Wind, solar bids surpass expectations

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out ends power generation from reactors, prioritizing energy security, renewables, and emissions goals amid the Ukraine war, natural gas shortages, decommissioning plans, and climate change debates across Europe and the national power grid.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out ends reactors, shifting to renewables to balance energy security, emissions, climate goals.

✅ Three reactors closed: Emsland, Isar II, Neckarwestheim II

✅ Pivot to renewables, efficiency, and grid resilience

✅ Continued roles in fuel fabrication and decommissioning

Germany is no longer producing any electricity from nuclear power plants, a move widely seen as turning its back on nuclear for good.

Closures of the Emsland, Isar II, and Neckarwestheim II nuclear plants in Germany were expected. The country announced plans to phase out nuclear power in 2011. However, in the fall of 2022, with the Ukraine war constraining access to energy, especially in Europe, Germany decided to extend nuclear power operations for an additional few months to bolster supplies.

“This was a highly anticipated action. The German government extended the lifetimes of these plants for a few months but never planned beyond that,” David Victor, a professor of innovation and public policy at UC San Diego, said.

Responses to the closures ranged from aghast that Germany would shut down a clean source of energy production, especially as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy. In contrast, the global response to anthropogenic climate change continues to be insufficient to celebratory that the country will avoid any nuclear accidents like those that have happened in other parts of the world.

A collection of esteemed scientists, including two Nobel laureates and professors from MIT and Columbia, made a last-minute plea in an open letter published on April 14 on the nuclear advocacy group’s website, RePlaneteers, to keep the reactors operating, reviving questions about a resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany today.

“Given the threat that climate change poses to life on our planet and the obvious energy crisis in which Germany and Europe find themselves due to the unavailability of Russian natural gas, we call on you to continue operating the last remaining German nuclear power plants,” the letter states.

The open letter states that the Emsland, Isar II, and Neckarwestheim II facilities provided more than 10 million German households with electricity, even as some officials argued that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue then. That’s a quarter of the population.

“This is hugely disappointing, when a secure low carbon 24/7 source of energy such as nuclear was available and could have continued operation for another 40 years,” Henry Preston, spokesperson for the World Nuclear Association. “Germany’s nuclear industry has been world-class. All three reactors shut down at the weekend performed extremely well.”

Despite the shutdown, some segments of nuclear industrial processes will continue to operate. “Germany’s nuclear sector will continue to be first class in the wider nuclear supply chain in areas such as fuel fabrication and decommissioning,” Preston said.

While the open letter did not succeed in keeping the nuclear reactors open, it does underscore a crucial reason why nuclear power has been part of global energy conversations recently, with some arguing it is a needed option for climate policy after a generational lull in the construction of nuclear power plants: climate change.

Generating electricity with nuclear reactors does not create any greenhouse gases. And as global climate change response efforts continue to fall short of emission targets, atomic energy is getting renewed consideration, and Germany has even considered a U-turn on its phaseout amid renewed debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Trump NEPA Overhaul streamlines environmental reviews, tightening 'reasonably foreseeable' effects, curbing cumulative impacts, codifying CEQ greenhouse gas guidance, expediting permits for pipelines, highways, and wind projects with two-year EIS limits and one lead agency.

Key Points

Trump NEPA Overhaul streamlines reviews, trims cumulative impacts, keeps GHG analysis for foreseeable effects.

✅ Limits cumulative and indirect impacts; emphasizes foreseeable effects

✅ Caps EIS at two years; one-year environmental assessments

✅ One lead agency; narrower NEPA triggers for low federal funding

President Trump has announced plans for overhauling rules surrounding the nation’s bedrock environmental law, and administration officials refuted claims they were downplaying greenhouse gas emissions, as the administration also pursues replacement power plant rules in related areas.

The president, during remarks at the White House with supporters and Cabinet officials, said he wanted to fix the nation’s “regulatory nightmare” through new guidelines for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.

