Webber Research ESG Scorecard: 2020

2020 ESG Scorecard – Updated Model, Same Idea. Before we delve into our updated rankings, framework, and company specific changes, we want to reiterate the idea that underpins this entire endeavor, which is that we believe there is no longer a place in the public shipping markets for companies that do not prioritize strong corporate governance and capital stewardship. We believe that risk premiums associated with poor governance and capital discipline should continue to widen, eventually pricing-out conflicted players and antiquated structures from public markets.

New Carbon Factor. Our 2020 ESG Scorecard includes a broadened methodology that incorporates the public disclosure of relevant of carbon data, which becomes the 9th factor within our proprietary multi-factor ESG model and increases the total number of subfactors to 20 (from 18). The carbon disclosure metrics we’ve chosen to initially include (AER & EEOI – see Page 15) are aimed at aligning our ESG framework with the Poseidon Principles, and intended to help facilitate the consistency and disclosure of carbon data to investors. We will also continue to display each company’s ESG Scorecard Quartile, as well as a Carbon Disclosure Indicator on the front page of our company-specific research notes – as we’ve done since we launched Webber Research in Q419.

Model Adjustments. We’ve given our new Carbon Factor a 20% weighting within our model, positioning it among the most dominant variables within our framework, while re-weighting other aspects of our model in order to accommodate the addition. Our revised factor weightings and methodology can be found on Pages 10-15. We also narrowed our 2020 ESG Scorecard universe to 52 companies from 56 (Page 5).

Carbon Disclosure: Who’s Participating? We’ve included a summary of our work around carbon disclosures on Pages 2-3. In total, 42% of the companies in our scorecard (22/52) met carbon disclosure requirements within our model. While we’re encouraged by the level of initial participation, there’s clearly room improvement. To that point, we’re aware of several companies still the process of aggregating, auditing, and (eventually) disclosing relevant carbon data to investors, which should continue to improve the participation level in subsequent scorecards.

Superior Governance Translates To Outperformance:

• Companies with the strongest ESG scores (EGLE, INSW, ASC, TRTN, GNK, EURN, OSG, MATX, GRIN, GLOG, INT, GLNG, and KEX) outperformed the group by 16% on a 5-year basis and 41% since inception.

• Companies with the weakest ESG scores (CMRE, KNOP, TGP, CPLP, NMM, NNA, DSX, DLNG, GSL, DAC, TNP, GASS, and SB) underperformed the group by (24%) on a 3-year basis and (25%) since inception.

Renewable Energy: The Next Generation

Initiating Coverage Of ENPH, TPIC, REGI, & ENS

Executive Summary ……………………………………………….Page  5
Industry Overviews………………………………………………..Page 9
Near-Term Drivers.…………………………………………………Page 11
Solar …………………………………………………………………Page 14
Wind …………………………………………………………………Page 20
Biofuels ……………………………………………………………..Page 25
Energy Storage …………………………………………………….Page 30
Enphase Energy, Inc. (ENPH) …………………………………….Page 33
TPI Composites, Inc. (TPIC) ………………………………………Page 47
Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REGI) ………………………….Page 59
Enersys (ENS) ………………………………………………………Page 70
Disclosures ………………………………………………………….Page 81

Rolling Out Our First Wave Of Renewable Energy Coverage: We are initiating coverage of REGI (Outperform, PT: $36), ENPH (Market Perform, PT: $33), TPIC (Market Perform, PT: $17), and ENS (Market Perform, PT: $55). As our historical energy infrastructure coverage has evolved, we’ve watched renewables consistently gain market share and play an increasingly competitive role in energy trade dynamics – particularly in the emerging markets, where we’ve seen prices come down, viability rise, and competitive flash points between traditional fuels, LNG, and renewables. Rather than focus solely on incumbent fuels and infrastructure, or solely on a potential bridge like LNG, we think it’s more prudent to cover energy transitions from every angle – hence our expansion into renewables.

Why These Names? We’re establishing a footprint in several renewable verticals: solar, wind, biofuels, and energy storage, creating a well-rounded platform that we can continue to expand. Within those verticals, ENPH, TPIC, REGI, and ENS were among the stocks most commonly highlighted by our clients as either underfollowed, misunderstood, or both. Although oil and gas (which remains the focal point of our legacy
coverage) still dominate global energy markets, it’s increasingly clear the future of energy is here – and it’s decarbonizing, innovating, and quickly becoming price competitive. We also think the group dovetails nicely with our skill-sets: analyzing SMID energy and infrastructure names with asymmetric risk/return profiles.

How Are We Tackling Renewables? There’s a reason why we were both drawn to and pushed toward this space – each company has a strong core business, at least one (or several) growth drivers, and the kind of significant shifting dynamics that can create particularly compelling risk/reward profiles.

COVID-19 Disclaimer: We continue to highlight our gratitude for health care providers and first responders during this time, and while our primary focus continues to be with the safety and well-being of our families, associates, and employees, the pandemic has certainly complicated our plans for initiation, however we think it’s important to have coverage through this period of uncertainty – rather than simply waiting for smoother seas. Each of our names have been and will continue to be greatly affected by the outbreak and associated economic downturn. Countries around the world have delayed energy auctions while agencies and data service providers have all begun to cut global supply and demand forecasts across all energy verticals. That said, it’s still too early to fully assess the potential impact on our industry- and company-level coverage. As a result, we are generally exercising caution with our ratings, price targets, and estimates until we get a broader view of the long-term disruption.

