Price on carbon will determine coal's future

EU Clean Energy Transition underscores the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, decarbonization, and hydrogen, as soaring gas prices and electricity volatility spur resilience, storage, and joint procurement across the single market.

Key Points

EU Clean Energy Transition shifts from fossil fuels to renewables, enhancing resilience and reducing price volatility.

✅ Cuts reliance on Russian gas and fossil imports

✅ Scales renewables, hydrogen, and energy storage

✅ Stabilizes electricity prices via market resilience

Soaring energy prices, described as Europe's energy nightmare, are a stark reminder of how dependent Europe is on fossil fuels and should serve to accelerate the shift towards renewable forms of energy.

"This experience today of the rising energy prices is a clear wake up call... that we should accelerate the transition to clean energy, wean ourselves off the fossil fuel dependency," a senior EU official told reporters as the European Commission unveiled a series of emergency electricity measures aimed at tackling the crisis.

The European Union is facing a sharp spike in energy prices, driven by increased global demand as the world recovers from the pandemic and lower-than-expected natural gas deliveries from Russia. Wholesale electricity prices have increased by 200% compared to the 2019 average, underscoring why rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears, according to the European Commission.

"Winter is coming and for many electricity costs are larger than they have been for a decade," Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson told reporters on Wednesday.

80 million European households struggle to stay warm
Wholesale gas prices — which have surged to record highs in France, Spain, Germany and Italy, amid reports of Germany's local utilities crying for help — are expected to remain high through the winter.

Prices are expected to fall in the spring, but remain higher than the average of past years, according to the Commission. Most EU countries rely on gas-fired power stations to meet electricity demand, and about 40% of that gas comes from Russia, with the EU outlining a plan to dump Russian energy to reduce this reliance, according to Eurostat.

Simson said that the Commission's initial assessment indicates that Russia's Gazprom has been fulfilling its long-term contracts "while providing little or no additional supply."
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists on Wednesday that Russia has increased gas supplies to Europe to the maximum possible level under existing contracts, but could not exceed those thresholds. "We can say that Russia is flawlessly fulfilling all contractual obligations," he said.

Measures EU states can take to help consumers and businesses cope with soaring electricity costs include emergency income support to households to help them pay their energy bills, alongside potential gas price cap strategies, state aid for companies, and targeted tax reductions. Member states can also temporarily delay bill payments and put in place processes to ensure that no one is disconnected from the grid.

Green energy the solution
The Commission also published a series of longer term measures the bloc should consider to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and tackle energy price volatility, despite opposition from nine countries to electricity market reforms.

"Our immediate priority is to protect Europe's consumers, especially the most vulnerable," Simson said. "Second, we want to make our energy system better prepared and more resilient, so we don't have to face a similar situation in the future," she added.

Energy crisis could force more UK factories to close
This would require speeding up the green energy transition rather than slowing it down, Simson said. "We are not facing an energy price surge because of our climate policy or because renewable energy is expensive. We are facing it because the fossil fuel prices are spiking," she continued.

"The only long term remedy against demand shocks and price volatility is a transition to a green energy system."

Simson said she will propose to EU leaders a package of measures to decarbonize Europe's gas and hydrogen markets by 2050. Other measures to improve energy market stability could include increasing gas storage capacity and buying gas jointly at an EU level.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Virtual Power Plants orchestrate distributed energy resources like rooftop solar, home batteries, and EVs to deliver grid services, demand response, peak shaving, and resilience, lowering costs while enhancing reliability across wholesale markets and local networks.

Key Points

Virtual Power Plants aggregate solar and batteries to provide grid services, cut peak costs, and boost reliability.

✅ Aggregates DERs via cloud to bid into wholesale markets

✅ Reduces peak demand, defers costly grid upgrades

✅ Enhances resilience vs outages, cyber risks, and wildfires

If “virtual” meetings can allow companies to gather without anyone being in the office, then remotely distributed solar panels and batteries can harness energy and act as “virtual power plants.” It is simply the orchestration of millions of dispersed assets within a smarter electricity infrastructure to manage the supply of electricity — power that can be redirected back to the grid and distributed to homes and businesses. 

