Congressman seeks delay to Cape wind farm

US Summer Grid Blackout Risk: NERC and FERC warn of strained reliability as drought, heat waves, and transmission constraints hit MISO, hydro, and renewables, elevating blackout exposure and highlighting demand response and storage solutions.

Key Points

A forecast of summer power shortfalls across the US grid, driven by heat, drought, transmission limits, and a changing resource mix.

✅ NERC and FERC warn of elevated blackout risk and reliability gaps.

✅ MISO region strained by drought, heat, and limited hydro.

✅ Mitigations: demand response, storage, and stronger transmission.

Just when it didn’t seem things couldn’t get worse — gasoline at $5 to $8 a gallon, supply shortages in everything from baby formula to new cars — comes the devastating news that many of us will endure electricity blackouts this summer, and that the U.S. has more blackouts than other developed nations according to one study.

The alarm was sounded by the nonprofit North American Electric Reliability Corp. and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, following a recent power grid report card highlighting vulnerabilities.

The North American electric grid is the largest machine on earth and the most complex, incorporating everything from the wonky pole you see at the roadside with a bird’s nest of wires to some of the most sophisticated engineering ever devised. It runs in real-time, even more so than the air traffic control system: All the airplanes in the sky don’t have to land at the same time, but electricity must be there at the flick of every switch.

Except it may not always be there this summer. Rod Kuckro, a respected energy journalist, says it depends on Mother Nature, with extreme weather impacts increasingly straining the grid, but the prognosis isn’t good.

Speaking on “White House Chronicle,” the weekly news and public affairs program on PBS that I host and produce, Kuckro said: “There is a confluence of factors that could affect energy supply across the majority of the (lower) 48 states. These are continued reduced hydroelectric production in the West, and the continued drought in the Southwest.”

The biggest threat to power supply, according to the NERC and the FERC, is in the vast central region, reaching from Manitoba in Canada, where grids are increasingly exposed to harsh weather in recent years, down to the Gulf of Mexico. It is served by the regional transmission organization, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator.

These operational entities are nonprofit companies that organize and distribute their regions’ bulk power for utilities. In California, it is the California Independent System Operator, working to keep the lights on as the state enters a new energy era; in the Mid-Atlantic, it is PJM; and in the Northeast, it is the New England System Independent Operator. They generate no power, but they control power flows and could initiate brownouts and blackouts.

With record storm activity and high temperatures predicted this summer, blackouts are likely to be deadly. The old, the young and the sick are all vulnerable. If the electric supply fails, with it goes everything from air conditioning to refrigeration to lights and even the ability to pump gas or access money from ATMs.

The United States, along with other modern nations, runs on electricity and when that falls short, it is catastrophic. It is chaos writ large, especially if the failure lasts more than a few hours.

On the same episode of “White House Chronicle,” Daniel Brooks, vice president of integrated grid and energy systems at the Electric Power Research Institute, also referred to a “confluence of factors” contributing to the impending electricity crisis. Brooks said, “We’re going through a significant change in terms of the energy mix and resources, and the way those resources behave under certain weather conditions.”

If power supply is stressed this summer, change in the generating mix will get a lot of political attention. At heart is the switch from fossil fuel generation to renewables. If there are power outages, a political storm will ensue. The Biden administration will be accused of speeding the switch to renewables, although the utilities don’t say that.

The weather is deteriorating, and, as experts note, the grid’s biggest challenge isn’t demand but climate change pressures that compound risks, and the grid is stretched in dealing with new realities as well as coping with old bugaboos, like the extreme difficulty in building transmission lines. Better transmission would relieve a lot of grid stress.

Peter Londa, president of Tantalus Systems, which helps its 260 utility customers digitize and cope with the new realities, explained some of the difficulties facing the utilities not only in the shifting sources of generation but also in the new shape of the electric demand. For example, he said, electric vehicles, particularly the much-awaited Ford F-150 Lightning pickup, could be an asset to homeowners and utilities, as California increasingly turns to batteries to stabilize its grid. During a blackout, their EVs could be used to power their homes for days. They could be a source of storage if thousands of owners signed up with their utilities in a storage program.

