Green credits potential boon for emissions markets

NECEC Clean Energy Connect advances with Maine DEP permits, Hydro-Québec contracts, and rigorous transmission line mitigation, including tapered vegetation, culvert upgrades, and forest conservation, delivering low-carbon power, broadband fiber, and projected ratepayer savings.

Key Points

A Maine transmission project delivering Hydro-Québec power with strict DEP mitigation, lower bills, and added broadband.

✅ DEP permits mandate tapered vegetation, culvert upgrades, land conservation

✅ Hydro-Québec to supply 9.55 TWh/yr via MA contracts; bill savings 2-4%

✅ Added broadband fiber in Somerset and Franklin; local tax benefits

The Maine DEP reviewed the Clean Energy Connect project for more than two years, while regional interest in cross-border transmission continued to grow, before issuing permits that included additional environmental mitigation elements.

"Collectively, the requirements of the permit require an unprecedented level of environmental protection and compensatory land conservation for the construction of a transmission line in the state of Maine," DEP said in a May 11 statement.

Requirements include limits on transmission corridor width, forest preservation, culvert replacement and vegetation management projects, while broader grid programs like vehicle-to-grid integration enhance clean energy utilization across the region.

"In our original proposal we worked hard to develop a project that provided robust mitigation measures to protect the environment," NECEC Transmission CEO Thorn Dickinson said in a statement. "And through this permitting process, we now have made an exceedingly good project even better for Maine."

NECEC will be built on land owned or controlled by Central Maine Power. The 53 miles of new corridor on working forest land will use a new clearing technique for tapered vegetation, while the remainder of the project follows existing power lines.

Environmentalists said they agreed with the decision, and the mitigation measures state regulators took, noting similar momentum behind new wind investments in other parts of Canada.

"Building new ways to deliver low-carbon energy to our region is a critical piece of tackling the climate crisis," CLF Senior Attorney Phelps Turner said in a statement. "DEP was absolutely right to impose significant environmental conditions on this project and ensure that it does not harm critical wildlife areas."

Once complete, Turner said the transmission line will allow the region "to retire dirty fossil fuel plants in the coming years, which is a win for our health and our climate."

The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities in June 2019 advanced the project by approving contracts for the state's utilities to purchase 9,554,940 MWh annually from Hydro-Quebec. Officials said the project is expected to provide approximately 2% to 4% savings on monthly energy bills.

Total net benefits to Massachusetts ratepayers over the 20-year contract, including both direct and indirect benefits, are expected to be approximately $4 billion, according to the state's estimates.

NECEC "will also deliver significant economic benefits to Maine and the region, including lower electricity prices, increased local real estate taxes and reduced energy costs with examples like battery-backed community microgrids demonstrating local resilience, expanded fiber optic cable for broadband service in Somerset and Franklin counties and funding of economic development for Western Maine," project developers said in a statement.​

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Duke Energy Clean Energy Strategy advances renewables, battery storage, grid modernization, and energy efficiency to cut carbon, retire coal, and target net-zero by 2050 across the Carolinas with robust IRPs and capital investments.

Key Points

Plan to expand renewables, storage, and grid upgrades to cut carbon and reach net-zero electricity by 2050.

✅ 56B investment in renewables, storage, and grid modernization

✅ Targets 50% carbon reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2050

✅ Retires coal units; expands energy efficiency and IRPs

Duke Energy says that the company will continue advancing its ambitious clean energy goals without the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) by investing in renewables, battery storage, energy efficiency programs and grid projects that support U.S. electrification efforts.

Duke Energy, the nation's largest electric utility, unveils its new logo. (PRNewsFoto/Duke Energy) (PRNewsfoto/Duke Energy)

Duke Energy's $56 billion capital investment plan will deliver significant customer benefits and create jobs at a time when policymakers at all levels are looking for ways to rebuild the economy in 2020 and beyond. These investments will deliver cleaner energy for customers and communities while enhancing the energy grid to provide greater reliability and resiliency.

"Sustainability and the reduction of carbon emissions are closely tied to our region's success," said Lynn Good, Duke Energy Chair, President and CEO. "In our recent Climate Report, we shared a vision of a cleaner electricity future with an increasing focus on renewables and battery storage in addition to a diverse mix of zero-carbon nuclear, natural gas, hydro and energy efficiency programs.

