Senate, House panels approve net metering bills

Minnesota Electric Cooperatives are driving grid innovation with smart meters, time-of-use pricing, demand response, and energy storage, including iron-air batteries, to manage peak loads, integrate wind and solar, and cut costs for rural members.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities piloting load management, meters, and storage to integrate wind and solar, cutting peak demand.

✅ Time-of-use pricing pilots lower bills and shift peak load.

✅ Iron-air battery tests add multi-day, low-cost energy storage.

✅ Smart meters enable demand response across rural co-ops.

Minnesota electric cooperatives have quietly emerged as laboratories for clean grid innovation, outpacing investor-owned utilities on smart meter installations, time-based pricing pilots, and experimental battery storage solutions.

“Co-ops have innovation in their DNA,” said David Ranallo, a spokesperson for Great River Energy, a generation and distribution cooperative that supplies power to 28 member utilities — making it one of the state’s largest co-op players.

Minnesota farmers helped pioneer the electric co-op model more than a century ago, similar to modern community-generated green electricity initiatives, pooling resources to build power lines, transformers and other equipment to deliver power to rural parts of the state. Today, 44 member-owned electric co-ops serve about 1.7 million rural and suburban customers and supply almost a quarter of the state’s electricity.

Co-op utilities have by many measures lagged on clean energy. Many still rely on electricity from coal-fired power plants. They’ve used political clout with rural lawmakers to oppose new pollution regulations and climate legislation, and some have tried to levy steep fees on customers who install solar panels.

Where they are emerging as innovators is with new models and technology for managing electric grid loads — from load-shifting water heaters to a giant experimental battery made of iron. The programs are saving customers money by delaying the need for expensive new infrastructure, and also showing ways to unlock more value from cheap but variable wind and solar power.

Unlike investor-owned utilities, “we have no incentive to invest in new generation,” said Darrick Moe, executive director of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association. Curbing peak energy demand has a direct financial benefit for members.

Minnesota electric cooperatives have launched dozens of programs, such as the South Metro solar project, in recent years aimed at reducing energy use and peak loads, in particular. They include:

Cost calculations are the primary driver for electric cooperatives’ recent experimentation, and a lighter regulatory structure and evolving electricity market reforms have allowed them to act more quickly than for-profit utilities.

“Co-ops and [municipal utilities] can act a lot more nimbly compared to investor-owned utilities … which have to go through years of proceedings and discussions about cost-recovery,” said Gabe Chan, a University of Minnesota associate professor who has researched electric co-ops extensively. Often, approval from a local board is all that’s required to launch a venture.

Great River Energy’s programs, which are rebranded and sold through member co-ops, yielded more than 101 million kilowatt-hours of savings last year — enough to power 9,500 homes for a year.

Beyond lowering costs for participants and customers at large, the energy-saving and behavior-changing programs sometimes end up being cited as case studies by larger utilities considering similar offerings. Advocates supporting a proposal by the city of Minneapolis and CenterPoint Energy to allow residents to pay for energy efficiency improvements on their utility bills through distributed energy rebates used several examples from cooperatives.

Despite the pace of innovation on load management, electric cooperatives have been relatively slow to transition from coal-fired power. More than half of Great River Energy’s electricity came from coal last year, and Dairyland Power, another major power wholesaler for Minnesota co-ops, generated 70% of its energy from coal. Meanwhile, Xcel Energy, the state’s largest investor-owned utility, has already reduced coal to about 20% of its energy mix.

The transition to cleaner power for some co-ops has been slowed by long-term contracts with power suppliers that have locked them into dirty power. Others have also been stalled by management or boards that have been resistant to change. John Farrell, director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s Energy Democracy program, said generalizing co-ops is difficult. 

“We’ve seen some co-ops that have got 75-year contracts for coal, that are invested in coal mines and using their newsletter to deny climate change,” he said. “Then you see a lot of them doing really amazing things like creating energy storage systems … and load balancing [programs], because they are unique and locally managed and can have that freedom to experiment without having to go through a regulatory process.”