Investment Theses (Abridged)
Enphase Energy (ENPH) – Market Perform, PT: $33….continued (more…)

It’s Barge Week At Webber R|A!

KEX: Previewing Q419 Earnings & 2020 Guidance

• Inland & Coastal Color:                                                                  Page 3-4
• Inland Spot & Term Pricing Data (Current/Historical):            Page 5
• Inland Barge Orderbook & Delivery Schedule:                        Page 6

Heading into KEX’s Q4 earnings call (1/30) we expect a focus on: (more…)

LNG Update: Frozen 3? Funding Hot Potato For Novatek’s Arctic 2

Keeping An Eye On Budgeting Process For Arctic 2

Who Picks Up The Check For Arctic 2? The timeline for Novatek’s high-profile Arctic LNG 2 (19.8mpta) may have hit a modest speedbump, as the ~$1.9BN request to help finance critical aspects of Arctic 2 [the Utrenneye LNG terminal on Gydan peninsula (page 4), and reloading terminals in Murmansk (for European cargoes) and Kamchatka (for Asia cargoes)] are absent from Russia’s 2020 draft budget. While the project has already reached a positive FID, and is clearly a national priority – we think it’s worth watching whether any squabble over the ultimate funding source ends up delaying its operational timeline (which is already ambitious). The primary options appeared to be (1) the state budget (now absent), or (2) funding from the ~$124B National Wealth Fund, which appears to be a more complicated….

For access information please email us at [email protected] 

Webber R|A: Vertical LNG Weekly

FERC Approves 4 Texas LNG Projects: On 11/21 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) voted in favor (2-1) of all three Brownsville LNG export terminals (below), along with Cheniere’s CC Stage – 3 expansion – granting all 4 projects final approval. Among those approved:

• NextDecade’s (NEXT) Rio Grande LNG (~27 mtpa)
• Annova LNG Brownsville (~7 mtpa)
• Texas LNG Brownsville (~4 mtpa)
• Cheniere’s (LNG) CC Stage – 3 expansion (~9.5 mtpa)

The approvals made meaningful progress for the projects, and come amid an uptick in local environmental pushback in Brownsville. While FERC approval is certainly helpful, all 4 projects still require meaningful commercialization targets to reach positive FID. We remain buyers of LNG and NEXT, as we view the Texas coast as the path of least resistance for associated Permian gas to reach the international markets.

Creating A Residual Value Floor: It’s also worth noting that we think the combination of an advantaged location and FERC approval effect helps create a meaningful asset and (to some degree) a valuation floor for the respective development companies. While we think the idea FERC/Site asset would have most of its practical relevance in a distressed scenario, we think its meaningful none-the-less, and not something we feel would be equal among projects (due to proximity advantages to the Permian).

European Investment Bank (EIB) Announces Phase Out Of Fossil Fuel Lending: Roughly two weeks before the 25th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 25), the European Investment Bank (EIB), EU’s nonprofit long-term lending institution, announced it would (effectively) stop lending to fossil fuel projects, via particularly tight environmental guidelines. While the move is another meaningful step towards the de-carbonization of Europe, the immediate impact on LNG infrastructure is highly muted. For scale, the EIB lent out ~€11.8BN between 2013 and 2017, compared to JPM financing ~$62.7BN in 2018 alone. It’s also worth noting that the EIB can choose how they define alignment to the Paris Agreement, while others (World Bank, EBRD, Asian Development Bank, etc.) can choose different interpretations, and these institutions will still be able to finance midstream/downstream gas and gas-fired projects. On a more granular basis, most demand (and incremental lending) for natural gas projects now comes from non-European markets. Which typically has access to wider pockets of capital. For example, Mitsui recently invested in a major gas-fired power plant in Thailand, with financing provided by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation. Hence, we think the EIB move is material in the sense of sector leadership, but we aren’t expecting a dramatic market impact, at least at this point. Other notable takeaways from the EIB announcement: …….

Emails us at [email protected] for access details

Webber Research: Global Shipping Weekly

Russia May Delay IMO 2020 Compliance:

Russia, a large producer and exporter of high sulfur fuel oil, intends to delay full implementation of IMO 2020 regulations until 2024. This will only be in effect within local waters (including Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan). Despite investments in Russian refineries, only one Russian oil producer (Lukoil), has the ability to produce fuel that complies with IMO 2020 standards. It’s worth noting that, IMO regulation enforcement falls on Russia, not the IMO itself. While there are audit mechanisms for corrective action plans, there are no punitive measures for violations. Earlier this year, Indonesia also flirted with the idea of not enforcing IMO requirements, but later backtracked and pledged commitment to the IMO 2020 standards.

Tanker Spot Rates Continue To Slide:

VLCC spot rates (TCEs) down last week with rates ending at $54.8k/day (-23% w/w and -81% m/m). Suezmax TCEs ended the week at $39.0k/day (-28% w/w and -76% m/m) while Aframax rates ended the week at $21.5k/day (-23% w/w and -63% m/m). As the market digested the chaotic past few weeks, owners are starting to temper expectations with freight rates and have been giving up gains. We note rates remain well-above mid-cycle levels.

IMO 2020 Update:

Earlier this week EURN signed a partnership with T.A.G. Marine, operator of Kuala Linggi International Port (KLIP), that will allow EURN’s ULCC Oceania to float and

Contact us at [email protected] for access details