Hawaii unlikely to ban new power plants

Quebec Hydropower Export Retaliation examines using electricity exports to counter U.S. tariffs amid Canada-U.S. trade tensions, weighing clean energy supply, grid reliability, energy security, legal risks, and long-term market impacts.

Key Points

Using Quebec electricity exports as leverage against U.S. tariffs, and its economic, legal, and diplomatic consequences.

✅ Revenue loss for Quebec and higher costs for U.S. consumers

✅ Risk of legal disputes under trade and energy agreements

✅ Long-term erosion of market share and grid cooperation

As trade tensions between Canada and the United States continue to escalate, with electricity exports at risk according to recent reporting, discussions have intensified around potential Canadian responses to the imposition of U.S. tariffs. One of the proposals gaining attention is the idea of reducing or even halting the export of energy from Quebec to the U.S. This measure has been suggested by some as a potential countermeasure to retaliate against the tariffs. However, experts and industry leaders are urging caution, emphasizing that the consequences of such a decision could have significant economic and diplomatic repercussions for both Canada and the United States.

Quebec plays a critical role in energy trade, particularly in supplying hydroelectric power to the United States, especially to the northeastern states, including New York where tariffs may spike energy prices according to analysts, strengthening the case for stable cross-border flows. This energy trade is deeply embedded in the economic fabric of both regions. For Quebec, the export of hydroelectric power represents a crucial source of revenue, while for the U.S., it provides access to a steady and reliable supply of clean, renewable energy. This mutually beneficial relationship has been a cornerstone of trade between the two countries, promoting economic stability and environmental sustainability.

In the wake of recent U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods, some policymakers have considered using energy exports as leverage, echoing threats to cut U.S. electricity exports in earlier disputes, to retaliate against what is viewed as an unfair trade practice. The idea is to reduce or stop the flow of electricity to the U.S. as a way to strike back at the tariffs and potentially force a change in U.S. policy. On the surface, this approach may appear to offer a viable means of exerting pressure. However, experts warn that such a move would be fraught with significant risks, both economically and diplomatically.

First and foremost, Quebec's economy is heavily reliant on revenue from hydroelectric exports to the U.S. Any reduction in these energy sales could have serious consequences for the province's economic stability, potentially resulting in job losses and a decrease in investment. The hydroelectric power sector is a major contributor to Quebec's GDP, and recent events, including a tariff threat delaying a green energy bill in Quebec, illustrate how trade tensions can ripple through the policy landscape, while disrupting this source of income could harm the provincial economy.

Additionally, experts caution that reducing energy exports could have long-term ramifications on the energy relationship between Quebec and the northeastern U.S. These two regions have developed a strong and interconnected energy network over the years, and abruptly cutting off the flow of electricity could damage this vital partnership. Legal challenges could arise under existing trade agreements, and even as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects among some stakeholders, the situation would grow more complex. Such a move could also undermine trust between the two parties, making future negotiations on energy and other trade issues more difficult.

Another potential consequence of halting energy exports is that U.S. states may seek alternative sources of energy, diminishing Quebec's market share in the long run. As the U.S. has a growing demand for clean energy, especially as it looks to transition away from fossil fuels, and looks to Canada for green power in several regions, cutting off Quebec’s electricity could prompt U.S. states to invest in other forms of energy, including renewables or even nuclear power. This could have a lasting effect on Quebec's position in the U.S. energy market, making it harder for the province to regain its footing.

Moreover, reducing or ceasing energy exports could further exacerbate trade tensions, leading to even greater economic instability. The U.S. could retaliate by imposing additional tariffs on Canadian goods or taking other measures that would negatively impact Canada's economy. This could create a cycle of escalating trade barriers that would hurt both countries and undermine the broader North American trade relationship.

While the concept of using energy exports as a retaliatory tool may seem appealing to some, the experts' advice is clear: the potential economic and diplomatic costs of such a strategy outweigh the short-term benefits. Quebec’s role as an energy supplier to the U.S. is crucial to its own economy, and maintaining a stable, reliable energy trade relationship is essential for both parties. Rather than escalating tensions further, it may be more prudent for Canada and the U.S. to seek diplomatic solutions that preserve trade relations and minimize harm to their economies.

