Burning coal underground has potential

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

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

Key Points

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

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

✅ Operates one balancing authority, independent interconnection

✅ Pays lower electricity, higher natural gas vs national average

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

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

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

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

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

The three regions (Interconnections):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Atlin Hydro and Transmission Project delivers First Nation-led clean energy via hydropower to the Yukon grid, replacing diesel, cutting emissions, and creating jobs, with a 69-kV line from Atlin, B.C., supplying about 35 GWh annually.

Key Points

A First Nation-led 8.5 MW hydropower and 69-kV line supplying clean energy to the Yukon, reducing diesel use.

✅ 8.5 MW capacity; ~35 GWh annually to Yukon grid

✅ 69-kV, 92 km line links Atlin to Jakes Corner

✅ Creates 176 construction jobs; cuts diesel and emissions

A First Nation-led clean-power generation project for British Columbia’s Northwest will provide a significant economic boost and good jobs for people in the area, as well as ongoing revenue from clean energy sold to the Yukon.

“This clean-energy project has the potential to be a win-win: creating opportunities for people, revenue for the community and cleaner air for everyone across the Northwest,” said Premier John Horgan. “That’s why our government is proud to be working in partnership with the Taku River Tlingit First Nation and other levels of government to make this promising project a reality. Together, we can build a stronger, cleaner future by producing more clean hydropower to replace fossil fuels – just as they have done here in Atlin.”

The Province is contributing $20 million toward a hydroelectric generation and transmission project being developed by the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (TRTFN) to replace diesel electricity generation in the Yukon, which is also supported by the Government of Yukon and the Government of Canada, and comes as BC Hydro demand fell during COVID-19 across the province.

“Renewable-energy projects are helping remote communities reduce the use of diesel for electricity generation, which reduces air pollution, improves environmental outcomes and creates local jobs,” said Bruce Ralston, Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. “This project will advance reconciliation with TRTFN, foster economic development in Atlin and support intergovernmental efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

TRTFN is based in Atlin with territory in B.C., the Yukon, and Alaska. TRTFN is an active participant in clean-energy development and, since 2009, has successfully replaced diesel-generated electricity in Atlin with a 2.1-megawatt (MW) hydro facility amid oversight issues such as BC Hydro misled regulator elsewhere in the province today.

TRTFN owns the Tlingit Homeland Energy Limited Partnership (THELP), which promotes economic development through clean energy. THELP plans to expand its hydro portfolio by constructing the Atlin Hydro and Transmission Project and selling electricity to the Yukon via a new transmission line, in a landscape shaped by T&D rates decisions in jurisdictions like Ontario for cost recovery.

The Government of Yukon is requiring its Yukon Energy Corporation (YEC) to generate 97% of its electricity from renewable resources by 2030. This project provides an opportunity for the Yukon government to reduce reliance on diesel generators and to meet future load growth, at a time when Manitoba Hydro's debt pressures highlight utility cost challenges.

The new transmission line between Atlin and the Yukon grid will include a fibre-optic data cable to support facility operations, with surplus capacity that can be used to bring high-speed internet connectivity to Atlin residents for the first time.

“Opportunities like this hydroelectricity project led by the Taku River Tlingit First Nation is a great example of identifying and then supporting First Nations-led clean-energy opportunities that will support resilient communities and provide clean economic opportunities in the region for years to come. We all have a responsibility to invest in projects that benefit our shared climate goals while advancing economic reconciliation.” said George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

“Thank you to the Government of British Columbia for investing in this important project, which will further strengthen the connection between the Yukon and Atlin. This ambitious initiative will expand renewable energy capacity in the North in partnership with the Taku River Tlingit First Nation while reducing the Yukon’s emissions and ensuring energy remains affordable for Yukoners.“ said Sandy Silver, Premier of Yukon.

“The Atlin Hydro Project represents an important step toward meeting the Yukon’s growing electricity needs and the renewable energy targets in the Our Clean Future strategy. Our government is proud to contribute to the development of this project and we thank the Government of British Columbia and all partners for their contributions and commitment to renewable energy initiatives. This project demonstrates what can be accomplished when communities, First Nations and federal, provincial and territorial governments come together to plan for a greener economy and future.” said John Streicker, Minister Responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation. 

“Atlin has enjoyed clean and renewable energy since 2009 because of our hydroelectric project. Over its lifespan, Atlin’s hydro opportunity will prevent more than one million tonnes of greenhouse gases from being created to power the southern Yukon. We are looking forward to the continuation of this project. Our collective dream is to meet our environmental and economic goals for the region and our local community within the next 10 years. We are so grateful to all our partners involved for their financial support, as we continue onward in creating an energy efficient and sustainable North.” said Charmaine Thom, Taku River Tlingit First Nation spokesperson.

