Ontario claims coal-fired emissions below 1990 levels

Japan Power Demand Slowdown highlights reduced electricity consumption as industrial activity stalls amid the coronavirus pandemic, pressuring utilities, the grid, and manufacturing, with economic impacts monitored by Chubu Electric and the federation of electric utilities.

Key Points

A drop in Japan's electricity use as industrial activity slows during the coronavirus pandemic, pressuring utilities.

✅ Industrial slowdown cuts electricity consumption

✅ Utilities monitor grid stability and demand trends

✅ Pandemic-linked economic risks weigh on power sector

Japan's power demand has been hit by a slowdown in industrial activity due to the coronavirus outbreak, reflecting broader shifts in electricity demand worldwide, Japanese utilities federation's head said on Friday, without giving specific figures.

Electricity load profiles during lockdowns revealed changes in daily routines, as shown by lockdown electricity data across multiple regions.

Analysts have identified key shifts in U.S. electricity consumption patterns that mirror industrial slowdowns.

"We are closely watching development of the pandemic, underscoring the need for electricity during such crises, as further reduction in corporate and economic activities would lead to serious impacts," Satoru Katsuno, the chairman of Japan's federation of electric utilities and president of Chubu Electric Power Co Inc, told a news conference.

In parallel, the power industry has intensified coordination with federal partners to sustain grid reliability and protect critical workers.

Some governments, including Brazil, considered emergency loans for the power sector to stabilize utilities amid revenue pressures.

Consumer advocates warned that pandemic-related electricity shut-offs and bill burdens could exacerbate energy insecurity for vulnerable households.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

IESO Capacity Auctions will competitively procure resources for Ontario electricity needs, boosting reliability and resource adequacy through market-based bidding, enabling demand response, energy storage, and flexible supply to meet changing load and regional grid conditions.

Key Points

A competitive, technology-neutral auction buys capacity at lowest cost to keep Ontario's grid reliable and flexible.

✅ Market-based procurement reduces system costs.

✅ Enables demand response, storage, and hybrid resources.

✅ Increases flexibility and regional reliability in Ontario.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) is introducing changes to Ontario's electricity system that will help save Ontarians about $3.4 billion over a 10-year period. The changes include holding annual capacity auctions to acquire electricity resources at lowest cost that can be called upon when and where they are needed to meet Ontario electricity needs. 

Today's announcement marks the release of a high level design for future auctions, with changes for electricity consumers expected as the first is set to be held in late 2022.

"These auctions will specify how much electricity we need, and introduce a competitive process to determine who can meet that need. It's a competition among all eligible resources, and it's the Ontario consumer, including industrial electricity ratepayers, who benefits through lower costs and a more flexible system better able to respond to changing demand and supply conditions," says IESO President and CEO Peter Gregg.

In the past decade, electricity supply was typically acquired through very prescriptive means with defined targets for specific types of resources such as wind and solar, and secured through 20-year contracts.  While these long-term commitments helped Ontario transform its generation fleet over the last decade, electricity cost allocation also played a role, but longer term contracts provide limited flexibility in dealing with unexpected changes in the power system. 

"Imagine signing a 20-year contract for your cable TV service. In five years' time, electricity rates could be lower, new competitors may have entered the market, or entirely new and innovative platforms and services like Netflix may have emerged. You miss out on opportunities for improvement by being locked-in," says Gregg.

Provincial electricity demand has traditionally fluctuated over time due to factors like economic growth, conservation and the introduction of generating resources on local distribution systems, with occasional issues such as phantom demand affecting customers' costs as well. Technological changes are adding another layer of uncertainty to future demand as electric vehicles, energy storage and low-cost solar panels become more common.

"Our planners do their best to forecast electricity demand, but the truth is there's no such thing as certainty in electricity planning. That's why flexibility is so important. We don't want Ontarians to have to pay more on the typical Ontario electricity bill for electricity resources than are needed to ensure a reliable power system that can continue to meet Ontario's needs," says IESO Vice President and COO Leonard Kula.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bruce Power Life-Extension Programme advances Ontario nuclear capacity through CANDU Major Component Replacement, reliable operation milestones, supply chain retooling for COVID-19 recovery, PPE production, ventilator projects, and medical isotope supply security.

Key Points

A program to refurbish CANDU reactors, extend asset life, and mobilize Ontario nuclear supply chain and isotopes.

✅ Extends CANDU units via Major Component Replacement

✅ Supports COVID-19 recovery with PPE and ventilator projects

✅ Boosts Ontario energy reliability and medical isotopes

Canada’s Bruce Power said on 1 May that unit 1 at the Bruce nuclear power plant had set a record of 624 consecutive days of reliable operation – the longest since it was returned to service in 2012.

