A greener way to get power from natural gas

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

EV Decarbonization Strategy weighs life-cycle emissions and climate targets, highlighting mode shift to public transit, cycling, and walking, grid decarbonization, renewable energy, and charging infrastructure to cut greenhouse gases while reducing private car dependence.

Key Points

A plan to cut transport emissions by pairing EV adoption with mode shift, clean power, and less private car use.

✅ Prioritize mode shift: transit, cycling, and walking.

✅ Electrify remaining vehicles with clean, renewable power.

✅ Expand charging, improve batteries, and manage critical minerals.

California recently announced that it plans to ban the sales of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, a move similar to a 2035 electric vehicle mandate seen elsewhere, Ontario has invested $500 million in the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and Tesla is quickly becoming the world's highest-valued car company.

It almost seems like owning an electric vehicle is a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, but it isn't, as a U of T study explains today. What we should also be focused on is whether anyone should use a private vehicle at all.
 
As a researcher in sustainable mobility, I know this answer is unsatisfying. But this is where my latest research has led.

Battery EVs, such as the Tesla Model 3 - the best selling EV in Canada in 2020 - have no tailpipe emissions. But they do have higher production and manufacturing emissions than conventional vehicles, and often run on electricity that comes from fossil fuels.

Almost 18 per cent of the electricity generated in Canada came from fossil fuels in 2019, and even as Canada's EV goals grow more ambitious today, the grid mix varies from zero in Quebec to 90 per cent in Alberta.
 
Researchers like me compare the greenhouse gas emissions of an alternative vehicle, such as an EV, with those of a conventional vehicle over a vehicle lifetime, an exercise known as a life-cycle assessment. For example, a Tesla Model 3 compared with a Toyota Corolla can provide up to 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases emitted per kilometre travelled in Quebec, but no reductions in Alberta.

Hundreds of millions of new cars

To avoid extreme and irreversible impacts on ecosystems, communities and the overall global economy, we must keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C - and ideally 1.5 C - above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.

We can translate these climate change targets into actionable plans. First, we estimate greenhouse gas emissions budgets using energy and climate models for each sector of the economy and for each country. Then we simulate future emissions, taking alternative technologies into account, as well as future potential economic and societal developments.

I looked at the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet, which adds up to about 260 million vehicles, while noting the potential for Canada-U.S. collaboration in this transition, to answer a simple question: Could the greenhouse gas emissions from the sector be brought in line with climate targets by replacing gasoline-powered vehicles with EVs?

The results were shocking. Assuming no changes to travel behaviours and a decarbonization of 80 per cent of electricity, meeting a 2 C target could require up to 300 million EVs, or 90 per cent of the projected U.S. fleet, by 2050. That would require all new purchased vehicles to be electric from 2035 onwards.

To put that into perspective, there are currently 880,000 EVs in the U.S., or 0.3 per cent of the fleet. Even the most optimistic projections, despite hype about an electric-car revolution gaining steam, from the International Energy Agency suggest that the U.S. fleet will only be at about 50 per cent electrified by 2050.

Massive and rapid electrification

Still, 90 per cent is theoretically possible, isn't it? Probably, but is it desirable?

In order to hit that target, we'd need to very rapidly overcome all the challenges associated with EV adoption, such as range anxiety, the higher purchase cost and availability of charging infrastructure.
 
A rapid pace of electrification would severely challenge the electricity infrastructure and the supply chain of many critical materials for the batteries, such as lithium, manganese and cobalt. It would require vast capacity of renewable energy sources and transmission lines, widespread charging infrastructure, a co-ordination between two historically distinct sectors (electricity and transportation systems) and rapid innovations in electric battery technologies. I am not saying it's impossible, but I believe it's unlikely.

Read more: There aren't enough batteries to electrify all cars - focus on trucks and buses instead

So what? Shall we give up, accept our collective fate and stop our efforts at electrification?

On the contrary, I think we should re-examine our priorities and dare to ask an even more critical question: Do we need that many vehicles on the road?

Buses, trains and bikes

Simply put, there are three ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger transport: avoid the need to travel, shift the transportation modes or improve the technologies. EVs only tackle one side of the problem, the technological one.