"Achieving this clean energy vision will require all of us working together to develop a plan that is smart, equitable and ensures the reliability and affordability that will spur economic growth in the region. While we're disappointed that we're not able to move forward with ACP, we will continue exploring ways to help our customers and communities, particularly in eastern North Carolina where the need is great," said Good.

Already a clean-energy leader, Duke Energy has reduced its carbon emissions by 39% from 2005 and remains on track to cut its carbon emissions by at least 50% by 2030, as peers like Alliant's carbon-neutral plan demonstrate broader industry momentum toward decarbonization. The company also has an ambitious clean energy goal of reaching net-zero emissions from electricity generation by 2050. 

In September 2020, Duke Energy plans to file its Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) for the Carolinas after an extensive process of working with the state's leaders, policymakers, customers and other stakeholders. The IRPs will include multiple scenarios to support a path to a cleaner energy future in the Carolinas, reflecting key utility trends shaping resource planning.

Since 2010, Duke Energy has retired 51 coal units totaling more than 6,500 megawatts (MW) and plans to retire at least an additional 900 MW by the end of 2024. In 2019, the company proposed to shorten the book lives of another approximately 7,700 MW of coal capacity in North Carolina and Indiana.

Duke Energy will host an analyst call in early August 2020 to discuss second quarter 2020 financial results and other business and financial updates. The company will also host its inaugural Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investor day in October 2020.

Duke Energy

Duke Energy is transforming its customers' experience, modernizing the energy grid, generating cleaner energy and expanding natural gas infrastructure to create a smarter energy future for the people and communities it serves. The Electric Utilities and Infrastructure unit's regulated utilities serve 7.8 million retail electric customers in six states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky. The Gas Utilities and Infrastructure unit distributes natural gas to 1.6 million customers in five states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky. The Duke Energy Renewables unit operates wind and solar generation facilities across the U.S., as well as energy storage and microgrid projects.

Duke Energy was named to Fortune's 2020 "World's Most Admired Companies" list and Forbes' "America's Best Employers" list. More information about the company is available at duke-energy.com. The Duke Energy News Center contains news releases, fact sheets, photos, videos and other materials. Duke Energy's illumination features stories about people, innovations, community topics and environmental issues. Follow Duke Energy on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook.

Forward-Looking Information

This document includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements are based on management's beliefs and assumptions and can often be identified by terms and phrases that include "anticipate," "believe," "intend," "estimate," "expect," "continue," "should," "could," "may," "plan," "project," "predict," "will," "potential," "forecast," "target," "guidance," "outlook" or other similar terminology. Various factors may cause actual results to be materially different than the suggested outcomes within forward-looking statements; accordingly, there is no assurance that such results will be realized. These factors include, but are not limited to:

