Regulators open door for Ohio utilities to promote 'green' energy

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

UK low-carbon electricity 2019 saw stalled growth as renewables rose slightly, wind expanded, nuclear output fell, coal hit record lows, and net-zero targets demand faster deployment to cut CO2 intensity below 100gCO2/kWh.

Key Points

Low-carbon sources supplied 54% of UK power in 2019, up just 1TWh; wind grew, nuclear fell, and coal dropped to 2%.

✅ Wind up 8TWh; nuclear down 9TWh amid outages

✅ Fossil fuels 43% of generation; coal at 2%

✅ Net-zero needs 15TWh per year added to 2030

The amount of electricity generated by low-carbon sources in the UK stalled in 2019, Carbon Brief analysis shows.

Low-carbon electricity output from wind, solar, nuclear, hydro and biomass rose by just 1 terawatt hour (TWh, less than 1%) in 2019. It represents the smallest annual increase in a decade, where annual growth averaged 9TWh. This growth will need to double in the 2020s to meet UK climate targets while replacing old nuclear plants as they retire.

Some 54% of UK electricity generation in 2019 came from low-carbon sources, including 37% from renewables and 20% from wind alone, underscoring wind's leading role in the power mix during key periods. A record-low 43% was from fossil fuels, with 41% from gas and just 2% from coal, also a record low. In 2010, fossil fuels generated 75% of the total.

Carbon Brief’s analysis of UK electricity generation in 2019 is based on figures from BM Reports and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). See the methodology at the end for more on how the analysis was conducted.

The numbers differ from those published earlier in January by National Grid, which were for electricity supplied in Great Britain only (England, Wales and Scotland, but excluding Northern Ireland), including via imports from other countries.

Low-carbon low
In 2019, the UK became the first major economy to target net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, increasing the ambition of its legally binding Climate Change Act.

To date, the country has cut its emissions by around two-fifths since 1990, with almost all of its recent progress coming from the electricity sector.

Emissions from electricity generation have fallen rapidly in the decade since 2010 as coal power has been almost phased out and even gas output has declined. Fossil fuels have been displaced by falling demand and by renewables, such as wind, solar and biomass.

But Carbon Brief’s annual analysis of UK electricity generation shows progress stalled in 2019, with the output from low-carbon sources barely increasing compared to a year earlier.

The chart below shows low-carbon generation in each year since 2010 (grey bars) and the estimated level in 2019 (red). The pale grey bars show the estimated future output of existing low-carbon sources after old nuclear plants retire and the pale red bars show the amount of new generation needed to keep electricity sector emissions to less than 100 grammes of CO2 per kilowatt hour (gCO2/kWh), the UK’s nominal target for the sector.

 Annual electricity generation in the UK by fuel, terawatt hours, 2010-2019. Top panel: fuel by fuel. Bottom panel: cumulative total generation from all sources. Source: BEIS energy trends, BM Reports and Carbon Brief analysis. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.
As the chart shows, the UK will require significantly more low-carbon electricity over the next decade as part of meeting its legally binding climate goals.

The nominal 100gCO2/kWh target for 2030 was set in the context of the UK’s less ambitious goal of cutting emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Now that the country is aiming to cut emissions to net-zero by 2050, that 100gCO2/kWh indicator is likely to be the bare minimum.

Even so, it would require a rapid step up in the pace of low-carbon expansion, compared to the increases seen over the past decade. On average, low-carbon generation has risen by 9TWh each year in the decade since 2010 – including a rise of just 1TWh in 2019.

Given scheduled nuclear retirements and rising demand expected by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) – with some electrification of transport and heating – low-carbon generation would need to increase by 15TWh each year until 2030, just to meet the benchmark of 100gCO2/kWh.

For context, the 3.2 gigawatt (GW) Hinkley C new nuclear plant being built in Somerset will generate around 25TWh once completed around 2026. The world’s largest offshore windfarm, the 1.2GW Hornsea One scheme off the Yorkshire coast, will generate around 5TWh each year.

