Are biofuels doomed without subsidies?

A molecular biologist (turned biofuels entrepreneur) made a stark prediction Tuesday:

Famed genomics researcher J. Craig Venter, who is working to develop biofuels from photosynthetic algae, acknowledged this week that alternate fuels are “dead” unless the federal government mandates their use with a carbon policy.

Venter’s strongly worded statement came Tuesday night at the annual Stem Cell Meeting on the Mesa, after he was asked when synthetic biology might have a meaningful impact on the country’s energy production.

Without strong government intervention, Venter said, that day will never come. He works on biofuels, human health and other issues at Synthetic Genomics, the La Jolla company he co-founded. It partnered with ExxonMobil in 2009 to develop algae biofuels.

“It doesn’t matter what the scientific breakthroughs are, there’s no way to ever beat oil,” Venter said. “In fact, oil’s not even an issue right now because of all the new natural gas discoveries.

“So there’s no way economically for a new fuel made out of renewables to ever be able to compete with something an oil company can do, without sharp federal regulations and a sharp carbon policy that says, you can’t keep just taking carbon out of the ground, burning it and putting it in the atmosphere. Until we do that, there is no biofuel industry.”

Venter is no stranger to big bets (or government intervention). His Celera Genomics raced the NIH (and its Human Genome Project) to sequence the first human genome, which cost several billion dollars.

Now Venter is hoping for government intervention — implying a carbon tax on natural gas and other fossil fuels — to raise their cost enough to support synthetic biofuels.

However, the story by life sciences reporter Bradley Fikes suggests that the key problem is not subsidies (or taxes on competing technologies) — in part because taxes on oil would reduce demand and thus prices. Fikes quoted Berkeley energy economist Severin Borenstein:

Regulatory mandates to compel adoption of biofuels probably wouldn’t work, Borenstein said.

“It may work for the United States, and even that seems a political stretch, but it doesn’t really matter if it doesn’t work in the developing world,” he said. “The idea that the developing world is going to forgo cheap gasoline to use much more expensive biofuels, I think is fairly implausible for the near term.”

Science may provide answers in the long term, he said.

“I’ve come around to the view that we need to put a lot more into research and development and pursue every possibility, whether it’s biofuels or electric vehicles, in order to find something that could be cost-competitive,” Borenstein said.

The latter point suggests one of the major disconnects in the biofuels world, between the energy industry veterans who work in the market and the university molecular biologists who are used to NIH and NSF funding all their research. Is it time for biofuels to go back to being a series of university science experiments rather than being the basis of publicly-traded high-tech startups?

Candidates duck energy debate

In anticipation of the first presidential debate, I was interviewed by a representative of LA’s second largest newspaper group. Here’s how it appeared in the front page of the Los Angeles Daily News:

From oil refineries in the South Bay to millions of motorists and other consumers, federal energy policy is critical to this region.

If President Obama truly favors a so-called "all-of-the-above energy strategy" that supports a mix of traditional and newer energy sources, some asked why do his policies restrict availability of coal, oil and even natural gas?

"I'm not sure what Obama could tell me to convince me that he sees a future role for fossil fuels," said Joel West, a professor of innovation and entrepreneurship at the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences in Claremont. "I'd more want to put him on record in supporting these things so later on he could be held accountable for that."

By contrast, Romney has emphasized traditional energy sources by calling for more oil drilling and fewer industry regulations in general.

"I'd like Romney to recognize that there are certain cases in which renewable energy can be successful today or can soon be successful with a little bit of government support," West said. "Because otherwise he risks being perceived as another stooge for the oil companies."

Due to a work commitment, I missed the debate but was later able to review the transcript. It appears that my worst fears were realized.

This is what Obama said:

I think it's important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America,
…
On energy, Governor Romney and I, we both agree that we've got to boost American energy production, and oil and natural gas production are higher than they've been in years. But I also believe that we've got to look at the energy sources of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments.

And here is what Romney said:

Energy is critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies.

Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half. If I'm president, I'll double them, and also get the -- the oil from offshore and Alaska. And I'll bring that pipeline in from Canada.

And, by the way, I like coal. I'm going to make sure we can continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it's getting crushed by your policies. I want to get America and North America energy independent so we can create those jobs.

And then the candidates had this exchange:

ROMNEY: [T]he Department of Energy has said the tax break for oil companies is $2.8 billion a year. And it's actually an accounting treatment, as you know, that's been in place for a hundred years. Now ...

OBAMA: It's time to end it.

ROMNEY: And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world.

