Connect with us

News

Berkshire after Buffett: prized energy business faces upheaval

Published

on

Berkshire after Buffett: prized energy business faces upheaval

When Berkshire Hathaway announced the acquisition of MidAmerican Energy in 1999, Warren Buffett hailed the Iowa gas and electric utility as squarely in the conglomerate’s “sweet spot”.

Unheralded at the time, the $2bn transaction catapulted Buffett into the energy business, kicking off a quarter of a century of dealmaking that has transformed Berkshire into a major player, operating across 28 states, transporting 15 per cent of America’s natural gas and serving 13mn customers.

The $138bn of assets owned by its subsidiary, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, are varied but the appeal of the businesses — and their place within Berkshire — have gone unquestioned. Its utilities, accounting for the bulk of BHE’s assets, boast the economic moats against competition prized by Buffett and have long been an attractive home for the cash that the conglomerate generates.

But if predictability was hardcoded into the sector’s DNA 25 years ago, global warming is bringing epochal change. The threats confronting Berkshire are multipronged: from billions of dollars in potential damages from wildfires, to criticism over how quickly it plans to retire its coal-fired power stations and the increasing politicisation of climate change in the US.

“I thought the energy business was going to be the place that absorbed a few billion dollars every year and has a consistent and steady return attached to it and it’s protected,” said Darren Pollock, portfolio manager at Cheviot, a California-based investment firm and Berkshire shareholder. “That’s no longer the case.”

Advertisement

This is the third in a series looking at the future of Berkshire when 93-year-old Buffett is no longer at the helm.

The energy division arguably faces the most fundamental upheaval of any part of the Berkshire empire. When Buffett no longer has the reins, deciding whether to allocate more capital to utilities — or remain in the business at all — will fall to Greg Abel, chair of BHE and the man Buffett has picked as his successor. BHE declined to put any executives up for interviews.

The 61-year-old Abel can expect to be subject to far more public criticism over its controversial parts, such as 28 coal-fired power units, one of the largest such fleets in the US, and a more recent bet on natural gas, than Buffett, the most celebrated American business leader of the past half century.

“People have this vision of Berkshire Hathaway and Berkshire does a great job, honestly, with the PR to elevate Warren Buffett as the face of the company,” said Kerri Johannsen, energy programme director at the Iowa Environmental Council.

The scale of the potential financial threat tied to climate change was laid bare last summer when an Oregon jury found PacifiCorp, the largest electric utility owned by Berkshire, liable for causing a series of deadly wildfires in 2020 by failing to shut off power lines.  

Advertisement

As claims against the company mount from separate cases, PacifiCorp has estimated it could face more than $8bn in damages, though its lawyers last year outlined a scenario in which the figure could reach $45bn. The company has said it would “vigorously pursue appeals”.

This week PacifiCorp faced an expansion of an existing class action lawsuit, seeking up to $30bn in damages, in the wake of the Oregon judgment. PacifiCorp blasted the move, saying utilities were in danger of becoming “de facto insurers of last resort”.

The Oregon verdict had already prompted Buffett for the first time to cast doubt over the future of the utilities business.

“Berkshire can sustain financial surprises but we will not knowingly throw good money after bad,” he noted in his annual letter to shareholders in February, warning of the “spectre of zero profitability or even bankruptcy” across the industry.

Wildfire lawsuits pushed California’s PG&E into bankruptcy in 2019 and Hawaiian Electric has seen its share price collapse amid mounting lawsuits over devastating fires on the island of Maui last year.

Advertisement

“I think part of Warren Buffett’s point was that you’re seeing excessive damages being awarded, that means that power companies are essentially underwriting what is a societal risk that is being driven by climate change,” said Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the owner of Southern California Edison, one of the country’s biggest utilities. “That breaks the model.”

A man checks the remnants of his house for anything salvageable in Talent, Oregon in September 2020
A man checks the remnants of his house for anything salvageable in Talent, Oregon. PacifiCorp, the largest electric utility owned by Berkshire, was found liable by a jury in the state for causing a series of deadly wildfires in 2020 by failing to shut off power lines © Chris Tuite/imageSPACE/MediaPunch /IPX/AP

Berkshire is one of several companies pushing states, including Wyoming and Idaho, to pass laws that would cap payouts if a utility is found culpable in the event of a wildfire. Utah recently adopted a law that shifts some of the cost of wildfire claims on to a utility’s customers and caps damages.

If other states passed similar legislation it would mark a “happy ending” for the company, said one big Berkshire shareholder. “They have some leverage with these legislatures to say we need you to change the rules.”

A decision to eventually abandon utilities would represent a sharp reversal of Buffett’s long-standing enthusiasm. Two years ago, he described the energy business as one of the company’s “four giants”.