The new Conservative government is targeting 40GW of offshore wind by 2030, up from today’s figure of around 8GW. If policies are put in place to meet this goal, then it could keep power sector emissions below 100gCO2/kWh, depending on the actual performance of the windfarms built.

However, new onshore wind and solar, further new nuclear or other low-carbon generation, such as gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS), is likely to be needed if demand is higher than expected, or if the 100gCO2/kWh benchmark is too weak in the context of net-zero by 2050.

The CCC says it is “likely” to “reflect the need for more rapid deployment” of low-carbon towards net-zero emissions in its advice on the sixth UK carbon budget for 2033-2037, due in September.

Trading places
Looking more closely at UK electricity generation in 2019, Carbon Brief’s analysis shows why there was so little growth for low-carbon sources compared to the previous year.

There was another increase for wind power in 2019 (up 8TWh, 14%), with record wind generation as several large new windfarms were completed including the 1.2GW Hornsea One project in October and the 0.6GW Beatrice offshore windfarm in Q2 of 2019. But this was offset by a decline for nuclear (down 9TWh, 14%), due to ongoing outages for reactors at Hunterston in Scotland and Dungeness in Kent.

(Analysis of data held by trade organisation RenewableUK suggests some 0.6GW of onshore wind capacity also started operating in 2019, including the 0.2GW Dorenell scheme in Moray, Scotland.)

As a result of these movements, the UK’s windfarms overtook nuclear for the first time ever in 2019, becoming the country’s second-largest source of electricity generation, and earlier, wind and solar together surpassed nuclear in the UK as momentum built. This is shown in the figure below, with wind (green line, top panel) trading places with nuclear (purple) and gas (dark blue) down around 25% since 2010 but remaining the single-largest source.

 Annual electricity generation in the UK by fuel, terawatt hours, 2010-2019. Top panel: fuel by fuel. Bottom panel: cumulative total generation from all sources. Source: BEIS energy trends, BM Reports and Carbon Brief analysis. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.
The UK’s currently suspended nuclear plants are due to return to service in January and March, according to operator EDF, the French state-backed utility firm. However, as noted above, most of the UK’s nuclear fleet is set to retire during the 2020s, with only Sizewell B in Suffolk due to still be operating by 2030. Hunterston is scheduled to retire by 2023 and Dungeness by 2028.

Set against these losses, the UK has a pipeline of offshore windfarms, secured via “contracts for difference” with the government, at a series of auctions. The most recent auction, in September 2019, saw prices below £40 per megawatt hour – similar to current wholesale electricity prices.

However, the capacity contracted so far is not sufficient to meet the government’s target of 40GW by 2030, meaning further auctions – or some other policy mechanism – will be required.

Coal zero
As well as the switch between wind and nuclear, 2019 also saw coal fall below solar for the first time across a full year, echoing the 2016 moment when wind outgenerated coal across the UK, after it suffered another 60% reduction in electricity output. Just six coal plants remain in the UK, with Aberthaw B in Wales and Fiddlers Ferry in Cheshire closing in March.

Coal accounted for just 2% of UK generation in 2019, a record-low coal share since centralised electricity supplies started to operate in 1882. The fuel met 40% of UK needs as recently as 2012, but has plummeted thanks to falling demand, rising renewables, cheaper gas and higher CO2 prices.

The reduction in average coal generation hides the fact that the fuel is now often not required at all to meet the UK’s electricity needs. The chart below shows the number of days each year when coal output was zero in 2019 (red line) and the two previous years (blue).

 Cumulative number of days when UK electricity generation from renewable sources has been higher than that from fossil fuels. Source: BEIS energy trends, BM Reports and Carbon Brief analysis. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.
The 83 days in 2019 with zero coal generation amount to nearly a quarter of the year and include the record-breaking 18-day stretch without the fuel.

Great Britain has been running for a record TWO WEEKS without using coal to generate electricity – the first time this has happened since 1882.

The country’s grid has been coal-free for 45% of hours in 2019 so far.https://www.carbonbrief.org/countdown-to-2025-tracking-the-uk-coal-phase-out …

Coal generation was set for significant reductions around the world in 2019 – including a 20% reduction for the EU as a whole – according to analysis published by Carbon Brief in November.