Great River Energy, for its part, says it intends to reach 54% renewable generation by 2025, while some communities, like Frisco, Colorado, are targeting 100% clean electricity by specific dates. Its members recently voted to sell North Dakota’s largest coal plant, but the arrangement involves members continuing to buy power from the new owners for another decade.

The cooperative’s path to clean power could become clearer if its experimental iron-air battery project is successful. The project, the first of its kind in the country, is expected to be completed by 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

New England Grid Reform Initiative aligns governors with ISO New England to reshape market design, boost grid reliability, accelerate renewable energy and offshore wind, explore carbon pricing and forward clean energy markets, and bolster accountability.

Key Points

Five states aim to reform ISO New England markets, prioritize renewables and reliability, and test carbon pricing.

✅ Governors seek market design aligned with clean energy mandates

✅ ISO-NE accountability and stakeholder engagement prioritized

✅ Explore carbon pricing and forward clean energy market options

Weeks after initiating a broad overhaul of utility regulation within its borders, Connecticut has recruited four New England states, as Maine debates a 145-mile transmission line project to rework the regional grid that is overseen by ISO New England, the independent system operator charged with ensuring a reliable supply of electricity from power plants.

In a written statement Thursday morning, Gov. Ned Lamont said the current structure “has actively hindered” states’ efforts to phase out polluting power plants in favor of renewable sources like wind turbines and solar panels, while increasing costs “to fix market design failures” in his words. Lamont’s energy policy chief Katie Dykes has emerged as a vocal critic of ISO New England’s structure and priorities, in her role as commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.

“When Connecticut opted to deregulate our electricity market, we wanted the benefits of competition — to achieve lower-cost energy, compatible with meeting our clean-energy goals,” Dykes said in a telephone interview Thursday afternoon. “We have a partner [in] ISO New England, to manage this grid and design a market that is not thwarting our clean-energy goals, but achieving them; and not ignoring consumers’ concerns. ... That’s really what we are looking to do — reclaim the benefits of competition and regional cooperation.”

Lamont and his counterparts in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine plan to release a “vision document” in their words on Friday through the New England States Committee on Electricity, after New Hampshire rejected a Quebec-Massachusetts transmission proposal that sought to import Canadian hydropower.

The initial documents made no mention of New Hampshire, which likewise obtains electricity through the wholesale markets managed by ISO New England and has seen clashes over the Northern Pass hydropower project in recent years; and whose Seabrook Station is one two nuclear power plants in New England alongside Dominion Energy’s Millstone Power Station in Waterford. Gov. Chris Sununu’s office did not respond immediately to a query on why New Hampshire is not participating.

Connecticut and the four other states outlined a few broad goals that they will hone over the coming months. Those include creating a better market structure and planning process supporting the conversion to renewables; improving grid reliability, with measures such as an emergency fuel stock program considered; and increasing the accountability of ISO New England to the states and by extension their ratepayer households and businesses.

ISO New England spokesperson Matt Kakley indicated the Holyoke, Mass.-based nonprofit will “engage with the states and our stakeholders” on the governors’ proposal, in an email response to a query. He did not elaborate on any immediate opportunities or challenges inherent in the governors’ proposal.

“Maintaining reliable, competitively-priced electricity through the clean energy transition will require broad collaboration,” Kakley stated. “The common vision of the New England governors will play an important role in the discussions currently underway on the future of the grid.”

Renewable revolution
ISO New England launched operations in 1999, running auctions through which power plant operators bid to supply electricity, including against long-term projections for future needs that can only be met through the construction or installation of new generation capacity.

ISO New England falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rather than the states whose electricity supplies it is tasked with ensuring. That has led to pointed criticism from Dykes and Connecticut legislators that ISO New England is out of touch with the state’s push to switch to renewable sources of electricity.

Entering October, ISO New England published an updated outlook that revealed 60 percent of proposed power generators in the region’s future “queue” are wind farms, primarily offshore installations like the proposed Park City Wind project of Avangrid and Revolution Wind from Eversource. But Dykes recently criticized as unnecessary an NTE Energy plant approved already by ISO New England for eastern Connecticut, which will be fueled by natural gas if all other regulatory approvals are granted.

