SMA Solar defies market gloom

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

China Energy Crisis drives electricity shortages, power cuts, and blackouts as coal prices surge, carbon-neutrality rules tighten, and manufacturing hubs ration energy, disrupting supply chains and industrial output ahead of winter demand peaks.

Key Points

A power shortfall from costly coal, price caps, and emissions targets, causing blackouts and industrial rationing.

✅ Coal prices soar while electricity tariffs are capped

✅ Factories in northeast hubs face rationing and downtime

✅ Supply chains risk delays ahead of winter demand

China is struggling with a severe shortage of electricity which has left millions of homes and businesses hit by power cuts.

Blackouts are not that unusual in the country but this year a number of factors have contributed to a perfect storm for electricity suppliers, including surging electricity demand globally.

The problem is particularly serious in China's north eastern industrial hubs as winter approaches - and is something that could have implications for the rest of the world.

Why has China been hit by power shortages?
The country has in the past struggled to balance electricity supplies with demand, which has often left many of China's provinces at risk of power outages.

During times of peak power consumption in the summer and winter the problem becomes particularly acute.

But this year a number of factors have come together to make the issue especially serious.

As the world starts to reopen after the pandemic, demand for Chinese goods is surging and the factories making them need a lot more power, highlighting China's electricity appetite in recent months.

Rules imposed by Beijing as it attempts to make the country carbon neutral by 2060 have seen coal production slow, even as the country still relies on coal for more than half of its power and as low-emissions generation is set to cover most global demand growth.

And as electricity demand has risen, the price of coal has been pushed up.

But with the government strictly controlling electricity prices, coal-fired power plants are unwilling to operate at a loss, with many drastically reducing their output instead.

Who is being affected by the blackouts?
Homes and businesses have been affected by power cuts as electricity has been rationed in several provinces and regions.

A coal-burning power plant can be seen behind a factory in China"s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region

The state-run Global Times newspaper said there had been outages in four provinces - Guangdong in the south and Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning in the north east. There are also reports of power cuts in other parts of the country.

Companies in major manufacturing areas have been called on to reduce energy usage during periods of peak demand or limit the number of days that they operate.

Energy-intensive industries such as steel-making, aluminium smelting, cement manufacturing and fertiliser production are among the businesses hardest hit by the outages.

What has the impact been on China's economy?
Official figures have shown that in September 2021, Chinese factory activity shrunk to the lowest it had been since February 2020, when power demand dropped as coronavirus lockdowns crippled the economy.

Concerns over the power cuts have contributed to global investment banks cutting their forecasts for the country's economic growth.

Goldman Sachs has estimated that as much as 44% of the country's industrial activity has been affected by power shortages. It now expects the world's second largest economy to expand by 7.8% this year, down from its previous prediction of 8.2%.

Globally, the outages could affect supply chains, including solar supply chains as the end-of-the-year shopping season approaches.

Since economies have reopened, retailers around the world have already been facing widespread disruption amid a surge in demand for imports.

China's economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), has outlined a number of measures to resolve the problem, with energy supplies in the northeast of the country as its main priority this winter.

The measures include working closely with generating firms to increase output, ensuring full supplies of coal and promoting the rationing of electricity.

The China Electricity Council, which represents generating firms, has also said that coal-fired power companies were now "expanding their procurement channels at any cost" in order to guarantee winter heat and electricity supplies.

However, finding new sources of coal imports may not be straightforward.

Russia is already focused on its customers in Europe, Indonesian output has been hit by heavy rains and nearby Mongolia is facing a shortage of road haulage capacity,

Are energy shortages around the world connected?
Power cuts in China, UK petrol stations running out of fuel, energy bills jumping in Europe, near-blackouts in Japan and soaring crude oil, natural gas and coal prices on wholesale markets - it would be tempting to assume the world is suddenly in the grip of a global energy drought.

However, it is not quite as simple as that - there are some distinctly different issues around the world.

For example, in the UK petrol stations have run dry as motorists rushed to fill up their vehicles over concerns that a shortage of tanker drivers would mean fuel would soon become scarce.

Meanwhile, mainland Europe's rising energy bills and record electricity prices are due to a number of local factors, including low stockpiles of natural gas, weak output from the region's windmills and solar farms and maintenance work that has put generating operations out of action.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Clean Electricity Regulations accelerate renewable energy adoption, drive emissions reduction, and modernize the smart grid with energy storage, efficiency targets, and reliability upgrades to support decarbonization and a stable power system for Ontario.

Key Points

Standards to cut emissions, grow renewables, improve efficiency, and modernize the grid with storage and smart systems.

