DOCSLIB.ORG

Report Profundo

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report Profundo Undermining our future A study of banks’ investments in selected companies attributable to fossil fuels and renewable energy A Fair Finance Guide International case study Embargo au jeudi 5 novembre 2015 00H01GMT Undermining our future A study of banks’ investments in selected companies attributable to fossil fuels and renewable energy A Fair Finance Guide International case study Ward Warmerdam Alexandra Christopoulou Anniek Herder Charissa Bosma Joeri de Wilde Michel Riemersma Jan Willem van Gelder With contributions by: Victoria Fanggidae, Evert Hassink, Petra Hamers, Soren Henriksen, Jakob König, Yann Louvel, Jesper Stegmann, Alexandre Naulot, Yuki Tanabe, Guilherme Teixeira, Frank Vanaerschot, Gine Zwart 2 November 2015 Contents Summary ..................................................................................................................... i Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1 Background ...................................................................................... 2 1.1 What is at stake? ....................................................................................... 2 1.2 International initiatives ............................................................................. 4 Chapter 2 Methodology ..................................................................................... 9 2.1 Approach ................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Selected financial institutions .................................................................. 9 2.3 Selected companies ................................................................................ 12 2.3.1 Ownership forms ....................................................................................... 12 2.3.2 Selected sectors ....................................................................................... 13 2.3.3 Excluded sectors ....................................................................................... 19 2.3.4 Final definition ........................................................................................... 22 2.4 Types of finance ...................................................................................... 22 2.4.1 Corporate loans ........................................................................................ 22 2.4.2 Share issuances ....................................................................................... 23 2.4.3 Bond issuances ......................................................................................... 24 2.4.4 (Managing) shareholdings ......................................................................... 24 2.4.5 (Managing) investments in bonds .............................................................. 25 2.5 Time period.............................................................................................. 25 2.6 Financial institution feedback ................................................................ 25 2.7 Calculated elements ............................................................................... 26 2.7.1 Financial institution financing contributions ............................................... 26 2.7.2 Segment adjusters .................................................................................... 27 2.7.3 Power generation adjusters ....................................................................... 28 Chapter 3 Global analysis ............................................................................... 30 3.1 Loans and underwriting .......................................................................... 31 3.2 Shareholdings ......................................................................................... 32 Chapter 4 Top 25 financial institutions .......................................................... 33 4.1 Loans and underwriting .......................................................................... 33 4.1.1 Annual analysis ......................................................................................... 33 4.1.2 Rankings ................................................................................................... 35 4.2 Shareholdings ......................................................................................... 38 4.2.1 Annual analysis ......................................................................................... 38 4.2.2 Rankings ................................................................................................... 40 4.3 Financial institution analysis ................................................................. 42 4.3.1 Agricultural Bank of China (China) ............................................................ 43 4.3.2 Bank of America (United States) ............................................................... 46 4.3.3 Bank of China (China) ............................................................................... 50 4.3.4 Bank of Communications (China) .............................................................. 53 4.3.5 Barclays (United Kingdom) ........................................................................ 