Hydro One recently announced the completion of its Bruce to Milton Transmission Reinforcement Project with the Energy Minister Chris Bentley and Hydro One President and CEO, Laura Formusa, tightening a bolt on the last tower of the 180 km line and finalizing its connection to Ontario's electricity grid.
The achievement marks the largest expansion of Ontario's electricity transmission system in more than two decades and translates into 3,000 megawatts MW of new clean energy - enough electricity to power more than 10 percent of the province's electricity needs - from the output of two refurbished Bruce Power nuclear reactors and committed renewable energy sources.
"Today marks a major milestone in Ontario's electricity infrastructure and we are paving the way for future that offers new technologies while delivering clean, renewable power for growing communities and generations to come," said Minister Chris Bentley.
The double-circuit 500 kilovolt kV transmission line extends from the Bruce Power complex in Kincardine to Hydro One's Switching Station in Milton, spanning through diverse natural areas, farm land and residential areas.
As part of the project, Hydro One developed an initiative to create and enhance natural habitat in partnership with community-based organizations, First Nations and Metis and municipalities.
The project received Ontario Energy Board Section 92 Leave to Construct approval on September 15, 2008 and Environmental Assessment approval on December 16, 2009. Construction on the project started in 2010 and represents an investment of $700 million into Ontario's electricity system.
Construction of the Bruce to Milton line meant more than 922,000 person-hours of employment in Ontario, creating 500 jobs.
Hydro-Qu E9bec Class-Action Lawsuit alleges overbilling and monopoly abuse, citing R E9gie de l' E9nergie rate increases, Quebec Superior Court filings, and calls for refunds on 2008-2013 electricity bills to residential and business customers.
Key Points
Quebec class action alleging Hydro-Qu E9bec overbilled customers in 2008-2013, seeking court-ordered refunds.
✅ Filed in Quebec Superior Court; certification pending.
✅ Alleges up to $1.2B in overcharges from 2008-2013.
✅ Questions R E9gie de l' E9nergie rate approvals and data.
A group representing Hydro-Québec customers has filed a motion for a class-action lawsuit against the public utility, alleging it overcharged customers over a five-year period.
Freddy Molima, one of the representatives of the Coalition Peuple allumé, accuses Hydro-Québec of "abusing its monopoly."
The motion, which was filed in Quebec Superior Court, claims Hydro-Québec customers paid more than they should have for electricity between 2008 and 2013, to the tune of nearly $1.2 billion, even as Hydro-Québec later refunded $535 million to customers in a separate case.
The coalition has so far recruited nearly 40,000 participants online as part of its plan to sue the public utility.
A lawyer representing the group said Quebec's energy board, the Régie de l'énergie, also recently approved Hydro-Québec rate increases for residential and business customers without knowing all the facts, even as Manitoba Hydro hikes face opposition in regulatory hearings.
"There's certain information provided to the Régie that isn't true," said Bryan Furlong. "Hydro-Québec has not been providing the Régie the proper numbers."
In its motion, the group asks that overcharged clients be retroactively reimbursed.
Hydro-Québec denies allegations
Hydro-Québec, for its part, denies it ever overbilled any of its clients, while other utilities such as Hydro One plan to redesign bills to improve clarity.
"All our efficiencies have been returned to the government through our profits, and to Quebecers we have billed exactly what we agreed to bill," said spokesperson Serge Abergel, adding that the utility won't seek a rate hike next year according to its current plans.
Quebec Energy Minister Pierre Moreau also came to the public utility's defence, saying it has no choice but to comply with the energy board's regulations, while customer protections are in focus as Hydro One moves to reconnect 1,400 customers in Ontario.
The group says the public utility has overbilled clients by up to $1.2 billion. (Radio-Canada)
It would be "shocking" if customers were charged too much money, he added.
"I know for a fact that Hydro-Québec is respecting the decision of this body," he said.
While the motion has been filed, the group cannot say how much each customer would receive if the class-action lawsuit goes ahead because it all depends on how much electricity was consumed by each client over that five-year period.
The coalition plans to present its motion to a judge next February.
2022 U.S. Power Outage Statistics show lower SAIDI as fewer major events hit, with SAIFI trends, electric reliability, outage duration and frequency shaped by hurricanes, winter storms, vegetation, and utility practices across states.
Key Points
They report SAIDI and SAIFI for 2022, showing outage duration, frequency, and impacts of major weather events.
✅ Fewer major events lowered outage duration versus 2021.
✅ Hurricanes and winter storms drove long outages in several states.
In 2022, U.S. electricity consumers on average experienced about 5.5 hours of power disruptions, a decrease from nearly two hours compared to 2021. This information comes from the latest Annual Electric Power Industry Report. The reduction in yearly power interruptions primarily resulted from fewer significant events in 2022 compared to the previous year, and utility disaster planning continues to support grid resilience as severe weather persists.
