Replace nuclear plant with green power: coalition

Lawa Hydropower Station approved on the Jinsha River, a Yangtze tributary, delivers 2,000 MW via four units; 784 ft dam, 12 sq mi reservoir, Sichuan-Tibet site, US$4.59b investment, Huadian stake, renewable energy generation.

Key Points

A 2,000 MW dam project on the Jinsha River with four units, a 784 ft barrier, and 8.36 billion kWh annual output.

✅ Sichuan-Tibet junction on the Jinsha River

✅ 2,000 MW capacity; four turbine-generator units

✅ 8.36 bn kWh/yr; US$4.59b total; Huadian 48% stake

China has approved construction of the 2,000-MW Lawa hydropower station, a Yangtze tributary hydropower project on the Jinsha River, multiple news agencies are reporting.

Lawa, at the junction of Sichuan province and the Tibet autonomous region, will feature a 784-foot-high dam and the reservoir will submerge about 12 square miles of land. The Jinsha River is a tributary of the Yangtze River, and the project aligns with green hydrogen development in China.

The National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China, which also guides China's nuclear energy development as part of national planning, is reported to have said that four turbine-generator units will be installed, and the project is expected to produce about 8.36 billion kWh of electricity annually.

Total investment in the project is to be US$4.59 billion, and Huadian Group Co. Ltd. will have a 48% stake in the project, reflecting overseas power infrastructure activity, with minority stakes held by provincial firms, according to China Daily.

In other recent news in China, Andritz received an order in December 2018 to supply four 350-MW reversible pump-turbines and motor-generators, alongside progress in compressed air generation technologies, for the 1,400-MW ZhenAn pumped storage plant in Shaanxi province.

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

California Electricity Reserve Mandate requires 3.3 GW of new capacity to bolster grid reliability amid solar power volatility, peak demand, and wildfire-driven blackouts, as CPUC directs PG&E, Edison, and Sempra to procure resource adequacy.

Key Points

A CPUC order for utilities to add 3.3 GW of reserves, safeguarding grid reliability during variable renewables and peaks

✅ 3.3 GW procurement to meet resource adequacy targets

✅ Focus on grid reliability during peak evening demand

✅ Prioritizes renewables, storage; limits new fossil builds

As if California doesn’t have enough problems with its electric service, now state regulators warn the state may be short on power supplies by 2021 if utilities don’t start lining up new resources now.

In the hopes of heading off a shortfall as America goes electric, the California Public Utilities Commission has ordered the state’s electricity providers to secure 3.3 additional gigawatts of reserve supplies. That’s enough to power roughly 2.5 million homes. Half of it must be in place by 2021 and the rest by August 2023.

The move comes as California is already struggling to accommodate increasingly large amounts of solar power that regularly send electricity prices plunging below zero and force other generators offline so the region’s grid doesn’t overload. The state is also still reeling from a series of deliberate mass blackouts that utilities imposed last month to keep their power lines from sparking wildfires amid strong winds. And its largest power company, PG&E Corp., went bankrupt in January.

Now as natural gas-fired power plants retire under the state’s climate policies, officials are warning the state could run short on electricity on hot evenings, when solar production fades and commuters get home and crank up their air conditioners. “We have fewer resources that can be quickly turned on that can meet those peaks,” utilities commission member Liane Randolph said Thursday before the panel approved the order to beef up reserves.

The 3.3 gigawatts that utilities must line up is in addition to a state rule requiring them to sign contracts for 15% more electricity than they expect to need. Some critics question the need for added supplies, particularly after the state went on a plant-building boom in the 2000s.

But California’s grid managers say the risk of a shortfall is real and could be as high as 4.7 gigawatts, especially during heat waves that test the grid again. Mark Rothleder, with the California Independent System Operator, said the 15% cushion is a holdover from the days before big solar and wind farms made the grid more volatile. Now it may need to be increased, he said.

“We’re not in that world anymore,” said Rothleder, the operator’s vice president of state regulatory affairs. “The complexity of the system and the resources we have now are much different.”

The state’s three major utilities, PG&E, Edison International and Sempra Energy, will be largely responsible for securing new supplies. The commission banned fossil fuels from being used at any new power generators built to meet the requirement — though it left the door open for expansions at existing ones.

Some analysts argue California is exporting its energy policies to Western states, making electricity more costly and less reliable.

PG&E said in an emailed statement that it was pleased the commission didn’t adopt an earlier proposal to require 4 gigawatts of additional resources. Edison similarly said it was “supportive.” Sempra didn’t immediately respond with comment.

Extending Deadlines

The pending plant closures are being hastened by a 2020 deadline requiring California’s coastal generators to stop using aging seawater-cooling systems. Some gas-fired power plants have said they’ll simply close instead of installing costly new cooling systems. So the commission on Thursday also asked California water regulators to extend the deadline for five plants.