BHE generated $2.3bn in operating earnings for Berkshire in 2023, down sharply from $3.9bn the previous year, as the group made provisions for damages. Although the subsidiary accounted for less than 10 per cent of Berkshire’s overall earnings, analysts and investors say this understates its role within the conglomerate.

“It’s a place that Berkshire can take some of their excess cash — a lot of it from their financial businesses — and put it to work every year consistently at scale,” said Steve Fleishman, managing director at Wolfe Research, an investment research group.

Advertisement

Regulators look at the amount of capital a utility invests when setting the level of returns owners can generate, which has made the sector a perfect fit for Berkshire.

Some utilities have been faulted for not spending more on technology, satellite modelling and sensors that could help them better predict conditions that would spark a wildfire. If such costs are not approved by state public utility commissions, they eat into the profit margins as the utility earns nothing on its spending.

Berkshire estimated it would have to spend more than $1bn over the next three years across its utilities to mitigate the risk from wildfires.

Former industry executives and regulators say that such levels of spending on a permanent basis, alongside the danger of legal risks, would undermine the case for owning utilities.

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Advertisement

“They all are unfortunately financially rewarded by how much money they spend on capital expenditures, so it’s all structured around how much they can spend,” said Jon Wellinghoff, a former chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “You can’t fault them for that. That’s the way the system is set up.”

While the PacifiCorp ruling exposed the rising litigation threat from climate change, the increased weight institutional investors are giving to it has thrust a reluctant Berkshire into the spotlight.

A decade ago, MidAmerican won plaudits for pouring money into wind power in Iowa, an investment credited with turning the state into the country’s biggest player in the renewable energy source after Texas. Today, BHE is the largest owner of wind generation among regulated utilities in the US, giving the group a significant renewable energy business.

“We are committed to managing the energy transition in a cost-effective, customer-centric manner,” BHE said in a statement, noting it had invested $39.9bn in renewables through to the end of last year. “We will continue to move forward in the energy transition at a speed our customers can afford and at a pace that allows us to maintain reliable service for our customers.”

But Berkshire has faced pressure from shareholders, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, BlackRock and State Street, to provide greater disclosure on the risks the company faces from climate change.

“The company does not meet our aspirations for disclosing a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a low-carbon economy,” BlackRock said last year as it backed more disclosure.

Advertisement

At this year’s annual meeting on Saturday, the state treasurer of Illinois has tabled a resolution calling on BHE to publish a detailed annual breakdown of its emissions. Berkshire has urged shareholders to vote against the motion, pointing to existing disclosures and arguing that such a report was not “necessary at this time”.

Buffett, who has long adopted a hands-off approach to managing Berkshire’s subsidiaries, has previously labelled calls for a company-wide climate report as “asinine”.

The billionaire has acknowledged that global warming is happening, but in past years he has signalled his reluctance to use it as a factor when deciding whether or not to invest.

“I would hate to have all hydrocarbons banned in three years,” Buffett said in 2021. “We’re going to need a lot of hydrocarbons for a long time . . . but I do think that the world’s moving away from them, too.”

Charlie Munger, who helped build Berkshire and died in November, was more sceptical. Last year he said that he thought there was “a good chance that climate change will be less important than a lot of people think”.

Advertisement

Last year, Berkshire was given one of the lowest grades for its engagement on climate change in an analysis compiled by Climate Action 100+, a coalition of about 700 global investors including Amundi and Fidelity. Only a handful of companies including Saudi Aramco have received such a low designation.

“Berkshire has been resistant to climate scrutiny,” said Danielle Fugere, president of investor advocacy group As You Sow, which has tabled a number of climate motions at the company.

BHE declined to comment on the analysis by Climate Action 100+. Berkshire Hathaway did not respond to a request for comment.

Steam rises from the coal-fired Jim Bridger power plant outside Rock Springs, Wyoming
PacifiCorp’s coal-fired Jim Bridger power station in Wyoming © Jim Urquhart/Reuters

Under fire from climate campaigners, the decisions that Abel will face over the future of the business are likely to grow more complex as the speed of the transition to renewable energy is reassessed.

As a major shareholder in US oil producers Chevron and Occidental, Berkshire has benefited from an emerging argument, since the energy crisis generated by Russia’s full-scale war on Ukraine, that weaning the world off fossil fuels will take longer than previously expected.

Munger was an outspoken defender of the investments, saying last year that “having a big position in the Permian Basin [America’s most prolific oilfield] through those two companies is likely to be a pretty good long-term hold”.

Advertisement

There are signs that Berkshire is prepared to make a significant wager on a slower pace in the green energy shift, even if it draws criticism.

In 2020, Berkshire paid $8bn for Virginia-based utility Dominion Energy’s natural gas infrastructure business just as some other industry players were seeking to cut exposure to the fossil fuel.

