There's much riding on power plant

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

Ontario IESO Accounting Dispute highlights tensions over public sector accounting standards, auditor general oversight, electricity market transparency, KPMG advice, rate-regulated accounting, and an alleged $1.3B deficit understatement affecting Hydro bills and provincial finances.

Key Points

A PSAS clash between Ontario's auditor general and the IESO, alleging a $1.3B deficit impact and transparency failures.

✅ Auditor alleges deficit understated by $1.3B

✅ Dispute over PSAS vs US-style accounting

✅ KPMG support, transparency and co-operation questioned

The bad blood between the Ontario government and auditor general bubbled to the surface once again Monday, with the Liberal energy minister downplaying a dispute between the auditor and the Crown corporation that manages the province's electricity market, even as the government pursued legislation to lower electricity rates in the province.

Glenn Thibeault said concerns raised by auditor general Bonnie Lysyk during testimony before a legislative committee last week aren't new and the practices being used by the Independent Electricity System Operator are commonly endorsed by major auditing firms.

"(Lysyk) doesn't like the rate-regulated accounting. We've always said we've relied on the other experts within the field as well, plus the provincial controller," Thibeault said.

#google#

"We believe that we are following public sector accounting standards."

Thibeault said that Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and many other provinces and U.S. states use the same accounting practices.

"We go with what we're being told by those who are in the field, like KPMG, like E&Y," he said.

But a statement from Lysyk's office Monday disputed Thibeault's assessment.

"The minister said the practices being used by the IESO are common in other jurisdictions," the statement said.

"In fact, the situation with the IESO is different because none of the six other jurisdictions with entities similar to the IESOuse Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards. Five of them are in the United States and use U.S. accounting standards."

Lysyk said last week that the IESO is using "bogus" accounting practices and her office launched a special audit of the agency late last year after the agency changed their accounting to be more in line with U.S. accounting, following reports of a phantom demand problem that cost customers millions.

Lysyk said the accounting changes made by the IESO impact the province's deficit, understating it by $1.3 billion as of the end of 2017, adding that IESO "stalled" her office when it asked for information and was not co-operative during the audit.

Lysyk's full audit of the IESO is expected to be released in the coming weeks and is among several accounting disputes her office has been engaged in with the Liberal government over the past few years.

Last fall, she accused the government of purposely obscuring the true financial impact of its 25% hydro rate cut by keeping billions in debt used to finance that plan off the province's books. Lysyk had said she would audit the IESO because of its role in the hydro plan's complex accounting scheme.

"Management of the IESO and the board would not co-operate with us, in the sense that they continually say they're co-operating, but they stalled on giving us information," she said last week.

Terry Young, a vice-president with the IESO, said the agency has fully co-operated with the auditor general. The IESO opened up its office to seven staff members from the auditor's office while they did their work.

"We recognize the work that she's doing and to that end we've tried to fully co-operate," he said. "We've given her all of the information that we can."

Young said the change in accounting standards is about ensuring greater transparency in transactions in the energy marketplace.

"It's consistent with many other independent electricity system operators are doing," he said.

Lysyk also criticized IESO's accounting firm, KPMG, for agreeing with the IESO on the accounting standards. She was critical of the firm billing taxpayers for nearly $600,000 work with the IESO in 2017, compared to their normal yearly audit fee of $86,500.

KPMG spokeswoman Lisa Papas said the accounting issues that IESO addressed during 2017 were complex, contributing to the higher fees.

The accounting practices the auditor is questioning are a "difference of professional judgement," she said.

"The standards for public sector organizations such as IESO are principles-based standards and, accordingly, require the exercise of considerable professional judgement," she said in a statement.

"In many cases, there is more than one acceptable approach that is compliant with the applicable standards."

Progressive Conservative energy critic Todd Smith said the government isn't being transparent with the auditor general or taxpayers, aligning with calls for cleaning up Ontario's hydro mess in the sector.

"Obviously, they have some kind of dispute but the auditor's office is saying that the numbers that the government is putting out there are bogus.

Those are her words," he said. "We've always said that we believe the auditor general's are the true numbers for the
province of Ontario."

NDP energy critic Peter Tabuns said the Liberal government has decided to "play with accounting rules" to make its books look better ahead of the spring election, despite warnings that electricity prices could soar if costs are pushed into the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Geothermal Emergency Permitting accelerates BLM approvals on public lands via categorical exclusions for exploratory drilling and geophysical surveys, boosting domestic energy security, cutting timelines by up to a year, and streamlining low-impact reviews.

Key Points

A policy fast-tracking geothermal exploration on public lands, using BLM categorical exclusions to cut review delays.

