GE unit to invest millions in Canadian hydroelectric plant

Quebec Energy Bill Tariff Delay disrupts Canada-U.S. trade, renewable energy investment, hydroelectric expansion, and clean technology projects, as Trump tariffs on aluminum and steel raise costs, threatening climate targets and green infrastructure timelines.

Key Points

A policy pause in Quebec from U.S. tariff threats, disrupting clean investment, hydro expansion, and climate targets.

✅ Tariff risk inflates aluminum and steel project costs.

✅ Quebec delays clean energy legislation amid trade uncertainty.

✅ Hydroelectric reliance complicates emissions reduction timelines.

The Trump administration's tariff threat has had a significant impact on Quebec's energy sector, with tariff threats boosting support for projects even as the uncertainty resulted in the delay of a critical energy bill. Originally introduced to streamline energy development and tackle climate change, the bill was meant to help transition Quebec towards greener alternatives while fostering economic growth. However, the U.S. threat to impose tariffs on Canadian goods, including energy products, introduced a wave of uncertainty that led to a pause in the bill's legislative process.

Quebec’s energy bill had ambitious goals of transitioning to renewable sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. It sought to support investments in clean technologies and the expansion of the province's clean energy infrastructure, as the U.S. demand for Canadian green power continues to grow across the border. Moreover, it emphasized the reduction of carbon emissions, an important step towards meeting Quebec's climate targets. At its core, the bill aimed to position the province as a leader in green energy development in Canada and globally.

The interruption caused by President Donald Trump's tariff rhetoric has, however, cast a shadow over the legislation. Tariffs, if enacted, would disproportionately affect Canada's energy exports, with electricity exports at risk under growing tensions, particularly in sectors like aluminum and steel, which are integral to energy infrastructure development. These tariffs could increase the cost of energy-related projects, thereby hindering Quebec's ability to achieve its renewable energy goals and reduce carbon emissions in a timely manner.

The tariff threat was seen as a part of the broader trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada, a continuation of the trade war that had escalated under Trump’s presidency. In this context, the Quebec government was forced to reconsider its legislative priorities, with policymakers citing concerns over the potential long-term consequences on the energy industry, as leaders elsewhere threatened to cut U.S.-bound electricity to exert leverage. With the uncertainty around tariffs and trade relations, the government opted to delay the bill until the geopolitical situation stabilized.

This delay underscores the vulnerability of Quebec’s energy agenda to external pressures. While the provincial government had set its sights on an ambitious green energy future, it now faces significant challenges in ensuring that its projects remain economically viable under the cloud of potential tariffs, even as experts warn against curbing Quebec's exports during the dispute. The delay in the energy bill also reflects broader challenges faced by the Canadian energy sector, which is highly integrated with the U.S. market.

The situation is further complicated by the province's reliance on hydroelectric power, a cornerstone of its energy strategy that supplies markets like New York, where tariffs could spike New York energy prices if cross-border flows are disrupted. While hydroelectric power is a clean and renewable source of energy, there are concerns about the environmental impact of large-scale dams, and these concerns have been growing in recent years. The tariff threat may prompt a reevaluation of Quebec’s energy mix and force the government to balance its environmental goals with economic realities.

The potential imposition of tariffs also raises questions about the future of North American energy cooperation. Historically, Canada and the U.S. have enjoyed a symbiotic energy relationship, with significant energy trade flowing across the border. The energy bill in Quebec was designed with the understanding that cross-border energy trade would continue to thrive. The Trump administration's tariff threat, however, casts doubt on this stability, forcing Quebec lawmakers to reconsider how they proceed with energy policy in a more uncertain trade environment.

Looking forward, Quebec's energy sector will likely need to adjust its strategies to account for the possibility of tariffs, while still pushing for a sustainable energy future, especially if Biden outlook for Canada's energy proves more favorable for the sector in the medium term. It may also open the door for deeper discussions about diversification, both in terms of energy sources and trade partnerships, as Quebec seeks to mitigate the impact of external threats. The delay in the energy bill, though unfortunate, may serve as a wake-up call for Canadian lawmakers to rethink how they balance environmental goals with global trade realities.

