Sleeping guards cost FPL $130,000

Affordable Clean Energy Rule Lawsuit pits EPA and coal industry allies against health groups over Clean Power Plan repeal, greenhouse gas emissions standards, climate change, public health, and state authority before the D.C. Circuit.

Key Points

A legal fight over EPA's ACE rule and CPP repeal, weighing emissions policy, state authority, climate, and public health.

✅ Challenges repeal of Clean Power Plan and adoption of ACE.

✅ EPA backed by coal, utilities; health groups seek stricter limits.

✅ D.C. Circuit to review emissions authority and state roles.

The largest trade association representing coal interests in the country has joined other business and electric utility groups in siding with the EPA in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The suit -- filed by the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association -- seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop a new rule-making process that critics claim would allow higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, further contributing to the climate crisis and negatively impacting public health.

The new rule, which the Trump administration calls the "Affordable Clean Energy rule" (ACE), "would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA's authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect," according to an EPA statement.

EPA has also moved to rewrite wastewater limits for coal power plants, signaling a broader rollback of related environmental requirements.

America's Power -- formerly the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association have filed motions seeking to join the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not yet responded to the motion.

Separately, energy groups warned that President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were rushing major changes to electricity pricing that could disrupt markets.

"In this rule, the EPA has accomplished what eluded the prior administration: providing a clear, legal pathway to reduce emissions while preserving states' authority over their own grids," Hal Quinn, president and chief executive officer of the mining association, said when the new rule was released last month. "ACE replaces a proposal that was so extreme that the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of the proposal, having recognized the economic havoc the mere suggestion of such overreach was causing in the nation's power grid."

Around the same time, a coal industry CEO blasted a federal agency's decision on the power grid as harmful to reliability.

The trade and business groups have argued that the Clean Power Plan, set by the Obama administration, was an overreach of federal power. Finalized in 2015, the plan was President Obama's signature policy on climate change, rooted in compliance with the Paris Climate Treaty. It would have set state limits on emissions from existing power plants but gave wide latitude for meeting goals, such as allowing plant operators to switch from coal to other electric generating sources to meet targets.

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the rule exceeded federal statutory limits by imposing "outside the fence" regulations on coal-fired plants instead of regulating "inside the fence" operations that can improve efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan set a goal of reducing carbon emissions from power generators by 32 percent by the year 2030. An analysis from the Rhodium Group found that had states taken full advantage of the CPP's flexibility, emissions would have been reduced by as much as 72 million metric tons per year on average. Still, even absent federal mandates, the group noted that states are taking it upon themselves to enact emission-reducing plans based on market forces.

In its motion, America's Power argues the EPA "acknowledged that the [Best System of Emission Reduction] for a source category must be 'limited to measures that can be implemented ... by the sources themselves.'" If plants couldn't take action, compliance with the new rule would require the owners or operators to buy emission rate credits that would increase investment in electricity from gas-fired or renewable sources. The increase in operating costs plus federal efforts to shift power generation to other sources of energy, thereby increasing costs, would eventually force the coal-fired plants out of business.

In related proceedings, renewable energy advocates told FERC that a DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants was unsupported by the record, highlighting concerns about market distortions.

"While we are confident that EPA will prevail in the courts, we also want to help EPA defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation," said Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America's Power.

"Extreme regulation" to one group is environmental and health protections to another, though.

Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, defended the Clean Power Plan in an opinion piece published in June.

"The Midwest still produces more electricity from coal plants than any other region of the country, and Midwesterners bear the full range of pollution harms to public health, the Great Lakes, and overall environmental quality," Learner wrote. "The new [Affordable Clean Energy] Rule is a misguided policy, moves our nation backward in solving climate change problems, and misses opportunities for economic growth and innovation in the global shift to renewable energy. If not reversed by the courts, as it should be, the next administration will have the challenge of doing the right thing for public health, the climate and our clean energy future."

When it initially filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the American Lung Association accused the EPA of "abdicat[ing] its legal duties and obligations to protect public health." It also referred to the new rule as "dangerous."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CO2 Removal Technologies address climate change via negative emissions, including carbon capture, reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, BECCS, DAC, and mineralization, helping meet Paris Agreement targets while managing costs, land use, and infrastructure demands.

Key Points

Methods to extract or sequester atmospheric CO2, combining natural and engineered approaches to limit warming.

