KUB looks at peak power demand

Texas EV Registration Fee adds a $200 annual charge under Senate Bill 505, offsetting lost gasoline tax revenue to the State Highway Fund, impacting electric vehicle owners at registration and renewals across Texas.

Key Points

A $200 yearly charge on electric vehicles to replace lost gasoline tax revenue and support Texas Highway Fund road work.

✅ $200 due at registration or renewal; $400 upfront on new EVs.

✅ Enacted by Senate Bill 505 to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.

✅ Advocates propose mileage-based fees; limited $2,500 rebates exist.

Plano resident Tony Federico bought his Tesla five years ago in part because he hated spending lots of money on gas, and Supercharger billing changes have also influenced charging expenses. But that financial calculus will change slightly on Sept. 1, when Texas will start charging electric vehicle drivers an additional fee of $200 each year.

“It just seems like it’s arbitrary, with no real logic behind it,” said Federico, 51, who works in information technology. “But I’m going to have to pay it.”

Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 505, which requires electric vehicle owners to pay the fee when they register a vehicle or renew their registration, even as fights for control over charging continue among utilities, automakers and retailers. It’s being imposed because lawmakers said EV drivers weren’t paying their fair share into a fund that helps cover road construction and repairs across Texas.

The cost will be especially high for those who purchase a new electric vehicle and have to pay two years of registration, or $400, up front.

Texas agencies estimated in a 2020 report that the state lost an average of $200 per year in federal and state gasoline tax dollars when an electric vehicle replaced a gas-fueled one. The agencies called the fee “the most straightforward” remedy.

Gasoline taxes go to the State Highway Fund, which the Texas Department of Transportation calls its “primary funding source.” Electric vehicle drivers don’t pay those taxes, though, because they don’t use gasoline.

Still, EV drivers do use the roads. And while electric vehicles make up a tiny portion of cars in Texas for now, that fraction is expected to increase, raising concerns about state power grids in the years ahead.

Many environmental and consumer advocates agreed with lawmakers that EV drivers should pay into the highway fund but argued over how much, and debates over fairer vehicle taxes are surfacing abroad as well.

Some thought the state should set the fee lower to cover only the lost state tax dollars, rather than both the state and federal money, because federal officials may devise their own scheme. Others argued the state should charge nothing because EVs help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and can offer budget benefits for many owners.

“We urgently need to get more electric vehicles on the road,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Any increased fee could create an additional barrier for Texans, and particularly more moderate- to low-income Texans, to make that transition.”

Tom “Smitty” Smith, the executive director of the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance, advocated for a fee based on how many miles a person drove their electric car, which would better mirror how the gas taxes are assessed.

Texas has a limited incentive that could offset the cost: It offers rebates of up to $2,500 for up to 2,000 new hydrogen fuel cell, electric or hybrid vehicles every two years. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, recommended that the state expand the rebates, noting that state-level EV benefits can be significant.

In the Houston area, dealer Steven Wolf isn’t worried about the fee deterring potential customers from buying the electric Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E vehicles he sells. Electric cars are already more expensive than comparable gasoline-fueled cars, and charging networks compete for drivers, he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Germany energy liquidity crisis is straining municipal utilities as gas and power prices surge, margin calls rise, and Russian supply cuts bite, forcing state support, interventions, and emergency financing to stabilize households and businesses.

Key Points

A cash squeeze on German municipal utilities as soaring gas and power prices trigger margin calls and funding gaps.

✅ Margin calls and spot-market purchases strain cash flow

✅ State liquidity lines and EU collateral support proposed

✅ Gazprom cuts, Uniper distress heighten default risks

Germany’s fears that soaring power prices and gas prices could trigger a deeper crisis is starting to get real. 

Several hundred local utilities are coming under strain and need support, according to the head of Germany’s largest energy lobby group. The companies, generally owned by municipalities, supply households and small businesses directly and are a key part of the country’s power and gas network.

“The next step from the government and federal states must be to secure liquidity for these municipal companies,” Kerstin Andreae, chairwoman of the German Association of Energy and Water Industries, told Bloomberg in Berlin. “Prices are rising, and they have no more money to pay the suppliers. This is a big problem.”

Germany’s energy crunch intensified over the weekend after Russia’s Gazprom PJSC halted its key gas pipeline indefinitely, a stark wake-up call for policymakers to reduce fossil fuel dependence. European energy prices have surged again amid concerns over shortages this winter and fears of a worst-case energy scenario across the bloc. 

Many utilities are running into financial issues as they’re forced to cover missing Russian deliveries with expensive supplies on the spot market. German energy giant Uniper SE, which supplies local utilities, warned it will likely burn through a 7 billion-euro ($7 billion) government safety net and will need more help already this month.