✅ Phases down fossil generation and invests in storage.

✅ Sets utility efficiency targets to curb demand growth.

✅ Upgrades to smart grid for reliability and resiliency.

Ontario has taken a significant step forward in its energy transition with the introduction of new clean electricity regulations. These regulations, complementing federal Clean Electricity Regulations, aim to reduce carbon emissions, promote sustainable energy sources, and ensure a cleaner, more reliable electricity grid for future generations. This article explores the motivations behind these regulations, the strategies being implemented, and the expected impacts on Ontario’s energy landscape.

The Need for Clean Electricity

Ontario, like many regions around the world, is grappling with the effects of climate change, including more frequent and severe weather events. In response, the province has set ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the use of renewable energy sources, reflecting trends seen in Alberta’s path to clean electricity across Canada. The electricity sector plays a central role in this transition, as it is responsible for a significant portion of the province’s carbon footprint.

For years, Ontario has been moving away from coal as a source of electricity generation, and now, with the introduction of these new regulations, the province is taking a step further in decarbonizing its grid, including its largest competitive energy procurement to date. By setting clear goals and standards for clean electricity, the province hopes to meet its environmental targets while ensuring a stable and affordable energy supply for all Ontarians.

Key Aspects of the New Regulations

The regulations focus on encouraging the use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal power. One of the key elements of the plan is the gradual phase-out of fossil fuel-based energy sources. This shift is expected to be accompanied by greater investments in energy storage solutions, including grid batteries, to address the intermittency issues often associated with renewable energy sources.

Ontario’s new regulations also emphasize the importance of energy efficiency in reducing overall demand. As part of this initiative, utilities and energy providers will be required to meet strict energy-saving targets and participate in new electricity auctions designed to reduce costs, ensuring that both consumers and businesses are incentivized to use energy more efficiently.

In addition, the regulations promote technological innovation in the electricity sector. By supporting the development of smart grids, energy storage technologies, and advanced power management systems, Ontario is positioning itself to become a leader in the global energy transition.

Impact on the Economy and Jobs

One of the anticipated benefits of the clean electricity regulations is their positive impact on Ontario’s economy. As the province invests in renewable energy infrastructure and clean technologies, new job opportunities are expected to arise in industries such as manufacturing, construction, and research and development. These regulations also encourage innovation in energy services, which could lead to the growth of new companies and industries, while easing pressures on industrial ratepayers through complementary measures.

Furthermore, the transition to cleaner energy is expected to reduce the long-term costs associated with climate change. By investing in sustainable energy solutions now, Ontario will help mitigate the financial burdens of environmental damage and extreme weather events in the future.

Challenges and Concerns

While the new regulations have been widely praised for their environmental benefits, they are not without their challenges. One of the primary concerns is the potential cost to consumers, and some Ontario hydro policy critique has called for revisiting legacy pricing approaches to improve affordability. While renewable energy sources have become more affordable over the years, transitioning from fossil fuels could still result in higher electricity prices in the short term. Additionally, the implementation of new technologies, such as smart grids and energy storage, will require substantial upfront investment.

Moreover, the intermittency of renewable energy generation poses a challenge to grid stability. Ontario’s electricity grid must be able to adapt to fluctuations in energy supply as more variable renewable sources come online. This challenge will require significant upgrades to the grid infrastructure and the integration of storage solutions to ensure reliable energy delivery.

The Road Ahead

Ontario’s clean electricity regulations represent an important step in the province’s commitment to combating climate change and transitioning to a sustainable, low-carbon economy. While there are challenges to overcome, the benefits of cleaner air, reduced emissions, and a more resilient energy system will be felt for generations to come. As the province continues to innovate and lead in the energy sector, Ontario is positioning itself to thrive in the green economy of the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Termination of Ukraine Energy Grid Support signals a policy shift: USAID halts aid for grid restoration amid Russia attacks, impacting energy security, infrastructure resilience, winter readiness, and negotiations leverage with Moscow and allies.

Key Points

A US policy reversal ending USAID support for Ukraine's grid, impacting energy security, resilience, and leverage.

✅ USAID halt reduces funds for grid restoration and winter prep

✅ Policy shift may weaken Kyiv's leverage in talks with Russia

✅ Ukraine seeks EU, IFIs, private capital for energy resilience

The U.S. government has recently decided to terminate its support for Ukraine's energy grid restoration, a critical initiative managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This decision, reported by NBC News, comes at a time when Ukraine is grappling with significant challenges to its energy infrastructure due to ongoing Russian attacks. The termination of support was reportedly finalized before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's scheduled visit to Washington, marking a significant shift in U.S. policy and raising concerns about the broader implications for Ukraine's energy resilience and its negotiations with Russia.

