Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The New, Green Face of Wall Street

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted March 3, 2007.


How a leading utility company went from environmental enemy to savior in one week and changed the financial world -- for the greener.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Tara Lohan

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Big corporate takeovers happen all the time. Mergers and acquisitions are so run-of-the-mill it is hard to keep track of who owns what anymore. But this week was different. This week the largest buyout was set in motion -- Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Texas Pacific Group is hoping to buy the Texas utility giant TXU for $45 billion. And the best part of the whole deal is not its size but the conditions of sale.

In a matter of a few days one of the country's dirtiest utility companies went from an environmental foe to model for "green" business and the repercussions for not just Wall Street, but the rest of America, are huge.

TXU had been battling environmental and community groups since last spring when it announced plans to build 11 new pulverized coal-fired power plants across Texas -- essentially committing the state to 50 more years of the dirtiest of dirty power -- with an estimated 78 million tons of CO2 emission expected per year.

With money and political clout, the project seemed like a done deal, but that didn't stop Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Public Citizen, Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and dozens of other groups from unleashing their organizing wrath.

The coal plants were fast-tracked in their permitting process by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, long known to be a friend of the utility companies. But then, little by little, environmental groups and their allies began to wear at TXU -- targeting potential investors, mounting ad campaigns and throwing up litigation roadblocks.

TXU appeared to stumble last week when a judge announced that Perry had overstepped his bounds in the fast-tracking and delayed the permit hearings four months, giving TXU opponents time to gather money and muscle.

And then just days later news broke that a deal was being negotiated for TXU to be purchased by two private equity firms -- and helping to make that deal a reality were representatives from Environmental Defense and NRDC -- marking the first known time that environmental groups have been brought to the table.

"What I can tell you is, a little over a week ago I got a call from Bill Riley, an old friend," Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense said in an interview, "who said that the Texas Pacific Group and KKR were interested in purchasing TXU, but would only go forward if they could recreate the company as a 'green' power generator."

Less is more

The board of TXU agreed Monday to the terms of the buyout (although they are considering other offers) and environmental groups have hailed the deal as a "watershed moment" in the fight against climate change -- for good reason.

TXU agreed to immediately drop eight of the 11 proposed coal-burning plants; it canceled plans to build coal plants in other states; it came out publicly in support of federal legislation to set limits on CO2 emissions; it agreed to reduce their CO2 emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020 (the terms of the Kyoto Treaty that the U.S. did not sign); and it pledged to double the amount that it spends on wind power and energy efficiency -- agreeing to shell out $400 million to help lower demand through conservation.

"It is a big deal," said Jim Marston, of Environmental Defense, who helped negotiate the deal. "We have the largest CO2 emitter in Texas now on record saying 'we're for federal legislation.' And, not only have they canceled plans for eight plants in Texas, but many more they were planning in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Virginia."

And, Martston adds, "They are promising a new ethic" to reward executives for how well the company does environmentally. "That's a big deal for us," he said.

Michael Brune, the president of RAN called the move the "beginning of the end of Big Coal's dominance over America's energy future" -- a hopeful statement.

"Twenty months ago, many of the nation's political and business leaders were marching behind the Bush energy plan, a lockstep that resulted in proposals to build more than 150 new coal-fired power plants," he said. "Investment banks on Wall Street facilitated these proposals by committing billions of dollars for dirty coal plants that would burden the country with outdated technologies and unprecedented growth in greenhouse gas emissions for generations to come. The pledge by TXU's new owners reflects an emerging economic and political reality: any further investment in dirty, inefficient coal plants is risky business."

