Malcolm Watson Named Chair of NAED'S 2008 Centennial Celebration Committee

US EV Charging Infrastructure is evolving with interoperable NACS and CCS standards, Tesla Supercharger access, federal funding, ultra-fast charging, mobile apps, and battery advances that reduce range anxiety and expand reliable, nationwide fast-charging access.

Key Points

Nationwide network, standards, and funding enabling fast, interoperable EV charging access for drivers across the US.

✅ NACS and CCS interoperability expands cross-network access

✅ Tesla Superchargers opening to more brands accelerate adoption

✅ Federal funding builds fast chargers along highways and communities

The landscape of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in the United States is rapidly evolving, driven by technological advancements, collaborative efforts between automakers and charging networks across the country, and government initiatives to support sustainable transportation.

Interoperability and Collaboration

Recent developments highlight a shift towards interoperability among charging networks, even as control over charging continues to be contested across the market today. The introduction of the North American Charging Standard (NACS) and the adoption of the Combined Charging System (CCS) by major automakers underscore efforts to standardize charging protocols. This move aims to enhance convenience for EV drivers by allowing them to use multiple charging networks seamlessly.

Tesla's Role and Expansion

Tesla, a trailblazer in the EV industry, has expanded its Supercharger network to accommodate other EV brands. This initiative represents a significant step towards inclusivity, addressing range anxiety and supporting the broader adoption of electric vehicles. Tesla's expansive network of fast-charging stations across the US continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the EV charging landscape.

Government Support and Infrastructure Investment

The federal government's commitment to infrastructure development is crucial in advancing EV adoption. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocates substantial funding for EV charging station deployment along highways and in underserved communities, while automakers plan 30,000 chargers to complement public investment today. These investments aim to expand access to charging infrastructure, promote economic growth, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation.

Technological Advancements and User Experience

Technological innovations in EV charging, including energy storage and mobile charging solutions, continue to improve user experience and efficiency. Ultra-fast charging capabilities, coupled with user-friendly interfaces and mobile apps, simplify the charging process for consumers. Advancements in battery technology also contribute to faster charging times and increased vehicle range, enhancing the practicality and appeal of electric vehicles.

Challenges and Future Outlook

Despite progress, challenges remain in scaling EV charging infrastructure to meet growing demand. Issues such as grid capacity constraints are coming into sharp focus, alongside permitting processes and funding barriers that necessitate continued collaboration between stakeholders. Addressing these challenges is crucial in supporting the transition to sustainable transportation and achieving national climate goals.

Conclusion

The evolution of EV charging infrastructure in the United States reflects a transformative shift towards sustainable mobility solutions. Through interoperability, government support, technological innovation, and industry collaboration, stakeholders are paving the way for a robust and accessible charging ecosystem. As investments and innovations continue to shape the landscape, and amid surging U.S. EV sales across 2024, the trajectory of EV infrastructure development promises to accelerate, ensuring reliable and widespread access to charging solutions that support a cleaner and greener future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

TVA Rates and Renewable Energy Scrutiny spotlights electricity rates, distributed energy resources, solar and wind deployment, natural gas plans, grid access charges, energy efficiency cuts, and House oversight of lobbying, FERC inquiries, and least-cost planning.

Key Points

A congressional probe into TVA pricing and practices affecting renewables, energy efficiency, and climate goals.

✅ House panel probes TVA rates, DER and solar policies.

✅ Efficiency programs cut; least-cost planning questioned.

✅ Inquiry on lobbying, hidden fees; FERC scrutiny.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is facing federal scrutiny about its electricity rates and climate action, amid ongoing debates over network profits in other markets.

Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce are “requesting information” from TVA about its ratepayer bills and “out of concern” that TVA is interfering with the deployment of renewable and distributed energy resources, even as companies such as Tesla explore electricity retail to expand customer options.

“The Committee is concerned that TVA’s business practices are inconsistent with these statutory requirements to the disadvantage of TVA’s ratepayers and the environment,” the committee said in a letter to TVA CEO Jeffrey Lyash.

The four committee members — U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Bobby L. Rush (D-IL), Diana DeGette (D-CO), and Paul Tonko (D-NY) — suggested that Tennessee Valley residents pay too much for electricity despite TVA’s relatively low rates, even as regulators have, in other cases, scrutinized mergers like the Hydro One-Avista deal to safeguard ratepayers, underscoring similar concerns. In 2020, Tennessee residents had electric bills higher than the national average, while low-income residents in Memphis have historically faced one of the highest energy burdens in the U.S.

