Italian solar capacity to reach 7,000 MW

BC-Alberta Electricity Restrictions spotlight interprovincial energy tensions, limiting power exports and affecting grid reliability, energy sharing, and climate goals, while raising questions about federal-provincial coordination, smart grids, and storage investments.

Key Points

Policies limiting Alberta's power exports to provinces like BC, prioritizing local demand and affecting grid reliability.

✅ Prioritizes Alberta load over interprovincial power exports

✅ Risks to BC peak demand support and outage resilience

✅ Pressures for federal-provincial coordination and smart-grid investment

In a move that underscores the complexities of Canada's interprovincial energy relationships, the government of British Columbia (B.C.) has formally expressed concerns over recent electricity restrictions imposed by Alberta after it suspended electricity purchase talks with B.C., amid ongoing regional coordination challenges.

Background: Alberta's Electricity Restrictions

Alberta, traditionally reliant on coal and natural gas for electricity generation, has been undergoing a transition towards more sustainable energy sources as it pursues a path to clean electricity in the province.

In response, Alberta introduced restrictions on electricity exports, aiming to prioritize local consumption and stabilize its energy market and has proposed electricity market changes to address structural issues.

B.C.'s Position: Ensuring Energy Reliability and Cooperation

British Columbia, with its diverse energy portfolio and commitment to sustainability, has historically relied on the ability to import electricity from Alberta, especially during periods of high demand or unforeseen shortfalls. The recent restrictions threaten this reliability, prompting B.C.'s government to take action amid an electricity market reshuffle now underway.

B.C. officials have articulated that access to Alberta's electricity is crucial, particularly during outages or times when local generation does not meet demand. The ability to share electricity among provinces ensures a stable and resilient energy system, benefiting consumers and supporting economic activities, including critical minerals operations, that depend on consistent power supply.

Moreover, B.C. has expressed concerns that Alberta's restrictions could set a precedent that might affect future interprovincial energy agreements. Such a precedent could complicate collaborative efforts aimed at achieving national energy goals, including sustainability targets and infrastructure development.

Broader Implications: National Energy Strategy and Climate Goals

The dispute between B.C. and Alberta over electricity exports highlights the absence of a cohesive national energy strategy, as external pressures, including electricity exports at risk, add complexity. While provinces have jurisdiction over their energy resources, the interconnected nature of Canada's power grids necessitates coordinated policies that balance local priorities with national interests.

This situation also underscores the challenges Canada faces in meeting its climate objectives. Transitioning to renewable energy sources requires not only technological innovation but also collaborative policies that ensure energy reliability and affordability across provincial boundaries, as rising electricity prices in Alberta demonstrate.

Potential Path Forward: Dialogue and Negotiation

Addressing the concerns arising from Alberta's electricity restrictions requires a nuanced approach that considers the interests of all stakeholders. Open dialogue between provincial governments is essential to identify solutions that uphold the principles of energy reliability, economic cooperation, and environmental sustainability.

One potential avenue is the establishment of a federal-provincial task force dedicated to energy coordination. Such a body could facilitate discussions on resource sharing, infrastructure investments, and policy harmonization, aiming to prevent conflicts and promote mutual benefits.

Additionally, exploring technological solutions, such as smart grids and energy storage systems, could enhance the flexibility and resilience of interprovincial energy exchanges. Investments in these technologies may reduce the dependency on traditional export mechanisms, offering more dynamic and responsive energy management strategies.

The tensions between British Columbia and Alberta over electricity restrictions serve as a microcosm of the broader challenges facing Canada's energy sector. Balancing provincial autonomy with national interests, ensuring equitable access to energy resources, and achieving climate goals require collaborative efforts and innovative solutions. As the situation develops, stakeholders across the political, economic, and environmental spectrums will need to engage constructively, fostering a Canadian energy landscape that is resilient, sustainable, and inclusive.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Ontario Electricity Rate Changes lower OEB Regulated Price Plan costs, adjust Time-of-Use winter hours and tiered thresholds, and modify the Ontario Electricity Rebate, affecting off-peak, mid-peak, and on-peak pricing for households and small businesses.

Key Points

OEB updates lowering RPP prices, shifting TOU hours, adjusting tiers, and modifying the Ontario Electricity Rebate.