Investing in the future

For once, it is not business as usual for Wall Street. The deal indicates a new breakthrough in the fight against global warming, because it signifies a shift in investor thinking about the realities of carbon "footprints" -- or the impact corporations make on the environment with CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

"I think they chose to pare back the original TXU plan not because it was environmentally flawed but because it was financially flawed due to environmental reasons," said David Gardiner of David Gardiner & Associates, a consulting firm that helps companies make decisions about environmental and sustainability issues.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: texas, global warming, climate change, txu, coal plants

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I wouldn't get my hopes up
Posted by: beltane on Mar 3, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmmm . . . TXU is "on record as supporting," is "pledging," is "promising," etc.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it yet. These are all unenforceable "promises" and "agreements." Maybe just being uttered to get the deal done?

Let's not wax too poetic just yet about a new business model that includes environmental impact as a factor in cost-benefit analysis. Sure, it ought to be. But there's no real mechanism in place for that yet except "reputation," which takes a distant back seat to profits.

I hope you're right. But I'm from Texas. I know these dickheads. I'll believe TXU turned green when I see the cool shade under their canopy, not when I hear their pious platitudes in the midst of a big transaction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

where do we want to be hit, in the lungs or in the pocket?
Posted by: aislinnluv on Mar 3, 2007 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
not a nice choice. here in texas we have a choice of power providers, but not much choice about what it costs to use their output. in the summer texas is an inhospitable place to live - especially (and excuse me if you live elsewhere in the state and think i'm wrong) anywhere near the coast, where humidity adds to the crushing heat. it is nigh impossible to function without air conditioning, which draws out the moisture and cools the air at the same time. even keeping the thermostat set above 80 degrees (more like 83), my bill for one summer month is astronomical. what i, and i imagine most other texans, want is a choice that is green and affordable. certainly there is enough sunshine and, and some areas, wind to harness without polluting. if this can be accomplished in texas (where lining the pockets of the rich is a popular pasttime for the republicans in power), perhaps other states can line up behind us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Savior?
Posted by: rboska48 on Mar 3, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doubt it. But, may amount to more than rearranging the deck chairs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An offer they couldn't refuse
Posted by: bornxeyed on Mar 3, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
$45 billion must be a sweet deal for TXU investors, one they can't pass up. Why else would they suddenly buy Sherwinn Williams out of green paint?

What does this really tell private utilities? No need to rethink power generation, just threaten to send the earth back to the Carboniferous Era and some "green" investors will reward you with a nice ROI and buy you out.

Now, where might I get a permit to build a coal plant that I can promise not to use for, say, oh, $10 million should let me retire comfortably.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» TXU investors Posted by: MartianBachelor
Simple Economics lesson. Less capacity (no new coal plants) plus
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Mar 3, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
increased demand equals, drum roll please, higher energy prices! Gee, wonder why the private equity firms are jumping at the chance to hookwink ill informed Texans? In fact the privatisation of Texas power systems have been miserable for most Texas residents. If you compare cities like Austin, which retain city ownership of powerplants, and Houston/Dallas that privatised you'll see that Austin had lower energy costs (and more control, oversight of the plants.) What's amazing is that the 'green' folks know little of economics and don't realise that there is big money to be gained through the 'green' process and this is why big companies are getting behind it. They don't really believe but realise that there is good money to be made off ill informed, but well-meaning, people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is the Cost?
Posted by: edith on Mar 3, 2007 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"And there's the price tag for consumers.' "Despite promised rate cuts," the Houston Chronicle wrote, '"the utility will still charge residential users substantially more than the national average."'

And that is Texas, where one poster already has told us that power is above-average cost. What will be the cost per energy unit of Kyotozed-energy. Why is there little or no discussion of this issue. What will cap and trade mean in terms of energy bills and the cost of products that consume energy in the manufacturing process. Will products imported from China where carbon reigns supreme and the govt has contempt for international agreements be considered "fari trade' if they compete w/US goods subject to strict carbon limits legisaltion?

