|
|
Payments Due by Period |
|
Contractual Obligation: |
|
Total |
|
Less
than
1 Year |
|
1 - 3
Years |
|
3 - 5
Years |
|
More
than
5 Years |
|
Lease commitments(1) |
|
$ |
5,222 |
|
$ |
1,328 |
|
$ |
1,751 |
|
$ |
1,545 |
|
$ |
598 |
|
Term loan (principal and interest) |
|
|
1,580 |
|
|
433 |
|
|
864 |
|
|
283 |
|
|
-- |
|
Purchase commitments(2) |
|
|
14,855 |
|
|
14,734 |
|
|
121 |
|
|
-- |
|
|
-- |
|
Preferred dividends payable (3) (4) |
|
|
20,452 |
|
|
379 |
|
|
758 |
|
|
758 |
|
|
18,557 |
|
Totals |
|
$ |
42,109 |
|
$ |
16,874 |
|
$ |
3,494 |
|
$ |
2,586 |
|
$ |
19,155 |
|
(1) |
Future minimum lease payments on capital and operating leases. |
(2) |
Short-term purchase commitments with suppliers for materials supplies, and services incurred in the normal course of business. |
(3) |
Quarterly dividends of Cdn.$312,500 accrue on the Series 1 preferred shares (subject to possible reduction pursuant to the terms of the Series 1 preferred shares on account of increases in the price of FuelCells common stock). We have agreed to pay a minimum of Cdn.$500,000 in cash or common stock annually to Enbridge, Inc., the holder of the Series 1 preferred shares, so long as Enbridge holds the shares. Interest accrues on cumulative unpaid dividends at a 2.45 percent quarterly rate, compounded quarterly, until payment thereof. Cumulative unpaid dividends and interest at October 31, 2004 were approximately $2.8 million. For the purposes of this disclosure, we have assumed that the minimum dividend payments would be made through 2010. In 2010, we would be required to pay any unpaid and accrued dividends. From 2010 through 2020, we would be required to pay annual dividend amounts totaling Cdn.$1.25
million. |
(4) |
We have assumed a constant exchange rate for the purposes of this disclosure at 0.76 U.S. dollars to 1.0 Canadian dollar. |
On June 29, 2000, we entered into a loan agreement, secured by machinery and equipment, and have borrowed an aggregate of $2.2 million under the agreement. The loan is payable over seven years, with payments of interest only for the first six months and then repaid in monthly installments over the remaining six and one-half years with interest computed annually based on the ten-year U.S. Treasury note plus 2.5 percent. Our current interest rate at July 31, 2004 is 7.2 percent and the outstanding principal balance on this loan is approximately $1.5 million.
Approximately $0.6 million of our cash and cash equivalents have been pledged as collateral for certain banking relationships in which we participate.
Research and Development Cost-Share Contracts
We have contracted with various government agencies as either a prime contractor or sub-contractor on cost-share contracts and agreements. Cost-share terms require that participating contractors share the total cost of the project in an agreed ratio with the government agency. For example, our DOE sponsored demonstration of our two-megawatt DFC 3000 power plant operating on synthesis gas derived from coal has a total project value of $34.5 million. The DOE will reimburse us 50 percent of the cost on this project and we will incur the balance. Thus, over the life of this program and assuming that funding is approved annually by Congress, our share of the total research and development expenditures would be approximately $17.3 million for this program. As of October 31, 2004, our research and
development sales backlog totaled $16.4 million. As this backlog is funded in future periods, we will incur additional research and development cost-share totaling approximately $15.5 million for which we would not be reimbursed by the government.
Product Sales Contracts
Our fuel cell power plant products are in the initial stages of development and market acceptance. As such, costs to manufacture and install our products exceed current market prices. As of October 31, 2004, we had product sales backlog of approximately $26.3 million. We do not expect sales from this backlog to be profitable.
RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123 (revised 2004) (SFAS No. 123R), Share-Based Payment which revised SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. This statement supercedes APB Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees. The revised statement addresses the accounting for share-based payment transactions with employees and other third parties, eliminates the ability to account for share-based compensation transactions using APB 25 and requires that the compensation costs relating to such transactions be recognized in the consolidated statement of operations. The revised statement is effective as of the first interim period beginning after June 15, 2005. We are
currently evaluating the provisions of SFAS No. 123R and will adopt it on August 1, 2005 as required.
In November 2004, the FASB ratified the consensus reached by the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF), on Issue No. 03-13, Applying the Conditions in Paragraph 42 of FASB Statement No. 144 in Determining Whether to Report Discontinued Operations. The Issue provides a model to assist in evaluating (a) which cash flows should be considered in the determination of whether cash flows of the disposal component have been or will be eliminated from the ongoing operations of the entity and (b) the types of continuing involvement that constitute significant continuing involvement in the operations of the disposal component. Should significant continuing ongoing involvement exist, then the disposal component shall be reported in the results of continuing operations on the consolidated statements of operations
and cash flows. We applied the provisions of this accounting standard to our financial statements.
In November 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 151, Inventory Costs, which amends the guidance in ARB No. 43, Chapter 4, Inventory Pricing, to clarify the accounting for abnormal amounts of idle facility expense, freight, handling costs, and wasted material. This Statement requires that those items be recognized as current-period charges regardless of whether they meet the criterion of so abnormal. In addition, this Statement requires that allocation of fixed production overheads to the costs of conversion be based on the normal capacity of the production facilities. We are currently evaluating the provisions of SFAS No. 151 and will adopt it on November 1, 2005, as required.
In December 2003, the FASB issued FIN No. 46R, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, which requires an entity to consolidate a variable interest entity if it is designated as the primary beneficiary of that entity even if the entity does not have a majority of voting interests. A variable interest entity is generally defined as an entity where its equity is inadequate to finance its activities or where the owners of the entity lack the risk and rewards of ownership. We have evaluated the provisions of FIN No. 46R, as required, and determined that we did not have any material variable interest entities and did not have any variable interest entities that require consolidation into our financial statements.
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Interest Rate Exposure
Our exposure to market risk for changes in interest rates, relates primarily to our investment portfolio and long term debt obligations. Our investment portfolio includes both short-term United States Treasury instruments with maturities averaging three months or less, as well as U.S. Treasury notes with fixed interest rates with maturities of up to twenty months. Cash is invested overnight with high credit quality financial institutions. Based on our overall interest exposure at October 31, 2004, including all interest rate sensitive instruments, a near-term change in interest rate movements of 1 percent would affect our results of operations by approximately $0.5 million annually.
Foreign Currency Exchange Risk
We are subject to foreign exchange risk although we have taken steps to mitigate those risks where possible. As of October 31, 2004 approximately $2.4 million (or 2 percent) of our total cash, cash equivalents and investments was in currencies other than U.S. dollars.
Our functional currency is the U.S. dollar as is our foreign subsidiary FuelCell Energy, Ltd. as the majority of our cash is invested in U.S. dollar investments.
During the year ended October 31, 2004, we recognized a foreign exchange gain totaling $0.5 million which has been recorded as a component of interest and other income on our consolidated statement of operations. Although we have not experienced significant foreign exchange rate losses to date, we may in the future, especially to the extent that we do not engage in hedging activities. We do not enter into derivative financial instruments. The economic impact of currency exchange rate movements on our operating results is complex because such changes are often linked to variability in real growth, inflation, interest rates, governmental actions and other factors. These changes, if material, may cause us to adjust our financing and operating strategies. Consequently, isolating the effect of changes in currency
does not incorporate these other important economic factors.
BUSINESS
FuelCell Energy, Inc. is a world leader in the development and manufacture of fuel cell power plants for clean, efficient and reliable electric power generation. We have been developing fuel cell technology since our founding in 1969. We are currently commercializing our core carbonate fuel cell products (Direct FuelCell® or DFC® Power Plants), offering stationary applications for commercial and industrial customers and continuing to develop
our next generation of carbonate fuel cell products. In addition, we are beginning the development of another high temperature fuel cell system, planar solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology, as a prime contractor in the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) Program and through our 42 percent ownership interest in Versa Power Systems (Versa).
Direct FuelCell (DFC) Power Plants
Increasing worldwide demand for reliable power presents significant market opportunities for our core distributed generation products. Our proprietary carbonate DFC power plants electrochemically produce electricity directly from readily available hydrocarbon fuels, such as natural gas and wastewater treatment gas. We believe our products offer significant advantages compared to other power generation technologies, including:
· |
Flexible siting and permitting requirements; |
· |
Ability to provide electricity and heat for cogeneration applications, such as district heating, process steam, hot water and absorption chilling for air conditioning; |
· |
Potentially lower operating, maintenance and generation costs than alternative distributed power generation technologies; and |
· |
Because our DFC power plants produce hydrogen from readily available fuels such as natural gas and wastewater treatment gas, they can be used to cost-effectively cogenerate hydrogen as well as electricity and heat. |
Our current products, the DFC300A, DFC1500 and DFC3000, are rated in capacity at 250 kW, 1 MW and 2 MW, respectively, and are scalable for distributed applications up to 10 MW or larger. Our products are designed to meet the base load power requirements of a wide range of commercial and industrial customers including wastewater treatment plants (municipal, such as sewage treatment facilities, and industrial, such as breweries and food processors), telecommunications/data centers, manufacturing facilities, office buildings, hospitals, universities, prisons, mail processing facilities, hotels and government facilities, as well as in grid support applications for utility customers. Through January 10, 2005, over 55 million kWh of electricity has been generated from power plants incorporating our DFC
technology at customer sites throughout the world.
We see significant market potential for our DFC products. In October 2004, Energy User News reported that Allied Business Intelligence (ABI) projected distributed generation to the grid may increase to 200,000 MW worldwide by 2011 compared with 65,000 MW currently, with 6 percent or 12,000 MW from fuel cells. A year earlier, ABI reported that global stationary fuel cell cumulative shipments would rise from 55 MW cumulative through 2003 to nearly 18,000 MW cumulative through 2013, according to its moderate forecast. Another study, prepared by the DOE/Energy Information Administration (EIA) in 2000, estimated the
potential market for combined heat and power (CHP) plant installations in the United States to be greater than 77,000 MW. This includes 6,500 MW for hotels/motels, 8,000 MW for hospitals, 19,000 MW for schools/colleges/universities, and over 18,600 MW for office buildings.
We have invested more than $450 million in the development of our fuel cell technology, including funding from various U.S. government agencies such as the DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency. Our primary focus is carbonate fuel cell technology, which we have advanced from the laboratory into standard DFC products. We believe we have established a leading position for our DFC products in the commercial distributed generation marketplace due to a number of factors, including:
· |
We are selling ultra-clean high-temperature fuel cell power plants for stationary base load power, which provide high fuel efficiency and high-value waste heat for cogeneration applications. |
· |
We have strong global distribution partners, including original equipment manufactures (OEMs) and energy service companies (ESCOs), with expertise in selling and marketing energy products and services to commercial and industrial customers worldwide. |
· |
We obtained commercial product certifications for safety, interconnection, installation and performance. |
· |
We are operating a fleet of DFC power plants at customer sites throughout the world, with a backlog that we expect will double the fleet in service in the next 12-18 months. |
· |
We have established production facilities, with equipment in place to produce 50 MW of DFC products annually. |
· |
We achieved our 2004 value-engineering cost reduction target of 25 percent and are confident we can continue to reduce costs. |
· |
We have expanded our sales and service capabilities to support our DFC products. |
· |
We have a strong balance sheet, with over $240 million in cash, cash equivalents and investments (U.S. Treasury Securities) as of November 18, 2004 to support our growth. |
We believe there are positive trends within the distributed generation and fuel cell markets that will benefit our DFC power plant business. Increasing worldwide demand for reliable power, concerns over air pollution caused by combustion power generation, and unreliable electrical grid delivery systems present significant market opportunities for our core DFC products. Furthermore, because of their non-combustion, non-mechanical power generation process, fuel cells are more efficient, produce significantly less pollutant emissions, are better suited to provide combined heat and power (CHP) and offer more quiet and flexible siting distributed generation solutions than comparable conventional power plants.
