Transmission line rebuild approved

PLREDA 2019 advances solar, wind, and geothermal on public lands, guiding DOI siting, improving transmission access, streamlining permitting, sharing revenues, and funding conservation to meet climate goals while protecting wildlife and recreation.

Key Points

A bipartisan bill to expand renewables on public lands fund conservation, speed permitting and advance U.S. climate aims.

✅ Targets 25 GW of public-land renewables by 2025

✅ Establishes wildlife conservation and recreation access funds

✅ Streamlines siting, transmission, and equitable revenue sharing

The Senate unveiled its version of a bill the House introduced in July to help the U.S. realize the extraordinary renewable energy potential of our shared public lands.

Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) and a bipartisan coalition of western Senators introduced a Senate version of draft legislation that will help the Department of the Interior tap the renewable energy potential of our shared public lands. The western Senators represent Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, and Idaho.

Elsewhere in the West, lawmakers have moved to modernize Oregon hydropower to streamline licensing, signaling broad regional momentum.

The Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2019 (PLREDA) facilitates siting of solar, wind, and geothermal energy projects on public lands, boosts funding for conservation, and promotes ambitious renewable energy targets that will help the U.S. take action on the climate crisis.

Like the House version, the Senate bill enjoys strong bi-partisan support and industry endorsement. The Senate version makes few notable changes to the bill introduced in July by Representatives Mike Levin (D-CA) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ). It includes:

• A commitment to enhance natural resource conservation and stewardship via the establishment of a fish and wildlife conservation fund that would support conservation and restoration work and other important stewardship activities.
• An ambitious renewable energy production goal for the Department of the Interior to permit a total of 25 gigawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 2025—nearly double the current generating capacity of projects currently on our public lands.
• Establishment of criteria for identifying appropriate areas for renewable energy development using the 2012 Western Solar Plan as a model. Key criteria to be considered include access to transmission lines and likelihood of avoiding or minimizing conflict with wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and other resources and values.
• Improved public access to Federal lands for recreational uses via funds made available for preserving and improving access, including enhancing public access to places that are currently inaccessible or restricted.
• Sharing of revenues raised from renewable energy development on public lands in an equitable manner that benefits local communities near new renewable energy projects and supports the efficient administration of permitting requirements.
• Creating incentives for renewable energy development by giving Interior the authority to reduce rental rates and capacity fees to ensure new renewable energy development remains competitive in the marketplace.

NRDC strongly supports this legislation, and we will do our utmost to facilitate its passage into law. There is no question that in our era of runaway climate change, legislation that balances energy production with environmental conservation and stewardship of our public lands is critical.

PLREDA takes a balanced approach to using our public lands to help lead the U.S. toward a low-carbon future, as states pursue 100% renewable electricity goals nationwide. The bill outlines a commonsense approach for federal agencies to play a meaningful role in combatting climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Energy Transition Grid Reforms address transmission capacity, interconnection, congestion management, and flexibility markets, enabling renewable integration and grid stability while optimizing network charges and access in Australia, Ireland, and Great Britain.

Key Points

Measures to expand transmission, boost flexibility, and manage congestion for reliable, low-carbon electricity systems.

✅ Transmission upgrades and interconnectors ease congestion

✅ Flexible markets, DER, and storage bolster grid stability

✅ Evolving network charges and access incentivize siting

Electricity networks globally are experiencing significant increases in the volume of renewable capacity as countries seek to decarbonise their power sectors, even as clean energy's 'dirty secret' highlights integration trade-offs, without impacting the security of supply. The scale of this change is creating new challenges for power networks and those responsible for keeping the lights on.

The latest insight paper from Cornwall Insight – Market design amidst global energy transition – looks into this issue. It examines the outlook for transmission networks, and how legacy design and policies are supporting decarbonisation, aligning with IRENA findings on renewables and shaping the system. The paper focuses on three key markets; Australia, Ireland and Great Britain (GB).

Australia's main priority is to enhance transmission capacity and network efficiency; as concerns over excess solar risking blackouts grow in distribution networks, without this, the transmission system will be a barrier to growth for decentralised flexibility and renewables. In contrast, GB and Ireland benefit from interconnection with other national markets. This provides them with additional levers that can be pulled to manage system security and supply. However, they are still trying to hone and optimise network flexibility in light of steepening decarbonisation objectives.

Unsurprisingly, renewable energy resources have been growing in all three markets, with Ireland regarded as a leader in grid integration, with this expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Many of these projects are often located in places where network infrastructure is not as well developed, creating pressure on system operation as a result.

