Carbon capture project leaking, say neighbours

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

Hydro One Pandemic Relief Fund offers COVID-19 financial assistance, payment flexibility, and Winter Relief to Ontario electricity customers facing hardship, with disconnection protection and customer support to help manage bills during the health crisis.

Key Points

COVID-19 aid offering bill credits, payment flexibility, and disconnection protection for electricity customers.

✅ Financial assistance and bill credits for hardship cases

✅ Flexible payment plans and extended Winter Relief

✅ No-disconnect policy and dedicated customer support hours

We are pleased to announce a Pandemic Relief Fund to assist customers affected by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). As part of our commitment to customers, we will offer financial assistance as well as increased payment flexibility to customers experiencing hardship. The fund is designed to support customers impacted by these events and those that may experience further impacts.

In addition to this, we've also extended our Winter Relief program, aligning with our ban on disconnections policy so no customer experiencing any hardship has to worry about potential disconnection.

We recognize that this is a difficult time for everyone and we want our customers to know that we’re here to support them. We hope this fund and the added measures, such as extended off-peak rates that help provide our customers peace of mind so they can concentrate on what matters most — keeping their loved ones safe.

If you are concerned about paying your bill, are experiencing hardship or have been impacted by the pandemic, including electricity relief announced by the province, we want to help you. Call us to discuss the fund and see what options are available for you.

CUSTOMER CONTACT CENTRE HOURS
Call us at 1-888-664-9376

Monday to Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

KEEPING ONTARIANS AND OUR ELECTRICITY SYSTEM SAFE
We recognize the critical role we play in powering communities across the province and our support for the Province of Ontario during COVID-19. This is a responsibility to employees, customers, businesses and the people of Ontario that we take very seriously.

Since the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak began, Hydro One’s Pandemic Team along with our leadership, have been actively monitoring the issues to ensure we can continue to deliver the service Ontarians depend on while keeping our employees, customers and the public safe, even as there has been no cut in peak hydro rates yet for self-isolating customers across Ontario. While the risk in Ontario remains low, we believe we can best protect our people and our operations by taking proactive measures.

As information continues to evolve, our leadership team along with the Pandemic Planning Team and our Emergency Operations Centre are committed to maintaining business continuity while minimizing risk to employees and communities.

Over the days and weeks to come, we will work with the sector and government, which is preparing to extend disconnect moratoriums across the province, to enhance safety protocols and champion the needs of electricity customers in Ontario.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Great Britain electricity generation spans renewables and baseload: wind, solar, nuclear, gas, and biomass, supported by National Grid interconnectors, embedded energy estimates, and BMRS data for dynamic imports and exports across Europe.

Key Points

A diverse, weather-driven mix of renewables, gas, nuclear, and imports coordinated by National Grid.

✅ Baseload from nuclear and biomass; intermittent wind and solar

✅ Interconnectors trade zero carbon imports via subsea cables

✅ Data from BMRS and ESO covers embedded energy estimates

Great Britain has one of the most diverse ranges of electricity generation in Europe, with everything from windfarms off the coast of Scotland to a nuclear power station in Suffolk tasked with keeping the lights on. The increasing reliance on renewable energy sources, as part of the country’s green ambitions, also means there can be rapid shifts in the main source of electricity generation. On windy days, most electricity generation comes from record wind generation across onshore and offshore windfarms. When conditions are cold and still, gas-fired power stations known as peaking plants are called into action.

The electricity system in Great Britain relies on a combination of “baseload” power – from stable generators such as nuclear and biomass plants – and “intermittent” sources, such as wind and solar farms that need the right weather conditions to feed energy into the grid. National Grid also imports energy from overseas, through subsea cables known as interconnectors that link to France, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands. They allow companies to trade excess power, such as renewable energy created by the sun, wind and water, between different countries. By 2030 it is hoped that 90% of the energy imported by interconnectors will be from zero carbon energy sources, though low-carbon electricity generation stalled in 2019 for the UK.

The technology behind Great Britain’s power generation has evolved significantly over the last century, and at times wind has been the main source of electricity. The first integrated national grid in the world was formed in 1935 linking seven regions of the UK. In the aftermath of industrialisation, coal provided the vast majority of power, before oil began to play an increasingly important part in the 1950s. In 1956, the world’s first commercial nuclear reactor, Calder Hall 1 at Windscale (later Sellafield), was opened by Queen Elizabeth II. Coal use fell significantly in the 1990s while the use of combined cycle gas turbines grew, and in 2016 wind generated more electricity than coal for the first time. Now a combination of gas, wind, nuclear and biomass provide the bulk of Great Britain’s energy, with smaller sources such as solar and hydroelectric power also used. From October 2024, coal will no longer be used to generate electricity, following coal-free power records set in recent years.

