UK IPE mulls weather, emissions, power contracts

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

FERC Grid Resiliency Pricing Opposition underscores industry groups, RTOs, and ISOs rejecting DOE's NOPR, warning against out-of-market subsidies for coal and nuclear, favoring competitive markets, reliability, and true grid resilience.

Key Points

Coalition urging FERC to reject DOE's NOPR subsidies, protecting reliability and competitive power markets.

✅ Industry groups, RTOs, ISOs oppose DOE NOPR

✅ PJM reports sufficient reliability and resilience

✅ Reject out-of-market aid to coal, nuclear

A diverse group of a dozen energy industry associations representing oil, natural gas, wind, solar, efficiency, and other energy technologies today submitted reply comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) continuing their opposition to the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed rulemaking on grid resiliency pricing and electricity pricing changes within competitive markets, in the next step in this FERC proceeding.

Action by FERC, as lawmakers urge movement on aggregated DERs to modernize markets, is expected by December 11.

In these comments, this broad group of energy industry associations notes that most of the comments submitted initially by an unprecedented volume of filers, including grid operators whose markets would be impacted by the proposed rule, urged FERC not to adopt DOE'sproposed rule to provide out-of-market financial support to uneconomic coal and nuclear power plants in the wholesale electricity markets overseen by FERC.

Just a small set of interests - those that would benefit financially from discriminatory pricing that favors coal and nuclear plants - argued in favor of the rule put forward by DOE in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NOPR, as did coal and business interests in related regulatory debates. But even those interests - termed 'NOPR Beneficiaries' by the energy associations - failed to provide adequate justification for FERC to approve the rule, and their specific alternative proposals for implementing the bailout of these plants were just as flawed as the DOE plan, according to the energy industry associations.

'The joint comments filed today with partners across the energy spectrum reflect the overwhelming majority view that this proposed rulemaking by FERC is unprecedented and unwarranted, said Todd Foley, Senior Vice President, Policy & Government Affairs, American Council on Renewable Energy.

We're hopeful that FERC will rule against an anti-competitive distortion of the electricity marketplace and avoid new unnecessary initiatives that increase power prices for American consumers and businesses.'

In the new reply comments submitted in response to the initial comments filed by hundreds of stakeholders on or before October 23 - the energy industry associations made the following points: Despite hundreds of comments filed, no new information was brought forth to validate the assertion - by DOE or the NOPR Beneficiaries - that an emergency exists that requires accelerated action to prop up certain power plants that are failing in competitive electricity markets: 'The record in this proceeding, including the initial comments, does not support the discriminatory payments proposed' by DOE, state the industry groups.

Nearly all of the initial comments filed in the matter take issue with the DOE NOPR and its claim of imminent threats to the reliability and resilience of the electric power system, despite reports of coal and nuclear disruptions cited by some advocates: 'Of the hundreds of comments filed in response to the DOE NOPR, only a handful purported to provide substantive evidence in support of the proposal. In contrast, an overwhelming majority of initial comments agree that the DOE NOPR fails to substantiate its assertions of an immediate reliability or resiliency need related to the retirement of merchant coal-fired and nuclear generation.'

Grid operators filed comments refuting claims that the potential retirement of coal and nuclear plants which could not compete for economically present immediate or near-term challenges to grid management, even as a coal CEO criticism targeted federal decisions: 'Even the RTOs and ISOs themselves filed comments opposing the DOE NOPR, noting that the proposed cost-of-service payments to preferred generation would disrupt the competitive markets and are neither warranted nor justified.... Most notably, this includes PJM Interconnection, ... the RTO in which most of the units potentially eligible for payments under the DOE NOPR are located. PJM states that its region 'unquestionably is reliable, and its competitive markets have for years secured commitments from capacity resources that well exceed the target reserve margin established to meet [North American Electric Reliability Corp.] requirements.' And PJM analysis has confirmed that the region's generation portfolio is not only reliable, but also resilient.'

