Wind farm plans given green light

BC Utilities Commission Site C Dam Questions press BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, stability issues, cost overruns, oversight gaps, seeking transparency for ratepayers and clarity on contracts, mitigation, and the powerhouse and spillway foundations.

Key Points

Inquiry seeking explanations from BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, costs, timelines and oversight for Site C.

✅ Timeline of studies, monitoring, and mitigation actions

✅ Rationale for contracts, costs, and right bank construction

✅ Implications for ratepayers, oversight, and project stability

The watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission has sent BC Hydro 70 questions about the troubled Site C dam, asking when geotechnical risks were first identified and when the project’s assurance board was first made aware of potential issues related to the dam’s stability. 

“I think they’ve come to the conclusion — but they don’t say it — that there’s been a cover-up by BC Hydro and by the government of British Columbia,” former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen told The Narwhal. 

On Oct. 21, The Narwhal reported that two top B.C. civil servants, including the senior bureaucrat who prepares Site C dam documents for cabinet, knew in May 2019 that the project faced serious geotechnical problems due to its “weak foundation” and the stability of the dam was “a significant risk.” 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism

“They [the civil servants] would have reported to their ministers and to the government in general,” said Eliesen, who is among 18 prominent Canadians calling for a halt to Site C work until an independent team of experts can determine if the geotechnical problems can be resolved and at what cost.  

“It’s disingenuous for Premier [John] Horgan to try to suggest, ‘Well, I just found out about it recently.’ If that’s the case, he should fire the public servants who are representing the province.” 

The public only found out about significant issues with the Site C dam at the end of July, when BC Hydro released overdue reports saying the project faces unknown cost overruns, schedule delays and, even as it achieved a transmission line milestone earlier, such profound geotechnical troubles that its overall health is classified as ‘red,’ meaning it is in serious trouble. 

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years.”

The Site C dam is the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. If completed, it will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, forcing families from their homes and destroying Indigenous gravesites, hundreds of protected archeological sites, some of Canada’s best farmland and habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction.

Eliesen said geotechnical risks were a key reason BC Hydro’s board of directors rejected the project in the early 1990s, when he was at the helm of BC Hydro.

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years,” said Eliesen, who is also the former Chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro, where Ontario First Nations have urged intervention on a critical electricity line, the former Chair of Manitoba Hydro and the former Chair and CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority.

Elsewhere, a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has faced potential delays, highlighting broader grid planning challenges.

The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent watchdog that makes sure ratepayers — including BC Hydro customers — receive safe and reliable energy services, as utilities adapt to climate change risks, “at fair rates.”

The commission’s questions to BC Hydro include 14 about the “foundational enhancements” BC Hydro now says are necessary to shore up the Site C dam, powerhouse and spillways. 

The commission is asking BC Hydro to provide a timeline and overview of all geotechnical engineering studies and monitoring activities for the powerhouse, spillway and dam core areas, and to explain what specific risk management and mitigation practices were put into effect once risks were identified.

The commission also wants to know why construction activities continued on the right bank of the Peace River, where the powerhouse would be located, “after geotechnical risks materialized.” 

It’s asking if geotechnical risks played a role in BC Hydro’s decision in March “to suspend or not resume work” on any components of the generating station and spillways.

The commission also wants BC Hydro to provide an itemized breakdown of a $690 million increase in the main civil works contract — held by Spain’s Acciona S.A. and the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung C&T Corp. — and to explain the rationale for awarding a no-bid contract to an unnamed First Nation and if other parties were made aware of that contract. 

Peace River Jewels of the Peace Site C The Narwhal
Islands in the Peace River, known as the ‘jewels of the Peace’ will be destroyed for fill for the Site C dam or will be submerged underwater by the dam’s reservoir, a loss that opponents are sharing with northerners in community discussions. Photo: Byron Dueck

B.C. Utilities Commission chair and CEO David Morton said it’s not the first time the commission has requested additional information after receiving BC Hydro’s quarterly progress reports on the Site C dam. 

“Our staff reads them to make sure they understand them and if there’s anything in then that’s not clear we go then we do go through this, we call it the IR — information request — process,” Morton said in an interview.

“There are things reported in here that we felt required a little more clarity, and we needed a little more understanding of them, so that’s why we asked the questions.”

The questions were sent to BC Hydro on Oct. 23, the day before the provincial election, but Morton said the commission is extraordinarily busy this year and that’s just a coincidence. 

“Our resources are fairly strained. It would have been nice if it could have been done faster, it would be nice if everything could be done faster.” 

