Baird dismisses Ontario-Quebec carbon trading plan

Japan Offshore Wind Investment signals Japanese utilities entering UK offshore wind, as J-Power and Kansai Electric buy into Innogy's Triton Knoll, leveraging North Sea expertise, 9.5MW turbines, and 15-year fixed-rate contracts.

Key Points

Japanese utilities buying UK offshore wind stakes to import expertise, as J-Power and Kansai join Innogy's Triton Knoll.

✅ $900M deal: J-Power 25%, Kansai Electric ~16% in Innogy unit

✅ Triton Knoll: 860MW, up to 90 9.5MW turbines, 15-year fixed PPA

✅ Goal: Transfer North Sea expertise to develop Japan offshore wind

Two of Japan's biggest power companies will buy around 40% of a German-owned developer of offshore wind farms in the U.K., seeking to learn from Britain's lead in this sector, as highlighted by a UK offshore wind milestone this week, and bring the know-how back home.

Tokyo-based Electric Power Development, better known as J-Power, will join Osaka regional utility Kansai Electric Power in investing in a unit of Germany's Innogy.

The deal, estimated to be worth around $900 million, will give J-Power a 25% stake and Kansai Electric a roughly 16% share. It will mark the first investment in an offshore wind project by Japanese power companies, as other markets shift strategies, with Poland backing wind over nuclear signaling broader momentum.

Innogy plans to start up the 860-megawatt Triton Knoll offshore wind project -- one of the biggest of its kind in the world -- in the North Sea in 2021. The vast installation will have up to 90 9.5MW turbines and sell its output to local utilities under a 15-year fixed-rate contract.

J-Power, which supplies mainly fossil-fuel-based electricity to Japanese regional utilities, will set up a subsidiary backed by the government-run Development Bank of Japan to participate in the Innogy project. Engineers will study firsthand construction and maintenance methods.

While land-based wind turbines are proliferating worldwide, offshore wind farms have progressed mainly in Europe, though U.S. offshore wind competitiveness is improving in key markets. Installed capacity totaled more than 18,000MW at the end of 2017, which at maximum capacity can produce as much power as 18 nuclear reactors.

Japan has hardly any offshore wind farms in commercial operation, and has little in the way of engineering know-how in this field or infrastructure for linking such installations to the land power grid, with a recent Japan grid blackout analysis underscoring these challenges. But there are plans for a total of 4,000MW of offshore wind power capacity, including projects under feasibility studies.

J-Power set up a renewable energy division in June to look for opportunities to expand into wind and geothermal energy in Japan, and efforts like a Japan hydrogen energy system are emerging to support decarbonization. Kansai Electric also seeks know-how for increasing its reliance on renewable energy, even as it hurries to restart idled nuclear reactors.

They are not the only Japanese investors is in this field. In Asia, trading house Marubeni will invest in a Taiwanese venture with plans for a 600MW offshore wind farm.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

European Energy Market Crisis drives record natural gas and electricity prices across the EU, as LNG supply constraints, Russian pipeline dependence, marginal pricing, and renewables integration expose volatility in liberalised power markets.

Key Points

A 2021 surge in European gas and electricity prices from supply strains, demand rebounds, and marginal pricing exposure.

✅ Record TTF gas and day-ahead power prices across Europe

✅ LNG constraints and Russian pipeline dependence tightened supply

✅ Debate over marginal pricing vs regulated models intensifies

By Ronan Bolton

The year 2021 was a turbulent one for energy markets across Europe, as Europe's energy nightmare deepened across the region. Skyrocketing natural gas prices have created a sense of crisis and will lead to cost-of-living problems for many households, as wholesale costs feed through into retail prices for gas and electricity over the coming months.

This has created immediate challenges for governments, but it should also encourage us to rethink the fundamental design of our energy markets as we seek to transition to net zero, with many viewing it as a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels across the bloc.

This energy crisis was driven by a combination of factors: the relaxation of Covid-19 lockdowns across Europe created a surge in demand, while cold weather early in the year diminished storage levels and contributed to increasing demand from Asian economies. A number of technical issues and supply-side constraints also combined to limit imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) into the continent.

Europe’s reliance on pipeline imports from Russia has once again been called into question, as Gazprom has refused to ride to the rescue, only fulfilling its pre-existing contracts. The combination of these, and other, factors resulted in record prices – the European benchmark price (the Dutch TTF Gas Futures Contract) reached almost €180/MWh on 21 December, with average day-ahead electricity prices exceeding €300/MWh across much of the continent in the following days.

