Drought hits TVA power production

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

OpenAI Washington Policy Expansion spotlights AI policy, energy infrastructure, data centers, and national security, advocating AI economic zones and a national transmission grid to advance U.S. competitiveness and align with pro-tech administration priorities.

Key Points

OpenAI's D.C. push to scale policy outreach and AI infrastructure across energy, data centers, and national security.

✅ Triples D.C. policy team to expand bipartisan engagement

✅ Advocates AI economic zones and transmission grid build-out

✅ Aligns with pro-tech leadership, prioritizing national security

OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, is significantly expanding its presence in Washington, D.C., aiming to influence policy decisions that will shape the future of artificial intelligence (AI) and its integration into critical sectors like energy and national security. This strategic move comes as the company seeks to position itself as a key player in the U.S. economic and security landscape, particularly in the context of global competition with China in strategic industries.

Expansion of Policy Team

To enhance its influence, OpenAI is tripling the size of its Washington policy team. While the 12-person team is still smaller compared to tech giants like Amazon and Meta, it reflects OpenAI's commitment to engaging more actively with policymakers, as debates over Biden's climate law shape the regulatory landscape. The company has recruited individuals from across the political spectrum, including former aides to President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, to ensure a diverse and comprehensive approach to policy advocacy.

Strategic Initiatives

OpenAI is promoting an ambitious plan to develop tech and energy infrastructure tailored for AI development. This initiative aims to deliver more affordable energy to data centers and reduce corporate electricity bills, which are essential for AI operations. The company is advocating for the establishment of AI economic zones and a national transmission highway to support the growing energy demands of AI technologies. By aligning these proposals with the incoming Trump administration's pro-tech stance, OpenAI seeks to secure federal support for its projects.

Engagement with the Trump Administration

The transition from the Biden administration to the incoming Trump administration presents new opportunities for OpenAI, even as state legal challenges shape early energy policy moves. The Trump administration is perceived as more favorable toward the tech industry, with appointments of Silicon Valley figures like Elon Musk and David Sacks to key positions. OpenAI is leveraging this environment to advocate for policies that support AI development and infrastructure expansion, positioning itself as a strategic asset in the U.S.-China economic and security competition.

The AI industry is increasingly viewed as a critical component of national security and economic competitiveness. OpenAI's efforts to engage with policymakers reflect a broader industry push to be recognized as a vital player in the U.S. economic and security landscape. By promoting AI as a strategic asset, OpenAI aims to secure support for its initiatives, including clean-energy projects in coal communities, and ensure that the U.S. remains at the forefront of AI innovation.

OpenAI's strategic expansion in Washington, D.C., underscores its commitment to influencing policy decisions that will shape the future of AI and its integration into critical sectors. By enhancing its policy team, advocating for infrastructure development, where Alberta's data center boom illustrates rising demand, and aligning with the incoming administration's priorities, even as energy dominance goals face real-world constraints, OpenAI aims to position itself as a key player in the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence. This proactive approach reflects the company's recognition of the importance of policy engagement in driving innovation and securing a competitive edge in the global AI arena.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electrification Potential Study for Canada evaluates NRCan's decarbonization roadmap, assessing electrification of end uses and replacements for fossil fuels across transportation, buildings, and industry, including propane, diesel, natural gas, and coal, to guide energy policy.

Key Points

An NRCan study assessing electrification to replace fossil fuels across sectors and guide deep decarbonization R&D.

✅ Evaluates non-electric alternatives alongside electrification paths

✅ Covers propane, diesel, natural gas, and coal end uses

✅ Guides NRCan R&D priorities for deep decarbonization

The federal government wants to spend up to $300,000 on a study aimed at understanding whether existing electrical technologies can “reduce or eliminate” fossil fuels used for virtually every purpose other than generating electricity.

The proposal has caused consternation within the Saskatchewan government, whose premier has criticized a 2035 net-zero grid target as shifting the goalposts, and which has spent months attacking federal policies it believes will harm the Western Canadian energy sector without meaningfully addressing climate change.

Procurement documents indicate the “Electrification Potential Study for Canada” will provide “strategic guidance on the need to pursue both electric and non-electric energy research and development to enable deep decarbonisation scenarios.”