✅ Includes reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, BECCS, DAC, mineralization

✅ Balances climate goals with costs, land, energy, and infrastructure

✅ Key to Paris Agreement targets under 1.5-2.0 °C warming

The world is, on average, 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer today than it was in 1850. If this trend continues, our planet will be 2 – 3 degrees hotter by the end of this century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The main reason for this temperature rise is higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which cause the atmosphere to trap heat radiating from the Earth into space. Since 1850, the proportion of CO2 in the air has increased, with record greenhouse gas concentrations documented, from 0.029% to 0.041% (288 ppm to 414 ppm).

This is directly related to the burning of coal, oil and gas, which were created from forests, plankton and plants over millions of years. Back then, they stored CO2 and kept it out of the atmosphere, but as fossil fuels are burned, that CO2 is released. Other contributing factors include industrialized agriculture and slash-and-burn land clearing techniques, and emissions from SF6 in electrical equipment are also concerning today.

Over the past 50 years, more than 1200 billion tons of CO2 have been emitted into the planet's atmosphere — 36.6 billion tons in 2018 alone, though global emissions flatlined in 2019 before rising again. As a result, the global average temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees in just half a century.

Atmospheric CO2 should remain at a minimum
In 2015, the world came together to sign the Paris Climate Agreement which set the goal of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees — 1.5 degrees, if possible.

The agreement limits the amount of CO2 that can be released into the atmosphere, providing a benchmark for the global energy transition now underway. According to the IPCC, if a maximum of around 300 billion tons were emitted, there would be a 50% chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. If CO2 emissions remain the same, however, the CO2 'budget' would be used up in just seven years.

According to the IPCC's report on the 1.5 degree target, negative emissions are also necessary to achieve the climate targets.

Using reforestation to remove CO2
One planned measure to stop too much CO2 from being released into the atmosphere is reforestation. According to studies, 3.6 billion tons of CO2 — around 10% of current CO2 emissions — could be saved every year during the growth phase. However, a study by researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich, stresses that achieving this would require the use of land areas equivalent in size to the entire US.

Young trees at a reforestation project in Africa (picture-alliance/OKAPIA KG, Germany)
Reforestation has potential to tackle the climate crisis by capturing CO2. But it would require a large amount of space

More humus in the soil
Humus in the soil stores a lot of carbon. But this is being released through the industrialization of agriculture. The amount of humus in the soil can be increased by using catch crops and plants with deep roots as well as by working harvest remnants back into the ground and avoiding deep plowing. According to a study by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) on using targeted CO2 extraction as a part of EU climate policy, between two and five billion tons of CO2 could be saved with a global build-up of humus reserves.

Biochar shows promise
Some scientists see biochar as a promising technology for keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere. Biochar is created when organic material is heated and pressurized in a zero or very low-oxygen environment. In powdered form, the biochar is then spread on arable land where it acts as a fertilizer. This also increases the amount of carbon content in the soil. According to the same study from the SWP, global application of this technology could save between 0.5 and two billion tons of CO2 every year.

Storing CO2 in the ground
Storing CO2 deep in the Earth is already well-known and practiced on Norway's oil fields, for example. However, the process is still controversial, as storing CO2 underground can lead to earthquakes and leakage in the long-term. A different method is currently being practiced in Iceland, in which CO2 is sequestered into porous basalt rock to be mineralized into stone. Both methods still require more research, however, with new DOE funding supporting carbon capture, utilization, and storage.

Capturing CO2 to be held underground is done by using chemical processes which effectively extract the gas from the ambient air, and some researchers are exploring CO2-to-electricity concepts for utilization. This method is known as direct air capture (DAC) and is already practiced in other parts of Europe.  As there is no limit to the amount of CO2 that can be captured, it is considered to have great potential. However, the main disadvantage is the cost — currently around €550 ($650) per ton. Some scientists believe that mass production of DAC systems could bring prices down to €50 per ton by 2050. It is already considered a key technology for future climate protection.

The inside of a carbon capture facility in the Netherlands (RWE AG)
Carbon capture facilities are still very expensive and take up a huge amount of space

Another way of extracting CO2 from the air is via biomass. Plants grow and are burned in a power plant to produce electricity. CO2 is then extracted from the exhaust gas of the power plant and stored deep in the Earth, with new U.S. power plant rules poised to test such carbon capture approaches.

The big problem with this technology, known as bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is the huge amount of space required. According to Felix Creutzig from the Mercator Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) in Berlin, it will therefore only play "a minor role" in CO2 removal technologies.

CO2 bound by rock minerals
In this process, carbonate and silicate rocks are mined, ground and scattered on agricultural land or on the surface water of the ocean, where they collect CO2 over a period of years. According to researchers, by the middle of this century it would be possible to capture two to four billion tons of CO2 every year using this technique. The main challenges are primarily the quantities of stone required, and building the necessary infrastructure. Concrete plans have not yet been researched.

