AECL aborts reactor development

Clean Energy Industry Support includes tax credits, refundability, safe harbor extensions, EV incentives, and stimulus measures to stabilize renewable energy projects, protect the workforce, and ensure financing continuity during economic recovery.

Key Points

Policies and funding to stabilize renewables, protect jobs, and extend tax incentives for workforce continuity.

✅ Extend PTC/ITC and remove phase-outs to sustain projects

✅ Enable direct pay or refundability to unlock financing

✅ Preserve safe harbor timelines disrupted by supply chains

U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) led 17 Senate colleagues, as the Senate moves to modernize public-land renewables, in sending a letter calling on Congress to include support for the United States' clean energy industry and workforce in any economic aid packages.

"As Congress takes steps to ensure that our nation's workforce is prepared to emerge stronger from the coronavirus health and economic crisis, we must act to shore up clean energy businesses and workers who are uniquely impacted by the crisis, echoing a power-sector call for action from industry groups," said the senators. "This action, which has precedent in prior financial recovery efforts, could take several forms, including tax credit extensions or removal of the current phase-out schedule, direct payment or refundability, or extensions of safe harbor continuity."

"We need to make sure that any package protects workers and helps families stay afloat in these challenging times. Providing support to the clean energy industry will give much-needed certainty and confidence, as the sector targets a market majority, for those workers that they will be able to keep their paychecks and their jobs in this critical industry," the senators also said.

In addition to Senator Cortez Masto, the letter was also signed by Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Wyden:

As Congress takes steps to ensure that our nation's workforce is prepared to emerge stronger from the coronavirus health and economic crisis, we must act to shore up clean energy businesses and workers who are uniquely impacted by the crisis, with wind investments at risk amid the pandemic. This action, which has precedent in prior financial recovery efforts, could take several forms, including tax credit extensions or removal of the current phase-out schedule, direct payment or refundability, or extensions of safe harbor continuity.

First and foremost, we need to take care of workers' health and immediate needs to stay in their homes and provide for their families, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act is a critical down payment. Now, we must make sure the workforce has jobs to return to and that employers remain able to pay for critical benefits like paid sick and family leave, healthcare, and Unemployment Insurance.

The renewable energy industry employs over 800,000 people across every state in the United States. This industry and its workers could suffer significant harms as a result of the coronavirus emergency and resulting financial impact. Renewable energy businesses are already seeing project cancellations or delays, as the Covid-19 crisis hits solar and wind across the sector, with the solar industry reporting delays of 30 percent. Likewise, the energy efficiency sector is susceptible to similar impacts. As the coronavirus pandemic intensifies in the United States, that rate of delay or cancellations will only continue to skyrocket. Global and domestic supply chains are already facing chaotic changes, with equipment delays of three to four months for parts of the industry. A major collapse in financing is all but certain as investment firms' profits turn to losses and capital is suddenly unavailable for large labor-intensive investments.

To ensure that we do not lose years of progress on clean energy and the source of employment for tens of thousands of renewable energy workers, Congress should look to previous relief packages as an example for how to support this sector and the broader American economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the Recovery Act or ARRA) provided over $90 billion in funding for clean energy and grid modernization, along with emergency relief programs. Specifically, ARRA provided immediate funding streams like the 1603 Cash Grant program for renewables and the 30 percent clean energy manufacturing tax credit to give immediate relief for the clean energy industry. As Congress develops this new package, it should consider these immediate relief programs for the renewable and clean energy industry, especially as analyses suggest green energy could drive Covid-19 recovery at scale. This could include direct payment or refundability, extensions of safe harbor continuity, tax credit extensions, electric vehicle credit expansion, or removal of the current phase-out schedules for the clean energy industry.

We need to make sure that any package protects workers and helps families stay afloat in these challenging times. Providing support to the clean energy industry will give much-needed certainty and confidence for those workers that they will be able to keep their paychecks and their jobs in this critical industry.

