You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
For fossil fuels, it’s the Not-So-Golden State.
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.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
For those keeping score, that’s three more than wanted to preserve them last year.
Those who drew hope from the letter 18 House Republicans sent to Speaker Mike Johnson last August calling for the preservation of energy tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act must be jubilant this morning. On Sunday, 21 House Republicans sent a similar letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith. Those with sharp eyes will have noticed: That’s three more people than signed the letter last time, indicating that this is a coalition with teeth.
As Heatmap reported in the aftermath of November’s election, four of the original signatories were out of a job as of January, meaning that the new letter features a total of seven new recruits. So who are they?
The new letter is different from the old one in a few key ways. First, it mentions neither the Inflation Reduction Act nor its slightly older cousin, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, by name. Instead, it emphasizes “the importance of prioritizing energy affordability for American families and keeping on our current path to energy dominance amid efforts to repeal or reform current energy tax credits.” The letter also advocates for an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy development that has long been popular among conservatives but has seemed to fall out of vogue under Trump 2.0.
Lastly, while the new letter repeats the previous version’s emphasis on policy stability for businesses, it adds a new plea on behalf of ratepayers. “As our conference works to make energy prices more affordable, tax reforms that would raise energy costs for hard working Americans would be contrary to this goal,” it reads. “Further, affordable and abundant energy will be critical as the President works to onshore domestic manufacturing, supply chains, and good paying jobs, particularly in Republican run states due to their business-friendly environments. Pro-energy growth policies will directly support these objectives.”
As my colleagues Robinson Meyer and Emily Pontecorvo have written, tariffs on Canadian fuel would raise energy prices in markets across the U.S. That includes some particularly swingy states, e.g. Michigan, which perhaps explains Rep. James’ seeming about-face.
Republicans’ House majority currently stands at all of four votes, so although 21 members might not be huge on the scale of the full House, they still represent a significant problem for Speaker Johnson.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the fact that Rep. James did not unseat Democrat Carl Marlinga in 2022 as the district had been newly created following the 2020 census.
Three companies are joining forces to add at least a gigawatt of new generation by 2029. The question is whether they can actually do it.
Two of the biggest electricity markets in the country — the 13-state PJM Interconnection, which spans the Mid-Atlantic and the Midwest, and ERCOT, which covers nearly all of Texas — want more natural gas. Both are projecting immense increases in electricity demand thanks to data centers and electrification. And both have had bouts of market weirdness and dysfunction, with ERCOT experiencing spiky prices and even blackouts during extreme weather and PJM making enormous payouts largely to gas and coal operators to lock in their “capacity,” i.e. their ability to provide power when most needed.
Now a trio of companies, including the independent power producer NRG, the turbine manufacturer GE Vernova, and a subsidiary of the construction firm Kiewit Corporation, are teaming up with a plan to bring gas-powered plants to PJM and ERCOT, the companies announced today.
The three companies said that the new joint venture “will work to advance four projects totaling over 5 gigawatts” of natural gas combined cycle plants to the two power markets, with over a gigawatt coming by 2029. The companies said that they could eventually build 10 to 15 gigawatts “and expand to other areas across the U.S.”
So far, PJM and Texas’ call for new gas has been more widely heard than answered. The power producer Calpine said last year that it would look into developing more gas in PJM, but actual investment announcements have been scarce, although at least one gas plant scheduled to close has said it would stay open.
So far, across the country, planned new additions to the grid are still overwhelmingly solar and battery storage, according to the Energy Information Administration, whose data shows some 63 gigawatts of planned capacity scheduled to be added this year, with more than half being solar and over 80% being storage.
Texas established a fund in 2023 to provide low-cost loans to new gas plants, but has had trouble finding viable projects. Engie pulled an 885 megawatt project from the program earlier this week, citing “equipment procurement constraints” and delays.
But PJM is working actively with a friendly administration in Washington to bring more natural gas to its grid. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently blessed a PJM plan to accelerate interconnection approvals for large generators — largely natural gas — so that it can bring them online more quickly.