In introducing our products to the marketplace, we face obstacles that can lengthen the sales cycle. At the macro-economic level, these include varying energy demand, capital appropriation cycles and changing economic environments such as rising fuel prices. For example, in the short term, the sales effort for DFC projects and other distributed generation projects operating on natural gas were adversely affected in 2004 by higher fuel prices. Grid-delivered electricity prices can have a regulatory lag of up to one year or more before fuel costs are reflected in local utility rates. Over the longer term, our higher fuel efficiency should result in customer preference for base load power generation using our DFC products.
Other market obstacles vary by region, but include regulatory uncertainty for distributed generation, monopoly-based electricity markets, interconnect issues, disparate recognition of the locational value and environmental benefits of distributed generation, standby power costs and stranded asset exit fees. We believe that the marketplace is responding to these issues.
In the U.S., which is among the most difficult regulatory environments, interconnect standards, standby charges and exit fees are being adjusted to accommodate newer technologies that generate electricity with greater fuel efficiency and reduced emissions. New York and Massachusetts adopted exemptions from these charges for our DFC products in 2004, following Californias lead in 2003. We expect that this trend will continue and help to accelerate the market penetration of our DFC power plants.
To further stimulate the market, significant incentive programs are available in Asia, the U.S. and Europe, with many being renewed and new ones being introduced. For example, new energy policies in Japan and Korea were announced to meet clean energy requirements in those countries, and new initiatives in Connecticut and New York are requesting large scale renewable projects of 10 MW or larger. California renewed its Self Generation Incentive Program in 2004, with funding approved for clean distributed generation projects through 2007. European incentive programs are similar and our partner, MTU CFC Solutions, Gmbh (MTU), a DaimlerChrysler subsidiary, has technology, manufacturing and distribution rights for carbonate fuel cell power plants and is focused on the European market.
High product cost due to the early stage of commercializing our DFC power plants results in our product pricing being substantially higher than competing products that are more mature. Available government subsidies make us more competitive with other sources of delivered electrical energy, but the approval and funding process for these government incentive programs can be protracted. We are beginning to see evidence that timing for this process is shortening, e.g., in California, where we are participating with government agencies in an increasing number of projects .
Our products produce electricity and thermal energy which are commodities to end users. While our products compete essentially on price, the attributes of our DFC products enhance our value proposition. For example, in some global regions with strict air emissions controls, the ultra-clean designation of our DFC power plants enables our products to be sited where combustion-based technologies cannot. We believe our DFC products can provide more favorable attributes such as improved reliability, quiet operation, scalability, ability to provide electricity and heat for cogeneration applications, such as district heating, process steam, hot water and absorption chilling for air conditioning, and ultra low emissions at less cost with volume production. We are currently selling our products to customers
in high cost electricity markets at prices that, when combined with government incentives, are economically competitive with other power sources. We believe that our progress in 2004 enhances our opportunity to increase sales and continue to reduce costs to market clearing prices for our DFC products. In the higher cost regions of the U.S., i.e., California and the Northeast, we believe that market clearing prices are between $2,000 and $3,000 per kW. In regions where electricity prices are even higher, i.e., Asia and Europe, and for mission critical applications that demand higher reliability, we believe market clearing prices can be higher. The cost of our standard sub-MW product design at the end of 2004 was reduced from over $8,000 per kW to approximately $6,000 per kW, which is a 25 percent reduction in cost. Our MW-class products have an inherent 20 to 25 percent cost advantage over the sub-MW
product due to economies of scale primarily in the balance of plant. With our currently achieved and projected annual cost reduction targets, we believe we can reach gross margin break-even on product sales at a sustained annual order and production volume of approximately 35 MW to 50 MW, depending on product mix, geographic location and other variables such as fuel prices. We believe that Company net income break-even can be achieved at a sustained annual order and volume production of approximately 100 MW. Our fiscal 2004 production volume was approximately 6 MW.
Our strategy for 2005 is to continue our cost reduction program and focus our selling efforts on markets that have the potential for repeatable volume. These markets have some combination of high electrical costs, strict emissions controls, grid constraints and other characteristics that require a clean, efficient distributed generation solution. In addition, we are focusing on market segments that offer sufficient funding availability to make our current product pricing competitive with the local cost of electricity and cogeneration. We see these markets as a bridge to support our order activity while we are operating at higher cost and lower volume. We will concentrate our market efforts on Japan/Asia, California and the Northeast United States where such programs are most prevalent, while MTU will focus on
Europe. As the results of our product cost reduction efforts enable us to lower prices, we expect we will move from these bridge markets to broad market acceptance.
DIRECT FUEL CELL® (DFC®) TECHNOLOGY
Direct FuelCell power plants represent an environmentally friendly alternative power generation source when compared to traditional combustion technologies, such as gas turbines or internal combustion engines. These fuel cell power plants can potentially yield a lower cost of electricity. Less restrictive permitting requirements, due to the favorable DFC emissions profiles, can reduce installation costs. Greater fuel efficiency, minimal moving parts and remote monitoring can provide lower ongoing fuel and maintenance costs.
A fuel cell converts a hydrocarbon fuel, such as natural gas or wastewater treatment gas, into electricity without the combustion of the fuel. The primary byproducts of the fuel cell are heat, water, reduced emissions of carbon dioxide and virtually no sulfur dioxide (SOX) or nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. A fuel cell power plant can be thought of as having two basic segments: the fuel cell stack module, the part that actually produces the electricity, and the balance of plant (BOP), which includes various fuel handling and processing equipment, such as pipes, blowers, and electrical interface equipment such as inverters to convert the direct current (DC) output of the fuel cell to alternating current (AC).
Conventional non-nuclear power plants generate electricity by combustion of hydrocarbon fuels, such as coal, oil or natural gas. In the case of reciprocating engines, combustion of the fuel takes place within the engine that drives a generator. In a gas turbine combined cycle plant, fuels, such as natural gas, are burned in the gas turbine to generate electricity. The exhaust heat from the gas turbine is used to boil water, converting it to high-pressure steam, which is used to rotate a steam turbine generating additional electricity. Each step in these processes consumes some of the potential energy in the fuel, and the combustion process typically creates emissions of SOX and NOX, carbon monoxide, soot and other air pollutants.
The following table shows our estimates of the electrical efficiency, operating temperature, expected capacity range and certain other operating characteristics of the principal types of fuel cells being developed for commercial applications:
Fuel Cell Type |
|
Electrolyte |
|
Electrical
Efficiency
% |
|
Operating
Temperature
oF |
|
Expected
Capacity Range |
|
By-Product Heat Use |
PEM |
|
Polymer
Membrane |
|
30-35 |
|
180 |
|
5kW to
250 kW |
|
Warm Water |
Phosphoric Acid |
|
Phosphoric
Acid |
|
35-40 |
|
400 |
|
50kW to
200 kW |
|
Hot Water |
Carbonate
(Direct FuelCell®) |
|
Potassium/Lithium
Carbonate |
|
45-57 |
|
1200 |
|
250 kW to
3 MW |
|
High Pressure
Steam |
Solid Oxide (Tubular) |
|
Stabilized Zirconium dioxide Ceramic |
|
45-50 |
|
1800 |
|
100 kW to
3 MW |
|
High Pressure
Steam |
Solid Oxide (Planar) |
|
Stabilized Zirconium dioxide Ceramic |
|
40-60 |
|
1200-1600 |
|
3 kW to 10 kW |
|
High Pressure Steam |
Our carbonate fuel cell, known as the Direct FuelCell, operates at approximately 1200°F. This temperature avoids the use of precious metal electrodes required by lower temperature fuel cells, such as proton exchange membrane (PEM) and phosphoric acid, and the more expensive metals and ceramic materials required by higher temperature fuel cells, such as solid oxide (tubular). As a result, we are able to use less expensive catalysts and readily available metals in our designs. In addition, our fuel cell produces high quality by-product heat energy (700°F) that can be harnessed for CHP applications using hot water, steam or chiller water to heat or cool buildings.
Our Direct FuelCell has been demonstrated using a variety of hydrocarbon fuels, including natural gas, methanol, diesel, biogas, coal gas, coal mine methane and propane. Our commercial DFC power plants currently can achieve an electrical efficiency of between 45 percent and 47 percent, and are expected to achieve an electrical efficiency of up to 57 percent at product maturity. Depending on location, application and load size, we expect that a co-generation configuration will reach an overall energy efficiency of between 70 percent and 80 percent. The following diagram shows the difference between a typical low temperature, external reforming fuel cell and our Direct FuelCell in the conversion of fuel into electricity.
LOW TEMPERATURE EXTERNAL
REFORMING FUEL CELL
(Other Companies Technology) |
HIGH TEMPERATURE INTERNAL
REFORMING DIRECT FUELCELL
(FuelCell Energy Technology) |
Our Direct FuelCell is so named because of its ability to generate electricity directly from a hydrocarbon fuel, such as natural gas or wastewater treatment gas, by reforming the fuel inside the fuel cell to produce hydrogen. We believe that this "one-step" process results in a simpler, more efficient and cost-effective energy conversion system compared with external reforming fuel cells. External reforming fuel cells, such as PEM and phosphoric acid, generally use complex, external fuel processing equipment to convert the fuel into hydrogen. This external equipment increases capital cost and reduces electrical efficiency.
Our initial market entry commercial products are rated at 250 kW, 1 MW and 2 MW in capacity. Our products are targeted for utility, commercial and industrial customers in the growing distributed generation market for applications up to 10 MW or larger. We are also developing additional DFC products based on our core carbonate technology including:
· |
Direct FuelCell/Turbine® (DFC/T®) - a combined-cycle system that produces additional electricity from by-product heat energy using an unfired gas turbine with electrical efficiency expected to approach 70 percent in large applications; and |
· |
Ship Service Fuel Cell (SSFC) - a DFC power plant that operates on marine-diesel fuel with applications such as hotel power (non-propulsion) for naval vessels and cruise ships, as well as power generation for islands. |
Value Proposition
Our products produce electricity and thermal energy which are commodities to end users. While our products compete essentially on price, the attributes of our DFC products enhance our value proposition. For example, in some global regions with strict air emissions controls, the ultra-clean designation of our DFC power plants enables our products to be sited where combustion-based technologies cannot. We believe our DFC products can provide more favorable attributes, such as improved reliability, quiet operation, scalability, ability to provide electricity and heat for cogeneration applications, such as district heating, process steam, hot water and absorption chilling for air conditioning, and ultra low emissions at less cost with volume production. We
are currently selling our products to customers in high cost electricity markets at prices that, when combined with government incentives, are economically competitive with other power generating sources. Over time, as our cost-out program enables us to reduce our prices, we believe we will be less reliant on and eventually eliminate the need for government subsidies to price our products at market clearing prices. A specific example of how the economics would work currently is set forth below.
