Reactor shutdown opens door to Russia plans

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

Quebec Energy Bill Tariff Delay disrupts Canada-U.S. trade, renewable energy investment, hydroelectric expansion, and clean technology projects, as Trump tariffs on aluminum and steel raise costs, threatening climate targets and green infrastructure timelines.

Key Points

A policy pause in Quebec from U.S. tariff threats, disrupting clean investment, hydro expansion, and climate targets.

✅ Tariff risk inflates aluminum and steel project costs.

✅ Quebec delays clean energy legislation amid trade uncertainty.

✅ Hydroelectric reliance complicates emissions reduction timelines.

The Trump administration's tariff threat has had a significant impact on Quebec's energy sector, with tariff threats boosting support for projects even as the uncertainty resulted in the delay of a critical energy bill. Originally introduced to streamline energy development and tackle climate change, the bill was meant to help transition Quebec towards greener alternatives while fostering economic growth. However, the U.S. threat to impose tariffs on Canadian goods, including energy products, introduced a wave of uncertainty that led to a pause in the bill's legislative process.

Quebec’s energy bill had ambitious goals of transitioning to renewable sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. It sought to support investments in clean technologies and the expansion of the province's clean energy infrastructure, as the U.S. demand for Canadian green power continues to grow across the border. Moreover, it emphasized the reduction of carbon emissions, an important step towards meeting Quebec's climate targets. At its core, the bill aimed to position the province as a leader in green energy development in Canada and globally.

The interruption caused by President Donald Trump's tariff rhetoric has, however, cast a shadow over the legislation. Tariffs, if enacted, would disproportionately affect Canada's energy exports, with electricity exports at risk under growing tensions, particularly in sectors like aluminum and steel, which are integral to energy infrastructure development. These tariffs could increase the cost of energy-related projects, thereby hindering Quebec's ability to achieve its renewable energy goals and reduce carbon emissions in a timely manner.

The tariff threat was seen as a part of the broader trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada, a continuation of the trade war that had escalated under Trump’s presidency. In this context, the Quebec government was forced to reconsider its legislative priorities, with policymakers citing concerns over the potential long-term consequences on the energy industry, as leaders elsewhere threatened to cut U.S.-bound electricity to exert leverage. With the uncertainty around tariffs and trade relations, the government opted to delay the bill until the geopolitical situation stabilized.

This delay underscores the vulnerability of Quebec’s energy agenda to external pressures. While the provincial government had set its sights on an ambitious green energy future, it now faces significant challenges in ensuring that its projects remain economically viable under the cloud of potential tariffs, even as experts warn against curbing Quebec's exports during the dispute. The delay in the energy bill also reflects broader challenges faced by the Canadian energy sector, which is highly integrated with the U.S. market.

The situation is further complicated by the province's reliance on hydroelectric power, a cornerstone of its energy strategy that supplies markets like New York, where tariffs could spike New York energy prices if cross-border flows are disrupted. While hydroelectric power is a clean and renewable source of energy, there are concerns about the environmental impact of large-scale dams, and these concerns have been growing in recent years. The tariff threat may prompt a reevaluation of Quebec’s energy mix and force the government to balance its environmental goals with economic realities.

The potential imposition of tariffs also raises questions about the future of North American energy cooperation. Historically, Canada and the U.S. have enjoyed a symbiotic energy relationship, with significant energy trade flowing across the border. The energy bill in Quebec was designed with the understanding that cross-border energy trade would continue to thrive. The Trump administration's tariff threat, however, casts doubt on this stability, forcing Quebec lawmakers to reconsider how they proceed with energy policy in a more uncertain trade environment.

Looking forward, Quebec's energy sector will likely need to adjust its strategies to account for the possibility of tariffs, while still pushing for a sustainable energy future, especially if Biden outlook for Canada's energy proves more favorable for the sector in the medium term. It may also open the door for deeper discussions about diversification, both in terms of energy sources and trade partnerships, as Quebec seeks to mitigate the impact of external threats. The delay in the energy bill, though unfortunate, may serve as a wake-up call for Canadian lawmakers to rethink how they balance environmental goals with global trade realities.