The Sierra Club, meanwhile, called on regulators to turn away from fossil fuels altogether, saying their decision Thursday “sets California back on its progress toward a clean energy future.”

The move to push back the deadline also faces opposition from neighboring towns. Redondo Beach Mayor Bill Brand, whose city is home to one of the plants in line for an extension, told the commission it wasn’t necessary, since California utilities already have plenty of electricity reserves.

“It’s just piling on to that reserve margin,” Brand said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

IAEA Nuclear Security Mission in China reviews regulatory frameworks, physical protection, and compliance at nuclear power plants, endorsing CAEA efforts, IPPAS guidance, and capacity building to strengthen safeguards, risk management, and global cooperation.

Key Points

An IAEA advisory visit assessing China's nuclear security, physical protection, and regulatory frameworks.

✅ Reviews laws, regulations, and physical protection measures

✅ Endorses CAEA, COE, and IPPAS-aligned best practices

✅ Recommends accelerated rulemaking for expanding reactors

The International Atomic Energy Agency commended China's efforts and accomplishments in nuclear security after conducting its first nuclear security advisory mission to the nation, according to the China Atomic Energy Authority.

The two-week International Physical Protection Advisory Service mission, from Aug 28to Saturday, reviewed the legislative and regulatory framework for nuclear security as well as the physical protection of nuclear material and facilities, including worker safety protocols during health emergencies.

An eight-member expert team led by Joseph Sandoval of the United States' Sandia National Laboratories visited Fangjiashan Nuclear Power Plant, part of the Qinshan Nuclear Power Station in Zhejiang province, to examine security arrangements and observe physical protection measures, where recognized safety culture practices can reinforce performance.

The experts also met with officials from several Chinese government bodies involved in nuclear security such as the China Atomic Energy Authority, National Nuclear Safety Administration and Ministry of Public Security.

The international agency has carried out 78 of the protection missions in 48 member states since 1995. This was the first in China, it said.

The China Atomic Energy Authority said on Tuesday that a report by the experts highly approves of the Chinese government's continuous efforts to strengthen nuclear safety, to boost the sustainable development of the nuclear power industry and to help establish a global nuclear security system.

The report identifies the positive roles played by the State Nuclear Security Technology Center and its subsidiary, the Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security, in enhancing China's nuclear security capability and supporting regional and global cooperation in the field, such as bilateral cooperation agreements that advance research and standards, officials at the China Atomic Energy Authority said.

"A strong commitment to nuclear security is a must for any state that uses nuclear power for electricity generation and that is planning to significantly expand this capacity by constructing new power reactors," said Muhammad Khaliq, head of the international agency's nuclear security of materials and facilities section. "China'sexample in applying IAEA nuclear security guidance and using IAEA advisory services demonstrates its strong commitment to nuclear security and its enhancement worldwide."

The report notes that along with the rapid growth of China's nuclear power sector, challenges have emerged when it comes to the country's nuclear security mechanism and management, as highlighted by grid reliability warnings during pandemics in other markets.

It suggests that the Chinese government accelerate the making of laws and regulations to better govern this sector.

Deng Ge, director of the State Nuclear Security Technology Center, said the IAEAmission would help China strengthen its nuclear security since the nation could learn from other countries' successful experience, including on-site staffing measures to maintain critical operations, and find out its weaknesses for rectification.

Deng added that the mission's report can help the international community understand China's contributions to the global nuclear security system and also offer China's best practices to other nations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Central Asia power shortages strain grids across Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, driven by drought-hit hydropower, aging coal and gas plants, rising demand, cryptomining loads, and winter peak consumption risks.

Key Points

Regionwide blackouts from drought, aging plants and grids, rising demand, and winter peaks stressing Central Asia.

✅ Drought slashes hydropower in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan

✅ Aging coal and gas TPPs and weak grids cause frequent outages

✅ Cryptomining loads and winter heating spike demand and stress supply

Central Asians from western Kazakhstan to southern Tajikistan are suffering from power and energy shortages that have caused hardship and emergency situations affecting the lives of millions of people.

On October 14, several units at three power plants in northeastern Kazakhstan were shut down in an emergency that resulted in a loss of more than 1,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity.

It serves as an example of the kind of power failures that plague the region 30 years after the Central Asian countries gained independence and despite hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in energy infrastructure and power grids, and echo risks seen in other advanced markets such as Japan's near-blackouts during recent cold snaps.

Some of the reasons for these problems are clear, but with all the money these countries have allocated to their energy sectors and financial help they have received from international financial institutions, it is curious the situation is already so desperate with winter officially still weeks away.

The Current Problems
Three power plants were affected in the October 14 shutdowns of units: Ekibastuz-1, Ekibastuz-2, and the Aksu power plant.

