Homeowners on hook for break to industry

California Income-Based Utility Fees would overhaul electricity bills as CPUC weighs fixed charges tied to income, grid maintenance costs, AB 205 changes, and per-kilowatt-hour rates, shifting from pure usage pricing to hybrid utility rate design.

Key Points

Income-based utility fees are fixed monthly charges tied to earnings, alongside per-kWh rates, to help fund grid costs.

✅ CPUC considers fixed charges by income under AB 205

✅ Separates grid costs from per-kWh energy charges

✅ Could shift rooftop solar and EV charging economics

Electricity bills in California are likely to change dramatically in 2026, with major changes under discussion statewide.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is in the midst of an unprecedented overhaul of the way most of the state’s residents pay for electricity, as it considers revamping electricity rates to meet grid and climate goals.

Utility bills currently rely on a use-more pay-more system, where bills are directly tied to how much electricity a resident consumes, a setup that helps explain why prices are soaring for many households.

California lawmakers are asking regulators to take a different approach, and some are preparing to crack down on utility spending as oversight intensifies. Some of the bill will pay for the kilowatt hours a customer uses and a monthly fixed fee will help pay for expenses to maintain the electric grid: the poles, the substations, the batteries, and the wires that bring power to people’s homes.

The adjustments to the state’s public utility code, section 739.9, came about because of changes written into a sweeping energy bill passed last summer, AB 205, though some lawmakers now aim to overturn income-based charges in subsequent measures.

A stroke of a pen, a legislative vote, and the governor’s signature created a move toward unprecedented income-based fixed charges across the state.

“This was put in at the last minute,” said Ahmad Faruqui, a California economist with a long professional background in utility rates. “Nobody even knew it was happening. It was not debated on the floor of the assembly where it was supposedly passed. Of course, the governor signed it.”

Faruqui wonders who was responsible for legislation that was added to the energy bill during the budget writing process. That process is not transparent.

“It’s a very small clause in a very long bill, which is mostly about other issues,” Faruqui said.

But that small adjustment could have a massive impact on California residents, because it links the size of a monthly flat fee for utility service to a resident’s income. Earn more money and pay a higher flat fee.

That fee must be paid even before customers are charged for how much power they draw.

Regulators interpreted legislative change as a mandate, but Faruqui is not sold.

“They said the commission may consider or should consider,” Faruqui said. “They didn’t mandate it. It’s worth re-reading it.”

In fact, the legislative language says the commission “may” adopt income-based flat fees for utilities. It does not say the commission “should” adopt them.

Nevertheless, the CPUC has already requested and received nine proposals for how a flat fee should be implemented, as regulators face calls for action amid soaring electricity bills.

The suggestions came from consumer groups, environmentalists, the solar industry and utilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Wind Energy Costs are plunging as renewable energy auctions, CfD contracts, and efficient turbines drive prices to 2-4 cents/kWh across Alberta and Saskatchewan, outcompeting grid power via competitive bidding and improved capacity factors.

Key Points

Averaging 2-4 cents/kWh via auctions, CfD support, and bigger turbines, wind is now cost-competitive across Canada.

✅ Alberta CfD bids as low as 3.9 cents/kWh.

✅ Turbine outputs rose from 1 MW to 3.3 MW per tower.

✅ Competitive auctions cut costs ~70% over nine years.

It's taken a decade of technological improvement and a new competitive bidding process for electrical generation contracts, but wind may have finally come into its own as one of the cheapest ways to create power.

Ten years ago, Ontario was developing new wind power projects at a cost of 28 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), the kind of above-market rate that the U.K., Portugal and other countries were offering to try to kick-start development of renewables. 

Now some wind companies say they've brought generation costs down to between 2 and 4 cents — something that appeals to provinces that are looking to significantly increase their renewable energy deployment plans.

The cost of electricity varies across Canada, by province and time of day, from an average of 6.5 cents per kWh in Quebec to as much as 15 cents in Halifax.