While the idea of using Quebec’s energy exports as leverage in response to U.S. tariffs may appear attractive on the surface, and despite polls showing support for tariffs on energy and minerals among Canadians, it carries significant risks. Experts emphasize the importance of maintaining a stable energy export strategy to protect Quebec’s economy and preserve positive diplomatic relations with the U.S. Both countries have much to lose from further escalating trade tensions, and a more measured approach is likely to yield better outcomes in the long run.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hourly Electricity Emissions Tracking maps grid balancing areas, embodied emissions, and imports/exports, revealing carbon intensity shifts across PJM, ERCOT, and California ISO, and clarifying renewable energy versus coal impacts on health and climate.

Key Points

An hourly method tracing generation, flows, and embodied emissions to quantify carbon intensity across US balancing areas.

✅ Hourly traces of imports/exports and generation mix

✅ Consumption-based carbon intensity by balancing area

✅ Policy insights for renewables, coal, health costs

In the United States, electricity generation accounts for nearly 30% of our carbon emissions. Some states have responded to that by setting aggressive renewable energy standards; others are hoping to see coal propped up even as its economics get worse. Complicating matters further is the fact that many regional grids are integrated, and as America goes electric the stakes grow, meaning power generated in one location may be exported and used in a different state entirely.

Tracking these electricity exports is critical for understanding how to lower our national carbon emissions. In addition, power from a dirty source like coal has health and environment impacts where it's produced, and the costs of these aren't always paid by the parties using the electricity. Unfortunately, getting reliable figures on how electricity is produced and where it's used is challenging, even for consumers trying to find where their electricity comes from in the first place, leaving some of the best estimates with a time resolution of only a month.

Now, three Stanford researchers—Jacques A. de Chalendar, John Taggart, and Sally M. Benson—have greatly improved on that standard, and they have managed to track power generation and use on an hourly basis. The researchers found that, of the 66 grid balancing areas within the United States, only three have carbon emissions equivalent to our national average, and they have found that imports and exports of electricity have both seasonal and daily changes. de Chalendar et al. discovered that the net results can be substantial, with imported electricity increasing California's emissions/power by 20%.

Hour by hour
To figure out the US energy trading landscape, the researchers obtained 2016 data for grid features called balancing areas. The continental US has 66 of these, providing much better spatial resolution on the data than the larger grid subdivisions. This doesn't cover everything—several balancing areas in Canada and Mexico are tied in to the US grid—and some of these balancing areas are much larger than others. The PJM grid, serving Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland, for example, is more than twice as large as Texas' ERCOT, in a state that produces and consumes the most electricity in the US.

Despite these limitations, it's possible to get hourly figures on how much electricity was generated, what was used to produce it, and whether it was used locally or exported to another balancing area. Information on the generating sources allowed the researchers to attach an emissions figure to each unit of electricity produced. Coal, for example, produces double the emissions of natural gas, which in turn produces more than an order of magnitude more carbon dioxide than the manufacturing of solar, wind, or hydro facilities. These figures were turned into what the authors call "embodied emissions" that can be traced to where they're eventually used.

Similar figures were also generated for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Released by the burning of fossil fuels, these can both influence the global climate and produce local health problems.

Huge variation
The results were striking. "The consumption-based carbon intensity of electricity varies by almost an order of magnitude across the different regions in the US electricity system," the authors conclude. The low is the Bonneville Power grid region, which is largely supplied by hydropower; it has typical emissions below 100kg of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour. The highest emissions come in the Ohio Valley Electric region, where emissions clear 900kg/MW-hr. Only three regional grids match the overall grid emissions intensity, although that includes the very large PJM (where capacity auction payouts recently fell), ERCOT, and Southern Co balancing areas.

Most of the low-emissions power that's exported comes from the Pacific Northwest's abundant hydropower, while the Rocky Mountains area exports electricity with the highest associated emissions. That leads to some striking asymmetries. Local generation in the hydro-rich Idaho Power Company has embodied emissions of only 71kg/MW-hr, while its imports, coming primarily from Rocky Mountain states, have a carbon content of 625kg/MW-hr.

