Voith Siemens' opens new workshop in Shanghai

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

IAEA Nuclear Reactor Simulators enable virtual nuclear power plant training on IPWR/PWR systems, load-following operations, baseload dynamics, and turbine coupling, supporting advanced reactor education, flexible grid integration, and low-carbon electricity skills development during remote learning.

Key Points

IAEA Nuclear Reactor Simulators are tools for training on reactor operations, safety, and flexible power management.

✅ Simulates IPWR/PWR systems with real-time parameter visualization.

✅ Practices load-following, baseload, and grid flexibility scenarios.

✅ Supports remote training on safety, controls, and turbine coupling.

Students and professionals in the nuclear field are making use of learning opportunities during lockdown made necessary by the Covid-19 pandemic, drawing on IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons for the future.

Requests to use the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) basic principle nuclear reactor simulators have risen sharply in recent weeks, IAEA said on 1 May, as India takes steps to get nuclear back on track. New users will have the opportunity to learn more about operating them.

“This suite of nuclear power plant simulators is part of the IAEA education and training programmes on technology development of advanced reactors worldwide. [It] can be accessed upon request by interested parties from around the world,” said Stefano Monti, head of the IAEA’s Nuclear Power Technology Development Section.

Simulators include several features to help users understand fundamental concepts behind the behaviour of nuclear plants and their reactors. They also provide an overview of how various plant systems and components work to power turbines and produce low-carbon electricity, while illustrating roles beyond electricity as well.

In the integral pressurised water reactor (IPWR) simulator, for instance, a type of advanced nuclear power design, users can navigate through several screens, each containing information allowing them to adjust certain variables. One provides a summary of reactor parameters such as primary pressure, flow and temperature. Another view lays out the status of the reactor core.

The “Systems” screen provides a visual overview of how the plant’s main systems, including the reactor and turbines, work together. On the “Controls” screen, users can adjust values which affect reactor performance and power output.

This simulator provides insight into how the IPWR works, and also allows users to see how the changes they make to plant variables alter the plant’s operation. Operators can also perform manoeuvres similar to those that would take place in the course of real plant operations e.g. in load following mode.

“Currently, most nuclear plants operate in ‘baseload’ mode, continually generating electricity at their maximum capacity. However, there is a trend of countries, aligned with green industrial revolution strategies, moving toward hybrid energy systems which incorporate nuclear together with a diverse mix of renewable energy sources. A greater need for flexible operations is emerging, and many advanced power plants offer standard features for load following,” said Gerardo Martinez-Guridi, an IAEA nuclear engineer who specialises in water-cooled reactor technology.

Prospective nuclear engineers need to understand the dynamics of the consequences of reducing a reactor’s power output, for example, especially in the context of next-generation nuclear systems and emerging grids, and simulators can help students visualise these processes, he noted.

“Many reactor variables change when the power output is adjusted, and it is useful to see how this occurs in real-time,” said Chirayu Batra, an IAEA nuclear engineer, who will lead the webinar on 12 May.

“Users will know that the operation is complete once the various parameters have stabilised at their new values.”

Observing and comparing the parameter changes helps users know what to expect during a real power manoeuvre, he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro Customer Crisis Fund Surplus highlights unused grants, pilot program imbalance, and calls to reduce fees or expand eligibility. Ratepayers, regulators, and social agencies urge awareness, rebates, and aid for overdue electricity bills.

Key Points

A funding carryover from BC Hydro's crisis grants, sparking debate over fee reductions or more aid eligibility.

✅ $2.9M surplus from 25-cent monthly customer fee

✅ Only 2,250 grants issued; awareness and eligibility questioned

✅ Regulator may refund balance or adjust program design

BC Hydro is sitting on a surplus of about $2.9 million in its customer crisis fund, even as BC Hydro rates rise 3% across the province, leading to calls for the utility to reduce its take from the average customer or provide more money to those in need.

B.C. Liberal Energy Critic Greg Kyllo said if the imbalance continues in the year-old pilot program, amid a provincial rate freeze announced by the province, it’s time to cut the monthly 25 cent fee in half.

