Greenpeace disrupts Darlington hearing

Oil and Gas Profitability Decline reflects shale-driven oversupply, OPEC-Russia dynamics, LNG exports, renewables growth, and weak demand, signaling compressed margins for producers, stressed petrodollar budgets, and shifting energy markets post-Covid.

Key Points

A sustained squeeze on hydrocarbon margins from agile shale supply, weaker OPEC leverage, and expanding renewables.

✅ Shale responsiveness caps prices and erodes industry rents

✅ OPEC-Russia cuts face limited impact versus US supply

✅ Renewables and EVs slow long-term oil and gas demand

The oil-price crash of March 2020 will probably not last long. As in 2014, when the oil price dropped below $50 from $110 in a few weeks, this one will trigger a temporary collapse of the US shale industry. Unless the coronavirus outbreak causes Armageddon, cheap oil will also support policymakers’ efforts to help the global economy.

But there will be at least one important and lasting difference this time round — and it has major market and geopolitical implications.

The oil price crash is a foretaste of where the whole energy sector was going anyway — and that is down.

It may not look that way at first. Saudi Arabia will soon realise, as it did in 2015, that its lethal decision to pump more oil is not only killing US shale but its public finances as well. Riyadh will soon knock on Moscow’s door again. Once American shale supplies collapse, Russia will resume co-operation with Saudi Arabia.

With the world economy recovering from the Covid-19 crisis by then, and with electricity demand during COVID-19 shifting, moderate supply cuts by both countries will accelerate oil market recovery. In time, US shale producers will return too.

Yet this inevitable bounceback should not distract from two fundamental factors that were already remaking oil and gas markets. First, the shale revolution has fundamentally eroded industry profitability. Second, the renewables’ revolution will continue to depress growth in demand.

The combined result has put the profitability of the entire global hydrocarbon industry under pressure. That means fewer petrodollars to support oil-producing countries’ national budgets, including Canada's oil sector exposures. It also means less profitable oil companies, which traditionally make up a large segment of stock markets, an important component of so many western pension funds.

Start with the first factor to see why this is so. Historically, the geological advantages that made oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia so cheap to produce were unique. Because oil and gas were produced at costs far below the market price, the excess profits, or “rent”, enjoyed by the industry were very large.

Furthermore, collusion among low-cost producers has been a winning strategy. The loss of market share through output cuts was more than compensated by immediately higher prices. It was the raison d’être of Opec.

The US shale revolution changed all this, exposing the limits of U.S. energy dominance narratives. A large oil-producing region emerged with a remarkable ability to respond quickly to price changes and shrink its costs over time. Cutting back cheap Opec oil now only increases US supplies, with little effect on world prices.

That is why Russia refused to cut production this month. Even if its cuts did boost world prices — doubtful given the coronavirus outbreak’s huge shock to demand — that would slow the shrinkage of US shale that Moscow wants.

Shale has affected the natural gas industry even more. Exports of US liquefied natural gas now put an effective ceiling on global prices, and debates over a clean electricity push have intensified when gas prices spike.

On top of all this, there is also the renewables’ revolution, though a green revolution has not been guaranteed in the near term. Around the world, wind and solar have become ever-cheaper options to generate electricity. Storage costs have also dropped and network management improved. Even in the US, renewables are displacing coal and gas. Electrification of vehicle fleets will damp demand further, as U.S. electricity, gas, and EVs face evolving pressures.

Eliminating fossil fuel consumption completely would require sustained and costly government intervention, and reliability challenges such as coal and nuclear disruptions add to the complexity. That is far from certain. Meanwhile, though, market forces are depressing the sector’s usual profitability.

The end of oil and gas is not immediately around the corner. Still, the end of hydrocarbons as a lucrative industry is a distinct possibility. We are seeing that in dramatic form in the current oil price crash. But this collapse is merely a message from the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric weed-zapping farm robots enable precision agriculture, using autonomous mapping, per-plant targeting, and robotics to reduce pesticides, improve soil health, boost biodiversity, and lower costs with data-driven, selective weeding and seed-planting workflows.

Key Points

Autonomous machines that map fields, electrocute weeds per plant, and plant seeds, cutting pesticides, inputs, and costs.

✅ Precision agriculture: per-plant targeting reduces pesticide use up to 95%.

✅ Autonomous mapping robot surveys 20 hectares per day for weed data.

✅ Electric weeding and seeding improve soil health, biodiversity, and ROI.

