Ontario's power supply outlook positive

China Energy Crisis drives electricity shortages, power cuts, and blackouts as coal prices surge, carbon-neutrality rules tighten, and manufacturing hubs ration energy, disrupting supply chains and industrial output ahead of winter demand peaks.

Key Points

A power shortfall from costly coal, price caps, and emissions targets, causing blackouts and industrial rationing.

✅ Coal prices soar while electricity tariffs are capped

✅ Factories in northeast hubs face rationing and downtime

✅ Supply chains risk delays ahead of winter demand

China is struggling with a severe shortage of electricity which has left millions of homes and businesses hit by power cuts.

Blackouts are not that unusual in the country but this year a number of factors have contributed to a perfect storm for electricity suppliers, including surging electricity demand globally.

The problem is particularly serious in China's north eastern industrial hubs as winter approaches - and is something that could have implications for the rest of the world.

Why has China been hit by power shortages?
The country has in the past struggled to balance electricity supplies with demand, which has often left many of China's provinces at risk of power outages.

During times of peak power consumption in the summer and winter the problem becomes particularly acute.

But this year a number of factors have come together to make the issue especially serious.

As the world starts to reopen after the pandemic, demand for Chinese goods is surging and the factories making them need a lot more power, highlighting China's electricity appetite in recent months.

Rules imposed by Beijing as it attempts to make the country carbon neutral by 2060 have seen coal production slow, even as the country still relies on coal for more than half of its power and as low-emissions generation is set to cover most global demand growth.

And as electricity demand has risen, the price of coal has been pushed up.

But with the government strictly controlling electricity prices, coal-fired power plants are unwilling to operate at a loss, with many drastically reducing their output instead.

Who is being affected by the blackouts?
Homes and businesses have been affected by power cuts as electricity has been rationed in several provinces and regions.

A coal-burning power plant can be seen behind a factory in China"s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region

The state-run Global Times newspaper said there had been outages in four provinces - Guangdong in the south and Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning in the north east. There are also reports of power cuts in other parts of the country.

Companies in major manufacturing areas have been called on to reduce energy usage during periods of peak demand or limit the number of days that they operate.

Energy-intensive industries such as steel-making, aluminium smelting, cement manufacturing and fertiliser production are among the businesses hardest hit by the outages.

What has the impact been on China's economy?
Official figures have shown that in September 2021, Chinese factory activity shrunk to the lowest it had been since February 2020, when power demand dropped as coronavirus lockdowns crippled the economy.

Concerns over the power cuts have contributed to global investment banks cutting their forecasts for the country's economic growth.

Goldman Sachs has estimated that as much as 44% of the country's industrial activity has been affected by power shortages. It now expects the world's second largest economy to expand by 7.8% this year, down from its previous prediction of 8.2%.

Globally, the outages could affect supply chains, including solar supply chains as the end-of-the-year shopping season approaches.

Since economies have reopened, retailers around the world have already been facing widespread disruption amid a surge in demand for imports.

China's economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), has outlined a number of measures to resolve the problem, with energy supplies in the northeast of the country as its main priority this winter.

The measures include working closely with generating firms to increase output, ensuring full supplies of coal and promoting the rationing of electricity.

The China Electricity Council, which represents generating firms, has also said that coal-fired power companies were now "expanding their procurement channels at any cost" in order to guarantee winter heat and electricity supplies.

However, finding new sources of coal imports may not be straightforward.

Russia is already focused on its customers in Europe, Indonesian output has been hit by heavy rains and nearby Mongolia is facing a shortage of road haulage capacity,

Are energy shortages around the world connected?
Power cuts in China, UK petrol stations running out of fuel, energy bills jumping in Europe, near-blackouts in Japan and soaring crude oil, natural gas and coal prices on wholesale markets - it would be tempting to assume the world is suddenly in the grip of a global energy drought.

However, it is not quite as simple as that - there are some distinctly different issues around the world.

For example, in the UK petrol stations have run dry as motorists rushed to fill up their vehicles over concerns that a shortage of tanker drivers would mean fuel would soon become scarce.

Meanwhile, mainland Europe's rising energy bills and record electricity prices are due to a number of local factors, including low stockpiles of natural gas, weak output from the region's windmills and solar farms and maintenance work that has put generating operations out of action.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alliant Energy Net-Zero Carbon Plan outlines carbon-neutral electricity by 2050, coal retirements by 2040, major solar and wind additions, gas transition, battery storage, hydrogen, and carbon credits to reduce emissions and lower customer costs.

Key Points

Alliant Energy's strategy to reach carbon-neutral power by 2050 via coal phaseout, renewables, storage, and offsets.