Notably, overall UK electricity generation fell by another 9TWh in 2019 (3%), bringing the total decline to 58TWh since 2010. This is equivalent to more than twice the output from the Hinkley C scheme being built in Somerset. As Carbon Brief explained last year, falling demand has had a similar impact on electricity-sector CO2 emissions as the increase in output from renewables.

This is illustrated by the fact that the 9TWh reduction in overall generation translated into a 9TWh (6%) cut in fossil-fuel generation during 2019, with coal falling by 10TWh and gas rising marginally.

Increasingly renewable
As fossil-fuel output and overall generation have declined, the UK’s renewable sources of electricity have continued to increase. Their output has risen nearly five-fold in the past decade and their share of the UK total has increased from 7% in 2010 to 37% in 2019.

As a result, the UK’s increasingly renewable grid is seeing more minutes, hours and days during which the likes of wind, solar and biomass collectively outpace all fossil fuels put together, and on some days wind is the main source as well.

The chart below shows the number of days during each year when renewables generated more electricity than fossil fuels in 2019 (red line) and each of the previous four years (blue lines). In total, nearly two-fifths of days in 2019 crossed this threshold.

 Cumulative number of days when the UK has not generated any electricity from coal. Source: BEIS energy trends, BM Reports and Carbon Brief analysis. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.
There were also four months in 2019 when renewables generated more of the UK’s electricity than fossil fuels: March, August, September and December. The first ever such month came in September 2018 and more are certain to follow.

National Grid, which manages Great Britain’s high-voltage electricity transmission network, is aiming to be able to run the system without fossil fuels by 2025, at least for short periods. At present, it sometimes has to ask windfarm operators to switch off and gas plants to start running in order to keep the electricity grid stable.

Note that biomass accounted for 11% of UK electricity generation in 2019, nearly a third of the total from all renewables. Some two-thirds of the biomass output is from “plant biomass”, primarily wood pellets burnt at Lynemouth in Northumberland and the Drax plant in Yorkshire. The remainder was from an array of smaller sites based on landfill gas, sewage gas or anaerobic digestion.

The CCC says the UK should “move away” from large-scale biomass power plants, once existing subsidy contracts for Drax and Lynemouth expire in 2027.

Using biomass to generate electricity is not zero-carbon and in some circumstances could lead to higher emissions than from fossil fuels. Moreover, there are more valuable uses for the world’s limited supply of biomass feedstock, the CCC says, including carbon sequestration and hard-to-abate sectors with few alternatives.

Methodology
The figures in the article are from Carbon Brief analysis of data from BEIS Energy Trends chapter 5 and chapter 6, as well as from BM Reports. The figures from BM Reports are for electricity supplied to the grid in Great Britain only and are adjusted to include Northern Ireland.

In Carbon Brief’s analysis, the BM Reports numbers are also adjusted to account for electricity used by power plants on site and for generation by plants not connected to the high-voltage national grid. This includes many onshore windfarms, as well as industrial gas combined heat and power plants and those burning landfill gas, waste or sewage gas.

By design, the Carbon Brief analysis is intended to align as closely as possible to the official government figures on electricity generated in the UK, reported in BEIS Energy Trends table 5.1.

Briefly, the raw data for each fuel is in most cases adjusted with a multiplier, derived from the ratio between the reported BEIS numbers and unadjusted figures for previous quarters.

Carbon Brief’s method of analysis has been verified against published BEIS figures using “hindcasting”. This shows the estimates for total electricity generation from fossil fuels or renewables to have been within ±3% of the BEIS number in each quarter since Q4 2017. (Data before then is not sufficient to carry out the Carbon Brief analysis.)

For example, in the second quarter of 2019, a Carbon Brief hindcast estimates gas generation at 33.1TWh, whereas the published BEIS figure was 34.0TWh. Similarly, it produces an estimate of 27.4TWh for renewables, against a BEIS figure of 27.1TWh.

