Connect with us

Published

on

BlocPower founder & CEO Donnel Baird
BlocPower

“Turning buildings into Teslas.”

That’s the name Donnel Baird has chosen to go by on his Twitter account — it’s also become the tagline for his company, BlocPower, ranked No. 47 on this year’s CNBC Disruptor 50 list.

Since 2014, the company has been retrofitting buildings in New York’s disadvantaged communities with energy efficient heating and cooling systems, ultimately upping building values and lowering building operating costs. So far, Baird has completed over 1,000 projects in the New York City area, with even more building retrofits underway in 24 additional U.S. cities.

For Brooklyn-raised Baird and his team at BlocPower, honing in on retrofitting opportunities in underserved communities translates to high-paying green jobs, healthier air, and increased investment in those neighborhoods — especially as U.S. businesses bring workers back to the office.

CNBC recently spoke with Baird, who says the level of interest from commercial buildings is “skyrocketing” when it comes to sustainability upgrades and energy efficiency. “We know that, as people return to work, air quality and the health impact of buildings is going to be a requirement,” he said. “We’ve seen a dramatic uptick in the amount of construction projects that we’re completing … because folks are seeing June as the month to come back to work.”

The following Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

CNBC: Of the upcoming projects that you have planned throughout the country, which cities do you see presenting the biggest challenges?

Baird: Philadelphia is one of my favorite markets, but it’s also a huge challenge. The city actually has one of the highest amounts of low-income homeownership of any major American city. There used to be lots of factory jobs inside the city limits and Philly, so all the workers in those factories bought these row houses and townhouses. The jobs left, but the workers and their kids and grandkids are still there. Many of them are unemployed, many of them are considered low income by federal definition. They own those homes because their parents and grandparents bought the townhouses, but they can no longer afford property taxes, maintenance repairs, and certainly not energy efficiency. So it’s a really interesting challenge for us … how we’re going to capitalize and analyze all these buildings.

They have massive health needs, they have roofs that need to be replaced, they have plumbing that needs to be replaced, the buildings are filled with carbon monoxide and other kinds of lead and asbestos. So, we’re trying to figure that one out, but it’s going to be a lot of fun.

There’s another American city that wants to go 100% electric, 100% renewable energy within the next five years. And so we’re incredibly excited about that project. I can’t say which it is yet, because they’re in an RFP process. But hopefully, by the end of the month, or next month, we’ll be able to say. Obviously, that’s going to be a massive challenge, because we’re going to green up all the buildings and green all the cars and trucks. And so that’s going to be a major, major, major challenge. But if we can pull it off, it’s going to be huge.

CNBC: Can you give us a hint?

Baird: I will say it’s a city in New York that’s benefiting from the leadership of the state of New York and Governor Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature, they have made significant commitments to clean energy. And so some of the cities are trying to match those commitments. So it’s in New York State.

CNBC: If it’s financially advantageous for buildings to switch out of fossil fuels and into green power, and if there are tax incentives for them to do so, what’s your biggest barrier to growth right now?

Baird: It’s financially advantageous under certain conditions. You have to have the right amount of tax credits, you have to have the right amount of incentives and or subsidies from the local utility company or from the local government. And in those conditions, it’s financially advantageous.

The real variable is not just the subsidies and tax credits, because some of them are federal and you can get them anywhere. The real variable is what’s the local cost of labor. And how efficient is your labor supply in terms of modern construction services and highly skilled workers. There’s a labor shortage of skilled construction workers across the country, which is a big problem and a major constraint right now.

And then the other constraint is the manufacturers. Their costs are coming down, but it’s a new piece of hardware that allows us to take buildings entirely off of fossil fuels. We’re still pretty early on in that manufacturing curve, but the cost is coming down. Right now, it’s cost that we’re able to amortize out over time, making it viable for building owners to access these technologies in the same way that the mortgage industry does for mortgages: Nobody can afford a house upfront. A 30-year mortgage stretches that payment out over time. So while we can make it affordable and accessible, the question is: Do building owners understand the value of taking out a second 15-year mortgage to electrify a building they already built? Part of our job is dealing with the labor supply, and another part is the sales, marketing and customer education.

CNBC: Your services also make buildings healthier. Have you seen any pandemic tailwinds and what are your expectations, post-pandemic?

Baird: Absolutely. We’re spending a lot of time linking green energy equipment upgrades to Covid-19, thinking, ‘How can a piece of green equipment actually filter the air in your building to make it safer for you and your kids? To make it safe for weddings or funerals in a synagogue, church or a mosque?’

