U.S. Constellation unit works to tame wind power

BC Hydro Rate Increase proposes a 2.3% hike from April, with BCUC review, aligning below inflation and funding clean energy, electrification, and grid upgrades across British Columbia while keeping electricity prices among North America's lowest.

Key Points

A proposed 2.3% BC Hydro hike from April, under BCUC review, funds clean energy and keeps average bills below inflation.

✅ Adds about $2 per month to average residential bill

✅ Sixth straight increase below inflation since 2018

✅ Supports renewable projects and grid modernization

The British Columbia government says the province’s Crown power utility is applying for a 2.3-per-cent rate increase starting in April, with higher BC Hydro rates previously outlined, adding about $2 a month to the average residential bill.

A statement from the Energy Ministry says it’s the sixth year in a row that BC Hydro has applied for an increase below the rate of inflation, similar to a 3 per cent rise noted in a separate approval, which still trailed inflation.

It says rates are currently 15.6 per cent lower than the cumulative rate of inflation over the last seven years, starting in 2017-2018, with a provincial rate freeze among past measures, and 12.4 per cent lower than the 10-year rates plan established by the previous government in 2013.

The ministry says the “modest” rate increase application comes after consideration of a variety of options and their long-term impacts, including scenarios like a 3.75% two-year path evaluated alongside others, and the B.C. Utilities Commission is expected to decide on the plan by the end of February.

Chris O’Riley, president of BC Hydro, says the rates application would keep electricity costs in the province among the lowest in North America, even as a BC Hydro fund surplus prompted calls for changes, while supporting investments in clean energy to power vehicles, homes and businesses.

Energy Minister Josie Osborne says it’s more important than ever to keep electricity bills down, especially as Ontario hydro rates increase in a separate jurisdiction, as the cost of living rises at rates that are unsustainable for many.

“Affordable, stable BC Hydro rates are good for people, businesses and climate as we work together to power our growing economy with renewable energy instead of fossil fuels,” Osborne says in a statement issued Monday.

Earlier this year, the ministry said BC Hydro provided $315 million in cost-of-living bill credits, while in another province Manitoba Hydro scaled back an increase to ease pressure, to families and small businesses in the province, including those who receive their electricity service from FortisBC or a municipal utility.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Electricity Market Reform CFDs seek stable prices via contracts for difference, balancing renewables and nuclear, shielding consumers, and boosting competitiveness as France and Germany clash over scope, grid expansion, and hydrogen production.

Key Points

EU framework using contracts for difference to stabilize power prices, support renewables and nuclear, and protect users.

✅ Guarantees strike prices for new low-carbon generation

✅ Balances consumer protection with industrial competitiveness

✅ Disputed scope: nuclear inclusion, grids, hydrogen eligibility

Despite record temperatures this October, Europe is slowly shifting towards winter - its second since the Ukraine war started and prompted Russia to cut gas supplies to the continent amid an energy crisis that has reshaped policy.

After prices surged last winter, when gas and electricity bills “nearly doubled in all EU capitals”, the EU decided to take emergency measures to limit prices.

In March, the European Commission proposed a reform to revamp the electricity market “to boost renewables, better protect consumers and enhance industrial competitiveness”.

However, France and Germany are struggling to find a compromise as rolling back prices is tougher than it appears and the clock is ticking as European energy ministers prepare to meet on 17 October in Luxembourg.

The controversy around CFDs
At the heart of the issue are contracts for difference (CFDs).

By providing a guaranteed price for electricity, CFDs aim to support investment in renewable energy projects.

France - having 56 nuclear reactors - is lobbying for nuclear energy to be included in the CFDs, but this has caught the withering eye of Germany.

Berlin suspects Paris of wanting an exception that would give its industry a competitive advantage and plead that it should only apply to new investments.

France wants ‘to regain control of the price’
The disagreement is at the heart of the bilateral talks in Hamburg, which started on Monday, between the French and German governments.

French President Emmanuel Macron promised “to regain control of the price of electricity, at the French and European level” and outlined a new pricing scheme in a speech at the end of September.

