tinkering with household gizmos designed to deliver data to residents so they can see their energy use. That kind of personalized instant feedback on gains made may be just what people need to make pursuing energy efficiency seem worth their while — particularly if reducing energy use is tied to something that makes a difference to them.
High costs, such as the price tag for insulation or a new, energy-efficient furnace, can be a barrier to major green upgrades.
“Go after what matters most to a consumer,” says Attari. “If they care about security, talk about energy independence. If they care about economics, talk about cost savings. If they care about their grandkids, talk about protecting future generations. If they care about biodiversity and species extinction, talk about polar bears.”
Set the Pace
Consumers are quick to state a willingness to pay for green features. But in practice, another impediment to adopting energy efficiency measures is our aversion to paying large amounts up front, even if the investment promises long-term savings. High costs, such as the price tag for insulation or a new, energy-efficient furnace, can be a barrier to major green upgrades.
Some cities have pioneered an innovative solution to this problem. Adapting a model historically used to pay for sewer systems, sidewalks and other public works, planners in Berkeley, Calif., devised an approach — called Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE — that financed the up-front costs of big-ticket efficiency investments by issuing a bond. Property owners could, in turn, borrow those public funds to pay for green upgrades. To pay back the loan, homes that tapped into PACE funds see their taxes rise incrementally over 20 years.
“PACE helps consumers get past the hurdle of paying up-front costs,” said Claire Danielle Tomkins, director of research at the Carbon War Room, at the Business Climate 2010 conference in New York.
To date, more than 20 states have passed laws enabling PACE programs. Perversely, however, Washington stymied the progress of PACE deployments. In the wake of the global financial crisis, federal authorities blocked mortgages attached to PACE bonds, arguing that the added payments increase a borrower’s monthly costs and thereby add risk to still sickly mortgage markets.
Rebound
Interestingly, thanks again to human nature, even implementing measures that improve efficiency will not necessarily result in reduced energy use.
Households that installed high-efficiency washing machines also boosted washing volume 5.6 percent.
One challenge is something called the “rebound effect”, or Jevons paradox. By definition, greater efficiency lowers the cost to use a resource or technology. But as goods and services grow cheaper, people tend to consume more of them .
When these two dynamics collide, efficiency gains can be diluted by increases in use. One study found that households with high-efficiency washing machines boosted the volume of washing they did on average by 5.6 percent. This increase didn’t negate the 40 to 50 percent reductions in water and energy consumption the units delivered, but it did erode total efficiency gains, according to a 2008 RAND paper by economist Lucas Davis.
For another twist on how human nature can stymie efficiency’s efforts to cut energy use, consider America’s love affair with big, fast cars. The technology to dramatically boost vehicle efficiency has been progressing for decades, but technology upgrades that could have saved energy have instead gone to soup up performance. While mileage barely budged between 1990 and now, average horsepower surged 77 percent, to around 230 today. As a result, today’s mild-mannered Toyota Sienna minivan offers about as much horsepower as Ford’s fastest ’72 Mustang.
More Carrots, More Sticks
Alas, there is no single fix for efficiency elusiveness. Logjams like the PACE policy must be dismantled one by one. And because human behavior is so complex, approaches to altering it must take many forms.
For now, incentives are the most politically saleable strategy to induce efficiency savings. As part of the 2009 stimulus bill, the U.S. Department of Energy doled out hundreds of millions to boost efficiency programs.
More vigorous mandates are making a comeback, too. Most visible, perhaps, has been the rollout of higher mileage standards for cars. And in 2010, DOE announced dozens of tough penalties against companies selling appliances, plumbing and lighting without certifying that they meet energy and/or water efficiency standards. Such well-crafted rules promise to speed change while obviating many of the psychological traps that can distract consumers. When we can’t opt for a less-efficient technology, our purchasing decisions get easier.
There may even be a public appetite for a yet heavier regulatory hand. A national survey conducted by the Mellman Group for the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests consumers may prefer tougher mileage rules. The study found that about 74 percent of voters favor tougher federal goals requiring that average fuel efficiency rise to 60 mpg by 2025. Two-thirds supported the goal even if it meant a $3,000 premium on the sticker price, assuming that could be recouped in savings at the pump within four years.
