Generating capacity adequate next year

US Grid Pandemic Response coordinates control rooms, grid operators, and critical infrastructure, leveraging hydroelectric plants, backup control centers, mutual assistance networks, and deep cleaning protocols to maintain reliability amid reduced demand and COVID-19 risks.

Key Points

US Grid Pandemic Response encompasses measures by utilities and operators to safeguard power reliability during COVID-19

✅ Control rooms staffed on-site; operators split across backup centers

✅ Health screenings, deep cleaning, and isolation protocols mitigate contagion

✅ Reduced demand and mutual assistance improve grid resilience

Control rooms are the brains of NYPA’s power plants, which are mostly hydroelectric and supply about a quarter of all the electricity in New York state. They’re also a bit like human petri dishes. The control rooms are small, covered with frequently touched switches and surfaces, and occupied for hours on end by a half-dozen employees. Since social distancing and telecommuting isn’t an option in this context, NYPA has instituted regular health screenings and deep cleanings to keep the coronavirus out.

The problem is that each power plant relies on only a handful of control room operators. Since they have a specialized skill set, they can’t be easily replaced if they get sick. “They are very, very critical,” says Gil Quiniones, NYPA president and CEO. If the pandemic worsens, Quiniones says that NYPA may require control room operators to live on-site at power plants to reduce the chance of the virus making it in from the outside world. It sounds drastic, but Quiniones says NYPA has done it before during emergencies—once during the massive 2003 blackout, and again during Hurricane Sandy.

Meanwhile, PJM is one of North America’s nine regional grid operators and manages the transmission lines that move electricity from power plants to millions of customers in 13 states on the Eastern seaboard, including Washington, DC. PJM has had a pandemic response plan on the books for 15 years, but Mike Bryson, senior vice president of operations, says that this is the first time it’s gone into full effect. As of last week, about 80 percent of PJM’s 750 full-time employees have been working from home. But PJM also requires a skeleton crew of essential workers to be on-site at all times in its control centers. As part of its emergency planning, PJM built a backup control center years ago, and now it is splitting control center operators between the two to limit contact.

Past experience with large-scale disasters has helped the energy sector keep the lights on and ventilators running during the pandemic. Energy is one of 16 sectors that the US government has designated as “critical infrastructure,” which also includes the communications industry, transportation sector, and food and water systems. Each is seen as vital to the country and therefore has a duty to maintain operations during national emergencies.

“We need to be treated as first responders,” says Scott Aaronson, the vice president of security and preparedness at the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group representing private utilities. “Everybody's goal right now is to keep the public healthy, and to keep society functioning as best we can. A lack of electricity will certainly create a challenge for those goals.”

America’s electricity grid is a patchwork of regional grid operators connecting private and state-owned utilities. This means simply figuring out who’s in charge and coordinating among the various organizations is one of the biggest challenges to keeping the electricity flowing during a national emergency, according to Aaronson.

Generally, a lot of this responsibility falls on formal energy organizations like the nonprofit North American Electric Reliability Corporation and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. But during the coronavirus outbreak, an obscure organization run by the CEOs of electric utilities called the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council has also served as a primary liaison between the federal government and the thousands of utility companies around the US. Aaronson says the organization has been meeting twice a week for the past three weeks to ensure that utilities are implementing best practices in their response to the coronavirus, as well as to inform the government of material needs to keep the energy sector running smoothly.

This tight-knit coordination will be especially important if the pandemic gets worse, as many forecasts suggest it will. Most utilities belong to at least one mutual assistance group, an informal network of electricity suppliers that help each other out during a catastrophe. These mutual assistance networks are usually called upon following major storms that threaten prolonged outages. But they could, in principle, be used to help during the coronavirus pandemic too. For example, if a utility finds itself without enough operators to manage a power plant, it could conceivably borrow trained operators from another company to make sure the power plant stays online.

So far, utilities and grid operators have managed to make it work on their own. There have been a handful of coronavirus cases reported at power plants, but they haven’t yet affected these plants’ ability to deliver energy. The challenges of running a power plant with a skeleton crew is partially offset by the reduced power demand as businesses shut down and more people work from home, says Robert Hebner, the director of the Center for Electromechanics at the University of Texas. “The reduced demand for power gives utilities a little breathing room,” says Hebner.