The six New England states participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that caps carbon emissions by individual power plants, while allowing them to purchase unused allowances from each other with that revenue funneled to the states to support renewable energy and conservation programs. FERC is now considering the concept of carbon pricing, which would levy a tax on power plants based on their emissions, and it also faces pressure to act on aggregated DERs from lawmakers.

ISO New England is investigating the concepts of net carbon pricing and a “forward clean energy market” that would borrow elements of the existing forward capacity market, but designed to meet individual state objectives for the percentage of renewable power they want generated while ensuring adequate electricity is in place when weather does not cooperate.

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority is collecting on its own initiative industry input on modernization proposals, as New York regulators open a formal review of retail energy markets for comparison, that would add up to hundreds of millions of dollars, including utility-scale batteries to store power generated by offshore wind farms and solar arrays; and “smart” meters in homes and businesses to help electricity customers better manage their power use.

The New England Power Pool serves as a central forum for plant operators, commercial users and others like the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, amid Massachusetts solar demand charge debates that affect distributed generation policy, with NEPOOL’s chair stating Thursday morning the group was still reviewing the governors’ announcement.

“NEPOOL has been engaged this year in meetings ... exploring the transition to a future grid in New England and potential pathways forward to support that transition,” stated Nancy Chafetz, chair of NEPOOL, in an email.

Connecticut’s issues with ISO New England boiled over this summer on the heels of a power-purchase agreement between Millstone owner Dominion and transmission grid operators Eversource and United Illuminating, which contributed to a sharp increase in customer bills.

A few weeks ago, Lamont signed into law a “Take Back the Grid” act that allows the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to factor in Eversource’s and Avangrid subsidiary United Illuminating’s past performance in maintaining electric reliability, in addition to any future needs for revenue based on needed upgrades. The law included an element for Connecticut to initiate a study of ISO New England’s role.

Eversource and Avangrid have voiced support for the switch to “performance-based” regulation in Connecticut. Eversource spokesperson Mitch Gross on Thursday cited the company’s view that any changes to the operation of New England’s wholesale power markets should occur within the existing ISO New England structure.

“We also recommend any examination of potential alternatives includes a thorough evaluation that ensures unfair costs would not be imposed on customers,” Gross stated in an email.

In a statement forwarded by Avangrid spokesperson Ed Crowder, the United Illuminating parent indicated it intends to have “a voice in this process” with the goal of continued grid reliability amid increased adoption of clean energy sources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Solar ITC Impact on U.S. Wind frames how a 30% solar investment tax credit could undercut wind PTC economics, shift corporate procurement, and, without transmission and storage, slow onshore builds despite offshore wind momentum.

Key Points

It is how a solar ITC extension may curb U.S. wind growth absent PTC parity, transmission, storage, and offshore backing.

✅ ITC at 30% risks shifting corporate procurement to solar.

✅ Post-PTC wind faces grid, transmission, and curtailment headwinds.

✅ Offshore wind, storage pairing, TOU demand could offset.

The booming U.S. wind industry, amid a wind power surge, faces an uncertain future in the 2020s. Few factors are more important than the fate of the solar ITC.

An extension of the solar investment tax credit (ITC) at its 30 percent value would be “devastating” to the future U.S. wind market, according to a new Wood Mackenzie report.

The U.S. is on track to add a record 14.6 gigawatts of new wind capacity in 2020, despite Covid-19 impacts, and nearly 39 gigawatts during a three-year installation boom from 2019 to 2021, according to Wood Mackenzie’s 2019 North America Wind Power Outlook.

But the market’s trajectory begins to look highly uncertain from the early 2020s onward, and solar is one of the main reasons why.

Since the dawn of the modern American renewables market, the wind and solar sectors have largely been allies on the national stage, benefiting from many of the same favorable government plans and sharing big-picture goals. Until recently, wind and solar companies rarely found themselves in direct competition.

But the picture is changing as solar catches up to wind on cost and the grid penetration of renewables surges. What was once a vague alliance between the two fastest growing renewables technologies could morph into a serious rivalry.

While many project developers are now active in both sectors, including NextEra Energy Resources, Invenergy and EDF, the country’s thriving base of wind manufacturers could face tougher days ahead.

The ITC's inherent advantage

At this point, wind remains solar’s bigger sibling in many ways.