“These questions are not politically motivated,” Morton said. “They’re not political questions. There’s no reason not to issue them when they’re ready.”

The commission has asked BC Hydro to respond by Nov. 19.

Read more: Top B.C. government officials knew Site C dam was in serious trouble over a year ago: FOI docs

Morton said the independent commission’s jurisdiction is limited because the B.C. government removed it from oversight of the project. 

The commission, which would normally determine if a large dam like the Site C project is in the public’s financial interest, first examined BC Hydro’s proposal to build the dam in the early 1980s.

After almost two years of hearings, including testimony under oath, the commission concluded B.C. did not need the electricity. It found the Site C dam would have negative social and environmental impacts and said geothermal power should be investigated to meet future energy needs. 

The project was revived in 2010 by the BC Liberal government, which touted energy from the Site C dam as a potential source of electricity for California and a way to supply B.C.’s future LNG industry with cheap power.

Not willing to countenance another rejection from the utilities commission, the government changed the law, stripping the commission of oversight for the project. The NDP government, which came to power in 2017, chose not to restore that oversight.

“The approval of the project was exempt from our oversight,” Morton said. “We can’t come along and say ‘there’s something we don’t like about what you’re doing, we’re going to stop construction.’ We’re not in that position and that’s not the focus of these questions.” 

But the commission still retains oversight for the cost of construction once the project is complete, Morton said. 

“The cost of construction has to be recovered in [hydro] rates. That means BC Hydro will need our approval to recover their construction cost in rates, and those are not insignificant amounts, more than $10.7 billion, in all likelihood.” 

In order to recover the cost from ratepayers, the commission needs to be satisfied BC Hydro didn’t spend more money than necessary on the project, Morton said. 

“As you can imagine, that’s not a straight forward review to do after the fact, after a 10-year construction project or whatever it ends up being … so we’re using these quarterly reports as an opportunity to try to stay on top of it and to flag any areas where we think there may be areas we need to look into in the future.”

The price tag for the Site C dam was $10.7 billion before BC Hydro’s announcement at the end of July — a leap from $6.6 billion when the project was first announced in 2010 and $8.8 billion when construction began in 2015. 

Eliesen said the utilities commission should have been asking tough questions about the Site C dam far earlier. 

“They’ve been remiss in their due diligence activities … They should have been quicker in raising questions with BC Hydro, rather than allowing BC Hydro to be exceptionally late in submitting their reports.” 

BC Hydro is late in filing another Site C quarterly report, covering the period from April 1 to June 30. 

The quarterly reports provide the B.C. public with rare glimpses of a project that international hydro expert Harvey Elwin described as being more secretive than any hydro project he has encountered in five decades working on large dams around the world, including in China.

Read more: Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding

Morton said the commission could have ordered regular reporting for the Site C project if it had its previous oversight capability.

“Then we would have had the ability to follow up and ultimately order any delinquent reports to be filed. In this circumstance, they are being filed voluntarily. They can file it as late as they choose. We don’t have any jurisdiction.” 

In addition to the six dozen questions, the commission has also filed confidential questions with BC Hydro. Morton said confidential information could include things such as competitive bid information. “BC Hydro itself may be under a confidentiality agreement not to disclose it.” 

With oversight, the commission would also have been able to drill down into specific project elements,  Morton said. 

“We would have wanted to ensure that the construction followed what was approved. BC Hydro wouldn’t have the ability to make significant changes to the design and nature of the project as they went along.”

BC Hydro has been criticized for changing the design of the Site C dam to an L-shape, which Eliesen said “has never been done anywhere in the world for an earthen dam.” 

Morton said an empowered commission could have opted to hold a public hearing about the design change and engage its own technical consultants, as it did in 2017 when the new NDP government asked it to conduct a fast-tracked review of the project’s economics. 

Construction Site C Dam
A recent report by a U.S. energy economist found cancelling the Site C dam project would save BC Hydro customers an initial $116 million a year, with increasing savings growing over time. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The commission’s final report found the dam could cost more than $12 billion, that BC Hydro had a historical pattern of overestimating energy demand and that the same amount of energy could be produced by a suite of renewables, including wind and proposed pumped storage such as the Meaford project, for $8.8 billion or less. 

The NDP government, under pressure from construction trade unions, opted to continue the project, refusing to disclose key financial information related to its decision. 

When the geotechnical problems were revealed in July, the government announced the appointment of former deputy finance minister Peter Milburn as a special Site C project advisor who will work with BC Hydro and the Site C project assurance board to examine the project and provide the government with independent advice.

