New Mexico sets out to be solar state

Columbia River Treaty Negotiations involve Canada-U.S. talks on B.C. dams, flood control, hydropower sharing, and downstream benefits, prioritizing ecosystem health, First Nations rights, and salmon restoration while balancing affordable electricity for northwest consumers.

Key Points

Talks to update flood control, hydropower, and ecosystem terms for fair benefits to B.C. and U.S. communities.

✅ Public consultations across B.C.'s Columbia Basin

✅ First Nations priorities include salmon restoration

✅ U.S. seeks cheaper power; B.C. defends downstream benefits

With talks underway between Canada and the U.S. on the future of the Columbia River Treaty, the B.C. New Democrats have launched public consultations in the region most affected by the high-stakes negotiation.

“We want to ensure Columbia basin communities are consulted, kept informed and have their voices heard,” said provincial cabinet minister Katrine Conroy via a press release announcing meetings this month in Castlegar, Golden, Revelstoke, Nakusp, Nelson and other communities.

As well as having cabinet responsibility for the talks, Conroy’s Kootenay West riding includes several places that were inundated under the terms of the 1964 flood control and power generation treaty.

“We will continue to work closely with First Nations affected by the treaty, to ensure Indigenous interests are reflected in the negotiations,” she added by way of consolation to Indigenous people who’ve been excluded from the negotiating teams on both sides of the border.

#google#

The stakes are also significant for the province as a whole. The basics of the treaty saw B.C. build dams to store water on this side of the border, easing the flood risk in the U.S. and allowing the flow to be evened out through the year. In exchange, B.C. was entitled to a share of the additional hydro power that could be generated in dams on the U.S. side.

B.C.’s sale of those downstream benefits to the U.S has poured almost $1.4 billion into provincial coffers over the past 10 years, albeit at a declining rate these days amid scrutiny from a regulator report on BC Hydro that raised concerns, because of depressed prices for cross-border electricity sales.

Politicians on the U.S. side have long sought to reopen the treaty, believing there was now a case for reducing B.C.’s entitlement.

They did not get across the threshold under President Barack Obama.

Then, last fall his successor Donald Trump served notice of intent, initiating the formal negotiations that commenced with a two day session last week in Washington, D.C. The next round is set for mid-August in B.C.

American objectives in the talks include “continued, careful management of flood risk; ensuring a reliable and economical power supply; and better addressing ecosystem concerns,” with recognition of recent BC Hydro demand declines during the pandemic.

“Economical power supply,” being a diplomatic euphemism for “cheaper electricity for consumers in the northwest states,” achievable by clawing back most of B.C.’s treaty entitlement.

On taking office last summer, the NDP inherited a 14-point statement of principles setting out B.C. hopes for negotiations to “continue the treaty” while “seeking improvements within the existing framework” of the 54-year-old agreement.

The New Democrats have endorsed those principles in a spirit of bipartisanship, even as Manitoba Hydro governance disputes play out elsewhere in Canada.

“Those principles were developed with consultation from throughout the region,” as Conroy advised the legislature this spring. “So I was involved, as well, in the process and knew what the issues were, right as they would come up.”

The New Democrats did chose to put additional emphasis on some concerns.

“There is an increase in discussion with Canada and First Nations on the return of salmon to the river,” she advised the house, recalling how construction of the enormous Grand Coulee Dam on the U.S. side in the 1930s wiped out salmon runs on the upper Columbia River.

“There was no consideration then for how incredibly important salmon was, especially to the First Nations people in our region. We have an advisory table that is made up of Indigenous representation from our region, and also we are discussing with Canada that we need to see if there’s feasibility here.”

As to feasibility, the obstacles to salmon migration in the upper reaches of the Columbia include the 168-metre high Grand Coulee and the 72-metre Chief Joseph dams on the U.S. side, plus the Keenleyside (52 metres), Revelstoke (175 metres) and Mica (240 metres) dams on the Canadian side.

Still, says Conroy “the First Nations from Canada and the tribes from the United States, have been working on scientific and technical documents and research to see if, first of all, the salmon can come up, how they can come up, and what the things are that have to be done to ensure that happens.”

The New Democrats also put more emphasis on preserving the ecosystem, aligning with clean-energy efforts with First Nations that support regional sustainability.

“I know that certainly didn’t happen in 1964, but that is something that’s very much on the minds of people in the Columbia basin,” said Conroy. “If we are going to tweak the treaty, what can we do to make sure the voices of the basin are heard and that things that were under no consideration in the ’60s are now a topic for consideration?”

With those new considerations, there’s still the status quo concern of preserving the downstream benefits as a trade off for the flooding and other impacts on this side of the border.

The B.C. position on that score is the same under the New Democrats as it was under the Liberals, despite a B.C. auditor general report on deferred BC Hydro costs.