Countries which rely heavily on natural gas as a source of electricity generation have been particularly exposed, with governments quickly put under pressure to intervene in the market.

In Spain the government and large energy companies have clashed over a proposed windfall tax on power producers. In Ireland, where wind and gas meet much of the country’s surging electricity demand, the government is proposing a €100 rebate for all domestic energy consumers in early 2022; while the UK government is currently negotiating a sector-wide bailout of the energy supply sector and considering ending the gas-electricity price link to curb bills.

This follows the collapse of a number of suppliers who had based their business models on attracting customers with low prices by buying cheap on the spot market. The rising wholesale prices, combined with the retail price cap previously introduced by the Theresa May government, led to their collapse.

While individual governments have little control over prices in an increasingly globalised and interconnected natural gas market, they can exert influence over electricity prices as these markets remain largely national and strongly influenced by domestic policy and regulation. Arising from this, the intersection of gas and power markets has become a key site of contestation and comment about the role of government in mitigating the impacts on consumers of rising fuel bills, even as several EU states oppose major reforms amid the price spike.

Given that renewables are constituting an ever-greater share of production capacity, many are now questioning why gas prices play such a determining role in electricity markets.

As I outline in my forthcoming book, Making Energy Markets, a particular feature of the ‘European model’ of liberalised electricity trade since the 1990s has been a reliance on spot markets to improve the efficiency of electricity systems. The idea was that high marginal prices – often set by expensive-to-run gas peaking plants – would signal when capacity limits are reached, providing clear incentives to consumers to reduce or delay demand at these peak periods.

This, in theory, would lead to an overall more efficient system, and in the long run, if average prices exceeded the costs of entering the market, new investments would be made, thus pushing the more expensive and inefficient plants off the system.

The free-market model became established during a more stable era when domestically-sourced coal, along with gas purchased on long-term contracts from European sources (the North Sea and the Netherlands), constituted a much greater proportion of electricity generation.

While prices fluctuated, they were within a somewhat predictable range, and provided a stable benchmark for the long-term contracts underpinning investment decisions. This is no longer the case as energy markets become increasingly volatile and disrupted during the energy transition.

The idea that free price formation in a competitive market, with governments standing back, would benefit electricity consumers and lead to more efficient systems was rooted in sound economic theory, and is the basis on which other major commodity markets, such as metals and agricultural crops, have been organised for decades.

The free-market model applied to electricity had clear limitations, however, as the majority of domestic consumers have not been exposed directly to real-time price signals. While this is changing with the roll-out of smart meters in many countries, the extent to which the average consumer will be willing or able to reduce demand in a predicable way during peak periods remains uncertain.

Also, experience shows that governments often come under pressure to intervene in markets if prices rise sharply during periods of scarcity, thus undermining a basic tenet of the market model, with EU gas price cap strategies floated as one option.

Given that gas continues to play a crucial role in balancing supply and demand for electricity, the options available to governments are limited, illustrating why rolling back electricity prices is harder than it appears for policymakers. One approach would be would be to keep faith with the liberalised market model, with limited interventions to help consumers in the short term, while ultimately relying on innovations in demand side technologies and alternatives to gas as a means of balancing systems with high shares of variable renewables.

An alternative scenario may see a return to old style national pricing policies, involving a move away from marginal pricing and spot markets, even as the EU prepares to revamp its electricity market in response. In the past, in particular during the post-WWII decades, and until markets were liberalised in the 1990s, governments have taken such an approach, centrally determining prices based on the costs of delivering long term system plans. The operation of gas plants and fuel procurement would become a much more regulated activity under such a model.

Many argue that this ‘traditional model’ better suits a world in which governments have committed to long-term decarbonisation targets, and zero marginal cost sources, such as wind and solar, play a more dominant role in markets and begin to push down prices.

A crucial question for energy policy makers is how to exploit this deflationary effect of renewables and pass-on cost savings to consumers, whilst ensuring that the lights stay on.

Despite the promise of storage technologies such as grid-scale batteries and hydrogen produced from electrolysis, aside from highly polluting coal, no alternative to internationally sourced natural gas as a means of balancing electricity systems and ensuring our energy security is immediately available.

This fact, above all else, will constrain the ambitions of governments to fundamentally transform energy markets.

Ronan Bolton is Reader at the School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh and Co-Director of the UK Energy Research Centre. His book Making Energy Markets: The Origins of Electricity Liberalisation in Europe is to be published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Champlain Hudson Power Express connects Hydro-Québec hydropower to the New York grid via a 1.25 GW high voltage transmission line, enabling renewable energy imports, grid decarbonization, storage synergy, and reduced fossil fuel generation.

