Looking east to the Tracy Power Plant, a natural gas and oil-fired power plant owned and operated by Sierra Pacific Power, located near Interstate 80 and the Truckee River between Reno and Fernley, Nevada.
Neil Gilham | Moment | Getty Images
Nevada’s largest electricity provider has been approved for a $333 million project to develop a natural gas plant north of Las Vegas, as extreme drought conditions put mounting pressure on the region’s power grid.
Nevada’s Public Utilities Commission approved the plan, which involves two natural gas-fired turbines designed to address peak electricity demand during hot summer months and prolonged wildfire seasons. The developer, NV Energy, expects the turbines to be operational by July 2024.
The western U.S is in the midst of a historic megadrought, depleting water levels at the Colorado River’s reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Declining reservoir supply has prompted concerns over the future of hydroelectric power generation at the river’s Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam.
Natural gas presents its own challenges. Some environmental groups have argued that a new plant will jeopardize Nevada’s climate and clean energy agenda. The state has committed to a carbon-free power grid by 2050 and hasn’t built a new natural gas plant in over a decade.
More than two-thirds of Nevada’s electricity is produced by natural gas-fired power plants, while renewables comprise most of the rest, according to the state’s energy report.
The relatively arid desert southwest is viewed at 33,000 feet on May 19, 2022, over Lake Mead, NV.
George Rose | Getty Images
Angelyn Tabalba, a spokesperson for the Nevada Conservation League, said in a statement that the plan is shortsighted and would have long-term consequences for the environment and the state’s clean energy goals.
“For a state considered to be a clean energy leader, this decision sends the wrong message to other energy companies and undermines the progress that we have made towards a cleaner, more sustainable future,” Tabalba said.
The primary component of natural gas is methane, which is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide but doesn’t last as long in the atmosphere before it breaks down. Scientists have said that limiting methane is necessary to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
However, NV Energy has said that while it will continue to burn natural gas, the plan doesn’t alter the company’s clean energy goals or its commitment to Nevada’s carbon-free power grid target.
NV Energy claims the turbines have minimal greenhouse gas emissions, since the units will run only in the hotter summer months and will be limited to operating for about 700 hours each year. The turbines will be located at the company’s Silverhawk Generating Station gas plant north of Las Vegas.
The Phillips 66 Company’s Los Angeles Refinery in California.
Bing Guan | Reuters
The oil price outlook is being hit with more bearish forecasts on the back of U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping and market-hammering tariff announcements. Businesses and investors worry that a trade war and lower global growth lies ahead.
Goldman Sachs on Thursday reduced its December 2025 forecasts for global and U.S. benchmarks Brent crude and WTI by $5 to $66 and $62 a barrel, respectively, “because the two key downside risks we have flagged are realizing, namely tariff escalation and somewhat higher OPEC+ supply.”
The bank also cut its forecasts for the oil benchmarks in 2025 and 2026, adding that “we no longer forecast a price range, because price volatility is likely to stay elevated on higher recession risk.” Analysts at S&P Global Market Intelligence predict that in a worst-case scenario, global oil demand growth could be slashed by 500,000 barrels per day.
JPMorgan, for its part, raised its recession odds for the global economy to 60% for this year, up from a previous forecast of 40%.
Markets were therefore stunned when OPEC, which produces about 40% of the world’s crude oil — along with its non-OPEC allies that together comprise OPEC+ — chose not only to go ahead with its previously held plans to increase oil production, but also to nearly triple the expected increase figure.
Eight key OPEC+ producers on Thursday agreed to raise combined crude oil output by 411,000 barrels per day, speeding up the pace of their scheduled hikes and pushing down oil prices. The group — Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman — was widely expected to implement an increase of just under 140,000 barrels per day next month.
The news pushed oil prices 6% lower.
OPEC+ bullishness and appeasing Trump
Several factors underpin the oil-producing alliance’s decision. One is that the group is bullish on oil demand later in the year, putting it firmly in the minority as investor outlooks sour and fears of a global slowdown worsen.
The eight OPEC+ members behind the production decision cited “the continuing healthy market fundamentals and the positive market outlook” in their statement Thursday, saying that “this measure will provide an opportunity for the participating countries to accelerate their compensation.”
The statement added that “the gradual increases may be paused or reversed subject to evolving market conditions.”
