Proposed Idaho nuclear plant suffers setback

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

NRC Special Inspection at River Bend reviews failures of portable emergency diesel generators, nuclear safety measures, and Entergy Operations actions after Fukushima; off-site power loss readiness, remote COVID-19 oversight, and corrective action plans are assessed.

Key Points

An NRC review of generator test failures at River Bend, assessing nuclear safety, root causes, and corrective actions.

✅ Evaluates failures of portable emergency diesel generators

✅ Reviews causal analyses and adequacy of corrective actions

✅ Remote COVID-19 oversight; public report expected within 45 days

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection at the River Bend nuclear power plant, part of broader oversight that includes the Turkey Point renewal application, to review circumstances related to the failure of five portable emergency diesel generators during testing. The plant, operated by Entergy Operations, is located in St. Francisville, La., as nations like France outage risks continue to highlight broader reliability concerns.

The generators are used to supply power to plant systems in the event of a prolonged loss of off-site electrical power coupled with a failure of the permanently installed emergency generators, a concern underscored by incidents such as the SC nuclear plant leak that shut down production for weeks. These portable generators were acquired as part of the facility's safety enhancements mandated by the NRC following the 2011 accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi facility in Japan, and amid constraints like France limiting output from warm rivers, the emphasis on resilience remains.

The three-member NRC team will develop a chronology of the test failures and evaluate the licensee's causal analyses and the adequacy of corrective actions, informed by lessons from cases like Davis-Besse closure stakes that underscore risk management.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they will complete most of their work remotely, while other regions address constraints such as high river temperatures limiting output for nuclear stations. An inspection report documenting the team's findings, released as global nuclear project milestones continue across the sector, will be publicly available within 45 days of the end of the inspection.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Pacific Northwest Transmission Bottleneck slows clean energy progress as BPA's aging grid constrains renewable interconnections, delaying wind, solar, and data center growth; decarbonization targets depend on transmission upgrades, new substations, and policy reform.

Key Points

An interconnection and capacity shortfall on BPA's aging grid that delays renewables and impedes clean energy goals.

✅ BPA approvals lag: 1 of 469 projects since 2015.

✅ Yakama solar waits for substation upgrades until 2027.

✅ Data centers and decarbonization targets face grid constraints.

Oregon and Washington have set ambitious targets to decarbonize their power sectors, aiming for 100% clean electricity in the coming decades. However, a significant obstacle stands in the way: the region's aging and overburdened transmission grid, underscoring why 100% renewables remain elusive even as momentum builds.

The Grid Bottleneck

The BPA operates a transmission system that is nearly a century old in some areas, and its capacity has not expanded sufficiently to accommodate the influx of renewable energy projects, reflecting stalled grid spending in many parts of the U.S., according to recent analyses. Since 2015, 469 large renewable projects have applied to connect to the BPA's grid; however, only one has been approved—a stark contrast to other regions in the country. This bottleneck has left numerous wind and solar projects in limbo, unable to deliver power to the grid.

One notable example is the Yakama Nation's solar project. Despite receiving a $32 million federal grant under the bipartisan infrastructure law as part of a broader grid overhaul for renewables, the tribe faces significant delays. The BPA estimates that it will take until 2027 to complete the necessary upgrades to the transmission system, including a new substation, before the solar array can be connected. This timeline poses a risk of losing federal funding if the project isn't operational by 2031.

Economic and Environmental Implications

The slow pace of grid expansion has broader implications for the region's economy and environmental goals. Data centers and other energy-intensive industries are increasingly drawn to the Pacific Northwest due to its clean energy potential, while interregional projects like the Wyoming-to-California wind link illustrate how transmission access can unlock supply. However, without adequate infrastructure, these industries may seek alternatives elsewhere. Additionally, the inability to integrate renewable energy efficiently hampers efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.

