Turbine shortage to leave some Scottish communities in the dark

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

Electric weed-zapping farm robots enable precision agriculture, using autonomous mapping, per-plant targeting, and robotics to reduce pesticides, improve soil health, boost biodiversity, and lower costs with data-driven, selective weeding and seed-planting workflows.

Key Points

Autonomous machines that map fields, electrocute weeds per plant, and plant seeds, cutting pesticides, inputs, and costs.

✅ Precision agriculture: per-plant targeting reduces pesticide use up to 95%.

✅ Autonomous mapping robot surveys 20 hectares per day for weed data.

✅ Electric weeding and seeding improve soil health, biodiversity, and ROI.

On a field in England, three robots have been given a mission: to find and zap weeds with electricity, as advances in digitizing the electrical system continue to modernize power infrastructure, before planting seeds in the cleared soil.

The robots — named Tom, Dick and Harry — were developed by Small Robot Company to rid land of unwanted weeds with minimal use of chemicals and heavy machinery, complementing emerging options like electric tractors that aim to cut on-farm emissions.
The startup has been working on its autonomous weed killers since 2017, and this April launched Tom, its first commercial robot which is now operational on three UK farms. The other robots are still in the prototype stage, undergoing testing.

Small Robot says robot Tom can scan 20 hectares (49 acres) a day, collecting data, with AI-driven analysis guiding Dick, a "crop-care" robot, to zap weeds. Then it's robot Harry's turn to plant seeds in the weed-free soil.

Using the full system, once it is up and running, farmers could reduce costs by 40% and chemical usage by up to 95%, the company says, and integration with virtual power plants could further optimize energy use on electrified farms.

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization six million metric tons of pesticides were traded globally in 2018, valued at $38 billion.

"Our system allows farmers to wean their depleted, damaged soils off a diet of chemicals," says Ben Scott-Robinson, Small Robot's co-founder and CEO.

Zapping weeds
Small Robot says it has raised over £7 million ($9.9 million). Scott-Robinson says the company hopes to launch its full system of robots by 2023, which will be offered as a service at a rate of around £400 ($568) per hectare. The monitoring robot is placed at a farm first and the weeding and planting robots delivered only when the data shows they're needed — a setup that ultimately relies on a resilient grid, where research into preventing ransomware attacks is increasingly relevant.

To develop the zapping technology, Small Robot partnered with another UK-based startup, RootWave, while innovations like electricity from snow highlight the breadth of emerging energy tech.

"It creates a current that goes through the roots of the plant through the soil and then back up, which completely destroys the weed," says Scott-Robinson. "We can go to each individual plant that is threatening the crop plants and take it out."

"It's not as fast as it would be if you went out to spray the entire field," he says. "But you have to bear in mind we only have to go into the parts of the field where the weeds are." Plants that are neutral or beneficial to the crops are left untouched.

Small Robot calls this "per plant farming" — a type of precise agriculture where every plant is accounted for and monitored.

A business case
For Kit Franklin, an agricultural engineering lecturer from Harper Adams University, efficiency remains a hurdle, even as utilities use AI to adapt to electricity demands that could support wider on-farm electrification.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the electrical system works," he tells CNN Business. "But you can cover hundreds of hectares a day with a large-scale sprayer ... If we want to go into this really precise weed killing system, we have to realize that there is an output reduction that is very hard to overcome."

But Franklin believes farmers will adopt the technology if they can see a business case.

"There's a realization that farming in an environmentally friendly way is also a way of farming in an efficient way," he says. "Using less inputs, where and when we need them, is going to save us money and it's going to be good for the environment and the perception of farmers."

As well as reducing the use of chemicals, Small Robot wants to improve soil quality and biodiversity.

"If you treat a living environment like an industrial process, then you are ignoring the complexity of it," Scott-Robinson says. "We have to change farming now, otherwise there won't be anything to farm."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Seattle City Light Energy Efficiency Programs help 93,000 residents cut bills with rebates, home energy audits, weatherization, conservation workshops, and sustainability tools, reducing electricity use and greenhouse gas emissions across Seattle communities.

Key Points

They are utility programs that lower electricity use and bills via rebates, energy audits, and weatherization services.