“America is a nation of builders,” he said. But it takes too long to get a permit, and that’s “big government at its absolute worst.”

The president said, “We’re maintaining America’s world-class standards of environmental protection.” He added, “We’re going to have very strong regulation, but it’s going to go very quickly.”

NEPA says the federal government must consider alternatives to major projects like oil pipelines, highways and bridges that could inflict environmental harm. The law also gives communities input.

The Council on Environmental Quality has not updated the implementing rules in decades, and both energy companies and environmentalists want them reworked, even as some industry groups warned against rushing electricity pricing changes under related policy debates.

But they patently disagree on how to change the rules.

A central fight surrounds whether the government considers climate change concerns when analyzing a project.

Environmentalists want agencies to look more at “cumulative” or “indirect” impacts of projects. The Trump plan shuts the door on that.

“Analysis of cumulative effects is not required,” the plan states, adding that CEQ “proposes to make amendments to simplify the definition of effects by consolidating the definition into a single paragraph.”

CEQ Chairwoman Mary Neumayr told reporters during a conference call that definitions in the current rules were the “subject of confusion.”

The proposed changes, she said, do in fact eliminate the terms “cumulative” and “indirect,” in favor of more simplified language.

Effects must be “reasonably foreseeable” and require a “reasonably close causal relationship” to the proposed action, she added. “It does not exclude considerations of greenhouse gas emissions,” she said, pointing to parallel EPA proposals for new pollution limits on coal and gas power plants as context.

Last summer, CEQ issued proposed guidance on greenhouse gas reviews in project permitting. The nonbinding document gave agencies broad authority when considering emissions (Greenwire, June 21, 2019).

Environmentalists scoffed and said the proposed guidance failed to incorporate the latest climate science and look at how projects could be more resilient in the face of severe weather and sea-level rise.

The proposed NEPA rules released today include provisions to codify the proposed guidance, which has also been years in the making.

Other provisions

Senior administration officials sought to downplay the effect of the proposed NEPA rules by noting the underlying statute will remain the same.

“If it required NEPA yesterday, it will require NEPA under the new proposal,” an official said when asked how the changes might apply to pipelines like Keystone XL.

And yet the proposed changes could alter the “threshold consideration” that triggers NEPA review. The proposal would exclude projects with minimal federal funding or “participation.”

The Trump plan also proposes restricting an environmental impact statement to two years and an environmental assessment to one.

Neumayr said the average EIS takes 4 ½ years and in some cases longer. Democrats have disputed those timelines. Further, just 1% of all federal actions require an EIS, they argue.

The proposal would also require one agency to take the lead on permitting and require agency officials to “timely resolve disputes that may result in delays.”

In general, the plan calls for environmental documents to be “concise” and “serve their purpose of informing decision makers.”

Both Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, whose agency moved to rewrite coal power plant wastewater limits in separate actions, were at the White House for the announcement.

Reaction

An onslaught of critics have said changes to NEPA rules could be the administration’s most far-reaching environmental rollback, and state attorneys general have mounted a legal challenge to related energy actions as well.

The League of Conservation Voters declared the administration was again trying to “sell out the health and well-being of our children and families to corporate polluters.”

On Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said during a news conference the administration would “no longer enforce NEPA.”

“This means more polluters will be right there, next to the water supply of our children,” she said. “That’s a public health issue. Their denial of climate, they are going to not use the climate issue as anything to do with environmental decisionmaking.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) echoed the sentiment, saying he didn’t need any more proof that the fossil fuel industry had hardwired the Trump administration “but we got it anyway.”

Energy companies, including firms focused on renewable energy development, are welcoming the “clarity” of the proposed NEPA rules, even as debates continue over a clean electricity standard in federal climate policy.

“The lack of clarity in the existing NEPA regulations has led courts to fill the gaps, spurring costly litigation across the sector, and has led to unclear expectations, which has caused significant and unnecessary delays for infrastructure projects across the country,” the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said in a statement.