The need for NOPR Beneficiaries to offer alternative proposals reflects the weakness of DOE'srule as drafted, but their options for propping up uneconomic power plants are no better, practically or legally: 'Plans put forward by supporters of the power plant bailout 'acknowledge, at least implicitly, that the preferential payment structure proposed in the DOE NOPR is unclear, unworkable, or both. However, the alternatives offered by the NOPR Beneficiaries, are equally flawed both substantively and procedurally, extending well beyond the scope of the DOE NOPR.'

Citing one example, the energy groups note that the detailed plan put forward by utility FirstEnergy Service Co. would provide preferential payments far more costly than those now provided to individual power plants needed for immediate reasons (and given a 'reliability must run' contract, or RMR): 'Compensation provided under [FirstEnergy's proposal] would be significantly expanded beyond RMR precedent, going so far as to include bailing [a qualifying] unit out of debt based on an unsupported assertion that revenues are needed to ensure long-term operation.'

Calling the action FERC would be required to take in adopting the DOE proposal 'unprecedented,' the energy industry associations reiterate their opposition: 'While the undersigned support the goals of a reliable and resilient grid, adoption of ill-considered discriminatory payments contemplated in the DOE NOPR is not supportable - or even appropriate - from a legal or policy perspective.

About ACORE

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) is a national non-profit organization leading the transition to a renewable energy economy. With hundreds of member companies from across the spectrum of renewable energy technologies, consumers and investors, ACORE is uniquely positioned to promote the policies and financial structures essential to growth in the renewable energy sector. Our annual forums in Washington, D.C., New York and San Franciscoset the industry standard in providing important venues for key leaders to meet, discuss recent developments, and hear the latest from senior government officials and seasoned experts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CPUC Exit Fee Increase for CCAs adjusts the PCIA, affecting utilities, San Diego ratepayers, renewable energy procurement, customer equity, and cost allocation, while providing regulatory certainty for Community Choice Aggregation programs and clean energy goals.

Key Points

A CPUC-approved change raising PCIA exit fees paid by CCAs to utilities, balancing cost shifts and customer equity.

✅ PCIA rises from about 2.5c to roughly 4.25c per kWh in San Diego

✅ Aims to reduce cost shifts and protect non-CCA customers

✅ Offers regulatory certainty for CCA launches and clean energy goals

The California Public Utilities Commission approved an increase on the exit fees charged to customers who take part in Community Choice Aggregation -- government-run alternatives to traditional utilities like San Diego Gas & Electric.

After reviewing two competing exit fee proposals, all five commissioners voted Thursday in favor of an adjustment that many CCA advocates predicted could hamper the growth of the community choice movement.

But minutes after the vote was announced, one of the leading voices in favor of the city San Diego establishing its own CCA said the decision was good news because it provides some regulatory certainty.

"For us in San Diego, it's a green light to move forward with community choice," said Nicole Capretz, executive director of the Climate Action Campaign. "For us, it's let's go, let's launch and let's give families a choice. We no longer have to wait."

Under the CCA model, utilities still maintain transmission and distribution lines (poles and wires, etc.) and handle customer billing. But officials in a given local government entity make the final decisions about what kind of power sources are purchased.

Once a CCA is formed, its customers must pay an exit fee -- called a Power Charge Indifference Adjustment -- to the legacy utility serving that particular region. The fee is included in customers' monthly bills.

The fee is required to offset the costs of the investments utilities made over the years for things like natural gas power plants, renewable energy facilities and other infrastructure.

Utilities argue if the exit fee is set too low, it does not fairly compensate them for their investments; if it's too high, CCAs complain it reduces the financial incentive for their potential customers.

The Public Utilities Commission chose to adopt a proposal that some said was more favorable to utilities, leading to complaints from CCA boosters.

"We see this will really throw sand in the gears in our ability to do things that can move us toward (climate change) goals," Jim Parks, staff member of Valley Clean Energy, a CCA based in Davis, said before the vote.

