The Wall Street Journal called it “Biden’s Green-Energy Price Shock”, noting that electricity prices have increased by 21% since January 2021. That this has coincided with increased solar and wind output ought to surprise no-one. Thoughtful progressives should hail this as a positive development and argue that higher energy prices are an inevitable and worthwhile step in reducing CO2 emissions. But for the most part climate extremists have disingenuously argued that renewables are cheaper than reliable power – therefore they must feign surprise at rising electricity prices.

I spent last week in London. Like the rest of Europe, Britain endured a sharp rise in power prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine two years ago. Things have stabilized, but UK electricity is roughly 2X the cost of the US. Offshore windpower has been a success – the North Sea is a reliably blustery place. Last year wind generated 29% of the country’s electricity and 31% over the past twelve months. Natural gas still has a slight edge at 32%.

The US enjoys ample supplies of natural gas priced at around a quarter of what the UK pays. Expensive windpower isn’t the only reason for higher UK electricity prices.

Brexit either (1) inevitably harmed UK GDP growth by raising trade barriers to their neighbors, or (2) provided opportunities so far unexploited by the Conservative government, depending on whether you were against or for. Economic growth is anemic, and with voters going to the polls later this year PM Rishi Sunak has watered down earlier commitments to net zero, recognizing their economic and political cost going into an election he’s widely expected to lose.

Elsewhere in Europe Germany has embraced self-harm as national energy policy. Ruinously high energy prices (electricity is 4X or more vs the US) have led to reduced emissions via de-industrialization. German businesses are relocating and cutting domestic investment. German voters have been steadfast in their commitment to lead on climate change, a hugely expensive and ineffective effort swamped by China’s relentless coal-based growth.

Rising electricity prices are an easy target, as the WSJ op-ed showed. European energy policies have no place in America, and because of this our energy transition is going much better than theirs. Prices remain low and are attracting foreign direct investment. The US economy is growing strongly, easily the best among OECD countries. The benefits of cheap natural gas will grow as the only reliable way to meet increased power demands from data centers.

Americans impatiently expect persistent improvement from many things. This is curbing the efforts of climate extremists to foist expensive, intermittent energy on us without considering cost and reliability. We are less tolerant than Europeans of being told by liberal politicians what’s good for us.

Natural gas infrastructure is benefiting. In A Safe, Profitable Bet on the Green Transition, the WSJ noted how midstream companies such as Williams and Kinder Morgan are raising prices because of scarce capacity. Climate extremists have impeded new investments, thereby boosting free cash flow and helping traditional energy far outperform companies focused on renewables. Pipelines are beating the S&P500 this year.

Hug a climate protester and drive them to their next protest.

Visiting London, where I lived until 1982, triggers warm feelings of nostalgia along with sympathy for a great country that has endured poor leadership for too long. I delayed my arrival to avoid a widespread one-day rail strike. Such disruptions have been going on sporadically for eighteen months. Why do voters put up with that? Why are climate protesters still allowed to block traffic by standing in the road?

.avia-image-container.av-p5vian-661e565769c2074b79d704e49296cb8d img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-p5vian-661e565769c2074b79d704e49296cb8d .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

I reconnected with my old boss who, to my great fortune 42 years ago, persuaded his New York office to take on a young man beginning his career in finance. It was nice to thank him.

I saw Arsenal play Bayern Munich in the Champions League. It is possible to buy a ticket if you’re willing to pay a price too embarrassing to disclose. I saw Hamilton, with an enthusiastic UK audience that loved every minute. The lyrics of “You’ll Be Back” sung by George III, cleverly reflect imperial Britain’s slipping dominion over a people ready and able to reject it while retaining an eternal bond of shared values and culture.

Most importantly I saw old friends – I’m drawn back annually and now in my 60s have determined to visit more frequently. There are many great places in the world. You can enjoy them without owning a home there.

America is the world’s greatest country. I’m proud of my English heritage although Britain’s too liberal for me. Visits remind me why I emigrated. But I’m going to keep coming back.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

Vaclav Smil is often described as a polymath. His website says he does interdisciplinary research in the fields of energy, environmental and population change, food production, history of technical innovation, risk assessment, and public policy. He is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba.

I first came across his books when Bill Gates described Smil as his favorite author. His 2022 How the World Really Works: The Science Behind How We Got Here and Where We’re Going is one of his best.

.avia-image-container.av-pwo0h9-eddcca399d52eba514b64686ee41aad9 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-pwo0h9-eddcca399d52eba514b64686ee41aad9 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Mike Cembalest is JPMorgan’s Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy for Asset Management. He’s a highly skilled investment writer via his Eye on the Market series and annual energy papers and engaged Smil as technical advisor on energy topics for years. Smil is now 80 and has a less formal role. Cembalest says, “the opportunity to learn from him is one of the highlights of my 36 years at JP Morgan.”

For my part, both continue to be a vital source of information and insight via their writing.

We spend a lot of time thinking and reading about climate change. In a recent essay, Smil provided a dispassionate assessment of the energy transition grounded in facts.

Simply put, the world has no chance of reaching the UN’s goal of eliminating CO2 emissions over the next quarter century.

In 2018 when “zero by 50” was first articulated as a goal, UN scientists concluded that emissions needed to decline by around 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. Today that means eliminating nearly 16 billion tons of CO2 over the next six years, close to what China and the US generate today. Zero by 50 requires cutting almost half of India’s emissions every year, assuming no net growth anywhere else.