A recent study by the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found that electricity demand in Italy has plunged by 18 percent following the severe increase in coronavirus cases in the country. Energy demand in China also plummeted as a result of the pandemic. Bryson, at PJM, says the grid operator has seen about a 6 percent decrease in electricity demand in recent weeks, but expects an even greater drop if the pandemic gets worse.

Generally speaking, problems delivering electricity in the US occur when the grid is overloaded or physically damaged, such as during California wildfires or a hurricane.

An open question among coronavirus researchers is whether there will be a second wave of the pandemic later this year. During the Spanish flu pandemic in the early 20th century, the second wave turned out to be deadlier than the first. If the coronavirus remerges later this year, it could be a serious threat to reliable electricity in the US, says John MacWilliams, a former associate deputy secretary of the Department of Energy and a senior fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

“If this crisis extends into the fall, we're going to hit hurricane season along the coasts,” MacWilliams says. “Utilities are doing a very good job right now, but if we get unlucky and have an active hurricane season, they're going to get very stressed because the number of workers that are available to repair damage and restore power will become more limited.”

This was a sentiment echoed by Bryson at PJM. “Any one disaster is manageable, but when you start layering them on top of each other, it gets much more challenging,” he adds. The US electricity grid struggles to handle major storms as it is, and these challenges will be heightened if too many workers are home sick. In this sense, the energy sector’s ability to deliver the electricity needed to keep manufacturing medical supplies or keep ventilators running depends to a large extent on our ability to flatten the curve today. The coronavirus is bad enough without having to worry about the lights going out.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

EU Electricity Market Reform seeks to curb gas-driven volatility by expanding CfDs and PPAs, decoupling power from gas, and aligning consumer bills with low-cost renewables and nuclear, as Brussels advances market redesign.

Key Points

An EU plan to curb price spikes by expanding long-term contracts and tying bills to cheap renewables.

✅ Expands CfDs and PPAs to lock in predictable power prices

✅ Aims to decouple bills from gas-driven wholesale volatility

✅ Seeks investment certainty for renewables, nuclear, and grids

European Union energy ministers meet on Monday to debate upcoming power market reforms. Brussels is set to propose the revamp next month, but already countries are split over how to "fix" the energy system - or whether it needs fixing at all.

Here's what you need to know.

POST-CRISIS CHANGES
The European Commission pledged last year to reform the EU's electricity market rules, after record-high gas prices - caused by cuts to Russian gas flows - sent power prices soaring during an energy crisis for European companies and citizens.

The aim is to reform the electricity market to shield consumer energy bills from short-term swings in fossil fuel prices, and make sure that Europe's growing share of low-cost renewable electricity translates into lower prices, even though rolling back electricity prices poses challenges for policymakers.

Currently, power prices in Europe are set by the running cost of the plant that supplies the final chunk of power needed to meet overall demand. Often, that is a gas plant, so gas price spikes can send electricity prices soaring.

EU countries disagree on how far the reforms should go.

Spain, France and Greece are among those seeking a deep reform.

In a document shared with EU countries, seen by Reuters, Spain said the reforms should help national regulators to sign more long-term contracts with electricity generators to pay a fixed price for their power.

Nuclear and renewable energy producers, for example, would receive a "contract for difference" (CfD) from the government to provide power during their lifespan - potentially decades - at a stable price that reflects their average cost of production.

Similarly, France suggests, as part of a new electricity pricing scheme, requiring energy suppliers to sign long-term, fixed-price contracts with power generators - either through a CfD, or a private Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between the parties.

French officials say this would give the power plant owner predictable revenue, while enabling consumers to have part of their energy bill comprised of this more stable price.

Germany, Denmark, Latvia and four other countries oppose a deep reform, and, as nine EU countries oppose reforms overall, have warned the EU against a "crisis mode" overhaul of a complex system that has taken decades to develop.

They say Europe's existing power market is functioning well, and has fostered years of lower power prices, supported renewable energy and helped avoid energy shortages.

Those countries support only limited tweaks, such as making it easier for consumers to choose between fluctuating and fixed-price power contracts.

'DECOUPLE' PRICES?
The Commission initially pitched the reform as a chance to "decouple" gas and power prices in Europe, suggesting a redesign of the current system of setting power prices. But EU officials say Brussels now appears to be leaning towards more modest changes.