"If the grant requirement or the need in the province is going to remain where it is, they should look at rolling back the contribution level in the fund," he told CTV News Vancouver from Salmon Arm.

But social agencies who were part of the consultation around the fund in the beginning said it’s more likely that people in need don’t know about the fund and more time is necessary to get the word out.

"If they collect the money, then the program’s got to change to make sure more people are able to be helped," said Gudrun Langolf of the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of BC.

The customer crisis fund was started in spring 2018 to give people short-term relief when they can’t pay their electricity bills, especially as a $2 monthly hike pressures household budgets. Customers can apply to get a grant of up to $500 to keep the lights on, and up to $600 if electricity heats their homes.

The public utility took in about 25 cents per customer per month which added up to a revenue of $4.5 million in the year since the program started, BC Hydro confirmed to CTV News.

But the agency only gave out 2,250 grants totalling $850,000.

Administration costs added up around $750,000 – leaving the $2.9 million remaining.

The news will come as a welcome relief to those who suddenly struggle to pay their hydro bills, particularly as Alberta ratepayers are on the hook under a utility deferral program elsewhere in Canada.

Some people who come into Disability Alliance B.C. are often anxious and emotional when they’re suddenly unable to pay their bills, said Shar Saremi, an advocate there.

"I’ve had people crying. I’ve had people who have experienced a loss in the family," she said. "A lot of the time people are stressed out, anxious, really upset. They are looking for assistance, and they aren’t sure what is available for them."

She said people are only eligible if their bills are under $1,000, which could be cutting out the people who are most in need. And because the program is in its first year, it could be undersubscribed, she said.

"A lot of people don’t know about the program, don’t know how to apply, or what kind of assistance is out there," Saremi said.

The fund was established thanks to an order from the B.C. Utilities Commission, the utilities regulator in the province.

The pilot program is going to be examined by the regulator at the end of its first year.

"Any remaining balance in the account at the end of the pilot would be returned to residential ratepayers," says a BCUC fact sheet, as BC Hydro rates are set to rise 3.75% over two years. The decision on exactly what to do with the money hasn’t yet been made.

In Manitoba, a similar program is by donation, and in Newfoundland and Labrador a lump-sum credit was offered to bill payers in a separate initiative. That program raised about $200,000 from customers and $60,000 in other income. It spent $199,000 on grants to applicants, but lost about $20,000 a year.

In Ontario, private utilities are expected to raise 0.12 per cent of their revenue, and Hydro One reconnections have highlighted the stakes for nonpayment there. Across the province, those utilities gave out about $7.3 million in grants. Any unused funds in one year are rolled over to the following year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Grid Transition drives decarbonization with renewable energy, EV charging, microgrids, and energy storage, while tackling wildfire risk, aging infrastructure, and cybersecurity threats to build grid resilience and reliability across a rapidly electrifying economy.

Key Points

California Grid Transition is the statewide shift to renewables, storage, EVs, and resilient, secure infrastructure.

✅ Integrates solar, wind, storage, and demand response at scale

✅ Expands microgrids and DERs to enhance reliability and resilience

✅ Addresses wildfire, aging assets, and cybersecurity risks

Gretchen Bakke thinks a lot about power—the kind that sizzles through a complex grid of electrical stations, poles, lines and transformers, keeping the lights on for tens of millions of Californians who mostly take it for granted.

They shouldn’t, says Bakke, who grew up in a rural California town regularly darkened by outages. A cultural anthropologist who studies the consequences of institutional failures, she says it’s unclear whether the state’s aging electricity network and its managers can handle what’s about to hit it, as U.S. blackout risks continue to mount.

California is casting off fossil fuels to become something that doesn’t yet exist: a fully electrified state of 40 million people. Policies are in place requiring a rush of energy from renewable sources such as the sun and wind and calling for millions of electric cars that will need charging—changes that will tax a system already fragile, unstable and increasingly vulnerable to outside forces.

