New Jersey, where your blogger resides when temperatures allow, had a good story to tell  on energy until recently. Power generation relies heavily on natural gas and nuclear (38% and 56% respectively in February). Residential electricity prices are 19.7 cents per Kilowatt Hour (KwH), above the US average of 16.4 cents but well below neighboring blue New York state’s 26.2 cents.

New England, where energy masochism is an art form, averages 29.7 cents led by Connecticut at 33.3 and Massachusetts at 30.4.

However, New Jersey’s Democrat governor Phil Murphy has been leading a left-wing assault on the Garden state’s satisfactory power supply. It began with the 2019 Energy Master Plan: Pathway to 2050. Executive Order 315 issued in February 2023 went further, mandating that 100% of electricity be derived from clean energy by 2035.

Offshore windpower is supposed to be the major source. Currently, non-hydro renewables  provide 3.6% of the state’s electricity. The state’s goal is to add 7,500 megawatts of offshore wind by 2035 which they say will power 3.2 million homes, out of a total of 3.8 million. So the plan is that within a decade more than four homes in five will run on windpower.

Almost all the windpower in the US is onshore (see Offshore Wind vs Onshore). Texas generates the most, and Iowa relies on it the most at 64% in 2023. Offshore wind is more expensive to install, and several projects have collapsed. Equinor is taking a big loss on New York’s Empire Wind Offshore project (see Pipelines Will Get a Lift From Gas) because the US Interior Department ordered them to stop construction.

Apparently, the previous administration’s environmental review was hasty and incomplete. Equinor has said the delay is costing them $50 million a week and they’ll pull the plug within days without a resolution.

Plans to add offshore wind in New Jersey were wildly unpopular with coastal communities who opposed a blighted view and disruption where infrastructure would bring the power onshore (see Windpower Faces A Tempest). In 2023 Orsted abandoned two large projects citing increased costs and delays.

The Garden State may be politically blue, but the Jersey shore is decidedly red.

Given Equinor’s losses and the US administration’s opposition to offshore wind, it’s hard to see any enthusiasm for new projects. There’s too much execution risk with a potential change in government every four years.

Which brings us back to New Jersey, whose stated policies make clear the government’s antipathy towards traditional energy including natural gas. Residents are about to be hit with utility bill hikes of 17%-20%. Supply constraints are part of the reason. PJM Interconnection, the grid operator whose footprint includes New Jersey, has warned of insufficient generation capacity if the summer is hotter than average. Given the state’s energy goal to move away from hydrocarbons, adding natural gas infrastructure has limited appeal.

Democrat energy policies are leading to a jump in prices even though the state hardly uses windpower. My friend Jon Bramnick is running for governor and released this short video explaining the problem. It will be to New Jersey’s great benefit if he wins the election.

Even though this may look like a polemic against left wing politicians and not an investment blog, the rest will look familiar.

Energy planners in New Jersey and New York have created a developing problem for their residents. Because of their assumption that wind power will provide a meaningful share of electricity they’ve often blocked additions of natural gas infrastructure. By planning to reduce and eventually eliminate gas they’ve made it less attractive for new investment.

Much of the intended offshore wind capacity is now unlikely to be built. Therefore, both states’ demand for natural gas will be higher than expected. It may first require a political backlash against today’s flawed and expensive policies. The looming price hikes in New Jersey will be another confirmation that progressives have disingenuously promoted solar and wind as cheap.

The pendulum has swung back against a price-insensitive pursuit of intermittent, weather-dependent electricity (see Energy Policies Are Moving Right). As former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair pointed out in The Climate Paradox: Why We Need to Reset Action on Climate Change, the current approach is failing.

This is long term bullish for natural gas demand and its related infrastructure. The failure of left wing energy policies to generate widespread public support will be a tailwind for reliable energy. The investment outlook for energy infrastructure is more constructive than reflected in market prices, because many have been wrongly persuaded that renewables will displace everything else.

We never accepted the view that the US would abandon reliable energy in favor of the intermittent, expensive alternative.

Ignoring progressives can be hard but is always worth the effort.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Important Disclosures

The information provided is for informational purposes only and investors should determine for themselves whether a particular service, security or product is suitable for their investment needs. The information contained herein is not complete, may not be current, is subject to change, and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by, the more complete disclosures, risk factors and other terms that are contained in the disclosure, prospectus, and offering. Certain information herein has been obtained from third party sources and, although believed to be reliable, has not been independently verified and its accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. No representation is made with respect to the accuracy,  completeness or timeliness of this information. Nothing provided on this site constitutes tax advice. Individuals should seek the advice of their own tax advisor for specific information regarding tax consequences of investments.  Investments in securities entail risk and are not suitable for all investors. This site is not a recommendation nor an offer to sell (or solicitation of an offer to buy) securities in the United States or in any other jurisdiction.

References to indexes and benchmarks are hypothetical illustrations of aggregate returns and do not reflect the performance of any actual investment. Investors cannot invest in an index and do not reflect the deduction of the advisor’s fees or other trading expenses. There can be no assurance that current investments will be profitable. Actual realized returns will depend on, among other factors, the value of assets and market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs, and the timing of the purchase. Indexes and benchmarks may not directly correlate or only partially relate to portfolios managed by SL Advisors as they have different underlying investments and may use different strategies or have different objectives than portfolios managed by SL Advisors (e.g. The Alerian index is a group MLP securities in the oil and gas industries. Portfolios may not include the same investments that are included in the Alerian Index. The S & P Index does not directly relate to investment strategies managed by SL Advisers.)

This site may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,” “estimated,” “potential” and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio’s operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involves a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements or examples. None of SL Advisors LLC or any of its affiliates or principals nor any other individual or entity assumes any obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, subsequent events or any other circumstances. All statements made herein speak only as of the date that they were made. r

Certain hyperlinks or referenced websites on the Site, if any, are for your convenience and forward you to third parties’ websites, which generally are recognized by their top level domain name. Any descriptions of, references to, or links to other products, publications or services does not constitute an endorsement, authorization, sponsorship by or affiliation with SL Advisors LLC with respect to any linked site or its sponsor, unless expressly stated by SL Advisors LLC. Any such information, products or sites have not necessarily been reviewed by SL Advisors LLC and are provided or maintained by third parties over whom SL Advisors LLC exercise no control. SL Advisors LLC expressly disclaim any responsibility for the content, the accuracy of the information, and/or quality of products or services provided by or advertised on these third-party sites.

All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that any specific investment will be suitable or profitable for a client’s investment portfolio.

Past performance of the American Energy Independence Index is not indicative of future returns.