Commissioner Carla Peterman, who authored the proposal that passed, said she supports CCAs but stressed the commission has a "legal obligation" to make sure increased costs are not shouldered by "customers who do not, or cannot, join a CCA. Today's proposal ensures a more level playing field between customers."

As for what the vote means for the exit fee in San Diego, Peterman's office earlier in the week estimated the charge would rise from 2.5 cents a kilowatt-hour to about 4.25 cents.

The Clear the Air Coaltion, a San Diego County group critical of CCAs, said the newly established exit fee -- which goes into effect starting next year -- is "a step in the direction."

But the group, which includes the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association and lobbyists for Sempra Energy (the parent company of SDG&E), repeated concerns it has brought up before.

"If the city of San Diego decides to get into the energy business this decision means ratepayers in National City, Chula Vista, Carlsbad, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, El Cajon and all other neighboring communities would see higher energy bills, and San Diego taxpayers would be faced with mounting debt," coalition spokesman Tony Manolatos said in an email.

CCA supporters say community choice is critical in ensuring San Diego meets the pledge made by Mayor Kevin Faulconer to adopt the city's Climate Action Plan, mandating 100 percent of the city's electricity needs must come from renewable sources by 2035.

Now attention turns to Faulconer, who promised to make a decision on bringing a CCA proposal to the San Diego City Council only after the utilities commission made its decision.

A Faulconer spokesman said Thursday afternoon that the vote "provides the clarity we've been waiting for to move forward" but did not offer a specific time table.

"We're on schedule to reach Mayor Faulconer's goal of choosing a pathway that achieves our renewable energy goals while also protecting ratepayers, and the mayor looks forward to making his recommendation in the next few weeks," said Craig Gustafson, a Faulconer spokesman, in an email.

A feasibility study released last year predicted a CCA in San Diego has the potential to deliver cheaper rates over time than SDG&E's current service, while providing as much as 50 percent renewable energy by 2023 and 80 percent by 2027.

"The city has already figured out we are still capable of launching a program, having competitive, affordable rates and finally offering families a choice as to who their energy provider is," said Capretz, who helped draft an initial blueprint of the climate plan as a city staffer.

SDG&E has come to the city with a counterproposal that offers 100 percent renewables by 2035.

Thus far, the utility has produced a rough outline for a "tariff" program that would charge ratepayers the cost of delivering more clean sources of energy over time.

Some council members have expressed frustration more specifics have not been sketched out.

SDG&E officials said they will take the new exit fee into account as they go forward with their counterproposal to the city council.

Speaking in general about the utility commission's decision, SDG&E spokeswoman Helen Gao called it "a victory for our customers, as it minimizes the cost shifts that they have been burdened with under the existing fee formula.

"As commissioners noted in rendering their decision, reforming the (exit fee) addresses a customer-to-customer equity issue and has nothing to do with increasing profits for investor-owned utilities," Gao said in an email.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Duck Curve highlights midday solar oversupply and steep evening peak demand, stressing grid stability. Solutions include battery storage, demand response, diverse renewables like wind, geothermal, nuclear, and regional integration to reduce curtailment.

Key Points

A mismatch between midday solar surplus and evening demand spikes, straining the grid without storage and flexibility.

✅ Midday solar oversupply forces curtailment and wasted clean energy.

✅ Evening ramps require fast, fossil peaker plants to stabilize load.

✅ Batteries, demand response, regional trading flatten the curve.

California's remarkable success in adopting solar power, including a near-100% renewable milestone, has created a unique challenge: managing the infamous "duck curve." This distinctive curve illustrates a growing mismatch between solar electricity generation and the state's energy demands, creating potential problems for grid stability and ultimately threatening to slow California's progress in the fight against climate change.

