Veto cuts into Alaska clean energy plans

NYSERDA Offshore Wind Data initiative funds geophysical and geotechnical surveys, seabed and soil studies on New York's shelf to accelerate siting, optimize foundation design, reduce costs, and advance clean energy deployment.

Key Points

State funding to support surveys and soil studies guiding offshore wind siting, design, and cost reduction.

✅ Up to $5.5M for geophysical and geotechnical data collection

✅ Focus on seabed soils, shelf geology, and foundation design inputs

✅ Accelerates siting, reduces risk, and lowers offshore wind costs

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is investing up to $5.5 million for the collection of geophysical and geotechnical data to determine future offshore wind development sites.

The funding is to look at seabed soil and geological data for the preliminary design and installation requirements for future offshore wind projects. Its part of N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomos plan to develop 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy by 2035.

Todays announcement is another step in Governor Cuomos steadfast march to achieving 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2035, putting New York in a clear national leadership position when it comes to advancing this new industry through large-scale energy projects across the state. The surveys NYSERDA will be funding under this solicitation will expand the offshore wind industrys access to geophysical and geotechnical data that will provide the foundation for future offshore wind development in these areas, and accelerate project development while driving down costs, NYSERDA President and CEO Alicia Barton said.

NYSERDA will select one or more contractors to do the investigations, while recent DOE wind energy awards support complementary research, and develop a model for describing geophysical and geotechnical conditions. NYSERDA will also select a contractor to support project management and host the data that is collected. The submission deadline is Jan. 21, 2020.

Todays announcement builds on the data collected in a Geotechnical and Geophysical Desktop Study also released today, which includes information on the middle continental shelf off the shore of New York and New Jersey, where BOEM lease requests are shaping activity, creating a regional overview of the seafloor and sub-seafloor environment as it relates to offshore wind development.

Strong knowledge of environmental conditions and factors, including seabed soil conditions, are essential for the installation of offshore projects, such as Long Island proposals, but only a limited amount of soil sampling and testing has been undertaken to date.

The collection of geophysical and geotechnical data from areas off of New Yorks Atlantic coast is yet another demonstration of New Yorks leadership promoting the responsible development of offshore wind. The data generated by this initiative will ultimately lead to better projects, lower cost, and enhanced safety. New York is leading the way to a clean energy future, as the state finalizes renewable project contracts that expand capacity, and relying on data collection and sound science to get us there, New York Offshore Wind Alliance Director Joe Martens said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Miami Valley Windstorm Power Outages disrupted thousands as 60 mph gusts toppled trees, downed power lines, and damaged buildings. Utility crews and emergency services managed debris, while NWS alerts warned of extended restoration.

Key Points

Region-wide power losses from severe winds in the Miami Valley, causing damage, debris, and restoration.

✅ 60 mph gusts downed trees, snapped lines, blocked roads

✅ Crews from DP&L worked extended shifts to restore service

✅ NWS issued wind advisories; schools, businesses closed

On a recent day, powerful winds tore through the Miami Valley, causing significant disruption across the region. The storm, which was accompanied by gusts reaching dangerous speeds, led to windstorm power outages affecting thousands of homes and businesses. As trees fell and power lines were snapped, many residents found themselves without electricity for hours, and in some cases, even days.

The high winds, which were part of a larger weather system moving through the area, left a trail of destruction in their wake. In addition to power outages, there were reports of storm damage to buildings, vehicles, and other structures. The force of the wind uprooted trees, some of which fell on homes and vehicles, causing significant property damage. While the storm did not result in any fatalities, the destruction was widespread, with many communities experiencing debris-filled streets and blocked roads.

Utility companies in the Miami Valley, including Dayton Power & Light, quickly mobilized crews, similar to FPL's storm response in major events, to begin restoring power to the affected areas. However, the high winds presented a challenge for repair crews, as downed power lines and damaged equipment made restoration efforts more difficult. Many customers were left waiting for hours or even days for their power to be restored, and some neighborhoods were still experiencing outages several days after the storm had passed.

In response to the severe weather, local authorities issued warnings to residents, urging them to stay indoors and avoid unnecessary travel. Wind gusts of up to 60 miles per hour were reported, making driving hazardous, particularly on bridges and overpasses, similar to Quebec windstorm outages elsewhere. The National Weather Service also warned of the potential for further storm activity, advising people to remain vigilant as the system moved eastward.