Based on a $7.00/MMBtu gas price, the raw life cycle cost of electricity to the end user at the prices we are quoting today (absent any subsidies), is between $0.15 and $0.20/kWh. With an incentive of $2,500/kW, the cost of electricity to the end user is in the low-teens per kWh, a competitive price in many high cost energy regions of the world. Factoring in the value of the heat used for cogeneration ($0.01-$0.02/kWh), the added value of increased reliability ($0.005 to $0.015/kWh), and the offset due to emissions credits (up to $0.01/kWh if regionally available), the net cost to the end user could be $0.10/kWh or less, depending on location. In many areas of the world, this competes with grid-delivered electricity.
The recent rise in the cost of natural gas during the past year has made our products as well as other conventional distributed generation technologies less competitive with the grid (grid-delivered electricity prices are not immediately affected by spot changes in energy prices such as natural gas, coal and oil due to previously secured long-term supply contracts and a regulatory system that takes 6 months to a year or more to approve rate increases when requested by local utilities). Specifically, the average delivered price of natural gas sold to commercial consumers in the California and Northeastern U.S. markets of $6.00/MMBtu to $6.50/MMBtu for commercial customers increased to as high as $9.00/MMBtu in mid-2004. We estimate that each $1.00/MMBtu change in natural gas prices increases the cost of
electricity of our DFC products by $0.0083/kWh. Natural gas prices have subsided from their recent peak, but variability has increased ($2.00/MMBtu depending on demand and weather). Over time, energy prices tend to revert to the oil price per barrel equivalent, so we view the disparate fuel and electricity prices as a short-term phenomenon that will be resolved over time.
DISTRIBUTED GENERATION MARKETS
The demand for reliable power, increasing concerns about the emission of harmful greenhouse gases and particulate matter, and the inability of central power generation systems to cogenerate heat and electricity, have created demand for new technologies that can provide clean, economic on-site generation. Consequently, projected demand for distributed generation is growing throughout the world. In October 2004, Energy User News reported that ABI projected distributed generation to the grid may increase to 200,000 MW worldwide by 2011 compared with 65,000 MW currently, with 6 percent or 12,000 MW from fuel cells. A year earlier, ABI reported that global stationary fuel cell cumulative shipments would rise from 55 MW cumulative through 2003 to nearly 18,000 MW cumulative through 2013
, according to its moderate forecast.
We believe distributed generation using our Direct FuelCell power plants are an alternative power generation solution because they:
· |
Increase reliability by locating power closer to the end user. On-site power generation bypasses the congested transmission and distribution system, increasing electrical reliability to the end user. |
· |
Provide better economics. The economic justification for distributed generation is a result of a number of factors, such as avoidance of transmission and distribution system investment, reduction of line losses, and utilization of the heat by-product from on-site power generation. |
· |
Ease congestion in the transmission and distribution system. Each kilowatt of on-site power generation removes the same amount from the transmission and distribution system, thereby easing congestion that can cause power outages and hastening the grid recovery after electrical infrastructure problems have been resolved. |
· |
Provide greater capacity utilization in less time. Distributed generation can be added in increments that more closely match expected demand in a shorter time frame (weeks to months) compared with traditional central power generating plants and transmission and distribution systems (often 12 to 36 months or longer) which require more extensive siting and right of way approvals. |
· |
Enhance security. By locating smaller, incremental power plants in dispersed locations closer to energy consumers, distributed generation can reduce dependence on a vulnerable centralized electrical infrastructure. |
Our DFC power plants provide the following attributes:
· |
Offer higher operational efficiency. Our DFC power plants currently achieve electrical efficiencies of 45 to 47 percent and have the potential to reach an electrical efficiency 57 percent at product maturity in single-cycle applications. In addition, our DFC power plants can achieve overall energy efficiency of 70 to 80 percent for combined heat and power applications. This is greater than the fuel efficiency of competing fuel cell and combustion-based technologies of similar size and potentially results in a lower cost per kWh over the life of the power plant. |
· |
Lower emissions. Our DFC power plants have significantly lower emissions of greenhouse gases and particulate matter than conventional combustion-based power plants. They emit virtually no NOX or SOX and have been designated "ultra-clean" by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Comparative emissions of fuel cell power plants versus traditional combustion-based power plants as compiled by the DOE/National Energy Technology Laboratory and company product specification sheets are as follows: |
|
|
|
Emissions (Lbs. Per MWh) Nox |
|
SO2 |
Average U.S. Fossil Fuel Plant |
4.200 |
|
9.210 |
Microturbine (60-kW) |
0.490 |
|
0.000 |
Small Gas Turbine (250-kW) |
0.467 |
|
0.000 |
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine |
0.230 |
|
0.005 |
Fuel Cell, Single Cycle (DFC) |
0.016 |
|
0.000 |
· |
Utilize multiple fuels. Our DFC power plants can utilize many fuel sources, such as natural gas, industrial and municipal wastewater treatment gas, propane, and coal gas (escaping gas from active and abandoned coal mines as well as synthesis gas processed from coal), thereby enhancing energy independence from imported oil. |
Many governments at various levels, both in the U.S. and abroad, are proactively pursuing incentive programs to stimulate the development of distributed generation in general and fuel cells in particular. New programs have emerged in Connecticut, New York, Japan, Korea and Canada, and an existing program was renewed and extended in California. We believe we can capitalize on the substantial global incentives available for distributed generation, alternative energy and renewable technologies, which include subsidies ranging up to 55 percent of project costs depending on the application and the site. We and our partners have been able to take advantage of specific incentives in the U.S., Japan and Germany.
In the near-term, we believe these government-sponsored incentive programs will facilitate DFC product sales. In the longer term, we believe that our product cost reduction program and higher production volumes will lessen or eliminate the need for incentives.
We continue to target our initial commercialization efforts for the following stationary power applications:
· |
Customers in regions with high electricity prices. |
· |
Customers with 24/7 base load power requirements. |
· |
Customers with electric grid distribution or transmission shortages or congestion. |
· |
Commercial and industrial customers who can use the high-quality heat by-product for cogeneration applications. |
· |
Customers with opportunity fuels such as anaerobic digester gas from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities. |
· |
Customers in regions with strict air pollution requirements. |
These customer characteristics are prevalent in selected regions in the United States, such as California and the northeastern states, and internationally in Canada, Europe, Japan and Korea. These are areas where government incentives and other approved legislation support distributed generation in general and fuel cells in particular. We are focusing on market segments that offer sufficient incentive funding available to make our current product pricing competitive with the local cost of electricity and cogeneration. We see these markets as a bridge to support order activity while we are operating at higher cost and lower volume. As the results of our product cost out efforts enable us to lower our prices, we expect we will move from these bridge markets to broad commercial
acceptance.
Because our DFC products can operate on wastewater treatment gas, a biomass renewable fuel, we can provide one of the few sources of base load distributed generation within the renewable portfolio standards (RPS) many states and countries are beginning to implement. In some jurisdictions, our DFC power plants, due to their favorable ultra-low emissions and 'ultra-clean' status, can qualify for RPS programs when operating on natural gas. This classifies our fuel cell products similar to wind and solar projects that are eligible for funding under these programs.
Geographical Markets
We are pursuing a strategy of global geographic penetration through our strong strategic partners, which has enabled us to introduce our products in early adopter markets throughout the world. In selected regions, local market conditions, incentives and regulations have evolved which have enabled customers to purchase our products. These early adopters recognize the environmental and economic value of our DFC power plants.
Japan
Japan's electricity prices are among the highest in the world. In addition, the government has strict emissions goals, following the Kyoto Protocol, which have resulted in the need to reduce emissions from the power-generating sector. Employing CHP technology is an important means to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, however, Japanese air pollution protection laws restrict installing and operating traditional generating technologies in urban areas. Since the Japanese Ministry of Environmental Protection has approved our DFC power plants as meeting or exceeding all Japanese air pollution control laws, we believe demand for our DFC products will increase. We have seen the most progress with our DFC products in this market, with Marubeni ordering 1.25 MW in 2001 followed by repeat orders of
3 MW and 4 MW in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
There are a number of other market drivers beyond strict emissions requirements that we believe will stimulate demand for our DFC power plants in Japan. First, a new regulation requires the use of wastewater treatment facilities for agriculture and farming. The Japanese government is subsidizing these new wastewater treatment facilities, including any power generation equipment that makes efficient use of opportunity fuels that result from wastewater treatment. Second, a national RPS for the power generation sector was adopted. The initial targets are approximately 3,500 MW by 2010. Our DFC products operating on anaerobic digester gas qualify under this standard. Third, a number of government-backed subsidy programs are available to DFC products, with incentives ranging from 35 percent to 55
percent. The aggregate annual budget by the various Japanese ministries for these programs total $50 million. Fourth, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry announced a new energy program with the goal of 2,200 MW of fuel cell power by 2010. Our Japanese partner, Marubeni Corporation (Marubeni), has been successful in working with various Japanese ministries to obtain approvals for broad siting flexibility to meet the growing demand for our DFC products.
Korea
With the addition of POSCO as a sub-distributor and eventual packager of our DFC products for Marubeni, we have broadened our Asian marketing presence to include Korea. In 2004, fuel cells were identified as one of the 10 economic growth engines for the Korean economy and POSCO was assigned by the Korean government to develop and commercialize large stationary fuel cell power plants. POSCO selected our DFC products through Marubeni to pursue this effort, which we believe further confirms our leadership position in large stationary fuel cell power plants for the commercial and industrial customers. The Korean governments goal is to install 300 stationary fuel cell power plants, sized 250-kW to 1 MW, by 2012, and has designated $1.6 billion to support this effort.
North America - U.S.
The U.S. is characterized by high electricity costs and grid-constraints in selected regions, such as California and the northeastern states such as New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts. We have found that the utility monopoly status is more entrenched in the U.S. than in other global markets, but we are seeing developments that favor clean and efficient distributed generation such as our DFC power plants. Existing programs are being renewed, and new initiatives are being implemented.
California has become a leader in regulatory policy. For example, our DFC power plants have been certified to meet interconnection standards of investor owned electric utilities. In addition, our DFC power plants meet the strict emissions requirement of the California Air Resources Board standard for 2007, and have been designated as an 'ultra-clean' distributed generation technology. As a result, customers have access to certain incentive funding for the purchase of our DFC power plants. In addition, customers who install and operate our DFC power plants are exempt from exit fees and stand-by charges, saving them from paying fees of approximately $.025-$0.03/kWh. End-users of fuel cell power plants are eligible to sell back unused power to publicly owned utilities during off-peak hours
at wholesale or generation-based rates of approximately $0.04-$0.05/kWh. The California Self Generation Program provides $100 million per year of incentive funding for 'ultra-clean' technologies on the basis of $2,500/kW for our DFC products operating on natural gas and $4,500/kW for our DFC products operating on renewable fuels such as anaerobic gas from wastewater treatment facilities.
We were able to demonstrate the competitiveness of our DFC products through this program during the past 12 months. In fiscal year 2004, Alliance Power secured two customers through this program (City of Santa Barbara, 500 kW, and Sierra Nevada Brewing Co., 1MW). Chevron Energy Solutions secured our first DFC1500 project in the State with the Santa Rita Correctional Facility in Alameda County, and, early in fiscal 2005, secured a 250-kW project for the San Francisco Mail Processing Facility. This program has been extended through 2007, enabling over 20 MW of project funding per year.
In Connecticut, legislation was recently passed that will require the states utility distribution companies to have 100 MW of generation from renewable technologies contracted by mid-2007. The request for proposals for the first round (30 MW) was issued and project submissions (between 1 MW and 15 MW) are due March 17, 2005. Final projects are expected to be selected by September 30, 2005. The Round 2 (30 MW) and the Round 3 (40 MW) selection process are expected to follow in succession. Our DFC power plants operating on natural gas are a Class I renewable technology and meet the eligibility requirements for this program.