Talking with owners about the way their buildings circulate outdoor air pollution indoors … this is a huge focus for our business post-pandemic. In Oakland, California, we’ve got a big demonstration project, where we’re taking lead and asbestos out of the buildings, which keeps people healthier. But we’re also putting in new electric heating systems that are making the air quality inside buildings healthier. Companies that do this, like Kaiser Permanente, who we’re working with, are going to have fewer families in and out of the emergency room with chronic asthma attacks and other conditions, because the buildings are healthier. It’s a huge focus for us.

CNBC: In that same regard, how are you thinking about the environmental impact of people returning to work in office buildings?

Baird: Millennials and Gen Z are very focused on the air quality and health impact of buildings, particularly office buildings, now that many millennials are totally comfortable working from home via Zoom and looking for greater benefits as an in-person employee. At a minimum, it has to be safe. We’re seeing a lot of commercial office folks in New York City focusing on those types of upgrades. Now, they haven’t had rent coming in for the last 12 months, so many of them are hesitant to pull the trigger and make that investment. But the level of interest that we’re seeing is skyrocketing; And we know as people return to work that those upgrades are going to be the new requirement.

There’s a set of economic indicators involved that bring value to a landlord that’s leasing the space. If you increase the air quality, you can simultaneously boost the productivity per square foot of your investment in commercial office space. There’s a lot of data on this that’s coming out, and we expect that customers who have large commercial office space are going to demand, at a minimum, that air quality be as clean and healthy as possible.

CNBC: You mentioned the hesitancy of companies looking to make these types of investments. Are you seeing that hesitancy diminish as we move further into a post-pandemic world?

Baird: People are starting to pull the trigger. Folks we’ve been talking to for the last 12 to 18 months, who were about to pull the trigger in February of last year, are starting to come back around. Everyone’s feeling more optimistic, everyone’s ready to return to work and return to normal economic activity. They’re making those investments, and we’ve seen a dramatic uptick in the amount of construction projects that we’re completing, year over year, but particularly month over month. We’re doing better than projected, because folks are seeing June as the month to come back to work.

CNBC: Last week, Senate Republicans introduced a $928 billion counteroffer on infrastructure to President Biden’s now $1.7 trillion plan. GOP leaders say that $4 billion of that goes to major infrastructure projects like electric vehicles, but there’s still very few specifics on whether green energy or clean tech will be included in those projects at all. If you were working in the Biden-Harris administration, would you encourage the president to accept this offer?

Baird: Let me start by saying that I’m a big believer in President Biden. As both a healer, and as an individual, he has gone through truly difficult times losing his family, re-building a life, and trying to heal his children after multiple losses. I think he’s the right president for what this country needs in terms of our hyper-partisanship. And so given that, I 100% understand President Biden’s desire to complete a bipartisan infrastructure bill. I think it’s important to the overall health of the country to be able to do something together.

Still, the skinny or narrow infrastructure bill that has been proposed does strip away a lot of smart grid and solar electrification projects, as well as some social stuff like senior care, elder care, child care. The Democrats want that stuff. Meanwhile, it’s clean energy, and some of this social service infrastructure funding that the Republicans want to pull out. There is bipartisan agreement on extending broadband across the country, and making sure that America’s competitive with China and other places so that any American kid can access the internet, and the genius of the American population can be unleashed because we all have internet as a baseline and digital access. So that’s good. That’s the good part of the skinny infrastructure bill.

I believe that there’s a cohort of Republican senators that want to do something on climate. It can’t be called climate. I talked to my Republican friends … I only have like one Republican friend, I talk to this one dude, all the time, about the fact that there is a small cohort of Republicans that could do something on solar, they could do something on batteries, they could do something on nuclear, they could do something on smart grid. The fact that our nation’s electricity grid and gas grid has been under attack by hackers … we saw all that stuff needs to be upgraded. And that’s cybersecurity infrastructure. And so I think there’s something to be done there. And I’d love to at least see the cybersecurity and smart grid aspect be included in a skinny infrastructure bill.

I’d take a narrow deal with cybersecurity for the nation’s electricity and gas grids as a part of that. As a business person, I can understand that if we digitize the nation’s electric and gas grid infrastructure, that new digital platform is going to provide enough data and computerization to allow us to do a lot of the solar and other kinds of green energy stuff that we need. Having a digital foundation for the country’s energy system as a whole would be a huge improvement. I would take a narrow infrastructure deal and live to fight another day on climate and maybe just pass a separate small climate bill through reconciliation. And then you’ve got to let the private sector do its thing.

CNBC: Over the last year or so, venture capitalists and investors alike have made a lot of promises to reckon with diversity at their firms and among their portfolio companies. As a Black founder, do you feel as if any substantial progress has been made when it comes to greater investment in, and representation of, founders of color?

