BrightSource Energy IPO coming soon

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

ABO Wind Tunisia 10MW Solar Project will build a photovoltaic park in Gabes with a STEG PPA, fixed tariff, 2,500 m grid connection, producing 18 million kWh annually, targeted for 2020 commissioning with local partners.

Key Points

A 10MW photovoltaic park in Gabes with a 20-year STEG PPA and fixed tariff, slated for 2020 commissioning.

✅ 18 million kWh/year; 2,500 m grid tie, 20-year fixed tariff

✅ Electricity supplied to STEG under PPA; 2020 commissioning

✅ Located in Gabes; built with local partners, 10MW capacity

ABO Wind has received a permit and a tariff for a 10MW photovoltaic project in Tunisia, amid global activity such as Spain's 90MW wind project now underway, which it plans to build and commission in 2020.

The solar park, in the governorate of Gabes, is 400km south of the country’s capital Tunis and aligns with renewable funding initiatives seen across developing markets.

The developer said it plans to build the project next year in close cooperation with local partners, as regional markets from North Africa to the Gulf expand, with Saudi Arabia boosting wind capacity as well.

ABO Wind department head Nicolas Konig said: “The solar park will produce more than 18 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year and will feed it into the grid at a distance of 2500 metres.”

The developer will conclude an electricity supply contract with the state-owned energy supplier (Societe tunisienne de l’electricite et du gaz (STEG), which will provide a fixed remuneration over 20 years, a model echoed by Germany's wind-solar tender for the electricity fed into the grid.

Earlier this year, ABO Wind had already secured a tariff for a wind farm with a capacity of 30MW in a tender, 35km south-east of Tunis, underscoring Tunisia's wind investments under its long-term plan.

The company is working on half a dozen Tunisian wind and solar projects, as institutions like the World Bank support wind growth in developing countries.

“We are making good progress on our way to assemble a portfolio of several ready-to-build wind and solar projects attractive to investors, as Saudi clean energy targets continue to expand globally,” said ABO Wind general manager responsible for international business development Patrik Fischer.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Australia Clean Energy Target drives renewables in the National Electricity Market, with RepuTex modelling and the Finkel Review showing lower wholesale prices and emissions as gas generators set prices less often under ambitious targets.

Key Points

Policy boosting low emissions generation to cut electricity emissions and lower wholesale prices across Australia.

✅ Ambitious targets lower wholesale prices through added generation

✅ RepuTex modelling shows renewables displace costly gas peakers

✅ Finkel Review suggests CET cuts emissions and boosts reliability

The more ambitious a clean energy target is, the lower Australian wholesale electricity prices will be, according to new modelling by energy analysis firm RepuTex.

The Finkel review, released last month recommended the government introduce a clean energy target (CET), which it found would cut emissions from the national electricity market and put downward pressure on both wholesale and retail prices, aligning with calls to favor consumers over generators in market design.

The Finkel review only modelled a CET that would cut emissions from the electricity sector by 28% below 2005 levels by 2030. But all available analysis has demonstrated that such a cut would not be enough to meet Australia’s overall emissions reductions made as part of the Paris agreement, which themselves were too weak to help meet the central aim of that agreement – to keep global warming to “well below 2C”.

RepuTex modelled the effect of a CET that cut emissions from the electricity sector by 28% – like that modelled in the Finkel Review – as well as one it said was consistent with 2C of global warming, which would cut emissions from electricity by 45% below 2005 levels by 2030.

It found both scenarios caused wholesale prices to drop significantly compared to doing nothing, despite IEA warnings on falling energy investment that could lead to shortages, with the more ambitious scenario resulting in lower wholesale prices between 2025 and 2030.

In the “business as usual scenario”, RepuTex found wholesale prices would hover roughly around the current price of $100 per MWh.

Under a CET that reduced electricity emissions by 28%, prices would drop to under $40 around 2023, and then rise to nearly $60 by 2030.

The more ambitious CET had a broadly similar effect on wholesale prices. But RepuTex found it would drive prices down a little slower, but then keep them down for longer, stabilising at about $40 to $50 for most of the 2020s.

It found a CET would drive prices down by incentivising more generation into the market. The more ambitious CET would further suppress prices by introducing more renewable energy, resulting in expensive gas generators less often being able to set the price of electricity in the wholesale market, a dynamic seen with UK natural gas price pressures recently.