The Critical Role of U.S. Support

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the country’s energy infrastructure has been one of the primary targets of military strikes. Russia has launched numerous attacks on Ukraine's power generation facilities, substations, and power lines, causing power outages across multiple regions. These attacks have led to significant material losses, with damage reaching billions of dollars. As part of its commitment to Ukraine, the U.S. government, through USAID, had been instrumental in funding restoration efforts aimed at rebuilding and reinforcing Ukraine’s energy grid.

USAID's support was crucial in helping Ukraine withstand the damage inflicted by Russian missile strikes. This aid was not just about restoring basic services but also about fortifying the energy grid to ensure that Ukraine could continue functioning amidst the war and keep the lights on this winter as temperatures drop. The U.S. contribution to Ukraine's energy sector, alongside international support, helped reduce the immediate vulnerabilities faced by Ukraine's civilians and industries.

The Abrupt Change in U.S. Policy

The decision to cut support for energy grid restoration is seen as a sharp reversal in U.S. policy, particularly as the Biden administration has previously shown strong backing for Ukraine in the aftermath of the invasion. This shift in policy was reportedly made by the U.S. State Department, which directed USAID to halt its involvement in the energy sector.

According to NBC News, USAID officials expressed concern about the timing of this decision. One official noted that terminating support for Ukraine’s energy grid restoration would severely undermine the U.S. government's ability to negotiate on issues like ceasefires and peace talks with Russia. The official argued that such a move would signal to Russia that the U.S. is backing away from its long-term investments in Ukraine, potentially weakening Ukraine's position in the ongoing war.

The abrupt end to this support is also seen as a blow to the morale of Ukraine’s government and people. Ukraine had been heavily reliant on the U.S. for resources to repair its critical infrastructure, and the decision to cut this support without warning has created uncertainty about the future of such recovery efforts.

Ukraine’s Response and Search for Alternatives

In response to the termination of U.S. support, Ukrainian officials have been seeking alternative sources of funding to continue the restoration of their energy grid. Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna reported that Ukraine has already reached preliminary agreements with other international partners to secure financial support for energy resilience, cyber defense, and recovery programs including new energy solutions for winter blackouts.

These efforts come at a time when Ukraine is working to rebuild its war-torn economy and safeguard critical sectors like energy and infrastructure. The termination of U.S. support for energy restoration projects underscores the growing pressure on Ukraine to diversify its sources of aid and not become overly dependent on any one nation. Ukrainian leaders are in ongoing talks with European governments, international financial institutions, and private investors to ensure that essential programs do not stall due to the lack of funding from the U.S., as energy cooperation grows and Ukraine helps Spain amid blackouts in solidarity.

Implications for Ukraine’s Energy Security

Ukraine's energy security remains a critical issue in the context of the ongoing conflict with Russia. The war has made the country’s energy infrastructure vulnerable to repeated attacks, and the restoration of this infrastructure is essential for ensuring that Ukraine can keep the lights on and recover in the long term. The U.S. has been one of the largest contributors to Ukraine's energy security efforts, and its withdrawal could force Ukraine to look for other partners who may not have the same level of financial or technological resources.

This development also raises questions about the future of U.S. involvement in Ukraine's recovery efforts more broadly. As the war continues and winter looms over the battlefront for frontline communities, the need for reliable and sustained support from international partners will only increase. If the U.S. significantly scales back its aid, Ukraine may face even greater challenges in maintaining its energy infrastructure and achieving long-term recovery.

Moving Forward

The termination of U.S. support for Ukraine’s energy grid restoration serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in international aid and geopolitics during wartime. As Ukraine faces the ongoing realities of the war, it must adapt to a shifting international landscape where traditional allies may not always be reliable sources of support. Ukraine’s leadership will need to be strategic in its search for alternative sources of aid, while also focusing on strengthening its energy grid, managing electricity reserves to stabilize supply, and reducing its vulnerabilities to Russian attacks.

While the end of U.S. support for Ukraine's energy restoration is a significant setback, it also underscores the urgent need for Ukraine to diversify its international partnerships. The future of Ukraine’s energy resilience may depend on how effectively it can navigate these changing dynamics while maintaining the support of the international community in the fight against Russian aggression.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Pennsylvania Clean Energy Employment surges, highlighting workforce growth in energy efficiency, solar, wind, grid and storage, and alternative transportation, supporting COVID-19 recovery, high-wage jobs, manufacturing, construction, and statewide economic resilience.