✅ Rebates for ENERGY STAR appliances and efficient HVAC upgrades

✅ Free audits with tailored recommendations and savings roadmaps

✅ Weatherization aid for low-income households and renters

In a noteworthy achievement for both residents and the environment, Seattle City Light has successfully helped more than 93,000 customers reduce their electricity bills through various energy efficiency programs. This initiative not only alleviates financial burdens for many households, amid concerns about pandemic-era shut-offs that heightened energy insecurity, but also aligns with the city’s commitment to sustainability and responsible energy use.

The Drive for Energy Efficiency

Seattle City Light, the city’s publicly owned electric utility, has been at the forefront of promoting energy efficiency among its customers. Recognizing that energy costs can strain household budgets, the utility has developed a range of programs and tracks emerging utility rate designs to help residents lower their energy consumption and, consequently, their bills.

One of the main aspects of this initiative is the emphasis on education and awareness. By providing customers with tools and resources to understand their energy usage, City Light empowers residents to make informed choices that can lead to substantial savings and prepare for power outage events as well.

Key Programs and Services

Seattle City Light offers a variety of programs aimed at reducing energy consumption. Among the most popular are:

1. Energy Efficiency Rebates: Customers can receive rebates for purchasing energy-efficient appliances, such as refrigerators, washing machines, and HVAC systems. These appliances are designed to consume less electricity than traditional models, resulting in lower energy bills over time.

2. Home Energy Audits: Free energy audits are available for residential customers. During these audits, trained professionals assess homes for energy efficiency and provide recommendations on improvements. This personalized service allows homeowners to understand specific changes that can lead to savings.

3. Weatherization Assistance: This program is particularly beneficial for low-income households. By improving insulation, sealing air leaks, and enhancing overall energy efficiency, residents can maintain comfortable indoor temperatures without over-relying on heating and cooling systems.

4. Community Workshops: Seattle City Light conducts workshops that educate residents about energy conservation strategies. These sessions cover topics such as smart energy use, seasonal tips for reducing consumption, and the benefits of renewable energy sources, highlighting examples of clean energy engagement in other cities.

The Impact on Households

The impact of these initiatives is profound. By assisting over 93,000 customers in lowering their electricity bills, Seattle City Light not only provides immediate financial relief but also encourages a long-term commitment to energy conservation. This collective effort has resulted in significant reductions in overall energy consumption, contributing to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions—a critical step in the fight against climate change.

Additionally, the programs have been particularly beneficial for low-income households. By targeting these communities, Seattle City Light ensures that the benefits of energy efficiency reach those who need them the most, promoting equity-focused regulation and access to essential resources.

Looking Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

While the success of these initiatives is commendable, challenges remain. Fluctuating energy prices can still pose difficulties for many households, especially those on fixed incomes, as some utilities explore minimum charges for low-usage customers in their rate structures. Seattle City Light recognizes the need for ongoing support and resources to help residents navigate these financial challenges.

The utility is committed to expanding its programs to reach even more customers in the future. This includes enhancing outreach efforts to ensure that residents are aware of the available resources, even as debates like utility revenue in a free-electricity future shape planning, and potentially forming partnerships with local organizations to broaden the impact of its initiatives.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

India spot electricity prices surged on Q3 demand, lifting power tariffs in the spot market as discoms scrambled for supply; Sembcorp SGPL boosted PLF and short-term PPA realizations, benefiting from INR per kWh peaks.

Key Points

India spot electricity prices hit Q3 records amid demand spikes, lifting tariffs and aiding Sembcorp SGPL via PLF gains.

✅ Record 10.6 cents/kWh average; 15-minute peak 20.7 cents/kWh

✅ SGPL shifted output to short-term PPA at 7.3 cents/kWh

✅ PLF ramped above 90%, cutting core losses by 30-40%

Electricity prices in India, now the third-largest electricity producer globally, bolted to a record high of 10.6 cents/kWh (INR5.1/kWh) in Q3.

A jolt in Indian spot electricity prices could save Sembcorp Industries' Indian business from further losses, even though demand has occasionally slumped in recent years, UOB Kay Hian said.

The firm said spot electricity prices in India bolted to a record high of 10.6 cents/kWh (INR5.1/kWh) in Q3 and even hit a 15-minute peak of 20.7 cents/kWh (9.9/kWh). The spike was due to a power supply crunch on higher electricity demand from power distribution companies, alongside higher imported coal volumes as domestic supplies shrank.

As an effect, Sembcorp Industries' Sembcorp Gayatri Power Limited's (SGPL) losses of $26m in Q1 and $29m in Q2 could narrow down by as much as 30-40%.

On a net basis, SGPL will recognise a significantly higher electricity tariff in 3Q17. By tactically shutting down its Unit #3 for maintenance, Unit #4 effectively had its generation contracted out at the higher short-term PPA tariff of around 7.3 cents/kWh (Rs3.5/kWh).

SGPL also capitalised on the price spike in 3Q17 as it ramped up its plant load factor (PLF) to more than 90%.

“On the back of this, coupled with the effects of reduced finance costs, we expect SGPL’s 3Q17 quarterly core loss to shrink by 30-40% from previous quarters,” UOB Kay Hian said.

Whilst electricity prices have corrected to 7.1 cents/kWh (INR3.4/kWh), the firm said it could still remain elevated on structural factors, even as coal and electricity shortages ease nationwide.

Sembcorp Industries' India operations brought in a robust performance for Q3. PLF for Thermal Powertech Corporation India Limited (TPCIL) hit 91%, whilst it reached 73% for SGPL, echoing the broader trend of thermal PLF up across the sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Blood Nickel spotlights ethical sourcing in the EV supply chain, linking nickel mining to human rights, environmental impact, ESG standards, and Canadian leadership in sustainable extraction, transparency, and community engagement across global battery materials markets.

Key Points

Blood Nickel is nickel mined under unethical or harmful conditions, raising ESG, human rights, and environmental risks.

✅ Links EV battery supply chains to social and environmental harm

✅ Calls for transparency, traceability, and ethical sourcing standards

✅ Highlights Canada's role in sustainable mining and community benefits

The rise of electric vehicles (EVs) has sparked a surge in demand for essential battery components, particularly nickel, and related cobalt market pressures essential for their batteries. This demand has ignited concerns about the environmental and social impacts of nickel mining, particularly in regions where standards may not meet global sustainability benchmarks. This article explores the concept of "blood nickel," its implications for the environment and communities, and Canada's potential role in promoting sustainable mining practices.

The Global Nickel Boom

As the automotive industry shifts towards electric vehicles, nickel has emerged as a critical component for lithium-ion batteries due to its ability to store energy efficiently. This surge in demand has led to a global scramble for nickel, with major producers ramping up extraction efforts to meet market needs amid EV shortages and wait times that underscore supply constraints. However, this rapid expansion has raised alarms about the environmental consequences of nickel mining, including deforestation, water pollution, and carbon emissions from energy-intensive extraction processes.

Social Impacts: The Issue of "Blood Nickel"

Beyond environmental concerns, the term "blood nickel" has emerged to describe nickel mined under conditions that exploit workers, disregard human rights, or fail to uphold ethical labor standards. In some regions, nickel mining has been linked to issues such as child labor, unsafe working conditions, and displacement of indigenous communities. This has prompted calls for greater transparency and accountability in global supply chains, with initiatives like U.S.-ally efforts to secure EV metals aiming to align sourcing standards, to ensure that the benefits of EV production do not come at the expense of vulnerable populations.

Canada's Position and Potential

Canada, home to significant nickel deposits, stands at a pivotal juncture in the global EV revolution, supported by EV assembly deals in Canada that strengthen domestic manufacturing. With its robust regulatory framework, commitment to environmental stewardship, and advanced mining technologies, Canada has the potential to lead by example in sustainable nickel mining practices. Canadian companies are already exploring innovations such as cleaner extraction methods, renewable energy integration, and community engagement initiatives to minimize the environmental footprint and enhance social benefits of nickel mining.

Challenges and Opportunities

Despite Canada's potential, the mining industry faces challenges in balancing economic growth with environmental and social responsibility and building integrated supply chains, including downstream investments like a battery plant in Niagara that can connect materials to markets. Achieving sustainable mining practices requires collaboration among governments, industry stakeholders, and local communities to establish clear guidelines, monitor compliance, and invest in responsible resource development. This approach not only mitigates environmental impacts but also fosters long-term economic stability and social well-being in mining regions.