Capital Power, an Edmonton-based company, recently won a contract for the Whitla 298.8-megawatt (MW) wind project near Medicine Hat, Alta., with a bid of 3.9 cents per kWh, at a time when three new solar facilities in Alberta have been contracted at lower cost than natural gas, underscoring the trend. That price covers capital costs, transmission and connection to the grid, as well as the cost of building the project.

Jerry Bellikka, director of government relations, said Capital Power has been building wind projects for a decade, in the U.S., Alberta, B.C. and other provinces. In that time the price of wind generation equipment has been declining continually, while the efficiency of wind turbines increases.

Increased efficiency

"It used to be one tower was 1 MW; now each turbine generates 3.3 MW. There's more electricity generated per tower than several years ago," he said.

One wild card for Whitla may be steel prices — because of the U.S. and Canada slapping tariffs on one other's steel and aluminum products. Whitla's towers are set to come from Colorado, and many of the smaller components from China.

Canada introduces new surtaxes to curb flood of steel imports

"We haven't yet taken delivery of the steel. It remains to be seen if we are affected by the tariffs." Belikka said.

Another company had owned the site and had several years of meteorological data, including wind speeds at various heights on the site, which is in a part of southern Alberta known for its strong winds.

But the choice of site was also dependent on the municipality, with rural Forty Mile County eager for the development, Belikka said.

Alberta aims for 30% electricity from wind by 2030

Alberta wants 30 per cent of its electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030 and, as an energy powerhouse, is encouraging that with a guaranteed pricing mechanism in what is otherwise a market-bidding process.

While the cost of generating energy for the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) fluctuates hourly and can be a lot higher when there is high demand, the winners of the renewable energy contracts are guaranteed their fixed-bid price.

The average pool price of electricity last year in Alberta was 5 cents per kWh; in boom times it rose to closer to 8 cents. But if the price rises that high after the wind farm is operating, the renewable generator won't get it, instead rebating anything over 3.9 cents back to the government.

On the other hand, if the average or pool price is a low 2 cents kWh, the province will top up their return to 3.9 cents.

This contract-for-differences (CfD) payment mechanism has been tested in renewable contracts in the U.K. and other jurisdictions, including some U.S. states, according to AESO.

Competitive bidding in Saskatchewan

In Saskatchewan, the plan is to double its capacity of renewable electricity, to 50 per cent of generation capacity, by 2030, and it uses an open bidding system between the private sector generator and publicly owned SaskPower.

In bidding last year on a renewable contract, 15 renewable power developers submitted bids, with an average price of 4.2 cents per kWh.

One low bidder was Potentia with a proposal for a 200 MW project, which should provide electricity for 90,000 homes in the province, at less than 3 cents kWh, according to Robert Hornung of the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

"The cost of wind energy has fallen 70 per cent in the last nine years," he says. "In the last decade, more wind energy has been built than any other form of electricity."

Ontario remains the leading user of wind with 4,902 MW of wind generation as of December 2017, most of that capacity built under a system that offered an above-market price for renewable power, put in place by the previous Liberal government.

In June of last year, the new Conservative government of Doug Ford halted more than 700 renewable-energy projects, one of them a wind farm that is sitting half-built, even as plans to reintroduce renewable projects continue to advance.

The feed-in tariff system that offered a higher rate to early builders of renewable generation ended in 2016, but early contracts with guaranteed prices could last up to 20 years.

Hornung says Ontario now has an excess of generating capacity, as it went on building when the 2008-9 bust cut market consumption dramatically.

But he insists wind can compete in the open market, offering low prices for generation when Ontario needs new  capacity.

"I expect there will be competitive processes put in place. I'm quite confident wind projects will continue to go ahead. We're well positioned to do that."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S. EV Market Share Dip Q1 2024 reflects slower BEV adoption, rising PHEV demand, affordability concerns, charging infrastructure gaps, tax credit shifts, range anxiety, and automaker strategy adjustments across the electric vehicle market.

Key Points

Q1 2024 EV and hybrid share slipped as BEV sales lag, PHEVs rise, and affordability and charging concerns temper demand.