Global energy demand is generally forecast to rise by 10-15% by 2050.

Emissions haven’t even peaked yet.

Zero by 50 means replacing all thermal power generation capacity (currently 4 terawatts); converting 1.5 billion combustion engines including 50 million tractors; upgrading half a billion natural gas furnaces, 120,000 merchant ships and nearly 25,000 airplanes.

Smil often reminds how long previous energy transitions have taken. Coal surpassed wood in 1900 and didn’t peak until the 1960s. Then there’s the growth in developing world economies. Wood, charcoal, straw and dried dung provide around 5% of the world’s primary energy for 3 billion people, mostly for cooking. These people aspire to use natural gas.

Over the past quarter century combusted fossil fuels have increased by over half.

Many processes can’t be easily electrified. These include cement manufacture which requires high heat; fertilizer production which is a chemical conversion of methane (natural gas) into ammonia; and aviation because battery-powered planes defy aerodynamics. Smil also points out that a transition to solar and wind power means accepting less efficiency because renewables are low density (need large amounts of space) and intermittent (it’s not always sunny and windy).

The additional materials needed for EVs, solar and windpower and the rest of the energy transition are inconceivable. Smil estimates between now and 2050 we’ll need an extra 150 millions tons of copper (seven years of current production) just for EVs and 600 million tons in total; 40X as much lithium as is currently mined and 25X as much graphite and cobalt; 5 billion tons of steel (2.5X annual output).

All these minerals and inputs will have to be mined and produced without generating any new CO2.

Smil calculates that rich countries like the US would need to dedicate 20-25% of GDP to the energy transition through 2050, a level of commitment to a cause we achieved only once before, for less than five years during World War II.

When you look carefully at history, consider politics and add the desire of most of the world’s population to improve their living standards, only one conclusion is possible.

There’s no realistic likelihood of this goal being achieved.

Scientists, politicians and climate extremists have raised awareness but failed to inspire popular support for the policies they prescribe. This is democratic. It involves a substantial economic sacrifice by people today to benefit future generations. Democracies aren’t good at that. We can’t even embrace measures to curb our looming fiscal catastrophe even though America’s soaring debt is plain to see and not subject to any scientific uncertainty. Climate change and the deficit share this common challenge – getting today’s voters to care about generations not yet born is not a winning political message.

Vaclav Smil explains why we should stop worrying about climate change and plan on dealing with the consequences.

To turn it back to investing: the desire of so many to raise living standards has to be good for US natural gas, especially once the pause on LNG exports is lifted. And as it becomes clear that the solar/wind obsession is not making much impact, more pragmatic solutions are likely. A serious effort that is success-oriented instead of aspirational includes fast-tracking nuclear power and a worldwide coal-to-gas switch, emulating America’s biggest success in reducing emissions.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

JPMorgan’s 14^th Annual Energy Paper (subtitled “Electravision”) is as always packed with data and insights. Mike Cembalest has few peers among investment writers. Two themes, the slow electrification of western economies and the challenges of Electric Vehicles (EVs) stood out.

As Cembalest has noted before, renewables are gaining market share of power generation faster than electricity is growing its share of primary energy use. Around a fifth of US electricity generation comes from solar and wind. Texas is about a quarter of US windpower (see Windpower Stumbles On Unique American Mineral Rights) and Iowa relies on wind for over half of its electricity (See Offshore Wind vs Onshore). Wind’s market share doesn’t appear to correlate with electricity prices in states, but solar does.

.avia-image-container.av-u4yp0i-7fe2568d0e515076d9ba2b39dd9ba076 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-u4yp0i-7fe2568d0e515076d9ba2b39dd9ba076 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

The growth in renewables is exposing more grids to intermittency, since it’s not always sunny and windy. Battery storage is expected to be the major solution, but so far it’s made few inroads. Pumped storage relies on using electricity when it’s cheap (ie midday solar) to move water uphill, releasing it to generate power when demand exceeds renewables supply (breakfast and dinner time). It’s low tech, and yet this still represents 70% of utility scale storage.

Therefore, existing dispatchable power (usually natural gas, sometimes coal) is being retained. Because renewables operate at much less capacity than natural gas plants (typically 25-35% vs >90%), adding 1MW of solar capacity does little to reduce the need for the traditional energy it’s supposed to replace.

The result is adding renewables means carrying ever more redundant dispatchable capacity. Regional grid operators report that new renewables lead to only 10-20% of equivalent capacity reduction of coal or gas. It’s why solar and wind aren’t as cheap as their proponents like to think (see Renewables Are Pushing US Electricity Prices Up).

It also means capacity buffers are falling. New England expects peak summer generation capacity to drop below 10% within a decade, from over 25% currently. The recent surge in data centers to support AI is putting further pressure on power supply.

We tolerate power outages which rarely last more than a few hours. We haven’t had any natural gas outages, which would occur if, for example, very cold weather interrupted production. We’ve had some near misses, including in New York on Christmas Eve morning in 2022. If gas supply was cut, technicians would need to visit every building to ensure no residual gas had leaked while the pilot light was out. Frozen water pipes would presumably be common.

Engineers estimated that restoring service to 130,000 customers could take five to seven weeks. Let’s hope none of us ever lives through that.

