Carbon capture grabs big chunk of budget

Medicine Hat Bitcoin Mining Facility drives massive electricity demand and energy use, leveraging natural gas and nearby wind power; Hut 8 touts economic growth, while critics cite carbon emissions, renewables integration, and climate impact.

Key Points

A Hut 8 project in Alberta that mines bitcoin at scale, consuming up to 60 MW and impacting energy and emissions.

✅ Consumes more than 60 MW, rivaling citywide electricity use

✅ Sited by natural gas plant; wind turbines nearby

✅ Economic gains vs. carbon emissions and climate risks

On the day of the grand opening of the largest bitcoin mining project in the country, the weather was partly cloudy and 15 C. On a Friday afternoon like this one, the new facility uses as much electricity as all of Medicine Hat, Alta., a city of more than 60,000 people and home to several large industrial plants.

The vast amount of electricity needed for bitcoin mining is why the city of Medicine Hat has championed the economic benefits of the project, while environmentalists say they are wary of the significant energy use.

Toronto-based Hut 8 has spent more than $100 million to develop the 4½-hectare site on the northern edge of the city. It has 56 shipping containers, each filled with 180 computer servers that digitally mine for bitcoin around the clock.

The company said it has already mined more than 3,300 bitcoins in Alberta, including at its much smaller site in Drumheller. On average, the Medicine Hat facility mines about 20 bitcoins per day. The value of bitcoin can fluctuate daily, but has sold recently for around $9,000.

The bitcoin mining facility is located right beside the city of Medicine Hat's new natural gas-fired power plant and four wind turbines are a short distance away. The bitcoin plant can consume more than 60 megawatts of power, more than 10 times more electricity used by any other facility in the city, according to the mayor.

That's why, in the event of a summer heat wave, the city has provisions in place to pull the plug on the electricity it provides to Hut 8, mirroring utility pauses on crypto loads seen elsewhere, so there won't be any blackouts for residents, according to the mayor.

Still, some say the bitcoin mining industry wastes far too much energy

"It's a huge magnitude when you talk about the carbon emissions," said Saeed Kaddoura, an analyst with the Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank. "Moving forward, there needs to be some consideration on what the environmental impact of this is."

Medicine Hat owns its own natural gas and electricity generation and distribution businesses. The city leases the land to Hut 8 and the facility employs 40 full-time workers. Add up the economic benefits and the city of Medicine Hat will receive a significant financial boost from the new project, says Ted Clugston, the city's mayor.

Financial details of the city's deal with Hut 8 are not disclosed.

For more than a century, the city has attracted business by offering low-cost energy, and the mayor said this project is no different.

"They could have gone anywhere in the world and they chose Medicine Hat," said Clugston. "[Hut 8] is not here for renewable energy because it is not reliable. They need gas-fired generation and we have it in spades."

Environmental groups are concerned by the sheer amount of energy consumed by bitcoin mining, with some utilities warning they can't serve new energy-intensive customers right now, especially in places like Medicine Hat where most of the electricity is produced by fossil fuels.

The bitcoin system is designed, so only a limited number of the cryptocurrency can be mined everyday. Over time, as more miners compete for a decreasing number of available bitcoins, facilities will have to use more electricity compared to the amount of the cryptocurrency they collect.

"The way the bitcoin algorithm works is that it's designed to waste as much electricity as possible. And the more popular bitcoin becomes, the more electricity it wastes," said Keith Stewart, a spokesperson for Greenpeace.

Stewart questions whether natural gas should be used to produce a digital product.

"If you live in Alberta, you want to have heat and light, those types of things. I don't think bitcoin is a necessity of life for anyone," he said.

The CEO of Hut 8 completely disagrees, arguing the cryptocurrency is essential.  

"Bitcoin was created during the financial crisis. It has really served a purpose in terms of providing the opportunity for people who don't necessarily trust their government or their central banks," said Andrew Kiguel.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. 100% Tariff on Chinese EVs aims to protect domestic manufacturing, counter subsidies, and reshape the EV market, but could raise prices, disrupt supply chains, invite retaliation, and complicate climate policy and trade relations.

Key Points

A 100% import duty on Chinese EVs to boost U.S. manufacturing, counter subsidies, and address supply chain risks.

✅ Protects domestic EV manufacturing and jobs

✅ Counters alleged subsidies and IP concerns

✅ May raise prices, limit choice, trigger retaliation

President Joe Biden's administration recently made headlines with its announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), marking a significant escalation in trade tensions between the two economic powerhouses. The decision, framed as a measure to protect American industries and promote domestic manufacturing, has sparked debates over its potential impact on the EV market, global supply chains, and bilateral relations between the United States and China.