✅ Targets net-zero electricity by 2050

✅ Retires all coal by 2040; expands solar and wind

✅ Uses storage, hydrogen, and offsets to bridge gaps

Alliant Energy has joined a small but growing group of utilities aiming for carbon-neutral electricity by 2050.

In a report released Wednesday, the Madison-based company announced a goal of “net-zero carbon dioxide emissions” from its electricity generation along with plans to eliminate all coal-powered generation by 2040, a decade earlier than the company’s previous target.

Alliant, which is pursuing plans that would make it the largest solar energy generator in Wisconsin, said it is on track to cut its 2005 carbon emissions in half by 2030.

Both goals are in line with targets an international group of scientists warn is necessary to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. But reducing greenhouse gasses was not the primary motivation, said executive vice president and general counsel Jim Gallegos.

“The primary driver is focused on our customers and communities and setting them up … to be competitive,” Gallegos said. “We do think renewables are going to do it better than fossil fuels.”

Alliant has told regulators it can save customers up to $6.5 billion over the next 35 years by adding more than 1,600 megawatts of renewable generation, closing one of its two remaining Wisconsin coal plants and taking other undisclosed actions.

In a statement, Alliant chairman and CEO John Larsen said the goal is part of broader corporate and social responsibility efforts “guided by our strategy and designed to deliver on our purpose — to serve customers and build stronger communities.”

Coal out; gas remains
The goal applies only to Alliant’s electricity generation — the company has no plans to stop distributing natural gas for heating — and is “net-zero,” meaning the company could use some form of carbon capture or purchase carbon credits to offset continuing emissions.

The plan relies heavily on renewable generation — seen in regions embracing clean power across North America — including the addition of up to 1,000 megawatts of new Wisconsin solar plants by the end of 2023 and 1,000 megawatts of Iowa wind generation added over the past four years — as well as natural gas generators to replace its aging coal fleet.

But Jeff Hanson, Alliant’s director of sustainability, said eliminating or offsetting all carbon emissions will require new tools, such as battery storage or possibly carbon-free fuels such as hydrogen, and awareness of the Three Mile Island debate over the role of nuclear power in the mix.

“Getting to the 2040 goals, that’s all based on the technologies of today,” Hanson said. “Can we get to net zero today? The challenge would be a pretty high bar to clear.”

Gallegos said the plan does not call for the construction of more large-scale natural gas generators like the recently completed $700 million West Riverside Energy Center in Beloit, though natural gas will remain a key piece of Alliant’s generation portfolio.

Alliant announced plans in May to close its 400-megawatt Edgewater plant in Sheboygan by the end of 2022, echoing how Alberta is retiring coal by 2023 as markets shift, but has not provided a date for the shutdown of the jointly owned 1,100-megawatt Columbia Energy Center near Portage, which received about $1 billion worth of pollution-control upgrades in the past decade.

Alliant’s Iowa subsidiary plans to convert its 52-year-old, 200-megawatt Burlington plant to natural gas by the end of next year and a pair of small coal-fired generators in Linn County by 2025. That leaves the 250-megawatt plant in Lansing, which is now 43 years old, and the 734-megawatt Ottumwa plant as the remaining coal-fired generators, even as others keep a U.S. coal plant running indefinitely elsewhere.

Earlier this year, the utility asked regulators to approve a roughly $900 million investment in six solar farms across the state with a total capacity of 675 megawatts, similar to plans in Ontario to seek new wind and solar to address supply needs. The company plans to apply next year for permission to add up to 325 additional megawatts.

Alliant said the carbon-neutral plan, which entails closing Edgewater along with other undisclosed actions, would save customers between $2 billion and $6.5 billion through 2055 compared to the status quo.

Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, said the consumer advocacy group wants to ensure that ratepayers aren’t forced to continue paying for coal plants that are no longer needed while also paying for new energy sources and would like to see a bigger role for energy efficiency and more transparency about the utilities’ pathways to decarbonization.

‘They could do better’
Environmental groups said the announcement is a step in the right direction, though they say utilities need to do even more to protect the environment and consumers.

Amid competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable energy and pressure from environmentally conscious investors, U.S. utilities have been closing coal plants at a record pace in recent years, as industry CEOs say a coal comeback is unlikely in the U.S., a trend that is expected to continue through the next decade.

“This is not industry leadership when we’re talking about emission reductions,” said Elizabeth Katt Reinders, regional campaign director for the Sierra Club, which has called on Alliant to retire the Columbia plant by 2026.

Closing Edgewater and Columbia would get Alliant nearly halfway to its emissions goals while saving customers more than $250 million over the next decade, according to a Sierra Club study released earlier this year.