On Electric Vehicles (EVs), estimates of their carbon impact usually rely on a grid’s average emissions intensity based on its mix of power. But Cembalest argues that it’s the marginal source that is more important. For example, if most drivers charge their cars overnight, a grid’s heavy reliance on solar power won’t help. The grid may be relying on fossil fuels or even have to invest more in storage. Bad news for EVs is that marginal emission rates are 1.5X average ones, reducing the carbon benefits of EVs.

Cembalest recounts the sorry tale of the new owner of a Ford F-150 Lightning EV who encountered many non-working EV chargers on a trip north from the Bay area. Tesla owners still report very good experience with charging.

Hydraulic fracturing produces over half of America’s primary energy. This technique remains almost exclusively American although Argentina’s Vaca Muerta shale play is a rare foreign example. It’s hard to conceive how the US economy would look without fracking. We’d face higher energy prices, slower growth and continued reliance on foreign imports. The shale revolution has been an enormous benefit to Americans and our trade partners.

JPMorgan’s Annual Energy Paper is full of interesting facts. Europe is colder than the US, because it’s farther north. How much farther? The 44^th parallel north runs through upstate New York and across the Atlantic, passing just north of San Marino. 92% of Americans live below this line, while 82% of Europeans live above it. This is why 10% of European households have air conditioning vs 90% in the US. The increasing use of heat pumps in new European dwellings is making a/c available, since all that’s required is to run the heat pump in reverse on warm days. This will offset some of the efficiency benefits that come with heat pumps.

Mike Cembalest is in that rare category of writers whose output informs, surprises and is always worth reading.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

Last week a Federal judge blocked completion of the Cardinal-Hickory Creek high-voltage transmission line. The 102-mile project linking Dubuque County, Iowa, to Dane County, Wisconsin has one mile remaining. Three environmental groups opposed its construction through a Mississippi River wildlife refuge. It’s needed to upgrade an existing transmission line built in the 1950s, add capacity, and bring new solar and wind power to Madison, WI.

Environmentalists are far from one homogeneous group. Locally, they can oppose infrastructure enabling the energy transition they support nationally. An FT video on the Cardinal-Hickory Creek website shows an environmentalist holding a feather (“I found five today”) lost by a bird unsuccessfully navigating the pylons.

Power lines are an unfortunate ugly corollary to electricity use. Because solar and wind need large spaces, their output must travel long distances to customers.  Climate extremists wishing to project a coherent view must reconcile the two. Nuclear and natural gas take up less room so can be placed nearer their customers.

The big problem with energy infrastructure isn’t the opposition from environmentalists. It’s the legal process that allows last-minute delays to projects that are almost complete.

Cardinal-Hickory Creek was first conceived in 2011. Public engagement began in 2014, authorizations were in hand by 2020 and construction began in 2021. 115 renewables projects with 17 gigawatts of capacity depend upon its completion. Nobody will build anything that can be derailed at the finish line when capital has been long committed and spent. But this is America’s process today.

.avia-image-container.av-1gfpfy0-f0f3a41551dd90d42852b16c91b4b3b3 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-1gfpfy0-f0f3a41551dd90d42852b16c91b4b3b3 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

We’re suddenly moving into a period of high demand growth for electricity following decades of flat demand. Electrification, including increased use of EVs was expected to add 1% pa to demand. Data centers are suddenly the new power hogs.

Wells Fargo estimates that AI will add 16% to US power demand by 2030. In less than a year, 1% annual demand growth has become 3%+.

For some this will increase the urgency to add even more solar and wind, although it’s hard to imagine that we could be doing any more. Therefore, it will boost natural gas demand.

Last year the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected natural gas use in electricity generation was about to peak. The EIA produces unbiased research, unlike the International Energy Agency (IEA) whose publications are mostly fantasy appealing to climate extremists.

.avia-image-container.av-18zly8o-e352283c5693579874e58b81bc9da2d1 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-18zly8o-e352283c5693579874e58b81bc9da2d1 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

This loss of demand will be made up for elsewhere in industry and via LNG exports once the pause on new permits is lifted. But now the trajectory has changed. Wells Fargo estimates that AI will boost natural gas by 7 Billion Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D) in order to meet just 40% of the incremental power load. Their upside case is 16 BCF/D. Last year the US produced 105.5 BCF/D from the lower 48 states.

This analysis only considers US data centers. But they’re being built all over the world. The AI revolution is global. Projected increases in electricity generation will add to global LNG demand. US natural gas prices are cheap. Chad Zamarin, a senior vice president at Williams Companies (WMB) says, “Domestic U.S. markets are oversupplied.”

Companies that produce electrical equipment should do well. Transformers are on a two year backlog. But assuming this will be good for renewables is to bet on a transformation of how infrastructure gets built.

.avia-image-container.av-poxdlk-d7e831a57a4494c62bf63b42e0659324 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-poxdlk-d7e831a57a4494c62bf63b42e0659324 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

America’s regional grids are increasing spending. But we’re adding the fewest miles of transmission in a decade. This is the morass into which investors in clean energy and utilities are jumping. Regardless of how strongly you believe in renewables and how sleepless rising sea levels make you, financing solar, wind and new power lines looks like a good way to lose money.

Morocco’s Noor Ouarzazate solar complex, operated by Saudi Arabia’s ACWA Power International, has had to shut down for most of the year because of problems at its storage unit. The facility has suffered repeated problems. A government agency called for its closure in 2020 because of high cost.

