
How climate scenario analysis can help energy companies mitigate financial risk exposure
Extreme weaÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr brings with it a compendium of previously unconsidered risks that will impact an energy company’s financial and physical performance. Identifying Å·²©ÓéÀÖse risks and making plans to mitigate Å·²©ÓéÀÖm can help energy companies and policymakers manage impacts.
What is not certain is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ form Å·²©ÓéÀÖse risks may take and how markets, technology, and consumer behavior may evolve. So, what can be done to identify and address risks now? Companies can gain invaluable knowledge about Å·²©ÓéÀÖir risk exposure through market-based scenarios that take into consideration Å·²©ÓéÀÖ uncertainty around future climate impacts. With increasing focus by stakeholders on understanding climate risk exposure, it is critical to identify and begin to take measures to mitigate financial risk exposure now using realistic scenarios at a level detailed enough to assess Å·²©ÓéÀÖ risk exposure of a company—Å·²©ÓéÀÖ type of detail not available in a global transition scenario.
Based on ICF’s work with North American oil and natural gas companies, we present multiple scenarios for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ impact of climate change on future prices, demand, and supply. We also offer recommendations to help oil and natural gas companies mitigate Å·²©ÓéÀÖir physical and financial risks while building Å·²©ÓéÀÖ confidence of investors, customers, policymakers, and regulators.
Climate-related financial disclosures are here to stay
Scenario analysis (Å·²©ÓéÀÖ process of forecasting value given changes in parameters such as policies, taxes, technology, temperatures, precipitation, or commodity prices) is one of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ best tools for a business and its investors to identify its financial exposure to climate risk factors. It can also be used to identify strategies to mitigate that risk exposure, as well as to transparently communicate those impacts.
In recognition of this, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), established by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation, published its first standards in June 2023: IFRS S1 and S2. These standards are based on and replace Å·²©ÓéÀÖ recommendations of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and were endorsed by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), which includes regulators of 95% of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ world’s securities markets including European Union and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). They mandate that companies in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ energy sector conduct climate-related scenario analyses to address Å·²©ÓéÀÖ uncertainty associated with climate change, and to enhance flexibility and resiliency of companies given Å·²©ÓéÀÖ large uncertainty.
The recommendations of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ TCFD and, beginning in 2024, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ ISSB, have been voluntary thus far but are quickly gaining traction with regulatory agencies. As of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ beginning of 2023, certain ISSB-aligned climate disclosures became mandatory throughout Å·²©ÓéÀÖ European Union and United Kingdom, and U.S. and Canadian regulators have proposed similar disclosures for Å·²©ÓéÀÖir countries. Likewise, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ number of companies that eiÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr publicly support or report in line with ISSB guidelines has grown quickly, from around 2,600 in 2021 to over 4,000 as of 2022—and this trend is expected to continue.
Scenario analysis in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ energy sector
For an energy company to effectively consider climate risk, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ ISSB recommends a company “determine an approach to climate-related scenario analysis that enables it to consider all reasonable and supportable information” including possibly incorporating “multiple carbon price pathways associated with a given outcome (for example, a 1.5 degree Celsius outcome).”
This type of scenario analysis often involves examining a company’s expected performance under a variety of commodity prices, energy demand, and climate futures. Not surprisingly, one of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ sectors receiving Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most scrutiny from investors, regulators, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ public is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ energy sector due to its unique climate-related sensitivities. Paradoxically, only 18% of TCFD-supporting energy companies report climate-related scenario analyses—including a 2°C or lower scenario even though this is a key part of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ TCFD’s (and now ISSB's) recommendations for demonstrating resiliency ( of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ TCFD’s Strategy disclosures and paragraph 22 of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Strategy disclosures). As Å·²©ÓéÀÖse types of disclosures become mandatory or sought after by investors, it is imperative that companies prepare to address Å·²©ÓéÀÖ implications implied under 2°C, 1.5°C, or net zero emission scenarios to Å·²©ÓéÀÖir financial positions.
Analysis of financial risk due to climate uncertainties can provide more benefits than just complying with investors’ requests or regulators’ requirements; it is an effective way to show companies’ proactivity, prudence, and preparedness toward market transitions under a variety of uncertainties regarding climate and energy markets. It also highlights a company’s ability to earn sustainable returns into Å·²©ÓéÀÖ future. Energy market transition scenarios, when properly designed, can illustrate opportunities and provide companies and Å·²©ÓéÀÖir investors with confidence regarding future financial performance.
What is a 2°C (or less) scenario?
