China's hidden coal cost equal to 7% of GDP

Just Transition for Coal and Nuclear Workers explains policy frameworks, compensation packages, retraining, and community support during decarbonization, plant closures, and energy shifts across Europe and the U.S., including Diablo Canyon and Uniper strategies.

Key Points

A policy approach to protect and retrain legacy power workers as coal and nuclear plants retire during decarbonization.

✅ Germany and Spain fund closures with compensation and retraining.

✅ U.S. lacks federal support; Diablo Canyon is a notable exception.

✅ Firms like Uniper convert coal sites to gas and clean energy roles.

The coronavirus pandemic has not changed the grim reality facing workers at coal and nuclear power plants in the U.S. and Europe. How those workers will fare in the years ahead will vary greatly based on where they live and the prevailing political winds.

In Europe, the retirement of aging plants is increasingly seen as a matter of national concern. Germany this year agreed to a €40 billion ($45 billion) compensation package for workers affected by the country's planned phaseout of coal generation by 2038, amid its broader exit from nuclear power as part of its energy transition. Last month the Spanish authorities agreed on a just transition plan affecting 2,300 workers across 12 thermal power plants that are due to close this year.

In contrast, there is no federal support plan for such workers in the U.S., said Tim Judson, executive director at the Maryland-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which lobbies for an end to nuclear and fossil-fuel power.

For all of President Donald Trump’s professed love of blue-collar workers in sectors such as coal, “where there are economic transitions going on, we’re terrible at supporting workers and communities,” Judson said of the U.S. Even at the state level, support for such workers is "almost nonexistent,” he said, “although there are a lot of efforts going on right now to start putting in place just transition programs, especially for the energy sector.”

One example that stands out in the U.S. is the support package secured for workers at utility PG&E's Diablo Canyon Power Plant, California's last operating nuclear power plant that is scheduled for permanent closure in 2025. “There was a settlement between the utility, environmental groups and labor unions to phase out that plant that included a very robust just transition package for the workers and the local community,” Judson said.

Are there enough clean energy jobs to replace those being lost?
Governments are more likely to step in with "just transition" plans where they have been responsible for plant closures in the first place. This is the case for California, Germany and Spain, all moving aggressively to decarbonize their energy sectors and pursue net-zero emissions policy goals.

Some companies are beginning to take a more proactive approach to helping their workers with the transition. German energy giant Uniper, for example, is working with authorities to save jobs by seeking to turn coal plants into lower-emissions gas-fired units.

Germany’s coal phaseout will force Uniper to shut down 1.5 gigawatts of hard-coal capacity by 2022, but the company has said it is looking at "forward-looking" options for its plants that "will be geared toward tomorrow's energy world and offer long-term employment prospects."

Christine Bossak, Uniper’s manager of external communications, told GTM this approach would be adopted in all the countries where Uniper operates coal plants.

Job losses are usually inevitable when a plant is closed, Bossak acknowledged. “But the extent of the reduction depends on the alternative possibilities that can be created at the site or other locations. We will take care of every single employee, should he or she be affected by a closure. We work with the works council and our local partners to find sustainable solutions.”

Diana Junquera Curiel, energy industry director for the global union federation IndustriALL, said such corporate commitments looked good on paper — but the level of practical support depends on the prevailing political sentiment in a country, as seen in Germany's nuclear debate over climate strategy.

Even in Spain, where the closure of coal plants was being discussed 15 years ago, a final agreement had to be rushed through at the last minute upon the arrival of a socialist government, Junquera Curiel said. An earlier right-wing administration had sat on the plan for eight years, she added.

The hope is that heel-dragging over just transition programs will diminish as the scale of legacy plant closures grows.

Nuclear industry facing a similar challenge as coal
One reason why government support is so important is there's no guarantee a burgeoning clean energy economy will be able to absorb all the workers losing legacy generation jobs. Although the construction of renewable energy projects requires large crews, it often takes no more than a handful of people to operate and maintain a wind or solar plant once it's up and running, Junquera Curiel observed.

Meanwhile, the job losses are unlikely to slow. In Europe, Austria and Sweden both closed their last coal-fired units recently, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity in key markets.

