Investor says it never made deal with ZAP cars

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

AEMC Storage Charging Rules spark industry backlash as Tesla, Snowy Hydro, and investors warn transmission charges on batteries and pumped hydro could deter grid-scale storage, distort the National Electricity Market, and slow decarbonisation.

Key Points

AEMC Storage Charging Rules are proposals to bill grid storage for network use, shaping costs and investment.

✅ Charges apply when batteries draw power; double-charging concerns.

✅ Tesla and Snowy Hydro warn of reduced viability and delays.

✅ AEMO recommends exemptions; investors seek certainty.

Tesla, Snowy Hydro and other big suppliers of storage capacity on Australia’s main electricity grid warn proposed rule changes amount to a tax on their operations that will deter investors and slow the decarbonisation of the industry.

The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) will release its final decision this Thursday on new rules for integrating batteries, pumped hydro and other forms of storage.

The AEMC’s draft decision, released in July, angered many firms because it proposed charging storage providers for drawing power, ignoring a recommendation by the Australian Electricity Market Operator (AEMO) that they be exempt.

Battery maker Tesla, which has supplied some of the largest storage to the National Electricity Market, said in a submission that the charges would “kill the commercial viability of all grid storage projects, causing inefficient investment in alternative network”, with consumers paying higher costs.

Snowy Hydro, which is building the giant Snowy 2 pumped storage project and already operates a smaller one, said in its submission the proposed changes if implemented would jeopardise investment.

“This is a major policy change, amounting to a tax on infrastructure critical to achieving a renewable future,” Snowy Hydro said.

AEMO itself argued it was important storage providers were not “disincentivised from connecting to the transmission network, as they generally provide a net benefit to the power system by charging at periods of low demand”.

Australia’s electricity grid faces economic and engineering challenges, similar to Ontario's storage push as it adjusts to the arrival of lower cost and also lower carbon alternatives to fossil fuels.

While rule changes are necessary to account for operators that can both draw from and supply power, how they are implemented can have long-lasting effects on the technologies that get encouraged or repelled, including control of EV charging issues, independent experts say.

“It doesn’t have to be this way,” said Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre. “In Britain, where the UK grid transformation is underway, the regulator dealing with the same issues has said that storage devices don’t pay the system charges when they withdraw electricity from the grid,” he said.

The prospect that storage operators will have to pay transmission charges could “drastically” affect their profitability since their business models rely on the difference between the price their pay for power and how much they can sell it for. Gas generators and network monopolies would benefit from the change, Mountain said.

Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

An AEMC spokesperson said the commission had consulted widely, including from those who objected to the payment for transmission access.

“The market is moving towards a future that will be increasingly reliant on energy storage to firm up the growing volume of renewable energy and deliver on the increasing need for critical system security services, with examples such as EVs supporting grid stability in California as the ageing fleet of thermal generators retire,” the spokesperson said, declining to elaborate on the final ruling before it is published.

“The regulatory framework needs to facilitate this transition as the energy sector continues to decarbonise,” the official said.

AusNet, which operates the Victorian energy transmission grid, said that while “technological neutrality is paramount for battery and hybrid unit connections to both the distribution and transmission networks,” it did not back charging storage access to networks in all cases.

“[Ausnet] supports a clear exemptions framework for energy storage providers,” a spokesperson said. “We recommend that batteries and other hybrid facilities should have transmission use of system charges waived if they provide a net benefit to network customers.”

We are not aware of anyone that supports the charging storage access to networks in all circumstances.

“Batteries and hybrid facilities that consume energy from the network should be provided no preferential treatment relative to other customers and generators.”

Jonathan Upson, a principal at Strategic Renewable Consulting, though, said the AEMC wants electricity flowing through batteries to be taxed twice to pay network charges – once when the electricity charges the battery and then again when the same electricity is sent out by the battery an hour or two later but this time with customers paying.

“The AEMC’s draft decision has the identical rationale for eliminating franking credits on all dividends, resulting in double taxing of company profits,” he said.

Christiaan Zuur, director of energy transformation at the Clean Energy Council, said that while much of AEMC’s draft proposal was constructive, “those benefits are either nullified or maybe even outweighed” by uncertainty over charges.

“Risk perception” will be important since potential newcomers won’t be sure of what charges they will pay to connect to the grid and existing operators could have their connection agreements reopened, Zuur said.