I am not arguing against restrictions on carbon emission; I am asking that some honesty about the cost of the transitiions bue expressed. So far gushing articles like this dodge the cost issue. Tax policy, labor demands, and immigration policy are all affected by who bears the cost of incremental increases in more expnesive non-carbon energy. (I assume that nuclear energy for political reasons is "off the table" and that we won't see environmentalists encouraging conversion from coal to nuclear).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's beautiful
Posted by: fifthworld on Mar 3, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad Wall Street is history. Soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Its the 80's Again - Texas Style
Posted by: Jake1 on Mar 3, 2007 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry to contradict your current lovefest, but this new purchase is going to be the largest LBO in history, slapping TXU with a 50-something billion dollar debt in addition to its already monstrous 14-18 billion dollar current debt. And what do you think the new owners will do first? If the 80's are to be an example, they will immediately begin to cannibalize TXU for profitable dvisions to sell. But I think they'll probably just raise our rates to a level that will finally make us (I am in Texas) competitive with California during the period of our boy Kenny Lays looting spree. Derugulation has been bad for us - but at least this time they'll be "greenies". And they'll show those nasty polluters how to really take a sucker to the cleaners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hahahahahahaha
Posted by: sartre on Mar 3, 2007 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even the business press wasn't as optimistic as this article is. Don't fool yourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are we not subsidizing "red state USA" up the kazoo?
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 3, 2007 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Texas, without air conditioning, is unihabitable? (I expect that can be generalized across the southern states.) Does everyone in Texas (now that Molly Ivins is gone) think like the Shrub?

Arizona, etc. will be uninhabitable when the aquifer water runs out? And the Midwest and Mountain states rely on farm subsidies?

No wonder red/blue breaks down the way it does. No wonder the Bush family has bought up Uruguay from which they can run their plantations in the USA. No wonder Cheney is invested in euros. The rich believe they can runaway and hide.

Looks like we are in for one hell of a struggle in the US over resources, both natural and financial...until we blow ourselves up?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wallstreets coming crash, green or not!
Posted by: brad on Mar 3, 2007 1:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of the signs that have historical preceeded a large market crash are in place. The rollercoaster of the past week is almost a mirror image of 1929. Look out for another black monday! If you own any stock sell it early monday morning, the market is going to go through what they now call a large 'correction' or a massive crash by mid week.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hooray only 3 more in the most polluted state already
Posted by: MISSING on Mar 3, 2007 2:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So there only going to build 3 coal plants instead of 11, well i guess thats a win but maybe they really only wanted to build 3 in the first place. The state with the worst air quality is about to make it even worse. This article tries to paint a rosy picture, but when you consider the fact that we need to reverse what we've done in order to survive then i really don't think only 3 more is going to help when it should have been 3 less.

when peak energy hits we are going to let them do whatever they want just like we did in 9/11 and they know that. so what if they only get 3 this time, as soon as energy shoots up we will beg them to build 30 more. If leaders were really trying to help they would allow net metering in all states and mandate zero emission cars, which is basicly an electric car, that could be recharged with wind generators and solar that people would install once net metering was mandated.

truth is, we are all servants as long as we are connected to the grid, wether its electric, natural gas or gasoline then we are part of the problem. Imagine if you could by an electric car and drive around on wind and solar. that scares the hell out of our slave owners.

cheap energy is over and our solution is to build c.o. producing coal plants. we might as well turn on the news and listen about anna nicole because it will all be over in a few generations. our slave owners are so greedy they don't even care if they kill themselves in the process.

