Venerable lighthouse gets a new holiday look

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

TVA Rates and Renewable Energy Scrutiny spotlights electricity rates, distributed energy resources, solar and wind deployment, natural gas plans, grid access charges, energy efficiency cuts, and House oversight of lobbying, FERC inquiries, and least-cost planning.

Key Points

A congressional probe into TVA pricing and practices affecting renewables, energy efficiency, and climate goals.

✅ House panel probes TVA rates, DER and solar policies.

✅ Efficiency programs cut; least-cost planning questioned.

✅ Inquiry on lobbying, hidden fees; FERC scrutiny.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is facing federal scrutiny about its electricity rates and climate action, amid ongoing debates over network profits in other markets.

Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce are “requesting information” from TVA about its ratepayer bills and “out of concern” that TVA is interfering with the deployment of renewable and distributed energy resources, even as companies such as Tesla explore electricity retail to expand customer options.

“The Committee is concerned that TVA’s business practices are inconsistent with these statutory requirements to the disadvantage of TVA’s ratepayers and the environment,” the committee said in a letter to TVA CEO Jeffrey Lyash.

The four committee members — U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Bobby L. Rush (D-IL), Diana DeGette (D-CO), and Paul Tonko (D-NY) — suggested that Tennessee Valley residents pay too much for electricity despite TVA’s relatively low rates, even as regulators have, in other cases, scrutinized mergers like the Hydro One-Avista deal to safeguard ratepayers, underscoring similar concerns. In 2020, Tennessee residents had electric bills higher than the national average, while low-income residents in Memphis have historically faced one of the highest energy burdens in the U.S.

In 2018, TVA reduced its wholesale rate while adding a grid access charge on local power companies—and interfered with the adoption of solar energy. Internal TVA documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Energy and Policy Institute revealed that TVA permitted local power companies to impose new fees on distributed solar generation to “lessen the potential decrease in TVA load that may occur through the adoption of [behind the meter] generation.”

Additionally, the committee said TVA is not prioritizing energy conservation and efficiency or “least-cost planning” that includes renewables, as seen in oversight such as the OEB's Hydro One rates decision emphasizing cost allocation. TVA reduced its energy efficiency programs by nearly two-thirds between 2014 and 2018 and cut its energy efficiency customer incentive programs.

At this time, TVA has not aligned its long-term planning with the Biden administration’s goal to achieve a carbon-free electricity sector by 2035. TVA’s generation mix, which is roughly 60% carbon-free, comprises 39% nuclear, 19% coal, 26% natural gas, 11% hydro, 3% wind and solar, and 1% energy efficiency programs, according to TVA.

The committee is “greatly concerned that TVA has invested comparatively little to date in deploying solar and wind energy, while at the same time considering investments in new natural gas generation.”

TVA has announced plans to shutter the Kingston and Cumberland coal plants and is evaluating whether to replace this generation with natural gas, which is a fossil fuel, while debates over grid privatization raise questions about consumer benefits. TVA’s coal and natural gas plants represent most of the largest sources of greenhouses emissions in Tennessee.

TVA responded with a statement without directly addressing the committee’s concerns. TVA said its “developing and implementing emerging technologies to drive toward net-zero emissions by 2050.”

The final question that the House committee posed is whether TVA is funding any political activity. In 2019, the committee questioned TVA about its membership to the now-disbanded Utility Air Regulatory Group, a coalition that was involved in over 200 lawsuits that primarily fought Clear Air Act regulations.

TVA revealed that it had contributed $7.3 million to the industry lobbying group since 2001. Since TVA doesn’t have shareholders, customers paid for UARG membership fees, echoing findings that deferred utility costs burden customers in other jurisdictions. An Office of the Inspector General investigation couldn’t prove whether TVA’s contributions directly funded litigation because UARG didn’t have a line-by-line accounting of what they did with TVA’s dollars.

The congressional committee questioned whether TVA is still paying for lobbying or litigation that opposes “public health and welfare regulations.”

This last question follows a recent trend of questioning utilities about “hidden fees.” In December, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry to examine how bills from investor-owned utilities might contain fees that fund political activity, and regulators have penalized firms like NT Power over customer notice practices, highlighting consumer protection. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition to protect electric and gas customers of investor-owned utilities from paying these fees, which may be used for lobbying, campaign-related donations and litigation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Summer Power Grid Reliability and Climate Risk drives urgent planning as extreme heat, peak demand, drought, and aging infrastructure strain ERCOT, NERC regions, risking outages without renewables integration and climate-informed grid modeling.

