First Nations communities ready for the grid

Newfoundland and Labrador electricity rate hike examines a proposed 18.6% increase under the PUB's Rate Stabilization Plan, driven by oil prices at Holyrood, with Consumer Advocate concerns over rate shock and use of RSP balances.

Key Points

A proposed 18.6% July 2017 increase under the RSP, driven by oil prices, now under PUB review for potential mitigation.

✅ PUB flags potential rate shock from proposed adjustment

✅ RSP balances cited to offset increases without depleting fund

✅ Oil-fired Holyrood volatility drives fuel cost uncertainty

How much of a rate hike is reasonable for users of electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador?

That's a question before the Public Utilities Board (PUB) as it examines an application by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which could see consumers pay up to 18.6 per cent more as of July 1, reflecting regional pressures seen in Nova Scotia, where regulators approved a 14% rate hike earlier this year.

"The estimated rate increase for July 2017 is such a significant increase that it may be argued that it would cause rate shock," said the PUB, asking the company to revise its application.

NL Hydro said the price adjustment is part of what happens every year through the Rate Stabilization Plan (RSP), which is used to offset the ups and downs of oil prices.

"The cost of fuel is volatile and as long as we rely on oil-fired generation at Holyrood, customers will continue to be impacted by this electricity price uncertainty," said the company in a statement to CBC News.

It noted that customers received a break from RSP adjustments in 2015 and 2016, even as costs from the Muskrat Falls project begin to be reflected.

The PUB noted that under the rate stabilization plan, prices have gone up or down by about 10 per cent in the past.

The regulatory board said the impact of the latest request would be a 27.6 per cent hike to Newfoundland Power, with "an estimated average end customer impact of 18.6 per cent."

Hydro's estimates are based on an average price for oil of $81.40 per barrel from July 2017 to June 2018, according to the PUB.

'Unacceptable' burden: Consumer Advocate

"To burden ratepayers with an 18 per cent rate increase is unacceptable," said Consumer Advocate Dennis Browne, echoing pushback in Nova Scotia, where the premier urged regulators to reject a 14% hike at the time.

Browne is arguing that there is money in the RSP to reduce the proposed increase, including the possibility of a lump-sum bill credit for customers.

"These ratepayer balances — which, according to NL Power, totals $77.4 million — are not the property of Hydro," he wrote in a letter to the PUB.

"No utility has the right to squirrel away ratepayers' money to be used by that utility for some future purpose. The Board has jurisdiction over those balances," Browne said.

Browne also wants the RSP overhauled so that it can be applied to price fluctuations every quarter, as opposed to annually.

Hydro has expressed concern that depleting the rate stabilization fund would lead to other, more significant, rate increases in the future.

It said several alternatives to mitigate high rates have been provided to the PUB, which has final say, similar to how Manitoba Hydro scaled back a planned increase in the next year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Pennsylvania Electric Rate Increases hit Peco, PPL, and Pike County, driven by natural gas costs and wholesale power markets; default rate changes, price to compare shifts, and time-of-use plans affect residential bills.

Key Points

Electric default rates are rising across Pennsylvania as natural gas costs climb, affecting Peco, PPL, and Pike customers.

✅ PPL, Peco, and Pike raising default rates Dec. 1

✅ Natural gas costs driving wholesale power prices

✅ Consider standard offer, TOU rates, and efficiency

Energy costs for electric customers are going up by as much as 50% across Pennsylvania next week, the latest manifestation of US electricity price increases impacting gasoline, heating oil, propane, and natural gas.

Eight Pennsylvania electric utilities are set to increase their energy prices on Dec. 1, reflecting the higher cost to produce electricity. Peco Energy, which serves Philadelphia and its suburbs, will boost its energy charge by 6.4% on Dec. 1, from 6.6 cents per kilowatt hour to about 7 cents per kWh. Energy charges account for about half of a residential bill.

PPL Electric Utilities, the Allentown company that serves a large swath of Pennsylvania including parts of Bucks, Montgomery, and Chester Counties, will impose a 26% increase on residential energy costs on Dec. 1, from about 7.5 cents per kWh to 9.5 cents per kWh. That’s an increase of $40 a month for an electric heating customer who uses 2,000 kWh a month.

Pike County Light & Power, which serves about 4,800 customers in Northeast Pennsylvania, will increase energy charges by 50%, according to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

“All electric distribution companies face the same market forces as PPL Electric Utilities,” PPL said in a statement. Each Pennsylvania utility follows a different PUC-regulated plan for procuring energy from power generators, and those forces can include rising nuclear power costs in some regions, which explains why some customers are absorbing the hit sooner rather than later, it said.

