Heat wave has plans to stay awhile

U.S. Utility Spending Shift highlights rising transmission and distribution costs, grid modernization, and smart meters, while generation expenses decline amid fuel price volatility, capital and labor pressures, and renewable integration across the power sector.

Key Points

A decade-long trend where utilities spend more on delivery and grid upgrades, and less on electricity generation costs.

✅ Delivery O&M, wires, poles, and meters drive rising costs

✅ Generation spending declines amid fuel price changes and PPI

✅ Grid upgrades add reliability, resilience, and renewable integration

Over the past decade, major utilities in the United States have been spending more on delivering electricity to customers and less on producing that electricity, a shift occurring as electricity demand is flat across many regions.

After adjusting for inflation, major utilities spent 2.6 cents per kilowatthour (kWh) on electricity delivery in 2010, using 2020 dollars. In comparison, spending on delivery was 65% higher in 2020 at 4.3 cents/kWh, and residential bills rose in 2022 as inflation persisted. Conversely, utility spending on power production decreased from 6.8 cents/kWh in 2010 (using 2020 dollars) to 4.6 cents/kWh in 2020.

Utility spending on electricity delivery includes the money spent to build, operate, and maintain the electric wires, poles, towers, and meters that make up the transmission and distribution system. In real 2020 dollar terms, spending on electricity delivery increased every year from 1998 to 2020 as utilities worked to replace aging equipment, build transmission infrastructure to accommodate new wind and solar generation amid clean energy transition challenges that affect costs, and install new technologies such as smart meters to increase the efficiency, reliability, resilience, and security of the U.S. power grid.

Spending on power production includes the money spent to build, operate, fuel, and maintain power plants, as well as the cost to purchase power in cases where the utility either does not own generators or does not generate enough to fulfill customer demand. Spending on electricity production includes the cost of fuels including natural gas prices alongside capital, labor, and building materials, as well as the type of generators being built.

Other utility spending on electricity includes general and administrative expenses, general infrastructure such as office space, and spending on intangible goods such as licenses and franchise fees, even as electricity sales declined in recent years.

The retail price of electricity reflects the cost to produce and deliver power, the rate of return on investment that regulated utilities are allowed, and profits for unregulated power suppliers, and, as electricity prices at 41-year high have been reported, these components have drawn increased scrutiny.

In 2021, demand for consumer goods and the energy needed to produce them has been outpacing supply, though power demand sliding in 2023 with milder weather has also been noted. This difference has contributed to higher prices for fuels used by electric generators, especially natural gas. The increased cost for fuel, capital, labor, and building materials, as seen in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index, is increasing the cost of power production for 2021. U.S. average electricity prices have been higher every month of this year compared with 2020, according to our Monthly Electric Power Industry Report.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.

Key Points

Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.

✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.

President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.

That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.

The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.

Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's

Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.

"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.

The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."

McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."

The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.

But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.

The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."

The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.

The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."

But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.

Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.

Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."

None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.

What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

EV Grid Capacity Management shows how smart charging, load balancing, and off-peak pricing align with utility demand response, DC fast charging networks, and renewable integration to keep national electricity infrastructure reliable as EV adoption scales

Key Points

EV Grid Capacity Management schedules charging and balances load to keep EV demand within utility capacity.

✅ Off-peak pricing and time-of-use tariffs shift charging demand.

✅ Smart chargers enable demand response and local load balancing.

✅ Gradual EV adoption allows utilities to plan upgrades efficiently.

One of the most frequent concerns you will see from electric vehicle haters is that the electricity grid can’t possibly cope with all cars becoming EVs, or that EVs will crash the grid entirely. However, they haven’t done the math properly. The grids in most developed nations will be just fine, so long as the demand is properly management. Here’s how.

The biggest mistake the social media keyboard warriors make is the very strange assumption that all cars could be charging at once. In the UK, there are currently 32,697,408 cars according to the UK Department of Transport. The UK national grid had a capacity of 75.8GW in 2020. If all the cars in the UK were EVs and charging at the same time at 7kW (the typical home charger rate), they would need 229GW – three times the UK grid capacity. If they were all charging at 50kW (a common public DC charger rate), they would need 1.6TW – 21.5 times the UK grid capacity. That sounds unworkable, and this is usually the kind of thinking behind those who claim the UK grid can't cope with EVs.