Gas has proved contentious. Advocates point out that it emits less carbon dioxide than coal when burnt and has a significant role to play in weaning countries such as China off the dirtiest fuels. Opponents highlight that natural gas is largely composed of methane, which when it escapes generates more warming than carbon dioxide even if it is shorter-lived in the atmosphere.

The Dominion deal handed Berkshire thousands of miles of natural gas pipelines and a 25 per cent stake in the Cove Point liquefied natural gas terminal in Maryland, a big export facility. Last year, Berkshire paid $3.3bn to take its stake in Cove Point to 75 per cent.

The Biden administration in January indefinitely paused the issue of new permits required to construct LNG export terminals, in a move to win climate conscious voters in an election year and aligned with its UN pledge to cut emissions by about half of their 2005 levels by 2030.

Advertisement

The pause should benefit existing facilities such as Cove Point, potentially creating a new competitive moat for Berkshire and other operators of export terminals. It also illustrates the combustible mix of politics and a fast-changing landscape that Abel will have to navigate to keep energy part of Berkshire’s sweet spot.

“Everything is changing all at once: the climate is changing; the financial climate is changing; the consumer and shareholder climate is changing,” said Michael Webber, professor of energy resources at the University of Texas at Austin and author of Power Trip: The Story of Energy. “These are big challenges — it will take a change in thinking and companies will have to consider their options.”

With reporting by Attracta Mooney in London

Berkshire Hathaway energy businesses

NV Energy: An electric and gas utility in Nevada comprising two subsidiaries. It serves 1mn power customers in the Las Vegas area.

MidAmerican Energy: Based in Iowa, the electric and natural gas utility has 1.6mn customers in states including Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota and Nebraska.

Advertisement

PacifiCorp: Headquartered in Portland, Oregon, the electric utility has more than 2mn customers across Utah, Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, Idaho and California. It also trades electricity on wholesale power markets.

BHE Pipeline Group: It operates 21,000 miles of pipelines and transported 15 per cent of all gas consumed in the US last year. It also operates 22 natural gas storage facilities and an LNG terminal.

BHE Transmission: Owner of Altalink in Canada, an electric transmission utility that serves 85 per cent of the population of Alberta.

BHE Renewables: Owns interests in a number of independent power projects in the US, including solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower and natural gas.  

Northern Powergrid: Electricity distribution group serving 4mn customers in the north of England. It also owns an upstream natural gas business developing projects in Europe and Australia and has solar assets.

Advertisement

This article is part of a series looking at the future of Berkshire Hathaway when Warren Buffett is no longer in charge. To read the other pieces in the series on Berkshire after Buffett click here.

News

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

Published

on

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.

Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.

Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.

Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.

Advertisement

The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.

“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”

In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.

The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.

Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.

Advertisement

“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”

Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.

The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.

Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.

Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.

Advertisement

Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.

While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.

Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.

The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Advertisement

Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.

Continue Reading

News

Who is John Phelan, the US Navy Secretary fired by Pete Hegseth?

Published

on

Who is John Phelan, the US Navy Secretary fired by Pete Hegseth?

The firing of US Navy Secretary John Phelan is the latest in a shakeup of the American military during the war on Iran, now in its eighth week.

The Pentagon said Phelan would leave office immediately.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“On behalf of the Secretary of War and Deputy Secretary of War, we are grateful to Secretary Phelan for his service to the Department and the United States Navy,” said chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell. “We wish him well in his future endeavours”.

His firing comes at a critical moment, with US naval forces enforcing a blockade on Iranian ports and ships, and maintaining a heavy presence around the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas passes during peacetime.

Although the Pentagon gave no official reason for the dismissal, reports indicate the decision was linked to internal disputes, including tensions with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Advertisement

Phelan’s removal is part of a broader pattern of dismissals and restructuring within the US military under President Donald Trump’s administration – including during the current war.

So, who is John Phelan, and what impact could his firing have on US military strategy?

Who is John Phelan?

As the US Navy’s top civilian official, Phelan had various responsibilities, including overseeing recruiting, mobilising and organising, as well as construction and repair of ships and military equipment.

He was appointed in 2024 as a political ally of Trump, despite having no prior military or defence leadership experience.

Before entering government, Phelan was a businessman and investment executive, as well as a major Republican donor and fundraiser — a background that is fairly common among Trump appointees and advisers. The US president’s two top diplomatic negotiators, for instance, are Steve Witkoff — a real estate businessman with no prior diplomatic experience – and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Advertisement

According to the Reuters news agency, Phelan’s tenure quickly became controversial. He faced criticism for moving too slowly on shipbuilding reforms and for strained relationships with key Pentagon figures, including Hegseth and his deputy, Steve Feinberg.

rump with U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant General Michael Borgschulte and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan (R) before the game between the Navy Midshipmen and the Army West Point Black Knights at M&T Bank Stadium [File: Tommy Gilligan/Imagn Images/Reuters]

In addition, Phelan was reportedly under an ethics investigation, which may have weakened his standing in the administration.

