industry-569145_1280

Recession Fears Cap Oil Prices In 2020

Overall, I expect that oil and other commodity prices will remain low in 2020. These low oil prices will adversely affect oil production and several other parts of the economy. As a result, a strong tendency toward recession can be expected. The extent of recessionary influences will vary from country to country. Financial factors, not discussed in these forecasts, are likely also to play a role.

The following are pieces of my energy forecast for 2020:

[1] Oil prices can be expected to remain generally low in 2020. There may be an occasional spike to $80 or $90 per barrel, but average prices in 2020 are likely to be at or below the 2019 level.

Oil prices can temporarily spike because of inadequate supply or fear of war. However, to keep oil prices up, there needs to be an increase in “demand” for finished goods and services made with commodities. Workers need to be able to afford to purchase more goods such as new homes, cars, and cell phones. Governments need to be able to afford to purchase new goods such as paved roads and school buildings.

At this point, the world economy is struggling with a lack of affordability in finished goods and services. This lack of affordability is what causes oil and other commodity prices to tend to fall, rather than to rise. Lack of affordability comes when too many would-be buyers have low wages or no income at all. Wage disparity tends to rise with globalization. It also tends to rise with increased specialization. A few highly trained workers earn high wages, but many others are left with low wages or no job at all.

It is the fact that we do not have a way of making the affordability of finished goods rise which leads me to believe that oil prices will remain low. Raising minimum wages tends to encourage more mechanization of processes and thus tends to lower total employment. Interest rates cannot be brought much lower, nor can the terms of loans be extended much longer. If such changes were available, they would enhance affordability and thus help prevent low commodity prices and recession.

[2] World oil production seems likely to fall by 1% or more in 2020 because of low oil prices.

The highest single quarter of world oil production was the fourth quarter of 2018. Oil production has been falling since this peak quarter.

To examine what is happening, the production shown in Figure 3 can be divided into that by the United States, OPEC, and “All Other.”

OPEC’s oil production bobs up and down. In general, its production is lower when oil prices are low, and higher when oil prices are high. (This shouldn’t be a surprise.) Recently, its production has been lower in response to low prices. Effective January 1, 2020, OPEC plans to reduce its production by another 500,000 barrels per day.

Figure 4 shows that oil production of the United States rose in response to high prices in the 2010 to 2013 period. It dipped in response to low oil prices in 2015 and 2016. When oil prices rose in 2017 and 2018, its production again rose. Production in 2019 seems to have risen less rapidly. Recent monthly and weekly EIA data confirm the flatter US oil production growth pattern in 2019.

Putting the pieces together, I estimate that world oil production (including natural gas liquids) for 2019 will be about 0.5% lower than that of 2018. Since world population is rising by about 1.1% per year, per capita oil production is falling faster, about 1.6% per year.

A self-organizing networked economy seems to distribute oil shortages through lack of affordability. Thus, for example, they might be expected to affect the economy through lower auto sales and through less international trade related to automobile production. International trade, of course, requires the use of oil, since ships and airplanes use oil products for fuel.

If prices stay low in 2020, both the oil production of the United States and OPEC will likely be adversely affected, bringing 2020 oil production down even further. I would expect that even without a major recession, world oil supply might be expected to fall by 1% in 2020, relative to 2019. If a major recession occurs, oil prices could fall further (perhaps to $30 per barrel), and oil production would likely fall lower. Laid off workers don’t need to drive to work!

[3] In theory, the 2019 and 2020 decreases in world oil production might be the beginning of “world peak oil.” 

If oil prices cannot be brought back up again after 2020, world oil production is likely to drop precipitously. Even the “All Other” group in Figure 4 would be likely to reduce their production, if there is no chance of making a profit.

The big question is whether the affordability of finished goods and services can be raised in the future. Such an increase would tend to raise the price of all commodities, including oil.

[4] The implosion of the recycling business is part of what is causing today’s low oil prices. The effects of the recycling implosion can be expected to continue into 2020.

With the rise in oil prices in the 2002-2008 period, there came the opportunity for a new growth industry: recycling. Unfortunately, as oil prices started to fall from their lofty heights, the business model behind recycling started to make less and less sense. Effective January 1, 2018, China stopped nearly all of its paper and plastic recycling. Other Asian nations, including India, have been following suit.