On a field in England, three robots have been given a mission: to find and zap weeds with electricity, as advances in digitizing the electrical system continue to modernize power infrastructure, before planting seeds in the cleared soil.

The robots — named Tom, Dick and Harry — were developed by Small Robot Company to rid land of unwanted weeds with minimal use of chemicals and heavy machinery, complementing emerging options like electric tractors that aim to cut on-farm emissions.
The startup has been working on its autonomous weed killers since 2017, and this April launched Tom, its first commercial robot which is now operational on three UK farms. The other robots are still in the prototype stage, undergoing testing.

Small Robot says robot Tom can scan 20 hectares (49 acres) a day, collecting data, with AI-driven analysis guiding Dick, a "crop-care" robot, to zap weeds. Then it's robot Harry's turn to plant seeds in the weed-free soil.

Using the full system, once it is up and running, farmers could reduce costs by 40% and chemical usage by up to 95%, the company says, and integration with virtual power plants could further optimize energy use on electrified farms.

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization six million metric tons of pesticides were traded globally in 2018, valued at $38 billion.

"Our system allows farmers to wean their depleted, damaged soils off a diet of chemicals," says Ben Scott-Robinson, Small Robot's co-founder and CEO.

Zapping weeds
Small Robot says it has raised over £7 million ($9.9 million). Scott-Robinson says the company hopes to launch its full system of robots by 2023, which will be offered as a service at a rate of around £400 ($568) per hectare. The monitoring robot is placed at a farm first and the weeding and planting robots delivered only when the data shows they're needed — a setup that ultimately relies on a resilient grid, where research into preventing ransomware attacks is increasingly relevant.

To develop the zapping technology, Small Robot partnered with another UK-based startup, RootWave, while innovations like electricity from snow highlight the breadth of emerging energy tech.

"It creates a current that goes through the roots of the plant through the soil and then back up, which completely destroys the weed," says Scott-Robinson. "We can go to each individual plant that is threatening the crop plants and take it out."

"It's not as fast as it would be if you went out to spray the entire field," he says. "But you have to bear in mind we only have to go into the parts of the field where the weeds are." Plants that are neutral or beneficial to the crops are left untouched.

Small Robot calls this "per plant farming" — a type of precise agriculture where every plant is accounted for and monitored.

A business case
For Kit Franklin, an agricultural engineering lecturer from Harper Adams University, efficiency remains a hurdle, even as utilities use AI to adapt to electricity demands that could support wider on-farm electrification.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the electrical system works," he tells CNN Business. "But you can cover hundreds of hectares a day with a large-scale sprayer ... If we want to go into this really precise weed killing system, we have to realize that there is an output reduction that is very hard to overcome."

But Franklin believes farmers will adopt the technology if they can see a business case.

"There's a realization that farming in an environmentally friendly way is also a way of farming in an efficient way," he says. "Using less inputs, where and when we need them, is going to save us money and it's going to be good for the environment and the perception of farmers."

As well as reducing the use of chemicals, Small Robot wants to improve soil quality and biodiversity.

"If you treat a living environment like an industrial process, then you are ignoring the complexity of it," Scott-Robinson says. "We have to change farming now, otherwise there won't be anything to farm."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Remote Work Energy Costs are rising as home offices and telecommuting boost electricity bills; utilities, broadband usage, and COVID-19-driven stay-at-home policies affect productivity, consumption patterns, and household budgets across the U.K. and Europe.

Key Points

Remote Work Energy Costs are increased household electricity and utility expenses from telecommuting and home office use.

✅ WFH shifts energy load from offices to households.

✅ Higher device, lighting, and heating/cooling usage drives bills.

✅ Broadband access gaps limit remote work equity.

Household electricity bills are set to soar, with rising residential electricity use tied to the millions of people now working at home to avoid catching the coronavirus.

Running laptops and other home appliances will cost consumers an extra 52 million pounds ($60 million) each week in the U.K., according to a study from Uswitch, a website that helps consumers compare the energy prices that utilities charge.

For each home-bound household, the pain to the pocketbook may be about 195 pounds per year extra, even as some utilities pursue pandemic cost-cutting to manage financial pressures.

The rise in price for households comes even as overall demand is falling rapidly in Europe, with wide swaths of the economy shut down to keep workers from gathering in one place, and the U.S. grid overseer issuing warnings about potential pandemic impacts on operations.

People stuck at home will plug in computers, lights and appliances when they’d normally be at the office, increasing their consumption.