The reliance on hydropower also makes the asymmetry seasonal. Local generation is highest in the spring as snow melts, but imports become a larger source outside this time of year. As solar and wind can also have pronounced seasonal shifts, similar changes will likely be seen as these become larger contributors to many of these regional grids. Similar things occur daily, as both demand and solar production (and, to a lesser extent, wind) have distinct daily profiles.

The Golden State
California's CISO provides another instructive case. Imports represent less than 30% of its total electric use in 2016, yet California electricity imports provided 40% of its embodied emissions. Some of these, however, come internally from California, provided by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The state itself, however, has only had limited tracking of imported emissions, lumping many of its sources as "other," and has been exporting its energy policies to Western states in ways that shape regional markets.

Overall, the 2016 inventory provides a narrow picture of the US grid, as plenty of trends are rapidly changing our country's emissions profile, including the rise of renewables and the widespread adoption of efficiency measures and other utility trends in 2017 that continue to evolve. The method developed here can, however, allow for annual updates, providing us with a much better picture of trends. That could be quite valuable to track things like how the rapid rise in solar power is altering the daily production of clean power.

More significantly, it provides a basis for more informed policymaking. States that wish to promote low-emissions power can use the information here to either alter the source of their imports or to encourage the sites where they're produced to adopt more renewable power. And those states that are exporting electricity produced primarily through fossil fuels could ensure that the locations where the power is used pay a price that includes the health costs of its production.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Manitoba Hydro 3.5 Percent Rate Increase proposes a smaller electricity rate hike under Public Utilities Board oversight to bolster financial reserves, address debt and Bipole III costs, amid shifting export sales and water flow conditions.

Key Points

It is Manitoba Hydro's proposed 3.5% electricity rate hike for 2019-20 to shore up finances under PUB oversight.

✅ PUB review sought without lengthy hearing

✅ Revenue boost forecast at 59 million dollars

✅ Natural gas rates flat; class shifts adjust bills

Manitoba Hydro is scaling back its rate hike request for next year, instead of the annual 7.9 per cent hikes the Crown corporation previously said it would need until 2023-24 to address debt. 

Hydro is asking the Public Utilities Board for a 3.5 per cent rate increase next year, which would take effect on April 1.

In last week's application, Hydro said its new board is reviewing the corporation's financial picture. Once that is complete, the utility expects to submit a new multi-year rate plan in late 2019 that addresses the organization's long-term future.

"It's too speculative at this point to discuss any possible future rate increases," spokesperson Bruce Owen said in an email.

The proposed increase next year is similar to other jurisdictions and nearly in line with the Public Utilities Board's decision to allow an average 3.6 per cent jump in electricity rates in 2018-19, which began this summer.

"The requested 3.5 per cent rate increase … generates a modest level of net income under average water flow conditions that will assist in gradually building the revenue base and reduce the risk of the corporation incurring a loss" in 2019-20, the rate application said.

If approved, consumers would face their second rate increase from Hydro in under a year.

Crown Services Minister Colleen Mayer said she's sympathetic to customers bracing for another rate increase amid NL rate hike concerns that far exceeds the rate of inflation.

"I hear that, very clearly," she said. "The NDP left us with an insurmountable problem — we're trying to fix that."

Hydro goes to court over special rate class for First Nations residents in Manitoba

National Energy Board OK's Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project

Next year's rate increase is projected to bring in $59 million of revenue, boosting the Crown corporation's financial reserves by $31 million.

Without it, the utility would deal with a net loss, it said.

This time, Hydro officials are asking PUB to forgo a rate hearing, suggesting neither itself nor the board has the resources for a lengthy six- to nine-month process to review an application where not much has changed financially and would generate a "minimum level of net income," Hydro said in a letter to the board.

The short-term rate relief, the letter recommends, should be "awarded in a timely and cost-effective manner, recognizing that the corporation's long-term financial forecasts will be finalized and available for review" in late 2019.

Hydro's net income next year will be lower than projected, the rate application said, due to a reduction in export sales and increases in depreciation and financing costs from Bipole III.

"Even though they had a total implosion of their previous board, on this very issue, they haven't learned lessons and they continue to be cheerleaders for these rapid rate increases," Kinew said, referring to the exodus of every board member but one earlier this year.

Manitoba Hydro's burgeoning debt surpasses $19 billion

On natural gas, Manitoba Hydro is asking PUB for no rate increase for the next two years.

