To be an energy investor is to consider the energy transition on a daily basis. You don’t even have to be certain that man-made global warming is happening. Simply accepting that it may be possible should still induce a prudent world into managing this risk. Climate is complicated, and certainty that increasing CO2 emissions will cause irreparable damage is as implausible as certainty that they won’t.

We won’t hit the UN Zero by 50 target, meaning eliminating CO2 emissions in 26 years, because it’s not taken seriously enough. That may sound odd. All you ever read is articles hailing the growth in solar and wind along with their plummeting cost. But even in the US, renewables provide just 3.5% of our primary energy output, up from 2.7% a decade ago.

Perusing data from The Energy Institute’s 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy reveals how far we are from tackling the problem.

The first thing to understand is that global CO2 emissions will be determined by China, not the US or the EU. China’s 12.6 Gigatons (GTs, billions of metric tonnes) of CO2 equivalent (i.e. including methane) have increased by a factor of 3.4X this century. They are 31% of the total, up from 14% in 2000. Over this time the US and EU have each lopped around 1 GT off their emissions.

.avia-image-container.av-1p3qqg4-509d73a3c74846f67c5984108cdb7a99 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-1p3qqg4-509d73a3c74846f67c5984108cdb7a99 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Non-OECD ex-China (ie the rest of the developing world) has gone from 9 GTs to almost 16 GTs. The data shows that concern about emissions rises with incomes. Everyone wants a western standard of living, which requires more energy. This is the inexorable force driving consumption of coal, oil and natural gas.

The success the US has enjoyed in reducing emissions has come from swapping coal for natural gas in power generation. It seems obvious to extend this benefit elsewhere through increased US exports of cheap Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). But climate policy is driven by the marginal, most fringe views. Climate extremists have made it their misguided mission to impede US gas production at every step (see Sierra Club Shoots Itself In The Foot). These are the people most likely to prioritize climate change in casting their vote. Therefore, their policy recommendations hold outsized influence over public policy.

As a result, China’s coal consumption grows unchecked. Their substantial investments in solar and wind capacity are hailed as evidence that their policies are aligned with ours, but emissions keep growing. Climate extremists are so convinced that renewables can ultimately provide all our energy that they ignore the facts. They remain implacably opposed to nuclear power, even though it has the lowest fatality rate per unit of power generated of any source of energy. The Sierra Club believes that, “every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on truly safe, affordable and renewable energy sources.”

.avia-image-container.av-10dh9l0-4c4da1d76cc6a33397b232f9bf32bfaf img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-10dh9l0-4c4da1d76cc6a33397b232f9bf32bfaf .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Nuclear power output has barely risen this century. China is the one exception. The rest of Asia responded to Japan’s Fukushima disaster by shutting down nuclear. Germany followed suit. France remains a notable exception, deriving 65% of its electricity from nuclear power. The rest of the world is at 8%.

The US Navy has 72 nuclear-powered submarines, 10 aircraft carriers and one research vessel. They have never had a safety incident. Maybe they should run our nuclear program. Every form of energy production includes risks. Climate extremists who thought hard about the issue would use their outsized political influence to improve the process by which US nuclear reactors are approved in the private sector.

.avia-image-container.av-q91u78-d8a0f9ae05c926ef26511211239f3f3e img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-q91u78-d8a0f9ae05c926ef26511211239f3f3e .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

The futility of the solar/wind obsession can be seen in the chart comparing renewables generation with overall electricity. Global power consumption has grown at a 2.9% annual rate, and renewables at 5.1%. The analyst who tortures the data until it confesses what he wants interprets this as positive.

But another way to look at it is that global power demand has grown by 14,360 Terawatt Hours (TwH) and renewables by 6,124 (TwH). For all the media enthusiasm about weather-dependent energy, its growth has met less than half of the increase in global power demand so far this century.

This is why natural gas remains a great long-term bet. Policymakers may conclude that effecting a global coal-to-gas switch is a vital part of the solution. Or we may continue as we are. Both outcomes will see increased natural gas consumption.

I have this fanciful vision of the Sierra Club one day apologizing to the world for such narrow solutions while rising sea levels lap around their HQ (headline: Sierra Club Flooded). They are based in Oakland, CA, a mere 43’ above the Bay Area water, which seems imprudent given their prognostications. Or perhaps they don’t think it’s that serious, just like their policy solutions.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

Journalists love to write about fast growing renewables. It fits the narrative that solar and wind can eventually replace our traditional sources of energy. It allows the absence of any serious push towards nuclear power to go unanswered. It avoids the uncomfortable question of why China’s increasing emissions from coal are acceptable when in America California is a decade away from banning sales of gasoline-powered cars and NY forbids natural gas hook-ups to new buildings.

The Energy Institute’s 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy is a rich source of data on how the world obtains and uses energy. Careful analysis allows many energy shibboleths to be put to bed.

.avia-image-container.av-229lmt6-a3c2d46dd7a4dd694c6c7cd8975ab4a9 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-229lmt6-a3c2d46dd7a4dd694c6c7cd8975ab4a9 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Start with America. The biggest energy story of the past decade is the growth in oil and gas output, which has in turn enabled a drop in coal. The shale revolution delivered mixed results to investors because at times executives were overly enthusiastic about the returns they could earn. But there’s no doubt that it was good for the US economy.

Since 2013 our total output of primary energy has grown at 3.3% pa, by 27.7 Exajoules (EJs). 49% of that increase came from natural gas, and 44% from crude oil and condensates. Together they provided 93% of increased production.

.avia-image-container.av-1j9kpwa-331622286e358ad012d3b217db70251a img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-1j9kpwa-331622286e358ad012d3b217db70251a .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

The typical liberal journalist hails the 6.3% pa growth in output from all renewables including hydro. It sounds impressive. But starting from a low base it’s an additional 1.6 EJs. Increased output of natural gas alone was 8X as much, supporting energy security, job growth and exports to our friends and allies. There should be 8X as much news coverage of this enormous success.

Few casual readers of energy news would be likely to guess anywhere near this 8X ratio if asked.

It’s fortunate that natural gas grew this much, because coal production fell at a 5.1% pa rate, or by 8.2EJs. This is 5X the increase in renewables. By reducing coal burned in power plants we have lowered our CO2 emissions along with other harmful pollution. Renewables were barely relevant to this success story. It was mainly achieved with natural gas.

Along the way we reached energy independence. In the popular imagination this refers narrowly to crude oil, when exports exceed imports. A broader measure compares energy production with consumption. America’s use of energy is flat over the past couple of decades.

.avia-image-container.av-1506myi-1f1282fcafaa33c66cf848413eb4d259 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-1506myi-1f1282fcafaa33c66cf848413eb4d259 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Our economy and population have grown, but we’ve become more energy efficient. Activity has also shifted to less energy-intense sectors – more services and less industrial output – although cheap natural gas has caused a resurgence in US manufacturing employment following decades of decline.

The bottom line is that renewables provide 3.5% of our primary energy output, up from 2.7% a decade ago.

.avia-image-container.av-jnfqnu-3f6d785f3c5f76999797d2deae33b7e2 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-jnfqnu-3f6d785f3c5f76999797d2deae33b7e2 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Turning to China, they recently reported hitting their renewables power target six years ahead of schedule. To the casual observer of energy news, it appears that the world is moving in lockstep to solar and wind. Some even worry that America is at risk of falling behind China’s ambitions on climate change.

Then there’s the facts.

China’s energy consumption has quadrupled this century, as the country began to make up for decades of socialist central planning. The biggest energy story in China is the yawning gap between energy production and consumption. China has a substantial energy deficit, at 48 EJs equal to approximately half of all US energy production.

It is a national security imperative for China to close this gap. It complicates any potential military steps against Taiwan. China’s growing EV market and renewables capacity must be seen in this light. They want to reduce their dependence on foreign oil.

China obtains 8.5% of its primary energy from renewables (10.4 EJs), substantially more than the US. It’s grown at 10.1% pa over the past decade. However, this is only 6.1% of China’s energy consumption since they have such a big deficit.

What the cheerleaders for China’s renewables ambitions overlook is that coal production has increased by 13.8 EJs over the past decade, over 2X the 6.5 EJs growth in renewables. Coal provides more than half of China’s primary energy. It’s down from 65% a decade ago, but only because their energy demand has risen faster than their ability to meet it domestically. Coal is13% of US primary energy production.

Energy reporting generally overstates the impact of renewables. It missed the enormous impact of increased US natural gas production. It gives China a free pass on their growing use of coal. It’s clearer when you look at the numbers. Many journalists overstate the impact of renewables and their ability to meet our energy needs. Natural gas is the world’s favorite energy.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

Germany’s energy transition, or “Energiewende” as they call it, is causing casualties. One is the Green Party, which did so badly in recent elections that it may not be represented in Thurungia’s regional legislature. More state elections are scheduled and there are concerns of further loss of support.

The Greens are the main proponents of climate change policies that are hollowing out Germany’s manufacturing base. The combination of an aggressive push into renewables, exiting of nuclear power and catastrophic dependence on Russian gas imports has resulted in the world’s highest energy prices. German retail electricity is US$0.40 per kilowatt hour, more than twice the US average of 16 cents.

German voters have been among the most supportive of policies intended to decarbonize power generation and reduce emissions. But their tolerance to pay more for energy while much of the developing continues to increase coal consumptions and CO2 output is wearing thin.

Germany has been more successful than most countries in hewing to the UN’s Zero by Fifty goal, which is to eliminate energy-based CO2 emissions by 2050. Their per capita emissions have dropped by 20% over the past decade, faster than the overall EU at 15%. The average German emits half of her US counterpart.

.avia-image-container.av-sul1bq-db71275722ca0bd628bc5c9cc60b0174 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-sul1bq-db71275722ca0bd628bc5c9cc60b0174 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

This success has come at a significant cost, and has enabled developing countries led by China to keep increasing their emissions. Over the past decade since 2012, approximately when the shale revolution began to release cheap American gas and oil, US living standards have pulled farther ahead. German GDP growth has been flat for years, with living standards barely improving. Real GDP per capita in Germany has increased at 0.7% pa over the past decade, less than half the 1.5% pa US rate.

The outsized influence of Germany’s Greens has not been good for Germans. German voters didn’t sign up for climate change policies that would shift jobs elsewhere, to countries with cheaper and more reliable energy. There’s even a proposal in Germany to charge more for electricity on cloudy days.

Germany’s auto industry illustrates the challenges they’re facing. The shift to EVs has been pursued with greater enthusiasm by auto companies than their customers. The offerings aren’t cheap. Audi’s Q8 e-tron priced at €76K has been an expensive flop with software that didn’t work as advertised.

Volkswagen is considering layoffs at its plant in Wolfsburg, the first time in its 87-year history that they’ve had to contemplate closing a factory in their home country.