With the Canadian government declaring a state of emergency due to the coronavirus, companies are enabling work-from-home structures to keep business running and help employees follow social distancing guidelines, and some utilities have even considered housing critical staff on site to maintain operations. However, working remotely has been on the rise for a while.

“The coronavirus is going to be a tipping point. We plodded along at about 10% growth a year for the last 10 years, but I foresee that this is going to really accelerate the trend,” Kate Lister, president of Global Workplace Analytics.

Gallup’s State of the Workplace 2017 study found that 43% of employees work remotely with some frequency. Research indicates that in a five-day workweek, working remotely for two to three days is the most productive. That gives the employee two to three days of meetings, collaboration and interaction, with the opportunity to just focus on the work for the other half of the week.

Remote work seems like a logical precaution for many companies that employ people in the digital economy, even as some federal agencies sparked debate with an EPA telework policy during the pandemic. However, not all Americans have access to the internet at home, and many work in industries that require in-person work.

According to the Pew Research Center, roughly three-quarters of American adults have broadband internet service at home. However, the study found that racial minorities, older adults, rural residents and people with lower levels of education and income are less likely to have broadband service at home. In addition, 1 in 5 American adults access the internet only through their smartphone and do not have traditional broadband access. 

Full-time employees are four times more likely to have remote work options than part-time employees. A typical remote worker is college-educated, at least 45 years old and earns an annual salary of $58,000 while working for a company with more than 100 employees, according to Global Workplace Analytics, and in Canada there is growing interest in electricity-sector careers among younger workers. 

New York, California and other states have enacted strict policies for people to remain at home during the coronavirus pandemic, which could change the future of work, and Canadian provinces such as Saskatchewan have documented how the crisis has reshaped local economies across sectors.

“I don’t think we’ll go back to the same way we used to operate,” Jennifer Christie, chief HR officer at Twitter, told CNBC. “I really don’t.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Ottawa Sewage Energy Exchange System uses wastewater heat recovery and efficient heat pumps to deliver renewable district energy, zero carbon heating and cooling, cutting greenhouse gas emissions at LeBreton Flats and scaling urban developments.

Key Points

A district energy system recovering wastewater heat via pumps to deliver zero carbon heating and cooling.

✅ Delivers 9 MW heating and cooling for 2.4M sq ft at LeBreton Flats

✅ Cuts 5,066 tonnes CO2e each year, reducing greenhouse gases

✅ Powers Odenak zero carbon housing via district energy

Ottawa is embarking on a groundbreaking initiative to harness the latent thermal energy within its wastewater system, in tandem with advances in energy storage in Ontario that strengthen grid resilience, marking a significant stride toward sustainable urban development. The Sewage Energy Exchange System (SEES) project, a collaborative effort led by the LeBreton Community Utility Partnership—which includes Envari Holding Inc. (a subsidiary of Hydro Ottawa) and Theia Partners—aims to revolutionize how the city powers its buildings.

Harnessing Wastewater for Sustainable Energy

The SEES will utilize advanced heat pump technology to extract thermal energy from the city's wastewater infrastructure, providing both heating and cooling to buildings within the LeBreton Flats redevelopment. This innovative approach eliminates the need for fossil fuels, aligning with Ottawa's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting clean energy solutions across the province, including the Hydrogen Innovation Fund that supports new low-carbon pathways.

The system operates by diverting sewage from the municipal collection network into an external well, where it undergoes filtration to remove large solids. The filtered water is then passed through a heat exchanger, transferring thermal energy to the building's heating and cooling systems. After the energy is extracted, the treated water is safely returned to the city's sewer system.

Environmental and Economic Impact

Once fully implemented, the SEES is projected to deliver over 9 megawatts of heating and cooling capacity, servicing approximately 2.4 million square feet of development. This capacity is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 5,066 tonnes annually—equivalent to the electricity consumption of over 3,300 homes for a year. Such reductions are pivotal in helping Ottawa meet its ambitious goal of achieving a 96% reduction in community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, as outlined in its Climate Change Master Plan and Energy Evolution strategy, and they align with Ontario's plan to rely on battery storage to meet rising demand across the grid.

Integration with the Odenak Development

The first phase of the SEES will support the Odenak development, a mixed-use project comprising two high-rise residential buildings. This development is poised to be Canada's largest residential zero-carbon project, echoing calls for Northern Ontario grid sustainability from community groups, featuring 601 housing units, with 41% designated as affordable housing. The integration of the SEES will ensure that Odenak operates entirely on renewable energy, setting a benchmark for future urban developments.

