Enel, EDF move ahead on Italian nuclear projects

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

Turkey Point Subsequent License Renewal seeks NRC approval for FP&L to extend Units 3 and 4, three-loop pressurized water reactors near Homestead, Miami; public review, docketing, and an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing.

Key Points

The NRC is reviewing FP&L's request to extend Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 operating licenses by 20 years.

✅ NRC will docket if application is complete

✅ Public review and opportunity for adjudicatory hearing

✅ Units commissioned in 1972 and 1973, near Miami

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Thursday that it had made available the first-ever "subsequent license renewal application," amid milestones at nuclear power projects worldwide, which came from Florida Power and Light and applies to the company's Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station's Units 3 and 4.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently made available for public review the first-ever subsequent license renewal application, which Florida Power & Light Company submitted on Jan. 1.

In the application, FP&L requests an additional 20 years for the operating licenses of Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, three-loop, pressurized water reactors located in Homestead, Florida, where the Florida PSC recently approved a municipal solid waste energy purchase, approximately 40 miles south of Miami.

The NRC approved the initial license renewal in June 2002, as new reactors at Georgia's Vogtle plant continue to take shape nationwide. Unit 3 is currently licensed to operate through July 19, 2032. Unit 4 is licensed to operate through April 10, 2033.

#google#

NRC staff is currently reviewing the application, while a new U.S. reactor has recently started up, underscoring broader industry momentum. If the staff determines the application is complete, they will docket it and publish a notice of opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

The first-ever subsequent license renewal application, submitted by Florida Power & Light Company asks for an additional 20 years for the already-renewed operating licenses of Turkey Point, even as India moves to revive its nuclear program internationally, which are currently set to expire in July of 2032 and April of 2033. The two thee-loop, pressurized water reactors, located about 40 miles south of Miami, were commissioned in July 1972 and April 1973.

If the application is determined to be complete, the staff will docket it and publish a notice of opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the agency said.

The application is available for public review on the NRC website. Copies of the application will be available at the Homestead Branch Library in Homestead, the Naraja Branch Library in Homestead and the South Dade Regional Library in Miami.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

New England Grid Reform Initiative aligns governors with ISO New England to reshape market design, boost grid reliability, accelerate renewable energy and offshore wind, explore carbon pricing and forward clean energy markets, and bolster accountability.

Key Points

Five states aim to reform ISO New England markets, prioritize renewables and reliability, and test carbon pricing.

✅ Governors seek market design aligned with clean energy mandates

✅ ISO-NE accountability and stakeholder engagement prioritized

✅ Explore carbon pricing and forward clean energy market options

Weeks after initiating a broad overhaul of utility regulation within its borders, Connecticut has recruited four New England states, as Maine debates a 145-mile transmission line project to rework the regional grid that is overseen by ISO New England, the independent system operator charged with ensuring a reliable supply of electricity from power plants.

In a written statement Thursday morning, Gov. Ned Lamont said the current structure “has actively hindered” states’ efforts to phase out polluting power plants in favor of renewable sources like wind turbines and solar panels, while increasing costs “to fix market design failures” in his words. Lamont’s energy policy chief Katie Dykes has emerged as a vocal critic of ISO New England’s structure and priorities, in her role as commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.

“When Connecticut opted to deregulate our electricity market, we wanted the benefits of competition — to achieve lower-cost energy, compatible with meeting our clean-energy goals,” Dykes said in a telephone interview Thursday afternoon. “We have a partner [in] ISO New England, to manage this grid and design a market that is not thwarting our clean-energy goals, but achieving them; and not ignoring consumers’ concerns. ... That’s really what we are looking to do — reclaim the benefits of competition and regional cooperation.”

Lamont and his counterparts in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine plan to release a “vision document” in their words on Friday through the New England States Committee on Electricity, after New Hampshire rejected a Quebec-Massachusetts transmission proposal that sought to import Canadian hydropower.

The initial documents made no mention of New Hampshire, which likewise obtains electricity through the wholesale markets managed by ISO New England and has seen clashes over the Northern Pass hydropower project in recent years; and whose Seabrook Station is one two nuclear power plants in New England alongside Dominion Energy’s Millstone Power Station in Waterford. Gov. Chris Sununu’s office did not respond immediately to a query on why New Hampshire is not participating.