✅ BEV share fell to 7.0% as affordable models remain limited

✅ PHEV sales rose 50% YoY, easing range anxiety concerns

✅ Policy shifts and charging gaps weigh on consumer adoption

The U.S. electric vehicle (EV) market, once a beacon of unbridled growth, appears to be experiencing a course correction. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reveals that the combined market share of electric vehicles (battery electric vehicles, or BEVs) and hybrids dipped slightly in the first quarter of 2024, marking the first decline since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, even as EU EV share rose during lockdowns in 2020.

This news comes as a surprise to many analysts who predicted continued exponential growth for the EV market. While overall sales of electric vehicles surged into 2024 and did increase by 7% compared to Q1 2023, this growth wasn't enough to keep pace with the overall rise in vehicle sales. The result: a decline in market share from 18.8% in Q4 2023 to 18.0% in Q1 2024.

Several factors may be contributing to this shift. One potential culprit is a slowdown in battery electric vehicle sales. BEVs saw their share of the market dip from 8.1% to 7.0% in the same period. This could be attributed to a lack of readily available affordable options, with many popular EV models still commanding premium prices and concerns that EV supply may miss demand in the near term.

Another factor could be the rising interest in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). PHEV sales witnessed a significant jump of 50% year-over-year, reflecting how gas-electric hybrids are getting a boost from major automakers, potentially indicating a consumer preference for vehicles that offer both electric and gasoline powertrain options, addressing concerns about range anxiety often associated with BEVs.

Industry experts offer mixed interpretations of this data. Some downplay the significance of the dip, attributing it to a temporary blip, even though EVs remain behind gas cars in total sales. They point to the ongoing commitment from major automakers to invest in EV production and the potential for new, more affordable models to hit the market soon.

Others express more concern, citing Europe's recent EV slump and suggesting this might be a sign of maturing consumer preferences. They argue that simply increasing the number of EVs on the market might not be enough. Automakers need to address issues like affordability, charging infrastructure, and range anxiety to maintain momentum.

The role of government incentives also remains a question mark. The federal tax credit for electric vehicles is currently set to phase out gradually, potentially impacting consumer purchasing decisions in the future. Continued government support, through incentives or infrastructure development, could be crucial in maintaining consumer interest.

The coming quarters will be crucial in determining the long-term trajectory of the U.S. EV market, especially after the global electric car market's rapid expansion in recent years. Whether this is a temporary setback or a more lasting trend remains to be seen. Addressing consumer concerns, ensuring a diverse range of affordable EV options, and continued government support will all be essential in ensuring the continued growth of this critical sector.

This development also presents an opportunity for traditional automakers. By capitalizing on the growing PHEV market and addressing consumer concerns about affordability and range anxiety, they can carve out a strong position in the evolving automotive landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Fort Frances Microgrid aims to boost reliability in Ontario with grid-connected and island modes, Siemens feasibility study, renewable energy integration, EV charging expansion, and resilience modeled after First Nations projects and regional biomass initiatives.

Key Points

A community microgrid in Fort Frances enabling grid and island modes to improve reliability and integrate renewables.

✅ Siemens-led feasibility via FedNor funding

✅ Grid-connected or islanded for outage resilience

✅ Integrates renewables, EV charging, and industry growth

When the power goes out in Fort Frances, Ont., the community may be left in the dark for hours.

The hydro system's unreliability — caused by its location on the provincial power grid — has prompted the town to seek a creative solution: its own self-contained electricity grid with its own source of power, known as a microgrid. 

Located more than 340 kilometres west of Thunder Bay, Ont., on the border of Minnesota, near the Great Northern Transmission Line corridor, Fort Frances gets its power from a single supply point on Ontario's grid. 

"Sometimes, it's inevitable that we have to have like a six- to eight-hour power outage while equipment is being worked on, and that is no longer acceptable to many of our customers," said Joerg Ruppenstein, president and chief executive officer of Fort Frances Power Corporation.