The ultimate goal is to revamp the energy landscape, making it cleaner and more reliable. By using onsite generation such as rooftop solar and smart solar inverters in combination with battery storage, those services can reduce the network’s overall cost by deferring expensive infrastructure upgrades and by reducing the need to purchase cost-prohibitive peak power. 

“We expect virtual power plants, including aggregated home solar and batteries, to become more common and more impactful for energy consumers throughout the country in the coming years,” says Michael Sachdev, chief product officer for Sunrun Inc., a rooftop solar company, in an interview. “The growth of home solar and batteries will be most apparent in places where households have an immediate need for backup power, as they do in California, where grid reliability pressures have led utilities to turn off the electricity to reduce wildfire risk.”

Most Popular In: Energy

How Extremophile Bacteria Living In Nuclear Reactors Might Help Us Make Vaccines
Apple, Ford, McDonald’s, Microsoft Among This Summer’s Climate Leaders
What’s Next For Oil And Gas?
Home battery adoption, such as Tesla Powerwall systems, is becoming commonplace in Hawaii and in New England, he adds, because those distributed assets are improving the efficiency of the electrical network. It is a trend that is reshaping the country’s energy generation and delivery system by relying more on clean onsite generation and less on fossil fuels.

Sunrun has recently formed a business partnership with AutoGrid, which will manage Sunrun’s fleet of rechargeable batteries. It is a cloud-based system that allows Sunrun to work with utilities to dispatch its “storage fleet” to optimize the economic results. AutoGrid compiles the data and makes AI-driven forecasts that enable it to pinpoint potential trouble spots. 

But a distributed energy system, or a virtual power plant, would have 200,000 subsystems. Or, 200,000 5 kilowatt batteries would be the equivalent of one power plant that has a capacity of 1,000 megawatts. 

“A virtual power plant acts as a generator,” says Amit Narayan, chief executive officer of AutoGrid, in an interview. “It is one of the top five innovations of the decade. If you look at Sunrun, 60% of every solar system it sells in the Bay Area is getting attached to a battery. The value proposition comes when you can aggregate these batteries and market them as a generation unit. The pool of individual assets may improve over time. But when you add these up, it is better than a large-scale plant. It is like going from mainframe computers to laptops.”

The AutoGrid executive goes on to say that centralized systems are less reliable than distributed resources. While one battery could falter, 200,000 of them that operate from remote locations will prove to be more durable — able to withstand cyber attacks and wildfires. Sunrun’s Sachdev adds that the ability to store energy in batteries, as seen in California’s expanding grid-scale battery use supporting reliability, and to move it to the grid on demand creates value not just for homes and businesses but also for the network as a whole.

The good news is that the trend worldwide is to make it easier for smaller distributed assets, including energy storage for microgrids that support local resilience, to get the same regulatory treatment as power plants. System operators have been obligated to call up those power supplies that are the most cost-effective and that can be easily dispatched. But now regulators are giving virtual power plants comprised of solar and batteries the same treatment. 

In the United States, for example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order in 2018 that allows storage resources to participate in wholesale markets — where electricity is bought directly from generators before selling that power to homes and businesses. Under the ruling, virtual power plants are paid the same as traditional power suppliers. A federal appeals court this month upheld the commission’s order, saying that it had the right to ensure “technological advances in energy storage are fully realized in the marketplace.” 

“In the past, we have used back-up generators,” notes AutoGrid’s Narayan. “As we move toward more automation, we are opening up the market to small assets such as battery storage and electric vehicles. As we deploy more of these assets, there will be increasing opportunities for virtual power plants.” 

Virtual power plants have the potential to change the energy horizon by harnessing locally-produced solar power and redistributing that to where it is most needed — all facilitated by cloud-based software that has a full panoramic view. At the same time, those smaller distributed assets can add more reliability and give consumers greater peace-of-mind — a dynamic that does, indeed, beef-up America’s generation and delivery network.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Barakah Unit 4 Cold Hydrostatic Testing validates reactor coolant system integrity at the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in Abu Dhabi, UAE, confirming safety, quality, and commissioning readiness under ENEC and KEPCO oversight.