Ultimately, the Trump tariff threat highlights the delicate balance between regional energy ambitions and international trade dynamics. For Quebec, the delay in the energy bill could prove to be a pivotal moment in shaping the future of its energy policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU-UK Coal Power Decline 2020 underscores Covid-19's impact on power generation, with renewables rising, carbon emissions falling, and electricity demand down, revealing resilient grids and accelerating the energy transition across European markets.

Key Points

Covid-19's impact on EU-UK power: coal down, renewables up, lower emissions intensity and reduced electricity demand.

✅ Coal generation down 25.5% EU-UK; 29% in March 10-April 10 period

✅ Renewables share up to 46%; grids remained stable and flexible

✅ Electricity demand fell 10%; emissions intensity dropped 19.5%

Coal based power generation has fallen by over a quarter (25.5%) across the European Union (EU) and United Kingdom (UK) in the first three months of 2020, compared to 2019, as a result of the response to Covid-19, with renewable energy reaching a 43% share, as wind and solar outpaced gas across the EU, according to new analysis by the technology group Wärtsilä.

The impact is even more stark in the last month, with coal generation collapsing by almost one third (29%) between March 10 and April 10 compared to the same period in 2019, making up only 12% of total EU and UK generation. By contrast, renewables delivered almost half (46%) of generation – an increase of 8% compared to 2019.

In total, demand for electricity across the continent is down by one tenth (10%), mirroring global demand declines of around 15%, due to measures taken to combat Covid-19, the biggest drop in demand since the Second World War. The result is an unprecedented fall in carbon emissions from the power sector, with emission intensity falling by 19.5% compared to the same March 10-April 10 period last year. The analysis comes from the Wärtsilä Energy Transition Lab, a new free-to-use data platform developed by Wärtsilä to help the industry, policy makers and the public understand the impact of Covid-19 on European electricity markets and analyse what this means for the future design and operation of its energy systems. The goal is to help accelerate the transition to 100% renewables.

Björn Ullbro, Vice President for Europe & Africa at Wärtsilä Energy Business, said: “The impact of the Covid-19 crisis on European energy systems is extraordinary. We are seeing levels of renewable electricity that some people believed would cause systems to collapse, yet they haven’t – in fact they are coping well. The question is, what does this mean for the future?”

“What we can see today is how our energy systems cope with much more renewable power – knowledge that will be invaluable, aligning with IAEA low-carbon insights, to accelerate the energy transition. We are making this new platform freely available to support the energy industry to adapt and use the momentum this tragic crisis has created to deliver a better, cleaner energy system, faster.”

The figures mark a dramatic shift in Europe’s energy mix – one that was not anticipated to occur until the end of the decade. The impact of the Covid-19 crisis has effectively accelerated the energy transition in the short-term, even as later lockdowns saw power demand hold firm in parts of Europe, providing a unique opportunity to see how energy systems function with far higher levels of renewables.

Ullbro added: “Electricity demand across Europe has fallen due to the lockdown measures applied by governments to stop the spread of the coronavirus. However, total renewable generation has remained at pre-crisis levels with low electricity prices, combined with renewables-friendly policy measures, crowding out gas and fossil fuel power generation, especially coal. This sets the scene for the next decade of the energy transition.”

These Europe-wide impacts are mirrored at a national level, for example:

• In the UK, renewables now have a 43% share of generation, following a stall in low-carbon progress in 2019 (up 10% on the same March 10-April 10 period in 2019) with coal power down 35% and gas down 24%.
• Germany has seen the share of renewables reach 60% (up 12%) and coal generation fall 44%, resulting in a fall in the carbon intensity of its electricity of over 30%.
• Spain currently has 49% renewables with coal power down by 41%.
• Italy has seen the steepest fall in demand, down 21% so far.

An industry first, the Wärtsilä Energy Transition Lab has been specifically developed as an open-data platform for the energy industry to understand the impact of Covid-19 and help accelerate the energy transition. The tool provides detailed data on electricity generation, demand and pricing for all 27 EU countries and the UK, combining Entso-E data in a single, easy to use platform. It will also allow users to model how systems could operate in future with higher renewables, as global power demand surpasses pre-pandemic levels, helping pinpoint problem areas and highlight where to focus policy and investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro Site C and Clean Energy Policy shapes B.C.'s power mix, affecting run-of-river hydro, net metering for rooftop solar, independent power producers, and surplus capacity forecasts tied to LNG Canada demand.