The downward pressure of a CET on wholesale prices was more dramatic in the RepuTex report than in Finkel’s own modelling. But that was largely because, as Alan Finkel himself acknowledged, the estimates of the costs of renewable energy in the Finkel review modelling were conservative.

Speaking at the National Press Club, Finkel said: “We were conservative in our estimates of wind and large-scale solar generator prices. Indeed, in recent months the prices for wind generation have already come in lower than what we modelled.”

The RepuTex modelling also found the economics of the national electricity market no longer supported traditional baseload generation – such as coal power plants that were unable to respond flexibly to demand, with debates over power market overhauls in Alberta underscoring similar tensions – and so they would not be built without the government distorting the market.

“With a premium placed on flexible generation that can ramp up or down, baseload only generation – irrespective of how clean or dirty it is – is likely to be too inflexible to compete in Australia’s future electricity system,” the report said.

“In this context, renewable energy remains attractive to the market given it is able to deliver energy reliability, with no emissions, at low cost prices, with clean grid and battery trends in Canada informing the shift for policymakers. This affirms that renewables are a lay down misere to out-compete traditionally fossil-fuel sources in Australia for the foreseeable future.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Japan Offshore Wind Investment signals Japanese utilities entering UK offshore wind, as J-Power and Kansai Electric buy into Innogy's Triton Knoll, leveraging North Sea expertise, 9.5MW turbines, and 15-year fixed-rate contracts.

Key Points

Japanese utilities buying UK offshore wind stakes to import expertise, as J-Power and Kansai join Innogy's Triton Knoll.

✅ $900M deal: J-Power 25%, Kansai Electric ~16% in Innogy unit

✅ Triton Knoll: 860MW, up to 90 9.5MW turbines, 15-year fixed PPA

✅ Goal: Transfer North Sea expertise to develop Japan offshore wind

Two of Japan's biggest power companies will buy around 40% of a German-owned developer of offshore wind farms in the U.K., seeking to learn from Britain's lead in this sector, as highlighted by a UK offshore wind milestone this week, and bring the know-how back home.

Tokyo-based Electric Power Development, better known as J-Power, will join Osaka regional utility Kansai Electric Power in investing in a unit of Germany's Innogy.

The deal, estimated to be worth around $900 million, will give J-Power a 25% stake and Kansai Electric a roughly 16% share. It will mark the first investment in an offshore wind project by Japanese power companies, as other markets shift strategies, with Poland backing wind over nuclear signaling broader momentum.

Innogy plans to start up the 860-megawatt Triton Knoll offshore wind project -- one of the biggest of its kind in the world -- in the North Sea in 2021. The vast installation will have up to 90 9.5MW turbines and sell its output to local utilities under a 15-year fixed-rate contract.

J-Power, which supplies mainly fossil-fuel-based electricity to Japanese regional utilities, will set up a subsidiary backed by the government-run Development Bank of Japan to participate in the Innogy project. Engineers will study firsthand construction and maintenance methods.

While land-based wind turbines are proliferating worldwide, offshore wind farms have progressed mainly in Europe, though U.S. offshore wind competitiveness is improving in key markets. Installed capacity totaled more than 18,000MW at the end of 2017, which at maximum capacity can produce as much power as 18 nuclear reactors.

Japan has hardly any offshore wind farms in commercial operation, and has little in the way of engineering know-how in this field or infrastructure for linking such installations to the land power grid, with a recent Japan grid blackout analysis underscoring these challenges. But there are plans for a total of 4,000MW of offshore wind power capacity, including projects under feasibility studies.

J-Power set up a renewable energy division in June to look for opportunities to expand into wind and geothermal energy in Japan, and efforts like a Japan hydrogen energy system are emerging to support decarbonization. Kansai Electric also seeks know-how for increasing its reliance on renewable energy, even as it hurries to restart idled nuclear reactors.

They are not the only Japanese investors is in this field. In Asia, trading house Marubeni will invest in a Taiwanese venture with plans for a 600MW offshore wind farm.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Global Decarbonization Strategies align renewable energy, electrification, clean air policies, IMO sulfur cap, LNG fuels, and the EU 2050 roadmap to cut carbon intensity and meet Paris Agreement targets via EVs and efficiency.

Key Points

Frameworks that cut emissions via renewables, EVs, efficiency, cleaner marine fuels, and EU policy roadmaps.

✅ Renewables scale as wind and solar outcompete new coal and gas.