Some German local utilities have already sought help, according to a government official, who asked not to be identified in line with briefing rules.  

With Europe’s largest economy already bracing for recession, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s administration is battling on several fronts, testing the government’s financial capacity. The ruling coalition agreed Sunday on a relief plan worth about 65 billion euros -- part of an emerging energy shield package to contain the fallout of surging costs for households and businesses. 

Starting in October, local utilities will have to pay a levy for the gas acquired, which will further increase their financial burden, Andreae said.

Margin Calls
European gas prices are more than four times higher than usual for this time of year, underscoring why rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears for policymakers, as Russia cuts supplies in retaliation for sanctions related to its invasion of Ukraine. When prices peak, energy companies have to pay margin calls, extra collateral required to back their trades.

Read more: Energy Trade Risks Collapsing Over Margin Calls of $1.5 Trillion

The problem has hit local utilities in other countries as well. In Austria, the government approved a 2 billion-euro loan for Vienna’s municipal utility last month. 

The European Union is also planning help, floating gas price cap strategies among other tools. The bloc’s emergency measures will include support for electricity producers struggling to find enough cash to guarantee trades, according to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

The situation has worsened in Germany as some of the country’s big gas importers are reluctant to sell more supplies to some of municipal companies amid fears they could default on payments, Andreae said. 

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

India Thermal Power Coal Imports surged 17.6% as CEA-monitored plants offset weaker CIL and SCCL supplies, driven by Saubhagya-led electricity demand, regional power deficits, and varied consumption across Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, and Gujarat.

Key Points

Fuel volumes imported for Indian thermal plants, tracked by CEA, reflecting shifts in CIL/SCCL supply, demand, and regional power deficits.

✅ Imports up 17.6% as domestic CIL/SCCL deliveries lag targets

✅ Saubhagya-driven demand lifts generation in key beneficiary states

✅ Industrial slowdowns cut usage in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat

The receipt of imported coal by thermal power plants, where plant load factors have risen, has shot up by 17.6 per cent during April-October. The coal import volumes refer to the power plants monitored by the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), and come amid moves to ration coal supplies as electricity demand surges, a power update report from CARE Ratings showed.

Imports escalated as domestic supplies by Coal India Ltd (CIL) and another state run producer- Singareni Collieries Company Ltd (SCCL) dipped in the period, after earlier shortages that have since eased in later months. Rate of supplies by the two coal companies to the CEA monitored power stations stood at 80.4 per cent, indicating a shortfall of 19.6 per cent against the allocated quantity.

According to the study by CARE Ratings, total coal supplied by CIL and SCCL to the power sector stood at 315.9 million tonnes (mt) during April-October as against 328.5 mt in the comparable period of last fiscal year.

The study noted that growth in power generation during the April-October 2019, with India now the third-largest electricity producer globally, was on account of higher demand from Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojana or Saubhagya Scheme beneficiary states. Providing connection to households in order to achieve 100% per cent electrification has in part helped the sector avert de-growth, as part of efforts to rewire Indian electricity and expand access.

Large states namely Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Punjab, West Bengal and Rajasthan have recorded over five per cent growth in consumption of power. These states along with Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Assam accounted for 75 per cent of the beneficiaries under the Saubhagya Scheme (Household Electrification Scheme). The ongoing economic downturn has led to a sharp fall in electricity demand from industrialised states. Maharashtra, which is also the largest power consuming state in India, recorded a decline in consumption of 5.6 per cent.

Other states namely Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Gujarat and Odisha too recorded fall in power consumed, echoing global dips in daily electricity demand seen later during the pandemic. These states house large clusters of mining, automobile, cement and other manufacturing industries, and a decline in these sectors led to fall in demand for power across these states. - The demand-supply gap or power deficit has remained at 0.6 per cent during the April-October 2019. North-East reported 4.8 per cent of power deficit followed by Northern Region at 1.3 per cent. Within Northern Region, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttar Pradesh accounted for 65 per cent and 30 per cent respectively of the regions power supply deficit.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Twin States Clean Energy Link connects New England to Hydro-Quebec via a 1,200 MW transmission line, DOE-backed capacity, underground segments, existing corridors, boosting renewable energy reliability across Vermont and New Hampshire with cross-border grid flexibility.

Key Points

DOE-backed 1,200 MW line linking Hydro-Quebec to New England, adding clean capacity with underground routes.

✅ 1,200 MW cross-border capacity for the New England grid

✅ Uses existing corridors; underground in VT and northern NH

✅ DOE capacity contract lowers risk and spurs investment

A proposal to build a new transmission line to connect New England with Canadian hydropower is one step closer to reality.

