Teachers buy into Chilean utility

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

Neste wind power agreement boosts renewable electricity in Finland, partnering with Ilmatar and Fortum to supply Porvoo and Naantali sites, cutting Scope 2 emissions and advancing a 2035 carbon-neutral production target via long-term PPAs.

Key Points

A PPA to source wind power for sites, cutting Scope 2 emissions and supporting Neste's 2035 carbon-neutral goal.

✅ 10-year PPA with Ilmatar; + Fortum boosts renewable electricity share.

✅ Supplies ~7% of Porvoo-Naantali electricity; capacity >20 MW.

✅ Cuts Scope 2 emissions by ~55 kt CO2e per year toward 2035 neutrality.

Neste is committed to reaching carbon neutral production by 2035, mirroring efforts such as Olympus 100% renewable electricity commitments across industry.

As part of this effort, the company is increasing the use of renewable electricity at its production sites in Finland, reflecting trends such as Ireland's green electricity targets across Europe, and has signed a wind power agreement with Ilmatar, a wind power company. The agreement has been made together with Borealis, Neste's long-term partner in the Kilpilahti area in Porvoo, Finland.

As a result of the agreement with Ilmatar, as well as that signed with Fortum at the end of 2019, and in line with global growth such as Enel's 450 MW wind project in the U.S., nearly 30% of the energy used at Neste's production sites in Porvoo and Naantali will be renewable wind power in 2022.

'Neste's purpose is to create a healthier planet for our children. Our two climate commitments play an important role in living up to this ambition, and one of them is to reach carbon neutral production by 2035. It is an enormous challenge and requires several concrete measures and investments, including innovations like offshore green hydrogen initiatives. Wind power, including advances like UK offshore wind projects, is one of the over 70 measures we have identified to reduce our production's greenhouse gas emissions,' Neste's President and CEO Peter Vanacker says.

With the ten year contract, Neste is committed to purchase about one-third of the production of Ilmatar's two wind farms, reflecting broader market moves such as BC Hydro wind deals in Canada. The total capacity of the agreement is more than 20 MW, and the energy produced will correspond to around 7% of the electricity consumption at Neste's sites in Porvoo and Naantali. The wind power deliveries are expected to begin in 2022.

The two wind power agreements help Neste to reduce the indirect greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 2 emissions defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol) of electricity purchases at its Finnish production sites, a trend mirrored by Dutch green electricity growth across Europe, annually by approximately 55 kilotons. 55 kt/a CO2e equals annual carbon footprint of more than 8,500 EU citizens.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Competitive Energy Procurement accelerates renewables, boosts grid reliability, and invites competitive bids across solar, wind, natural gas, and storage, driving innovation, lower costs, and decarbonization to meet rising electricity demand and ensure power supply.

Key Points

Ontario Competitive Energy Procurement is a competitive bidding program to deliver reliable, low-carbon electricity.

✅ Competitive bids from renewables, gas, and storage

✅ Targets grid reliability, affordability, and emissions

✅ Phased evaluations: technical, financial, environmental

Ontario has recently marked a significant milestone in its energy sector with the launch of what is being touted as the largest competitive energy procurement process in the province’s history. This ambitious initiative is set to transform the province’s energy landscape through a broader market overhaul that fosters innovation, enhances reliability, and addresses the growing demands of Ontario’s diverse population.

A New Era of Energy Procurement

The Ontario government’s move to initiate this massive competitive procurement process underscores a strategic shift towards modernizing and diversifying the province’s energy portfolio. This procurement exercise will invite bids from a broad spectrum of energy suppliers and technologies, ranging from traditional sources like natural gas to renewable energy options such as solar and wind power. The aim is to secure a reliable and cost-effective energy supply that aligns with Ontario’s long-term environmental and economic goals.

This historic procurement process represents a major leap from previous approaches by emphasizing a competitive marketplace where various energy providers can compete on an equal footing through electricity auctions and transparent bidding. By doing so, the government hopes to drive down costs, encourage technological advancements, and ensure that Ontarians benefit from a more dynamic and resilient energy system.

