Utility worker suffers burns from power line

Indonesia Coal Production Cuts reflect weaker China demand, COVID-19 impacts, falling HBA reference prices, and DMO sales to PLN, pressuring thermal coal output, miner budgets, and investment plans under the 2020 RKAB.

Key Points

Planned 2020 coal output reductions from China demand slump, lower HBA prices, and DMO constraints impacting miners.

✅ China demand drop reduces exports and thermal coal shipments.

✅ HBA reference price decline pressures margins and cash flow.

✅ DMO sales to PLN limit revenue; investment plans may slow.

The Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) Ministry is considering lowering the coal production target this year as demand from China has shown a significant decline, with China power demand drops reported, since the start of the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in the country late last year, a senior ministry official has said.

The ministry’s coal and mineral director general Bambang Gatot Ariyono said in Jakarta on March 12 that the decline in the demand had also caused a sharp drop in coal prices on the world market, and China's plan to reduce coal power has further weighed on sentiment, which could cause the country’s miners to reduce their production.

The 2020 minerals and coal mining program and budget (RKAB) has set a current production goal of 550 million tons of coal, a 10 percent increase from last year’s target. As of March 6, 94.7 million tons of coal had been mined in the country in the year.

“With the existing demand, revision to this year’s production is almost certain,” he said, adding that the drop in demand had also caused a decline in coal prices.

Indonesia’s thermal coal reference price (HBA) fell by 26 percent year-on-year to US$67.08 per metric ton in March, according to a Standards & Poor press release on March 5.  At home, the coal price is also unattractive for local producers. Under the domestic market obligation (DMO) policy, miners are required to sell a quarter of their production to state-owned electricity company PLN at a government-set price, even as imported coal volumes rise in some markets. This year’s coal reference price is $70 per metric ton, far below the internal prices before the coronavirus outbreak hit China.

The ministry’s expert staff member Irwandy Arif said China had reduced its coal demand by 200,000 tons so far, as six of its coal-fired power plants had suspended operation due to the significant drop in electricity demand. Many factories in the country were closed as the government tried to halt the spread of the new coronavirus, which caused the decline in energy demand and created electric power woes for international supply chains.

“At present, all mines in Indonesia are still operating normally, while India is rationing coal supplies amid surging electricity demand. But we have to see what will happen in June,” he said.

The ministry predicted that the low demand would also result in a decline in coal mining investment, as clean energy investment has slipped across many developing nations.

The ministry set a $7.6 billion investment target for the mining sector this year, up from $6.17 billion last year, even as Israel reduces coal use in its power sector, which may influence regional demand. The year’s total investment realization was $192 million as of March 6, or around 2.5 percent of the annual target. 

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

Canada Clean Electricity Regulations align climate policy with grid reliability, scaling renewables, energy storage, and low-carbon power to reach net-zero by 2050 while maintaining affordability through federal incentives, provincial flexibility, and investment.

Key Points

Nationwide rules to decarbonize power by 2050, capping emissions and protecting grid reliability and affordability.

✅ Net-zero electricity by 2050 with strict emissions limits

✅ Provincial flexibility and federal investments to cut costs

✅ Scales renewables, storage, and clean firm power for reliability

Canada's final Clean Electricity Regulations, unveiled in December 2024, alongside complementary provincial frameworks such as Ontario's clean electricity regulations that guide provincial implementation, represent a critical step toward ensuring a sustainable and reliable energy future. With electricity demand set to rise as the country’s population and economy grow, the Canadian government has put forward a robust plan that balances climate goals with the need for reliable, affordable power.

The regulations are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector, which is already one of Canada's cleanest, with 85% of its electricity sourced from renewable energies like hydro, wind, and solar, and growing attention to clean grids and batteries nationwide. The target is to achieve net-zero emissions in electricity generation by 2050, a goal that will support the country’s broader climate ambitions.

One of the central goals of the Clean Electricity Regulations is to make sure that Canada’s power grid can accommodate future demand in light of a critical electrical supply crunch identified by analysts, while ensuring that emissions are cut effectively. The regulations set strict pollution limits but allow flexibility for provinces and territories to meet these goals in ways that suit their local circumstances. This approach recognizes the diverse energy resources across Canada, from the large-scale hydroelectric capacity in Quebec to the growing wind and solar projects in the West.

A key benefit of these regulations is the assurance that they will not result in higher electricity rates for most Canadians. In fact, according to government analyses, and resources like the online CER bill tool that explain how fees and usage affect charges, the regulations are expected to have a neutral or even slightly positive impact on electricity costs. This is due in part to significant federal investments in the electricity sector, totaling over $60 billion. These investments are intended to support the transition to clean electricity while minimizing costs for consumers.