The fact is that utilities are facing three major shifts: in the generation to wind and solar, in customer demand, and especially in weather. Mother Nature is on a rampage and we all must adjust to that.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

California Storm Outages and Landslides strain utilities, trigger flooding, road closures, and debris flows, causing widespread power cuts and infrastructure damage as emergency response teams race to restore service, clear slides, and support evacuations.

Key Points

California Storm Outages and Landslides are storm-driven power cuts and slope failures disrupting roads and utilities.

✅ Tens of thousands face prolonged power outages across regions

✅ Landslides block highways, damage property, hinder access

✅ Crews restore grids, clear debris, support shelters and evacuees

California is grappling with a dual crisis of power outages and landslides following a severe storm that has swept across the state. The latest reports indicate widespread disruptions affecting thousands of residents and significant infrastructure damage. This storm is not only a test of California's emergency response capabilities but also a stark reminder of the increasing vulnerability of the state to extreme weather events, and of the U.S. electric grid in the face of climate stressors.

Storm’s Impact on California

The recent storm, which hit California with unprecedented intensity, has unleashed torrential rain, strong winds, and widespread flooding. These severe weather conditions have overwhelmed the state’s infrastructure, leading to significant power outages that are affecting numerous communities. According to local utilities, tens of thousands of homes and businesses are currently without electricity. The outages have been exacerbated by the combination of heavy rain and gusty winds, which have downed power lines and damaged electrical equipment.

In addition to the power disruptions, the storm has triggered a series of landslides across various regions. The combination of saturated soil and intense rainfall has caused several hillside slopes to give way, leading to road closures and property damage. Emergency services are working around the clock to address the aftermath of these landslides, but access to affected areas remains challenging due to blocked roads and ongoing hazardous conditions.

Emergency Response and Challenges

California’s emergency response teams are on high alert as they coordinate efforts to manage the fallout from the storm. Utility companies are deploying repair crews to restore power as quickly as possible, but the extensive damage to infrastructure means that some areas may be without electricity for several days. The state’s Department of Transportation is also engaged in clearing debris from landslides and repairing damaged roads to ensure that emergency services can reach affected communities.

The response efforts are complicated by the scale of the storm’s impact. With many areas experiencing both power outages and landslides, the logistical challenges are immense. Emergency shelters have been set up to provide temporary refuge for those displaced by the storm, but the capacity is limited, and there are concerns about overcrowding and resource shortages.

Community and Environmental Implications

The storm’s impact on local communities has been profound. Residents are facing not only the immediate challenges of power outages and unsafe road conditions but also longer-term concerns about recovery and rebuilding. Many individuals have been forced to evacuate their homes, and local businesses are struggling to cope with the disruption.

Environmental implications are also significant. The landslides and flooding have caused considerable damage to natural habitats and have raised concerns about water contamination and soil erosion. The impact on the environment could have longer-term consequences for the state’s ecosystems and water supply.

Climate Change and Extreme Weather

This storm underscores a growing concern about the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events linked to climate change. California has been experiencing a rise in severe weather patterns, including intense storms, prolonged droughts, and extreme heat waves that strain the grid. These changes are putting additional strain on the state’s infrastructure and emergency response systems.

Experts have pointed out that while individual storms cannot be directly attributed to climate change, the overall trend towards more extreme weather is consistent with scientific predictions. As such, there is a pressing need for California to invest in infrastructure improvements and resilience measures, and to consider accelerating its carbon-free electricity mandate to better withstand future events.

Looking Ahead

As California deals with the immediate aftermath of this storm, attention will turn to recovery and rebuilding efforts. The state will need to address the damage caused by power outages and landslides while also preparing for future challenges posed by climate change.

In the coming days, the focus will be on restoring power, clearing debris, and providing support to affected communities. Long-term efforts will likely involve reassessing infrastructure vulnerabilities, improving emergency response protocols, and investing in climate resilience measures across the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

BC Utilities Commission Site C Dam Questions press BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, stability issues, cost overruns, oversight gaps, seeking transparency for ratepayers and clarity on contracts, mitigation, and the powerhouse and spillway foundations.

Key Points

Inquiry seeking explanations from BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, costs, timelines and oversight for Site C.