In the U.S., the Energy Information Administration's base-case prediction is that coal's share of power generation will fall from 24 percent in 2019 to 13 percent in 2050, while nuclear's will fall from 20 percent to 12 percent over that time horizon. The EIA has long underestimated the growth trajectory of renewables in the mix; only in 2020 did it concede that renewables will eventually overtake natural gas as the country's largest source of power.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis has predicted that even a coronavirus-inspired halt to renewables is unlikely to stop a calamitous drop in coal’s contribution to U.S. generation.

The nuclear sector faces a similar challenge as coal, albeit over a longer timeline. Last year saw the nuclear industry starting to lose capacity worldwide in what could be the beginning of a terminal decline, highlighted by Germany's shutdown of its last three reactors in 2023. Last week, the Indian Point Energy Center closed permanently after nearly half a century of cranking out power for New York City.*

“Amid ongoing debates over whether to keep struggling reactors online in certain markets, the industry position would be that governments should support continued operation of existing reactors and new build as part of an overall policy to transition to a sustainable clean energy system,” said Jonathan Cobb, senior communication manager at the World Nuclear Association.

If this doesn’t happen, plant workers will be hoping they can at least get a Diablo Canyon treatment. Based on the progress of just transition plans so far, that may depend on how they vote just as much as who they work for.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alliant Energy Net-Zero Carbon Plan outlines carbon-neutral electricity by 2050, coal retirements by 2040, major solar and wind additions, gas transition, battery storage, hydrogen, and carbon credits to reduce emissions and lower customer costs.

Key Points

Alliant Energy's strategy to reach carbon-neutral power by 2050 via coal phaseout, renewables, storage, and offsets.

✅ Targets net-zero electricity by 2050

✅ Retires all coal by 2040; expands solar and wind

✅ Uses storage, hydrogen, and offsets to bridge gaps

Alliant Energy has joined a small but growing group of utilities aiming for carbon-neutral electricity by 2050.

In a report released Wednesday, the Madison-based company announced a goal of “net-zero carbon dioxide emissions” from its electricity generation along with plans to eliminate all coal-powered generation by 2040, a decade earlier than the company’s previous target.

Alliant, which is pursuing plans that would make it the largest solar energy generator in Wisconsin, said it is on track to cut its 2005 carbon emissions in half by 2030.

Both goals are in line with targets an international group of scientists warn is necessary to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. But reducing greenhouse gasses was not the primary motivation, said executive vice president and general counsel Jim Gallegos.

“The primary driver is focused on our customers and communities and setting them up … to be competitive,” Gallegos said. “We do think renewables are going to do it better than fossil fuels.”

Alliant has told regulators it can save customers up to $6.5 billion over the next 35 years by adding more than 1,600 megawatts of renewable generation, closing one of its two remaining Wisconsin coal plants and taking other undisclosed actions.

In a statement, Alliant chairman and CEO John Larsen said the goal is part of broader corporate and social responsibility efforts “guided by our strategy and designed to deliver on our purpose — to serve customers and build stronger communities.”

Coal out; gas remains
The goal applies only to Alliant’s electricity generation — the company has no plans to stop distributing natural gas for heating — and is “net-zero,” meaning the company could use some form of carbon capture or purchase carbon credits to offset continuing emissions.

The plan relies heavily on renewable generation — seen in regions embracing clean power across North America — including the addition of up to 1,000 megawatts of new Wisconsin solar plants by the end of 2023 and 1,000 megawatts of Iowa wind generation added over the past four years — as well as natural gas generators to replace its aging coal fleet.

But Jeff Hanson, Alliant’s director of sustainability, said eliminating or offsetting all carbon emissions will require new tools, such as battery storage or possibly carbon-free fuels such as hydrogen, and awareness of the Three Mile Island debate over the role of nuclear power in the mix.

“Getting to the 2040 goals, that’s all based on the technologies of today,” Hanson said. “Can we get to net zero today? The challenge would be a pretty high bar to clear.”