• The impact of the COVID-19 electricity demand shift on operations and revenues;
• State, federal and foreign legislative and regulatory initiatives, including costs of compliance with existing and future environmental requirements, including those related to climate change, as well as rulings that affect cost and investment recovery or have an impact on rate structures or market prices;
• The extent and timing of costs and liabilities to comply with federal and state laws, regulations and legal requirements related to coal ash remediation, including amounts for required closure of certain ash impoundments, are uncertain and difficult to estimate;
• The ability to recover eligible costs, including amounts associated with coal ash impoundment retirement obligations and costs related to significant weather events, and to earn an adequate return on investment through rate case proceedings and the regulatory process;
• The costs of decommissioning nuclear facilities could prove to be more extensive than amounts estimated and all costs may not be fully recoverable through the regulatory process;
• Costs and effects of legal and administrative proceedings, settlements, investigations and claims;
• Industrial, commercial and residential growth or decline in service territories or customer bases resulting from sustained downturns of the economy and the economic health of our service territories or variations in customer usage patterns, including energy efficiency and demand response efforts and use of alternative energy sources, such as self-generation and distributed generation technologies;
• Federal and state regulations, laws and other efforts designed to promote and expand the use of energy efficiency measures and distributed generation technologies, such as private solar and battery storage, in Duke Energy service territories could result in customers leaving the electric distribution system, excess generation resources as well as stranded costs;
• Advancements in technology;
• Additional competition in electric and natural gas markets and continued industry consolidation;
• The influence of weather and other natural phenomena on operations, including the economic, operational and other effects of severe storms, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes and tornadoes, including extreme weather associated with climate change;
• The ability to successfully operate electric generating facilities and deliver electricity to customers including direct or indirect effects to the company resulting from an incident that affects the U.S. electric grid or generating resources;
• The ability to obtain the necessary permits and approvals and to complete necessary or desirable pipeline expansion or infrastructure projects in our natural gas business;
• Operational interruptions to our natural gas distribution and transmission activities;
• The availability of adequate interstate pipeline transportation capacity and natural gas supply;
• The impact on facilities and business from a terrorist attack, cybersecurity threats, data security breaches, operational accidents, information technology failures or other catastrophic events, such as fires, explosions, pandemic health events or other similar occurrences;
• The inherent risks associated with the operation of nuclear facilities, including environmental, health, safety, regulatory and financial risks, including the financial stability of third-party service providers;
• The timing and extent of changes in commodity prices and interest rates and the ability to recover such costs through the regulatory process, where appropriate, and their impact on liquidity positions and the value of underlying assets;
• The results of financing efforts, including the ability to obtain financing on favorable terms, which can be affected by various factors, including credit ratings, interest rate fluctuations, compliance with debt covenants and conditions and general market and economic conditions;
• Credit ratings of the Duke Energy Registrants may be different from what is expected;
• Declines in the market prices of equity and fixed-income securities and resultant cash funding requirements for defined benefit pension plans, other post-retirement benefit plans and nuclear decommissioning trust funds;
• Construction and development risks associated with the completion of the Duke Energy Registrants' capital investment projects, including risks related to financing, obtaining and complying with terms of permits, meeting construction budgets and schedules and satisfying operating and environmental performance standards, as well as the ability to recover costs from customers in a timely manner, or at all;
• Changes in rules for regional transmission organizations, including FERC debates on coal and nuclear subsidies and new and evolving capacity markets, and risks related to obligations created by the default of other participants;
• The ability to control operation and maintenance costs;
• The level of creditworthiness of counterparties to transactions;
• The ability to obtain adequate insurance at acceptable costs;
• Employee workforce factors, including the potential inability to attract and retain key personnel;
• The ability of subsidiaries to pay dividends or distributions to Duke Energy Corporation holding company (the Parent);
• The performance of projects undertaken by our nonregulated businesses and the success of efforts to invest in and develop new opportunities;
• The effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by accounting standard-setting bodies;
• The impact of U.S. tax legislation to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows and our credit ratings;
• The impacts from potential impairments of goodwill or equity method investment carrying values; and
• The ability to implement our business strategy, including enhancing existing technology systems.
• Additional risks and uncertainties are identified and discussed in the Duke Energy Registrants' reports filed with the SEC and available at the SEC's website at sec.gov. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the events described in the forward-looking statements might not occur or might occur to a different extent or at a different time than described. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and the Duke Energy Registrants expressly disclaim an obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro Electricity Imports shape CleanBC claims as Powerex trades cross-border electricity, blending hydro with coal and gas supplies, affecting emissions, grid carbon intensity, and how electric vehicles and households assess "clean" power.

Key Points

Powerex buys power for BC Hydro, mixing hydro with coal and gas, shifting emissions and affecting CleanBC targets.

✅ Powerex trades optimize price, not carbon intensity

✅ Imports can include coal- and gas-fired generation

✅ Emissions affect EV and CleanBC decarbonization claims

British Columbians naturally assume they’re using clean power when they fire up holiday lights, juice up a cell phone or plug in a shiny new electric car. 

That’s the message conveyed in advertisements for the CleanBC initiative launched by the NDP government, amid indications that residents are split on going nuclear according to a survey, which has spent $3.17 million on a CleanBC “information campaign,” including almost $570,000 for focus group testing and telephone town halls, according to the B.C. finance ministry.

“We’ll reduce air pollution by shifting to clean B.C. energy,” say the CleanBC ads, which feature scenic photos of hydro reservoirs. “CleanBC: Our Nature. Our Power. Our Future.” 

Yet despite all the bumph, British Columbians have no way of knowing if the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired plant in Alberta or Wyoming, a nuclear plant in Washington, a gas-fired plant in California or a hydro dam in B.C. 

Here’s why. 