Energy generation data is fetched from the Balancing Mechanism Reporting Service public feed, provided by Elexon – which runs the wholesale energy market – and is updated every five minutes, covering periods when wind led the power mix as well.

Elexon’s data does not include embedded energy, which is unmetered and therefore invisible to Great Britain’s National Grid. Embedded energy comprises all solar energy and wind energy generated from non-metered turbines. To account for these figures we use embedded energy estimates from the National Grid electricity system operator, which are published every 30 minutes.

Import figures refer to the net flow of electricity from the interconnectors with Europe and with Northern Ireland. A positive value represents import into the GB transmission system, while a negative value represents an export.

Hydro figures combine renewable run-of-the-river hydropower and pumped storage.

Biomass figures include Elexon’s “other” category, which comprises coal-to-biomass conversions and biomass combined heat and power plants.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Trump Offshore Wind Pledge signals a push for deregulation over renewable energy, challenging climate policy, green jobs, and coastal development while citing marine ecosystems, navigation, and energy independence amid state-federal permitting and legal hurdles.

Key Points

Trump's vow to cancel offshore wind projects favors deregulation and fossil fuels, impacting climate policy and jobs.

✅ Day-one plan to scrap offshore wind leases and permits

✅ Risks to renewable targets, grid mix, and coastal supply chains

✅ Likely court fights and state-federal regulatory conflicts

During his tenure as President of the United States, Donald Trump made numerous promises and policy proposals, many of which sparked controversy and debate. One such pledge was his vow to scrap offshore wind projects on "day one" of his presidency. This bold statement, while appealing to certain interests, raised concerns about its potential impact on U.S. offshore wind growth and environmental conservation efforts.

Trump's opposition to offshore wind projects stemmed from various factors, including his skepticism towards renewable energy, even as forecasts point to a $1 trillion offshore wind market in coming years, concerns about aesthetics and property values, and his focus on promoting traditional energy sources like coal and oil. Throughout his presidency, Trump prioritized deregulation and sought to roll back environmental policies introduced by previous administrations, arguing that they stifled economic growth and hindered American energy independence.

The prospect of scrapping offshore wind projects drew mixed reactions from different stakeholders. Supporters of Trump's proposal pointed to potential benefits such as preserving scenic coastal landscapes, protecting marine ecosystems, and addressing concerns about navigational safety and national security. Critics, however, raised valid concerns about the implications of such a decision on the renewable energy sector, including progress toward getting 1 GW on the grid nationwide, climate change mitigation efforts, and job creation in the burgeoning green economy.

Offshore wind energy has emerged as a promising source of clean, renewable power with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and diversify the energy mix. Countries like Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Germany have made significant investments in offshore wind in Europe, demonstrating its viability as a sustainable energy solution. In the United States, offshore wind projects have gained traction in states like Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey, where coastal conditions are conducive to wind energy generation.

Trump's pledge to scrap offshore wind projects on "day one" of his presidency raised questions about the feasibility and legality of such a move. While the president has authority over certain aspects of energy policy and regulatory oversight, the development of offshore wind projects often involves multiple stakeholders, including state governments, local communities, private developers, and federal agencies, and actions such as Interior's move on Vineyard Wind illustrate federal leverage in permitting. Any attempt to halt or reverse ongoing projects would likely face legal challenges and regulatory hurdles, potentially delaying or derailing implementation.

Moreover, Trump's stance on offshore wind projects reflected broader debates about the future of energy policy, environmental protection, and economic development. While some argued for prioritizing fossil fuel extraction and traditional energy infrastructure, others advocated for a transition towards clean, renewable energy sources, drawing on lessons from the U.K. about wind deployment, to mitigate climate change and promote sustainable development. The Biden administration, which succeeded the Trump presidency, has signaled a shift towards a more climate-conscious agenda, including support for renewable energy initiatives and commitments to rejoin international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord.