“There is so much happening, so fast—the grid and nearly everything about energy is in real transition, and there’s so much at stake,” said Bakke, who explores these issues in a book titled simply, “The Grid.”

The state’s task grew more complicated with this week’s announcement that Pacific Gas and Electric, which provides electricity for more than 5 million customer accounts, intends to file for bankruptcy in the face of potentially crippling liabilities from wildfires. But the reshaping of California’s energy future goes far beyond the woes of a single company.

The 19th-century model of one-way power delivery from utility companies to customers is being reimagined. Major utilities—and the grid itself—are being disrupted by rooftops paved with solar panels and the rise of self-sufficient neighborhood mini-grids. Whole cities and counties are abandoning big utilities and buying power from wholesalers and others of their choosing.

With California at the forefront of a new energy landscape, officials are racing to design a future that will not just reshape power production and delivery but also dictate how we get around and how our goods are made. They’re debating how to manage grid defectors, weighing the feasibility of an energy network that would expand to connect and serve much of the West and pondering how to appropriately regulate small power producers.

“We are in the depths of the conversation,” said Michael Picker, president of the state Public Utilities Commission, who cautions that even as the system is being rebooted, like repairing a car while driving in practice, there’s no real plan for making it all work.

Such transformation is exceedingly risky and potentially costly. California still bears the scars of having dropped its regulatory reins some 20 years ago, leaving power companies to bilk the state of billions of dollars it has yet to completely recover. And utility companies will undoubtedly pass on to their customers the costs of grid upgrades to defend against natural and man-made threats.

Some weaknesses are well known—rodents and tree limbs, for example, are common culprits in power outages, even as longer, more frequent outages afflict other parts of the U.S. A gnawing squirrel squeezed into a transformer on Thanksgiving Day three years ago, shutting off power to parts of Los Angeles International Airport. The airport plans to spend $120 million to upgrade its power plant.

But the harsh effects of climate change expose new vulnerabilities. Rising seas imperil coastal power plants. Electricity infrastructure is both threatened by and implicated in wildfires. Picker estimates that utility operations are related to one in 10 wildland fires in California, which can be sparked by aging equipment and winds that send tree branches crashing into power lines, showering flammable landscapes with sparks.

California utilities have been ordered to make their lines and equipment more fire-resistant as they’re increasingly held accountable for blazes they cause. Pacific Gas and Electric reported problems with some of its equipment at a starting point of California’s deadliest wildfire, which killed at least 86 people in November in the town of Paradise. The cause of the fire is under investigation.

New and complex cyber threats are more difficult to anticipate and even more dangerous. Computer hackers, operating a world away, can—and have—shut down electricity systems, toggling power on and off at will, and even hijacked the computers of special teams dispatched to restore control.

Thomas Fanning, CEO of Southern Co., one of the country’s largest utilities, recently disclosed that his teams have fended off multiple attempts to hack a nuclear power plant the firm operates. He called grid hacking “the most important under-reported war in American history.”

However, if you’ve got what seems like an insoluble problem requiring a to-the-studs teardown and innovative rebuild, California is a good place to start. After all, the first electricity grid was built in San Francisco in 1879, three years before Thomas Edison’s power station in New York City. (Edison’s plant burned to the ground a decade later.)

California’s energy-efficiency regulations have helped reduce statewide energy use, which peaked a decade ago and is on the decline, somewhat easing pressure on the grid. The major utilities are ahead of schedule in meeting their obligation to obtain power from renewable sources.

California’s universities are teaming with national research labs to develop cutting-edge solutions for storing energy produced by clean sources. California is fortunate in the diversity of its energy choices: hydroelectric dams in the north, large-scale solar operations in the Mojave Desert to the east, sprawling windmill farms in mountain passes and heat bubbling in the Geysers, the world’s largest geothermal field north of San Francisco. A single nuclear-power plant clings to the coast near San Luis Obispo, but it will be shuttered in 2025.

But more renewable energy, accessible at the whims of weather, can throw the grid off balance. Renewables lack the characteristic that power planners most prize: dispatchability, ready when called on and turned off when not immediately needed. Wind and sun don’t behave that way; their power is often available in great hunks—or not at all, as when clouds cover solar panels or winds drop.