“It is critical that (Natural Resources Canada) as a whole have a cross-sectoral, consistent, and comprehensive understanding of the viability of electric technologies as a replacement for fossil fuels,” the documents state.

The study proponent will be asked to examine possible replacements for a range of fuels, including propane, transportation fuel, fuel oil, diesel, natural gas and coal, even as Alberta maps a path to clean electricity for its grid. Only international travel fuel and electricity generation are outside the scope of the study.

“To be clear, the consultant should not answer these questions directly, but should conduct the analysis with them in mind. The goal … is to collate data which can be used by (Natural Resources Canada) to conduct analysis related to these questions,” the documents state.

Natural Resources Canada issued the request for proposals one week before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau officially launched a 40-day election campaign in which climate and energy policy, including debates over Alberta's power market like a Calgary retailer's challenge, is expected to play a defining role.

It also comes as the federal government works to complete the controversial Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion project through British Columbia, amid tariff threats boosting support for Canadian energy projects, which it bought last year for $4.5 billion and is currently bogged down in the court system.

A Natural Resources Canada spokeswoman said the ministry would not be able to respond to questions until sometime on Thursday.

While the documents make clear that the study aims to answer unresolved questions about what the International Energy Agency calls an increasingly-electric future, with clean grid and storage trends emerging, without a specific timeline, the provincial government is far from thrilled.

Energy and Resources Minister Bronwyn Eyre said the document reflects the federal government’s “hostility” to the energy sector, even as Alberta's electricity sector faces profound change, because government ministries like Natural Resources Canada don’t do anything without political direction.

Asked whether a responsible government should consider every option before taking a decision, Eyre said a government that was not interested in eliminating fossil fuels entirely would not have used such “strong” language in a public document, noting that provinces like Ontario are grappling with hydro system problems as well.

“I think it’s a real wake-up call to what (Ottawa’s) endgame really is here,” she said, adding that the document does not ask the proponent to conduct an economic impact analysis or consider potential job losses in the energy sector.

The study is organized by Natural Resources Canada’s office of energy research and development, which is tasked with accelerating energy technology “in order to produce and use energy in … more clean and efficient ways,” the documents state.

Bidding on the proposal closes Oct. 14, one week before the federal election. The successful proponent must deliver a final report in April 2020, according to the documents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Buses reduce urban emissions and noise, but require charging infrastructure, grid upgrades, and depot redesigns; they offer lower operating costs and simpler maintenance, with range limits influencing routes, schedules, and on-route fast charging.

Key Points

Battery-electric buses cut emissions and noise while lowering operating and maintenance costs for transit agencies.

✅ Lower emissions, noise; improved rider experience

✅ Requires charging, grid upgrades, depot redesigns

✅ Range limits affect routes; on-route fast charging helps

In lots of ways, the electric bus feels like a technology whose time has come. Transportation is responsible for about a quarter of global emissions, and those emissions are growing faster than in any other sector. While buses are just a small slice of the worldwide vehicle fleet, they have an outsize effect on the environment. That’s partly because they’re so dirty—one Bogotá bus fleet made up just 5 percent of the city’s total vehicles, but a quarter of its CO2, 40 percent of nitrogen oxide, and more than half of all its particulate matter vehicle emissions. And because buses operate exactly where the people are concentrated, we feel the effects that much more acutely.

Enter the electric bus. Depending on the “cleanliness” of the electric grid into which they’re plugged, e-buses are much better for the environment. They’re also just straight up nicer to be around: less vibration, less noise, zero exhaust. Plus, in the long term, e-buses have lower operating costs, and related efforts like US school bus electrification are gathering pace too.

So it makes sense that global e-bus sales increased by 32 percent last year, according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, as the age of electric cars accelerates across markets worldwide. “You look across the electrification of cars, trucks—it’s buses that are leading this revolution,” says David Warren, the director of sustainable transportation at bus manufacturer New Flyer.

Today, about 17 percent of the world’s buses are electric—425,000 in total. But 99 percent of them are in China, where a national mandate promotes all sorts of electric vehicles. In North America, a few cities have bought a few electric buses, or at least run limited pilots, to test the concept out, and early deployments like Edmonton's first e-bus offer useful lessons as systems ramp up. California has even mandated that by 2029 all buses purchased by its mass transit agencies be zero-emission.

But given all the benefits of e-buses, why aren’t there more? And why aren’t they everywhere?

