Ontario solar sector harmed by uncertainty

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

Franco-German Nuclear Power Divide shapes EU energy policy, electricity market reform, and decarbonization strategies, as Paris backs reactors and state subsidies while Berlin prioritizes renewables, hydrogen, and energy security after Russian gas shocks.

Key Points

A policy rift over nuclear shaping EU market reform, subsidies, and the balance between reactors and renewables.

✅ Nuclear in EU targets vs. renewables-first strategy

✅ Market design disputes over long-term power prices

✅ Energy security after Russian gas; hydrogen definitions

Near the French village of Fessenheim, facing Germany across the Rhine, a nuclear power station stands dormant. The German protesters that once demanded the site’s closure have decamped, in a sign of Europe's nuclear decline, and the last watts were produced three years ago. 

But disagreements over how the plant from 1977 should be repurposed persist, speaking to a much deeper divide over nuclear power, which Eon chief's warning to Germany underscored, between the two countries on either side of the river’s banks.

German officials have disputed a proposal to turn it into a centre to treat metals exposed to low levels of radioactivity, Fessenheim’s mayor Claude Brender says. “They are not on board with anything that might in some way make the nuclear industry more acceptable,” he adds.

France and Germany’s split over nuclear power is a tale of diverging mindsets fashioned over decades, including since the Chernobyl disaster in USSR-era Ukraine. But it has now become a major faultline in a touchy relationship between Europe’s two biggest economies.

Their stand-off over how to treat nuclear in a series of EU reforms has consequences for how Europe plans to advance towards cleaner energy. It will also affect how the bloc secures power supplies as the region weans itself off Russian gas, even though nuclear would do little for the gas issue, and how it provides its industry with affordable energy to compete with the US and China. 

“There can be squabbles between partners. But we’re not in a retirement home today squabbling over trivial matters. Europe is in a serious situation,” says Eric-André Martin, a specialist in Franco-German relations at French think-tank IFRI. 

France, which produces two-thirds of its power from nuclear plants and has plans for more reactors, is fighting for the low-carbon technology to be factored into its targets for reducing emissions and for leeway to use state subsidies to fund the sector.

For Germany, which closed its last nuclear plants this year and, having turned its back on nuclear, has been particularly shaken by its former reliance on Russian gas, there’s concern that a nuclear drive will detract from renewable energy advances.

But there is also an economic subtext in a region still reeling from an energy crisis last year, reviving arguments for a needed nuclear option for climate in Germany, when prices spiked and laid bare how vulnerable households and manufacturers could become.

Berlin is wary that Paris would benefit more than its neighbours if it ends up being able to guarantee low power prices from its large nuclear output as a result of new EU rules on electricity markets, amid talk of a possible U-turn on the phaseout, people close to talks between the two countries say.

Ministers on both sides have acknowledged there is a problem. “The conflict is painful. It’s painful for the two governments as well as for our [EU] partners,” Sven Giegold, state secretary at the German economy and climate action ministry, where debates about whether a nuclear resurgence is possible persist, tells the Financial Times. 

Agnès Pannier-Runacher, France’s energy minister, says she wants to “get out of the realm of the emotional and move past the considerable misunderstandings that have accumulated in this discussion”.

In a joint appearance in Hamburg last week, German chancellor Olaf Scholz and French president Emmanuel Macron made encouraging noises over their ability to break the latest deadlock: a disagreement over the design of the EU’s electricity market. Ministers had been due to agree a plan in June but will now meet on October 17 to discuss the reform, aimed at stabilising long-term prices.

But the French and German impasse on nuclear has already slowed down debates on key EU policies such as rules on renewable energy and how hydrogen should be produced. Smaller member states are becoming impatient. The delay on the market design is “a big Franco-German show of incompetence again”, says an energy ministry official from another EU country who requested anonymity. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Electricity Rebate clarifies hydro rates as OEB aligns bills with inflation, shows true cost per kilowatt hour, and replaces Fair Hydro Plan; transparent on-bill credit offsets increases tied to nuclear refurbishment and supply costs.

Key Points

A line-item credit on Ontario hydro bills that offsets higher electricity costs and reflects OEB-set rates.

