European policymakers are being forced to reassess energy policy. Premature reliance on intermittent renewables came up short last Fall (see Europe Follows California Into Renewables Oblivion). More recently, the EU’s reliance on Russia for 40% of its natural gas imports is being exposed as especially unwise with Russian troops poised to invade Ukraine.
Britain has moved steadily to use wind power, and when the normally windy North Sea was inconveniently calm they turned to imports of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) because they have been phasing out natural gas storage.
Horizontal fracturing (“fracking”) is mostly limited to the US. In 2018 we chronicled Cuadrilla’s ill-fated attempt to drill for natural gas in Lancashire, northwest England (see British Shale Revolution Crushed: America’s Unique Ownership of Oil and Gas). With British households bracing for a 50% hike in power bills because of high natural gas prices (see Learning From EU Mistakes On Energy Policy), being more self-reliant for natural gas looks smart.
Hence the right wing Daily Telegraph is making the case that fracking would have shielded Britons from the worst effects of the energy crisis. Members of Britain’s ruling Conservative party are pressing PM Boris Johnson to relax rules against fracking. The country’s unrealistic aspirations to give up reliable energy are facing a reality check.
Meanwhile Germany is considering legislation to force increased storage of natural gas by utilities in time for next winter. Germany has rated reducing emissions ahead of energy security, a prioritization that looks poorly considered.
European leaders have embraced renewables faster than many American states. Reducing emissions is a laudable goal, but many of these policies betray little serious thought about the consequences for reliability or cost.
New Jersey’s Democrat legislature passed the Global Warming Response Act (GWRA) in 2007, and updated the law in 2019. It requires an 80% reduction in annual CO2 equivalent emissions (i.e. converting other greenhouse gases such as methane into CO2 equivalents based on their warming impact and rate of degradation) below the 2006 total by 2050 (dubbed “80X50”). This requires a reduction by then of 96.5 million tonnes per year.
China plans to increase emissions until 2030, and only then start reducing them to zero by 2060. New Jersey’s population is around 0.6% of China’s, and the reduction under the GWRA is approximately 1% of China’s current emissions.
Maybe liberals are poor negotiators. The government officials that negotiate climate change agreements are probably more worried than average about the planet – that must be why western countries have agreed to continue reducing emissions while the biggest emitters like China are still increasing theirs. Shouldn’t we all be reducing CO2 at the same time, rather than creating capacity for others to keep generating more?
The people implementing NJ climate change regulations are playing fast and loose with the data. A recent proposal that buildings replacing fossil-fuel fired boilers would have to install electric ones instead estimated “the operational costs for an electric boiler may be between 4.2 and 4.9 percent higher.”
A subsequent correction quietly conceded, “The Department’s analysis indicated that operational costs for an electric boiler would result in a 4.2 to 4.9 times increase (rather than 4.2 to 4.9 percent increase).”
It’s a trivial typo, except that the proposed regulation must be uneconomic following the correction. This reflects the same absence of cost-benefit analysis that has led the EU to depend so heavily on renewables and Russian natural gas for energy. The Europeans are reassessing the energy transition and pragmatic changes will follow.
It’s in nobody’s interests for energy policy to be run such that everything is examined through the single lens of its impact on emissions.
The good news for investors is that when idealistic plans collide with realism, natural gas is often the winner. An example is Europeans buying more LNG from the US, reducing their vulnerability to Russia’s capricious supply decisions and intermittent renewables.
Natural gas power generation is most flexible in reacting to shifting demand. NJ offers an informative example. During the summer when power demand goes up because of air-conditioning, natural gas responds. Natural gas based power production is 94% correlated with the total. Renewables at a 4% share aren’t relevant but have a similar low correlation to nuclear – neither is able to change output when customers need them to.
The energy transition means electrification. Natural gas, which is reliably 40% of US power production, will continue to benefit from this shift in NJ and elsewhere – as long as the bureaucrats don’t follow New England where new pipelines are blocked with LNG regularly imported rather than transported by pipeline from Pennsylvania (see Why Staying Warm In Boston Will Cost You).
We’ll be watching carefully.
We have three funds that seek to profit from this environment:
Please see important Legal Disclosures.
The information provided is for informational purposes only and investors should determine for themselves whether a particular service, security or product is suitable for their investment needs. The information contained herein is not complete, may not be current, is subject to change, and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by, the more complete disclosures, risk factors and other terms that are contained in the disclosure, prospectus, and offering. Certain information herein has been obtained from third party sources and, although believed to be reliable, has not been independently verified and its accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. No representation is made with respect to the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of this information. Nothing provided on this site constitutes tax advice. Individuals should seek the advice of their own tax advisor for specific information regarding tax consequences of investments. Investments in securities entail risk and are not suitable for all investors. This site is not a recommendation nor an offer to sell (or solicitation of an offer to buy) securities in the United States or in any other jurisdiction.
References to indexes and benchmarks are hypothetical illustrations of aggregate returns and do not reflect the performance of any actual investment. Investors cannot invest in an index and do not reflect the deduction of the advisor’s fees or other trading expenses. There can be no assurance that current investments will be profitable. Actual realized returns will depend on, among other factors, the value of assets and market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs, and the timing of the purchase. Indexes and benchmarks may not directly correlate or only partially relate to portfolios managed by SL Advisors as they have different underlying investments and may use different strategies or have different objectives than portfolios managed by SL Advisors (e.g. The Alerian index is a group MLP securities in the oil and gas industries. Portfolios may not include the same investments that are included in the Alerian Index. The S & P Index does not directly relate to investment strategies managed by SL Advisers.)
This site may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,” “estimated,” “potential” and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio’s operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involves a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements or examples. None of SL Advisors LLC or any of its affiliates or principals nor any other individual or entity assumes any obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, subsequent events or any other circumstances. All statements made herein speak only as of the date that they were made. r
Certain hyperlinks or referenced websites on the Site, if any, are for your convenience and forward you to third parties’ websites, which generally are recognized by their top level domain name. Any descriptions of, references to, or links to other products, publications or services does not constitute an endorsement, authorization, sponsorship by or affiliation with SL Advisors LLC with respect to any linked site or its sponsor, unless expressly stated by SL Advisors LLC. Any such information, products or sites have not necessarily been reviewed by SL Advisors LLC and are provided or maintained by third parties over whom SL Advisors LLC exercise no control. SL Advisors LLC expressly disclaim any responsibility for the content, the accuracy of the information, and/or quality of products or services provided by or advertised on these third-party sites.
All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that any specific investment will be suitable or profitable for a client’s investment portfolio.
Past performance of the American Energy Independence Index is not indicative of future returns.