✅ Timeline of studies, monitoring, and mitigation actions

✅ Rationale for contracts, costs, and right bank construction

✅ Implications for ratepayers, oversight, and project stability

The watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission has sent BC Hydro 70 questions about the troubled Site C dam, asking when geotechnical risks were first identified and when the project’s assurance board was first made aware of potential issues related to the dam’s stability. 

“I think they’ve come to the conclusion — but they don’t say it — that there’s been a cover-up by BC Hydro and by the government of British Columbia,” former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen told The Narwhal. 

On Oct. 21, The Narwhal reported that two top B.C. civil servants, including the senior bureaucrat who prepares Site C dam documents for cabinet, knew in May 2019 that the project faced serious geotechnical problems due to its “weak foundation” and the stability of the dam was “a significant risk.” 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism

“They [the civil servants] would have reported to their ministers and to the government in general,” said Eliesen, who is among 18 prominent Canadians calling for a halt to Site C work until an independent team of experts can determine if the geotechnical problems can be resolved and at what cost.  

“It’s disingenuous for Premier [John] Horgan to try to suggest, ‘Well, I just found out about it recently.’ If that’s the case, he should fire the public servants who are representing the province.” 

The public only found out about significant issues with the Site C dam at the end of July, when BC Hydro released overdue reports saying the project faces unknown cost overruns, schedule delays and, even as it achieved a transmission line milestone earlier, such profound geotechnical troubles that its overall health is classified as ‘red,’ meaning it is in serious trouble. 

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years.”

The Site C dam is the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. If completed, it will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, forcing families from their homes and destroying Indigenous gravesites, hundreds of protected archeological sites, some of Canada’s best farmland and habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction.

Eliesen said geotechnical risks were a key reason BC Hydro’s board of directors rejected the project in the early 1990s, when he was at the helm of BC Hydro.

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years,” said Eliesen, who is also the former Chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro, where Ontario First Nations have urged intervention on a critical electricity line, the former Chair of Manitoba Hydro and the former Chair and CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority.

Elsewhere, a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has faced potential delays, highlighting broader grid planning challenges.

The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent watchdog that makes sure ratepayers — including BC Hydro customers — receive safe and reliable energy services, as utilities adapt to climate change risks, “at fair rates.”

The commission’s questions to BC Hydro include 14 about the “foundational enhancements” BC Hydro now says are necessary to shore up the Site C dam, powerhouse and spillways. 

The commission is asking BC Hydro to provide a timeline and overview of all geotechnical engineering studies and monitoring activities for the powerhouse, spillway and dam core areas, and to explain what specific risk management and mitigation practices were put into effect once risks were identified.

The commission also wants to know why construction activities continued on the right bank of the Peace River, where the powerhouse would be located, “after geotechnical risks materialized.” 

It’s asking if geotechnical risks played a role in BC Hydro’s decision in March “to suspend or not resume work” on any components of the generating station and spillways.

The commission also wants BC Hydro to provide an itemized breakdown of a $690 million increase in the main civil works contract — held by Spain’s Acciona S.A. and the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung C&T Corp. — and to explain the rationale for awarding a no-bid contract to an unnamed First Nation and if other parties were made aware of that contract. 

Peace River Jewels of the Peace Site C The Narwhal
Islands in the Peace River, known as the ‘jewels of the Peace’ will be destroyed for fill for the Site C dam or will be submerged underwater by the dam’s reservoir, a loss that opponents are sharing with northerners in community discussions. Photo: Byron Dueck

B.C. Utilities Commission chair and CEO David Morton said it’s not the first time the commission has requested additional information after receiving BC Hydro’s quarterly progress reports on the Site C dam. 

“Our staff reads them to make sure they understand them and if there’s anything in then that’s not clear we go then we do go through this, we call it the IR — information request — process,” Morton said in an interview.

“There are things reported in here that we felt required a little more clarity, and we needed a little more understanding of them, so that’s why we asked the questions.”

The questions were sent to BC Hydro on Oct. 23, the day before the provincial election, but Morton said the commission is extraordinarily busy this year and that’s just a coincidence. 

“Our resources are fairly strained. It would have been nice if it could have been done faster, it would be nice if everything could be done faster.” 