Key Points

Pressure test of Unit 4's reactor coolant system, confirming integrity and safety for commissioning at Barakah.

✅ 25% above normal operating pressure verified.

✅ Welds, joints, and high-pressure components inspected.

✅ Supports safe, reliable, emissions-free baseload power.

The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) has successfully completed Cold Hydrostatic Testing (CHT) at Unit 4 of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant, the Arab world’s first nuclear energy plant being built in the Al Dhafra region of Abu Dhabi, UAE. The testing incorporated the lessons learned from the previous three units and is a crucial step towards the completion of Unit 4, the final unit of the Barakah plant.

As a part of CHT, the pressure inside Unit 4’s systems was increased to 25 per cent above what will be the normal operating pressure, demonstrating, as seen across global nuclear projects, the quality and robust nature of the Unit’s construction. Prior to the commencement of CHT, Unit 4’s Nuclear Steam Supply Systems were flushed with demineralised water, and the Reactor Pressure Vessel Head and Reactor Coolant Pump Seals were installed. During the Cold Hydrostatic Testing, the welds, joints, pipes and components of the reactor coolant system and associated high-pressure systems were verified.

Mohammed Al Hammadi, Chief Executive Officer of ENEC said: “I am proud of the continued progress being made at Barakah despite the circumstances we have all faced in relation to COVID-19. The UAE leadership’s decisive and proactive response to the pandemic supported us in taking timely, safety-led actions to protect the health and safety of our workforce and our plant. These actions, alongside the efforts of our talented and dedicated workforce, have enabled the successful completion of CHT at Unit 4, which was completed in adherence to the highest standards of safety, quality, and security.

“With this accomplishment, we move another step closer to achieving our goal of supplying up to a quarter of our nation’s electricity needs through the national grid and powering its future growth with safe, reliable, and emissions-free electricity,” he added.

By the end of 2019, ENEC and Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), working with Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) on the project, had successfully completed all major construction work including major concrete pouring, installation of the Turbine Generator, and the internal components of the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) of Unit 4, which paved the way for the commencement of testing and commissioning.

The testing at Unit 4 represents a significant achievement in the development of the UAE Peaceful Nuclear Energy Program, following the successful completion of fuel assembly loading into Unit 1 in March 2020, confirming that the UAE has officially become a peaceful nuclear energy operating nation. Preparations are now in the final stages for the safe start-up of Unit 1, which subsequently reached 100% power ahead of commercial operations, in the coming months.

ENEC is currently in the final stages of construction of units 2, 3 and 4 of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant, as China’s nuclear program continues its steady development globally. The overall construction of the four units is more than 94% complete. Unit 4 is more than 84 per cent, Unit 3 is more than 92 per cent and Unit 2 is more than 95 per cent. The four units at Barakah will generate up to 25 per cent of the UAE’s electricity demand by producing 5,600 MW of clean baseload electricity, as projects such as new reactors in Georgia take shape, and preventing the release of 21 million tons of carbon emissions each year – the equivalent of removing 3.2 million cars off the roads annually.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FERC Hydropower Licensing Dispute centers on FERC authority, Clean Water Act compliance, state water quality certifications, Federal Power Act timelines, and Army Corps dams on West Virginia's Monongahela River licenses.

Key Points

An inquiry into FERC's licensing process and state water quality authority for hydropower at Monongahela River dams.

✅ Questions on omitted state water quality conditions

✅ Debate over starting Clean Water Act certification timelines

✅ Potential impacts on states' rights and licensing schedules

As federal lawmakers, including Democrats pressing FERC, plan to consider a bill that would expand Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing authority, questions emerged on Tuesday about the process used by FERC to issue two hydropower licenses for existing dams in West Virginia.

In a letter to FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee, Democratic leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as electricity pricing changes were being debated, raised questions about hydropower licenses issued for two dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Monongahela River in West Virginia.