When recycling efforts were reduced, many people working in the recycling industry lost their jobs. By coincidence or not, auto purchases in China began to fall at exactly the same time as recycling stopped. Of course, when fewer automobiles are sold, demand for oil to make and operate automobiles tends to fall. This has been part of what is pushing world oil prices down.Related: Why Pirates Are Giving Up On Oil

Sending materials to Asia for recycling made economic sense when oil prices were high. Once prices dropped, China was faced with dismantling a fairly large, no longer economic, industry. Other countries have followed suit, and their automobile sales have also fallen.

Companies operating ships that transport manufactured goods to high-income countries were adversely affected by the loss of recycling. When material for recycling was available, it could be used to fill otherwise-empty containers returning from high-income countries. Fees for transporting materials to be recycled indirectly made the cost of shipping goods manufactured in China and India a little lower than they otherwise would be, if containers needed to be shipped back empty. All of these effects have helped reduce demand for oil. Indirectly, these effects tend to reduce oil prices.

The recycling industry has not yet shrunk back to the size that the economics would suggest is needed if oil prices remain low. There may be a few kinds of recycling that work (well-sorted materials, recycled near where the materials have been gathered, for example), but it probably does not make sense to send separate trucks through neighborhoods to pick up poorly sorted materials. Some materials may better be burned or placed in landfills.

We are not yet through the unwind of recycling. Even the recycling of materials such as aluminum cans is affected by oil prices. A March, 2019, WSJ article talks about a “glut of used cans” because some markets now prefer to use newly produced aluminum.

[5] The growth of the electric car industry can be expected to slow substantially in 2020, as it becomes increasingly apparent that oil prices are likely to stay low for a long period. 

Electric cars are expensive in two ways:

1. In building the cars initially, and

2. In building and maintaining all of the charging stations required if more than a few elite workers with charging facilities in their garages are to use the vehicles.

Once it is clear that oil prices cannot rise indefinitely, the need for all of the extra costs of electric vehicles becomes very iffy. In light of the changing view of the economics of the situation, China has discontinued its electric vehicle (EV) subsidies, as of January 1, 2020. Prior to the change, China was the world’s largest seller of electric vehicles. Year over year EV sales in China dropped by 45.6% in October 2019 and 45.7% in November 2019. The big drop in China’s EV sales has had a follow-on effect of sharply lower lithium prices.

In the US, Tesla has recently been the largest seller of EVs. The subsidy for Tesla is disappearing in 2020 because it has sold over 200,000 vehicles. This is likely to adversely affect the growth of EV sales in the US in 2020.

The area of the world that seems to have a significant chance of a major uptick in EV sales in 2020 is Europe. This increase is possible because governments there are still giving sizable subsidies to buyers of such cars. If, in future years, these subsidies become too great a burden for European governments, EV sales are likely to lag there as well.

[6] Ocean-going ships are required to use fuels that cause less pollution as of January 2020. This change will have a positive environmental impact, but it will lead to additional costs that are impossible to pass on to buyers of shipping services. The net impact will be to push the world economy in the direction of recession.

If ocean-going ships use less polluting fuels, this will raise costs somewhere along the line. In the simplest cases, ocean-going vessels will purchase diesel fuel rather than lower, more polluting, grades of fuel. Refineries will need to charge more for the diesel fuel, if they are to cover the cost of removing sulfur and other pollutants.

The “catch” is that the buyers of finished goods and services cannot really afford more expensive finished goods. They cut back in their demand for automobiles, homes, cell phones and paved roads if oil prices rise. This reduction in demand is what pushes commodity prices, including oil prices, down.

Evidence that shipowners cannot really pass the higher refining costs along comes from the fact that the prices that shippers are able to charge for shipping seems to be falling, rather than rising. One January article says, “The Baltic Exchange’s main sea freight index touched its lowest level in eight months on Friday, weighed down by weak demand across all segments. The Index posted its biggest one day percentage drop since January 2014, in the previous session.”

So higher costs for shippers have been greeted by lower prices for the cost of shipping. It will partly be shipowners who suffer from the lower sales margin. They will operate fewer ships and lay off workers. But part of the problem will be passed on to the rest of the economy, pushing it toward recession and lower oil prices.

[7] Expect increasingly warlike behavior by governments in 2020, for the primary purpose of increasing oil prices.

Oil producers around the world need higher prices than recently have been available. This is why the US seems to be tapering its growth in shale oil production. Middle Eastern countries need higher oil prices in order to be able to collect enough taxes on oil revenue to provide jobs and to subsidize food purchases for citizens.

