Drought hits TVA power production

Bitcoin Energy Consumption drives debate on blockchain mining, proof-of-work, carbon footprint, and emissions, with CCAF estimates in terawatt hours highlighting electricity demand, fossil fuel reliance, and sustainability concerns for data centers and cryptocurrency networks.

Key Points

Electricity used by Bitcoin proof-of-work mining, often fossil-fueled, estimated by CCAF in terawatt hours.

✅ CCAF: 40-445 TWh, central estimate ~130 TWh

✅ ~66% of mining electricity sourced from fossil fuels

✅ Proof-of-work increases hash rate, energy, and emissions

The University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) studies the burgeoning business of cryptocurrencies.

It calculates that Bitcoin's total energy consumption is somewhere between 40 and 445 annualised terawatt hours (TWh), with a central estimate of about 130 terawatt hours.

The UK's electricity consumption is a little over 300 TWh a year, while Argentina uses around the same amount of power as the CCAF's best guess for Bitcoin, as countries like New Zealand's electricity future are debated to balance demand.

And the electricity the Bitcoin miners use overwhelmingly comes from polluting sources, with the U.S. grid not 100% renewable underscoring broader energy mix challenges worldwide.

The CCAF team surveys the people who manage the Bitcoin network around the world on their energy use and found that about two-thirds of it is from fossil fuels, and some regions are weighing curbs like Russia's proposed mining ban amid electricity deficits.

Huge computing power - and therefore energy use - is built into the way the blockchain technology that underpins the cryptocurrency has been designed.

It relies on a vast decentralised network of computers.

These are the so-called Bitcoin "miners" who enable new Bitcoins to be created, but also independently verify and record every transaction made in the currency.

In fact, the Bitcoins are the reward miners get for maintaining this record accurately.

It works like a lottery that runs every 10 minutes, explains Gina Pieters, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and a research fellow with the CCAF team.

Data processing centres around the world, including hotspots such as Iceland's mining strain, race to compile and submit this record of transactions in a way that is acceptable to the system.

They also have to guess a random number.

The first to submit the record and the correct number wins the prize - this becomes the next block in the blockchain.

Estimates for bitcoin's electricity consumption
At the moment, they are rewarded with six-and-a-quarter Bitcoins, valued at about $50,000 each.

As soon as one lottery is over, a new number is generated, and the whole process starts again.

The higher the price, says Prof Pieters, the more miners want to get into the game, and utilities like BC Hydro suspending new crypto connections highlight grid pressures.

"They want to get that revenue," she tells me, "and that's what's going to encourage them to introduce more and more powerful machines in order to guess this random number, and therefore you will see an increase in energy consumption," she says.

And there is another factor that drives Bitcoin's increasing energy consumption.

The software ensures it always takes 10 minutes for the puzzle to be solved, so if the number of miners is increasing, the puzzle gets harder and the more computing power needs to be thrown at it.

Bitcoin is therefore actually designed to encourage increased computing effort.

The idea is that the more computers that compete to maintain the blockchain, the safer it becomes, because anyone who might want to try and undermine the currency must control and operate at least as much computing power as the rest of the miners put together.

What this means is that, as Bitcoin gets more valuable, the computing effort expended on creating and maintaining it - and therefore the energy consumed - inevitably increases.

We can track how much effort miners are making to create the currency.

They are currently reckoned to be making 160 quintillion calculations every second - that's 160,000,000,000,000,000,000, in case you were wondering.

And this vast computational effort is the cryptocurrency's Achilles heel, says Alex de Vries, the founder of the Digiconomist website and an expert on Bitcoin.

All the millions of trillions of calculations it takes to keep the system running aren't really doing any useful work.

"They're computations that serve no other purpose," says de Vries, "they're just immediately discarded again. Right now we're using a whole lot of energy to produce those calculations, but also the majority of that is sourced from fossil energy, and clean energy's 'dirty secret' complicates substitution."

The vast effort it requires also makes Bitcoin inherently difficult to scale, he argues.

"If Bitcoin were to be adopted as a global reserve currency," he speculates, "the Bitcoin price will probably be in the millions, and those miners will have more money than the entire [US] Federal budget to spend on electricity."

"We'd have to double our global energy production," he says with a laugh, even as some argue cheap abundant electricity is getting closer to reality today. "For Bitcoin."

He says it also limits the number of transactions the system can process to about five per second.

This doesn't make for a useful currency, he argues.

Rising price of bitcoin graphic
And that view is echoed by many eminent figures in finance and economics.

The two essential features of a successful currency are that it is an effective form of exchange and a stable store of value, says Ken Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

He says Bitcoin is neither.