“The level of benefits to B.C., which is currently solely in the form of the (electricity) entitlement, does not account for the full range of benefits in the U.S. or the impacts in B.C.,” says the statement of principle.

“All downstream U.S. benefits such as flood risk management, hydropower, ecosystems, water supply (including municipal, industrial and agricultural uses), recreation, navigation and other related benefits should be accounted for and such value created should be shared equitably between the two countries.”

No surprise if the Americans do not see it the same way.  But that is a topic for another day.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

London Underground Power Outage 2025 disrupted Tube lines citywide, with a National Grid voltage dip causing service suspensions, delays, and station closures; TfL recovery efforts spotlight infrastructure resilience, contingency planning, and commuter safety communications.

Key Points

A citywide Tube disruption on May 12, 2025, triggered by a National Grid voltage dip, exposing resilience gaps.

✅ Bakerloo, Waterloo & City, Northern suspended; Jubilee disrupted.

✅ Cause: brief National Grid fault leading to a voltage dip.

✅ TfL focuses on recovery, communication, and resilience upgrades.

On May 12, 2025, a significant power outage disrupted the London Underground during the afternoon rush hour, affecting thousands of commuters across the city. The incident highlighted vulnerabilities in the city's transport infrastructure, echoing a morning outage in London reported earlier, and raised concerns about the resilience of urban utilities.

The Outage and Its Immediate Impact

The power failure occurred around 2:30 PM, leading to widespread service suspensions and delays on several key Tube lines. The Bakerloo and Waterloo & City lines were completely halted, while the Jubilee line experienced disruptions between London Bridge and Finchley Road. The Northern line was also suspended between Euston and Kennington, as well as south of Stockwell. Additionally, Elizabeth Line services between Abbey Wood and Paddington were suspended. Some stations were closed for safety reasons due to the lack of power.

Commuters faced severe delays, with many stranded in tunnels or on platforms. The lack of information and communication added to the confusion, as passengers were left uncertain about the cause and duration of the disruptions.

Cause of the Power Failure

Transport for London (TfL) attributed the outage to a brief fault in the National Grid's transmission network. Although the fault was resolved within seconds, it caused a voltage dip that affected local distribution networks, leading to the power loss in the Underground system.

The incident underscored the fragility of the city's transport infrastructure, particularly the aging electrical and signaling systems that are vulnerable to such faults, as well as weather-driven events like a major windstorm outage that can trigger cascading failures. While backup systems exist, their capacity to handle sudden disruptions remains a concern.

Broader Implications for Urban Infrastructure

This power outage is part of a broader pattern of infrastructure challenges facing London. In March 2025, a fire at an electrical substation in Hayes led to the closure of Heathrow Airport, affecting over 200,000 passengers, while similar disruptions at BWI Airport have underscored aviation vulnerabilities. These incidents have prompted discussions about the resilience of the UK's energy and transport networks.

Experts argue that aging infrastructure, coupled with increasing demand and climate-related stresses, poses significant risks to urban operations, as seen in a North Seattle outage and in Toronto storm-related outages that tested local grids. There is a growing call for investment in modernization and diversification of energy sources to ensure reliability and sustainability.

TfL's Response and Recovery Efforts

Following the outage, TfL worked swiftly to restore services. By 11 PM, all but one line had resumed operations, with only the Elizabeth Line continuing to experience severe delays. TfL officials acknowledged the inconvenience caused to passengers and pledged to investigate the incident thoroughly, similar to the Atlanta airport blackout inquiry conducted after a major outage, to prevent future occurrences.

In the aftermath, TfL emphasized the importance of clear communication with passengers during disruptions and committed to enhancing its contingency planning and infrastructure resilience.

Public Reaction and Ongoing Concerns

The power outage sparked frustration among commuters, many of whom took to social media to express their dissatisfaction, echoing sentiments during Houston's extended outage about communication gaps and delays. Some passengers reported being trapped in tunnels for extended periods without clear guidance from staff.

The incident has reignited debates about the adequacy of London's transport infrastructure and the need for comprehensive upgrades. While TfL has initiated reviews and improvement plans, the public remains concerned about the potential for future disruptions and the city's preparedness to handle them.

The May 12 power outage serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities inherent in urban infrastructure. As London continues to grow and modernize, ensuring the resilience of its transport and energy networks will be crucial. This includes investing in modern technologies, enhancing communication systems, and developing robust contingency plans to mitigate the impact of future disruptions. For now, Londoners are left reflecting on the lessons learned from this incident and hoping for a more reliable and resilient transport system in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

COVID-19 Impact on U.S. Power Demand shows falling electricity load, lower wholesale prices, and resilient utilities in competitive markets, with regional differences tied to weather, renewable energy, stay-at-home orders, and hedging strategies.

Key Points

It outlines reduced load and prices, while regulatory design and hedging support utility stability across regions.