What they don’t seem to realize is that the chances of every single car charging all at once are infinitesimally low. Their arguments seem to assume that nobody ever drives their car, and just charges it all the time. If you look at averages, the absurdity of this position becomes particularly clear. The distance each UK car travels per year has been slowly dropping, and was 7,400 miles on average in 2019, again according to the UK Department of Transport. An EV will do somewhere between 2.5 and 4.5 miles per kWh on average, so let’s go in the middle and say 3.5 miles. In other words, each car will consume an average of 2,114kWh per year. Multiply that by the number of cars, and you get 69.1TWh. But the UK national grid produced 323TWh of power in 2019, so that is only 21.4% of the energy it produced for the year. Before you argue that’s still a problem, the UK grid produced 402TWh in 2005, which is more than the 2019 figure plus charging all the EVs in the UK put together. The capacity is there, and energy storage can help manage EV-driven peaks as well.

Let’s do the same calculation for the USA, where an EV boom is about to begin and planning matters. In 2020, there were 286.9 million cars registered in America. In 2020, while the US grid had 1,117.5TW of utility electricity capacity and 27.7GW of solar, according to the US Energy Information Administration. If all the cars were EVs charging at 7kW, they would need 2,008.3TW – nearly twice the grid capacity. If they charged at 50kW, they would need 14,345TW – 12.8 times the capacity.

However, in 2020, the US grid generated 4,007TWh of electricity. Americans drive further on average than Brits – 13,500 miles per year, according to the US Department of Transport’s Federal Highway Administration. That means an American car, if it were an EV, would need 3,857kWh per year, assuming the average efficiency figures above. If all US cars were EVs, they would need a total of 1,106.6TWh, which is 27.6% of what the American grid produced in 2020. US electricity consumption hasn’t shrunk in the same way since 2005 as it has in the UK, but it is clearly not unfeasible for all American cars to be EVs. The US grid could cope too, even as state power grids face challenges during the transition.

After all, the transition to electric isn’t going to happen overnight. The sales of EVs are growing fast, with for example more plug-ins sold in the UK in 2021 so far than the whole of the previous decade (2010-19) put together. Battery-electric vehicles are closing in on 10% of the market in the UK, and they were already 77.5% of new cars sold in Norway in September 2021. But that is new cars, leaving the vast majority of cars on the road fossil fuel powered. A gradual introduction is essential, too, because an overnight switchover would require a massive ramp up in charge point installation, particularly devices for people who don’t have the luxury of home charging. This will require considerable investment, but could be served by lots of chargers on street lamps, which allegedly only cost £1,000 ($1,300) each to install, usually with no need for extra wiring.

This would be a perfectly viable way to provide charging for most people. For example, as I write this article, my own EV is attached to a lamppost down the street from my house. It is receiving 5.5kW costing 24p (32 cents) per kWh through SimpleSocket, a service run by Ubitricity (now owned by Shell) and installed by my local London council, Barnet. I plugged in at 11am and by 7.30pm, my car (which was on about 28% when I started) will have around 275 miles of range – enough for a couple more weeks. It will have cost me around £12 ($16) – way less than a tank of fossil fuel. It was a super-easy process involving the scanning of a QR code and entering of a credit card, very similar to many parking systems nowadays. If most lampposts had one of these charging plugs, not having off-street parking would be no problem at all for owning an EV.

With most EVs having a range of at least 200 miles these days, and the average mileage per day being 20 miles in the UK (the 7,400-mile annual figure divided by 365 days) or 37 miles in the USA, EVs won’t need charging more than once a week or even every week or two. On average, therefore, the grids in most developed nations will be fine. The important consideration is to balance the load, because if too many EVs are charging at once, there could be a problem, and some regions like California are looking to EVs for grid stability as part of the solution. This will be a matter of incentivizing charging during off-peak times such as at night, or making peak charging more expensive. It might also be necessary to have the option to reduce charging power rates locally, while providing the ability to prioritize where necessary – such as emergency services workers. But the problem is one of logistics, not impossibility.

There will be grids around the world that are not in such a good place for an EV revolution, at least not yet, and some critics argue that policies like Canada's 2035 EV mandate are unrealistic. But to argue that widespread EV adoption will be an insurmountable catastrophe for electricity supply in developed nations is just plain wrong. So long as the supply is managed correctly to make use of spare capacity when it’s available as much as possible, the grids will cope just fine.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Iceland Bitcoin Mining Energy Shortage highlights surging cryptocurrency and blockchain data center electricity demand, as hydroelectric and geothermal power strain to cool servers, stabilize grid, and meet rapid mining farm growth amid Arctic-friendly conditions.

Key Points

Crypto mining data centers in Iceland are outpacing renewable power, straining the grid and exceeding residential electricity demand.