Key Points

Assessment of how extreme weather and demand stress the US grid, informing climate-smart planning to reduce outages.

✅ Many operators rely on historical weather, not climate projections

✅ NERC flags elevated blackout risk amid extreme heat and drought

✅ Renewables and storage can boost capacity and cut emissions

As heat ramps up ahead of what forecasters say will be a hotter than normal summer, electricity experts and officials are warning that states may not have enough power to meet demand in the coming months. And many of the nation's grid operators are also not taking climate change into account in their planning, despite available grid resilience guidance that could inform upgrades, even as extreme weather becomes more frequent and more severe.

Power operators in the Central US, in their summer readiness report, have already predicted "insufficient firm resources to cover summer peak forecasts." That assessment accounted for historical weather and the latest NOAA outlook that projects for more extreme weather this summer.

But energy experts say that some power grid operators are not considering how the climate crisis is changing our weather — including more frequent extreme events — and that is a problem if the intent is to build a reliable power grid while accelerating investing in carbon-free electricity across markets.

"The reality is the electricity system is old and a lot of the infrastructure was built before we started thinking about climate change," said Romany Webb, a researcher at Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. "It's not designed to withstand the impacts of climate change."

Webb says many power grid operators use historical weather to make investment decisions, rather than the more dire climate projections, simply because they want to avoid the possibility of financial loss, even as climate-related credit risks for nuclear plants are being flagged, for investing in what might happen versus what has already happened. She said it's the wrong approach and it makes the grid vulnerable.

"We have seen a reluctance on the part of many utilities to factor climate change into their planning processes because they say the science around climate change is too uncertain," Webb said. "The reality is we know climate change is happening, we know the impact it has in terms of more severe heatwaves, hurricanes, drought, with recent hydropower constraints in British Columbia illustrating the risks, and we know that all of those things affect the electricity system so ignoring those impacts just makes the problems worse."

An early heatwave knocked six power plants offline in Texas earlier this month. Residents were asked to limit electricity use, keeping thermostats at 78 degrees or higher and, as extreme heat boosts electricity bills for consumers, avoid using large appliances at peak times. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, in its seasonal reliability report, said the state's power grid is prepared for the summer and has "sufficient" power for "normal" summer conditions, based on average weather from 2006 to 2020.

But NOAA's recently released summer outlook forecasts above average temperatures for every county in the nation.

"We are continuing to design and site facilities based on historical weather patterns that we know in the age of climate change are not a good proxy for future conditions," Webb said.

When asked if the agency is creating a blind spot for itself by not accounting for extreme weather predictions, an ERCOT spokesperson said the report "uses a scenario approach to illustrate a range of resource adequacy outcomes based on extreme system conditions, including some extreme weather scenarios."

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC — a regulating authority that oversees the health of the nation's electrical infrastructure — has a less optimistic projection.

In a recent seasonal reliability report, NERC placed Texas at "elevated risk" for blackouts this summer. It also reported that while much of the nation will have adequate electricity this summer, several markets are at risk of energy emergencies.

California grid operators, who recently avoided widespread rolling blackouts as heat strained the grid, in its summer reliability report also based its readiness analysis on "the most recent 20 years of historical weather data." The report also notes the assessment "does not fully reflect more extreme climate induced load and supply uncertainties."

Compounding the US power grid's supply and demand problem is drought: NERC says there's been a 2% loss of reliable hydropower from the nation's power-producing dams. Add to that the rapid retirement of many coal power plants — all while nearly everything from toothbrushes to cars are now electrified. Energy experts say adding more renewables into the mix will have the dual impact of cutting climate change inducing greenhouse gas emissions but also increasing the nation's power supply, aligning with efforts such as California's 100% carbon-free mandate that aim to speed the transition.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

BC Hydro Customer Crisis Fund Surplus highlights unused grants, pilot program imbalance, and calls to reduce fees or expand eligibility. Ratepayers, regulators, and social agencies urge awareness, rebates, and aid for overdue electricity bills.

Key Points

A funding carryover from BC Hydro's crisis grants, sparking debate over fee reductions or more aid eligibility.

✅ $2.9M surplus from 25-cent monthly customer fee

✅ Only 2,250 grants issued; awareness and eligibility questioned

✅ Regulator may refund balance or adjust program design

BC Hydro is sitting on a surplus of about $2.9 million in its customer crisis fund, even as BC Hydro rates rise 3% across the province, leading to calls for the utility to reduce its take from the average customer or provide more money to those in need.