There will, however, be some changes in rates in different customer classes, Owen said, resulting in modest rate reductions for mainly residential customers and increases for customers who use a lot of natural gas.

The corporation also wants to stop collecting fees to support the furnace replacement program. The initiative will continue with existing fees.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Texas Power Grid Reliability faces ERCOT blackouts and winter storm risks; solutions span weatherization, natural gas coordination, PUC-ERCOT reform, capacity market signals, demand response, grid batteries, and geothermal to maintain resilient electricity supply.

Key Points

Texas Power Grid Reliability is ERCOT's ability to keep electricity flowing during extreme weather and demand spikes.

✅ Weatherize power plants and gas supply to prevent freeze-offs

✅ Merge PUC and Railroad Commission for end-to-end oversight

✅ Pay for firm capacity, demand response, and grid storage

The blackouts in February shined a light on the fragile infrastructure that supports modern life. More and more, every task in life requires electricity, and no one is in charge of making sure Texans have enough.

Of the 4.5 million Texans who lost power last winter, many of them also lost heat and at least 100 froze to death. Wi-Fi stopped working and phones soon lost their charges, making it harder for people to get help, find someplace warm to go or to check in on loved ones.

In some places pipes froze, and people couldn’t get water to drink or flush after power and water failures disrupted systems, and low water pressure left some health care facilities unable to properly care for patients. Many folks looking for gasoline were out of luck; pumps run on electricity.

But rather than scouting for ways to use less electricity, we keep plugging in more things. Automatic faucets and toilets, security systems and locks. Now we want to plug in our cars, so that if the grid goes down, we have to hope our Teslas have enough juice to get to Oklahoma.

The February freeze illuminated two problems with electricity sufficiency. First, power plants had mechanical failures, triggering outages for days. But also, Texans demanded a lot more electricity than usual as heaters kicked on because of the cold. The ugly truth is, the Texas power grid probably couldn’t have generated enough electricity to meet demand, even if the plants kept whirring. And that is what should chill us now.

The stories of the people who died because the electricity went out during the freeze are difficult to read. A paletero and cotton-candy vendor well known in Old East Dallas, Leobardo Torres Sánchez, was found dead in his armchair, bundled in quilts beside two heaters that had no power.

Arnulfo Escalante Lopez, 41, and Jose Anguiano Torres, 28, died from carbon monoxide poisoning after using a gas-powered generator to heat their apartment in Garland.

Pramod Bhattarai, 23, a college student from Nepal, died from carbon monoxide after using a charcoal grill to heat his home in Houston, according to news reports. And Loan Le, 75; Olivia Nguyen, 11; Edison Nguyen, 8; and Colette Nguyen, 5, died in Sugar Land after losing control of a fire they started in the fireplace to keep warm.

A 65-year-old San Antonio man with esophageal cancer died after power outages cut off supply from his oxygen machine. And local Abilene media reported that a man died in a local hospital when a loss of water pressure prevented staff from treating him.

Gloria Jones of Hillsboro, 87, was living by herself, healthy and social. According to the Houston Chronicle, as the cold weather descended, she told her friends and family she was fine. But when her children checked on her after she didn’t answer her phone, they found her on the floor beside her bed. Hospital workers tried to warm her, but they soon pronounced her dead.

Officials said in July that 210 people died because of the freezing weather, including those who died in car crashes and other weather-related causes, but that figure will be updated. The Department of State Health Services said most of those deaths were due to hypothermia.

Policy recommendation: Weatherize power plants and fuel suppliers

Texas could have avoided those deaths if power plants had worked properly. It’s mechanically possible to generate electricity in freezing temperatures; the Swedes and Finns have electricity in winter. But preparing equipment for the winter costs money, and now that the Public Utility Commission set new requirements for plant owners to weatherize equipment, we expect better reliability.

The PUC officials certainly expect better performance. Chairman Peter Lake earlier this month promised: “We go into this winter knowing that because of all these efforts the lights will stay on.”

Yet, there’s no matching requirement to weatherize key fuel supplies for natural gas-fired power plants. While the PUC and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas were busy this year coming up with standards and enforcement processes, the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas production, was not.

