ENMAX Introduces Host of New Products, Services

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

California Managed Decline of Fossil Fuels aligns oil phaseout with carbon neutrality, leveraging ZEV adoption, solar and wind growth, severance taxes, drilling setbacks, fracking oversight, CARB rules, and CalGEM regulation to deliver a just transition.

Key Points

California's strategy to phase out oil and gas while meeting carbon-neutral goals through policy, regulation, and equity.

✅ Severance taxes fund clean energy and workforce transition.

✅ Setbacks restrict drilling near schools, homes, and hospitals.

✅ CARB and CalGEM tighten fracking oversight and ZEV targets.

California’s energy past is on a collision course with its future. Think of major oil-producing U.S. states, and Texas, Alaska or North Dakota probably come to mind. Although its position relative to other states has been falling for 20 years, California remains the seventh-largest oil-producing state, with 162 million barrels of crude coming up in 2018, translating to tax revenue and jobs.

At the same time, California leads the nation in solar rooftops and electric vehicles on the road by a wide margin and ranking fifth in installed wind capacity. Clean energy is the state’s future, and the state is increasingly exporting its energy policies across the West, influencing regional markets. By law, California must have 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, and an executive order signed by former Governor Jerry Brown calls for economywide carbon-neutrality by the same year.

So how can the state reconcile its divergent energy path? How should clean-energy-minded lawmakers wind down California’s oil and gas sector in a way that aligns with the state’s long-term climate targets while providing a just transition for the industry’s workforce?

Any efforts to reduce fossil fuel supply must run parallel to aggressive demand-reduction measures such as California’s push to have 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030, said Ethan Elkind, director of Berkeley Law's climate program, especially amid debates over keeping the lights on without fossil fuels in the near term. After all, if oil demand in California remains strong, crude from outside the state will simply fill the void.

“If we don’t stop using it, then that supply is going to get here, even if it’s not produced in-state,” Elkind said in an interview.

Lawmakers have a number of options for policies that would draw down and eventually phase out fossil fuel production in California, according to a new report from the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the UC Berkeley School of Law, co-authored by Elkind and Ted Lamm.

They could impose a higher price on California's oil production through a "severance" tax or carbon-based fee, with the revenue directed to measures that wean the state from fossil fuels. (California, alone among major oil-producing states, does not have an oil severance tax.)

Lawmakers could establish a minimum drilling setback from schools, playgrounds, homes and other sensitive sites. They could push the state's oil and gas regulator, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, to prioritize environmental and climate concerns.

A major factor holding lawmakers back is, of course, politics, including debates over blackouts and climate policy that shape public perception. Given the state’s clean-energy ambitions, it might surprise non-Californians that the oil and gas industry is one of the Golden State’s most powerful special interest groups.

Overcoming a "third-rail issue" in California politics
The Western States Petroleum Association, the sector’s trade group in California's capital of Sacramento, spent $8.8 million lobbying state policymakers in 2019, more than any other interest group. Over the last five years, the group, which cultivates both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has spent $43.3 million on lobbying, nearly double the total of the second-largest lobbying spender.

Despite former Governor Brown’s reputation as a climate champion, critics say he was unwilling to forcefully take on the oil and gas industry. However, things may take a different turn under Brown's successor, Governor Gavin Newsom.

In May 2019, when Newsom released California's midyear budget revision (PDF), the governor's office noted the need for "careful study and planning to decrease demand and supply of fossil fuels, while managing the decline in a way that is economically responsible and sustainable.”

Related reliability concerns surfaced as blackouts revealed lapses in power supply across the state.

Writing for the advocacy organization Oil Change International, David Turnbull observed, “This may mark the first time that a sitting governor in California has recognized the need to embark upon a managed decline of fossil fuel supply in the state.”

“It is significant because typically this is one of those third-rail issues, kind of a hot potato that governors don’t even want to touch at all — including Jerry Brown, to a large extent, who really focused much more on the demand side of fuel consumption in the state,” said Berkeley Law’s Elkind.

California's revised budget included $1.5 million for a Transition to a Carbon-Neutral Economy report, which is being prepared by University of California researchers for the California Environmental Protection Agency. In an email, a CalEPA spokesperson said the report is due by the end of this year.

Winding down oil and gas production
Since the release of the revised budget last May, Newsom has taken initial steps to increase oversight of the oil and gas industry. In July 2019, he fired the state’s top oil and gas regulator for issuing too many permits to hydraulically fracture, or frack, wells.

Later in the year, he appointed new leadership to oversee oil and gas regulation in the state, and he signed a package of bills that placed constraints on fossil fuel production. The next month, Newsom halted the approval of new fracking operations until pending permits could be reviewed by a panel of scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) did not resume issuing fracking permit approvals until April of this year.