Now, I like green energy as well, but that's about 50 years' worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil. Actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth.

But, you know, if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why that $2.8 billion is on the table. Of course it's on the table. That's probably not going to survive you get that rate down to 25 percent.

But don't forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years' worth of breaks, into -- into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right? So this -- this is not -- this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy secure.

So,as predicted, Obama paid lip service to all of the above (his official energy policy) but could find nothing good to say about fossil fuels while pushing solar and wind, while Romney couldn’t find anything good to say about solar or wind while pushing fossil fuels.

Still, it was disappointing that the candidates were talking past each other, with neither willing to engage the center. The president has a consistent track record — compared to some other Democrats (e.g. Bill Clinton, let alone Joe Manchin) he’s not really interested in fossil fuels. Similarly, we would expect a Bush or a Cheney to do the oil companies’ bidding, but it seems surprising that Romney, a former blue-state governor, couldn’t find a more middle-of-the-road position on energy policy.

Train wrecks California budget?

From the Sacramento Bee

By a bare majority, the state Senate voted Friday to approve initial construction on California's $68 billion high-speed rail project, ending months of intense lobbying and uncertainty in the Legislature.
...
The bill, approved the previous day by the state Assembly, authorizes $5.8 billion to start construction in the Central Valley, including $2.6 billion in rail bond funds and $3.2 billion from the federal government.

Lawmakers tied that money to nearly $2 billion in funding to improve regional rail systems and connect them to high-speed rail. That regional focus was considered necessary to lobby hesitant senators about the project's potential significance to their districts.
…
The vote could become problematic for Brown politically. Opponents of Brown's November ballot initiative to raise taxes already are planning to use the project as an example of spending they say is wasteful. A recent Field Poll suggests the message may resonate, and some Democrats said they feared its effect.

From the New York Times

Opposition cut across party lines. Speaker after speaker noted there was no source of revenue for the train line beyond the initial $8 billion, and that it was being built in rural California, far from where the bulk of the state’s population lived. Several noted the incongruity of embarking on such a major project weeks after passing a budget that included deep cuts in spending on schools and other programs.

“This is a colossal fiscal train wreck for California,” said Senator Tony Strickland, a Republican. “Members, this bill is spending money we simply don’t have here in California.”

From Bloomberg News

If Brown signs the funding bill, the state can start construction on the first 130-mile stretch down California’s Central Valley. The initial route, connecting some of the least- populated parts of the state, has fed opposition to the effort.

The tracks are to run from Merced, about 120 miles south of Sacramento, the capital, to the San Fernando Valley, north of Los Angeles, the state’s biggest city. To connect to that population center with San Francisco, the bill authorizes $2 billion of bond funds to upgrade existing commuter and freight lines to handle high-speed traffic.

California is already the most indebted U.S. state, with $73.2 billion of general-obligation bonds outstanding and the authority to sell another $33.1 billion.

From the San Francisco Chronicle

Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, spoke for 15 minutes about the project's strengths and weaknesses before ultimately saying he could not support the details being weighed Friday.

"I think high-speed rail makes sense in California ... but we're not being asked to vote on a vision today, we're being asked to vote on a particular plan," he said, critiquing the cost and placement of the initial stretch of track in the Central Valley and noting that the $3.3 billion in federal funds is about 5 percent of the project's total cost.

"We will be expected to put up 20 times that amount over the course of how many years. ... Regrettably, the only conclusion I can come to today is that this is the wrong plan in the wrong place in the wrong time," Simitian added.

…
But it was the location, demanded by the federal government, of the first phase of construction that proved the most controversial. Critics have derided it as a "train to nowhere," and many farmers in the Central Valley are angry about plans to seize some farmland and homes to make way for the bullet train.

"We are getting an upgraded Amtrak line in the Central Valley for $6 billion," said Simitian. "And oh, by the way, it's in a low ridership area ... a million potential riders as opposed to 28 million in the north and southern ends of the state."

Cartoon by Monte Wolverton, L.A. Daily News

Jerry Brown's white elephant legacy

From the San Jose Mercury News, June 10, 2012, p. A18:

Editorial
Enough. Stop rail fantasy in its tracks

There is a fine line between visionary and delusional. California's high-speed rail project whizzed across that line long ago and now is chugging toward the monorail station at Fantasyland.

The latest end-run tactic by the train's chief engineer, Gov. Jerry Brown, would have California's Legislature suspend its tough environmental laws so the state could put this pet project on the -- pardon the pun -- fast track.

Never mind that every independent analysis of the project has been highly critical of it.