Pathways to Sustainability

Moving forward, Canada can play a pivotal role in shaping the global nickel supply chain by promoting transparency, ethical sourcing, and environmental stewardship. This includes advocating for international standards that prioritize sustainable mining practices, supporting research and development of cleaner technologies, and leveraging adjacent resources such as Alberta lithium potential to diversify battery supply chains, while fostering partnerships with global stakeholders to ensure a fair and equitable transition to a low-carbon economy.

Conclusion

The rapid growth of electric vehicles has propelled nickel into the spotlight, highlighting both its strategic importance and the challenges associated with its extraction. As global demand for "green" metals intensifies, addressing the concept of "blood nickel" becomes increasingly urgent, even as trade measures like tariffs on Chinese EVs continue to reshape market incentives. Canada, with its rich nickel reserves and commitment to sustainability, has an opportunity to lead the charge towards ethical and responsible mining practices. By leveraging its strengths in innovation, regulation, and community engagement, Canada can help forge a path towards a more sustainable future where electric vehicles drive progress without compromising environmental integrity or social justice.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

SDG&E Minimum Bill Proposal would impose a $38.40 fixed charge, discouraging rooftop solar, burdening low income households, and shifting grid costs during peak demand, as the CPUC weighs consumer impacts and affordability.

Key Points

Sets a $38.40 monthly minimum bill that raises low usage costs, deters rooftop solar, and burdens low income households.

✅ $38.40 fixed charge regardless of usage

✅ Disincentivizes rooftop solar investments

✅ Disproportionate impact on low income customers

The utility San Diego Gas & Energy has an aggressive proposal pending before the California Public Utilities Commission, amid recent commission changes in San Diego that highlight how regulatory decisions affect local customers: It wants to charge most residential customers a minimum bill of $38.40 each month, regardless of how much energy they use. The costs of this policy would hit low-income customers and those who generate their own energy with rooftop solar. We’re urging the Commission to oppose this flawed plan—and we need your help.

SDG&E’s proposal is bad news for sustainable energy. About half of the customers whose bills would go up under this proposal have rooftop solar. The policy would deter other customers from investing in rooftop solar by making these investments less economical. Ultimately, lost opportunities for solar would mean burning more gas in polluting power plants. 

The proposal is also bad news for people who already have to scrimp on energy costs. Most customers with big homes and billowing air conditioners won't notice if this policy goes into effect, because they use at least $38 worth of electricity a month anyway. But for households that don’t buy much electricity from the company, including those in small apartments without air conditioning, this proposal would raise the bills. Even for customers on special low-income rates, amid electric bill changes statewide, SDG&E wants a minimum bill of $19.20.

Penalizing customers who don’t use much electricity would disproportionately hurt lower-income customers, raising energy equity concerns across the region, who tend to use less energy than their wealthier neighbors. In the region SDG&E serves, the average family in an apartment uses half as much electricity as a single-family residence. Statewide, low-income households are more than four times as likely to be low-usage electricity customers than high-income households. When it gets hot, residential electricity patterns are often driven by air conditioning. The vast majority of SDG&E's customers live in the coastal climate zone, where access to air conditioning is strongly linked to income: Households with incomes over $150,000 are more than twice as likely to have air conditioning than families making less than $35,000, with significant racial disparities in who has AC.

In its attempt to rationalize its request, SDG&E argues that it should charge everyone for infrastructure costs that do not depend on how much energy they use. But the cost of the grid is driven by how much energy SDG&E delivers on hot summer afternoons, when some customers blast their AC and demand for electricity peaks. If more customers relied on their own solar power or conserved energy, the utility would spend less on its grid and help rein in soaring electricity prices over time.

In the long term, reducing incentives to go solar and conserve energy will strain the grid and drive up costs for everyone, especially as lawmakers may overturn income-based charges and reshape rate design. SDG&E's arguments are part of a standard utility playbook for trying to hike income-based fixed charges, and consumer advocates have repeatedly shut them down.  As far as we know, no regulators in the country have allowed a utility to charge customers over $38 for the “privilege” of accessing electric service. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News