National Grid recently shared its own analysis for electricity in Great Britain during 2019 via its energy dashboard, which differs from Carbon Brief’s figures.

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

Yukon Electricity Demand Record underscores peak load growth as winter cold snaps drive heating, lighting, and EV charging, blending hydro, LNG, and diesel with renewable energy and planned grid-scale battery storage in Whitehorse.

Key Points

It is the territory's new peak electricity load, reflecting winter demand, electric heating, EVs, and mixed generation.

✅ New peak: 104.42 MW, surpassing 2020 record of 103.84 MW

✅ Winter peaks met with hydro, LNG, diesel, and renewables mix

✅ Customers urged to shift use off peak hours and use timers

A new record for electricity demand has been set in Yukon. The territory recorded a peak of 104.42 megawatts, according to a news release from Yukon Energy.

The new record is about a half a megawatt higher than the previous record of 103.84 megawatts recorded on Jan. 14, 2020.

While in general, over 90 per cent of the electricity generated in Yukon comes from renewable resources each year, with initiatives such as new wind turbines expanding capacity, during periods of high electricity use each winter, Yukon Energy has to use its hydro, liquefied natural gas and diesel resources to generate the electricity, the release says.

But when it comes to setting records, Andrew Hall, CEO of Yukon Energy, says it's not that unusual.

"Typically, during the winter, when the weather is cold, demand for electricity in the Yukon reaches its maximum. And that's because folks use more electricity for heating their homes, for cooking meals, there's more lighting demand, because the days are shorter," he said.

"It usually happens either in December or sometimes in January, when we get a cold snap."

He said generally over the years, electricity demand has grown.

"We get new home construction, construction of new apartment buildings. And typically, those new homes are all heated by electricity, maybe not all of them but the majority," Hall said.

Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation's solar farm now generating electricity
In taking action on climate, this Arctic community wants to be a beacon to the world

Efforts to curb climate change add to electricity demand
There are also other reasons, ones that are "in the name of climate change," Hall added.

That includes people trying to limit fossil fuel heating by swapping to electric heating. And, he said some Yukoners are switching to electric vehicles as incentives expand across the North.

"Over time, those two new demands, in the name of climate change, will also contribute to growing demand for electricity," he said.

While Yukon did reach this new all time high, Hall said the territory still hadn't hit the maximum capacity for the week, which was 118 megawatts, and discussions about a potential connection to the B.C. grid are part of long-term planning.

Yukon Energy's hydroelectric dam in Whitehorse. Yukon Energy's CEO, Andrew Hall, said demand of 104 megawatts wasn't unexpected, nor was it an emergency. The corporation has the ability to generate 118 megawatts. (Paul Tukker/CBC)
Tips to curve demand
"When we plan our system, we actually plan for a scenario, guided by the view that sustainability is key to the grid's future, where we actually lose our largest hydro generating facility," Hall said.

"We had plenty of generation available so it wasn't an emergency situation, and, even as other provinces face electricity shortages, it was more just an observation that hey, our peaks are growing."

He also said it was an opportunity to reach out to customers on ways to curve their demand for electricity around peak times, drawing on energy efficiency insights from other provinces, which is typically between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., and between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m., Monday to Friday.

For example, he said, people should consider running major appliances, like dishwashers, during non-peak hours, such as in the afternoon rather than in the morning or evening.

During winter peaks, people can also use a block heater timer on vehicles and turn down the thermostat by one or two degrees.

'We plan for each winter'
Hall said Yukon Energy is working to increase its peak output, including working on a large grid scale battery to be installed in Whitehorse, similar to Ontario's energy storage push now underway. 

When it comes to any added load from people working from home due to COVID-19, Hall said they haven't noticed any identifiable increase there.

"Presumably, if someone's working from home, you know, their computer is at home, and they're not using the computer at the office," he said.

Yukon Energy one step closer to having largest battery storage site in the North
He said there shouldn't be any concern for maxing out the capacity of electricity demand as Yukon moves into the colder winter months, since those days are forecast for.

