We consider how Joe Biden’s election win might change the outlook for the energy sector.
- We expect the Democrats to embark on an aggressive push towards decarbonising.
- The coal industry is likely to be a standout casualty.
- Smaller pure-play exploration and production companies are most likely to face headwinds.
In 2017, not long after he entered the White House, Donald Trump declared his grand ambition: to make the US self-sufficient in energy. The aim, he said, was to “become, and stay, totally independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC1 cartel or any nations hostile to our interests”.
The president enacted a raft of changes linked to these ambitions: loosening drilling restrictions on federal lands and parks, increasing support for pipeline infrastructure, dismissing the risks of climate change, and undoing Obama-era regulations on emissions from coal power plants, automobiles and oil and gas wells.
A U-turn in prospect
Now, with the election of Democrat Joe Biden as president, the door is open for a U-turn in these policies as the US pursues a more open, multilateral agenda. This change of direction could be an abrupt one as government policy aligns with a gathering global consensus in favour of environmental concerns.
We expect an aggressive push towards decarbonising
On climate, the Democrats are unlikely to run against the global tide, and instead we expect them to embark on an aggressive push towards decarbonising. Depending on how pliant the Senate will be, restrictions on new oil drilling on federal land, in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Arctic Alaska could well be re-enacted. Progress on building the controversial Keystone XL pipeline could also be stopped in its tracks. Emissions – whether from automobiles or by energy companies – will once again come under the spotlight. These are seen to be key to decarbonising transportation as electric-vehicle penetration grows.
For companies which have benefited from US energy policy under Trump, the election of Joe Biden is seen as a negative – but even here, this will have less impact than in any ordinary year, given the glut in oil, gas and coal supply, the collapse in demand, and the consequent declines in energy-company share prices witnessed through 2020.
Coal – a likely casualty
One standout casualty, however, is likely to be the coal industry. Despite all the sound and fury around Trump’s pledge to “make coal great again” over the four years to November 2020, in the cold light of day, efforts to put the fossil fuel front and centre of US energy policy amounted to little more than a series of soundbites. As of Q3 2020, for instance, shares in the country’s largest coal producers were well below their immediate highs following Donald Trump’s 2016 election, with several producers remaining in bankruptcy.2 From generating more than half of America’s electricity 10 years ago, coal now accounts for around one fifth – and that level is falling. Even amid a Trump-mandated push for fossil fuels, the fastest-growing electricity source was wind.3
Partly, coal’s collapse is the consequence of market forces: an overabundance of supply coupled with its replacement by cleaner, cheaper gas, and the slump in demand owing to Covid-19. But it also points to the relative impotence of any sitting president when it comes to enacting lasting change on domestic policy – particularly if that change runs counter to the prevailing mood music.
The most you can say about Trump and fossil fuels is that his actions had an impact at the margin. They probably helped support general positive sentiment towards investment, while giving CEOs an excuse to ignore important questions on their environmental actions, such as flaring and methane leakage.
The investment community is becoming more environmentally conscious
As in so many spheres of life, it is market forces that win out over policy – and that is also likely to be the case under a Biden presidency. However, the investment community is becoming more environmentally conscious, more alive to transition risks associated with climate change, and more likely to push for sustainable investments away from polluting companies. In that sense, CO2 producers in the energy sector are likely to experience headwinds regardless.
Smaller pure-play exploration and production companies most likely to face headwinds
The same goes for companies in the energy sector, with the smaller pure-play exploration and production companies most likely to face headwinds, especially the smaller-cap companies which are more exposed to risks around activity restrictions and which have greater federal land exposure. Similarly, this hurts US services companies, particularly domestically focused ones, while refiners would face a higher cost of oil, alongside potential charges for their emissions and demand for their products slowing. The bigger upstream companies, including the majors, are more diversified both in the US and internationally, so, again, this could lead to further consolidation, which we believe would be a good thing for the industry.
- The Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries, an intergovernmental organisation of 13 nations accounting for an estimated 44% of global oil production.
- The Washington Post: ‘Trump pledged to bring back coal. Like everything under him, it collapsed instead’, 12 June 2020
This is a financial promotion. These opinions should not be construed as investment or other advice and are subject to change. This material is for information purposes only. This material is for professional investors only. Any reference to a specific security, country or sector should not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell investments in those securities, countries or sectors. Please note that holdings and positioning are subject to change without notice.