Connecticut and the four other states outlined a few broad goals that they will hone over the coming months. Those include creating a better market structure and planning process supporting the conversion to renewables; improving grid reliability, with measures such as an emergency fuel stock program considered; and increasing the accountability of ISO New England to the states and by extension their ratepayer households and businesses.

ISO New England spokesperson Matt Kakley indicated the Holyoke, Mass.-based nonprofit will “engage with the states and our stakeholders” on the governors’ proposal, in an email response to a query. He did not elaborate on any immediate opportunities or challenges inherent in the governors’ proposal.

“Maintaining reliable, competitively-priced electricity through the clean energy transition will require broad collaboration,” Kakley stated. “The common vision of the New England governors will play an important role in the discussions currently underway on the future of the grid.”

Renewable revolution
ISO New England launched operations in 1999, running auctions through which power plant operators bid to supply electricity, including against long-term projections for future needs that can only be met through the construction or installation of new generation capacity.

ISO New England falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rather than the states whose electricity supplies it is tasked with ensuring. That has led to pointed criticism from Dykes and Connecticut legislators that ISO New England is out of touch with the state’s push to switch to renewable sources of electricity.

Entering October, ISO New England published an updated outlook that revealed 60 percent of proposed power generators in the region’s future “queue” are wind farms, primarily offshore installations like the proposed Park City Wind project of Avangrid and Revolution Wind from Eversource. But Dykes recently criticized as unnecessary an NTE Energy plant approved already by ISO New England for eastern Connecticut, which will be fueled by natural gas if all other regulatory approvals are granted.

The six New England states participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that caps carbon emissions by individual power plants, while allowing them to purchase unused allowances from each other with that revenue funneled to the states to support renewable energy and conservation programs. FERC is now considering the concept of carbon pricing, which would levy a tax on power plants based on their emissions, and it also faces pressure to act on aggregated DERs from lawmakers.

ISO New England is investigating the concepts of net carbon pricing and a “forward clean energy market” that would borrow elements of the existing forward capacity market, but designed to meet individual state objectives for the percentage of renewable power they want generated while ensuring adequate electricity is in place when weather does not cooperate.

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority is collecting on its own initiative industry input on modernization proposals, as New York regulators open a formal review of retail energy markets for comparison, that would add up to hundreds of millions of dollars, including utility-scale batteries to store power generated by offshore wind farms and solar arrays; and “smart” meters in homes and businesses to help electricity customers better manage their power use.

The New England Power Pool serves as a central forum for plant operators, commercial users and others like the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, amid Massachusetts solar demand charge debates that affect distributed generation policy, with NEPOOL’s chair stating Thursday morning the group was still reviewing the governors’ announcement.

“NEPOOL has been engaged this year in meetings ... exploring the transition to a future grid in New England and potential pathways forward to support that transition,” stated Nancy Chafetz, chair of NEPOOL, in an email.

Connecticut’s issues with ISO New England boiled over this summer on the heels of a power-purchase agreement between Millstone owner Dominion and transmission grid operators Eversource and United Illuminating, which contributed to a sharp increase in customer bills.

A few weeks ago, Lamont signed into law a “Take Back the Grid” act that allows the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to factor in Eversource’s and Avangrid subsidiary United Illuminating’s past performance in maintaining electric reliability, in addition to any future needs for revenue based on needed upgrades. The law included an element for Connecticut to initiate a study of ISO New England’s role.

Eversource and Avangrid have voiced support for the switch to “performance-based” regulation in Connecticut. Eversource spokesperson Mitch Gross on Thursday cited the company’s view that any changes to the operation of New England’s wholesale power markets should occur within the existing ISO New England structure.

“We also recommend any examination of potential alternatives includes a thorough evaluation that ensures unfair costs would not be imposed on customers,” Gross stated in an email.

In a statement forwarded by Avangrid spokesperson Ed Crowder, the United Illuminating parent indicated it intends to have “a voice in this process” with the goal of continued grid reliability amid increased adoption of clean energy sources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric power market crisis highlights grid reliability risks as coal and nuclear retire amid subsidies, mandates, and cheap natural gas; intermittent wind and solar raise blackout concerns, resilience costs, and pricing distortions across regulated markets.

Key Points

Reliability and cost risks as coal and nuclear retire; subsidies distort prices; intermittent renewables strain grid.

✅ Coal and nuclear retirements reduce baseload capacity

✅ Subsidies and mandates distort market pricing signals

✅ Intermittent renewables increase blackout and grid risk

Is anyone paying any attention to the crisis that is going on in our electric power markets?

