Juneau forced to cope with sudden energy shortage

Ontario Utilities Hurricane Irma Aid mobilizes Hydro One and Toronto Hydro crews to Tampa Bay, Florida, restoring power outages with bucket trucks, lineworkers, and mutual aid alongside Florida Power & Light after catastrophic damage.

Key Points

Mutual aid sending Hydro One and Toronto Hydro crews to Florida to restore power after Hurricane Irma.

✅ 205 workers, 52 bucket trucks, 30 support vehicles deployed

✅ Crews assist Tampa Bay under FPL mutual aid agreements

✅ Weeks-long restoration projected after catastrophic outages

Hurricane Irma has left nearly 7 million homes in the southern United States without power and two Ontario hydro utility companies are sending teams to help out as part of Canadian power crews responding to the disaster.

Toronto Hydro is sending 30 staffers to aid in the restoration efforts in Tampa Bay while Hydro One said Sunday night that it would send 175 employees after receiving a request from Florida Power and Light.

“I've been on other storms down in the states and they are pretty happy to see you especially when they find out you're from Canada,” Dean Edwards, one of the Hydro One employees heading to Florida, told CTV Toronto.

Most of the employees are expected to cross the border on Monday afternoon and arrive Wednesday.

Among the crews, Hydro One says it will send 150 lines and forestry staff, as well as 25 supporting resources, including mechanics, to help. Crews will bring 52 bucket trucks to Florida, as well as 30 other vehicles, reflecting their Ontario storm restoration experience with large-scale deployments, and pieces of equipment to transport and replace poles.

Hurricane Irma has claimed at least 45 lives in the Caribbean and United States thus far. Officials estimate that restoring power to Florida will take weeks to bring power back online.

“I’m sure a lot of people wish they could go down and help, fortunately our job is geared towards that so we're going to go down there to do our best and represent Canada,” said Blair Clarke, who’s making his first trip over the border.

Hydro One has reciprocal arrangements with other North American utilities to help with significant power outages, and its employees have provided COVID-19 support in Ontario as part of broader emergency efforts. All the costs are covered by the utility receiving the help.

In the past, the utility has sent crews to Massachusetts, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Vermont, Washington, DC, and the Carolinas, while Sudbury Hydro crews have worked to reconnect service after storms at home as well. In 2012, 225 Hydro One employees travelled to Long Island, N.Y., to help out with Hurricane Sandy.

“This is what our guys and gals do,” Natalie Poole-Moffat, vice president of Corporate Affairs for Hydro One, told CP24. “They’re fabulous at it and we’re really proud of the work they do.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Spain Electricity Demand April 2020 saw a 17.3% year-on-year drop as COVID-19 lockdown curbed activity; renewables and wind power lifted the emission-free share, while combined cycle plants dominated islands, per REE data.

Key Points

A 17.3% y/y decline amid COVID-19 lockdown, with 47.9% renewables and wind at 21.3% of the national power mix.

✅ Mainland demand -17%; Balearic -27.6%; Canary -20.3%.

✅ Emission-free share: 49.7% on the peninsula in April.

✅ Combined cycle led islands; coal absent in Balearics.

Demand for electricity in Spain dropped by 17.3% year-on-year to an estimated 17,104 GWh in April, aligning with a 15% global daily demand dip during the pandemic, while the country’s economy slowed down under the national state of emergency and lockdown measures imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19.

According to the latest estimates by Spanish grid operator Red Electrica de Espana (REE), the decline in demand was registered across Spain’s entire national territory, similar to a 10% UK drop during lockdown. On the mainland, it decreased by 17% to 16,191 GWh, while on the Balearic and the Canary Islands it plunged by 27.6% and 20.3%, respectively.

Renewables accounted for 47.9% of the total national electricity production in April, echoing Britain’s cleanest electricity trends during lockdown. Wind power production went down 20% year-on-year to 3,730 GWh, representing a 21.3% share in the total power mix.