Morocco has a goal of getting renewables to half its power capacity by 2030. Their primary energy consumption is 7% renewables, with the balance from fossil fuels. Give them credit for trying. Many Moroccans would likely prefer adding cheap energy over green energy to raise living standards. Per capita energy consumption is a tenth of the US.

It seems increasingly clear that the AI revolution is going to boost natural gas consumption. Adding new pipelines is no easier than adding power lines. But pipeline operators can add small amounts of capacity at the margin. They don’t face any new competitors. Toby Rice, CEO of EQT, said, “Our pipeline infrastructure is maxed out.”

Rather than being compelled to deliver the energy transition, natural gas pipelines are positioned to compensate for the transition’s inability to deliver what politicians have promised.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

Treasury bills yielding 5.3% are not the worst place to put some cash. Long term expected returns on US large cap equities are generally 5-7%. Schwab expects 6.2%. JPMorgan is at 7%. The Equity Risk Premium is the lowest it’s been in over two decades. S&P500 earnings projections for this year and next are roughly unchanged over the past three months, but stocks are +10% driven by the AI boom.

The Fed doesn’t target asset prices, but the release of the FOMC’s projection materials last week confirmed that they expect to cut rates later this year. Stocks duly rose.

.avia-image-container.av-l5512o-aa493c5d7380595b9d5231596daa9ea2 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-l5512o-aa493c5d7380595b9d5231596daa9ea2 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

The Fed is walking a precise path. FOMC forecasts for the Fed Funds rate are aligned with the market. December SOFR futures are at 4.5% versus the median blue dot at 4.6%. Policymakers can be forgiven a degree of immodesty. They have quelled inflation without causing a recession.

On the back of this success, they now plan to cut rates with inflation still above their target and the unemployment rate below their projected equilibrium. This drew criticism from Larry Summers who thinks they’re too eager to cut rates. The counter argument is that current Fed policy is restrictive, and having avoided a recession to this point they don’t want to stay too tight for too long.

The economy is doing well, and the margin for error is on the side of slower rate cuts or none this year. If the unemployment rate dropped back to 3.7% the 4.6% year-end projected Fed Funds rate would look optimistic.

With stocks historically expensive against bonds, which themselves don’t look that cheap, there shouldn’t be any great rush among investors to commit new cash to equities.

The exception is midstream energy infrastructure, which has quietly been delivering strong returns for over three years and is drawing the attention of more buyers.

Williams Companies CEO Alan Armstrong told the CERAWeek energy conference that the need for permitting reform has made building infrastructure more difficult. This has reduced competition within the midstream sector, leaving incumbents in a strong position. Climate extremists (hug one) have done this. Armstrong said Boston burns garbage, oil and coal to generate electricity rather than allow pipelines to bring in natural gas from Pennsylvania.

We agree with Armstrong that any serious effort to reduce emissions should exploit cheap natural gas to displace coal. As the world concludes that the UN IPCC “zero by 50” goal is out of reach under current policies, pragmatism will favor solutions like this.

In 2017 we wrote about Stanford University’s Tony Seba (see A Futurist’s Vision of Energy). Seba tells you what the future will look like. His presentations are engaging and his forecasts far from mainstream. This makes them exciting, by forcing the viewer to contemplate a world very different from today.

Seba’s not the only person to have made spectacularly wrong energy forecasts. Vaclav Smil is a brilliant writer on energy whose many books include How the World Really Works. Smil eschews long term forecasts, recalling a 1983 meeting of the Internation Energy Agency (IEA) where he drew some comfort because his, “was less ridiculous than that of the World Bank’s chief economist.”

In 2017, Tony Seba opened his presentation with a photo of horse-drawn carriages in New York’s 1900 Easter parade followed by a 1913 photo of Fifth Avenue with all cars and no horses. It’s great theatre and draws the audience to embrace the notion that dramatic change is all too common.

At the time of that presentation, Seba forecast that by 2030 EVs would be 100% of US auto sales and that global oil demand would be 70 Million barrels per Day (MMB/D). We’re halfway to that deadline. Today US EVs are 10% of sales if you include hybrids. Global oil demand is at a record 103 MMB/D and the IEA regularly revises its forecasts up.

Seba’s website still uses the 1913 photo labelled “Where is the horse?”

Unbowed by the improbability of the 2017 forecasts, Seba currently expects 95% of US passenger miles to be “served by on-demand autonomous electric vehicles owned by fleets, not individuals.” Never mind that the average US car is over 12 years old and that today fleet-owned autonomous cars are limited to a few experiments in places like Tempe, AZ.

Change is coming, and sometimes it’s faster than expected. Tony Seba is not short of invitations to speak at events. However, profits do not come to those following his vision.

Seven years ago, Exxon’s US EV forecast was a 10% market share by 2040, likely to be a big miss. They also forecast 115 MMB/D of global crude oil demand at that time, which is quite possible given recent trends.

Aramco CEO Amin Nasser told CERAWeek that the “current transition strategy is visibly failing” and that emissions will increasingly be determined by the “global south” (meaning the developing world including Asia). He’s right.

This energy transition will last decades as did previous ones from wood to coal to oil and gas. Futurists are fun but the incumbents are where the money is.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

The Artificial Intelligence boom means the need for vastly more computing power. This is leading to a sharp jump in data centers, with a consequent increase in projected electricity demand (see AI Boosts US Energy). Elon Musk noted the pressure this is putting on the supply of electric infrastructure. Electricity is stepped up to very high voltage for transmission before being transformed back down to the familiar 110V we use. For example, generator transformers now have a two-year waiting list.