✅ Starts Nov. 1 with rates in line with inflation

✅ Shows true per-kWh cost plus separate rebate line

✅ Driven by nuclear refurbishment and supply costs

The Ontario Energy Board says electricity rate changes for households and small businesses will be going up starting next week.

The agency says rates are scheduled to increased by about $1.99 or nearly 2% for a typical residential customer who uses 700 kilowatt hours per month.

The provincial government said in March it would continue to subsidize hydro rates, through legislation to lower rates, and hold any increases to the rate of inflation.

The OEB says the new rates, which the board says are “in line” with inflation, will take effect Nov. 1 as changes for electricity consumers roll out and could be noticed on bills within a few weeks of that date.

Prices are increasing partly due to government legislation aimed at reflecting the actual cost of supply on bills, and partly due to the refurbishment of nuclear facilities, contributing to higher hydro bills for some consumers.

So, effective November 1, Ontario electricity bills will show the true cost of power, after a period of a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate, and will include the new Ontario Electricity Rebate.

Previously the electricity rebate was concealed within the price-per-kilowatt-hour line item on electricity statements, prompting Hydro One bill redesign discussions to improve clarity. This meant customers could not see how much the government rebate was reducing their monthly costs, and bills did not display the true cost of electricity used.

"People deserve facts and accountability, especially when it comes to hydro costs," said Energy Minister Rickford.

The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will appear as a transparent on-bill line item and will replace the former government's Fair Hydro Plan says a government news release. This change comes in response to the Auditor General's special report on the former government's Fair Hydro Plan which revealed that "the government created a needlessly complex accounting/financing structure for the electricity rate reduction in order to avoid showing a deficit or an increase in net debt."

"The Electricity Distributors Association commends the government's commitment to making Ontario's electricity bills more transparent," said Teresa Sarkesian, President of the Electricity Distributors Association. "As the part of our electricity system that is closest to customers, local hydro utilities appreciated the opportunity to work with the government on implementing this important initiative. We worked to ensure that customers who receive their electricity bill will have a clear understanding of the true cost of power and the amount of their on-bill rebate. Local hydro utilities are focused on making electricity more affordable, reducing red tape, and providing customers with a modern and reliable electricity system that works for them."

The average customer will see the electricity line on their bill rise, showing the real cost per kilowatt hour. The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will compensate for that rise, and will be displayed as a separate line item on hydro bills. The average residential bill will rise in line with the rate of inflation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

bGen Thermal Energy Storage stores high-temperature heat in crushed rocks, enabling on-demand steam, hot water, or hot air; integrates renewables, shifts load with off-peak electricity, and decarbonizes campus heating at SUNY Purchase with NYPA.

Key Points

A rock-based TES system storing heat to deliver steam, hot water, or hot air using renewables or off-peak power.

✅ Uses crushed rocks to store high-temperature heat

✅ Cuts about 550 metric tons CO2 annually at SUNY Purchase

✅ Integrates renewables and off-peak electricity with NYPA

Brenmiller Energy Ltd. (NASDAQ: BNRG), in collaboration with the New York Power Authority (NYPA), a utility pursuing grid software modernization to improve reliability, has successfully deployed its first bGen™ thermal energy storage (TES) system in the United States at the State University of New York (SUNY) Purchase College. This milestone project, valued at $2.5 million, underscores the growing role of TES in advancing sustainable energy solutions.

Innovative TES Technology

The bGen™ system utilizes crushed rocks to store high-temperature heat, which can be harnessed to generate steam, hot air, or hot water on demand. This approach allows for the efficient use of excess renewable energy or off-peak electricity, and parallels microreactor storage advances that broaden thermal options, providing a reliable and cost-effective means of meeting heating needs. At SUNY Purchase College, the bGen™ system is designed to supply nearly 100% of the heating requirements for the Physical Education Building.

Environmental Impact

The implementation of the bGen™ system is expected to eliminate approximately 550 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually. This reduction aligns with New York State's ambitious climate goals, including a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, even as transmission constraints can limit cross-border imports. The project also demonstrates the potential of TES to support the state's transition to a cleaner and more resilient energy system.