During April, electricity generation in the peninsula was mostly based on emission-free technologies, reflecting an accelerated power-system transition across Europe, with renewables accounting for 49.7%. Wind farms produced 3,672 GWh, 20.1% less compared to April 2019, while contributing 22% to the power mix, even as global demand later surpassed pre-pandemic levels in subsequent periods.

In the Balearic Islands, electricity demand of 323,296 MWh was for the most part met by combined cycle power plants, even as some European demand held firm in later lockdowns, which accounted for 78.3% of the generation. Renewables and emission-free technologies had a combined share of 6.4%, while coal was again absent from the local power mix, completing now four consecutive months without contributing a single MWh.

In the Canary Islands system, demand for power decreased to 558,619 MWh, even as surging demand elsewhere strained power systems across the world. Renewables and emission-free technologies made up 14.3% of the mix, while combined cycle power plants led with a 45.3% share.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada Tariffs on U.S. Energy and Minerals signal retaliatory tariffs amid trade tensions, targeting energy exports and critical minerals, reflecting sovereignty concerns and shifting consumer behavior, reduced U.S. purchases, and demand for Canadian-made goods.

Key Points

They are proposed retaliatory tariffs on energy exports and critical minerals to counter U.S. trade pressures.

✅ 75% support tariffs; 70% back dollar-for-dollar retaliation

✅ Consumer shift: fewer U.S. purchases, more Canadian-made goods

✅ Concerns over sovereignty and U.S. trade tactics intensify

A recent survey has revealed that a significant majority of Canadians—approximately 75%—support the implementation of tariffs on energy exports and critical minerals in response to electricity exports at risk amid trade tensions with the United States. This finding underscores the nation's readiness to adopt assertive measures to protect its economic interests amid escalating trade disputes.​

Background on Trade Tensions

The trade relationship between Canada and the United States has experienced fluctuations in recent years, with both nations navigating complex issues related to tariffs and energy tariffs and trade tensions as well as trade agreements and economic policies. The introduction of tariffs has been a contentious strategy, often leading to reciprocal measures and impacting various sectors of the economy.​

Public Sentiment Towards Retaliatory Tariffs

The survey, conducted by Leger between February 14 and 17, 2025, sampled 1,500 Canadians and found that 70% favored implementing dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. Notably, 45% of respondents were strongly in favor, while 25% were somewhat in favor. This strong support reflects widespread dissatisfaction with U.S. trade policies and growing support for Canadian energy projects among voters, alongside a collective sentiment favoring decisive action. ​

Concerns Over U.S. Economic Strategies

The survey also highlighted that 81% of Canadians are apprehensive about potential U.S. economic tactics aimed at drawing Canada into a closer political union. These concerns are fueled by statements from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has suggested annexation and employed tariffs that could spike NY energy prices to influence Canadian sovereignty. Such sentiments have heightened fears about the erosion of Canada's political autonomy under economic duress. ​

Impact on Consumer Behavior

In response to these trade tensions, including reports that Ford threatened to cut U.S. electricity exports, many Canadians have adjusted their purchasing habits. The survey indicated that 63% of respondents are buying fewer American products in stores, and 62% are reducing online purchases from U.S. retailers. Specific declines include a 52% reduction in Amazon purchases, a 50% drop in fast-food consumption from American chains, and a 43% decrease in spending at U.S.-based retail stores. Additionally, 30% of Canadians have canceled planned trips to the United States, while 68% have increased their purchases of Canadian-made products. These shifts demonstrate a tangible impact on consumer behavior driven by nationalistic sentiments and support for retaliatory measures. ​

Economic and Political Implications

The widespread support for retaliatory tariffs and the corresponding changes in consumer behavior have significant economic and political implications. Economically, while tariffs can serve as a tool for asserting national interests, they also risk triggering trade wars that can harm various sectors, including agriculture, manufacturing, and technology, with experts cautioning against cutting Quebec's energy exports in response. Politically, the situation presents a challenge for Canadian leadership to balance assertiveness in defending national interests with the necessity of maintaining a stable and mutually beneficial relationship with the U.S., Canada's largest trading partner.​