It exceeded Bruce 8’s run of 623 consecutive days between May 2016 and February 2018. Bruce 1, a Candu reactor, was put into service in 1977. It was shut down and mothballed by the former Ontario Hydro in 1997, and was refurbished and returned to service in 2012 by Bruce Power.

Bruce units 3 and 4 were restarted in 2003 and 2004. They are part of Bruce Power’s Life-Extension Programme, and future planning such as Bruce C project exploration continues across the fleet, with units 3 and 4 to undergo Major Component Replacement (MCR) Projects from 2023-28, adding about 30 years of life to the reactors.

The refurbishment of Bruce 6 has begun and will be followed by MCR Unit 3 which is scheduled to begin in 2023. Nuclear power accounts for more than 60% of Ontario’s supply, with Bruce Power providing more than 30%   of the province’s electricity.

Set up of Covid recovery council
On 30 April, Bruce Power announced the establishment of the Bruce Power Retooling and Economic Recovery Council to leverage the province’s nuclear supply chain to support Ontario’s fight against Covid-19 and to help aid economic recovery.

Bruce Power’s life extension programme is Canada’s second largest infrastructure project and largest private sector infrastructure programme. It is creating 22,000 direct and indirect jobs, delivering economic benefits that are expected to contribute $4 billion to Ontario’s GDP and $8-$11 billion to Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP), Bruce Power said.

“With 90% of the investment in manufactured goods and services coming from 480 companies in Ontario and other provinces, including recent manufacturing contracts with key suppliers, we can harness these capabilities in the fight against Covid-19, and help drive our economic recovery,” the company said.

“An innovative and dynamic nuclear supply chain is more important than ever in meeting this new challenge while successfully implementing our mission of providing clean, reliable, flexible, low-cost nuclear energy and a global supply of medical isotopes,” said Bruce Power president and CEO Mike Rencheck. “We are mobilising a great team with our extended supply chain, which spans the province, to assist in the fight against Covid-19 and to help drive our economic recovery in the future.”

Greg Rickford, the Minister of Energy, Mines, Northern Development, and Minister of Indigenous Affairs, said the launch of the council is consistent with Ontario’s focus to fight Covid-19 as a top priority and a look ahead to economic recovery, and initiatives like Pickering life extensions supporting long-term system reliability.

The creation of the Council was announced during a live event on Bruce Power's Facebook page, in which Rencheck was joined by Associate Minister of Energy Bill Walker and Rocco Rossi, the president and CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

Walker reiterated the Government of Ontario’s commitment to nuclear power over the long term and to the life extension programme, including the Pickering B refurbishment as part of this strategy.

The Council, which will be formed for the duration of the pandemic and will include of all of Bruce Power’s Ontario-based suppliers, will focus on the continued retooling of the supply chain to meet front-line Covid-19 needs to contribute to the province’s economy recovery in the short, medium and long term.

New uses for nuclear medical applications will be explored, including isotopes for the sterilisation of medical equipment and long-term supply security.

The supply chain will be leveraged to support the health care sector through the rapid production of medical Personal Protection Equipment for front line-workers and large-scale PPE donations to communities as well as participation in pilot projects to make ventilators within the Bruce Power supply chain or help identify technology to better utilise existing ventilators;

“Buy Local” tools and approaches will be emphasised to ensure small businesses are utilised fully in communities where nuclear suppliers are located.

The production of hand sanitiser and other cleaning products will be facilitated for distribution to communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Public Safety Power Shutoffs highlight wildfire prevention as PG&E outages disrupt schools, businesses, and rural communities, driving generator use, economic hardship, and emergency preparedness across Northern California during high-wind events.

Key Points

Utility outages to reduce wildfire risk during extreme winds, impacting homes and businesses in high-risk California.

✅ PG&E cuts power during high winds to prevent wildfires

✅ Costs rise for generators, fuel, batteries, and spoiled food

✅ Rural, low-income communities face greater economic losses

The intentional blackout by California’s largest utility this week put Forest Jones out of work and his son out of school. On Friday morning Mr. Jones, a handyman and single father, sat in his apartment above a tattoo parlor waiting for the power to come back on and for school to reopen.

“I’ll probably lose $400 or $500 dollars because of this,” said Mr. Jones, who lives in the town of Paradise, which was razed by fire last year and is slowly rebuilding. “Things have been really tough up here.”

Millions of people were affected by the blackout, which spanned the outskirts of Silicon Valley to the forests of Humboldt County near the Oregon border. But the outage, which the power company said was necessary to reduce wildfire risk across the region, also drew a line between those who were merely inconvenienced and those who faced a major financial hardship.

To have the lights on, the television running and kitchen appliances humming is often taken for granted in America, even as U.S. grid during coronavirus questions persisted. During California’s blackout it became an economic privilege.

