First smart charging stations coming from Coulomb

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

Australia Energy Policy Debate highlights IPCC warnings, Paris Agreement goals, coal phase-out, emissions reduction, renewables, gas, pumped hydro, storage, reliability, and investment certainty amid NEG uncertainty and federal-state tensions over targets.

Key Points

Debate over coal, emissions targets, and grid reliability, guided by IPCC science, Paris goals, and market reforms.

✅ IPCC urges rapid cuts and coal phase-out by 2050

✅ NEG's emissions pillar stalled; reliability obligation alive

✅ States, market operators push investment certainty and storage

The United Nation’s climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on Monday said radical emissions reduction across the world’s economies, including a phase-out of coal by 2050, was required to avoid the most devastating climate change impacts.

The Morrison government dismissed the findings. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg insisted this week that “coal is an important part of the energy mix”.

“If we were to take coal out of the system the lights would go out on the east coast of Australia overnight. It provides more than 60 per cent of our power," he said.

Ms Zibelman, whose organisation operates the nation’s largest gas and electricity markets, said if Australia was to make an orderly transition to low-emissions electricity generation, aligning with the sustainable electric planet vision, “then certainly we would keep the lights on”.

Ms Zibelman said coal assets should be maintained “as long as they are economically viable and we should have a plan to replace them with resources that are lowest cost”.

Those options comprised gas, renewables, pumped hydro and other energy storage, she told ABC radio, as New Zealand weighs electrification to replace fossil fuels.

Under the Paris treaty the government has pledged to lower emissions by 26 per cent by 2030, based on 2005 levels, even as national emissions rose 2% recently according to industry reports.

Labor would increase the goal to a 45 per cent cut - a policy Prime Minister Scott Morrison said last month would " shut down every coal-fired power station in the country and ... increase people’s power bill by about $1,400 on average for every single household”.

The federal government has scrapped its proposed National Energy Guarantee, which would have cut emissions in the electricity sector, but the reliability component of the plan may continue in some form.

The policy was being developed by the Energy Security Board. The group’s chairwoman Kerry Schott has expressed anger at its demise but on Thursday revealed the board was still working on the policy because “nobody told us to stop”.

Speaking at the Melbourne Institute's Outlook conference, she urged the government to revive the emissions reduction component of the plan to provide investment certainty, noting the IEA net-zero report on Canada shows electricity demand rises in decarbonisation.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor, an energy consultant before entering Parliament, on Thursday said the electricity sector would reduce emissions in line with the Paris deal without a mandated target.

Mr Taylor said only a “very brave state” would not support the policy’s reliability obligation.

The federal government has called a COAG energy council meeting for October 26 in Sydney to discuss electricity reliability.

It is understood Mr Taylor has not contacted Victoria, Queensland or the ACT since taking the portfolio, despite needing unanimous support from the states to progress the issue.

The Victorian government goes into caretaker mode on October 30 ahead of that state's election.

Victorian Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio said the federal government was “a rabble when it comes to energy policy, and we won’t be signing anything until after the election".

Speaking at the Melbourne Institute conference, prominent business leaders on Thursday bemoaned a lack of political leadership on energy policy and climate change, saying the only way forward appeared to be for companies to take action themselves, with some pointing to Canada's race to net-zero as a case study in the role of renewables.

Jayne Hrdlicka, chief executive of ASX-listed dairy and infant-formula company a2 Milk, said "we all have an obligation to do the very best job we can in managing our carbon footprint".

"We just need to get on doing what we can .. and then hope that policy will catch up. But we can’t wait," she said.

Ms Hrdlicka said the recent federal political turmoil had been frustrating "because if you invest in building relationships as most of us do in Canberra and then overnight they are all changed, you’re starting from scratch".

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

France Electricity Pricing Mechanism aligns with EU rules, leveraging nuclear energy and EDF profits, avoiding Contracts for Difference, redistributing windfalls to industry and households, targeting €70/MWh amid electricity market reform and Brussels oversight.

Key Points

A framework to keep power near €70/MWh by reclaiming EDF windfalls and redistributing them under EU market rules.

✅ Targets average price near €70/MWh from 2026

✅ Skims EDF profits above €78-80 and €110/MWh thresholds

✅ Aligns with EU rules; avoids nuclear CfDs and state aid clashes

France has unveiled a new electricity pricing mechanism, hoping to defuse months of tension over energy subsidies with Brussels and its neighbors.