With the US, as well as Middle Eastern countries, wanting higher oil prices, it is no wonder that warlike behavior takes place. If, somehow, a country can get control of more oil, that is simply an added benefit.

[8] The year 2020 is likely to bring transmission line concerns to the wind and solar industries. In some areas, this will lead to cutbacks in added wind and solar.

A recent industry news item was titled, Renewables ‘hit a wall’ in saturated Upper Midwest Grid. Most of the material that is published regarding the cost of wind and solar omits the cost of new transmission lines to support wind and solar. In some cases, additional transmission lines are not really required for the first additions of wind and solar generation; it is only when more wind and solar are added that it becomes a problem. The linked article talks about projects being withdrawn until new transmission lines can be added in an area that includes Minnesota, Iowa, parts of the Dakotas and western Wisconsin. Adding transmission lines may take several years.

A related issue that has come up recently is the awareness that, at least in dry areas, transmission lines cause fires. Getting permission to site new transmission lines has been a longstanding problem. When the problem of fires is added to the list of concerns, delays in getting the approval of new transmission lines are likely to be longer, and the cost of new transmission lines is likely to rise higher.

The overlooked transmission line issue, once it is understood, is likely to reduce the interest in replacing other generation with wind and solar.

[9] Countries that are exporters of crude oil are likely to find themselves in increasingly dire financial straits in 2020, as oil prices stay low for longer. Rebellions may arise. Governments may even be overthrown.

Oil exporters often obtain the vast majority of their revenue from the taxation of receipts related to oil exports. If prices stay low in 2020, exporters will find their tax revenues inadequate to maintain current programs for the welfare of their people, such as programs providing jobs and food subsidies. Some of this lost revenue may be offset by increased borrowing. In many cases, programs will need to be cut back. Needless to say, cutbacks are likely to lead to unhappiness and rebellions by citizens.

The problem of rebellions and overthrown governments also can be expected to occur when exporters of other commodities find their prices too low. An example is Chile, an exporter of copper and lithium. Both of these products have recently suffered from low export prices. These low prices no doubt play a major part in the protests taking place in Chile. If more tax revenue from the sales of exports were available, there would be no difficulty in satisfying protesters’ demands related to poverty, inequality, and an overly high cost of living.

We can expect more of these kinds of rebellions and uprisings, the longer oil and other commodity prices stay too low for commodity producers.

Conclusion

I have not tried to tell the whole economic story for 2020; even the energy portion is concerning. A networked self-organizing system, such as the world economy, operates in ways that are far different from what simple “common sense” would suggest. Things that seem to be wonderful in the eyes of consumers, such as low oil prices and low commodity prices, may have dark sides that are recessionary in nature. Producers need high prices to produce commodities, but these high commodity prices lead to finished goods and services that are too expensive for many consumers to afford.

There probably cannot be a “one-size-fits-all” forecast for the world economy. Some parts of the world will likely fare better than others. It is possible that a collapse of one or more parts of the world economy will allow other parts to continue. Such a situation occurred in 1991, when the central government of the Soviet Union collapsed after an extended period of low oil prices.

It is easy to think that the future is entirely bleak, but we cannot entirely understand the workings of a self-organizing networked economy. The economy tends to have more redundancy than we would expect. Furthermore, things that seem to be terrible often do not turn out as badly as expected. Things that seem to be wonderful often do not turn out as favorably as expected. Thus, we really don’t know what the future holds. We need to keep watching the signs and adjust our views as more information unfolds.

 

D5ZIvUZXkAAdvJj

Consumer Perceptions of the Energy Market Q3 2019

Publication date2nd December 2019Information types

  • Charts and data
  • Reports and plans

Policy areas

  • Domestic consumers
  • Electricity – retail markets
  • Gas – retail markets

Related LinksRelated Links

Ofgem in conjunction with Citizens Advice uses a quarterly survey to monitor domestic consumers’ perceptions about the quality of service in the energy market. Ofgem uses this information to support its monitoring and compliance activities.

The survey commenced in Q4 2018. This is the fourth wave of the study, conducted in Q3 2019.

The survey covers a range of topics including satisfaction with energy suppliers, perceptions about energy tariffs, use of price comparison websites and awareness and understanding of the default tariff price cap.  

The survey is conducted by Accent Research on behalf of Ofgem and Citizens Advice. Each quarter we survey approximately 3200 household energy bill payers across Great Britain.

read more here: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/consumer-perceptions-energy-market-q3-2019

Please contact consumer.first@ofgem.gov.uk for further details.