Baird: No, not in venture capital. I don’t. However, I think that in corporate America — certainly the leaders of corporate America — particularly in the tech industry, we are seeing real substantive conversations about diversity. And more importantly, not just conversations, but strategic investments.

With regard to Silicon Valley VCs or Silicon Alley VCs in New York, or even across other parts of the country, no. You have the same superstar, legendary investors. Kapor Capital [a BlocPower investor] was investing in Black and Latinx founders before George Floyd. They were investing in women founders before George Floyd. Andreessen Horowitz, as much as the press loves to give them a hard time about what they do or don’t do, they invested in us in 2014, long before before George Floyd. And they invested again in 2019, long before George Floyd.

I talked to these folks every week, and it’s a significant source of mentorship and guidance for my personal growth. And, by the way, they never share the fact that they talk to me every week, and give me specific feedback on how to grow my company. Kapor Capital doesn’t talk about it. Andreessen Horowitz doesn’t talk about it, but they invest significantly, kind of off the books and outside of the public eye. They were doing it before and they’re going to continue to do it after.

So, the folks who have already figured out a lot of the racial stuff doubled down — they tripled down — in Silicon Valley. Other folks, I think, are still trying. They’re interested, they want to do better, they want to do more, but they don’t quite have a plan to square traditional pattern matching. As a VC, how do you square that with the need to invest in a new cohort of founders that don’t resemble the patterns that you’re comfortable with, and don’t resemble the patterns that you think are going to make money? Deep down in your heart, if you don’t think someone’s going to go off and make you a bunch of money, it’s really hard to make that investment.

I am hopeful. I think like five years from now, VC will be in a better place. But now, there’s been no substantive difference, other than the hype and public conversation around trying to do better, which is still progress.

CNBC: Is BlocPower at the point where it’s thinking about life as a publicly traded company?

Baird: I don’t think we’re quite big enough right now, but maybe 10 months from now. We’re looking at it. We want to grow fast and grow big and we’d look at something like a SPAC the same way we’d look at an IPO: ‘Are we ready to do it?’

We’re firm believers in providing retail investors access to our platform. I know a lot of times VCs think that’s a negative signal, but fundamentally, as a former community organizer, I believe in having regular Americans participate in our company. And if things go well, those people are going to own the upside, because we want to be BlocPower by the people, for the people. We believe in that kind of stuff.

SIGN UP for our weekly, original newsletter that goes beyond the list, offering a closer look at CNBC Disruptor 50 companies, and the founders who continue to innovate across every sector of the economy.

Continue Reading

Environment

Why OPEC+ is accelerating oil production as prices are tanking and tariffs hammer markets

Published

on

By

Why OPEC+ is accelerating oil production as prices are tanking and tariffs hammer markets

The Phillips 66 Company’s Los Angeles Refinery in California.

Bing Guan | Reuters

The oil price outlook is being hit with more bearish forecasts on the back of U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping and market-hammering tariff announcements. Businesses and investors worry that a trade war and lower global growth lies ahead.

Goldman Sachs on Thursday reduced its December 2025 forecasts for global and U.S. benchmarks Brent crude and WTI by $5 to $66 and $62 a barrel, respectively, “because the two key downside risks we have flagged are realizing, namely tariff escalation and somewhat higher OPEC+ supply.”

The bank also cut its forecasts for the oil benchmarks in 2025 and 2026, adding that “we no longer forecast a price range, because price volatility is likely to stay elevated on higher recession risk.” Analysts at S&P Global Market Intelligence predict that in a worst-case scenario, global oil demand growth could be slashed by 500,000 barrels per day.

OPEC is still holding a lot of the cards, energy analyst says

JPMorgan, for its part, raised its recession odds for the global economy to 60% for this year, up from a previous forecast of 40%.

Markets were therefore stunned when OPEC, which produces about 40% of the world’s crude oil — along with its non-OPEC allies that together comprise OPEC+ — chose not only to go ahead with its previously held plans to increase oil production, but also to nearly triple the expected increase figure.

Eight key OPEC+ producers on Thursday agreed to raise combined crude oil output by 411,000 barrels per day, speeding up the pace of their scheduled hikes and pushing down oil prices. The group — Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman — was widely expected to implement an increase of just under 140,000 barrels per day next month. 

The news pushed oil prices 6% lower. 

OPEC+ bullishness and appeasing Trump

RBC’s Helima Croft on eight key OPEC+ producers raising combined crude oil output

The statement added that “the gradual increases may be paused or reversed subject to evolving market conditions.”