The strain has included a Franco-German fight over EU electricity reform with Germany accusing France of wanting to subsidize its industry via artificially low energy prices, while Paris maintained it should have the right to make the most of its relatively cheap nuclear energy. That fight has now been settled.

On Tuesday, the French government presented a new mechanism — complex, and still-to-be-detailed — to bring the average price of electricity closer to €70 per megawatt hour (MWh) as of 2026, amid Europe's electricity market revamp efforts.

"The agreement has been defined to comply with European rules and avoid difficulties with the European Commission," said France's Economy and Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire, noting that France had ruled out other "simpler" options that would have caused tension with Brussels.

For example, France has not yet envisaged the use of state-backed investment schemes called Contracts for Difference (CfD), which were the main source of discord in talks with Germany on the electricity market reform and the EU push for more fixed-price contracts in generation. The compromise agreed by EU ministers last month gives the Commission the power to monitor CfDs in the nuclear sector.

"France wanted to limit as much as possible the European Commission's nuisance power," said Phuc-Vinh Nguyen, an energy expert at the Jacques Delors Institute think tank in Paris.

The announcement came weeks after French President Emmanuel Macron promised that France would "take back control" of its electricity prices to allow its industry to make the most of the country's relatively cheap nuclear energy.

Germany, by contrast, has moved to support energy-intensive industries with an industrial electricity subsidy, underscoring the policy divergence.

“The price of electricity has always been a major competitive advantage for the French nation, and it must remain so,” Le Maire said.

Under the new mechanism, part of a broader deal on electricity prices between the state and EDF, the government will seize EDF profits above certain thresholds and redistribute them directly to industry and households to bring prices closer to the desired level. Specifically, the government will redistribute 50 percent of EDF’s additional profits if prices rise above €78-€80 per MWh, and 90 percent of extra profits if prices rise above €110 per MWh.

The move also marks a new step in the government's power grab at EDF, after the company was fully nationalized earlier this year.

For years, France has been discussing an EDF reform with the Commission in order to address concerns by Brussels regarding disguised state aid to the company. In particular, the Commission wanted assurances that any state aid given to nuclear would be kept separate from those parts of the business subject to competition, such as renewable energy development.

An economy ministry official close to Le Maire argued that the new pricing mechanism would settle matters with Brussels on that front. A Commission spokesperson said Brussels was in contact with France on the file, but declined further comment.

The mechanism will replace the existing EU-mandated energy pricing mechanism, dubbed ARENH, which was set to expire at the end of 2025, and which has forced EDF to sell some of its electricity to competitors at a fixed low price since 2010, and comes amid contested electricity market reforms at EU level.

The new system could benefit EDF because it won't be bound to sell energy at a lower price, but instead will be allowed to auction off its energy to competitors. On the other hand, the redistribution system would deprive the company of some profits when electricity prices are higher. No wonder, then, that negotiations between the government and EDF have been "difficult," as Le Maire put it.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany energy liquidity crisis is straining municipal utilities as gas and power prices surge, margin calls rise, and Russian supply cuts bite, forcing state support, interventions, and emergency financing to stabilize households and businesses.

Key Points

A cash squeeze on German municipal utilities as soaring gas and power prices trigger margin calls and funding gaps.

✅ Margin calls and spot-market purchases strain cash flow

✅ State liquidity lines and EU collateral support proposed

✅ Gazprom cuts, Uniper distress heighten default risks

Germany’s fears that soaring power prices and gas prices could trigger a deeper crisis is starting to get real. 

Several hundred local utilities are coming under strain and need support, according to the head of Germany’s largest energy lobby group. The companies, generally owned by municipalities, supply households and small businesses directly and are a key part of the country’s power and gas network.

“The next step from the government and federal states must be to secure liquidity for these municipal companies,” Kerstin Andreae, chairwoman of the German Association of Energy and Water Industries, told Bloomberg in Berlin. “Prices are rising, and they have no more money to pay the suppliers. This is a big problem.”

Germany’s energy crunch intensified over the weekend after Russia’s Gazprom PJSC halted its key gas pipeline indefinitely, a stark wake-up call for policymakers to reduce fossil fuel dependence. European energy prices have surged again amid concerns over shortages this winter and fears of a worst-case energy scenario across the bloc. 