✅ Winter TOU: Off-peak 7 p.m.-7 a.m.; weekends, holidays all day.

✅ Tiered pricing adds 400 kWh at lower rate for residential users.

✅ Ontario Electricity Rebate falls to 11.7% from 17% on Nov 1.

Electricity rates are about to change for consumers across Ontario.

On November 1, households and small businesses will see their electricity rates go down under the Ontario Energy Board's (OEB) Regulated Price Plan framework.

Customer's on the OEB's tiered pricing plan will also see their bills lowered on November 1, a shift from the 2021 increase when fixed pricing ended, as winter time-of-use hours and the seasonal change in the killowatt-hour threshold take effect.

Off-peak time-of-use hours will run from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. during weekdays, including the ultra-low overnight rates option for some customers, and all day on weekends and holidays. On-peak hours will be from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, and mid-peak hours from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays.

The winter-tier threshold provides residential customers with an extra 400 kilowatt-hours per month at a lower price during the colder weather, alongside the off-peak price freeze in effect.

The Ontario Electricity Rebate - a pre-tax credit that shows up at the bottom of electricity bills - will also see changes as a hydro rate change takes effect on November 1. Starting next month, the rebate will drop from 17 per cent to 11.7 per cent.

For a typical residential customer, the credit will decrease electricity bills by about $13.91 per month, according to the OEB.

Under the board's winter disconnection ban, electricity providers can't turn off a residential customer's power between November 15, 2022 and April 30, 2023 for failing to pay, and earlier pandemic relief included a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate for customers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Africa 2030 Energy Mix Forecast finds electricity generation doubling, with fossil fuels dominant, non-hydro renewables under 10%, hydro vulnerable to droughts, and machine-learning analysis of planned power plants shaping climate and investment decisions.

Key Points

An analysis predicting Africa's 2030 power mix, with fossil fuels dominant, limited renewables growth, and hydro risks.

✅ ML model assesses 2,500 planned plants' commissioning odds

✅ Fossil fuels ~66% of generation; non-hydro RE <10% by 2030

✅ Policy shifts and finance reallocation to scale solar and wind

New research today from the University of Oxford predicts that total electricity generation across the African continent will double by 2030, with fossil fuels continuing to dominate the energy mix posing potential risk to global climate change commitments.

The study, published in Nature Energy, uses a state-of-the art machine-learning technique to analyse the pipeline of more than 2,500 currently-planned power plants and their chances of being successfully commissioned. It shows the share of non-hydro renewables in African electricity generation is likely to remain below 10% in 2030, although this varies by region.

'Africa's electricity demand is set to increase significantly as the continent strives to industrialise and improve the wellbeing of its people, which offers an opportunity to power this economic development and expand universal electricity access through renewables' says Galina Alova, study lead author and researcher at the Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.

'There is a prominent narrative in the energy planning community that the continent will be able to take advantage of its vast renewable energy resources and rapidly decreasing clean technology prices to leapfrog to renewables by 2030 but our analysis shows that overall it is not currently positioned to do so.'

The study predicts that in 2030, fossil fuels will account for two-thirds of all generated electricity across Africa. While an additional 18% of generation is set to come from hydro-energy projects across Africa. These have their own challenges, such as being vulnerable to an increasing number of droughts caused by climate change.

The research also highlights regional differences in the pace of the transition to renewables across Sub-Saharan Africa, with southern Africa leading the way. South Africa alone is forecast to add almost 40% of Africa's total predicted new solar capacity by 2030.

'Namibia is committed to generate 70% of its electricity needs from renewable sources, including all the major alternative sources such as hydropower, wind and solar generation, by 2030, as specified in the National Energy Policy and in Intended Nationally Determined Contributions under Paris Climate Change Accord,' says Calle Schlettwein, Namibia Minister of Water (former Minister of Finance and Minister of Industrialisation). 'We welcome this study and believe that it will support the refinement of strategies for increasing generation capacity from renewable sources in Africa and facilitate both successful and more effective public and private sector investments in the renewable energy sector.'

Minister Schlettwein adds: 'The more data-driven and advanced analytics-based research is available for understanding the risks associated with power generation projects, the better. Some of the risks that could be useful to explore in the future are the uncertainties in hydrological conditions and wind regimes linked to climate change, and economic downturns such as that caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.'