BC Hydro’s wholly-owned corporate subsidiary, Powerex Corp., exports B.C. power when prices are high and imports power from other jurisdictions when prices are low. 

In 2018, for instance, B.C. imported more electricity than it exported — not because B.C. has a power shortage (it has a growing surplus due to the recent spate of mill closures and the commissioning of two new generating stations in B.C.) but because Powerex reaps bigger profits when BC Hydro slows down generators to import cheaper power, especially at night.

“B.C. buys its power from outside B.C., which we would argue is not clean,” says Martin Mullany, interim executive director for Clean Energy BC. 

“A good chunk of the electricity we use is imported,” Mullany says. “In reality we are trading for brown power” — meaning power generated from conventional ‘dirty’ sources such as coal and gas. 

Wyoming, which generates almost 90 per cent of its power from coal, was among the 12 U.S. states that exported power to B.C. last year. (Notably, B.C. did not export any electricity to Wyoming in 2018.)

Utah, where coal-fired power plants produce 70 per cent of the state’s energy amid debate over the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity, and Montana, which derives about 55 per cent of its power from coal, also exported power to B.C. last year. 

So did Nebraska, which gets 63 per cent of its power from coal, 15 per cent from nuclear plants, 14 per cent from wind and three per cent from natural gas.   

Coal is responsible for about 23 per cent of the power generated in Arizona, another exporter to B.C., while gas produces about 44 per cent of the electricity in that state.  

In 2017, the latest year for which statistics are available, electricity imports to B.C. totalled just over 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the B.C. environment ministry — roughly the equivalent of putting 255,000 new cars on the road, using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculation of 4.71 tonnes of annual carbon emissions for a standard passenger vehicle. 

These figures far outstrip the estimated local and upstream emissions from the contested Woodfibre LNG plant in Squamish that is expected to release annual emissions equivalent to 170,000 new cars on the road.

Import emissions cast a new light on B.C.’s latest “milestone” announcement that 30,000 electric cars are now among 3.7 million registered vehicles in the province.

BC Electric Vehicles Announcement Horgan Heyman Mungall Weaver
In November of 2018 the province announced a new target to have all new light-duty cars and trucks sold to be zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

“Making sure more of the vehicles driven in the province are powered by BC Hydro’s clean electricity is one of the most important steps to reduce [carbon] pollution,” said the November 28 release from the energy ministry, noting that electrification has prompted a first call for power in 15 years from BC Hydro.

Mullany points out that Powerex’s priority is to make money for the province and not to reduce emissions.

“It’s not there for the cleanest outcome,” he said. “At some time we have to step up to say it’s either the money or the clean power, which is more important to us?”

Electricity bought and sold by little-known, unregulated Powerex
These transactions are money-makers for Powerex, an opaque entity that is exempt from B.C.’s freedom of information laws. 

Little detailed information is available to the public about the dealings of Powerex, which is overseen by a board of directors comprised of BC Hydro board members and BC Hydro CEO and president Chris O’Reilly. 

According to BC Hydro’s annual service plan, Powerex’s net income ranged from $59 million to $436 million from 2014 to 2018. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

Powerex’s CEO Tom Bechard — the highest paid public servant in the province — took home $939,000 in pay and benefits last year, earning $430,000 of his executive compensation through a bonus and holdback based on his individual and company performance.  

“The problem is that all of the trade goes on at Powerex and Powerex is an unregulated entity,” Mullany says. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

In 2018, Powerex exported 8.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the U.S. for a total value of almost $570 million, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator. That same year, Powerex imported 9.6 million megawatt hours of electricity from the U.S. for almost $360 million. 

Powerex sold B.C.’s publicly subsidized power for an average of $87 per megawatt hour in 2018, according to the Canada Energy Regulator. It imported electricity for an average of $58 per megawatt hour that year. 

In an emailed statement in response to questions from The Narwhal, BC Hydro said “there can be a need to import some power to meet our electricity needs” due to dam reservoir fluctuations during the year and from year to year.

‘Impossible’ to determine if electricity is from coal or wind power
Emissions associated with electricity imports are on average “significantly lower than the emissions of a natural gas generating plant because we mostly import electricity from hydro generation and, increasingly, power produced from wind and solar,” BC Hydro claimed in its statement. 