Perhaps the biggest motivator of all could end up to be the market. The sharp oil price spike of 2008 caused an unprecedented stampede away from gas-guzzling vehicles and triggered broader efforts to cut energy use. Similar increases in the cost of electricity or natural gas could do much to motivate consumers to cut back by improving their energy efficiency.
Advocates for a tax on carbon emissions generated by energy use argue such a fee would trigger the adoption of energy efficiency measures in an orderly fashion by preventing such on-again, off-again shifts toward efficient technologies. Better to create an incentive to put efficient systems into place ahead of time, they argue, than to wait for unpredictably high energy prices to return and force these shifts chaotically.
Indeed, better we all learn efficiency-improving behaviors while we can afford to.
A version of this feature originally appeared in the Fall 2010 issue of Momentum magazine, Ensia’s predecessor.
Philips’ LED bulb, the first L Prize entry, puts out the light of a conventional 60-watt bulb (rear), but uses just a sixth of the energy. Courtesy Philips
Government offers $10 million L Prize for energy efficient lighting that even CFL haters can love
Call it the curse of the CFL.
Back in 2007, before those swirly twists of glass had become mainstream, their energy-gobbling predecessors were put on death watch by Congress. The incandescent bulb, in use for more than a century, was judged too inefficient to meet the new standards established that year as part of a broader energy bill. Come 2012, the regulations require that common household bulbs use 20-30 percent less electricity. The U.S. push isn’t unique, either: similar rules are coming on line in Australia, Canada, and Europe.
Enter compact fluorescent lights, or CFLs. It didn’t take long for the bulbs to emerge from their niche status and go mainstream, hyped by a blitz of utility incentives, industry ads, and public service messages. Spurred on by high electricity prices, the public dutifully unscrewed their Edison-era bulbs and subbed in the new eco-alternatives.
Beijing has big plans to curb pollution and start a cleantech industry. But the global recession and looming trade frictions will test its resolve
The Sun-Moon Mansion, Himin Solar Energy's headquarters in Dezhou
China’s unprecedented growth in recent years has come at a terrible price. Two-thirds of its rivers and lakes are too polluted for industrial use, let alone agriculture or drinking. Just 1 in 100 of China’s nearly 600 million city dwellers breathes air that would be considered safe in Europe. At a time when arable land is in short supply, poisoned floodwaters have ruined many productive fields. And last year, ahead of most forecasts, China passed the U.S. to become the world’s largest source of greenhouse gases.
The immensity of these troubles has produced a result that may surprise many outside China: The nation has emerged as an incubator for clean technology, vaulting to the forefront in several categories. Among all countries, China is now the largest producer of photovoltaic solar panels, thanks to such homegrown manufacturers as Suntech Power (STP). The country is the world’s second-largest market for wind turbines, gaining rapidly on the U.S. In carmaking, China’s BYD Auto has leapfrogged global giants, launching the first mass-produced hybrid that plugs into an electrical outlet. “China is a very fast follower,” said Alex Westlake, a director of investment group ClearWorld Now, at a recent conference in Beijing.
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
Understanding they are in a global race, China’s leaders are supporting green businesses with policies and incentives. Beijing recently hiked China’s auto mileage standards to a level the U.S. is not expected to reach until 2020. Beijing also says it will boost the country’s share of electricity created from renewable sources to 23% by 2020, from 16% today, on par with similar targets in Europe. The U.S. has no such national goal.
While most environmentalists applaud these developments, China watchers are voicing two very different sets of concerns. Some question whether China will really stand by its ambitious targets and are worried by signs of backsliding as the recession in China’s key export markets drags down economic growth. Another group, interested mainly in America’s own industrial future, fears that China’s growing dominance in certain green technologies will harm budding cleantech industries in the U.S. After all, China’s emergence comes just as the Obama Administration is trying to nurture these same types of ventures, hoping to generate millions of green jobs. Many of these U.S. businesses will have trouble holding their own against low-price competitors from China.