The Railroad Commission is working to ensure that natural gas producers who supply power plants have filed the proper paperwork so that they do not lose electricity in a blackout, rendering them unable to provide vital fuel. But weatherization regulations will not happen for some months, not in time for this winter.

Policy recommendation: Combine the state’s Public Utility Commission and Railroad Commission into one energy agency

Electricity and natural gas regulators came to realize the importance of natural gas suppliers communicating their electricity needs with the PUC to avoid getting cut off when the fuel is needed the most. Not last year; they realized this ten years ago, when the same thing happened and triggered a day of rolling outages.

Why did it take a decade for the companies regulated by one agency to get their paperwork in order with a separate agency? It makes more sense for a single agency to regulate the entire energy process, from wellhead to lightbulb. (Or well-to-wheel, as cars increasingly need electricity, too.)

Over the years, various legislative sunset commissions have recommended combining the agencies, with different governance suggestions, none of which passed the Legislature. We urge lawmakers in 2023 to take up the idea in earnest, hammer out the governance details, and make sure the resulting agency has the heft and resources to regulate energy in a way that keeps the industry healthy and holds it accountable.

Policy recommendation: Incentivize building more power plants

Regardless, if energy companies in February had operated their equipment exactly right, the lights likely would have still gone out. Perhaps for a shorter period, perhaps in a more shared way, allowing people to keep homes above freezing and phones charged between rolling blackouts. But Texas was heading for trouble.

Before the winter freeze, ERCOT anticipated Texas would have 74,000 MW of power generation capacity for the winter of 2021. That’s less than the usual summer fleet as some plants go down for maintenance in the winter, but sufficient to meet their wildest predictions of winter electricity demand. The power generation on hand for the winter would have met the historic record winter demand, at 65,918 MW. Even in ERCOT’s planning scenario with extreme generator failures, the grid had enough capacity.

But during the second week of February, as weather forecasts became more dire, grid operators began rapidly hiking their estimates of electricity demand. On Valentine’s Day, ERCOT estimated demand would rise to 75,573 MW in the coming week.

Clearly that is more demand than all of Texas’ winter power generation fleet of 74,000 MW could handle. Demand never reached that level because ERCOT turned off service to millions of customers when power plants failed.

This raises questions about whether the Texas grid has enough power plants to remain resilient as climate change brings more frequent bouts of extreme weather and blackout risks across the U.S. Or if we have enough power to grow, as more people and companies, more homes and businesses and manufacturing plants, move to Texas.

What a shame if the Texas Miracle, our robust and growing economy, died because we ran out of electricity.

This is no exaggeration. In November, ERCOT released its seasonal assessment of whether Texas will have enough electricity resources for the coming winter. If weather is normal, yes, Texas will be in good shape. But if extreme weather again pushes Texas to use an inordinate amount of electricity for heat, and if wind and solar output are low, there won’t be enough. In that scenario, even if power plants mostly continue to operate properly, we should brace for outages.

Further, there are few investors planning to build more power plants in Texas, other than solar and wind. Renewable plants have many good qualities, but reliability isn’t one of them. Some investors are building grid-scale batteries, a technology that promises to add reliability to the grid.

How come power plant developers aren’t building more generators, especially with flat electricity demand in many markets today?

Policy recommendation: Incentivize reliability

The Texas electrical grid, independent of the rest of the U.S., operates as a competitive market. No regulator plans a power plant; investors choose to build plants based on expectations of profit.

How it works is, power generators offer their electricity into the market at the price of their choosing. ERCOT accepts the lowest bids first, working up to higher bids as demand for power increases in the course of a day.

The idea is that Texans always get the lowest possible price, and if prices rise high, investors will build more power plants. Basic supply and demand. When the market was first set up, this worked pretty well, because the big, reliable baseload generators, the coal and nuclear industries, were the cheapest to operate and bid their power at prices that kept them online all the time. The more agile natural gas-fired plants ramped up and down to meet demand minute-by-minute, at higher prices.

Renewable energy disrupts the market in ways that are great, generating cheap, clean power that has forced some high-polluting coal plants to mothball. But the disruption also undermines reliability. Wind and solar plants are the cheapest and quickest power generation to build and they have the lowest operating cost, allowing them to bid very low prices into the power market. Wind tends to blow hardest in West Texas at night, so the abundance of wind turbines has pushed many of those old baseload plants out of the market.