The Shape of the Problem

The duck curve arises from a combination of high solar energy production during midday hours and surging energy demand in the late afternoon and evening when solar power declines. During peak solar hours, the grid often has an overabundance of electricity, and curtailments are increasing as a result, while as the sun sets, demand surges when people return home and businesses ramp up operations. California's energy grid operators must scramble to make up this difference, often relying on fast-acting but less environmentally friendly power sources.

The Consequences of the Duck Curve

The increasing severity of the duck curve has several potential consequences for California:

• Grid Strain: The rapid ramp-up of power sources to meet evening demand puts significant strain on the electrical grid. This can lead to higher operational costs and potentially increase the risk of blackouts during peak demand times.
• Curtailed Energy: To avoid overloading the grid, operators may sometimes have to curtail excess solar energy during midday, as rising curtailment reports indicate, essentially wasting clean electricity that could have been used to displace fossil fuel generation.
• Obstacle to More Solar: The duck curve can make it harder to add new solar capacity, as seen in Alberta's solar expansion challenges, for fear of further destabilizing the grid and increasing the need for fossil fuel-based peaking plants.

Addressing the Challenge

California is actively seeking solutions to mitigate the duck curve, aligning with national decarbonization pathways that emphasize practicality. Potential strategies include:

• Energy Storage: Deploying large-scale battery storage can help soak up excess solar electricity during the day and release it later when demand peaks, smoothing out the duck curve.
• Demand Flexibility: Encouraging consumers to shift their energy use to off-peak hours through incentives and smart grid technologies can help reduce late-afternoon surges in demand.
• Diverse Power Sources: While solar is crucial, a balanced mix of energy sources, including geothermal, wind, and nuclear, can improve grid stability and reduce reliance on rapid-response fossil fuel plants.
• Regional Cooperation: Integrating California's grid with neighboring states can aid in balancing energy supply and demand across a wider geographical area.

The Ongoing Solar Debate

The duck curve has become a central point of debate about the future of California's energy landscape. While acknowledging the challenge, solar advocates argue for continued expansion, backed by measures like a bill to require solar on new buildings, emphasizing the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels. Grid operators and some utility companies call for a more cautious approach, emphasizing grid reliability and potential costs if the problem isn't effectively managed.

Balancing California's Needs and its Green Ambitions

Finding the right path forward is essential; it will determine whether California can continue to lead the way in solar energy adoption while ensuring a reliable and affordable electricity supply. Successfully navigating the duck curve will require innovation, collaboration, and a strong commitment to building a sustainable energy system, as wildfire smoke impacts on solar continue to challenge generation predictability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Electricity Rebate clarifies hydro rates as OEB aligns bills with inflation, shows true cost per kilowatt hour, and replaces Fair Hydro Plan; transparent on-bill credit offsets increases tied to nuclear refurbishment and supply costs.

Key Points

A line-item credit on Ontario hydro bills that offsets higher electricity costs and reflects OEB-set rates.

✅ Starts Nov. 1 with rates in line with inflation

✅ Shows true per-kWh cost plus separate rebate line

✅ Driven by nuclear refurbishment and supply costs

The Ontario Energy Board says electricity rate changes for households and small businesses will be going up starting next week.

The agency says rates are scheduled to increased by about $1.99 or nearly 2% for a typical residential customer who uses 700 kilowatt hours per month.

The provincial government said in March it would continue to subsidize hydro rates, through legislation to lower rates, and hold any increases to the rate of inflation.

The OEB says the new rates, which the board says are “in line” with inflation, will take effect Nov. 1 as changes for electricity consumers roll out and could be noticed on bills within a few weeks of that date.

Prices are increasing partly due to government legislation aimed at reflecting the actual cost of supply on bills, and partly due to the refurbishment of nuclear facilities, contributing to higher hydro bills for some consumers.

So, effective November 1, Ontario electricity bills will show the true cost of power, after a period of a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate, and will include the new Ontario Electricity Rebate.

