SmartSynch wants to cut visits by meter readers

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

Fukushima Daiichi decommissioning delay highlights TEPCO's revised timeline, spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2, safety enclosures, decontamination, fuel debris extraction by robot arm, and contaminated water management under stricter radiation control.

Key Points

A government revised schedule pushing back spent fuel removal and decommissioning milestones at Fukushima Daiichi.

✅ TEPCO delays spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2 for safety.

✅ Enclosures, decontamination, and robotics mitigate radioactive risk.

✅ Contaminated water cut target: 170 tons/day to 100 by 2025.

The Japanese government decided Friday to delay the removal of spent fuel from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant's Nos. 1 and 2 reactors by as much as five years, casting doubt on whether it can stick to its timeframe for dismantling the crippled complex.

The process of removing the spent fuel from the units' pools had previously been scheduled to begin in the year through March 2024.

In its latest decommissioning plan, the government said the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., will not begin the roughly two-year process (a timeline comparable to major reactor refurbishment programs seen worldwide) at the No. 1 unit at least until the year through March 2028 and may wait until the year through March 2029.

Work at the No. 2 unit is now slated to start between the year through March 2025 and the year through March 2027, it said.

The delay is necessary to take further safety precautions such as the construction of an enclosure around the No. 1 unit to prevent the spread of radioactive dust, and decontamination of the No. 2 unit, even as authorities have begun reopening previously off-limits towns nearby, the government said. It is the fourth time it has revised its schedule for removing the spent fuel rods.

"It's a very difficult process and it's hard to know what to expect. The most important thing is the safety of the workers and the surrounding area," industry minister Hiroshi Kajiyama told a press conference.

The government set a new goal of finishing the removal of the 4,741 spent fuel rods across all six of the plant's reactors by the year through March 2032, amid ongoing debates about the consequences of early nuclear plant closures elsewhere.

Plant operator TEPCO has started the process at the No. 3 unit and already finished at the No. 4 unit, which was off-line for regular maintenance at the time of the disaster. A schedule has yet to be set for the Nos. 5 and 6 reactors.

While the government maintained its overarching timeframe of finishing the decommissioning of the plant 30 to 40 years from the 2011 crisis triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, there may be further delays, even as milestones at other nuclear projects are being reached worldwide.

The government said it will begin removing fuel debris from the three reactors that experienced core meltdowns in the year through March 2022, starting with the No. 2 unit as part of broader reactor decommissioning efforts.

The process, considered the most difficult part of the decommissioning plan, will involve using a robot arm, reflecting progress in advanced reactors technologies, to initially remove small amounts of debris, moving up to larger amounts.

The government also said it will aim to reduce the pace at which contaminated water at the plant increases. Water for cooling the melted cores, mixed with underground water, amounts to around 170 tons a day. That number will be brought down to 100 tons by 2025, it said.

The water is being treated to remove the most radioactive materials and stored in tanks on the plant's grounds, but already more than 1 million tons has been collected and space is expected to run out by the summer of 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Electricity Trade by State, 2013-2017 highlights EIA grid patterns, interstate imports and exports, cross-border flows with Canada and Mexico, net exporters and importers, and market regions like ISOs and RTOs shaping consumption and generation.

Key Points

Brief EIA overview of interstate and cross-border power flows, ranking top net importers and exporters.

✅ Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter, averaging 59 million MWh.

✅ California was the largest net importer, averaging 77 million MWh.

✅ Top cross-border: NY, CA, VT, MN, MI imports; WA, TX, CA, NY, MT exports.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) State Electricity Profiles, from 2013 to 2017, Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter of electricity, while California was the largest net importer.

Pennsylvania exported an annual average of 59 million megawatt-hours (MWh), while California imported an average of 77 million MWh annually.

Based on the share of total consumption in each state, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Idaho and Delaware were the five largest power-importing states between 2013 and 2017, highlighting how some clean states import 'dirty' electricity as consumption outpaces local generation. Wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana and New Hampshire were the five largest power-exporting states. Wyoming and West Virginia were net power exporting states between 2013 and 2017.