There are ways customers can mitigate the impact. Utilities offer a host of programs and grants to support low-income customers, and some states are exploring income-based fixed charges to address affordability, and they encourage anyone struggling to pay their bills to call the utility for help. Customers can also control their costs by conserving energy. It may be time to put on a sweater and weatherize the house.

Peco recently introduced time-of-use rates — as seen when Ontario ended fixed pricing — that include steep discounts for customers who can shift electric usage to late night hours — that’s you, electric vehicle owners.

There’s also a clever opportunity available for many Pennsylvania customers called the “standard offer” that might save you some real money, but you need to act before the new charges take effect on Dec. 1 to lock in the best rates.

Why are the price hikes happening?
But first, how did we get here?

Energy charges are rising for a simple reason: Fuel prices for power generators are increasing, and that’s driven mostly by natural gas. It’s pushing up electricity prices in wholesale power markets and has lifted typical residential bills in recent years.

“It’s all market forces right now,” said Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, PUC spokesperson. Energy charges are strictly a pass-through cost for utilities. Utilities aren’t allowed to mark them up.

The increase in utility energy charges does not affect customers who buy their energy from competitive power suppliers in deregulated electricity markets. About 27% of Pennsylvania’s 5.9 million electric customers who shop for electricity from third-party suppliers either pay fixed rates, whose price remains stable, or are on a variable-rate plan tied to market prices. The variable-rate electric bills have probably already increased to reflect the higher cost of generating power.

Most New Jersey electric customers are shielded for now from rising energy costs. New Jersey sets annual energy prices for customers who don’t shop for power. Those rates go into effect on June 1 and stay in place for 12 months. The current energy market fluctuations will be reflected in new rates that take effect next summer, said Lauren Ugorji, a spokesperson for Public Service Electric & Gas Co., New Jersey’s largest utility.

For each utility, its own plan
Pennsylvania has a different system for setting utility energy charges, which are also known as the “default rate,” because that’s the price a customer gets by default if they don’t shop for power. The default rate is also the same thing as the “price to compare,” a term the PUC has adopted so consumers can make an apples-to-apples comparison between a utility’s energy charge and the price offered by a competitive supplier.

Each of the state’s 11 PUC-regulated electric utilities prepares its own “default service plan,” that governs the method by which they procure power on wholesale markets. Electric distribution companies like Peco are required to buy the lowest priced power. They typically buy power in blind auctions conducted by independent agents, so that there’s no favoritism for affiliated power generators

Some utilities adjust charges quarterly, and others do it semi-annually. “This means that each [utility’s] resulting price to compare will vary as the market changes, some taking longer to reflect price changes, both up and down,” PPL said in a statement. PPL conducted its semi-annual auction in October, when energy prices were rising sharply.

Most utilities buy power from suppliers under contracts of varying durations, both long-term and short-term. The contracts are staggered so market price fluctuations are smoothed out. One utility, Pike County Power & Light, buys all its power on the spot market, which explains why its energy charge will surge by 50% on Dec. 1. Pike County’s energy charge will also be quicker to decline when wholesale prices subside, as they are expected to next year.

Peco adjusts its energy charge quarterly, but it conducts power auctions semi-annually. It buys about 40% of its power in one-year contracts, and 60% in two-year contracts, and does not buy any power on spot markets, said Richard G. Webster Jr., Peco’s vice president of regulatory policy and strategy.

“At any given time, we’re replacing about a third of our supplied portfolio,” he said.

The utility’s energy charge affects only part of the monthly bill. For a Peco residential electric customer who uses 700 kWh per month, the Dec. 1 energy charge increase will boost monthly bills by $2.94 per month, or 2.9%. For an electric heating customer who uses about 2,000 kWh per month, the change will boost bills $8.40 a month, or about 3.5%, said Greg Smore, a Peco spokesperson.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hitachi UK Nuclear Project Freeze reflects Horizon Nuclear Power's suspended Anglesey plant amid Brexit uncertainty, investor funding gaps, rising safety regulation costs, and a 300 billion yen write-down, impacting Britain's low-carbon electricity plans.

Key Points

Hitachi halted Horizon's Anglesey nuclear plant over funding and Brexit risks, recording a 300 billion yen write-down.