Not an option: Fertilizing the sea with iron
The idea is use iron to fertilize the ocean, thereby increasing its nuturient content, which would allow plankton to grow stronger and capture more CO2. However, both the process and possible side effects are very controversial. "This is rarely treated as a serious option in research," concludes SWP study authors Oliver Geden and Felix Schenuit.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Minnesota 100% Carbon-Free Electricity advances renewable energy: wind, solar, hydropower, hydrogen, biogas from landfill gas and anaerobic digestion; excludes incineration in environmental justice areas; uses renewable energy credits and streamlined permitting.

Key Points

Minnesota's mandate requires utilities to deliver 100% carbon-free power by 2040 with targets and EJ safeguards.

✅ Utilities must hit 90% carbon-free by 2035; 100% by 2040.

✅ Incineration in EJ areas excluded; biogas, wind, solar allowed.

✅ Compliance via renewable credits; streamlined permitting.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, D, is expected to soon sign a bill establishing a clean electricity standard requiring utilities in the state to provide electricity from 100% carbon-free sources by 2040. The bill also calls for utilities to generate at least 55% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2035, a trajectory similar to New Mexico's clean electricity push underway this decade.

Electricity generated from landfill gas and anaerobic digestion are named as approved renewable energy technologies, but electricity generated from incinerators operating in “environmental justice areas”, reflecting concerns about renewable facilities violating pollution rules in some states, will not be counted toward the goal. Wind, solar, and certain hydropower and hydrogen energy sources are also considered renewable in the bill. 

The bill defines EJ areas as places where at least 40% of residents are not white, 35% of households have an income that’s below 200% of the federal poverty line, and 40% or more of residents over age 5 have “limited” English proficiency. Areas the U.S. state defines as “Indian country” are also considered EJ areas.

Some of the state’s largest electric utilities, like Xcel Energy and Minnesota Power, have already pledged to move to carbon-free energy, and utilities such as Alliant Energy have outlined carbon-neutral plans in the region, but this bill speeds up that goal by 10 years, Minnesota Public Radio reported. The bill calls for public utilities operating in the state to be 80% carbon-free and other electric utilities to be 60% carbon-free by 2030. All utilities must be 90% carbon-free by 2035 before ultimately hitting the 100% mark in 2040, according to the bill.  

The bill gives utilities some leniency if they demonstrate to state regulators that they can’t offer affordable power while working toward the benchmarks, acknowledging reliability challenges seen in places like California's grid during the clean energy transition. It also allows utilities to buy renewable energy credits to meet the standard instead of generating the energy themselves. 

Patrick Serfass, executive director of the American Biogas Council, said the bill will incentivize more biogas-related electricity projects, “which means the recycling of more organic material and more renewable electricity in the state. Those are all good things,” he said. ABC sees significant potential for biogas production in Minnesota, though the federal climate law has delivered mixed results for accelerating clean power deployment.

The bill also aims to streamline the permitting process for new energy projects in the state, even as some states consider limits on clean energy that would constrain utility use, and calls for higher minimum wage requirements for workers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Clean Energy Job Losses highlight COVID-19 impacts on renewable energy, solar, wind, and energy efficiency, with PPP fatigue, unemployment, and calls for Congressional stimulus, per Department of Labor data analyzed by E2.

Key Points

Pandemic-driven layoffs across renewable, solar, wind, and efficiency sectors, risking recovery without federal aid.

✅ Over 620,500 clean energy jobs lost in three months

✅ Energy efficiency, solar, and wind hit hardest nationwide

✅ Industry urges Congress for stimulus, tax credit relief

As Congress this week begins debating economic stimulus support for the energy industry, a new analysis of unemployment data shows the biggest part of America's energy economy - clean energy - lost another 27,000 jobs in May, bringing the total number of clean energy workers who have lost their jobs in the past three months to more than 620,500.

While May saw an improvement in new unemployment claims over March and April, the findings represent the sector's third straight month of significant job losses across solar, wind, energy efficiency, clean vehicles and other industries. With coronavirus cases once again rising in many states and companies beginning to run out of the Payroll Protection Program (PPP) funding that has helped small businesses keep workers employed, and as households confront pandemic power shut-offs that heighten energy insecurity, the report increases concerns the sector will be unable to resume its economy-leading jobs growth in the short- or long-term without a significant policy response.

Given the size and scope of the clean energy industry, such a sustained loss would cast a pall on the nation's overall economic recovery, as shifting electricity demand during COVID-19 complicates forecasts, according to the analysis of the Department of Labor's May unemployment data from E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs), E4TheFuture and the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE).