Most regions of the US are planning for increased power demand. The PJM region attributes it all to data centers. Virginia has added 75 since 2019. Microsoft plans to use dedicated nuclear fusion plants to power its growing AI business.

Shifting to increased use of electricity is a key pillar of the energy transition, since in theory an EV run on solar or windpower generates no CO2 emissions (although its manufacture does). Utilities are at the forefront of delivering more electricity from renewables. This is part of decarbonizing our economy.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) published their 2023  Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) almost exactly a year ago. In it they projected a 0.7% annual increase in power consumption. By July they had concluded that their models needed an overhaul to better model hydrogen, carbon capture and other emerging technologies. So they’re skipping this year’s AEO while they do that and will return next year with the 2025 AEO.

In January last year PJM forecast 1.4% annual demand growth for electricity over the next decade. Two months ago, they raised this to 2.4% over their ten-year planning horizon. It’s safe to assume that next year’s long term outlook from the EIA will assume faster demand growth.

NextEra Energy (NEE) says it “has a plan to lead the decarbonization of America.” On their most recent earnings call, management’s enthusiasm about growth opportunities in renewables reminded me of pipeline companies 7-10 years ago during the dash for growth that was the shale revolution. There’s an unfailing confidence that growth is good. For investors that requires that projects will earn a risk-adjusted return above the company’s weighted average cost of capital.

Alot of shale revolution capital was poorly allocated. Too many projects, both upstream and midstream, failed to generate a return above their cost of capital.

The energy transition and build-out of renewables originally came with much excitement and enthusiasm. Democrat political leaders were partly to blame. Joe Biden promised cheap reliable electricity along with well-paid union jobs. Climate extremists have long misrepresented the actual cost of intermittent solar and wind power.

.avia-image-container.av-1kts11i-33d195f54eeeb42aedc9b7e5ba740106 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-1kts11i-33d195f54eeeb42aedc9b7e5ba740106 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

US electricity prices are climbing. Over the past five years they’ve increased at a 4.9% annual rate, 0.7% faster than the CPI. Renewables’ share of US power generation has been climbing for two decades and is now around 22%. It’s not a coincidence.

.avia-image-container.av-164se1y-2b0210ea37c35f290d7dea77241bc199 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-164se1y-2b0210ea37c35f290d7dea77241bc199 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

The S&P Global Clean Energy index peaked in late 2020. NEE peaked a year later. US electricity prices had long fluctuated between 13.0 and 14.5 cents per Kilowatt Hour (KwH), but around the time that inflated renewables expectation began to sag, power prices rose.

.avia-image-container.av-pbnesm-b2dbbab23a418483c2a5d133df026023 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-pbnesm-b2dbbab23a418483c2a5d133df026023 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Fortunately we’re nowhere close to Germany, proud leader of the energy transition, where wholesale electricity is around US0.55 per KwH.

This blog is in favor of reducing CO2 emissions. As we tirelessly point out, replacing coal with natural gas remains America’s biggest success on this score. But few consumers want to pay more for energy – and who can blame them when climate extremists have long asserted with no evidence that renewables are cheaper as well as better for the planet. As a result, few expect to pay more for the energy transition.

Climate extremists have overpromised on the solution.

This puts utilities in an unenviable position. They’re at the forefront of what many believe is a vital mission to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but investors are souring on them. NEE management conceded on their recent earnings call to be disappointed with their stock performance, which is 2.2% pa over the past five years.

The sudden growth in data centers will likely put further upward pressure on electricity prices, since for most utilities at the margin adding new capacity is likely to cost more than their current average cost. Socializing the cost of added data center demand across all their customers will be unpopular, and it will also require more traditional energy. Natural gas infrastructure will benefit, and planned coal plant retirements might be delayed. JPMorgan expects Williams Companies (WMB) could see 0.75 billion cubic feet per day of incremental throughput on their natural gas pipeline network, and projects, “the total national opportunity potentially multiples of this figure.”

Where the pipeline sector differs from utilities is that they’ll often meet incremental demand with small additions to existing capacity, usually funded organically. They don’t have the same pressure to deliver the energy transition at a cheap price.

Utility investors are learning to be less enthusiastic about capex-funded growth.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

In recent years the International Energy Agency (IEA) has moved from providing objective forecasts to championing the world’s shift away from fossil fuels. In embracing a liberal political stance they’ve lost relevance to companies and governments making investment decisions to meet future demand. For example, the IEA projects peak oil demand within the next few years, whereas OPEC sees no visible peak. The IEA’s base case for energy consumption sees annual demand growth of less than 1% even though the past decade was 1.4% pa.

One result is that the IEA often revises its near tern forecasts higher. They now see 2024 global crude oil demand at 103.2 Million Barrels per Day (MMB/D), up 1.3 MMB/D from last year. Although the IEA has raised its growth forecast by half since it was first released last year, they’re still behind others such as OPEC which expects 2.2 MMB/D of growth.

Analysts have long warned that underinvestment in new oil production would push prices higher. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine two years ago briefly took prices near $110 per barrel, but a porous sanctions regime has allowed Russian oil to find its way onto the market. However, over the past month oil futures have edged higher as traders digested the upward revisions to demand forecasts.

It’s part of a growing pattern whereby traditional energy consumption is proving more resilient than many forecasts project.