"This number of 104 megawatts wasn't unexpected," he said, adding how much electricity is needed depends on the weather too.

"We plan for each winter."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Clean Energy Job Losses highlight COVID-19 impacts on renewable energy, solar, wind, and energy efficiency, with PPP fatigue, unemployment, and calls for Congressional stimulus, per Department of Labor data analyzed by E2.

Key Points

Pandemic-driven layoffs across renewable, solar, wind, and efficiency sectors, risking recovery without federal aid.

✅ Over 620,500 clean energy jobs lost in three months

✅ Energy efficiency, solar, and wind hit hardest nationwide

✅ Industry urges Congress for stimulus, tax credit relief

As Congress this week begins debating economic stimulus support for the energy industry, a new analysis of unemployment data shows the biggest part of America's energy economy - clean energy - lost another 27,000 jobs in May, bringing the total number of clean energy workers who have lost their jobs in the past three months to more than 620,500.

While May saw an improvement in new unemployment claims over March and April, the findings represent the sector's third straight month of significant job losses across solar, wind, energy efficiency, clean vehicles and other industries. With coronavirus cases once again rising in many states and companies beginning to run out of the Payroll Protection Program (PPP) funding that has helped small businesses keep workers employed, and as households confront pandemic power shut-offs that heighten energy insecurity, the report increases concerns the sector will be unable to resume its economy-leading jobs growth in the short- or long-term without a significant policy response.

Given the size and scope of the clean energy industry, such a sustained loss would cast a pall on the nation's overall economic recovery, as shifting electricity demand during COVID-19 complicates forecasts, according to the analysis of the Department of Labor's May unemployment data from E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs), E4TheFuture and the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE).

Prior to COVID-19, clean energy - including energy efficiency, solar and wind generation, clean vehicles and related sectors - was among the U.S. economy's biggest and fastest-growing employment sectors, growing 10.4% since 2015 to nearly 3.4 million jobs at the end of 2019. That made clean energy by far the biggest employer of workers in all energy occupations, employing nearly three times as many people as the fossil fuel industry. For comparison, coal mining employs about 47,000 workers, even as clean energy projects in coal communities aim to revitalize local economies.

The latest monthly analysis for the groups by BW Research Partnership runs contrary to recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports, which indicated that a more robust economic rebound was underway, even as high fuel prices haven't spurred a green shift in adoption, while also acknowledging misclassifications and serious reporting difficulties in its own data.

Bob Keefe, Executive Director at E2, said:

"May's almost 30,000 clean energy jobs loss is sadly an improvement in the rate of jobs shed but make no mistake: There remains huge uncertainty and volatility ahead. It will be very tough for clean energy to make up these continuing job losses without support from Congress. Lawmakers must act now. If they do, we can get hundreds of thousands of these workers back on the job today and build a better, cleaner, more equitable economy for tomorrow. And who doesn't want that?"

Pat Stanton, Policy Director at E4TheFuture, said:

"Most of the time, energy efficiency workers need to go inside homes, businesses and other buildings to get the job done. Since they couldn't do that during COVID lockdowns, they couldn't work. Now states are opening up. But utilities, contractors and building owners need to protect employees and occupants from possible exposure to the virus and need more clarity about potential liabilities."

Gregory Wetstone, President and CEO of ACORE, said:

"In May, we saw thousands of additional renewable energy workers join the ranks of the unemployed, further underscoring the damage COVID-19 is inflicting on our workforce. Since the pandemic began, nearly 100,000 renewable energy workers have lost their jobs. We need help from Congress to get American clean energy workers back to work. With commonsense measures like temporary refundability and a delay in the phasedown of renewable energy tax credits, Congress can help restore these good-paying jobs so the renewable sector can continue to provide the affordable, pollution-free power American consumers and businesses want and deserve."

Phil Jordan, Vice President and Principal at BW Research Partnership, said:

"We understand the challenges and limitations of data collection for BLS in the middle of a global pandemic. But any suggestion that a strong employment rebound is underway in the United States simply is not reflected in the clean energy sector right now. And with PPP expiring, that only increases uncertainty in the months ahead."

