Hawaii studies undersea cable plan

Global Electricity Emissions Decline highlights a 2% drop as coal power falls, while wind and solar surge. EU and US decarbonize faster; China expands coal and gas, challenging Paris Agreement climate targets.

Key Points

A 2% annual fall in power-sector CO2, led by less coal and rising wind and solar in the EU and US.

✅ Coal generation fell 3% globally despite China growth

✅ EU and US cut coal; wind and solar up 15% worldwide

✅ Gas gains in US; rapid renewables rollout needed for targets

Carbon emissions from the global electricity system fell by 2% last year, the biggest drop in almost 30 years, as countries began to turn their backs on coal-fired power plants.

A new report on the world’s electricity generation revealed the steepest cut in carbon emissions since 1990, with IEA data indicating global totals flatlined in 2019 as the US and the EU turned to cleaner energy sources.

Overall, power from coal plants fell by 3% last year, even as China’s reliance on coal plants climbed for another year to make up half the world’s coal generation for the first time.

Coal generation in the US and Europe has halved since 2007, and last year collapsed by almost a quarter in the EU and by 16% in the US.

The report from climate thinktank Ember, formerly Sandbag, warned that the dent in the world’s coal-fired electricity generation relied on many one-off factors, including milder winters across many countries.

“Progress is being made on reducing coal generation, but nothing like with the urgency needed to limit climate change,” the report said.

Dave Jones, the lead author of the report, said governments must dramatically accelerate the global energy transition so that global coal generation collapses throughout the 2020s.

“To switch from coal into gas is just swapping one fossil fuel for another. The cheapest and quickest way to end coal generation is through a rapid rollout of carbon-free electricity such as wind and solar,” he said.

“But without concerted policymaker efforts to boost wind and solar, we will fail to meet climate targets. China’s growth in coal, and to some extent gas, is alarming but the answers are all there.”

The EU has made the fastest progress towards replacing coal with wind and solar power, while the US has increased its reliance on gas as Wall Street’s energy strategy shifted following its shale boom in recent years.

The report revealed that renewable wind and solar power rose by 15% in 2019 to make up 8% of the world’s electricity.

In the EU, wind and solar power made up almost a fifth of the electricity generated last year, and Europe’s oil majors are turning electric as the bloc stayed ahead of the US which relied on these renewable sources for 11% of its electricity. In China and India, renewable energy made up 8% and 9% of the electricity system, respectively.

To meet the Paris climate goals, the world needs to record a compound growth rate of 15% for wind and solar generation every year – which will require “a colossal effort”, the report warned.

The electricity generation report was published as a separate piece of research claimed that 38 out of 75 of the world’s largest asset managers are stalling on taking action on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, and amid investor pressure on utilities to release climate reports.

The latest ranking by Asset Owners Disclosure Project, a scheme managed by the investment campaign group ShareAction, found that the 38 asset managers have weak or nonexistent policy commitments and fail to account for their real-world impacts across their mainstream assets.

The survey also claimed that the investment managers often lack appropriate engagement and escalation processes on climate change, human rights and biodiversity.

Scores were based on a survey of activities in responsible investment governance, climate change, human rights, and biodiversity and ranged between AAA to E. Not a single asset manager was granted an AAA or AA rating, the top two scores available.

Felix Nagrawala, ShareAction analyst, said: “While many in the industry are eager to promote their ESG credentials, our analysis clearly indicates that few of the world’s largest asset managers can lay claim to having a truly sustainable approach across all their investments.”

ShareAction said the world’s six largest asset managers – including BlackRock (rated D), State Street (D) and Vanguard (E) – were among the worst performers.

Vanguard said it was committed to companies making “appropriate disclosures on governance, strategy and performance on relevant ESG risks”. BlackRock and State Street did not respond to a request for comment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Hydrogen Strategy accelerates green hydrogen via electrolysis, reduced electricity rates, and IESO pilots, leveraging ICI, interruptible rates, and surplus power to grow clean tech, low-carbon energy, and export markets across Ontario.

Key Points

A provincial plan to scale green hydrogen with electricity costs, IESO pilots, and surplus power to boost tech.