Ultimately, the Trump tariff threat highlights the delicate balance between regional energy ambitions and international trade dynamics. For Quebec, the delay in the energy bill could prove to be a pivotal moment in shaping the future of its energy policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Pickering Nuclear Plant Extension faces CNSC approval as Ontario Power Generation pursues license renewal before the June 30, 2023 deadline, amid a 2025 capacity crunch and grid reliability risks from decommissioning and overlapping nuclear outages.

Key Points

A plan to run Pickering past 2024 to Sept 2026, pending CNSC license renewal to address Ontario's 2025 capacity gap.

✅ CNSC approval needed for operation beyond Dec 31, 2024

✅ OPG aims to file by June 30, 2023 deadline

✅ Extension targets grid reliability through 2026

Ontario’s electricity generator has yet to file an official application to extend the life of the Pickering nuclear power plant, more than eight months after the Ford government announced a plan to continue operating Pickering for longer.

As the province faces an electricity shortfall in 2025 and beyond, the Ford government scrambled to prolong the Pickering power plant until September 2026, in order to guarantee a steady supply of power as the province experiences a rise in demand and shutdowns at other nuclear power plants.

The life extension may come down to the wire, however, as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the federal regulator tasked with approving or denying the extension, tells Global News the province has yet to file key paperwork.

The information is required for the application, including materials related to the proposed Pickering B refurbishment, and the government now has a month before the deadline runs out.

“The Commission requires that Ontario Power Generation submit specific information by June 30, 2023, if it intends to operate the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station beyond December 31, 2024,” the CNSC told Global News in a statement. “The Commission Registry has not yet received an application from Ontario Power Generation.”

If Ontario doesn’t receive the green light, the power plant which currently is responsible for 14 per cent of the province’s energy grid will be decommissioned in 2025, leaving the province with a significant electricity supply gap if replacement sources are not secured.

For its part, the Ford government doesn’t seem concerned about the impending timeline, even though the station was slated to close as planned, suggesting the Crown corporation responsible for the application will get it in on time.

“OPG is on track to submit their application before the end of June and has already started to submit supporting materials as part of the regulatory process toward clean power goals,” a spokesperson for energy minister Todd Smith said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Churchill Falls NL-Quebec Agreement boosts hydropower revenues, revises power purchase pricing, expands transmission lines, and integrates Indigenous rights, enabling renewable energy growth, domestic supply, exports, and interprovincial collaboration on infrastructure and utility modernization.

Key Points

A renegotiated hydropower deal reallocating power and advancing projects with Indigenous benefits in NL and Quebec.

✅ Raises Hydro-Quebec price for Churchill Falls electricity

✅ Increases NL power share for domestic use and exports

✅ Commits joint projects and Indigenous participation safeguards

St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador - In a historic development, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) and Quebec have reached a tentative agreement over the controversial Churchill Falls hydroelectric project, amid Quebec's electricity ambitions and longstanding regional sensitivities, potentially unlocking hundreds of billions of dollars for the Atlantic province. The deal, announced jointly by Premier Andrew Furey and Quebec Premier François Legault, aims to rectify the decades-long imbalance in the original 1969 contract, which saw NL receive significantly less revenue than Quebec for the province's vast hydropower resources.

The core of the new agreement involves a substantial increase in the price that Hydro-Québec pays for electricity generated at Churchill Falls. This price hike, retroactive to January 1, 2025, is expected to generate billions in additional revenue for NL over the next several decades. The deal also includes provisions for:

• Increased power allocation for NL: The province will gain a larger share of the electricity generated at Churchill Falls, allowing for increased domestic consumption and potential export opportunities through the sale and trade of power across regional markets.
• Joint infrastructure development: Both provinces will collaborate on new energy projects, in line with Hydro-Québec's $185-billion plan to reduce fossil fuel reliance, including potential expansions to the Churchill Falls generating station and the development of new transmission lines.
• Indigenous involvement: The agreement acknowledges the importance of Indigenous rights and seeks to ensure that Indigenous communities in both provinces benefit from the project.

This landmark deal represents a significant victory for NL, which has long argued that the original 1969 contract was grossly unfair. The province has been seeking to renegotiate the terms of the agreement for decades, citing the low price paid for electricity and the significant economic benefits that have accrued to Quebec.