The problem is that the energy transition is neither cheap nor convenient. It requires paying more for power that is unreliable and planning long drives around EV charging stations. The cost and inconvenience may be worth it to lower emissions on our only planet, but Greens and other environmental extremists have disingenuously presented a different vision. Voters in Germany are waking up to this reality.

When considering the climate policies advocated by progressives it’s important to consider Germany, which has long supported a more rapid energy transition than we have in the US. Few of us would want to trade places with them.

VC investors have often drunk the same Kool-Aid, and the result is a wave of cleantech bankruptcies followed by a more difficult fundraising environment. Last month Moxion, a battery start-up funded by Amazon, failed along with SunPower, owned by France’s Total.

The correct policies include increased US exports of natural gas to displace coal, prioritizing an easier approval process for nuclear and expanding new technologies such as carbon capture. This blog is supportive of sensible ways to reduce emissions, rather than the failing policy prescriptions of the Sierra Club, wretched little Greta and other climate extremists. Natural gas infrastructure has certainly been a better investment than clean energy for years. It’s also been the biggest contributor to reduced CO2 levels in the US, by displacing coal.

To make a small fortune investing in renewables, start with a big one.

In other news, the Energy Information Administration expects North America’s LNG export capacity to more than double by 2028. This includes NextDecade’s (NEXT) Rio Grande facility which will provide 2.3 billion cubic feet per day when Phase One is completed. NEXT’s stock price has remained weak as investors assess what impact the election may have on the project’s completion.

Meanwhile, construction continues, and the company made FERC’s review of the previously issued environmental impact statement easier by withdrawing the carbon capture proposal (see Deciding When To Sell). It’s a measure of the politicization of energy approvals that NEXT concluded that the courts would prefer a simpler proposal that doesn’t capture CO2 emissions.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

Oneok (OKE) is developing a habit of surprising the market with their acquisitions. Last year’s deal with Magellan Midstream (MMP) was roundly criticized, including by us, because of few obvious synergies and an unwelcome tax bill for MMP unitholders (see Oneok Does A Deal Nobody Needs).  

MMP’s refined products business didn’t look like a natural fit with OKE’s oil and gas pipeline network. For a while it looked as if shareholder approval might not be forthcoming, but OKE executives eventually got it across the line. Efficiencies from the combination have turned out to be more lucrative than expected, and strong operating performance has seen OKE return 46% over the past year.  

However, the tax bill was as bad as expected. Being a long term MLP investor means an increasing deferred tax liability, and the recapture of this took all the fun out of tax time. 

OKE has returned to the acquisition trail by purchasing a controlling interest in Enlink Midstream (ENLC) from Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP), with the intention to acquire the remaining publicly traded interests in ENLC via a tax-free transaction.  

.avia-image-container.av-3yd8ep-a6e04632b0c0cbaa9f00c5595cb9e5ea img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-3yd8ep-a6e04632b0c0cbaa9f00c5595cb9e5ea .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Once again, we own both stocks, and as with MMP had no reason to consider they might combine. We had been looking at ENLC more closely than usual in the past couple of weeks and found the relative value compared with Williams Companies (WMB) sufficiently appealing that we shifted some exposure towards it.    

Casting around for a blog topic, I summarized our thought process last week (see Deciding When To Sell). Once published, I waited for the relative valuation to explode back through our entry point, exposing our timing on the switch as inopportune while providing great mirth for the blog gods. 44 years of navigating markets is enough to ensure humility comes with every buy or sell decision.  

Thanks to OKE the opposite happened. I imagine they were attracted to the distributable cash flow yield, which was 15% prior to the news. They must have been drawn to the prospects for NGL pipeline tariff savings like us but went further and identified multiple points of synergy with their existing business.  

OKE paid $14.90 for GIP’s ENLC units. There’s an expectation that the remainder of the outstanding units will be purchased at the same price, but it probably depends on how events play out in the meantime. OKE may conclude that they paid a control premium and that the remaining units can be acquired at a lower price. In any event, ENLC’s value has been more properly recognized.  

The transaction is expected to close next quarter, and OKE’s acquisition of the remaining ENLC units during 1Q25.  

ENLC is an LLC that elects to be taxed as a corporation. So although investors don’t receive a K-1, it is a holding in the Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP). Like its MLP-dedicated peer funds, AMLP will once more have to hunt among the shrinking pool of MLPs for a replacement.  

Analysts responded favorably to the transaction. Wells Fargo’s Michael Blum raised his price target for OKE from $91 to $100 since the ENLC deal, along with the acquisition of Medallion, a private crude oil pipeline and storage business, “…transforms OKE into a vertically integrated competitor in the Permian.” 

It’s quite a deal when both the acquirer and target stock rise. Over the past month both have now handily outperformed the American Energy Independence Index (AEITR). Following the successful integration of MMP last year, there’s little skepticism among investors that OKE will be able to realize synergies this time around. 

.avia-image-container.av-iux2s1-0c33d38cafdc6c06bd8e3403fe837fd7 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-iux2s1-0c33d38cafdc6c06bd8e3403fe837fd7 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

The brief but very sharp collapse in stocks during the early stages of the covid pandemic is increasingly a distant memory. Over the past five years midstream energy infrastructure has continued to outperform both the S&P500 and the energy sector itself. Capex fell in response to some cases of overinvestment in shale plays, although Americans continues to benefit via cheap energy and higher employment. Midstream companies have stronger balance sheets and with less to build they’ve been increasing cash returns to owners via buybacks and dividend hikes.  