✅ 3 trillion yen UK nuclear project funding stalled

✅ 300 billion yen impairment wipes Horizon asset value

✅ Brexit, safety rules raised costs and investor risk

Japan’s Hitachi Ltd said on Thursday it has decided to freeze a 3 trillion yen ($28 billion) British nuclear power project and will consequently book a write down of 300 billion yen.

The suspension comes as Hitachi’s Horizon Nuclear Power failed to find private investors for its plans to build a plant in Anglesey, Wales, where local economic concerns have been raised, which promised to provide about 6 percent of Britain’s electricity.

“We’ve made the decision to freeze the project from the economic standpoint as a private company,” Hitachi said in a statement.

Hitachi had called on the British government to boost financial support for the project to appease investor anxiety, but turmoil over the country’s impending exit from the European Union limited the government’s capacity to compile plans, people close to the matter previously said.

Hitachi had called on the British government to boost financial support for the project to appease investor anxiety, but turmoil over the country’s impending exit from the European Union and setbacks at Hinkley Point C limited the government’s capacity to compile plans, people close to the matter previously said.

Hitachi had banked on a group of Japanese investors and the British government each taking a one-third stake in the equity portion of the project, the people said. The project would be financed one-third by equity and rest by debt.

The nuclear writedown wipes off the Horizon unit’s asset value, which stood at 296 billion yen as of September-end.

Hitachi stopped short of scrapping the northern Wales project. The company will continue to discuss with the British government on nuclear power, it said.

However, industry sources said hurdles to proceed with the project are high considering tighter safety regulations since a meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011 drove up costs, even as Europe’s nuclear decline strains energy planning.

Analysts and investors viewed the suspension as an effective withdrawal and saw the decision as a positive step that has removed uncertainties for the Japanese conglomerate.

Hitachi bought Horizon in 2012 for 696 million pounds ($1.12 billion), fromE.ON and RWE as the German utilities decided to sell their joint venture following Germany’s nuclear exit after the Fukushima accident.

Hitachi’s latest decision further dims Japan’s export prospects, even as some peers pursue UK offshore wind investments to diversify.

Toshiba Corp last year scrapped its British NuGen project after its US reactor unit Westinghouse went bankrupt, while Westinghouse in China reported no major impact, and it failed to sell NuGen to South Korea’s KEPCO.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd has effectively abandoned its Sinop nuclear project in Turkey, a person involved in the project previously told Reuters, as cost estimates had nearly doubled to around 5 trillion yen.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Solar Energy Expansion confronts high installation costs, grid integration and storage needs, and environmental impact, while incentives, infrastructure upgrades, and renewable targets aim to balance reliability, land use, and emissions reductions provincewide.

Key Points

Alberta Solar Energy Expansion is growth in solar tempered by costs, grid limits, environmental impact, and incentives.

✅ High capex and financing challenge utility-scale projects

✅ Grid integration needs storage, transmission, and flexibility

✅ Site selection must mitigate land and wildlife impacts

Alberta's push towards expanding solar power is encountering significant financial and environmental hurdles. The province's ambitious plans to boost solar power generation have been met with both enthusiasm and skepticism as stakeholders grapple with the complexities of integrating large-scale solar projects into the existing energy framework.

The Alberta government has been actively promoting solar energy as part of its strategy to diversify the energy mix in a province that is a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels today and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Recent developments have highlighted the potential of solar power to contribute to Alberta's clean energy goals. However, the path forward is fraught with challenges related to costs, environmental impact, and infrastructure needs.

One of the primary issues facing the solar energy sector in Alberta is the high cost of solar installations. Despite decreasing costs for solar technology in recent years, the upfront investment required for large-scale solar farms remains substantial, even as some facilities have been contracted at lower cost than natural gas in Alberta today. This financial barrier has led to concerns about the economic viability of solar projects and their ability to compete with other forms of energy, such as natural gas and oil, which have traditionally dominated Alberta's energy landscape.

Additionally, there are environmental concerns associated with the development of solar farms. While solar energy is considered a clean and renewable resource, the construction of large solar installations can have environmental implications. These include potential impacts on local wildlife habitats, land use changes, where approaches like agrivoltaics can co-locate farming and solar, and the ecological effects of large-scale land clearing. As solar projects expand, balancing the benefits of renewable energy with the need to protect natural ecosystems becomes increasingly important.

Another significant challenge is the integration of solar power into Alberta's existing energy grid. Solar energy production is variable and dependent on weather conditions, especially with Alberta's limited hydro capacity for flexibility, which can create difficulties in maintaining a stable and reliable energy supply. The need for infrastructure upgrades and energy storage solutions is crucial to address these challenges and ensure that solar power can be effectively utilized alongside other energy sources.