These strategies to provide assistance to the clean energy industry must be included in any financial recovery discussions, particularly if the Trump Administration continues its push to aid the oil industry, even as some advocate a total fossil fuel lockdown to accelerate climate action. We appreciate your consideration and collaboration as we do everything in our power to quickly recover from this health and economic emergency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Texas Power Grid Blackouts loom as ERCOT forecasts record air conditioning load, tight reserve margins, peak demand spikes, and rising natural gas prices; heatwaves could trigger brownouts without added solar, storage, and demand response.

Key Points

Texas Power Grid Blackouts are outages when AC-driven peak demand and ERCOT reserves outstrip supply during heatwaves.

✅ ERCOT forecasts record AC load and tight reserve margins.

✅ Coal retirements cut capacity; gas and solar additions lag.

✅ Peak prices, brownouts likely without storage and demand response.

U.S. Air conditioning related electricity usage will break records and may cause blackouts across the U.S. and in Texas this summer. Power grid operators are forecasting that electricity supplies will exceed demands during the summer months.

Most of Texas will face severe electricity shortages because of hot temperatures, air conditioning, and a strong economy, with millions at risk of electricity shut-offs during extreme heat, Bill Magness the president of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) told the Associated Press. Magness thinks the large numbers people moving to Texas for retirement will increase the demand for air conditioning and electricity use. Retired people are more likely to be home during the day when temperatures are high – so they are more likely to turn up the air conditioner.

Around 50% of all electricity in Texas is used for air conditioning and 100% of homes in Texas have air conditioners, Forbes reported. That means just a few hot days can strain the grid and a heatwave can trigger brownouts and blackouts, in a system with more blackouts than other developed countries on average.

The situation was made worse by Vistra Energy’s decision to close more coal-fired power plants last year, The Austin American Statesman reported. The closed plants; Big Brown, Sadow, and Monticello, generated around 4,100 megawatts (4.1 million watts) of electricity, enough generation capacity to power two million homes, The Waco Herald-Tribune reported.

Texas Electric Grid Might Not Meet Demand

Texas’s grid has never operated without those plants will make this summer a test of its capacity. Texas only has a 6% reserve of electricity that might fall will because of problems like downed lines or a power plant going offline.

A Vistra subsidiary called Luminant has added around 8,000 megawatts of generation capacity from natural-gas burning plants, The Herald-Tribune reported. Luminant also plans to open a giant solar power plant in Texas to increase grid capacity.

The Texas grid already reached peak capacity in May because of unexpectedly high demand and technical problems that reflect more frequent outages in many states, Houston Public Media reported. Grid capacity fell because portions of the system were offline for maintenance.

Some analysts have suggested starting schools after Labor Day to shift peak August demand, potentially easing stress on the grid.

Electricity Reserves are Tight in Texas

Electricity reserves will be very tight on hot summer days in Texas this summer, Magness predicted. When the thermometer rises, people crank up the air conditioner which burns more electricity.

The grid operator ERCOT anticipates that Texas will need an additional 1,600 megawatts of electricity this summer, but record-high temperatures can significantly increase the demand. If everything is running correctly, Texas’s grid can produce up to 78,184 megawatts of electricity.

“The margin between absolute peak power usage and available peak supply is tighter than in years past,” Andrew Barlow, a spokesman for Texas’s Public Utility Commission admitted.

Around 90% of Texas’s grid has enough generating capacity, ERCOT estimated. That means 10% of Texas’s power grid lacks sufficient generating capacity which increases the possibility of blackouts.

Even if the electricity supply is adequate electricity prices can go up in Texas because of higher natural gas prices, Forbes reported. Natural gas prices might go up over the summer because of increased electricity demands. Texas uses between 8% and 9% of America’s natural gas supply to generate electricity for air conditioning in the summer.

Be Prepared For Blackouts This Summer.

Texas’s problems might affect other regions including neighboring states such as Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and New Mexico and parts of Mexico, as lawmakers push to connect Texas’s grid to the rest of the nation to improve resilience because those areas are connected to the same grid. Electricity from states like Colorado might be diverted to Texas in case of power shortages there.

Beyond the U.S., Canadian electricity grids are increasingly exposed to harsh weather that can ripple across markets as well.