✅ Amends ICI to admit hydrogen producers from 50 kW demand

✅ Enables co-located electrolysers to use surplus curtailed power

✅ Offers interruptible rates via IESO pilot for flexible loads

The Ontario Ministry of Energy is seeking input on accelerating Ontario’s hydrogen economy. The province has been promoting growth in the clean tech sector, including low-carbon energy production and the Hydrogen Innovation Fund, as an avenue for post-COVID-19 economic recovery. Hydrogen produced through electrolysis (or “green hydrogen”) has been central to these efforts, complimenting both federal and provincial initiatives to create vibrant domestic and export markets for the energy as a principal alternative to conventional fossil fuels.

On April 14, 2022, the Ministry filed a proposal (the Proposal) on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) to gather input from stakeholders, aligning with the province’s industrial electricity pricing consultation underway. As part of Ontario’s Hydrogen Strategy, the Ministry is considering several options that would provide reduced electricity rates for green hydrogen producers to make production more economically competitive with other energies. To date, the relatively high production cost of green hydrogen has been a challenge facing its adoption, both domestically and internationally.

The Proposal features three options:

• Amending the rules for the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) applicable to hydrogen producers;
• Enabling onsite hydrogen production using electricity that would otherwise be curtailed; and
• Providing an interruptible electricity rate for hydrogen producers.

Option 1: Amending the ICI rules

Option 1 would amend the ICI rules to allow all hydrogen producers with an average monthly peak demand of 50kW to participate. Hydrogen producers’ facilities could qualify for ICI in the first year of operation with a peak demand factor determined based on a deemed consumption profile, using a method yet to be determined by the Ministry. At the end of the first year, their global adjustment (GA) charges would be reconciled based on their actual consumption pattern. As set out in our prior article, GA was introduced by the province in January 2005 to ensure reliable, sustainable and a diverse supply of power at stable and competitive prices, aligning with plans to rely on battery storage to meet rising energy demand. The Ministry’s current proposal would require hydrogen producers to place a security deposit for their facilities’ first year of operation with the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) or their Local Distribution Company (LDC) to ensure other consumer would not be adversely affected.

Option 2: Enable onsite hydrogen production using surplus electricity

Option 2 would allow businesses to co-locate hydrogen electrolysers at electricity generation facilities, drawing on recent electrolyzer investment trends, to make use of what would become curtailed generation. Under this option in the Proposal, the developer for the hydrogen production facility would be required to be a separate legal entity from the one that owns or operates the electricity generation facility. Based on this required level of independence, the hydrogen developer would be required to pay the electricity generator for the electricity supply.

At this stage, it is not clear whether, or how the generator would be required to share the revenue with other consumers. The next steps of the Proposal may require regulatory amendments, and/or amendments to electricity generator’s contracts, consistent with efforts enabling storage in Ontario's electricity system to integrate flexible resources.

Option 3: Interruptible electricity rates for hydrogen producers

In 2021, the Ministry posted a proposal on the ERO including an Interruptible Rate Pilot that was to be developed in conjunction with the IESO in order to address stakeholder feedback received during the 2019 Industrial Consultation specific to the challenges of identifying and responding to peak demand events while participating in the ICI. The pilot was targeted towards large electricity consumers, where participants were charged GA at a reduced rate in exchange for agreeing to reduce consumption during system or local reliability events, as identified by IESO.

Option 3 would allow for the introduction for a dedicated stream for hydrogen producers into the interruptible rate pilot, which is currently under development with the IESO. This would take into account the unique circumstances of hydrogen producers, as well as the importance of the hydrogen sector in Ontario’s Low-Carbon Hydrogen Strategy. Under the pilot, participants would be given advance notice by the IESO to reduce demand over a fixed number of hours, several times each year, and emerging vehicle-to-grid models where EV owners can sell electricity back to the grid highlight additional flexibility options. Ultimately, the pilot would support low-carbon hydrogen production by offering large electricity consumers, such as hydrogen producers, reduced electricity rates in exchange for reduces consumption during system or local reliability events.

Following this initial development work, the Ministry intends to consult with stakeholders later this year to determine design details, as well as the timing for the potential roll out of the proposed pilot.

Key takeaways

The design options are not meant to be mutually exclusive, and might be pursued by the Ministry in combination. Ultimately, Ontario is focusing on ways to reduce electricity rates in an attempt to make the province a leader in the adoption of green hydrogen, as made clear in the Ontario Hydrogen Strategy, even as an electricity supply crunch looms, underscoring the urgency. Stakeholders will want to participate in this process given its long-term implications for both the hydrogen and power sectors.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Kentucky Coal Wage Protection Bill strengthens performance bond enforcement, links Energy and Environment Cabinet and Labor Cabinet notifications, addresses Blackjewel bankruptcy fallout, safeguards unpaid miners, ties mining permits to payroll bonds, penalizes violators via revocations.