The impact of the storm was felt not only in terms of power outages but also in the strain it placed on emergency services. With trees blocking roads and debris scattered across the area, first responders were required to work quickly and efficiently to clear paths and assist those in need. Many residents were left without heat, refrigeration, and in some cases, access to medical equipment that relied on electricity.

Local schools and businesses were also affected by the storm. Many schools had to cancel classes, either due to power outages or because roads were impassable. Businesses, particularly those in the retail and service sectors, faced disruptions in their operations as they struggled to stay open without power amid extended outages that lingered, or to address damage caused by fallen trees and debris.

In the aftermath of the storm, Miami Valley residents are working to clean up and assess the damage. Many homeowners are left dealing with the aftermath of tree removal, property repairs, and other challenges. Meanwhile, local governments are focusing on restoring infrastructure, as seen after Toronto's spring storm outages in recent years, and ensuring that the power grid is secured to prevent further outages.

While the winds have died down and conditions have improved, the storm’s impact will be felt for weeks to come, reflecting Florida's weeks-long restorations after severe storms. The region will continue to recover from the damage, but the event serves as a reminder of the power of nature and the resilience of communities in the face of adversity. For residents affected by the power outages, recovery will require patience as utility crews and local authorities work tirelessly to restore normalcy.

Looking ahead, experts are urging residents to prepare for the next storm season by ensuring that they have emergency kits, backup generators, and contingency plans in place. As climate change contributes to more extreme weather events, it is likely that storms of this magnitude will become more frequent. By taking steps to prepare in advance, communities across the Miami Valley can better handle whatever challenges come next.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

U.S. Natural Gas Power Demand is surging for electricity generation amid summer heat, with ERCOT, Texas grid reserves tight, EIA reporting coal and nuclear retirements, renewables intermittency, and pipeline expansions supporting combined-cycle capacity and prices.

Key Points

It is rising use of natural gas for power, driven by summer heat, plant retirements, and new combined-cycle capacity.

✅ ERCOT reserve margin 9%, below 14% target in Texas

✅ Gas share of U.S. power near 40-43% this summer

✅ Coal and nuclear retirements shift capacity to combined cycle

As the hot months linger, it will be natural gas that is leaned on most to supply the electricity that we need to run our air conditioning loads on the grid and keep us cool.

And this is surely a great and important thing: "Heat causes most weather-related deaths, National Weather Service says."

Generally, U.S. gas demand for power in summer is 35-40% higher than what it was five years ago, with so much more coming (see Figure).

The good news is regions across the country are expected to have plenty of reserves to keep up with power demand.

The only exception is ERCOT, covering 90% of the electric load in Texas, where a 9% reserve margin is expected, below the desired 14%.

Last summer, however, ERCOT’s reserve margin also was below the desired level, yet the grid operator maintained system reliability with no load curtailments.

Simply put, other states are very lucky that Texas has been able to maintain gas at 50% of its generation, despite being more than justified to drastically increase that.

At about 1,600 Bcf per year, the flatness of gas for power demand in Texas since 2000 has been truly remarkable, especially since Lone Star State production is up 50% since then.

Increasingly, other U.S. states (and even countries) are wanting to import huge amounts of gas from Texas, a state that yields over 25% of all U.S. output.

Yet if Texas justifiably ever wants to utilize more of its own gas, others would be significantly impacted.

At ~480 TWh per year, if Texas was a country, it would be 9th globally for power use, even ahead of Brazil, a fast growing economy with 212 million people, and France, a developed economy with 68 million people.

In the near-term, this explains why a sweltering prolonged heat wave in July in Texas, with a hot Houston summer setting new electricity records, is the critical factor that could push up still very low gas prices.

But for California, our second highest gas using state, above-average snowpack should provide a stronger hydropower for this summer season relative to 2018.

Combined, Texas and California consume about 25% of U.S. gas, with Texas' use double that of California.

Across the U.S., gas could supply a record 40-43% of U.S. electricity this summer even as the EIA expects solar and wind to be larger sources of generation across the mix

Our gas used for power has increased 35-40% over the past five years, and January power generation also jumped on the year, highlighting broad momentum.

Our gas used for power has increased 35-40% over the past five years. DATA SOURCE: EIA; JTC

Indeed, U.S. natural gas for electricity has continued to soar, even as overall electricity consumption has trended lower in some years, at nearly 10,700 Bcf last year, a 16% rise from 2017 and easily the highest ever.