A public consultation on the reforms last month steered clear of a deep energy market intervention. Rather, it suggested expanding Europe's use of long-term contracts, outlining a plan for more fixed-price contracts that provide power plants with a fixed price for their electricity, like CfDs or PPAs.

The Commission said this could be done by setting EU-wide rules for CfDs and letting countries voluntarily use them, or require new state-funded power plants to sign CfDs. The consultation mooted the idea of forcing existing power plants to sign CfDs, but said this could deter much-needed investments in renewable energy.

RISKS, REWARDS
Pro-reform countries like Spain say a revamped power market will bring down energy prices for consumers, by matching their bills more closely with the true cost of producing lower-carbon electricity.

France says the aim is to secure investment in low-carbon energy including renewables, and nuclear plants like those Paris plans to build. It also says lowering power prices should be part of Europe's response to massive industrial subsidies in the United States and China - by helping European firms keep a competitive edge.

But sceptics warn that drastic changes to the market could knock confidence among investors, putting at risk the hundreds of billions of euros in renewable energy investments the EU says are needed to quit Russian fossil fuels under its plan to dump Russian energy and meet climate goals.

Energy companies including Engie (ENGIE.PA), Orsted (ORSTED.CO) and Iberdrola (IBE.MC) have said making CfDs mandatory or imposing them retroactively on existing power plants could deter investment and trigger litigation from energy companies.

POLITICAL DEBATE
EU countries' energy ministers discuss the reforms on Monday, before formal negotiations begin.

The Commission, which drafts EU laws, plans to propose the reforms on Mar. 14. After that, EU countries and lawmakers negotiate the final law, which must win majority support from European Parliament lawmakers and a reinforced majority of at least 15 countries.

Negotiations on major EU legislation often take more than a year, but some countries are pushing for a fast-tracked deal. France wants the law to be finished this year.

That has already hit resistance from countries like Germany, highlighting a France-Germany tussle over the scope of reform as they say deeper changes cannot be rushed through, and they would need an "in-depth impact assessment" - something the Commission's upcoming proposal is not expected to include, because it has been drafted so quickly.

The timeline is further complicated by European Parliament elections in 2024. That has raised concerns in reform-hungry states that failure to strike a deal before the election could significantly delay the reforms, if negotiations have to pause until a new EU parliament is elected.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

India Power Sector Crisis: a tangled market of underused plants, coal shortages, cross-subsidies, high transmission losses, and weak PPAs, requiring deregulation, power exchanges, and cost-reflective tariffs to fix insolvency and outages.

Key Points

India power market failure from subsidies, coal shortages, and losses, needing deregulation and reflective pricing.

✅ Deregulate to enable spot trading on power exchanges

✅ End cross-subsidies; charge cost-reflective tariffs

✅ Secure coal supply; cut T&D losses and theft

India's electricity industry is in a financial and political tangle.

Power producers sit on thousands of megawatts of underutilized plant, while consumers face frequent power cuts, both planned and unplanned.

Financially troubled generators struggle to escape insolvency proceedings. The state-owned banks that have mostly financed power utilities fear that debts of troubled utilities totaling 1.74 trillion rupees will soon go bad.

Aggressive bidding for supply contracts and slower-than-expected demand growth, including a recent demand slump in electricity use, is the root cause. The problems are compounded by difficulties in securing coal and other fuels, high transmission losses, electricity theft and cash-starved distribution companies.

But India's 36 state and union territory governments are contributing mightily to this financial and economic mess. They persist with populist cross-subsidies -- reducing charges for farmers and households at the cost of nonagricultural businesses, especially energy-intensive manufacturing sectors such as steel.

The states refuse to let go of their control over how electricity is produced, distributed and consumed. And they are adamant that true markets, with freedom for large industrial users to buy power at market-determined rates from whichever utility they want at power exchanges -- will not become a reality in India.

State politicians are driven mainly by the electoral need to appease farmers, India's most important vote bank, who have grown used to decades of nearly-free power.

New Delhi is therefore relying on short-term fixes instead of attempting to overhaul a defunct system. Users must pay the real cost of their electricity, as determined by a properly integrated national market free of state-level interference if India's power mess is to be really addressed.

As of Aug. 31, the country's total installed production capacity was 344,689 MW, underscoring its status as the third-largest electricity producer globally by output. Out of that, thermal power comprising coal, gas and diesel accounted for 64%, hydropower 13% and renewables accounted for 20%. Commercial and industrial users accounted for 55% of consumption followed by households on 25% and the remaining 20% by agriculture.