Ekibastuz-1 is the largest power plant in Kazakhstan, capable of generating some 4,000 MW, roughly 13 percent of Kazakhstan’s total power output.

The Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company (KEGOC) explained the problems resulted partially from malfunctions and repair work, but also from overuse of the system that the government would later say was due to cryptominers, a large number of whom have moved to Kazakhstan recently from China after Beijing banned the mining needed by Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, amid its own China's power cuts across several provinces in 2021.

But between November 8 and 9, rolling blackouts were reported in the East Kazakhstan, North Kazakhstan, and Kyzylorda provinces, as well as the area around Almaty, Kazakhstan’s biggest city, and Shymkent, its third largest city.

People in Uzbekistan say they, too, are facing blackouts that the Energy Ministry described as “short-term outages,” even as authorities have looked to export electricity to Afghanistan to support regional demand, though it has been clear for several weeks that the country will have problems with natural gas supplies this winter.

Power lines in Uzbekistan
Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov continues to say there won't be any power rationing in Kyrgyzstan this winter, but at the end of September the National Energy Holding Company ordered “restrictions on the lighting of secondary streets, advertisements, and facades of shops, cafes, and other nonresidential customers.”

Many parts of Tajikistan are already experiencing intermittent supplies of electricity.

Even in Turkmenistan, a country with the fourth-largest reserves of natural gas in the world, there were reports of problems with electricity and heating in the capital, Ashgabat.

What Is Going On?
The causes of some of these problems are easy to see.

The population of the region has grown significantly, with the population of Central Asia when the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991 being some 50 million and today about 75 million.

Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are mountainous countries that have long been touted for their hydropower potential and some 90 percent of Kyrgyzstan’s domestically produced electricity and 98 percent of Tajikistan’s come from hydropower.

But a severe drought that struck Central Asia this year has resulted in less hydropower and, in general, less energy for the region, similar to constraints seen in Europe's reduced hydro and nuclear output this year.

Tajik authorities have not reported how low the water in the country’s key reservoirs is, but Kyrgyzstan has reported the water level in the reservoir at its Toktogul hydropower plant (HPP) is 11.8 billion cubic meters (bcm), the lowest level in years and far less than the 14.7 bcm of water it had in November 2020.

The Toktogul HPP, with an installed capacity of 1,200 MW, provides some 40 percent of the country's domestically produced electricity, but operating the HPP this winter to generate desperately needed energy brings the risk of leaving water levels at the reservoir critically low next spring and summer when the water is also needed for agricultural purposes.

This year’s drought is something Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will have to take into consideration as they plan how to provide power for their growing populations in the future. Hydropower is a desirable option but may be less reliable with the onset of climate change, prompting interest in alternatives such as Ukraine's wind power to diversify generation.

Uzbekistan is also feeling the effects of this year’s drought, and, like the South Caucasus where Georgia's electricity imports have increased, supply shortfalls are testing grids.

According to the International Energy Agency, HPPs account for some 12 percent of Uzbekistan’s generating capacity.

Uzbekistan’s Energy Ministry attributed low water levels at HPPs that have caused a 23 percent decrease in hydropower generation this year.

A reservoir in Kyrgyzstan
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are the most populous Central Asian countries, and both depend on thermal power plants (TPP) for generating most of their electricity.

Most of the TPPs in Kazakhstan are coal-fired, while most of the TPPs in Uzbekistan are gas-fired.

Kazakhstan has 68 power plants, 80 percent of which are coal-fired TPPs, and most are in the northern part of the country where the largest deposits of coal are located. Kazakhstan has the world's 10th largest reserves of coal.

About 88 percent of Uzbekistan’s electricity comes from TTPs, most of which use natural gas.

Uzbekistan’s proven reserves are some 800 billion cubic meters, but gas production in Uzbekistan has been decreasing.

In December 2020, Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoev ordered a halt to the country’s gas exports and instructed that gas to be redirected for domestic use. Mirziyoev has already given similar instructions for this coming winter.

How Did It Come To This?
The biggest problem with the energy infrastructure in Central Asia is that it is generally very old. Nearly all of its power plants date back to the Soviet era -- and some well back into the Soviet period.

The use of power plants and transmission lines that some describe as “obsolete” and a few call “decrepit” has unfortunately been a necessity in Central Asia, even as regional players pursue new interconnections like Iran's plan to transmit electricity to Europe as a power hub.

Reporting on Kazakhstan in September 2016, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) said, “70 percent of the power generation infrastructure is in need of rehabilitation.”

The Ekibastuz-1 TPP is relatively new by the power-plant standards of Central Asia. The first unit of the eight units of the TPP was commissioned in 1980.

The first unit at the AKSU TPP was commissioned in 1968, and the first unit of the gas- and fuel-fired TPP in southern Kazakhstan’s Zhambyl Province was commissioned in 1967.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Community Solar for Low-Income Homes expands energy equity by delivering renewable energy access, predictable bill savings, and tax credit benefits to renters and energy-insecure households, accelerating distributed generation and storage adoption nationwide.