New York, California, Vermont, Minnesota and Michigan imported the most electricity from Canada or Mexico on average from 2013 to 2017, reflecting the U.S. look to Canada for green power during that period. Similarly, Washington, Texas, California, New York, and Montana exported the most electricity to Canada or Mexico, on average, during the same period.

Electricity routinely flows among the Lower 48 states and, to a lesser extent, between the United States and Canada and Mexico. From 2013 to 2017, Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter of electricity, sending an annual average of 59 million megawatthours (MWh) outside the state. California was the largest net importer, receiving an average of 77 million MWh annually.

Based on the share of total consumption within each state, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Idaho, and Delaware were the five largest power-importing states between 2013 and 2017. Wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, and New Hampshire were the five largest power-exporting states. States with major population centers and relatively less generating capacity within their state boundaries tend to have higher ratios of net electricity imports to total electricity consumption, as utilities devote more to electricity delivery than to power production in many markets.

Wyoming and West Virginia were net power exporting states (they exported more power to other states than they consumed) between 2013 and 2017. Customers residing in these two states are not necessarily at an economic disadvantage or advantage compared with customers in neighboring states when considering their electricity bills and fees and market dynamics. However, large amounts of power trading may affect a state’s revenue derived from power generation.

Some states also import and export electricity outside the United States to Canada or Mexico, even as Canada's electricity exports face trade tensions today. New York, California, Vermont, Minnesota, and Michigan are the five states that imported the most electricity from Canada or Mexico on average from 2013 through 2017. Similarly, Washington, Texas (where electricity production and consumption lead the nation), California, New York, and Montana are the five states that exported the most electricity to Canada or Mexico, on average, for the same period.

Many states within the continental United States fall within integrated market regions, referred to as independent system operators or regional transmission organizations. These integrated market regions allow electricity to flow freely between states or parts of states within their boundaries.

EIA’s State Electricity Profiles provide details about the supply and disposition of electricity for each state, including net trade with other states and international imports and exports, and help you understand where your electricity comes from more clearly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Vietnam Offshore Wind Regulations expand coastal zones to six nautical miles, remove water depth limits, streamline permits, and boost investment, grid integration, and renewable energy capacity across deeper offshore wind resource areas.

Key Points

Policies extend sites to six nautical miles, scrap depth limits, and speed permits to scale offshore wind.

✅ Extends offshore zones to six nautical miles from shore

✅ Removes water depth limits to access stronger winds

✅ Streamlines permits, aiding grid integration and finance

Vietnam has recently redefined its regulations for offshore wind power projects, marking a significant development in the country's renewable energy ambitions. This strategic shift aims to streamline regulatory processes, enhance project feasibility, and accelerate the deployment of offshore wind energy in Vietnam's coastal regions, amid a trillion-dollar offshore wind market globally.

Regulatory Changes

The Vietnamese government has adjusted offshore wind power regulations by extending the allowable distance from shore for wind farms to six nautical miles (approximately 11 kilometers), a move that aligns with evolving global practices such as Canada's offshore wind plan announced recently by regulators. This expansion from previous limits aims to unlock new areas for development and maximize the utilization of Vietnam's vast offshore wind potential.

Scrapping Depth Restrictions

In addition to extending offshore boundaries, Vietnam has removed restrictions on water depth for offshore wind projects. This revision allows developers to explore deeper waters, where wind resources may be more abundant, thereby diversifying project opportunities and optimizing energy generation capacity.

Strategic Implications

The redefined regulations are expected to stimulate investment in Vietnam's renewable energy sector, attracting domestic and international stakeholders keen on capitalizing on the country's favorable wind resources, with World Bank support for wind underscoring the growing pipeline in developing markets. The move aligns with Vietnam's broader energy diversification goals and commitment to reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

Economic Opportunities

The expansion of offshore wind development zones creates economic opportunities across the value chain, from project planning and construction to operation and maintenance. The influx of investments is anticipated to spur job creation, technology transfer, and infrastructure development in coastal communities, as industry groups like Marine Renewables Canada shift toward offshore wind specialization.

Environmental and Energy Security Benefits

Harnessing offshore wind power contributes to Vietnam's efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. By integrating renewable energy sources into its energy mix, Vietnam enhances energy security, as seen in the UK offshore wind expansion, reduces dependency on imported fuels, and promotes sustainable economic growth.