The U.S. Department of Energy announced Monday that it has selected the Twin States Clean Energy Link as one of three transmission projects that will be part of its $1.3 billion cross-border transmission initiative to add capacity to the grid.

WBUR is a nonprofit news organization. Our coverage relies on your financial support. If you value articles like the one you're reading right now, give today.

Twin States is a proposal from National Grid, a utility company that serves Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, and also owns transmission in England and Wales as the region advances projects like the Scotland-to-England subsea link that expand renewable flows, and the non-profit Citizens Energy Corporation.

The transmission line would connect New England with power from Hydro-Quebec, moving into the United States from Canada in Northern Vermont and crossing into New Hampshire near Dalton. It would run through parts of Grafton, Merrimack, and Hillsborough counties, routing through a substation in Dunbarton and ending at a proposed new substation in Londonderry. (Here's a map of the Twin States proposal.)

The federal funding will allow the U.S. Department of Energy to purchase capacity on the planned transmission line, which officials say reduces the risk for other investors and can help encourage others to purchase capacity.

The project has gotten support from local officials in Vermont and New Hampshire, but there are still hurdles to cross. The contract negotiation process is beginning, National Grid said, and the proposal still needs approvals from regulators before construction could begin.

First Nations communities in Canada have opposed transmission lines connecting Hydro-Quebec with New England in the past, and the company has faced scrutiny from environmental groups.

What would Twin States look like?
Transmission projects, like the failed Northern Pass proposal, have been controversial in New England, though the Great Northern Transmission Line progressed in Minnesota.

But Reihaneh Irani-Famili, vice president of capital delivery, project management and construction at National Grid, said this one is different because the developers listened to community concerns before planning the project.

“They did not want new corridors of infrastructure, so we made sure that we're using existing right of way,” she said. “They did not want the visual impact and some of the newer corridors of infrastructure, we're making sure we're undergrounding portions of the line.”

In Vermont and northern New Hampshire, the transmission lines would be buried underground along state roads. South of Littleton, they would be located within existing transmission corridors.

The developers say the lines could provide 1,200 megawatts of transmission capacity. The project would have the ability to carry electricity from hydro facilities in Quebec to New England, and would also be able to bring electricity from New England into Quebec, a step toward broader macrogrid connectivity across regions.

“Those hydro dams become giant green batteries for the region, and they hold that water until we need the electrons,” Irani-Famili said. “So if you think about our energy system not as one that sees borders, but one that sees resources, this is connecting the Quebec resources to the New England resources and helping all of us get into that cleaner energy future with a lot less build than we otherwise would have.”

Irani-Famili says the transmission line could help facilitate more clean energy resources like offshore wind coming online. In a report released last week by New Hampshire’s Department of Energy, authors said importing Canadian hydropower could be one of the most cost-effective ways to move away from fossil fuels on the electric grid.

National Grid estimates the project will help save energy customers $8.3 billion in its first 12 years. The developers are constructing a $260 million “community benefits plan” that would take some profits from the transmission line and give that money back to communities that host the transmission lines and environmental justice communities in New England.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Frisco 100% Renewable Electricity Goal outlines decarbonization via Xcel Energy, wind, solar, and battery storage, enabling beneficial electrification and a smarter grid for 100% municipal power by 2025 and community-wide clean electricity by 2035.

Key Points

Frisco targets 100% renewable electricity: municipal by 2025, community by 2035, via Xcel decarbonization.

✅ Municipal operations to reach 100% renewable electricity by 2025

✅ Community-wide electricity to be 100% carbon-free by 2035

✅ Partnerships: Xcel Energy, wind, solar, storage, grid markets

Frisco has now set a goal of 100-per-cent renewable energy, joining communities on the road to 100% renewables across the country. But unlike some other resolutions adopted in the last decade, this one isn't purely aspirational. It's swimming with a strong current.

With the resolution adopted last week by the town council, Frisco joins 10 other Colorado towns and cities, plus Pueblo and Summit counties, a trend reflected in tracking progress on clean energy targets reports nationwide, in adopting 100-per-cent goals.

The goal is to get the municipality's electricity to 100-per-cent by 2025 and the community altogether by 2035, a timeline aligned with scenarios showing zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is possible in North America.

Decarbonizing electricity will be far easier than transportation, and transportation far easier than buildings. Many see carbon-free electricity as being crucial to both, a concept called "beneficial electrification," and point to ways to meet decarbonization goals that leverage electrified end uses.

Electricity for Frisco comes from Xcel Energy, an investor-owned utility that is making giant steps toward decarbonizing its power supply.

Xcel first announced plans to close its work-horse power plants early to take advantage of now-cheap wind and solar resources plus what will be the largest battery storage project east of the Rocky Mountains. All this will be accomplished by 2026 and will put Xcel at 55 per cent renewable generation in Colorado.