Coal-fired power generation, which contributes roughly 90% of thermal output and the bulk of the financially distressed generators, is the most troubled segment as it faces a secular decline in tariffs due to increasing competition from highly subsidized renewables (which also benefit from falling solar panel costs), coal shortages and weak demand.

The Central Electricity Act (CEA) 2003 opened the gates of the country's power sector for private players, who now account for 45% of generating capacity.

But easy credit, combined with an overconfident estimation of the risks involved, emboldened too many investors to pile in, without securing power purchase agreements (PPAs) with distribution companies.

As a result, power capacity grew at an annual compound rate of 11% compared to demand at 6% in the last decade leading to oversupply.

This does not mean that the electricity market is saturated. Merely that there are not enough paying customers. Distributors have plenty of consumers who will not or cannot pay, even though they have connections. There is huge unmet demand for power. There are 32 million Indian homes -- roughly 13% of the total -- mostly rural and poor with no access to electricity.

Moreover, consumption by those big commercial and industrial users which do not enjoy privileged rates is curbed by high prices, driven up by the cost of subsidizing others, extra charges on exchange-traded power and transmission and distribution losses (including theft) of 20-30%.

With renewables increasingly becoming cheaper, financially stressed distributors are avoiding long-term power purchase agreements, preferring spot markets. Meanwhile, coal shortages force generators to buy expensive imported coal supplies or cut output. The operating load for most private generators, which suffer particularly acute coal shortages in compared to state-owned utilities, has fallen from 84% in 2009-2010 to 55% now.

Smoothing coal supplies should be the top priority. Often coal is denied to power generators without long-term purchase contracts. Such discrimination in coal allocation prevails -- because the seller (state-run Coal India and its numerous subsidiaries) is an inefficient monopolist which cannot produce enough and rations coal supplies, favoring state-run generators over private.

To help power producers, New Delhi plans measures including auctioning power sales contracts with assured access to coal. However, even though coal and electricity shortages eased recently, such short-term fixes won't solve the problem. With electricity prices in secular decline, distributors are not seeking long-term supply contracts -- rather they are often looking for excuses to get out of existing agreements.

India needs a fundamental two-step reform. First, the market must be deregulated to allow most bulk suppliers and users to move to power trading exchanges, which currently account for just 10% of the market.

This would lead to genuine price discovery in a spot market and, in time, lead to the trading of electricity futures contracts. That would help in consumers and producers hedge their respective costs and revenues and safeguard their economic positions without any need for government intervention.

The second step to a healthy electricity industry is for consumers to pay the real cost of power. Cross-subsidization must end. That would promote optimal electricity use, innovation and environmental protection. Farmers enjoying nearly-free power create ecological problems by investing in water-guzzling crops such as rice and sugar cane.

Most industrial consumers, who do not have power supply privileges, have their businesses distorted and delayed by high prices. Lowering their costs would encourage power-intensive manufacturing to expand, and in the process, boost electricity demand and improve capacity utilization.

Of course, cutting theft is central to making consumers pay their way. Government officials must stop turning a blind eye to theft, especially when such transmission and distribution losses average 20%.

Politicians who want to continue subsidizing farmers or assist the poor can do so by paying cash out directly to their bank accounts, instead of wrongly relying on the power sector.

Such market-oriented reforms have long been blocked by state-level politicians, who now enjoy the influence born of operating subsidies and interfering in the sector. New Delhi must address this opposition. Narendra Modi, as a self-styled reforming prime minister, should have the courage to bite this bullet and convince state governments (starting with those ruled by his Bharatiya Janata Party) to reform. To encourage cooperation, he could offer states securing real improvements an increased share of centrally collected taxes.

Ritesh Kumar Singh is to be the chief economist of the new policy research and advocacy company Indonomics Consulting. He is former assistant director of the Finance Commission of India.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ukraine Power Grid Attacks disrupt critical infrastructure as missiles and drones strike power plants, substations, and lines, causing blackouts. Emergency repairs, international aid, generators, and renewables bolster resilience and keep hospitals and water running.

Key Points

Russian strikes on Ukraine's power infrastructure cause blackouts; repairs and aid sustain hospitals and water.