✅ Categorical exclusions speed exploratory drilling approvals

✅ Cuts permitting timelines by up to one year

✅ Focused on public lands to enhance energy security

In a significant policy shift, the U.S. Department of the Interior has introduced emergency permitting procedures aimed at expediting the development of geothermal energy projects. This initiative, announced on May 30, 2025, is part of a broader strategy to enhance domestic energy production, seen in proposals to replace Obama's power plant overhaul and reduce reliance on foreign energy sources.

Background and Rationale

The decision to fast-track geothermal energy projects comes in the wake of President Donald Trump's declaration of a national energy emergency, which faces a legal challenge from Washington's attorney general, on January 20, 2025. This declaration cited high energy costs and an unreliable energy grid as threats to national security and economic prosperity. While the emergency order includes traditional energy resources such as oil, gas, coal, and uranium and nuclear energy resources, it notably excludes renewable sources like solar, wind, and hydrogen from its scope.

Geothermal energy, which harnesses heat from beneath the Earth's surface to generate electricity, is considered a reliable and low-emission energy source. However, its development has been hindered by lengthy permitting processes and environmental reviews, with recent NEPA rule changes influencing timelines. The new emergency permitting procedures aim to address these challenges by streamlining the approval process for geothermal projects.

Key Features of the Emergency Permitting Procedures

Under the new guidelines, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has adopted categorical exclusions to expedite the review and approval of geothermal energy exploration on public lands. These exclusions allow for faster permitting of low-impact activities, such as drilling exploratory wells and conducting geophysical surveys, without the need for extensive environmental assessments.

Additionally, the BLM has proposed a new categorical exclusion that would apply to operations related to the search for indirect evidence of geothermal resources. This proposal is currently open for public comment and, if finalized, would further accelerate the discovery of new geothermal resources on public lands.

Expected Impact on Geothermal Energy Development

The implementation of these emergency permitting procedures is expected to significantly reduce the time and cost associated with developing geothermal energy projects. According to the Department of the Interior, the new measures could cut permitting timelines by up to a year for certain types of geothermal exploration activities.

This acceleration in project development is particularly important given the untapped geothermal potential in regions like Nevada, which is home to some of the largest undeveloped geothermal resources in the country.

Industry and Environmental Reactions

The geothermal industry has largely welcomed the new permitting procedures, viewing them as a necessary step to unlock the full potential of geothermal energy. Industry advocates argue that reducing permitting delays will facilitate the deployment of geothermal projects, contributing to a more reliable and sustainable energy grid amid debates over electricity pricing changes that affect market signals.

However, the exclusion of solar and wind energy projects from the emergency permitting procedures has drawn criticism from some environmental groups. Critics argue that a comprehensive approach to energy development should include all renewable sources, not just geothermal, to effectively address climate change, as reflected in new EPA pollution limits for coal and gas power plants, and promote energy sustainability.

The U.S. government's move to implement emergency permitting procedures for geothermal energy development marks a significant step toward enhancing domestic energy production and reducing reliance on foreign energy sources. By streamlining the approval process for geothermal projects, the administration aims to accelerate the deployment of this reliable and low-emission energy source. While the exclusion of other renewable energy sources from the emergency procedures has sparked debate, especially after states like California halted an energy rebate program during a federal freeze, the focus on geothermal energy underscores its potential role in the nation's energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Philippsburg Demolition Delay: EnBW postpones controlled cooling-tower blasts amid the coronavirus pandemic, affecting decommissioning timelines in Baden-Wurttemberg and grid expansion for a transformer station to route renewable power and secure supply in southern Germany.

Key Points

EnBW's COVID-19 delay of Philippsburg cooling-tower blasts, affecting decommissioning and grid plans.

✅ Controlled detonation shifted to mid-May at earliest

✅ Demolition links to transformer station for north-south grid

✅ Supports security of supply in southern Germany

German energy company EnBW said the coronavirus outbreak has impacted plans to dismantle its Philippsburg nuclear power plant in Baden-Wurttemberg, southwest Germany, amid plans to phase out coal and nuclear nationally.

The controlled detonation of Phillipsburg's cooling towers will now take place in mid-May at the earliest, subject to coordination as Germany debates whether to reconsider its nuclear phaseout in light of supply needs.

However, EnBW said the exact demolition date depends on many factors - including the further development in the coronavirus pandemic and ongoing climate policy debates about energy choices.

Philippsburg 2, a 1402MWe pressurised water reactor unit permanently shut down on 31 December 2019, as part of Germany's broader effort to shut down its remaining reactors over time.

At the end of 2019, the Ministry of the Environment gave basic approval for decommissioning and dismantling of unit 2 of the Philippsburg nuclear power plant, inluding explosive demolition of the colling towers. Since then EnBW has worked intensively on getting all the necessary formal steps on the way and performing technical and logistical preparatory work, even as discussions about a potential nuclear resurgence continue nationwide.