Key Objectives and Benefits

The primary objectives of this procurement initiative are multifaceted. First and foremost, it seeks to enhance the reliability of Ontario’s electricity grid. As the province experiences population growth and increased energy demands, maintaining a stable and dependable supply of electricity is crucial, and interprovincial imports through an electricity deal with Quebec can complement local generation. This procurement process will help identify and integrate new sources of power that can meet these demands effectively.

Another significant goal is to promote environmental sustainability. Ontario has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions through Clean Electricity Regulations and transitioning to a cleaner energy mix. By inviting bids from renewable energy sources and innovative technologies, the government aims to support its climate action plan and contribute to the province’s carbon reduction targets.

Cost-effectiveness is also a central focus of the procurement process. By creating a competitive environment, the government anticipates that energy providers will strive to offer more attractive pricing structures and fair electricity cost allocation practices for ratepayers. This, in turn, could lead to lower energy costs for consumers and businesses, fostering economic growth and improving affordability.

The Competitive Landscape

The competitive energy procurement process will be structured to encourage participation from a wide range of energy providers. This includes not only established companies but also emerging players and startups with innovative technologies. By fostering a diverse pool of bidders, the government aims to ensure that all viable options are considered, ultimately leading to a more robust and adaptable energy system.

Additionally, the process will likely involve various stages of evaluation, including technical assessments, financial analyses, and environmental impact reviews. This thorough evaluation will help ensure that selected projects meet the highest standards of performance and sustainability.

Implications for Stakeholders

The implications of this procurement process extend beyond just energy providers and consumers. Local communities, businesses, and environmental organizations will all play a role in shaping the outcomes. For communities, this initiative could mean new job opportunities and economic development, particularly in regions where new energy projects are developed. For businesses, the potential for lower energy costs and access to innovative energy solutions, including demand-response initiatives like the Peak Perks program, could drive growth and competitiveness.

Environmental organizations will be keenly watching the process to ensure that it aligns with broader sustainability goals. The inclusion of renewable energy sources and advanced technologies will be a critical factor in evaluating the success of the initiative in meeting Ontario’s climate objectives.

Looking Ahead

As Ontario embarks on this unprecedented energy procurement journey, the outcomes will be closely watched by various stakeholders. The success of this initiative will depend on the quality and diversity of the bids received, the efficiency of the evaluation process, and the ability to integrate new energy sources into the existing grid, while advancing energy independence where feasible.

In conclusion, Ontario’s launch of the largest competitive energy procurement process in its history is a landmark event that holds promise for a more reliable, sustainable, and cost-effective energy future. By embracing competition and innovation, the province is setting a new standard for energy procurement that could serve as a model for other regions seeking to modernize their energy systems. The coming months will be crucial in determining how this bold initiative will shape Ontario’s energy landscape for years to come.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

India Thermal Power Coal Imports surged 17.6% as CEA-monitored plants offset weaker CIL and SCCL supplies, driven by Saubhagya-led electricity demand, regional power deficits, and varied consumption across Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, and Gujarat.

Key Points

Fuel volumes imported for Indian thermal plants, tracked by CEA, reflecting shifts in CIL/SCCL supply, demand, and regional power deficits.

✅ Imports up 17.6% as domestic CIL/SCCL deliveries lag targets

✅ Saubhagya-driven demand lifts generation in key beneficiary states

✅ Industrial slowdowns cut usage in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat

The receipt of imported coal by thermal power plants, where plant load factors have risen, has shot up by 17.6 per cent during April-October. The coal import volumes refer to the power plants monitored by the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), and come amid moves to ration coal supplies as electricity demand surges, a power update report from CARE Ratings showed.

Imports escalated as domestic supplies by Coal India Ltd (CIL) and another state run producer- Singareni Collieries Company Ltd (SCCL) dipped in the period, after earlier shortages that have since eased in later months. Rate of supplies by the two coal companies to the CEA monitored power stations stood at 80.4 per cent, indicating a shortfall of 19.6 per cent against the allocated quantity.

According to the study by CARE Ratings, total coal supplied by CIL and SCCL to the power sector stood at 315.9 million tonnes (mt) during April-October as against 328.5 mt in the comparable period of last fiscal year.