As Canada approaches its federal elections, trade policy is emerging as a pivotal issue. Voters are keenly interested in how political parties propose to navigate the complexities of international trade, particularly with the United States and how a potential U.S. administration's stance, such as Biden's approach to the energy sector could shape outcomes. The electorate's strong stance on retaliatory tariffs may influence party platforms and campaign strategies, emphasizing the need for clear and effective policies that address both the immediate concerns of trade disputes and the long-term goal of sustaining positive international relations.​

The survey results reflect a nation deeply engaged with its trade dynamics and protective of its sovereignty. While support for retaliatory tariffs is robust, it is essential for policymakers to carefully consider the broader consequences of such actions. Striking a balance between defending national interests and fostering constructive international relationships will be crucial as Canada navigates these complex trade challenges in the coming years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

100% Clean Energy Targets drive renewable electricity, decarbonization, and cost savings through state policies, CCAs, RECs, and mandates, with timelines and interim goals that boost jobs, resilience, and public health across cities, counties, and utilities.

Key Points

Policies for cities and states to reach 100% clean power by set dates, using mandates, RECs, and interim goals.

✅ Define eligible clean vs renewable resources

✅ Mandate vs goal framework with enforcement

✅ Timelines with interim targets and escape clauses

“An enormous amount of authority still rests with the states for determining your energy future. So we can build these policies that will become a postcard from the future for the rest of the country,” said David Hochschild, chair of the California Energy Commission, speaking last week at a UCLA summit on state and local progress toward 100 percent clean energy.

According to a new report from the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, 13 states, districts and territories, as well as more than 200 cities and counties, with standout clean energy purchases by Southeast cities helping drive momentum, have committed to a 100 percent clean electricity target — and dozens of cities have already hit it.

This means that one of every three Americans, or roughly 111 million U.S. residents representing 34 percent of the population, live in a community that has committed to or has already achieved 100 percent clean electricity, including communities like Frisco, Colorado that have set ambitious targets.

“We’re going to look back on this moment as the moment when local action and state commitments began to push the entire nation toward this goal,” said J.R. DeShazo, director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation.

Not all 100 percent targets are alike, however. The report notes that these targets vary based on 1) what resources are eligible, 2) how binding the 100 percent target is, and 3) how and when the target will be achieved.

These distinctions will carry a lot of weight as the policy discussion shifts from setting goals to actually meeting targets. They also have implications for communities in terms of health benefits, cost savings and employment opportunities.

100% targets come in different forms

One key attribute is whether a target is based on "renewable" or "clean" energy resources. Some 100 percent targets, like Hawaii’s and Rhode Island’s 2030 plan, are focused exclusively on renewable energy, or sources that cannot be depleted, such as wind, solar and geothermal. But most jurisdictions use the broader term “clean energy,” which can also include resources like large hydroelectric generation and nuclear power.

States also vary in their treatment of renewable energy certificates, used to track and assign ownership to renewable energy generation and use. Unbundled RECs allow for the environmental attributes of the renewable energy resource to be purchased separately from the physical electricity delivery.

The binding nature of these targets is also noteworthy. Seven states, as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, have passed 100 percent clean energy transition laws. Of the jurisdictions that have passed 100 percent legislation, all but one specifies that the target is a “mandate,” according to the report. Nevada is the only state to call the target a “goal.”

Governors in four other states have signed executive orders with 100 percent clean energy goals.

Target timelines also vary. Washington, D.C. has set the most ambitious target date, with a mandate to achieve 100 percent renewable electricity by 2032. Other states and cities have set deadline years between 2040 and 2050. All "100 percent" state laws, and some city and county policies, also include interim targets to keep clean energy deployment on track.

