'Demand fee' may seem unfair, but it's PUC-approved

Power plant staff sequestration isolates essential operators on-site at plants and control centers, safeguarding critical infrastructure and grid reliability during the COVID-19 pandemic under DHS CISA guidance, with social distancing, offset shifts, and stockpiled supplies.

Key Points

A protocol isolating essential grid workers on-site to maintain operations at plants and control centers.

✅ Ensures grid reliability and continuity of critical infrastructure

✅ Implements social distancing, offset shifts, and isolation protocols

✅ Stockpiles food, beds, PPE, and sanitation for essential crews

The U.S. electric industry may ask essential staff to live on site at power plants and control centers to keep operations running if the coronavirus outbreak worsens, after a U.S. grid warning from the overseer, and has been stockpiling beds, blankets, and food for them, according to industry trade groups and electric cooperatives.

The contingency plans, if enacted, would mark an unprecedented step by power providers to keep their highly-skilled workers healthy as both private industry and governments scramble to minimize the impact of the global pandemic that has infected more than 227,000 people worldwide, with some utilities such as BC Hydro at Site C reporting COVID-19 updates as the situation evolves.

“The focus needs to be on things that keep the lights on and the gas flowing,” said Scott Aaronson, vice president of security and preparedness at the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the nation’s biggest power industry association. He said that some “companies are already either sequestering a healthy group of their essential employees or are considering doing that and are identifying appropriate protocols to do that.”

Maria Korsnick, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said that some of the nation’s nearly 60 nuclear power plants are also “considering measures to isolate a core group to run the plant, stockpiling ready-to-eat meals and disposable tableware, laundry supplies and personal care items.”

Neither group identified specific companies, though nuclear worker concerns have been raised in some cases.

Electric power plants, oil and gas infrastructure and nuclear reactors are considered “critical infrastructure” by the federal government, and utilities continue to emphasize safety near downed lines even during emergencies. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is charged with coordinating plans to keep them operational during an emergency.

A DHS spokesperson said that its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency had issued guidance to local governments and businesses on Thursday asking them to implement policies to protect their critical staff from the virus, even as an EPA telework policy emerged during the pandemic.

“When continuous remote work is not possible, businesses should enlist strategies to reduce the likelihood of spreading the disease,” the guidance stated. “This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, separating staff by off-setting shift hours or days and/or social distancing.”

Public health officials have urged the public to practice social distancing as a preventative measure to slow the spread of the virus, and as more people work from home, rising residential electricity use is being observed alongside daily routines. If workers who are deemed essential still leave, go to work and return to their homes, it puts the people they live with at risk of exposure. 

California has imposed a statewide shutdown, asking all citizens who do not work in those critical infrastructure industries not to leave their homes, a shift that may raise household electricity bills for consumers. Similar actions have been put in place in cities across America.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Alberta Energy-Only Electricity Market faces capacity market debate, AESO price cap review, and coal-to-gas shifts by TransAlta and Capital Power, balancing reliability with volatility as investment signals evolve across Alberta's grid.

Key Points

An energy market paying generators only for electricity sold, with AESO oversight and a price cap guiding new capacity.

✅ AESO reviewing $999 per MW-h wholesale price cap.

✅ UCP retained energy-only; capacity market plan cancelled.

✅ TransAlta and Capital Power shift to coal-to-gas.

The Kenney government’s decision to cancel the redesign of Alberta’s electricity system to a capacity market won’t side-track two of the province’s largest power generators from converting coal-fired facilities to burn natural gas as part of Alberta’s shift from coal to cleaner energy overall.

But other changes could be coming to the province’s existing energy-only electricity market — including the alteration of the $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) wholesale price cap in Alberta.

The heads of TransAlta Corp. and Capital Power Corp. are proceeding with strategies to convert existing coal-fired power generating facilities to use natural gas in the coming years.

Calgary-based TransAlta first announced in 2017 that it would make the switch, as the NDP government was in the midst of overhauling the electricity sector and wind generation began to outpace coal in the province.