In the case of solar power, it is plentiful in the middle of the day, at a time of low demand. There’s so much in California that most days the state pays its neighbors to siphon some off,  lest the excess impede the grid’s constant need for balance—for a supply that consistently equals demand.

So getting to California’s new goals of operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2045 and having 5 million electric vehicles within 12 years will require a shift in how power is acquired and managed. Consumers will rely more heavily on battery storage, whose efficiency must improve to meet that demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Texas Electricity Market Bailout proposes securitization bonds and ERCOT-backed fees after Winter Storm Uri, spreading costs via ratepayer charges on power bills to stabilize generators, co-ops, and retailers and avert bankruptcies and investor flight.

Key Points

State plan to securitize storm debts via ERCOT fees, adding bill charges to stabilize Texas power firms.

✅ Securitization bonds finance unpaid ancillary services and energy costs

✅ ERCOT fee spreads Winter Storm Uri debts across ratepayers statewide

✅ Aims to prevent bankruptcies, preserve grid reliability, reassure investors

An approximately $2.5 billion plan to bail out Texas’ distressed electricity market from the financial crisis caused by Winter Storm Uri in February has been approved by the Texas House.

The legislation would impose a fee — likely for the next decade or longer — on electricity companies, which would then get passed on to residential and business customers in their power bills, even as some utilities waived certain fees earlier in the crisis.

House lawmakers sent House Bill 4492 to the Senate on Thursday after a 129-15 vote. A similar bill is advancing in the Senate.

Some of the state’s electricity providers and generators are financially underwater in the aftermath of the February power outages, which left millions without power and killed more than 100 people. Electricity companies had to buy whatever power was available at the maximum rate allowed by Texas regulations — $9,000 per megawatt hour — during the week of the storm (the average price for power in 2020 was $22 per megawatt hour). Natural gas fuel prices also spiked more than 700% during the storm.

Several companies are nearing default on their bills to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages the Texas power grid that covers most of the state and facilitates financial transactions in it.

Rural electric cooperatives were especially hard hit; Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, which supplies electricity to 1.5 million customers, filed for bankruptcy citing a $1.8 billion debt to ERCOT.

State Rep. Chris Paddie, R-Marshall, the bill’s author, said a second bailout bill will be necessary during the current legislative session for severely distressed electric cooperatives.

“This is a financial crisis, and it’s a big one,” James Schaefer, a senior managing director at Guggenheim Partners, an investment bank, told lawmakers at a House State Affairs Committee hearing in early April. He warned that more bankruptcies would cause higher costs to customers and hurt the state’s image in the eyes of investors.

“You’ve got to free the system,” Schaefer said. “It’s horrible that a bunch of folks have to pay, but it’s a system-wide failure. If you let a bunch of folks crash, it’s not a good look for your state.”

If approved by the Senate and Gov. Greg Abbott, a newly-created Texas Electric Securitization Corp. would use the money raised from the fees for bonds to help pay the companies’ debts, including costs for ancillary services, a financial product that helps ensure power is continuously generated and improve electricity reliability across the grid.

Paddie told his colleagues Wednesday that he could not yet estimate how long the new fee would be imposed, but during committee hearings lawmakers estimated it’s likely to be at least a decade. Several other bills to spread out the costs of the winter storm and consider market reforms are also moving through the Legislature.

ERCOT’s independent market monitor recommended in March that energy sold during that period be repriced at a lower rate, which would have allowed ERCOT to claw back about $4.2 billion in payments to power generators, but the Public Utility Commission declined to do so, even as a court ruling on plant obligations in emergencies drew scrutiny among market participants.

Instead, lawmakers are pushing for bailouts that several energy experts have said is needed, both to ensure distressed companies don’t pass enormous costs on to their customers and to prevent electricity investors and companies from leaving the state if it’s viewed as too risky to continue doing business.