B.C. Liberal Energy Critic Greg Kyllo said if the imbalance continues in the year-old pilot program, amid a provincial rate freeze announced by the province, it’s time to cut the monthly 25 cent fee in half.

"If the grant requirement or the need in the province is going to remain where it is, they should look at rolling back the contribution level in the fund," he told CTV News Vancouver from Salmon Arm.

But social agencies who were part of the consultation around the fund in the beginning said it’s more likely that people in need don’t know about the fund and more time is necessary to get the word out.

"If they collect the money, then the program’s got to change to make sure more people are able to be helped," said Gudrun Langolf of the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of BC.

The customer crisis fund was started in spring 2018 to give people short-term relief when they can’t pay their electricity bills, especially as a $2 monthly hike pressures household budgets. Customers can apply to get a grant of up to $500 to keep the lights on, and up to $600 if electricity heats their homes.

The public utility took in about 25 cents per customer per month which added up to a revenue of $4.5 million in the year since the program started, BC Hydro confirmed to CTV News.

But the agency only gave out 2,250 grants totalling $850,000.

Administration costs added up around $750,000 – leaving the $2.9 million remaining.

The news will come as a welcome relief to those who suddenly struggle to pay their hydro bills, particularly as Alberta ratepayers are on the hook under a utility deferral program elsewhere in Canada.

Some people who come into Disability Alliance B.C. are often anxious and emotional when they’re suddenly unable to pay their bills, said Shar Saremi, an advocate there.

"I’ve had people crying. I’ve had people who have experienced a loss in the family," she said. "A lot of the time people are stressed out, anxious, really upset. They are looking for assistance, and they aren’t sure what is available for them."

She said people are only eligible if their bills are under $1,000, which could be cutting out the people who are most in need. And because the program is in its first year, it could be undersubscribed, she said.

"A lot of people don’t know about the program, don’t know how to apply, or what kind of assistance is out there," Saremi said.

The fund was established thanks to an order from the B.C. Utilities Commission, the utilities regulator in the province.

The pilot program is going to be examined by the regulator at the end of its first year.

"Any remaining balance in the account at the end of the pilot would be returned to residential ratepayers," says a BCUC fact sheet, as BC Hydro rates are set to rise 3.75% over two years. The decision on exactly what to do with the money hasn’t yet been made.

In Manitoba, a similar program is by donation, and in Newfoundland and Labrador a lump-sum credit was offered to bill payers in a separate initiative. That program raised about $200,000 from customers and $60,000 in other income. It spent $199,000 on grants to applicants, but lost about $20,000 a year.

In Ontario, private utilities are expected to raise 0.12 per cent of their revenue, and Hydro One reconnections have highlighted the stakes for nonpayment there. Across the province, those utilities gave out about $7.3 million in grants. Any unused funds in one year are rolled over to the following year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bruce Power Unit 6 refurbishment replaces major reactor components, shifting supply to hydroelectric and natural gas, sustaining Ontario jobs, extending plant life to 2064, and managing radioactive waste along Lake Huron, on-time and on-budget.

Key Points

A 4-year, $2.1B reactor overhaul within a 13-year, $13B program to extend plant life to 2064 and support Ontario jobs.

✅ Unit 6 offline 4 years; capacity shift to hydro and gas

✅ Part of 13-year, $13B program; extends life to 2064

✅ Creates jobs; manages radioactive waste at Lake Huron

The world’s largest nuclear fleet, became a little smaller Monday morning. Bruce Power has began the process to take Unit 6 offline to begin a $2.1 billion project, supported by manufacturing contracts with key suppliers, to replace all the major components of the reactor.

The reactor, which produces enough electricity to power 750,000 homes and reflects higher output after upgrades across the site, will be out of service for the next four years.

In its place, hydroelectric power and natural gas will be utilized more.

Taking Unit 6 offline is just the “official” beginning of a 13-year, $13-billion project to refurbish six of Bruce Power’s eight nuclear reactors, as Ontario advances the Pickering B refurbishment as well on its grid.

Work to extend the life of the nuclear plant started in 2016, and the company recently marked an operating record while supporting pandemic response, but the longest and hardest part of the project - the major component replacement - begins now.

“The Unit 6 project marks the next big step in a long campaign to revitalize this site,” says Mike Rencheck, Bruce Power’s president and CEO.

The overall project is expected to last until 2033, and mirrors life extensions at Pickering supporting Ontario’s zero-carbon goals, but will extend the life of the nuclear plant until 2064.