"The fact is, it's not really used much in the legal economy now. Yes, one rich person sells it to another, but that's not a final use. And without that it really doesn't have a long-term future."

What he is saying is that Bitcoin exists almost exclusively as a vehicle for speculation.

So, I want to know: is the bubble about to burst?

"That's my guess," says Prof Rogoff and pauses.

"But I really couldn't tell you when."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Texas Blackout Liability Ruling clarifies appellate court findings in Houston, citing deregulated energy markets, ERCOT immunity, wholesale generators, retail providers, and 2021 winter storm lawsuits over grid failures and wrongful deaths.

Key Points

Houston judges held wholesale generators owe no duty to retail customers, limiting liability for 2021 blackout lawsuits.

✅ Court cites deregulated market and lack of privity to consumers

✅ Ruling shields generators from 2021 winter storm civil suits

✅ Plaintiffs plan appeals; legislature may address liability

Nearly three years after the devastating Texas blackout of 2021, a panel of judges from the First Court of Appeals in Houston has determined that major power companies cannot be held accountable for their failure to deliver electricity during the power grid crisis that unfolded, citing Texas' deregulated energy market as the reason.

This ruling appears likely to shield these companies from lawsuits that were filed against them in the aftermath of the blackout, leaving the families of those affected uncertain about where to seek justice.

In February 2021, a severe cold front swept over Texas, bringing extended periods of ice and snow. The extreme weather conditions increased energy demand while simultaneously reducing supply by causing power generators and the state's natural gas supply chain to freeze. This led to a blackout that left millions of Texans without power and water for nearly a week.

The state officially reported that almost 250 people lost their lives during the winter storm and subsequent blackout, although some analysts argue that this is a significant undercount and warn of blackout risks across the U.S. during severe heat as well.

In the wake of the storm, Texans affected by the energy system's failure began filing lawsuits, and lawmakers proposed a market bailout as political debate intensified. Some of these legal actions were directed against power generators whose plants either ceased to function during the storm or ran out of fuel for electricity generation.

After several years of legal proceedings, a three-judge panel was convened to evaluate the merits of these lawsuits.

This week, Chief Justice Terry Adams issued a unanimous opinion on behalf of the panel, stating, "Texas does not currently recognize a legal duty owed by wholesale power generators to retail customers to provide continuous electricity to the electric grid, and ultimately to the retail customers."

The opinion further clarified that major power generators "are now statutorily precluded by the legislature from having any direct relationship with retail customers of electricity."

This separation of power generation from transmission and retail electric sales in many parts of Texas resulted from energy market deregulation in the early 2000s, with the goal of reducing energy costs, and prompted electricity market reforms aimed at avoiding future blackouts.

Under the previous system, power companies were "vertically integrated," controlling generators, transmission lines, and selling the energy they produced directly to regional customers. However, in deregulated areas of Texas, competition was introduced, creating competing energy-generating companies and retail electric providers that purchase power wholesale and then sell it to residential consumers; meanwhile, electric cooperatives in other parts of the state remained member-owned providers.

Tré Fischer, a partner at the Jackson Walker law firm representing the power companies, explained, "One consequence of that was, because of the unbundling and the separation, you also don't have the same duties and obligations [to consumers]. The structure just doesn't allow for that direct relationship and correspondingly a direct obligation to continually supply the electricity even if there's a natural disaster or catastrophic event."

In the opinion, Justice Adams noted that when designing the Texas energy market, amid renewed interest in ways to improve electricity reliability across the grid, state lawmakers "could have codified the retail customers' asserted duty of continuous electricity on the part of wholesale power generators into law."

The recent ruling applies to five representative cases chosen by the panel out of hundreds filed after the blackout. Due to this decision, it is improbable that any of the lawsuits against power companies will succeed, according to the court's interpretation.

However, plaintiffs' attorneys have indicated their intention to appeal. They may request a review of the panel's opinion by the entire First Court of Appeals or appeal directly to the state supreme court.

The state Supreme Court had previously ruled that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state's power grid operator, enjoys sovereign immunity and cannot be sued over the blackout.

This latest opinion raises the question of who, if anyone, can be held responsible for deaths and losses resulting from the blackout, a question left unaddressed by the court. Fischer commented, "If anything [the judges] were saying that is a question for the Texas legislature."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Solar Cap Removal would accelerate photovoltaics, storage, and renewables, replacing coal and nuclear during phaseout with 10GW per year toward 162GW by 2030, boosting grid resilience, O&M jobs, and domestic clean energy growth.

Key Points

A policy change to scrap the 52GW limit, enabling 10GW/year PV and storage to replace coal and nuclear capacity.