In 2018, TVA reduced its wholesale rate while adding a grid access charge on local power companies—and interfered with the adoption of solar energy. Internal TVA documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Energy and Policy Institute revealed that TVA permitted local power companies to impose new fees on distributed solar generation to “lessen the potential decrease in TVA load that may occur through the adoption of [behind the meter] generation.”

Additionally, the committee said TVA is not prioritizing energy conservation and efficiency or “least-cost planning” that includes renewables, as seen in oversight such as the OEB's Hydro One rates decision emphasizing cost allocation. TVA reduced its energy efficiency programs by nearly two-thirds between 2014 and 2018 and cut its energy efficiency customer incentive programs.

At this time, TVA has not aligned its long-term planning with the Biden administration’s goal to achieve a carbon-free electricity sector by 2035. TVA’s generation mix, which is roughly 60% carbon-free, comprises 39% nuclear, 19% coal, 26% natural gas, 11% hydro, 3% wind and solar, and 1% energy efficiency programs, according to TVA.

The committee is “greatly concerned that TVA has invested comparatively little to date in deploying solar and wind energy, while at the same time considering investments in new natural gas generation.”

TVA has announced plans to shutter the Kingston and Cumberland coal plants and is evaluating whether to replace this generation with natural gas, which is a fossil fuel, while debates over grid privatization raise questions about consumer benefits. TVA’s coal and natural gas plants represent most of the largest sources of greenhouses emissions in Tennessee.

TVA responded with a statement without directly addressing the committee’s concerns. TVA said its “developing and implementing emerging technologies to drive toward net-zero emissions by 2050.”

The final question that the House committee posed is whether TVA is funding any political activity. In 2019, the committee questioned TVA about its membership to the now-disbanded Utility Air Regulatory Group, a coalition that was involved in over 200 lawsuits that primarily fought Clear Air Act regulations.

TVA revealed that it had contributed $7.3 million to the industry lobbying group since 2001. Since TVA doesn’t have shareholders, customers paid for UARG membership fees, echoing findings that deferred utility costs burden customers in other jurisdictions. An Office of the Inspector General investigation couldn’t prove whether TVA’s contributions directly funded litigation because UARG didn’t have a line-by-line accounting of what they did with TVA’s dollars.

The congressional committee questioned whether TVA is still paying for lobbying or litigation that opposes “public health and welfare regulations.”

This last question follows a recent trend of questioning utilities about “hidden fees.” In December, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry to examine how bills from investor-owned utilities might contain fees that fund political activity, and regulators have penalized firms like NT Power over customer notice practices, highlighting consumer protection. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition to protect electric and gas customers of investor-owned utilities from paying these fees, which may be used for lobbying, campaign-related donations and litigation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Washington State Hybrid-Electric Ferries advance green maritime transit with battery-diesel propulsion, lower emissions, and fleet modernization, integrating charging infrastructure and reliable operations across WSF routes to meet climate goals and reduce fuel consumption.

Key Points

New WSF vessels using diesel-battery propulsion to cut emissions, improve efficiency, and sustain reliable ferry service.

✅ Hybrid diesel-battery propulsion reduces fuel use and CO2

✅ Larger vessels with efficient batteries and charging upgrades

✅ Compatible with WSF docks, maintenance, and safety standards

Washington State is embarking on an ambitious update to its ferry fleet, introducing hybrid-electric boats that represent a significant leap toward greener and more sustainable transportation. The state’s updated plans reflect a commitment to reducing carbon emissions and enhancing environmental stewardship while maintaining the efficiency and reliability of its vital ferry services.

The Washington State Ferries (WSF) system, one of the largest in the world, has long been a critical component of the state’s transportation network, linking various islands and coastal communities with the mainland. Traditionally powered by diesel engines, the ferries are responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions. In response to growing environmental concerns and legislative pressure, WSF is now turning to hybrid-electric technology similar to battery-electric high-speed ferries seen elsewhere to modernize its fleet and reduce its carbon footprint.