Over the past six months at least four major nuclear power plants have been slated for shutdown, including the last one in operation in California. Meanwhile, dozens of coal plants have been shuttered as well — despite low prices and cleaner coal. Some of our major coal companies may go into bankruptcy.

This is a dangerous game we are playing here with our most valuable resource — outside of clean air and water. Traditionally, we've received almost half our electric power nationwide from coal and nuclear power, and for good reason. They are cheap sources of power and they are highly resilient and reliable.

The disruption to coal and nuclear power wouldn't be disturbing if this were happening as a result of market forces. That's only partially the case.

#google#

The amazing shale oil and gas revolution is providing Americans with cheap gas for home heating and power generation. Hooray. The price of natural gas has fallen by nearly two-thirds over the last decade and this has put enormous price pressure on other forms of power generation.

But this is not a free-market story of Schumpeterian creative destruction. If it were, then wind and solar power would have been shutdown years ago. They can't possibly compete on a level playing field with $3 natural gas.

In most markets solar and wind power survive purely because the states mandate that as much as 30 percent of residential and commercial power come from these sources. The utilities have to buy it regardless of price, even as electricity demand is flat in many regions. What a sweet deal. The California state legislature just mandated that every new home spend $10,000 on solar panels on the roof.

Well over $100 billion of subsidies to big wind and big solar were doled out over the last decade, and even with the avalanche of taxpayer subsidies and bailout funds many of these companies like Solyndra (which received $500 million in handouts) failed, underscoring why a green revolution hasn't materialized as promised.

These industries are not anywhere close to self sufficiency. In 2017 amid utility trends to watch the wind industry admitted that without a continuation of a multi-billion tax credit, the wind turbines would stop turning.

This combines with the left's war on coal through regulations that have destroyed coal plants in many areas. (Thank goodness for the exports of coal or the industry would be in much bigger trouble.)

Bottom line: Our power market is a Soviet central planner's dream come true and it is extinguishing our coal and nuclear industries.

Why should anyone care?

First, because government subsidies, regulations and mandates make electric power more expensive. Natural gas prices have fallen by two-thirds, but electric power costs have still risen in most areas — thanks to the renewable mandates.

More importantly, the electric power market isn't accurately pricing in the value of resilience and reliability. What is the value of making sure the lights don't go off? What is the cost to the economy and human health if we have rolling brownouts and blackouts because the aging U.S. grid doesn't have enough juice during peak demand.

Politicians, utilities and federal regulators are shortsightedly killing our coal and nuclear capacities without considering the risk of future energy shortages and power disruptions. Once a nuclear plant is shutdown, you can't just fire it back up again when you need it.

Wind and solar are notoriously unreliable. Most places where wind power is used, coal plants are needed to back up the system during peak energy use and when the wind isn't blowing.

The first choice to fix energy markets is to finally end the tangled web of layers and layers of taxpayer subsidies and mandates and let the market choose. Alas, that's nearly impossible given the political clout of big wind and solar.

The second best solution is for the regulators and utilities to take into account the grid reliability and safety of our energy. Would people be willing to pay a little more for their power to ensure against brownouts? I sure would. The cost of having too little energy far exceeds the cost of having too much.

A glass of water costs pennies, but if you're in a desert dying of thirst, that water may be worth thousands of dollars.

I'll admit I'm not sure what the best solution is to the power plant closures. But if we have major towns and cities in the country without electric power for stretches of time because of green energy fixation, Americans are going to be mighty angry and our economy will take a major hit.

When our manufacturers, schools, hospitals, the internet and iPhones shut down, we're not going to think wind and solar power are so chic.

If the lights start to go out five or 10 years from now, we will look back at what is happening today and wonder how we could have been so darn stupid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Vehicle Grid Integration aligns EV charging with grid capacity using smart charging, time-of-use rates, V2G, and demand response to reduce peak load, enable renewable energy, and optimize infrastructure planning.

Key Points

Aligning EV charging with grid needs via smart charging, TOU pricing, and V2G to balance load and support renewables.

✅ Time-of-use rates shift charging to off-peak hours

✅ Smart charging responds to real-time grid signals

✅ V2G turns fleets into distributed energy storage

When Seattle City Light unveiled five new electric vehicle charging stations last month in an industrial neighborhood south of downtown, the electric utility wasn't just offering a new spot for drivers to fuel up. It also was creating a way for the service to figure out how much more power it might need as electric vehicles catch on.