Since 2013, excluding major events, the annual average duration of power interruptions has consistently hovered around two hours. Factors contributing to major power disruptions include weather-related incidents, vegetation interference near power lines, and specific utility practices, while pandemic-related grid operations influenced workforce planning more than outage frequency. To assess the reliability of U.S. electric utilities, two key indexes are utilized:
The System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) calculates the total length (in hours) an average customer endures non-brief power interruptions over a year.
The System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) tracks the number of times interruptions occur.
The influence of major events on electrical reliability is gauged by comparing affected states' SAIDI and SAIFI values against the U.S. average, which was 5.6 hours of outages and 1.4 outages per customer in 2022. The year witnessed 18 weather-related disasters in the U.S., each resulting in over $1 billion in damages, and COVID-19 grid assessments indicated the electricity system was largely safe from pandemic impacts. Noteworthy major events include:
Hurricane Ian in September 2022, leaving over 2.6 million Floridian customers without electricity, with restoration in some areas taking weeks rather than days.
Hurricane Nicole in November 2022, causing over 300,000 Florida customers to lose power.
Winter Storm Elliott in December 2022, affecting over 1.5 million customers in multiple states including Texas where utilities struggled after Hurricane Harvey to restore service, and Florida, and bringing up to four feet of snow in parts of New York.
In 2022, states like Florida, West Virginia, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire experienced the most prolonged power interruptions, with New Hampshire averaging 10.3 hours and Florida 19.1 hours, and FPL's Irma storm response illustrates how restoration can take days or weeks in severe cases. Conversely, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Rhode Island, Nebraska, and Iowa had the shortest total interruptions, with the District of Columbia averaging just 34 minutes and Iowa 85 minutes.
The frequency of outages, unlike their duration, is more often linked to non-major events. Across the nation, Alaska recorded the highest number of power disruptions per customer (averaging 3.5), followed by several heavily forested states like Tennessee and Maine. Power outages due to falling tree branches are common, particularly during winter storms that burden tree limbs and power lines, as seen in a North Seattle outage affecting 13,000 customers. The District of Columbia stood out with the shortest and fewest outages per customer.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Tunisia Smart Grid Project advances with an AFD loan as STEG deploys smart meters in Sfax, upgrades grid infrastructure, boosts energy efficiency, curbs losses, and integrates renewable energy through digitalization and advanced communication systems.
Key Points
A national program funded by an AFD $131.7M loan to modernize STEG, deploy smart meters, and integrate renewable energy.
The Tunisian parliament has approved taking a $131.7 million loan from the French Development Agency for the implementation of a smart grid project.
Parliament passed legislation regarding the 400 million dinar ($131.7 million) loan plus a grant of $1.1 million.
The loan, to be repaid over 20 years with a grace period of up to 7 years, is part of the Tunisian government’s efforts to establish a strategy of energy switching aimed at reducing costs and enhancing operational efficiency.
The move to the smart grid had been postponed after the Tunisian Company of Electricity and Gas (STEG) announced in March 2017 that implementation of the first phase of the project would begin in early 2018 and cover the entire country by 2023.
STEG was to have received funding some time ago. Last year at the Africa Smart Grid Summit in Tunis, the company said it would initiate an international tender during the first quarter of 2019 to start the project.
The French funding is to be allocated to implementation of the first phase only, which will involve development of control and communication stations and the improvement of infrastructure, where regulatory outcomes such as the Hydro One T&D rates decision can influence investment planning in comparable markets.
It includes installation of 430,000 “intelligent” metres over three years in Sfax governorate in southern Tunisia. The second phase of the project is planned to extend the programme to the rest of the country.
Smart metres to be installed in homes and businesses in Sfax account for about 10% of the total number of metres to be deployed in Tunisia.
At the beginning of 2017, the Industrial Company of Metallic Articles (SIAM), a Tunisian industrial electrical equipment and machinery company, signed an agreement with Huawei for the Chinese company to supply smart electricity metres. The value of the deal was not disclosed.
The smart grid is designed to reduce power waste, reduce the number of unpaid bills, prevent consumer fraud such as power theft in India across distribution networks, improve the ecosystem and increase competitiveness in the electricity sector.
Experts said the main difference between the traditional and smart grids is the adoption of advanced infrastructure for measuring electricity consumption and for communication between the power plant and consumers. The data exchange allows power plants to coordinate electricity production with actual demand.
STEG previously indicated that it had implemented measures to ensure the transition to the smart grid, especially since digitalisation is playing an important role in the energy sector.
The project, which translates Tunisia’s energy plans in the form of a partnership between the public and private sectors, aims at reaching 30% of the country’s electricity need from renewable sources by 2025, even as entities like the TVA face climate goals scrutiny that can affect electricity rates in other markets.
The development of the smart grid will allow STEG to monitor consumption patterns, detect abuses and remotely monitor the grid’s power supply, at a time when regulators have questioned UK network profits to spur efficiency, underscoring the value of transparency.