The study further suggests that a decisive move towards renewable energy in Africa would require a significant shock to the current system. This includes large-scale cancellation of fossil fuel plants currently being planned. In addition, the study identifies ways in which planned renewable energy projects can be designed to improve their success chances for example, smaller size, fitting ownership structure, and availability of development finance for projects.

'The development community and African decision makers need to act quickly if the continent wants to avoid being locked into a carbon-intense energy future' says Philipp Trotter, study author and researcher at the Smith School. 'Immediate re-directions of development finance from fossil fuels to renewables are an important lever to increase experience with solar and wind energy projects across the continent in the short term, creating critical learning curve effects.'

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Canada 2035 Gasoline Car Ban accelerates EV adoption, zero-emission transport, and climate action, with charging infrastructure, rebates, and industry investment supporting net-zero goals while addressing affordability, range anxiety, and consumer acceptance nationwide.

Key Points

A federal policy to end new gas car sales by 2035, boosting EV adoption, emissions goals, and charging infrastructure.

✅ Ends new gas car and light-truck sales by 2035

✅ Expands charging infrastructure and grid readiness

✅ Incentives, rebates, and industry investment drive adoption

Canada has set its sights on a bold and transformative goal: to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered passenger cars and light-duty trucks by the year 2035. This ambitious target, announced by the federal government, underscores Canada's commitment to combating climate change and accelerating the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) nationwide, supported by forthcoming EV sales regulations from Ottawa.

The Federal Initiative

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada aims to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, which accounts for a substantial portion of the country's carbon footprint. The initiative aligns with Canada's broader climate objectives, including achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

Driving Forces Behind the Decision

The decision to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles reflects growing recognition of the urgency to transition towards cleaner transportation alternatives, even as 2019 electricity from fossil fuels still powered a notable share of Canada's grid. Minister of Environment and Climate Change Jonathan Wilkinson emphasizes the environmental benefits of electric vehicles, citing their potential to lower emissions and improve air quality in urban centers across the country.

Challenges and Opportunities

While the move towards electric vehicles presents promising opportunities for reducing emissions, it also poses challenges. Key considerations include infrastructure development, affordability, and consumer acceptance of EV technology, amid EV shortages and wait times that can influence buying decisions. Addressing these hurdles will require coordinated efforts from government, industry stakeholders, and consumers alike.

Industry Response

The automotive industry plays a crucial role in realizing Canada's EV ambitions. Automakers are increasingly investing in electric vehicle production and innovation to meet evolving consumer demand and regulatory requirements, including cross-border Canada-U.S. collaboration on supply chains. The transition offers opportunities for job creation, technological advancement, and economic growth in the clean energy sector.

Provincial Perspectives

Provinces across Canada are pivotal in facilitating the transition to electric vehicles. Some provinces have already implemented incentives such as rebates for EV purchases, charging infrastructure investments, and policy frameworks to support emissions reduction targets, even as Quebec's EV dominance push faces scrutiny from experts. Collaborative efforts between federal and provincial governments are essential in ensuring a cohesive approach to achieving national EV goals.

Consumer Considerations

For consumers, the shift towards electric vehicles represents a paradigm shift in transportation choices. Factors such as range anxiety, charging infrastructure availability, and upfront costs, with one EV cost survey citing price as the main barrier, remain considerations for prospective buyers. Government incentives and subsidies aim to alleviate some of these concerns and promote widespread EV adoption.

Looking Ahead

As Canada navigates towards a future without gasoline-powered vehicles, stakeholders must work together to overcome challenges and capitalize on opportunities presented by the electric vehicle revolution, even as critics of the 2035 mandate question its feasibility. Continued investments in infrastructure, innovation, and consumer education will be critical in paving the way for a sustainable and prosperous automotive industry.

Conclusion

Canada's commitment to phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 marks a pivotal moment in the country's climate action agenda. By embracing electric vehicles, Canada aims to lead by example in combatting climate change, fostering innovation, and building a greener future for generations to come. The success of this ambitious initiative hinges on collective efforts to transform the automotive landscape and accelerate towards a sustainable transportation future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

COVID-19 Impact on U.S. Power Demand shows falling electricity load, lower wholesale prices, and resilient utilities in competitive markets, with regional differences tied to weather, renewable energy, stay-at-home orders, and hedging strategies.