Prior to COVID-19, clean energy - including energy efficiency, solar and wind generation, clean vehicles and related sectors - was among the U.S. economy's biggest and fastest-growing employment sectors, growing 10.4% since 2015 to nearly 3.4 million jobs at the end of 2019. That made clean energy by far the biggest employer of workers in all energy occupations, employing nearly three times as many people as the fossil fuel industry. For comparison, coal mining employs about 47,000 workers, even as clean energy projects in coal communities aim to revitalize local economies.

The latest monthly analysis for the groups by BW Research Partnership runs contrary to recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports, which indicated that a more robust economic rebound was underway, even as high fuel prices haven't spurred a green shift in adoption, while also acknowledging misclassifications and serious reporting difficulties in its own data.

Bob Keefe, Executive Director at E2, said:

"May's almost 30,000 clean energy jobs loss is sadly an improvement in the rate of jobs shed but make no mistake: There remains huge uncertainty and volatility ahead. It will be very tough for clean energy to make up these continuing job losses without support from Congress. Lawmakers must act now. If they do, we can get hundreds of thousands of these workers back on the job today and build a better, cleaner, more equitable economy for tomorrow. And who doesn't want that?"

Pat Stanton, Policy Director at E4TheFuture, said:

"Most of the time, energy efficiency workers need to go inside homes, businesses and other buildings to get the job done. Since they couldn't do that during COVID lockdowns, they couldn't work. Now states are opening up. But utilities, contractors and building owners need to protect employees and occupants from possible exposure to the virus and need more clarity about potential liabilities."

Gregory Wetstone, President and CEO of ACORE, said:

"In May, we saw thousands of additional renewable energy workers join the ranks of the unemployed, further underscoring the damage COVID-19 is inflicting on our workforce. Since the pandemic began, nearly 100,000 renewable energy workers have lost their jobs. We need help from Congress to get American clean energy workers back to work. With commonsense measures like temporary refundability and a delay in the phasedown of renewable energy tax credits, Congress can help restore these good-paying jobs so the renewable sector can continue to provide the affordable, pollution-free power American consumers and businesses want and deserve."

Phil Jordan, Vice President and Principal at BW Research Partnership, said:

"We understand the challenges and limitations of data collection for BLS in the middle of a global pandemic. But any suggestion that a strong employment rebound is underway in the United States simply is not reflected in the clean energy sector right now. And with PPP expiring, that only increases uncertainty in the months ahead."

The report comes as both the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Energy and Commerce Committee are considering clean energy stimulus to restart the U.S. economy, and amid assessments of mixed results from the climate law shaping expectations, and as lawmakers in both the House and Senate are increasing calls for supporting clean energy workers and businesses, including this bicameral letter signed by 57 members of Congress and another signed today by 180 House members.

Industries Hit Hardest

According to the analysis, energy efficiency lost more jobs than any other clean energy sector for the third consecutive month in May, shedding about 18,900 jobs. These workers include electricians, HVAC technicians who work with high-efficiency systems, and manufacturing employees who make Energy Star appliances, LED lighting systems and efficient building materials.

Renewable energy, including solar and wind, lost nearly 4,300 jobs in May.

Clean grid and storage and clean vehicles manufacturing -- including grid modernization, energy storage, car charging and electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle manufacturing -- lost a combined 3,200 jobs in May, as energy crisis impacts electricity, gas, and EVs in several ways.

The clean fuels sector lost more than 650 jobs in May.

States and Localities Hit Across Country

California continues to be the hardest hit state in terms of total job losses, losing 4,313 jobs in May and more than 109,700 since the COVID-19 crisis began. Florida was the second hardest hit state in May, losing an additional 2,563 clean energy jobs, while Georgia, Texas, Washington, and Michigan all suffered more than 1,000 job losses across the sector. An additional 12 states saw at least 500 clean energy unemployment filings, and reports like Pennsylvania's clean energy jobs analysis provide added context, according to the latest analysis.

For a full breakdown of clean energy job losses in each state, along with a list of the hardest hit counties and metro areas, see the full analysis here.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany net-zero roadmap charts coal phase-out by 2030, rapid renewables buildout, energy storage, and hydrogen-ready gas engines to cut emissions and lower LCOE by 34%, unlocking a resilient, flexible, low-cost power system by 2040.

Key Points

Plan to phase out coal by 2030 and gas by 2040, scaling renewables, storage, and hydrogen to cut LCOE and emissions.

