Los Angeles will end use of coal-fired power

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

Alberta Clean Electricity Regulations face federal mandates and provincial autonomy, balancing greenhouse gas cuts, net-zero 2050 goals, and renewable energy adoption across wind, solar, and hydro, while protecting jobs and economic stability in energy communities.

Key Points

Rules to cut power emissions, boost renewables, and align Alberta with federal net-zero goals under federal mandates.

✅ Phases out coal and curbs greenhouse gas emissions

✅ Expands wind, solar, and hydro to diversify the grid

✅ Balances provincial autonomy with national climate targets

In a recent development, Alberta finds itself at a crossroads between provincial autonomy and federal mandates concerning federal clean electricity regulations that shape long-term planning. The province, known for its significant oil and gas industry, faces increasing pressure to align its energy policies with federal climate goals set by Ottawa.

The federal government, under the leadership of Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, has proposed regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning towards a cleaner energy future that prioritizes clean grids and batteries across provinces. These regulations are part of Canada's broader commitment to combat climate change and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Federal Perspective

From Ottawa's standpoint, stringent regulations on Alberta's electricity sector are necessary to meet national climate targets. This includes measures to phase out coal-fired power plants and increase reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. Minister Guilbeault emphasizes the importance of these regulations in mitigating Canada's carbon footprint and fostering sustainable development.

Alberta's Response

In contrast, Alberta has historically championed provincial autonomy in energy policy, leveraging its vast fossil fuel resources to drive economic growth. The province remains cautious about federal interventions that could potentially disrupt its energy sector, a cornerstone of its economy, especially amid changes to how electricity is produced and paid for now under discussion.

Premier Jason Kenney has expressed concerns over federal overreach, and his influence over electricity policy has shaped proposals in the legislature. He emphasizes the province's efforts in adopting cleaner technologies while balancing economic stability and environmental sustainability.

The Balancing Act

The challenge lies in finding a middle ground between federal imperatives and provincial priorities, as interprovincial disputes like B.C.'s export-restriction challenge complicate coordination. Alberta acknowledges the need to diversify its energy portfolio and reduce emissions but insists on preserving its jurisdiction over energy policy. The province has already made strides in renewable energy development, including investing in wind and solar projects alongside traditional energy sources.

Economic Implications

For Alberta, the transition to cleaner electricity carries significant economic implications as the electricity market heads for a reshuffle in the coming years. It entails navigating the complexities of energy transition, ensuring job retention, and fostering innovation in sustainable technologies. Critics argue that abrupt federal regulations could exacerbate economic hardships, particularly in communities reliant on the fossil fuel industry.

Moving Forward

As discussions continue between Alberta and Ottawa, finding common ground, including consideration of recent market change proposals from the province, remains essential. Collaborative efforts are necessary to develop tailored solutions that accommodate both environmental responsibilities and economic realities. This includes exploring incentives for renewable energy investment, supporting energy sector workers in transitioning to new industries, and leveraging Alberta's expertise in energy innovation.

Conclusion

Alberta's journey towards clean electricity regulation exemplifies the delicate balance between regional autonomy and federal oversight in Canada's complex federal system. While tensions persist between provincial and federal priorities, both levels of government share a common commitment to addressing climate change and advancing sustainable energy solutions.

The outcome of these negotiations will not only shape Alberta's energy landscape but also influence Canada's overall progress towards a greener future. Finding equitable solutions that respect provincial autonomy while achieving national environmental goals remains paramount in navigating this evolving policy landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Europe's Nuclear Energy Policy shapes responses to the energy crisis, soaring gas prices, EU taxonomy rules, net-zero goals, renewables integration, baseload security, SMRs, and Russia-Ukraine geopolitics, exposing cultural, financial, and environmental divides.

Key Points

A policy guiding nuclear exits or expansion to balance energy security, net-zero goals, costs, and EU taxonomy.

✅ Divergent national stances: phase-outs vs. new builds

✅ Costs, delays, and waste challenge large reactors

✅ SMRs, renewables, and gas shape net-zero pathways

As the Fukushima disaster unfolded in Japan in 2011, then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a dramatic decision that delighted her country’s anti-nuclear movement: all reactors would be ditched.

What couldn’t have been predicted was that Europe would find itself mired in one of the worst energy crises in its history. A decade later, the continent’s biggest economy has shut down almost all its capacity already. The rest will be switched off at the end of 2022 — at the worst possible time.