The imposition of a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs reflects the Biden administration's broader efforts to revitalize the American automotive industry and promote the transition to electric vehicles as part of its climate agenda and tighter EPA emissions rules that could accelerate adoption. By imposing tariffs on imported EVs, particularly those from China, the administration aims to incentivize domestic production and create jobs in the growing green economy, and to secure critical EV metals through allied supply efforts. Additionally, the tariff is seen as a response to concerns about unfair trade practices, including intellectual property theft and market distortions, allegedly perpetuated by Chinese companies.

However, the announcement has triggered a range of reactions from various stakeholders, with both proponents and critics offering contrasting perspectives on the potential consequences of such a policy. Proponents argue that the tariff will help level the playing field for American automakers, who face stiff competition from Chinese companies benefiting from government subsidies and lower production costs. They contend that promoting domestic manufacturing of EVs will not only create high-quality jobs but also enhance national security by reducing dependence on foreign supply chains at a time when an EV inflection point is approaching.

On the other hand, critics warn that the 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs could have unintended consequences, including higher prices for consumers, as seen in the UK EV prices and Brexit debate, disruptions to global supply chains, and retaliatory measures from China. Chinese EV manufacturers, such as NIO, BYD, and XPeng, have been gaining momentum in the global market, offering competitive products at relatively affordable prices. The tariff could limit consumer choice at a time when U.S. EV market share dipped in Q1 2024, potentially slowing the adoption of electric vehicles and undermining efforts to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, the tariff announcement comes at a sensitive time for U.S.-China relations, which have been strained by various issues, including trade disputes, human rights concerns, and geopolitical tensions. The imposition of tariffs on Chinese-made EVs could further exacerbate bilateral tensions, potentially leading to retaliatory measures from China and escalating trade frictions. As the world's two largest economies, the United States and China have significant economic interdependencies, and any escalation in trade tensions could have far-reaching implications for global trade and economic stability.

In response to the Biden administration's announcement, Chinese officials have expressed concerns and called for dialogue to resolve trade disputes through negotiation and mutual cooperation. China has also emphasized its commitment to fair trade practices and compliance with international rules and regulations governing trade.

Moving forward, the Biden administration faces the challenge of balancing its domestic priorities with the need to maintain constructive engagement with China and other trading partners, even as EV charging networks scale under its electrification push. While promoting domestic manufacturing and protecting American industries are legitimate policy goals, achieving them without disrupting global trade and undermining diplomatic relations requires careful deliberation and strategic foresight.

In conclusion, President Biden's announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles reflects his administration's commitment to revitalizing American industries and promoting domestic manufacturing. However, the decision has raised concerns about its potential impact on the EV market, global supply chains, and U.S.-China relations. As policymakers navigate these complexities, finding a balance between protecting domestic interests and fostering international cooperation will be crucial to achieving sustainable economic growth and addressing global challenges such as climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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

US Control of Ukraine Nuclear Plants sparks debate over ZNPP, Zaporizhzhia, sovereignty, safety, ownership, and international cooperation, as Washington touts utility expertise, investment, and modernization to protect critical energy infrastructure amid conflict.

Key Points

US management proposal for Ukraine's nuclear assets, notably ZNPP, balancing sovereignty, safety, and investment.

✅ Ukraine retains ownership; any transfer requires parliament approval.

✅ ZNPP safety risks persist amid occupation near active conflict.

✅ International reactions split: sovereignty vs. cooperation and investment.

In a recent phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, U.S. President Donald Trump proposed that the United States take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), which has been under Russian occupation since early in the war and where Russia is reportedly building power lines to reactivate the plant amid ongoing tensions. Trump suggested that American ownership of these plants could be the best protection for their infrastructure, a proposal that has sparked controversy in policy circles, and that the U.S. could assist in running them with its electricity and utility expertise.

Ukrainian Response

President Zelenskyy promptly addressed Trump's proposal, stating that while the conversation focused on the ZNPP, the issue of ownership was not discussed. He emphasized that all of Ukraine's nuclear power plants belong to the Ukrainian people and that any transfer of ownership would require parliamentary approval . Zelenskyy clarified that while the U.S. could invest in and help modernize the ZNPP, ownership would remain with Ukraine.

Security Concerns

The ZNPP, Europe's largest nuclear facility, has been non-operational since its occupation by Russian forces in 2022. The plant's location near active conflict zones raises significant safety risks that the IAEA has warned of in connection with attacks on Ukraine's power grids, and its future remains uncertain. Ukrainian officials have expressed concerns about potential Russian provocations, such as explosions, especially after UN inspectors reported mines at the Zaporizhzhia plant near key facilities, if and when Ukraine attempts to regain control of the plant.

International Reactions

The proposal has elicited mixed reactions both within Ukraine and internationally. Some Ukrainian officials view it as an opportunistic move by the U.S. to gain control over critical infrastructure, while others see it as a potential avenue for modernization and investment, alongside expanding wind power that is harder to destroy in wartime. The international community remains divided on the issue, with some supporting Ukraine's sovereignty over its nuclear assets and others advocating for a possible agreement on power plant attacks to ensure the plant's safety and future operation.