✅ Load down in NY, New England, PJM; weather drives South up.

✅ Wholesale prices fall 8-10% in key markets.

✅ Decoupling, contracts, hedging support utility earnings.

On March 27, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) released a report on electricity demand and wholesale market prices impact from COVID-19 fallout. The model compares expected load based largely on weather with actual observed electricity demand changes.

So far, the hardest hit power grid is New York, with load down 7 and prices off by 10 percent. That’s expected, given New York City is the current epicenter of the US health crisis.

Next is New England, with 5 percent lower demand and 8 percent reduced wholesale prices for the week from March 19-25. BNEF says the numbers could go higher following advisories and orders issued March 24 for some 70 percent of the region’s population to stay at home.

Demand on the biggest grid in the US, the PJM (Pennsylvania/Jersey/Maryland), is 4 percent lower, with prices dropping 8 percent, as recent capacity auction payouts fell sharply. BNEF believes there will be more impact as stay at home orders are ramped up in several states.

California’s power demand for March 19-25 was 5 percent below what BNEF’s model expects without COVID-19 impact. That reflects a full week of stay-at-home orders from Governor Newsom issued March 19.

Health officials in Los Angeles and elsewhere expect a spike in COVID-19 cases in coming weeks. But BNEF’s model now actually projects rising electricity load for the state, due to what it calls "freakishly mild weather a year ago."

Rounding out the report, power demand is up for a band of southern states stretching from Florida to the desert Southwest, with weather more than offsetting public response to COVID-19 so far. BNEF says the Northwest’s grid "has not yet been highly impacted," while the Southeast is "generally in line" with pre-virus expectations.

Clearly, all of this data can change quickly and radically. Only California and New York are currently in full shutdown mode. Following them are New England (70 percent), the Midwest (65 percent), Texas (50 percent), PJM (50 percent) and the Northwest (50 percent).

In contrast, only small parts of Florida, the Southeast and Southwest are restricting movement. That could mean a big future increase for shut-ins, with heightened risks of electricity shut-offs that burden households and a corresponding impact on power demand.

Also, weather will play a major role on what happens to actual electricity demand, just as it always does. A very hot summer, for example, could offset virus-related shut-ins, just as it apparently is now in states like Texas. And it should be pointed out that regions vary widely by exposure to recession-sensitive sources of demand, such as heavy industry.

Most important for investors, however, is the built in protection US utility earnings enjoy from declining power demand, even amid broader energy crisis pressures facing the sector. For one thing, US power grids in California, ERCOT (Texas), MISO (Midwest), New England, New York and PJM have wholesale power markets, where producers compete for sales and the lowest bidder sets the price.

In those states, most regulated utilities don’t produce power at all. In fact, companies’ revenue is decoupled entirely from demand in California, as well as much of New England. In the roughly three-dozen states where utilities still operate as integrated monopolies, demand does affect revenue, and in many regions flat electricity demand already persists. But the cost of electricity is passed through directly to customers, whether produced or purchased.

A number of US electric companies have invested in renewable energy facilities as part of broader electrification trends nationwide. These sell their output under long-term contracts primarily with other utilities and government entities.

This isn’t a risk free business: For the past year, generators selling electricity to bankrupt PG&E Corp (PCG) have had their cash trapped at the power plant level as surety for lenders. But even PG&E has honored its contracts. And with states continuing aggressive mandates for renewable energy adoption, growth doesn’t appear at risk to COVID-19 fallout either.

The wholesale price of power from natural gas, coal and many nuclear plants was already sliding before COVID-19, due to renewables adoption and low natural gas prices, even as coal and nuclear disruptions raise reliability concerns. But here too, big producers like Exelon Corp (EXC) and Vistra Energy (VST) have employed aggressive price hedging near term, with regulated utilities and retail businesses protecting long-term health, respectively.

Bottom line: It’s early days for the COVID-19 crisis and much can still change. But so far at least, the US power industry is absorbing the blow of reduced demand, just as it’s done in previous crises.

That means future selloffs in the ongoing bear market are buying opportunities for best in class electric utilities, not a reason to sell. For top candidates, see the Conrad’s Utility Investor Portfolios and Dream Buy List in the March issue. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ukraine Power Grid Resilience details preparations for winter blackouts, airstrike defense, decentralized generation, backup generators, battery storage, DTEK restorations, EU grid synchronization, and upgraded air defenses to safeguard electricity, heating, water, and essential services.

Key Points

Ukraine Power Grid Resilience is a strategy to harden energy systems against winter attacks and outages.

✅ DTEK repairs, backup equipment, and fortified plants across Ukraine

✅ Expanded air defenses targeting missiles and attack drones

✅ EU grid sync enables emergency imports and power trading

Oleksandr Gindyuk is determined not to be caught off guard if electricity supplies fail again this winter. When Russia pounded Ukraine’s power grid with widespread and repeated waves of airstrikes last year, causing massive rolling blackouts, his wife had just given birth to their second daughter.