Other states are also implementing policies to accelerate the installation of clean distributed generation technologies. For example, New York State exempts our DFC power plants from stand-by charges if the installation represents less than 15 percent of the customer's maximum potential demand. In addition, the New York Public Service Commission adopted a renewable energy policy to increase electricity from renewable sources to 25 percent by 2013. To meet this requirement, it is estimated that New York State will need up to 3,700 MW of generation from renewable technology. Our DFC power plants operating on natural gas meet the renewable eligibility requirements in New York State.
These renewable energy initiatives in Connecticut and New York may provide us with opportunities for large scale multi-MW projects sized to 10-15 MW or larger.
At the U.S. federal level, in addition to significant research and development funds that we receive from the U.S. federal government, the U.S. Department of Defense Climate Change Fuel Cell Program grants funds to fuel cell power plant buyers, providing up to $1,000 per kW of plant capacity (not to exceed one-third of total program costs). In fiscal year 2005, there is approximately $1.2 million available for buyers of these fuel cell system incentive grants. While the Energy Policy Act of 2003 was not passed by Congress, it contained important incentives, including: (1) an investment tax credit of 30 percent or $1,000 per kW, whichever is less, for fuel cell power plant installations; and, (2) an advanced power system technology incentive program which provided for a 1.8 to 2.5 cents per kWh subsidy to
owner-operators of qualifying facilities, including fuel cells, turbines and hybrid power systems. As a result of the November 2004 election, we expect an energy bill will be initiated in fiscal year 2005. We expect to benefit should similar provisions be included in a renewed energy bill.
North America - Canada
Our distribution partner, Enbridge, Inc., is currently developing provincial relationships in Canada to have our DFC products included in a portfolio approach to replace more than 100 MW of coal and nuclear power plants and other projects with funding through the countrys Cdn$250 million Sustainable Development Technology Program Enbridge, Inc., is the owner and operator of Canadas largest natural gas distribution company, Enbridge Gas Distribution, which provides natural gas to industrial, commercial and residential customers in Ontario, Quebec and New York State.
Europe
While, electricity prices in Europe are not as high as they are in Japan and in the more expensive regions of the U.S., emphasis remains on reducing carbon dioxide emissions and grid-connected CHP projects are encouraged. The CHP Law, enacted in 2002, provides a 0.0511/kWh subsidy payable for 10 years for grid-connected CHP power plants, up to 2 MW. We estimate that this is the equivalent of a $1,000 to $2,000 per kW capital cost subsidy. In 2004, Germanys Renewable Energy Law opened up eligibility for fuel cells to receive up to
0.20/kWh, including a 0.02/kWh premium over combustion-based technologies. RWE, Europes largest investor owned utility, has invested in and has partnered with our German partner, MTU CFC Solutions GmbH, a DaimlerChrysler subsidiary. In a June 2003 report commissioned by World Wildlife Fund For Nature in co-operation with Fuel Cell Europe, it was reported that RWE expects 1,000 to 5,000 MW of German electricity demand to be supplied by distributed power by 2015.
In the broader European market, the European Union has earmarked 100 million for research and demonstration projects for hydrogen and fuel cells through 2006.
Target Applications
Our products are designed to meet the base load power requirements of a wide range of commercial and industrial customers including wastewater treatment plants, data centers, manufacturing and industrial facilities, office buildings, hospitals, mission critical applications, universities and hotels, as well as in grid support applications for utility customers. Some specific markets we are targeting have substantial market potential as set forth in the table below.
Source: DOE/Onsite Sycom Energy Corp., The Market and Technical Potential for Combined Heat and Power in the Commercial/Industrial Sector, January 2000 (Revision 1)
Some specific applications of these representative applications include:
· |
Wastewater treatment plants. This application provides a unique opportunity because the methane generated from the anaerobic gas digestion process is used as fuel for the DFC power plant, which in turn generates the electricity to operate the wastewater treatment equipment at the facility. Wastewater treatment gas is considered a renewable fuel eligible for many government incentive funding for project installations throughout the world. |
o |
Industrial. We delivered our first commercially available DFC300A power plant to the Kirin Brewery in Japan in January 2003. In 2005, we expect to install 1-MW of DFC power (4 DFC300A power plants) for a beer brewery at the Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. in Chico, Calif. through our North American distribution partner, Alliance Power, and a 250-kW DFC300A power plant for a food recycling facility for Bioenergy Co. at Tokyo Super Eco Town in Japan through our Asian distribution partner, Marubeni Corp. |
o |
Municipal. We began operating our first MW-class DFC1500 at the King County Wastewater Facility in Washington State on natural gas in 2004 that has now switched over to operation on anaerobic digester gas. We have installed 250-kW DFC300A power plants to the following municipal wastewater treatment facilities - the City of Fukuoka (through Marubeni Corp.), Terminal Island for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (direct sale), Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (through Caterpillar), and the City of Santa Barbara (two units through Alliance Power). |
· |
Hotels. Our DFC 300A power plants at the 300-room Sheraton Edison and Sheraton Parsippany hotels in New Jersey provide each hotel with their 250 kW base load electricity requirements and 25 percent of their hot water needs. Our recently installed DFC300A power plant at the 1,750-room Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers in Manhattan will provide approximately 10 percent of the electricity and hot water requirements. |
· |
Institutional - Universities. At the Environmental Science Center near Yale Universitys Peabody Museum in New Haven, Connecticut, our DFC 300A power plant provides approximately 25 percent of the buildings electricity needs, with the heat byproduct being used primarily to maintain tight temperature and humidity controls for its artifact storage facility. At the Michigan Alternative and Renewable Energy Center at Grand Valley State University in Muskegon, Mich., our DFC300A power plant is part of a comprehensive grid-independent energy system (includes solar panels and batteries for load following power requirements) that provides substantially all of the facilitys base load electricity and uses the heat byproduct for heating and cooling. At Ocean County College in New Jersey, our DFC300A
power plant provides 90 percent of the daily power requirements for three of the campus buildings and 20 percent of the heating needs for six buildings. One of the three DFC300A power plants purchased by Marubenis Korean sub-distributor, POSCO, is expected to be installed at the Pohang University Science and Technology Center in Pohang City, Korea. |
· |
Institutional - Hospitals. MTU has provided its sub-MW carbonate fuel cell power plant, which incorporates our DFC components, for a number of hospitals and clinics in Germany that supply electricity to the local clinic grid and the hot exhaust air is used to produce process steam for the facilities. Installations include the Rhon Klinikum Bad Neustadt (which completed its field trial in August 2004 after operating for more than 21,000 hours), Rhon Klinikum Bad Berka, Magdeburg Clinic and the Gruenstadt Clinic/Pfalzwerke. |
· |
Industrial. MTU has installed its sub-MW carbonate fuel cell power plant for industrial CHP applications in Europe, such as a Michelin tire factory in Germany and a IZAR ship building factory in Spain. Marubeni has installed two DFC power plants for an Epson factory in Japan and a natural gas gathering station at Japex, also in Japan. Caterpillar has installed and operated a DFC300A power plant at its technology center in Peoria, Illinois. |
· |
Institutional - Telecommunications/Data Centers. MTU has installed a sub-MW carbonate fuel cell power plant for Deutsche Telecom in Munich, Germany that provides DC backup power for a telecommunications center. |
· |
Institutional - Prisons. We announced our first one-MW DFC1500 power plant sale in California to Alameda County for the Santa Rita Correctional Facility in Dublin, Calif. This also was the first fuel cell project with our North American distribution partner, Chevron Energy Solutions, and delivery is expected in calendar year 2005. |
· |
Grid Support. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has been a long-standing customer of ours, and operated one of our first field trial units. They have installed two separate DFC300 power plants that provide electricity to the grid - one at their corporate headquarters and one at another downtown location. In 2004, we delivered a DFC300A power plant to a Westerville, Ohio substation facility for American Municipal Power-Ohio for its municipal distribution system. In 2005, we expect to deliver a DFC300A power plant for the Salt River project. This unit will be located at the Arizona State University East Campus in Mesa, Ariz. and provide electricity to the local grid. |
· |
Federal. We are targeting the U.S. Government as an end-use customer for our DFC products. Since the blackout of August 2003, we have seen a growing interest by the government in increasing the reliability of power for mission critical applications. There is a DFC300A power plant installed at the Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod in Bourne, Mass. that was sold through our North American distribution partner, PPL Energy Plus. Our North American distribution partner, Chevron Energy Solutions, sold a 250-kW DFC300A power plant to the U.S. Postal Services San Francisco Processing and Distribution Center that is expected to be delivered in calendar year 2005. The market for combined heat and power applications for federal facilities is estimated to be 1,590 MW. |
We have installed a DFC300A power plant at the Fuel Cell Test and Evaluation Center in Johnstown, Penn., for a combined heat and power demonstration. The goals of this demonstration are to (1) analyze the use of available system heat output for trigeneration - the supply of electricity as well as chilled and hot water in a combined system - and (2) analyze the simultaneous operation on natural gas and propane for dual-fueled capability. This is part of a $7 million fiscal 2005 budget appropriation by the U.S. Government for carbonate fuel cells, which also includes funding for two other MW-class systems.
Strategic Alliances/Market Development Agreements
Our sales and marketing strategy is to work predominantly with established OEMs and ESCOs who have significant expertise in selling equipment and/or comprehensive services to energy users. These relationships strengthen our ability to bring our stationary fuel cell power plants to key target markets and applications and provide valuable input for our cost reduction and product improvement efforts. In certain circumstances, we sell our products directly to end-users.
Our OEM partners have extensive experience in designing, manufacturing, distributing and servicing energy products worldwide. We believe our strength in the development of fuel cell products coupled with their understanding of sophisticated commercial and industrial customers, products and services will enhance the sales, service and product development of our high temperature stationary fuel cell power plants.
Our energy service company partners have extensive experience in selling comprehensive energy services to commercial and industrial customers that include demand side management, product selection and commodity procurement. They have added our DFC power plants to their offering of power generation products and services as a cost effective energy solution to their customers.
Through our field trial program, we have directly partnered with certain customers who have hosted our product demonstrations. These customer partners have the option to negotiate arrangements for the sale, distribution and service of FuelCell's DFC power plants upon completion of the project.
Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) Partners
MTU CFC Solutions GmbH, a subsidiary of DaimlerChrysler. MTU, headquartered in Munich, Germany, has been an investor in our company and co-developer of our DFC technology since 1989. The sub-MW power plant is a collaborative effort utilizing our DFC technology and the Hot Module® BOP design of MTU. In July 2003, RWE Fuel Cells GmbH, a subsidiary of RWE AG, Germanys largest electric utility, established a joint venture with MTU and RWE Fuel Cells GmbH holds a 25.1 percent stake in MTU CFC Solutions,
GmbH.
MTU currently has sub-MW fuel cell power plant installations at eight locations in Europe (in Germany unless otherwise noted), including an energy park at RWE; a telecommunications center for Deutsche Telecom; a tire manufacturing facility for Michelin; at a Berlin-based utility, Vattenburg/BeWag (first European dual-fueled carbonate fuel cell power plant); at Bad Berka Hospital; at Magdeburg Clinic; at Gruendstat Clinic; and at IZAR, a shipbuilder, in Spain. MTU has announced that it will install two additional units in 2005, including the first European digester gas carbonate power plant in Ahlen, Germany.