Beijing’s green intentions will soon be put to the test. China is in the midst of the biggest building boom in history. A McKinsey & Co. study estimates that over 350 million people—more than the U.S. population—will migrate from the countryside into cities by 2025. Five million buildings will be added, including 50,000 skyscrapers—equal to 10 New York Cities. And as quickly as new offices and houses multiply, they are filled with energy-hungry computers, TVs, air conditioners, and the like, sharply increasing demand for electricity, which comes mainly from coal-powered plants.
Environmental groups say it is therefore critical that Beijing promote rigorous, greener standards. And to some degree, that’s happening. A government mandate states that by the end of next year, each unit of economic output should use 20% less energy and 30% less water than in 2005. Portions of Beijing’s $587 billion economic stimulus package are earmarked for cleantech. On top of that, in March the Finance Ministry unveiled specific incentives to spark solar demand among China’s builders. Included was a subsidy of $3 per watt of solar capacity installed in 2009—enough to cover as much as 60% of estimated costs to install a rooftop solar array.
USING WASTE HEAT
Steps like these will help Himin Solar Energy Group in Dezhou, Shandong Province. Founded in 1995 by Huang Ming, an oil equipment engineer turned crusader against the use of fossil fuels, the company is the world’s largest producer of rooftop piping systems that use the sun’s rays to heat water. Its eye-catching headquarters, the Sun-Moon Mansion, showcases these heaters, which Himin cranks out in immense volumes—about 2 million square meters’ worth each year, equal to twice the annual sales of all such systems in the U.S. Because its water heaters sell for as little as $220, they are becoming standard in new housing complexes and many commercial buildings across the country.
Broad Air Conditioning, based in Changsha, Hunan Province, is also set to profit as Beijing pushes toward its green targets. By using natural gas and so-called waste heat from other machines and appliances instead of electricity, Broad’s big chillers can deliver two to three times more cooling per unit of energy than a conventional unit. In a similar fashion, Haier, headquartered in Qingdao, Shandong Province, combines low-cost manufacturing and a variety of advanced technologies to create affordable, energy-sipping refrigerators and other appliances. During the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Haier supplied more than 60,000 such devices for visiting athletes and tourists to use.
As these and other domestic players bump up against technological obstacles, they can draw on the expertise of many of the world’s top multinationals. In return for access to its domestic market, Beijing asks such companies as General Electric (GE), DuPont (DD), 3M (MMM), and Siemens (SI) to share their technology, help upgrade their China-based supply chains, and spread industrial processes to make manufacturing more efficient. These aren’t simply green practices, says Changhua Wu, Greater China director of the Climate Group, a consultancy in London that partners with companies to combat climate change. “They’re best practices.”
GE, for example, has transferred expertise to Chinese partners in everything from wind turbine construction to the building of low-pollution factories. At the Beijing Taiyanggong power plant, waste heat from the combustion process is recycled, resulting in around 80% efficiency, more than double the rate of most conventional power plants in the U.S. The bulk of GE’s sales of turbines for power plants in China are the ultra-efficient models. David G. Victor, a Stanford University professor who has studied China’s electric grid, says some of the coal plants being built there are “much more advanced than those we see in the U.S.”
Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), which buys some $9 billion worth of goods in China each year from some 20,000 vendors, infuses its supply chain with the latest ideas about energy efficiency. For example, Chinese factories that work with Wal-Mart are obliged to track vast quantities of data on energy use and make the information available for audits. “Many Western companies can’t track their own energy consumption,” says Andrew Winston, consultant and co-author of the book Green to Gold.
TORPEDOING U.S. SOLAR?
China’s early achievements in cleantech owe a lot to collaborations such as these. The benefits: China cleans up its own pollution, and the government-backed initiatives in solar and wind help drive down the cost of renewable energy systems in countries around the world.