Another likely reason for the group’s move has to do with another T-word: the man in the White House, who during his first term in office and from the very start of his second, has loudly demanded that the oil producer group pump more crude to help bring down prices for Americans.
“First of all, this is partly about appeasing Trump,” Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Marquee, told CNBC’s Dan Murphy on Friday.
“Trump will be putting pressure on OPEC to reduce oil prices, which reduces global energy prices, to help offset the inflationary impact of his tariffs.”
OPEC officials have denied that the move was made to appease Trump.
Compliance and market share
Meanwhile, as compliance is a major issue for OPEC+ — with countries overproducing crude beyond their quotas, complicating the group’s efforts to control how much supply it allows into the market — the move could be a way to enforce that, according to Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy and MENA research at RBC Capital Markets.
“We think a desire by the OPEC leadership to send a warning signal to Kazakhstan, Iraq, and even Russia about the cost of continued overproduction underlies the decision.”
Helima Croft
head of global commodity strategy and MENA research at RBC Capital Markets
“We think a desire by the OPEC leadership to send a warning signal to Kazakhstan, Iraq, and even Russia about the cost of continued overproduction underlies the decision,” Croft wrote in a note published Thursday. She referenced the March 2020 oil price war, when Saudi Arabia flooded the market with supply to tank oil prices and forced Russia back into compliance after Moscow initially refused to curb production to help the alliance stabilize prices. The price war caused Brent crude prices to go as low as $15 a barrel.
The production increases are also “an example of OPEC increasing their market share,” Kavonic said, adding that it “ultimately does come at the expense of the United States [shale] patch,” which U.S. producers likely will not be too thrilled about.
What happens next?
OPEC+ appears confident about the market turning a corner in the coming months on the assumption that oil demand will increase in the summer and the tariff wars will be resolved in the coming months, said Nader Itayim, editorial manager at Argus Media.
“These countries are largely comfortable with the $70, $75 per barrel band,” Itayim said.
What comes next depends on the trajectory of the tariffs and a potential trade war. Oil dropping into the $60 range could force pauses or even a reversal in OPEC+ production increase plans, analysts say – although that is likely to be met with resistance from countries like Iraq and Kazakhstan that have long been itching to increase their oil production for their own revenues.
Whatever happens, the group maintains the flexibility to adapt its plans month by month, Itayim noted.
“If things don’t quite go the way they imagine, all it does take, really, is a phone call.”
More than 3 years later, the vehicle never went into volume production. Instead, Tesla only ran a very low volume pilot production at a factory in Nevada and only delivered a few dozen trucks to customers as part of test programs.
But Tesla promised that things would finally happen for the Tesla Semi this year.
The goal was to start production in 2025, start customer deliveries, and ramp up to 50,000 trucks yearly.
Now, Ryder, a large transportation company and early customer-partner in Tesla’s semi truck program, is talking about further delays. The company also refers to a significant price increase.
California’s Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) awarded Ryder funding for a project to deploy Tesla Semi trucks and Megachargers at two of its facilities in the state.
Ryder had previously asked for extensions amid the delays in the Tesla Semi program.
In a new letter sent to MSRC last week and obtained by Electrek, Ryder asked the agency for another 28-month delay. The letter references delays in “Tesla product design, vehicle production” and it mentions “dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics”:
This extension is needed due to delays in Tesla product design, vehicle production and dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics. These delays have caused us to reevaluate the current Ryder fleet in the area.
The logistics company now says it plans to “deploy 18 Tesla Semi vehicles by June 2026.”
The reference to “dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics” points to a significant price increase for the Tesla Semi, which further communication with MSRC confirms.
In the agenda of a meeting to discuss the extension and changes to the project yesterday, MSRC confirms that the project went from 42 to 18 Tesla Semi trucks while the project commitment is not changing:
Ryder has indicated that their electric tractor manufacturer partner, Tesla, has experienced continued delays in product design and production. There have also been dramatic changes to the product economics. Ryder requests to reduce the number of vehicles from 42 to 18, stating that this would maintain their $7.5 million private match commitment.
In addition to the electric trucks, the project originally involved installing two integrated power centers and four Tesla Megachargers, split between two locations. Ryder is also looking to now install 3 Megachargers per location for a total of 6 instead of 4.
The project changes also mention that “Ryder states that Tesla now requires 600kW chargers rather than the 750kW units originally engineered.”