We have two agreements with MTU, a Cell License Agreement and a Balance of Plant License Agreement. Under our current Cell License Agreement, which has been extended through December 2009, we license our DFC technology to MTU for use exclusively in Europe and the Middle East and non-exclusively in Africa and South America. We also sell our DFC components and stacks to MTU under this agreement. Under the Cell License Agreement, MTU also granted us an exclusive, royalty-free license to use any of their improvements to our Direct FuelCell that MTU developed as of December 1999 under a previous license agreement. In addition, MTU has agreed to negotiate a license grant of any separate carbonate fuel cell know-how it develops once it is ready for commercialization. Under our Balance of
Plant Cross Licensing and Cross-Selling Agreement, we may sell to MTU our MW-class modules and MTU may sell their sub-MW class modules to us. The Balance of Plant License continues through July 2008 and may be extended for up to three additional 5-year terms, at the option of either MTU or us. As an OEM developer of stationary fuel cell power plants, MTU assembles and stacks the DFC components that we sell to them and then adds their mechanical and electrical balance of plants for ultimate sale to their customers. MTU owns approximately 2.7 million shares of our common stock and is represented on our board of directors.
Marubeni Corporation. Marubeni delivered DFC 300A units in Japan to the Kirin Brewery near Tokyo; the City of Fukuoka municipal wastewater treatment facility; Japexs Katakai natural gas gathering station located in the Niigata Prefecture; and two units to Epsons Quartz Device Division in the City of Ina, Nagano Perfecture, Japan.
Under our agreement with Marubeni extended in 2004, Marubeni ordered an additional 4 MW of our DFC power plants, and to date has a commitment for 8.25 MW of our DFC power plants. Marubeni invested $10 million in FuelCell Energy in 2001 through the purchase of approximately 268,000 shares. In addition, we have granted Marubeni warrants to purchase an additional 1.0 million shares of our common stock that vest based on order commitments for our DFC products. The exercise prices of the warrants range from $13.78 to $18.73 per share and the warrants will expire between April 2005 and April 2007, if not exercised sooner. Warrants to purchase 200,000 shares have vested to date.
Late in fiscal 2004, FuelCell Energy and Marubeni entered into strategic alliances with leading industrial companies to be sub-distributors and packagers of DFC products and to participate in our cost-out program.
· |
Kawasaki Heavy Industries. In October 2004, Marubeni, FuelCell Energy and Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI) entered into an agreement for KHI to become Marubenis packaging partner for Japan to design and manufacture balance of plant components, and to be a sub-distributor to Marubeni in Japan. KHI is a leader in the field of stationary power generation, and is a leading international supplier of ultra-clean gas turbines. KHI has stated it believes the greatest opportunity for DFC power plants is in high efficiency, cogeneration applications for large commercial and light industrial sectors, particularly due to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. As part of the agreement, Kawasaki purchased a DFC300A power plant from Marubeni, to be installed at the Kawasaki Akashi Works near Osaka, Japan. |
· |
POSCO. In November 2004, Marubeni, FuelCell Energy and POSCO entered into an agreement for POSCO to become Marubenis packaging partner for Korea to design and manufacture balance of plant components, and to be a sub-distributor to Marubeni in Korea. POSCO is a world leader in the materials industry, and is a top producer of steel for the global market. POSCO has extensive experience in power plant project development, building over 2,400 MW of power plants, equivalent to 3.7 percent of Koreas national capacity, for its various facilities. As part of the agreement, POSCO purchased three DFC300A power plants through Marubeni, with the first unit to be sited at the Pohang University of Science and Technology in Pohang City, Korea. |
· |
Subsequent to the end of our fiscal year, Marubeni announced the siting of a DFC300A power plant for Bioenergy Co. of Japan for a food recycling facility at the Tokyo Super Eco Town Project. |
Caterpillar, Inc. Caterpillar operated a DFC 300A power plant at its Technology Center near its corporate headquarters in Peoria, Illinois and is expected to do so again in 2005. In addition, we have shipped DFC 300A power plants for two Caterpillar customers: American Municipal Power-Ohio for a grid-support application at a substation in the City of Westerville, Ohio, and a municipal wastewater treatment application for the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Caterpillar is currently offering our DFC products to its customers and has stated it intends to offer its own branded fuel cell power plant that will incorporate our DFC technology.
Under our ten-year agreement with Caterpillar, customers are able to purchase our DFC power plants from Caterpillar dealers in selected regions in North America. The agreement calls for us to jointly develop Caterpillar-branded power plants in the 250 kW to 3 MW size range, incorporating our fuel cell modules. In December 2003, Caterpillar announced plans to market a hybrid fuel cell/natural gas generator product which would combine our MW-class DFC power plant with Caterpillars gas engine-driven generator to provide clean, efficient and economical base load and peaking power requirements for commercial and industrial customers.
Energy Service Company Partners
We have five Energy Service Company (ESCO) distribution partners for our DFC products.
PPL Energy Plus. PPL, a subsidiary of PPL Corporation, ordered 1.75 MW of DFC power plants and currently has units installed at three Starwood Resorts properties (Sheraton Edison and Sheraton Parsippany in New Jersey and Sheraton New York Towers in Manhattan); one unit at the U.S. Coast Guard station in Bourne, Massachusetts; and one unit at Ocean County College in New Jersey.
Enbridge, Inc. Enbridge, a leader in energy transportation and distribution in North America and internationally, entered into a three-year distribution agreement with us in November 2003 to distribute our current DFC products in Canada. As part of the agreement, Enbridge received warrants to purchase up to 500,000 shares of our common stock which vest based on order commitments for our fuel cell products. The exercise prices of the warrants range from $14.65 to $19.04 per share and the warrants will expire in November 2006, if not exercised sooner. These warrants have not yet vested.
Alliance Power, Inc. In June 2003, we signed an agreement with Alliance Power, Inc. to integrate our ultra-clean DFC power plants into its portfolio of distributed generation solutions. Alliance Power is a developer of distributed generation facilities ranging in size from 1 MW to 49 MW. Alliance has been initially focusing its efforts in California. In fiscal 2004, we announced two multi-unit projects - 500 kW for a municipal wastewater treatment facility for the City of Santa Barbara (2 DCF300A power plants) and 1 MW for an industrial wastewater facility for the Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. in Chico, Calif. (4 DFC300A power plants).
Chevron Energy Solutions. We entered into an agreement with Chevron Energy Solutions (Chevron), a subsidiary of ChevronTexaco, in December 2001, to jointly market and sell DFC power plants, with initial projects targeted for the northeastern U.S. and California. Chevron partners with institutions and businesses to improve facilities and increase their efficiency, help reduce energy expenses and help ensure reliability, high quality power for critical operations. In October 2004, Chevron announced the sale of a one-MW DFC1500 power plant in California to Alameda County for the Santa Rita Correctional Facility. In December 2004, Chevron announced the sale of a DFC300A power plant for the U.S. Postal
Services San Francisco Processing and Distribution Center. Both power plants are expected to be installed in 2005.
LOGANEnergy Corp. We entered into an agreement with LOGANEnergy Corp. (LOGAN) in July 2004 to jointly market and sell DFC power plants with an initial focus on MW-class systems in California. LOGAN has been specializing in planning, designing, developing and implementing fuel cell projects since 1994 and has been involved with over 40 commercial, small-scaled fuel cell projects representing more than 7 MW of capacity at 21 locations in 12 states.
Customer Partners
Through our field trial program, we have partnered directly with certain customers who have hosted our product demonstrations. These customer partners have the option to negotiate arrangements for the sale, distribution and service of our DFC power plants upon completion of the project.
Our longest standing customer partner relationship is with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), the largest municipal utility in the U.S. with 640,000 water customers and 1.4 million electric customers. LADWP participated with us on our 2 MW Santa Clara Demonstration Project in 1996-1997 and currently has three DFC 300A power plant installations (grid-connected units at its Main Street facility and headquarters building, and a wastewater treatment plant installation at Terminal Island).
Other customer partners include the Alabama Municipal Electric Authority, which participated in the operation of a sub-MW DFC power plant at a Mercedes-Benz manufacturing facility in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and completed in December 2003.
MEETING CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS
A focused commercial cost-out program cannot begin until there are a number of units in the field operating at customer sites. We delivered our first DFC300A power plant to the Kirin Brewery in January 2003 and since then have delivered 34 units, including our first one-MW DFC1500 and our first two-MW DFC3000, to customer sites throughout the world. These units constitute our field follow program.
We went into our field follow program anticipating there would be operational issues that would cause service interruptions, such as fuel and water variability, as well as site-specific issues such as temperature and altitude. This is not uncommon with the introduction of a new technology.
Approximately one-third of all service interruptions affecting our DFC power plant are the result of grid disturbances. Software controls were developed to allow our units to maintain operating temperature (hot standby mode) during these disturbances and return to producing electricity once the grid situation was resolved.
Beyond grid disturbances, some of the other lessons learned include fuel variations at different sites. For example, our DFC power plants might encounter fuel composition instability due to seasonal variations (e.g., peak-shaving gas during winter months). In addition, industrial wastewater treatment facilities, such as beer breweries, are subject to fuel variability depending on the type of beer being processed which can change the hydrocarbon content of the fuel. We resolved this by developing software controls that allow the DFC power plant to react quickly to these changes and installing hardware to facilitate these rapid changes.
Many of our customers require the ability to switch fuel sources. For example, our one-MW DFC1500 power plant at King County, Washington, switches fuel between anaerobic digester gas and natural gas. Software controls were developed to automate this. Similarly, our DFC300A power plant at the Kirin Brewery in Japan switches from anaerobic digester gas to liquefied petroleum gas (during the weekends when beer is not brewed). We developed the appropriate software controls and installed the appropriate hardware to facilitate this.
We have operated our DFC power plants in cold weather environments (to minus 40ºF in Montana) and hot weather environments (120ºF in California). Appropriate weather packages were developed and installed to minimize service interruptions due to these temperature extremes.
Natural gas applications incur differences in the odorants that are employed. To accommodate for this, a new type of carbon mix was developed for the desulfurizer beds.
From these experiences and others, we are learning about the reliability of our DFC power plant components in varying applications and customer environments. All failed components are returned to our service center in Danbury and undergo rigorous analyses. This is done to improve the reliability of the components by allowing us and our component vendors to develop comprehensive technical solutions. We are measuring the mean time between failure of key components to ensure they are improving. We are also using this data to develop predictive maintenance practices and plans.
A year into our field follow program, we wanted to better understand our customer requirements. We sent out a customer satisfaction survey in which we polled 85 percent of the operating units in the U.S. and Japan, soliciting feedback on all aspects of our customer service, i.e., operations, engineering, project management, quality, sales/marketing, and service. Quantitative results produced a satisfactory rating. Additionally, our customers requested a multi-level training program, a 24/7 customer service call center and a web-based portal that allows them to obtain real-time power plant data. All of these were successfully implemented in 2004. Customer feedback also indicated that power plant size is not as important to them as the ability to service and maintain the units. This
has been incorporated into future designs and modifications.
We regularly monitor the availability of our DFC power plants and the average availability of our DFC power plants to date is approximately 87 percent as of January 10, 2005. The industry standard in the power industry for availability is 95 percent, and we believe we will improve our availability to achieve or exceed that benchmark.
COST REDUCTION
Reducing product cost is essential for us to penetrate the market for our high temperature fuel cell products. Cost reduction will reduce and/or eliminate the need for incentive funding programs that are currently available to allow our product pricing to compete with grid-delivered power and other distributed generation technologies, and is critical to achieving and sustaining profitability. We recognized this during our initial product development efforts leading up to our 2-MW Santa Clara proof-of-concept project in 1996-1997. We continued our cost reduction and performance improvement efforts as we developed commercial designs for our products, incorporating lessons learned from this project, our 250-kW Danbury project in 1999 as well as our U.S. field trials with the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Mercedes-Benz facility in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (project partnership with Southern Company Services, Inc., Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, the Alabama Electric Authority) in 2001-2002. Cost per kW was declining substantially during this period, from over $20,000 per kW to approximately $10,000 per kW at the start of commercial cost-out program in mid-2003.