Eliesen said BC Hydro and the B.C. government should never have allowed the recent diversion of the Peace River to take place given the tremendous geotechnical challenges the project faces and its unknown cost and schedule for completion. 

“It’s a disgrace and scandalous,” he said. “You can halt the river diversion, but you’ve got another four or five years left in construction of the dam. What are you going to do about all the cement you’ve poured if you’ve got stability problems?”

He said it’s counter-productive to continue with advice “from the same people who have been wrong, wrong, wrong,” without calling in independent global experts to examine the geotechnical problems. 

“If you stop construction, whether it takes three or six months, that’s the time that’s required in order to give yourself a comfort level. But continuing to do what you’ve been doing is not the right course. You should have to sit back.”

Eliesen said it reminded him of the Pete Seeger song Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, which tells the story of a captain ordering his troops to keep slogging through a river because they will soon be on dry ground. After the captain drowns, the troops turn around.

“It’s a reflection of the fact that if you don’t look at what’s new, you just keep on doing what you’ve been doing in the past and that, unfortunately, is what’s happening here in this province with this project.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Pennsylvania Electricity Market Deregulation has driven competitive pricing, leveraged low-cost natural gas, and spurred private investment, jobs, and efficient power plants, while nuclear subsidies threaten wholesale market signals and long-term consumer savings.

Key Points

Policy that opens generation to competition, leverages cheap gas, lowers rates, and resists subsidies for nuclear plants.

✅ Competitive wholesale pricing benefits consumers statewide

✅ Gas-driven plants add efficient, flexible capacity and jobs

✅ Nuclear subsidies distort market signals and raise costs

For decades, the government regulation of Pennsylvania's electricity markets dictated all aspects of power generation resources in the state, thus restricting market-driven prices for consumers and hindering new power plant development and investment.

Deregulation has enabled competitive markets to drive energy prices downward, as recent grid auction payouts fell 64% indicate, which has transformed Pennsylvania from a higher-electricity-cost state to one with prices below the national average.

Recently, the economic advantage of abundant low-cost natural gas has spurred an influx of billions of dollars of private capital investment and thousands of jobs to construct environmentally responsible natural gas power generation facilities throughout the commonwealth — including our three power generation facilities in operation and one presently under construction.

Calpine is an independent power provider with a national portfolio of 80 highly efficient power plants in operation or under construction with an electric generating capacity of approximately 26,000 megawatts. Collectively, these resources can provide sufficient power for more than 30 million residential homes. We are not a regulated utility receiving a guaranteed rate of return on investment. Rather, Calpine competes to sell wholesale power into the electric markets, and the economics of supply and demand are fundamental to the success of our business.

Pennsylvania's deregulated electricity market is working. Consumers are benefiting from low-cost natural gas, as broader evidence shows competition benefits consumers and the environment across markets, and companies such as Calpine are investing billions of dollars and creating thousands of jobs to build advanced, energy efficient, environmentally responsible and flexible power generating facilities.

There are presently seven electric generating projects under construction in the commonwealth, representing about a $7 billion capital investment that will produce about 7,000 megawatts of efficient electrical power, with additional facilities being planned.

Looking back 20 years following the enactment of the Pennsylvania Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, Pennsylvania's regulators and policymakers must conclude that the results of a free and fair market-driven structure have delivered indisputable benefits to the consumer, even amid potential winter rate spikes for residents, and the Pennsylvania economy.

While consumers are now reaping the benefits of open and competitive electricity markets, we see challenges on the horizon that could threaten the foundation of those markets. Due to pressure from nuclear power generators, state policymakers throughout the nation have been increasing efforts to impact the generation mix in their respective states by offering ratepayer funded subsidies to existing nuclear generation resources or by considering a market structure overhaul in New England.

Subsidizing one power generation type over others is having a significant, negative impact on wholesale electric markets, competitive retails markets and ultimately the cost the consumer will have to pay, and can exacerbate disruptions in coal and nuclear industries that strain the economy and risk brownouts.

In Pennsylvania, these subsidies would follow nearly $9 billion already paid by ratepayers to help the commonwealth's nuclear industry transition from regulated to competitive energy markets.

The deregulation of Pennsylvania's electricity markets in the late 1990s allowed the nuclear industry to receive billions of dollars from ratepayers to recover "stranded costs" related to investments in the commonwealth's nuclear plants. These costs were negotiated amounts based on settlements with Pennsylvania's Public Utility Commission to allow the nuclear industry to prepare and transition to competitive electricity markets.