Never mind that the High-Speed Rail Authority's own peer review group said it was terribly flawed.

Never mind that the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said even the new, new, new and improved incarnation still is not nearly "strong enough" and relies on "highly speculative" funding sources. For the uninitiated, that is bureaucratese for "not a snowball's chance in hell of finding the money to pay for it."
...
Nope, none of that matters. Casey Jones is at the controls of his legacy project, so reason and fiscal prudence must sit this one out.

We say all this despite having supported high pseed rail when it was on the ballot in 2008. Rail is important to America's future, and we knew the first steps towards any visionary plan face hurdles and may require leaps of faith.

But back then nobody foresaw the economic plunge that still leaves California mired in budget deficits. We lost faith in the original board and its planning and construction team. Then last year, an updated plan with wildly higher costs for a smaller system sent us leaping to the sidetrack. (Oopsie, did we say $45 billion? We meant $98 billion. No, no, wait, $68 billion. Well, you know, around there somewhere. Did we say San Diego and Sacramento would be included in those numbers? Drat, our bad, they aren't.)

How could anyone believe a word of what comes from the High-Speed Rail Authority? As to Brown's legacy, he still has to get us tax plan approved in the fall. If voters perceived high-speed rail as a waste of money, they will be more dubious of taxes.

From the San Jose Mercury News, June 10, 2012, p. A19:

Brown risks legacy on bullet train
By Daniel Borenstein

As Gov. Jerry Brown barrels ahead with high-speed trains, he could find that his quest for a legacy derails the November tax measure he desperately needs to repair the state budget.

For his entire political career, Brown has lived in the shadows of his visionary father, Pat, the governor from 1959-67 who brought us the State Water Project and the master plan for California higher education.

The younger Brown has always been a big thinker in search of his own legacy. But, after his first gubernatorial tenure, from 1975-83, he was best remembered as Gov. Moonbeam, the ideas guy who could never deliver, and for his appointment of Rose Bird to the state Supreme Court, which backfired when voters recalled the chief justice and two of her Brown-appointed colleagues in 1986.

We were told during the 2010 gubernatorial election that Brown, then 72, had politically and personally matured, that he was more down to earth, that he had learned from his intervening years in local government as mayor of Oakland.
…
But he undermines the frugality image by continuing to champion a financially indefensible plan to link the major metropolitan areas of the state with high-speed rail. In his search for his own legacy he risks voter support for his tax measure.

Brown should exercise caution. While he strives to be remembered like his late father for the capital projects he leaves behind, defeat of the tax measure could so badly undermine his financial recovery plans and lead to the gutting of the state's public education system that his legacy might instead resemble that of his former chief of staff, Gray Davis.

Whether voters in November see the connection -- and contradiction -- between Brown's demand for more taxes and his reckless exuberance for spending billions on high-speed rail remains to be seen. A recent USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll of registered voters suggests that's a very real risk.
…
When voters four years ago authorized issuing up to $9 billion in bonds for high-speed rail, they made it subject to legislative approval. Now, Brown and Democratic leaders in the Legislature are trying to fast-track approval of nearly $3 billion of those bonds to kick-start the project -- even though they have no idea where most of the money for the system will come from.

It's a risky gambit. The governor is seeking legislative approval for high-speed rail bonds roughly four months before voters cast ballots on his tax measure. Does he really want to anger them just when he needs them the most?

Solving the EV chicken & egg problem

As part of a settlement over the 2001 California energy crisis, NRG Energy promised to spend $100m to build EV charging stations across the state. On Friday a rival charging station company sued to block the settlement.

The settlement itself was fraught with ironies, since many saw NRG as the next most “evil” big business (after Enron) in the whole crisis. The settlement was trumpeted March 23 by Governor Jerry Brown, while the brownouts and blackouts brought the forced retirement (through recall) of his protegé, Gray Davis, who’d been chief of state (and a stabilizing influence) on Brown during his infamous “Governor Moonbeam” days.

According to the GTM coverage of the deal, NRG’s $100m would fund “a statewide infrastructure of at least 200 public fast-charging stations and another 10,000 plug-in units at 1,000 locations.”

There are other aspects of the plan that belong in la-la land, such as the Governor’s vision that (again according to GTM) “California’s personal transportation is to be essentially all-ZEV by 2050.” Fortunately for the state (and the governor), Gov. Moonbeam will be at least 20 years in the ground at that point, with his fanciful promise long forgotten. (For a whole range of reasons ± starting with batteries — electric vehicles will remain a niche product through the first half of this century.)