Gallegos said the plan does not call for the construction of more large-scale natural gas generators like the recently completed $700 million West Riverside Energy Center in Beloit, though natural gas will remain a key piece of Alliant’s generation portfolio.

Alliant announced plans in May to close its 400-megawatt Edgewater plant in Sheboygan by the end of 2022, echoing how Alberta is retiring coal by 2023 as markets shift, but has not provided a date for the shutdown of the jointly owned 1,100-megawatt Columbia Energy Center near Portage, which received about $1 billion worth of pollution-control upgrades in the past decade.

Alliant’s Iowa subsidiary plans to convert its 52-year-old, 200-megawatt Burlington plant to natural gas by the end of next year and a pair of small coal-fired generators in Linn County by 2025. That leaves the 250-megawatt plant in Lansing, which is now 43 years old, and the 734-megawatt Ottumwa plant as the remaining coal-fired generators, even as others keep a U.S. coal plant running indefinitely elsewhere.

Earlier this year, the utility asked regulators to approve a roughly $900 million investment in six solar farms across the state with a total capacity of 675 megawatts, similar to plans in Ontario to seek new wind and solar to address supply needs. The company plans to apply next year for permission to add up to 325 additional megawatts.

Alliant said the carbon-neutral plan, which entails closing Edgewater along with other undisclosed actions, would save customers between $2 billion and $6.5 billion through 2055 compared to the status quo.

Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, said the consumer advocacy group wants to ensure that ratepayers aren’t forced to continue paying for coal plants that are no longer needed while also paying for new energy sources and would like to see a bigger role for energy efficiency and more transparency about the utilities’ pathways to decarbonization.

‘They could do better’
Environmental groups said the announcement is a step in the right direction, though they say utilities need to do even more to protect the environment and consumers.

Amid competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable energy and pressure from environmentally conscious investors, U.S. utilities have been closing coal plants at a record pace in recent years, as industry CEOs say a coal comeback is unlikely in the U.S., a trend that is expected to continue through the next decade.

“This is not industry leadership when we’re talking about emission reductions,” said Elizabeth Katt Reinders, regional campaign director for the Sierra Club, which has called on Alliant to retire the Columbia plant by 2026.

Closing Edgewater and Columbia would get Alliant nearly halfway to its emissions goals while saving customers more than $250 million over the next decade, according to a Sierra Club study released earlier this year.

“Retiring Edgewater was a really good decision. Investing in 1,000 megawatts of new solar is game-changing for Wisconsin,” Katt Reinders said. “In the same breath we can say this emissions reduction goal is unambitious. Our analysis has shown they can do far more far sooner.”

Scott Blankman, a former Alliant executive who now works as director of energy and air programs for Clean Wisconsin, said Alliant should not run the Columbia plant for another 20 years.

“If they’re saying they’re looking to get out of coal by 2040 in Wisconsin I’d be very disappointed,” Blankman said. “I do think they could do better.”

Alliant is the 15th U.S. investor-owned utility to set a net-zero target, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, joining Madison Gas and Electric, which announced a similar goal last year. Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, which serves customers in western Wisconsin, was the first large investor-owned utility to set such a target, as state utilities report declining returns in coal operations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

OEB Hydro One Rate Decision 2023-2027 sets approved transmission and distribution rates in Ontario, with a settlement reducing revenue requirement, modest bill impacts, higher productivity factors, inflation certainty, DVA credits, and First Nations participation measures.

Key Points

OEB-approved Hydro One 2023-2027 transmission and distribution rates settlement, lowering costs and limiting bill impacts.

✅ $482.7M revenue reductions vs. original proposal

✅ Avg bill impact: +$0.69 trans., +$2.43 distr. per month

✅ Faster DVA refunds; productivity and efficiency incentives

The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) issued its Decision and Order on an application filed by Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One) on August 5, 2021 seeking approval for changes to the rates it charges for electricity transmission and distribution, beginning January 1, 2023 and for each subsequent year through to December 31, 2027. 

The proceeding resulted in the filing of a settlement proposal that the OEB has now approved after concluding that it is in the public interest. 

The negotiated reductions in Hydro One's transmission and distribution revenue requirements over the 2023 to 2027 period total $482.7 million compared to the requests made by Hydro One in its application.