Collaborative Effort

The successful deployment of the bGen™ system at SUNY Purchase College is the result of a collaborative effort between Brenmiller Energy and NYPA. The project was partially funded by a grant from the Israel-U.S. Binational Industrial Research and Development (BIRD) Foundation. This partnership highlights the importance of international cooperation in advancing innovative energy technologies, as seen in OPG-TVA nuclear collaboration efforts across North America.

Future Prospects

The successful installation and operation of the bGen™ system at SUNY Purchase College serve as a model for broader adoption of TES technology in institutional settings, as OPG's SMR commitment signals parallel low-carbon investment across the region. Brenmiller Energy and NYPA plan to share the project's findings through a webinar hosted by the Renewable Thermal Collaborative on May 19, 2025. This initiative aims to promote the scalability and replicability of TES solutions across New York State and beyond.

As the demand for sustainable energy solutions continues to grow, the successful deployment of the bGen™ system at SUNY Purchase College marks a significant step forward in the integration of TES technology into the U.S. energy landscape, while projects like Pickering B refurbishment underscore parallel clean power investments. The project not only demonstrates the feasibility of TES but also sets a precedent for future initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions and enhancing energy efficiency.

Brenmiller Energy's commitment to innovation and sustainability positions the company as a key player in the evolving energy sector. With continued support from partners like NYPA and the BIRD Foundation, and as jurisdictions advance first SMR deployments in North America, Brenmiller Energy is poised to expand the reach of its TES solutions, contributing to a more sustainable and resilient energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Little Haiti Garbage Truck Power Outage in Miami after mechanical arms snagged power lines, snapping power poles; FPL crews, police, and businesses faced traffic delays, safety risks, and rapid restoration efforts across the neighborhood.

Key Points

A Miami incident where a garbage truck snagged power lines, toppling poles and causing outages and traffic delays.

✅ Mechanical arms caught overhead lines; three power poles snapped

✅ FPL dispatched, police directed traffic; restoration prioritized

✅ Dozens of businesses affected; afternoon rush hour congestion

On January 16, 2025, a significant incident unfolded in Miami's Little Haiti neighborhood when a garbage truck collided with power lines, causing three power poles to collapse and resulting in widespread power outages and traffic disruptions.

Incident Details

Around 1:30 p.m., a garbage truck traveling west on Northeast 82nd Street toward Interstate 95 became entangled with overhead power lines. The truck's mechanical arms caught the lines, leading to the snapping of three power poles and plunging the area into darkness, a scenario echoed by urban incidents like a manhole fire that left thousands without power. Witnesses reported a loud boom followed by an immediate power outage. One local business owner described the event, stating, "There was a loud boom, and suddenly the power went out."

Impact on the Community

The incident caused significant disruptions in the Little Haiti area. At least a dozen businesses were affected by the power outage, and in wider Florida events restoration can take weeks depending on damage, leading to operational halts and potential financial losses. The timing of the crash, during the afternoon rush hour, exacerbated traffic congestion as commuters were forced to navigate through the area, and similar disruptions occur when strong winds knock out power, further complicating the situation.

Response and Recovery Efforts

In response to the incident, Miami police directed traffic to alleviate congestion and ensure public safety. Florida Power & Light (FPL) crews, known for their major outage response, were promptly dispatched to the scene to assess the damage and begin restoration efforts. The priority was to safely remove the damaged power poles and restore electricity to the affected area. FPL's swift action was crucial in minimizing the duration of the power outage and restoring normalcy to the community.

Safety Considerations

This incident underscores the importance of safety protocols for vehicles operating in areas with overhead power lines. Garbage trucks, due to their design and operational mechanisms, are particularly susceptible to such accidents, and in broader disasters some regions require a power grid rebuild to recover, highlighting the stakes. It is imperative for operators to be vigilant and adhere to safety guidelines to prevent similar occurrences.