At the time, the Notley government planned to phase out coal-fired power by 2030, even as Alberta moved to retire coal by 2023 in practice, and shift Alberta into an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Such a move, made on the recommendation of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), was intended to reduce price volatility and ensure system reliability.

Under the energy-only market, generators receive payments for electricity produced and sold into the grid. In a capacity market, generators are also paid for having power available on demand, regardless of how often they sell energy into the provincial grid.

The UCP government decided last month to ditch plans for a capacity market after consulting with the sector, saying it would be better for consumers.

On a conference call, TransAlta CEO Dawn Farrell said the company will convert coal-fired generating plants to burn gas, although it may alter the mix between simple conversions and switching to so-called “hybrid” plants.

(A hybrid conversion is a larger and more-expensive switch, as it includes installing a new gas turbine and heat-recovery steam generator, but it creates a highly efficient combined cycle unit.)

“Our view is fundamentally that carbon will be priced over the next 20 years no matter what,” she said Friday.

“We cannot get off coal fast enough in this company, and gas right now in Alberta is extremely inexpensive…

“So our coal-to-gas strategy is completely predicated on our belief that it’s not smart to be in carbon-intensive fuels for the future.”

Elsewhere in Canada, the Stop the Shock campaign has advocated for reviving coal power, underscoring ongoing policy debates.

The company said it’s planning the coal-to-gas conversion and re-powering of some or all of the units at its Keephills and Sundance facilities to gas-fired generation sometime between 2020 and 2023.

Similarly, Capital Power CEO Brian Vaasjo said the Edmonton-based company is moving ahead with a project that will allow it to burn both coal and natural gas at its Genesee generating station, even as Ontario’s energy minister sought to explore a halt to natural gas generation elsewhere.

In June, the company announced it would spend an estimated $50 million between 2019 and 2021 to allow it to use gas at the facility.

“What we’re doing is going to be dual fuel, so we will be able to operate 100 per cent natural gas or 100 per cent coal and everything in between,” Vaasjo said in an interview.

“You can expect to see we will be burning coal in the winter when natural gas prices are high, and we will be burning natural gas in summer when gas prices are real low.”

The transition comes as the government’s decision to stick with the energy-only market has been welcomed by players in the industry, and as Alberta's electricity future increasingly leans on wind resources.

A study by electricity consultancy EDC Associates found the capacity market would result in consumers paying an extra $1.4 billion in direct costs in 2021-22, as it required more generation to come online earlier than expected.

These additional costs would have accumulated to $10 billion by 2030, said EDC chief executive Duane-Reid Carlson.

For Capital Power, the decision to stick with the current system makes the province more investable in the future. Vaasjo said there was great uncertainty about the transition to a capacity market, and the possibility of rules shifting further.

Officials with Enmax Corp. said the city-owned utility would not have invested in future generation under the proposed capacity market.

“There is no short-term need (today) for new generation, so we’re just looking at the market and saying, ‘OK, as it evolves, we will see what happens,’” said Enmax vice-president Tim Boston.

Sticking with the energy-only market doesn’t mean Alberta will keep the existing rules.

In a July 25 letter, Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage directed AESO chair Will Bridge to examine if changes to the existing market are needed and report back by July 2020.

AESO, which manages the power grid, has been asked to investigate whether the current price cap of $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) should be changed.

The price ceiling hasn’t been altered since the energy-only market was implemented by the Klein government about two decades ago.

While allowing prices to go higher would increase volatility, reflecting lessons from Europe’s power crisis about scarcity pricing, during periods of rising demand and limited supply, it would send a signal to generators when investment in new generation is required, said Kent Fellows, a research associate at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“Keeping the price (cap) too low could end up costing us more in the long run,” he said.

In a 2016 report, AESO said the province examined raising the price cap to $5,000 per MW-h, but “determined that it was unlikely to be successful in attracting investment due to increased price volatility.”

However, the amount of future generation that will be required in Alberta has been scaled back by the province.