And while EVs do decrease emissions compared with conventional vehicles, we should be comparing them to buses, including leading electric bus fleets in North America, trains and bikes. When we do, their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions disappears because of their life cycle emissions and the limited number of people they carry at one time.

If we truly want to solve our climate problems, we need to deploy EVs along with other measures, such as public transit and active mobility. This fact is critical, especially given the recent decreases in public transit ridership in the U.S., mostly due to increasing vehicle ownership, low gasoline prices and the advent of ride-hailing (Uber, Lyft)

Governments need to massively invest in public transit, cycling and walking infrastructure to make them larger, safer and more reliable, rather than expanding EV subsidies alone. And we need to reassess our transportation needs and priorities.

The road to decarbonization is long and winding. But if we are willing to get out of our cars and take a shortcut through the forest, we might get there a lot faster.

Author: Alexandre Milovanoff - Postdoctoral Researcher, Environmental Engineering, University of Toronto 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill aimed at expanding load flexibility in state grid planning, citing conflicts with California’s resource adequacy framework and concerns over grid reliability and energy planning uncertainty.

Why has Newsom vetoed the Bill to Codify Load Flexibility?

Governor Gavin Newsom’s veto blocks legislation that would have required the California Energy Commission to incorporate load flexibility into the state’s energy planning and policy framework, a move that has stirred debate across the clean energy sector.

✅ Argues the bill conflicts with California’s existing Resource Adequacy system

✅ Draws backlash from clean energy and grid modernization advocates

✅ Exposes ongoing tension over how to manage renewable integration and demand response

California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed Assembly Bill 44, which would have required the California Energy Commission to evaluate and incorporate load management mechanisms into the state’s energy planning process. The move drew criticism from clean energy advocates who say it undermines efforts to strengthen grid reliability and reduce costs.

The bill directed the commission to adopt “upfront technical requirements and load modification protocols” that would allow load-serving entities to adjust their electrical demand forecasts. Proponents viewed this as a way to modernize California’s grid management, and to explore a revamp of electricity rates to help clean the grid, making it more responsive to demand fluctuations and renewable energy variability.

In his veto statement, Newsom said the bill was incompatible with existing energy planning frameworks, even as a looming electricity shortage remains a concern. “While I support expanding electric load flexibility, this bill does not align with the California Public Utility Commission’s Resource Adequacy framework,” he said. “As a result, the requirements of this bill would not improve electric grid reliability planning and could create uncertainty around energy resource planning and procurement processes.”

Newsom’s decision comes shortly after he signed a broad package of energy legislation that set the stage for a regional Western electricity market and extended the state’s cap-and-trade program. However, that legislative package did not include continued funding for several key grid reliability programs — including what advocates have called the world’s largest virtual power plant, a distributed network of connected devices that can balance electricity demand in real time.

Clean energy supporters saw AB 44 as a crucial step toward integrating these distributed energy resources into long-term grid planning. “With Assembly Bill 44 being vetoed, the state has missed a huge opportunity to advance common-sense policy that would have lowered costs, strengthened the grid, and unlocked the full potential of advanced energy,” said Edson Perez, California lead at Advanced Energy United.

Perez added that the setback increases pressure on lawmakers to take stronger action in the next legislative session. “The pressure is on next session to ensure that California is using all tools in its policy toolbox to build critically needed infrastructure, strengthen the grid, and bring costs down,” he said.

California’s growing use of demand response programs and virtual power plants has been central to its strategy for managing grid stress during heat waves and wildfire seasons. These systems allow utilities and customers to temporarily reduce or shift energy use, helping to prevent blackouts and reduce the need for fossil-fuel peaker plants during peak demand.

A recent report by the Brattle Group found that California’s taxpayer-funded virtual power plant could save ratepayers $206 million between 2025 and 2028 while reducing reliance on gas generation. The study, commissioned by Sunrun and Tesla Energy, highlighted the potential for flexible load management to improve both grid reliability and reduce costs, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to ensure reliability.

Despite these findings, Newsom’s veto signals continued tension between state policymakers and clean energy advocates over how best to modernize California’s power grid. While the governor has prioritized large-scale renewable development and regional market integration, critics argue that California’s climate policy choices risk exacerbating reliability challenges and that failing to codify load flexibility could slow progress toward a more adaptive, resilient, and affordable clean energy future.