Policy Challenges and Legislative Efforts

Efforts to address the grid limitations through state-level initiatives have faced challenges, even as a federal rule to boost transmission advances nationally. In 2025, both Oregon and Washington considered legislation to establish state bonding authorities aimed at financing transmission upgrades. However, these bills failed to pass, leaving the BPA as the primary entity responsible for grid expansion. The BPA's unique structure—operating as a self-funded federal agency without direct state oversight—has made it difficult for regional leaders to influence its decision-making processes.

Looking Ahead

The Pacific Northwest's renewable energy aspirations hinge on modernizing its transmission infrastructure, aligning with decarbonization strategies that emphasize grid buildout. While the BPA has proposed several projects to enhance grid capacity, the timeline for completion remains uncertain. Without significant investment and policy reforms, the region risks falling behind in the transition to a clean energy future. Stakeholders across Oregon and Washington must collaborate to advocate for necessary changes and ensure that the grid can support the growing demand for renewable energy.

The Pacific Northwest's commitment to clean energy is commendable, but achieving these goals requires overcoming substantial infrastructure challenges, and neighboring jurisdictions such as British Columbia have pursued B.C. regulatory streamlining to accelerate projects. Addressing the limitations of the BPA's transmission system is critical to unlocking the full potential of renewable energy in the region. Only through concerted efforts at the federal, state, and local levels can Oregon and Washington hope to realize their green energy ambitions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Wisconsin Solar and Wind Energy advances as rooftop solar, utility-scale farms, and NREL perovskite solar cells improve efficiency; wind turbines gain via wake modeling, yaw control, and grid-scale battery storage to cut carbon emissions.

Key Points

It is Wisconsin's growth in rooftop and utility-scale solar plus optimized wind turbines to cut carbon emissions.

✅ Perovskite solar cells promise higher efficiency, need longevity

✅ Wake modeling and yaw control optimize wind farm output

✅ Batteries and bids can offset reliance on natural gas

Solar energy in Wisconsin continued to grow in 2019, as more homeowners had rooftop panels installed and big utilities started building multi-panel solar farms.

Wind power is increasing more slowly in the state. However, renewable power developers are again coming forward with proposals for multiple turbines.

Nationally, researchers are working on ways to get even more energy from solar and wind, with the U.S. moving toward 30% electricity from wind and solar in coming years, as states like Wisconsin aim to reduce their carbon emissions over the next few decades.

One reason solar energy is growing in Wisconsin is due to the silicon panels becoming more efficient. But scientists haven't finished trying to improve panel efficiency. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Col., is one of the research facilities experimenting with brushing a lab-made solution called perovskite onto a portion of a panel called a solar cell.

In a demonstration video supplied by NREL, senior scientist Maikel van Hest said that, in the lab anyway, the painted cell and its electrical connections called contacts, produce more energy:

"There you go! That's how you paint a perovskite solar cell. And you imagine that ultimately what you could do is you could see a company come in with a truck in front of your house and they would basically paint on the contacts first, dry those, and paint the perovskite over it. That you would have photovoltaic cells on the side of your house, put protective coating on it, and we're done."

Another NREL scientist, David Moore, says the new solar cells could be made faster and help meet what's expected to be a growing global demand for energy. However, Moore says the problem has been lack of stability.

"A solar cell with perovskites will last a couple years. We need to get that to 20-25 years, and that's the big forefront in perovskite research, is getting them to last longer," Moore told members of the Society of Environmental Journalists during a recent tour of NREL.

Another part of improving renewable energy is making wind turbines more productive. At NREL's Insight Center, a large screen showing energy model simulations dominates an otherwise darkened room. Visualization scientist Nicholas Brunhart-Lupo points to a display on the screen that shows how spinning turbines at one edge of a wind farm can cause an airflow called a wake, which curtails the power generation of other turbines.

"So what we find in these simulations is these four turbines back here, since they have this used air, this low-velocity wake being blown to their faces, they're only generating about 20% of the energy they should be generating," he explains.

Brunhart-Lupo says the simulations can help wind farm developers with placement of turbines as well as adjustments to the rotor and blades called the yaw system.

Continued progress with renewables may be vital to any state or national pledges to reduce use of fossil fuels and carbon emissions linked to climate change, including Biden's solar expansion plan as a potential pathway. Some scientists say to limit a rise in global temperature, there must be a big decline in emissions by 2050.