Key Points

A Kentucky plan to enforce wage bonds and revoke mining permits to protect miners after bankruptcies.

✅ Requires wage bonds for firms under 5 years

✅ Links Energy and Environment Cabinet and Labor Cabinet

✅ Violators face permit revocation in 90 days

Following the high-profile bankruptcy of a coal company that left hundreds of Kentucky miners with bad checks last month, Sen. Johnny Ray Turner (D-Prestonsburg) said he will pre-file a bill Thursday aimed at closing a loophole that allowed the company to operate in violation of state law.

The bill would also compel state agencies to determine whether other companies are currently in violation of the law, and could revoke mining permits if the companies don't comply.

Turner's bill would amend an already-existing law that requires coal and construction companies that have been operating in Kentucky for less than five years to post a performance bond to protect wages if the companies cease their operations.

Blackjewel LLC., which employed hundreds of miners in Eastern Kentucky, failed to post that bond. When it shut its mines down and filed for bankruptcy last month, it left hundreds of miners without payment for 3 weeks and one day of work.

The bond issue has sparked criticism from various state officials, including Attorney General Andy Beshear, who said Tuesday that he would investigate whether other companies are currently in violation, similar to an external investigation of utility workers in another jurisdiction.

Blackjewel issued cold checks to its employees June 28, and when the checks bounced days later, many employees were left with bank accounts overdrawn by more than $1,000. The bankruptcy left many miners and their families with concerns over upcoming bill and mortgage payments, and, as unpaid days off at utilities elsewhere show, the strain on workers can be severe, and fostered a ongoing protest that blocked a train hauling coal from one of the company's Harlan County mines.

Blackjewel had been operating in Kentucky for about two years before it filed for bankruptcy, so it should have paid the performance bond, according to state law.

David A. Dickerson, the Kentucky Labor Cabinet Secretary, said the law as it's currently written does not set up any mechanism that notifies the cabinet, or provides comparable public reporting at large utility projects elsewhere, when a company opens in Kentucky that is supposed to pay the bond.

That allowed Blackjewel to operate for two years without any protection for workers before it closed its mines. Had the company posted the bond according to state law, miners likely would have been paid for the work they had already completed, officials said.

The law requires companies to set aside enough money to cover payroll for four weeks.

Turner's bill would compel the state Energy and Environment Cabinet to notify the Labor Cabinet's Department of Workplace Standards of any application for a mining permit from a company that has been doing business in Kentucky for less than five years.

It also compels the EEC to notify the Labor Cabinet of any companies that already have permits that are subject to the bond.

"It should have already been that way, but I'm happy so our children don't have to go through this," said Jeff Willig, a former Blackjewel miner who helped launch the protest at the railroad.

Willig said he and other miners will continue to block the tracks until they receive payment for their past work.

Any company currently operating in violation of the law would have 90 days to become compliant before its mining permits are revoked. New companies that are applying for permits will be required post the bond before permits are issued.

"Hopefully it will take care of the loopholes that had been exploited by Blackjewel," Turner said.

The bill will be taken up by the legislature when it returns to session in January. It would also cover attorneys' fees if workers are forced to sue their employer to cover wages, underscoring broader worker safety concerns during health emergencies.

Turner said he has reached out to Republican leadership in the Senate, and expects the bill to have bipartisan support come January.

Turner announced the legislation at a press conference in Harlan, the county with the highest population of Blackjewel employees affected by the bankruptcy, and as prolonged utility outages after tornadoes have strained other Kentucky communities.

State rep. Angie Hatton (D-Whitesburg) was also in attendance, along with rep. Chris Fugate (R-Chavies) and state Sen. Morgan McGarvey (D-Louisville).

Hatton said the bankruptcy has had serious economic impact throughout Eastern Kentucky, including in Letcher County, which is home to more than 130 former Blackjewel workers.

"This is something that has done a lot of damage to Eastern Kentucky," Hatton said.

Hatton plans to file the same bill in the state House of Representatives.

Fugate commended community members in Harlan County and elsewhere who have banded together in support of the miners by donating children's clothing, school supplies, food and other goods, while other regions have created a coal transition fund to help displaced workers.