Wholesale power prices are more than four times what they were at the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Governments are having to take emergency action to support domestic and industrial consumers faced with crippling bills, which could rise higher if the tension over Ukraine escalates. The crunch has not only exposed Europe’s supply vulnerabilities, but also the entrenched cultural and political divisions over the nuclear industry and a failure to forge a collective vision. 

Other regions meanwhile are cracking on, challenging the idea that nuclear power is in decline worldwide. China is moving fast on nuclear to try to clean up its air quality. Its suite of reactors is on track to surpass that of the U.S., the world’s largest, by as soon as the middle of this decade. Russia is moving forward with new stations at home and has more than 20 reactors confirmed or planned for export construction, according to the World Nuclear Association.

“I don’t think we’re ever going to see consensus across Europe with regards to the continued running of existing assets, let alone the construction of new ones,” said Peter Osbaldstone, research director for power and renewables at Wood Mackenzie Group Ltd. in the U.K. “It’s such a massive polarizer of opinions that national energy policy is required in strength over a sustained period to support new nuclear investment.” 

France, Europe’s most prolific nuclear energy producer, is promising an atomic renaissance as its output becomes less reliable. Britain plans to replace aging plants in the quest for cleaner, more reliable energy sources. The Netherlands wants to add more capacity, Poland also is seeking to join the nuclear club, and Finland is starting to produce electricity later this month from its first new plant in four decades. 

Belgium and Spain, meanwhile, are following Germany’s lead in abandoning nuclear, albeit on different timeframes. Austria rejected it in a referendum in 1978.

Nuclear power is seen by its proponents as vital to reaching net-zero targets worldwide. Once built, reactors supply low-carbon electricity all the time, unlike intermittent wind or solar.

Plants, though, take a decade or more to construct at best and the risk is high of running over time and over budget. Finland’s new Olkiluoto-3 unit is coming on line after a 12-year delay and billions of euros in financial overruns. 

Then there’s the waste, which stays hazardous for 100,000 years. For those reasons European Union members are still quarreling over whether nuclear even counts as sustainable.

Electorates are also split. Polling by YouGov Plc published in December found that Danes, Germans and Italians were far more nuclear-skeptic than the French, British or Spanish. 

“It comes down to politics,” said Vince Zabielski, partner at New York-based law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, who was a nuclear engineer for 15 years. “Everything political ebbs and flows, but when the lights start going off people have a completely different perspective.”

What’s Behind Europe’s Skyrocketing Energy Prices

Indeed, there’s a risk of rolling blackouts this winter. Supply concerns plaguing Europe have sent gas and electricity prices to record levels and inflation has ballooned. There’s also mounting tension with Russia over a possible invasion of Ukraine, which could lead to disrupted supplies of gas. All this is strengthening the argument that Europe needs to reduce its dependence on international sources of gas.

Europe will need to invest 500 billion euros ($568 billion) in nuclear over the next 30 years to meet growing demand for electricity and achieve its carbon reduction targets, according to Thierry Breton, the EU’s internal market commissioner. His comments come after the bloc unveiled plans last month to allow certain natural gas and nuclear energy projects to be classified as sustainable investments. 

“Nuclear power is a very long-term investment and investors need some kind of guarantee that it will generate a payoff,” said Elina Brutschin at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. In order to survive in liberalized economies like the EU, the technology needs policy support to help protect investors, she said.

That already looks like a tall order. The European Commission has been told by a key expert group that the labeling risks raising greenhouse gas emissions and undermining the bloc’s reputation as a bastion for environmentally friendly finance.

Austria has threatened to sue the European Commission over attempts to label atomic energy as green. The nation previously attempted a legal challenge, when the U.K. was still an EU member, to stop the construction of Electricite de France SA’s Hinkley Point C plant, in the west of England. It has also commenced litigation against new Russia-backed projects in neighboring Hungary.

Germany, which has missed its carbon emissions targets for the past two years, has been criticized by some environmentalists and climate scientists for shutting down a supply of clean power at the worst time, despite arguments for a nuclear option for climate policy. Its final three reactors will be halted this year. Yet that was never going to be reversed with the Greens part of the new coalition government. 

The contribution of renewables in Germany has almost tripled since the year before Fukushima, and was 42% of supply last year. That’s a drop from 46% from the year before and means the country’s new government will have to install some 3 gigawatts of renewables — equivalent to the generating capacity of three nuclear reactors — every year this decade to hit the country's 80% goal.