That’s how markets work, and we’re not crying for coal plant operators. But ERCOT has to figure out how to operate the market differently to keep the lights on.

The PUC announced a slew of electricity market reforms last week to address this very problem, including new to market pricing and an emergency reliability service for ERCOT to contract for more back-up power. These changes cost money, but failing to make any changes could cost more lives.

Texas became the No. 1 wind state thanks in part to a smart renewable energy credit system that created financial incentives to erect wind turbines. But those credits mean that sometimes at night, wind generators bid electricity into the market at negative prices, because they will make money off of the renewable energy credits.

It’s time for the Legislature to review the credit program to determine if it’s still needed, of a similar program could be added to incentivize reliability. The market-based program worked better than anyone could have expected to produce clean energy. Why not use this approach to create what we need now: clean and reliable energy?

We were pleased that PUC commissioners discussed last week an idea that would create a market for reliable power generation capacity by adding requirements that power market participants meet a standard of reliability guarantees.

A market for reliable electricity capacity will cost more, and we hope regulators keep the requirements as modest as possible. Renewable requirements were modest, but turned out to be powerful in a competitive market.

We expect a reliability program to be flexible enough that entrepreneurs can participate with new technology, such as batteries or geothermal energy or something that hasn’t been invented yet, rather than just old reliable fossil fuels.

We also welcome the PUC’s review of pricing rules for the market. Commissioners intend for a new pricing formula to offer early price signals of pending scarcity, to allow time for industrial customers to reduce consumption or suppliers to ramp up. This is intriguing, but we hope the final implementation keeps market interventions at a minimum.

We witnessed in February a scenario in which extremely high prices on the power market did nothing to attract more electricity into the market. Power plants broke down; there was no way to generate more power, no matter how high market prices went. So the PUC was silly to intervene in the market and keep prices artificially high; the outcome was billions of dollars of debt and a proposed electricity market bailout that electricity customers will end up paying.

Nor did this PUC pricing intervention prompt power generation developers to say: “I tell you what, let’s build more plants in Texas.” In the next few years, ERCOT can expect more solar power generation to come online, but little else.

Natural gas plant operators have told the PUC that market price signals show that a new plant wouldn’t be profitable. Natural gas plants are cheaper and faster to build than nuclear reactors; if those developers cannot figure out how to make money, then the prospect of a new nuclear reactor in Texas is a fantasy, even setting aside the environmental and political opposition.

Policy proposal: Use less energy

Politicians like to imagine that technology will solve our energy problem. But the quickest, cheapest, cleanest solution to all of our energy problems is to use less. Investing some federal infrastructure money to make homes more energy efficient would cut energy use, and could help homes retain heat in an emergency.

The PUC’s plan to offer more incentives for major power users to reduce demand in a grid emergency is a good idea. Bravo – next let’s take this benefit to the masses.

Upgrading building codes to require efficiency for office buildings and apartments can help, and might have prevented the frozen pipes in so many multifamily housing units that left people without water.

When North Texas power-line utility Oncor invested in smart grid technology in past decades, part of the promise was to help users reduce demand when electricity prices rise or in emergencies. A review and upgrade of the smart technology could allow more customers to benefit from discounts in exchange for turning things off when electricity supply is tight.

Problem is, we seem to be going in the opposite direction as consumers. Forget turning off the TV and unplugging the coffee machine as we leave the house each morning; now everything is always-on and always connected to Wi-Fi. Our appliances, electronics and the services that operate them can text us when anything interesting happens, like the laundry finishes or somebody opens the patio door or the first season of Murder She Wrote is available for streaming.

As Texans plug in electric vehicles, we will need even more power generation capacity. Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin estimated that if every Texan switched to an electric vehicle, demand for electricity would rise about 30%.

Texans will need to think realistically and rationally about where that electricity is going to come from. Before we march toward a utopian vision of an all-electric world, we need to make sure we have enough electricity.

Getting this right is a matter of life and death for each of one us and for Texas.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Pumped Storage Hydroelectricity balances renewable energy, stabilizes the grid, and provides large-scale energy storage using reservoirs and reversible turbines, delivering flexible peak power, frequency control, and rapid response to variable wind and solar generation.