Key Implications:

• Economic Transformation: The influx of revenue from the new Churchill Falls agreement has the potential to significantly transform the economy of NL, though the legacy of Muskrat Falls costs tempers expectations before plans are finalized. The province can invest in critical infrastructure projects, such as healthcare, education, and transportation, as well as support economic diversification initiatives.
• Energy Independence: The increased access to electricity will enhance NL's energy security and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. This shift towards renewable energy aligns with the province's climate change goals, and in the context of Quebec's no-nuclear stance could attract new investment in sustainable industries.
• Interprovincial Relations: The successful negotiation of this complex agreement demonstrates the potential for constructive collaboration between provinces on major infrastructure projects, as seen in recent NB Power-Hydro-Québec agreements to import more electricity. It sets a precedent for future interprovincial partnerships on issues of shared interest.

Challenges and Considerations:

• Implementation: The successful implementation of the agreement will require careful planning and coordination between the two provinces.
• Environmental Impact: The expansion of hydroelectric generation at Churchill Falls must be carefully assessed for its potential environmental impacts, including the effects on local ecosystems and Indigenous communities.
• Public Consultation: It is crucial that the governments of NL and Quebec engage in meaningful public consultation throughout the implementation process to ensure that the benefits of the agreement are shared equitably across both provinces.

The Churchill Falls agreement marks a turning point in the history of energy development in Canada. It demonstrates the potential for provinces to work together to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes, even as Nova Scotia shifts toward wind and solar after stepping back from the Atlantic Loop, while also addressing historical inequities and ensuring a more equitable distribution of the benefits of natural resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Illinois NextGrid redefines utility, customer, and provider roles with grid modernization, DER valuation, upfront rebates, net metering reform, and non-wires alternatives, leveraging rooftop solar, batteries, and performance signals to enhance reliability and efficiency.

Key Points

Illinois NextGrid is an ICC roadmap to value DER and modernize the grid with rebates and non-wires solutions.

✅ Upfront Value-of-DER rebates reward location, time, and performance.

✅ Locational DER reduce peak demand and defer wires and substations.

✅ Encourages non-wires alternatives and data-driven utility planning.

How does the electric utility fit in to a rapidly-evolving energy system? That’s what the Illinois Commerce Commission is trying to determine with its new effort, "NextGrid". Together, we’re rethinking the roles of the utility, the customer, and energy solution providers in a 21st-century digital grid landscape.

In some ways, NextGrid will follow in the footsteps of New York’s innovative Reforming the Energy Vision process, a multi-year effort to re-examine how electric utilities and customers interact. A new approach is essential to accelerating the adoption of clean energy technologies and building a smarter electricity infrastructure in the state.

Like REV, NextGrid is gaining national attention for stakeholder-driven processes to reveal new ways to value distributed energy resources (DER), like rooftop solar and batteries. New York and Illinois’ efforts also seek alternatives, such as virtual power plants, to simply building more and more wires, poles, and power plants to meet the energy needs of tomorrow.

Yet, Illinois is may go a few steps beyond New York, creating a comprehensive framework for utilities to measure how DER are making the grid smarter and more efficient. Here is what we know will happen so far.

On Wednesday, April 5, at the second annual Grid Modernization Forum in Chicago, I’ll be discussing why these provisions could change the future of our energy system, including insights on grid modernization affordability for stakeholders.

Value of distributed energy

The Illinois Commerce Commission’s NextGrid plans grew out of the recently-passed future energy jobs act, a landmark piece of climate and energy policy that was widely heralded as a bipartisan oddity in the age of Trump. The Future Energy Jobs Act will provide significant new investments in renewables and energy efficiency over the next 13 years, redefine the role and value of rooftop solar and batteries on the grid, and lead to significant greenhouse gas emission reductions.

NextGrid will likely start laying the groundwork for valuing distributed energy resources (DER) as envisioned by the Future Energy Jobs Act, which introduces the concept of a new rebate. Illinois currently has a net metering policy, which lets people with solar panels sell their unused solar energy back to the grid to offset their electric bill. Yet the net metering policy had an arbitrary “cap,” or a certain level after which homes and businesses adding solar panels would no longer be able to benefit from net metering.