Still, EVs face a crucial chicken-and-egg problem: they will only get limited adoption without charging stations, and nobody wants to spend big bucks to install charging stations before there is an installed base of EVs. The governor’s settlement of his predecessor’s screw-up allows him to take credit for solving this (very real) “green” problem without spending any taxpayer money (which makes it a rare opportunity indeed). Or, as Michael Peevey, the head of his Public Utilities Commission, noted in the official press release

The settlement will launch a virtuous circle in which ever more Californians will feel comfortable driving EVs, and growing EV sales will in turn attract ever more investment in charging infrastructure to our state.

On Friday, San Francisco-based Ecotality sued the state over the governor’s deal with its competitors. As the Merc reported

Ecotality argues that the agreement "punishes" NRG for price gouging during the energy crisis by allowing it to invest money into its own business.

"Such 'punishment' is equivalent to a motorist settling his speeding citation by simply being required to buy a faster car, subsidized by the public," reads the lawsuit, filed Friday in the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco.

I loathe crony capitalism as much as anyone, but the Ecotality suit seems to be minimizing the very real risk that NRG is running of owning a fleet of white elephants. (If the suit says California should take its lawsuit settlements in cash rather than business investment, that seems like a more promising argument to make.)

Not everyone share’s Ecotality’s pessimism — or fear — about the impact of NRG’s buildout. As the other Bay Area newspaper, the Chronicle reported:

Jay Friedland, legislative director of an electric car advocacy group, said California's market for charging equipment should grow big enough, fast enough for multiple companies to thrive.

"We think this market is going to expand out pretty rapidly," said Friedland, with Plug In America. "And NRG could be a viable player, just like Ecotality and Coulomb could be."

Ecotality is right that NRG will have a leg up if this turns out to be a good business investment, but it’s lying to claim this will create a “monopoly.” (Electric charging stations are no more monopolistic than gas stations — the national market will support at least 3 competitors.)

Yes California is a desirable market to dominate, but if Ecotality wants to build its own stations, it is free (in a free market) to do so. It just needs to find a deep-pocket source of funding — a problem it had before March 23, and a problem that is solvable by selling itself (earlier, at a low valuation) to a major energy company like Edison, Exelon or PG&E.

Video for all-star biofuels panel

The video from Tuesday’s MITCNC biofuels panel discussion has been posted to MIT’s video channel, TechTV.

For those who were not in Menlo Park, here is the program:

MITCNC Energy and Cleantech Series

Biofuels:

How Biotech is Changing the Energy Industry

Panelists

John Melo – CEO, Amyris

Jonathan Wolfson - CEO, Solazyme

Bob Mayer – CEO, Cobalt Technologies

Noubar Afeyan – Chairman, LS9

Moderator

Don Keller – Partner, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe

May 8, 2012

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

1000 Marsh Rd

Menlo Park, CA 95025

Participant biographies:

John Melo is CEO of Amyris. Before that, he was president of US Fuels for BP Plc, where built up its ethanol blending business. He serves on the board of Kior and US Venture and previously served ass a director at Ernst & Young in San Jose.

Jonathan Wolfson is CEO and co-founder of Solazyme. He previously served as co-founder and COO of InvestorTree. He is a director of the Clean Economy Network and the Biotechnology Industry Organization. He holds a JD and MBA from NYU.

Bob Mayer is CEO and chairman Cobalt Technologies. His experience in biotechnology includes president of Genencor International and Danisco USA. He holds a ScD in Chemical Engineering from MIT, and was an assistant professor in MIT’s chemical engineering department.

Noubar Afeyan is managing partner and CEO of Flagship Ventures, and is co-founder and chairman of three biofuels companies: LS9, Joule and Midori. He holds a PhD in Chemical Engineering from MIT and serves as a Senior Lecturer at the Sloan School.

Moderator Don Keller is a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, where he is one of the firm’s 11-member board of director and has advised clients on more than 60 IPOs. He holds a JD from Boston College Law School and serves on its Board of Overseers.

Emcee Joel West is a professor at the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, one of the Claremont Colleges. He holds a PhD from UC Irvine and a SB from MIT.

State of the US biofuels industry

On Tuesday, the MIT alumni club in Silicon Valley hosted a freewheeling discussion by four executives from leading US biofuels companies, discussing the opportunities and challenges of building a new industry from scratch.

Update May 12: The video and program have been posted.