The OEB found that the reductions in Hydro One's proposed capital expenditure and operating, maintenance and administration costs were reasonable, and should not compromise the safety and reliability of Hydro One's transmission and distribution systems. It also concluded that the estimated bill impacts for both transmission and distribution customers are reasonable, and that the January 1, 2023 implementation and effective date of the new rates is appropriate.

In the broader Canadian context, pressures on utility finances at other companies, such as Manitoba Hydro's debt provide additional background for stakeholders.

Bill Impacts

This proceeding related to both transmission and distribution operations.

Transmission

The new transmission revenue requirement will affect Ontario electricity consumers across the province because it will be incorporated into updated transmission rates, which are paid by electricity distributors and other large consumers connected directly to the transmission system, and distributors then pass this cost on to their customers.

As a result of the settlement approved on the transmission portion of the application, it is estimated that for a typical Hydro One residential customer with a monthly consumption of 750 kWh, the total bill impact averaged over the 2023-2027 period will be an increase of $0.69 per month or 0.5%, which follows the 2021 electricity rate reductions that affected many businesses.

Distribution

The new OEB-approved distribution rates will affect Hydro One's distribution customers, including areas served through acquisitions such as the Peterborough Distribution sale which expanded its customer base.

As a result of the settlement reached on the distribution portion of the application, it is estimated that for a typical residential distribution customer of Hydro One with a monthly consumption of 750 kWh, the total bill impact averaged over the 2023-2027 period will be an increase of $2.43 per month or 1.5%.
This proceeding included 24 approved intervenors representing a wide variety of customer classes and other interests. Representatives of 18 of those intervenors participated in the settlement conference. Having this diversity of perspective enriches the already thorough examination of evidence and argument that the OEB routinely undertakes when considering an application.

Other features of the settlement proposal include:

• A commitment by Hydro One to include, in future operational and capital investment plans, a discussion of how the proposed spending will directly support the achievement of Hydro One's climate change policy.
• Eliminating further updates to reflect changes to inflation in 2022 and 2023 as originally proposed, to provide Hydro One's customers with greater certainty as to the potential impacts of inflation on their bills.
• Increases in the productivity factors and supplemental stretch factors for both the distribution and transmission business segments which will provide Hydro One with additional incentives to achieve greater efficiencies during the 2023 to 2027 period.
• Undertaking certain measures to seek economic participation or equity investment opportunities from First Nations.
• Disposition of net credit balances in deferral and variance accounts (DVAs) owed to customers will be returned over a shorter period of time:
• Transmission DVA – $22.5M over a one-year period in 2023 (versus five years)
• Distribution DVA – $85.9M over a three-year period – 2023-2025 (versus five years)
• Undertaking certain measures to continue examining cost-effective transmission and distribution line losses
• In the decision, the OEB acknowledged the efforts involved by parties to participate in this entire proceeding, including the settlement conference, considering the number of participants, the complexity of the issues, and the challenging logistics of a "virtual" proceeding. The OEB commended the parties and OEB staff for achieving a comprehensive settlement on all issues.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Rural Electrification Poverty Impact examines energy access, grid connections, and reliability, testing economic development claims via randomized trials; findings show minimal gains without appliances, reliable supply, and complementary services like education and job creation initiatives.

Key Points

Study of household grid connections showing modest poverty impact without reliable power and appliances.

✅ Randomized grid connections showed no short-term income gains.

✅ Low reliability and few appliances limited electricity use.

✅ Complementary investments in jobs, education, health may be needed.

The head of Swedfund, the development finance group, recently summarized a widely-held belief: “Access to reliable electricity drives development and is essential for job creation, women’s empowerment and combating poverty.” This view has been the driving force behind a number of efforts to provide electricity to the 1.1 billion people around the world living in energy poverty, such as India's village electrification initiatives in recent years.