Although Illinois is still a few years away from meeting that previous “cap,” when it does hit that level, the new policy will ensure additional DER will still be rewarded. Under the new plan, the Value-of-DER rebate will replace net metering on the distribution portion of a customer’s bill (the charge for delivering electricity from the local substation to your house) with an upfront payment, which credits the customer for the value their solar provides to the local grid over the system’s life. Net metering for the energy supply portion of the bill would remain – i.e. homes and businesses would still be able to offset a significant portion of their electric bills by selling excess energy.

What is unique about Illinois’ approach is that the rebate is an upfront payment, rather than on ongoing tariff or reduced net metering compensation, for example. By allowing customers to get paid for the value solar provides to the system at the time it is installed, in the same way new wires, poles, and transformers would, this upfront payment positions DER investments as equally or more beneficial to customers and the electric grid. This is a huge step not only for regulators, but for utilities as well, as they begin to see distributed energy as an asset to the system.

This is a huge step for utilities, as they begin to see distributed energy as an asset to the system.

The rebate would also factor-in the variables of location, time, and performance of DER in the rebate formula, allowing for a more precise calculation of the value to the grid. Peak electricity demand can stress the local grid, causing wear and tear and failure of the equipment that serve our homes and businesses. Power from DER during peak times and in certain areas can alleviate those stresses, therefore providing a greater value than during times of average demand.

In addition, factoring-in the value of performance will take into account the other functions of distributed energy that help keep the lights on. For example, batteries and advanced inverters can provide support for helping avoid voltage fluctuations that can cause outages and other costs to customers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

India Thermal Power Coal Imports surged 17.6% as CEA-monitored plants offset weaker CIL and SCCL supplies, driven by Saubhagya-led electricity demand, regional power deficits, and varied consumption across Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, and Gujarat.

Key Points

Fuel volumes imported for Indian thermal plants, tracked by CEA, reflecting shifts in CIL/SCCL supply, demand, and regional power deficits.

✅ Imports up 17.6% as domestic CIL/SCCL deliveries lag targets

✅ Saubhagya-driven demand lifts generation in key beneficiary states

✅ Industrial slowdowns cut usage in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat

The receipt of imported coal by thermal power plants, where plant load factors have risen, has shot up by 17.6 per cent during April-October. The coal import volumes refer to the power plants monitored by the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), and come amid moves to ration coal supplies as electricity demand surges, a power update report from CARE Ratings showed.

Imports escalated as domestic supplies by Coal India Ltd (CIL) and another state run producer- Singareni Collieries Company Ltd (SCCL) dipped in the period, after earlier shortages that have since eased in later months. Rate of supplies by the two coal companies to the CEA monitored power stations stood at 80.4 per cent, indicating a shortfall of 19.6 per cent against the allocated quantity.

According to the study by CARE Ratings, total coal supplied by CIL and SCCL to the power sector stood at 315.9 million tonnes (mt) during April-October as against 328.5 mt in the comparable period of last fiscal year.

The study noted that growth in power generation during the April-October 2019, with India now the third-largest electricity producer globally, was on account of higher demand from Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojana or Saubhagya Scheme beneficiary states. Providing connection to households in order to achieve 100% per cent electrification has in part helped the sector avert de-growth, as part of efforts to rewire Indian electricity and expand access.

Large states namely Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Punjab, West Bengal and Rajasthan have recorded over five per cent growth in consumption of power. These states along with Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Assam accounted for 75 per cent of the beneficiaries under the Saubhagya Scheme (Household Electrification Scheme). The ongoing economic downturn has led to a sharp fall in electricity demand from industrialised states. Maharashtra, which is also the largest power consuming state in India, recorded a decline in consumption of 5.6 per cent.

Other states namely Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Gujarat and Odisha too recorded fall in power consumed, echoing global dips in daily electricity demand seen later during the pandemic. These states house large clusters of mining, automobile, cement and other manufacturing industries, and a decline in these sectors led to fall in demand for power across these states. - The demand-supply gap or power deficit has remained at 0.6 per cent during the April-October 2019. North-East reported 4.8 per cent of power deficit followed by Northern Region at 1.3 per cent. Within Northern Region, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttar Pradesh accounted for 65 per cent and 30 per cent respectively of the regions power supply deficit.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News