✅ Missile and drone strikes target plants, substations, and lines.

✅ Crews restore power under fire; air defenses protect sites.

✅ Allies supply equipment, generators, and grid repair expertise.

Ukraine is facing an ongoing battle to maintain its electrical grid in the wake of relentless Russian attacks targeting power plants and energy infrastructure. These attacks, which have intensified in the last year, are part of Russia's broader strategy to weaken Ukraine's ability to function amid the ongoing war. Power plants, substations, and energy lines have become prime targets, with Russian forces using missiles and drones to destroy critical infrastructure, as western Ukraine power outages have shown, leaving millions of Ukrainians without electricity and heating during harsh winters.

The Ukrainian government and energy companies are working tirelessly to repair the damage and prevent total blackouts, while also trying to ensure that civilians have access to vital services like hospitals and water supplies. Ukraine has received support from international allies in the form of technical assistance and equipment to help strengthen its power grid, and electricity reserve updates suggest outages can be avoided if no new strikes occur. However, the ongoing nature of the attacks and the complexity of repairing such extensive damage make the situation extraordinarily difficult.

Despite these challenges, Ukraine's resilience is evident, even as winter pressures on the battlefront intensify operations. Energy workers are often working under dangerous conditions, risking their lives to restore power and prevent further devastation. The Ukrainian government has prioritized the protection of energy infrastructure, with military forces being deployed to safeguard workers and critical assets.

Meanwhile, the international community continues to support Ukraine through financial and technical aid, though some U.S. support programs have ended recently, as well as providing temporary power solutions, like generators, to keep essential services running. Some countries have even sent specialized equipment to help repair damaged power lines and energy plants more quickly.

The humanitarian consequences of these attacks are severe, as access to electricity means more than just light—it's crucial for heating, cooking, and powering medical equipment. With winter temperatures often dropping below freezing, plans to keep the lights on are vital to protect vulnerable communities, and the lack of reliable energy has put many lives at risk.

In response to the ongoing crisis, Ukraine has also focused on enhancing its energy independence, seeking alternatives to Russian-supplied energy. This includes exploring renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, and new energy solutions adopted by communities to overcome winter blackouts, which could help reduce reliance on traditional energy grids and provide more resilient options in the future.

The battle for energy infrastructure in Ukraine illustrates the broader struggle of the country to maintain its sovereignty and independence in the face of external aggression. The destruction of power plants is not only a military tactic but also a psychological one—meant to instill fear and disrupt daily life. However, the unwavering spirit of the Ukrainian people, alongside international support, including Ukraine's aid to Spain during blackouts as one example, continues to ensure that the fight to "keep the lights on" is far from over.

As Ukraine works tirelessly to repair its energy grid, it also faces the challenge of preparing for the long-term impact of these attacks. The ongoing war has highlighted the importance of securing energy infrastructure in modern conflicts, and the world is watching as Ukraine's resilience in this area could serve as a model for other nations facing similar threats.

Ukraine’s energy struggle is far from over, but its determination to keep the lights on remains a beacon of hope and defiance in the face of ongoing adversity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

2040 Energy Outlook projects a shifting energy mix as renewables scale, EV adoption accelerates, and IEA forecasts plateauing oil demand alongside rising natural gas, highlighting policy, efficiency, and decarbonization trends that shape global consumption.

Key Points

A data-driven view of future energy mix, covering renewables, fossil fuels, EVs, oil demand, and policy impacts.

✅ Renewables reach 16-30% by 2040, higher with strong policy support.

✅ Fossil fuels remain dominant, with oil flat and natural gas rising.

✅ EV share surges, cutting oil use; efficiency curbs demand growth.

Which is more plausible: flying taxis, wind turbine arrays stretching miles into the ocean, and a solar roof on every house--or a scorched-earth, flooded post-Apocalyptic world? 

We have no way of peeking into the future, but we can certainly imagine it. There is plenty of information about where the world is headed and regardless of how reliable this information is—or isn’t—we never stop wondering. Will the energy world of 20 years from now be better or worse than the world we live in now? 

The answer may very well lie in the observable trends.

A Growing Population

The global population is growing, and it will continue to grow in the next two decades. This will drive a steady growth in energy demand, at about 1 percent per year, according to the International Energy Agency.