But does electricity really help lift households out of poverty? My co-authors and I set out to answer this question. We designed an experiment in which we first identified a sample of “under grid” households in Western Kenya—structures that were located close to but not connected to a grid. These households were then randomly divided into treatment and control groups. In the treatment group, we worked closely with the rural electrification agency to connect the households to the grid for free or at various discounts. In the control group, we made no changes. After eighteen months, we surveyed people from both groups and collected data on an assortment of outcomes, including whether they were employed outside of subsistence agriculture (the most common type of work in the region) and how many assets they owned. We even gave children basic tests, as a frequent assertion is that electricity helps children perform better in school since they are able to study at night.

When we analyzed the data, we found no differences between the treatment and control groups. The rural electrification agency had spent more than $1,000 to connect each household. Yet eighteen months later, the households we connected seemed to be no better off. Even the children’s test scores were more or less the same. The results of our experiment were discouraging, and at odds with the popular view that supplying households with access to electricity will drive economic development. Lifting people out of poverty may require a more comprehensive approach to ensure that electricity is not only affordable (with some evidence that EV growth can benefit all customers in mature markets), but is also reliable, useable, and available to the whole community, paired with other important investments.

For instance, in many low-income countries, the grid has frequent blackouts and maintenance problems, making electricity unreliable, as seen in Nigeria's electricity crisis in recent years. Even if the grid were reliable, poor households may not be able to afford the appliances that would allow for more than just lighting and cell phone charging. In our data, households barely bought any appliances and they used just 3 kilowatt-hours per month. Compare that to the U.S. average of 900 kilowatt-hours per month, a figure that could rise as EV adoption increases electricity demand over time.

There are also other factors to consider. After all, correlation does not equal causation. There is no doubt that the 1.1 billion people without power are the world’s poorest citizens. But this is not the only challenge they face. The poor may also lack running water, basic sanitation, consistent food supplies, quality education, sufficient health care, political influence, and a host of other factors that may be harder to measure but are no less important to well-being. Prioritizing investments in some of these other factors may lead to higher immediate returns. Previous work by one of my co-authors, for example, shows substantial economic gains from government spending on treatment for intestinal worms in children.

It’s possible that our results don’t generalize. They certainly don’t apply to enhancing electricity services for non-residential customers, like factories, hospitals, and schools, and electric utilities adapting to new load patterns. Perhaps the households we studied in Western Kenya are particularly poor (although measures of well-being suggest they are comparable to rural households across Sub-Saharan Africa) or politically disenfranchised. Perhaps if we had waited longer, or if we had electrified an entire region, the household impacts we measured would have been much greater. But others who have studied this question have found similar results. One study, also conducted in Western Kenya, found that subsidizing solar lamps helped families save on kerosene, but did not lead children to study more. Another study found that installing solar-powered microgrids in Indian villages resulted in no socioeconomic benefits.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Oil Recession Outlook analyzes the Russia-Saudi price war, OPEC discord, COVID-19 demand shock, WTI and WCS collapse, Alberta oilsands exposure, U.S. shale stress, and GDP risks from blockades and fiscal responses.

Key Points

An outlook on how the oil price war and COVID-19 demand shock could tip Canada into recession and strain producers.

✅ WTI and WCS prices plunge on OPEC-Russia discord

✅ Alberta oilsands face break-even pressure near 30 USD WTI

✅ RBC flags global recession; GDP hit from blockades, virus

A war between Russia and Saudi Arabia for market share for oil may have been triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic in China, but the oil price crash contagion that it will spread could have impacts that last longer than the virus.

The prospects for Canada are not good.

Plunging oil prices, reduced economic activity from virus containment, and the fallout from weeks of railway blockades over the Coastal GasLink pipeline all add up to “a one-two-three punch that I think is almost inevitably going to put Canada in a position where its growth has to be negative,” said Dan McTeague, a former Liberal MP and current president of Canadians for Affordable Energy. The situation “certainly has the makings” of a recession, said Ken Peacock, chief economist for the Business Council of British Columbia.

“At a minimum, it’s going to be very disruptive and we’re going to have maybe one negative quarter,” Peacock said. “Whether there’s a second one, where it gets labeled a recession, is a different question. But it’s going to generate some turmoil and challenges over the next two quarters – there’s no doubt about that.”