“Other countries don’t have this strong political background that goes back to three decades of anti-nuclear protests,” said Manuel Koehler, managing director of Aurora Energy Research Ltd., a company analyzing power markets and founded by Oxford University academics. 

At the heart of the issue is that countries with a history of nuclear weapons will be more likely to use the fuel for power generation. They will also have built an industry and jobs in civil engineering around that.

Germany’s Greens grew out of anti-nuclear protest movements against the stationing of U.S. nuclear missiles in West Germany. The 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, which sent plumes of radioactive fallout wafting over parts of western Europe, helped galvanize the broader population. Nuclear phase-out plans were originally laid out in 2002, but were put on hold by the country's conservative governments. The 2011 Fukushima meltdowns reinvigorated public debate, ultimately prompting Merkel to implement them.

It’s not easy to undo that commitment, said Mark Hibbs, a Bonn, Germany-based nuclear analyst at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, or to envision any resurgence of nuclear in Germany soon: “These are strategic decisions, that have been taken long in advance.”

In France, President Emmanuel Macron is about to embark on a renewed embrace of nuclear power, even as a Franco-German nuclear dispute complicates the debate. The nation produces about two-thirds of its power from reactors and is the biggest exporter of electricity in Europe. Notably, that includes anti-nuclear Germany and Austria.

EDF, the world’s biggest nuclear plant operator, is urging the French government to support construction of six new large-scale reactors at an estimated cost of about 50 billion euros. The first of them would start generating in 2035.

But even France has faced setbacks. Development of new projects has been put on hold after years of technical issues at the Flamanville-3 project in Normandy. The plant is now scheduled to be completed next year. 

In the U.K., Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said that the global gas price crisis underscores the need for more home-generated clean power. By 2024, five of Britain’s eight plants will be shuttered because they are too old. Hinkley Point C is due to be finished in 2026 and the government will make a final decision on another station before an election due in 2024. 

One solution is to build small modular reactors, or SMRs, which are quicker to construct and cheaper. The U.S. is at the forefront of efforts to design smaller nuclear systems with plans also underway in the U.K. and France. Yet they too have faced delays. SMR designs have existed for decades though face the same challenging economic metrics and safety and security regulations of big plants.

The trouble, as ever, is time. “Any investment decisions you make now aren’t going to come to fruition until the 2030s,” said Osbaldstone, the research director at Wood Mackenzie. “Nuclear isn’t an answer to the current energy crisis.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S.-Canada Energy and Minerals Partnership strengthens energy security, critical minerals supply chains, and climate objectives with clean oil and gas, EV batteries, methane reductions, cross-border grid reliability, and allied trade, countering Russia and China dependencies.

Key Points

A North American alliance to secure energy, refine critical minerals, cut emissions, and fortify supply chains.

✅ Integrates oil, gas, and electricity trade for reliability

✅ Builds EV battery and critical minerals processing capacity

✅ Reduces methane, diversifies away from Russia and China

Today, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, delivered the following remarks during a full committee hearing to examine ways to strengthen the energy and mineral partnership between the U.S. and Canada to address energy security and climate objectives.

The hearing also featured testimony from the Honorable Jason Kenney (Premier, Alberta, Canada), the Honorable Nathalie Camden (Associate Deputy Minister of Mines, Ministry of Energy and Natural Resource, Québec, Canada), the Honorable Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister, Natural Resources Canada) and Mr. Francis Bradley (President and CEO, Electricity Canada). Click here to read their testimony.

Chairman Manchin’s remarks can be viewed as prepared here or read below:

Today we’re welcoming our friends from the North, from Canada, to continue this committee’s very important conversation about how we pursue two critical goals – ensuring energy security and addressing climate change.

These two goals aren’t mutually exclusive, and it’s imperative that we address both.

We all agree that Putin has used Russia’s oil and gas resources as a weapon to inflict terrible pain on the Ukrainian people and on Europe.

And other energy-rich autocracies are taking note. We’d be fools to think Xi Jinping won’t consider using a similar playbook, leveraging China’s control over global critical minerals supply chains.

But Putin’s aggression is bringing the free world closer together, setting the stage for a new alliance around energy, minerals, and climate.
Building this alliance should start here in North America. And that’s why I’m excited to hear today about how we can strengthen the energy and minerals partnership between the U.S. and Canada.