Tesla Semi Price
When originally unveiling the Tesla Semi in 2017, the automaker mentioned prices of $150,000 for a 300-mile range truck and $180,000 for the 500-mile version. Tesla also took orders for a “Founder’s Series Semi” at $200,000.
However, Tesla didn’t update the prices when launching the “production version” of the truck in late 2023. Price increases have been speculated, but the company has never confirmed them.
New diesel-powered Class 8 semi trucks in the US today often range between $150,000 and $220,000.
The combination of a reasonable purchase price and low operation costs, thanks to cheaper electric rates than diesel, made the Tesla Semi a potentially revolutionary product to reduce the overall costs of operation in trucking while reducing emissions.
However, Ryder now points to a “dramatic” price increase for the Tesla Semi.
What is the cost of a Tesla Semi electric truck now?
Electrek’s Take
As I have often stated, Tesla Semi is the vehicle program I am most excited about at Tesla right now.
If Tesla can produce class 8 trucks capable of moving cargo of similar weight as diesel trucks over 500 miles on a single charge in high volume at a reasonable price point, they have a revolutionary product on their hands.
But the reasonable price part is now being questioned.
After reading the communications between Ryder and MSRC, while not clear, it looks like the program could be interpreted as MSRC covering the costs of installing the charging stations while Ryder committed $7.5 million to buying the trucks.
The math makes sense for the original funding request since $7.5 million divided by 42 trucks results in around $180,000 per truck — what Tesla first quoted for the 500-mile Tesla Semi truck.
Now, with just 18 trucks, it would point to a price of $415,000 per Tesla Semi truck. It’s possible that some of Ryder’s commitment could also go to an increase in Megacharger prices – either per charger or due to the two additional chargers. MSRC said that they don’t give more money when prices go up after an extension.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 500-mile Tesla Semi ends up costing $350,000 to $400,000.
If that’s the case, Tesla Semi is impressive, but it won’t be the revolutionary product that will change the trucking industry.
It will need to be closer to $250,000-$300,000 to have a significant impact, which is not impossible with higher-volume production but would be difficult.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
British oil and gasoline company BP (British Petroleum) signage is being pictured in Warsaw, Poland, on July 29, 2024.
Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images
British oil major BP on Friday said its chair Helge Lund will soon step down, kickstarting a succession process shortly after the company launched a fundamental strategic reset.
“Having fundamentally reset our strategy, bp’s focus now is on delivering the strategy at pace, improving performance and growing shareholder value,” Lund said in a statement.
“Now is the right time to start the process to find my successor and enable an orderly and seamless handover,” he added.
Lund is expected to step down in 2026. BP said the succession process will be led by Amanda Blanc in her capacity as senior independent director.
Shares of BP traded 2.2% lower on Friday morning. The London-listed firm has lagged its industry rivals in recent years.
BP announced in February that it plans to ramp up annual oil and gas investment to $10 billion through 2027 and slash spending on renewables as part of its new strategic direction.
Analysts have broadly welcomed BP’s renewed focus on hydrocarbons, although the beleaguered energy giant remains under significant pressure from activist investors.
U.S. hedge fund Elliott Management has built a stake of around 5% to become one of BP’s largest shareholders, according to Reuters.
Activist investor Follow This, meanwhile, recently pushed for investors to vote against Lund’s reappointment as chair at BP’s April 17 shareholder meeting in protest over the firm’s recent strategy U-turn.
Lund had previously backed BP’s 2020 strategy, when Bernard Looney was CEO, to boost investment in renewables and cut production of oil and gas by 40% by 2030.
BP CEO Murray Auchincloss, who took the helm on a permanent basis in January last year, is under significant pressure to reassure investors that the company is on the right track to improve its financial performance.
‘A more clearly defined break’
“Elliott continues to press BP for a sharper, more clearly defined break with the strategy to pivot more quickly toward renewables, that was outlined by Bernard Looney when he was CEO,” Russ Mould, AJ Bell’s investment director, told CNBC via email on Friday.
“Mr Lund was chair then and so he is firmly associated with that plan, which current boss Murray Auchincloss is refining,” he added.
Mould said activist campaigns tend to have “fairly classic thrusts,” such as a change in management or governance, higher shareholder distributions, an overhaul of corporate structure and operational improvements.
“In BP’s case, we now have a shift in capital allocation and a change in management, so it will be interesting to see if this appeases Elliott, though it would be no surprise if it feels more can and should be done,” Mould said.