The study noted that growth in power generation during the April-October 2019, with India now the third-largest electricity producer globally, was on account of higher demand from Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojana or Saubhagya Scheme beneficiary states. Providing connection to households in order to achieve 100% per cent electrification has in part helped the sector avert de-growth, as part of efforts to rewire Indian electricity and expand access.

Large states namely Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Punjab, West Bengal and Rajasthan have recorded over five per cent growth in consumption of power. These states along with Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Assam accounted for 75 per cent of the beneficiaries under the Saubhagya Scheme (Household Electrification Scheme). The ongoing economic downturn has led to a sharp fall in electricity demand from industrialised states. Maharashtra, which is also the largest power consuming state in India, recorded a decline in consumption of 5.6 per cent.

Other states namely Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Gujarat and Odisha too recorded fall in power consumed, echoing global dips in daily electricity demand seen later during the pandemic. These states house large clusters of mining, automobile, cement and other manufacturing industries, and a decline in these sectors led to fall in demand for power across these states. - The demand-supply gap or power deficit has remained at 0.6 per cent during the April-October 2019. North-East reported 4.8 per cent of power deficit followed by Northern Region at 1.3 per cent. Within Northern Region, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttar Pradesh accounted for 65 per cent and 30 per cent respectively of the regions power supply deficit.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Grid Modernization drives utilities to integrate DER, AMI, and battery storage while balancing reliability, safety, and affordability; regulators pursue cost-benefit analyses, new rate design, and policy actions to guide investment and protect customer-owned resources.

Key Points

Upgrading the grid to manage DER with digital tools, while maintaining reliability, safety, and customer affordability.

✅ Cost-benefit analyses guide prudent grid investments

✅ AMI and storage deployments enable DER visibility and control

✅ Rate design reforms support customer-owned resources

Utilities’ pursuit of a modern grid, including the digital grid concept, to maintain the reliability and safety pillars of electricity delivery has raised a lot of questions about the third pillar — affordability.

Utilities are seeing rising penetrations of emerging technologies, highlighted in recent grid edge trends reports, like distributed solar, behind-the-meter battery storage, and electric vehicles. These new distributed energy resources (DER) do not eliminate utilities' need to keep distribution systems safe and reliable.

But the need for modern tools to manage DER imposes costs on utilities, prompting calls to invest in smarter infrastructure even as some regulators, lawmakers and policymakers are concerned those costs could drive up electricity rates.

The result is an increasing number of legislative and regulatory grid modernization actions aimed at identifying what is necessary to serve the coming power sector transformation and address climate change risks across the grid.

The rise of grid modernization

Grid modernization, which is supported by both conservatives and distributed energy resources advocates, got a lot of attention last year. According to the 2017 review of grid modernization policy by the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center (NCCETC), 288 grid modernization policy actions were proposed, pending or enacted in 39 states.

These numbers from NCCETC's first annual review of policy activity set a benchmark against which future years' activity can be measured.

The most common type of state actions, by far, were those that focused on the deployment of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and battery energy storage. Those are two of the 2017 trends identified in NCCETC’s 50 States of Grid Modernization report. But deployment of those technologies, while foundational to an updated grid, only begins to prepare distribution systems for the coming power sector transformation.

Bigger advances, including the newest energy system management tools, are being held back by 2017’s other policy actions requiring more deliberation and fact-finding, even as grid vulnerability report cards underscore the risks that modernization seeks to mitigate.

Utilities’ proposals to more fully prepare their grids to deliver 21st century technologies are being met with questions about completeness and cost.

Utilities are being asked to address these questions in comprehensive, public utility commission-led cost-benefit analyses and studies. This is also one of NCCETC’s top 2017 policy action trends for grid modernization. The outcome to date appears to be an increased, but still incomplete, understanding of what is needed to build a 21st century grid.

Among the top objectives of those driving the policy actions are resolving questions about private sector participation in grid modernizaton buildouts and developing new rate designs to protect and support customer-owned distributed energy resources. Actions on those topics are also on NCCETC’s list of 2017 policy trends.

Altogether, the trend list is dominated by actions that do not lead to completion of grid modernization but to more work on it.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News