Gas is expected to supply 37% of U.S. power this year, even as coal-fired generation saw a brief uptick in 2021 in EIA data, versus 27% just five years ago (see Figure).

Capacity wise, gas is sure to continue to surge its share 45% share of the U.S. power system.

"More than 60% of electric generating capacity installed in 2018 was fueled by natural gas."

We know that natural gas will continue to be the go-to power source: coal and nuclear plants are retiring, and while growing, wind and solar are too intermittent, geography limited, and transmission short to compensate like natural gas can.

"U.S. coal power capacity has fallen by a third since 2010," and last year "16 gigawatts (16,000 MW) of U.S. coal-fired power plants retired."

This year, some 2,000 MW of coal was retired in February alone, with 7,420 MW expected to be closed in 2019.

Ditto for nuclear.

Nuclear retirements this year include Pilgrim, Massachusetts’s only nuclear plant, and Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.

This will take a combined ~1,600 MW of nuclear capacity offline.

Another 2,500 MW and 4,300 MW of nuclear are expected to be leaving the U.S. power system in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

As more nuclear plants close, EIA projects that net electricity generation from U.S. nuclear power reactors will fall by 17% by 2025.

From 2019-2025 alone, EIA expects U.S. coal capacity to plummet nearly 25% to 176,000 MW, with nuclear falling 15% to 83,000 MW.

In contrast, new combined cycle gas plants will grow capacity almost 30% to around 310,000 MW.

Lower and lower projected commodity prices for gas encourage this immense gas build-out, not to mention non-stop increases in efficiency for gas-based units.

Remember that these are official U.S. Department of Energy estimates, not coming from the industry itself.

In other words, our Department of Energy concludes that gas is the future.

Our hotter and hotter summers are therefore more and more becoming: "summers for natural gas"

Ultimately, this shows why the anti-pipeline movement is so dangerous.

"Affordable Energy Coalition Highlights Ripple Effect of Natural Gas Moratorium."

In April, President Trump signed two executive orders to promote energy infrastructure by directing federal agencies to remove bottlenecks for gas transport into the Northeast in particular, where New England oil-fired generation has spiked, and to streamline federal reviews of border-crossing pipelines and other infrastructure.

Builders, however, are not relying on outside help: all they know is that more U.S. gas demand is a constant, so more infrastructure is mandatory.

They are moving forward diligently: for example, there are now some 27 pipelines worth $33 billion already in the works in Appalachia.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Electricity Rebate clarifies hydro rates as OEB aligns bills with inflation, shows true cost per kilowatt hour, and replaces Fair Hydro Plan; transparent on-bill credit offsets increases tied to nuclear refurbishment and supply costs.

Key Points

A line-item credit on Ontario hydro bills that offsets higher electricity costs and reflects OEB-set rates.

✅ Starts Nov. 1 with rates in line with inflation

✅ Shows true per-kWh cost plus separate rebate line

✅ Driven by nuclear refurbishment and supply costs

The Ontario Energy Board says electricity rate changes for households and small businesses will be going up starting next week.

The agency says rates are scheduled to increased by about $1.99 or nearly 2% for a typical residential customer who uses 700 kilowatt hours per month.

The provincial government said in March it would continue to subsidize hydro rates, through legislation to lower rates, and hold any increases to the rate of inflation.

The OEB says the new rates, which the board says are “in line” with inflation, will take effect Nov. 1 as changes for electricity consumers roll out and could be noticed on bills within a few weeks of that date.

Prices are increasing partly due to government legislation aimed at reflecting the actual cost of supply on bills, and partly due to the refurbishment of nuclear facilities, contributing to higher hydro bills for some consumers.

So, effective November 1, Ontario electricity bills will show the true cost of power, after a period of a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate, and will include the new Ontario Electricity Rebate.

Previously the electricity rebate was concealed within the price-per-kilowatt-hour line item on electricity statements, prompting Hydro One bill redesign discussions to improve clarity. This meant customers could not see how much the government rebate was reducing their monthly costs, and bills did not display the true cost of electricity used.

"People deserve facts and accountability, especially when it comes to hydro costs," said Energy Minister Rickford.

The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will appear as a transparent on-bill line item and will replace the former government's Fair Hydro Plan says a government news release. This change comes in response to the Auditor General's special report on the former government's Fair Hydro Plan which revealed that "the government created a needlessly complex accounting/financing structure for the electricity rate reduction in order to avoid showing a deficit or an increase in net debt."