But U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough says there’s no way to distinguish gas and coal-fired U.S. power exports to B.C. from wind or hydro power, noting that “electrons lack labels.” 

Similarly, when B.C. imports power from Alberta, where generators are shifting to gas and 48.5 per cent of electricity production is coal-fired and 38 per cent comes from natural gas, there’s no way to tell if the electricity is from coal, wind or gas, McCullough says.

“It really is impossible to make that determination.” 

Wyoming Gilette coal pits NASA
The Gillette coal pits in Wyoming, one of the largest coal-producers in the U.S. Photo: NASA Earth Observatory

Neither the Canada Energy Regulator nor Statistics Canada could provide annual data on electricity imports and exports between B.C. and Alberta. 

But you can watch imports and exports in real time on this handy Alberta website, which also lists Alberta’s power sources. 

In 2018, California, Washington and Oregon supplied considerably more power to B.C. than other states, according to data from Canada Energy Regulator. 

Washington, where about one-quarter of generated power comes from fossil fuels, led the pack, with more than $339 million in electricity exports to B.C. 

California, which still gets more than half of its power from gas-fired plants even though it leads the U.S. in renewable energy with substantial investments in wind, solar and geothermal, was in second place, selling about $18.4 million worth of power to B.C. 

And Oregon, which produces about 43 per cent of its power from natural gas and six per cent from coal, exported about $6.2 million worth of electricity to B.C. last year. 

By comparison, Nebraska’s power exports to B.C. totalled about $1.6 million, Montana’s added up to $1.3 million,  Nevada’s were about $706,000 and Wyoming’s were about $346,000.

Clean electrons or dirty electrons?
Dan Woynillowicz, deputy director of Clean Energy Canada, which co-chaired the B.C. government’s Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, says B.C. typically exports power to other jurisdictions during peak demand. 

Gas-fired plants and hydro power can generate electricity quickly, while coal-fired power plants take longer to ramp up and wind power is variable, Woynillowicz notes. 

“When you need power fast and there aren’t many sources that can supply it you’re willing to pay more for it.”

Woynillowicz says “the odds are high” that B.C. power exports are displacing dirty power.

Elsewhere in Canada, analysts warn that Ontario's electricity could get dirtier as policies change, raising similar concerns.

“As a consumer you never know whether you’re getting a clean electron or a dirty electron. You’re just getting an electron.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Smart EV Charging orchestrates vehicle-to-grid (V2G), demand response, and fast charging to balance the power grid, integrating renewables, electrolyzers for hydrogen, and megawatt chargers for fleets with advanced control and co-optimization.

Key Points

Smart EV charging coordinates EV load to stabilize the grid, cut peaks, and integrate renewable energy efficiently.

✅ Reduces peak demand via coordinated, flexible load control

✅ Enables V2G services with renewables and battery storage

✅ Supports megawatt fast charging for heavy-duty fleets

As electric vehicle (EV) sales continue to rev up in the United States, the power grid is in parallel contending with the greatest transformation in its 100-year history: the large-scale integration of renewable energy and power electronic devices. The expected expansion of EVs will shift those challenges into high gear, causing cities to face gigawatt-growth in electricity demand, as analyses of EV grid impacts indicate, and higher amounts of variable energy.

Coordinating large numbers of EVs with the power system presents a highly complex challenge. EVs introduce variable electrical loads that are highly dependent on customer behavior. Electrified transportation involves co-optimization with other energy systems, like natural gas and bulk battery storage, including mobile energy storage flexibility for new operational options. It could involve fleets of automated ride-hailing EVs and lead to hybrid-energy truck stops that provide hydrogen and fast-charging to heavy-duty vehicles.

Those changes will all test the limits of grid integration, but the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) sees opportunity at the intersection of energy systems and transportation. With powerful resources for simulating and evaluating complex systems, several NREL projects are determining the coordination required for fast charging, balancing electrical supply and demand, and efficient use of all energy assets.

Smart and Not-So-Smart Control
To appreciate the value of coordinated EV charging, it is helpful to imagine the opposite scenario.

"Our first question is how much benefit or burden the super simple, uncoordinated approach to electric vehicle charging offers the grid," said Andrew Meintz, the researcher leading NREL's Electric Vehicle Grid Integration team, as well as the RECHARGE project for smart EV charging. "Then we compare that to the 'whiz-bang,' everything-is-connected approach. We want to know the difference in value."