In addition, some locations have included some form of escape clause. For instance, Salt Lake City, which last month passed a resolution establishing a goal of powering the county with 100 percent clean electricity by 2030, included “exit strategies” in its policy in order to encourage stakeholder buy-in, said Mayor Jackie Biskupski, speaking last week at the UCLA summit.

“We don’t think they’ll get used, but they’re there,” she said.

Other locales, meanwhile, have decided to go well beyond 100 percent clean electricity. The State of California and 44 cities have set even more challenging targets to also transition their entire transportation, heating and cooling sectors to 100 percent clean energy sources, and proposals like requiring solar panels on new buildings underscore how policy can accelerate progress across sectors.

Businesses are simultaneously electing to adopt more clean and renewable energy. Six utilities across the United States have set their own 100 percent clean or carbon-free electricity targets. UCLA researchers did not include populations served by these utilities in their analysis of locations with state and city 100 percent clean commitments.

“We cannot wait”

All state and local policies that require a certain share of electricity to come from renewable energy resources have contributed to more efficient project development and financing mechanisms, which have supported continued technology cost declines and contributed to a near doubling of renewable energy generation since 2008.

Many communities are switching to clean energy in order to save money, now that the cost calculation is increasingly in favor of renewables over fossil fuels, as more jurisdictions get on the road to 100% renewables worldwide. Additional benefits include local job creation, cleaner air and electricity system resilience due to greater reliance on local energy resources.

Another major motivator is climate change. The electricity sector is responsible for 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, second only to transportation. Decarbonizing the grid also helps to clean up the transportation sector as more vehicles move to electricity as their fuel source.

“The now-constant threat of wildfires, droughts, severe storms and habitat loss driven by climate change signals a crisis we can no longer ignore,” said Carla Peterman, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at investor-owned utility Southern California Edison. “We cannot wait and we should not wait when there are viable solutions to pursue now.”

Prior to joining SCE on October 1, Peterman served as a member of the California Public Utilities Commission, which implements and administers renewable portfolio standard (RPS) compliance rules for California’s retail sellers of electricity. California’s target requires 60 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy resources by 2030, and all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.  

How CCAs are driving renewable energy deployment

One way California communities are working to meet the state’s ambitious targets is through community-choice aggregation, especially after California's near-100% renewable milestone underscored what's possible, via which cities and counties can take control of their energy procurement decisions to suit their preferences. Investor-owned utilities no longer purchase energy for these jurisdictions, but they continue to operate the transmission and distribution grid for all electricity users.                           

A second paper released by the Luskin Center for Innovation in recent days examines how community-choice aggregators are affecting levels of renewable energy deployment in California and contributing to the state’s 100 percent target.

The paper finds that 19 CCAs have launched in California since 2010, growing to include more than 160 towns, cities and counties. Of those communities, 64 have a 100 percent renewable or clean energy policy as their default energy program.

Because of these policies, the UCLA paper finds that “CCAs have had both direct and indirect effects that have led to increases in the clean energy sold in excess of the state’s RPS.”

From 2011 to 2018, CCAs directly procured 24 terawatt-hours of RPS-eligible electricity, 11 TWh of which have been voluntary or in excess of RPS compliance, according to the paper.

The formation of CCAs has also had an indirect effect on investor-owned utilities. As customers have left investor-owned utilities to join CCAs, the utilities have been left holding contracts for more renewable energy than they need to comply with California’s clean energy targets, amid rising solar and wind curtailments that complicate procurement decisions. UCLA researchers estimate that this indirect effect of CCA formation has left IOUs holding 13 terawatt-hours in excess of RPS requirements.

The paper concludes that CCAs have helped to accelerate California’s ability to meet state renewable energy targets over the past decade. However, the future contributions of CCAs to the RPS are more uncertain as communities make new power-purchasing decisions and utilities seek to reduce their excess renewable energy contracts.