Key Points

A 1.25 GW cross-border transmission project delivering Hydro-Québec hydropower to New York City to displace fossil power.

✅ 1.25 GW buried HV line from Quebec to Astoria, Queens

✅ Supports renewable imports and grid decarbonization in NYC

✅ Enables two-way trade and reservoir storage synergy

Last week, Quebec Premier François Legault took to Twitter to celebrate after New York State authorities tentatively approved the first new transmission line in three decades, the Champlain Hudson Power Express, that would connect Quebec’s vast hydroelectric network to the northeastern U.S. grid.

“C’est une immense nouvelle pour l’environnement. De l’énergie fossile sera remplacée par de l’énergie renouvelable,” he tweeted, or translated to English: “This is huge news for the environment. Fossil fuels will be replaced by renewable energy.”

The proposed construction of a 1.25 gigawatt transmission line from southern Quebec to Astoria, Queens, known as the Champlain Hudson Power Express, ties into a longer term strategy by Hydro Québec: in the coming decade, as cities such as New York and Boston look to transition away from fossil fuel-generated electricity and decarbonize their grids, Hydro-Québec sees opportunities to supply them with energy from its vast network of 61 hydroelectric generating stations and other renewable power, as Quebec has closed the door on nuclear power in recent years.

Already, the provincial utility is one of North America’s largest energy producers, generating $2.3 billion in net income in 2020, and planning to increase hydropower capacity over the near term. Hydro-Quebec has said it intends to increase exports and had set a goal of reaching $5.2 billion in net income by 2030, though its forecasts are currently under review.

But just as oil and gas companies have encountered opposition to nearly every new pipeline, Hydro-Québec is finding resistance as it seeks to expand its pathways into major export markets, which are all in the U.S. northeast. Indeed, some fossil fuel companies that would be displaced by Hydro-Québec are fighting to block the construction of its new transmission lines.

“Linear projects — be it a transmission line or a pipeline or highway or whatever — there’s always a certain amount of public opposition,” Gary Sutherland, director of strategic affairs and stakeholder relations for Hydro-Québec, told the Financial Post, “which is a good thing because it makes the project developer ask the right questions.”

While Sutherland said he isn’t expecting opposition to the line into New York, he acknowledged Hydro-Québec also didn’t fully anticipate the opposition encountered with the New England Clean Energy Connect, a 1.2 gigawatt transmission line that would cost an estimated US$950 million and run from Quebec through Maine, eventually connecting to Massachusetts’ grid.

In Maine, natural gas and nuclear energy companies, which stand to lose market share, and also environmentalists, who oppose logging through sensitive habitat, both oppose the project.

In August, Maine’s highest court invalidated a lease for the land where the lines were slated to be built, throwing permits into question. Meanwhile, Calpine Corporation and Vistra Energy Corp., both Texas-based companies that operate natural gas plants in Maine, formed a political action committee called Mainers for Local Power. It has raised nearly US$8 million to fight the transmission line, according to filings with the Maine Ethics Commission.

Neither Calpine nor Vistra could be reached for comment by the time of publication.

“It’s been 30 years since we built a transmission line into the U.S. northeast,” said Sutherland. “In that time we have increased our exports significantly … but we haven’t been able to build out the corresponding transmission to get that energy from point A to point B.”

Indeed, since 2003, Hydro-Québec’s exports outside the province have grown from roughly two terrawatts per year to more than 30 terrawatts, including recent deals with NB Power to move more electricity into New Brunswick. The provincial utility produces around 210 terrawatts annually, but uses less than 178 terrawatts in Quebec.

Linear projects — be it a transmission line or a pipeline or highway or whatever — there’s always a certain amount of public opposition

In Massachusetts, it has signed contracts to supply 9.4 terrawatts annually — an amount roughly equivalent to 8 per cent of the New England region’s total consumption. Meanwhile, in New York, Hydro-Québec is in the final stages of negotiating a 25-year contract to sell 10.4 terawatts — about 20 per cent of New York City’s annual consumption.

In his tweets, Legault described the New York contract as being worth more than $20 billion over 25 years, although Hydro Québec declined to comment on the value because the contract is still under negotiation and needs approval by New York’s Public Services Commission — expected by mid-December.

Both regions are planning to build out solar and wind power to meet their growing clean energy needs and reach ambitious 2030 decarbonization targets. New York has legislated a goal of 70 per cent renewable power by that time, while Massachusetts has called for a 50 per cent reduction in emissions in the same period.