Last night, the American Wind Energy Association said NEPA rules have caused “unreasonable and unnecessary costs and long project delays” for land-based and offshore wind energy and transmission development.

Trump has famously attacked the wind energy industry for decades, dating back to his opposition to a Scottish wind turbine near his golf course.

The president today said he won’t stop until “gleaming new infrastructure has made America the envy of the world again.”

When asked whether he thought climate change was a “hoax,” as he once tweeted, he said no. “Nothing’s a hoax about that,” he said.

The president said there’s a book about climate he’s planning to read. He said, “It’s a very serious subject.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Rooftop solar grids transform urban infrastructure with distributed generation, photovoltaic panels, smart grid integration and energy storage, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, lowering utility costs, enabling net metering and community solar for low-carbon energy systems.

Key Points

Rooftop solar grids are PV systems on buildings that generate power, cut emissions, and enable smart grid integration.

✅ Lowers utility bills via net metering and demand offset

✅ Reduces greenhouse gases and urban air pollution

✅ Enables resiliency with storage, smart inverters, and microgrids

As urban areas expand and the climate crisis intensifies, cities are seeking innovative ways to integrate renewable energy sources into their infrastructure. One such solution gaining traction is the installation of rooftop solar grids. A recent CBC News article highlights the significant impact of these solar systems on urban environments, showcasing their benefits and the challenges they present.

Harnessing Unused Space for Sustainable Energy

Rooftop solar panels are revolutionizing how cities approach energy consumption and environmental sustainability. By utilizing the often-overlooked space on rooftops, these systems provide a practical solution for generating renewable energy in densely populated areas. The CBC article emphasizes that this approach not only makes efficient use of available space but also contributes to reducing a city's reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

The ability to generate clean energy directly from buildings helps decrease greenhouse gas emissions and, as scientists work to improve solar and wind power, promotes a shift towards a more sustainable energy model. Solar panels absorb sunlight and convert it into electricity, reducing the need for fossil fuels and lowering overall carbon footprints. This transition is crucial as cities grapple with rising temperatures and air pollution.

Economic and Environmental Advantages

The economic benefits of rooftop solar grids are considerable. For homeowners and businesses, installing solar panels can lead to substantial savings on electricity bills. The initial investment in solar technology is often balanced by long-term energy savings and financial incentives, such as tax credits or rebates, and evidence that solar is cheaper than grid electricity in Chinese cities further illustrates the trend toward affordability. According to the CBC report, these financial benefits make solar energy a compelling option for many urban residents and enterprises.

Environmentally, the advantages are equally compelling. Solar energy is a renewable and clean resource, and increasing the number of rooftop solar installations can play a pivotal role in meeting local and national renewable energy targets, as illustrated when New York met its solar goals early in a recent milestone. The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel energy sources directly contributes to mitigating climate change and improving air quality.

Challenges in Widespread Adoption

Despite the clear benefits, the adoption of rooftop solar grids is not without its challenges. One of the primary hurdles is the upfront cost of installation. While prices for solar panels have decreased over time, the initial financial outlay remains a barrier for some property owners, and regions like Alberta have faced solar expansion challenges that highlight these constraints. Additionally, the effectiveness of solar panels can vary based on factors such as geographic location, roof orientation, and local weather patterns.

The CBC article also highlights the importance of supportive infrastructure and policies for the success of rooftop solar grids. Cities need to invest in modernizing their energy grids to accommodate the influx of solar-generated electricity, and, in the U.S., record clean energy purchases by Southeast cities have signaled growing institutional demand. Furthermore, policies and regulations must support solar adoption, including issues related to net metering, which allows solar panel owners to sell excess energy back to the grid.