“These questions are not politically motivated,” Morton said. “They’re not political questions. There’s no reason not to issue them when they’re ready.”

The commission has asked BC Hydro to respond by Nov. 19.

Read more: Top B.C. government officials knew Site C dam was in serious trouble over a year ago: FOI docs

Morton said the independent commission’s jurisdiction is limited because the B.C. government removed it from oversight of the project. 

The commission, which would normally determine if a large dam like the Site C project is in the public’s financial interest, first examined BC Hydro’s proposal to build the dam in the early 1980s.

After almost two years of hearings, including testimony under oath, the commission concluded B.C. did not need the electricity. It found the Site C dam would have negative social and environmental impacts and said geothermal power should be investigated to meet future energy needs. 

The project was revived in 2010 by the BC Liberal government, which touted energy from the Site C dam as a potential source of electricity for California and a way to supply B.C.’s future LNG industry with cheap power.

Not willing to countenance another rejection from the utilities commission, the government changed the law, stripping the commission of oversight for the project. The NDP government, which came to power in 2017, chose not to restore that oversight.

“The approval of the project was exempt from our oversight,” Morton said. “We can’t come along and say ‘there’s something we don’t like about what you’re doing, we’re going to stop construction.’ We’re not in that position and that’s not the focus of these questions.” 

But the commission still retains oversight for the cost of construction once the project is complete, Morton said. 

“The cost of construction has to be recovered in [hydro] rates. That means BC Hydro will need our approval to recover their construction cost in rates, and those are not insignificant amounts, more than $10.7 billion, in all likelihood.” 

In order to recover the cost from ratepayers, the commission needs to be satisfied BC Hydro didn’t spend more money than necessary on the project, Morton said. 

“As you can imagine, that’s not a straight forward review to do after the fact, after a 10-year construction project or whatever it ends up being … so we’re using these quarterly reports as an opportunity to try to stay on top of it and to flag any areas where we think there may be areas we need to look into in the future.”

The price tag for the Site C dam was $10.7 billion before BC Hydro’s announcement at the end of July — a leap from $6.6 billion when the project was first announced in 2010 and $8.8 billion when construction began in 2015. 

Eliesen said the utilities commission should have been asking tough questions about the Site C dam far earlier. 

“They’ve been remiss in their due diligence activities … They should have been quicker in raising questions with BC Hydro, rather than allowing BC Hydro to be exceptionally late in submitting their reports.” 

BC Hydro is late in filing another Site C quarterly report, covering the period from April 1 to June 30. 

The quarterly reports provide the B.C. public with rare glimpses of a project that international hydro expert Harvey Elwin described as being more secretive than any hydro project he has encountered in five decades working on large dams around the world, including in China.

Read more: Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding

Morton said the commission could have ordered regular reporting for the Site C project if it had its previous oversight capability.

“Then we would have had the ability to follow up and ultimately order any delinquent reports to be filed. In this circumstance, they are being filed voluntarily. They can file it as late as they choose. We don’t have any jurisdiction.” 

In addition to the six dozen questions, the commission has also filed confidential questions with BC Hydro. Morton said confidential information could include things such as competitive bid information. “BC Hydro itself may be under a confidentiality agreement not to disclose it.” 

With oversight, the commission would also have been able to drill down into specific project elements,  Morton said. 

“We would have wanted to ensure that the construction followed what was approved. BC Hydro wouldn’t have the ability to make significant changes to the design and nature of the project as they went along.”

BC Hydro has been criticized for changing the design of the Site C dam to an L-shape, which Eliesen said “has never been done anywhere in the world for an earthen dam.” 

Morton said an empowered commission could have opted to hold a public hearing about the design change and engage its own technical consultants, as it did in 2017 when the new NDP government asked it to conduct a fast-tracked review of the project’s economics. 

Construction Site C Dam
A recent report by a U.S. energy economist found cancelling the Site C dam project would save BC Hydro customers an initial $116 million a year, with increasing savings growing over time. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The commission’s final report found the dam could cost more than $12 billion, that BC Hydro had a historical pattern of overestimating energy demand and that the same amount of energy could be produced by a suite of renewables, including wind and proposed pumped storage such as the Meaford project, for $8.8 billion or less. 