In December, a week after Frisco launched the process that produced the resolution, Xcel announced further steps, an 80 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 as compared to 2050 levels. By 2050, the company vows to be 100 per cent "carbon-free" energy by 2050.

Frisco's non-binding goals were triggered by Fran Long, who is retired and living in Frisco. For eight years, though, he worked for Xcel in helping shape its response to the declining prices of renewables. In his retirement, he has also helped put together the aspirational goal adopted by Breckenridge for 100-per-cent renewables.

A task force that Long led identified a three-pronged approach. First, the city government must lead by example. The resolution calls for the town to spend $25,000 to $50,000 annually during the next several years to improve energy efficiency in its municipal facilities. Then, through an Xcel program called Renewable Connect, it can pay an added cost to allow it to say it uses 100-per-cent electricity from renewable sources.

Beyond that, Frisco wants to work with high-end businesses to encourage buying output from solar gardens or other devices that will allow them to proclaim 100-per-cent renewable energy. The task force also recommends a marketing program directed to homes and smaller businesses.

Goals of 100-per-cent renewable electricity are problematic, given why the grid isn't 100% renewable today for technical and economic reasons. Aspen Electric, which provides electricity for about two-thirds of the town, by 2015 had secured enough wind and hydro, mostly from distant locations, to allow it to proclaim 100 per cent renewables.

In fact, some of those electrons in Aspen almost certainly originate in coal or gas plants. That doesn't make Aspen's claim wrong. But the fact remains that nobody has figured out how, at least at affordable cost, to deliver 100-per-cent clean energy on a broad basis.

Xcel Energy, which supplies more than 60 per cent of electricity in Colorado, one of six states in which it operates, has a taller challenge. But it is a very different utility than it was in 2004, when it spent heavily in advertising to oppose a mandate that it would have to achieve 10 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

Once it lost the election, though, Xcel set out to comply. Integrating renewables proved far more easily than was feared. It has more than doubled the original mandate for 2020. Wind delivers 82 per cent of that generation, with another 18 per cent coming from community, rooftop, and utility-scale solar.

The company has become steadily more proficient at juggling different intermittent power supplies while ensuring lights and computers remain on. This is partly the result of practice but also of relatively minor technological wrinkles, such as improved weather forecasting, according to an Energy News Network story published in March.

For example, a Boulder company, Global Weather corporation, projects wind—and hence electrical production—from turbines for 10 days ahead. It updates its forecasts every 15 minutes.

Forecasts have become so good, said John T. Welch, director of power operations for Xcel in Colorado, that the utility uses 95 per cent to 98 per cent of the electricity generated by turbines. This has allowed the company to use its coal and natural gas plants less.M

Moreover, prices of wind and then solar declined slowly at first and then dramatically.

Xcel is now comfortable that existing technology will allow it to push from 55 per cent renewables in 2026 to an 80 per cent carbon reduction goal by 2030.

But when announcing their goal of emissions-free energy by mid-century in December, the company's Minneapolis-based chief executive, Ben Fowke, and Alice Jackson, the chief executive of the company's Colorado subsidiary, freely admitted they had no idea how they will achieve it. "I have a lot of confidence they will be developed," Fowke said of new technologies.

Everything is on the table, they said, including nuclear. But also including fossil fuels, if the carbon dioxide can be sequestered. So far, such technology has proven prohibitively expensive despite billions of dollars in federal support for research and deployment. They suggested it might involve new technology.

Xcel's Welch told Energy News Network that he believes solar must play a larger role, and he believes solar forecasting must improve.

Storage technology must also improve as batteries are transforming solar economics across markets. Batteries, such as produced by Tesla at its Gigafactory near Reno, can store electricity for hours, maybe even a few days. But batteries that can store large amounts of electricity for months will be needed in Colorado. Wind is plentiful in spring but not so much in summer, when air conditioners crank up.

Increased sharing of cheap renewable generation among utilities will also allow deeper penetration of carbon-free energy, a dynamic consistent with studies finding wind and solar could meet 80% of demand with improved transmission. Western US states and Canadian provinces are all on one grid, but the different parts are Balkanized. In other words, California is largely its own energy balancing authority, ensuring electricity supplies match electricity demands. Ditto for Colorado. The Pacific Northwest has its own balancing authority.

If they were all orchestrated as one in an expanded energy market across the West, however, electricity supplies and demands could more easily be matched. California's surplus of solar on summer afternoons, for example, might be moved to Colorado.

Colorado legislators in early May adopted a bill that requires the state's Public Utilities Commission to begin study by late this year of an energy imbalance market or regional transmission organization.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News