November 4, 2009
U.S. Cap-and-Trade Creates Winners and Losers among Largest Emitters
Under the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, ExxonMobil would face an annual charge of $5.9 billion to purchase carbon allowances, while electricity giants like Exelon and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would emerge as financial winners, because they rely heavily on diversified, low-emission fleets, according to a new study from PointCarbon, reports the New York Times’ Green Inc. blog.
The report, “Carbon Exposure: Winners and Losers in a U.S. Carbon Market,” analyzes how the proposed U.S. cap-and-trade market would impact the financial health of some of the largest emitters. It evaluates the impact of a $15-per-ton carbon-dioxide trading market on the nation’s largest oil and power companies, which together account for about 40 percent of the emissions in the U.S., reports the blog.
The cost of carbon in the oil sector for the five largest oil companies — ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Royal Dutch Shell — would range from $247 million to $355 million.
The study predicts that the large players in the oil sector will primarily pass carbon allowance costs on to consumers by way of an increase at the pump of about 13 cents, while the scenario in the energy sector will vary because some firms rely more heavily on carbon-intensive generating assets, and state regulations vary in terms of passing additional costs to consumers, according to the article.
The states and regions facing the lowest electricity rate increases (under $8 per megawatt hour) include the Pacific Northwest, California and New England. The largest increases ($10 to $17) will be in the West, South and Midwest, reports the blog.
As for the impact on their bottom lines, oil companies’ carbon exposure is very limited because they will be able to recover most of their costs through a 5 percent increase in gas prices at the pump, according to the report. PointCarbon says the companies with the highest exposure are Exxon and Shell but only by around 0.5 percent of their operating incomes.
Merchant generators with low-emitting fleets stand to benefit from carbon caps, says PointCarbon. As an example, Exelon could increase its operating income by 36 percent. Other companies that could experience a positive effect on operating incomes include FirstEnergy (19 percent), Edison (11 percent), NRG (11 percent) and PG&E (eight percent).
Coal-based companies with the largest exposure under the Kerry-Boxer bill are Southern Co., AEP, and Duke, reports the blog. Their operating income is most sensitive to the cost of carbon, respectively estimated at 12, 11, and 5 percent, according to the report.
The study also indicates that companies will be able to mitigate their exposure through internal reductions and offset investments.
PointCarbon said in the article that its analysis should debunk concerns that energy companies will be getting a “free ride” under the cap-and-trade system.
Advertisers
Pew Center Conference: Corporate Energy Efficiency
Reduce energy consumption, lower emissions and save money. >>
Join the Discussion
Recent Daily News [ see all ]
- 02/09/2010
- 02/08/2010
- 02/05/2010
- Caterpillar Puts Weight Behind $1.5B FutureGen CCS Project
- WR Grace Targets 20% Energy Intensity Cuts
- As UK Cap and Trade Falters, Government May Prop Up Carbon Prices
- Federal Government Proposes Climate Change Office
- University of Florida Football Complex Uses 25% Less Energy Than Similar Buildings
- 34% of Execs Cite Economy As Impediment to Adopting Sustainability
- Energy Storage Project Aims to Extend Utility of Solar Power
- Ford to Debut Electric Commercial Van
- SF OKs $150M in Property Tax Financing for Energy Efficiency, Renewables
- BNSF Signs Deal for Measuring Energy Efficiency
- Roundup: GE, IBM, Audi ‘Green Police,’ EU Carbon
- Accidental to Purposeful Sustainability: Using What You Already Have to Grow Sustainability
- Holiday Inn Express, Bardessono Boast Energy Efficiency, Renewables
- Massachusetts Adds $20M in Solar to 12 Wastewater Plants
- Novo Nordisk Cuts CO2 Emissions by 32%, Water Use by 20%
- Roundup: Dr. Suess Cease-and-Desist, Philips, EPA, Melting Drywall
- Canadian Environment Minister Denounces Quebec Vehicle Emissions Regs
- Energy-Efficient Lighting Saves Canadian Tire $6M in 2009
- Pixar Data Center Saves Money Via Cold Aisle Containment
- HVAC Software Helps University of Texas Save $500K a Year
- Data Centers Can Apply for Energy Star Rating in June
- Rytec’s Fast Cold Storage Door Helps Save Energy