But even utilities that say they support use of more renewables, as why the grid isn't 100% renewable yet makes clear, aren't ready to let go of some energy sources. Jonathan Adelman of Xcel Energy, which serves part of Western Wisconsin, says Xcel is on track to close its last two coal-fired power plants in Minnesota. But he says the company will need more natural gas plants, even though they wouldn't run as often.

"It's not perfect. And it is in conflict with our ultimate goal of being carbon-free," says Adelman. "But if we want to facilitate the transition, we still need resources to help that happen."

Some in the solar industry would like utilities that say they need more natural gas plants to put out competitive bids to see what else might be possible. Solar advocates also note that in some states, energy regulators still favor the utilities.

Meanwhile, solar slowly marches ahead, including here in southeastern Wisconsin, as Germany's solar power boost underscores global momentum.

On the roof of a ranch-style home in River Hills, a work crew from the major solar firm Sunrun recently installed mounting brackets for solar panels.

Sunrun Public Policy Director Amy Heart says she supports research into more efficient renewables. But she says another innovation may have to come in the way regulators think.

"Instead of allowing and thinking about from the perspective of the utility builds the power plant, they replace one plant with another one, they invest in the infrastructure; is really thinking about how can these distributed solutions like rooftop solar, peer-to-peer energy sharing, and especially rooftop solar paired with batteries how can that actually reduce some of what the utility needs?

Large-scale energy storage batteries are already being used in some limited cases. But energy researchers continue to make improvements to them, too, with cheap solar batteries beginning to make widespread adoption more feasible as scientists race to reduce the expected additional harm of climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Affordable Clean Energy Rule Lawsuit pits EPA and coal industry allies against health groups over Clean Power Plan repeal, greenhouse gas emissions standards, climate change, public health, and state authority before the D.C. Circuit.

Key Points

A legal fight over EPA's ACE rule and CPP repeal, weighing emissions policy, state authority, climate, and public health.

✅ Challenges repeal of Clean Power Plan and adoption of ACE.

✅ EPA backed by coal, utilities; health groups seek stricter limits.

✅ D.C. Circuit to review emissions authority and state roles.

The largest trade association representing coal interests in the country has joined other business and electric utility groups in siding with the EPA in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The suit -- filed by the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association -- seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop a new rule-making process that critics claim would allow higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, further contributing to the climate crisis and negatively impacting public health.

The new rule, which the Trump administration calls the "Affordable Clean Energy rule" (ACE), "would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA's authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect," according to an EPA statement.

EPA has also moved to rewrite wastewater limits for coal power plants, signaling a broader rollback of related environmental requirements.

America's Power -- formerly the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association have filed motions seeking to join the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not yet responded to the motion.

Separately, energy groups warned that President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were rushing major changes to electricity pricing that could disrupt markets.

"In this rule, the EPA has accomplished what eluded the prior administration: providing a clear, legal pathway to reduce emissions while preserving states' authority over their own grids," Hal Quinn, president and chief executive officer of the mining association, said when the new rule was released last month. "ACE replaces a proposal that was so extreme that the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of the proposal, having recognized the economic havoc the mere suggestion of such overreach was causing in the nation's power grid."

Around the same time, a coal industry CEO blasted a federal agency's decision on the power grid as harmful to reliability.

The trade and business groups have argued that the Clean Power Plan, set by the Obama administration, was an overreach of federal power. Finalized in 2015, the plan was President Obama's signature policy on climate change, rooted in compliance with the Paris Climate Treaty. It would have set state limits on emissions from existing power plants but gave wide latitude for meeting goals, such as allowing plant operators to switch from coal to other electric generating sources to meet targets.

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the rule exceeded federal statutory limits by imposing "outside the fence" regulations on coal-fired plants instead of regulating "inside the fence" operations that can improve efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan set a goal of reducing carbon emissions from power generators by 32 percent by the year 2030. An analysis from the Rhodium Group found that had states taken full advantage of the CPP's flexibility, emissions would have been reduced by as much as 72 million metric tons per year on average. Still, even absent federal mandates, the group noted that states are taking it upon themselves to enact emission-reducing plans based on market forces.