The updated plans for the hybrid-electric boats build on earlier efforts to introduce cleaner technologies into the ferry system. The new designs incorporate advanced hybrid-electric propulsion systems that combine traditional diesel engines with electric batteries. This hybrid approach allows the ferries to operate on electric power during certain segments of their routes, reducing reliance on diesel fuel and cutting emissions as electric ships on the B.C. coast have demonstrated during similar operations.

One of the key features of the updated plans is the inclusion of larger and more capable hybrid-electric ferries, echoing BC Ferries hybrid ships now entering service in the region. These vessels are designed to handle the demanding operational requirements of the Washington State Ferries system while significantly reducing environmental impact. The new boats will be equipped with state-of-the-art battery systems that can store and utilize electric power more efficiently, leading to improved fuel economy and lower overall emissions.

The transition to hybrid-electric ferries is driven by both environmental and economic considerations. On the environmental side, the move aligns with Washington State’s broader goals to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including programs like electric vehicle rebate program that encourage cleaner travel across the state. The state has set ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions across various sectors, and upgrading the ferry fleet is a crucial component of achieving these goals.

From an economic perspective, hybrid-electric ferries offer the potential for long-term cost savings. Although the initial investment in new technology can be substantial, with financing models like CIB support for B.C. electric ferries helping spur adoption and reduce barriers for agencies, the reduced fuel consumption and lower maintenance costs associated with hybrid-electric systems are expected to lead to significant savings over the lifespan of the vessels. Additionally, the introduction of greener technology aligns with public expectations for more sustainable transportation options.

The updated plans also emphasize the importance of integrating hybrid-electric technology with existing infrastructure. Washington State Ferries is working to ensure that the new vessels are compatible with current docking facilities and maintenance practices. This involves updating docking systems, as seen with Kootenay Lake electric-ready ferry preparations, to accommodate the specific needs of hybrid-electric ferries and training personnel to handle the new technology.

Public response to the hybrid-electric ferry initiative has been largely positive, with many residents and environmental advocates expressing support for the move towards greener transportation. The new boats are seen as a tangible step toward reducing the environmental impact of one of the state’s most iconic transportation services. The project also highlights Washington State’s commitment to innovation and leadership in sustainable transportation, alongside global examples like Berlin's electric flying ferry that push the envelope in maritime transit.

However, the transition to hybrid-electric ferries is not without its challenges. Implementing new technology requires careful planning and coordination, including addressing potential technical issues and ensuring that the vessels meet all safety and operational standards. Additionally, there may be logistical challenges associated with integrating the new ferries into the existing fleet and managing the transition without disrupting service.

Despite these challenges, the updated plans for hybrid-electric boats represent a significant advancement in Washington State’s efforts to modernize its transportation system. The initiative reflects a growing trend among transportation agencies to embrace sustainable technologies and address the environmental impact of traditional transportation methods.

In summary, Washington State’s updated plans for hybrid-electric ferries mark a crucial step towards a more sustainable and environmentally friendly transportation network. By incorporating advanced hybrid-electric technology, the state aims to reduce carbon emissions, improve fuel efficiency, and align with its broader climate goals. While challenges remain, the initiative demonstrates a commitment to innovation and underscores the importance of transitioning to greener technologies in the quest for a more sustainable future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Global Electricity Demand Surge underscores rising coal generation, lagging renewables deployment, and escalating emissions, as nations prioritize reliable power; nuclear energy and grid decarbonization emerge as pivotal solutions to the electricity transition.

Key Points

A rapid post-lockdown rise in power consumption, outpacing renewables growth and driving higher coal use and emissions.

✅ Coal generation rises faster than wind and solar additions

✅ Emissions increase as economies prioritize reliable baseload power

✅ Nuclear power touted for rapid grid decarbonization

By Robert Bryce

As the Covid lockdowns are easing, the global economy is recovering and that recovery is fueling blistering growth in electricity use. The latest data from Ember, the London-based “climate and energy think tank focused on accelerating the global electricity transition,” show that global power demand soared by about 5% in the first half of 2021. That’s faster growth than was happening back in 2018 when electricity use was increasing by about 4% per year.

The numbers from Ember also show that despite lots of talk about the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, coal demand for power generation continues to grow and emissions from the electric sector continue to grow: up by 5% over the first half of 2019. In addition, they show that while about half of the growth in electricity demand was met by wind and solar, as low-emissions sources are set to cover almost all new demand over the next three years, overall growth in electricity use is still outstripping the growth in renewables. 

The soaring use of electricity, and increasing emissions from power generation confirm the sage wisdom of Rasheed Wallace, the volatile former power forward with the Detroit Pistons and other NBA teams, and now an assistant coach at the  University of Memphis, who coined the catchphrase: “Ball don’t lie.” If Wallace or one of his teammates was called for a foul during a basketball game that he thought was undeserved, and the opposing player missed the ensuing free throws, Wallace would often holler, “ball don’t lie,” as if the basketball itself was pronouncing judgment on the referee’s errant call. 

I often think about Wallace’s catchphrase while looking at global energy and power trends and substitute my own phrase: numbers don’t lie.

Over the past few weeks Ember, BP, and the International Energy Agency have all published reports which come to the same two conclusions: that countries all around the world — and China's electricity sector in particular — are doing whatever they need to do to get the electricity they need to grow their economies. Second, they are using lots of coal to get that juice. 

As I discuss in my recent book, A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations, Electricity is the world’s most important and fastest-growing form of energy. The Ember data proves that. At a growth rate of 5%, global electricity use will double in about 14 years, and as surging electricity demand is putting power systems under strain around the world, the electricity sector also accounts for the biggest single share of global carbon dioxide emissions: about 25 percent. Thus, if we are to have any hope of cutting global emissions, the electricity sector is pivotal. Further, the soaring use of electricity shows that low-income people and countries around the world are not content to stay in the dark. They want to live high-energy lives with access to all the electronic riches that we take for granted.  

 Ember’s data clearly shows that decarbonizing the global electric grid will require finding a substitute for coal. Indeed, coal use may be plummeting in the U.S. and western Europe, where U.S. electricity consumption has been declining, but over the past two years, several developing countries including Mongolia, China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and India, all boosted their use of coal. This was particularly obvious in China, where, between the first half of 2019 and the first half of 2021, electricity demand jumped by about 14%. Of that increase, coal-fired generation provided roughly twice as much new electricity as wind and solar combined. In Pakistan, electricity demand jumped by about 7%, and coal provided more than three times as much new electricity as nuclear and about three times as much as hydro. (Wind and solar did not grow at all in Pakistan over that period.) 

Hate coal all you like, but its century-long persistence in power generation proves its importance. That persistence proves that climate change concerns are not as important to most consumers and policymakers as reliable electricity. In 2010, Roger Pielke Jr. dubbed this the Iron Law of Climate Policy which says “When policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time.” Pielke elaborated on that point, saying the Iron Law is a “boundary condition on policy design that is every bit as limiting as is the second law of thermodynamics, and it holds everywhere around the world, in rich and poor countries alike. It says that even if people are willing to bear some costs to reduce emissions (and experience shows that they are), they are willing to go only so far.”

Over the past five years, I’ve written a book about electricity, co-produced a feature-length documentary film about it (Juice: How Electricity Explains the World), and launched a podcast that focuses largely on energy and power. I’m convinced that Pielke’s claim is exactly right and should be extended to electricity and dubbed the Iron Law of Electricity which says, “when forced to choose between dirty electricity and no electricity, people will choose dirty electricity every time.” I saw this at work in electricity-poor places all over the world, including India, Lebanon, and Puerto Rico. 

Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado as well as a highly regarded author on the politics of climate change and sports governance, has since elaborated on the Iron Law. During an interview in Juice, he explained it thusly: “The Iron Law says we’re not going to reduce emissions by willingly getting poor. Rich people aren't going to want to get poorer, poor people aren't going to want to get poorer.” He continued, “If there is one thing that we can count on it is that policymakers will be rewarded by populations if they make people wealthier. We're doing everything we can to try to get richer as nations, as communities, as individuals. If we want to reduce emissions, we really have only one place to go and that's technology.”

Pielke’s point reminds me of another of my favorite energy analysts, Robert Rapier, who made a salient point in his Forbes column last week. He wrote, “Despite the blistering growth rate of renewables, it’s important to keep in mind that overall global energy consumption is growing. Even though global renewable energy consumption has increased by about 21 exajoules in the past decade, overall energy consumption has increased by 51 exajoules. Increased fossil fuel consumption made up most of this growth, with every category of fossil fuels showing increased consumption over the decade.” 