An example is Shell, which has moderated its carbon intensity targets to incorporate the sale of its retail renewable power business. Investors are rewarding companies that prioritize returns, which for companies like Shell come more reliably from oil and gas. In explaining their changed goals Shell cited, “uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition.”

.avia-image-container.av-12o8iae-b455cc8c74ce8287cd0928ef1d365f10 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-12o8iae-b455cc8c74ce8287cd0928ef1d365f10 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Another area of surprising demand growth is in US power. For over a decade, electricity consumption has hovered just below 4 Trillion Kilowatt Hours. But utilities across the country are preparing for a surge over the next five years. Electric Vehicles (EVs) are only a small part of this. Indeed, Tesla is losing its stature as a growth stock with sales volumes being revised down weekly.

The increased need for US electricity is driven by data centers. Since last year, five year growth in power demand has been revised up by 80%. Virginia has added at least 75 new data centers since 2019. Most regional grids expect increased demand from data centers. California is the exception – the home of computing is a hostile place to build anything.

The Boston Consulting Group expects power demand from data centers to triple by 2030.

In a recent interview, Elon Musk said that AI computing power was increasing at a staggering 10X every six months. Obviously, this isn’t sustainable, but he described it as the fastest growth in a new technology he’s ever seen. Musk has long been optimistic about autonomous driving. He believes Tesla is very close to delivering, although he has said that often over the past several years. He expects self-driving cars using AI to allow much greater utilization of automobiles in the future. While the average car is used for ten hours per week, he expects autonomous cars to move people 50-60 hours a week as they operate like taxis.

Manufacturing is also benefiting from cheap, reliable US energy. New plants to build automobiles and batteries are adding to demand. In the past three years $481BN in new commitments for industrial and manufacturing facilities have been announced. Some of this is the beneficiary of Germany’s slow de-industrialization, caused by years of their disastrous energy policies (see Germany Pays Dearly For Failed Energy Policy).

California, where EVs are popular, expects charging them to consume up to 10% of peak power demand by 2035.

.avia-image-container.av-smue3a-025bc369547a6d524efc71a689058031 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-smue3a-025bc369547a6d524efc71a689058031 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

The increased capex among utilities should give investors in that sector pause. But the consequent demand for additional natural gas will further boost utilization of pipelines.

Reducing emissions relies on electrification of activities where it results in a switch to low emission energy. However, renewables are in many cases inadequate to meet this new demand. Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia are planning to add dozens of new natural gas power plants over the next fifteen years.

A challenge to adding renewable power capacity lies in transmission lines. Because solar and wind power require large open spaces, their power must be transmitted often over long distances to population centers. Adding grid capacity is proving difficult. The legal system has been turned into a weapon by climate extremists opposed to traditional energy, but interminable lawsuits are also delaying new power infrastructure.

GridStrategies reports that the U.S. installed 1,700 miles of new high-voltage transmission per year on average in the first half of the 2010s but dropped to only 645 miles per year on average in the second half of the 2010s.

Oil and gas demand remain strong, with many companies finding them the most reliable source of investment returns in the energy sector.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

Last week I saw some investors in Florida before joining my partner Henry in Puerto Rico at the national sales conference for Catalyst Funds, our mutual fund partner. The warm, sunny weather and ocean breeze stimulated much useful interaction with clients and salespeople about midstream energy infrastructure. It’s always helpful to hear firsthand the questions and concerns investors voice about what we believe is the most attractive sector in the equity markets today.

The Catalyst crowd is one that, as CEO Jerry Szilagyi said, plays hard and works hard. Like at my golf club, the average age keeps getting younger. Following each day of intensive meetings, the local nightlife was fully experienced, albeit not by your blogger whose postprandial preferences exclude casinos and value sleep over shots.

.avia-image-container.av-cfdl8c-a49db9a6a098b5015867659ed52aa853 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-cfdl8c-a49db9a6a098b5015867659ed52aa853 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

During several roundtables with groups of salespeople we were often asked how the election will impact the sector.

During his 1984 re-election campaign, then 73 year-old President Reagan quipped that he wasn’t going to make an issue out of 56-year-old Walter Mondale’s youth and inexperience. Similarly, we’re not too worried that a Trump presidency will once again decimate energy investors.

Huh?

.avia-image-container.av-33mwoxo-66e12cf42c01fac3b0efdac3e03ed68b img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-33mwoxo-66e12cf42c01fac3b0efdac3e03ed68b .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Democrats don’t like traditional energy, and left-wing progressives would return us all to living standards from the 19^th century if their energy policies were followed. Therefore, it’s to their great dismay that pipelines have returned a sparkling 32.1% pa since Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Trump’s time in office was –6.2% pa.

Energy executives cheered when Trump surprised many by beating Hilary Clinton in 2016. They expected a lighter, pro-business regulatory touch. Capital flowed into the ground and hydrocarbons gushed out. The shale revolution was good for consumers but not investors as prices sagged under increased supply. Too often, capital was allocated on optimistic assumptions. And then came covid, with its short but dramatic collapse in economic activity and briefly negative oil prices.

A newly elected President Biden adopted the hostile posture he promised during the campaign, immediately canceling the Keystone XL pipeline. The post-pandemic economic recovery was by then well underway, and a superficial interpretation of the pipeline sector’s performance might conclude that the Democrats have provided benign policy support allowing energy investors to profit.

