Weekly Energy Market Updates by Region




Issue week: July 8th, 2022  (Wk 27)





WEST  Moderate temperatures during this first week of July have softened prices throughout the region. Day Ahead averages are around $50/MWh in CAISO and $24/MWh in Mid-C. However, temperatures are expected to peak between 90 and 100 degrees in the Southwest soon, so demand should increase significantly. In the forward market, prices have risen slightly over the past seven days amid today’s bullish gas storage report and a warm bias that has increased the number of cooling-degree days in the long-term weather forecast.

ERCOT  Term prices are down a bit since last Friday as the net drop in term natural gas prices throughout the curve has outweighed the increase in heat rates. Real-time prices have been mixed in this shortened week of trading; some hours have settled in triple digits amid fluctuating output from intermittent resources. In the Houston Load Zone, basis for the month is over $3.00/MWh, a high for the last 12 months. Finally, as peak demand is projected to reach a new all-time high on Monday and drought persists across most of the state, market conditions are expected to be especially volatile early next week.

EAST While ample demand in the Midwest has kept peak index prices there solidly above $110/MWh, peak prices in NYISO are only around $80/MWh. In ISO-NE, peak averages have moved down into the $60s/MWh as the large Mystic gas-fired generating unit has reportedly been burning through its fuel to accommodate a new shipment of LNG.


The EIA reported Thursday morning that, for the week ending July 1, U.S. inventories increased by 60 Bcf, considerably underperforming market expectations of 74 Bcf. Total stockpiles now stand at 2,311 Bcf, down by 10.1% from a year ago and 12.2% below the five-year average for the same week.

Having spent most of the week under $6/MMBtu after a few sharp declines in the wake of the holiday weekend, the NYMEX futures prompt month of August today broke back above $6/MMBtu to close at $6.297/MMBtu, $0.787/MMBtu higher than yesterday’s finale. It was already trading up by $0.25/MMBtu just before the release of the storage report and then jumped by another $0.40/MMBtu within the first 5 minutes of the bullish news. Poor fundamentals stoked fears of sluggish production and inadequate inventories leading into winter. If such disappointing storage reports persist, weekly NYMEX increases may return until they improve.















SCOTUS Ruling Exposes Holes in Environmental Policy Hodgepodge

Last week in West Virginia et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., the United States Supreme Court ruled that the regulatory authority granted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act does not extend to imposing a nationwide cap-and-trade system or forcing a blanket shutdown of fossil fuel power plants across the U.S. The decision predictably received strong reactions on both sides of the issue. For instance, whereas New York’s top environmental official lamented the EPA’s hobbling in its efforts to curb carbon emissions at the national level, lead plaintiff West Virginia welcomed the ruling, for the state remains free to run its coal-fired plants and put off any transition of its grid to cleaner fuel alternatives.

By depriving the EPA of the power to issue sweeping and universal regulations for all generators across the entire U.S., the controversial decision calls attention not only to the remaining patchwork of environmental policy levers for reducing emissions but also to their drawbacks. The success of cap-and-trade, for instance, seems to have varied with the politics of the states where it has been tried or floated. West Virginia, of course, opposed it vehemently and went to court to stop it, as did North Carolina in 2008. On the other hand, two years ago in a report for the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy, Alex Pfeifer-Rosenblum remarked that the cap-and-trade system implemented in California in 2013 contributed to a 13% reduction in the state’s emissions from 2004 to 2016, although he also observed that the program “is contributing to increased local pollution, primarily in…‘disadvantaged communities.’”

Carbon pricing, the practice of assessing a fee on each metric ton of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalents emitted by corporate polluters, has also encountered challenges making it far less likely to be adopted at the state or federal level anytime soon, such as lack of consensus regarding how to price carbon or even how revenues should be collected, spent, or redistributed. Fortunately, government gridlock has not stopped certain high-profile companies—such as Mitsubishi, Unilever, and Microsoft—from taking it upon themselves to implement an internal carbon tax or scheme that essentially funds other carbon-reduction efforts such as offsets or carbon capture. Indeed, the CDP reported in 2020 that more than a third of the approximately 6,000 companies that it surveyed on carbon pricing “currently use an internal carbon price or plan to implement one within the next two years.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling may have curtailed the power of the federal bureaucracy to dictate energy policy for all parts of the country, but it left the private sector free to take up the fight against climate change. It is encouraging that more firms are not content to sit back and wait for Congress to agree on the future of the energy landscape in the U.S.




Previous Weekly Market Reports: Archive


Disclaimer: This report is for informational purposes only and all actions and judgments taken in response to it are recipient’s sole responsibility. Champion Energy Services does not guaranty its accuracy. This reports is provided ‘as is’. Champion Energy Services makes no expressed or implied representations or warranties of any kind. Except as otherwise indicated in this report, this report shall remain the sole and exclusive property of Champion Energy Services and shall be free from any claim or right, license, title or interest. Champion Energy Services shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special or exemplary damages or lost profit resulting from this report.