Enough is enough. Regulatory or governmental interference in well functioning markets does not lead to better outcomes. Pennsylvania's state Legislature should not pick winners and losers by enacting legislation that would create an uneven playing field that subsidizes nuclear generating resources in the commonwealth.

William Ferguson is regional vice president for Calpine Corp.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Manitoba NDP Geothermal Conversion Program offers full-cost heat pump installation for 5,000 homes, lowering electricity bills, funding contractor training and rebates, and cutting greenhouse gas emissions via geothermal energy administered by Efficiency Manitoba.

Key Points

A plan funding 5,000 home heat pump conversions to cut electricity bills, reduce emissions, and expand installer capacity.

✅ Covers equipment and installation for 5,000 homes

✅ Cuts electricity bills up to 50% vs electric heat

✅ Administered by Efficiency Manitoba; trains contractors

An NDP government would cover the entire cost for 5,000 families to switch their homes to geothermal energy, New Democrats have promised.

If elected on Oct. 3, the NDP will pay for the equipment and installation of new geothermal systems at 5,000 homes, St. James candidate Adrien Sala announced outside a St. Boniface home that previously made the switch. 

The homes that switch to geothermal energy could save as much as 50 per cent on their electricity bills, Sala said.

"It will save you money, it will grow our economy and it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And I think we can safely call that a win, win, win," Sala said.

Geothermal energy is derived from heat that is generated within the Earth.

The NDP said each conversion to geothermal heating and cooling would cost an estimated $26,000, and comes as new turbine investments advance in Manitoba, and it would take four years to complete all 5,000 conversions.

The program would be administered through Efficiency Manitoba, the Crown corporation responsible for conserving energy, as Manitoba Hydro's new president navigates changes at the utility. The NDP estimates it will cost $32.5 million annually over the four years, at a time of red ink at Manitoba Hydro as new power generation needs loom. Some of that money would support the training of more contractors who could install geothermal systems.

Subsidies get low pickup: NDP
Sala wouldn't say Wednesday which homeowners or types of homes would be eligible.

He said the NDP's plan would be a first in Canada, even as Ontario's energy plan seeks to address growing demand elsewhere.

"What we've seen elsewhere is where other jurisdictions have used a strict subsidy model, where they try to reduce the cost of geothermal, and while Ontario reviews a halt to natural gas generation to cut emissions, approaches differ across provinces. We really haven't seen a lot of uptake in those other jurisdictions," Sala said.

"This is an attempt at dealing with one of those key barriers for homeowners."

Efficiency Manitoba runs a subsidy program for geothermal energy through ground source heat pumps, supporting using more electricity for heat across the province, valued at up to $2.50 per square foot. It is estimated a 1,600 sq. ft. home switching from an electric furnace to geothermal will receive a rebate of around $4,000 and save around $900 annually on their electricity bills, the Crown corporation said.anitoba homeProgressive Conservative spokesperson Shannon Martin questioned how NDP Leader Wab Kinew can afford his party's numerous election promises.

"He will have no choice but to raise taxes, and history shows the NDP will raise them all," said Martin, the McPhillips MLA who isn't seeking re-election.

Wednesday's announcement was the first for the NDP in which Kinew wasn't present. The party has criticized the Progressive Conservatives for leader Heather Stefanson showing up for only a few announcements a week.

Sala said Kinew was busy preparing for the debate later in the day.

"This stuff is near and dear to Wab's heart, and frankly, I think he's probably hurting that he's not here with us right now."

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

SDG&E Mitsubishi Power Energy Storage adds a 10 MW/60 MWh BESS in Pala, boosting grid reliability, renewable integration, and flexibility with EMS and SCADA controls, LFP safety chemistry, NERC CIP compliance, UL 9540 standards.

Key Points

A 10 MW/60 MWh BESS for SDG&E in Pala that enhances grid reliability, renewables usage, and operational flexibility.

✅ Emerald EMS/SCADA meets NERC CIP, IEC/ISA 62443, NIST 800-53

✅ LFP chemistry with UL 9540 and UL 9540A safety compliance

✅ Adds capacity, energy, and ancillary services to CA grid

San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), a regulated public utility that provides energy service to 3.7 million people, has awarded Mitsubishi Power an order for a 10 megawatt (MW) / 60 megawatt-hour (MWh) energy storage solution for its Pala-Gomez Creek Energy Storage Project in Pala, California. The battery energy storage system (BESS) will add capacity to help meet high energy demand, support grid reliability and operational flexibility, underscoring the broader benefits of energy storage now recognized by utilities, maximize use of renewable energy, and help prevent outages during peak demand.