Existing investors know this, and yet also understand how narrowly it’s appreciated by the larger market. The energy transition continues to deter many from committing capital to traditional energy because of fears of stranded assets. This overlooks the fact that the portion of the world’s primary energy provided by fossil fuels remains consistently around 83%. Increases in solar and wind are barely enough to satisfy additional energy demand. 

 As a result, energy businesses that generate reliable, growing cashflows have generated the best returns. The S&P Global Clean Energy Index has lagged the S&P500 by 8.5% pa over the past five years, and the AEITR by 10% pa. 

The pick-up in M&A activity illustrates greater comfort in the outlook.  

From where we sit, the energy transition is going well.  

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

Investors sometimes ask us what induces us to sell a security. It’s usually because relative valuation has made one stock more attractive than another. Williams Companies (WMB) is an example. The company holds a unique position in natural gas pipelines with its Transco network running along the eastern US. They have a heavily fee-based business, regularly meet or beat earnings expectations and have paid a dividend for half a century. They handle roughly a third of US natural gas.

However, their 2024 Distributable Cash Flow (DCF) yield is below 8%, the lowest of any of their peers. Over the past year they’ve returned 37%, roughly 7% ahead of the American Energy Independence Index (AEITR). WMB is a stable company, in our opinion richly priced.

So we’ve cut our position back and purchased more Enlink Midstream (ENLC). They’re not perfect substitutes – ENLC’s $6BN market cap is much smaller than WMB’s $55BN. But we like their exposure to natural gas and NGLs in Texas and Louisiana. Their leverage is a comfortable 3.3X Debt:EBITDA giving them an investment grade rating.

.avia-image-container.av-2kpojw-0458a8ef78f1446986216aec910bbb33 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-2kpojw-0458a8ef78f1446986216aec910bbb33 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Over the past five years ENLC has repurchased 10% of their stock. They have an interesting opportunity in Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) since they serve many industrial companies throughout Louisiana’s industrial corridor. Their existing pipeline network allows them the opportunity to send CO2 generated by their customers back to the geological formations from where the natural gas was extracted.

There’s an elegant symmetry in taking carbon atoms originally sourced as CH4 (natural gas, methane) being returned home as CO2. Federal CCS tax credits under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act help.

A further appeal is ENLC’s 15% DCF yield, among the highest in the sector and with potential upside from repricing of NGL contracts (see Long Term Energy Investors Are Happy).

ENLC has trailed the AEITR index with a 12% one year return. We concluded the valuation difference between WMB and ENLC was sufficient to switch some capital.

Sometimes less is more when it comes to regulatory approvals. Following a court ruling that partially suspended NextDecade’s (NEXT) permit for their LNG export facility (see Sierra Club Shoots Itself In The Foot) their stock fell sharply. Investors reassessed the odds of completing the Rio Grande terminal, even though construction continued after the ruling.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) now has to revise their previously completed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). NEXT was planning to include a CCS capability at Rio Grande. Now in an ironic twist, NEXT has withdrawn its CCS application from FERC, because they believe this will simplify regaining the permits they already had to build the LNG terminal.

The stock staged a modest recovery but will likely return to its pre-ruling levels only once the permit issue is resolved.

Climate extremists have been effective at constraining capex which in turn has helped drive up midstream free cash flow. But they’re opening themselves up to financial exposure along the way. Greenpeace was active in opposing Energy Transfer’s Dakota Access pipeline project, which substantially raised its cost.

Kelcy Warren’s company isn’t known for avoiding conflict. So they’re suing Greenpeace for $300 million, a sum the environmental group has said represents an existential threat. This is the group whose protesters illegally board ships and oil rigs to promote their dystopian views. They oppose natural gas, the biggest source of reduced CO2 emissions in the US.

If ET does prevail in court and a life-ending settlement is imposed on Greenpeace, they won’t be missed.

In another triumph for common sense, New Zealand is tempering its reliance on renewables (see New Zealand to push through law to reverse ban on oil and gas exploration). Electricity prices recently spiked to some of the highest among developed economies.

New Zealand’s previous center-left government imposed regulatory hurdles on LNG imports, something the current center-right government also wants to reverse.

Energy Minister Simeon Brown lamented that, “The lakes are low, the sun hasn’t been shining, the wind hasn’t been blowing, and we have an inadequate supply of natural gas to meet demand.” In other words, intermittent power supply that depends on co-operative weather has been, well, intermittent.

The climate extremists who speak loudest on policy promised New Zealand cheap, carbon-free energy. New Zealanders have received the opposite, with coal use for power generation increasing to meet the shortfall. New Zealanders each generate on average around 6 metric tonnes of CO2 annually, less than Germany which styles itself a leader on climate change.

Once the permit issue for NEXT is cleared up, they might have a new customer for their LNG.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

Rivian’s R1T truck has a special storage compartment for golf clubs. Nothing else so eloquently describes the conundrum facing the auto industry. America is not an obvious market for EVs. It’s a vast place, so we drive greater distances. Gasoline is cheaper than in other developed countries. And we like big cars – two thirds of US sales are light trucks and SUVs.

Progressively tighter standards on CO2 emissions are pushing auto makers to develop EVs in order to be able to keep selling cars. Given US consumer tastes, those cars need to be big. But the golf storage capabilities of the R1T surely address a very narrow sliver of the market. I can attest that the parking lots of country clubs are devoid of light trucks. And the guys at Home Depot loading their trucks with lumber to build a deck are not contemplating how that new wedge will get them reliably up and down from off the green.