While Ontario's electrical grid serves the entire province, and national efforts explore macrogrids, a microgrid is contained within a community. Fort Frances hopes to develop an integrated, community-based electric microgrid system that can operate in two modes:

• Grid-connected mode, which means it's connected to the provincial grid and informed by western grid planning approaches
• Island mode, which means it's disconnected from the provincial grid and operates independently

The ability to switch between modes allows flexibility. If a storm knocks down a line, the community will still have power.

The town has been given grant funding from the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario (FedNor), echoing smart grid funding in Sault Ste. Marie initiatives, for the project. On Monday night, council voted to grant a request for proposal to Siemens Canada Limited to conduct a feasibility study into a microgrid system.

The study, anticipated to be completed by the end of 2023 or early 2024, will assess what an integrated community-based microgrid system could look like in the town of just over 7,000 people, said Faisal Anwar, chief administrative officer of Fort Frances. A timeline for construction will be determined after that. 

The community is still reeling from the closure of the Resolute Forest Products pulp and paper mill in 2014 and faces a declining population, said Ruppenstein. It's hoped the microgrid system will help attract new industry to replace those lost workers and jobs, drawing on Manitoba's hydro experience as a model.

This gives the town a competitive advantage.

"If we were conceivably to attract a larger industrial player that would consume a considerable amount of energy, it would result in reduced rates for everyone…we're the only utility really in Ontario that can offer that model," Ruppenstein said.

The project can also incorporate renewable energy like solar or wind power, as seen in B.C.'s clean energy shift efforts, into the microgrid system, and support the growth of electric vehicles, he said. Many residents fill their gas tanks in Minnesota because it's cheaper, but Fort Frances has the potential to become a hub for electric vehicle charging.

A few remote First Nations have recently switched to microgrid systems fuelled by green energy, including Gull Bay First Nation and Fort Severn First Nation. These are communities that have historically relied on diesel fuel either flown in, which is incredibly expensive, or transported via ice roads, which are seeing shorter seasons each year.

Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson was in Thunder Bay, Ont., to announce $35 million for a biomass generation facility in Whitesand First Nation, complementing federal funding for the Manitoba-Saskatchewan transmission line elsewhere in the region.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies 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

Iran Bushehr Earthquake rattles southern province near the Bushehr nuclear power plant, USGS reports M5.1 at 38 km depth; seismic activity along major fault lines raises safety, damage, and monitoring concerns.

Key Points

A magnitude 5.1 quake near Bushehr nuclear plant at 38 km depth, with no damage reported, per USGS.

✅ USGS lists magnitude 5.1 at 38 km depth

✅ Near Bushehr nuclear power plant; built for stronger quakes

✅ Iran lies on major fault lines; quake risk is frequent

A magnitude 5 earthquake struck southern Iran early Friday near the Islamic Republic's only nuclear power plant. There were no immediate reports of damage or injuries as Iran continues combined-cycle conversions across its power sector.

The quake hit Iran's Bushehr province at 5:23 a.m., according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It put the magnitude at 5.1 and the depth of the earthquake at 38 kilometres (24 miles), in a province tied to efforts to transmit electricity to Europe in coming years.

Iranian state media did not immediately report on the quake. However, the Bushehr nuclear power plant was designed to withstand much stronger earthquakes, a notable consideration as Iraq plans nuclear power plants to address shortages.

A magnitude 5 earthquake can cause considerable damage, including power disruptions that have seen blackouts spark protests in some Iranian cities.

Iran sits on major fault lines and is prone to near-daily earthquakes, yet it remains a key player in regional power, with Iran-Iraq energy cooperation ongoing. In 2003, a 6.6-magnitude quake flattened the historic city of Bam, killing 26,000 people, and today Iran supplies 40% of Iraq's electricity through cross-border power deals. Bam is near the Bushehr nuclear plant, which wasn’t damaged at that time, while more recently Iran finalized deals to rehabilitate Iraq's power grid to improve resilience.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News