Innovative Solutions and Future Prospects

The future of rooftop solar grids looks promising, thanks to ongoing technological advancements. Innovations in photovoltaic cells and energy storage solutions are expected to enhance the efficiency and affordability of solar systems. The development of smart grid technology and advanced energy management systems, including peer-to-peer energy sharing, will also play a critical role in integrating solar power into urban infrastructures.

The CBC report also mentions the rise of community solar projects as a significant development. These projects allow multiple households or businesses to share a single solar installation, making solar energy more accessible to those who may not have suitable rooftops for solar panels. This model expands the reach of solar technology and fosters greater community engagement in renewable energy initiatives.

Conclusion

Rooftop solar grids are emerging as a key element in the transition to sustainable urban energy systems. By leveraging unused rooftop space, cities can harness clean, renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and, as developers learn that more energy sources make better projects, achieve long-term economic savings. While there are challenges to overcome, such as initial costs and regulatory hurdles, the benefits of rooftop solar grids make them a crucial component of the future energy landscape. As technology advances and policies evolve, rooftop solar grids will play an increasingly vital role in shaping greener, more resilient urban environments.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

SaskPower Rate Hike 2022-2023 signals higher electricity rates in Saskatchewan as natural gas costs surge; the Rate Review Panel approved increases, affecting residential utility bills amid affordability concerns and government energy policy shifts.

Key Points

An 8% SaskPower electricity rate increase split 4% in Sept 2022 and 4% in Apr 2023, driven by natural gas costs.

✅ 4% increase Sept 1, 2022; +4% on Apr 1, 2023

✅ Panel-approved amid natural gas price surge and higher fuel costs

✅ Avg residential bill up about $5 per step; affordability concerns

The NDP Opposition is condemning the provincial government’s decision to approve the Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel’s recommendation to increase SaskPower’s rates for the first time since 2018, despite a recent 10% rebate pledge by the Sask. Party.

The Crown electrical utility’s rates will increase four per cent this fall, and another four per cent in 2023, a trajectory comparable to BC Hydro increases over two years. According to a government news release issued Thursday, the new rates will result in an average increase of approximately $5 on residential customers’ bills starting on Sept. 1, 2022, and an additional $5 on April 1, 2023.

“The decision to increase rates is not taken lightly and came after a thorough review by the independent Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel,” Minister Responsible for SaskPower Don Morgan said in a news release, amid Nova Scotia’s 14% hike this year. “World events have caused a significant rise in the price of natural gas, and with 42 per cent of Saskatchewan’s electricity coming from natural gas-fueled facilities, SaskPower requires additional revenue to maintain reliable operations.”

But NDP SaskPower critic Aleana Young says the rate hike is coming just as businesses and industries are struggling in an “affordability crisis,” even as Manitoba Hydro scales back a planned increase next year.

She called the announcement of an eight per cent increase in power bills on a summer day before the long weekend “a cowardly move” by the premier and his cabinet, amid comparable changes such as Manitoba’s 2.5% annual hikes now proposed.

“Not to mention the Sask. Party plans to hike natural gas rates by 17% just days from now,” said Young in a news release issued Friday, as Manitoba rate hearings get underway nearby. “If Scott Moe thinks his choices — to not provide Saskatchewan families any affordability relief, to hike taxes and fees, then compound those costs with utility rate hikes — are defensible, he should have the courage to get out of his closed-door meetings and explain himself to the people of this province.”

The province noted natural gas is the largest generation source in SaskPower’s fleet. As federal regulations require the elimination of conventional coal generation in Canada by 2030, SaskPower’s reliance on natural gas generation is expected to grow, with experts in Alberta warning of soaring gas and power prices in the region. Fuel and Purchased Power expense increases are largely driven by increased natural gas prices, and SaskPower’s fuel and purchased power expense is expected to increase from $715 million in 2020-21 to $1.069 billion in 2023-24. This represents a 50 per cent increase in fuel and purchased power expense over three years.