The economic impacts of the shut-off were especially acute in rural, northern towns like Paradise, where incomes are a fraction of those in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Both wealthy and poorer areas were affected by the blackout but interviews across the state suggested that being forced off the grid disproportionately hurt the less affluent. One family in Humboldt County said they had spent $150 on batteries and water alone during the shutdown.

“To be prepared costs money,” Sue Warhaftig, a massage therapist who lives in Mill Valley, a wealthy suburb across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco. Ms. Warhaftig spent around two days without electricity but said she had been spared from significant sacrifices during the blackout.

She invested in a generator to keep the refrigerator running and to provide some light. She cooked in the family’s Volkswagen camper van in her driveway. At night she watched Netflix on her phone, which she was able to charge with the generator. Her husband, a businessman, is in London on a work trip. Her two sons, both grown, live in Southern California and Seattle.

“We were inconvenienced but life wasn’t interrupted,” Ms. Warhaftig said. “But so many people’s lives were.

Pacific Gas & Electric restored power to large sections of Northern California on Friday, including Paradise, where the electricity came back on in the afternoon. But hundreds of thousands of people in other areas remained in the dark. The carcasses of burned cars still littered the landscape around Paradise, where 86 people died in the Camp Fire last year, some of them while trying to escape.

Officials at power company said that by Saturday they hoped to have restored power to 98 percent of the customers who were affected.

The same dangerous winds that spurred the shut-off in Northern California have put firefighters to work in the south. The authorities in Los Angeles County ordered the evacuation of nearly 100,000 people on Friday as the Saddleridge Fire burned nearly 5,000 acres and destroyed 25 structures. The Sandalwood Fire, which ignited Thursday in Riverside County, had spread to more than 800 acres and destroyed 74 structures by Friday afternoon.

While this week’s outage was the first time many customers in Northern California experienced a deliberate power shut-off, residents in and around Paradise have had their power cut four times in recent months, residents say.

Many use a generator, but running one has become increasingly expensive with gasoline now at more than $4 a gallon in California.

On Friday, Dennis and Viola Timmer drove up the hill to their home in Magalia, a town adjacent to Paradise, loaded with $102 dollars of gasoline for their generators. It was their second gasoline run since the power went out Tuesday night.

The couple, retired and on a fixed income after Mr. Timmer’s time in the Navy and in construction, said the power outage had severely limited their ability to do essential tasks like cooking, or to leave the house.

“You know what it feels like? You’re in jail,” said Ms. Timmer, 72. “You can’t go anywhere with the generators running.”

Since the generators are not powerful enough to run heat or air conditioning, the couple slept in their den with an electric space heater.

“It’s really difficult because you don’t have a normal life,” Ms. Timmer said. “You’re trying to survive.”

To be sure, the shutdown has affected many people regardless of economic status, and similar disruptions abroad, like a London power outage that disrupted routines, show how widespread such challenges can be. The areas without power were as diverse as the wealthy suburbs of Silicon Valley, the old Gold Rush towns of the Sierra Nevada, the East Bay of San Francisco and the seaside city of Arcata.

Ms. Cahn’s cellphone ran out of power during the blackout and even when she managed to recharge it in her car cell service was spotty, as it was in many areas hit by the blackout.

Accustomed to staying warm at night with an electric blanket, Ms. Cahn slept under a stack of four blankets.

“I’m doing what I have to do which is not doing very much,” she said.

Further south in Marin City, Chanay Jackson stood surrounded by fumes from generators still powering parts of the city.

She said that food stamps were issued on the first of the month and that many residents who had to throw away food were out of luck.

“They’re not going to issue more food stamps just because the power went out,” Ms. Jackson said. “So they’re just screwed until next month.”

Strong winds have many times in the past caused power lines to come in contact with vegetation, igniting fires that are then propelled by the gusts, and hurricanes elsewhere have crippled infrastructure with Louisiana grid rebuild after Laura according to state officials. This was the case with the Camp Fire.

Since higher elevations had more extreme winds many of the neighborhoods where power was turned off this week were in hills and canyons, including in the Sierra Nevada.

The shut-off, which by one estimate affected a total of 2.5 million people, has come under strong criticism by residents and politicians, and warnings from Cal ISO about rolling blackouts as the power grid strained. The company’s website crashed just as customers sought information about the outage. Gov. Gavin Newsom called it unacceptable. But his comments were nuanced, criticizing the way the shut-off was handled, not the rationale for it. Mr. Newsom and others said the ravages of the Camp Fire demanded preventive action to prevent a reoccurrence.

Yet the calculus of trying to avoid deadly fires by shutting off power will continue to be debated as California enters its peak wildfire season, even as electricity reliability during COVID-19 was generally maintained for most consumers.

In the city of Grass Valley, Matthew Gottschalk said he and his wife realized that a generator was essential when they calculated that they had around $500 worth of food in their fridge.

“I don’t know what we would have done,” said Mr. Gottschalk, whose power went out Tuesday night.