56 4.3.6 BNP Paribas (France) ............................................................................... 59 4.3.7 China Construction Bank (China) .............................................................. 62 4.3.8 Citigroup (United States) ........................................................................... 65 4.3.9 Crédit Agricole (France) ............................................................................ 68 4.3.10 Credit Suisse (Switzerland) ....................................................................... 71 4.3.11 Deutsche Bank (Germany) ........................................................................ 74 4.3.12 HSBC (United Kingdom) ........................................................................... 76 4.3.13 ICBC (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China – China)......................... 80 4.3.14 ING Group (Netherlands) .......................................................................... 83 4.3.15 JPMorgan Chase (United States) .............................................................. 86 4.3.16 Lloyds Banking Group (United Kingdom) .................................................. 89 4.3.17 Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (Japan) .............................................................. 92 4.3.18 Mizuho Financial (Japan) .......................................................................... 95 4.3.19 Royal Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom) ................................................ 98 4.3.20 Santander (Spain) ................................................................................... 100 4.3.21 Société Générale (France) ...................................................................... 103 4.3.22 Sumitomo Mitsui Financial (Japan) ......................................................... 105 4.3.23 UBS (Switzerland) ................................................................................... 108 4.3.24 UniCredit (Italy) ....................................................................................... 111 4.3.25 Wells Fargo (United States) .................................................................... 114 Chapter 5 Belgium ......................................................................................... 117 5.1 Loans and underwriting ........................................................................ 117 5.1.1 Annual analysis ....................................................................................... 117 5.1.2 Rankings ................................................................................................. 119 5.2 Shareholdings ....................................................................................... 120 5.2.1 Annual analysis ....................................................................................... 121 5.2.2 Rankings ................................................................................................. 122 5.3 Financial institution analysis ............................................................... 124 5.3.1 Argenta ................................................................................................... 124 5.3.2 Belfius Bank ............................................................................................ 125 5.3.3 BNP Paribas ........................................................................................... 127 5.3.4 Deutsche Bank ........................................................................................ 130 5.3.5 F. van Lanschot Bankiers ........................................................................ 133 5.3.6 ING Group .............................................................................................. 134 5.3.7 KBC Group ............................................................................................. 137 5.3.8 Triodos Bank ........................................................................................... 140 5.3.9 VDK Spaarbank ...................................................................................... 143 Chapter 6 Denmark ........................................................................................ 144 6.1 Loans and underwriting ........................................................................ 144 6.1.1 Annual analysis ......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File
    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File Q1'2015 Q1'2014 State MW CF CF Arizona 227 15.8% 21.0% California 5,182 13.2% 19.8% Colorado 2,299 36.4% 40.9% Hawaii 171 21.0% 18.3% Iowa 4,977 40.8% 44.4% Idaho 532 28.3% 42.0% Illinois 3,524 38.0% 42.3% Indiana 1,537 32.6% 29.8% Kansas 2,898 41.0% 46.5% Massachusetts 29 41.7% 52.4% Maryland 120 38.6% 37.6% Maine 401 40.1% 36.3% Michigan 1,374 37.9% 36.7% Minnesota 2,440 42.4% 45.5% Missouri 454 29.3% 35.5% Montana 605 46.4% 43.5% North Dakota 1,767 42.8% 49.8% Nebraska 518 49.4% 53.2% New Hampshire 147 36.7% 34.6% New Mexico 773 23.1% 40.8% Nevada 152 22.1% 22.0% New York 1,712 33.5% 32.8% Ohio 403 37.6% 41.7% Oklahoma 3,158 36.2% 45.1% Oregon 3,044 15.3% 23.7% Pennsylvania 1,278 39.2% 40.0% South Dakota 779 47.4% 50.4% Tennessee 29 22.2% 26.4% Texas 12,308 27.5% 37.7% Utah 306 16.5% 24.2% Vermont 109 39.1% 33.1% Washington 2,724 20.6% 29.5% Wisconsin 608 33.4% 38.7% West Virginia 583 37.8% 38.0% Wyoming 1,340 39.3% 52.2% Total 58,507 31.6% 37.7% SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Decision for the Electrical Interconnection of the Willow Creek Wind Project June 2008