.avia-image-container.av-24e5z6s-e42ee79248ded963005c554a5af375a4 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-24e5z6s-e42ee79248ded963005c554a5af375a4 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Moreover, golf clubs are generally politically conservative. Climate change is not a common topic on the tee box or in the bar afterwards.

The golfing light truck owner more worried about global warming than his short game is a niche market.

Nonetheless I know two, and like all my friends who own EVs they love them. But each also has a traditional car to complement their $60K Tesla or $100K Rivian. EV owners always have another car.

Seven years ago Ford fired then-CEO Mark Fields because the board felt he wasn’t moving the company aggressively enough into EVs. New management addressed the problem, and so now Ford is losing $BNs on EVs. They recently dropped plans to produce an EV SUV. The writedown could be as big as $1.9BN, and they expect to lose $5.5BN this year on EVs. While bigger gasoline-powered cars are more profitable to manufacture, the reverse is true with EVs. Batteries don’t scale easily. Ford has decided to slow their EV push.

.avia-image-container.av-1k2xe04-da25d49a30cbf5c30bd2e5f8f016a687 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-1k2xe04-da25d49a30cbf5c30bd2e5f8f016a687 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

A survey several years ago showed that car journeys are overwhelmingly short, with fewer than 5% over 30 miles. I’ve never run a car business, but it looks to me as if the auto industry is squandering substantial sums trying to build a car that covers 100% of trips, instead of producing one that does almost all of them. Range anxiety kicks in at much more than 30 miles, so although the survey doesn’t offer that detail, an EV can probably suffice for 97-98% of an owner’s trips.

Since all the EV owners I know have a second car, instead of aspiring to build an EV that renders the long distance back-up unnecessary, why don’t manufacturers offer very cheap EVs for local trips? Consumers could keep the gas-powered car in the garage, brought out infrequently for that 200 mile journey to see grandma. Offer souped-up golf carts. Or take advantage of China’s substantial support of its domestic battery manufacturing to import their cheap EVs instead of imposing 100% tariffs.

.avia-image-container.av-19iyjqc-310bd38288ab5f526e0f8c7de836eccf img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-19iyjqc-310bd38288ab5f526e0f8c7de836eccf .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Developing countries are demanding $TNs in transfers to help them transition to low-emission energy systems. In a neat twist, by importing Chinese EVs they would be subsidizing our energy transition rather than the other way around. Transportation sector emissions would fall. The addressable market would extend beyond the virtue-signaling residents of blue counties, and golfing light truck owners.

Public policy doesn’t treat climate change as the existential threat policymakers claim it is. Otherwise, we would freely import Chinese EVs and solar panels. The Sierra Club would be calling for a Federal regulatory structure for nuclear power that enables a vast buildout. We’d be pushing our cheap natural gas on developing countries to displace coal.

The White House hails tighter emissions standards that will, “…create good-paying, union jobs leading the clean vehicle future.”

That’s fine but admit that the energy transition is outrageously expensive and competes with other priorities.

.avia-image-container.av-iasmis-22ef049094238b6d92e35bb5b2965ad1 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-iasmis-22ef049094238b6d92e35bb5b2965ad1 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Ford, like the rest of the auto industry, is finding energy transition profits elusive. Tesla is the notable exception. Windpower is generating billions in losses (see Windpower Faces A Tempest) . The S&P Clean Energy Index has performed miserably over the past five years, returning 6.9% pa compared with 16.4% pa for the American Energy Independence Index.

If you want to make a small fortune investing in the energy transition, start with a big one.

Midstream energy infrastructure companies can take the tax credit opportunities created by the Inflation Reduction Act while also generating reliable cashflows from their existing business. They can selectively invest in carbon capture or hydrogen hubs where Federal largesse is sufficient to tip the economics into profitability. But there’s no existential threat to their traditional business, because energy transitions have historically taken decades. This one will too.

Many investors like us are concluding that pipeline companies are among the best ways to participate in the energy transition.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

I traveled from San Diego to Portland, OR last week and enjoyed a delicious wine pairing dinner in nearby Oswego with a group of investors. Oregon is wine country, and its residents are knowledgeable about varietals and vintages. I met some people who cultivate vines as a hobby and enjoy producing enough to fill a few five gallon jugs.

Over six courses and wines we discussed investments. Although we hold US and Canadian midstream companies, energy is a global business and many of the upside opportunities come from demand growth in emerging economies.

The Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy, formerly published by BP, is a rich source of data on global energy production, consumption and trade. It can be helpful to understand the broad trends at work in considering the future. An enduring theme concerns the energy transition, which pits the desire of rich, mainly OECD countries to reduce emissions against the drive for higher living standards common across emerging countries.

.avia-image-container.av-1y2qe3d-0d8acc592ddfc46926636d51c4247960 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-1y2qe3d-0d8acc592ddfc46926636d51c4247960 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Per capita energy consumption and GDP are highly correlated. Billions of people want to live like Americans, and who can blame them? The Energy Institute (EI) estimates that 750 million people don’t have access to electricity to light their homes, refrigerate their food or run air conditioning. 2.6 billion people rely on wood, charcoal, coal or animal waste for heating and cooking. They want better.

In June Pakistan experienced a heatwave that sent thousands of people to hospital and killed hundreds.

Naturally it was blamed on climate change, as is every extreme weather event nowadays.  Poorer countries are more vulnerable to a warmer climate, and yet the rational policy choice for Pakistanis is to buy more air conditioning, meaning more energy consumption. Only 6% of their electricity comes from solar and wind. That’s the problem.