The U.S. has nearly 100 gigawatts of installed wind capacity today, compared to around 67 gigawatts of solar. With their substantially higher capacity factors, wind farms generated four times more power for the U.S. grid last year than utility-scale solar plants, for a combined wind-solar share of 8.2 percent, according to government figures, even as renewables are projected to reach one-fourth of U.S. electricity generation. (Distributed PV systems further add to solar’s contribution.)

But it's long been clear that wind would lose its edge at some point. The annual solar market now regularly tops wind. The cost of solar energy is falling more rapidly, and appears to have more runway for further reduction. Solar’s inherent generation pattern is more valuable in many markets, delivering power during peak-demand hours, while the wind often blows strongest at night.

And then there’s the matter of the solar ITC.

In 2015, both wind and solar secured historic multi-year extensions to their main federal subsidies. The extensions gave both industries the longest period of policy clarity they’ve ever enjoyed, setting in motion a tidal wave of installations set to crest over the next few years.

Even back in 2015, however, it was clear that solar got the better deal in Washington, D.C.

While the wind production tax credit (PTC) began phasing down for new projects almost immediately, solar developers were given until the end of 2019 to qualify projects for the full ITC.

And critically, while the wind PTC drops to nothing after its sunset, commercially owned solar projects will remain eligible for a 10 percent ITC forever, based on the existing legislation. Over time, that amounts to a huge advantage for solar.

In another twist, the solar industry is now openly fighting for an extension of the 30 percent ITC, while the wind industry seemingly remains cooler on the prospect of pushing for a similar prolongation — having said the current PTC extension would be the last.

Plenty of tailwinds, too

Wood Mackenzie's report catalogues multiple factors that could work for or against the wind market in the "uncharted" post-PTC years, many of them, including the Covid-19 crisis, beyond the industry’s direct control.

If things go well, annual installations could bounce back to near-record levels by 2027 after a mid-decade contraction, the report says. But if they go badly, installations could remain depressed at 4 gigawatts or below from 2022 through most of the coming decade, and that includes an anticipated uplift from the offshore market.

An extension of the solar ITC without additional wind support would “severely compound” the wind market’s struggle to rebound in the 2020s, the report says. The already-evident shift in corporate renewables procurement from wind to solar could intensify dramatically.

The other big challenge for wind in the 2020s is the lack of progress on transmission infrastructure that would connect potentially massive low-cost wind farms in interior states with bigger population centers. A hoped-for national infrastructure package that might address the issue has not materialized.

Even so, many in the wind business remain cautiously optimistic about the post-PTC years, with a wind jobs forecast bolstering sentiment, and developers continue to build out longer-term project pipelines.

Turbine technology continues to improve. And an extension of the solar ITC is far from assured.

Other factors that could work in wind’s favor in the years ahead include:

The nascent offshore sector, which despite lingering regulatory uncertainty at the federal level looks set to blossom into a multi-gigawatt annual market by the mid-2020s, in line with an offshore wind forecast that highlights substantial growth potential. Lobbying efforts for an offshore wind ITC extension are gearing up, offering a potential area for cooperation between wind and solar.

The potential linkage of policy support for energy storage to wind projects, building on the current linkage with solar.

Growing electric vehicle sales and a shift toward time-of-use retail electricity billing, which could boost power demand during off-peak hours when wind generation is strong.

The land-use advantages wind farms have over solar in some agricultural regions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

FortisAlberta COVID-19 response delivers safe electricity distribution across Alberta, with remote monitoring, 24/7 support, outage alerts, dispersed crews, and business continuity measures to sustain essential services for customers and communities.

Key Points

Plan ensuring reliable electricity in Alberta through 24/7 support, remote monitoring, outage alerts, and dispersed crews.

✅ 24/7 customer support via 310-WIRE and mobile app

✅ Remote monitoring and rapid outage restoration

✅ Dispersed crews in 50 communities for faster response

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve in Alberta (and around the world), FortisAlberta is taking the necessary actions and precautions informed by utility disaster planning to protect the health and well-being of its employees and to provide electricity service to its customers. FortisAlberta serves more than half a million customers with the electricity they depend on to take care of their families and community members throughout our province.