Mosley called the bankruptcy "totally unprecedented" and said the current performance bond law, which has been on-the-books since 1986, lacked the enforcement necessary to protect miners in bankruptcies like Blackjewel's, even as a workplace safety fine in another case shows regulatory consequences in other industries.

"There was a law, there wasn't good enough process," Mosley said.

Blackjewel received court approval to sell many of its mines last month, including many in Kentucky, to Kopper Glo Mining, LLC.

As part of the sale agreement, Kopper Glo said it would pay $450,000 to cover the past wages of Blackjewel miners, and collect a per ton fee accumulating up to $550,000 that it will also contribute to pay back wages.

That total $1 million is less than half of all back wages owed to Blackjewel miners, but attorneys who filed a class action suit against the company said miners have a priority lien on the purchase price. That could allow former Blackjewel employees to make good on their back wages as bankruptcy proceedings continue.

Mosley said he spoke with a Kopper Glo official Thursday, who said the company is working to re-open the mines as quickly as possible. The official did not give an exact timeline.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety 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

Texas Blackout Liability Ruling clarifies appellate court findings in Houston, citing deregulated energy markets, ERCOT immunity, wholesale generators, retail providers, and 2021 winter storm lawsuits over grid failures and wrongful deaths.

Key Points

Houston judges held wholesale generators owe no duty to retail customers, limiting liability for 2021 blackout lawsuits.

✅ Court cites deregulated market and lack of privity to consumers

✅ Ruling shields generators from 2021 winter storm civil suits

✅ Plaintiffs plan appeals; legislature may address liability

Nearly three years after the devastating Texas blackout of 2021, a panel of judges from the First Court of Appeals in Houston has determined that major power companies cannot be held accountable for their failure to deliver electricity during the power grid crisis that unfolded, citing Texas' deregulated energy market as the reason.

This ruling appears likely to shield these companies from lawsuits that were filed against them in the aftermath of the blackout, leaving the families of those affected uncertain about where to seek justice.

In February 2021, a severe cold front swept over Texas, bringing extended periods of ice and snow. The extreme weather conditions increased energy demand while simultaneously reducing supply by causing power generators and the state's natural gas supply chain to freeze. This led to a blackout that left millions of Texans without power and water for nearly a week.

The state officially reported that almost 250 people lost their lives during the winter storm and subsequent blackout, although some analysts argue that this is a significant undercount and warn of blackout risks across the U.S. during severe heat as well.

In the wake of the storm, Texans affected by the energy system's failure began filing lawsuits, and lawmakers proposed a market bailout as political debate intensified. Some of these legal actions were directed against power generators whose plants either ceased to function during the storm or ran out of fuel for electricity generation.

After several years of legal proceedings, a three-judge panel was convened to evaluate the merits of these lawsuits.

This week, Chief Justice Terry Adams issued a unanimous opinion on behalf of the panel, stating, "Texas does not currently recognize a legal duty owed by wholesale power generators to retail customers to provide continuous electricity to the electric grid, and ultimately to the retail customers."

The opinion further clarified that major power generators "are now statutorily precluded by the legislature from having any direct relationship with retail customers of electricity."

This separation of power generation from transmission and retail electric sales in many parts of Texas resulted from energy market deregulation in the early 2000s, with the goal of reducing energy costs, and prompted electricity market reforms aimed at avoiding future blackouts.

Under the previous system, power companies were "vertically integrated," controlling generators, transmission lines, and selling the energy they produced directly to regional customers. However, in deregulated areas of Texas, competition was introduced, creating competing energy-generating companies and retail electric providers that purchase power wholesale and then sell it to residential consumers; meanwhile, electric cooperatives in other parts of the state remained member-owned providers.

Tré Fischer, a partner at the Jackson Walker law firm representing the power companies, explained, "One consequence of that was, because of the unbundling and the separation, you also don't have the same duties and obligations [to consumers]. The structure just doesn't allow for that direct relationship and correspondingly a direct obligation to continually supply the electricity even if there's a natural disaster or catastrophic event."

In the opinion, Justice Adams noted that when designing the Texas energy market, amid renewed interest in ways to improve electricity reliability across the grid, state lawmakers "could have codified the retail customers' asserted duty of continuous electricity on the part of wholesale power generators into law."

The recent ruling applies to five representative cases chosen by the panel out of hundreds filed after the blackout. Due to this decision, it is improbable that any of the lawsuits against power companies will succeed, according to the court's interpretation.