Broader Implications and Future Expansion

The SEES project is not just a localized initiative; it represents a scalable model for sustainable urban energy solutions that aligns with green energy investments in British Columbia and other jurisdictions. The LeBreton Community Utility Partnership is in discussions with the National Capital Commission to explore extending the SEES network to additional parcels within the LeBreton Flats redevelopment. Expanding the system could lead to economies of scale, further reducing costs and enhancing the environmental benefits.

Ottawa's venture into wastewater-based energy systems places it at the forefront of a growing trend in North America. Cities like Toronto and Vancouver have initiated similar projects, while related pilots such as the EV-to-grid pilot in Nova Scotia highlight complementary approaches, and European counterparts have long utilized sewage heat recovery systems. Ottawa's adoption of this technology underscores its commitment to innovation and sustainability in urban planning.

The SEES project at LeBreton Flats exemplifies how cities can repurpose existing infrastructure to create sustainable, low-carbon energy solutions. By transforming wastewater into a valuable energy resource, Ottawa is setting a precedent for environmentally responsible urban development. As the city moves forward with this initiative, it not only addresses immediate energy needs but also contributes to a cleaner, more sustainable future for its residents, even as the province accelerates Ontario's energy storage push to maintain reliability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California income-based utility charges face bipartisan pushback as the PUC weighs fixed fees for PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison, reshaping rate design, electricity affordability, energy equity, and privacy amid proposed per-kWh reductions.

Key Points

PUC-approved fixed fees tied to household income for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, offset by lower per-kWh rates.

✅ Proposed fixed fees: $51 SCE, $73.31 SDG&E, $50.92 PG&E

✅ Critics warn admin, privacy, legal risks and higher bills for savers

✅ Backers say lower-income pay less; kWh rates cut ~33% in PG&E area

Efforts are being made across California's political landscape to derail a legislative initiative that introduced income-based utility charges for customers of Southern California Edison and other major utilities.

Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed bills aimed at nullifying the 2022 legislation that established a sliding scale for utility charges based on customer income, a decision made in a late-hour session and subsequently endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

The plan, pending final approval from the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — all of whose current members were appointed by Governor Newsom — would enable utilities like Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and PG&E to apply new income-based charges as early as this July.

Among the state legislators pushing back against the income-based charge scheme are Democrats Jacqui Irwin and Marc Berman, along with Republicans Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk, Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, and Roger Niello.

A cadre of specialists, including economist Ahmad Faruqui who has advised all three utilities implicated in the fee proposal, have outlined several concerns regarding the PUC's pending decision.

Faruqui and his colleagues argue that the proposed charges are excessively high in comparison to national standards, reflecting soaring electricity prices across the state, potentially leading to administrative challenges, legal disputes, and negative unintended outcomes, such as penalizing energy-conservative consumers.

Advocates for the income-based fee model, including The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the National Resources Defense Council, argue it would result in higher charges for wealthier consumers and reduced fees for those with lower incomes. They also believe that the utilities plan to decrease per kilowatt-hour rates as part of a broader rate structure review to balance out the new fees.

However, even supporters like TURN and the Natural Resources Defense Council acknowledge that the income-based fee model is not a comprehensive solution to making soaring electricity bills more affordable.

If implemented, California would have the highest income-based utility fees in the country, with averages far surpassing the national average of $11.15, as reported by EQ Research:

• Southern California Edison would charge $51.
• San Diego Gas & Electric would levy $73.31.
• PG&E would set fees at $50.92.

The proposal has raised concerns among state legislators about the additional financial burden on Californians already struggling with high electricity costs.

Critics highlight several practical challenges, including the PUC's task of assessing customers' income levels, a process fraught with privacy concerns, potential errors, and constitutional questions regarding access to tax information.

Economists have pointed out further complications, such as the difficulty in accurately assessing incomes for out-of-state property owners and the variability of customers' incomes over time.

The proposed income-based charges would differ by income bracket within the PG&E service area, for example, with lower-income households facing lower fixed charges and higher-income households facing higher charges, alongside a proposed 33% reduction in electricity rates to help mitigate the fixed charge impact.

Yet, the economists warn that most customers, particularly low-usage customers, could end up paying more, essentially rewarding higher consumption and penalizing efficiency.

This legislative approach, they caution, could inadvertently increase costs for moderate users across all income brackets, a sign of major changes to electric bills that could emerge, challenging the very goals it aims to achieve by promoting energy inefficiency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electricity Market Competition drives lower wholesale prices, stable retail rates, better grid reliability, and faster emissions cuts as deregulation and renewables adoption pressure utilities, improve efficiency, and enhance consumer choice in power markets.