Community Resilience

Despite the challenges posed by the incident, the Little Haiti community demonstrated resilience. Local businesses and residents cooperated with authorities, while utilities elsewhere have restored power to thousands after major events, and the prompt response from emergency services highlighted the community's strength in the face of adversity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

COVID-19 Energy Burden drives higher electricity bills as income falls, intensifying energy poverty, utility shut-offs, and affordability risks for low-income households; policy moratoriums, bill relief, and efficiency upgrades are vital responses.

Key Points

The COVID-19 energy burden is the rising share of income spent on energy as bills increase and earnings decline.

✅ Rising home demand and lost wages increase energy cost share.

✅ Mandated shut-off moratoriums and reconnections protect health.

✅ Fund assistance, efficiency, and solar for LMI households.

I have asthma. It’s a private piece of medical information that I don’t normally share with people, but it makes the potential risks associated with exposure to the coronavirus all the more dangerous for me. But I’m not alone. 107 million people in the U.S. have pre-existing medical conditions like asthma and heart disease; the same pre-existing conditions that elevate their risk of facing a life-threatening situation were we to contract COVID-19. There are, however, tens of millions more house-bound Americans with a condition that is likely to be exacerbated by COVID-19: The energy burden.

The energy burden is a different kind of pre-existing condition:
In the last four weeks, 22 million people filed for unemployment. Millions of people will not have steady income (or the healthcare tied to it) to pay rent and utility bills for the foreseeable future which means that thousands, possibly millions of home-bound Americans will struggle to pay for energy.

Your energy burden is the amount of your monthly income that goes to paying for energy, like your monthly electric bill. So, when household energy use increases or income decreases, your energy burden rises. The energy burden is not a symptom of the pandemic and the economic downturn; it is more like a pre-existing condition for many Americans.

Before the coronavirus outbreak, I shared a few maps that showed how expensive electricity is for some. The energy burden in most pronounced in places already struggling economically, like in Appalachia, where residents in some counties must put more than 30 percent of their income toward their electric bills, and in the Midwest where states such as Michigan have some families spending more than 1/5 of their income on energy bills. The tragic facts are that US families living below the poverty line are far more likely to also be suffering from their energy burden.

But like other pre-existing conditions, the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic are exacerbating the underlying problems afflicting communities across the country.

Critical responses to minimize the spread of COVID-19 are social distancing, washing hands frequently, covering our faces with masks and staying at home. More time at home for most will drive up energy bills, and not by a little. Estimates on how much electricity demand during COVID-19 will increase vary but I’ve seen estimates as high as a 20% increase on average. For some families that’s a bag of groceries or a refill on prescription medication.

What happens when the power gets turned off?
Under normal conditions, if you cannot pay your electric bill your electricity can get turned off. This can have devastating consequences. Most states have protections for health and medical reasons and some states have protections during extreme heat or cold weather. But enforcement of those protections can vary by utility service area and place unnecessary burdens on the customer.

UCS
Only Florida has no protections of any kind against utility shut-offs when health or medical reasons would merit protection against it. However, when it comes to protection against extreme heat, only a few states have mandatory protections based on temperature thresholds.

The NAACP has also pointed out that utilities have unceremoniously disconnected the power of millions of people, disproportionally African-American and Latinx households.

April tends to be a mild month for most of the country, but the South already had its first heat wave at the end of March. If this pandemic lasts into the summer, utility disconnects could become deadly, and efforts to prevent summer power outages will be even more critical to public health. In the summer, during extreme summer heat families can’t turn off the A/C and go to the movies if we are following public health measures and sheltering in place. Lots of families that don’t have or can’t afford to run A/C would otherwise gather at local community pools, beaches, or in cooling centers, but with parks, pools and community groups closed to prevent the virus’s spread, what will happen to these families in July or August?

But we won’t have to wait till the summer to see how families will be hard hit by falling behind on bills and losing power. Here are a few ways electricity disconnection policies cause people harm during the pandemic:

Loss of electricity during the COVID-19 pandemic means families will lose their ability to refrigerate essential food supplies.
Child abuse guidance discusses how unsanitary household conditions are a contributing factor to child protective services involvement. Unsanitary household conditions can include, for example, rotting food (which might happen if electricity is cut off).