.avia-image-container.av-1u016mx-bb07164aba6b28ce4de5b83ecd99cdb6 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-1u016mx-bb07164aba6b28ce4de5b83ecd99cdb6 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Comparing the US and China neatly captures the changes between rich and developing countries. China’s primary energy consumption passed the US in 2009, eight years after they joined the World Trade Organization, and has never looked back. China’s population is 4X the US. That reaching this milestone took so long is a testament to the penalty decades of communism imposed on its people until its leaders embraced their unique form of capitalism without democracy.

China’s per capita energy consumption remains less than half the US, which is among the world’s highest. Canada, which considers itself a leader on climate change, undercuts this claim since the typical Canadian uses 30% more energy than her American neighbor to the south. It’s because Canada is cold, with a relatively dispersed population which means more long journeys, and some energy-intensive industries such as pulp and paper along with oil and gas production.

It’s notable that China’s per capita energy consumption is now the same as the EU, with each series moving in opposite directions. The calculation is simply energy used divided by population. As OECD countries outsource manufacturing to developing ones it can flatter their emissions. But Germany is also de-industrializing as companies flee restrictive energy policies with some of the world’s highest prices.

In the trade-off between emissions reduction and GDP growth, China and the EU have opposing priorities.

.avia-image-container.av-w259tl-75e9e8d206439da1849191a6b39356c8 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-w259tl-75e9e8d206439da1849191a6b39356c8 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

China’s total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs) passed the US in 2004. Former White House Climate Czar John Kerry used to praise China’s efforts on climate change because of their enormous investments in solar and wind. These intermittent sources provide almost twice as much primary energy as in the US. But everything about China’s energy sector is huge. They burn 56% of the world’s coal, more than 11X the US.

China’s energy policies are better viewed from the standpoint of energy security rather than the energy transition. They are reducing their dependence on foreign-sourced crude oil, because when the inevitable conflict over Taiwan happens their imports will be vulnerable to western sanctions.

.avia-image-container.av-lvr455-fd80b5b9681db911d65b13aadc035c21 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-lvr455-fd80b5b9681db911d65b13aadc035c21 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

An area that gets too little attention is the enormous growth in US production of Natural Gas Liquids (NGLs). Think ethane (used to manufacture plastics) or propane (used for crop drying and in your outdoor gas grill, and for restaurants in places like Naples, FL that are unserved by natural gas).

US NGL output has grown at 9.5% pa over the past decade. We now produce almost half (47%) the NGLs in the world, up from 29% a decade ago. We export around 1.7 Million Barrels per Day of propane. Japan and China are the two biggest markets, together taking around 40% of exports.

None of this would have happened without fracking and the shale revolution. This in turn was made possible by privately owned mineral rights, a uniquely American concept that allows landowner and driller to negotiate, regulated and taxed by the state. It’s brought us to energy independence.

Another reason why this is a great country.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

2Q midstream earnings have come in mostly at or ahead of expectations. Oneok had a strong quarter and are expected to raise full year EBITDA guidance in November. Targa Resources also beat analyst estimates and raised full year guidance. Cheniere beat expectations and once again raised full year guidance, something that is becoming a regular occurrence for them.

Evidence of the AI-driven boost to natural gas demand was evident in several reports. JPMorgan now expects data center power needs to increase natural gas demand by 4.6 Billion Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D) by 2030.

Wells Fargo has looked closely at Enlink and believes that new pipeline capacity for Natural Gas Liquids (NGLs) coming online will allow them to negotiate substantially lower prices for shipping NGLs that their Marketing unit owns. Wells estimates that they could negotiate tariffs 50% lower than at present, adding $112MM of EBITDA (i.e. +17%) by 2028.

I spent some time last week at the annual LPL Focus Conference in San Diego. Two years ago it was held in Denver, and many attendees complained about the walk from the hotel to the convention center which passed by numerous homeless drug addicts and struck many as unsafe. There were apparently some instances of assault and robbery. Next year the conference will once again be in San Diego, and I suspect Denver will no longer be on the circuit.

The area around the San Diego marina where the conference was held is very nice, with a pleasant jogging trail. My Uber driver was a happy Tesla owner and reminded me that by 2035 no regular cars will be available for sale in California. She charges it on a regular 220V circuit every night which takes 10-12 hours. Her house is too old to accommodate higher voltage and the nearest public charging station is, oddly, 30 miles from home. This means after driving the car all day it’s unavailable to go out in the evening. Tesla drivers all seem to explain away the inconveniences they endure.

.avia-image-container.av-2gsmxpq-40701988e026a0f7fe7627ac38e86f62 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-2gsmxpq-40701988e026a0f7fe7627ac38e86f62 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

It’s always a great pleasure to catch up with long-time clients and friends. LPL is a fast-growing firm, and attendance was reported at 9,000. The conference featured several motivational presentations along with senior executives reminding advisors how important they are to the firm’s success.

Advisors on the LPL platform routinely report that they’re happy with the support and the comparative freedom they enjoy to run their businesses as they see fit. You could feel the positive energy, capped with a rousing performance by Lionel Ritchie at the Rady Shell, an outdoor theatre on the San Diego marina. The enthusiastic crowd cheered whenever the singer said the LPL name.

.avia-image-container.av-240nfqm-26b6a2a001a18d06034aa29bbed221c2 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-240nfqm-26b6a2a001a18d06034aa29bbed221c2 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Advisors attending the conference left no doubt convinced that they’re partnered with the best firm in the business and believing they can continue to add clients.

Investor Ida Zhu runs a thriving business in Seattle. As an immigrant myself I always find their stories fascinating, typically full of hard work and ambition. Ida’s was no exception.