Pipeline executives understand the reality is more nuanced. Democrat politicians planning to stay in office offer progressives enough to keep alive their dystopian vision of nothing but renewables while ensuring reliable energy remains fully available. Capital expenditures have remained at half the levels of five years ago partly because companies are more focused on returns versus growth. But they’re also wary about making long-term capital commitments that future policy changes may render unprofitable.

Climate extremists have helped create the present cautious attitude towards capital allocation. Hug one and drive them to their next protest.

Trump wasn’t bad for energy any more than Biden has been good. Presidents have less influence over the sector than is sometimes believed. We think midstream energy infrastructure is attractive regardless of who wins in November.

.avia-image-container.av-2crfaws-83b690959f4d76c9db38f15672ac282a img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-2crfaws-83b690959f4d76c9db38f15672ac282a .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

We were asked about the pause on approving new LNG export terminals. US export capacity is set to double over the next four years. The permit pause only affects projects beyond that, where construction hasn’t yet begun. See Struggling To Justify The Pause and LNG Pause Will Boost Asian Coal Consumption. The pause is poor policy and will likely be lifted after the election regardless of who wins. It does remind that Democrat energy policies are always at risk of pandering to left-wing extremists.

Sales of Electric Vehicles (EVs) have been flattening. I regularly hear from happy Tesla owners, all of whom own a second car for long journeys. I also have frequent conversations with investors and others who can’t see the point in dealing with the inconvenience of charging. This view seems to be ascendant. Some states are increasing fees on EV owners to compensate for foregone taxes on gasoline. US crude oil demand looks stable, and globally it’s still rising.

Below are some of the slides we use to highlight the attractive positioning of pipelines today. Dividend yields of around 6% are growing, with buybacks further augmenting the total return of cash to shareholders. While midstream capex is constrained, among utilities it’s being boosted. The energy transition must be paid for, and delivering increased electricity from renewables is their job. It’s not easy to reconcile political promises that solar and wind are cheap with the immutable reality of miserable returns on clean energy.

.avia-image-container.av-njtqpo-8f567ef0daea9af14132caf0653b46d9 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-njtqpo-8f567ef0daea9af14132caf0653b46d9 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

.avia-image-container.av-1p1u4ws-08f07015a6eb6a91123c863a2321b0cc img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-1p1u4ws-08f07015a6eb6a91123c863a2321b0cc .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

.avia-image-container.av-11ekk64-e1d02d77d1e42eb5e78bfd669085816c img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-11ekk64-e1d02d77d1e42eb5e78bfd669085816c .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Energy returns have been the best of all eleven S&P sectors since 2021. Yet the sector still looks cheap, midstream especially so. Many investors already agree.

.avia-image-container.av-otdeho-9cf85c3c1fa31f5c40cc4132ebb230f4 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-otdeho-9cf85c3c1fa31f5c40cc4132ebb230f4 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

There’s no shortage of books, essays and documentaries warning that climate change will make Planet Earth uninhabitable. Therefore, Hannah Ritchie’s Not the End of the World provides a refreshing reminder of how much is going right and likely ways we’ll adapt to a warmer planet.

Ritchie is no climate denier. She studied environmental science at the University of Edinburgh. Like many young people, she initially believed everything was getting worse. Two thirds of Americans aged 16-25 and 72% of Brits responding to a survey agreed that, “The future is frightening.”

Hannah Ritchie eschewed the mindless anti-fossil fuel protests of many contemporaries. Instead, she studied the issues and then wrote a book sharing her generally positive conclusions about our environment while highlighting how much more needs to be done.

.avia-image-container.av-s9v52p-7fa365deab0b9985699fa8a09c105d32 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-s9v52p-7fa365deab0b9985699fa8a09c105d32 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Human activity has never been environmentally sustainable. The problems didn’t begin with burning coal for the industrial revolution in the middle of the 19^th century. Over thousands of years our ancestors hunted many large animals to extinction, polluted the air by burning wood and cut down huge amounts of forest.

Frustratingly for the 36% of Americans 16-25 (and 38% of Britons) who are hesitant to have children, there has objectively never been a better time to be alive. Globally, child mortality, maternal mortality and life expectancy are all the best they’ve ever been. Hunger and extreme poverty are lower than ever, while access to clean water and education are higher than ever. Just because it’s a great time to be a human doesn’t mean we can’t improve on all these metrics and others.

Negativity is all too common. A recent FT-Michigan Ross poll found that three quarters of respondents described US economic conditions as “negative”. More people describe their own financial situation as “surviving” versus “thriving”. This is with US GDP growing at 3.3% and unemployment at 3.7%.

Social scientists can ponder why surveys seem increasingly detached from the data. Hannah Ritchie is here to drag us out of the gloom.

Many of us are breathing the cleanest air in centuries. 1950s London surrounded by coal-burning power plants and factories had dirtier air than today’s New Delhi. Ritchie makes the obvious point, that ‘Once life is comfortable, our concerns turn to the environment around us.” Reducing CO2 emissions sits near the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs for most people, which is why emerging Asia still burns so much coal.

London responded to the Great Smog of 1952 with pollution controls. By 2008 living standards were high enough in Beijing that they responded similarly – albeit in a typically Chinese way. Many households had their coal boilers removed before gas replacements were available, enduring a cold winter without heat.

Palm oil cultivation is often criticized as environmentally unsustainable. But one hectare produces 2.8 metric tonnes of oil, compared with 0.3 tonnes of olive oil or 0.26 tonnes of coconut oil. If we used less palm oil, we’d need much more farmland to produce other types of oil.