I recently had the privilege of being hosted in Alberta by Premier Kenney, where I spent two days getting a better understanding of our energy, minerals, and manufacturing partnership through meetings with representatives from Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, the federal government, and tribal and industry partners.

Canadians and Americans share a deep history and are natural partners, sharing the longest land border on the planet.

Our people fought side-by-side in two world wars. In fact, some of the uranium used by the Manhattan Project and broader nuclear innovation was mined in Canada’s Northwest Territories and refined in Ontario.

We have cultivated a strong manufacturing partnership, particularly in the automotive industry, with Canada today being our biggest export market for vehicles. Cars assembled in Canada contain, on average, more than 50% of U.S. value and parts.

Today we also trade over 58 terawatt hours of electricity, including green power from Canada across the border, 2.4 billion barrels of petroleum products, and 3.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year.

In fact, energy alone represents $120 billion of the annual trade between our countries. Across all sectors the U.S. and Canada trade more than $2 billion per day.
There is no better symbol of our energy relationship than our interconnected power grid and evolving clean grids that are seamless and integral for the reliable and affordable electricity citizens and industries in both our countries depend on.

And we’re here for each other during times of need. Electricity workers from both the U.S. and Canada regularly cross the border after extreme weather events to help get the power back on.

Canada has ramped up oil exports to the U.S. to offset Russian crude after members of our committee led legislation to cut off the energy purchases fueling Putin’s war machine.

Canada is also a leading supplier of uranium and critical minerals to the U.S., including those used in advanced batteries—such as cobalt, graphite, and nickel.
The U.S-Canada energy partnership is strong, but also not without its challenges, including tariff threats that affect projects on both sides. I’ve not been shy in expressing my frustration that the Biden administration cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline.

In light of Putin’s war in Ukraine and the global energy price surge, I think a lot of us wish that project had moved forward.

But to be clear, I’m not holding this hearing to re-litigate the past. We are here to advance a stronger and cleaner U.S.-Canada energy partnership for the future.
Our allies and trading partners in Europe are begging for North American oil and gas to offset their reliance on Russia.

There is no reason whatsoever we shouldn’t be able to fill that void, and do it cleaner than the alternatives.

That’s because American oil and gas is cleaner than what is produced in Russia – and certainly in Iran and Venezuela. We can do better, and learn from our Canadian neighbors.

On average, Canada produces oil with 37% lower methane emissions than the U.S., and the Canadian federal government has set even more aggressive methane reduction targets.

That’s what I mean by climate and security not being mutually exclusive – replacing Russian product has the added benefit of reducing the emissions profile of the energy Europe needs today.

According to the International Energy Agency, stationary and electric vehicle batteries will account for about half of the mineral demand growth from clean energy technologies over the next twenty years.

Unfortunately, China controls 80% of the world’s battery material processing, 60% of the world’s cathode production, 80% of the world’s anode production, and 75% of the world’s lithium ion battery cell production. They’ve cornered the market.

I also strongly believe we need to be taking national energy security into account as we invest in climate solutions.

It makes no sense whatsoever for us to so heavily invest in electric vehicles as a climate solution when that means increasing our reliance on China, because right now we’re not simultaneously increasing our mining, processing, and recycling capacity at the same rate in the United States.

The Canadians are ahead of us on critical minerals refining and processing, and we have much to learn from them about how they’re able to responsibly permit these activities in timelines that blow ours out of the water.

I’m sure our Canadian friends are happy to export minerals to us, but let me be clear, the United States also needs to contribute our part to a North American minerals alliance.

So I’m interested in discussing how we can create an integrated network for raw minerals to move across our borders for processing and manufacturing in both of our countries, and how B.C. critical minerals decisions may affect that.

I believe there is much we can collaborate on with Canada to create a powerful North American critical minerals supply chain instead of increasing China’s geopolitical leverage.

During this time when the U.S., Canada, and our allies and friends are threatened both by dictators weaponizing energy and by intense politicization over climate issues, we must work together to chart a responsible path forward that will ensure security and unlock prosperity for our nations.

We are the superpower of the world, and blessed with abundant energy and minerals resources. We cannot just sit back and let other countries fill the void and find ourselves in a more dire situation in the years ahead.

We must be leaning into the responsible production of all the energy sources we’re going to need, and strengthening strategic partnerships – building a North American Energy Alliance.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

OESP Eligibility 2024 updates Ontario electricity affordability: TOU, Tiered, Ultra-Low-Overnight price plans, online bill calculator, higher income thresholds, monthly credits for low-income households, and a winter disconnection ban for residential customers.