U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy, Bobby Rush (D-IL), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment, and John Sarbanes (D-MD), amid Maryland clean energy enforcement concerns, questioned why FERC did not incorporate all conditions outlined in a West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection water quality certificate into plans for the projects.

“By denying the state its allotted time to review this application and submit requirements on these licenses, FERC is undermining the state’s authority under the Clean Water Act and Federal Power Act to impose conditions that will ensure water quality standards are met,” the letter stated.

The House of Representatives was slated to consider the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 3043, later in the week. The measure would expand FERC authority over licensing processes, a theme mirrored in Maine's transmission line debate over interstate energy projects. Opponents of the bill argue that the changes would make it more difficult for states to protect their clean water interests.

West Virginia has announced plans to challenge FERC hydropower licenses for the dams on the Monongahela River, echoing Northern Pass opposition seen in New Hampshire.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Electricity Rate Hikes strain households as CPUC weighs fixed charges, utility profit caps, and stricter oversight. Wildfire mitigation, transmission upgrades, and aging grid costs push bills higher amid renewable integration and consumer protection debates.

Key Points

California power rates are rising from wildfire mitigation, transmission costs, and grid upgrades under CPUC review.

✅ CPUC mulls fixed charges to stabilize bills and rate design.

✅ Advocates push profit caps; utilities cite investment needs.

✅ Stronger oversight sought to curb waste and boost transparency.

California residents and consumer groups are demanding relief as their electricity bills continue to climb, putting increasing pressure on state regulators to intervene.  A recent op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle highlights the growing frustration, emphasizing that California already has some of the highest electricity rates in the country, as coverage on why prices are soaring underscores, and these costs are only getting more burdensome.

Factors Driving High Bills

The rising electricity bills are attributed to several factors:

• Wildfire Mitigation and Liability: Utility companies are investing heavily in wildfire prevention measures, such as vegetation management and infrastructure hardening. The costs of these initiatives, along with the increasing financial liabilities associated with wildfire risk, are being passed on to consumers.
• Transmission Costs: California's vast geography and move towards renewable energy sources necessitate significant investments in transmission lines to deliver electricity from remote locations. These infrastructure costs also contribute to higher bills.
• Aging Infrastructure: California's electricity grid is aging and requires upgrades and maintenance, and the expenses associated with these efforts are reflected in consumer rates.

Proposed Solutions and Debates

Consumer advocates and some lawmakers are calling for various actions to address the issue, including a potential revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid:

• Fixed Charge Proposal: The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is considering a proposal to introduce an income-based fixed charge on electricity bills. This change aims to make rates more predictable and encourage investment in renewable energy sources. However, opponents argue that it could disproportionately impact low-income households and discourage conservation.
• Utility Profit Caps: Some advocate for capping utility companies' profits. They believe excessive profits should be returned to customers in the form of lower rates. However, utility companies counter that they need a certain level of profit to invest in infrastructure and maintain a reliable grid.
• Increased Oversight: Consumer groups are calling for stricter oversight of utility company spending, and legislators are preparing to crack down on utility spending through upcoming votes as well. They demand transparency and want to ensure that funds collected from customers are being used for necessary investments and not for lobbying or excessive executive compensation.

Comparisons and National Implications

Similar concerns about rising utility bills are emerging in other parts of the country as more states transition to renewable energy and invest in infrastructure upgrades.

A report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that average residential electricity rates across the country have been on the rise for the past decade. While California currently ranks amongst the highest, major changes to electric bills are being debated, and other states are following suit, demonstrating the nationwide challenge of balancing affordability with necessary investments.

Uncertain Future

The California Public Utilities Commission is reviewing the fixed charge proposal and is expected to make a decision later this year, with income-based flat-fee utility bills moving closer in the process. The outcome of this decision and potential additional regulatory changes will have significant ramifications for California residents, and some lawmakers plan to overturn income-based charges if adopted, which could set a precedent for how other states handle the rising costs associated with the energy transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News