Despite these challenges, the Alberta government remains committed to advancing solar energy as a key component of its renewable energy strategy. Recent initiatives include financial incentives and support programs aimed at encouraging investment in solar projects and supporting a renewable energy surge that could power thousands of jobs across Alberta today. These measures are designed to help offset the high costs associated with solar installations and make the technology more accessible to businesses and homeowners alike.

Local communities and businesses are also playing a role in the growth of solar energy in Alberta. Many are exploring opportunities to invest in solar power as a means of reducing energy costs and supporting sustainability efforts and, increasingly, to sell renewable energy into the market as demand grows. These smaller-scale projects contribute to the overall expansion of solar energy and demonstrate the potential for widespread adoption across the province.

The Alberta government has also been working to address the environmental concerns associated with solar energy development. Efforts are underway to implement best practices for minimizing environmental impacts and ensuring that solar projects are developed in an environmentally responsible manner. This includes conducting environmental assessments and working with stakeholders to address potential issues before projects are approved and built.

In summary, while Alberta's solar energy initiatives hold promise for advancing the province's clean energy goals, they are also met with significant financial and environmental challenges. Addressing these issues will be crucial to the successful expansion of solar power in Alberta. The government's ongoing efforts to support solar projects through incentives and infrastructure improvements, coupled with responsible environmental practices, will play a key role in determining the future of solar energy in the province.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Texas power grid highlights ERCOT reliability strains from extreme heat, climate change, and low wind, as natural gas and renewables balance tight capacity amid EV charging growth, heat pumps, and blackout risk across the U.S.

Key Points

Texas power grid is ERCOT-run and isolated, balancing natural gas and wind amid extreme weather and electrification.

✅ Isolated from other U.S. grids, limited import support

✅ Vulnerable to extreme heat, winter storms, low wind

✅ Demand growth from EVs and heat pumps stresses capacity

Texas has a unique state-run power grid facing a Texas grid crisis that has raised concerns, but its issues with extreme weather, and balancing natural gas and wind, hold lessons for an entire U.S. at risk for power outages from climate change.

Grid operator the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which has drawn criticism from Elon Musk recently, called on consumers to voluntarily reduce power use on Monday when dangerous heat gripped America’s second-most populous state.

The action paid off as the Texas grid avoided blackouts — and a repeat of its winter crisis — despite record or near-record temperatures that depleted electric supplies amid a broader supply-chain crisis affecting utilities this summer, and risked lost power to more than 26 million customers. ERCOT later on Monday lifted the call for conservation.

For sure, it’s a unique situation, as the state-run power grid system runs outside the main U.S. grids. Still, all Americans can learn from Texas about the fragility of a national power grid that is expected to be challenged more frequently by hot and cold weather extremes brought on by climate change, including potential reliability improvements policymakers are weighing.

The grid will also be tested by increased demand to power electric vehicles (EVs) and conversions to electric heat pumps — all as part of a transition to a “greener” future.

Why is Texas different?
ERCOT, the main, but not only, Texas grid, is unique in its state-run, and not regional, format used by the rest of the country. Because it’s an energy-rich state, Texas has been able to set power prices below those seen in other parts of the country, and its independence gives it more pricing authority, while lawmakers consider market reforms to avoid blackouts. But during unusual strain on the system, such as more people blasting their air conditioners longer to combat a record heat wave, it also has no where else to turn.

A lethal winter power shortage in February 2021, during a Texas winter storm that left many without power and water, notoriously put the state and its independent utility in the spotlight when ERCOT failed to keep residents warm and pipes from bursting. Texas’s 2021 outage left more than 200 people dead and rang up $20 billion in damage. Fossil-fuel CL00, 0.80% backers pointed to the rising use of intermittent wind power, which generates 23% of Texas’s electricity. Others said natural-gas equipment was frozen under the extreme conditions.

This week, ERCOT is asking for voluntary conservation between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. local time daily due to record high electricity demand from the projected heat wave, and also because of low wind. ERCOT said current projections show wind generation coming in at less than 10% of capacity. ERCOT stressed that no systemwide outages are expected, and Gov. Greg Abbott has touted grid readiness heading into fall, but it was acting preemptively.

A report late last year from the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) said the Texas system without upgrades could see a power shortfall of 37% in extreme winter conditions. NERC’s outlook suggested the state and ERCOT isn’t prepared for a repeat of weather extremes.

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