✅ Scrap 52GW cap to prevent post-2020 market slump

✅ Add 10GW PV annually; scale residential, commercial, grid storage

✅ Create jobs in planning, installation, and O&M through 2030

The German Solar Association (BSW) has called on the government to remove barriers to the development of new solar power capacity in Germany and storage capacity needed to replace coal and nuclear generation that is being phased out.

A 52GW cap should be scrapped, otherwise there is a risk that a market slump will occur in the solar industry after 2020, BSW said, especially as U.S. solar expansion plans signal accelerating global demand.

BSW managing director Carsten Körnig said: “Time is running out, and further delays are irresponsible. The 52GW mark will already be reached within a few months.”
A new report from BSW, in cooperation with Bonn-based marketing and social research company EuPD Research and The smarter E Europe initiative, said 10GW a year is needed as well as an increase in battery storage capacity.

This would lead to cumulative photovoltaic capacity of 162GW and 15GW residential, commercial and grid storage systems by 2030, in line with global renewable records being set, leading to new job opportunities.

The number of jobs in the domestic photovoltaic and storage industries could increase to 78,000 by the end of the next decade from today’s level of 26,400, aligning with forecasts of wind and solar reaching 50% by mid-century, said 'The Energy Transition in the Context of the Nuclear and Coal Phaseout – Perspectives in the Electricity Market to 2040' study.

Job growth would take place for the most part in the fields of planning, installation and operations and maintenance of PV systems, as solar uptake in Poland increases, the report said.

In maintenance alone, employment would increase from 9,200 to 26,000, with additional opened up by tapping into the market potential of medium- to long-term storage systems, alongside changing electricity prices in Northern Europe that favor flexibility, it said.

The report added that industry revenue could grow from €5bn to €12.5bn in the coming decade.

The report was supported by BayWa Re E3/DC, Fronius, Goldbeck Solar, IBC Solar, Panasonic, Sharp, Siemens, Sonnen, Suntech, Tesvolt and Varta.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BC Hydro Cryptocurrency Mining Suspension pauses new grid connections for Bitcoin data centers, preserving electricity for EVs, heat pumps, and industry electrification, as Site C capacity and megawatt demand trigger provincial energy policy review.

Key Points

An 18-month pause on new crypto-mining grid hookups to preserve electricity for EVs, heat pumps, and electrification.

✅ 18-month moratorium on new BC Hydro crypto connections

✅ Preserves capacity for EVs, heat pumps, and industry

✅ 21 pending mines sought 1,403 MW; Site C adds 1,100 MW

New cryptocurrency mining businesses in British Columbia are now temporarily banned from being hooked up to BC Hydro’s electrical grid.

The 18-month suspension on new electricity-connection requests is intended to provide the electrical utility and provincial government with the time needed, a move similar to N.B. Power's pause during a crypto review, to create a permanent framework for any future additional cryptocurrency mining operations.

Currently, BC Hydro already provides electricity to seven cryptocurrency mining operations, and six more are in advanced stages of being connected to the grid, with a combined total power consumption of 273 megawatts. These existing operations, unlike the Siwash Creek project now in limbo, will not be affected by the temporary ban.

The electrical utility’s suspension comes at a time when there are 21 applications to open cryptocurrency mining businesses in BC, even as electricity imports supplement the grid during peaks, which would have a combined total power consumption of 1,403 megawatts — equivalent to the electricity needed for 570,000 homes or 2.3 million battery-electric vehicles annually.

In fact, the 21 cryptocurrency mining businesses would completely wipe out the new electrical capacity gained by building the $16 billion Site C hydroelectric dam, alongside two newly commissioned stations that add supply, which has an output capacity of 1,100 megawatts or enough power for the equivalent of 450,000 homes. Site C is expected to be operational by 2025.

Cryptocurrency mining, such as Bitcoin, use a very substantial amount of electricity to operate high-powered computers around the clock, which perform complex cryptographic and math problems to verify transactions. High electricity needs are the result of not only to run the racks of computers, but to provide extreme cooling given the significant heat produced.

“We are suspending electricity connection requests from cryptocurrency mining operators to preserve our electricity supply for people who are switching to electric vehicles, amid BC Hydro's first call for power in 15 years, and heat pumps, and for businesses and industries that are undertaking electrification projects that reduce carbon emissions and generate jobs and economic opportunities,” said Josie Osborne, the BC minister of energy, mines and low carbon innovation, adding that cryptocurrency mining creates very few jobs for the local economy.

Such businesses are attracted to BC due to the availability of its clean, plentiful, and cheap hydroelectricity, which LNG companies continue to seek for their operations as well.