Seattle aims to have nearly a third of its residents driving electric vehicles by 2030. Washington state is No. 3 in the nation in per capita adoption of plug-in cars, behind California and Hawaii. But as Washington and other states urge their residents to buy electric vehicles — a crucial component of efforts to reduce carbon emissions — they also need to make sure the electric grid can handle it amid an accelerating EV boom nationwide.

The average electric vehicle requires 30 kilowatt hours to travel 100 miles — the same amount of electricity an average American home uses each day to run appliances, computers, lights and heating and air conditioning.

An Energy Department study found that increased electrification across all sectors of the economy could boost national consumption by as much as 38 percent by 2050, in large part because of electric vehicles. The environmental benefit of electric cars depends on the electricity being generated by renewables.

So far, states predict they will be able to sufficiently boost power production. But whether electric vehicles will become an asset or a liability to the grid largely depends on when drivers charge their cars.

Electricity demand fluctuates throughout the day; demand is higher during daytime hours, peaking in the early evening. If many people buy electric vehicles and mostly try to charge right when they get home from work — as many now do — the system could get overloaded or force utilities to deliver more electricity than they are capable of producing.

In California, for example, the worry is not so much with the state’s overall power capacity, but rather with the ability to quickly ramp up production and maintain grid stability when demand is high, said Sandy Louey, media relations manager for the California Energy Commission, in an email. About 150,000 electric vehicles were sold in California in 2018 — 8 percent of all state car sales.

The state projects that electric vehicles will consume 5.4 percent of the state’s electricity, or 17,000 gigawatt hours, by 2030.

Responding to the growth in electric vehicles will present unique challenges for each state. A team of researchers from the University of Texas at Austin estimated the amount of electricity that would be required if every car on the road transitioned to electric. Wyoming, for instance, would need to nudge up its electricity production only 17 percent, while Maine would have to produce 55 percent more.

Efficiency Maine, a state trust that oversees energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction programs, offers rebates for the purchase of electric vehicles, part of state efforts to incentivize growth.

“We’re certainly mindful that if those projections are right, then there will need to be more supply,” said Michael Stoddard, the program’s executive director. “But it’s going to unfold over a period of the next 20 years. If we put our minds to it and plan for it, then we should be able to do it.”

A November report sponsored by the Energy Department found that there has been almost no increase in electricity demand nationwide over the past 10 years, while capacity has grown an average of 12 gigawatts per year (1 GW can power more than a half-million homes). That means energy production could climb at a similar rate and still meet even the most aggressive increase in electric vehicles, with proper planning.

Charging during off-peak hours would allow not only many electric vehicles to be added to the roads but also utilities to get more use out of power plants that run only during the limited peak times through improved grid coordination and flexible demand.

Seattle City Light and others are looking at various ways to promote charging during ideal times. One method is time-of-day rates. For the Seattle chargers unveiled last month, users will pay 31 cents per kilowatt hour during peak daytime hours and 17 cents during off-peak hours. The utility will monitor use at its charging stations to see how effective the rates are at shifting charging to more favorable times.

The utility also is working on a pilot program to study charging behavior at home. And it is partnering with customers such as King County Metro that are electrifying large vehicle fleets, including growing electric truck fleets that will demand significant power, to make sure they have both the infrastructure and charging patterns to integrate smoothly.

“Traditionally, our utility approach is to meet the load demand,” said Emeka Anyanwu, energy innovation and resources officer for Seattle City Light.

Instead, he said, the utility is working with customers to see whether they can use existing assets without the need for additional investment.

Numerous analysts say that approach is crucial.

“Even if there’s an overall increase in consumption, it really matters when that occurs,” said Sally Talberg, head of the Michigan Public Service Commission, which oversees the state’s utilities. “The encouragement of off-peak charging and other technology solutions that could come to bear could offset any negative impact.”

One of those solutions is smart charging, a system in which vehicles are plugged in but don’t charge until they receive a signal from the grid that demand has tapered off a sufficient amount. This is often paired with a lower rate for drivers who use it. Several smart-charging pilot programs are being conducted by utilities, although they have not yet been phased in widely, amid ongoing debates over charging control among manufacturers and utilities.

In many places, the increased electricity demand from electric vehicles is seen as a benefit to utilities and rate payers. In the Northwest, electricity consumption has remained relatively stagnant since 2000, despite robust population growth and development. That’s because increasing urbanization and building efficiency have driven down electricity needs.