D5ZIvUZXkAAdvJj

Ofgem publishes 2019 Annual Iteration Process for network price controls

Publication date29th November 2019Information types

  • Press releases

Policy areas

  • Electricity – distribution
  • Electricity – transmission
  • Gas – distribution
  • Gas – transmission

Ofgem has today published the results of the 2019 Annual Iteration Process (AIP) for energy network companies under its network price controls. 

As part of the ‘Revenue = Incentives + Innovation + Outputs’ (RIIO) price controls for network companies, we make annual adjustments to the revenue that we allow the energy network companies to collect through the AIP.

The AIP updates base revenues across Ofgem’s four price controls (electricity distribution, gas distribution, electricity transmission, and gas transmission) for the next regulatory year (2020/21).

This year’s AIP has reduced the allowed revenue that network companies will collect relative to the assumptions made at the start of the price controls by around £965 million (2018/19 Prices), saving consumers money on their bills. This reduction is driven by the following factors:

  • Cost of Debt – Lower interest rates in debt markets have resulted in a lower cost of debt allowance compared to the level set at the start of the price controls.
  • Allowed Expenditure – On the whole, network companies are spending less than the amounts assumed at the start of the price controls, therefore we make a proportionate reduction to their allowed revenue.

We have published updated price control financial models (PCFMs) for the four price controls, here:

RIIO-ET1 Financial Model following the Annual Iteration Process 2019

RIIO-GT1 Financial Model following the Annual Iteration Process 2019

RIIO-GD1 Financial Model following the Annual Iteration Process 2019

RIIO-ED1 Financial Model following the Annual Iteration Process 2019

For media queries contact Ofgem media manager Ruth Somerville 0207 901 7460/ 07766 511 470 ruth.somerville@ofgem.gov.uk 

chernobyl-2471003_1280

Npower loses over 260,000 customers in the third quarter of 2019

Big Six energy supplier Npower lost 261,000 customers in the third quarter of 2019, as large providers continue to haemorrhage clients to smaller challenger brands.

The figures take total customer losses for the year for the company, which is owned by German power giant Innogy, to 447,000.

Npower also posted a nine-month operating loss of €167m (£142.1), with expected losses for the whole year expected to hit €250m.

Innogy said that the decline was mainly driven by the introduction of the energy tariff price cap in the UK.

Chairman and chief executive Johannes Teyssen recently described Innogy’s loss-making UK retail operation as “an open wound that is bleeding profusely.”

Npower, which is Innogy’s retail arm, was recently bought by fellow German firm E.on, which warned that it would not tolerate a loss-making business for long.

According to energy market regulator Ofgem, profits at the UK’s six-largest energy suppliers shrunk by over a third last year.

Ofgem’s State of the Market report also found that 40 per cent of all electricity switching between July 2018 and June 2019 came from customers leaving Big Six suppliers in favour of smaller ones.

However, a report earlier this week found that last month 100,000 customers moved from small or medium sized firms to Big Six companies, suggesting the major players may have begun to turn the tide.

Peter Earl, head of energy at comparethemarket.com, said: “The Big Six have snatched the momentum from their smaller and nimbler energy rivals – but whether this is a longer-term trend or merely a blip remains to be seen.”

Innogy slashed its overall outlook on the back of Npower’s performance, saying it now expects retail profit to run between €200m and €300m, a €100m reduction on its previous range.

The news caps off a tough twelve months for the company, which last December was forced to call off a planned merger with SSE’s retail arm, which was subsequently bought by challenger brand Ovo.

wind-turbine-2218457_1280

Climate change: UK ‘has technology’ for zero carbon

Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions in the UK is achievable with current technology, according to a new report.

The Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) said a net zero-carbon Britain is already possible, without relying on future developments.

The Powys-based charity said changes to buildings, transport and industry could help slash UK energy demand by 60%.

“We have the technology to combat climate change and we can start today,” said project coordinator Paul Allen.

The CAT report – Zero Carbon Britain: Rising to the Climate Emergency – also claims making further changes to energy, diets and land use could help provide 100% renewable energy and cut emissions from agriculture and industry.

That would mean the UK would not be reliant on “as yet unproven” technologies, such as carbon or air capture, said Machynlleth-based CAT.

Mr Allen said using alternatives to technology that is ready to be rolled out at scale was “not worth the risk”.

