Solar panels get a makeover

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

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

UK Wind Power Record as Storm Malik boosts renewable electricity, with National Grid reporting 19,500 megawatts in Scotland, cutting fossil fuel use and easing market prices on the path toward net zero targets.

Key Points

An all-time peak in UK wind generation, reaching 19,500 MW during Storm Malik, supplying over half of electricity.

✅ Peak: 19,500 MW, over 50% of UK electricity.

✅ Driven by Storm Malik; strongest winds in Scotland.

✅ Lowered market prices; reduced fossil fuel generation.

The UK’s windfarms generated a new record for wind power generation over the weekend as Storm Malik battered parts of Scotland and northern England.

Wind speeds of up to 100 miles an hour recorded in Scotland's wind farms helped wind power generation to rise to a provisional all-time high of more than 19,500 megawatts – or more than half the UK’s electricity – according to data from National Grid.

National Grid’s electricity system operator said that although it recognised the new milestone towards the UK’s ‘net zero’ carbon future, where wind is leading the power mix according to recent analyses, it was “also thinking of those affected by Storm Malik”.

The deadly storm caused widespread disruption over the weekend, leaving thousands without electricity and killing two people.

Many of the areas affected by Storm Malik were also hit in December by Storm Arwen, which caused the most severe disruption to power supplies since 2005, leaving almost a million homes without power for up to 12 days.

The winter storms have followed a summer of low wind power generation across the UK and Europe, even though wind produced more electricity than coal for the first time in 2016, which caused increased use of gas power plants during a global supply shortfall.

Gas markets around the world reached record highs due to rising demand for gas, and UK electricity prices hit a 10-year high as economies have rebounded from the economic shock of the Covid-19 pandemic. In the UK, electricity market prices reached an all-time high of more than £424.60 a megawatt-hour in September, compared with an average price of £44/MWh in the same month the year before.

The UK’s weekend surge in renewable electricity helped to provide a temporary reprieve from its heavy reliance on fossil fuel generation in recent months, and on some days wind has been the main source of UK electricity, which has caused market prices to reach record highs.

The market price for electricity on Saturday fell to £150.59 pounds a megawatt-hour, the lowest level since 3 January, while UK peak power prices have risen with the price for power on Sunday, when wind was expected to fall, jumping to more than £193.50/MWh.

The new wind generation record bettered a high recorded last year when the gusty May bank holiday weekend recorded 17.6GW.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Key Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Alberta Power Grid Level 2 Alert signals AESO reserve power usage, load management, supply shortage from generator outages, low wind, and limited imports, urging peak demand conservation to avoid blackouts and preserve grid reliability.

Key Points

An AESO status where reserves power the grid and load management is used during supply constraints to prevent blackouts.

✅ Triggered by outages, low wind, and reduced import capacity

✅ Peak hours 4 to 7 pm saw conservation requests

✅ Several hundred MW margin from Level 3 load shedding

Alberta's energy grid ran on reserves Wednesday, after multiple factors led to a supply shortage, a scenario explored in U.S. grid COVID response discussions as operators plan for contingencies.

At 3:52 p.m. Wednesday, the Alberta Electric System Operator issued a Level 2 alert, meaning that reserves were being used to supply energy requirements and that load management procedures had been implemented, while operators elsewhere adopted Ontario power staffing lockdown measures during COVID-19 for continuity. The alert ended at 6:06 p.m.

"This is due to unplanned generator outages, low wind and a reduction of import capability," the agency said in a post to social media. "Supply is tight but still meeting demand."

AESO spokesperson Mike Deising said the intertie with Saskatchewan had tripped off, and an issue on the British Columbia side of the border, as seen during BC Hydro storm response events, meant the province couldn't import power. 

"There are no blackouts … this just means we're using our reserve power, and that's a standard procedure we'll deploy," he said. 

AESO had asked that people reduce their energy consumption between 4 and 7 p.m., similar to Cal ISO conservation calls during grid strain, which is typically when peak use occurs. 

Deising said the system was several hundred MWs away from needing to move to an alert Level 3, with utilities such as FortisAlberta precautions in place to support continuity, which is when power is cut off to some customers in order to keep the system operating. Deising said Level 2 alerts are fairly rare and occur every few years. The last Level 3 alert was in 2013. 

According to the supply and demand report on AESO's website, the load on the grid at 5 p.m. was 10,643 MW.

That's down significantly from last week, when a heat wave pushed demand to record highs on the grid, with loads in the 11,700 MW range, contrasting with Ontario demand drop during COVID when many stayed home. 

A heat warning was issued Wednesday for Edmonton and surrounding areas shortly before 4 p.m., with temperatures above 29 C expected over the next three days, with many households seeing residential electricity use up during such periods. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Labor National Electricity Market Reform aims to rebalance NEM rules, support a fair-dinkum clean energy target, enable renewable zones, bolster storage and grid reliability, empower households, and unlock CEFC investment via the Finkel review.

Key Points

Labor's plan to overhaul NEM rules for households, clean energy targets, renewable zones, storage, and CEFC investment.

✅ Revises NEM rules to curb big generators' market power

✅ Backs a clean energy target informed by the Finkel review

✅ Expands renewable zones, storage, and CEFC finance

Australia's Labor leader Bill Shorten has called for significant changes to the rules governing the national electricity market, saying they are biased in favour of big energy generators, leaving households worse off even with measures like a WA electricity bill credit in place.

He said the national electricity market (NEM) rules are designed to help the big companies recoup the money they spent on purchasing government assets, a dynamic echoed in debates like a Calgary market overhaul dispute unfolding in Canada, rather than encourage households to generate their own power, and they need to change faster to adapt to consumer needs.

His comments hint at a possible overhaul of the NEM’s governance structure under a future Labor government, because the current rule-making process is too cumbersome and slow, with suggested rules changes taking years to be introduced.

Daniel Andrews defends claims that civil liberties a 'luxury' in fight against terrorism

Labor had promoted a similar idea in the lead-up to the 2016 election, with its call for an electricity modernization review, but now the Finkel review has been released it would be used to guide such a review.

In a speech to the Australian Financial Review’s National Energy Summit in Sydney on Monday, Shorten recommitted Labor to negotiating a “fair-dinkum” clean energy target with the Turnbull government, amid modelling that a strong clean energy target can lower electricity prices, saying “it’s time to put away the weapons of the climate change wars” and work together to find a way forward.

He said the media and business can all share the blame for Australia’s lost decade of energy policy development, with examples abroad showing how leadership steers change, such as in Alberta where Kenney's influence on power policy has been pronounced, but “we need to stop spoiling for a fight and start seeking a solution”.

“The scare campaigns and hyper-partisanship that got Australia into this mess, will not get us out of it,” he will say.

“That’s why, a bit over four months ago, before the chief scientist released his report, I wrote to the prime minister offering an olive branch.

“I said Labor was prepared to move from our preferred position of an emissions intensity scheme and negotiate a fair-dinkum clean energy target.

“That offer was greeted with some cynicism in the media. But let me be crystal clear – I made that offer in good faith, and that offer still stands.”

Shorten said Australia needs to resolve the current “gas crisis” and do more to drive investment in renewable energy that delivers more reliable electricity, a priority underscored by the IEA's warning that falling global energy investment risks shortages, and if Labor wins the next election it will organise Australia into a series of renewable energy zones – as recommended by the chief scientist, Alan Finkel – that identify wind, solar, pumped hydro and geothermal resources, and connect them to the existing network.

“These zones would be based on both existing generation and storage in the area – and the potential for future development,” he said.

Australia's politics only barrier to clean energy system, report finds

“Identifying these zones – from eastern Queensland, north-east New South Wales, west Victoria, the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia and the entire state of Tasmania – will also plant a flag for investors – signalling future sites for job-creating projects.”

Shorten also said Labor will free up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in more generation and more storage.

“Under Labor, the return benchmark for the CEFC was set at the weighted average of the Australian government bond rate.

“Under this government, it was initially increased to the weighted average plus 4% to 5% and is now set at the average plus 3% to 4%.

“Setting the return benchmark too high defeats the driving purpose of the CEFC and it holds back the crucial investment Australia needs – right now – in new generation and storage.

“This is why a Labor government would restore the original benchmark return of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, to invest in more generation, more storage and more jobs.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News