“Retiring Edgewater was a really good decision. Investing in 1,000 megawatts of new solar is game-changing for Wisconsin,” Katt Reinders said. “In the same breath we can say this emissions reduction goal is unambitious. Our analysis has shown they can do far more far sooner.”

Scott Blankman, a former Alliant executive who now works as director of energy and air programs for Clean Wisconsin, said Alliant should not run the Columbia plant for another 20 years.

“If they’re saying they’re looking to get out of coal by 2040 in Wisconsin I’d be very disappointed,” Blankman said. “I do think they could do better.”

Alliant is the 15th U.S. investor-owned utility to set a net-zero target, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, joining Madison Gas and Electric, which announced a similar goal last year. Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, which serves customers in western Wisconsin, was the first large investor-owned utility to set such a target, as state utilities report declining returns in coal operations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Adani Electricity Mumbai Power Cuts follow non-payment rules, reflecting billing disputes, regulatory compliance, consumer impact, and affordability concerns, while prompting mitigation measures like flexible payment plans, assistance programs, and clearer communication for residents.

Key Points

AEML cutoffs for unpaid bills per rules, raising affordability worries, billing issues, and calls for flexible aid.

✅ Triggered by unpaid bills under regulatory guidelines

✅ Affordability and billing transparency concerns raised

✅ Mitigation: flexible plans, aid for low-income users

Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited (AEML) recently made headlines by cutting power supply to around 100 homes in Mumbai, sparking discussions about the reasons behind this action and its implications for consumers, especially as reports like the Northeast D.C. outage continue to surface.

Background of the Incident

The power supply disconnections by AEML were reportedly due to non-payment of electricity bills by the affected households. This action, although necessary under AEML's policies and in accordance with regulatory guidelines, has raised concerns about the impact on residents, particularly during challenging economic times when pandemic electricity shut-offs highlighted energy insecurity.

Reasons for Non-Payment

Non-payment of electricity bills can stem from various reasons, including financial hardships, disputes over billing accuracy, or unforeseen circumstances affecting household finances. In Mumbai, where the cost of living is high, utility bills constitute a significant portion of monthly expenses for many households, mirroring trends of rising electricity bills seen elsewhere.

Regulatory and Legal Framework

AEML's decision to disconnect power supply aligns with regulatory provisions governing utility services, which may include emergency disconnection moratoriums in other jurisdictions. Utility companies are mandated to enforce bill payments to maintain operational sustainability and ensure fair distribution of resources among consumers.

Consumer Impact and Response

The power disconnections have prompted reactions from affected residents and consumer advocacy groups, highlighting issues related to affordability, transparency in billing practices, and the need for supportive measures during times of economic distress amid heat-related electricity struggles that pressure vulnerable households.

Mitigation Measures

In response to such incidents, utility companies and regulatory authorities often implement mitigation measures. These may include flexible payment options, financial assistance programs for low-income households, and enhanced communication about billing procedures and payment deadlines, along with policy scrutiny such as utility spending oversight to curb unnecessary costs.

Future Considerations

As cities like Mumbai continue to grow and face challenges related to urbanization and infrastructure development, ensuring reliable and affordable access to essential services like electricity, including efforts to prevent summer power outages, remains a priority. Balancing the operational needs of utility providers with consumer welfare concerns requires ongoing dialogue and proactive measures from all stakeholders.

Conclusion

The power supply cuts by Adani Electricity in Mumbai underscore the complexities of managing utility services in urban centers. While necessary for financial viability and regulatory compliance, such actions also highlight broader issues of affordability and consumer protection. Moving forward, collaborative efforts between utility companies, regulatory authorities, and community stakeholders are essential in addressing these challenges and ensuring equitable access to essential services for all residents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Kentucky Coal Wage Protection Bill strengthens performance bond enforcement, links Energy and Environment Cabinet and Labor Cabinet notifications, addresses Blackjewel bankruptcy fallout, safeguards unpaid miners, ties mining permits to payroll bonds, penalizes violators via revocations.

Key Points

A Kentucky plan to enforce wage bonds and revoke mining permits to protect miners after bankruptcies.

✅ Requires wage bonds for firms under 5 years

✅ Links Energy and Environment Cabinet and Labor Cabinet

✅ Violators face permit revocation in 90 days

Following the high-profile bankruptcy of a coal company that left hundreds of Kentucky miners with bad checks last month, Sen. Johnny Ray Turner (D-Prestonsburg) said he will pre-file a bill Thursday aimed at closing a loophole that allowed the company to operate in violation of state law.