President Trump's proposal to have the U.S. take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has sparked significant controversy. While the U.S. offers expertise and investment, Ukraine maintains that ownership of its nuclear assets is a matter of national sovereignty, even as it has resumed electricity exports to bolster its economy. The situation underscores the complex interplay between security, sovereignty, and international cooperation in conflict zones.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Build Back Better Act Energy Savings curb volatile fossil fuel heating bills by accelerating electrification and renewable electricity, insulating households from natural gas, propane, and oil price spikes while cutting emissions and lowering energy costs.

Key Points

BBBA policies expand clean power and electrification to curb volatility, lower bills, and cut emissions.

✅ Tax credits for renewables, EVs, and efficient all-electric homes

✅ Shields households from natural gas, propane, and heating oil spikes

✅ Cuts methane, lowers bills, and improves grid reliability and jobs

Experts are forecasting serious sticker shock from home heating bills this winter. Nearly 60 percent of United States’ households heat their homes with fossil fuels, including natural gas, propane, or heating oil, and these consumers are expected to spend much more this winter because of fuel price increases.

That could greatly burden many families and businesses already operating on thin margins. Yet homes that use electricity for heating and cooking are largely insulated from the pain of volatile fuel markets, and they’re facing dramatically lower price increases as a result.

Projections say cost increases for households could range anywhere from 22% to 94% more, depending on the fuel used for heating and the severity of the winter temperatures. But the added expenditures for the 41% of U.S. households using electricity for heating are much less stark—these consumers will see only a 6% price increase on average. The projected fossil fuel price spikes are largely due to increased demand, limited supply, declining fuel stores, and shifting investment priorities in the face of climate change.

The fossil fuel industry is already seizing this moment to use high prices to persuade policymakers to vote against clean energy policies, particularly the Build Back Better Act (BBBA). Spokespeople with ties to the fossil fuel industry and some consumer groups are trying to pin higher fuel prices on the proposed legislation even before it has passed, even as analyses show the energy crisis is not spurring a green revolution on its own, let alone begun impacting fuel markets. But the claim the BBBA would cost Americans and the economy is false.

The facts tell a different story. Adopting smart climate policies and accelerating the clean energy transition are precisely the solutions to counter this vicious cycle by ending our dependance on volatile fossil fuels. The BBBA will ensure reliable, affordable clean electricity for millions of Americans, in line with a clean electricity standard many experts advocate—a key strategy for avoiding future vulnerability. Unlike fossil fuels subject to the whims of a global marketplace, wind and sunshine are always free. So renewable-generated electricity comes with an ultra-low fixed price decades into the future.

By expanding clean energy and electric vehicle tax credits, creating new incentives for efficient all-electric homes, and dedicating new funding for state and local programs, the BBBA provides practical solutions that build on lessons from Biden's climate law to protect Americans from price shocks, save consumers money, and reduce emissions fueling dangerous climate change.

What’s really causing the gas price spikes?
The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s winter 2021 energy price forecasts project that homes heated with natural gas, fuel oil, and propane will see average price increases of 30%, 43%, and 54%, respectively. Those who heat their homes with electricity, on the other hand, should expect a modest 6% increase. At the pump, drivers are seeing some of the highest gas prices in nearly a decade as the U.S. energy crisis ripples through electricity, gas, and EV markets today. And the U.S. is not alone. Countries around the globe are experiencing similar price jumps, including Britain's high winter energy costs this season.

A closer look confirms the cause of these high prices is not clean energy or climate policies—it’s fossil fuels themselves.  

First, the U.S. (and the world) are just now feeling the effects of the oil and gas industry’s reduced fuel production and spending due to the pandemic. COVID-19 brought the world’s economies to a screeching halt, and most countries have not returned to pre-COVID economic activity. During the past 20 months, the oil and gas industry curtailed its production to avoid oversupply as demand fell to all-time lows. Just as businesses were reopening, stored fuel was needed to meet high demand for cooling during 2021’s hottest summer on record, driving sky-high summer energy bills for many households. February’s Texas Big Freeze also disrupted gas distribution and production.

The world is moving again and demand for goods and services is rebounding to pre-pandemic levels. But even with higher energy demand, OPEC announced it would not inject more oil into the economy. Major oil companies have also held oil and gas spending flat in 2021, with their share of overall upstream spending at 25%, compared with nearly 40% in the mid-2010s. And as climate change threats loom in the financial world, investors are reducing their exposure to the risks of stranded assets, increasingly diversifying and divesting from fossil fuels. 