Home and business owners can avoid summer blackouts by tapping sources of Off-Grid electricity. The two best sources are backup battery storage and solar panels which can run your home or business if the grid runs dry.

If you have family members with health problems who need air conditioning, or you rely on a business or freelance work that requires electricity for income, backup power is vital. Those who need backup electricity for their business should be able to use the expense of installing it as a tax deduction.

Having backup electricity available might be the only way for Texans to keep cool this summer.

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

DOE Wind Energy Funding backs 13 R&D projects advancing offshore wind, distributed energy, and utility-scale turbines, including microgrids, battery storage, nacelle and blade testing, tall towers, and rural grid integration across the United States.

Key Points

DOE Wind Energy Funding is a $28M R&D effort in offshore, distributed, and utility-scale wind to lower cost and risk.

✅ $6M for rural microgrids, storage, and grid integration.

✅ $7M for offshore R&D, nacelle and long-blade testing.

✅ Up to $10M demos; $5M for tall tower technology.

The U.S. Department of Energy announced that in order to advance wind energy in the U.S., 13 projects have been selected to receive $28 million. Project topics focus on technology development while covering distributed, offshore wind growth and utility-scale wind found on land.

The selections were announced by the DOE’s Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Daniel R. Simmons, at the American Wind Energy Association Offshore Windpower Conference in Boston, as New York's offshore project momentum grows nationwide.

Wind Project Awards

According to the DOE, four Wind Innovations for Rural Economic Development projects will receive a total of $6 million to go toward supporting rural utilities via facilitating research drawing on U.K. wind lessons for deployment that will allow wind projects to integrate with other distributed energy resources.

These endeavors include:

Bergey WindPower (Norman, Oklahoma) working on developing a standardized distributed wind/battery/generator micro-grid system for rural utilities;

Electric Power Research Institute (Palo Alto, California) working on developing modeling and operations for wind energy and battery storage technologies, as large-scale projects in New York progress, that can both help boost wind energy and facilitate rural grid stability;

Iowa State University (Ames, Iowa) working on optimization models and control algorithms to help rural utilities balance wind and other energy resources; and

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Arlington, Virginia) providing the development of standardized wind engineering options to help rural-area adoption of wind.

Another six projects are to receive a total of $7 million to facilitate research and development in offshore wind, as New York site investigations advance, with these projects including:

Clemson University (North Charleston, South Carolina) improving offshore-scale wind turbine nacelle testing via a “hardware-in-the-loop capability enabling concurrent mechanical, electrical and controller testing on the 7.5-megawatt dynamometer at its Wind Turbine Drivetrain Testing Facility to accelerate 1 GW on the grid progress”; and

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (Boston) upgrading its Wind Technology Testing Center to facilitate structural testing of 85- to 120-meter-long (roughly 278- to 393-foot-long) blades, as BOEM lease requests expand, among other projects.

Additionally, two offshore wind technology demonstration projects will receive up to $10 million for developing initiatives connected to reducing wind energy risk and cost. One last project will also be granted $5 million for the development of tall tower technology that can help overcome restrictions associated with transportation.

“These projects will be instrumental in driving down technology costs and increasing consumer options for wind across the United States as part of our comprehensive energy portfolio,” said Simmons.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Gaza Electricity Crisis drives severe power cuts in the Gaza Strip, as Hamas-PA tensions and Mahmoud Abbas's supply reductions under blockade spur fuel shortages, hospital strain, and soaring demand for batteries, LED lights, and generators.

Key Points

A prolonged Gaza power shortage from politics, blockade, and fuel cuts, disrupting daily life, hospitals, and water.

✅ Demand surges for batteries, LED lights, and generators

✅ PA cuts to Israel-supplied power deepen shortages

✅ Hospitals, water, and sanitation face critical strain

In Imad Shlayl’s electronics shop in Gaza City, the customers crowding his store are interested in only two products: LED lights and the batteries to power them.

In the already impoverished Gaza Strip, residents have learned to adapt to the fact that electricity is only available for between two and four hours a day.

But fresh anger was sparked when availability was cut further last month, at the request of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in an escalation of his conflict with Hamas, the Islamist group.