The shift to clean electricity is also expected to generate significant savings for Canadian households. As energy prices continue to fluctuate, clean electricity, especially from renewable sources, is becoming more cost-competitive compared to fossil fuels. Over the next decade, this transition is expected to result in $15 billion in total savings for Canadians, with 84% of households projected to benefit from lower energy bills. The savings are a result of federal incentives aimed at encouraging the adoption of efficient electric appliances, vehicles, and heating systems.

Moreover, reducing emissions from the electricity sector will play a major role in cutting Canada’s overall greenhouse gas pollution. By 2050, it’s estimated that these regulations will reduce nearly 181 megatonnes of emissions, which is equivalent to removing over 55 million cars from the road. This is a crucial step in meeting Canada’s climate targets and mitigating the impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather events, which have already led to significant economic losses.

The economic benefits extend beyond savings on energy bills. The regulations and the broader clean electricity strategy will create substantial job opportunities. The clean energy sector, which includes jobs in wind, solar, and nuclear power, is poised for massive growth, and provinces like Alberta have outlined a path to clean electricity to support that momentum. It’s estimated that by 2030, the transition to clean electricity could create 400,000 new jobs, with further job growth projected for the years to come. These jobs are expected to include roles in both the construction and operation of new energy infrastructure, many of which will be unionized positions offering good wages and benefits.

To help meet the rising demand for clean energy, the government’s strategy emphasizes technological innovation and the integration of new energy sources, including market design updates such as proposed market changes that can enable investment. Renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power have become increasingly cost-competitive, and their continued development is expected to reduce the overall cost of electricity generation. The regulations also encourage the adoption of energy storage solutions, which are essential for managing the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources.

In addition to the environmental and economic benefits, the Clean Electricity Regulations will help improve public health. Air pollution from fossil fuel power generation is a major contributor to respiratory illnesses and other health issues. By transitioning to clean energy sources, Canada can reduce harmful air pollutants, leading to better health outcomes and a lower burden on the healthcare system.

As Canada moves toward a net-zero electricity grid, including the federal 2035 target that some have criticized as changing goalposts in Saskatchewan, the Clean Electricity Regulations represent a comprehensive and flexible approach to managing the energy transition. With significant investments in clean energy technologies and the adoption of policies that ensure affordable electricity for all Canadians, the government is setting the stage for a cleaner, more sustainable future. These efforts will not only help Canada meet its climate goals but also create a thriving clean energy economy that benefits workers, businesses, and families across the country.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US EV Charging Infrastructure is evolving with interoperable NACS and CCS standards, Tesla Supercharger access, federal funding, ultra-fast charging, mobile apps, and battery advances that reduce range anxiety and expand reliable, nationwide fast-charging access.

Key Points

Nationwide network, standards, and funding enabling fast, interoperable EV charging access for drivers across the US.

✅ NACS and CCS interoperability expands cross-network access

✅ Tesla Superchargers opening to more brands accelerate adoption

✅ Federal funding builds fast chargers along highways and communities

The landscape of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in the United States is rapidly evolving, driven by technological advancements, collaborative efforts between automakers and charging networks across the country, and government initiatives to support sustainable transportation.

Interoperability and Collaboration

Recent developments highlight a shift towards interoperability among charging networks, even as control over charging continues to be contested across the market today. The introduction of the North American Charging Standard (NACS) and the adoption of the Combined Charging System (CCS) by major automakers underscore efforts to standardize charging protocols. This move aims to enhance convenience for EV drivers by allowing them to use multiple charging networks seamlessly.

Tesla's Role and Expansion

Tesla, a trailblazer in the EV industry, has expanded its Supercharger network to accommodate other EV brands. This initiative represents a significant step towards inclusivity, addressing range anxiety and supporting the broader adoption of electric vehicles. Tesla's expansive network of fast-charging stations across the US continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the EV charging landscape.

Government Support and Infrastructure Investment

The federal government's commitment to infrastructure development is crucial in advancing EV adoption. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocates substantial funding for EV charging station deployment along highways and in underserved communities, while automakers plan 30,000 chargers to complement public investment today. These investments aim to expand access to charging infrastructure, promote economic growth, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation.

Technological Advancements and User Experience

Technological innovations in EV charging, including energy storage and mobile charging solutions, continue to improve user experience and efficiency. Ultra-fast charging capabilities, coupled with user-friendly interfaces and mobile apps, simplify the charging process for consumers. Advancements in battery technology also contribute to faster charging times and increased vehicle range, enhancing the practicality and appeal of electric vehicles.

Challenges and Future Outlook

Despite progress, challenges remain in scaling EV charging infrastructure to meet growing demand. Issues such as grid capacity constraints are coming into sharp focus, alongside permitting processes and funding barriers that necessitate continued collaboration between stakeholders. Addressing these challenges is crucial in supporting the transition to sustainable transportation and achieving national climate goals.