Electric vehicles could help push electricity consumption closer to utilities’ capacity for production. That would bring in revenue for the providers, which would help defray the costs for maintaining that capacity, lowering rates for all customers.

“Having EV loads is welcome, because it’s environmentally cleaner and helps sustain revenues for utilities,” said Massoud Jourabchi, manager of economic analysis for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, which develops power plans for the region.

Colorado also is working to promote electric cars, with the aim of putting 940,000 on the road by 2030. The state has adopted California’s zero-emission vehicles mandate, which requires automakers to reach certain market goals for their sales of cars that don’t burn fossil fuels, while extending tax credits for the purchase of such cars, investing in charging stations and electrifying state fleets.

Auto dealers have opposed the mandate, saying it infringes on consumer freedom.

“We think it should be a customer choice, a consumer choice and not a government mandate,” said Tim Jackson, president and chief executive of the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association.

Jackson also said that there’s not yet a strong consumer appetite for electric vehicles, meaning that manufacturers that fail to sell the mandated number of emission-free vehicles would be required to purchase credits, which he thinks would drive up the price of their other models.

Republicans in the state have registered similar concerns, saying electric vehicle adoption should take place based on market forces, not state intervention.

Many in the utility community are excited about the potential for electric cars to serve as mobile energy storage for the grid. Vehicle-to-grid technology, known as V2G, would allow cars charging during the day to take on surplus power from renewable energy sources.

Then, during peak demand times, electric vehicles would return some of that stored energy to the grid. As demand tapers off in the evening, the cars would be able to recharge.

In practice, V2G technology could be especially beneficial if used by heavy-duty fleets, such as school buses or utility vehicles. Those fleets would have substantial battery storage and long periods where they are idle, such as evenings and weekends — and even longer periods such as summer and the holiday season when school is out. The batteries on a bus, Jourabchi said, could store as much as 10 times the electricity needed to power a home for a day.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario NDP Hydro Plan proposes ending time-of-use pricing, buying back Hydro One, lowering electricity rates, curbing rural delivery fees, and restoring public ownership to ease household bills amid debates with PCs and Liberals over costs.

Key Points

A plan to end time-of-use pricing, buy back Hydro One, and cut bills via public ownership and fair delivery fees.

✅ End time-of-use pricing; normal schedules without penalties

✅ Repurchase Hydro One; restore public ownership

✅ Cap rural delivery fees; address oversupply to cut rates

Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath says her party’s hydro plan will reduce families’ electricity bills, a theme also seen in Manitoba Hydro debates and the NDP is the only choice to get Hydro One back in public hands.

Howarth outlined the plan Saturday morning outside the home of a young family who say they struggle with their electricity bills — in particular over the extra laundry they now have after the birth of their twin boys.

An NDP government would end time-of-use pricing, which charges higher rates during peak times and lower rates after hours, “so that people aren’t punished for cooking dinner at dinner time,” Horwath said at a later campaign stop in Orillia, “so people can live normal lives and still afford their hydro bill.”

#google#

An NDP government would end time-of-use pricing, which gives lower rates for off-peak usage, Howarth said, separate from a recent subsidized hydro plan during COVID-19. The change would mean families wouldn't be "forced to wait until night when the pricing is lower to do laundry," and wouldn't have to rearrange their lives around chores.

The pricing scheme was supposed to lower prices and help smooth out demand for electricity, especially during peak times, but has failed, she said.

In order to lower hydro bills, Horwath said an NDP government would buy back shares of Hydro One sold off under the Wynne government, which she said has led to high prices and exorbitant executive pay among executives. The NDP plan would also make sure rural families do not pay more in delivery fees than city dwellers, and curb the oversupply of energy to bring prices down.

Critics have said the NDP plan is too costly and will take a long time to implement, and investors see too many unknowns about Hydro One.

"The NDP's plan to buy back Hydro One and continue moving forward with a carbon tax will cost taxpayers billions," said Melissa Lantsman, a spokesperson for PC Leader Doug Ford.

"Only Doug Ford has a plan to reduce hydro rates and put money back in people's pockets. We'll reduce your hydro bill by 12 per cent."

Ford has said he will fire Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt, and has dubbed him the $6-million-dollar man.

Horwath has said both Ford and Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne will end up costing Ontarians more in electricity if one of them is elected come June 7. Their "hydro scheme is the wrong plan," she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News