The shortages have defined how people live their lives, echoing Europe’s energy crisis in other regions: getting up in the middle of the night, if there is power, to run washing machines or turn on water pumps.

Only the wealthy few have frequent, long-lasting access to electricity, even as U.S. brownout risks highlight grid fragility, to power lights and fans and fridges, televisions and wifi routers, in Gaza’s stifling summer heat.

“We used to sell all sorts of things,” says Shlayl. “But it’s different these days. All we sell is batteries and chargers. Because the crisis is so deep we are selling 100 batteries a day when normally we would sell 20.”

Gaza requires 430 megawatts of power to meet daily demand, but receives only half that. Sixty megawatts are supplied by its solitary power station, now short on fuel, while the rest is provided through the Israel’s power sector and funded by Abbas’s West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA).

Abbas’s move to cut supplies to Gaza, which is already under a joint Israeli and Egyptian blockade – now in its 11th year – has quickly made him a hate figure among many Gazans, who question why he is punishing 2 million fellow Palestinians in what appears to be an attempt to force Hamas to relinquish control of the territory.

Though business is good for Shlayl, he is angry at the fresh shortages faced by Gazans which, as pandemic power shut-offs elsewhere have shown, affect all areas of life, from hospital emergency wards to clean water supplies.

“I’ve not done anything to be punished by anyone. It is the worst I can remember but we are expecting it to get worse and worse,” he said. “Not just electricity, but other things as well. We are in a very deep descent.”

As well as cutting electricity, the PA has cut salaries for its employees in Gaza by upwards of 30% , prompting thousands to protest on the streets of Gaza city.

Residents also blame Abbas for a backlog in processing the medical referral process for those needing to travel out of Gaza for treatment, although who is at fault in that issue is less clear cut.

The problems facing Gaza – where high levels of unemployment are endemic – is most obvious in the poorest areas.

In Gaza City’s al-Shati refugee camp, home to the head of Hamas’s political bureau, Ismail Haniyeh, whole housing blocks were dark, while in others only a handful of windows were weakly illuminated.

In the one-room kiosk selling pigeons and chickens that he manages, just off the camp’s main market, Ayman Nasser, 32, is sitting on the street with his friends in search of a sea breeze.

His face is illuminated by the light of his mobile phone. He has one battery-powered light burning in his shop.

“Part of the problem is that we don’t have any news. Who should we blame for this? Hamas, Israelis, Abbas?” he said.

 A Palestinian girl reads by candle light due to power cut at the Jabalia Camp in Gaza City
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
 A Palestinian girl reads by candlelight due to a power cut at the Jabalia camp in Gaza City. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
His friend, Ashraf Kashqin, interrupts: “It is all connected to politics, but it is us who is getting played by the two sides.”

If there is a question that all the Palestinians in Gaza are asking, it is what the ageing and remote Abbas hopes to achieve, a dynamic also seen in Lebanon’s electricity disputes, not least whether he hopes the cuts will lead to an insurrection against Hamas following demonstrations linked to the power supply in January.

While a senior official in the Fatah-led government on the West Bank said last month that the aim behind the move by the PA – which has been paying $12m (£9m) a month for the electricity Israel supplies to Gaza – was to “dry up Hamas’s financial resources”, others are dubious about the timing, the motive and the real impact.

Among them are human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, who have warned it could turn Gaza’s long-running crisis into a major disaster already hitting hospitals and waste treatment plants.

“For 10 years the siege has unlawfully deprived Palestinians in Gaza of their most basic rights and necessities. Under the burden of the illegal blockade and three armed conflicts, the economy has sharply declined and humanitarian conditions have deteriorated severely. The latest power cuts risk turning an already dire situation into a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe,” said Magdalena Mughrabi, of the group.

Then there is the question of timing. “Abbas is probably the only one who knows why he is doing this to Gaza,” adds Mohameir Abu Sa’da, a political science professor at Al Azhar University and analyst.

“I honestly don’t buy what he has been saying for the last three months: that he will take exceptional measures against Hamas to put pressure on it to give up control of the Gaza Strip.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News