HUD’s handbook on federally subsidized housing includes a chapter on termination, which says that lease agreements can be terminated for repeated minor infractions including failing to pay utilities.
Airway machines used to treat respiratory ailments—pre-existing conditions in this pandemic—will not work. Our elderly neighbors in particular might rely on medicine that requires refrigeration or medical equipment that requires electricity. They too have fallen victim to utility shut-offs even during the pandemic.

Empowering solutions are available today

Decisionmakers seeking solutions can look to implement utility shut off moratoriums as a good start. Good news is that many utilities have voluntarily taken action to that effect, and New Jersey and New York have suspended shut-offs, one of the best trackers on who is taking what action has been assembled by Energy Policy Institute.

But voluntary actions do not always provide comprehensive protection, and they certainly have not been universally adopted across the country. Some utilities are waiving fees as relief measures, and some moratoriums only apply to customers directly affected by COVID-19, which will place additional onerous red tape on households that are stricken and perhaps unable to access testing. Others might only be an extension of standard medical shut off protections. Moratoriums put in place by voluntary action can also be revoked or lifted by voluntary action, which does not provide any sense of certainty to people struggling to make ends meet.

This is why the US needs mandatory moratoriums on all utility disconnections. These normally would be rendered at the state level, either by a regulatory commission, legislative act, or even an emergency executive order. But the inconsistent leadership among states in response to the COVID-19 crisis suggests that Congressional action is needed to ensure that all vulnerable utility customers are protected. That’s exactly what a coalition of organizations, including UCS, is calling for in future federal aid legislation. UCS has called for a national moratorium on utility shut-offs.

And let’s be clear, preventing new shut-offs isn’t enough. Cutting power off at residence during a pandemic is not good public policy. People who are without electricity should have it restored so residents can safely shelter in place and help flatten the curve. So far, only Colorado and Wisconsin’s leadership has taken this option.

Addressing the root causes of energy poverty
Preventing shut-offs is a good first step, but the increased bill charges will nevertheless place greater economic pressure on an incalculable number of families. Addressing the root of the problem (energy affordability) must be prioritized when we begin to recover from the health and economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

One way policymakers can do that is to forgive outstanding balances on utility bills, perhaps with an eligibility cap based on income. Additional funds could be made available to those who are still struggling to pay their bills via capping bills, waiving late payment fees, automating payment plans or other protective measures that rightfully place consumers (particularly vulnerable consumers) at the center of any energy-related COVID-19 response. Low-and-moderate-income energy efficiency and solar programs should be funded as much as practically possible.

New infrastructure, particularly new construction that is slated for public housing, subsidized housing, or housing specifically marketed for low- and moderate-income families, should include smart thermostats, better insulation, and energy-efficient appliances.

Implementing these solutions may seem daunting, let us not forget that one of the best ways to ease people’s energy burden is to keep a utility’s overall energy costs low. That means state utility commissions must be vigilant in utility rate cases and fuel recovery cost dockets to protect people facing unfathomable economic pressures. Unscrupulous utilities have been known to hide unnecessary costs in our energy bills. Commissions and their staff are overwhelmed at this time, but they should be applying extra scrutiny during proceedings when utilities are recovering costs associated with delivering energy.

What might a utility try to get past the commission?
Well, residential demand is up, so for many people, bills will increase. However, wholesale electricity rates are low right now, in some cases at all-time lows. Why? Because industrial and commercial demand reductions (from social distancing at home) have more than offset residential demand increases. Overall US electricity demand is flat or declining, and supply/demand economics predicts that when demand decreases, prices decrease.

At the same time, natural gas prices have set record lows each month of this year and that’s a trend that is expected to hold true for a while.

Low demand plus low gas prices mean wholesale market prices are incredibly low. Utilities should be taking advantage of low market prices to ensure that they deliver electricity to customers at as low a cost as possible. Utilities must also NOT over-run coal plants uneconomically or lean on aging capacity despite disruptions in coal and nuclear that can invite brownouts because that will not only needlessly cost customers more, but it will also increase air pollution which will exacerbate respiratory issues and susceptibility to COVID-19, according to a recent study published by Harvard.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News