Key Points

A reversible hydro system that stores energy by pumping water uphill, then generates flexible peak power.

✅ Balances variable wind and solar with rapid ramping

✅ Stores off-peak electricity in upper reservoirs

✅ Enhances grid stability, frequency control, and reserves

The expense of hydroelectricity is moderately low, making it a serious wellspring of sustainable power. The hydro station burns-through no water, dissimilar to coal or gas plants. The commonplace expense of power from a hydro station bigger than 10 megawatts is 3 to 5 US pennies for every kilowatt hour, and Niagara Falls powerhouse upgrade projects show how modernization can further improve efficiency and reliability. With a dam and supply it is likewise an adaptable wellspring of power, since the sum delivered by the station can be shifted up or down quickly (as meager as a couple of moments) to adjust to changing energy requests.

When a hydroelectric complex is developed, the task creates no immediate waste, and it for the most part has an extensively lower yield level of ozone harming substances than photovoltaic force plants and positively petroleum product fueled energy plants, with calls to invest in hydropower highlighting these benefits. In open-circle frameworks, unadulterated pumped storage plants store water in an upper repository with no normal inflows, while pump back plants use a blend of pumped storage and regular hydroelectric plants with an upper supply that is renewed to a limited extent by common inflows from a stream or waterway.

Plants that don't utilize pumped capacity are alluded to as ordinary hydroelectric plants, and initiatives focused on repowering existing dams continue to expand clean generation; regular hydroelectric plants that have critical capacity limit might have the option to assume a comparable function in the electrical lattice as pumped capacity by conceding yield until required.

The main use for pumped capacity has customarily been to adjust baseload powerplants, however may likewise be utilized to decrease the fluctuating yield of discontinuous fuel sources, while emerging gravity energy storage concepts broaden long-duration options. Pumped capacity gives a heap now and again of high power yield and low power interest, empowering extra framework top limit.

In specific wards, power costs might be near zero or once in a while negative on events that there is more electrical age accessible than there is load accessible to retain it; despite the fact that at present this is infrequently because of wind or sunlight based force alone, expanded breeze and sun oriented age will improve the probability of such events.

All things considered, pumped capacity will turn out to be particularly significant as an equilibrium for exceptionally huge scope photovoltaic age. Increased long-distance bandwidth, including hydropower imports from Canada, joined with huge measures of energy stockpiling will be a critical piece of directing any enormous scope sending of irregular inexhaustible force sources. The high non-firm inexhaustible power entrance in certain districts supplies 40% of yearly yield, however 60% might be reached before extra capaciy is fundamental.

Pumped capacity plants can work with seawater, despite the fact that there are extra difficulties contrasted with utilizing new water. Initiated in 1966, the 240 MW Rance flowing force station in France can incompletely function as a pumped storage station. At the point when elevated tides happen at off-top hours, the turbines can be utilized to pump more seawater into the repository than the elevated tide would have normally gotten. It is the main enormous scope power plant of its sort.

Alongside energy mechanism, pumped capacity frameworks help control electrical organization recurrence and give save age. Warm plants are substantially less ready to react to abrupt changes in electrical interest, and can see higher thermal PLF during periods of reduced hydro generation, conceivably causing recurrence and voltage precariousness.

Pumped storage plants, as other hydroelectric plants, including new BC generating stations, can react to stack changes in practically no time. Pumped capacity hydroelectricity permits energy from discontinuous sources, (for example, sunlight based, wind) and different renewables, or abundance power from consistent base-load sources, (for example, coal or atomic) to be put something aside for times of more popularity.

The repositories utilized with siphoned capacity are tiny when contrasted with ordinary hydroelectric dams of comparable force limit, and creating periods are regularly not exactly a large portion of a day. This technique produces power to gracefully high top requests by moving water between repositories at various heights.

Now and again of low electrical interest, the abundance age limit is utilized to pump water into the higher store. At the point when the interest gets more noteworthy, water is delivered once more into the lower repository through a turbine. Pumped capacity plans at present give the most monetarily significant methods for enormous scope matrix energy stockpiling and improve the every day limit factor of the age framework. Pumped capacity isn't a fuel source, and shows up as a negative number in postings.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News