Related Articles

• USA Electricity News

California Storm Outages and Landslides strain utilities, trigger flooding, road closures, and debris flows, causing widespread power cuts and infrastructure damage as emergency response teams race to restore service, clear slides, and support evacuations.

Key Points

California Storm Outages and Landslides are storm-driven power cuts and slope failures disrupting roads and utilities.

✅ Tens of thousands face prolonged power outages across regions

✅ Landslides block highways, damage property, hinder access

✅ Crews restore grids, clear debris, support shelters and evacuees

California is grappling with a dual crisis of power outages and landslides following a severe storm that has swept across the state. The latest reports indicate widespread disruptions affecting thousands of residents and significant infrastructure damage. This storm is not only a test of California's emergency response capabilities but also a stark reminder of the increasing vulnerability of the state to extreme weather events, and of the U.S. electric grid in the face of climate stressors.

Storm’s Impact on California

The recent storm, which hit California with unprecedented intensity, has unleashed torrential rain, strong winds, and widespread flooding. These severe weather conditions have overwhelmed the state’s infrastructure, leading to significant power outages that are affecting numerous communities. According to local utilities, tens of thousands of homes and businesses are currently without electricity. The outages have been exacerbated by the combination of heavy rain and gusty winds, which have downed power lines and damaged electrical equipment.

In addition to the power disruptions, the storm has triggered a series of landslides across various regions. The combination of saturated soil and intense rainfall has caused several hillside slopes to give way, leading to road closures and property damage. Emergency services are working around the clock to address the aftermath of these landslides, but access to affected areas remains challenging due to blocked roads and ongoing hazardous conditions.

Emergency Response and Challenges

California’s emergency response teams are on high alert as they coordinate efforts to manage the fallout from the storm. Utility companies are deploying repair crews to restore power as quickly as possible, but the extensive damage to infrastructure means that some areas may be without electricity for several days. The state’s Department of Transportation is also engaged in clearing debris from landslides and repairing damaged roads to ensure that emergency services can reach affected communities.

The response efforts are complicated by the scale of the storm’s impact. With many areas experiencing both power outages and landslides, the logistical challenges are immense. Emergency shelters have been set up to provide temporary refuge for those displaced by the storm, but the capacity is limited, and there are concerns about overcrowding and resource shortages.

Community and Environmental Implications

The storm’s impact on local communities has been profound. Residents are facing not only the immediate challenges of power outages and unsafe road conditions but also longer-term concerns about recovery and rebuilding. Many individuals have been forced to evacuate their homes, and local businesses are struggling to cope with the disruption.

Environmental implications are also significant. The landslides and flooding have caused considerable damage to natural habitats and have raised concerns about water contamination and soil erosion. The impact on the environment could have longer-term consequences for the state’s ecosystems and water supply.

Climate Change and Extreme Weather

This storm underscores a growing concern about the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events linked to climate change. California has been experiencing a rise in severe weather patterns, including intense storms, prolonged droughts, and extreme heat waves that strain the grid. These changes are putting additional strain on the state’s infrastructure and emergency response systems.

Experts have pointed out that while individual storms cannot be directly attributed to climate change, the overall trend towards more extreme weather is consistent with scientific predictions. As such, there is a pressing need for California to invest in infrastructure improvements and resilience measures, and to consider accelerating its carbon-free electricity mandate to better withstand future events.

Looking Ahead

As California deals with the immediate aftermath of this storm, attention will turn to recovery and rebuilding efforts. The state will need to address the damage caused by power outages and landslides while also preparing for future challenges posed by climate change.

In the coming days, the focus will be on restoring power, clearing debris, and providing support to affected communities. Long-term efforts will likely involve reassessing infrastructure vulnerabilities, improving emergency response protocols, and investing in climate resilience measures across the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Utility Pandemic Preparedness strengthens grid resilience through continuity planning, critical infrastructure protection, DOE-DHS coordination, onsite sequestration, skeleton crews, and deferred maintenance to ensure reliable electric and gas service for commercial and industrial customers.

Key Points

Plans that sustain grid operations during outbreaks using staffing limits, access controls, and deferred maintenance.