This modest rate of growth is good news for all who are concerned about the future of the planet. Parts of the world are trying to reduce their energy consumption, and this should have a positive effect on the carbon footprint of humanity. The energy thirst of most parts of the world will continue growing, however, hence the overall growth.

The world’s population is currently growing at a rate of a little over 1 percent annually. This rate of growth has been slowing since its peak in the 1960s and forecasts suggest that it will continue to slow. Growth in energy demand, on the other hand, may at some point stop moving in tune with population growth trends as affluence in some parts of the world grows. The richer people get, the more energy they need. So, to the big question: where will this energy come from?

The Rise of Renewables

For all the headline space they have been claiming, it may come as a disappointing surprise to many that renewable energy, excluding hydropower, to date accounts for just 14 percent of the global primary energy mix. 

Certainly, adoption of solar and wind energy has been growing in leaps and bounds, with their global share doubling in five years in many markets, but unless governments around the world commit a lot more money and effort to renewable energy, by 2040, solar and wind’s share in the energy mix will still only rise to about 16 to 17 percent. That’s according to the only comprehensive report on the future of energy that collates data from all the leading energy authorities in the world, by non-profit Resources for the Future.

The growth in renewables adoption, however, would be a lot more impressive if governments do make serious commitments. Under that scenario, the share of renewables will double to over 30 percent by 2040, echoing milestones like over 30% of global electricity reached recently: that’s the median rate of all authoritative forecasts. Amongst them, the adoption rates of renewables vary between 15 percent and 61 percent by 2040.

Even the most bullish of the forecasts on renewables is still far below the 100-percent renewable future many would like to fantasize about, although BNEF’s 50% by 2050 outlook points to what could be possible in the power sector. 

But in 2040, most of the world’s energy will still come from fossil fuels.

EV Energy

Here, forecasters are more optimistic. Again, there is a wide variation between forecasts, but in each and every one of them the share of electric vehicles on the world’s roads in 2040 is a lot higher than the meagre 1 percent of the global car fleet EVs constitute today.
Related: Gas Prices Languish As Storage Falls To Near-Record Lows

Government policy will be the key, as U.S. progress toward 30% wind and solar shows how policy steers the power mix that EVs ultimately depend on. Bans of internal combustion engines will go a long way toward boosting EV adoption, which is why some forecasters expect electric cars to come to account for more than 50 percent of cars on the road in 2040. Others, however, are more guarded in their forecasts, seeing their share of the global fleet at between 16 percent and a little over 40 percent.

Many pin their hopes for a less emission-intensive future on electric cars. Indeed, as the number of EVs rises, they displace ICE vehicles and, respectively, the emission-causing oil that fuels for ICE cars are made from.  It should be a no brainer that the more EVs we drive, the less emissions we produce. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case: China is the world’s biggest EV market, and its solar PV expansion has been rapid, it has the most EVs—including passenger cars and buses—but it is also one of the biggest emitters.

Still, by 2040, if the more optimistic forecasts come true, the world will be consuming less oil than it is consuming now: anywhere from 1.2 million bpd to 20 million bpd less, the latter case envisaging an all-electric global fleet in 2040. 

This Ain’t Your Daddy’s Oil

No, it ain’t. It’s your grandchildren’s oil, for good or for bad. The vision of an oil-free world where renewable power is both abundant and cheap enough to replace all the ways in which crude oil and natural gas are used will in 2040 still be just that--a vision, with practical U.S. grid constraints underscoring the challenges. Even the most optimistic energy scenarios for two decades from now see them as the dominant source of energy, with forecasts ranging between 60 percent and 79 percent. While these extremes are both below the over-80 percent share fossil fuels have in the world’s energy mix, they are well above 50 percent, and in the U.S. renewables are projected to reach about one-fourth of electricity soon, even as fossil fuels remain foundational.

Still, there is good news. Fuel efficiency alone will reduce oil demand significantly by 2040. In fact, according to the IEA, demand will plateau at a little over 100 million bpd by the mid-2030s. Combined with the influx of EVs many expect, the world of 20 years from now may indeed be consuming a lot less oil than the world of today. It will, however, likely consume a lot more natural gas. There is simply no way around fossil fuels, not yet. Unless a miracle of politics happens (complete with a ripple effect that will cost millions of people their jobs) in 2040 we will be as dependent on oil and gas as we are but we will hopefully breathe cleaner air.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News