Conclusion

The evolution of EV charging infrastructure in the United States reflects a transformative shift towards sustainable mobility solutions. Through interoperability, government support, technological innovation, and industry collaboration, stakeholders are paving the way for a robust and accessible charging ecosystem. As investments and innovations continue to shape the landscape, and amid surging U.S. EV sales across 2024, the trajectory of EV infrastructure development promises to accelerate, ensuring reliable and widespread access to charging solutions that support a cleaner and greener future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Surkhan-Pul-e-Khumri Power Line links Uzbekistan and Afghanistan via a 260-kilometer transmission line, boosting electricity exports, grid reliability, and regional trade; ADB-backed financing could open Pakistan's energy market with 24 million kWh daily.

Key Points

A 260-km line to expand Uzbekistan power exports to Afghanistan, ADB-funded, with possible future links to Pakistan.

✅ 260 km Surkhan-Pul-e-Khumri transmission link

✅ +70% electricity exports; up to 24M kWh daily

✅ ADB $70M co-financing; $32M from Uzbekistan

Senior officials with Uzbekistan’s state-run power company have said work has begun on building power cables to Afghanistan that will enable them to increase exports by 70 per cent, echoing regional trends like Ukraine resuming electricity exports after grid repairs.

Uzbekenergo chief executive Ulugbek Mustafayev said in a press conference on March 24 that construction of the Afghan section of the 260-kilometer Surkhan-Pul-e-Khumri line will start in June.

The Asian Development Bank has pledged $70 million toward the final expected $150 million bill of the project. Another $32 million will come from Uzbekistan.

Mustafayev said the transmission line would give Uzbekistan the option of exporting up to 24 million kilowatt hours to Afghanistan daily, similar to Ukraine's electricity export resumption amid shifting regional demand.

“We could potentially even reach Pakistan’s energy market,” he said, noting broader regional ambitions like Iran's bid to be a power hub linking regional grids.

#google#

This project was given fresh impetus by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s visit to Tashkent in December, mirroring cross-border energy cooperation such as Iran-Iraq energy talks in the region. His Uzbek counterpart, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, had announced at the time that work was set to begin imminently on the line, which will run from the village of Surkhan in Uzbekistan’s Surkhandarya region to Pul-e-Khumri, a town in Afghanistan just south of Kunduz.

In January, Mirziyoyev issued a decree ordering that the rate for electricity deliveries to Afghanistan be dropped from $0.076 to $0.05 per kilowatt.

Mustafayev said up to 6 billion kilowatt hours of electricity could eventually be sent through the power lines. More than 60 billion kilowatt hours of electricity was produced in Uzbekistan in 2017.

According to Tulabai Kurbonov, an Uzbek journalist specializing in energy issues, the power line will enable the electrification of the the Hairatan-Mazar-i-Sharif railroad joining the two countries. Trains currently run on diesel. Switching over to electricity will help reduce the cost of transporting cargo.

There is some unhappiness, however, over the fact that Uzbekistan plans to sell power to Afghanistan when it suffers from significant shortages domestically and wider Central Asia electricity shortages persist.

"In the villages of the Ferghana Valley, especially in winter, people are suffering from a shortage of electricity,” said Munavvar Ibragimova, a reporter based in the Ferghana Valley. “You should not be selling electricity abroad before you can provide for your own population. What we clearly see here is the favoring of the state’s interests over those of the people.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Electricity Demand 2018-2050 projects slower growth as energy consumption, power generation, air conditioning, and electric heating shift with efficiency standards, commercial floor space, industrial load, and household growth across the forecast horizon.

Key Points

A forecast of US power use across homes, commercial space, industrial load, and efficiency trends from 2018 to 2050.

✅ 2018 generation hit record; residential sales up 6%.

✅ Efficiency curbs demand; growth lags population and floor space.

✅ Commercial sales up 2%; industrial demand fell 3% in 2018.

Last year's Houston cold winter and hot summer drove power use to record levels, especially among households that rely on electricity for air conditioning during extreme weather conditions.

Electricity generation increased 4 per cent nationwide in 2018 and produced 4,178 million megawatt hours, driven in part by record natural gas generation across the U.S., surpassing the previous peak of 4,157 megawatt hours set in 2007, the Energy Department reported.

U.S. households bought 6 percent more electricity in 2018 than they did the previous year, despite longer-term declines in national consumption, reflecting the fact 87 percent of households cool their homes with air conditioning and 35 percent use electricity for heating.

Electricity sales to the commercial sector increased 2 percent in 2018 compared to the previous year while the industrial sector bought 3 percent less last year.

Going forward, the Energy Department forecasts that electricity consumption will grow at a slower pace than in recent decades, aligning with falling sales projections as technology improves and energy efficiency standards moderate consumption.

The economy and population growth are primary drivers of demand and the government predicts the number of households will grow at 0.7 percent per year from now until 2050 but electricity demand will grow only by 0.4 percent annually.

Likewise, commercial floor space is expected to increase 1 percent per year from now until 2050 but electricity sales will increase only by half that amount.

Globally, surging electricity demand is putting power systems under strain, providing context for these domestic trends.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News