“Investors focus on the potential risk. It does factor through to the integral costs for projects,” he said.

The outcome of new charges may prompt more people to put batteries on their premises and draw power from their own solar panels, Mountain said, with rising EV adoption introducing new grid challenges, cutting their reliance on a centralised network.

“Ironically, it encourages customers to depend less and less on the grid,” he said. “It’s almost like the capture of the dominant interests playing out over time at their own expense.”

Separately, the latest edition of the Clean Energy Council Confidence Index shows leadership by state governments is helping to shore up investor appetite for investing in renewable energy amid 2021 electricity lessons even with higher 2030 emissions reduction goals from the federal government.

Overall, investor confidence increased by a point in the last six months – from 6.3 to 7.3 out of 10 – following strong commitments and policy development from state governments, particularly on the east coast, the council said.

“The results of this latest survey illustrate the economic value in policy that lowers the emissions footprint of our electricity generation, supporting regional centres and creating jobs. Investors recognise the opportunities created by limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees,” said council chief executive Kane Thornton.

Among the states, NSW, Victoria and Queensland led in terms of positive investor sentiment.

Correction: this article was amended on 30 November. An earlier version stated Ausnet supported charging storage for network access. A spokesperson said it backed a waiver on charges if certain conditions are met.        

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

5G Energy Costs highlight base station power consumption, carrier electricity bills, and carbon emissions in China, while advances in energy efficiency, sleep modes, and cooling systems aim to optimize low-latency networks and reduce operational expenses.

Key Points

5G energy costs rise with power-hungry base stations, yet per-bit efficiency and sleep modes help cut bills.

✅ 5G base stations use ~4x 4G electricity

✅ Per-bit 5G energy efficiency is ~4x better than 4G

✅ Sleep modes and advanced cooling reduce OPEX and emissions

As 5G developers look desperately for a "killer app" to prove the usefulness of the superfast wireless technology, mobile carriers in China are complaining about the high energy cost of 5G signal towers.

And the situation is, according to experts, more complicated than many have thought.

The costly 5G

5G technology can be 10 or more times faster than 4G and significantly more responsive to users' input, but the speed comes at a cost.

A 5G base station consumes "four times more electricity" than its 4G counterpart, said Ding Haiyu, head of wireless and terminals at the China Mobile Research Institute, during a symposium on 5G and carbon neutrality in Beijing, a key focus for countries pursuing a net-zero grid by 2050 worldwide.

But concerning each bit of data transmitted, 5G is four times more energy-efficient than 4G, according to Ding.

This means that mobile carriers should fully occupy their 5G network for as long time as possible, but that can be hard at this moment, as many people are still holding 4G smartphones.

"When the 5G stations are running without people using them, they are really electricity guzzlers," said Zhu Qingfeng, head of power supply design at China Information Technology Designing and Consulting Institute Co., Ltd., who represents China Unicom at the symposium. "Each of the three telecom carrier giants are emitting about ten million tonnes of carbon in the air."

"We have to shut down some 5G base stations at night to reduce emission," he added.

Some utilities are testing fuel cell solutions to keep backup batteries charged much longer, supporting network resilience at lower emissions.

A representative from China Telecom said electricity bills of the nationwide carrier reached a new high of 100 billion yuan (about $15 billion) a year, mirroring the power challenges for utilities as data center demand booms elsewhere.

Getting better

While admitting the excessive cost of 5G, experts at the symposium also agreed that the situation is improving, even as climate pressures on the grid continue to mount.

Ding listed a series of recent technologies that is helping reduce the energy use of 5G, including chips of better process, automatic sleeping and wake-up of base stations and liquid nitrogen-based cooling system, and superconducting cables as part of ongoing upgrades.

"We are aiming at halving the 5G electricity cost to only two times of 4G in two years," Ding said.

Experts also discussed the possibility of making use of 5G's low latency features to help monitoring the electricity grid, thus making the digital grid smarter and more cost effective.

G's energy cost is seen as a hot topic for the incoming World 5G Convention in Beijing in early August, alongside smart grid transformation themes. Stay tuned to CGTN Digital as we bring you the latest news about the convention and 5G technology.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

European Green Deal Electrification accelerates decarbonization via renewables, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and clean industry, backed by sustainable finance, EIB green lending, just transition funds, and energy taxation reform to phase out fossil fuels.