In the "super simple" approach, Meintz explained that battery-powered electric vehicles grow in market share, exemplified by mass-market EVs, without any evolution in vehicle charging coordination. Picture every employee at your workplace driving home at 5 p.m. and charging their vehicle. That is the grid's equivalent of going 0 to 100 mph, and if it does not wreck the system, it is at least very expensive. According to NREL's Electrification Futures Study, a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of widespread electrification across all U.S. economic sectors, in 2050 EVs could contribute to a 33% increase in energy use during peak electrical demand, underscoring state grid challenges that make these intervals costly when energy reserves are procured. In duck curve parlance, EVs will further strain the duck's neck.

The Optimization and Control Lab's Electric Vehicle Grid Integration bays allow researchers to determine how advanced high power chargers can be added safely and effectively to the grid, with the potential to explore how to combine buildings and EV charging. Credit: Dennis Schroeder, NREL
Meintz's "whiz-bang" approach instead imagines EV control strategies that are deliberate and serve to smooth, rather than intensify, the upcoming demand for electricity. It means managing both when and where vehicles charge to create flexible load on the grid.

At NREL, smart strategies to dispatch vehicles for optimal charging are being developed for both the grid edge, where consumers and energy users connect to the grid, as in RECHARGEPDF, and the entire distribution system, as in the GEMINI-XFC projectPDF. Both projects, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Vehicle Technologies Office, lean on advanced capabilities at NREL's Energy Systems Integration Facility to simulate future energy systems.

At the grid edge, EVs can be co-optimized with distributed energy resources—small-scale generation or storage technologies—the subject of a partnership with Eaton that brought industry perspectives to bear on coordinated management of EV fleets.

At the larger-system level, the GEMINI-XFC project has extended EV optimization scenarios to the city scale—the San Francisco Bay Area, to be specific.

"GEMINI-XFC involves the highest-ever-fidelity modeling of transportation and the grid," said NREL Research Manager of Grid-Connected Energy Systems Bryan Palmintier.

"We're combining future transportation scenarios with a large metro area co-simulationPDF—millions of simulated customers and a realistic distribution system model—to find the best approaches to vehicles helping the grid."

GEMINI-XFC and RECHARGE can foresee future electrification scenarios and then insert controls that reduce grid congestion or offset peak demand, for example. Charging EVs involves a sort of shell game, where loads are continually moved among charging stations to accommodate grid demand.

But for heavy-duty vehicles, the load is harder to hide. Electrified truck fleets will hit the road soon, creating power needs for electric truck fleets that translate to megawatts of localized demand. No amount of rerouting can avoid the requirements of charging heavy-duty vehicles or other instances of extreme fast-charging (XFC). To address this challenge, NREL is working with industry and other national laboratories to study and demonstrate the technological buildout necessary to achieve 1+ MW charging stationsPDF that are capable of fast charging at very high energy levels for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

To reach such a scale, NREL is also considering new power conversion hardware based on advanced materials like wide-bandgap semiconductors, as well as new controllers and algorithms that are uniquely suited for fleets of charge-hungry vehicles. The challenge to integrate 1+ MW charging is also pushing NREL research to higher power: Upcoming capabilities will look at many-megawatt systems that tie in the support of other energy sectors.

Renewable In-Roads for Hydrogen

At NREL, the drive toward larger charging demands is being met with larger research capabilities. The announcement of ARIES opens the door to energy systems integration research at a scale 10-times greater than current capabilities: 20 MW, up from 2 MW. Critically, it presents an opportunity to understand how mobility with high energy demands can be co-optimized with other utility-scale assets to benefit grid stability.

"If you've got a grid humming along with a steady load, then a truck requires 500 kW or more of power, it could create a large disruption for the grid," said Keith Wipke, the laboratory program manager for fuel cells and hydrogen technologies at NREL.

Such a high power demand could be partially served by battery storage systems. Or it could be hidden entirely with hydrogen production. Wipke's program, with support from the DOE's Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, has been performing studies into how electrolyzers—devices that use electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen—could offset the grid impacts of XFC. These efforts are also closely aligned with DOE's H2@Scale vision for affordable and effective hydrogen use across multiple sectors, including heavy-duty transportation, power generation, and metals manufacturing, among others.