Second, despite strong and sustained growth for renewable energy, energy storage, and electric vehicles, the relatively slow pace to adopt fossil fuel alternatives at scale has left U.S. households and businesses tethered to an industry well-known for price volatility. Today, some oil drillers are using profits from higher gas prices to pay back debt and reward shareholders as demanded by investors, instead of increasing supply. Rising prices for a limited commodity in high demand is generating huge profits for many of the world’s largest companies at the expense of U.S. households.

Because 48% of homes use fossil gas for heating and another 10% heat with propane and fuel oil, more than half of U.S. households will feel the impact of rising prices on their home energy bills. One in four U.S. households continues to experience a high energy burden (meaning their energy expenses consume an inordinate amount of their income), including risks of pandemic power shut-offs that deepen energy insecurity, and many are still experiencing financial hardships exacerbated by the pandemic. Those with inefficient fossil-fueled appliances, homes, and cars will be hardest hit, and many families with fixed- and lower-incomes could be forced to choose between heat or other necessities.

We have the solutions—the BBBA will unlock their benefits for all households

Short-term band-aids may be enticing, but long-term policies are the only way out of this negative feedback loop. Clean energy and building electrification will prevent more costly disasters in the future, but they’re the very solutions the fossil fuel industry fights at every turn. All-electric homes and vehicles are a natural hedge against the price spikes we’re experiencing today since renewables are inherently devoid of fuel-related price fluctuations.

RMI analysis shows all-electric single-family homes in all regions of the country have lower energy bills than a comparable mixed fuel-homes (i.e., electricity and gas). Electric vehicles also save consumers money. Research from University of California, Berkeley and Energy Innovation found consumers could save a total of $2.7 trillion in 2050—or $1,000 per year, per household for the next 30 years—if we accelerate electric vehicle deployment in the coming decade.

The BBBA would help deliver these consumer savings by expanding and expediting clean energy, while ensuring equitable adoption among lower-income households and underserved communities. Extending and expanding clean energy tax credits; new incentives for electric vehicles (including used electric vehicles); and new incentives for energy efficient homes and all-electric appliances (and electrical upgrades) will reduce up-front costs and spur widespread adoption of all-electric homes, buildings, and cars.

A combination of grants, incentives, and programs will promote private sector investments in a decarbonized economy, while also funding and supporting state and local governments already leading the way. The BBBA also allocates dedicated funding and makes important modifications (such as higher rebate amounts and greater point-of-purchase availability) to ensure these technologies are available to low-income households, underserved urban and rural communities, tribes, frontline communities, and people living in multifamily housing.

Finally, the BBBA proposes to make oil and gas polluters pay for the harm they are causing to people’s health and the climate through a methane fee. This fee would cost companies less than 1% of their revenue, meaning the industry would retain over 99% of its profits. In return return we’d see substantial reductions of a powerful greenhouse gas and a healthier environment in communities living near fossil fuel production. These benefits also come with a stronger economy—Energy Innovation analysis shows the methane fee would create more than 70,000 jobs by 2050 and boost gross domestic product more than $250 billion from 2023 to 2050.

The facts speak for themselves. Gas prices are rising because of reasons totally unrelated to smart climate and clean energy policies, which research shows actually lower costs. For the first time in more than a decade, America has the opportunity to enact a comprehensive energy policy that will yield measurable savings to consumers and free us from oil and gas industry control over our wallets.

The BBBA will help the U.S. get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and achieve a stable energy future, ensuring that today’s price spikes will be a thing of the past. Proving, once and for all, that the solution to our fossil fuel woes is not more fossil fuels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Electricity Relief outlines an extended disconnect moratorium, potential time-of-use price changes, and Ontario Energy Board oversight to support residential customers facing COVID-19 hardship and bill payment challenges during the emergency in Ontario.

Key Points

Plan to extend disconnect moratorium and weigh time-of-use price relief for residential customers during COVID-19.

✅ Extends winter disconnect ban by 3 months

✅ Considers time-of-use price adjustments

✅ Requires Ontario Energy Board approval

The Ontario government is preparing to announce electricity relief for residential electricity users struggling because of the COVID-19 emergency, according to sources.

Sources close to those discussions say a decision has been made to lengthen the existing five-month disconnect moratorium by an additional three months.

Separately, Hydro One's relief fund has offered support to its customers during the pandemic.

News releases about the moratorium extension are currently being drafted and are expected to be released shortly, as the pandemic has reduced electricity usage across Ontario.

Electricity utilities in Ontario are currently prohibited from disconnecting residential customers for non-payment during the winter ban period from November 15 to April 30.

The province is also looking at providing further relief by adjusting time-of-use prices, such as off-peak electricity rates, which are designed to encourage shifting of energy use away from periods of high total consumption to periods of low demand.

For businesses, the province has provided stable electricity pricing to support industrial and commercial operations.

But that would require Ontario Energy Board approval and no decision has been finalized, our sources advise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News