✅ Electrification of transport grows as EV costs fall and charging expands.

✅ IMO 2020 sulfur cap and LNG shift cut shipping emissions and particulates.

Are we doing enough to save the planet? Silly question. The latest prognosis from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made for gloomy reading. Fundamental to the Paris Agreement is the target of keeping global average temperatures from rising beyond 2°C. The UN argues that radical measures are needed, and investment incentives for clean electricity are seen as critical by many leaders to accelerate progress to meet that target.

Renewable power and electrification of transport are the pillars of decarbonization. It’s well underway in renewables - the collapse in costs make wind and solar generation competitive with new build coal and gas.

Renewables’ share of the global power market will triple by 2040 from its current level of 6% according to our forecasts.

The consumption side is slower, awaiting technological breakthrough and informed by efforts in countries such as New Zealand’s electricity transition to replace fossil fuels with electricity. The lower battery costs needed for electric vehicles (EVs) to compete head on and displace internal combustion engine (ICE)  cars are some years away. These forces only start to have a significant impact on global carbon intensity in the 2030s. Our forecasts fall well short of the 2°C target, as does the IEA’s base case scenario.

Yet we can’t just wait for new technology to come to the rescue. There are encouraging signs that society sees the need to deal with a deteriorating environment. Three areas of focus came out in discussion during Wood Mackenzie’s London Energy Forum - unrelated, different in scope and scale, each pointing the way forward.

First, clean air in cities.  China has shown how to clean up a local environment quickly. The government reacted to poor air quality in Beijing and other major cities by closing older coal power plants and forcing energy intensive industry and the residential sector to shift away from coal. The country’s return on investment will include a substantial future health care dividend.

European cities are introducing restrictions on diesel cars to improve air quality. London’s 2017 “toxicity charge” is a precursor of an Ultra-Low Emission Zone in 2019, and aligns with UK net-zero policy changes that affect transport planning, to be extended across much of the city by 2020. Paris wants to ban diesel cars from the city centre by 2025 and ICE vehicles by 2030. Barcelona, Madrid, Hamburg and Stuttgart are hatching similar plans.

College Promise In California: Community-Wide Efforts To Support Student Success

Second, desulphurisation of global shipping. High sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) meets around 3.5 million barrels per day (b/d) of the total marine market of 5 million b/d. A maximum of 3.5% sulphur content is allowed currently. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) implements a 0.5% limit on all shipping in 2020, dramatically reducing the release of sulphur oxides into the atmosphere.

Some ships will switch to very low sulphur fuel oil, of which only around 1.4 million b/d will be available in 2020. Others will have to choose between investing in scrubbers or buying premium-priced low sulphur marine gas oil.

Longer-term, lower carbon-intensity gas is a winner as liquefied natural gas becomes fuel of choice for many newbuilds. Marine LNG demand climbs from near zero to 50 million tonnes per annum (tpa) by 2040 on our forecasts, behind only China, India and Japan as a demand centre. LNG will displace over 1 million b/d of oil demand in shipping by 2040.

Third, Europe’s radical decarbonisation plans. Already in the vanguard of emissions reductions policy, the European Commission is proposing to reduce carbon emissions for new cars and vans by 30% by 2030 versus 2020. The targets come with incentives for car manufacturers linked to the uptake of EVs.

The 2050 roadmap, presently at the concept stage, envisages a far more demanding regime, with EU electricity plans for 2050 implying a much larger power system. The mooted 80% reduction in emissions compared with 1990 will embrace all sectors. Power and transport are already moving in this direction, but the legacy fuel mix in many other sectors will be disrupted, too.

Near zero-energy buildings and homes might be possible with energy efficiency improvements, renewables and heat pumps. Electrification, recycling and bioenergy could reduce fossil fuel use in energy intensive sectors like steel and aluminium, and Europe’s oil majors going electric illustrates how incumbents are adapting. Some sectors will cite the risk decarbonisation poses to Europe’s global competitiveness. If change is to come, industry will need to build new partnerships with society to meet these targets.

The 2050 roadmap signals the ambition and will be game changing for Europe if it is adopted. It would provide a template for a global roll out that would go a long way toward meeting UN’s concerns.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

COVID-19 Impact on U.S. Electricity Consumption shows commercial and industrial demand dropped as residential use rose, with flattened peak loads, weekday-weekend convergence, Texas hourly data, and energy demand as a real-time economic indicator.