However, the UK government described carbon capture as a “game-changing technology” in addressing climate change and said the country’s first project should be operational next year.

Britain was the first major nation to propose cutting greenhouse gas emissions to zero, promising to do so by 2050.

Reducing energy use

CAT said more new houses should be built to high Passivhaus standards that can reduce energy costs to just £15 a year by using insulated masonry and concrete, triple-glazing, LED lighting and air-source heat pumps.

Some of these changes could also be fitted to existing buildings to improve temperature control and potentially reduce heating use by around 50%.

Transport energy demand could also be cut by 78% by increased use of public transport, walking, cycling and using electric vehicles while cutting flights by two-thirds.

Increasing energy supplies

Based on the past decade’s weather and energy use, it is possible to fully match the UK’s entire energy demand with renewable and carbon-neutral energy, the report claims, if CAT’s recommendations are carried out.

Half of that would be provided by wind while other sources suited to the UK climate – including geothermal, hydro, tidal and solar – would produce most of the rest.

Carbon-neutral synthetic fuels are also an important alternative to electricity, especially in some areas of industry and transport.

Transforming land and diets

Switching from meat and dairy to plant-based proteins, reducing food waste and improving agriculture could go a long way to cutting carbon emissions, the report said.

CAT says the UK can:

  • Reduce on-farm greenhouse gas emissions by 57% (compared to 2017)
  • Cut food imports from 42% to 17%
  • Use 75% of current livestock grazing land for restoring forests and peat-lands

“We can still have coffee, chocolate and tea in a zero-carbon Britain, but the UK currently imports many foods that we can easily grow here,” said Mr Allen.

“By changing what we eat and how it’s grown, and by wasting less food, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase resilience and improve health and wellbeing.”

CAT is urging politicians to come up with action plans with policy frameworks and large-scale investment as a matter of urgency.

Solar farms can keep UK’s lights on even at night

Solar farms could soon play a vital role in the energy system 24 hours a day, after a breakthrough trial proved they can even help balance the grid at night. National Grid used a solar farm in East Sussex to help smooth overnight voltage fluctuations for the first time earlier this month, proving solar farms don’t need sunshine to help keep the lights on.

Lightsource BP, the owner of the solar farm, said an inexpensive tweak to the project’s electrical equipment meant it could help balance the grid with only two seconds’ notice. Kareen Boutonnat, the company’s chief operating officer, said: “We have proven that solar plants can play a larger role across the electricity network. But this is only the beginning.”

Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet’s most important stories

 Read more

The breakthrough could mean that UK solar farms will soon help stabilise the energy grid at night, which could save £400m on grid upgrades or building new power plants. “Inverters” at the solar farm are usually used in the process of converting solar energy to electric current. But at night, when the grid is often less stable, the same equipment can adapt grid electricity to a healthier voltage.

Chris Buckland, technical director of Lightsource BP, said the inverter acts like a distortion mirror by reflecting the energy network’s voltage back to the grid at a slightly different level.

On blustery nights with plenty of wind power but little demand, the solar farm could help prevent the energy grid’s voltage from rising too high. It could also prevent the voltage from falling too low during still nights in winter when demand is often high.

Lightsource BP will carry out a second trial next month, and it hopes to strike its first commercial deal to help balance the electricity grid with National Grid next year.

high-voltage-4240551_1280

Decision to suspend the Secure and Promote Market Making Obligation with effect on 18 November 2019

On 8 October 2019, we published an open letter seeking views on our ‘minded to’ position to suspend the Secure and Promote Market Making Obligation (MMO) in the event we released RWE from the Licence Condition. Following our decision to release RWE from the MMO from 30 October 2019, and having now considered responses to the open letter, we have decided to suspend the MMO with this taking effect on 18 November 2019.

This letter explains the reasons for our decision and provides an overview of responses to the open letter. To give effect to this decision, pursuant to the Special Condition, we have published a Direction to the relevant Electricity Generation Licensees alongside this letter.

Main document

thunderstorm-3625405_1280

World’s energy watchdog is undermining climate change battle, critics say

PARIS (Reuters) – A short walk from the Eiffel Tower, Fatih Birol oversees the world’s energy watchdog, whose analyses of fuel demand have long been viewed as the gold standard by government officials, energy executives and investors.

But now, the Turkish economist and the International Energy Agency (IEA) he heads are facing mounting pressure from groups concerned about climate change – including investors, scientists and former United Nations diplomats – over the organization’s widely watched annual outlook.