Ritchie walks through her changing appreciation for the impact of natural disasters. Like almost half of survey respondents, she once thought deaths had more than doubled over the past century. They’ve fallen by 97%, adjusted for population. This is like the point Alex Epstein makes, crediting fossil fuels for providing us with more robust infrastructure and the technology to receive earlier warnings. Fossil fuels have made life immeasurably better. But Ritchie remains firmly convinced we need to reduce emissions. By contrast, Epstein thinks a richer world a couple of generations from now will be better equipped and more motivated to tackle the issue.

Like most who think hard about climate change, Ritchie is a big fan of nuclear power. She believes we need to phase out all fossil fuels eventually but wants to start with coal. She doesn’t think we’ll hit the UN’s target of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 but is optimistic that we’re on a good path. In acknowledging the many improvements in quality of life, she wouldn’t regress by limiting energy consumption.

Not the End of the World offers an engaging and optimistic worldview. Bill Gates found it, “A surprising (and surprisingly optimistic) book on climate change.”  He called it, “an essential antidote to environmental doomsday-ism.”

This is true. Too many climate extremists are among those hesitant to have children or unable to see the positives in today’s strong US economy. The world is doing fine, can do better in many ways and will get through climate change.

Hannah Ritchie explains why.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

European imports of LNG rose sharply following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine two years ago. The US was well positioned to step in and provided virtually all the additional LNG Europe bought. The current pause on new LNG export terminals runs counter to these trade flows, but it’s increasingly clear this policy has few supporters other than some climate extremists.

Russia has had to pivot towards Asia and FSU (Former Soviet Union) buyers for its natural gas exports. In 2021 Russian exports via both pipeline and as LNG were 244 Billion Cubic Meters (BCM), around 23.6 Billion Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D). For reference, last year the US became the world’s largest LNG exporter, averaging 11.9 BCF/D.

Last year Russian exports were 142 BCM, down 42% over two years.

.avia-image-container.av-j7wbcy-1dbc708ae2ffbbcff6430eee7750baa7 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-j7wbcy-1dbc708ae2ffbbcff6430eee7750baa7 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Returning gas exports to their previous level will take years if it occurs at all. Negotiations over the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline project with China are moving slowly, and there’s even a suggestion that Russia may begin construction of the pipeline before they have a signed agreement in hand. China clearly feels they have a strong hand to play – and yet China’s own energy strategy is to lessen its dependence on western supplies. Their booming EV market is one way to reduce the need for crude imports. Another is to align more closely with Russia, since on several levels they need one another.

Russia is also expanding its LNG export capability. The Novatek Arctic LNG 2 terminal with annual capacity of 27 BCM (2.6 BCF/D) may start operations as soon as this month. The US has threatened anyone providing “material support” with penalties or criminal prosecution. This apparently hasn’t dissuaded Philip Adkins, CEO of Red Box Energy Services, as described in this FT article.

Other projects that are less far along are vulnerable to sanctions as well as denied access to western liquefaction technology. Russian LNG projects have suffered timing delays. See Russia’s Gas Export Strategy: Adapting to the New Reality for more detail.

Last week the International Energy Agency (IEA) published CO2 Emissions in 2023. In recent years the IEA has moved from providing objective analysis of energy markets to promoting anodyne versions of the energy transition. Few of their projections on energy use are remotely plausible. As a result, some think if Trump wins the election he’ll stop funding the IEA, which seems to have outlived its purpose with its new approach.

The IEA reported that global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.1% last year. Executive director Fatih Birol claimed that increased EV deployment over the past five years had constrained global oil demand, thereby reducing emissions. He overlooked that in the world’s biggest EV market Chinese electricity is 62% derived from coal. At the IEA, cheerleading sometimes beats analysis.

Canada announced that the TransMountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline that they purchased from Kinder Morgan (KMI) in 2018 (see Canada’s Failing Energy Strategy) will finally start operating. It connects oil-rich Alberta with Pacific export terminals in British Columbia.

TMX is planning 2.1 million barrels of linefill next month and another 2.1 in May. Construction has been a financial disaster for taxpayers, with the ultimate cost likely to exceed by 4X estimates when KMI deftly unloaded the project. Alberta has always struggled to get its oil to market. British Columbia’s left-leaning government has long been hostile to TMX, which prompted KMI’s sale. Keystone XL was intended to add southern takeaway capacity until Biden canceled it. Alberta’s oilmen will be relieved.

Canada also intends to expedite approval of new nuclear projects, a pragmatic step that acknowledges the limitations of solar and wind. The Sierra Club Canada is, like its US namesake, opposed to nuclear power. Climate extremists aren’t good for the rest of us.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is often dismissed by those who want the world to rely on intermittent energy. Occidental is building the world’s biggest CCS facility in Texas and is optimistic about licensing the technology. They gave up on one project, named Century, after concluding the economics weren’t attractive enough. However, they drew a $550 million investment from Blackrock in Stratos, which is expected to be commercially operational by the middle of next year.

In Singapore, Exxon and Shell have formed a JV to work with the government on a CCS project. Opponents dislike CCS because it allows fossil fuels to be used without emitting CO2. This is why the rest of us should hope CCS becomes a vital part of the energy chain, since it will preserve our use of reliable energy rather than the intermittent, weather-dependent type.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund