B.C. firm hopes to harness California wind

ERCOT Ancillary Services Clawback and VOLL Pricing summarize PUCT and IMM actions on load shed, real-time pricing adders, clawbacks, and settlement corrections after the 2021 winter storm in the Texas power grid market.

Key Points

Policies addressing clawbacks for unprovided AS and correcting VOLL-based price adders after load shed ended in ERCOT.

✅ PUCT ordered clawbacks for ancillary services not delivered.

✅ IMM urged price correction after firm load shed ceased.

✅ ERCOT's VOLL adder raised costs by $16B during 32 hours.

Potomac Economics, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), filed a report with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) that certain payments were made by ERCOT for Ancillary Services (AS) that were not provided, even as ERCOT later issued a winter reliability RFP to procure capacity during subsequent seasons.

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

There were a number of instances during the operating days outlined above in which AS was not provided in real time because of forced outages or derations. For market participants that are not able to meet their AS responsibility, typically the ERCOT operator marks the short amount in the software. This causes the AS responsibility to be effectively removed and the day-ahead AS payment to be clawed back in settlement. However, the ERCOT operators did not complete this task during the winter event, echoing issues like the Ontario IESO phantom demand that cost customers millions, and therefore the "failure to provide" settlements were not invoked in real time.

Removing the operator intervention step and automating the "failure to provide" settlement was contemplated in NPRR947: Clarification to Ancillary Service Supply Responsibility Definition and Improvements to Determining and Charging for Ancillary Service Failed Quantities; however, the NPRR was withdrawn in August 2020 amid ongoing market reform discussions because of the system cost, some complexities related to AS trades, and the implementation of real-time co-optimization.

Invoking the "failure to provide" settlement for all AS that market participants failed to provide during the operating days outlined above will produce market outcomes and settlements consistent with underlying market principles. In this case, the principle is that market participants should not be paid for services that they do not provide, even as a separate ruling found power plants exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under Texas law, underscoring the distinction between obligations and settlements. Whether ERCOT marked the short amount in real-time or not should not affect the settlement of these ancillary services.

On March 3, 2021, the PUCT ordered (a related press release is here) that:

ERCOT shall claw back all payments for ancillary service that were made to an entity that did not provide its required ancillary service during real time on ERCOT operating days starting February 14, 2021 and ending on February 19,2021.

On March 4, 2021, the IMM filed another report and recommended that:

the [PUCT] direct ERCOT to correct the real-time prices from 0:00 February 18,2021, to 09:00 February 19, 2021, to remove the inappropriate pricing intervention that occurred during that time period.

The IMM approvingly noted the PUCT's February 15, 2021 order, which mandated that real-time energy prices reflect firm load shed by setting prices at the value of lost load (VOLL).1

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

This is essential in an energy-only market, like ERCOT's, where the Texas power grid faces recurring crisis risks, because it provides efficient economic signals to increase the electric generation needed to restore the load and service it reliably over the long term.

Conversely, it is equally important that prices not reflect VOLL when the system is not in shortage and load is being served, and experiences in capacity markets show auction payouts can fall sharply under different conditions. The Commission recognized this principle in its Order, expressly stating it is only ERCOT's out-of-market shedding firm load that is required to be reflected in prices. Unfortunately, ERCOT exceeded the mandate of the Commission by continuing to set process at VOLL long after it ceased the firm load shed.

ERCOT recalled the last of the firm load shed instructions at 23:55 on February 17, 2021. Therefore, in order to comply with the Commission Order, the pricing intervention that raised prices to VOLL should have ended immediately at that time. However, ERCOT continued to hold prices at VOLL by inflating the Real-Time On-Line Reliability Deployment Price Adder for an additional 32 hours through the morning of February 19. This decision resulted in $16 billion in additional costs to ERCOT's market, prompting legislative bailout proposals in Austin, of which roughly $1.5 billion was uplifted to load-serving entities to provide make-whole payments to generators for energy that was not needed or produced.

However, at its March 5, 2021, open meeting (related discussion begins around minute 20), although the PUCT acknowledged the "good points" raised by the IMM, the PUCT was not willing to retrospectively adjust its real-time pricing for this period out of concerns that some related transactions (ICE futures and others) may have already settled and for unintended consequences of such retroactive adjustments.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One Power Restoration showcases outage recovery after a severe windstorm, with crews repairing downed power lines, broken poles and crossarms, partnering with utilities and contractors to boost grid resilience and promote emergency kit preparedness.

Key Points

A coordinated response by Hydro One and partners to repair storm damage, restore outages, strengthen grid resilience.

✅ Crews repaired downed lines, broken poles, and crossarms

✅ Partners and contractors aided rapid outage restoration

✅ Investments improve grid resilience and emergency readiness

Hydro One crews have restored power to more than 277,000 customers following back-to-back storms, with impacts felt in communities like Sudbury where local crews worked to reconnect service, including a damaging windstorm on that caused 57 broken poles, 27 broken crossarms, as well as downed power lines and fallen trees on lines. Hydro One crews restored power to more than 140,000 customers within 24 hours of Friday's windstorm, even as Toronto outages persisted for some customers elsewhere.

'We understand power outages bring life to a halt, which is why we are continuously improving our storm response, as employee COVID-19 support demonstrated, while making smart investments in a resilient, reliable and sustainable electricity system to energize life for families, businesses and communities for years to come,' said David Lebeter, Chief Operating Officer, Hydro One. 'We thank our customers for their patience as our crews worked tirelessly, alongside our utility partners and contractors, including Ontario crews in Florida, to restore power as quickly and as safely as possible.'

Hydro One thanks all of its utility partners and contractors who assisted with restoration efforts following the windstorm (alongside similar Quebec outages that highlighted the broader impact), including Durham High Voltage, EPCOR, ERTH Power, K-Line Construction Ltd., Lakeland Power Distribution Ltd., North Bay Hydro, Sproule Powerline Construction Ltd. and Valard Construction.

Hydro One encourages customers to restock their emergency kits following these storms, which utilities such as BC Hydro have also characterized as atypical, and to be aware of support programs like our pandemic relief fund that can help during difficult periods, to ensure they're prepared for an emergency or extended power outage.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

California Grid Transition drives decarbonization with renewable energy, EV charging, microgrids, and energy storage, while tackling wildfire risk, aging infrastructure, and cybersecurity threats to build grid resilience and reliability across a rapidly electrifying economy.

Key Points

California Grid Transition is the statewide shift to renewables, storage, EVs, and resilient, secure infrastructure.

✅ Integrates solar, wind, storage, and demand response at scale

✅ Expands microgrids and DERs to enhance reliability and resilience

✅ Addresses wildfire, aging assets, and cybersecurity risks

Gretchen Bakke thinks a lot about power—the kind that sizzles through a complex grid of electrical stations, poles, lines and transformers, keeping the lights on for tens of millions of Californians who mostly take it for granted.

They shouldn’t, says Bakke, who grew up in a rural California town regularly darkened by outages. A cultural anthropologist who studies the consequences of institutional failures, she says it’s unclear whether the state’s aging electricity network and its managers can handle what’s about to hit it, as U.S. blackout risks continue to mount.

California is casting off fossil fuels to become something that doesn’t yet exist: a fully electrified state of 40 million people. Policies are in place requiring a rush of energy from renewable sources such as the sun and wind and calling for millions of electric cars that will need charging—changes that will tax a system already fragile, unstable and increasingly vulnerable to outside forces.

“There is so much happening, so fast—the grid and nearly everything about energy is in real transition, and there’s so much at stake,” said Bakke, who explores these issues in a book titled simply, “The Grid.”

The state’s task grew more complicated with this week’s announcement that Pacific Gas and Electric, which provides electricity for more than 5 million customer accounts, intends to file for bankruptcy in the face of potentially crippling liabilities from wildfires. But the reshaping of California’s energy future goes far beyond the woes of a single company.

The 19th-century model of one-way power delivery from utility companies to customers is being reimagined. Major utilities—and the grid itself—are being disrupted by rooftops paved with solar panels and the rise of self-sufficient neighborhood mini-grids. Whole cities and counties are abandoning big utilities and buying power from wholesalers and others of their choosing.

With California at the forefront of a new energy landscape, officials are racing to design a future that will not just reshape power production and delivery but also dictate how we get around and how our goods are made. They’re debating how to manage grid defectors, weighing the feasibility of an energy network that would expand to connect and serve much of the West and pondering how to appropriately regulate small power producers.

“We are in the depths of the conversation,” said Michael Picker, president of the state Public Utilities Commission, who cautions that even as the system is being rebooted, like repairing a car while driving in practice, there’s no real plan for making it all work.

Such transformation is exceedingly risky and potentially costly. California still bears the scars of having dropped its regulatory reins some 20 years ago, leaving power companies to bilk the state of billions of dollars it has yet to completely recover. And utility companies will undoubtedly pass on to their customers the costs of grid upgrades to defend against natural and man-made threats.

Some weaknesses are well known—rodents and tree limbs, for example, are common culprits in power outages, even as longer, more frequent outages afflict other parts of the U.S. A gnawing squirrel squeezed into a transformer on Thanksgiving Day three years ago, shutting off power to parts of Los Angeles International Airport. The airport plans to spend $120 million to upgrade its power plant.

But the harsh effects of climate change expose new vulnerabilities. Rising seas imperil coastal power plants. Electricity infrastructure is both threatened by and implicated in wildfires. Picker estimates that utility operations are related to one in 10 wildland fires in California, which can be sparked by aging equipment and winds that send tree branches crashing into power lines, showering flammable landscapes with sparks.

California utilities have been ordered to make their lines and equipment more fire-resistant as they’re increasingly held accountable for blazes they cause. Pacific Gas and Electric reported problems with some of its equipment at a starting point of California’s deadliest wildfire, which killed at least 86 people in November in the town of Paradise. The cause of the fire is under investigation.

New and complex cyber threats are more difficult to anticipate and even more dangerous. Computer hackers, operating a world away, can—and have—shut down electricity systems, toggling power on and off at will, and even hijacked the computers of special teams dispatched to restore control.

Thomas Fanning, CEO of Southern Co., one of the country’s largest utilities, recently disclosed that his teams have fended off multiple attempts to hack a nuclear power plant the firm operates. He called grid hacking “the most important under-reported war in American history.”

However, if you’ve got what seems like an insoluble problem requiring a to-the-studs teardown and innovative rebuild, California is a good place to start. After all, the first electricity grid was built in San Francisco in 1879, three years before Thomas Edison’s power station in New York City. (Edison’s plant burned to the ground a decade later.)

California’s energy-efficiency regulations have helped reduce statewide energy use, which peaked a decade ago and is on the decline, somewhat easing pressure on the grid. The major utilities are ahead of schedule in meeting their obligation to obtain power from renewable sources.

California’s universities are teaming with national research labs to develop cutting-edge solutions for storing energy produced by clean sources. California is fortunate in the diversity of its energy choices: hydroelectric dams in the north, large-scale solar operations in the Mojave Desert to the east, sprawling windmill farms in mountain passes and heat bubbling in the Geysers, the world’s largest geothermal field north of San Francisco. A single nuclear-power plant clings to the coast near San Luis Obispo, but it will be shuttered in 2025.

But more renewable energy, accessible at the whims of weather, can throw the grid off balance. Renewables lack the characteristic that power planners most prize: dispatchability, ready when called on and turned off when not immediately needed. Wind and sun don’t behave that way; their power is often available in great hunks—or not at all, as when clouds cover solar panels or winds drop.

In the case of solar power, it is plentiful in the middle of the day, at a time of low demand. There’s so much in California that most days the state pays its neighbors to siphon some off,  lest the excess impede the grid’s constant need for balance—for a supply that consistently equals demand.

So getting to California’s new goals of operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2045 and having 5 million electric vehicles within 12 years will require a shift in how power is acquired and managed. Consumers will rely more heavily on battery storage, whose efficiency must improve to meet that demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Germany 2025 Energy Costs forecast electricity and heating price trends amid gas volatility, renewables expansion, grid upgrades, and policy subsidies, highlighting impacts on households, industries, efficiency measures, and the Energiewende transition dynamics.

Key Points

Electricity stabilizes, gas-driven heating stays high; renewables, subsidies, and efficiency measures moderate costs.

✅ Power prices stabilize above pre-crisis levels

✅ Gas volatility keeps heating bills elevated

✅ Subsidies and efficiency upgrades offset some costs

As Germany moves into 2025, the country is facing significant shifts in heating and electricity costs. With a variety of factors influencing energy prices, including geopolitical tensions, government policies, and the ongoing transition to renewable energy sources, consumers and businesses alike are bracing for potential changes in their energy bills. In this article, we will explore how heating and electricity costs are expected to evolve in Germany in the coming year and what that means for households and industries.

Energy Price Trends in Germany

In recent years, energy prices in Germany have experienced notable fluctuations, particularly due to the aftermath of the global energy crisis, which was exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This geopolitical shift disrupted gas supplies, which in turn affected electricity prices and strained local utilities across the country. Although the German government introduced measures to mitigate some of the price increases, many households have still felt the strain of higher energy costs.

For 2024, experts predict that electricity prices will likely stabilize but remain higher than pre-crisis levels. While electricity prices nearly doubled in 2022, they have gradually started to decline, and the market has adjusted to the new realities of energy supply and demand. Despite this, the cost of electricity is expected to stay elevated as Germany continues to phase out coal and nuclear energy while ramping up the use of renewable sources, which often require significant infrastructure investments.

Heating Costs: A Mixed Outlook

Heating costs in Germany are heavily influenced by natural gas prices, which have been volatile since the onset of the energy crisis. Gas prices, although lower than the peak levels seen in 2022, are still considerably higher than in the years before. This means that households relying on gas heating can expect to pay more for warmth in 2024 compared to previous years.

The government has implemented measures to cushion the impact of these increased costs, such as subsidies for vulnerable households and efforts to support energy efficiency upgrades. Despite these efforts, consumers will still feel the pinch, particularly in homes that use older, less efficient heating systems. The transition to more sustainable heating solutions, such as heat pumps, remains a key goal for the German government. However, the upfront cost of such systems can be a barrier for many households.

The Role of Renewable Energy and the Green Transition

Germany has set ambitious goals for its energy transition, known as the "Energiewende," which aims to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and increase the share of renewable energy sources in the national grid. In 2024, Germany is expected to see further increases in renewable energy generation, particularly from wind and solar power. While this transition is essential for reducing carbon emissions and improving long-term energy security, the shift comes with its own challenges already documented in EU electricity market trends reports.

One of the main factors influencing electricity costs in the short term is the intermittency of renewable energy sources. Wind and solar power are not always available when demand peaks, requiring backup power generation from fossil fuels or stored energy. Additionally, the infrastructure needed to accommodate a higher share of renewables, including grid upgrades and energy storage solutions, is costly and will likely contribute to rising electricity prices in the near term.

On a positive note, Germany's growing investment in renewable energy is expected to make the country less reliant on imported fossil fuels, particularly natural gas, which has been a major source of price volatility. Over time, as the share of renewables in the energy mix grows, the energy system should become more stable and less susceptible to geopolitical shocks, which could lead to more predictable and potentially lower energy costs in the long run.

Government Interventions and Subsidies

To help ease the burden on consumers, the German government has continued to implement various measures to support households and businesses. One of the key programs is the reduction in VAT (Value Added Tax) on electricity, which has been extended in some regions. This measure is designed to make electricity more affordable for all households, particularly those on fixed incomes facing EU energy inflation pressures that have hit the poorest hardest.

Moreover, the government has been providing financial incentives for households and businesses to invest in energy-efficient technologies, such as insulation and energy-saving heating systems, complementing the earlier 200 billion euro energy shield announced to buffer surging prices. These incentives are intended to reduce overall energy consumption, which could offset some of the rising costs.

The outlook for heating and electricity costs in Germany for 2024 is mixed, even as energy demand hit a historic low amid economic stagnation. While some relief from the extreme price spikes of 2022 may be felt, energy costs will still be higher than they were in previous years. Households relying on gas heating will likely see continued elevated costs, although those who invest in energy-efficient solutions or renewable heating technologies may be able to offset some of the increases. Similarly, electricity prices are expected to stabilize but remain high due to the country’s ongoing transition to renewable energy sources.

While the green transition is crucial for long-term sustainability, consumers must be prepared for potentially higher energy costs in the short term. Government subsidies and incentives will help alleviate some of the financial pressure, but households should consider strategies to reduce energy consumption, such as investing in more efficient heating systems or adopting renewable energy solutions like solar panels.

As Germany navigates these changes, the country’s energy future will undoubtedly be shaped by a delicate balance between environmental goals and the economic realities of transitioning to a greener energy system.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

SaskPower 10% Electricity Rebate promises one-year bill relief for households, farms, businesses, hospitals, schools, and universities in Saskatchewan, boosting affordability amid COVID-19, offsetting rate hikes, and countering carbon tax impacts under Scott Moe's plan.

Key Points

One-year 10% SaskPower rebate lowering bills for residents, farms, and institutions, funded by general revenue.

✅ Applies automatically to all customers for 12 months from Dec 2020.

✅ Average savings: $215 residential; $845 farm; broad sector coverage.

✅ Cost $261.6M, paid from the general revenue fund; separate from carbon tax.

Saskatchewan Party leader Scott Moe says SaskPower customers can expect a one-year, 10 per cent rebate on electricity if they are elected government.

Moe said the pledge aims to make life more affordable for people, including through lower electricity rates initiatives seen in other provinces. The rate would apply to everyone, including residential customers, farmers, businesses, hospitals, schools and universities.

The plan, which would cost government $261.6 million, expects to save the average residential customer $215 over the course of the year and the average farm customer $845.  

“This is a very equitable way to ensure that we are not only providing that opportunity for those dollars to go back into our economy and foster the economic recovery that we are working towards here, in Saskatchewan, across Canada and around the globe, but it also speaks to the affordability for our Saskatchewan families, reducing the dollars a day off to pay for their for their power bill,” Moe said.

The rebate would be applied automatically to all SaskPower bills for 12 months, starting in December 2020. 

Moe said residential customers who are net metering and generating their own power, such as solar power, would receive a $215 rebate over the 12-month period, which is the equivalent of the average residential rebate.

The $261.6 million in costs would be covered by the government’s general revenue fund.   

The Saskatchewan NDP said the proposed reduction is "a big change in direction from the Sask. Party’s long history of making life more expensive for Saskatchewan families." and recently took aim at a SaskPower rate hike approval as part of that critique.

Trent Wotherspoon, NDP candidate for Regina Rosemont and former finance critic, called the pledge criticized the one year time frame and said Saskatchewan people need long term, reliable affordability, noting that the Ontario-Quebec hydro deal has not reduced hydro bills for consumers. Something, he said, is reflected in the NDP plan.

“We've already brought about announcements that bring about affordability, such as the break on SGI auto insurance that'll happen, year after year after year, affordable childcare which has been already announced and committed to things like a decent minimum wage instead of having the lowest minimum wage in Canada,” Wotherspoon said.

The NDP pointed out SaskPower bills have increased by 57 per cent since 2007 for families with an average household income of $75,000, while Nova Scotia's 14% rate hike was recently approved by its regulator.

It said the average bill for such household was $901 in 2007-08 and is now $1,418 in 2019-20, while in neighbouring provinces Manitoba rate increases of 2.5 per cent annually have also been proposed for three years.

"This is on top of the PST increases that the Sask. Party put on everyday families – costing them more than $700 a year," the NDP said.

Moe took aim at the federal Liberal government’s carbon tax, citing concerns that electricity prices could soar under national policies.

He said if the Saskatchewan government wins its court fight against Ottawa, all SaskPower customers can expect to save an additional $150 million per year, and he questioned the federal 2035 net-zero electricity grid target in that context.

“As it stands right now, the Trudeau government plans to raise the carbon tax from $30 to $40 a tonne on Jan. 1,” Moe said. “Trudeau plans to raise taxes and your SaskPower bill, in the middle of a pandemic.  The Saskatchewan Party will give you a break by cutting your power bill.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News