    United States Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration Record of Decision for the Electrical Interconnection of the Willow Creek Wind Project June 2008 INTRODUCTION The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has decided to offer contract terms for interconnection of up to 72 megawatts (MW) of power to be generated by the proposed Willow Creek Wind Project (Wind Project) into the Federal Columbia River Transmission System (FCRTS). Willow Creek Energy LLC (WCE) proposes to construct and operate the proposed Wind Project in Gilliam and Morrow counties, Oregon, and has requested interconnection to the FCRTS at a point along BPA’s existing Tower Road-Alkali 115-kilovolt (kV) transmission line in Gilliam County, Oregon. BPA will construct a tap to allow the Wind Project to interconnect to BPA’s transmission line, and will install new equipment at BPA’s existing Boardman Substation in Morrow County, Oregon to accommodate this additional power in the FCRTS. BPA’s decision to offer terms to interconnect the Wind Project is consistent with BPA’s Business Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (BP EIS) (DOE/EIS-0183, June 1995), and the Business Plan Record of Decision (BP ROD, August 15, 1995). This decision thus is tiered to the BP ROD. BACKGROUND BPA is a federal agency that owns and operates the majority of the high-voltage electric transmission system in the Pacific Northwest. This system is known as the FCRTS. BPA has adopted an Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff) for the FCRTS, consistent with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) pro forma open access tariff.1 Under BPA’s Tariff, BPA offers transmission interconnection to the FCRTS to all eligible customers on a first-come, first-served basis, with this offer subject to an environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    [Show full text]
  • TOP 100 POWER PEOPLE 2016 the Movers and Shakers in Wind
    2016 Top 100 Power People 1 TOP 100 POWER PEOPLE 2016 The movers and shakers in wind Featuring interviews with Samuel Leupold from Dong Energy and Ian Mays from RES Group © A Word About Wind, 2016 2016 Top 100 Power People Contents 2 CONTENTS Compiling the Top 100: Advisory panel and ranking process 4 Interview: Dong Energy’s Samuel Leupold discusses offshore 6 Top 100 breakdown: Statistics on this year’s table 11 Profiles: Numbers 100 to 41 13 Interview: A Word About Wind meets RES Group’s Ian Mays 21 Profiles: Numbers 40 to 6 26 Top five profiles:The most influential people in global wind 30 Top 100 list: The full Top 100 Power People for 2016 32 Next year: Key dates for your diary in 2017 34 21 Facing the future: Ian Mays on RES Group’s plans after his retirement © A Word About Wind, 2016 2016 Top 100 Power People Editorial 3 EDITORIAL resident Donald Trump. It is one of The company’s success in driving down the Pthe biggest shocks in US presidential costs of offshore wind over the last year history but, in 2017, Trump is set to be the owes a great debt to Leupold’s background new incumbent in the White House. working for ABB and other big firms. Turn to page 6 now if you want to read the The prospect of operating under a climate- whole interview. change-denying serial wind farm objector will not fill the US wind sector with much And second, we went to meet Ian Mays joy.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Wind Energy Update House Energy & Utilities Committee Kimberly Svaty on Behalf of the Wind Coalition 23 January 2012
    KANSAS WIND ENERGY UPDATE HOUSE ENERGY & UTILITIES COMMITTEE KIMBERLY SVATY ON BEHALF OF THE WIND COALITION 23 JANUARY 2012 Operating Kansas Wind Projects •1272.4 MW total installed wind generation •10 operating wind projects •Equates to billions in capital investment and thousands of construction jobs and more than 100 permanent jobs •Kansas has the second best wind resource in the nation th •Ranked 14 in the nation in overall wind power production • Percent of Kansas Power by wind in 2010 – 7.1% th •Kansas ranked 5 in the US in 2010 for percentage of electricity delivered from wind • Operating Kansas Wind Projects Project County Developer Size Power Turbine Installed In-Service Name (MW) Offtaker Type Turbines Year (MW) Gray County Gray NextEra 112 MKEC Vestas 170 2001 KCP&L 660kW Elk River Butler Iberdola 150 Empire GE 1.5 100 2005 Spearville Ford enXco 100.4 KCP&L GE 1.5 67 2006 Spearville II 48 48 2010 Smoky Hills Lincoln/ TradeWind 100.8 Sunflower – 50 Vestas 56 2008 Phase I Ellsworth Energy KCBPU- 25 1.8 Midwest Energy – 24 Smoky Hills Lincoln/ TradeWind 150 Sunflower – 24 GE 99 2008 Phase II Ellsworth Energy Midwest – 24 1.5 IP&L – 15 Springfield -50 Meridian Cloud Horizon 204 Empire – 105 Vestas 67 2008 Way EDP Westar - 96 3.0 Flat Ridge Barber BP Wind 100 Westar Clipper 40 2009 Energy 2.5 Central Wichita RES 99 Westar Vestas 33 2009 Plains Americas 3.0 Greensburg Kiowa John Deere/ 12.5 Kansas Power Pool Suzlon 10 2010 Exelon 1.2 Caney River Elk TradeWind 200 Tennessee Valley Vestas 111 2011 Energy Authority (TVA) 1.8 Operating Kansas Wind Projects Gray County Wind Farm- Gray County, Kansas - Kansas' first commercial wind farm was erected near the town of Montezuma by FPL Energy (now NextEra Energy Resources) in 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012 Copyright © Frankfurt School of Finance and Management Ggmbh 2012