In hindsight, Trump's pledge to scrap offshore wind projects on "day one" of his presidency underscores the complexities of energy policy and the importance of balancing competing interests and priorities. While concerns about aesthetics, property values, and environmental impact are valid, addressing the urgent challenge of climate change requires bold action and innovation in the energy sector. Offshore wind energy presents an opportunity, as seen in the country's biggest offshore wind farm approved in New York, to harness the power of nature in a way that is both environmentally responsible and economically beneficial. As the United States navigates its energy future, finding common ground and forging partnerships will be essential to ensure a sustainable and prosperous tomorrow.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

New Zealand Energy Transition will electrify transport and industry with renewables, grid-scale solar, wind farms, geothermal, batteries, demand response, pumped hydro, and transmission upgrades to manage dry-year risk and winter peak loads.

Key Points

A shift to renewables and smart demand to decarbonise transport and industry while ensuring reliable, affordable power.

✅ Electrifies transport and industrial heat with renewables

✅ Uses demand response, batteries, and pumped hydro for resilience

✅ Targets 99%+ renewable supply, managing dry-year and peak loads

As fossil fuels are phased out over the coming decades, the Climate Change Commission (CCC) suggests electricity will take up much of the slack, aligning with the vision of a sustainable electric planet powering our vehicle fleet and replacing coal and gas in industrial processes.

But can the electricity system really provide for this increased load where and when it is needed? The answer is “yes”, with some caveats.

Our research examines climate change impacts on the New Zealand energy system. It shows we’ll need to pay close attention to demand as well as supply. And we’ll have to factor in the impacts of climate change when we plan for growth in the energy sector.

Demand for electricity to grow
While electricity use has not increased in NZ in the past decade, many agencies project steeply rising demand in coming years. This is partly due to both increasing population and gross domestic product, but mostly due to the anticipated electrification of transport and industry, which could result in a doubling of demand by mid-century.

It’s hard to get a sense of the scale of the new generation required, but if wind was the sole technology employed to meet demand by 2050, between 10 and 60 new wind farms would be needed nationwide.

Of course, we won’t only build wind farms, as renewables are coming on strong and grid-scale solar, rooftop solar, new geothermal, some new small hydro plant and possibly tidal and wave power will all have a part to play.

Managing the demand
As well as providing more electricity supply, demand management and batteries will also be important. Our modelling shows peak demand (which usually occurs when everyone turns on their heaters and ovens at 6pm in winter) could be up to 40% higher by 2050 than it is now.

But meeting this daily period of high demand could see expensive plant sitting idle for much of the time (with the last 25% of generation capacity only used about 10% of the time).

This is particularly a problem in a renewable electricity system when the hydro lakes are dry, as hydro is one of the few renewable electricity sources that can be stored during the day (as water behind the dam) and used over the evening peak (by generating with that stored water).

Demand response will therefore be needed. For example, this might involve an industrial plant turning off when there is too much load on the electricity grid.

But by 2050, a significant number of households will also need smart appliances and meters that automatically use cheaper electricity at non-peak times. For example, washing machines and electric car chargers could run automatically at 2am, rather than 6pm when demand is high.

Our modelling shows a well set up demand response system could mitigate dry-year risk (when hydro lakes are low on water) in coming decades, where currently gas and coal generation is often used.

Instead of (or as well as) having demand response and battery systems to combat dry-year risk, a pumped storage system could be built. This is where water is pumped uphill when hydro lake inflows are plentiful, and used to generate electricity during dry periods.

The NZ Battery project is currently considering the potential for this in New Zealand, and debates such as whether we would use Site C's electricity offer relevant lessons.

Almost (but not quite) 100% renewable
Dry-year risk would be greatly reduced and there would be “greater greenhouse gas emissions savings” if the Interim Climate Change Committee’s (ICCC) 2019 recommendation to aim for 99% renewable electricity was adopted, rather than aiming for 100%.

A small amount of gas-peaking plant would therefore be retained. The ICCC said going from 99% to 100% renewable electricity by overbuilding would only avoid a very small amount of carbon emissions, at a very high cost.

Our modelling supports this view. The CCC’s draft advice on the issue also makes the point that, although 100% renewable electricity is the “desired end point”, timing is important to enable a smooth transition.

Despite these views, Energy Minister Megan Woods has said the government will be keeping the target of a 100% renewable electricity sector by 2030.

Impacts of climate change
In future, the electricity system will have to respond to changing climate patterns as well, becoming resilient to climate risks over time.

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research predicts winds will increase in the South Island and decrease in the far north in coming decades.

Inflows to the biggest hydro lakes will get wetter (more rain in their headwaters), and their seasonality will change due to changes in the amount of snow in these catchments.

Our modelling shows the electricity system can adapt to those changing conditions. One good news story (unless you’re a skier) is that warmer temperatures will mean less snow storage at lower elevations, and therefore higher lake inflows in the big hydro catchments in winter, leading to a better match between times of high electricity demand and higher inflows.