Many utilities are running into financial issues as they’re forced to cover missing Russian deliveries with expensive supplies on the spot market. German energy giant Uniper SE, which supplies local utilities, warned it will likely burn through a 7 billion-euro ($7 billion) government safety net and will need more help already this month.

Some German local utilities have already sought help, according to a government official, who asked not to be identified in line with briefing rules.  

With Europe’s largest economy already bracing for recession, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s administration is battling on several fronts, testing the government’s financial capacity. The ruling coalition agreed Sunday on a relief plan worth about 65 billion euros -- part of an emerging energy shield package to contain the fallout of surging costs for households and businesses. 

Starting in October, local utilities will have to pay a levy for the gas acquired, which will further increase their financial burden, Andreae said.

Margin Calls
European gas prices are more than four times higher than usual for this time of year, underscoring why rolling back electricity prices is tougher than it appears for policymakers, as Russia cuts supplies in retaliation for sanctions related to its invasion of Ukraine. When prices peak, energy companies have to pay margin calls, extra collateral required to back their trades.

Read more: Energy Trade Risks Collapsing Over Margin Calls of $1.5 Trillion

The problem has hit local utilities in other countries as well. In Austria, the government approved a 2 billion-euro loan for Vienna’s municipal utility last month. 

The European Union is also planning help, floating gas price cap strategies among other tools. The bloc’s emergency measures will include support for electricity producers struggling to find enough cash to guarantee trades, according to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

The situation has worsened in Germany as some of the country’s big gas importers are reluctant to sell more supplies to some of municipal companies amid fears they could default on payments, Andreae said. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Ends Renewable Energy Moratorium, accelerating wind and solar deployment while prioritizing grid stability, reliability, and infrastructure upgrades to attract investment, cut emissions, meet climate targets, and integrate renewables into the provincial power system.

Key Points

It is Alberta's decision to lift a pause on new wind and solar projects while enhancing grid reliability.

✅ Resumes wind and solar development across Alberta.

✅ Focuses on grid stability and infrastructure upgrades.

✅ Aims to attract investment and meet climate targets.

The Alberta government has announced the end of a temporary suspension on the development of new renewable energy projects, as the power grid operator prepares to accept green energy bids across the market. This pause, which had been in place since May 2023, was initially implemented to evaluate the effects of rapid growth in renewable energy installations on the province's power grid and overall energy system. However, the decision to lift the moratorium reflects a shift in the government’s approach to balancing energy needs and environmental goals.

The suspension was introduced amid concerns that the swift expansion of wind and solar energy projects, including documented challenges with solar energy expansion in the province, could place undue stress on Alberta's electrical grid and infrastructure. Officials expressed worries about the ability of the grid to handle the increased load and the potential need for upgrades to accommodate new renewable energy sources. The government aimed to assess the implications of this growth and determine appropriate measures to ensure that the energy system could support both existing and future demands.

The moratorium drew significant criticism from various sectors, including renewable energy companies, environmental advocates, and local communities. Critics argued that the pause was detrimental to Alberta's efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources and meet climate targets, citing cases like TransAlta scrapping a wind farm amid policy uncertainty. They pointed out that halting projects could delay investments and job creation associated with the renewable energy sector, potentially impeding progress towards a more sustainable energy future.

In response to these concerns, the Alberta government conducted further reviews and consultations. The decision to cancel the pause reflects the government’s recognition of the importance of advancing renewable energy initiatives while also addressing the need for grid stability and infrastructure development. By ending the moratorium, the government aims to support the continued growth of renewable energy projects and maintain momentum in the shift towards greener energy solutions.

The lifting of the moratorium is expected to have a positive impact on the renewable energy industry in Alberta. Several planned projects that were put on hold can now proceed, leading to renewed investment and economic benefits, including a renewable energy surge that could power 4,500 jobs across the province. The government’s decision signals a commitment to integrating renewable energy sources into the provincial grid in a way that ensures both reliability and sustainability.

Going forward, the Alberta government plans to implement measures to better manage the integration of renewable energy into the existing power infrastructure. This includes addressing any potential challenges related to grid capacity and ensuring that the growth of renewable energy projects aligns with the province's overall energy strategy, as recent federal procurement such as a $500M green electricity contract with an Edmonton company underscores demand that integration efforts must accommodate. The goal is to create a balanced approach that supports the development of clean energy while maintaining the stability and efficiency of the energy system.