“It was quite difficult,”  Gindyuk, who lives with his family in the suburbs of the capital, Kyiv, told CNN. “There is no life in our house if there is no electricity. Without electricity, we have no water, light or heating.”

He has spent the summer preparing for Russia to repeat its strategy, which was designed to sow terror and make life unsustainable, robbing Ukrainians of heat, water and health services. “We are totally ready — we have a diesel generator and a powerful 9 kWh battery. We are not scared, we are ready,” Gindyuk told CNN.

As families like Gindyuk’s gird themselves for the possibility of another dark winter, Ukraine has been rushing to rebuild and, drawing on protecting the grid lessons, protect its fragile energy infrastructure.

The summer provided a respite for Ukraine’s power grid. Russia focused its attacks on military targets and on ports on the Black Sea and the Danube River, to hinder Ukraine’s efforts to move grain and choke off an important income stream.

As the days grow shorter and the temperatures drop, Russia has another opportunity to try to break Ukrainian resilience with punishing blackouts. But this winter, defense and energy officials say Ukraine is better prepared.

With limited Ukrainian air defenses in operation last year, Russia was able to target and hit the energy grid easily, including during missile and drone assaults on Kyiv’s grid that strained responders.

“The Russians may use a combination of missile weapons and attack UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones). These will definitely not be such primitive attacks as last year. It will be difficult for the Russians to achieve a result - we are also preparing and understanding how they act.”

DTEK, the country’s largest private energy company, has spent the past seven months restoring infrastructure, trying to boost output and bolstering defenses at its facilities across Ukraine, mindful of Russian utility hacks reported elsewhere.

“We restored what could be restored, bought back-up equipment and installed defenses around power plants, as Russian-linked breaches at US plants have underscored risks,” DTEK chief executive Maxim Timchenko told CNN.

The company generates around a quarter of Ukraine’s electricity and runs 40% of its grid network, making it a prime target for Russian attacks. Four DTEK employees have been killed while on duty and its power stations have been attacked nearly 300 times since the start of the full-scale invasion, according to the company. “Last winter, determination carried us through. This winter we are stronger, and our people are more experienced,” Timchenko said.

Russia launched 1,200 attacks on Ukraine’s energy system between October 2022 and April 2023, with every thermal power and hydro-electric plant in the country sustaining some damage, according to DTEK.

In a damage assessment report released in June, the United Nations Development Programme said that Ukraine’s power generation capacity had been reduced to about half of what it was before Russia’s full-scale invasion. “Ukraine’s power system continues to operate in an emergency mode, which affects both power grids and generation, amid rising concerns about state-backed grid hacking worldwide,” a news release accompanying the report said.

The report also laid out a roadmap to rebuilding the energy sector, prioritizing decentralization, renewable energy sources and greater integration with the European Union. Ukraine has been hooked into the EU’s power grid since the full-scale invasion, allowing it to synchronize and trade power with the bloc. But the massive wave of attacks on energy infrastructure last winter threw that balance off kilter.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Britain Coal-Free Week signals a historic shift to clean energy, with zero coal power, increased natural gas and renewables, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and ambitious UK energy policy targeting a 2025 coal phase-out and decarbonization.

Key Points

A seven-day period with no coal power in the UK, signaling cleaner energy and progress on emission reductions.

✅ Seven days of zero coal generation in the UK

✅ Natural gas and renewables dominated the electricity mix

✅ Coal phase-out targeted by 2025; emissions cuts planned

For the first time in a century, Britain weaned itself off of coal consumption for an entire week, a coal-free power record for the country.

Reuters reported that Britain went seven days without relying on any power generated by coal-powered stations as the share of coal in the grid continued to hit record lows.

The accomplishment is symbolic of a shift to more clean energy sources, with wind surpassing coal in 2016 and the UK leading the G20 in wind share as of recent years; Britain was home to the first coal-powered plant back in the 1880s.

Today, Britain has some aggressive plans in place to completely eliminate its coal power generation permanently by 2025, with a plan to end coal power underway. In addition, Britain aims to cut its total greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels within the next 30 years.

Natural gas was the largest source of power for Britain in 2018, providing 39 percent of the nation's total electricity, as the Great Britain generation dashboard shows. Coal contributed only about 5 percent, though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to reports. Burning natural gas also produces greenhouse gases, but it is much more efficient and greener than coal.

In the U.S., 63.5 percent of electricity generated in 2018 came from fossil fuels. About 35.1 percent was produced from natural gas and 27.4 percent came from coal. In addition, 19.3 percent of electricity came from nuclear power and 17.1 percent came from renewable energy sources, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

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