While the debate over how countries can reduce carbon emissions
continues, political and civic leaders are scrambling to cope with
the near certainty of an increasingly carbon-constrained world. In
the U.S., President Barack Obama's administration is committed to
adopting a new energy policy. Texas Gov. Rick Perry's
"economy-friendly" approach for the state has focused on energy
efficiency and incentives for clean-energy projects versus
emissions penalties on the existing industry. Closer to home, Mayor
Annise Parker is positioning Houston as the "alternative energy
capital of the world" by promoting zero-emission technologies such
as electric vehicles.
Just as climate change discussions are encouraging government
leaders at all levels to think creatively about ways to reduce
carbon emissions, CEOs should ask themselves how they can use
carbon competitiveness to gain an edge over competitors.
Many companies do track their carbon competitiveness, but it is
often to ensure regulatory compliance, avoid negative publicity or
appeal to eco-conscious customers. It's less typical for companies
to try to beat their rivals by identifying the relative strengths
and weaknesses of their carbon footprints.
One challenge for most CEOs is that a company's productive
assets or product portfolios were developed in less regulated
times. Carbon regulation therefore alters the rules of competition.
In our experience, within an industry, a company with either
"cleaner production assets," or products with lower CO2 emissions,
has a chance to dramatically strengthen its position compared to
its competitors.
Automobile manufacturers, for example, are vulnerable to
indirect emissions from the vehicles they produce. As demand shifts
toward more fuel-efficient vehicles, some companies are better off
than others, such as Toyota and Honda, because they have a dominant
position in low-emission hybrid vehicles - but even they are
vulnerable. For example, the city of Houston, in association with
Reliant Energy and Nissan North America, is now investing in
electric vehicle fleets that demonstrate zero emissions.
On the other hand, utility companies are more at risk because of
the carbon emitted directly from generating power. At the industry
level, even a modest regulatory requirement for CO2 emissions will
result in annual liabilities well in excess of current profits for
many companies. But some power companies will be much better
positioned than others due to differences in fuel and technology
mix. For example, Exelon Corp.'s nuclear power plants will be more
competitive to the tune of $1 billion in incremental profits under
a $15-a-ton carbon price.
For CEOs who are eager to strengthen their company's future,
understanding the new balance of carbon competitiveness within
their industry is just the first step. Adjusting to that reality by
repositioning a company with less competitive legacy assets and
products can take years. Yet evidence of just such shifts is
emerging. For example, ExxonMobil, already a low carbon emitter on
a per barrel basis, is now ramping up its carbon competitiveness
further. It's betting on cleaner burning natural gas and will soon
close on its acquisition of XTO and its extensive shale gas
resources. ExxonMobil has also committed $600 million in long-term
R&D investments in third-generation, algae-based biofuels.
Similarly, Shell recently announced a joint venture with Cosan,
Brazil's leading sugar-cane biofuel company, to address growing
local demand as well as potentially use Brazil as a base to export
biofuels globally.
For companies in Texas - and Houston - there are exciting new
opportunities for energy leadership. Building carbon
competitiveness into their strategy and shrinking their carbon
footprint can be a way for these companies to get ahead of domestic
competitors as well as beat global competition.
Leis is managing director of Bain & Co.'s Houston office
and co-leads the North America oil and gas practice. Steinhubl is a
partner in Bain's Houston office and co-leads the North American
oil and gas practice.