Key Points

BC Hydro's strategy centers on Site C, limiting new run-of-river projects and tightening net metering amid surplus power

✅ Site C adds long-term capacity with lower projected rates.

✅ Run-of-river IPP growth paused amid surplus forecasts.

✅ Net metering limits deter oversized rooftop solar.

Innergex Renewable Energy Inc. is celebrating the official commissioning today of what may be the last large run-of-river hydro project in B.C. for years to come.

The project – two new generating stations on the Upper Lillooet River and Boulder Creek in the Pemberton Valley – actually began producing power in 2017, but the official commissioning was delayed until Friday September 14.

Innergex, which earlier this year bought out Vancouver’s Alterra Power, invested $491 million in the two run-of-river hydro-electric projects, which have a generating capacity of 106 megawatts of power. The project has the generating capacity to power 39,000 homes.

The commissioning happened to coincide with an address by BC Hydro CEO Chris O’Riley to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade Friday, in which he provided an update on the progress of the $10.7-billion Site C dam project.

That project has put an end, for the foreseeable future, of any major new run-of-river projects like the Innergex project in Pemberton.

BC Hydro expects the new dam to produce a surplus of power when it is commissioned in November 2024, so no new clean energy power calls are expected for years to come.

Independent power producers aren’t the only ones who have seen a decline in opportunities to make money in B.C. providing renewable power, as the Siwash Creek project shows. So will homeowners who over-build their own solar power systems, in an attempt to make money from power sales.

There are about 1,300 homeowners in B.C. with rooftop solar systems, and when they produce surplus power, they can sell it to BC Hydro.

BC Hydro is amending the net metering program to discourage homeowners from over-building. In some cases, some howeowners have been generating 40% to 50% more power than they need.

“We were getting installations that were massively over-sized for their load, and selling this big quantity of power to us,” O’Riley said. “And that was never the idea of the program.”

Going forward, BC Hydro plans to place limits on how much power a homeowner can sell to BC Hydro.

BC Hydro has been criticized for building Site C when the demand for power has been generally flat, and reliance on out-of-province electricity has drawn scrutiny. But O’Riley said the dam isn’t being built for today’s generation, but the next.

“We’re not building Site C for today,” he said. “We have an energy surplus for the short term. We’re not even building it for 2024. We’re building it for the next 100 years.”

O’Riley acknowledged Site C dam has been a contentious and “extremely challenging” project. It has faced numerous court challenges, a late-stage review by the BC Utilities Commission, cost overruns, geotechnical problems and a dispute with the main contractors.

In a separate case, the province was ordered to pay $10 million over the denial of a Squamish power project, highlighting broader legal risk.

But those issues have been resolved, O’Riley said, and the project is back on track with a new construction schedule.

“As we move forward, we have a responsibility to deliver a project on time and against the new revised budget, and I’m confident the changes we’ve made are set up to do that,” O’Riley said.

Currently, there are about 3,300 workers employed on the dam project.

Despite criticisms that BC Hydro is investing in a legacy mega-project at a time when cost of wind and solar have been falling, O’Riley insisted that Site C was the best and lowest cost option.

“First, it’s the lowest cost option,” he said. “We expect over the first 20 years of Site C’s operating life, our customers will see rates 7% to 10% below what it would otherwise be using the alternatives.”

BC Hydro missed a critical window to divert the Peace River, something that can only be done in September, during lower river flows. That added a full year’s delay to the project.

O’Riley said BC Hydro had built in a one-year contingency into the project, so he expects the project can still be completed by 2024 – the original in-service target date. But the delay will add more than $2 billion to the last budget estimate, boosting the estimated capital cost from $8.3 billion to $10.7 billion.

Meeting the 2024 in-service target date could be important, if Royal Dutch Shell and its consortium partners make a final investment decision this year on the $40 billion LNG Canada project.