Key Points

Electricity market competition opens supply to rivals, lowering prices, improving reliability, and reducing emissions.

✅ Wholesale prices fell faster in competitive markets

✅ Retail rates rose less than in monopoly states

✅ Fewer outages, shorter durations, improved reliability

By Bernard L. Weinstein

Electricity used to be boring.  Public utilities that provided power to homes and businesses were regulated monopolies and, by law, guaranteed a fixed rate-of-return on their generation, transmission, and distribution assets. Prices per kilowatt-hour were set by utility commissions after lengthy testimony from power companies, wanting higher rates, and consumer groups, wanting lower rates.

About 25 years ago, the electricity landscape started to change as economists and others argued that competition could lead to lower prices and stronger grid reliability. Opponents of competition argued that consumers weren’t knowledgeable enough about power markets to make intelligent choices in a competitive pricing environment. Nonetheless, today 20 states have total or partial competition for electricity, allowing independent power generators to compete in wholesale markets and retail electric providers (REPs) to compete for end-use customers, a dynamic echoed by the Alberta electricity market across North America. (Transmission, in all states, remains a regulated natural monopoly).

A recent study by the non-partisan Pacific Research Institute (PRI) provides compelling evidence that competition in power markets has been a boon for consumers. Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), PRI’s researchers found that wholesale electricity prices in competitive markets have been generally declining or flat, prompting discussions of free electricity business models, over the last five years. For example, compared to 2015, wholesale power prices in New England have dropped more than 44 percent, those in most Mid-Atlantic States have fallen nearly 42 percent, and in New York City they’ve declined by nearly 45 percent. Wholesale power costs have also declined in monopoly states, but at a considerably slower rate.

As for end-users, states that have competitive retail electricity markets have seen smaller price increases, as consumers can shop for electricity in Texas more cheaply than in monopoly states. Again, using EIA data, PRI found that in 14 competitive jurisdictions, retail prices essentially remained flat between 2008 and 2020. By contrast, retail prices jumped an average of 21 percent in monopoly states.  The ten states with the largest retail price increases were all monopoly-based frameworks. A 2017 report from the Retail Energy Supply Association found customers in states that still have monopoly utilities saw their average energy prices increase nearly 19 percent from 2008 to 2017 while prices fell 7 percent in competitive markets over the same period.

The PRI study also observed that competition has improved grid reliability, the recent power disruptions in California and Texas, alongside disruptions in coal and nuclear sectors across the U.S., notwithstanding. Looking at two common measures of grid resiliency, PRI’s analysis found that power interruptions were 10.4 percent lower in competitive states while the duration of outages was 6.5 percent lower.

Citing data from the EIA between 2008 and 2018, PRI reports that greenhouse gas emissions in competitive states declined on average 12.1 percent compared to 7.3 percent in monopoly states. This result is not surprising, and debates over whether Israeli power supply competition can bring cheaper electricity mirror these dynamics.  In a competitive wholesale market, independent power producers have an incentive to seek out lower-cost options, including subsidized renewables like wind and solar. By contrast, generators in monopoly markets have no such incentive as they can pass on higher costs to end-users. Perhaps the most telling case is in the monopoly state of Georgia where the cost to build nuclear Plant Vogtle has doubled from its original estimate of $14 billion 12 years ago. Overruns are estimated to cost Georgia ratepayers an average of $854, and there is no definite date for this facility to come on line. This type of mismanagement doesn’t occur in competitive markets.

Unfortunately, some critics are attempting to halt the momentum for electricity competition and have pointed to last winter’s “deep freeze” in Texas that left several million customers without power for up to a week. But this example is misplaced. Power outages in February were the result of unprecedented and severe weather conditions affecting electricity generation and fuel supply, and numerous proposals to improve Texas grid reliability have focused on weatherization and fuel resilience; the state simply did not have enough access to natural gas and wind generation to meet demand. Competitive power markets were not a factor.

The benefits of wholesale and retail competition in power markets are incontrovertible. Evidence shows that households and businesses in competitive states are paying less for electricity while grid reliability has improved. The facts also suggest that wholesale and retail competition can lead to faster reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In short, competition in power markets is good for consumers and good for the environment.

Bernard L. Weinstein is emeritus professor of applied economics at the University of North Texas, former associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, and a fellow of Goodenough College, London. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News