✅ Hydroelectric and geothermal capacity nearing allocation limits

✅ Cooling-friendly climate draws energy-hungry mining farms

✅ Grid planning and regulation lag rapid data center growth

The value of bitcoin may have stumbled in recent months, but in Iceland it has known only one direction so far: upward. The stunning success of cryptocurrencies around the globe has had a more unexpected repercussion on the island of 340,000 people: It could soon result in an energy shortage in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

As Iceland has become one of the world's prime locations for energy-hungry cryptocurrency servers — something analysts describe as a 21st-century gold-rush equivalent — the industry’s electricity demands have skyrocketed, too. For the first time, they now exceed Icelanders’ own private energy consumption, and energy producers fear that they won’t be able to keep up with rising demand if Iceland continues to attract new companies bidding on the success of cryptocurrencies, a concern echoed by policy moves like Russia's proposed mining ban amid electricity deficits.

Companies have flooded Iceland with requests to open new data centers to “mine” cryptocurrencies in recent months, even as concerns mount that the country may have to slow down investments amid an increasingly stretched electricity generation capacity, a dynamic seen in BC Hydro's suspension of new crypto connections in Canada.

“There was a lot of talk about data centers in Iceland about five years ago, but it was a slow start,” Johann Snorri Sigurbergsson, a spokesman for Icelandic energy producer HS Orka, told The Washington Post. “But six months ago, interest suddenly began to spike. And over the last three months, we have received about one call per day from foreign companies interested in setting up projects here.”

“If all these projects are realized, we won’t have enough energy for it,” Sigurbergsson said.

Every cryptocurrency in the world relies on a “blockchain” platform, which is needed to trade with digital currencies. Tracking and verifying a transaction on such a platform is like solving a puzzle because networks are often decentralized, and there is no single authority in charge of monitoring payments. As a result, a transaction involves an immense number of mathematical calculations, which in turn occupy vast computer server capacity. And that requires a lot of electricity, as analyses of bitcoin's energy use indicate worldwide.

The bitcoin rush may have come as a surprise to locals in sleepy Icelandic towns that are suddenly bustling with cryptocurrency technicians, but there’s a simple explanation. “The economics of bitcoin mining mean that most miners need access to reliable and very cheap power on the order of 2 or 3 cents per kilowatt hour. As a result, a lot are located near sources of hydro power, where it’s cheap,” Sam Hartnett, an associate at the nonprofit energy research and consulting group Rocky Mountain Institute, told the Washington Post.

Top financial regulators briefed a Senate panel on Feb. 6 about their work with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, and the risks to potential investors. (Reuters)

Located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and famous for its hot springs and mighty rivers, Iceland produces about 80 percent of its energy in hydroelectric power stations, compared with about 6 percent in the United States, and innovations such as underwater kites illustrate novel ways to harness marine energy. That and the cold climate make it a perfect location for new data-mining centers filled with servers in danger of overheating.

Those conditions have attracted scores of foreign companies to the remote location, including Germany's Genesis Mining, which moved to Iceland about three years ago. More have followed suit since then or are in the process of moving. 

While some analysts are already sensing a possible new revenue source for the country that is so far mostly known abroad as a tourist haven and low-budget airline hub, others are more concerned by a phenomenon that has so far mostly alarmed analysts because of its possible financial unsustainability, alongside issues such as clean energy's dirty secret that complicate the picture. Some predictions have concluded that cryptocurrency computer operations may account for “all of the world’s energy by 2020” or may already account for the equivalent of Denmark's energy needs. Those predictions are probably too alarmist, though. 

Most analysts agree that the real energy-consumption figure is likely smaller, and several experts recently told the Washington Post that bitcoin — currently the world's biggest cryptocurrency — used no more than 0.14 percent of the world’s generated electricity, as of last December. Even though global consumption may not be as significant as some have claimed, it still presents a worrisome drain for a tiny country such as Iceland, where consumption suddenly began to spike with almost no warning — and continues to grow fast.

Some networks are considering or have already pushed through changes to their protocols, designed to reduce energy use. But implementing such changes for the leading currency, bitcoin, won't be as easy because it is inherently decentralized. The companies that provide the vast amounts of computing power needed for these transactions earn a small share, comparable to a processing fee or a reward.

They are the source of the Icelandic bitcoin miners’ income — a revenue source that many Icelanders are still not quite sure what to make of, especially if the lights start flickering.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BC Hydro Cryptocurrency Mining Suspension pauses new grid connections for Bitcoin data centers, preserving electricity for EVs, heat pumps, and industry electrification, as Site C capacity and megawatt demand trigger provincial energy policy review.

Key Points

An 18-month pause on new crypto-mining grid hookups to preserve electricity for EVs, heat pumps, and electrification.

✅ 18-month moratorium on new BC Hydro crypto connections

✅ Preserves capacity for EVs, heat pumps, and industry

✅ 21 pending mines sought 1,403 MW; Site C adds 1,100 MW

New cryptocurrency mining businesses in British Columbia are now temporarily banned from being hooked up to BC Hydro’s electrical grid.