"The Electricity Distributors Association commends the government's commitment to making Ontario's electricity bills more transparent," said Teresa Sarkesian, President of the Electricity Distributors Association. "As the part of our electricity system that is closest to customers, local hydro utilities appreciated the opportunity to work with the government on implementing this important initiative. We worked to ensure that customers who receive their electricity bill will have a clear understanding of the true cost of power and the amount of their on-bill rebate. Local hydro utilities are focused on making electricity more affordable, reducing red tape, and providing customers with a modern and reliable electricity system that works for them."

The average customer will see the electricity line on their bill rise, showing the real cost per kilowatt hour. The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will compensate for that rise, and will be displayed as a separate line item on hydro bills. The average residential bill will rise in line with the rate of inflation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Geothermal Emergency Permitting accelerates BLM approvals on public lands via categorical exclusions for exploratory drilling and geophysical surveys, boosting domestic energy security, cutting timelines by up to a year, and streamlining low-impact reviews.

Key Points

A policy fast-tracking geothermal exploration on public lands, using BLM categorical exclusions to cut review delays.

✅ Categorical exclusions speed exploratory drilling approvals

✅ Cuts permitting timelines by up to one year

✅ Focused on public lands to enhance energy security

In a significant policy shift, the U.S. Department of the Interior has introduced emergency permitting procedures aimed at expediting the development of geothermal energy projects. This initiative, announced on May 30, 2025, is part of a broader strategy to enhance domestic energy production, seen in proposals to replace Obama's power plant overhaul and reduce reliance on foreign energy sources.

Background and Rationale

The decision to fast-track geothermal energy projects comes in the wake of President Donald Trump's declaration of a national energy emergency, which faces a legal challenge from Washington's attorney general, on January 20, 2025. This declaration cited high energy costs and an unreliable energy grid as threats to national security and economic prosperity. While the emergency order includes traditional energy resources such as oil, gas, coal, and uranium and nuclear energy resources, it notably excludes renewable sources like solar, wind, and hydrogen from its scope.

Geothermal energy, which harnesses heat from beneath the Earth's surface to generate electricity, is considered a reliable and low-emission energy source. However, its development has been hindered by lengthy permitting processes and environmental reviews, with recent NEPA rule changes influencing timelines. The new emergency permitting procedures aim to address these challenges by streamlining the approval process for geothermal projects.

Key Features of the Emergency Permitting Procedures

Under the new guidelines, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has adopted categorical exclusions to expedite the review and approval of geothermal energy exploration on public lands. These exclusions allow for faster permitting of low-impact activities, such as drilling exploratory wells and conducting geophysical surveys, without the need for extensive environmental assessments.

Additionally, the BLM has proposed a new categorical exclusion that would apply to operations related to the search for indirect evidence of geothermal resources. This proposal is currently open for public comment and, if finalized, would further accelerate the discovery of new geothermal resources on public lands.

Expected Impact on Geothermal Energy Development

The implementation of these emergency permitting procedures is expected to significantly reduce the time and cost associated with developing geothermal energy projects. According to the Department of the Interior, the new measures could cut permitting timelines by up to a year for certain types of geothermal exploration activities.

This acceleration in project development is particularly important given the untapped geothermal potential in regions like Nevada, which is home to some of the largest undeveloped geothermal resources in the country.

Industry and Environmental Reactions

The geothermal industry has largely welcomed the new permitting procedures, viewing them as a necessary step to unlock the full potential of geothermal energy. Industry advocates argue that reducing permitting delays will facilitate the deployment of geothermal projects, contributing to a more reliable and sustainable energy grid amid debates over electricity pricing changes that affect market signals.

However, the exclusion of solar and wind energy projects from the emergency permitting procedures has drawn criticism from some environmental groups. Critics argue that a comprehensive approach to energy development should include all renewable sources, not just geothermal, to effectively address climate change, as reflected in new EPA pollution limits for coal and gas power plants, and promote energy sustainability.

The U.S. government's move to implement emergency permitting procedures for geothermal energy development marks a significant step toward enhancing domestic energy production and reducing reliance on foreign energy sources. By streamlining the approval process for geothermal projects, the administration aims to accelerate the deployment of this reliable and low-emission energy source. While the exclusion of other renewable energy sources from the emergency procedures has sparked debate, especially after states like California halted an energy rebate program during a federal freeze, the focus on geothermal energy underscores its potential role in the nation's energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News