If left unchecked, the provincial government suggests BC Hydro’s long-term electrical capacity could be wiped out by cryptocurrency mining operations, even as debates over going nuclear persist among residents across the province.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Oil and Gas Emissions Cap sets five-year targets to cut sector emissions toward net-zero by 2050, alongside an EV mandate, carbon pricing signals, and support for carbon capture, clean energy jobs, climate policy.

Key Points

A federal policy to regulate and reduce oil and gas emissions via 5-year targets, reaching net-zero by 2050.

✅ Regulated 5-year milestones to cut oil and gas emissions to net-zero by 2050

✅ Interim EV mandate: 50% by 2030; 100% zero-emission sales by 2035

✅ $2B fund for clean energy jobs in oil- and gas-reliant communities

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau vowed to regulate total emissions from Canada’s oil and gas producers as he laid out his first major climate change promises of the campaign Sunday, a plan that was welcomed by several environmental and climate organizations.

Trudeau said that if re-elected, the Liberals will set out regulated five-year targets for emissions from oil and gas production to get them to net-zero emissions by 2050, a goal that, according to an IEA report will require more electricity, but also create a $2 billion fund to create jobs in oil and gas-reliant communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Let’s be realistic, over a quarter of Canada’s emissions come from our oil and gas sector. We need the leadership of these industries to decarbonize our country,” Trudeau said.

“That’s why we’ll make sure oil and gas emissions don’t increase and instead go down with achievable milestones,” while ensuring local economies can prosper.“

The Liberals are also introducing an interim electric vehicle mandate, which will require half the cars sold in Canada to be zero-emission by 2030, and because cleaning up electricity is critical to meeting climate pledges, the policy pairs with power-sector decarbonization, ahead of the final mandated target of 100 per cent by 2035.

Trudeau spoke in Cambridge, Ont., where protesters once again made an appearance amid a visible police presence. Officers carried one woman off the property when she refused to leave when asked.

Trudeau alluded to the protesters and their actions, which included sounding sirens and chanting expletives, as he defended his government’s record on climate change including progress in the electricity sector nationally, and touted its new plan.

“Sirens in the background may remind us that this is a climate emergency. That’s why we will move faster and be bolder,” he said.

Canada’s largest oilsands producers have already committed to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, but the policy proposed Sunday “calls the oil companies’ bluff” by making those goals a legislated requirement, said Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada.

The new timeline for electric vehicles also “sends a clear signal to auto companies to get cracking (and build them here),” he said on Twitter, even as proposals like a fully renewable grid by 2030 are debated today. “We’d like to see this happen faster but the shift away from voluntary targets to requirements is big.”

Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, a climate program at Simon Fraser University, said clean electricity, clean transportation and “phasing out oil and gas with accountable milestones” must be key priorities over the next decade, aligning with Canada’s race to net-zero and the role of renewable energy.

“Today’s announcement, which checks all of these boxes, is not just good ambition_it’s good policy. Policy that will drive down carbon pollution and drive up clean job growth and economic competitiveness. It is policy that will drive Canada forward with cleaner cars, power Canada with clean electricity, and invest in businesses that will last such as battery manufacturing, electric vehicle manufacturing and low carbon steel,” Smith said in an email.

Michael Bernstein, executive director of the climate policy organization Clean Prosperity, said the promises laid out Sunday offer a “strong boost” to the federal government’s previous climate commitments.

He said the organization prefers market incentives such as carbon pricing, that spur innovation over further regulation. But since the largest oilsands companies have already committed to reaching net-zero emissions, he said the newly unveiled policy could provide some support.

“ First, I would encourage the Liberal Party to release independent modelling showing the types of emissions reductions they expect to achieve with their new package of policies. Second, many policies are referred to in general terms so I hope the Liberal Party will provide further details in the coming days,” he said.

“Finally, the document does not specifically mention carbon capture or carbon dioxide removal technologies but both technologies will be critical to achieve some of the pledges in today’s announcement, especially reaching net-zero emissions in the oil a gas sector.”

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh painted the announcement as the latest in a string of “empty promises” from the Liberals on climate change, saying Canada has the highest increase in greenhouse gas emissions among all G7 countries, and that provinces like B.C. risk missing 2050 targets as well, he argued.

“Climate targets mean nothing when you don’t act on them. We can’t afford more of Justin Trudeau’s empty words on climate change,” he said in a statement.

The Trudeau Liberals submitted new targets to the United Nations in July, promising that Canada will curb emissions by 40 to 45 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030, building on the net-zero by 2050 plan announced earlier, officials say.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News