“The smart grid will change the face of the energy system towards the use of renewable energies,” said Tunisian Industry Minister Slim Feriani. At the forum on alternative energies, he pointed out that energy sector digitisation requires investments in technology and a change in the consumption mentality, as new entrants consider roles like Tesla electricity retailer plans in advanced markets.
Official data indicate that Tunisia’s energy deficit accounts for one-third of the country’s annual trade deficit, which reached record levels of more than $6 billion last year.
STEG, whose debts have reached $329 million over the past eight years, a situation resembling Manitoba Hydro debt pressures in Canada, has not disclosed when and how funding would be secured for the completion of the second phase. The company insists it is working to prevent further losses and to collect its unpaid bills.
STEG CEO Moncef Harrabi, earlier this year, said: “The current situation of the company has forced us to take immediate action to reduce the worsening of the crisis and stop the financial bleeding caused by losses.”
He said the company had repeatedly asked the government to pay subsidy instalments due to the company and to enact binding decisions to force government institutions and departments to pay electricity bills, while elsewhere measures like Thailand power bill cuts have been used to support consumers.
The Tunisian government has yet to disburse the subsidy instalments due STEG for 2018 and 2019, which amount to $658 million. STEG also imports natural gas from Algeria for its power plants at a cost of $1.1 billion a year.
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.
OPG Credit Rating affirmed by DBRS at A (low) issuer and unsecured debt, R-1 (low) CP, Stable trends, backed by a supportive regulatory regime, strong leverage metrics, and provincial support; monitor Darlington Refurbishment costs.
Key Points
It is DBRS's confirmation of OPG at A (low) issuer and unsecured, R-1 (low) CP, with Stable outlooks.
✅ Stable trends; strong cash flow-to-debt and capital ratios
✅ Provincial financing via OEFC; Fair Hydro Trust ring-fenced
✅ Darlington Refurbishment on budget; cost overruns remain risk
DBRS Limited (DBRS) confirmed the Issuer Rating and the Unsecured Debt rating of Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG or the Company) at A (low) and the Commercial Paper (CP) rating at R-1 (low), amid sector developments such as Hydro One leadership efforts to repair government relations and measures like staff lockdowns at critical sites.
All trends are Stable. The ratings of OPG continue to be supported by (1) the reasonable regulatory regime in place for the Company's regulated generation facilities, including stable pricing signals for large users, (2) strong cash flow-to-debt and debt-to-capital ratios and (3) continuing financial support from its shareholder, the Province of Ontario (the Province; rated AA (low) with a Stable trend by DBRS). The Province, through its agent, the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (rated AA (low) with a Stable trend by DBRS), provides most of OPG's financing (approximately 43% of consolidated debt). The Company's remaining debt includes project financing (31%), including projects such as a battery energy storage system proposed near Woodstock, non-recourse debt issued by Fair Hydro Trust (Senior Notes rated AAA (sf), Under Review with Negative Implications by DBRS; 11%), CP (2%) and Senior Notes issued under the Medium Term Note Program (12%).
In March 2019, the Province introduced 'Bill 87, Fixing the Hydro Mess Act, 2019' which includes winding down the Fair Hydro Plan, and later introduced electricity relief to mitigate customer bills during the COVID-19 pandemic. OPG will remain as the Financial Services Manager for the outstanding Fair Hydro Trust debt, which will become obligations of the Province. DBRS does not expect this development to have a material impact on the Company as (1) the Fair Hydro Trust debt will continue to be bankruptcy-remote and ring-fenced from OPG (all debt is non-recourse to the Company) and (2) the credit rating on the Company's investment in the Subordinated Notes (rated AA (sf), Under Review with Negative Implications by DBRS) will likely remain investment grade while the Junior Subordinated Notes (rated A (sf), Under Review with Developing Implications by DBRS) will not necessarily be negatively affected by this change (see the DBRS press release, 'DBRS Maintains Fair Hydro Trust, Series 2018-1 and Series 2018-2 Notes Under Review,' dated March 26, 2019, for more details).
OPG's key credit metrics improved in 2018, following the approval of its 2017-2021 rates application by the Ontario Energy Board in December 2017, alongside the Province's energy-efficiency programs that shape demand. The Company's profitability strengthened significantly, with corporate return on equity (ROE) of 7.8% (adjusted for a $205 million gain on sale of property; 5.1% in 2017) closer to the regulatory allowed ROE of 8.78%. However, DBRS continues to view a positive rating action as unlikely in the short term because of the ongoing large capital expenditures program, including the $12.8 billion Darlington Refurbishment project, amid ongoing oversight following the nuclear alert investigation in Ontario. However, a downgrade could occur should there be significant cost overruns with the Darlington Refurbishment project that result in stranded costs. DBRS notes that the Darlington Refurbishment project is currently on budget and on schedule.