Hydro-Quebec signage is displayed on a manhole cover in Montreal. PHOTO BY BRENT LEWIN/BLOOMBERG FILES
According to a 2020 paper titled “Two Way Trade in Green Electrons,” written by three researchers at the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts’ Institute for Technology, Quebec’s hydropower, which like fossil fuels can be dispatched, will help cheaply and efficiently decarbonize these grids.

“Today transmission capacity is used to deliver energy south, from Quebec to the northeast,” the researchers wrote, adding, “…in a future low-carbon grid, it is economically optimal to use the transmission to send energy in both directions.”

That is, once new transmission lines and wind and solar power are built, New York and Massachusetts could send excess energy into Quebec where it could be stored in hydroelectric reservoirs until needed.

“This is the future of this northeast region, as New York state and New England are decarbonizing,” said Sutherland. “The only renewable energies they can put on the grid are intermittent, so they’re going to need this backup and right to the north of them, they’ve got Hydro-Québec as backup.”

Hydro-Québec already sells roughly 7 terrawatts of electricity per year into New York on the spot market, but Sutherland says it is constrained by transmission constraints that limit additional deliveries.

And because transmission lines can cost billions of dollars to build, he said Hydro-Québec needs the security of long-term contracts that ensure it will be paid back over time, aligning with its broader $185-billion transition strategy to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

Sutherland expressed confidence that the Champlain Hudson Power Express project would be constructed by 2025. He noted its partners, Blackstone-backed Transmission Developers, have been working on the project for more than a decade, and have already won support from labour unions, some environmental groups and industry.

The project calls for a barge to move through Lake Champlain and the Hudson River, and dig a trench while unspooling and burying two high voltage cables, each about 10-12 centimetres in diameter. In certain sections of the Hudson River, known to have high concentrations of PCP pollutants, the cable would be buried underground alongside the river.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Developing Countries Clean Energy investment fell as renewable energy financing slowed in China; solar and wind growth lagged while coal power hit new highs, raising emissions risks for emerging markets and complicating climate change goals.

Key Points

Renewables investment and power trends in emerging nations: solar, wind, coal shifts, and steps toward decarbonization.

✅ Investment fell to $133b; China dropped to $86b

✅ Coal power rose to 6,900 TWh; 47% generation share

✅ New coal builds declined to 39 GW, decade low

New clean energy investment slid by more than a fifth in developing countries last year due to a slowdown in China, while the amount of coal-fired power generation jumped to a new high, reflecting global power demand trends, a recent annual survey showed.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) surveyed 104 emerging markets and found that developing nations were moving towards cleaner, low-emissions sources in many regions, but not fast enough to limit carbon dioxide emissions or the effects of climate change.

New investment in wind, solar and other clean energy projects dropped to $133 billion last year from $169 billion a year earlier, mainly due to a slump in Chinese investment, even as electricity investment globally surpasses oil and gas for the first time, the research showed.

China’s clean energy investment fell to $86 billion from $122 billion a year earlier, with dynamics in China's electricity sector also in focus. Investment by India and Brazil also declined, mainly due to lower costs for solar and wind.

However, the volume of coal-fired power generation produced and consumed in developing countries increased to a new high of 6,900 terrawatt hours (TWh) last year, even as renewables are poised to eclipse coal globally, from 6,400 TWh in 2017.

The increase of 500 TWh is equivalent to the power consumed in the U.S. state of Texas in one year, underscoring how surging electricity demand is putting power systems under strain. Coal accounted for 47% of all power generation across the 104 countries.

“The transition from coal toward cleaner sources in developing nations is underway,” said Ethan Zindler, head of Americas at BNEF. “But like trying to turn a massive oil tanker, it takes time.”

Despite the spike in coal-fired generation, the amount of new coal capacity which was added to the grid in developing countries declined, with Europe's renewables crowding out gas offering a contrasting pathway. New construction of coal plants fell to its lowest level in a decade last year of 39 gigawatts (GW).

The report comes a week ahead of United Nations climate talks in Madrid, Spain, where more than 190 countries will flesh out the details of an accord to limit global warming.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Ontario Global Adjustment Supreme Court Appeal spotlights a constitutional challenge to Ontario's electricity charge, pitting National Steel Car against the IESO over regulatory charge vs tax, procurement policy, and renewable energy feed-in tariff contracts.

Key Points

An SCC leave bid on whether Ontario's global adjustment is a valid regulatory charge or an unconstitutional tax.