That project also has a completion target date of 2024, and would be a major new industrial customer with a substantial power draw for operations.

“If they make a decision to go forward, they will be a very big customer of BC Hydro,” O’Riley told Business in Vancouver. “They would be in our top three or four biggest customers.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Carbon Price Support, the UK carbon tax on power, slashed coal generation, cut CO2 emissions, boosted gas and imports via interconnectors, and signaled effective electricity market decarbonization across Great Britain and the EU.

Key Points

A UK power-sector carbon tax that drove coal off the grid, cut emissions, and shifted generation toward gas and imports.

✅ Coal generation fell from 40% to 3% in six years

✅ Rate rose to £18/tCO2 in 2015, boosting the coal-to-gas switch

✅ Added ~£39 to 2018 bills; imports via interconnectors eased prices

A tax on carbon dioxide emissions in Great Britain, introduced in 2013, has led to the proportion of electricity generated from coal falling from 40% to 3% over six years, a trend mirrored by global coal decline in power generation, according to research led by UCL.

British electricity generated from coal fell from 13.1 TWh (terawatt hours) in 2013 to 0.97 TWh in September 2019, and was replaced by other less emission-heavy forms of generation such as gas, as producers move away from coal in many markets. The decline in coal generation accelerated substantially after the tax was increased in 2015.

In the report, 'The Value of International Electricity Trading', researchers from UCL and the University of Cambridge also showed that the tax—called Carbon Price Support—added on average £39 to British household electricity bills, within the broader context of UK net zero policies shaping the energy transition, collecting around £740m for the Treasury, in 2018.

Academics researched how the tax affected electricity flows to connected countries and interconnector (the large cables connecting the countries) revenue between 2015—when the tax was increased to £18 per tonne of carbon dioxide—and 2018. Following this increase, the share of coal-fired electricity generation fell from 28% in 2015 to 5% in 2018, reaching 3% by September 2019. Increased electricity imports from the continent, alongside the EU electricity demand outlook across member states, reduced the price impact in the UK, and meant that some of the cost was paid through a slight increase in continental electricity prices (mainly in France and the Netherlands).

Project lead Dr. Giorgio Castagneto Gissey (Bartlett Institute for Sustainable Resources, UCL) said: "Should EU countries also adopt a high carbon tax we would likely see huge carbon emission reductions throughout the Continent, as we've seen in Great Britain over the last few years."

Lead author, Professor David Newbery (University of Cambridge), said: "The Carbon Price Support provides a clear signal to our neighbours of its efficacy at reducing CO2 emissions."

The Carbon Price Support was introduced in England, Scotland and Wales at a rate of £4.94 per tonne of carbon dioxide-equivalent and is now capped at £18 until 2021.The tax is one part of the Total Carbon Price, which also includes the price of EU Emissions Trading System permits and reflects global CO2 emissions trends shaping policy design.

Report co-author Bowei Guo (University of Cambridge) said: "The Carbon Price Support has been instrumental in driving coal off the grid, but we show how it also creates distortions to cross-border trade, making a case for EU-wide adoption."

Professor Michael Grubb (Bartlett Institute for Sustainable Resources, UCL) said: "Great Britain's electricity transition is a monumental achievement of global interest, and has also demonstrated the power of an effective carbon price in lowering dependence on electricity generated from coal."

The overall report on electricity trading also covers the value of EU interconnectors to Great Britain, measures the efficiency of cross-border electricity trading and considers the value of post-Brexit decoupling from EU electricity markets, setting these findings against the global energy transition underway.

Published today, the report annex focusing on the Carbon Price Support was produced by UCL to focus on the impact of the tax on British energy bills, with comparisons to Canadian climate policy debates informing grid impacts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change 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

Smart Grid Modernization unites distributed energy resources, energy storage, EV charging, advanced metering, and bidirectional power flows to upgrade transmission and distribution infrastructure for reliability, resilience, cybersecurity, and affordable, clean power.

Key Points

Upgrading grid hardware and software to integrate DERs, storage, and EVs for a reliable and affordable power system.