The report comes as both the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Energy and Commerce Committee are considering clean energy stimulus to restart the U.S. economy, and amid assessments of mixed results from the climate law shaping expectations, and as lawmakers in both the House and Senate are increasing calls for supporting clean energy workers and businesses, including this bicameral letter signed by 57 members of Congress and another signed today by 180 House members.

Industries Hit Hardest

According to the analysis, energy efficiency lost more jobs than any other clean energy sector for the third consecutive month in May, shedding about 18,900 jobs. These workers include electricians, HVAC technicians who work with high-efficiency systems, and manufacturing employees who make Energy Star appliances, LED lighting systems and efficient building materials.

Renewable energy, including solar and wind, lost nearly 4,300 jobs in May.

Clean grid and storage and clean vehicles manufacturing -- including grid modernization, energy storage, car charging and electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle manufacturing -- lost a combined 3,200 jobs in May, as energy crisis impacts electricity, gas, and EVs in several ways.

The clean fuels sector lost more than 650 jobs in May.

States and Localities Hit Across Country

California continues to be the hardest hit state in terms of total job losses, losing 4,313 jobs in May and more than 109,700 since the COVID-19 crisis began. Florida was the second hardest hit state in May, losing an additional 2,563 clean energy jobs, while Georgia, Texas, Washington, and Michigan all suffered more than 1,000 job losses across the sector. An additional 12 states saw at least 500 clean energy unemployment filings, and reports like Pennsylvania's clean energy jobs analysis provide added context, according to the latest analysis.

For a full breakdown of clean energy job losses in each state, along with a list of the hardest hit counties and metro areas, see the full analysis here.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Electricity Market Reform advances two-way CfDs, PPAs, and fixed-price tariffs to cut volatility, support renewables and nuclear, stabilize investor revenues, and protect consumers from price spikes across wholesale power markets.

Key Points

An EU plan expanding two-way CfDs, PPAs, and fixed-price contracts to curb price swings and support low-carbon power.

✅ Two-way CfDs return excess revenues to consumers

✅ Boosts PPAs and fixed-price retail options

✅ Targets renewables, nuclear; limits fossil exposure

The European Union wants to expand the use of contracts that pay power plants a fixed price for electricity, a draft proposal showed, as part of an electricity market revamp to shield European consumers from big price swings.

The European Commission pledged last year to reform the EU's electricity market rules, after record-high gas prices, caused by cuts to Russian flows, sent power prices soaring, prompting debates over gas price cap strategies in response.

A draft of the EU executive's proposal, seen by Reuters on Tuesday and due to be published on Mar. 16, steered clear of the deep redesign of the electricity market that some member states have called for, even as nine EU countries opposed sweeping reforms as a fix earlier in the crisis, suggesting instead limited changes to nudge countries towards more predictable, fixed-price power contracts.

If EU countries want to support new investments in wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower and nuclear electricity, for example - a point over which France and Germany have wrestled - they should use a two-way contract for difference (CfD) or an equivalent contract, the draft said.

The aim is to provide a stable revenue stream to investors, and help make consumers' energy bills less volatile, even though rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears. Restricting this support to renewable and low-carbon electricity also aims to speed up Europe's shift away from fossil fuels.

Two-way CfDs offer generators a fixed "strike price" for their electricity, regardless of the price in short-term energy markets. If the market price is above the CfD strike price, then the extra revenue the generator receives should be handed out to final electricity consumers, the draft EU document said.

Countries should also make it easier for power buyers to sign power purchase agreements (PPA) - another type of long-term contract to directly buy electricity from a generator.

Governments should also make sure consumers have access to fixed-price electricity contracts - echoing France's new electricity pricing scheme to reassure Brussels - giving them the option to avoid a contract that would expose them to volatile prices swings in energy markets, the draft said.

If European energy prices were to spike to extreme levels again, the Commission suggested allowing national governments to temporarily intervene to fix prices while weighing emergency measures to limit prices where needed, and offer consumers and small businesses a share of their electricity at a lower price.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News