But there is a downside. The rock-bottom prices for made-in-China green technology could make it impossible for cleantech ventures in the U.S., Europe, or Japan to compete. How, for example, will they go up against Suntech Power, based in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, the world’s lowest-cost manufacturer of standard solar panels? The U.S. boasts plenty of advanced technology. But any efforts by Washington to nurture this sector could be quickly undercut by a flood of Chinese-made solar panels. Such a deluge is likely if there is a big increase in public subsidies for rooftop solar systems. “What [that would] do is create 10,000 Chinese jobs,” says Roger G. Little, chief executive of Spire Corp. (SPIR), a leading U.S. maker of manufacturing equipment for photovoltaics. “If we import all the [solar] modules, it will obliterate U.S. manufacturing” in this area.
A similar scenario exists in the much heralded area of electric vehicles. BYD, headquartered in Shenzhen, started selling its first plug-in hybrid, the F3DM, last year. It beat Toyota (TM) and General Motors (GM), both of which are developing such “plug-ins,” and hit the market with a price tag they probably can’t match: just $22,000. Henry Li, a BYD general manager, says the company will roll out a version of the car in the U.S. in 2011. Chevy’s answer to this car, called the Volt, is expected to cost about twice as much and won’t be out until next year.
How did BYD pull off this coup? Part of it is just being the new kid on the block. Today’s automobiles, with their advanced combustion engines, are the most complex mass-produced goods ever made, assembled from thousands of highly engineered parts provided by a web of suppliers. It’s difficult for a Chinese startup to compete on such a sophisticated playing field. But the emergence of a new, green-vehicle category clears the way. BYD was able to break in by leveraging its background as a battery maker. When it ran into technical hurdles, the company could draw on a deep pool of inexpensive, well-trained talent at China’s top engineering schools. BYD is also a leader in pure electric vehicles, the logical next step. The government is now putting some muscle behind BYD’s push. It is heavily subsidizing electric-car sales in about a dozen cities—in a stroke, making China the world’s biggest market for such advanced vehicles. Its goal is to boost domestic output of battery-powered vehicles to a half million per year in 2011.
How Washington and the beleaguered U.S. auto sector might respond to a wave of inexpensive electric vehicles from China is difficult to predict. And it is also unclear how China’s cleantech efforts in cars, energy, and other areas will be affected if key markets such as the U.S. and Europe don’t recover quickly from the recession. Chinese makers of solar photovoltaics, including Suntech, export about 98% of their production. They have been battered this year by a collapse in demand in Germany, Spain, and Japan, China’s top markets for solar gear. Suntech’s factories are currently running at half of last year’s capacity.
Even inside China, academics and business executives say Beijing needs to do more to bolster cleantech initiatives and make them recession-proof. For example, without better information on how such policies as the current Renewable Energy Law are to be enforced, “many of the terms are meaningless,” complains Himin’s Huang. And even when the terms are clear, companies don’t always adhere, says Zhou Weidong, the Guangzhou-based China director at the Business for Social Responsibility, a global consultancy promoting sustainable business practices: “Paying penalties is cheaper than complying with the law in many areas.”
At times, it seems as though Beijing is pedaling in the wrong direction. Late last year, China’s Environmental Protection Ministry loosened review standards on potentially polluting industrial projects. In an economic crunch, “environmental protection is downplayed to second, or third, or even fourth priority,” observes Guo Peiyuan of SynTao, a corporate social responsibility advisory firm in Beijing.
While acknowledging there has been some backsliding, most China watchers say the government is unlikely to stage a full-throttle retreat. Too much of its export growth is contingent on meeting strict environmental regulations. And Beijing recognizes that Chinese society can’t tolerate much more environmental degradation. The World Bank estimates damage from pollution—everything from decimated fisheries to premature human death—saps nearly 6% of China’s gross domestic product each year as well. For economic reasons alone, it will be difficult for China to turn back the clock.
Efficiency is a generally considered a good thing. Good politics. Good business. That’s why efforts from national mileage standards for cars to rules requiring your refrigerator to use less energy have proven popular and effective, quietly spurring the gradual replacement of outdated technology with better-performing alternatives.