The 18-month suspension on new electricity-connection requests is intended to provide the electrical utility and provincial government with the time needed, a move similar to N.B. Power's pause during a crypto review, to create a permanent framework for any future additional cryptocurrency mining operations.

Currently, BC Hydro already provides electricity to seven cryptocurrency mining operations, and six more are in advanced stages of being connected to the grid, with a combined total power consumption of 273 megawatts. These existing operations, unlike the Siwash Creek project now in limbo, will not be affected by the temporary ban.

The electrical utility’s suspension comes at a time when there are 21 applications to open cryptocurrency mining businesses in BC, even as electricity imports supplement the grid during peaks, which would have a combined total power consumption of 1,403 megawatts — equivalent to the electricity needed for 570,000 homes or 2.3 million battery-electric vehicles annually.

In fact, the 21 cryptocurrency mining businesses would completely wipe out the new electrical capacity gained by building the $16 billion Site C hydroelectric dam, alongside two newly commissioned stations that add supply, which has an output capacity of 1,100 megawatts or enough power for the equivalent of 450,000 homes. Site C is expected to be operational by 2025.

Cryptocurrency mining, such as Bitcoin, use a very substantial amount of electricity to operate high-powered computers around the clock, which perform complex cryptographic and math problems to verify transactions. High electricity needs are the result of not only to run the racks of computers, but to provide extreme cooling given the significant heat produced.

“We are suspending electricity connection requests from cryptocurrency mining operators to preserve our electricity supply for people who are switching to electric vehicles, amid BC Hydro's first call for power in 15 years, and heat pumps, and for businesses and industries that are undertaking electrification projects that reduce carbon emissions and generate jobs and economic opportunities,” said Josie Osborne, the BC minister of energy, mines and low carbon innovation, adding that cryptocurrency mining creates very few jobs for the local economy.

Such businesses are attracted to BC due to the availability of its clean, plentiful, and cheap hydroelectricity, which LNG companies continue to seek for their operations as well.

If left unchecked, the provincial government suggests BC Hydro’s long-term electrical capacity could be wiped out by cryptocurrency mining operations, even as debates over going nuclear persist among residents across the province.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Line connects Bipole III to Minnesota, raising export capacity, as NEB hearings weigh Indigenous rights, treaty obligations, environmental assessment, cumulative effects, and cross-border hydroelectric infrastructure impacts, land access, socio-economic concerns, and regulatory review.

Key Points

A cross-border hydro line linking Manitoba to Minnesota under review on Indigenous rights and environment concerns.

✅ Connects Bipole III to Minnesota to boost exports

✅ NEB hearings include Indigenous rights and treaty issues

✅ Environmental and access impacts debated in regulatory review

Concerned Indigenous groups asked the National Energy Board this week to take into consideration existing and future impacts and treaty rights, which have prompted a halt to Site C work elsewhere, when considering whether to OK a new hydro transmission line between Manitoba and Minnesota.

Friday was the last day of the oral traditional evidence hearings in Winnipeg on Manitoba Hydro's Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission project.

The international project will connect Manitoba Hydro's Bipole III transmission line to Minnesota and increase the province's electricity export capacity to 3185 MW from 2300 MW.

#google#

During the hearings Indigenous groups brought forward concerns and evidence of environmental degradation, echoing Site C dam opponents in other regions, and restricted access to traditional lands.

Ramona Neckoway, a member of the Nelson House First Nation, talked about her concern about the scope of Manitoba Hydro's application to the NEB.

"It's only concerned with a narrow 213 km corridor and thus it erases the histories, socio-economic impacts and the environmental degradation attached to this energy source," said Neckoway.

Prior to the hearings the board stated it did not intend to assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of upstream or downstream facilities associated with electricity production, even as a utilities watchdog on Site C stability raised questions elsewhere.

However, the board did hear evidence from upstream and downstream affected communities despite objection from Manitoba Hydro lawyers.

"Manitoba Hydro objected to us being here, saying that we are irrelevant, but we are not irrelevant," said Elder Tommy Monias from Cross Lake First Nation.

Manitoba Hydro representative Bruce Owen said, "We respect the NEB hearing process and look forward to the input of all interested parties."

The hearings provided a rare opportunity for First Nations communities, similar to Ontario First Nations urging action, to voice their concerns about the line on a federal level.

"One of the hopes is that this project can't be built until a system-wide assessment is made," said Dr. Peter Kulchyski, an expert witness for the southern chiefs organization and professor of Native Studies at the University of Manitoba.

Hearings continue

The line is already under construction on the American side of the border as the NEB public hearings continue until June 22 with cross examinations and final arguments from Manitoba Hydro and intervenor groups.

The NEB's final decision on the Manitoba-Minnesota transmission line, amid an energy board delay recommendation, will be made before March 2019.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News