A capacity crowd of more than 100 people heard John Melo (CEO of Amyris), Jonathan Wolfson (CEO and co-founder of Solazyme), Bob Mayer (CEO of Cobalt) and Noubar Afeyan (a VC who is chairman and co-founder of LS9, Midori and Joule) discuss the industry. As the organizer of the event, I was pleased to hear that it was the first time all four had spoken together.

As CEOs of two of a handful of public biofuels companies, Melo and Wolfson have often been paired and seemed ready to complete each other’s sentences; both had just come off earnings calls — Solazyme on Monday and Amryis on Tuesday. For the MIT alumni, it was gratifying to hear that the other two men, Mayer and Afeyan, had doctorates in chemical engineering from MIT, and in fact Afeyan noted his 1987 dissertation was on converting cellulose to ethanol.

The four had a largely convergent view of the business and technical environment. The clear reality is that not having scale or huge balance sheets to fund ramping up to scale, the firms need to be nimble in arbitraging opportunities to more cost-effectively produce commodities that are needed by the market.

However, each emphasized a different approach to making money in that environment:

• Melo said Amryis is engineering microbes (i.e. yeast) to convert carbohydrates into high-value chemicals. Because of his four years at BP USA — which included squeezing small ethanol plants that lacked their own distribution — he’s convinced that any path to success includes vertical integration.
• Wolfson quoted Solazyme’s tagline that “we convert low cost plant sugars to high value renewable oils – for fuel, for food, for life.” The emphasis was on technical flexibility that allows creating oils for blending that are in regulatory favor — such as rapeseed oil in Europe.
• For Cobalt, Mayer said the goal is to ferment hemicellulose to butanol — such as from sugar cane bagasse — without distributing the sugar production. The company hopes to exploit an secular trend in butanol prices rising faster than oil prices, at the same time that natural gas prices fall.
• As managing director of Flagship Ventures, Afeyan has funded a number of biofuels startups, starting in 2003 with Mascoma that was converting cellulose to ethanol using the same organism (clostridium) that Afeyan studied in his PhD dissertation. He outlind the technologies of three of his companies: LS9 (engineering e-coli to create fatty alcohols), Midori Renewables (using a solid catalyst to degrade cellulose to produce sugar at 1/4 of current prices) and Joule (which would use cyanobacteria to directly convert CO2 to n-alkanes).

Afeyan aptly summed up the challenge of biofuels (and other tech entrepreneurs) when he said that entrepreneurs were chasing “what is not yet known not to work.”

MITCNC panelists (left to right): John Melo, Jonathan Wolfson, Bob Mayer and Noubar Afeyan

A major theme of the industry was partnering — for access to capital, distribution and (presumably) ultimate exit.

Noting a parallel to the funding of the biotech industry by oil and chemicals 30 years, Afeyan wondered when the CEO of the big oil and chemical companies will take a real interest in biofuels (rather than “just run nice ads”).

Mayer held out Dupont as an example of a company that “gets it.” Each of the CEOs had their own key partners. For Amyris it’s Total (a French oil company), for Solazyme it includes Dow, and Cobalt is partnered with Solvay/Rhodia, a specialty chemical company based on Brazil.

Not surprising for an industry that produces commodities (even high value one), the three CEOs repeatedly talked about execution. From his own career, Mayer said “industrial biotechnology is very much about execution.” Melo said the industry needed to “industrialize the process of developing the technology,” much as the biotech industry succeeded in doing. Meanwhile, Wolfson said success for a biofuels company — as with any other innovative Silicon Valley company — was about continuously innovating and creating new technologies to keep ahead of other companies.

The two public company CEOs were very wary of the unpredictable nature of government incentives. As Melo, “the US doesn’t care about long term strategic issues.” He questioned whether the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard will be around in five years, while Wolfson worried about the variability and arbitrary changes in life cycle carbon estimates — whether by private methodologies (such as LCA) or from state or Federal regulators such as the California Air Resources Board.

The challenge for the firms — and the investors — is that building a biofuels industry will take years, with many shifts of market and regulatory forces along the way. Melo said it took John D. Rockefeller 30 years to make oil a successful transportation fuel — although he hopes that biofuels can make it in 15 years. In the meantime, he said the first priority of any firm to generate revenues and cash flow to stick around. Or as Wolfson said, “In order to be involved in a commodity market, you need to be around long enough to get there.”

In the meantime, Melo predicted the next 24 months will bring consolidations and exits for many companies. I am inclined to agree: it probably won’t be as brutal as solar — where there are more companies — but clearly firms without positive cash flow (or at least solid balance sheets) will find it increasingly difficult to get the capital necessary, particularly as the IPO market appears to have closed for biofuels companies.