In the United States, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) allows wholesale power prices in the state to climb to a cap of $9,000 per megawatt hours as demand rises — as it did Tuesday in the midst of a heat wave, according to Bloomberg.

Jim Wachowich, legal counsel for the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta, said while few players are exposed to spot electricity prices, he has yet to be convinced raising the cap would be good for Albertans.

“Someone has to show me the evidence, and I suspect that’s what the minister has asked the AESO to do,” he said.

Generators say they believe some tinkering is needed to the energy-only market to ensure new generation is built when it’s required.

“The No. 1 change that the government has to … think about is in pricing,” added Farrell.

“If you don’t have enough of a price signal in an energy-only market to attract new capital, you won’t get new capital — and you’ll run up against the wall.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Manitoba Hydro 3.5 Percent Rate Increase proposes a smaller electricity rate hike under Public Utilities Board oversight to bolster financial reserves, address debt and Bipole III costs, amid shifting export sales and water flow conditions.

Key Points

It is Manitoba Hydro's proposed 3.5% electricity rate hike for 2019-20 to shore up finances under PUB oversight.

✅ PUB review sought without lengthy hearing

✅ Revenue boost forecast at 59 million dollars

✅ Natural gas rates flat; class shifts adjust bills

Manitoba Hydro is scaling back its rate hike request for next year, instead of the annual 7.9 per cent hikes the Crown corporation previously said it would need until 2023-24 to address debt. 

Hydro is asking the Public Utilities Board for a 3.5 per cent rate increase next year, which would take effect on April 1.

In last week's application, Hydro said its new board is reviewing the corporation's financial picture. Once that is complete, the utility expects to submit a new multi-year rate plan in late 2019 that addresses the organization's long-term future.

"It's too speculative at this point to discuss any possible future rate increases," spokesperson Bruce Owen said in an email.

The proposed increase next year is similar to other jurisdictions and nearly in line with the Public Utilities Board's decision to allow an average 3.6 per cent jump in electricity rates in 2018-19, which began this summer.

"The requested 3.5 per cent rate increase … generates a modest level of net income under average water flow conditions that will assist in gradually building the revenue base and reduce the risk of the corporation incurring a loss" in 2019-20, the rate application said.

If approved, consumers would face their second rate increase from Hydro in under a year.

Crown Services Minister Colleen Mayer said she's sympathetic to customers bracing for another rate increase amid NL rate hike concerns that far exceeds the rate of inflation.

"I hear that, very clearly," she said. "The NDP left us with an insurmountable problem — we're trying to fix that."

Hydro goes to court over special rate class for First Nations residents in Manitoba

National Energy Board OK's Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project

Next year's rate increase is projected to bring in $59 million of revenue, boosting the Crown corporation's financial reserves by $31 million.

Without it, the utility would deal with a net loss, it said.

This time, Hydro officials are asking PUB to forgo a rate hearing, suggesting neither itself nor the board has the resources for a lengthy six- to nine-month process to review an application where not much has changed financially and would generate a "minimum level of net income," Hydro said in a letter to the board.

The short-term rate relief, the letter recommends, should be "awarded in a timely and cost-effective manner, recognizing that the corporation's long-term financial forecasts will be finalized and available for review" in late 2019.

Hydro's net income next year will be lower than projected, the rate application said, due to a reduction in export sales and increases in depreciation and financing costs from Bipole III.

"Even though they had a total implosion of their previous board, on this very issue, they haven't learned lessons and they continue to be cheerleaders for these rapid rate increases," Kinew said, referring to the exodus of every board member but one earlier this year.

Manitoba Hydro's burgeoning debt surpasses $19 billion

On natural gas, Manitoba Hydro is asking PUB for no rate increase for the next two years.

There will, however, be some changes in rates in different customer classes, Owen said, resulting in modest rate reductions for mainly residential customers and increases for customers who use a lot of natural gas.

The corporation also wants to stop collecting fees to support the furnace replacement program. The initiative will continue with existing fees.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro COVID-19 Site C updates detail monitoring, self-isolation at the work camp, Northern Health coordination, social distancing, reduced staffing, progress on diversion tunnels, Highway 29 realignment, and public reports to Peace River Regional District.