However, plaintiffs' attorneys have indicated their intention to appeal. They may request a review of the panel's opinion by the entire First Court of Appeals or appeal directly to the state supreme court.

The state Supreme Court had previously ruled that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state's power grid operator, enjoys sovereign immunity and cannot be sued over the blackout.

This latest opinion raises the question of who, if anyone, can be held responsible for deaths and losses resulting from the blackout, a question left unaddressed by the court. Fischer commented, "If anything [the judges] were saying that is a question for the Texas legislature."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany's Coal Reliance reflects an energy crisis, soaring natural gas prices, and a nuclear phase-out, as Destatis data show higher coal-fired electricity despite growing wind and solar generation, impacting grid stability and emissions.

Key Points

Germany's coal reliance is more coal power due to gas spikes and a nuclear phase-out, despite wind and solar growth.

✅ Coal share near one-third of electricity, per Destatis

✅ Gas-fired output falls as prices soar after Russia's invasion

✅ Wind and solar rise; grid stability and recession risks persist

Germany is relying on highly-polluting coal for almost a third of its electricity, as the impact of government policies, reflecting an energy balancing act for the power sector, and the war in Ukraine leads producers in Europe’s largest economy to use less gas and nuclear energy.

In the first six months of the year, Germany generated 82.6 kWh of electricity from coal, up 17 per cent from the same period last year, according to data from Destatis, the national statistics office, published on Wednesday. The leap means almost one-third of German electricity generation now comes from coal-fired plants, up from 27 per cent last year. Production from natural gas, which has tripled in price to €235 per megawatt hour since Russia’s invasion in late February, fell 18 per cent to only 11.7 per cent of total generation.

Destatis said that the shift from gas to coal was sharper in the second quarter. Coal-fired electricity increased by an annual rate of 23 per cent in the three months to June, while electricity generation from natural gas fell 19 per cent.

The figures highlight the challenge facing European governments in meeting clean energy goals after the Kremlin announced this week that the Nordstream 1 pipeline that takes Russian gas to Germany would remain closed until Europe removed sanctions on the country’s oil.

Germany has been trying to reduce its reliance on coal, which releases almost twice as many emissions as gas and more than 60 times those of nuclear energy, according to estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, though grid expansion challenges have slowed renewable build-out in recent years.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the opposition CDU bore “complete responsibility” for the exit from coal and nuclear power that formed part of his predecessor Angela Merkel’s Energiewende policies, amid a continuing nuclear option debate in climate policy, which in turn raised reliance on Russian gas. At the beginning of this year, more than 50 per cent of Germany’s gas imports came from Russia, a figure that fell slightly over the opening half of 2022.

But CDU leader Friedrich Merz accused the government of “madness” over its decision to idle the country’s three remaining nuclear power stations from the end of this year, though officials have argued that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue in the short term.

Electricity generation from nuclear energy has already halved after three of the six nuclear power plants that were still in operation at the end of 2021 were closed during the first half of this year. Berlin said on Monday it would keep on standby two of its remaining three nuclear power stations, a move to extend nuclear power during the energy crisis, which were all due to close at the end of the year.

The German government has warned of the risk of electricity shortages this winter. “We cannot be sure that, in the event of grid bottlenecks in neighbouring countries, there will be enough power plants available to help stabilise our electricity grid in the short term,” said German economy minister Robert Habeck on Monday.

However Scholz said that, after raising gas storage levels to 86 per cent of capacity, Germany would “probably get through this winter, despite all the tension”.

One bright spot from the data was the increase in use of renewable energy, highlighting a recent renewables milestone in Germany. The proportion of electricity generated from wind power generation rose by 18 per cent to 25 per cent of all electricity generation, while solar energy production increased 20 per cent.

Ángel Talavera, head of Europe economics at the consultancy Oxford Economics, said that the success in moving away from gas towards other energy sources “means that the risks of hard energy rationing over the winter are less severe now, even with little to no Russian gas flows”.

However, economists still expect a recession in the eurozone’s largest economy, amid a deteriorating German economy outlook over the near term, as a large part of the impact comes via higher prices and because industries and households still rely on gas for heating.

Separate official data also published on Wednesday showed that German industrial production slid 0.3 per cent between June and July. Production at Germany’s most energy intensive industries fell almost 7 per cent in the five months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“The demand destruction caused by the surge in prices will still send the German economy into recession over the winter,” said Talavera.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News