Previously the electricity rebate was concealed within the price-per-kilowatt-hour line item on electricity statements, prompting Hydro One bill redesign discussions to improve clarity. This meant customers could not see how much the government rebate was reducing their monthly costs, and bills did not display the true cost of electricity used.

"People deserve facts and accountability, especially when it comes to hydro costs," said Energy Minister Rickford.

The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will appear as a transparent on-bill line item and will replace the former government's Fair Hydro Plan says a government news release. This change comes in response to the Auditor General's special report on the former government's Fair Hydro Plan which revealed that "the government created a needlessly complex accounting/financing structure for the electricity rate reduction in order to avoid showing a deficit or an increase in net debt."

"The Electricity Distributors Association commends the government's commitment to making Ontario's electricity bills more transparent," said Teresa Sarkesian, President of the Electricity Distributors Association. "As the part of our electricity system that is closest to customers, local hydro utilities appreciated the opportunity to work with the government on implementing this important initiative. We worked to ensure that customers who receive their electricity bill will have a clear understanding of the true cost of power and the amount of their on-bill rebate. Local hydro utilities are focused on making electricity more affordable, reducing red tape, and providing customers with a modern and reliable electricity system that works for them."

The average customer will see the electricity line on their bill rise, showing the real cost per kilowatt hour. The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will compensate for that rise, and will be displayed as a separate line item on hydro bills. The average residential bill will rise in line with the rate of inflation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany nuclear phase-out underscores a high-stakes energy transition, trading reactors for renewables, LNG imports, and grid resilience to secure supply, cut emissions, and navigate climate policy, public opinion shifts, and post-Ukraine supply shocks.

Key Points

Germany's nuclear phase-out retires reactors, shifting to renewables, LNG, and grid upgrades for low-carbon power.

✅ Last three reactors: Neckarwestheim, Isar 2, and Emsland closed

✅ Supply secured via LNG imports, renewables, and grid flexibility

✅ Policy accelerated post-Fukushima; debate renewed after Ukraine war

The German government is phasing out nuclear power despite the energy crisis. The country is pulling the plug on its last three reactors, betting it will succeed in its green transition without nuclear power.

On the banks of the Neckar River, not far from Stuttgart in south Germany, the white steam escaping from the nuclear power plant in Baden-Württemberg will soon be a memory.

The same applies further east for the Bavarian Isar 2 complex and the Emsland complex, at the other end of the country, not far from the Dutch border.

While many Western countries depend on nuclear power, Europe's largest economy is turning the page, even if a possible resurgence of nuclear energy is debated until the end.

Germany is implementing the decision to phase out nuclear power taken in 2002 and accelerated by Angela Merkel in 2011, after the Fukushima disaster.

Fukushima showed that "even in a high-tech country like Japan, the risks associated with nuclear energy cannot be controlled 100 per cent", the former chancellor justified at the time.

The announcement convinced public opinion in a country where the powerful anti-nuclear movement was initially fuelled by fears of a Cold War conflict, and then by accidents such as Chernobyl.

The invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 brought everything into question. Deprived of Russian gas, the flow of which was essentially interrupted by Moscow, Germany found itself exposed to the worst possible scenarios, from the risk of its factories being shut down to the risk of being without heating in the middle of winter.

With just a few months to go before the initial deadline for closing the last three reactors on 31 December, the tide of public opinion began to turn, and talk of a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout grew louder. 

"With high energy prices and the burning issue of climate change, there were of course calls to extend the plants," says Jochen Winkler, mayor of Neckarwestheim, where the plant of the same name is in its final days.

Olaf Scholz's government, which the Green Party - the most hostile to nuclear power - is part of, finally decided to extend the operation of the reactors to secure the supply until 15 April.

"There might have been a new discussion if the winter had been more difficult if there had been power cuts and gas shortages nationwide. But we have had a winter without too many problems," thanks to the massive import of liquefied natural gas, notes Mr Winkler.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News