Extending the life of the Bruce Power nuclear plant will sustain 22,000 jobs in Ontario and add $4 billion a year in economic activity to the province, say Bruce Power officials.

About 2,000 skilled tradespeople will be required for each of the six reactor refurbishments - 4,200 people already work at the sprawling nuclear plant near Kincardine.

It will also mean tons of radioactive nuclear waste will be created that is currently stored in buildings on the Bruce Power site, along the shores of Lake Huron.

Bruce Power restarted two reactors back in 2012, and in later years doubled a PPE donation to support regional health partners. That project was $2-billion over-budget, and three years behind schedule.

Bruce Power officials say this refurbishment project is currently on-time and on-budget.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Clean Energy Standard charts a federal path to decarbonize the power sector, scaling renewables, wind, solar, nuclear, and carbon capture to slash emissions, create green jobs, and reach net-zero targets amid the climate crisis.

Key Points

A federal policy to expand clean power and cut emissions with renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture toward net-zero.

✅ Mandates annual increases in clean electricity supply

✅ Includes renewables, nuclear, hydro, and carbon capture

✅ Targets rapid emissions cuts and net-zero by mid-century

The world has been put on notice. Last year, both the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Climate Assessment warned that we need to slash greenhouse gas emissions to avoid disastrous impacts of global warming. Their direct language forecasting devastating effects on our health, economics, environment, and ways of life has made even more urgent the responsibility we all have to act boldly to combat the climate crisis.

This week, we’re adding one important tool for addressing the climate crisis to the national conversation.

Together, we’re taking that bold action. The Climate reports made clear that to limit the global temperature rise and stave off devastating impacts to our climate—human-caused CO2 emissions must fall rapidly by 2030 and that we, as a global community, underscored at the Katowice climate talks, must reach net-zero emissions by the middle of the century. The Clean Energy Standard is federal legislation that offers a pathway toward decarbonizing our power sector and helping our nation accomplish a goal of net-zero emissions by the 2050s.

Under this plan, any company selling retail electricity will have a mandate to increase the amount of clean energy provided to its customers. It will incentivize clean electricity investment to put the U.S. on a sustainable path.

To deal most effectively with a crisis, all tools must be on the table. Our plan focuses solely on emissions, and there is a place for all technologies that can put us on the path to net zero. That will mean drastic increases in wind and solar energy for sure, as states like California pursue a 100% carbon-free electricity mandate to accelerate deployment, but nuclear power, hydro power, and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage all have important roles to play.

We’re doing this because the science is clear – tackling our climate crisis requires serious and rapid action to control greenhouse gas emissions, and the push for decarbonization is irreversible according to many. Inaction on the climate crisis puts our families at risk, and we’re not wasting any time. This is also an opportunity to create good-paying green jobs that can last generations and uplift the middle class.

We are doing this for the environment, but also for jobs and economic competitiveness. The green economy is the future and we’re ready to see it grow, with states like New York advancing a Green New Deal that drives innovation. The United States can lead, or we can follow, and we want our nation to lead.

And, because as a New Mexican and a Minnesotan, we know that the impacts of climate change go far beyond the headlines and political discourse. It means devastation within tamarack forests and an increase in deadly fires. It means hotter summers and shorter winters with extreme temperature swings throughout the year. It means devastating flash floods with increasingly intense rain. It’s impacting our pocketbooks when farmers and small businesses who work the land in rural communities are unable to make ends meet.

States across the country are already acting to combat the climate crisis – including Minnesota's 2050 carbon-free electricity plan and New Mexico. But in order to truly address climate change, we have to be in this together as Americans. If the problem is far-reaching, our solutions must be equally as holistic.

It's why we've worked with green groups and activists, unions, and communities across the country - from urban to rural - to create a solution that understands the different starting points communities face in reaching net zero emissions, but doesn't shrink from the absolute need to reach that standard.

There is not one solution to climate change – it will take a collective group of individuals prepared to boldly act. And we are ready to take on that fight.

In Congress, we have formed the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and the Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis to hear from everyday Americans how climate change is affecting them – and how we can come together to find solutions that build on the historic climate deal passed this year. We have heard the stories of young people worried about their futures. And we realize there is a sense of urgency to act.

Over the coming weeks and months, we will be building support from communities across the country to make this plan a reality. We will continue working with stakeholders to ensure every voice is heard. Most importantly, we will continue listening to you and your communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News