A more focused commercial cost-out program, however, could not commence until we had a number of units in the field. Six months into our field-follow program we concluded that our DFC power plants were meeting customer expectations and we decided to move forward with our cost-out program.
Our value-engineering cost reduction program commenced in mid-2003 and is focused on reducing initial capital costs of the products as well as testing, conditioning, installation, operation and maintenance expenses. We expect further cost reductions from increasing volume production above our current levels. Product cost reduction comes from three areas - our field follow program, our cost-out program and our performance improvement program. Engineers and scientists are dedicated to each area, but it is a collaborative effort that contributes to the overall serviceability, cost-reduction and performance improvement of our DFC products. We have created an interdepartmental team that regularly analyzes, verifies and tests value-engineering initiatives.
Presently, approximately 20 percent of our employees are involved in this cost-out program, including a staff of 20 engineers dedicated exclusively to this effort, and contributions are solicited and considered from our distribution partners, component suppliers, packaging engineering firms and directly from end-use customers. In addition, we expect to leverage the capabilities and resources of our distribution partners and key suppliers to enhance our cost reduction efforts. These continuing efforts are expected to reduce material costs, simplify design, improve manufacturing yields, reduce product assembly labor and reduce production cycle time.
Selected examples of successful cost reduction initiatives include changing the material of our bipolar plates and reforming unit separators within our fuel cells, switching our piping material, changing our nitrogen purging methodologies in our sub-MW product balance of plant, and substituting a standard shipping container for the custom-made balance of plant enclosure. We are building global sourcing capabilities for the most cost effective component and material supply.
We have achieved significant cost reductions since the programs inception. Product design changes are introduced in blocks rather than individually to minimize impact to manufacturing and to the customer. For example, in 2004 we reduced the cost of our DFC300A power plant by approximately 25 percent in two block changes. Block One changes were released into production beginning in late calendar year 2004 and block two changes will be implemented in products released for production in the summer of 2005.
Concurrent with our field follow and cost-out programs, we continue to advance the performance of our core stack technology to increase power output and extend stack life. Increasing power output will reduce the initial capital cost per/kW and increasing stack life will reduce operation and maintenance costs to make our products even more competitive. Subscale testing of our carbonate fuel cells has successfully demonstrated an increase in power output. Efforts are underway to validate these advances in larger stacks before we incorporate these improvements into our commercial DFC products.
Recently, we have demonstrated trouble-free operation of our DFC power plants on U.S. commercial grade propane, a commonly available storable fuel that potential customers are telling us is required for certain critical power applications. We plan to operate a DFC300A unit on propane in 2005 to show readiness for critical power/Homeland Security applications. Field operating experience has shown that plant trips from grid-related disturbances are a significant factor contributing to plant outages. To alleviate the impact of this, we have demonstrated going from a trip disturbance to hot standby followed with full power recovery in less than ten minutes in a full-scale engineering unit subsequent to a grid disturbance-related outage. This feature will be incorporated into the product in
2005.
We have established value-engineering cost targets of 20 to 25 percent for each year through 2006. The cost of our standard sub-MW product design at the end of 2004 was reduced from over $8,000 per kW to approximately $6,000 per kW, which is a 25 percent reduction in cost. Our MW-class products have an inherent 20 to 25 percent cost advantage over the sub-MW product due to economies of scale of the balance-of-plant and other components. We believe that increasing our annual production volume to our production capacity of 50 MW can yield up to 30 percent of additional cost reduction. Realization of these cost reductions in our financial statements is dependent upon inventory levels, procurement and production decisions and order flow. We believe that we can reach market clearing prices in the
higher energy cost regions of the world.
Manufacturing, Service, Testing and Conditioning
We have established a 65,000 square foot manufacturing facility in Torrington, Connecticut where, since 2001, we have produced our repeating fuel cell components: the anode and cathode electrodes and the electrolyte matrix. After the components have been produced, they are combined in sub-assembly operations to create the final fuel cell package and delivered to final assembly for stacking into our 250 kW (nominal rating) building block stacks, which comprise our fuel cell modules. These modules are then delivered to our test and conditioning facilities in Danbury, Connecticut, and combined with the balance of plant to complete our DFC300A power plants. The completed DFC300A power plant is tested and conditioned in Danbury before being shipped to the customer site. Our MW-modules for the DFC1500 and DFC3000 are
tested in Danbury and then shipped to the customer site for final testing with an assembled balance of plant.
Our manufacturing, testing and conditioning facilities have equipment in place for a production capacity of 50 MW per year. We believe manufacturing capacity can be increased to 125 - 150 MW within our existing Torrington facility through the addition of parallel production lines and additional machinery. We also have additional land access surrounding our Torrington facility, on which we could expand to 400 MW of annual production of our repeating fuel cell components. Expansion of our manufacturing facilities beyond 50 MW would also require new facilities for the fuel cell stack and module assembly, test and conditioning which could be deployed regionally. These regional assembly, test and conditioning facilities are expected to provide additional cost savings as they will reduce shipping costs, enhance
delivery times and improve customer service.
Our service organization offers comprehensive service and maintenance programs including total fleet management, refurbishment and recycling services, and complete product support including spare parts inventory. We are offering service agreements at various levels for one to five years, with flexible renewal options. Our service business is located at our Danbury facility.
Government Regulation
We presently are, and our fuel cell power plants will be, subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to, among other things, land use, safe working conditions, handling and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous substances and emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere. Emissions of SOX and NOX from our fuel cell power plants will be much lower than conventional combustion-based generating stations, and are well within existing and proposed regulatory limits. The primary emissions from our DFC power plants, assuming no cogeneration application, is humid flue gas that is discharged at a temperature of approximately 700-800° F, water that will be discharged at a temperature of approximately 10-20° F above ambient air temperatures and carbon dioxide at levels
below many competing technologies because of our high efficiency. In light of the high temperature of the gas emissions, we will likely be required by regulatory authorities to site or configure our power plants in a way that will allow the gas to be vented at acceptable and safe distances. We believe that this regulation of the gas emissions will be similar to the regulation of other power plants with similar heat and discharge temperatures. The discharge of water from our power plants will likely require permits whose terms will depend on whether the water is permitted to be discharged into a storm drain or into the local wastewater system. Lastly, as with any use of hydrocarbon fuel, the discharge of particulates will have to meet emissions standards. While our products have very low carbon monoxide emissions, there could be additional permitting requirements in smog non-attainment areas with respect to carbon monoxide if a number of our units are aggregated together.
Proprietary Rights and Licensed Technology
To compete in the marketplace, align effectively with business partners and protect our proprietary rights, we rely primarily on a combination of trade secrets, patents, confidentiality procedures and agreements and patent assignment agreements. In this regard, we have 40 current U.S. patents (including four allowed awaiting issuance by the Patent and Trademark Office) and 89 international patents covering our fuel cell technology (in certain cases covering the same technology in multiple jurisdictions). All of the 40 U.S. patents relate to our Direct FuelCell technology. We also have submitted 27 U.S. and 85 international patent applications.
The patents we have obtained will expire between 2005 and 2023, and the average remaining life of our patents is approximately 10.6 years. In 2004, two new U.S patents were issued, four more were allowed and four U.S. patents expired. The expiration of these patents has no material impact on our current or anticipated operations. We also have 19 invention disclosures in process with our patent counsel that may result in additional patent applications.
Many of our U.S. patents are the result of government-funded research and development programs, including the DOE cooperative agreement. Three of our patents, which resulted from government-funded research before January 1988 (when we qualified as a small business), are owned by the U.S. government and have been licensed to us.
U.S. patents that we own that resulted from government-funded research are subject to the government exercising march-in rights. We believe, however, that the likelihood of the U.S. government exercising these rights is remote and would only occur if we ceased our commercialization efforts and there was a compelling national need to use the patents.
We have also entered into certain license agreements through which we have obtained the rights to use technology developed under joint projects. Through these agreements we must make certain royalty payments on the sales of products that contain the licensed technology, subject to certain milestones and limitations.
Competition
We compete on the basis of our products reliability, fuel efficiency, environmental considerations and cost. We believe that our DFC carbonate fuel cell offers competitive advantages over most other fuel cell designs for stationary base load power generation. These benefits include high fuel efficiency, significantly lower emissions, scalability, the proven ability to utilize multiple fuels and potentially lower operating, maintenance and generation costs. We believe that we are the most advanced high temperature stationary fuel cell company.
Several companies in the U.S. are involved in fuel cell development, although we believe we are the only domestic company engaged in significant manufacturing and commercialization of carbonate fuel cells in the sub-MW and MW classes. Emerging fuel cell technologies (and companies developing them) include PEM fuel cells (Ballard Power Systems, Inc.; UTC Fuel Cells; and Plug Power), phosphoric acid fuel cells (UTC Fuel Cells) and solid oxide fuel cells (Siemens Westinghouse Electric Company, Sulzer Hexis, McDermott, GE/Honeywell, Delphi and Accumentrics). Each of these competitors has the potential to capture market share in our target markets.
There are other potential carbonate fuel cell competitors internationally. In Asia, Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries is active in developing carbonate fuel cells. In Europe, a company in Italy, Ansaldo Fuel Cells, is actively engaged in carbonate fuel cell development and is a potential competitor. Our licensees in Germany, MTU, and its partners have been the most active in Europe.
Other than fuel cell developers, we must also compete with such companies as Caterpillar, Cummins Inc., and Detroit Diesel Corporation (a subsidiary of DaimlerChrysler AG), which manufacture more mature combustion-based equipment, including various engines and turbines, and have more established manufacturing, distribution, operating and cost features. Significant competition may also come from gas turbine companies like General Electric, Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited, Solar Turbines Incorporated and Kawasaki, which have recently made progress in improving fuel efficiency and reducing pollution in large-size combined cycle natural gas fueled generators. These companies have also made efforts to extend these advantages to smaller sizes. We believe, however, that these smaller gas turbines will not
be able to match our fuel efficiency or favorable environmental characteristics.
Research and Development
The goal of our research and development efforts is to improve our core DFC products and expand our technology portfolio in complementary high temperature fuel cell systems, such as SOFC. In addition, we are also conducting limited development work on advanced applications for other fuel cell technologies, such as PEM. A significant portion of our research and development has been funded by government contracts and is classified as cost of research and development contracts in our consolidated financial statements. For the fiscal years ended 2004, 2003 and 2002, total research and development expenses, including amounts received from the DOE, other government departments and agencies and our customers, and amounts that have been self-funded, were $44.9 million, $44.3 million and $52.5 million,
respectively.
Government Research and Development Contracts
Since 1975, we have worked on the development of our DFC technology with various U.S. government departments and agencies, including the DOE, the Navy, the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Government funding, principally from the DOE, provided approximately 60 percent, 52 percent, and 81 percent of our revenue for the fiscal years ended 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. From the inception of our carbonate fuel cell development program in the mid-1970s to date, approximately $450 million has been invested to support the development of our DFC technology. This includes approximately $280 million from government agencies, with the balance provided by private
entities such as FuelCell Energy, utility organizations and licensees.