✅ Appeals Court revived case for full record review

✅ Dispute centers on regulatory charge vs tax classification

✅ FIT renewables contracts and procurement policies at issue

The Ontario government wants the Supreme Court of Canada to weigh in on a constitutional challenge being brought against a large provincial electricity charge, a case the province claims raises issues of national importance.

Ontario’s attorney general and its Independent Electricity System Operator applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in January, according to the court’s website.

The province is trying to appeal a Court of Appeal decision reinstating the challenge from November that said a legal challenge by Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. should be sent back to a lower-court for a full hearing.

Court reinstates constitutional challenge to Ontario's hefty ‘global adjustment’ electricity charge
National Steel Car appealing decision in legal challenge of Ontario electricity fee it calls an unconstitutional tax
Doug Ford’s cancellation of green energy deals costs Ontario taxpayers $231 million
National Steel Car launched its legal challenge in 2017, with the maker of steel rail cars claiming the province’s global adjustment electricity charge was a tax intended to fund certain post-financial-crisis policy goals. Since it is allegedly a tax, and one not imposed by the provincial legislature, the company’s argument is the global adjustment is unconstitutional, and also in breach of a provincial law requiring a referendum for new taxes.

The global adjustment mostly bridges the gap between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts and regulated rates with power generators. It also helps cover the cost of building new electricity infrastructure and providing conservation programs, but the fee now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household power bill in the province.

Ontario argued the global adjustment is a valid regulatory charge, and moved to have National Steel Car’s challenge thrown out. An Ontario Superior Court judge agreed, and dismissed the challenge in 2018, saying it was “plain, obvious and beyond doubt” it could not succeed. However, an appeals court judge disagreed, writing in a decision last November that the “merits should not have been determined on a pleadings motion and without the development of a full record.”

In filings made to the Supreme Court, both the IESO and Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General argued their proposed appeals raise “issues of national and public importance,” such as whether incorporating environmental and social policy goals in procurement could turn attempts by a public body to recover costs into an unconstitutional tax.

Most applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court are dismissed, but the Ontario government claims the court’s guidance is required in this case, as it could lead to questions being raised about other fees or charges, such as money raised from fishing licences.

“A failure to dispose of this claim at the pleadings stage may well result in such uncertainty that public authorities across Canada decline to incorporate the kind of environmental and social policy goals objected to in this case into the decisions they make about how to spend funds raised from regulatory charges,” the filing from the attorney general states. “Alternatively, it may induce governments not to engage in cost recovery in connection with publicly supplied goods and services, which can otherwise be sound public policy.”

The government has so far had to pay National Steel Car $250,000 in legal costs “to avoid responding to the credible claim that the Global Adjustment is an unconstitutional tax,” said David Trafford of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers.

“The application for leave to appeal is the next step in this effort to avoid having to respond to the case on the merits,” Trafford added in an email.

The application for leave to appeal is the next step in this effort to avoid having to respond to the case on the merits

David Trafford of Morse Shannon, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers
 
National Steel Car has particularly taken issue with the part of the global adjustment that funded contracts for renewable energy under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which the company called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity.”

The FIT program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place and form part of the global adjustment. Ontario’s auditor general estimated in 2015 that electricity consumers would pay $9.2 billion more for renewable energy under the government’s guaranteed-price program, a figure that later featured in a dispute between the auditor and the electricity regulator that drew political attention.

National Steel Car said its global adjustment costs grew from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, reflecting how high electricity rates have pressured manufacturers, to almost $3.4 million in 2016. For 2018, there was approximately $11.2 billion in global adjustment collected, according to the IESO’s reporting.

A spokesperson for the IESO said it “is not in a position to comment” because the case is still before the courts.

Electricity prices have been an ongoing problem for both Ontario consumers and politicians, which the previous Liberal government tried to address in 2017 by, among other things, refinancing global-adjustment costs through the Fair Hydro Plan and other measures.

Since National Steel Car filed its lawsuits, though, the Liberals lost power in the province and were succeeded in 2018 by Premier Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives, who made changes to the previous government’s power policies, including legislation to lower electricity rates introduced early in their mandate.

The province has also pursued interprovincial power arrangements, including building on an electricity deal with Quebec as part of its broader energy strategy.

“The present government of Ontario does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement program, which ceased awarding new contracts in 2016,” Ontario’s attorney general said in a filing. “However, Ontario submits that (the lower-court judge) was correct in holding that it does not give rise to a claim susceptible to being remedied by the courts.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News