Key Points

An EU plan to replace fossil fuels with renewable electricity in transport, buildings, and industry, supported by green finance.

✅ Doubles electricity's share to cut CO2 and phase out fossil fuels.

✅ Drives EVs, heat pumps, and electrified industry via renewables.

✅ Funded by EIB lending, EU budget, and just transition support.

The European Union is preparing an ambitious plan to completely decarbonize by 2050. Increasing the share of electricity in Europe’s energy system – electricity that will increasingly come from renewable sources - will be at the center of this strategy, aligning with the broader global energy transition under way, the new head of the European Commission’s energy department said yesterday.

This will mean more electric cars, electric heating and electric industry. The idea is that fossil fuels should no longer be a primary energy source, heating homes, warming food or powering cars. In the medium term they should only be used to generate electricity, a shift mirrored by New Zealand's electricity shift efforts, which then powers these things, resulting in less CO2 emissions.

“First assessments show we need to double the share of electricity in energy consumption by 2050,” Ditte Juul-Jørgensen said at an event in Brussels this week, a goal echoed by recent calls to double investment in power systems from world leaders. “We’ve already seen an increase in the last decade, but we need to go further”.

Juul-Jørgensen, who started in her job as director-general of the commission’s energy department in August, has come to the role at a pivotal time for energy. The 2050 decarbonization proposal from the Commission, the EU’s executive branch, is expected to be approved next month by EU national leaders. A veto from Poland that has blocked adoption until now is likely to be overcome if Poland and other Eastern European countries are offered financial assistance from a “just transition fund”, according to EU sources.

Ursula von der Leyen, the incoming President of the Commission, has promised to unveil a “European Green Deal” in her first 100 days in office designed to get the EU to its 2050 goal. Juul-Jørgensen will be working with the incoming EU Energy Commissioner, Kadri Simson, on designing this complex strategy. The overall aim will be to phase out fossil fuels, and increase the use of electricity from green sources, amid trends like oil majors pivoting to electric across Europe today.

“This will be about how do we best make use of electricity to feed into other sectors,” Juul-Jørgensen said. “We need to think about transforming it into other sources, and how to best transport it.”

“But the biggest challenge from what I see today is that of investment and finance - the changes we have to make are very significant.”

Financing problems

The Commission is going to try to tackle the challenges of financing the energy transition with two tools: dedicated climate funding in the EU budget, and dedicated climate lending from the European Investment Bank.

“The EIB will play an increasing role in future. We hope to see agreement [with the EIB board] on that in the coming months so there’s a clear operator in the EIB to support the green transition. We’re looking at something around €400 billion a year.”

The Commission’s proposed dedicated climate spending in the next seven-year budget must still be approved by the 28 EU national governments. Juul-Jørgensen said there is unanimous agreement on the amount: 25% of the budget. But there is disagreement about how to determine what is green spending.

“A lot of work has been ongoing to ensure that when it comes to counting it reflects the reality of the investments,” she said. “We’re working on the taxonomy on sustainable finance - internally identifying sectors contributing to overall climate objectives.”

Electricity pact

Juul-Jørgensen was speaking at an event organized by the the Electrification Alliance, a pact between nine industry organizations to lobby for electricity to be put at the heart of the European green deal. They signed a declaration at the event calling for a variety of measures to be included in the green deal, reflecting debates over a fully renewable grid by 2030 in other jurisdictions, including a change to the EU’s energy taxation regime which incentivizes a switch from fossil fuel to electricity consumption.

“Electrification is the most important solution to turn the vision of a fossil-free Europe into reality,” said Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation, one of the signatories, and co-architect of the Paris Agreement.

“We are determined to deliver, but we must be mindful of the different starting points and secure sufficient financing to ensure a fair transition”, said Magnus Hall, President of electricity industry association Eurelectric, another signatory.

The energy taxation issue has been particularly tricky for the EU, since any change in taxation rules requires the unanimous consent of all 28 EU countries. But experts say that current taxation structures are subsidizing fossil fuels and punishing electricity, as recent UK net zero policy changes illustrate, and unless this is changed the European Green Deal can have little effect.

“Yes this issue will be addressed in the incoming commission once it takes up its function,” Juul-Jørgensen said in response to an audience question. “We all know the challenge - the unanimity requirement in the Council - and so I hope that member states will agree to the direction of work and the need to address energy taxation systems to make sure they’re consistent with the targets we’ve set ourselves.”