DFC Programs
Product Design Improvement (PDI) In 1994, we entered into a cooperative agreement with the DOE to focus on our DFC technology and system optimization for cost reduction, product design development and fuel cell system field trials. Since 1994, the aggregate dollar amount expended under the DOE contract is approximately $213 million, with the DOE providing approximately $135 million in funding. Work under this agreement was completed in 2004.
King County, Washington In 2001, we signed an agreement with King County, Washington to deliver a 1 MW DFC 1500 power plant to operate on anaerobic digester gas from its municipal wastewater treatment facility. This MW-class field trial demonstration, with a total project value of approximately $18.8 million, is cost-shared by King County through a cooperative grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and us. We began operating the unit on natural gas in July 2004 and then switched to anaerobic digester gas in August 2004. This demonstration project is expected to run through 2006.
Clean Coal Project In July 2002, we received approval from the DOE to accelerate the demonstration of our 2 MW DFC 3000 power plant operating on synthesis gas derived from coal. The total value of the project is $34.6 million, with 50 percent of the cost shared by the DOE. We installed the DFC3000 power plant at a coal gasification site in Indiana in July 2004 and expect to begin operating the unit when the gasification facility is operational. Coal is the dominant fuel for electric power generation in the U.S., with a little more than 50 percent of the power coming from coal-fired plants in 2002.
Ohio Coal Mine Methane Project In 2000, we were selected by the DOEs National Energy Technology Laboratory to demonstrate the ability of DFC power plants to generate electricity using coalmine methane emissions that otherwise escape into the atmosphere. We delivered a sub-MW DFC power plant to an AEP Ohio Coal LLC Rose Valley Site in Hopedale, Ohio in August 2003 and completed the successful operation phase of this project in December 2003.
Future Products
Direct FuelCell/Turbine In October 2002, we received a modification to our existing Vision 21 program agreement with the DOE to demonstrate two additional sub-MW power plants based on our DFC/T technology. This modification provides an additional $16 million to the budget, cost-shared by the DOE and us. We will test the first DFC/T at our facility in Danbury, Connecticut and demonstrate the second DFC/T plant in Montana. In fiscal year 2004, we successfully completed our proof-of-concept test of a 250 kW power plant integrated with a 60 kW micro turbine, and completed the design of our first packaged sub-MW alpha unit. This power plant will be assembled for factory testing in Danbury
in the third calendar quarter of 2005. In this patented technology, heat generated by the fuel cell is used to drive an unfired modified micro turbine to generate additional electricity. The ultimate objective of this program is the design of a 10 to 40 MW DFC/T power plant that is expected to approach the 75 percent efficiency goal specified by the DOEs Vision 21 program. The DOEs Office of Fossil Energy established its Vision 21 Program in 1999 with the objective of developing a 21st Century Energy Plant that can generate electricity, heat/steam, clean fuels, chemicals and hydrogen from a variety of feedstocks such as fossil fuels and biomass with high efficiency and low environmental impact.
DFC Marine/Diesel We are currently working on marine applications of our DFC products under programs with the U.S. Navy. These ship service fuel cell (SSFC) power plants are required to operate on liquid fuels such as diesel. We have a contract with the Office of Naval Research to deliver a 500 kW SSFC power plant for land-based demonstration at the Naval Sea Systems Command in Philadelphia. We have assembled the balance of plant process equipment for the DFC power plant and initiated testing in Danbury. Upon successful completion of this phase of the project, the balance of plant will be integrated with two 250-kW fuel cell stacks. The complete power plant is expected to be tested in
Danbury during the summer of 2005. This $21.6 million cost-shared project started in 2000 and is a continuation of an earlier $4.6 million contract that completed the conceptual design and testing of the critical components for the marine fuel cell module.
Additionally, we are performing a number of smaller contracts related to the development of SSFC products. In October 2003, we received a $954,000 subcontract award for a supplemental program. Specific tasks for this program include the design engineering for installing diesel-fueled DFC power plants at naval facilities and on ships, operational testing of a DFC 300A power plant in Danbury from a control center in Maine, and development of a marine fuel cell simulator for use as an operator training aid. We expect that successful demonstration of this project can lead to additional diesel fuel cell power plant applications for commercial ships and island power generation.
SECA Program In September 2004, we entered into a contract with the DOE to lead a project team for its SECA program. The goal of the SECA program is to accelerate the commercialization of low-cost solid oxide fuel cells, a part of the DOEs commitment to developing clean, efficient, reliable and affordable power generation. We plan to do this by reducing the operating temperature of the SOFC system to introduce cheaper materials in its construction and extend the operating life of the SOFC systems. The FuelCell team members currently include Versa, Materials and Systems Research, Inc. (MSRI), University of Utah (UU), Gas Technology Institute (GTI), Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
Dana Corporation (Dana) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Additional SECA industrial team leaders include Acumentrics, Cummins Power Generation, Delphi Automotive Systems, General Electric Power Systems, and Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation.
The 10-year, $139 million program has three phases. The first phase will develop stationary modules in the 3 to 10 kilowatt size range and scalable systems for applications up to 100 kW operating on natural gas with target efficiencies of 45 percent. Phase one is a three-year, $24 million program to be cost-shared by the DOE ($15 million) and the FuelCell team ($9 million). This contract for this first phase was finalized in September 2004.
Phases two and three will focus on enhancing system efficiencies to 50 percent and 55 percent, respectively, as well as operating on additional fuels such as propane and diesel. The development of hybrid power plants combining fuel cells with turbines and stirling engines will also be evaluated in the latter phases. These latter two phases are also to be cost shared by the DOE ($52 million) and the projects participants ($63 million). Advancement to these stages is dependent upon successes achieved in Phase one, selection by the DOE as a continuing project participant and subsequent congressional appropriations.
On November 1, 2004, we consolidated our Canadian SOFC operations into Versa in exchange for stock in Versa, increasing our ownership interest from 16 percent to 42 percent. We believe consolidating SOFC development into a single entity provides a greater opportunity to commercialize SOFC products under the DOEs SECA program.
Versa, founded in 1991, is a joint venture of GTI, EPRI, UU, MSRI and FuelCell Energy. Versas proprietary intellectual property (19 patents and pending patent applications), mutually developed and owned by the joint venture partners, includes a patented planar SOFC system and process that uses a unique cell configuration and components designed to enable operation at much lower temperature with increased power density.
Our former Canadian SOFC operations, part of Global Thermoelectric, Inc. acquired in November 2003, initiated its SOFC research and development program in 1997. This Canadian SOFC operation has developed a key proprietary fuel cell design and pilot manufacturing processes and methods. This cell design, combined with advanced stack technology, is now being tested in complete systems, with a focus on the development of stationary natural gas-fueled prototypes.
We continue as a prime contractor under SECA and we are collaborating with Versa and other partners on SOFC systems development. Versa established its headquarters in Colorado and continues technology development in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. A 2-kW SOFC system is currently being tested as part of expected delivery of a 3-kilowatt system for the DOE in 2006.
Target markets for these SOFC products include remote sites, telecommunications facilities, commercial and residential buildings, back-up, mobile standby and auxiliary power units. If successfully commercialized, these SOFC products, ranging in size from 3-kW to 100-kW, will be complementary to our larger-scaled DFC power plants, ranging in size from 250-kW to 2-MW, that we are delivering to commercial, industrial and government customers today.
BACKLOG
Our backlog as of October 31, 2004 was approximately $47 million compared with backlog of approximately $46 million as of October 31, 2003. Backlog refers to the aggregate revenues remaining to be earned at a specified date under contracts we hold. For U.S. government contracts, we include the total contract value including any unfunded portion of the total contract value in backlog. U.S. government contract backlog was approximately $16 million and $31 million as of October 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The unfunded portion of our U.S. government contracts amounted to approximately $4 million and $17 million respectively as of October 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Due to the long-term nature of our government contracts, fluctuations from year to year are not an indication of any future trend. Although
backlog reflects business that is considered firm, cancellations or scope adjustments may occur and will be reflected in our backlog when known. Product order backlog was approximately $26 million and $15 million as of October 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Product orders represent approximately 62 percent of our total funded backlog.
EMPLOYEES
As of October 31, 2004, we had 346 full-time employees, of whom 104 were located at the Torrington, Connecticut manufacturing plant, and 242 were located at the Danbury, Connecticut facility or various field offices. All employees in our SOFC business were transferred to Versa Power Systems, Inc. effective November 1, 2004 and are not included in these numbers.
PROPERTIES
Our headquarters are located in Danbury, Connecticut. The following is a summary of our offices and locations:
Location |
|
Business Use |
|
Square
Footage |
|
Lease
Expiration Dates |
Danbury, Connecticut |
|
Corporation Headquarters, Research and Development, Sales, Marketing, Purchasing and Administration |
|
72,000 |
|
Company owned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Torrington, Connecticut |
|
Manufacturing |
|
65,000 |
|
December 2010 (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Danbury, Connecticut |
|
Manufacturing and Operations |
|
38,000 |
|
October 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pasadena, California |
|
Sales & Marketing |
|
200 |
|
June 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calgary, Alberta, Canada |
|
Research and Development |
|
103,000 |
|
January 2006(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
We have an option to extend the lease for an additional five years. |
(2) |
Facilities acquired with the acquisition of Global Thermoelectric, Inc. on November 3, 2003 for which we have remaining lease obligations. We are currently sub-leasing part of this facility to Versa Power Systems, Inc. |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
We are not currently a party to any legal proceedings that, either individually or taken as a whole, we believe could materially harm our business, prospects, results of operations or financial condition.
MANAGEMENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF FUELCELL
Our executive officers and their ages are as follows:
NAME |
AGE |
POSITION WITH FUELCELL |
Jerry D. Leitman |
62 |
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board |
Dr. Hansraj C. Maru |
60 |
Executive Vice President, Chief Technical Officer |
Christopher R. Bentley |
62 |
Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer |
Joseph G. Mahler |
52 |
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer & Corporate Secretary |
Herbert T. Nock |
55 |
Senior Vice President of Marketing and Sales |
R. Daniel Brdar |
45 |
Vice President of Product Development |
Jerry D. Leitman. Mr. Leitman has been our President and Chief Executive Officer since August 1997 and became Chairman of our board of directors in June 2002. Mr. Leitman was previously President of Jaydell Inc., a personal investment-Sub S Corporation from 1995 to 1997. From 1992 to 1995, Mr. Leitman was President of Asea Brown Boveris (ABB) global air pollution control businesses. Prior to joining ABB, Mr. Leitman was Group Executive Vice President of FLAKT AB, a Swedish multinational company, responsible for FLAKTs worldwide industrial businesses from 1989 to 1992. Mr. Leitman is also a Director
and Chairman of the compensation committee of Esterline Technologies Inc.
Dr. Hansraj C. Maru. Dr. Maru has been our Executive Vice President since December 1992 and was appointed our Chief Technology Officer in August 2000. Mr. Maru was a director of FuelCell from December 1992 to March 2004. Dr. Maru was Chief Operating Officer from December 1992 to December 1997. Prior to that he was Senior Vice PresidentResearch and Development. Prior to joining us in 1977, Dr. Maru was involved in fuel cell development at the Institute of Gas Technology. Dr. Maru received a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1975.
Christopher R. Bentley. Mr. Bentley has been our Executive Vice President since September 1990 and our Chief Operating Officer since August 2000. Mr. Bentley was a director of FuelCell from June 1993 to March 2004. Mr. Bentley was President of Fuel Cell Manufacturing Corporation, our former subsidiary, from September 1990 to December 1997. From 1985 through 1989, he was Director of Manufacturing (1985), Vice President and General Manager (1985-1988) and President (1988-1989) of the Turbine Airfoils Division of Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corporation, a major manufacturer of gas turbine hardware. Mr. Bentley received a BSME from Tufts University in 1966.