Challenges and Considerations

Despite the promising outlook, offshore wind projects face challenges such as technical complexities, environmental impact assessments, and grid integration, as well as exposure to policy risk exemplified by U.S. opposition to offshore wind debates.

Future Outlook

Looking ahead, Vietnam's redefined offshore wind regulations position the country as a key player in the global renewable energy transition, a trend reinforced by progress in offshore wind in Europe elsewhere. Continued policy support, investment facilitation, and technological innovation will be critical in unlocking the full potential of offshore wind power and achieving Vietnam's renewable energy targets.

Conclusion

Vietnam's revision of offshore wind power regulations reflects a proactive approach to advancing renewable energy development and fostering a conducive investment environment. By expanding development zones and eliminating depth restrictions, Vietnam sets the stage for accelerated growth in offshore wind capacity, contributing to both economic prosperity and environmental stewardship. As stakeholders seize opportunities in this evolving landscape, collaboration and innovation will drive Vietnam towards a sustainable energy future powered by offshore wind.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Teachers SSEN Transmission Investment advances UK renewable energy, with a 25% minority stake in SSE plc's electricity transmission network, backing offshore wind, grid expansion, and Net Zero 2050 goals across Scotland and UK.

Key Points

A 25% stake by Ontario Teachers in SSE's SSEN Transmission to fund UK grid upgrades and accelerate renewables.

✅ £1,465m cash for 25% minority stake in SSEN Transmission

✅ Supports offshore wind, grid expansion, and Net Zero targets

✅ Partnering SSE plc to deliver clean, affordable power in the UK

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (‘Ontario Teachers’) has reached an agreement with Scotland-based energy provider SSE plc (‘SSE’) to acquire a 25% minority stake in its electricity transmission network business, SSEN Transmission, to provide clean, affordable renewable energy to millions of homes and businesses across the UK, reflecting how clean-energy generation powers both the economy and the environment.

The transaction is based on an effective economic date of 31 March 2022, and total cash proceeds of £1,465m for the 25% stake are expected at completion. The transaction is expected to complete shortly.

Measures such as Ontario's 2021 electricity rate reductions have aimed to ease costs for businesses, informing broader discussions on affordability.

SSEN Transmission, which operates under its licenced entity, Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc, transports electricity generated from renewable resources – including onshore and offshore wind and hydro – from the north of Scotland across more than a quarter of the UK land mass amid scrutiny of UK electricity and gas networks profits under the regulatory regime. The investment by Ontario Teachers’ will help support the UK Government’s Net Zero 2050 targets, including the delivery of 50GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030.

Charles Thomazi, Senior Managing Director, Head of EMEA Infrastructure & Natural Resources, from Ontario Teachers’ said, noting that in Canada decisions like the OEB decision on Hydro One's T&D rates guide utility planning:

“SSEN Transmission is one of Europe’s fastest growing transmission networks. Its network stretches across some of the most challenging terrain in Scotland – from the North Sea and across the Highlands – to deliver safe, reliable, renewable energy to demand centres across the UK.

We’re delighted to partner again with SSE and are committed to supporting the growth of its network and the vital role it plays in the UK’s green energy revolution.”

Investor views on regulated utilities can diverge, as illustrated by analyses of Hydro One's investment outlook that weigh uncertainties and risk factors.

Rob McDonald, Managing Director of SSEN Transmission, said:

“With the north of Scotland home to the UK’s greatest resources of renewable electricity we have a critical role to play in helping deliver the UK and Scottish Governments net zero commitments.  Our investments will also be key to securing the UK’s future energy independence through enabling the deployment of homegrown, affordable, low carbon power.

“With significant growth forecast in transmission, bringing in Ontario Teachers’ as a minority stake partner will help fund our ambitious investment plans as we continue to deliver a network for net zero emissions across the north of Scotland.” 

Ontario Teachers’ Infrastructure & Natural Resources group invests in electricity infrastructure worldwide to accelerate the energy transition with current investments including Caruna, Finland’s largest electricity distributor, Evoltz, a leading electricity transmission platform in Brazil, and Spark Infrastructure, which invests in essential energy infrastructure in Australia to serve over 5 million homes and businesses.