Another likely reason for the group’s move has to do with another T-word: the man in the White House, who during his first term in office and from the very start of his second, has loudly demanded that the oil producer group pump more crude to help bring down prices for Americans. 

“First of all, this is partly about appeasing Trump,” Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Marquee, told CNBC’s Dan Murphy on Friday. 

“Trump will be putting pressure on OPEC to reduce oil prices, which reduces global energy prices, to help offset the inflationary impact of his tariffs.”

OPEC officials have denied that the move was made to appease Trump. 

Compliance and market share

Meanwhile, as compliance is a major issue for OPEC+ — with countries overproducing crude beyond their quotas, complicating the group’s efforts to control how much supply it allows into the market — the move could be a way to enforce that, according to Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy and MENA research at RBC Capital Markets.

“We think a desire by the OPEC leadership to send a warning signal to Kazakhstan, Iraq, and even Russia about the cost of continued overproduction underlies the decision.”

Helima Croft

head of global commodity strategy and MENA research at RBC Capital Markets

What happens next?

OPEC+ appears confident about the market turning a corner in the coming months on the assumption that oil demand will increase in the summer and the tariff wars will be resolved in the coming months, said Nader Itayim, editorial manager at Argus Media.

“These countries are largely comfortable with the $70, $75 per barrel band,” Itayim said.

We'll be lucky to get one rate cut from the Fed in 2025, Allianz's Mohamed El-Erian says

What comes next depends on the trajectory of the tariffs and a potential trade war. Oil dropping into the $60 range could force pauses or even a reversal in OPEC+ production increase plans, analysts say – although that is likely to be met with resistance from countries like Iraq and Kazakhstan that have long been itching to increase their oil production for their own revenues. 

Whatever happens, the group maintains the flexibility to adapt its plans month by month, Itayim noted. 

“If things don’t quite go the way they imagine, all it does take, really, is a phone call.”

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla Semi suffers more delays and ‘dramatic’ price increase

Published

on

By

Tesla Semi suffers more delays and 'dramatic' price increase

According to a Tesla Semi customer, the electric truck program is suffering more delays and a price increase that is described as “dramatic.”

Tesla Semi has seen many delays, more than any other vehicle program at Tesla.

It was initially unveiled in 2017, and CEO Elon Musk claimed that it would go into production in 2019.

In late 2022, Tesla held an event where it unveiled the “production version” of the Tesla Semi and delivered the first few units to a “customer-partner”: PepsiCo.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Tesla Semi PepsiCo truck u/Tutrifor
Tesla Semi Image credit: u/Tutrifor

More than 3 years later, the vehicle never went into volume production. Instead, Tesla only ran a very low volume pilot production at a factory in Nevada and only delivered a few dozen trucks to customers as part of test programs.

But Tesla promised that things would finally happen for the Tesla Semi this year.

Tesla has been building a new high-volume production factory specifically for the Tesla Semi program in a new building next to Gigafactory Nevada.

The goal was to start production in 2025, start customer deliveries, and ramp up to 50,000 trucks yearly.

Now, Ryder, a large transportation company and early customer-partner in Tesla’s semi truck program, is talking about further delays. The company also refers to a significant price increase.

California’s Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) awarded Ryder funding for a project to deploy Tesla Semi trucks and Megachargers at two of its facilities in the state.

Ryder had previously asked for extensions amid the delays in the Tesla Semi program.

In a new letter sent to MSRC last week and obtained by Electrek, Ryder asked the agency for another 28-month delay. The letter references delays in “Tesla product design, vehicle production” and it mentions “dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics”:

This extension is needed due to delays in Tesla product design, vehicle production and dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics. These delays have caused us to reevaluate the current Ryder fleet in the area.

The logistics company now says it plans to “deploy 18 Tesla Semi vehicles by June 2026.”

The reference to “dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics” points to a significant price increase for the Tesla Semi, which further communication with MSRC confirms.

In the agenda of a meeting to discuss the extension and changes to the project yesterday, MSRC confirms that the project went from 42 to 18 Tesla Semi trucks while the project commitment is not changing:

Ryder has indicated that their electric tractor manufacturer partner, Tesla, has experienced continued delays in product design and production. There have also been dramatic changes to the product economics. Ryder requests to reduce the number of vehicles from 42 to 18, stating that this would maintain their $7.5 million private match commitment.

In addition to the electric trucks, the project originally involved installing two integrated power centers and four Tesla Megachargers, split between two locations. Ryder is also looking to now install 3 Megachargers per location for a total of 6 instead of 4.

Tesla Semi Megacharger hero

The project changes also mention that “Ryder states that Tesla now requires 600kW chargers rather than the 750kW units originally engineered.”