"We're simulating electrolyzers that can match the charging load of heavy-duty battery electric vehicles. When fast charging begins, the electrolyzers are ramped down. When fast charging ends, the electrolyzers are ramped back up," Wipke said. "If done smoothly, the utility doesn't even know it's happening."

NREL Researchers Rishabh Jain, Kazunori Nagasawa, and Jen Kurtz are working on how grid integration of electrolyzers—devices that use electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen—could offset the grid impacts of extreme fast-charging. Credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
As electrolyzers harness the cheap electrons from off-demand periods, a significant amount of hydrogen can be produced on site. That creates a natural energy pathway from discount electricity into a fuel. It is no wonder, then, that several well-known transportation and fuel companies have recently initiated a multimillion-dollar partnership with NREL to advance heavy-duty hydrogen vehicle technologies.

"The logistics of expanding electric charging infrastructure from 50 kW for a single demonstration battery electric truck to 5,000 kW for a fleet of 100 could present challenges," Wipke said. "Hydrogen scales very nicely; you're basically bringing hydrogen to a fueling station or producing it on site, but either way the hydrogen fueling events are decoupled in time from hydrogen production, providing benefits to the grid."

The long driving range and fast refuel times—including a DOE target of achieving 10-minutes refuel for a truck—have already made hydrogen the standout solution for applications in warehouse forklifts. Further, NREL is finding that distributed electrolyzers can simultaneously produce hydrogen and improve voltage conditions, which can add much-needed stability to a grid that is accommodating more energy from variable resources.

Those examples that co-optimize mobility with the grid, using diverse technologies, are encouraging NREL and its partners to pursue a new scale of systems integration. Several forward-thinking projects are reimagining urban mobility as a mix of energy solutions that integrate the relative strengths of transportation technologies, which complement each other to fill important gaps in grid reliability.

The Future of Urban Mobility
What will electrified transportation look like at high penetrations? A few NREL projects offer some perspective. Among the most experimental, NREL is helping the city of Denver develop a smart community, integrated with electrified mobility and featuring automated charging and vehicle dispatch.

On another path to advanced mobility, Los Angeles has embarked on a plan to modernize its electricity system infrastructure, reflecting California EV grid stability goals—aiming for a 100% renewable energy supply by 2045, along with aggressive electrification targets for buildings and vehicles. Through the Los Angeles 100% Renewable Energy Study, the city is currently working with NREL to assess the full-scale impacts of the transition in a detailed analysis that integrates diverse capabilities across the laboratory.

The transition would include the Port of Long Beach, the busiest container port in the United States.

At the port, NREL is applying the same sort of scenario forecasting and controls evaluation as other projects, in order to find the optimal mix of technologies that can be integrated for both grid stability and a reliable quality of service: a mix of hydrogen fuel-cell and battery EVs, battery storage systems, on-site renewable generation, and extreme coordination among everything.

"Hydrogen at ports makes sense for the same reason as trucks: Marine applications have big power and energy demands," Wipke said. "But it's really the synergies between diverse technologies—the existing infrastructure for EVs and the flexibility of bulk battery systems—that will truly make the transition to high renewable energy possible."

Like the Port of Long Beach, transportation hubs across the nation are adapting to a complex environment of new mobility solutions. Airports and public transit stations involve the movement of passengers, goods, and services at a volume exceeding anywhere else. With the transition to digitally connected electric mobility changing how airports plan for the future, NREL projects such as Athena are using the power of high-performance computing to demonstrate how these hubs can maximize the value of passenger and freight mobility per unit of energy, time, and/or cost.

The growth in complexity for transportation hubs has just begun, however. Looking ahead, fleets of ride-sharing EVs, automated vehicles, and automated ride-sharing EV fleets could present the largest effort to manage mobility yet.

A Self-Driving Power Grid
To understand the full impact of future mobility-service providers, NREL developed the HIVE (Highly Integrated Vehicle Ecosystem) simulation framework. HIVE combines factors related to serving mobility needs and grid operations—such as a customer's willingness to carpool or delay travel, and potentially time-variable costs of recharging—and simulates the outcome in an integrated environment.

"Our question is, how do you optimize the management of a fleet whose primary purpose is to provide rides and improve that fleet's dispatch and charging?" said Eric Wood, an NREL vehicle systems engineer.