Key Points

Raises income thresholds and credits to help low-income Ontarians cut electricity costs and choose suitable price plans.

✅ TOU, Tiered, and ULO price plans with online bill calculator

✅ Income eligibility thresholds raised up to 35% on March 1, 2024

✅ Winter disconnection ban for residences: Nov 15, 2023 to Apr 30, 2024

Residential, small business and farm customers can choose their price plan, either Time-Of-Use (TOU), Tiered or the ultra-low overnight rates price plan available to many customers. The OEB has an online bill calculator to help customers who are considering a switch in price plans and monitoring changes for electricity consumers this year. 

The Government of Ontario announced on Friday, October 19, 2023, that it is raising the income eligibility thresholds that enable Ontarians to qualify for the Ontario Electricity Support Program (OESP) by up to 35 percent. OESP is part of Ontario’s energy affordability framework and other support for electric bills meant to reduce the cost of electricity for low-income households by applying a monthly credit directly on to electricity bills.. The higher income eligibility thresholds will begin on March 1, 2024.

The amount of OESP bill credit is determined by the number of people living in a home and the household’s combined income, and can help offset typical bill increases many customers experience. The current income thresholds cap income eligibility at $28,000 for one-person households and $52,000 for five-person households, and temporary measures like the off-peak price freeze have also influenced bills in recent periods.

The new income eligibility thresholds, which will be in effect beginning March 1, 2024, will allow many more families to access the program as rates are about to change across Ontario.

In addition, under the OEB’s winter disconnection ban, which follows the Nov. 1 rate increase, electricity distributors cannot disconnect residential customers for non-payment from November 15, 2023, to April 30, 2024.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

South Carolina Energy Freedom Act lifts net metering caps, reforms PURPA, and overhauls utility planning to boost solar competition, grid resiliency, and consumer choice across the Southeast amid Santee Cooper debt and utility monopoly pressure.

Key Points

A bipartisan reform lifting net metering caps, modernizing PURPA, and updating utility planning to expand solar.

✅ Lifts net metering cap to accelerate rooftop and community solar.

✅ Reforms PURPA contracts to enable fair pricing and transparent procurement.

✅ Modernizes utility IRP and opens markets to competition and customer choice.

The South Carolina House has approved the latest version of the Energy Freedom Act, a bill that overhauls the state’s electricity policies, including lifting the net metering caps and reforming PURPA implementation and utility planning processes in a way that advocates say levels the playing field for solar at all scales.

With Governor Henry McMaster (R) expected to sign the bill shortly, this is a major coup not just for solar in the state, but the region. This is particularly notable given the struggle that solar has had just to gain footing in many parts of the South, which is dominated by powerful utility monopolies and conservative politicians.

Two days ago when the bill passed the Senate we covered the details of the policy, but today we’re going to take a look at the politics of getting the Energy Freedom Act passed, and what this means for other Southern states and “red” states.

Opportunity amid crisis

The first thing to note about this bill is that it comes within a crisis in South Carolina’s electricity sector. This was the first legislative session following state-run utility Santee Cooper’s formal abandonment of a project to build two new reactors at the Virgil C. Sumner nuclear power plant, on which work stopped nearly two years ago.

Santee Cooper still holds $4 billion in construction debt related to the nuclear projects. According to an article in The State, this is costing its customers $5 per month toward the current debt, and this will rise to $13 per month for the next 40 years.

Such costs are particularly unwelcome in South Carolina, which has the highest annual electricity bills in the nation due to a combination of very high electricity usage driven by widespread air conditioning during the hot summers and higher prices per unit of power than other Southern states.

Following this fiasco, Santee Cooper’s CEO has stepped down, and the state government is currently considering selling the utility to a private entity. According to Maggie Clark, southeast state affairs senior manager for Solar Energy Industries Association, all of this set the stage for the bill that passed today.

“South Carolina is in a really ripe state for transformational energy policy in the wake of the VC Sumner nuclear plant cancellation,” Clark told pv magazine. “They were looking for a way forward, and I think this bill really provided them something to champion.”

Renewable energy policy for red states

This major win for solar policy comes in a state where the Republican Party holds majorities in both houses of the state’s legislature and sends bills to a Republican governor.