Tesla Semi Price

When originally unveiling the Tesla Semi in 2017, the automaker mentioned prices of $150,000 for a 300-mile range truck and $180,000 for the 500-mile version. Tesla also took orders for a “Founder’s Series Semi” at $200,000.

However, Tesla didn’t update the prices when launching the “production version” of the truck in late 2023. Price increases have been speculated, but the company has never confirmed them.

New diesel-powered Class 8 semi trucks in the US today often range between $150,000 and $220,000.

The combination of a reasonable purchase price and low operation costs, thanks to cheaper electric rates than diesel, made the Tesla Semi a potentially revolutionary product to reduce the overall costs of operation in trucking while reducing emissions.

However, Ryder now points to a “dramatic” price increase for the Tesla Semi.

What is the cost of a Tesla Semi electric truck now?

Electrek’s Take

As I have often stated, Tesla Semi is the vehicle program I am most excited about at Tesla right now.

If Tesla can produce class 8 trucks capable of moving cargo of similar weight as diesel trucks over 500 miles on a single charge in high volume at a reasonable price point, they have a revolutionary product on their hands.

But the reasonable price part is now being questioned.

After reading the communications between Ryder and MSRC, while not clear, it looks like the program could be interpreted as MSRC covering the costs of installing the charging stations while Ryder committed $7.5 million to buying the trucks.

The math makes sense for the original funding request since $7.5 million divided by 42 trucks results in around $180,000 per truck — what Tesla first quoted for the 500-mile Tesla Semi truck.

Now, with just 18 trucks, it would point to a price of $415,000 per Tesla Semi truck. It’s possible that some of Ryder’s commitment could also go to an increase in Megacharger prices – either per charger or due to the two additional chargers. MSRC said that they don’t give more money when prices go up after an extension.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the 500-mile Tesla Semi ends up costing $350,000 to $400,000.

If that’s the case, Tesla Semi is impressive, but it won’t be the revolutionary product that will change the trucking industry.

It will need to be closer to $250,000-$300,000 to have a significant impact, which is not impossible with higher-volume production but would be difficult.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

BP chair Helge Lund to step down after oil major pledges strategic reset

Published

on

By

BP chair Helge Lund to step down after oil major pledges strategic reset

British oil and gasoline company BP (British Petroleum) signage is being pictured in Warsaw, Poland, on July 29, 2024.

Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

British oil major BP on Friday said its chair Helge Lund will soon step down, kickstarting a succession process shortly after the company launched a fundamental strategic reset.

“Having fundamentally reset our strategy, bp’s focus now is on delivering the strategy at pace, improving performance and growing shareholder value,” Lund said in a statement.

“Now is the right time to start the process to find my successor and enable an orderly and seamless handover,” he added.

Lund is expected to step down in 2026. BP said the succession process will be led by Amanda Blanc in her capacity as senior independent director.

Shares of BP traded 2.2% lower on Friday morning. The London-listed firm has lagged its industry rivals in recent years.

BP announced in February that it plans to ramp up annual oil and gas investment to $10 billion through 2027 and slash spending on renewables as part of its new strategic direction.

Analysts have broadly welcomed BP’s renewed focus on hydrocarbons, although the beleaguered energy giant remains under significant pressure from activist investors.

U.S. hedge fund Elliott Management has built a stake of around 5% to become one of BP’s largest shareholders, according to Reuters.

Activist investor Follow This, meanwhile, recently pushed for investors to vote against Lund’s reappointment as chair at BP’s April 17 shareholder meeting in protest over the firm’s recent strategy U-turn.

Lund had previously backed BP’s 2020 strategy, when Bernard Looney was CEO, to boost investment in renewables and cut production of oil and gas by 40% by 2030.

BP CEO Murray Auchincloss, who took the helm on a permanent basis in January last year, is under significant pressure to reassure investors that the company is on the right track to improve its financial performance.

‘A more clearly defined break’

“Elliott continues to press BP for a sharper, more clearly defined break with the strategy to pivot more quickly toward renewables, that was outlined by Bernard Looney when he was CEO,” Russ Mould, AJ Bell’s investment director, told CNBC via email on Friday.

“Mr Lund was chair then and so he is firmly associated with that plan, which current boss Murray Auchincloss is refining,” he added.

Mould said activist campaigns tend to have “fairly classic thrusts,” such as a change in management or governance, higher shareholder distributions, an overhaul of corporate structure and operational improvements.

“In BP’s case, we now have a shift in capital allocation and a change in management, so it will be interesting to see if this appeases Elliott, though it would be no surprise if it feels more can and should be done,” Mould said.

Continue Reading

Trending