The bill would also compel state agencies to determine whether other companies are currently in violation of the law, and could revoke mining permits if the companies don't comply.

Turner's bill would amend an already-existing law that requires coal and construction companies that have been operating in Kentucky for less than five years to post a performance bond to protect wages if the companies cease their operations.

Blackjewel LLC., which employed hundreds of miners in Eastern Kentucky, failed to post that bond. When it shut its mines down and filed for bankruptcy last month, it left hundreds of miners without payment for 3 weeks and one day of work.

The bond issue has sparked criticism from various state officials, including Attorney General Andy Beshear, who said Tuesday that he would investigate whether other companies are currently in violation, similar to an external investigation of utility workers in another jurisdiction.

Blackjewel issued cold checks to its employees June 28, and when the checks bounced days later, many employees were left with bank accounts overdrawn by more than $1,000. The bankruptcy left many miners and their families with concerns over upcoming bill and mortgage payments, and, as unpaid days off at utilities elsewhere show, the strain on workers can be severe, and fostered a ongoing protest that blocked a train hauling coal from one of the company's Harlan County mines.

Blackjewel had been operating in Kentucky for about two years before it filed for bankruptcy, so it should have paid the performance bond, according to state law.

David A. Dickerson, the Kentucky Labor Cabinet Secretary, said the law as it's currently written does not set up any mechanism that notifies the cabinet, or provides comparable public reporting at large utility projects elsewhere, when a company opens in Kentucky that is supposed to pay the bond.

That allowed Blackjewel to operate for two years without any protection for workers before it closed its mines. Had the company posted the bond according to state law, miners likely would have been paid for the work they had already completed, officials said.

The law requires companies to set aside enough money to cover payroll for four weeks.

Turner's bill would compel the state Energy and Environment Cabinet to notify the Labor Cabinet's Department of Workplace Standards of any application for a mining permit from a company that has been doing business in Kentucky for less than five years.

It also compels the EEC to notify the Labor Cabinet of any companies that already have permits that are subject to the bond.

"It should have already been that way, but I'm happy so our children don't have to go through this," said Jeff Willig, a former Blackjewel miner who helped launch the protest at the railroad.

Willig said he and other miners will continue to block the tracks until they receive payment for their past work.

Any company currently operating in violation of the law would have 90 days to become compliant before its mining permits are revoked. New companies that are applying for permits will be required post the bond before permits are issued.

"Hopefully it will take care of the loopholes that had been exploited by Blackjewel," Turner said.

The bill will be taken up by the legislature when it returns to session in January. It would also cover attorneys' fees if workers are forced to sue their employer to cover wages, underscoring broader worker safety concerns during health emergencies.

Turner said he has reached out to Republican leadership in the Senate, and expects the bill to have bipartisan support come January.

Turner announced the legislation at a press conference in Harlan, the county with the highest population of Blackjewel employees affected by the bankruptcy, and as prolonged utility outages after tornadoes have strained other Kentucky communities.

State rep. Angie Hatton (D-Whitesburg) was also in attendance, along with rep. Chris Fugate (R-Chavies) and state Sen. Morgan McGarvey (D-Louisville).

Hatton said the bankruptcy has had serious economic impact throughout Eastern Kentucky, including in Letcher County, which is home to more than 130 former Blackjewel workers.

"This is something that has done a lot of damage to Eastern Kentucky," Hatton said.

Hatton plans to file the same bill in the state House of Representatives.

Fugate commended community members in Harlan County and elsewhere who have banded together in support of the miners by donating children's clothing, school supplies, food and other goods, while other regions have created a coal transition fund to help displaced workers.

Mosley called the bankruptcy "totally unprecedented" and said the current performance bond law, which has been on-the-books since 1986, lacked the enforcement necessary to protect miners in bankruptcies like Blackjewel's, even as a workplace safety fine in another case shows regulatory consequences in other industries.

"There was a law, there wasn't good enough process," Mosley said.

Blackjewel received court approval to sell many of its mines last month, including many in Kentucky, to Kopper Glo Mining, LLC.

As part of the sale agreement, Kopper Glo said it would pay $450,000 to cover the past wages of Blackjewel miners, and collect a per ton fee accumulating up to $550,000 that it will also contribute to pay back wages.

That total $1 million is less than half of all back wages owed to Blackjewel miners, but attorneys who filed a class action suit against the company said miners have a priority lien on the purchase price. That could allow former Blackjewel employees to make good on their back wages as bankruptcy proceedings continue.

Mosley said he spoke with a Kopper Glo official Thursday, who said the company is working to re-open the mines as quickly as possible. The official did not give an exact timeline.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News