✅ Enables DER, storage, and EV integration with bidirectional flows

✅ Improves reliability, resilience, and grid cybersecurity

✅ Requires early investment in sensors, inverters, and analytics

Much has been written, predicted, and debated in recent years about the future of the electricity system. The discussion isn’t simply about fossil fuels versus renewables, as often dominates mainstream energy discourse. Rather, the discussion is focused on something much larger and more fundamental: the very design of how and where electricity should be generated, delivered, and consumed.

Central to this discussion are arguments in support of, or in opposition to, the traditional model versus that of the decentralized or “emerging” model. But this is a false choice. The only choice that needs making is how to best transition to a smarter grid, and do so in a reliable and affordable manner that reflects grid modernization affordability concerns for utilities today. And the most effective and immediate means to accomplish that is to encourage and facilitate early investment in grid-related infrastructure and technology.

The traditional, or centralized, model has evolved since the days of Thomas Edison, but the basic structure is relatively unchanged: generate electrons at a central power plant, transmit them over a unidirectional system of high-voltage transmission lines, and deliver them to consumers through local distribution networks. The decentralized, or emerging, model envisions a system that moves away from the central power station as the primary provider of electricity to a system in which distributed energy resources, energy storage, electric vehicles, peer-to-peer transactions, connected appliances and devices, and sophisticated energy usage, pricing, and load management software play a more prominent role.

Whether it’s a fully decentralized and distributed power system, or the more likely centralized-decentralized hybrid, it is apparent that the way in which electricity is produced, delivered, and consumed will differ from today’s traditional model. And yet, in many ways, the fundamental design and engineering that makes up today’s electric grid will serve as the foundation for achieving a more distributed future. Indeed, as the transition to a smarter grid ramps up, the grid’s basic structure will remain the underlying commonality, allowing the grid to serve as a facilitator to integrate emerging technologies, including EV charging stations, rooftop solar, demand-side management software, and other distributed energy resources, while maximizing their potential benefits and informing discussions about California’s grid reliability under ambitious transition goals.

A loose analogy here is the internet. In its infancy, the internet was used primarily for sending and receiving email, doing homework, and looking up directions. At the time, it was never fully understood that the internet would create a range of services and products that would impact nearly every aspect of everyday life from online shopping, booking travel, and watching television to enabling the sharing economy and the emerging “Internet of Things.”

Uber, Netflix, Amazon, and Nest would not be possible without the internet. But the rapid evolution of the internet did not occur without significant investment in internet-related infrastructure. From dial-up to broadband to Wi-Fi, companies have invested billions of dollars to update and upgrade the system, allowing the internet to maximize its offerings and give way to technological breakthroughs, innovative businesses, and ways to share and communicate like never before.  

The electric grid is similar; it is both the backbone and the facilitator upon which the future of electricity can be built. If the vision for a smarter grid is to deploy advanced energy technologies, create new business models, and transform the way electricity is produced, distributed, and consumed, then updating and modernizing existing infrastructure and building out new intelligent infrastructure need to be top priorities. But this requires money. To be sure, increased investment in grid-related infrastructure is the key component to transitioning to a smarter grid; a grid capable of supporting and integrating advanced energy technologies within a more digital grid architecture that will result in a cleaner, more modern and efficient, and reliable and secure electricity system.

The inherent challenges of deploying new technologies and resources — reliability, bidirectional flow, intermittency, visibility, and communication, to name a few, as well as emerging climate resilience concerns shaping planning today, are not insurmountable and demonstrate exactly why federal and state authorities and electricity sector stakeholders should be planning for and making appropriate investment decisions now. My organization, Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure, will release a report Wednesday addressing these challenges facing our infrastructure, and the opportunities a distributed smart grid would provide. From upgrading traditional wires and poles and integrating smart power inverters and real-time sensors to deploying advanced communications platforms and energy analytics software, there are numerous technologies currently available and capable of being deployed that warrant investment consideration.

Making these and similar investments will help to identify and resolve reliability issues earlier, and address vulnerabilities identified in the latest power grid report card findings, which in turn will create a stronger, more flexible grid that can then support additional emerging technologies, resulting in a system better able to address integration challenges. Doing so will ease the electricity evolution in the long-term and best realize the full reliability, economic, and environmental benefits that a smarter grid can offer.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News