✅ Deferred maintenance and restricted site access

✅ Onsite sequestering and skeleton crew operations

✅ DOE-DHS coordination and control center staffing

Commercial and industrial businesses can rest assured that the current pandemic poses no real threat to our utilities, with the U.S. grid remaining reliable for now, as disaster planning has been key to electric and gas utilities in recent years, writes Forbes. Beginning a decade ago, the utility and energy industries evolved detailed pandemic plans, outlining what to know about the U.S. grid during outbreaks, which include putting off maintenance and routine activities until the worst of the pandemic has passed, restricting site access to essential personnel, and being able to run on a skeleton crew as more and more people become ill, a capability underscored by FPL's massive Irma response when crews faced prolonged outages.

One possible outcome of the current situation is that the US electric industry may require essential staff to live onsite at power plants and control centers, similar to Ontario work-site lockdown plans under consideration, if the outbreak worsens; bedding, food and other supplies are being stockpiled, reflecting local response preparations many utilities practice, Reuters reported. The Great River Energy cooperative, for example, has had a plan to sequester essential staff in place since the H1N1 bird flu crisis in 2009. The cooperative, which runs 10 power plants in Minnesota, says its disaster planning ensured it has enough cots, blankets and other necessities on site to keep staff healthy.

Electricity providers are now taking part in twice-weekly phone calls with officials at the DOE, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies, as Ontario demand shifts are monitored, according to the Los Angeles Times. By planning for a variety of worst case scenarios, including weeks-long restorations after major storms, “I have confidence that the sector will be prepared to respond no matter how this evolves,” says Scott Aaronson, VP of security and preparedness for the Edison Electric Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Indonesia Coal Production Cuts reflect weaker China demand, COVID-19 impacts, falling HBA reference prices, and DMO sales to PLN, pressuring thermal coal output, miner budgets, and investment plans under the 2020 RKAB.

Key Points

Planned 2020 coal output reductions from China demand slump, lower HBA prices, and DMO constraints impacting miners.

✅ China demand drop reduces exports and thermal coal shipments.

✅ HBA reference price decline pressures margins and cash flow.

✅ DMO sales to PLN limit revenue; investment plans may slow.

The Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) Ministry is considering lowering the coal production target this year as demand from China has shown a significant decline, with China power demand drops reported, since the start of the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in the country late last year, a senior ministry official has said.

The ministry’s coal and mineral director general Bambang Gatot Ariyono said in Jakarta on March 12 that the decline in the demand had also caused a sharp drop in coal prices on the world market, and China's plan to reduce coal power has further weighed on sentiment, which could cause the country’s miners to reduce their production.

The 2020 minerals and coal mining program and budget (RKAB) has set a current production goal of 550 million tons of coal, a 10 percent increase from last year’s target. As of March 6, 94.7 million tons of coal had been mined in the country in the year.

“With the existing demand, revision to this year’s production is almost certain,” he said, adding that the drop in demand had also caused a decline in coal prices.

Indonesia’s thermal coal reference price (HBA) fell by 26 percent year-on-year to US$67.08 per metric ton in March, according to a Standards & Poor press release on March 5.  At home, the coal price is also unattractive for local producers. Under the domestic market obligation (DMO) policy, miners are required to sell a quarter of their production to state-owned electricity company PLN at a government-set price, even as imported coal volumes rise in some markets. This year’s coal reference price is $70 per metric ton, far below the internal prices before the coronavirus outbreak hit China.

The ministry’s expert staff member Irwandy Arif said China had reduced its coal demand by 200,000 tons so far, as six of its coal-fired power plants had suspended operation due to the significant drop in electricity demand. Many factories in the country were closed as the government tried to halt the spread of the new coronavirus, which caused the decline in energy demand and created electric power woes for international supply chains.

“At present, all mines in Indonesia are still operating normally, while India is rationing coal supplies amid surging electricity demand. But we have to see what will happen in June,” he said.

The ministry predicted that the low demand would also result in a decline in coal mining investment, as clean energy investment has slipped across many developing nations.

The ministry set a $7.6 billion investment target for the mining sector this year, up from $6.17 billion last year, even as Israel reduces coal use in its power sector, which may influence regional demand. The year’s total investment realization was $192 million as of March 6, or around 2.5 percent of the annual target. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News