Key Points

A program model enabling renters and LMI households to subscribe to off-site solar and save on utility bills.

✅ Earn bill credits from shared solar generation.

✅ Expands access for renters and LMI subscribers.

✅ Often paired with storage and IRA tax credit adders.

On a square-foot basis, the issue of inequality is made worse by higher costs for energy usage in the nation. Efforts like community solar programs such as Maryland community solar are underway to boost low-income participation in the cost benefits of renewable energy.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that households that are considered energy insecure, or those that have the inability to adequately meet basic household energy costs, are paying more for electricity than their wealthier counterparts. 

On average in the United States in 2020, households were billed about $1.04 per square foot for all energy sources. For homes that did not report energy insecurity, that average was $0.98 per square foot, while homes with energy insecurity issues paid an average of $1.24 per square foot for energy. This means that U.S. residents that need the most support on their energy bills are stuck with costs 27% higher than their neighbors on square-foot-basis.

EIA said energy-insecure households have reduced or forgone basic necessities to pay energy bills, kept their houses at unsafe temperatures because of energy cost concerns, or been unable to repair heating or cooling equipment because of cost.

In 2020, households with income less than $10,000 a year were billed an average of $1.31 per square foot for energy, while households making $100,000 or more were billed an average of $0.96 per square foot, said EIA. Renters paid considerably more ($1.28 per square foot) than owners ($0.98 per square foot). There were also considerable differences between regions, with New England solar growth sparking grid upgrade debates, ethnic groups and races, and insulation levels, as seen below.

The energy transition toward renewables like solar has offered price stability, amid record solar and storage growth nationwide, but thus far energy-insecure communities have relatively been left behind. A recent Berkeley Lab report, Residential Solar-Adopter Income and Demographic Trends, indicates that even though the rate of solar adoption among low-income residents is increasing (from 5% in 2010 to 11% in 2021), that segment of energy consumers remains under-represented among solar adopters, relative to its share of the population.

Community solar efforts

As such, the United States is targeting communities most impacted by energy costs that have not benefitted from the transition, highlighting “Energy Communities” that are eligible for an additional 10% tax credit through funds made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Additionally, a push for community solar development is taking place nationwide to extend access to affordable solar energy to renters and other residents that aren’t able to leverage finances to invest in predictable, low-cost residential solar systems. The Biden Administration set a goal this year to sign up 5 million community solar households, achieving $1 billion in bill savings by 2025. The community solar model only represents about 8% of the total distributed solar capacity in the nation. This target would entail a jump from 3 GW installed capacity to 20 GW by the target year. The Department of Energy estimates community solar subscribers save an average of 20% on their bills.

California this year passed AB 2316, the Community Renewable Energy Act takes aim at four acute problems in the state’s power market: reliability amid rising outage risks, rates, climate and equity. The law creates a community renewable energy program, including community solar-plus-storage, supported by cheaper batteries, to overcome access barriers for nearly half of Californians who rent or have low incomes. Community solar typically involves customers subscribing to an off-site solar facility, receiving a utility bill credit for the power it generates.

“Community renewable energy is a proven powerful tool to help close California’s clean energy gap, bringing much needed relief to millions struggling with high housing costs and utility debt,” said Alexis Sutterman, energy equity program manager at the California Environmental Justice Alliance.

The program has energy equity baked into its structure, working to make sure Californians of all income levels participate in the benefits of the energy transition. Not only does it open solar access to renters, the law ensures that at least 51% of subscribers are low-income customers, which is expected to make projects eligible for a 10% tax credit adder under the IRA.

“The money’s on the table now,” said Jeff Cramer, president and chief executive of the Coalition for Community Solar Access. “While there are groups pushing for solar access for all, and states with strong legislation, there are other pockets of interest in surprising places in the United States. For example, Louisiana has no policy for community solar or support for low-income residents going solar but the city of New Orleans has its own utility commission with a community solar program. In Nebraska, forward-looking co-operatives have created community solar projects.

Community solar markets are active in 22 states, with more expected to come online in the future as states pursue 100% clean energy targets across the country. However, the market is expected to require strong community outreach efforts to foster trust and gain subscribers.

“There is a distrust of community solar initially in LMI communities as many have been burned before by retail energy false promises,” said Eric LaMora, executive director, community solar, Nautilus Solar on a panel at the Solar Energy Industries Association Finance, Tax, and Buyers seminar. “People are suspicious but there really are no hooks with community solar.”

LMI residents are leery to provide tax records or much documents at all in order to sign up for community solar, LaMora said. “We were surprised to see less of a default rate with LMI residents. We attribute this to the fact that they see significant savings on their electric bill, making it easier to pay each month,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News