The price is right
The modelling also shows the cost of generating electricity is not likely to increase, because the price of building new sources of renewable energy continues to fall globally.

Because the cost of building new renewables is now cheaper than non-renewables (such as coal-fired plants), investing in carbon-free electricity is increasingly compelling, and renewables are more likely to be built to meet new demand in the near term.

While New Zealand’s electricity system can enable the rapid decarbonisation of (at least) our transport and industrial heat sectors, international efforts like cleaning up Canada's electricity underline the need for certainty so the electricity industry can start building to meet demand everywhere.

Bipartisan cooperation at government level will be important to encourage significant investment in generation and transmission projects with long lead times and life expectancies, as analyses of climate policy and grid implications underscore in comparable markets.

Infrastructure and markets are needed to support demand response uptake, as well as certainty around the Tiwai exit in 2024 and whether pumped storage is likely to be built.

Our electricity system can support the rapid decarbonisation needed if New Zealand is to do its fair share globally to tackle climate change.

But sound planning, firm decisions and a supportive and relatively stable regulatory framework are all required before shovels can hit the ground.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario electricity pricing consultations will gather business input on OEB rate design, Industrial Conservation Initiative, dynamic pricing, global adjustment, and system costs through online feedback and sector-specific in-person sessions province-wide.

Key Points

Consultations gathering business input on rates, programs, and OEB policy to improve fairness and reduce system costs.

✅ Consults on ICI, GA, dynamic pricing structures

✅ Seeks views on OEB C&I rate design changes

✅ In-person sessions across key industrial sectors

The Ontario government has announced plans to hold consultations to seek input from businesses about industrial electricity pricing and programs. This will be done through Ontario's online consultations directory and though in-person sector-specific consultation sessions across the province. The in-person sessions will be held in all areas of Ontario, and will target "key industries," including automotive and the build-out of electric vehicle charging stations infrastructure, forestry, mining, agriculture, steel, manufacturing and chemicals.

On April 1, 2019, the Ontario government published a consultation notice for this process, confirming that it is looking for input on "electricity rate design, existing tax-based incentives, reducing system costs and regulatory and delivery costs," including related proposals such as the hydrogen rate reduction proposal under discussion. The consultation process includes a list of nine questions for respondents (and presumably participants in the in-person sessions) to address. These include questions about:

The benefits of the Industrial Conservation Initiative (described below), including how it could be changed to improve fairness and industrial competitiveness, and how it could complement programs like the Hydrogen Innovation Fund that support industrial innovation.

Dynamic pricing structures that allow for lower rates in return for responding to price signals versus a flat rate structure that potentially costs more, but is more stable and predictable, as Ontario's energy storage expansion accelerates.

Interest in an all-in commodity contract with an electricity retailer, even if it involves a risk premium.

Interested parties are invited to submit their comments before May 31, 2019.

The government's consultation announcement follows recent developments in the Ontario Energy Board's (OEB) review of electricity ratemaking for commercial and industrial customers, and intertie projects such as the Lake Erie Connector that could affect market dynamics.

In December 2018, the OEB published a paper from its Market Surveillance Panel (MSP) examining the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI), and potential alternative approaches. The ICI is a program that allows qualifying large industrial customers to base their global adjustment (GA) payments on their consumption during five peak demand hours in a year. Customers who find ways to reduce consumption at those times, perhaps through DERs and enabling energy storage options, will reduce their electricity costs. This shifts GA costs to other customers. The MSP found that the ICI does not fairly allocate costs to those who cause them and/or benefit from them, and recommends that a better approach should be developed.

In February 2019, the OEB released its Staff Report to the Board on Rate Design for Commercial and Industrial Electricity Customers, setting out recommendations for new rate designs for electricity commercial and industrial (C&I) rate classes as Ontario increasingly turns to battery storage to meet rising demand. As described in an earlier post, the Staff Report includes recommendations to: (i) establish a fixed distribution charge for commercial customers with demands under 10 kW; (ii) implement a demand charge (rather than the current volumetric charge) for C&I customers with demands between 10kW and 50kW; and (iii) introduce a "capacity reserve charge" for customers with load displacement generation to replace stand-by charges and provide for recognition of the benefits of this generation on the system. The OEB held a stakeholder information session in mid-March on this initiative, and interested parties are now filing submissions in response to the Staff Report.

Whether and how the OEB's processes will fit together with the government's consultation process remains to be seen.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News