Not all steps have been in the same direction. This month Newsom dropped a proposal to add dozens of analysts, engineers and geologists at CalGEM, citing COVID-related economic pressure. The move would have increased regulatory oversight on fossil fuel producers and was opposed by the state's oil industry.

Ultimately, more durable measures to wind down fossil fuel supply and demand will require new legislation, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to maintain reliability.

A 2019 bill by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), AB 345, would have codified the minimum 2,500-foot setback for new oil and gas wells. However, before the final vote in the Assembly, the bill’s buffer requirement was dropped and replaced with a requirement for CalGEM “to consider a setback distance of 2,500 feet.” The bill passed the Assembly in January over "no" votes from several moderate Democrats; it now awaits action in the Senate.

A bill previously introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), AB 1745, didn’t even make it that far. Ting’s bill would have required that all new passenger cars registered in the state after January 1, 2040, be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV). The bill died in committee without a vote in April 2018.

But the backing of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), one of the world's most powerful air-quality regulators, could change the political conversation. In March, CARB chair Mary Nichols said she now supports consideration of California establishing a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales target by 2030, as policymakers also consider a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid.

“In the past, I’ve been skeptical about whether that would do more harm than good in terms of the backlash by dealers and others against something that sounded so un-California like,” Nichols said during an online event. “But as time has gone on, I’ve become more convinced that we need to send the longer-term signal about where we’re headed.”

Another complicating factor for California’s political leaders is the lack of a willing federal partner — at least in the short term — in winding down oil and gas production, amid warnings about a looming electricity shortage that could pressure the grid.

Under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 15 million acres of federal land in California, has pushed to open more than 1 million acres of public and private land across eight counties in Central California to fracking. In January 2020, California filed a federal lawsuit to block the move.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Summer Heatwave Electricity Shutoffs strain utilities and vulnerable communities, highlighting energy assistance, utility moratoriums, cooling centers, demand response, and grid resilience amid extreme heat, climate change, and rising air conditioning loads.

Key Points

Service disconnections for unpaid bills during extreme heat, risking vulnerable households and straining power grids.

✅ Moratoriums and flexible payment plans reduce shutoff risk.

✅ Cooling centers and assistance programs protect at-risk residents.

✅ Demand response, smart grids, and efficiency ease peak loads.

As summer temperatures soar, millions of people across the United States face the grim prospect of electricity shutoffs due to unpaid bills, as heat exacerbates electricity struggles for many families nationwide. This predicament highlights a critical issue exacerbated by extreme weather conditions and economic disparities.

The Challenge of Summer Heatwaves

Summer heatwaves not only strain power grids, as unprecedented electricity demand has shown, but also intensify energy consumption as households and businesses crank up their air conditioning units. This surge in demand places considerable stress on utilities, particularly in regions unaccustomed to prolonged heatwaves or lacking adequate infrastructure to cope with increased loads.

Vulnerable Populations

The threat of electricity shutoffs disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, including low-income households who face sky-high energy bills during extreme heat, elderly individuals, and those with underlying health conditions. Lack of access to air conditioning during extreme heat can lead to heat-related illnesses such as heat exhaustion and heatstroke, posing serious health risks.

Economic and Social Implications

The economic impact of electricity shutoffs extends beyond immediate discomfort, affecting productivity, food storage, and the ability to work remotely for those reliant on electronic devices, while rising electricity prices further strain household budgets. Socially, the inability to cool homes and maintain basic comforts strains community resilience and exacerbates inequalities.

Policy and Community Responses

In response to these challenges, policymakers and community organizations advocate for measures to prevent electricity shutoffs during heatwaves. Proposed solutions include extending moratoriums on shutoffs, informed by lessons from COVID-19 energy insecurity measures, implementing flexible payment plans, providing financial assistance to at-risk households, and enhancing communication about available resources.

Public Awareness and Preparedness

Raising public awareness about energy conservation during peak hours and promoting strategies to stay cool without overreliance on air conditioning are crucial steps towards mitigating electricity demand. Encouraging energy-efficient practices and investing in renewable energy sources also contribute to long-term resilience against climate-driven energy challenges.

Collaborative Efforts

Collaboration between government agencies, utilities, nonprofits, and community groups is essential in developing comprehensive strategies to safeguard vulnerable populations during heatwaves, especially when systems like the Texas power grid face renewed stress during prolonged heatwaves. By pooling resources and expertise, stakeholders can better coordinate emergency response efforts, distribute cooling centers, and ensure timely assistance to those in need.

Technology and Innovation

Advancements in smart grid technology and decentralized energy solutions offer promising avenues for enhancing grid resilience and minimizing disruptions during extreme weather events. These innovations enable more efficient energy management, demand response programs, and proactive monitoring of grid stability, though some utilities face summer supply-chain constraints that delay deployments.