In Ontario, distribution consolidation has included the sale of Peterborough Distribution to Hydro One for $105 million, illustrating ongoing sector realignment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Texas Blackout Liability Ruling clarifies appellate court findings in Houston, citing deregulated energy markets, ERCOT immunity, wholesale generators, retail providers, and 2021 winter storm lawsuits over grid failures and wrongful deaths.

Key Points

Houston judges held wholesale generators owe no duty to retail customers, limiting liability for 2021 blackout lawsuits.

✅ Court cites deregulated market and lack of privity to consumers

✅ Ruling shields generators from 2021 winter storm civil suits

✅ Plaintiffs plan appeals; legislature may address liability

Nearly three years after the devastating Texas blackout of 2021, a panel of judges from the First Court of Appeals in Houston has determined that major power companies cannot be held accountable for their failure to deliver electricity during the power grid crisis that unfolded, citing Texas' deregulated energy market as the reason.

This ruling appears likely to shield these companies from lawsuits that were filed against them in the aftermath of the blackout, leaving the families of those affected uncertain about where to seek justice.

In February 2021, a severe cold front swept over Texas, bringing extended periods of ice and snow. The extreme weather conditions increased energy demand while simultaneously reducing supply by causing power generators and the state's natural gas supply chain to freeze. This led to a blackout that left millions of Texans without power and water for nearly a week.

The state officially reported that almost 250 people lost their lives during the winter storm and subsequent blackout, although some analysts argue that this is a significant undercount and warn of blackout risks across the U.S. during severe heat as well.

In the wake of the storm, Texans affected by the energy system's failure began filing lawsuits, and lawmakers proposed a market bailout as political debate intensified. Some of these legal actions were directed against power generators whose plants either ceased to function during the storm or ran out of fuel for electricity generation.

After several years of legal proceedings, a three-judge panel was convened to evaluate the merits of these lawsuits.

This week, Chief Justice Terry Adams issued a unanimous opinion on behalf of the panel, stating, "Texas does not currently recognize a legal duty owed by wholesale power generators to retail customers to provide continuous electricity to the electric grid, and ultimately to the retail customers."

The opinion further clarified that major power generators "are now statutorily precluded by the legislature from having any direct relationship with retail customers of electricity."

This separation of power generation from transmission and retail electric sales in many parts of Texas resulted from energy market deregulation in the early 2000s, with the goal of reducing energy costs, and prompted electricity market reforms aimed at avoiding future blackouts.

Under the previous system, power companies were "vertically integrated," controlling generators, transmission lines, and selling the energy they produced directly to regional customers. However, in deregulated areas of Texas, competition was introduced, creating competing energy-generating companies and retail electric providers that purchase power wholesale and then sell it to residential consumers; meanwhile, electric cooperatives in other parts of the state remained member-owned providers.

Tré Fischer, a partner at the Jackson Walker law firm representing the power companies, explained, "One consequence of that was, because of the unbundling and the separation, you also don't have the same duties and obligations [to consumers]. The structure just doesn't allow for that direct relationship and correspondingly a direct obligation to continually supply the electricity even if there's a natural disaster or catastrophic event."

In the opinion, Justice Adams noted that when designing the Texas energy market, amid renewed interest in ways to improve electricity reliability across the grid, state lawmakers "could have codified the retail customers' asserted duty of continuous electricity on the part of wholesale power generators into law."

The recent ruling applies to five representative cases chosen by the panel out of hundreds filed after the blackout. Due to this decision, it is improbable that any of the lawsuits against power companies will succeed, according to the court's interpretation.

However, plaintiffs' attorneys have indicated their intention to appeal. They may request a review of the panel's opinion by the entire First Court of Appeals or appeal directly to the state supreme court.

The state Supreme Court had previously ruled that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state's power grid operator, enjoys sovereign immunity and cannot be sued over the blackout.

This latest opinion raises the question of who, if anyone, can be held responsible for deaths and losses resulting from the blackout, a question left unaddressed by the court. Fischer commented, "If anything [the judges] were saying that is a question for the Texas legislature."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News