The punchline here – despite my tangential reference to Rasheed Wallace — is obvious: The claims that massive reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions must happen soon are being mocked by the numbers. Countries around the world are acting in their interest, particularly when it comes to their electricity needs and that is resulting in big increases in emissions. As Ember concludes in their report, wind and solar are growing, and some analyses suggest renewables could eclipse coal by 2025, but the “electricity transition” is “not happening fast enough.”

Ember explains that in the first half of 2021, wind and solar output exceeded the output of the world’s nuclear reactors for the first time. It also noted that over the past two years, “Nuclear generation fell by 2% compared to pre-pandemic levels, as closures at older plants across the OECD, especially amid debates over European nuclear trends, exceeded the new capacity in China.” While that may cheer anti-nuclear activists at groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the truth is obvious: the only way – repeat, the only way – the electric sector will achieve significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions is if we can replace lots of coal-fired generation with nuclear reactors and do so in relatively short order, meaning the next decade or so. Renewables are politically popular and they are growing, but they cannot, will not, be able to match the soaring demand for the electricity that is needed to sustain modern economies and bring developing countries out of the darkness and into modernity. 

Countries like China, Vietnam, India, and others need an alternative to coal for power generation. They need new nuclear reactors that are smaller, safer, and cheaper than the existing designs. And they need it soon. I will be writing about those reactors in future columns.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One and Alectra Hamilton Grid Upgrades will modernize electricity infrastructure with new transformers, protection devices, transmission and distribution improvements, tree trimming, pole replacements, and line refurbishments to boost reliability and reduce outages across region.

Key Points

A $250M plan to modernize Hamilton transmission and distribution, reducing outages and improving reliability by 2022.

✅ New transformers and protection devices to cut outages

✅ Refurbished 1915 line powering Hamilton West Mountain

✅ Tree trimming and pole replacements across 1,260 km

Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One), Ontario's largest electricity transmission and distribution company whose delivery rates recently increased, and Alectra Utilities have announced they expect to complete approximately $250 million of work in the Hamilton area by 2022 to upgrade local electricity infrastructure and improve service reliability.

As part of these plans to strengthen the electricity grid in the Hamilton region, where utilities must adapt to climate change pressures, investments are expected to include:

installing quieter, more efficient transformers in four stations across Hamilton to assist in reducing the number of outages;
replacing protection and switching devices across the city to shorten outage restoration times, reflecting how transmission line work underpins reliability;
refurbishing a power line originally installed in 1915 that is critical to powering the Hamilton West Mountain area; and,
trimming hazardous trees across more than 1,260 km of overhead powerlines and replacing more than 270 poles.
Hydro One will be working with Alectra Utilities to replace aging infrastructure at Elgin transmission station.

"A loss of power grinds life to a halt, impacting businesses, families and productivity. That's why Hydro One is partnering with Alectra Utilities to support a growing local economy in Hamilton, while improving power reliability for its residents," said Jason Fitzsimmons, Chief Corporate Affairs and Customer Care Officer. "Replacing aging infrastructure and modernizing equipment is part of our plan to build a stronger, safer and more reliable electricity system for Ontario now and into the future." 

"Partnering with Hydro One to invest in our local community will create a safer, more resilient and reliable system for the future," said Max Cananzi, President, Alectra Utilities.  "In addition to investments in the transmission system, Alectra Utilities also plans to invest $235 million over the next five years to renew, upgrade and connect customers to the electrical distribution and supporting systems in Hamilton. Investments in the transmission and distribution systems in Hamilton will contribute to the long-term sustainability of our communities."

"I am pleased to see Hydro One and Alectra investing in modernizing local electricity infrastructure and improving reliability," said Member of Provincial Parliament, Donna Skelly.  "Safe and reliable power is essential to supporting local families, businesses and our community."

Across Ontario, First Nations call for action on urgently needed transmission lines highlight the importance of timely grid investments.

Hydro One's investments included in this announcement are captured in its previously disclosed future capital expenditures, amid proposed projects like the Meaford hydro project across Ontario.

Much of Hydro One's electricity system was built in the 1950s, and replacing aging assets is critical as delays affecting a cross-border transmission line elsewhere have shown. Its three-year, $5 billion investment plan supports safe and reliable power to communities across Ontario, and strong regulatory oversight illustrated by the ATCO Electric penalty helps maintain public trust.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News