“We want to be responsive, we want to be innovative, we want to pilot new technologies and we’re committed to doing so as an agency,” says Becky Collins, the manager of corporate initiative at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which is currently on its second e-bus pilot program. “But if the diesel bus was a first-generation car phone, we’re verging on smartphone territory right now. It’s not as simple as just flipping a switch.”

One reason is trepidation about the actual electric vehicle. Some of the major bus manufacturers are still getting over their skis, production-wise. During early tests in places like Belo Horizonte, Brazil, e-buses had trouble getting over steep hills with full passenger loads. Albuquerque, New Mexico, canceled a 15-bus deal with the Chinese manufacturer BYD after finding equipment problems during testing. (The city also sued). Today’s buses get around 225 miles per charge, depending on topography and weather conditions, which means they have to re-up about once a day on a shorter route in a dense city. That’s an issue in a lot of places.

If you want to buy an electric bus, you need to buy into an entire electric bus system. The vehicle is just the start.

The number one thing people seem to forget about electric buses is that they need to get charged, and emerging projects such as a bus depot charging hub illustrate how infrastructure can scale. “We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles,” says Camron Gorguinpour, the global senior manager for the electric vehicles at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, which last month released twin reports on electric bus adoption. “The actual charging stations get lost in the mix.”

But charging stations are expensive—about $50,000 for your standard depot-based one. On-route charging stations, an appealing option for longer bus routes, can be two or three times that. And that’s not even counting construction costs. Or the cost of new land: In densely packed urban centers, movements inside bus depots can be tightly orchestrated to accommodate parking and fueling. New electric bus infrastructure means rethinking limited space, and operators can look to Toronto's TTC e-bus fleet for practical lessons on depot design. And it’s a particular pain when agencies are transitioning between diesel and electric buses. “The big issue is just maintaining two sets of fueling infrastructure,” says Hanjiro Ambrose, a doctoral student at UC Davis who studies transportation technology and policy.

“We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles. The actual charging stations get lost in the mix as the American EV boom gathers pace across sectors.”

Then agencies also have to get the actual electricity to their charging stations. This involves lengthy conversations with utilities about grid upgrades, rethinking how systems are wired, occasionally building new substations, and, sometimes, cutting deals on electric output, since electric truck fleets will also strain power systems in parallel. Because an entirely electrified bus fleet? It’s a lot to charge. Warren, the New Flyer executive, estimates it could take 150 megawatt-hours of electricity to keep a 300-bus depot charged up throughout the day. Your typical American household, by contrast, consumes 7 percent of that—per year. “That’s a lot of work by the utility company,” says Warren.

For cities outside of China—many of them still testing out electric buses and figuring out how they fit into their larger fleets—learning about what it takes to run one is part of the process. This, of course, takes money. It also takes time. Optimists say e-buses are more of a question of when than if. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that just under 60 percent of all fleet buses will be electric by 2040, compared to under 40 percent of commercial vans and 30 percent of passenger vehicles.

Which means, of course, that the work has just started. “With new technology, it always feels great when it shows up,” says Ambrose. “You really hope that first mile is beautiful, because the shine will come off. That’s always true.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

ABO Wind Tunisia 10MW Solar Project will build a photovoltaic park in Gabes with a STEG PPA, fixed tariff, 2,500 m grid connection, producing 18 million kWh annually, targeted for 2020 commissioning with local partners.

Key Points

A 10MW photovoltaic park in Gabes with a 20-year STEG PPA and fixed tariff, slated for 2020 commissioning.

✅ 18 million kWh/year; 2,500 m grid tie, 20-year fixed tariff

✅ Electricity supplied to STEG under PPA; 2020 commissioning

✅ Located in Gabes; built with local partners, 10MW capacity

ABO Wind has received a permit and a tariff for a 10MW photovoltaic project in Tunisia, amid global activity such as Spain's 90MW wind project now underway, which it plans to build and commission in 2020.

The solar park, in the governorate of Gabes, is 400km south of the country’s capital Tunis and aligns with renewable funding initiatives seen across developing markets.

The developer said it plans to build the project next year in close cooperation with local partners, as regional markets from North Africa to the Gulf expand, with Saudi Arabia boosting wind capacity as well.