In all three markets, unit charges are rising, driven by a reduced charging base as decentralised energy grows quickly. This combination of changes is leading to network congestion, a challenge mirrored by the US grid overhaul for renewables underway, as transmission network development struggles to keep up, and flexibility markets are being optimised and changed.

In summary, reforms are on-going in each jurisdiction to accommodate the rapid physical transformation of the generation mix. Each has its objectives and tensions which are reflective of wider global reform programmes being undertaken in most developed, liberalised and decarbonising energy markets.

Gareth Miller, CEO of Cornwall Insight, said: “Despite differences in market design and characteristics, all three markets are grappling with similar issues, that comes from committing to deep decarbonisation. This includes the most appropriate methods for charging for networks, managing access to them and dealing with issues such as network congestion and constraint.

“In all three countries, renewable projects are often placed in isolated locations, as seen in Scotland where more pylons are needed to keep the lights on, away from the traditional infrastructure that is closer to demand. However, as renewable growth is set to continue, the networks will need to transition from being demand-centric to more supply orientated.

“Both system operators and stakeholders will need to continually evaluate their market structures and designs to alleviate issues surrounding locational congestion and grid stability. Each market is at very different stages in the process in trying to improve any problems implementing solutions to allow for higher efficiencies in renewable energy integration.

“It is uncertain whether any of the proposed changes will fundamentally resolve the issues that come with increased renewables on the system. However, despite marked differences, they certainly could all learn from each other and elements of their network arrangements, as well as from US decarbonisation strategies research.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Russia-Ukraine Energy War disrupts infrastructure, oil, gas, and electricity, triggering supply shocks, price spikes, and inflation. Global markets face volatility, import risks, and cybersecurity threats, underscoring energy security, grid resilience, and diversified supply.

Key Points

It is Russia's strategic targeting of Ukraine's energy system to disrupt supplies, raise prices, and hit global markets.

✅ Attacks weaponize energy to strain Ukraine and allies

✅ Supply shocks risk oil, gas, and electricity price spikes

✅ Urgent need for cybersecurity, grid resilience, diversification

Russia's targeting of Ukraine's energy infrastructure has unleashed an "energy war" that could lead to widespread price increases, supply disruptions, and ripple effects throughout the global energy market, felt across the continent, with warnings of Europe's energy nightmare taking shape.

This highlights the unprecedented scale and severity of the attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. These attacks have disrupted power supplies, prompting increased electricity imports to keep the lights on, hindered oil and gas production, and damaged refineries, impacting Ukraine and the broader global energy system.

Energy as a Weapon

Experts claim that Russia's deliberate attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure represent a strategic escalation, amid energy ceasefire violations alleged by both sides, demonstrating the Kremlin's willingness to weaponize energy as part of its war effort. By crippling Ukraine's energy system, Russia aims to destabilize the country, inflict suffering on civilians, and undermine Western support for Ukraine.

Impacts on Global Oil and Gas Markets

The ongoing attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure could significantly impact global oil and gas markets, leading to supply shortages and dramatic price increases, even as European gas prices briefly returned to pre-war levels earlier this year, underscoring extreme volatility. Ukraine's oil and gas production, while not massive in global terms, is still significant, and its disruption feeds into existing anxieties about global energy supplies already affected by the war.

Ripple Effects Beyond Ukraine

The impacts of the "energy war" won't be limited to Ukraine or its immediate neighbours. Price increases for oil, gas, and electricity are expected worldwide, further fueling inflation and exacerbating the global cost of living crisis.  Additionally, supply disruptions could disproportionately affect developing nations and regions heavily dependent on energy imports, making targeted energy security support to Ukraine and other vulnerable importers vital.

Vulnerability of Energy Infrastructure

The attacks on Ukraine highlight the vulnerability of critical energy infrastructure worldwide, as the country prepares for winter under persistent threats. The potential for other state or non-state actors to use similar tactics raises concerns about security and long-term stability in the global energy sector.

Strengthening Resilience

Experts emphasize the urgent need for global cooperation in strengthening the resilience of energy infrastructure. Investments in cybersecurity, diverse energy sources, and decentralized grids are crucial for mitigating the risks of future attacks, with some arguing that stepping away from fossil fuels would improve US energy security over time. International cooperation will be key in identifying vulnerable areas and providing aid to nations whose infrastructure is under threat.