“CCAs offer a way for communities to put their desire for clean energy into action. They're growing fast in California, one of only eight states where this kind of mechanism is allowed," said UCLA's Kelly Trumbull, an author of the report. "State and federal policies could be reformed to better enable communities to meet local demand for renewable energy.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy 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

Hydro One CEO Mark Poweska aims to rebuild ties with Ontario's provincial government, investors, and communities, stabilize the executive team, boost earnings and dividends, and reset strategy after the scrapped Avista deal and regulatory setbacks.

Key Points

He plans to mend government and investor relations, rebuild the C-suite, and refocus growth after the failed Avista bid.

✅ Rebuild ties with Ontario government and regulators

✅ Stabilize executive team and governance

✅ Refocus growth after Avista deal termination

The incoming chief executive officer of Hydro One Ltd. said Thursday that he aims to rebuild the relationship between the Ontario electrical utility and the provincial government, as seen in COVID-19 support initiatives, as well as ties between the company and its investors.

Mark Poweska, the former executive vice-president of operations at BC Hydro, was announced as Hydro One’s new president and CEO in March. His hiring followed a turbulent period for Toronto-based Hydro One, Ontario’s biggest distributor and transmitter of electricity, with large-scale storm restoration efforts underscoring its role.

Hydro One’s former CEO and board of directors departed last year under pressure from a new Ontario government, the utility’s biggest shareholder. Earlier this year, the company’s plan for a $6.7-billion takeover fell apart over concerns of political interference and the utility clashed with the new provincial government and Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford over executive compensation levels, amid rate policy debates such as no peak rate cuts for self-isolating customers.

Hydro One facing $885 million charge as regulator upholds tax decision forcing it to share savings with customers

Shares of Hydro One were up more than eight per cent year-to-date on Wednesday, closing at $21.74. However, the stock price was up only six per cent from Hydro One’s 2015 initial public offering price, something its incoming CEO seems set on changing.

“One of my first priorities will be to solidify the executive team and build relationships with the Government of Ontario, our customers, informed by customer flexibility research, and communities, indigenous leaders, investors, and our partners across the electricity sector,” Poweska said Thursday on a conference call outlining Hydro One’s first-quarter results. “At the same time, I will be working to earn the trust and confidence of the investment community.”

Hydro One reported a profit of $171 million for the three months ended March 31, while peers such as Hydro-Québec reported pandemic-related losses as the sector adapted. Net income for the first quarter was down from $222 million a year earlier, which was due to $140 million in costs related to the scrapping of Hydro One’s proposed acquisition of U.S. energy company Avista Corp.

Hydro One Ltd. appointed Mark Poweska as President and CEO.

In January, Hydro One said the proposed takeover of Spokane, Wash.-headquartered Avista, an approximately $6.7-billion deal announced in July 2017, was being called off. As a result, Hydro One said it would pay Avista a US$103 million break fee.

Revenues net of purchased power for the first quarter rose to $952 million, up by 15.4 per cent compared to last year, Hydro One said, helped by higher distribution revenues. Adjusted profit for the quarter, which removes the Avista-related costs, was $311 million, up from $210 million a year ago.

The company is hiking its quarterly dividend to 24.15 cents per share, up five per cent from the last increase in May 2018, while also launching a pandemic relief fund for customers.

Poweska is taking over for acting president and CEO Paul Dobson this month, and the new executive will be charged with revamping Hydro One’s C-suite.

The company’s chief operating officer, chief legal officer, and chief corporate development officer have all departed this year. The company’s chief human resource officer has retired as well, although Poweska did announce Thursday that he had appointed acting chief financial officer Chris Lopez as CFO.

“Hydro One’s significant bench strength and management depth will ensure stability and continuity during this period of transition, as the sector pursues Hydro-Québec energy transition as well,” the company said in its first-quarter earnings press release.

Ontario remains Hydro One’s biggest shareholder, owning approximately 47 per cent of the company.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News