“The demolition of the cooling towers is directly related to future security of supply in southern Germany. We therefore feel obliged to drive this project forward," said Jörg Michels head of the EnBW nuclear power division.

The timely removal of the cooling towers is important as the area currently occupied by nuclear plant components is needed for a transformer station for long-distance power lines, an issue underscored during the energy crisis when Germany temporarily extended nuclear power to bolster supply. These will transport electricity from renewable sources in the north to industrial centres in the south.

As of early 2020, there six nuclear reactors in operation in Germany, even as the country turned its back on nuclear in subsequent years. According to research institute Fraunhofer ISE, nuclear power provided about 14% of Germany's net electricity in 2019, less than half of the figure for 2000.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Energy Security Bill drives private investment, diversifies from fossil fuels with hydrogen and offshore wind, strengthens an independent system operator, and extends the retail price cap to shield consumers from volatile gas markets.

Key Points

A UK plan to reform energy, cut fossil fuel reliance, boost hydrogen and wind, and extend the retail price cap.

✅ Targets £100bn private investment and 480,000 jobs by 2030.

✅ Creates an independent system operator for grid planning.

✅ Extends retail energy price cap; mitigates volatile gas costs.

The British government said that plans to bolster the country's energy security, diversify away from fossil fuels amid the Europe energy crisis and protect consumers from spiralling prices are set to become law.

Britain's energy security bill will be introduced to Parliament on Wednesday and includes 26 measures to reform the energy system, including ending the gas-electricity price link, and reduce its dependency on fossil fuels and exposure to volatile gas prices.

Global energy prices have skyrocketed this year, and UK natural gas and electricity have risen sharply, particularly after Russia's invasion of Ukraine which has led to many European countries trying to reduce reliance on Russian pipeline gas and seek cheaper alternatives.

The bill will help drive 100 billion pounds ($119 billion) of private sector investment by 2030 into industries to diversify Britain's energy supply, including hydrogen and offshore wind, which could help lower costs as a 16% decrease in bills in April is anticipated, and create around 480,000 jobs by the end of the decade, the government said.

"We’re going to slash red tape, get investment into the UK, and grab as much global market share as possible in new technologies to make this plan a reality," Business and Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, amid high winter energy costs, said in a statement.

The bill will establish a new independent system operator to coordinate and plan Britain's energy system, while MPs move to restrict prices for gas and electricity through oversight.

It will also enable the extension of a cap on retail energy prices beyond 2023, with the price cap cost under scrutiny, which limits the amount suppliers can charge for each unit of gas and electricity.

The bill will also enable the secretary of state to prevent potential disruptions to the downstream oil sector due to industrial action or malicious protests, the government added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Utility Pandemic Preparedness strengthens grid resilience through continuity planning, critical infrastructure protection, DOE-DHS coordination, onsite sequestration, skeleton crews, and deferred maintenance to ensure reliable electric and gas service for commercial and industrial customers.

Key Points

Plans that sustain grid operations during outbreaks using staffing limits, access controls, and deferred maintenance.

✅ Deferred maintenance and restricted site access

✅ Onsite sequestering and skeleton crew operations

✅ DOE-DHS coordination and control center staffing

Commercial and industrial businesses can rest assured that the current pandemic poses no real threat to our utilities, with the U.S. grid remaining reliable for now, as disaster planning has been key to electric and gas utilities in recent years, writes Forbes. Beginning a decade ago, the utility and energy industries evolved detailed pandemic plans, outlining what to know about the U.S. grid during outbreaks, which include putting off maintenance and routine activities until the worst of the pandemic has passed, restricting site access to essential personnel, and being able to run on a skeleton crew as more and more people become ill, a capability underscored by FPL's massive Irma response when crews faced prolonged outages.

One possible outcome of the current situation is that the US electric industry may require essential staff to live onsite at power plants and control centers, similar to Ontario work-site lockdown plans under consideration, if the outbreak worsens; bedding, food and other supplies are being stockpiled, reflecting local response preparations many utilities practice, Reuters reported. The Great River Energy cooperative, for example, has had a plan to sequester essential staff in place since the H1N1 bird flu crisis in 2009. The cooperative, which runs 10 power plants in Minnesota, says its disaster planning ensured it has enough cots, blankets and other necessities on site to keep staff healthy.

Electricity providers are now taking part in twice-weekly phone calls with officials at the DOE, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies, as Ontario demand shifts are monitored, according to the Los Angeles Times. By planning for a variety of worst case scenarios, including weeks-long restorations after major storms, “I have confidence that the sector will be prepared to respond no matter how this evolves,” says Scott Aaronson, VP of security and preparedness for the Edison Electric Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News