HIVE was developed as part of NREL's Autonomous Energy Systems research to optimize the control of automated vehicle fleets. That is, optimized routing and dispatch of automated electric vehicles.

The project imagines how price signals could influence dispatch algorithms. Consider one customer booking a commute through a ride-hailing app. Out of the fleet of vehicles nearby—variously charged and continually changing locations—which one should pick up the customer?

Now consider the movements of thousands of passengers in a city and thousands of vehicles providing transportation services. Among the number of agents, the moment-to-moment change in energy supply and demand, and the broad diversity in vendor technologies, "we're playing with a lot of parameters," Wood said.

But cutting through all the complexity, and in the midst of massive simulations, the end goal for vehicle-to-grid integration is consistent:

"The motivation for our work is that there are forecasts for significant load on the grid from the electrification of transportation," Wood said. "We want to ensure that this load is safely and effectively integrated, while meeting the expectations and needs of passengers."

The Port of Long Beach uses a mix of hydrogen fuel-cell and battery EVs, battery storage systems, on-site renewable generation, and extreme coordination among everything. Credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
True Replacement without Caveats

Electric vehicles are not necessarily helpful to the grid, but they can be. As EVs become established in the transportation sector, NREL is studying how to even out any bumps that electrified mobility could cause on the grid and advance any benefits to commuters or industry.

"It all comes down to load flexibility," Meintz said. "We're trying to decide how to optimally dispatch vehicle charging to meet quality-of-service considerations, while also minimizing charging costs."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Energy Pricing Factors span electricity generation, transmission, and distribution costs, plus natural gas supply-demand, renewables, seasonal peaks, and wholesale pricing effects across residential, commercial, and industrial customers, usage patterns, weather, and grid constraints.

Key Points

They are the costs and market forces driving electricity and natural gas prices, from generation to delivery and demand.

✅ Generation, transmission, distribution shape electricity rates

✅ Gas prices hinge on supply, storage, imports/exports

✅ Demand shifts: weather, economy, and fuel alternatives

There are a lot of factors that affect energy prices globally. What’s included in the price to heat homes and supply them with electricity may be a lot more than some people may think.

Electricity
Generating electricity is the largest component of its price, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Generation accounts for 56% of the price of electricity, while distribution and transmission account for 31% and 13% respectively.

Homeowners and businesses pay more for electricity than industrial companies, and U.S. electricity prices have recently surged, highlighting broader inflationary pressures. This is because industrial companies can take electricity at higher voltages, reducing transmission costs for energy companies.

“Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity,” EIA explains.

NYSEG said based on the average use of 600 kilowatt-hours per month, its customers spent the most money on delivery and transition charges in 2020, 57% or about $42, and residential electricity bills increased 5% in 2022 after inflation, according to national data. They also spent on average 35% (~$26) on supply charges and 8% (~$6) on surcharges.

Electricity prices are usually higher in the summer. Why? Because energy companies use sources of electricity that cost more money. It used to be that renewable sources, like solar and wind, were the most expensive sources of energy but increased technological advances have changed this, according to the International Energy Agency’s 2021 World Energy Outlook.

“In most markets, solar PV or wind now represents the cheapest available source of new electricity generation. Clean energy technology is becoming a major new area for investment and employment – and a dynamic arena for international collaboration and competition,” the report said.

Natural gas
The price of natural gas is driven by supply and demand. If there is more supply, prices are generally lower. If there is not as much supply, prices are generally higher the EIA explains. On the other side of the equation, more demand can also increase the price and less demand can decrease the price.

High natural gas prices mean people turn their home thermostats down a few degrees to save money, so the EIA said reduced demand can encourage companies to produce more natural gas, which would in turn help lower the cost. Lower prices will sometimes cause companies to reduce their production, therefore causing the price to rise.

The three major supply factors that affect prices: the amount of natural gas produced, how much is stored, and the volume of gas imported and exported. The three major demand factors that affect price are: changes in winter/summer weather, economic growth, and the broader energy crisis dynamics, as well as how much other fuels are available and their price, said EIA.

To think the price of natural gas is higher when the economy is thriving may sound counterintuitive but that’s exactly what happens. The EIA said this is because of increases in demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News