“In the four years since our last increase SaskPower has worked to find internal efficiencies, but at this time we require additional funding to continue to provide reliable and sustainable power,” SaskPower president & CEO Rupen Pandya said in the release “We will continue to be transparent about our rate strategy and the need for regular, moderate increases.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Florida Solar for All Opt-Out highlights Gov. DeSantis rejecting EPA grant funds under the Inflation Reduction Act, limiting low-income households' access to solar panels, clean energy programs, and promised electricity savings across disadvantaged communities.

Key Points

Florida Solar for All Opt-Out is the state declining EPA grants, restricting low-income access to solar energy savings.

✅ EPA grant under IRA aimed at low-income solar

✅ Estimated 20% electricity bill savings missed

✅ Florida lacks PPAs and renewable standards

Florida has passed up on up to $400 million in federal money that would have helped low-income households install solar panels.

A $7 billion grant “competition” to promote clean energy in disadvantaged communities by providing low-income households with access to affordable solar energy was introduced by President Joe Biden earlier this year, and despite his climate law's mixed results in practice, none of that money will reach Florida households.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced the competition in June as part of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. However, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has decided to pass on the $400 million up for grabs by choosing to opt out of the opportunity.

Inflation Reduction Act:What is the Inflation Reduction Act? Everything to know about one of Biden's big laws

The program would have helped Florida households reduce their electricity costs by a minimum of 20% during a key time when Floridians are leaving in droves due to a rising cost of living associated with soaring insurance costs, inflation, and proposed FPL rate hikes statewide.

Florida was one of six other states that chose not to apply for the money.

President Joe Biden announced a $7 billion “competition” to promote clean energy in disadvantaged communities.

The opportunity, named “Solar for All,” was announced by the EPA in June and promised to provide up to $7 billion in grants to states, territories, tribal governments, municipalities, and nonprofits to expand the number of low-income and disadvantaged communities primed for residential solar investment — enabling millions of low-income households to access affordable, resilient and clean solar energy.

The grant is intended to help lower energy costs for families, create jobs and help reduce greenhouse effects that accelerate global climate change by providing financial support and incentives to communities that were previously locked out of investments.

How much money would Floridians save under the ‘Solar for All’ solar panel grant?

The program aims to reduce household electricity costs by at least 20%. Florida households paid an average of $154.51 per month for electricity in 2022, just over 14% of the national average of $135.25, and debates over hurricane rate surcharges continue to shape customer bills, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. A 20% savings would drop those bills down to around $123 per month.

On the campaign trail, DeSantis has pledged to unravel Biden’s green energy agenda if elected president, amid escalating solar policy battles nationwide, slamming the Inflation Reduction Act and what he called “a concerted effort to ramp up the fear when it comes to things like global warming and climate change.”

His energy agenda includes ending Biden’s subsidies for electric cars while pushing policies that he says would ramp up domestic oil production.

“The subsidies are going to drive inflation higher,” DeSantis said at an event in September. “It’s not going to help with interest rates, and it is certainly not going to help with our unsustainable debt levels.”

DeSantis heading to third debate:As he enters third debate, Ron DeSantis has a big Nikki Haley problem

DeSantis’ plan to curb clean energy usage in Florida seems to be at odds with the state as a whole, and the region's evolving strategy for the South underscores why it has been ranked among the top three states to go solar since 2019, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).

SEIA also shows, however, that Florida lags behind many other states when it comes to solar policies, as utilities tilt the solar market in ways that influence policy outcomes statewide. Florida, for instance, has no renewable energy standards, which are used to increase the use of renewable energy sources for electricity by requiring or encouraging suppliers to provide customers with a stated minimum share of electricity from eligible renewable resources, according to the EIA.

Power purchase agreements, which can help lower the cost of going solar through third-party financing, are also not allowed in Florida, with court rulings on monopolies reinforcing the existing market structure. And there have been other policies implemented that drove other potential solar investments to other states.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News