Joseph G. Mahler. Mr. Mahler joined us in October 1998 as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Secretary and Treasurer. Mr. Mahler worked for Ernst & Young from 1974 - 1992 in the New York and Hartford offices. In Hartford, he was a partner in the Entrepreneurial Services Group. From 1993 to 1998, Mr. Mahler was Vice PresidentChief Financial Officer at Earthgro, Inc. Mr. Mahler received a BS in Accounting from Boston College in 1974.
Herbert T. Nock. Mr. Nock joined us in August 2000 as Senior Vice President of Marketing and Sales. Mr. Nock previously worked for General Electrics Power Systems business for 29 years, most recently as Product General Manager for small gas turbine products. Mr. Nock received his BS in Mechanical Engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 1971 and his MBA from Boston University in 1977.
R. Daniel Brdar. Mr. Brdar joined us in January 2001 as Vice President of Distributor Operations and has been Vice President of Product Development since June 2003. Prior to joining FuelCell Energy, Mr. Brdar was the Gas Turbine Product Manager for General Electric's (GE) Power Systems business. Before joining GE, he led the U.S. Department of Energys Power Systems Product Management organization. Mr. Brdar received his BS in Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh in 1981.
We have a Code of Ethics, as defined in SEC rules, that applies to our principal executive officer, our principal financial officer and our principal accounting officer.
DIRECTORS OF FUELCELL
Our directors and their ages are as follows:
NAME |
AGE |
DIRECTOR SINCE |
Jerry D. Leitman |
62 |
1997 |
Warren D. Bagatelle |
66 |
1988 |
Michael Bode |
60 |
1993 |
Thomas R. Casten |
62 |
2000 |
James D. Gerson |
61 |
1992 |
Thomas L. Kempner |
77 |
1988 |
William A. Lawson |
71 |
1988 |
Charles J. Murphy |
57 |
2002 |
George K. Petty |
63 |
2003 |
John A. Rolls |
63 |
2000 |
Jerry D. Leitman. Mr. Leitman has been our President and Chief Executive Officer since August 1997 and became Chairman of our board of directors in June 2002. Mr. Leitman was previously President of Jaydell Inc., a personal investment-Sub S Corporation from 1995 to 1997. From 1992 to 1995, Mr. Leitman was President of Asea Brown Boveris (ABB) global air pollution control businesses. Prior to joining ABB, Mr. Leitman was Group Executive Vice President of FLAKT AB, a Swedish multinational company, responsible for FLAKTs worldwide industrial businesses from 1989 to 1992. Mr. Leitman is also a Director
and Chairman of the compensation committee of Esterline Technologies Inc.
Warren D. Bagatelle. Mr. Bagatelle has been a Managing Director of Loeb Partners Corporation since 1988 and a general partner of Loeb Investors Co. LXXV, an investment partnership and an affiliate of Loeb Partners Corporation. Mr. Bagatelle is a Director of VirtualsScopics, LLC, Electro Energy, Inc. and Matrix Ascent Partners, LLC.
Michael Bode. Mr. Bode became Chief Executive Officer of MTU CFC Solutions GmbH, a company of Daimler Chrysler, AG, in January 2003. Mr. Bode was Executive Vice President and Director of the New Technology Group of MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH from July 1993 to February 2003. From 1990 to 1993 Mr. Bode was Vice President and Director of the New Technology group of the Space Transportation and Propulsion Systems division of Deutsche Aerospace AG a subsidiary of Daimler-Benz Corp. Mr. Bode joined Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm GmbH in 1974, where he held a variety of positions. Mr. Bode serves as a Director of BI New Energy Solutions.
Thomas R. Casten. Mr. Casten currently serves as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Primary Energy Ventures, LLC, which has, via its predecessor Private Power LLC, been in operation since 2001. From 1989 to 2000, Mr. Casten was President and Chief Executive Officer of Trigen Energy Corporation, a company involved in alternative energy generation. Mr. Casten is the Chairman of the World Alliance for Decentralized Energy working to advance distributed power worldwide. Mr. Casten serves as a Director of Primary Energy Holdings, LLC.
James D. Gerson. Mr. Gerson is a private investor. He was Vice President of Oppenheimer & Co. (formerly Fahnestock & Co., Inc.) from March 1993 until April 2003, where he held a variety of positions in the corporate finance, research, and portfolio management areas. Mr. Gerson also serves as a Director of American Power Conversion Corp. and is Chairman of the Board of Evercel, Inc.
Thomas L. Kempner. Mr. Kempner was Chairman of our board of directors from March 1992 to August 1997. He has been Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Loeb Partners Corporation since 1979 and a general partner of Loeb Investors Co. LXXV, an investment partnership and an affiliate of Loeb Partners Corporation. Mr. Kempner is also a Director of IGENE Biotechnology, Inc., Intermagnetics General Corporation, CCC
Information Services Group, Inc., Insight Communications Company, Inc., Dyax Corporation, and Intersections, Inc. and Director Emeritus of Northwest Airlines, Inc.
William A. Lawson. Mr. Lawson has been President of W.A. Lawson Associates, an industrial and financial consulting firm, since 1987. Mr. Lawson is past Chairman of the board of directors of Newcor, Inc. Mr. Lawson is a Director of Evercel, Inc.
Charles J. Murphy. Mr. Murphy is currently a Senior Advisor at Credit Suisse First Boston as well as an Adjunct Professor at NYU's Stern School of Business. Over the last several years he has worked as a senior investment banker/advisor at Allegheny Energy, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith and J.P. Morgan, specifically in the Energy, Power and Energy Technology areas. From 1976 to 1996, Mr. Murphy was an investment banker at Credit Suisse First Boston where he was a member of the Executive Board, the head of the Global Equity Department and co-head of the Investment Banking Department.
George K. Petty. Mr. Petty has been Chairman and President of AmCan, Inc. a Sub-chapter S corporation specializing in the telecommunications field since 1999. Mr. Petty was President and Chief Executive Officer of Telus Corporation, a Canadian telecommunications company, from 1994 to 1999. Previously, he was Vice President of Global Business Service for AT&T and Chairman of the Board of World Partners, the Global Telecom Alliance. Mr. Petty is a Director of AmCan, Inc, Enbridge, Inc., Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P, Enbridge Energy Management, Inc. and Enbridge Energy Company, Inc.
John A. Rolls. Mr. Rolls has been President, Chief Executive Officer and a principal investor in Thermion Systems International since 1996. He is a Director and Chairman of the Finance Committee of both Bowater Inc. and MBIA Inc. Mr. Rolls was President and Chief Executive Officer of Deutsche Bank North America from 1992 through 1996. From 1986 through 1992, Mr. Rolls was Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for United Technologies Corp. Previously, he was Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of RCA Corporation.
Our bylaws provide that our board of directors shall have between 3 and 16 members, as determined from time to time by resolution of the board. Our board currently has ten members, all of whom were elected at our 2004 Annual Meeting held on March 30, 2004. We have agreed to nominate Jerry D. Leitman as a director pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement. We have agreed to allow Enbridge, Inc. to nominate one member to our board of directors until February 2008. George K. Petty currently serves as the nominee of Enbridge.
Committees of the Board of Directors
Our board of directors has established four committees: the audit committee, the compensation committee, the nominating committee and the executive committee.
Audit Committee
The audit committee is composed of three independent directors under applicable Nasdaq and SEC rules. Members of the audit committee are appointed by the board.
The audit committee is responsible for, among other things:
· |
appointing, establishing the compensation for, supervising and, where appropriate, replacing our independent accountants; |
· |
considering the qualifications and independence of our independent accountants; |
· |
approving all audit and non-audit services provided by our independent accountants; and |
· |
reviewing and discussing our financial statements with management and our independent accountants. |
Our independent accountants are required to report directly to the audit committee. The audit committee also reviews our accounting policies, internal control procedures and systems and compliance activities and also reviews the charter of the audit committee.
The board of directors has determined that at least one of the independent directors serving on the Audit Committee, Warren D. Bagatelle, is an audit committee financial expert, as the Securities and Exchange Commission has defined that term.
Compensation Committee
The compensation committee is composed of three independent directors under applicable Nasdaq rules. Members of the compensation committee are appointed by the board.
The compensation committee is responsible for implementing and reviewing executive compensation plans, policies and programs in an effort to ensure the attraction and retention of executive officers in a reasonable and cost-effective manner, to motivate their performance in the achievement of our business objectives and to align the interests of our executive officers with the long-term interests of our shareholders. To that end, it is the responsibility of the compensation committee to develop and approve periodically a general compensation policy and salary structure for our executive officers which considers business and financial objectives, industry and market pay practices and such other information as may be deemed appropriate. It is also the
responsibility of the compensation committee to:
· |
review and recommend for approval by our independent directors the compensation (salary, bonus and incentive compensation) of our chief executive officer and review and approve the compensation (salary, bonus and incentive compensation) of our other executive officers; |
· |
review and approve perquisites offered to our executive officers; |
· |
review and approve corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of our executive officers and evaluate performance in light of the goals and objectives; and |
· |
review and approve employment, retention and severance agreements for our executive officers. |
The compensation committee also:
· |
acts on behalf of the board in administering compensation plans approved by the board and/or our shareholders in a manner consistent with the terms of the plans; |
· |
reviews and makes recommendations to the board with respect to new compensation incentive plans and equity-based plans; and |
· |
reviews and make recommendations to the board on changes in major benefit programs for our executive officers. |
The compensation committee also reviews the management succession program for our chief executive officer and certain of our other executive officers.
Nominating Committee
The nominating committee is composed of three independent directors under applicable Nasdaq rules. Members of the nominating committee are appointed by the board.
The principal purpose of the nominating committee is to identify individuals qualified to become members of the board and recommend the persons to be nominated by the board for election as directors at the annual meeting of shareholders.
In addition, the nominating committee:
· |
is responsible for identifying individuals to be elected by the board to fill any vacancies on the board; |
· |
is responsible for reviewing with the board, on an annual basis, the requisite skills and criteria for new board members as well as the composition of the board as a whole; and |
· |
is required to review the qualifications and backgrounds of all directors and nominees as well as the overall composition of the board of directors. |
Executive Committee
The executive committee is comprised of Jerry D. Leitman, our president, chief executive officer and chairman, and five other directors. The executive committee is authorized to exercise the general powers of the board managing our business and affairs between meetings of the full board.
Director Compensation
Each director not employed by us, except for Michael Bode, receives $10,000 per annum. New directors also receive 40,000 non-qualified stock options upon acceptance to the board. The stock options are granted pursuant to our 1998 Equity Incentive Plan. The options are exercisable commencing one year after grant, vest at the rate of 25% per year from date of grant and have restrictions as to transferability. An additional $3,000 per annum is paid to the Chairman and $2,000 per annum is paid to each non-employee member of the Executive, Nomination, Compensation and Audit Committees. We reimburse directors for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the performance of their duties as directors.
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Annual and Long-Term Compensation
Summary Compensation Table
The following table sets forth the annual and long-term compensation for services in all capacities to FuelCell for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, of those persons who were at October 31, 2004 (i) the Chief Executive Officer and (ii) the four other most highly compensated executive officers of FuelCell.
|
ANNUAL COMPENSATION |
|
|
NAME AND
PRINCIPAL
POSITION |
FISCAL
YEAR |
SALARY
($) |
BONUS
($) |
LONG TERM COMPENSATION
AWARDS
SECURITIES UNDERLYING OPTIONS
# |
|