    GLOBAL TRENDS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY INVESTMENT 2012 Copyright © Frankfurt School of Finance and Management gGmbH 2012. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. Frankfurt School - UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate Change & Sustainable Energy Finance would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from Frankfurt School of Finance & Management gGmbH. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 4 FOREWORD FROM ACHIM STEINER ................................................................................................................ 5 FOREWORD FROM UDO STEFFENS ................................................................................................................. 6 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................. 7 METHODOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................... 9 KEY FINDINGS ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Wind Energy
    Planning for Wind Energy Suzanne Rynne, AICP , Larry Flowers, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller, AICP , Editors American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 566 Planning for Wind Energy is the result of a collaborative part- search intern at APA; Kirstin Kuenzi is a research intern at nership among the American Planning Association (APA), APA; Joe MacDonald, aicp, was program development se- the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the nior associate at APA; Ann F. Dillemuth, aicp, is a research American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and Clarion associate and co-editor of PAS Memo at APA. Associates. Funding was provided by the U.S. Department The authors thank the many other individuals who con- of Energy under award number DE-EE0000717, as part of tributed to or supported this project, particularly the plan- the 20% Wind by 2030: Overcoming the Challenges funding ners, elected officials, and other stakeholders from case- opportunity. study communities who participated in interviews, shared The report was developed under the auspices of the Green documents and images, and reviewed drafts of the case Communities Research Center, one of APA’s National studies. Special thanks also goes to the project partners Centers for Planning. The Center engages in research, policy, who reviewed the entire report and provided thoughtful outreach, and education that advance green communities edits and comments, as well as the scoping symposium through planning. For more information, visit www.plan- participants who worked with APA and project partners to ning.org/nationalcenters/green/index.htm. APA’s National develop the outline for the report: James Andrews, utilities Centers for Planning conduct policy-relevant research and specialist at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; education involving community health, natural and man- Jennifer Banks, offshore wind and siting specialist at AWEA; made hazards, and green communities.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment
    U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment Issue Date | March 2020 Prepared By American Wind Energy Association Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Current Status of U.S. Offshore Wind .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Lessons from Land-based Wind ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Announced Investments in Domestic Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 5 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Input Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Modeling Tool ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Document Daily 01.Pdf
    Not Very Green, Not Many Jobs An Assessment of the Obama Administration’s Green Jobs Agenda Executive Summary President Obama took office amid a weak economy and high unemployment. In spite of profound and urgent economic challenges, he remained committed to advancing an expansive environmental agenda. He promised to address global warming and other environmental concerns in a manner that would also create jobs and strengthen the American economy. Thus began the Administration’s so-called green jobs agenda, modeled after similar efforts underway in several European nations. The President’s green jobs experiment received substantial funding with the February 2009 passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Recovery Act or “stimulus”). Evaluating the President’s so-called green jobs effort is not a criticism of clean energy technologies, which play an important role in powering the future, but rather