Key Points

It reduced commercial and industrial demand while raising residential use, shifting peaks and weekday patterns.

✅ Commercial electricity down 12%; industrial down 14% in Q2 2020

✅ Residential use up 10% amid work-from-home and lockdowns

✅ Peaks flattened; weekday-weekend loads converged in Texas

This is an important turning point for the United States. We have a long road ahead. But one of the reasons I’m optimistic about Biden-Harris is that we will once again have an administration that believes in science.

To embrace this return to science, I want to write today about a fascinating new working paper by Tufts economist Steve Cicala.

Professor Cicala has been studying the effect of Covid on electricity consumption since back in March, when the Wall Street Journal picked up his work documenting an 18% decrease in electricity consumption in Italy.

The new work, focused on the United States, is particularly compelling because it uses data that allows him to distinguish between residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, against a backdrop of declining U.S. electricity sales over recent years.

Without further ado, here are four facts he uncovers about Covid and U.S. electricity demand during COVID-19 and consumption.

Fact #1: Firms Are Using Less
U.S. commercial electricity consumption fell 12% during the second quarter of 2020. U.S. industrial electricity consumption fell 14% over the same period.

This makes sense. The second quarter was by some measures, the worst quarter for the U.S. economy in over 145 years!

Economic activity shrank. Schools closed. Offices closed. Factories closed. Restaurants closed. Malls closed. Even health care offices closed as patients delayed going to the dentist and other routine care. All this means less heating and cooling, less lighting, less refrigeration, less power for computers and other office equipment, less everything.

The decrease in the industrial sector is a little more surprising. My impression had been that the industrial sector had not fallen as far as commercial, but amid broader disruptions in coal and nuclear power that strained parts of the energy economy, the patterns for both sectors are quite similar with the decline peaking in May and then partially rebounding by July. The paper also shows that areas with higher unemployment rates experienced larger declines in both sectors.

Fact #2: Households Are Using More
While firms are using less, households are using more. U.S. residential electricity consumption increased 10% during the second quarter of 2020. Consumption surged during March, April, and May, a reflection of the lockdown lifestyle many adopted, and then leveled off in June and July – with much less of the rebound observed on the commercial/industrial side.

This pattern makes sense, too. In Professor Cicala’s words, “people are spending an inordinate amount of time at home”. Many of us switched over to working from home almost immediately, and haven’t looked back. This means more air conditioning, more running the dishwasher, more CNN (especially last week), more Zoom, and so on.

The paper also examines the correlates of the decline. Areas in the U.S. where more people can work from home experienced larger increases. Unemployment rates, however, are almost completely uncorrelated with the increase.

Fact #3: Firms are Less Peaky
The paper next turns to a novel dataset from Texas, where Texas grid reliability is under active discussion, that makes it possible to measure hourly electricity consumption by sector.

As the figure above illustrates, the biggest declines in commercial/industrial electricity consumption have occurred Monday through Friday between 9AM and 5PM.

The dashed line shows the pattern during 2019. Notice the large spikes in electricity consumption during business hours. The solid line shows the pattern during 2020. Much smaller spikes during business hours.

Fact #4: Everyday is Like Sunday
Finally, we have what I would like to nominate as the “Energy Figure of the Year”.

Again, start with the pattern for 2019, reflected by the dashed line. Prior to Covid, Texas households used a lot more electricity on Saturdays and Sundays.

Then along comes Covid, and turned every day into the weekend. Residential electricity consumption in Texas during business hours Monday-Friday is up 16%(!).

In the pattern for 2020, it isn’t easy to distinguish weekends from weekdays. If you feel like weekdays and weekends are becoming a big blur – you are not alone.

Conclusion
Researchers are increasingly thinking about electricity consumption as a real-time indicator of economic activity, even as flat electricity demand complicates utility planning and investment. This is an intriguing idea, but Professor Cicala’s new paper shows that it is important to look sector-by-sector.

While commercial and industrial consumption indeed seem to measure the strength of an economy, residential consumption has been sharply countercylical – increasing exactly when people are not at work and not at school.

These large changes in behavior are specific to the pandemic. Still, with the increased blurring of home and non-home activities we may look back on 2020 as a key turning point in how we think about these three sectors of the economy.

More broadly, Professor Cicala’s paper highlights the value of social science research. We need facts, data, and yes, science, if we are to understand the economy and craft effective policies on energy insecurity and shut-offs as well.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News