ABO Wind department head Nicolas Konig said: “The solar park will produce more than 18 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year and will feed it into the grid at a distance of 2500 metres.”

The developer will conclude an electricity supply contract with the state-owned energy supplier (Societe tunisienne de l’electricite et du gaz (STEG), which will provide a fixed remuneration over 20 years, a model echoed by Germany's wind-solar tender for the electricity fed into the grid.

Earlier this year, ABO Wind had already secured a tariff for a wind farm with a capacity of 30MW in a tender, 35km south-east of Tunis, underscoring Tunisia's wind investments under its long-term plan.

The company is working on half a dozen Tunisian wind and solar projects, as institutions like the World Bank support wind growth in developing countries.

“We are making good progress on our way to assemble a portfolio of several ready-to-build wind and solar projects attractive to investors, as Saudi clean energy targets continue to expand globally,” said ABO Wind general manager responsible for international business development Patrik Fischer.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Alberta Electricity Price Hikes spotlight grid reliability, renewable transition, coal phase-out, and energy poverty, as policy shifts and investor reports warn of rate increases, biomass trade-offs, and sustainability challenges impacting households and businesses.

Key Points

Projected power bill hikes from market reforms, renewables, coal phase-out, and reliability costs in Alberta.

✅ Investor report projects 3x-7x bills and $50B market transition costs

✅ Policy missteps cited in Ontario, Germany, Australia price spikes

✅ Debate: retain coal vs. speed renewables, storage, and grid upgrades

Since when did electricity become a scarce resource?

I thought all the talk about greening the grid was about having renewable, sustainable, less polluting options to fulfill our growing need for power. Yet, increasingly, we are faced with news stories that indicate using power is bad in and of itself, even as flat electricity demand worries utilities.

The implication, I guess, is that we should be using less of it. But, I don’t want to use less electricity. I want to be able to watch TV, turn my lights on when the sun sets at 4 p.m. in the winter, keep my food cold and power my devices.

We once had a consensus that a reliable supply of power was essential to a growing economy and a high quality of life, a point underscored by brownout risks in U.S. markets.

I’m beginning to wonder if we still have that consensus.

And more importantly, if our decision makers have determined electricity is a vice as opposed to an essential of life – as debates over Alberta electricity policy suggest – you know what is going to happen next. Prices are going to rise, forcing all of us to use less.

How much would it hurt your bottom line if your electricity bill went up three-fold? How about seven-fold? That is the grim picture that Todd Beasley painted for us on Tuesday’s show.

Last week, he launched a campaign on behalf of Albertans for Sustainable Electricity, called Stop the Shock. He shared the results of an internal investor report that concluded Alberta’s power market overhaul would cost an estimated $50 billion to implement and could result in a three to seven-fold increase in electricity bills.

Now, my typical power bill averages $70 a month. That would be like having it grow to $210 a month, or just over $2,500 a year. If it’s a seven-fold increase that would be more like $5,000 a year. That may be manageable for some families, but I can think of a lot of things I’d rather do with $5,000 than pay more to keep my fridge running so my food doesn’t spoil.

For low-income families that would be a real hardship.

Beasley said Ontario’s inept handling of its electricity market and the phase-out of coal power resulted in price spikes that left more than 70,000 individuals facing energy poverty.

Germany and Australia realized they made the same mistake and are returning some electricity to coal.

Beasley shared a long list of Canadian firms – including our own Canadian Pension Plan – that are investing in coal development around the world. Meanwhile, Canadian governments remain in a mad rush to phase it out here. That’s not the only hypocrisy.

Rupert Darwall, author of Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex, revealed in a recent column what he calls “the scandal at the heart of the EU’s renewable policies.”

Turns out most of their expansion in renewable energy has come from biomass in the form of wood. Not only does burning wood produce more CO2, it also eliminates carbon sinks.

To meet the EU’s 2030 target would require cutting down trees equivalent to the combined harvest in Canada and the United States. As he puts it, “Whichever way you look at it, burning the world’s carbon sinks to meet the EU’s arbitrary renewable energy targets is environmentally insane.”

Beasley’s group is trying to bring some sanity back to the discussion. The goal should be to move to a greener grid while maintaining abundant, reliable and cheap power, and examples like Texas grid improvements show practical steps. He thinks to achieve all these goals, coal should remain part of the mix. What do you think?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News