The end of the moratorium aligns with Alberta’s broader objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote environmental sustainability within a province recognized as a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels in Canada. The government’s approach reflects a willingness to adapt policies and strategies in response to evolving industry needs and environmental priorities. By removing the pause, Alberta demonstrates its commitment to fostering a diverse and resilient energy sector that can meet both current and future demands.

The decision to cancel the moratorium is also seen as a move to reinforce Alberta’s position as a leader in renewable energy development. With the lifting of restrictions, the province can continue to attract investment in clean energy projects, as neighboring jurisdictions such as B.C. streamline clean energy approvals to accelerate deployment, enhance its reputation as a progressive energy market, and contribute to global efforts to address climate change.

In summary, the Alberta government’s decision to lift the pause on renewable energy projects represents a significant shift in its approach to energy policy. The move reflects an acknowledgment of the importance of advancing renewable energy while addressing the practical challenges associated with grid management and infrastructure development. By ending the moratorium, Alberta aims to support the growth of clean energy initiatives and maintain its commitment to sustainability and environmental responsibility.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Alberta Solar Energy Contracts secure low-cost photovoltaic PPAs for government operations, delivering renewable electricity at 4.8 cents/kWh, beating natural gas LCOE, enhancing summer grid efficiency across Hays, Tilley, and Jenner with Canadian Solar.

Key Points

Low-cost PV power agreements meeting 55% of Alberta government electricity demand via new Canadian Solar facilities.

✅ Price: 4.8 cents/kWh CAD, under gas-fired generation LCOE.

✅ Sites: Hays, Tilley, Jenner; 50% equity with Conklin Métis Local #193.

✅ Supplies 55% of provincial government electricity demand.

Three new solar electricity facilities to be built in south eastern Alberta (Canada) amid Alberta's solar growth have been selected through a competitive process to supply the Government of Alberta with 55 per cent of their annual electricity needs. The facilities will be built near Hays, Tilley, and Jenner, by Canadian Solar with Conklin Métis Local #193 as 50-percent equity owners.

The Government of Alberta's operations have been powered 100 per cent with wind power since 2007. Upon the expiration of some of these contracts, they have been renewed to switch from wind to solar energy. The average contract pricing will be $0.048 per kilowatt hour (3.6 cents/kWh USD), which is less than the average historical wholesale power pool price paid to natural gas-fired electricity in the province in years 2008 - 2018.

"The conversation about solar energy has long been fixated on its price competitiveness with fossil fuels," said John Gorman, CanSIA President & CEO. "Today's announcement demonstrates that low cost solar energy has arrived as a mainstream option in Alberta, even as demand for solar lags in Canada according to federal assessments. The conversation should next focus on how to optimize an all-of-the-above strategy for developing the province's renewable and non-renewable resources."

"This price discovery is monumental for the solar industry in Canada" said Patrick Bateman, CanSIA Director of Policy & Market Development. "At less than five cents per kilowatt hour, this solar electricity has a cost that is less than that of natural gas. Achieving Alberta's legislated 30 per cent by 2030 renewable electricity target just became a whole lot cheaper!".

Quick Facts:

• The contract price of 4.8 cents/kWh CAD to be paid by Alberta Infrastructure for this solar electricity represents a lower Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) than the average annual wholesale price paid by the power pool to combined-cycle and single-cycle natural gas-fired electricity generation which was 7.1 cents/kWh and 11.2 cents/kWh respectively from 2008 - 2018.

• Alberta receives more hours of sunshine than Miami, Florida in the summer months. Alberta's electricity supply is most strained in summer, highlighting challenges for solar expansion when high temperatures increase the resistance of the distribution and transmission systems, and reduce the efficiency of cooling thermal power plants. For this reason, solar facilities sited near to electricity demand improves overall grid efficiency. Supply shortages are atypical in Alberta in winter when solar energy is least available. When they do occur, imports are increased and large loads are decreased.

• In 2018, Alberta's solar electricity generation exceeded 50 MW. While representing much less than 1% of the province's electricity supply today, the Canadian Solar Industries Association (CanSIA) forecasts that solar energy could supply as much as 3 per cent of the province's electricity by 2030, supporting renewable energy job growth across Alberta. A recent supply chain study of the solar electricity sector in Alberta by Solas Energy Consulting Inc. found a potential of $4.1 billion in market value and a labour force rising to 10,000 in 2030.

To learn more about solar energy and the best way for consumers to go solar, please visit the Canadian Solar Industries Association at www.CanSIA.ca.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News