But some are concerned that the transformation envisioned by the green deal will have negative impacts on some of the most vulnerable members of society, including those who work in the fossil fuel sector.

This week the Centre on Regulation in Europe sent an open letter to Frans Timmermans, the Commission Vice President in charge of climate, warning that they need to be mindful of distributional effects. These worries have been heightened by the yellow vest protests in France, which were sparked by French President Emmanuel Macron’s attempt to increase fuel taxes for non-electric cars.

“The effectiveness of climate action and sustainability policies will be challenged by increasing social and political pressures,” wrote Máximo Miccinilli, the center’s director for energy. “If not properly addressed, those will enhance further populist movements that undermine trust in governance and in the public institutions.”

Miccinilli suggests that more research be done into identifying, quantifying and addressing distributional effects before new policies are put in place to phase out fossil fuels. He proposes launching a new European Observatory for Distributional Effects of the Energy Transition to deal with this.

EU national leaders are expected to vote on the 2050 decarbonization target, building on member-state plans such as Spain's 100% renewable electricity goal by mid-century, at a summit in Brussels on December 12, and Von der Leyen will likely unveil her European Green Deal in March.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Shell's Industrial Electricity Supply Strategy targets UK and US industrial customers, leveraging gas-to-power, renewables, long-term PPAs, and energy transition momentum to disrupt utilities, cut costs, and secure demand in the evolving electricity market.

Key Points

Shell will sell power directly to industrial clients, leveraging gas, renewables, and PPAs to secure demand and pricing.

✅ Direct power sales to industrials in UK and US

✅ Leverages gas-to-power, renewables, and flexible sourcing

✅ Targets long-term PPAs, price stability, and demand security

Royal Dutch Shell’s decision to sell electricity direct to industrial customers is an intelligent and creative one. The shift is strategic and demonstrates that oil and gas majors are capable of adapting to a new world as the transition to a lower carbon economy develops. For those already in the business of providing electricity it represents a dangerous competitive threat. For the other oil majors it poses a direct challenge on whether they are really thinking about the future sufficiently strategically.

The move starts small with a business in the UK that will start trading early next year, in a market where the UK’s second-largest electricity operator has recently emerged, signaling intensifying competition. Shell will supply the business operations as a first step and it will then expand. But Britain is not the limit — Shell recently announced its intention of making similar sales in the US. Historically, oil and gas companies have considered a move into electricity as a step too far, with the sector seen as oversupplied and highly politicised because of sensitivity to consumer price rises. I went through three reviews during my time in the industry, each of which concluded that the electricity business was best left to someone else. What has changed? I think there are three strands of logic behind the strategy.

First, the state of the energy market. The price of gas in particular has fallen across the world over the last three years to the point where the International Energy Agency describes the current situation as a “glut”. Meanwhile, Shell has been developing an extensive range of gas assets, with more to come. In what has become a buyer’s market it is logical to get closer to the customer — establishing long-term deals that can soak up the supply, while options such as storing electricity in natural gas pipes gain attention in Europe. Given its reach, Shell could sign contracts to supply all the power needed by the UK’s National Health Service or with the public sector as a whole as well as big industrial users. It could agree long-term contracts with big businesses across the US.

To the buyers, Shell offers a high level of security from multiple sources with prices presumably set at a discount to the market. The mutual advantage is strong. Second, there is the transition to a lower carbon world. No one knows how fast this will move, but one thing is certain: electricity will be at the heart of the shift with power demand increasing in transportation, industry and the services sector as oil and coal are displaced. Shell, with its wide portfolio, can match inputs to the circumstances and policies of each location. It can match its global supplies of gas to growing Asian markets, including China’s 2060 electricity share projections, while developing a renewables-based electricity supply chain in Europe. The new company can buy supplies from other parts of the group or from outside. It has already agreed to buy all the power produced from the first Dutch offshore wind farm at Egmond aan Zee.

The move gives Shell the opportunity to enter the supply chain at any point — it does not have to own power stations any more than it now owns drilling rigs or helicopters. The third key factor is that the electricity market is not homogenous. The business of supplying power can be segmented. The retail market — supplying millions of households — may be under constant scrutiny, as efforts to fix the UK’s electricity grid keep infrastructure in the headlines, with suppliers vilified by the press and governments forced to threaten price caps but supplying power to industrial users is more stable and predictable, and done largely out of the public eye. The main industrial and commercial users are major companies well able to negotiate long-term deals.