If you want to see what really needs done you should research what the british are doing. they are several years ahead of the rest of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now will Wall Street fight to legalize hemp and fund solar/wind or
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 3, 2007 3:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are they going to continue to play greenwashing again?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please Google ""Kolblerg, Kravis and Davis" and "RJR Nabisco""
Posted by: Jake1 on Mar 3, 2007 5:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dude.
I live in Texas and have since the implementation of TXU's deregulation. And I have witnessed through the pocketbook exactly how rapacious the current bunch of crooks at TXU are.
But comparing those guys to Kolberg, Kravis and Davis is like comparing some small-town tough guy with brass knuckles to Julius Caesar demanding your absolute submission and your children as slaves. KKD has a long and storied history and has definately left its mark on this country in a very short time. These are the original corperate raiders for crying out loud!! You know, those guys that helped totally wreck American industry while creating billionaire investors. They also helped teach us to be "master of the deal" instead of "that nerd who invents or produces stuff". They may be talking green, clean and singing Kumbayah, but you can bet your indebted ass that they're out for a payday of historic proportion. And how much money does it really take to buy off a few hippies these days? Judging from some of the articles in Alternet lately - probably not that much. Hell, a promise of some "input" at a later date'll get you some quality hippies willing to ignore that knawing feeling in their guts.
But I'm being unfair to the Romans now, comparing them to KKD. The Romans were willing to stick around for centuries doing all the dirty work of exploiting, killing and enslaving. If KKD gets its hands on TXU, count on an epic shakedown, the massive selling off of assets and a quick getaway. I'd be suprised if those guys still have so much as an office in Texas 5 years from now. But the billions of looted dallars will last for generations. For their children. Not yours.
Thanks Alternet, for giving us this story completely out of context. Instead of "The Original Masters of Debt and Destruction Smell Easy Pickins and a Fat Payday in Texas", we get "Briefly Named Green Saviors Can Only Be Accused of Caring Too Much.
I used to like Alternet. I really did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US environmental movement sez: "It could have been worse"
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 3, 2007 9:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excuse me for raining on the parade, but it is just a teensy-weensy bit pathetic when maintaining the already fairly disastrous status quo is hailed as a victory by the environmental movement.

Now, if the TXU consortium had decided to CLOSE 11 coal-fired plants permanently and replace that capacity with wind and solar generation, that would have been something to cheer about.

Nevertheless, the fact that the past ten year trend of increasing coal-fired generation in the US appears to be at an end is fairly encouraging (unless you're in the business of mining and selling coal, of course - or if you do public relations work for the coal industry) - but the critical thing is to REPLACE the past ten years of coal expansion with renewables. Until that has been accomplished, I'd go easy on the congratulatory accolades.

After all, climate scientists agree that holding CO2 near the 450-550 ppm levels (currently 380, pre-industrial was 280) is needed to prevent the most catastrophic effects of global warming. That means that an eventual phase-out of essentially all coal-fired electricity generation is needed, in the long run - and the sooner, the better. And yes, renewables are capable of meeting that demand (there used to not be an Internet, remember?).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A small reason for optimism
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Mar 4, 2007 11:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The absurdity that what amounts to a net increase in carbon admissions though power generation in Texas is praised being praised rightly deserves the ridicule that it has received. However, the fact that companies now feel compelled to make at least a pretence of being environmentally conscious is significant. It means that public opinion cannot be ignored.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fluff Article *Don't Believe the Hype*
Posted by: MikeDavis on Mar 5, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is a puff piece. What a wonderful fantasy: that investors and chivalrous protective investors are seeing the alignement of business sense and ethics to create a new paradigm in energy utilities....wake up Tara.

I scan the comments above me and I find myself nodding along to their careful if cynical observations.

Leveraged buyout that will mean a rape and sell off the profitable departments.

11 proposed coal plants (never intended) down to 3. It's still 3! That's like saying "Good news, you only have three cancerous tumours in your lungs and not the 11 we suspected might be there."

KKR isn't doing anyone any favors - there is no line for alturism on a balance sheet, despite what Gardiner and Associates says about "image". Do you think KKR has bought it to hold it, or bought it make a buck on a quick turn around? I'm betting on the former.

TXU is "promising" and "pledging" and "supporting" but until the windmills are in the ground or the geothermal stations are installed, don't count on it.

Despite what free-market disciples will tell you private ownership of natural monopolies (including energy utilities) only adds to cost and produces no benefits. We're dealing with 100 year old technology here people, your fancy-schmancy "leadership paradigms" and financing strategies don't provide any value to people paying the rates. Public power is cheaper power and more responsible power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]