Key Points

Jobs across clean power, efficiency, grid, storage, and advanced transport fueling Pennsylvania's workforce growth.

✅ 8.7% job growth from 2017-2019, outpacing statewide average

✅ 97,000+ employed across efficiency, solar, wind, grid, and fuels

✅ 75% earn above median; strong full-time opportunities

The 2020 Pennsylvania Clean Energy Employment Report has been released, and Gov. Tom Wolf is energized by it.

This "comes at an opportune time, as government and industry leaders look to strengthen Pennsylvania's workforce and economy in response to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic," Wolf said Monday in a prepared statement. "This detailed analysis of data and trends in clean energy employment ... demonstrates the sector was a top job generator statewide, and shows which industries were hiring and looking for trained workers."

Foremost among the findings, released Monday, is that the clean energy sector was responsible for adding 7,794 jobs from 2017 through 2019. That is an 8.7% average job growth rate, well above the 1.9% overall average in the state, according to a news release from Wolf's office.

This report lists employment data in five industries: energy efficiency; clean energy generation; alternative transportation; clean grid and storage; and clean fuels, while some cleaner states still import dirty electricity in regional markets.

The energy efficiency industry was the biggest clean energy employer in the state last year, with more than 71,400 state residents working in construction, technology and manufacturing jobs related to energy-efficient systems.

Solar energy workers comprised the largest share of the clean energy generation workforce – 35.4%, or 5,173 individuals. Solar employment increased 8.3% from 2017 to 2019, while there was a slight decline nationwide amid clean energy job losses reported in May.

Wind energy firms employed 2,937, and policy moves such as Ontario's clean electricity regulations signal broader market shifts, with more than 21% of those roles in manufacturing.

Job losses, though, were recorded in nuclear generation (minus 4.5%) and coal generation (minus 8.6%) over the two-year period, as electricity deregulation remains a point of debate in the sector. This mirrors national declines in both categories.

Federal efforts to support coal community revitalization are channeling clean energy projects to hard-hit regions.

Natural gas electric generation capacity doubled across Pennsylvania over the past decade; even as residents could face winter electricity price increases according to recent reports, employment still grew 13.4% from 2017 through 2019. But increasing output from unconventional wells has outpaced demand, sparking reductions in siting and drilling for new wells.

The Clean Energy Employment Report was released along with – and as part of – the 2020 Pennsylvania Energy Employment Report, which asserts that energy remains a large employer in the state, and new clean energy funding announcements underscore the sector's momentum. As of the last quarter of 2019, according to the larger report, energy accounted for 269,031 jobs, or 4.5% of the overall statewide workforce.

Wolf, in summary, said: "This report shows that workforce training investment decisions can benefit Pennsylvanians right now and position the state going forward to grow and improve livelihoods, the economy and our environment."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Costa Rica Renewable Energy Record highlights 99.99% clean power in May 2019, driven by hydropower, wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass, enabling ICE REM electricity exports and reduced rates from optimized generation totaling 984.19 GWh.

Key Points

May 2019 benchmark: Costa Rica generated 99.99% of 984.19 GWh from renewables, shifting from imports to regional exports.

✅ 99.99% renewable share across hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass

✅ 984.19 GWh generated; ICE suspended imports and exported via REM

✅ Geothermal output increased to offset dry-season hydropower variability

During the whole month of May 2019, Costa Rica generated a total of 984.19 gigawatt hours of electricity, the highest in the country’s history. What makes this feat even more impressive is the fact that 99.99% of this energy came from a portfolio of renewable sources such as hydropower, wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal.

With such a high generation rate, the state power company Instituto Costariccense de Electricidad (ICE) were able to suspend energy imports from the first week of May and shifted to exports, while U.S. renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022 domestically. To date, the power company continues to sell electricity to the Regional Electricity Market (REM) which generates revenues and is likely to reduce local electricity rates, a trend echoed in places like Idaho where a vast majority of electricity comes from renewables.

The record-breaking power generation was made possible by optimization of the country’s renewable sources, much as U.S. wind capacity surpassed hydro capacity at the end of 2016 to reshape portfolios. As the period coincided with the tail end of the dry season, the geothermal quota had to be increased.

Costa Rica remains a leader in renewable power generation, whereas U.S. wind generation has become the most-used renewable source in recent years. In 2015, more than 98% of the country’s electrical generation came from renewable sources, while U.S. renewables hit a record 28% in April in one recent benchmark. Through the years, this figure has remained fairly constant despite dry bouts caused by the El Niño phenomenon, and U.S. solar generation also continued to rise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News