His neighbors are filling coolers with ice. Everyone is hoping the power will come back on soon.

“Ice is going to run out and gas is going to run out,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Renewables' Impact on US Wholesale Electricity Prices is clear: DOE analysis shows wind and solar, capacity gains, and natural gas lowering rates, shifting daily patterns, and triggering occasional negative pricing in PJM and ERCOT.

Key Points

DOE data show wind and solar lower wholesale prices, reshape price curves, and cause negative pricing in markets.

✅ Natural gas price declines remain the largest driver of cheaper power

✅ Wind and solar shift seasonal and time-of-day price patterns

✅ Negative wholesale prices appear near high wind and solar output

One of the arguments that's consistently been raised against doing anything about climate change is that it will be expensive. On the more extreme end of the spectrum, there have been dire warnings about plunging standards of living due to skyrocketing electricity prices. The plunging cost of renewables like solar cheaper than gas has largely silenced these warnings, but a new report from the Department of Energy suggests that, even earlier, renewables were actually lowering the price of electricity in the United States.

Plunging prices
The report focuses on wholesale electricity prices in the US. Note that these are distinct from the prices consumers actually pay, which includes taxes, fees, payments to support the grid that delivers the electricity, and so on. It's entirely possible for wholesale electricity prices to drop even as consumers end up paying more, and market reforms determine how those changes are passed through. That said, large changes in the wholesale price should ultimately be passed on to consumers to one degree or another.

The Department of Energy analysis focuses on the decade between 2008 and 2017, and it includes an overall analysis of the US market, as well as large individual grids like PJM and ERCOT and, finally, local prices. The decade saw a couple of important trends: low natural gas prices that fostered a rapid expansion of gas-fired generators and the rapid expansion of renewable generation that occurred concurrently with a tremendous drop in price of wind and solar power.

Much of the electricity generated by renewables in this time period would be more expensive than that generated by wind and solar installed today. Not only have prices for the hardware dropped, but the hardware has improved in ways that provide higher capacity factors, meaning that they generate a greater percentage of the maximum capacity. (These changes include things like larger blades on wind turbines and tracking systems for solar panels.) At the same time, operating wind and solar is essentially free once they're installed, so they can always offer a lower price than competing fossil fuel plants.

With those caveats laid out, what does the analysis show? Almost all of the factors influencing the wholesale electricity price considered in this analysis are essentially neutral. Only three factors have pushed the prices higher: the retirement of some plants, the rising price of coal, and prices put on carbon, which only affect some of the regional grids.

In contrast, the drop in the price of natural gas has had a very large effect on the wholesale power price. Depending on the regional grid, it's driven a drop of anywhere from $7 to $53 per megawatt-hour. It's far and away the largest influence on prices over the past decade.

Regional variation and negative prices
But renewables have had an influence as well. That influence has ranged from roughly neutral to a cost reduction of $2.2 per MWh in California, largely driven by solar. While the impact of renewables was relatively minor, it is the second-largest influence after natural gas prices, and the data shows that wind and solar are reducing prices rather than increasing them.

The reports note that renewables are influencing wholesale prices in other ways, however. The growth of wind and solar caused the pattern of seasonal price changes to shift in areas of high wind and solar, as seen with solar reshaping prices in Northern Europe as daylight hours and wind patterns shift with the seasons. Similarly, renewables have a time-of-day effect for similar reasons, helping explain why the grid isn't 100% renewable today, which also influences the daily timing price changes, something that's not an issue with fossil fuel power.

A map showing the areas where wholesale electricity prices have gone negative, with darker colors indicating increased frequency.
Enlarge / A map showing the areas where wholesale electricity prices have gone negative, with darker colors indicating increased frequency.

US DOE
One striking feature of areas where renewable power is prevalent is that there are occasional cases in which an oversupply of renewable energy produces negative electricity prices in the wholesale market. (In the least-surprising statement in the report, it concludes that "negative prices in high-wind and high-solar regions occurred most frequently in hours with high wind and solar output.") In most areas, these negative prices are rare enough that they don't have a significant influence on the wholesale price.

That's not true everywhere, however. Areas on the Great Plains see fairly frequent negative prices, and they're growing in prevalence in areas like California, the Southwest, and the northern areas of New York and New England, while negative prices in France have been observed in similar conditions. In these areas, negative wholesale prices near solar plants have dropped the overall price by 3%. Near wind plants, that figure is 6%.

None of this is meant to indicate that there are no scenarios where expanded renewable energy could eventually cause wholesale prices to rise. At sufficient levels, the need for storage, backup plants, and grid management could potentially offset their low costs, a dynamic sometimes referred to as clean energy's dirty secret by analysts. But it's clear we have not yet reached that point. And if the prices of renewables continue to drop, then that point could potentially recede fast enough not to matter.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News