Navy Undersecretary Hung Cao, who was also reported to have a difficult relationship with Phelan, has become acting secretary. Fifty-four-year-old Cao is a 25-year Navy veteran who previously ran as a Republican candidate for the US Senate and House of Representatives in 2022 and 2024 respectively, but was unsuccessful on both occasions.

Democrats have criticised Phelan’s removal, calling it “troubling”.

“I am concerned it is yet another example of the instability and dysfunction that have come to define the Department of Defense under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth,” said Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Advertisement

Who else has the Trump administration fired since the war with Iran began?

Phelan’s removal is the latest in a series of senior military leaders being fired or are leaving during the US-Israeli war on Iran, in addition to others since Trump was re-elected.

Among the most notable dismissals was Army Chief of Staff General Randy A. George, in the first week of April. George was appointed in 2023 under former US President Joe Biden.

According to reports, Hegseth also fired the head of the Army’s Transformation and Training Command, a unit concerned with modernising the army, and the Army’s chief of chaplains. The Pentagon has not confirmed their dismissal.

Why is Phelan’s dismissal significant?

The 62-year-old’s removal comes during a fragile ceasefire with Iran, as the ⁠⁠US continues to move more naval assets into the region.

The Navy is central to enforcing Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports to restrict Iran’s oil exports and apply economic pressure on Tehran, as the US president looks eager to wrap up the war, which is deeply unpopular to many Americans.

Advertisement

However, there are no indications that Trump is willing to end the blockade or other naval operations in the Strait of Hormuz, as negotiations between Washington and Tehran have come to a standstill.

Tensions have escalated in recent days after the US military seized an Iranian container ship. The US claimed it was attempting to sail from the Arabian Sea through the Strait of Hormuz to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas.

Tehran responded by describing the attack and hijack as an act of “piracy”.

Iran has since captured two cargo ships and fired at another.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Not a Deal-Breaker: White House Downplays Iranian Action Near the Strait

Published

on

Not a Deal-Breaker: White House Downplays Iranian Action Near the Strait

Just two weeks ago, President Trump threatened to wipe out Iran’s civilization if it did not open the Strait of Hormuz. Days later, he said any Iranian “who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL!”

Yet on Wednesday, after Iran seized two ships near the Strait of Hormuz, the White House was quick to argue the action was not a deal breaker for potential peace negotiations.

“These were not U.S. ships,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on Fox News. “These were not Israeli ships.” Therefore, she explained, the Iranians had not violated a cease-fire with the United States that Mr. Trump has extended indefinitely.

She cautioned the news media against “blowing this out of proportion.”

The surprisingly tolerant tone from the White House suggests Mr. Trump is not eager to reignite a war that he started alongside Israel on Feb. 28 — a war that has proved unpopular with Americans and has gone on longer than he initially estimated.

Advertisement

The president on Tuesday extended a cease-fire between the United States and Iran that had been set to expire within hours, saying he wanted to give Tehran a chance to come up with a new proposal to end the war.

The American military has displayed its overwhelming might during the war, successfully striking thousands of targets. But it remains unclear whether Mr. Trump will accomplish the political objectives of the war.

The Iranian regime, even after its top leaders were killed, is still intact. Iran has not agreed to Mr. Trump’s demands to turn over its nuclear capabilities to the United States or significantly curtail them. And the Strait of Hormuz, a key passageway for world commerce that was open before the war, remains closed.

Nevertheless, the White House has repeatedly highlighted the military successes on the battlefield as evidence it is winning the war.

“We have completely confused and obliterated their regime,” Ms. Leavitt said on Fox Wednesday. “They are in a very weak position thanks to the actions taken by President Trump and our great United States armed forces, and so we will continue this important mission on our own.”

Advertisement

The oscillation between threats and a more conciliatory tone has long been one of Mr. Trump’s signature negotiating strategies.

Potential peace talks between the two countries are on hold. Vice President JD Vance had been poised to fly to Islamabad for negotiations. But the trip was postponed until Iran can “come up with a unified proposal,” Mr. Trump said.

The United States recently transmitted a written proposal to the Iranians intended to establish base-line points of agreement that could frame more detailed negotiations. The document covers a broad range of issues, but the core sticking points are the same ones that have bedeviled Western negotiators for more than a decade: the scope of Iran’s uranium enrichment program and the fate of its stockpile of enriched uranium.

Mr. Trump has not spoken publicly about the cease-fire, other than on social media. On Wednesday, he also posted about topics including “my Apprentice Juggernaut” — a reference to his former television show; the Virginia elections, which he called “rigged”; and a new book about Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending