PSEG selling Indiana plant at a loss

UK Energy Price Cap drives household electricity bills and gas prices, as Ofgem adjusts unit rates amid natural gas shortages, Russia-Ukraine disruptions, inflation, recession risks, and limited storage; government support offers only short-term relief.

Key Points

The UK Energy Price Cap limits per-unit gas and electricity charges set by suppliers and adjusted by Ofgem.

✅ Reflects wholesale natural gas costs; varies quarterly

✅ Protects consumers from sudden electricity and heating bill spikes

✅ Does not cap total annual spend; usage still determines bills

The government organization that controls the cost of energy in Great Britain recently increased what is known as a price cap on household energy bills. The price cap is the highest amount that gas suppliers can charge for a unit of energy.

The new, higher cost has people concerned that they may not be able to pay for their gas and electricity this winter. Some might pay as much as $4,188 for energy next year. Earlier this year, the price cap was at $2,320, and a 16% decrease in bills is anticipated in April.

Why such a change?

Oil and gas prices around the world have been increasing since 2021 as economies started up again after the coronavirus pandemic. More business activities required more fuel.

Then, Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, creating a new energy crisis. Russia limited the amount of natural gas it sent to European countries that needed it to power factories, produce electricity and keep homes warm.

Some energy companies are charging more because they are worried that Russia might completely stop sending gas to European countries. And in Britain, prices are up because the country does not produce much gas or have a good way to store it. As a result, Britain must purchase gas often in a market where prices are high, and ministers have discussed ending the gas-electricity price link to ease bills.

Citibank, a U.S. financial company, believes the higher energy prices will cause inflation in Britain to reach 18 percent in 2023, while EU energy inflation has also been driven higher by energy costs this year. And the Bank of England says an economic slowdown known as a recession will start later this year.

Public health and private aid organizations worry that high energy prices will cause a “catastrophe” as Britons choose between keeping their homes warm and eating enough food.

What can government do?

As prices rise, the British government plans to give people between $450 and $1,400 to help pay for energy costs, while some British MPs push to further restrict the price charged for gas and electricity. But the help is seen by many as not enough.

If the government approves more money for fuel, it will probably not come until September, as the energy security bill moves toward becoming law. That is the time the Conservative Party will select a new leader to replace Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

The Labour Party says the government should increase the amount it provides for people to pay for fuel by raising taxes on energy companies. However, the two politicians who are trying to become the next Prime Minister do not seem to support that idea.

Giovanna Speciale leads an organization called the Southeast London Community Energy group. It helps people pay their bills. She said the money will help but it is only a short-term solution to a bigger problem with Britain’s energy system. Because the system is privately run, she said, “there’s very little that the government can do to intervene in this.”

Other European countries are seeing higher energy costs, but not as high, and at the EU level, gas price cap strategies have been outlined to tackle volatility. In France, gas prices are capped at 2021 levels. In Germany, prices are up by 38 percent since last year. However, the government is reducing some taxes, which will make it easier for the average person to buy gas. In Italy, prices are going up, but the government recently approved over $8 billion to help people pay their energy bills.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alliant Energy Net-Zero Carbon Plan outlines carbon-neutral electricity by 2050, coal retirements by 2040, major solar and wind additions, gas transition, battery storage, hydrogen, and carbon credits to reduce emissions and lower customer costs.

Key Points

Alliant Energy's strategy to reach carbon-neutral power by 2050 via coal phaseout, renewables, storage, and offsets.

✅ Targets net-zero electricity by 2050

✅ Retires all coal by 2040; expands solar and wind

✅ Uses storage, hydrogen, and offsets to bridge gaps

Alliant Energy has joined a small but growing group of utilities aiming for carbon-neutral electricity by 2050.

In a report released Wednesday, the Madison-based company announced a goal of “net-zero carbon dioxide emissions” from its electricity generation along with plans to eliminate all coal-powered generation by 2040, a decade earlier than the company’s previous target.

Alliant, which is pursuing plans that would make it the largest solar energy generator in Wisconsin, said it is on track to cut its 2005 carbon emissions in half by 2030.

Both goals are in line with targets an international group of scientists warn is necessary to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. But reducing greenhouse gasses was not the primary motivation, said executive vice president and general counsel Jim Gallegos.

“The primary driver is focused on our customers and communities and setting them up … to be competitive,” Gallegos said. “We do think renewables are going to do it better than fossil fuels.”

Alliant has told regulators it can save customers up to $6.5 billion over the next 35 years by adding more than 1,600 megawatts of renewable generation, closing one of its two remaining Wisconsin coal plants and taking other undisclosed actions.

In a statement, Alliant chairman and CEO John Larsen said the goal is part of broader corporate and social responsibility efforts “guided by our strategy and designed to deliver on our purpose — to serve customers and build stronger communities.”

Coal out; gas remains
The goal applies only to Alliant’s electricity generation — the company has no plans to stop distributing natural gas for heating — and is “net-zero,” meaning the company could use some form of carbon capture or purchase carbon credits to offset continuing emissions.

The plan relies heavily on renewable generation — seen in regions embracing clean power across North America — including the addition of up to 1,000 megawatts of new Wisconsin solar plants by the end of 2023 and 1,000 megawatts of Iowa wind generation added over the past four years — as well as natural gas generators to replace its aging coal fleet.

But Jeff Hanson, Alliant’s director of sustainability, said eliminating or offsetting all carbon emissions will require new tools, such as battery storage or possibly carbon-free fuels such as hydrogen, and awareness of the Three Mile Island debate over the role of nuclear power in the mix.

“Getting to the 2040 goals, that’s all based on the technologies of today,” Hanson said. “Can we get to net zero today? The challenge would be a pretty high bar to clear.”

Gallegos said the plan does not call for the construction of more large-scale natural gas generators like the recently completed $700 million West Riverside Energy Center in Beloit, though natural gas will remain a key piece of Alliant’s generation portfolio.

Alliant announced plans in May to close its 400-megawatt Edgewater plant in Sheboygan by the end of 2022, echoing how Alberta is retiring coal by 2023 as markets shift, but has not provided a date for the shutdown of the jointly owned 1,100-megawatt Columbia Energy Center near Portage, which received about $1 billion worth of pollution-control upgrades in the past decade.

Alliant’s Iowa subsidiary plans to convert its 52-year-old, 200-megawatt Burlington plant to natural gas by the end of next year and a pair of small coal-fired generators in Linn County by 2025. That leaves the 250-megawatt plant in Lansing, which is now 43 years old, and the 734-megawatt Ottumwa plant as the remaining coal-fired generators, even as others keep a U.S. coal plant running indefinitely elsewhere.

Earlier this year, the utility asked regulators to approve a roughly $900 million investment in six solar farms across the state with a total capacity of 675 megawatts, similar to plans in Ontario to seek new wind and solar to address supply needs. The company plans to apply next year for permission to add up to 325 additional megawatts.

Alliant said the carbon-neutral plan, which entails closing Edgewater along with other undisclosed actions, would save customers between $2 billion and $6.5 billion through 2055 compared to the status quo.

Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, said the consumer advocacy group wants to ensure that ratepayers aren’t forced to continue paying for coal plants that are no longer needed while also paying for new energy sources and would like to see a bigger role for energy efficiency and more transparency about the utilities’ pathways to decarbonization.

‘They could do better’
Environmental groups said the announcement is a step in the right direction, though they say utilities need to do even more to protect the environment and consumers.

Amid competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable energy and pressure from environmentally conscious investors, U.S. utilities have been closing coal plants at a record pace in recent years, as industry CEOs say a coal comeback is unlikely in the U.S., a trend that is expected to continue through the next decade.

“This is not industry leadership when we’re talking about emission reductions,” said Elizabeth Katt Reinders, regional campaign director for the Sierra Club, which has called on Alliant to retire the Columbia plant by 2026.

Closing Edgewater and Columbia would get Alliant nearly halfway to its emissions goals while saving customers more than $250 million over the next decade, according to a Sierra Club study released earlier this year.

“Retiring Edgewater was a really good decision. Investing in 1,000 megawatts of new solar is game-changing for Wisconsin,” Katt Reinders said. “In the same breath we can say this emissions reduction goal is unambitious. Our analysis has shown they can do far more far sooner.”

Scott Blankman, a former Alliant executive who now works as director of energy and air programs for Clean Wisconsin, said Alliant should not run the Columbia plant for another 20 years.

“If they’re saying they’re looking to get out of coal by 2040 in Wisconsin I’d be very disappointed,” Blankman said. “I do think they could do better.”

Alliant is the 15th U.S. investor-owned utility to set a net-zero target, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, joining Madison Gas and Electric, which announced a similar goal last year. Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, which serves customers in western Wisconsin, was the first large investor-owned utility to set such a target, as state utilities report declining returns in coal operations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Canada Power Grid Climate Resilience integrates extreme weather planning, microgrids, battery storage, renewable energy, vegetation management, and undergrounding to reduce outages, harden infrastructure, modernize utilities, and safeguard reliability during storms, ice events, and wildfires.

Key Points

Canada's grid resilience hardens utilities against extreme weather using microgrids, storage, renewables, and upgrades.

✅ Grid hardening: microgrids, storage, renewable integration

✅ Vegetation management reduces storm-related line contact

✅ Selective undergrounding where risk and cost justify

The increasing intensity of storms that lead to massive power outages highlights the need for Canada’s electrical utilities to be more robust and innovative, climate change scientists say.

“We need to plan to be more resilient in the face of the increasing chances of these events occurring,” University of New Brunswick climate change scientist Louise Comeau said in a recent interview.

The East Coast was walloped this week by the third storm in as many days, with high winds toppling trees and even part of a Halifax church steeple, underscoring the value of storm-season electrical safety tips for residents.

Significant weather events have consistently increased over the last five years, according to the Canadian Electricity Association (CEA), which has tracked such events since 2003.

#google#

Nearly a quarter of total outage hours nationally in 2016 – 22 per cent – were caused by two ice storms, a lightning storm, and the Fort McMurray fires, which the CEA said may or may not be classified as a climate event.

“It (climate change) is putting quite a lot of pressure on electricity companies coast to coast to coast to improve their processes and look for ways to strengthen their systems in the face of this evolving threat,” said Devin McCarthy, vice president of public affairs and U.S. policy for the CEA, which represents 40 utilities serving 14 million customers.

The 2016 figures – the most recent available – indicate the average Canadian customer experienced 3.1 outages and 5.66 hours of outage time.

McCarthy said electricity companies can’t just build their systems to withstand the worst storm they’d dealt with over the previous 30 years. They must prepare for worse, and address risks highlighted by Site C dam stability concerns as part of long-term planning.

“There needs to be a more forward looking approach, climate science led, that looks at what do we expect our system to be up against in the next 20, 30 or 50 years,” he said.

Toronto Hydro is either looking at or installing equipment with extreme weather in mind, Elias Lyberogiannis, the utility’s general manager of engineering, said in an email.

That includes stainless steel transformers that are more resistant to corrosion, and breakaway links for overhead service connections, which allow service wires to safely disconnect from poles and prevents damage to service masts.

Comeau said smaller grids, tied to electrical systems operated by larger utilities, often utilize renewable energy sources such as solar and wind as well as battery storage technology to power collections of buildings, homes, schools and hospitals.

“Capacity to do that means we are less vulnerable when the central systems break down,” Comeau said.

Nova Scotia Power recently announced an “intelligent feeder” pilot project, which involves the installation of Tesla Powerwall storage batteries in 10 homes in Elmsdale, N.S., and a large grid-sized battery at the local substation. The batteries are connected to an electrical line powered in part by nearby wind turbines.

The idea is to test the capability of providing customers with back-up power, while collecting data that will be useful for planning future energy needs.

Tony O’Hara, NB Power’s vice-president of engineering, said the utility, which recently sounded an alarm on copper theft, was in the late planning stages of a micro-grid for the western part of the province, and is also studying the use of large battery storage banks.

“Those things are coming, that will be an evolution over time for sure,” said O’Hara.

Some solutions may be simpler. Smaller utilities, like Nova Scotia Power, are focusing on strengthening overhead systems, mainly through vegetation management, while in Ontario, Hydro One and Alectra are making major investments to strengthen infrastructure in the Hamilton area.

“The number one cause of outages during storms, particularly those with high winds and heavy snow, is trees making contact with power lines,” said N.S. Power’s Tiffany Chase.

The company has an annual budget of $20 million for tree trimming and removal.

“But the reality is with overhead infrastructure, trees are going to cause damage no matter how robust the infrastructure is,” said Matt Drover, the utility’s director for regional operations.

“We are looking at things like battery storage and a variety of other reliability programs to help with that.”

NB Power also has an increased emphasis on tree trimming and removal, and now spends $14 million a year on it, up from $6 million prior to 2014.

O’Hara said the vegetation program has helped drive the average duration of power outages down since 2014 from about three hours to two hours and 45 minutes.

Some power cables are buried in both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, mostly in urban areas. But both utilities maintain it’s too expensive to bury entire systems – estimated at $1 million per kilometre by Nova Scotia Power.

The issue of burying more lines was top of mind in Toronto following a 2013 ice storm, but that’s city’s utility also rejected the idea of a large-scale underground system as too expensive – estimating the cost at around $15 billion, while Ontario customers have seen Hydro One delivery rates rise in recent adjustments.

“Having said that, it is prudent to do so for some installations depending on site specific conditions and the risks that exist,” Lyberogiannis said.

Comeau said lowering risks will both save money and disruption to people’s lives.

“We can’t just do what we used to do,” said Xuebin Zhang, a senior climate change scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada.

“We have to build in management risk … this has to be a new norm.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Tesla Solar and Powerwall Discount offers a ~10% installation price cut amid PG&E blackouts, helping California homeowners with solar panels, battery storage, and backup power, while supporting renewable energy and resilient Supercharger infrastructure.

Key Points

A ~10% installation discount on Tesla solar panels and Powerwall batteries to boost backup power during PG&E blackouts.

✅ ~10% off installation for solar plus Powerwall

✅ Helps during PG&E shutoffs and wildfire mitigation

✅ Supports resilience, backup power, and EV charging

Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E) shutoff of electric supply to residents in California’s Bay Area has caught the attention of Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who, while highlighting a huge future for Tesla Energy in coming years, has announced that he would be offering a price reduction of approximately 10% for a solar panel and Tesla Powerwall battery installation. The discount will be available to anyone interested in powering their homes with solar energy, not just the 800,000 affected homes in the Bay Area.

After initially tweeting a link to Tesla’s Solar page on Tesla.com, Musk added that he would be offering a “~10% price reduction” in installation price for solar panels and Powerwall batteries for anyone, as California explores EVs for grid stability during emergencies, including those who have lost power in response to PG&E’s power shutoff. The blackout induced by the California-based power company is a part of an effort to reduce the possibility of wildfires. PG&E lines were the cause of multiple fires in the past, so the company is taking every necessary precaution to reduce the probability of its lines causing another fire in the future.

Tesla Solar recently offered a subscription program that would allow homeowners to lease panels for a fraction of the cost. The service is available to both residential and commercial customers, and costs as little as $45 a month in some states, particularly appealing in California where EV sales top 20% recently. The option to lease solar panels carries no long-term contracts that would tie down customers to a lengthy commitment.

Wildfires have always been an issue in California. Currently, fires are ripping through Los Angeles county, presumably caused by the winds of the Autumn season. The effort to reduce the environmental impact of forest fires in the state has been increasingly more prevalent over the years. But 2019 is a different story, underscoring that California may need a much bigger grid to support electrification, considering the previous year was noted as the deadliest wildfire season in California’s history. Over 8,500 fires destroyed over 1.89 million acres of land burned due to fires, causing the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to spend $432 million through the end of August 2018, according to the Associated Press.

In reaction to the news of the power shutoffs, Tesla added words of advice to vehicle affected owners on its app. The company posted a message encouraging drivers to keep their vehicles charged to 100% and highlighted that EVs can power homes for up to three days during outages, in order to prevent interruptions in driving. Those who are driving ICE vehicles are feeling the effects of the blackout too, as gas stations in California’s affected region have begun to shut down. Musk also tweeted that he would be installing Tesla Powerpacks at all Supercharger stations in the affected region, a move that can help ease strain on state power grids during outages, in order to allow owners to charge their vehicles.

In addition to the efforts that Tesla has already put into place, Musk plans to transition all Supercharger stations to solar power as soon as possible. But the sunny climate of California offers residents a great opportunity to move from gas and electric, even as some warn of a looming green car wreck in the state, to a more eco-friendly, sun-powered option. Tesla solar will completely eliminate power blackouts that are used to control wildfires in California.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

New Mexico EV Benefits highlight cheaper fuel, lower maintenance, cleaner air, and smarter charging, cutting utility bills, reducing NOx and carbon emissions, and leveraging incentives and renewable energy to accelerate EV adoption statewide.

Key Points

New Mexico EV Benefits are the cost, grid, and emissions gains from EV adoption and optimized off-peak charging.

✅ Electricity near $1.11 per gallon equivalent cuts fueling costs

✅ Fewer moving parts mean less maintenance and lifecycle costs

✅ Off-peak charging reduces utility bills and grid emissions

What would happen if New Mexicans ditched gasoline and started to drive on cleaner, cheaper electricity? A new report from MJ Bradley & Associates, commissioned by NRDC and Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, answers that question, demonstrating that New Mexico could realize $30 billion in avoided expenditures on gasoline and maintenance, reduced utility bills, and environmental benefits by 2050. The state is currently considering legislation to jump-start that transition by providing consumers incentives to support electric vehicle (EV) purchases and the installation of charging stations, drawing on examples like Nevada's clean-vehicle push to accelerate deployment, a policy that would require a few million dollars in lost tax revenue. The report shows an investment of this kind could yield tens of billions of dollars in net benefits.

$20 Billion in Driver Savings

EVs save families money because driving on electricity in New Mexico is the cost-equivalent of driving on $1.11 per gallon gasoline. Furthermore, EVs have fewer moving parts and less required maintenance—no oil changes, no transmissions, no mufflers, no timing belts, etc. That means that tackling the nation’s largest source of carbon pollution, transportation, could save New Mexicans over $20 billion by 2050 because EVs are cheaper to charge and maintain than gas powered cars, and an EV boom benefits all customers through lower rates.

Those are savings New Mexico can bank on because the price of electricity is significantly cheaper than the price of gasoline and also inherently more stable. Electricity is made from a diverse supply of domestic and increasingly clean resources, and 2021 electricity lessons continue to inform grid planning today. Unlike the volatile world oil market, New Mexico’s electric sector is regulated by the state’s utility commission. Adjusted for inflation, the price of electricity has been steady around the dollar-a-gallon equivalent mark in New Mexico for the last 20 years, while gas prices jump up or down radically and unpredictably.

$4.8 Billion in Reduced Electric Bills

While some warn that electric cars will challenge state power grids, New Mexico can charge millions of EVs without the need to make significant investments in the electric grid. This is because EVs can be charged when the grid is underutilized and renewable energy is abundant, like when people are sleeping overnight when wind energy generation often peaks. And the billions of dollars in new utility revenue from EV charging in excess of associated costs will be automatically returned to utility customers per an accounting mechanism that is already in state law that requires downward adjustment of rates when sales increase. Accordingly, widespread EV adoption could reduce every utility customer’s electric bill.

Thankfully, New Mexico’s electric industry is already acting to ensure utility customers in the state realize those benefits sooner rather than later. The state’s rural electric cooperatives have proposed an ambitious plan to leverage funds available as a result of the Volkswagen diesel scandal to build a state-wide public fast charging network that mirrors progress as Arizona goes EV across the Southwest. Additionally, New Mexico’s investor-owned utilities will soon propose transportation electrification investments as required by legislation NRDC supported last year that Governor Lujan Grisham signed into law.

$4.8 Billion in Societal Benefits from Reduced Pollution

The report estimates that widespread EV adoption would dramatically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from passenger vehicles in New Mexico, and also cut emissions of NOx, a local pollutant that threatens the health off all New Mexicans, especially children and people with respiratory conditions. The report finds growing the state’s EV market to meet New Mexico’s long-term environmental goals would yield $4.8 billion in societal benefits.

The Bottom Line: New Mexico Should Act Now to Accelerate its EV Market

Adding it all up, that’s more than $30 billion in potential benefits to New Mexico by 2050. Here’s the catch: as of June 2019, there were only 2,500 EVs registered in New Mexico, which means the state needs to accelerate the EV market, as the American EV boom ramps up nationally, to capture those billions of dollars in potential benefits. Thankfully, with second generation, longer range, affordable EVs now available, the market is well positioned to expand rapidly as the state moves to adopt Clean Car Standards that will ensure EVs are available for purchase in the state.

Getting it right

New Mexico has enormous amounts to gain from a small investment in incentives that support EV adoption now. For that investment to pay off, it needs to send a clear and unambiguous signal. Unfortunately, the same legislation that would establish tax credits to increase consumer access to electric vehicles in New Mexico was recently amended so it would not be helpful for 80 percent of consumers who lease, instead of buying EVs. And it would penalize EV drivers at the same time—with a $100 annual increase in registration fees, even as Texas adds a $200 EV fee under a similar rationale, to make up for lost gas tax revenue. That’s significantly more than what drivers of new gasoline vehicles pay annually in gas taxes in the state. Consumer Reports recently analyzed the growing trend to unfairly penalize electric cars via disproportionately high registration fees. In doing so, it estimated that the “maximum justifiable fee” to replace gas tax revenue in New Mexico would be $53. Anything higher will only slow or stop benefits New Mexico can attain from moving to cleaner cars.

To be clear, everyone should pay their fair share to maintain the transportation system, but EVs are not the problem when it comes to lost gas tax revenue. We need a comprehensive solution that addresses the real sources of transportation revenue loss while not undermining efforts to reduce dependence on gasoline. Thankfully, that can be done. For more, see A Simple Way to Fix the Gas Tax Forever.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News