Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Sparks

Big Oil Is Doing Great ... Except in California

For fossil fuels, it’s the Not-So-Golden State.

An Exxon sign.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It was a good 2023 for Big Oil. In most places.

Both Exxon and Chevron reported substantial fourth quarter and full-year 2023 earnings Friday — $36 billion and $21 billion for 2023, respectively, their second highest annual profits ever. Both also called out California, however, once one of the cradles of the U.S. oil industry (see: There Will Be Blood) and now its biggest domestic political headache as a place where they’re enduring billions in losses.

While the two oil majors’ issues in California are specific to how they operate there, they are also perhaps a preview — or a warning — of what a full spectrum climate policy could mean for them.

While the Biden administration has done more legislating on climate than any previous administration, it has not done much of anything to impair the supply of hydrocarbons. Instead, the Inflation Reduction Act is largely devoted to subsidizing the supply of non-carbon-emitting forms of energy (and electric vehicles) and making it easier for people to electrify their homes. The upcoming Environmental Protection Agency power plant regulations, meanwhile, are designed essentially to force power plant operators to capture and store their emissions.

All of this would, if it works, increase demand for green energy and decrease demand for fossil energy. But much to the chagrin of many environmentalists, it would do little directly to limit fossil fuel extraction — nor, to the chagrin of more market-oriented environmentalists, would it set a tax on carbon emissions or establish a cap-and-trade system that would act as a tax. As Biden administration officials sometimes point out, oil and gas production has hit record highs under their watch.

California is different. It has a cap-and-trade system, it’s passed restrictions on where oil and gas drilling can occur (although they’re on hold pending a referendum that could overturn them), and permitting for new oil wells has slowed to near zero. Local governments there are often not particularly keen on hydrocarbon infrastructure or drilling, especially offshore.

In its earnings release, Exxon reported a $2 billion “impairment as a result of regulatory obstacles in California that have prevented production and distribution assets from coming back online.” This was a reference to its oil and gas operation off the Santa Barbara County coast, which started pumping in the early 1980s and stopped in 2015, when a pipeline rupture spilled more than 142,000 gallons of oil into the ocean. Exxon has been trying to get out of this business ever since, even lending money to another company to take the project off its hands. However, the deal has been continually delayed thanks to litigation surrounding pipeline repairs, as well as getting state and local approvals to operate again.

For Chevron, which is headquartered in California and maintains an active extraction and refining operation there, the troubles were “higher U.S. upstream impairment charges mainly in California” — emphasis mine.

In an earlier release this year, Chevron previewed losses from its California operations, saying that they were “due to continuing regulatory challenges in the state that have resulted in lower anticipated future investment levels in its business plans.” Combined with writedowns in the Gulf of Mexico, the company reported $3.7 billion worth of charges on its fourth quarter earnings.

Chevron — which operates refineries in both Northern and Southern California — has been in a public dispute with California policymakers over their energy policy proposals, especially around refining. The state plans to ban sales of internal combustion vehicles by 2035 and is working through a proposal to essentially cap profits on refining gasoline in the state. Chevron officials have said that a refining margin cap would make it “really challenging to want to put our money there,” the company’s refining chief Andy Walz told Bloomberg.

California has consistently higher gas prices than other states thanks to its lack of access to a national market (it’s not served by a pipeline network) and special requirements for its gasoline. Today, gas prices are $4.57 a gallon in California compared to $3.15 nationally, according to AAA. If Chevron is right about how California will treat refiners going forward, that gap could grow.

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Sparks

It’s Been a Big 24 Hours for AI Energy Announcements

We’re powering data centers every which way these days.

Google and Exxon logos.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The energy giant ExxonMobil is planning a huge investment in natural gas-fired power plants that will power data centers directly, a.k.a. behind the meter, meaning they won’t have to connect to the electric grid. That will allow the fossil fuel giant to avoid making the expensive transmission upgrades that tend to slow down the buildout of new electricity generation. And it’ll add carbon capture to boot.

The company said in a corporate update that it plans to build facilities that “would use natural gas to generate a significant amount of high-reliability electricity for a data center,” then use carbon capture to “remove more than 90% of the associated CO2 emissions, then transport the captured CO2 to safe, permanent storage deep underground.” Going behind the meter means that this generation “can be installed at a pace that other alternatives, including U.S. nuclear power, cannot match,” the company said.

The move represents a first for Exxon, which is famous for its far-flung operations to extract and process oil and natural gas but has not historically been in the business of supplying electricity to customers. The company is looking to generate 1.5 gigawatts of power, about 50% more than a large nuclear reactor, The New York Timesreported.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Sparks

Trump Promises ‘Fully Expedited’ Permitting in Exchange for $1 Billion of Investment

But ... how?

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday rocked the energy world when he promised “fully expedited approvals and permits, including, but in no way limited to, all Environmental approvals” for “Any person or company investing ONE BILLION DOLLARS, OR MORE, in the United States of America,” in a post on Truth Social Tuesday.

“GET READY TO ROCK!!!” he added.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Sparks

The Mad Dash to Lock Down Biden’s Final Climate Dollars

Companies are racing to finish the paperwork on their Department of Energy loans.

A clock and money.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Of the over $13 billion in loans and loan guarantees that the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office has made under Biden, nearly a third of that funding has been doled out in the month since the presidential election. And of the $41 billion in conditional commitments — agreements to provide a loan once the borrower satisfies certain preconditions — that proportion rises to nearly half. That includes some of the largest funding announcements in the office’s history: more than $7.5 billion to StarPlus Energy for battery manufacturing, $4.9 billion to Grain Belt Express for a transmission project, and nearly $6.6 billion to the electric vehicle company Rivian to support its new manufacturing facility in Georgia.

The acceleration represents a clear push by the outgoing Biden administration to get money out the door before President-elect Donald Trump, who has threatened to hollow out much of the Department of Energy, takes office. Still, there’s a good chance these recent conditional commitments won’t become final before the new administration takes office, as that process involves checking a series of nontrivial boxes that include performing due diligence, addressing or mitigating various project risks, and negotiating financing terms. And if the deals aren’t finalized before Trump takes office, they’re at risk of being paused or cancelled altogether, something the DOE considers unwise, to put it lightly.

Keep reading...Show less
Green