✅ Coal out by 2030; gas phased 2040 with hydrogen-ready engines

✅ Add 19 GW/yr renewables; 30 GW storage by 2040

✅ 34% lower LCOE, 23% fewer emissions vs slower path

Germany can achieve significant reductions in emissions and the cost of electricity by phasing out coal in 2030 under its coal phase-out plan but must have a clear plan to ramp up renewables and pivot to sustainable fuels in order to achieve net-zero, according to a new whitepaper from Wartsila.

The modelling, published in Wärtsilä new white paper ‘Achieving net-zero power system in Germany by 2040’, compares the current plan to phase out coal by 2030 and gas by 2045 with an accelerated plan, where gas is phased out by 2040. By accelerating the path to net-zero, Germany can unlock a 34% reduction in the levelised cost of energy, as well as a 23% reduction in the total emissions, or 562 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in real terms.

The modelling offers a clear, three-step roadmap to achieve net-zero: rapidly increase renewables, energy storage and begin future-proofing gas engines in this decade; phase out coal by 2030; and phase out gas by 2040, converting remaining engines to run on sustainable fuels.

The greatest rewards are available if Germany front-loads decarbonisation. This can be done by rapidly increasing renewable capacity, adding 19 GW of wind and solar PV capacity per year. It must also add a total of 30GW of energy storage by 2040.

Håkan Agnevall, President and CEO of Wärtsilä Corporation said: “Germany stands on the precipice of a new, sustainable energy era. The new Federal Government has indicated its plans to consign coal to history by 2030. However, this is only step one. Our white paper demonstrates the need to implement a three-step roadmap to achieve net-zero. It is time to put a deadline on fossil fuels and create a clear plan to transition to sustainable fuels.”

While a rapid coal phase-out has been at the centre of recent climate policy debates, including the ongoing nuclear debate over Germany’s energy mix, the pathway to net-zero is less clear. Wärtsilä’s modelling shows that gas engines should be used to accelerate the transition by providing a short-term bridge to enable net zero and navigate the energy transition while balancing the intermittency of renewables until sustainable fuels are available at scale.

However, if Germany follows the slower pathway and reaches net-zero by 2045, it risks becoming reliant on gas as baseload power for much of the 2030s amid renewable expansion challenges that persist, potentially harming its ability to reach its climate goals. 

Creating the infrastructure to pivot to sustainable fuels is one of the greatest challenges facing the German system. The ability to convert existing capacity to run purely on hydrogen via hydrogen-ready power plants will be key to reaching net-zero by 2040 and unlocking the significant system-wide benefits on offer.

Jan Andersson, General Manager of Market Development in Germany, Wärtsilä Energy added: “To reach the 2040 target and unlock the greatest benefits, the most important thing that Germany can do is build renewables now. 19 GW is an ambitious target, but Germany can do it. History shows us that Germany has been able to achieve high levels of renewable buildout in previous years. It must now reach those levels consistently.

“Creating a clear plan which sets out the steps to net zero is essential. Renewable energy is inherently intermittent, so flexible energy capacity will play a vital role. While batteries provide effective short-term flexibility, gas is currently the only practical long-term option. If Germany is to unlock the greatest benefits from decarbonisation, it must have a clear plan to integrate sustainable fuel. From 2030, all new thermal capacity must run solely on hydrogen.”

Analysis of the last decade demonstrates that the rapid expansion of renewable energy is possible, and that renewables overtook coal and nuclear in generation. Previously, Germany has built large amounts of renewable capacity, including 8GW of solar PV in 2010 and 2011, 5.3 GW of onshore wind in 2017, and 2.5 GW of offshore wind in 2015.

The significant reductions in the cost of electricity demonstrated in the modelling are driven by the fact that renewables are far cheaper to run than coal or gas plants, even as coal still provides about a third of electricity in Germany. The initial capital investment is far outweighed by the ongoing operational expense of fossil fuel-based power.

As well as reducing emissions and costs, Germany’s rapid path to net-zero can also unlock a series of additional benefits. If coal is phased out by 2030 but capacity is not replaced by high levels of renewable energy, Germany risks becoming a significant energy importer, peaking at 162 TWh in 2035. The accelerated pathway would reduce imports by a third.

Likewise, more renewable energy will help to electrify district heating, meaning Germany can move away from carbon-intensive fuels sooner. If Germany follows the accelerated path, 57% of Germany’s heating could be electrified in 2045, compared to 10% under the slower plan.

Jan Andersson concluded: “The opportunities on offer are vast. Germany can provide the blueprint for net zero and galvanise an entire continent. Now is the time for the new government to seize the initiative.”

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