In its motion, America's Power argues the EPA "acknowledged that the [Best System of Emission Reduction] for a source category must be 'limited to measures that can be implemented ... by the sources themselves.'" If plants couldn't take action, compliance with the new rule would require the owners or operators to buy emission rate credits that would increase investment in electricity from gas-fired or renewable sources. The increase in operating costs plus federal efforts to shift power generation to other sources of energy, thereby increasing costs, would eventually force the coal-fired plants out of business.

In related proceedings, renewable energy advocates told FERC that a DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants was unsupported by the record, highlighting concerns about market distortions.

"While we are confident that EPA will prevail in the courts, we also want to help EPA defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation," said Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America's Power.

"Extreme regulation" to one group is environmental and health protections to another, though.

Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, defended the Clean Power Plan in an opinion piece published in June.

"The Midwest still produces more electricity from coal plants than any other region of the country, and Midwesterners bear the full range of pollution harms to public health, the Great Lakes, and overall environmental quality," Learner wrote. "The new [Affordable Clean Energy] Rule is a misguided policy, moves our nation backward in solving climate change problems, and misses opportunities for economic growth and innovation in the global shift to renewable energy. If not reversed by the courts, as it should be, the next administration will have the challenge of doing the right thing for public health, the climate and our clean energy future."

When it initially filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the American Lung Association accused the EPA of "abdicat[ing] its legal duties and obligations to protect public health." It also referred to the new rule as "dangerous."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

TransAlta Alberta Data Centre integrates AI, cloud computing, and renewable energy, tackling electricity demand, grid capacity, decarbonization, and energy storage with clean power, cooling efficiency, and PPA-backed supply for hyperscale workloads.

Key Points

TransAlta Alberta Data Centre is a planned AI facility powered mostly by renewables to meet high electricity demand.

✅ Targets partner exclusivity mid-year; ops 18-24 months post-contract.

✅ Supplies ~90% power via TransAlta; balance from market.

✅ Anchors $3.5B clean energy growth and storage in Alberta.

TransAlta Corp., one of Alberta’s leading power producers, is moving toward finalizing agreements with partners to establish a data centre in the province, aligned with AI data center grid integration efforts nationally, aiming to have definitive contracts signed before the end of the year.

CEO John Kousinioris stated during an analyst conference that the company seeks to secure exclusivity with key partners by mid-year, with detailed design plans and final agreements expected by late 2025. Once the contracts are signed, the data centre is anticipated to be operational within 18 to 24 months, a horizon mirrored by Medicine Hat AI grid upgrades initiatives that aim to modernize local systems.

Data centres, which are critical for high-tech industries such as artificial intelligence, consume large amounts of electricity to run and cool servers, a trend reflected in U.S. utility power challenges reporting, underscoring the scale of energy demand. In this context, TransAlta plans to supply around 90% of its partner's energy needs for the facility, with the remainder coming from the broader electricity market.

Alberta has identified data centres as a strategic priority, aiming to see $100 billion in AI-related data centre construction over the next five years. However, the rapid growth of this sector presents challenges for the region’s energy infrastructure. Electricity demand from data centres has already outpaced the available capacity in Alberta’s power grid, intensifying discussions about a western Canadian electricity grid to improve regional reliability, potentially impacting the province’s decarbonization goals.

To address these challenges, TransAlta has adopted a renewable energy investment strategy. The company announced a $3.5 billion growth plan focused primarily on clean electricity generation and storage, as British Columbia's clean energy shift advances across the region, through 2028. By then, more than two-thirds of TransAlta’s earnings are expected to come from renewable power generation, supporting progress toward a net-zero electricity grid by 2050 nationally.

The collaboration between TransAlta and data centre developers represents an opportunity to balance growing energy demand with sustainability goals. By integrating renewable energy generation into data centre operations and broader macrogrid investments, Alberta could move toward a cleaner and more resilient energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News