.avia-image-container.av-1mf6832-9231a163a34d44c463ba4c7c6ccbbd9e img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-1mf6832-9231a163a34d44c463ba4c7c6ccbbd9e .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Clients of Aaron Irving from Carlsbad, NM have similarly benefitted from his early insights about the pipeline sector. Aaron lives in the Delaware Basin, part of the Permian Shale play, so knows first hand from local friends and clients how the energy business is doing.

Pipeline investors are pleased. Performance has been good for several years. The industry has adopted a parsimonious approach to capex, which is boosting cashflow. Few seem worried about the election. One might think an investor base that is heavily Republican would be dismayed by the improving polling of Kamala Harris. Some attribute it to the honeymoon – the relief that Joe Biden finally acknowledged what everyone else knew.

.avia-image-container.av-12pq3n2-892f5a8698232f57dd42ac37e73d79ab img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-12pq3n2-892f5a8698232f57dd42ac37e73d79ab .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Others don’t think the party in power will make much difference to returns from energy, which tends to follow a cycle much longer than the four year electoral one. As we’ve noted before, returns under Biden have far exceeded those under Trump. The former is good for cashflow and the latter will make production easier. For many reasons, energy investors are more concerned with the continuation of financial discipline that has prevailed for the past five years than who’s in the White House.

This optimistic outlook is supported by the fundamentals. Data center power demand growth is no longer a forecast, but is making an impact now. Given the lead time needed to add generating capacity, typically 3-5 years according to Goldman Sachs, electricity prices are set to keep rising. Last year they rose 6.2%, outpacing inflation.

.avia-image-container.av-ntl9e6-e2e7a8b9f21a1df1ac01ad529fa4b225 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-ntl9e6-e2e7a8b9f21a1df1ac01ad529fa4b225 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

The push towards renewables is exacerbating things because solar and windpower lead to more excess capacity. Since these weather-dependent sources typically run 20-35% of the time, more dispatchable power is needed as backup. It lowers the utilization of the whole system. The oft-repeated claim that solar and wind are the cheapest form of energy is at odds with the reality of rising prices as their deployment continues.

Data center demand is also slowing the retirement of coal-burning power plants. This all supports the case for more natural gas. Cost, reliability and coal displacement are among the reasons for JPMorgan’s forecast of 4.6 BCF/D demand growth over the next six years. The outlook for infrastructure supporting reliable energy remains good.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

US natural gas and its related infrastructure isn’t the only beneficiary of the AI-driven boom in power demand. Utility stocks have been rising, as investors assess growing power demand will boost earnings. The S&P Utilities Index is several per cent ahead of the S&P500 this year.

Operators of data centers well understand the challenges they face in obtaining reliable electricity. This is coming at a bad time for grid operators, who are already struggling to incorporate renewable sources into their power mix. Weather-dependent solar and wind operate 20-35% of the time. This requires increased redundancy across a grid as they add more dispatchable power (mainly natural gas) to compensate for when it’s not sunny or windy.

Some data centers are lining up their own sources of electricity. One example is a campus owned by Amazon Web Services (AWS) in Pennsylvania that will buy power from Talen Energy’s Susquehanna nuclear facility. But the AWS data center will retain access to the grid, run by PJM, the regional transmission organization.

Electricity markets are complicated. Exelon and American Electric Power (AEP), who operate within PJM’s region, have filed a formal protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). They are challenging Susquehanna’s application for a non-conforming Interconnection Service Agreement (ISA).

It’s not possible to assess the merits of this protest from public documents. But the filing does offer insight into issues that are likely to become common areas of dispute among industrial customers, power providers and regulators.

The infrastructure that delivers electricity (ie power lines, transmission stations etc) represents a significant fixed cost that is shared across customers approximately according to how much electricity they use. Residential solar panels are already challenging this model – California no longer credits homes that send excess power back to the grid at the same price they pay, because the economics no longer work.

The Exelon/AEP protest suggests that Susquehanna is trying to connect to the grid without fully paying for its costs. It asks why the nuclear facility will synchronize its power with the grid while still claiming to be separate from it. Data centers need extremely stable power with minimal harmonic distortions, so perhaps there are technical reasons Susquehanna needs to be “synchronized” with the grid.

The protest goes on to note that another unit at the facility had an unplanned outage last year, but apparently “no load was dropped” suggesting that grid power made up the shortfall.

Exelon/AEP are telling FERC that Susquehanna wants to “…operate as a free rider, making use of, and receiving the benefits of, a transmission system paid for by transmission ratepayers while not sharing in the costs.”

Susquehanna retorts that the protest is stifling innovation. As the competition for reliable power intensifies, such disputes will become more common.

.avia-image-container.av-j2u52z-96953c3a6aeb984045c63972f6be60e1 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-j2u52z-96953c3a6aeb984045c63972f6be60e1 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Meanwhile, PJM recently held an auction to provide their Regional Transmission Organization Reliability Requirement for the 2025-26 delivery year. Think of this as surge capacity to be available during a heatwave or when a substantial portion of its generating capacity is down. Unsurprisingly, solar and wind represented just 2% of the responses to the auction, since they produce power when they can, not necessarily when it’s needed. Natural gas was 48%.

PJM is estimating they’ll need 2% more surge capacity than in the prior year. The auction cleared at $269.92 per Megawatt-Day, more than 9X the prior year’s 28.92 figure. Moreover, their reserve margin shrank from 20.4% to 18.5%.