Conclusion

As summer heatwaves become more frequent and severe, the risk of electricity shutoffs underscores the urgent need for proactive measures to protect vulnerable communities. By prioritizing equity, sustainability, and resilience in energy policy and practice, stakeholders can work towards ensuring reliable access to electricity, particularly during times of heightened climate vulnerability. Addressing these challenges requires collective action and a commitment to fostering inclusive and sustainable solutions that prioritize human well-being amid changing climate realities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Expanded Hoa Binh Hydropower Plant increases EVN capacity with 480MW turbines, commercial loan financing, grid stability, flood control, and Da River reliability, supported by PECC1 feasibility work and CMSC collaboration on site clearance.

Key Points

A 480MW EVN expansion on the Da River to enhance grid stability, flood control, and seasonal water supply in Vietnam.

✅ 480MW, two turbines, EVN-led financing without guarantees

✅ Improves frequency modulation and national grid stability

✅ Supports flood control and dry-season water supply

The extended Hoa Binh Hydropower Plant, which is expected to break ground in October 2020, is considered the largest power project to be constructed this year, even as Vietnam advances a mega wind project planned for 2025.

Covering an area of 99.2 hectares, the project is invested by Electricity of Vietnam (EVN). Besides, Vietnam Electricity Power Projects Management Board No.1 (EVNPMB1) is the representative of the investor and Power Engineering Consulting JSC 1 (EVNPECC1) is in charge of building the feasibility report for the project. The expanded Hoa Binh Hydro Power Plant has a total investment of VND9.22 trillion ($400.87 million), 30 per cent of which is EVN’s equity and the remaining 70 per cent comes from commercial loans without a government guarantee.

According to the initial plan, EVN will begin the construction of the project in the second quarter of this year and is expected to take the first unit into operation in the third quarter of 2023, a timeline reminiscent of Barakah Unit 1 reaching full power, and the second one in the fourth quarter of the same year.

Chairman of the Committee for Management of State Capital at Enterprises (CMSC) Nguyen Hoang Anh said that in order to start the construction in time, CMSC will co-operate with EVN to work with partners as well as local and foreign banks to mobilise capital, reflecting broader nuclear project milestones across the energy sector.

In addition, EVN will co-operate with Hoa Binh People’s Committee to implement site clearance, remove Ba Cap port and select contractors.

Once completed, the project will contribute to preventing floods in the rainy season and supply water in the dry season. The plant expansion will include two turbines with the total capacity of 480MW, similar in scale to the 525-MW hydropower station China is building on a Yangtze tributary, and electricity output of about 488.3 million kWh per year.

In addition, it will help improve frequency modulation capability and stabilise the frequency of the national electricity system through approaches like pumped storage capacity, and reduce the working intensity of available turbines of the plant, thus prolonging the life of the equipment and saving maintenance and repair costs.

Built in the Da River basin in the northern mountainous province of Hoa Binh, at the time of its conception in 1979, Hoa Binh was the largest hydropower plant in Southeast Asia, while projects such as China’s Lawa hydropower station now dwarf earlier benchmarks.

The construction was supported by the Soviet Union all the way through, designing, supplying equipment, supervising, and helping it go on stream. Construction began in November 1979 and was completed 15 years later in December 1994, when it was officially commissioned, similar to two new BC generating stations recently brought online.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Off-Peak Electricity Rate offers 8.2 cents per kWh for 24 hours, supporting Time-of-Use and Tiered Regulated Price Plan customers, including residential, small business, and farms, under Ontario Energy Board guidelines during temporary relief.

Key Points

A temporary 8.2 cents per kWh all-day price for RPP customers, covering TOU and Tiered users across Ontario.

✅ Applies 24 hours daily at 8.2 cents per kWh for 21 days

✅ Covers residential, small business, and farm RPP customers

✅ Valid for TOU and Tiered plans set by the Ontario Energy Board

 The Ontario government has announced electricity relief with electricity prices set at the off-peak price of 8.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, 24 hours per day for 21 days starting January 18, 2022, until the end of day February 7, 2022, for all Regulated Price Plan customers. The off-peak rate will apply automatically to residential, small businesses and farms who pay Time-of-Use or Tiered prices set by the Ontario Energy Board.

This rate relief includes extended off-peak rates to support small businesses, as well as workers and families spending more time at home while the province is in Modified Step Two of the Roadmap to Reopen.

As part of our mandate, we set the rates that your utility charges for the electricity you use in your home or small business. These rates appear on the Electricity line of your bill, and we administer protections such as disconnection moratoriums for residential customers. We also set the Delivery rates that cover the cost to deliver electricity to most residential and small business customers.