RBC Economics on March 13 announced it now predicts a global recession and cut its growth projections for Canada's economy in 2020 by half a per cent.

Oil price futures plunged 30% last week, dragging stock markets and currencies, including the Canadian dollar, down with them, even as a deep freeze strained U.S. energy systems. That drop came on top of a 17% decline in February, due to falling demand for oil due to the virus.

The latest price plunge – the worst since the 1991 Gulf War – was the result of Russia and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), led by Saudi Arabia, failing to agree on oil production cuts.

The COVID-19 outbreak in China – the world’s second-largest oil consumer – had resulted in a dramatic drop in oil demand in that country, and a sudden glut of oil, with the U.S. energy crisis affecting electricity, gas and EV markets.

OPEC has historically been able to moderate global oil prices by controlling output. But when Russia refused to co-operate with OPEC and agree to production cuts, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned company, Aramco, announced it plans to boost its oil output from 9.7 million barrels per day (bpd) to 12.3 million bpd in April.

In response to that announcement, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices dropped 18% to below US$34 per barrel while the Canadian Crude Index fell 24% to US$21. Western Canadian Select dropped 39% to US$15.73.

The effect on Alberta oilsands producers was severe and immediate. Cenovus Energy Inc. (TSX:CVE) saw roughly $2 billion in market cap erased on March 9, when its stock dropped by 52%, which came on top of a 12% drop March 6.

The company responded the very next day by announcing it would cut spending by 32% in 2020, suspend its oil-by-rail program and defer expansion projects.

MEG Energy Corp. (TSX:MEG), which suffered a 56% share price drop on March 9, also announced a 20% reduction in its 2020 capital spending plan.

Peter Tertzakian, chief economist for ARC Energy Research Institute, wrote last week that Russia’s plan is to try to hurt U.S. shale oil producers, who have more than doubled U.S. oil production over the past decade.

Anas Alhajji, a global oil analyst, expects that plan could work. Even before the oil price shock, he had predicted the great shale boom in the U.S. was coming to an end.

“Shale production will decline, and the myth of ‘explosive growth’ will end,” he told Business in Vancouver. “The impact is global and Canadian producers might suffer even more if the oil that Saudi Arabia sends to the U.S. is medium and heavy. This might last longer than what people think.”

The question for Alberta is how Canadian producers can continue to operate through a period of cheap oil. Alberta producers do not compete on the global market. They serve a niche market of U.S. heavy oil refiners, and Biden-era policy is seen as potentially more favourable for Canada’s energy sector than alternatives.

“On the positive side, the industry is battle-hardened,” Tertzakian wrote. “Over the past five years, innovative companies have already learned to endure some of the lowest prices in the world.”

But he added that they need WTI prices of US$30 per barrel just to break even.

“But that’s an average break-even threshold for an industry with a wide variation in costs. That means at that level about half the companies can’t pay their bills and half are treading water.”

Just prior to the oil price plunge, the International Energy Agency (IEA) updated its 2020 forecast for global oil consumption from an 825,000 bpd increase in oil consumption to a 90,000 bpd decrease, due to the COVID-19 virus and consequent economic contraction and reduction in travel.

The IEA predicts global oil demand won’t return to “normal” until the second half of 2020. But even if demand does return to pre-virus levels, that doesn’t mean oil prices will – not if Saudi Arabia can sustain increased oil production at low prices, and evolving clean grid priorities could influence the trajectory too.

The oil plunge was greeted in Alberta with alarm. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney warned Alberta is in “uncharted territory” as consumers are urged to lock in rates and said his government might have to review its balanced budget and resort to emergency deficit spending.

While British Columbians – who pay some of the highest gasoline prices in North America – will enjoy lower gasoline prices at a time when prices are usually starting a seasonal spike, B.C.’s economy could feel knock-on effects from a recession in Alberta.

“We sell a lot of inputs, do a lot of trade with Alberta, so it’s important for B.C., Alberta’s economic health,” Peacock said, “and recent tensions over electricity purchase talks underscore that.”

Last week, the Trudeau government announced $1 billion in emergency funding to cope with the virus and waived a one-week waiting period for unemployment insurance.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News