Key Points

Regular reports on COVID-19 monitoring, isolation protocols, staffing, and Site C work with Northern Health.

✅ Daily updates to Peace River Regional District

✅ Isolation rooms reserved in camp dorms

✅ Construction continues with social distancing

BC Hydro says it will begin giving regular updates to the public and the Peace River Regional District about its monitoring of the coronavirus COVID-19 at Site C, reflecting broader industry alerts such as a U.S. grid warning on pandemic risks.

BC Hydro met with the Peace River Regional District Sunday via phone call to discuss the forthcoming measures.

"We did a make a commitment to provide regular updates to Peace River Regional District member communities on an ongoing basis," said spokesman Dave Conway.

"(It's) certainly one of the things that we heard that they want and we heard that strongly and repeatedly."

Conway said updates could be posted as early as Monday on BC Hydro's website for the project.

As of March 23, there were sixteen people in self-isolation at the work camp just outside Fort St. John. Conway did not know how many of the workers have been tested for the virus, but said there are no confirmed cases on site. Provincial guidelines are being followed, he said.

"If they show any of the following symptoms, so sneezing, sore throat, muscle aches, headaches, coughs, or difficulty breathing, they're isolated for 14 days," Conway said.

"We're being very cautious of our application of the guidelines. We're asking anybody to self isolate if they have any slight symptoms."

BC Hydro has set aside one 30-room dorm at the camp for workers who need to isolate themselves, similar to measures in other jurisdictions where the power industry may house staff on-site to maintain operations, and has another four dorms with another 120 rooms that can be used as necessary. Conway could not immediately say whether additional rooms at hotels or at its apartment block have also been reserved.

There have been  700 workers home since a scale-back in construction was announced on March 18, and more workers are expected to be sent home this week. There were 940 people in camp on March 23, Conway said.

"To put that into perspective, the number of people staying in camp at this time of year, based on previous years, usually averages around 1,700," Conway said.

Brad Sperling, board chair for the Peace River Regional District, said BC Hydro has committed to formulating a strategy over the next few days to keep local government and public informed.

Electoral director Karen Goodings said she was pleased by that, and that it's important to everyone that BC Hydro works with Northern Health and adheres to provincial guidelines.

"The senior governments are critical to what measures will be undertaken not only on the project, including the camp, but also on the rules around transportation of workers and on addressing workplace conduct investigations at other utilities," Goodings wrote in an email.

On Sunday, the Site C leisure bus was seen at Totem Mall with two passengers on board.

Conway said the ongoing use of the shuttle is being monitored and evaluated, and is operating under social distancing and extra cleaning guidelines aligned with public transportation changes that have come under BC Transit.

The bus makes 10 trips per day from the camp, with an average of two passengers per trip, Conway said.

"We still have, of course, people in camp, and it's an opportunity for guests to get out and go for a walk and re-provision themselves for essentials for personal needs," Conway said.

Construction of the river diversion tunnels continues to meet a fall deadline, while work also carries on to realign Highway 29, build the transmission line, and clear the valley and future reservoir. Other site security and environmental monitoring work also continues, as utilities confront a dangerous dam-climbing trend driven by social media.

BC Hydro has said measures have been put into place, amid concerns similar to those voiced by nuclear plant workers about precautions at industrial sites, to minimize the potential spread of the COVID-19 on site, such as closing the camp gym and theatre, eliminating self serve dining stations, as well as non-essential travel, tours, and meetings.

Some workers, however, have raised worries about the tight working conditions on site, noting field safety incidents that highlight risks in the sector.

The province announced Monday 48 new cases in B.C., including one more in the Northern Health region, bringing the region's total to five, while Saskatchewan's numbers show how the crisis has reshaped that province. Their precise whereabouts are not being reported by B.C. public health officials.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety 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

Nalcor Energy Pandemic Loss underscores Muskrat Falls delays, hydroelectric risks, oil price shocks, and COVID-19 impacts, affecting ratepayers, provincial debt, timelines, and software commissioning for the Churchill River project and Atlantic Canada subsea transmission.