Types of electricity rates

For residential and small business customers that buy electricity from their utility, there are two different types of rates (also called prices here), and Ontario also provides stable electricity pricing for larger users. The Ontario Energy Board sets both once a year on November 1:

Time-of-Use (TOU)

With TOU prices, the price depends on when you use electricity, including options like ultra-low overnight pricing that encourage off-peak use.

There are three TOU price periods:

• Off-peak, when demand for electricity is lowest and new offerings like the Ultra-Low Overnight plan can encourage shifting usage. Ontario households use most of their electricity – nearly two thirds of it – during off-peak hours.
• Mid-peak, when demand for electricity is moderate. These periods are during the daytime, but not the busiest times of day, and utilities like BC Hydro are exploring similar TOU structures as well.
• On-peak, when demand for electricity is generally higher. These are the busier times of day – generally when people are cooking, starting up their computers and running heaters or air conditioners.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Agrivoltaics in Alberta integrates solar energy with agriculture, boosting crop yields and water conservation. The Strathmore Solar project showcases dual land use, sheep grazing for vegetation control, and PPAs that expand renewable energy capacity.

Key Points

A dual-use model where solar arrays and farming co-exist, boosting yields, saving water, and diversifying revenue.

✅ Strathmore Solar: 41 MW on 320 acres with managed sheep grazing

✅ 25-year TELUS PPA secures power and renewable energy credits

✅ Panel shade cuts irrigation needs and protects crops from extremes

Alberta is emerging as a leader in agrivoltaics—the innovative practice of integrating solar energy production with agricultural activities, aligning with the province's red-hot solar growth in recent years. This approach not only generates renewable energy but also enhances crop yields, conserves water, and supports sustainable farming practices. A notable example of this synergy is the Strathmore Solar project, a 41-megawatt solar farm located on 320 acres of leased industrial land owned by the Town of Strathmore. Operational since March 2022, it exemplifies how solar energy and agriculture can coexist and thrive together.

The Strathmore Solar Initiative

Strathmore Solar is a collaborative venture between Capital Power and the Town of Strathmore, with a 25-year power purchase agreement in place with TELUS Corporation for all the energy and renewable energy credits generated by the facility. The project not only contributes significantly to Alberta's renewable energy capacity, as seen with new solar facilities contracted at lower cost across the province, but also serves as a model for agrivoltaic integration. In a unique partnership, 400 to 600 sheep from Whispering Cedars Ranch are brought in to graze the land beneath the solar panels. This arrangement helps manage vegetation, reduce fire hazards, and maintain the facility's upkeep, all while providing shade for the grazing animals. This mutually beneficial setup maximizes land use efficiency and supports local farming operations, illustrating how renewable power developers can strengthen outcomes with integrated designs today. 

Benefits of Agrivoltaics in Alberta

The integration of solar panels with agricultural practices offers several advantages for a province that is a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels already across sectors:

• Enhanced Crop Yields: Studies have shown that crops grown under solar panels can experience increased yields due to reduced water evaporation and protection from extreme weather conditions.
  
  

• Water Conservation: The shade provided by solar panels helps retain soil moisture, leading to a decrease in irrigation needs.
  
  

• Diversified Income Streams: Farmers can generate additional revenue by selling renewable energy produced by the solar panels back to the grid.
  
  

• Sustainable Land Use: Agrivoltaics allows for dual land use, enabling the production of both food and energy without the need for additional land.
  
  

These benefits are evident in various agrivoltaic projects across Alberta, where farmers are successfully combining crop cultivation with solar energy production amid a renewable energy surge that is creating thousands of jobs.

Challenges and Considerations

While agrivoltaics presents numerous benefits, there are challenges to consider as Alberta navigates challenges with solar expansion today across Alberta:

• Initial Investment: The setup costs for agrivoltaic systems can be high, requiring significant capital investment.
  
  

• System Maintenance: Regular maintenance is essential to ensure the efficiency of both the solar panels and the agricultural operations.
  
  

• Climate Adaptability: Not all crops may thrive under the conditions created by solar panels, necessitating careful selection of suitable crops.

Addressing these challenges requires careful planning, research, and collaboration between farmers, researchers, and energy providers.

Future Prospects

The success of projects like Strathmore Solar and other agrivoltaic initiatives in Alberta indicates a promising future for this dual-use approach. As technology advances and research continues, agrivoltaics could play a pivotal role in enhancing food security, promoting sustainable farming practices, and contributing to Alberta's renewable energy goals. Ongoing projects and partnerships aim to refine agrivoltaic systems, making them more efficient and accessible to farmers across the province.

The integration of solar energy production with agriculture in Alberta is not just a trend but a transformative approach to sustainable farming. The Strathmore Solar project serves as a testament to the potential of agrivoltaics, demonstrating how innovation can lead to mutually beneficial outcomes for both the agricultural and energy sectors.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News