The BESS project is Mitsubishi Power’s eighth in California, bringing total capacity to 280 MW / 1,140 MWh of storage to help meet California’s clean energy goals with reliable power to complement renewables, alongside emerging solutions like a California green hydrogen microgrid for added resilience.

Mitsubishi Power’s Emerald storage solution for SDG&E includes full turnkey design, engineering, procurement, and construction, as well as a 10-year long-term service agreement, aligning with CEC long-duration storage funding initiatives underway. It is scheduled to be online in early 2023.

The project will repower an existing energy storage site. It will employ Mitsubishi Power’s Emerald Integrated Plant Controller, which is an Energy Management System (EMS) and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system with real-time BESS operation and a monitoring/supervisory control platform. Mitsubishi Power leverages its decades of technology monitoring and diagnostics to turn data into actionable insights to maximize reliability, a priority as regions like Ontario increasingly rely on battery storage to meet rising demand. The Mitsubishi Power Emerald Integrated Plant Controller complies with North American Electric Reliability Corporation critical infrastructure protection (NERC CIP) standards and meets the highest security certification in the energy storage industry (IEC/ISA 62443, NIST 800-53) for maximum protection from cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities.

For added physical safety, Mitsubishi Power’s solution employs lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery chemistry, aligning with BESS adoption in New York where safety and performance are critical. Compared with other chemistries, LFP provides longer life and superior thermal stability and chemical stability, while meeting UL 9540 and UL 9540A safety standards.

Fernando Valero, Director, Advanced Clean Technology, SDG&E, said, “SDG&E is committed to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. We are increasing our portfolio of energy storage assets, including virtual power plant models, to reach this goal. These assets enhance grid reliability and operational flexibility while maximizing our use of abundant renewable energy sources in California.”

Tom Cornell, Senior Vice President, Energy Storage Solutions, Mitsubishi Power Americas, said, “As more and more renewables come online during the energy transition, BESS solutions are essential to support a reliable and stable grid. We look forward to providing SDG&E with our BESS solution to add capacity, energy, and ancillary services to California’s grid. Mitsubishi Power’s Emerald storage solutions are enabling a smarter and more resilient energy future for our customers in California and around the globe, with projects like an energy storage demonstration in India underscoring this momentum.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Iran-Iraq Electricity Cooperation advances with power grid synchronization, cross-border energy trade, 400-kV transmission lines, and education partnerships, boosting grid reliability, infrastructure investment, and electricity exports between Tehran and Baghdad for improved supply and stability.

Key Points

A bilateral initiative to synchronize grids, expand networks, and sustain electricity exports, improving reliability.

✅ 400-kV Amarah-Karkheh line enables synchronized operations.

✅ Extends electricity export contracts to meet Iraq demand.

✅ Enhances grid reliability, training, and infrastructure investment.

Aradakanian has focused his one-day visit to Iraq on discussions pertaining to promoting bilateral collaboration between the two neighboring nations in the field of electricity, grid development deals and synchronizing power grid between Tehran and Baghdad, cooperating in education, and expansion of power networks.

He is also scheduled to meet with Iraqi top officials in a bid to boost cooperation in the relevant fields.

Back in December 2019, Ardakanian announced that Iran will continue exports of electricity to Iraq by renewing earlier contract as it is supplying about 40% of Iraq's power today.

"Iran has signed a 3-year-long cooperation agreement with Iraq to help the country's power industry in different aspects. The documents states at its end that we will export electricity to Iraq as far as they need," Ardakanian told FNA on December 9, 2019.

The contract to "export Iran's electricity" to Iraq will be extended, he added.

Ardakanian also said that Iran and Iraq's power grids have become synchronized in a move that supports Iran's regional power hub plans since a month ago.

In 2004 Iran started selling electricity to Iraq. Iran electricity exports to the western neighbor are at its highest level of 1,361 megawatts per day now, as the country weighs summer power sufficiency ahead of peak demand.

The new Amarah-Karkheh 400-KV transmission line stretching over 73 kilometers, is now synchronized to provide electricity to both countries, reflecting regional power export trends as well. It also paves the way for increasing export to power-hungry Iraq in the near future.

With synchronization of the two grids, the quality of electricity in Iraq will improve as the country explores nuclear power options to tackle shortages.

According to official data, 82% of Iraq's electricity is generated by thermal power plants that use gas as feedstock, while Iran is converting thermal plants to combined cycle to save energy. This is expected to reach 84% by 2027.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News