But many developers and large power consumers are less than optimistic about the ability to bring new natural gas onto the grid at a pace that will keep up with demand growth, and are instead looking at “behind-the-meter” approaches to meet rising energy needs, especially from data centers. The asset manager Fortress said earlier this year that it had acquired 850 megawatts of generation capacity from APR Energy and formed a new company, fittingly named New APR Energy, which said this week that it was “deploying four mobile gas turbines providing 100MW+ of dedicated behind-the-meter power to a major U.S.-based AI hyperscaler.”
And all gas developers, whether they’re building on the grid or behind-the-meter, have to get their hands on turbines, which are in short supply. The NRG consortium called this out specifically, noting that it had secured the rights to two 7HA gas turbines by 2029. These kinds of announcements of agreements for specific turbines have become standard for companies showing their seriousness about gas development. When Chevron announced a joint venture with GE Vernova for co-located gas plants for data centers, it also noted that it had a reservation agreement for seven 7HA turbines. But until these turbines are made and installed, these announcements may all just be spin.
Featuring China, fossil fuels, and data centers.
As Republicans in Congress go hunting for ways to slash spending to carry out President Trump’s agenda, more than 100 energy businesses, trade groups, and advocacy organizations sent a letter to key House and Senate leaders on Tuesday requesting that one particular line item be spared: the hydrogen tax credit.
The tax credit “will serve as a catalyst to propel the United States to global energy dominance,” the letter argues, “while advancing American competitiveness in energy technologies that our adversaries are actively pursuing.” The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association organized the letter, which features signatures from the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Clean Energy Buyers Association, and numerous hydrogen, industrial gas, and chemical companies, among many others. Three out of the seven regional clean hydrogen hubs — the Mid-Atlantic, Heartland, and Pacific Northwest hubs — are also listed.
Out of all of the tax credits for low-carbon energy, the hydrogen subsidy, which was created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, is among the most generous. It pays up to $3 per kilogram of hydrogen produced, depending on how emissions-intensive the process is. For context, a 15 ton-per-day plant in Georgia owned by hydrogen producer Plug Power has the potential to earn up to $45,000 per day in tax credits.
But the total price of the tax credit depends on how much clean hydrogen production takes off, and the industry is still in its infancy. When the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a research group at the University of Pennsylvania, estimated the fiscal impact of the Inflation Reduction Act, it placed the total cost for the hydrogen credit at $49 billion over 10 years, compared to more than $260 billion for renewable energy and nearly $400 billion for electric vehicles.
Tactically, Tuesday’s letter draws on all of the Trump administration’s favorite talking points. It warns that nixing the tax credit will mean ceding the hydrogen technology war to China, noting that the country now produces more than 60% of the global supply of electrolyzers — equipment that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. It also says that hydrogen fuel cells are already being used by tech companies to power data centers.
And even though the tax credit was designed specifically to subsidize “clean” hydrogen, the letter mostly ignores this distinction, painting hydrogen production as an extension of the U.S. fossil fuel industry. Oil and gas companies have the infrastructure, workforce, and supply chains to lead the global hydrogen economy, it says. It points out that hydrogen can be produced from “natural gas, biogas, biomethane, as well as any electricity source (i.e. nuclear energy),” but does not mention wind, solar, or geothermal.
Investment in the nascent hydrogen industry was essentially on hold for more than two years while companies eager to take advantage of the tax credit waited for the Biden administration to finalize eligibility rules. But even after Biden’s Treasury Department published those rules in early January, how the Trump administration will view the program remained uncertain. “Our industry is now poised to invest billions of dollars in deployments and manufacturing facilities across the country,” the letter says. “However, that private sector investment is at risk due to the uncertainty around this crucial incentive … We need to ensure that we do not miss this hydrogen moment and respectfully request that you maintain the Section 45V tax credit.”
Intense debate and controversy surrounded the development of the rules for claiming the tax credit, and while the Biden administration tried to strike a compromise, some in the industry still found the rules too strict. I asked the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association whether it wanted Congress to make any changes to the tax credit or to simply preserve it but hadn’t heard back as of publication time.
But some of the signatories have already expressed their intent to request changes. In December, the American Petroleum Institute sent a memo to the incoming Treasury Department outlining its key priorities and “asks.” It says the Biden administration’s hydrogen tax credit rules were “overly restrictive and raised concerns about qualifying pathways for natural gas.”