As gas electricity is much more expensive than nuclear electricity, France might be tempted to switch to a national system rather than a European one after a deal with EDF on prices to be more competitive economically.

However, France is "confident" that it will reach an agreement with Germany on electricity market reforms, Macron said on Friday.

Siding with France are other pro-nuclear countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, while Germany can count on the support of Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium and Italy amid opposition from nine EU countries to treating market reforms as a price fix.

But even if a last-minute agreement is reached, the two countries’ struggles over energy are creeping into all current European negotiations on the subject.

Germany wants a massive extension of electricity grids on the continent so that it can import energy; France is banking on energy sovereignty and national production.

France wants to be able to use nuclear energy to produce clean hydrogen, while Germany is reluctant, and so on.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

IVECO BUS hydrogen and electric buses in France accelerate clean mobility, zero-emission public transport, fleet electrification, and fuel cell adoption, with battery-electric ranges, fast charging, hydrogen refueling, lower TCO, and high passenger comfort in cities.

Key Points

Zero-emission buses using battery-electric and fuel cell tech, cutting TCO with fast refueling and urban-ready range.

✅ Zero tailpipe emissions, lower noise, improved air quality

✅ Fast charging and rapid hydrogen refueling infrastructure

✅ Lower TCO via reduced fuel and maintenance costs

IVECO BUS is making significant strides in the French public transportation sector, recently securing contracts for the delivery of hydrogen and battery electric buses. This development underscores the growing commitment of cities and regions in France to transition to cleaner, more sustainable public transportation options, even as electric bus adoption challenges persist. With these new contracts, IVECO BUS is poised to strengthen its position as a leader in the electric mobility market.

Expanding the Green Bus Fleet

The contracts involve the supply of various models of IVECO's hydrogen and electric buses, highlighting a strategic shift towards sustainable transport solutions. France has been proactive in its efforts to reduce carbon emissions and promote environmentally friendly transportation. As part of this initiative, many local authorities are investing in clean bus fleets, which has opened up substantial opportunities for manufacturers like IVECO.

These contracts will provide multiple French cities with advanced vehicles designed to minimize environmental impact while maintaining high performance and passenger comfort. The move towards hydrogen and battery electric buses reflects a broader trend in public transportation, where cities are increasingly adopting green technologies, with lessons from TTC's electric bus fleet informing best practices to meet both regulatory requirements and public demand for cleaner air.

The Role of Hydrogen and Battery Electric Technology

Hydrogen and battery electric buses represent two key technologies in the transition to sustainable transport. Battery electric buses are known for their zero tailpipe emissions, making them ideal for urban environments where air quality is a pressing concern, as demonstrated by the TTC battery-electric rollout in North America. IVECO's battery electric models come equipped with advanced features, including fast charging capabilities and longer ranges, making them suitable for various operational needs.

On the other hand, hydrogen buses offer the advantage of rapid refueling and extended range, addressing some of the limitations associated with battery electric vehicles, as seen with fuel cell buses in Mississauga deployments across transit networks. IVECO’s hydrogen buses utilize cutting-edge fuel cell technology, allowing them to operate efficiently in urban and intercity routes. This flexibility positions them as a viable solution for public transport authorities aiming to diversify their fleets.

Economic and Environmental Benefits

The adoption of hydrogen and battery electric buses is not only beneficial for the environment but also presents economic opportunities. By investing in these technologies, local governments can reduce operating costs associated with traditional diesel buses. Electric and hydrogen buses generally have lower fuel costs and require less maintenance, resulting in long-term savings.

Furthermore, the transition to cleaner buses can help stimulate local economies. As cities invest in electric mobility, new jobs will be created in manufacturing, maintenance, and infrastructure development, such as charging stations and hydrogen fueling networks, including the UK bus charging hub model, which supports large-scale operations. This shift can have a positive ripple effect, contributing to overall economic growth while fostering a cleaner environment.

IVECO BUS's Commitment to Sustainability

IVECO BUS's recent successes in France align with the company’s broader commitment to sustainability and innovation. As part of the CNH Industrial group, IVECO is dedicated to advancing green technologies and reducing the carbon footprint of public transportation. The company has been at the forefront of developing environmentally friendly vehicles, and these new contracts further reinforce its leadership position in the market.

Moreover, IVECO is investing in research and development to enhance the performance and efficiency of its electric and hydrogen buses. This commitment to innovation ensures that the company remains competitive in a rapidly evolving market while meeting the changing needs of public transport authorities.

Future Prospects

As more cities in France and across Europe commit to sustainable transportation, including initiatives like the Berlin zero-emission bus initiative, the demand for hydrogen and battery electric buses is expected to grow. IVECO BUS is well-positioned to capitalize on this trend, with a diverse range of products that cater to various operational requirements.

The successful implementation of these contracts will likely encourage other regions to follow suit, paving the way for a greener future in public transportation. As IVECO continues to innovate and expand its offerings, alongside developments like Volvo electric trucks in Europe, it sets a precedent for the industry, illustrating how commitment to sustainability can drive business success.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

India Industrial Output Slowdown deepens as power demand slumps, IIP contracts, and electricity, manufacturing, and mining weaken; capital goods plunge while RBI rate cuts struggle to lift GDP growth, infrastructure, and fuel demand.

Key Points

A downturn where IIP contracts as power demand, manufacturing, mining, and capital goods fall despite RBI rate cuts.

✅ IIP fell 4.3% in Sep, worst since Feb 2013.

✅ Power demand dropped for a third month, signaling weak industry.

✅ Capital goods output plunged 20.7%, highlighting weak investment.

India's power demand fell at the fastest pace in at least 12 years in October, signalling a continued decline in the industrial output, mirroring how China's power demand dropped when plants were shuttered, according to government data. Electricity has about 8% weighting in the country's index for industrial production.

India needs electricity to fuel its expanding economy and has at times rationed coal supplies when demand surged, but a third decline in power consumption in as many months points to tapering industrial activity in a nation that aims to become a $5 trillion economy by 2024.

India's industrial output fell at the fastest pace in over six years in September, adding to a series of weak indicators that suggests that the country’s economic slowdown is deep-rooted and interest rate cuts alone may not be enough to revive growth.

Annual industrial output contracted 4.3% in September, government data showed on Monday. It was the worst performance since a 4.4% contraction in February 2013, according to Refinitiv data.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast industrial output to fall 2% for the month.

“A contraction of industrial production by 4.3% in September is serious and indicative of a significant slowdown as both investment and consumption demand have collapsed,” said Rupa Rege Nitsure, chief economist of L&T Finance Holdings.

The industrial output figure is the latest in a series of worrying economic data in Asia's third largest economy, which is also the world's third-largest electricity producer as well.

Economists say that weak series of data could mean economic growth for July-September period will remain near April-June quarter levels of 5%, which was a six-year low, and some analysts argue for rewiring India's electricity to bolster productivity. The Indian government is likely to release April-September economic growth figures by the end of this month.

Subdued inflation and an economic slowdown have prompted the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to cut interest rates by a total of 135 basis points this year, while coal and electricity shortages eased in recent months.

“These are tough times for the RBI, as it cannot do much about it but there will be pressures on it to act ...Blunt tools like monetary policy may not be effective anymore,” Nitsure said.

Data showed in September mining sector fell 8.5%, while manufacturing and electricity fell 3.9% and 2.6% respectively, even as imported coal volumes rose during April-October. Capital goods output during the month fell 20.7%, indicating sluggish demand.

“IIP (Index of Industrial Production) growth in October 2019 is also likely to be in negative territory and only since November 2019 one can expect mild IIP expansion, said Devendra Kumar Pant, Chief Economist and Senior Director, Public Finance, India Ratings & Research (Fitch Group).

Infrastructure output, which comprises eight main sectors, in September showed a contraction of 5.2%, the worst in 14 years, even as global daily electricity demand fell about 15% during pandemic lockdowns.

India's fuel demand fell to its lowest in more than two years in September, with consumption of diesel to its lowest levels since January 2017. Diesel and gasoline together make up over 7.4% of the IIP weightage.

In 2019/20 India's fuel demand — also seen as an indicator of economic and industrial activity — is expected to post the slowest growth in about six years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News