The NDP government, under pressure from construction trade unions, opted to continue the project, refusing to disclose key financial information related to its decision. 

When the geotechnical problems were revealed in July, the government announced the appointment of former deputy finance minister Peter Milburn as a special Site C project advisor who will work with BC Hydro and the Site C project assurance board to examine the project and provide the government with independent advice.

Eliesen said BC Hydro and the B.C. government should never have allowed the recent diversion of the Peace River to take place given the tremendous geotechnical challenges the project faces and its unknown cost and schedule for completion. 

“It’s a disgrace and scandalous,” he said. “You can halt the river diversion, but you’ve got another four or five years left in construction of the dam. What are you going to do about all the cement you’ve poured if you’ve got stability problems?”

He said it’s counter-productive to continue with advice “from the same people who have been wrong, wrong, wrong,” without calling in independent global experts to examine the geotechnical problems. 

“If you stop construction, whether it takes three or six months, that’s the time that’s required in order to give yourself a comfort level. But continuing to do what you’ve been doing is not the right course. You should have to sit back.”

Eliesen said it reminded him of the Pete Seeger song Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, which tells the story of a captain ordering his troops to keep slogging through a river because they will soon be on dry ground. After the captain drowns, the troops turn around.

“It’s a reflection of the fact that if you don’t look at what’s new, you just keep on doing what you’ve been doing in the past and that, unfortunately, is what’s happening here in this province with this project.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Toyota and Honda Moving e delivers hydrogen backup power via a fuel cell bus, portable batteries, and power exporters for disaster relief, emergency electricity, and grid outage support near charging stations and microgrids.

Key Points

A hydrogen mobile power system using a fuel cell bus and batteries to supply emergency electricity during disasters.

✅ Fuel cell bus outputs up to 18 kW, 454 kWh capacity

✅ Portable batteries and power exporter deliver site power

✅ Supports disaster relief near hydrogen charging stations

Without the uninterrupted supply of power and electricity, modern economies would be unable to function. A blackout can impact everything from transport to health care, communication, and even water supplies, as seen in a near-blackout in Japan that strained the grid. It is one of the key security concerns for every government on earth, a point underscored by Fatih Birol on electricity options during the pandemic, and the growth in the market for backup power reflects that fact. In 2018, the global Backup Power market was $14.9 billion and is expected to reach $22 billion by the end of 2025, growing at a CAGR of 5.0 percent between 2019 and 2025.

It is against this backdrop that Toyota and Honda have come up with a new and innovative solution to providing electricity during disasters. The two transport giants have launched a mobile power generation system that consists of a fuel cell bus that can carry a large amount of hydrogen, aligned with Japan's hydrogen energy system efforts underway, portable external power output devices, and portable batteries to disaster zones. The system, which is called ‘Moving e’ includes Toyota’s charging station fuel cell bus, Honda’s power exporter 9000 portable external power output device, two types of Honda’s portable batteries, and a Honda Mobile Power Pack Charge & Supply Concept charger/discharger for MPP. 

In simple terms, the bus would drive to a disaster zone, and while other approaches such as gravity energy storage are advancing, the portable batteries and power output devices would be used to extract electricity from the fuel cell bus and provide it wherever it is needed. The bus itself can generate 454kWh and has a maximum output of 18kW. That is more than enough energy to supply electricity for large indoor areas such as an evacuation area. The bus is also fitted with space for people to nap or rest during a disaster.

The two companies plan to test the effectiveness of the Moving e at multiple municipalities and businesses. These locations will have to be within 100km of a hydrogen station that is capable of refueling the bus. If the bus has to drive 200km, then its electricity supply to the disaster zone would drop from 490kwh to 240kWh. While there aren’t currently enough hydrogen stations to make this a realistic scenario for all disaster zones, especially as countries push for hydrogen-ready power plants in Germany and related infrastructure, hydrogen is growing increasingly competitive with gasoline and diesel.