is an indictment of the Obama Administration’s management, execution, and record of its numerous programs that were falsely sold to the American people for their job potential when the jobs were never going to materialize. For 40 consecutive months and counting, the United States has endured a national unemployment rate higher than 8 percent, and speculation about the role of stimulus-funded programs continues unabated. Very few green jobs have been created. The green jobs agenda is an unfolding failure and the environmental merits of green jobs have also been called into question. The key components of the Administration’s green jobs agenda – increased spending, higher energy costs, and more environmental regulation – are precisely the wrong policies to spur job growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2011
    GLOBAL TRENDS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY INVESTMENT 2011 Analysis of Trends and Issues in the Financing of Renewable Energy ROGRAMME P NVIRONMENT E ATIONS N NITED U Copyright © United Nations Environment Programme and Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2011 This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme. Disclaimer United Nations Environment Programme: The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement. Bloomberg New Energy Finance: The information contained in this publication is derived from carefully selected public sources we believe are reasonable, however we cannot be responsible for its accuracy or completeness. Any opinions expressed reflect the current judgement of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Finance LP. The opinions presented are subject to change without notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Wind Summit September 25, 30, and October 7
    Offshore Wind Summit September 25, 30, and October 7, 2020 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & The Embassy of Denmark 1 Introductory Remarks Jessica Rackley, Energy & Environment Program Director, NGA Center for Best Practices Michael Guldbrandtsen, Counselor, Embassy of Denmark Thank You to our Sponsors States with Clean Energy Goals Source: NGA, 2020 Offshore Wind Technical Potential Source: NREL, 2016 Offshore Wind Energy Resource Assessment for the United States Today’s Virtual Meeting: Zoom Controls The Zoom menu bar appears at the If you don’t see the menu bar, move your bottom of the Zoom window once the meeting begins. mouse slightly and the bar will appear. Chat your questions Introductory Remarks Michael Guldbrandtsen Counselor Embassy of Denmark Welcome Remarks Tim Blute Director NGA Center for Best Practices Introduction to the Day – Offshore Wind Update Thomas Brostrøm CEO Ørsted North America, Offshore Offshore Wind Summit Thomas Brostrøm, CEO Ørsted North America, Offshore Offshore Wind Update September 25, 2020 Ranked most sustainable company in the world 2 Significant transformation of Ørsted over the past decade 1 Note 1: Figures taken from Ørsted’s Annual Report 2019. Excluding Radius (power distribution business which was divested during 2019) Note 2: ROCE target for 2019-2025 3 Note 3: International share calculated based on Group EBITDA excl. divestments and miscellaneous un-allocated costs totalling 16 DKKbn The first major energy company to reach net-zero emissions in its energy generation – We will become carbon neutral by 2025. – This will make Ørsted the first major energy company to reach net-zero emissions in its energy generation – far ahead of science-based decarbonization targets for limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report of Wind Farm Data September 2008 Yih-Huei Wan
    Technical Report Summary Report of Wind NREL/TP-500-44348 Farm Data May 2009 September 2008 Yih-huei Wan Technical Report Summary Report of Wind NREL/TP-500-44348 Farm Data May 2009 September 2008 Yih-huei Wan Prepared under Task No. WER8.5001 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Perceived Risk and Response to the Wind Turbine Ice Throw
    PERCEIVED RISK AND RESPONSE TO THE WIND TURBINE ICE THROW HAZARD: COMPARING COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL IN TWO REGIONS OF TEXAS by Greg Klaus, B.S., M.A.G. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Council of Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a major in Environmental Geography May 2017 Committee Members: Denise Blanchard-Boehm, Chair Richard Dixon Richard Earl Todd Moore COPYRIGHT by Greg Klaus 2017 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgment. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Greg Klaus, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. DEDICATION The author would like to dedicate this dissertation to the men and women who work in the wind energy industry who at times put themselves in harm’s way in order to provide for their families and also supply this great nation with a clean, renewable source of electricity. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank his committee chair Dr. Denise Blanchard for all of her support and guidance throughout the dissertation process; as well as thank committee members Dr. Richard Dixon, Dr. Richard Earl, and Dr.
    [Show full text]