The Unpredictable Future of Energy

The "energy war" unleashed by Russia has injected a new level of uncertainty into the global energy market. In addition to short-term price fluctuations and supply issues, the conflict could accelerate the long-term transition towards renewable energy sources and reshape how nations approach energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

NERC COVID-19 Grid Security Alert urges utilities to update business continuity plans, assess supply chain risk, and harden cybersecurity against spearphishing, social engineering, and remote-work vulnerabilities to protect the U.S. power grid and critical infrastructure.

Key Points

A notice urging U.S. utilities to fortify pandemic continuity, secure supply chains, and enhance cybersecurity.

✅ Mandates updates to business continuity and pandemic readiness plans

✅ Flags supply chain risks for PPE, electronics, chemicals, and logistics

✅ Warns of spearphishing, social engineering, VPN and remote-work threats

The top U.S. grid security monitor urged power utilities to prepare for the new coronavirus in a rare alert yesterday, adding to a chorus of warnings from federal and private organizations.

The North American Electric Reliability Corp. called for power providers to update business continuity plans in case of a pandemic outbreak and weigh the need to prioritize construction or maintenance projects, including updates on major projects like BC Hydro's Site C, while the COVID-19 virus continues to spread.

NERC is requiring electric utilities to answer questions on their readiness for a possible pandemic, including potential staffing strategies such as on-site sequestering, by March 20, an unusual step that underscores the severity of the threat to U.S. power systems.

The Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, NERC's hub for getting the word out on dangers and vulnerabilities for the grid, also sent out an "all-points bulletin" on Feb. 5 addressing the coronavirus outbreak. That nonpublic document covered "potential supply chain issues stemming from a manufacturing slowdown in Asia," NERC spokeswoman Kimberly Mielcarek said.

Among offering basic hygiene and awareness recommendations, NERC's latest alert also encourages utilities to take stock of resources with supply chains affected by the virus. Because "China and nearby southeast Asian nations" have been impacted, NERC said, the supply chain hits will likely include "electronics, personal protective equipment and sanitation supplies, chemicals, and raw materials." The nonprofit grid overseer also warned of global transportation disruptions.

NERC also recommended utilities be on the lookout for cyberattacks taking advantage of the panic and using "coronavirus-themed opportunistic social engineering attacks" to hack into power companies' networks. Social engineering attacks are when hackers use social interactions to manipulate targets into giving up sensitive information.

"Spearphishing, watering hole, and other disinformation tactics are commonly used to exploit public interest in significant events," the alert said.

Electric utility representatives said they're working on or have already completed some of the steps outlined in NERC's alert, though nuclear plant workers have cited a lack of precautions in some cases.

"At this point, many of our members are activating and/or reviewing their business continuity and preparedness plans to ensure that operations and infrastructure are properly supported," said Tobias Sellier, director of media relations for the American Public Power Association, which represents around 1,400 electric utilities.

The power providers are also collaborating with other utilities such as "water, wastewater and gas," Sellier said.

Stephen Bell, senior director of media and public relations at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, said his group's members "have already taken a number of steps recommended by NERC" while continuing to maintain operations.

"Co-ops continue working with local, state and federal stakeholders to remain vigilant and prepared. These preparations include more frequent communications to key stakeholders, updating business continuity plans and monitoring new information from public health officials," said Bell.

Last week the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC), a panel of government and industry officials charged with responding to power-sector emergencies, scheduled a conference call discussing how to protect the grid from disruption if the virus infects system operators. Ohio-based utility American Electric Power Co. said it is limiting public visits, has created a high-level response team and is working to ensure operations can continue, while reinforcing downed power line safety, if the virus keeps spreading (Energywire, March 6).

Scott Aaronson, vice president for security and preparedness of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents major investor-owned utilities, said that the electric sector practices "contingency planning" to deal with unusual situations such as the coronavirus. That means that while the type of emergency may be new, dealing with an emergency situation is not, he said. Aaronson added that many of NERC's recommendations are based on what companies are already doing.

"We have heightened awareness given the circumstances, and we have messaging to employees all the way up and down the chain — from CEOs to frontline workers — that: given this time of heightened awareness and potential vulnerability, we have to practice hygiene both of the personal and cyber variety," said Aaronson.

Aaronson said that the ESCC had another call this week with the departments of Energy and Homeland Security and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stay on top of the issue.

Hacking concerns
In a cybersecurity event yesterday, Lisa Monaco, co-chair of the Aspen Cybersecurity Group and former homeland security adviser during the Obama administration, warned that the coronavirus should be considered a national security threat.