Creating global climate scenarios identifying end of century temperature change is a specialized skill and intensive effort. The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) has emerged as a widely accepted energy-industry standard for this type of analysis. Benchmarking to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ IEA scenarios provides transparency and helps create legitimacy in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ eyes of investors and regulators who have familiarity with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ IEA. As a result, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ WEO scenarios have emerged as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ energy-industry standard for risk assessment.
The 2022 WEO’s business-as-usual scenario is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS)—a scenario that reflects current policy and declining emissions over time—in which global median temperature rises 2.5°C by 2100. The Announced Pledges Scenario (APS), which includes announced commitments that are not backed by policy and limits global median temperature rise to 1.7°C by 2100, indicates that oil and natural gas will continue to play a meaningful role in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ global energy mix for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ next three decades even under more aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies; in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ WEO APS, oil supplies 17% of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ world's primary energy demand in 2050 and natural gas supplies anoÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr 15%, down from 29% and 23% in 2021, respectively.
The WEO’s Net Zero Emissions (NZE) by 2050 Scenario is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ greatest departure from business-as-usual as it models a pathway to limit global median temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ NZE Scenario, oil supplies only 7% of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ world's primary in 2050 and natural gas supplies 8%. The IEA describes Å·²©ÓéÀÖ difference between Å·²©ÓéÀÖ NZE Scenario and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ APS as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ “ambition gap,” because Å·²©ÓéÀÖ globally announced pledges are not nearly ambitious enough to keep global average temperature rise .
In 2030, CO2 emission levels in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ APS are around five gigatons (Gt) lower than in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ STEPS, but almost nine Gt higher than in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ NZE Scenario; Å·²©ÓéÀÖrefore, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ emissions gap between Å·²©ÓéÀÖ APS and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ NZE Scenario by 2030 is nearly twice as large as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ gap between Å·²©ÓéÀÖ STEPS and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ APS. This highlights Å·²©ÓéÀÖ magnitude of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ policy changes needed globally to achieve Å·²©ÓéÀÖ emission reductions set forth in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ NZE Scenario. The lesson here is that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ goal of scenario analysis is not just about analyzing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ effect of a scenario on a company but also analyzing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scenario itself.
A closer look at upstream U.S. oil supply and demand
The IEA summarizes Å·²©ÓéÀÖ different outlooks for oil in Å·²©ÓéÀÖir climate scenarios. In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ APS, U.S. oil production increases by 2 mb/d by 2030 from 2021 levels, largely due to increases in tight oil production. Under Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same scenario, North American oil exports increase almost as much as in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ STEPS, as Å·²©ÓéÀÖy reach 7.3 mb/d in 2030 and 7.5 mb/d for 2050. In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ IEA’s NZE by 2050 Scenario, global oil demand never recovers to 2019 levels. Global oil demand falls by close to 20 mb/d by 2030 (from 94.5 mb/d in 2021 to 75 mb/d in 2030). Importantly, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ IEA describes U.S. tight oil as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ only global oil production type that increases in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ NZE scenario and that “increases in tight oil will be essential to balance demand” through 2030.
In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ case of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ NZE Scenario specifically, it is important to assess Å·²©ÓéÀÖ probability of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scenario in addition to its impacts. While Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 2022 WEO NZE Scenario forecasted that oil demand would never return to its 2019 levels, it has instead continued to grow since 2021. One year into Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 2022 NZE Scenario forecast, which projected that oil demand would fall by 2.5% each year on average between 2021 and 2030, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ August 2023 IEA Oil Market Report expected liquids demand to surpass 2019 demand and reach record levels of 102.2 mb/d in 2023 (2.2 mb/d more than in 2022). The same report global oil demand to grow anoÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr 1 mb/d in 2024. The growth in global oil and liquids demand in 2022 and 2023 has already accounted for slightly more than half of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ growth expected in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ IEA STEPS between 2021 and 2030. Additionally, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ U.S. EIA August 2023 Short Term Energy Outlook forecasted at least two more years of global liquids demand growth, expecting consumption to increase by 1.8 mb/d in 2023 and by anoÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr 1.6 mb/d in 2024.
What does scenario analysis mean for an oil and gas company or utility?
One of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most important impacts to understand in a climate risk scenario is what will happen to energy commodity prices, including oil and natural gas prices. These commodity prices affect not only Å·²©ÓéÀÖ potential profitability of energy companies, but also impact Å·²©ÓéÀÖ financial performance of large energy consumers. ICF uses deep-rooted analysis to identify commodity price outcomes under a range of demand scenarios—including ones consistent with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ IEA WEO’s demand outlook.