Becky Klein, an energy consultant in Austin and former chair of the Public Utility Commission who played a key role in de-regulating Texas’ electricity market two decades ago, said during a retail electricity panel hosted by Integrate that legislation is necessary to provide “some kind of backstop during a crazy market crisis like this to show the financial market that we’re willing to provide some relief.”

Still, some lawmakers are concerned with how they will win public support, including potential voter-approved funding measures, for bills to bail out the state’s electricity market.

“I have to go back to Laredo and say, ‘I know you didn’t have electricity for several days, but now I’m going to make you pay a little more for the next 20 years,’” state Rep. Richard Peña Raymond, D-Laredo, said during an early April discussion on the plan in the House State Affairs Committee. He said he voted for the bill because it’s in the best interest of the state.

Paddie, during the same committee hearing, acknowledged that “none of us want to increase fees or taxes.” However, he said, “We have to deal with the reality set before us.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Energy Transition Grid Reforms address transmission capacity, interconnection, congestion management, and flexibility markets, enabling renewable integration and grid stability while optimizing network charges and access in Australia, Ireland, and Great Britain.

Key Points

Measures to expand transmission, boost flexibility, and manage congestion for reliable, low-carbon electricity systems.

✅ Transmission upgrades and interconnectors ease congestion

✅ Flexible markets, DER, and storage bolster grid stability

✅ Evolving network charges and access incentivize siting

Electricity networks globally are experiencing significant increases in the volume of renewable capacity as countries seek to decarbonise their power sectors, even as clean energy's 'dirty secret' highlights integration trade-offs, without impacting the security of supply. The scale of this change is creating new challenges for power networks and those responsible for keeping the lights on.

The latest insight paper from Cornwall Insight – Market design amidst global energy transition – looks into this issue. It examines the outlook for transmission networks, and how legacy design and policies are supporting decarbonisation, aligning with IRENA findings on renewables and shaping the system. The paper focuses on three key markets; Australia, Ireland and Great Britain (GB).

Australia's main priority is to enhance transmission capacity and network efficiency; as concerns over excess solar risking blackouts grow in distribution networks, without this, the transmission system will be a barrier to growth for decentralised flexibility and renewables. In contrast, GB and Ireland benefit from interconnection with other national markets. This provides them with additional levers that can be pulled to manage system security and supply. However, they are still trying to hone and optimise network flexibility in light of steepening decarbonisation objectives.

Unsurprisingly, renewable energy resources have been growing in all three markets, with Ireland regarded as a leader in grid integration, with this expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Many of these projects are often located in places where network infrastructure is not as well developed, creating pressure on system operation as a result.

In all three markets, unit charges are rising, driven by a reduced charging base as decentralised energy grows quickly. This combination of changes is leading to network congestion, a challenge mirrored by the US grid overhaul for renewables underway, as transmission network development struggles to keep up, and flexibility markets are being optimised and changed.

In summary, reforms are on-going in each jurisdiction to accommodate the rapid physical transformation of the generation mix. Each has its objectives and tensions which are reflective of wider global reform programmes being undertaken in most developed, liberalised and decarbonising energy markets.

Gareth Miller, CEO of Cornwall Insight, said: “Despite differences in market design and characteristics, all three markets are grappling with similar issues, that comes from committing to deep decarbonisation. This includes the most appropriate methods for charging for networks, managing access to them and dealing with issues such as network congestion and constraint.

“In all three countries, renewable projects are often placed in isolated locations, as seen in Scotland where more pylons are needed to keep the lights on, away from the traditional infrastructure that is closer to demand. However, as renewable growth is set to continue, the networks will need to transition from being demand-centric to more supply orientated.

“Both system operators and stakeholders will need to continually evaluate their market structures and designs to alleviate issues surrounding locational congestion and grid stability. Each market is at very different stages in the process in trying to improve any problems implementing solutions to allow for higher efficiencies in renewable energy integration.

“It is uncertain whether any of the proposed changes will fundamentally resolve the issues that come with increased renewables on the system. However, despite marked differences, they certainly could all learn from each other and elements of their network arrangements, as well as from US decarbonisation strategies research.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News