Broadly speaking, Republican politicians seldom show the level of interest in supporting renewable energy that Democrats do either at the state or national level, and show even less inclination to act to address greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the 100% clean energy mandates that are being implemented in four states and Washington D.C. have only passed with Democratic trifectas, in other words with Republicans controlling neither house of the state legislature nor the governor’s office. (Note: This does not apply to Puerto Rico, which has a different party structure to the rest of the United States)

However, South Carolina shows there are Republican politicians who will support pro-renewable energy policies, and circumstances under which Republican majorities will vote for legislation that aids the adoption of solar. And these specific circumstances speak to both different priorities and ideological differences between the two parties.

SEIA’s Maggie Clark emphasizes that the Energy Freedom Act was about reforming market rules. “This was a way to provide a program that did not provide subsidies or incentives in any way, but to really open the market to competition,” explains Clark. “I think that appealing to conservatives in the South about energy independence and resiliency and ultimately cost savings is the winning message on this issue.”

Such messaging in South Carolina is not an accident. Not only has such messaging been successful in the past, but coalition partner Vote Solar paid for polling to find what messages resounded with the state’s voters, and found that choice and competition were likely to resound.

And all of this happened in the context of what Clark describes as an “extremely well-resourced effort”, with SEIA in particular dedicating national attention and resources to the state – as part of an effort by President and CEO Abigail Hopper to shift attention more towards state-level policy. Maggie Clark is one of two new regional staff who Hopper has hired, and SEIA’s first staff member focused on Southern states.

“Absolutely the South is a prioritized region,” Hopper told pv magazine, noting that three Southern states – the Carolinas and Florida – are among the 12 states that the organization has identified to work on this year. “It became clear that as a region it needed more attention.”

SEIA is not expecting fly-by-night victories, and Hopper attributes the success in South Carolina not only to a broad coalition, but to years of work on the ground in the state.

Nor is SEIA the only organization to grow its presence in the region. Vote Solar now has two full time staff located in the South, whereas two years ago its sole staff member dedicated to the region was located in Washington D.C.

Ideology versus reality in the South

The Energy Freedom Act aligns with conservative ideas about small government and competition, but the American right is not monolithic, nor do political ideas and actions always line up neatly, as other successful policies in other states in the region show

By far the largest deployment of renewable energy in the nation has been in Texas, aside from in California which leads overall. Here a system of renewable energy zones in the sparsely populated but windy and sunny west, north and center of the state feed cities to the east with power from wind and more recently solar.

This was enabled by transmission lines whose cost was socialized among the state’s ratepayers – a tremendous irony given that the state’s politicians would be some of the last in the nation to want to be identified with socializing anything.

Another example is Louisiana, which saw a healthy residential solar market over the last decade due to a 50% state rebate. The policy has expired, but when operating it was exactly the sort of outright subsidy that right-wing media and politicians rail against.

Of course there is also North Carolina, which built the 2nd-largest solar market in the nation on the back of successful state-level implementation of PURPA, a federal law. Finally there is Virginia, where large-scale projects are booming following a 2018 law that found that 5 GW of solar is in the public interest.

Furthermore, while conservatives continually expound the virtues of the free market, the reality of the electricity sector in the “deep red” South is anything but that. The region missed out on the wave of deregulation in the 1990s, and remains dominated by monopoly utilities regulated by the state: a union of big business and big government where competition is non-existent.

This has also meant that the solar which has been deployed in the South is mostly not the kind of rooftop solar that many think of as embodying energy independence, but rather large-scale solar built in farms, fields and forests.

Where to from here?

With such contradictions between stated ideology and practice, it is less clear what makes for successful renewable energy policy in the South. However, opening up markets appears to be working not only in South Carolina, but also in Florida, where third-party solar companies are making inroads after the state’s voters rejected a well-funded and duplicitous utilities’ campaign to kill distributed solar.

SEIA’s Hopper says that she is “aggressively optimistic” about solar in Florida. As utilities have dominated large-solar deployment in the state, even as the state declined federal solar incentives earlier this year, she says that she sees opening up the state’s booming utility-scale solar market to competition as a priority.

Some parts of the region may be harder than others, and it is notable that SEIA has not had as much to say about Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana, which are largely controlled by utility giants Southern Company and Entergy, or the area under the thumb of the Tennessee Valley Authority, one of the most anti-solar entities in the power sector.

Abby Hopper says ultimately, demand from customers – both individuals and corporations – is the key to transforming policy. “You replicate these victories by customer demand,” Hopper told pv magazine. “That combination of voices from the customer are what’s going to drive change.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News