The World Energy Outlook, due to be published Wednesday, shapes expectations among governments, companies and investors over the future use of coal, oil and gas.

The critics say it underplays the speed at which the world could switch to renewable sources of energy. The result, they say, is to bolster the case for continued investment in fossil fuel companies, undermining the fight against climate change.

“The IEA is effectively creating its own reality. They project ever-increasing demand for fossil fuels, which in turn justifies greater investments in supply, making it harder for the energy system to change,” said Andrew Logan, senior director of oil and gas at Ceres, a U.S. non-profit group that promotes environmentally-friendly business.

Senior IEA officials say they share concerns over climate change but defend their organization’s work, saying the criticism is based on a misunderstanding of what the World Energy Outlook intends to show. They say the goal of the publication is to help governments assess the likely consequences of existing energy policies, not forecast what the world’s energy system will look like decades into the future.

The IEA — which is mainly funded by industrialized nations including the United States, Germany and Japan — advises governments on energy policy.

“If they criticize us, the only option that comes to my mind is that they don’t know exactly what we are doing,” said 61-year old Birol during an interview at the IEA’s headquarters in Paris last week. “They must be misunderstanding, or they must have been misled.”

IEA officials also say there is also some wishful thinking about how quickly the transition to cleaner energy could happen.

“A lot of times people want to believe there’s some simple lever that you push: ‘change the IEA and the world will be better,’” said David Turk, who had been a senior climate official in former U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration and now heads the IEA’s strategic initiatives office.

INCREASED SCRUTINY

The IEA has long faced criticism from other energy analysts who say the outlook has failed to capture dramatic falls in the cost of solar power. Tim Buckley, a Sydney-based analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis think tank, said the cost in the United States had fallen to below $40 per megawatt hour this year but the last World Energy Outlook implied a current figure closer to $90.

The IEA says much of the dramatic expansion of the solar industry has been driven by policy changes in China, which the outlook was not designed to predict, and that projections in other areas had proved accurate.

The increased scrutiny of the World Energy Outlook shows how the once esoteric subject of energy modeling is becoming a focus of the mainstream investment community as worries over climate change intensify.

Concerns among fund managers about the implications for their investments escalated after the world’s climate scientists issued a landmark U.N.-backed report late last year offering a stark assessment of the likely consequences of rising global temperatures.

The report said the worst effects could be averted by limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above the levels of pre-industrial times. That target is the most ambitious goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement, the global pact to curb global warming.

Birol was instrumental in developing the models used to compile the World Energy Outlook during his previous role as the agency’s chief economist. The outlook is published each year with a different cover featuring the yellow and red colors of Birol’s favorite soccer club, Istanbul-based Galatasaray.

The publication’s main report, or scenario, maps how demand for different forms of energy would evolve over the next couple of decades based on existing government policy commitments. Some critics say that because it doesn’t take account of the likelihood that governments will take more drastic action to curb emissions, it means projections will inevitably be conservative.

IEA officials emphasized that the outlook is not a forecast, rather it explores the implications of existing policies, which is made clear in the introduction.

“MORE STRINGENT”

Another scenario, called the Sustainable Development Scenario, aims to show how the global balance of renewable energy and fossil fuel would need to change to meet the temperature goals of the Paris accord, cut air pollution and expand access to electricity for the world’s poor.

Investors and climate activists are lobbying Birol to include a scenario that uses the most ambitious Paris Agreement target of a 1.5 Celsius increase. In the last outlook, the Sustainable Development Scenario implied warming of about 1.7 to 1.8 degree Celsius.

Investors say using the more ambitious target could spur a faster switch to renewables by showing the financial markets a path for meeting the goal.

Among those pressing Birol for that change is a group of institutional investors representing $30 trillion of assets under management, called the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change.

In a previously unreported letter sent to Birol earlier this year, the group said that appropriate scenarios are important to institutional investors for understanding their exposure to climate risks and deciding how to allocate capital. The IEA’s scenarios “materially impact expectations for future investment returns,” the investors wrote.

Birol, who downplays the extent to which the outlook guides investment decisions, said the next World Energy Outlook takes the latest findings of climate science into account. The IEA in comments on its website last month said that it will explore a path with a 50% chance of stabilizing warming at 1.5 degree Celsius without relying heavily on still early-stage techniques for sucking carbon from the atmosphere.