Given its scale and reputation, Shell is likely to be a supplier of choice for industrial and commercial consumers and potentially capable of shaping prices. This is where the prospect of a powerful new competitor becomes another threat to utilities and retailers whose business models are already under pressure. In the European market in particular, electricity pricing mechanisms are evolving and public policies that give preference to renewables have undermined other sources of supply — especially those produced from gas. Once-powerful companies such as RWE and EON have lost much of their value as a result. In the UK, France and elsewhere, public and political hostility to price increases have made retail supply a risky and low-margin business at best. If the industrial market for electricity is now eaten away, the future for the existing utilities is desperate.

Shell’s move should raise a flag of concern for investors in the other oil and gas majors. The company is positioning itself for change. It is sending signals that it is now viable even if oil and gas prices do not increase and that it is not resisting the energy transition. Chief executive Ben van Beurden said last week that he was looking forward to his next car being electric. This ease with the future is rather rare. Shareholders should be asking the other players in the old oil and gas sector to spell out their strategies for the transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas ERCOT Power Grid leads U.S. wind generation yet faces isolated interconnection, FERC exemption, and high industrial energy use, with distinct electricity and natural gas prices managed by a single balancing authority.

Key Points

The state-run interconnection that balances Texas electricity, isolated from FERC oversight and other U.S. grids.

✅ Largest U.S. wind power producer, high industrial demand

✅ Operates one balancing authority, independent interconnection

✅ Pays lower electricity, higher natural gas vs national average

For nearly two decades, the Lone Star State has generated more wind-sourced electricity than any other state in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration, or EIA.

In 2022, EIA reported Texas produced more electricity than any other state and generated twice as much as second-place Florida.

However, Texas also leads the country in another category. According to EIA, Texas is the largest energy-consuming state in the nation across all sectors with more than half of the state’s energy being used by the industrial sector.

As of May 2023, Texas residents paid 43% more for natural gas and around 10% less for electricity compared to the national average, according to EIA, and in competitive areas shopping for electricity is getting cheaper as well. Commercial and industrial sectors on average for the same month paid 25% less for electricity compared to the national average.

U.S. electric system compared to Texas
The U.S. electric system is essentially split into three regions called interconnections and are managed by a total of 74 entities called balancing authorities that ensure that power supply and demand are balanced throughout the region to prevent the possibility of blackouts, according to EIA.

The three regions (Interconnections):

Eastern Interconnection: Covers all U.S. states east of the Rocky Mountains, a portion of northern Texas, and consists of 36 balancing authorities.
Western Interconnection: Covers all U.S. states west of the Rockies and consists of 37 balancing authorities.
ERCOT: Covers the majority of Texas and consists of one balancing authority (itself).

During the 2021 winter storm, Texas electric cooperatives were credited with helping maintain service in many communities.

“ERCOT is unique in that the balancing authority, interconnection, and the regional transmission organization are all the same entity and physical system,” according to EIA, a structure often discussed in analyses of Texas power grid challenges today.

With this being the case, Texas is the only state in the U.S. that balances itself, the only state that is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, and the only state that is not synchronously interconnected to the grid in the rest of the United States in the event of tight grid conditions, highlighting ongoing discussions about improving Texas grid reliability before peak seasons, according to EIA.

Every other state in the U.S. is connected to a web of multiple balancing authorities that contribute to ensuring power supply and demand are met.

California, for example, was the fourth largest electricity producer and the third largest electricity consumer in the nation in 2022, according to EIA, and California imports the most electricity from other states while Pennsylvania exports the most.

Although California produces significantly less electricity than Texas, it has the ability to connect with more than 10 neighboring balancing authorities within the Western Interconnection to interchange electricity, a dynamic that can see clean states importing dirty electricity under certain market conditions. ERCOT being independent only has electricity interchange with two balancing authorities, one of which is in Mexico.

Regardless of Texas’ unique power structure compared to the rest of the nation, the vast majority of the U.S. risked electricity supplies during this summer’s high heat, as outlined in severe heat blackout risks reports, according to EIA.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News