Key Points

It outlines reduced load and prices, while regulatory design and hedging support utility stability across regions.

✅ Load down in NY, New England, PJM; weather drives South up.

✅ Wholesale prices fall 8-10% in key markets.

✅ Decoupling, contracts, hedging support utility earnings.

On March 27, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) released a report on electricity demand and wholesale market prices impact from COVID-19 fallout. The model compares expected load based largely on weather with actual observed electricity demand changes.

So far, the hardest hit power grid is New York, with load down 7 and prices off by 10 percent. That’s expected, given New York City is the current epicenter of the US health crisis.

Next is New England, with 5 percent lower demand and 8 percent reduced wholesale prices for the week from March 19-25. BNEF says the numbers could go higher following advisories and orders issued March 24 for some 70 percent of the region’s population to stay at home.

Demand on the biggest grid in the US, the PJM (Pennsylvania/Jersey/Maryland), is 4 percent lower, with prices dropping 8 percent, as recent capacity auction payouts fell sharply. BNEF believes there will be more impact as stay at home orders are ramped up in several states.

California’s power demand for March 19-25 was 5 percent below what BNEF’s model expects without COVID-19 impact. That reflects a full week of stay-at-home orders from Governor Newsom issued March 19.

Health officials in Los Angeles and elsewhere expect a spike in COVID-19 cases in coming weeks. But BNEF’s model now actually projects rising electricity load for the state, due to what it calls "freakishly mild weather a year ago."

Rounding out the report, power demand is up for a band of southern states stretching from Florida to the desert Southwest, with weather more than offsetting public response to COVID-19 so far. BNEF says the Northwest’s grid "has not yet been highly impacted," while the Southeast is "generally in line" with pre-virus expectations.

Clearly, all of this data can change quickly and radically. Only California and New York are currently in full shutdown mode. Following them are New England (70 percent), the Midwest (65 percent), Texas (50 percent), PJM (50 percent) and the Northwest (50 percent).

In contrast, only small parts of Florida, the Southeast and Southwest are restricting movement. That could mean a big future increase for shut-ins, with heightened risks of electricity shut-offs that burden households and a corresponding impact on power demand.

Also, weather will play a major role on what happens to actual electricity demand, just as it always does. A very hot summer, for example, could offset virus-related shut-ins, just as it apparently is now in states like Texas. And it should be pointed out that regions vary widely by exposure to recession-sensitive sources of demand, such as heavy industry.

Most important for investors, however, is the built in protection US utility earnings enjoy from declining power demand, even amid broader energy crisis pressures facing the sector. For one thing, US power grids in California, ERCOT (Texas), MISO (Midwest), New England, New York and PJM have wholesale power markets, where producers compete for sales and the lowest bidder sets the price.

In those states, most regulated utilities don’t produce power at all. In fact, companies’ revenue is decoupled entirely from demand in California, as well as much of New England. In the roughly three-dozen states where utilities still operate as integrated monopolies, demand does affect revenue, and in many regions flat electricity demand already persists. But the cost of electricity is passed through directly to customers, whether produced or purchased.

A number of US electric companies have invested in renewable energy facilities as part of broader electrification trends nationwide. These sell their output under long-term contracts primarily with other utilities and government entities.

This isn’t a risk free business: For the past year, generators selling electricity to bankrupt PG&E Corp (PCG) have had their cash trapped at the power plant level as surety for lenders. But even PG&E has honored its contracts. And with states continuing aggressive mandates for renewable energy adoption, growth doesn’t appear at risk to COVID-19 fallout either.

The wholesale price of power from natural gas, coal and many nuclear plants was already sliding before COVID-19, due to renewables adoption and low natural gas prices, even as coal and nuclear disruptions raise reliability concerns. But here too, big producers like Exelon Corp (EXC) and Vistra Energy (VST) have employed aggressive price hedging near term, with regulated utilities and retail businesses protecting long-term health, respectively.

Bottom line: It’s early days for the COVID-19 crisis and much can still change. But so far at least, the US power industry is absorbing the blow of reduced demand, just as it’s done in previous crises.

That means future selloffs in the ongoing bear market are buying opportunities for best in class electric utilities, not a reason to sell. For top candidates, see the Conrad’s Utility Investor Portfolios and Dream Buy List in the March issue. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News