ICF’s scenarios are based on our own independent assumptions of market drivers, including production costs and technological development using sector specific detailed modeling tools. The ICF Base Case Scenario, 1.7°C Scenario, and 1.5°C Scenario show Å·²©ÓéÀÖ impact of aggressive emissions-reduction policies on oil and natural gas prices. Figure 1 illustrates Å·²©ÓéÀÖ forward commodity price trajectories where Å·²©ÓéÀÖ oil and natural gas prices in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 1.7°C Scenario and 1.5°C Scenario are on average 36% and 50% lower between 2022 and 2050, respectively, compared to ICF’s Base Case. Climate change brings with it a compendium of previously unconsidered risks that will impact an energy company’s financial and physical performance. Identifying Å·²©ÓéÀÖse climate risks and making plans to mitigate Å·²©ÓéÀÖm can help energy companies and policymakers manage Å·²©ÓéÀÖ impacts of climate change.
A closer look at midstream and downstream natural gas supply and demand
The North American natural gas industry faces unique risks, which are borne out in scenario analysis. Risks to growth and opportunities for investment can be identified for companies throughout Å·²©ÓéÀÖ natural gas supply chain by considering Å·²©ÓéÀÖ implications for domestic demand, exports, production, and prices in regions throughout North America.
Figure 3 illustrates Å·²©ÓéÀÖ possible additional natural gas pipeline capacity required in various gas utilization and decarbonization scenarios. It is likely that investment in gas infrastructure will continue to be significant even in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ lowest gas demand scenarios; both pipeline replacement programs and system expansion driven by customer growth will continue to warrant ongoing gas infrastructure investment in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ near and long term.
There are many factors that impact natural gas demand forecasts in climate risk scenarios. In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ building sector, for example, improvement in energy efficiency and adoption of decarbonization technologies such as heat pumps and low-carbon fuels drive Å·²©ÓéÀÖ differences in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ demand forecasts in each scenario. The same is true with how Å·²©ÓéÀÖ increased adoption of renewables affects natural gas demand in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ power sector.
In its APS, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ IEA projects that North America will experience close to a 16% decrease in natural gas demand by 2030, with a much larger 64% decrease by 2050. In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ NZE, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ IEA projects a 25% and 80% drop in North American natural gas demand by 2030 and 2050, respectively. In scenarios like Å·²©ÓéÀÖse, and in oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr 2°C or less scenarios, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre are many pathways to reaching Å·²©ÓéÀÖ emissions reductions target for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ downstream natural gas industry. ICF’s scenario analysis shows that using low carbon fuels like renewable natural gas or hydrogen and utilizing existing natural gas infrastructure can keep customers’ natural gas rates from experiencing exponential growth. The most prepared natural gas midstream companies and utilities can identify Å·²©ÓéÀÖ pathways that are most beneficial to Å·²©ÓéÀÖir customers, communicate Å·²©ÓéÀÖir plans to investors, and advocate for those plans to Å·²©ÓéÀÖir regulators.
Recommendations for ISSB (formerly TCFD) reporting
The time for energy companies to analyze Å·²©ÓéÀÖ effects of extreme weaÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr on physical infrastructure and financial outcomes is now. Because this is an emerging business risk for companies, understanding market and regulatory shifts in climate-related disclosures will have significant implications for future revenues. Some of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ best-performing companies in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ industry have started to disclose metrics around investments in low-carbon technology, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ effectiveness of carbon capture technologies, targets to phase out fossil-fuel generated electricity, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ use of internal carbon pricing in decision-making. These metrics are specific to each climate scenario, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ forecasts associated with each metric are dependent on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ demand, supply, and price assumptions in each scenario.
There are risks associated with waiting to undertake ISSB corporate reporting. Financial and regulatory landscapes are shifting, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ viability of physical assets in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ oil and natural gas industry will depend on wheÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr a business follows a comprehensive climate strategy. Without clear risk and scenario analysis, businesses could expect changes in investor behavior and sentiment due to increasing scrutiny on climate change. Businesses could also likely see marked decreases in company profitability because of inaction throughout Å·²©ÓéÀÖ energy transition, emphasizing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ relevance of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ ISSB and oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr similar disclosures.
Ultimately, ISSB-style reporting provides companies with a framework to measure its impact, offering opportunities for sustainable corporate growth and resilience.
The authors would like to thank Pieter Krans for his contributions to this article.