- Burt’s Bees Decreases Waste to Landfill by 51.5% in 2009
- National RES Would Benefit Southeastern, Manufacturing States
- TBR Evaluates Sustainability Strategies at Dell, CSC, Cisco
- CEO Report Envisions $6 Trillion in Sustainable New Business Opportunities
- IBM ‘Cloud Computing’ Data Center Saves 15% in Energy Costs
- Bipartisan Senatorial Effort Seeks Cap and Trade for non-CO2 Emissions
- Collapsible Ocean Shipping Container May Help Reduce Emissions
- To Ensure Future Compliance, Utility Asks for CO2 Limits
- Analyzing Energy-Efficiency Metrics Can Reduce Energy Use in Data Centers
- Goose Island Touts Low-Carbon Brew
Charts [ see all ]
Popular Topics
Energy Efficiency
Data Center
Emissions
Facilities
Electricity
Sustainability
Water
Supply Chain
Efficiency
Green Marketing
Strategy & Leadership
Research
Fleets & Transportation
Carbon Finance
Conventional Energy
Clean Energy
Waste & Recycling
Paper & Packaging
Policy & Law
Utilities
Construction
Comments and Discussions
John Bergdoll on Accidental to Purposeful Sustainability: Using What You Already Have to Grow Sustainability
"I was following the logic your article..."
Liz Amason on Clorox Comes Clean With Chemical Content on Web Site
"But look at their ingredients listings. For example, their regular liquid bleach..."
Rigidflexibility on Companies Going Green Should Ignore Green Consumer
"I was about to market a metal working fluid that is 98>% Soybean oil and..."
Stuart on Canadian Environment Minister Denounces Quebec Vehicle Emissions Regs
"Canadians have been waiting for the feds to act on climate change for..."
Steve Wolford on Sports Teams Embrace Sustainability
"Hello Environmental Leader, We just returned from the National Sport Forum in Baltimore. Team and..."
Mauibrad on Bipartisan Senatorial Effort Seeks Cap and Trade for non-CO2 Emissions
"Finally some enlightened ideas out of Congress!"
Cameron Green on Data Centers Can Apply for Energy Star Rating in June
"I did a blog post about this. Essentially PUE doesn’t give you very much..."





Reader Comments
Of course the costs will be passed on to the consumer! Who thinks they wouldn’t? Of course, with some of the members of congress who are most likely to see personal benefits from such nonsense they don’t really care if the little guy gets the old one-two punch in the pocketbook. Typical.
Glennis | November 4th, 2009
My question is: Where do these revenues go? Who gets the many hundreds of millions of dollars the companies have to pay for carbon credits? A large part of it will go to fund the huge bureaucracies needed to administer the program and pay a lot of Government worker’s salaries. What good will that do the Planet? Where will the rest of the money go? It will be used for the redistribution of wealth. I have heard nothing about how the money will be used to fund fusion power, or hydro power, or solar power from satelites or the Moon, or any other type of environmentally friendly power source capable of supporting our civilization. There are so many unanswered questions relating to this legislation – not unlike the healthcare fiasco going on right now. Here’s another question: Why is the Obama Administration pulling the plug on the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility? It is another attempt to restrict the amount of power available to our Nation. No nuclear waste facility = no new nuclear power plants!
James Beddingfield | November 4th, 2009
If we doubled all the money currently being spent on fusion research in America (which might be a good thing – I like the Polywell Fusion Reactor experiments) it might cost $500 million in additional funds. If we added to that projects that are currently unfunded it might cost as much as an extra $100 million.
But that is not part of the plan. What is the plan? Give the money to the favorites of Cong. Critters who will expect campaign contributions roughly equivalent to 1% of the amount being spent.
M. Simon | November 4th, 2009
Energy companies won’t be getting a free ride under cap and trade, though that really won’t matter because all they have to do is turn around and pass thoses costs on to consumers. The majority of which can barely afford the cost of energy as it is. This is legislation that America can not afford. The worst part is, that if the cap and trade system in the EU is any indication, it will do nothing to improve the state of the environment. Write Congress at http://tiny.cc/xP9wT and encourage your representatives to question this flawed piece of legislation.
DCTJ | November 5th, 2009