While gas generators are still considered more reliable and generally cheaper than backup batteries for home use, cleaner backup power is growing increasingly popular, and novel storage like power-to-gas in Europe is also advancing across grids. This latest development by Toyota and Honda is another step forward for the battery and fuel cell industry, with initiatives like PEM hydrogen R&D in China accelerating progress, – especially considering the meteoric rise of hydrogen energy in recent years.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

ERCOT Winter Capacity RFP seeks up to 3,000 MW through generation and demand response to bolster Texas grid reliability during peak load, leveraging Reliability Must-Run, incentive factors, and EEA risk mitigation for the 2023-24 season.

Key Points

An ERCOT initiative to procure 3,000 MW of generation and demand response to reduce EEA risk and improve reliability.

✅ Targets 3,000 MW from generation and demand response

✅ Uses RMR-style contracts with flexible incentive factors

✅ Aims to lower EEA probability below 10% this winter

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) issued a request for proposals to stakeholders to procure up to 3,000 MW of generation or demand response capacity to meet load and reserve requirements during the winter 2023-24 peak load season (Dec. 1, 2023, through Feb. 29, 2024), amid ongoing Texas power grid challenges across the region.

ERCOT cited “several factors, including significant peak load growth since last winter, recent and proposed retirements of dispatchable Generation Resources, and recent extreme winter weather events, including Winter Storm Elliott in December 2022, Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, and the 2018 and 2011 winter storms, each of which resulted in abnormally high demand during winter weather.” It now seeks additional capacity under its “authority to prevent an anticipated Emergency Condition,” reflecting nationwide blackout risks identified by grid experts.

In its notice regarding the RFP, ERCOT identified a number of mothballed and recently decommissioned generation resources that may be eligible to offer capacity under the RFP. It further stated that offers must comport with the format of its “Reliability Must-Run” agreement but could include a proposed “Incentive Factor” that reflects the revenues the unit owners determine would be necessary to bring the unit back to operation. It added that the Incentive Factor is not necessarily limited to 10%. Providers of eligible demand response can submit offers based on similar principles that are not necessarily constrained by cost. The notice identifies potential acceptable sources of demand response, describes certain parameters for the kinds of demand response that are permitted to respond to the RFP, and outlines the time periods during which ERCOT must be able to deploy the demand response resources to improve electricity reliability across the system.

To meet the Dec. 1, 2023, service start date, ERCOT developed an aggressive timeline to solicit and evaluate proposals through the RFP. Responses to the RFP are due Nov. 6, 2023. ERCOT’s schedule provides that it will notify market participants that obtain awards on Nov. 23, 2023. Expect contracts to be executed by Nov. 30, 2023.

Unlike Regional Transmission Organizations in the Northeastern United States, ERCOT does not have a capacity market. Instead, ERCOT relies on a high price cap of $5,000 per MWh for its energy market (decreased from the $9,000 per MWh cap in effect during Winter Storm Uri) and an Operating Reserve Demand Curve adder that pays additional funds to generators supplying power and ancillary services, an area recently scrutinized for improper payments when supply conditions are tight. In the wake of Winter Storm Uri, some calls were made to have ERCOT adopt a capacity market for reliability reasons, and a number of legal battles continue to play out in the wake of Winter Storm Uri. (See recent McGuireWoods legal alert “Winter Storm Uri Power Dispute Reaches the Supreme Court of Texas.”) Though a capacity market was not adopted, the Texas Legislature approved a $7.2 billion loan program, widely described as an electricity market bailout for generators, to build up to 10,000 MW of dispatchable generation. The legislature also approved a version of the Public Utility Commission of Texas’ proposal to establish a “Performance Credit Mechanism,” but with a cost cap of $1 billion.

The loss of life and economic impacts of Winter Storm Uri in 2021, along with the energy crunches and calls for conservation this past summer, are driving changes to ERCOT’s “energy-only” market, including electricity market reforms under consideration. Texas policymakers are providing multiple financial incentives to promote investment in dispatchable on-demand generation, and voters will consider funding to modernize generation measures this year to make the Texas grid more reliable and able to deal with power demand from a growing economy and increased demand for electricity driven by weather. In the meantime, ERCOT’s plan to procure 3,000 MW through this RFP process is a stopgap measure intended to bolster reliability for the upcoming winter season and lower the probability of load shed in the event of severe winter weather.

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