"We recognize these are challenging times as while most Albertans are asked to stay home others continue to work in the community to provide essential services, including utility workers in Ontario demonstrating support efforts. As your electricity distribution provider, please be assured you can count on us to do what we do best – provide our customers with safe and reliable electricity service wherever and whenever they need it," says Michael Mosher, FortisAlberta President and CEO.

FortisAlberta is proud to be a part of the communities it serves and commits to keeping the lights on for its customers. The company is providing a full range of services for its customers and has instilled best practices within critical parts of its business. The company's control centre continues to remotely monitor, control, and restore, where possible, the delivery of power across the entire province, including during events such as an Alberta grid alert that stress the system. Early in March, FortisAlberta implemented its business continuity plan and the company remains fully accessible to customers 24/7 by phone at 310-WIRE (9473) or through its mobile app where customers can report outages online or view details of an outage. Customers can also sign up for outage alerts to their mobile phone and/or email address to let them know if an outage does occur.

FortisAlberta's power line employees are geographically dispersed across 50 different communities so they can quickly address any issues that may arise. The company has implemented work from home measures and isolation best practices, and is planning for potential on-site lockdowns where necessary to ensure no disruption to customers.

FortisAlberta will continue to remain in close communication with its stakeholders to provide updates to customers and with industry associations to share guidance specific to the electricity sector, including insights on the evolving U.S. grid response to COVID-19 from peer utilities. FortisAlberta will also continue to invest in and empower its communities by contributing to organizations that offer programs and services aligned with the greatest needs in the communities it serves.

With the Alberta Government's recent announcement to provide relief to eligible Albertans by deferring electricity and gas charges for up to 90 days, similar to some B.C. relief measures being implemented, FortisAlberta is committed to working with stakeholders and retail partners to ensure this option is available to customers quickly and efficiently, and to learn from initiatives like the Hydro One relief fund that support customers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

UK Energy Price Cap aims to protect consumers on gas and electricity bills, tackling Big Six overcharging on default and standard variable tariffs, with Ofgem and MPs pushing urgent reforms to the broken market.

Key Points

A temporary absolute limit on default energy tariffs to shield consumers from overcharging on gas and electricity bills.

✅ Caps standard variable and default tariffs to protect loyalty.

✅ Targets Big Six pricing; oversight by Ofgem and BEIS MPs.

✅ Aims for winter protection while maintaining competition.

MPs are calling for a cap on the price of gas and electricity, with questions over the expected cost of a UK price cap amid fears consumers are being ripped off.

The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Select Committee says the Big Six energy companies have been overcharging for years.

MPs on the committee backed plans for a temporary absolute cap, noting debates over EU gas price cap strategies to fix what they called a "broken" energy market.

Labour's Rachel Reeves, who chairs the committee, said: "The energy market is broken. Energy is an essential good and yet millions of customers are ripped off for staying loyal to their energy provider.

"An energy price cap is now necessary and the Government must act urgently to ensure it is in place to protect customers next winter.

"The Big Six energy companies might whine and wail about the introduction of a price cap but they've been overcharging their customers on default and SVTs (standard variable tariffs) for years and their recent feeble efforts to move consumers off these tariffs has only served to highlight the need for this intervention."

The Committee also criticised Ofgem for failing to protect customers, especially the most vulnerable.

Draft legislation for an absolute cap on energy tariffs was published by the Government last year, and later developments like the Energy Security Bill have kept reform on the agenda.

But Business Secretary Greg Clark refused to guarantee that the flagship plans would be in place by next winter, despite warnings about high winter energy costs for households.

Committee members said there was a "clear lack of will" on the part of the Big Six to do what was necessary, including exploring decoupling gas and electricity prices, to deal with pricing problems.

A report from the committee found that customers are paying £1.4bn a year more than they should be under the current system.

Around 12 million households are stuck on poor-value tariffs, according to the report.

National assistance charity Citizens Advice said "loyal and vulnerable" customers had been "ripped off" for too long.

Chief executive Gillian Guy said: "An absolute cap, as recommended by the committee, is crucial to securing protection for the largest number of customers while continuing to provide competition in the market. This should apply to all default tariffs."

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