This is not good news for PJM customers. PJM attributed the price jump in part to the loss of 6.6 Gigawatts of generation capacity (mostly coal) that is retiring. Because it’s not being replaced at the same rate, there’s less power available.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation has warned grids across the country that the energy transition as it’s currently being implemented is reducing reliability and increasing the risk of power cuts.

Solar and wind are especially useless at providing surge capacity because their operators can’t be certain how much they can produce. Natural gas was almost half because it’s “dispatchable”, meaning it can be delivered when needed. It’s another example of the inferior quality of solar and wind compared with traditional energy.

JPMorgan suggested that another reason for the price jump is that power providers are holding back, skipping the auction while they negotiate long term contracts with data centers.

The hunger for power to support AI is on a collision course with plans to decarbonize our electricity. Old forecasts of modest 1% annual demand growth driven by EVs is now turbo-charged to 5% or more. Globally, added renewables are unable to even meet the increase in primary energy consumption across developing countries. In the US the Exelon/AEP dispute with Susquehanna is only the first of many.

Energy investors will be learning more than they expected about the commercial intricacies of America’s electricity supply.

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund

Once again a liberal activist judge has succumbed to a far-left climate extremist group. On Tuesday DC Circuit Chief Judge Srinivasan, along with Circuit Judges Childs and Garcia sent parts of a previously granted permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) back for review.  

NextDecade’s (NEXT) Rio Grande LNG export terminal was one of the victims, although FERC was the respondent in the case. Today, obtaining any number of permits from a regulator is only the beginning of the approval process. Those permits then have to withstand legal challenges from judicial terrorists whose objective is to block infrastructure projects by increasing their cost and uncertainty of completion.  

We’re invested in NextDecade because we believe providing cheap US natural gas to developing countries around the world, allowing them to grow their energy consumption with less reliance on coal, will continue to be profitable. The Sierra Club and their weird partners wrongly believe that India and other Asian countries will use more solar and wind if they can’t buy US Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). This is not supported by the facts.  

.avia-image-container.av-zks667-7bbf745cae03cfa1a24c9839fa4f3729 img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-zks667-7bbf745cae03cfa1a24c9839fa4f3729 .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

Coal is the single biggest source of primary energy for the Asia Pacific region. 83% of the world’s coal is consumed there, of which China is 56%. It provides 47% of that region’s primary energy and 54% of China’s. Coal generates on average 2X the greenhouse gas emissions as natural gas per unit of power generation and also generates harmful local pollution.  

If you care about climate change, you want to reduce global coal consumption.  

The Sierra Club is not pursuing policies to reduce emissions. As well as opposing natural gas to displace coal they are against nuclear. They’re obstructive to the real work and are nothing more than a bunch of virtue signaling loony leftists. They are weird.  

.avia-image-container.av-ivgd6n-ef0affecb602e836521bf95dcf9c439f img.avia_image{ box-shadow:none; } .avia-image-container.av-ivgd6n-ef0affecb602e836521bf95dcf9c439f .av-image-caption-overlay-center{ color:#ffffff; }

It’s unclear how this will play out. On the same day as the court ruling which affects Trains 1-3, NEXT filed an 8-K with the SEC disclosing an agreement with Bechtel to build  Train 4. The company hasn’t yet responded to the court ruling other than to say construction continues on the first phase. 

NEXT has some big customers lined up to buy its LNG, including Shell and Exxon Mobil. TotalEnergies is a strategic partner, with a stake in NEXT and an agreement to buy its LNG. The ruling requires FERC to issue a revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in part because the environmental justice rights of some nearby residents are at risk of being compromised. Specifically, the court found that they, “…may experience significant visual impacts, as well as significant cumulative visual impacts.”  

The Rio Grande LNG terminal is being built alongside the ship channel in Brownsville, TX, so it’s this view that will be impacted. I don’t know what else you’d expect to see along the Brownsville Ship Channel other than energy infrastructure. It seems to me like buying a house near an airport and then complaining about the noise.  

There’s no indication from FERC how quickly they will respond to the ruling and how long a new EIS will take.  

Large holders of NEXT include York Capital Management, Blackrock and even Marc Lasry (co-founder of Avenue Capital, a distressed debt firm). Lasry is a well-known Democrat party fundraiser and has often drawn criticism from the weirdos at the Sierra Club for his investments. It’s an example of how fringe they are. 

On Friday Ukrainian troops captured a key gas transit point supplying Europe as part of their incursion into Russian territory. Ukraine released a video of their troops at Gazprom’s Sudzha gas measuring station. US LNG provided vital supplies to Europe following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They still rely somewhat on Russia, some of which passes through Sudzha. European energy officials will have been made acutely aware of how tenuous that remaining supply is. America can be a reliable source. 

Between the LNG buyers and investors there are some deep pockets who want to see the Rio Grande project through. We think that’s the most likely outcome, although the election adds some uncertainty. 

New energy projects are less likely, which raises the value of existing energy infrastructure. Democrats have unwittingly been good for energy investors by discouraging investment in new supply. A President Harris probably wouldn’t be a supporter of new LNG, although she might note that swing state Pennsylvania will likely provide its throughput.  

Under Kamala Harris, pipeline companies would have even less reason to boost capex, which will in turn drive up free cashflow.  

Alan Armstrong, Williams CEO, has commented that they see less competition than in the past for new business. Energy Transfer and Cheniere each raised full year EBITDA guidance again when they reported earnings last week. Sierra Club policies will further strengthen their dominant market positions.   

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

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Real Assets Fund