Key Points

A $171M Q1 2020 downturn linked to COVID-19, oil price collapse, and Muskrat Falls delays impacting schedules and costs.

✅ Q1 2020 profit swing: +$92M to -$171M amid oil price crash

✅ Muskrat Falls timeline slips; cost may reach $13.1B

✅ Software, workforce, COVID-19 constraints slow commissioning

Newfoundland and Labrador's Crown energy corporation reported a pandemic-related profit loss from the first quarter of 2020 on Tuesday, along with further complications to the beleaguered Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.

Nalcor Energy recorded a profit loss of $171 million in the first quarter of 2020, down from a $92 million profit in the same period last year, due in part to falling oil prices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The company released its financial statements for 2019 and the first quarter of 2020 on Tuesday, and officials discussed the numbers in a livestreamed presentation that detailed the impact of the global health crisis on the company's operations.

The loss in the first quarter was caused by lower profits from electricity sales and a drop in oil prices due to the pandemic and other global events, company officials said.

The novel coronavirus also added to the troubles plaguing the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam on Labrador's Churchill River, amid Quebec-N.L. energy tensions that long predate the pandemic.

Work at the remote site stopped in March over concerns about spreading the virus. Operations have been resuming slowly, with a reduced workforce tackling the remaining jobs.

Officials with Nalcor said it will likely be another year before the megaproject is complete.

CEO Stan Marshall estimates the months of delays could bring the total cost to $13.1 billion including financing, up from the previous estimate of $12.7 billion -- though the total impact of the coronavirus on the project's price tag has yet to be determined.

"If we're going to shut down again, all of that's wrong," Marshall said. "But otherwise, we can just carry on and we'll have a good idea of the productivity level. I'm hoping that by September we'll have a more definitive number here."

The 824 megawatt hydroelectric dam will eventually send power to Newfoundland, and later Nova Scotia, through subsea cables, even as Nova Scotia boosts wind and solar in its energy mix.

It has seen costs essentially double since it was approved in 2012, and faced significant delays even before pandemic-forced shutdowns in North America and around the world this spring.

Cost and schedule overruns were the subject of a sweeping inquiry that held hearings last year, while broader generation choices like biomass use have drawn scrutiny as well.

The commissioner's report faulted previous governments for failing to protect residents by proceeding with the project no matter what, and for placing trust in Nalcor executives who "frequently" concealed information about schedule, cost and related risks.

Some of the latest delays have come from challenges with the development of software required to run the transmission link between Labrador and Newfoundland, where winter reliability issues have been flagged in reports.

The software is still being worked out, Marshall said Tuesday, and the four units at the dam will come online gradually over the next year.

"It's not an all or nothing thing," Marshall said of the final work stages.
Nalcor's financial snapshot follows a bleak fiscal update from the province this month. The Liberal government reported a net debt of $14.2 billion and a deficit of more than $1.1 billion, even as a recent Churchill Falls deal promised new revenues for the province, citing challenges from pandemic-related closures and oil production shutdowns.

Finance Minister Tom Osborne said at the time that help from Ottawa will be necessary to get the province's finances back on track.

Muskrat Falls represents about one-third of the province's debt, and is set to produce more power than the province of about half a million people requires. Anticipated rate increases due to the ballooning costs and questions about Muskrat Falls benefits have posed a significant political challenge for the provincial government.

Ottawa has agreed to work with Newfoundland and Labrador on a rewrite of the project's financial structure, scrapping the format agreed upon in past federal-provincial loan agreements in order to ease the burden on ratepayers, while some argue independent planning would better safeguard ratepayers.

Marshall, a former Fortis CEO who was brought in to lead Nalcor in 2016, has called the project a "boondoggle" and committed to seeing it completed within four years. Though that plan has been disrupted by the pandemic, Marshall said the end is in sight.

"I'm looking forward to a year from now. And I hope to be gone," Marshall said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News