The Sustainable Development Scenario will be “more stringent” than in the previous outlook, Laura Cozzi, the IEA’s chief energy modeler, told Reuters. IEA officials said it was very challenging to model a scenario of a 1.5 degree Celsius rise given the amount of existing fossil fuel infrastructure.

PRESSURE MOUNTS

In April, Birol received a separate letter expressing similar demands from more than 60 signatories, including leading climate scientists and former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres as well as several large asset managers, including UK-based asset manager Legal & General Investment Management Ltd. and Sarasin & Partners LLP.

The letter also urged Birol to make clear that the outlook’s main scenario, which had been called the New Policies Scenario and reflects governments’ existing climate pledges, is a “business as usual scenario” that would lead to a rise of between 2.7 and 3 degree Celsius.

In the comments on its website, the IEA said it would rename its main report the Stated Policies Scenario to clarify it reflected existing commitments.

The groups pushing for change welcomed the name change but said they would study the new outlook when it is published to reach firmer conclusions.

Parliament sends 30,000 invitations for citizens’ assembly on climate change


 “Net zero is an opportunity, therefore, for people to not just explore ways in which the UK can end its contribution to climate change, but also create a cleaner, healthier environment as well as benefit from the opportunities around creating a low-carbon economy.”

Key themes to be discussed at Climate Assembly UK will include how people travel, what people buy and household energy use. The outcomes of discussions will be presented to the six select committees, who will use it as a basis for detailed work on implementing its recommendations. It will also be debated in the House of Commons.

light-bulb-1209491_1280

Conservatives focus on nuclear and EVs in net-zero vision for 2050

The Conservative Party has unveiled its manifesto for a net-zero carbon economy, which includes commitments to plant more than one million trees and sets aside £1bn for electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing, but fails to match Labour’s ambition in pushing the 2050 timeframe forward.

The Tory plans for achieving net-zero carbon emissions largely stick to the recommendations provided by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which claimed that a net-zero target could be achieved at the same cost that is put against achieving the old Climate Change Act, which is between 1-2% of GDP in 2050. The recommendations have since been enshrined into national law.

It was thought that the Tory Party conference would be used to provide more clarity on the net-zero target, specifically whether the new target would encompass all sectors – shipping and aviation are currently covered on a territorial basis – and how carbon capture and storage (CCS) solutions and hydrogen would be supported.

Despite no clarity on most of those measures, the plan does feature a commitment to build a £220m net-zero nuclear fusion plant by 2040. The first stage of the investment will cover the initial five-year development phase of the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP).

Other commitments listed by the Tories include plans to plant up to one million trees between 2020 and 2024 to develop the Great Northumberland Forest, deliver £1bn in funding for EVs and hydrogen fuel cell development, and a new Future Homes Standard that will be introduced in 2025 to create “world-leading energy efficiency standards”. Interim regulations for the Future Homes Standard will be introduced from 2020.

Andrea Leadsom, the business, energy and industrial strategy secretary said: “Addressing climate change is a top priority for the Conservative Party, and today’s announcements will not only help us reach our Net Zero 2050 target, but will benefit communities and households – and improve wildlife and wellbeing – while doing so.”

A 20-year gap

The announcement follows last week’s news that Labour Party members had backed a pledge to reduce greenhouse emissions to net-zero by 2030 – two decades earlier that the Conservative target.

The motion also commits the party to take Great Britain’s energy networks and biggest energy suppliers back into public ownership, introduce a complete ban on fracking and make large-scale investments in renewable and low-carbon energy.

The Tory commitments have also been criticised by green groups for failing to strengthen commitments that could move the ban on petrol and diesel cars forwards or encourage reductions in meat-based diets and eating. Friends of the Earth’s chief executive Craig Bennett claimed that the measures were “nowhere near commensurate” to tackle the issues of climate change.

“For decades, we’ve been promised that nuclear fusion is ‘just a decade away’ and yet it’s never materialised,” Bennett said. “Why throw money away on tech-fix pipe dreams, at precisely the moment that onshore and offshore wind and solar are delivering better returns than ever before?

“If the government is serious about slashing climate pollution it needs to stop fracking, stop filling the skies with more planes, and stop funding oil and gas projects abroad and instead invest in public transport, renewable energy and doubling UK tree cover.”

Theresa Villiers, the environment secretary added: “The planting of one million trees will be fundamental in our commitment to be the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than we found it. They will enhance our landscape, improve our quality of life and protect the climate for future generations.”