"Frankly, [pandemic] is the thing that kept me up at night amongst many, many things that kept me up at night for four years in the White House," Monaco said.

Monaco went on to say the virus will strain organizations' IT infrastructure as more employees work remotely and households face higher electricity bills, and lead to "potentially more vulnerabilities for bad actors when it comes to cybersecurity."

On Friday, the DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency released advice on steps that can be taken to lessen the virus's impact on supply chains and cybersecurity, as well as tips for defending against scams exploiting coronavirus fears.

Cybersecurity firms also have been reporting a dramatic increase in spear-phishing attacks, with hackers reportedly using the coronavirus topic as a lure to trick victims into clicking a malicious link. Whether it's hackers aiming at industries susceptible to shipping disruptions, attacking countries like Italy hit particularly hard by the virus or even masquerading as the World Health Organization, cybercriminals are taking full advantage of the crisis, experts say.

Greg Young, vice president of cybersecurity at Trend Micro, said businesses should continue to expect an increase in targeted phishing attacks.

"With a large majority of businesses switching to a work-from-home model and less emphasis on in-person meetings, we also anticipate that malicious actors will start to impersonate digital tools such as 'free' remote conferencing services and other cloud computing software," said Young.

Working from home can be especially risky, as often home networks are less secure than corporate offices, Young said — meaning a hacker aiming to get into an enterprise network could find an "easier attack path" from a home office.

The Department of Energy is asking employees to make sure they can work remotely when needed, even as some agencies set limits with EPA telework policy, including updating security questions and asking those with government-furnished laptops to be sure they have a VPN, or virtual private network, account. In a post added this week to the agency's website, Chief Information Officer Rocky Campione said the department over the next two weeks will be initiating steps to ensure there is adequate network capacity to carry out DOE's work.

"Ensuring the continued operations of the department's many varied missions requires diligence," Campione said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Site C Dam Court Ruling could halt hydroelectric project near Fort St. John, as First Nations cite Treaty 8 rights in B.C. Supreme Court against BC Hydro, reservoir flooding, and Peace River Valley impacts.

Key Points

Potential B.C. Supreme Court stop to Site C, grounded in Treaty 8 rights claims by First Nations against BC Hydro.

✅ Trial expected in 2022 before planned 2023 reservoir flooding

✅ Treaty 8 rights and Peace River Valley impacts at issue

✅ Talks ongoing among B.C., BC Hydro, West Moberly, Prophet River

The Site C dam could still be stopped by an "eleventh hour" court ruling, according to the lawyer representing B.C. First Nations opposed to the massive hydroelectric project near Fort St. John.

The B.C. government, BC Hydro and West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations were in B.C. Supreme Court Feb. 28 to set a 120-day trial, expected to begin in March 2022.

That date means a ruling would come prior to the scheduled flooding of the dam's reservoir area in 2023 said Tim Thielmann, legal counsel for the West Moberly First Nation.

"The court has left itself the opportunity for an eleventh hour cancellation of the project," he said.

Construction continues

At the core of the case is First Nations arguments the multi-billion dollar BC Hydro dam will cause irreparable harm to its territory and way of life — even as drought strains hydro production elsewhere — rights protected under Treaty 8.

The West Moberly have previously warned it believes Site C constitutes a $1 billion treaty violation.

​In 2018, the First Nations lost a bid for an injunction order, meaning construction of the dam is continuing despite warnings that delays could cost $600 million to the project.

First Nations 'deeply frustrated' after B.C. Supreme Court dismisses Site C injunction

The judge in the case said the ruling was made because if the First Nations lost the challenge, the project would be needlessly put into disarray.

Province, Nations enter talks to avoid litigation

Also this week the B.C. government announced it has entered into talks with BC Hydro and the two First Nations in an attempt to avoid the court process altogether, amid broader energy debates such as bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap for climate goals.

Thielmann said the details of the talk are confidential, but his clients are willing to pursue all avenues in order to stop the dam from moving forward.

"They are trying to save what little is left [of the Peace River Valley]", he said.

Tim Thielmann of Sage Legal is representing the West Moberly First Nation in its lawsuit aimed at stopping Site C. (Sage Legal)

In the meantime, the parties will continue to prepare for the 2022 court dates.

The latest figure on the cost of the dam is $10.7 billion, in a billions-over-budget project that the premier says will proceed. When complete, it would power the equivalent of 450,000 homes a year, though use of Site C's electricity remains a point of debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change 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