Quick Facts:

• The 8.5-MW project is expected to provide an average of 35 gigawatt hours of energy annually to the Yukon. To accomplish this, TRTFN plans to leverage the existing water storage capability of Surprise Lake, add new infrastructure, and send power 92 km north to Jakes Corner, Yukon, along a new 69-kilovolt transmission line.
• The project is expected to cost $253 - 308.5 million, the higher number reflecting recently estimated impacts of inflation and supply chain cost escalation, alongside sector accounting concerns such as deferred BC Hydro costs noted in recent reports.
• The project is expected to have a positive impact on local and provincial economic development in the form of, even as governance debates like Manitoba Hydro board changes draw attention elsewhere:
• 176 full-time positions during construction;
• six to eight full-time positions in operations and maintenance over 40 years; and
• increased business for B.C. contractors.
• Territorial and federal funders have committed $151.1 million to support the project, most recently the $32.2 million committed in the 2022 federal bdget.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

BC Affordability & BC Hydro Bill Credits provide inflation relief and cost of living support, lowering electricity bills for families and small businesses through automatic utility credits and income-tested tax rebates across British Columbia.

Key Points

BC relief lowering electricity bills and offering rebates to help families and businesses facing inflation.

✅ $100 credit for residential BC Hydro users; applied automatically.

✅ Avg $500 bill credit for small and medium commercial customers.

✅ Income-based BC Affordability Credit via CRA in January.

The new B.C. premier announced on Friday morning families and small businesses in B.C. will get a one-time cost of living credit on their BC Hydro bill this fall, and a new B.C. Affordability Credit in January.

Eby focused on the issue of affordability in his speech following being sworn in as B.C.’s 37th premier, including electricity costs addressed by BC Hydro review recommendations that aim to keep power affordable.

A BC Hydro bill credit of $100 will be provided to all eligible residential and commercial electricity customers, including those who receive their electricity service indirectly from BC Hydro through FortisBC or a municipal utility.

“People and small businesses across B.C. are feeling the squeeze of global inflation,” Eby said.

“It’s a time when people need their government to continue to be there for them. That’s why we’re focused on helping people most impacted by the rising costs we’re seeing around the world – giving people a bit of extra credit, especially at a time of year when expenses can be quick to add up.”

Eby takes over as premier of the province with a growing number of concerns piling up on his plate, even as the province advances grid development and job creation projects to support long-term growth.

Economists in the province have warned of turbulent economic times ahead due to global economic pressures and power supply challenges tied to green energy ambitions.

The one-time $100 cost of living credit works out to approximately one month of electricity for a family living in a detached home or more than two months of electricity for a family living in an apartment.

Commercial ratepayers, including small and medium businesses like restaurants and tourism operators, will receive a one-time bill credit averaging $500 as B.C. expands EV charging infrastructure to accelerate electrification.

The amount will be based on their prior year’s electricity consumption.

British Columbians will have the credit automatically applied to their electricity accounts.

BC Hydro customers will have the credit applied in early December. Customers of FortisBC and municipal utilities will likely begin to see their bill credits applied early in the new year.

‘I proudly and unreservedly turn to the tallest guy in the room’: John Horgan on David Eby

The B.C. Affordability Credit is separate and will be based on income.

Eligible people and families will automatically receive the new credit through the Canada Revenue Agency, the same way the enhanced Climate Action Tax Credit was received in October.

An eligible person making an income of up to $36,901 will receive the maximum BC Affordability Credit with the credit fully phasing out at $79,376.

An eligible family of four with a household income of $43,051 will get the maximum amount, with the credit fully phasing out by $150,051.

This additional support means a family of four can receive up to an additional $410 in early January 2023 to help offset some of the added costs people are facing, while EV owners can access more rebates for home and workplace charging to reduce transportation expenses.

“Look for B.C.’s new Affordability Credit in your bank account in January 2023,” Eby said.

“We know it won’t cover all the bills, but we hope the little bit extra helps folks out this winter.”

Eby’s swearing-in marks a change at the premier’s office but not a shift in focus.

The premier expects to continue on with former premier John Horgan’s mandate with a focus on affordability issues and clean growth supported by green energy investments from both levels of government.

In a ceremony held in the Musqueam Community Centre, Eby made a commitment to make meaningful improvements in the lives of British Columbians and continue work with First Nations communities, with clean-tech growth underscored by the B.C. battery plant announcement made with the prime minister.

The ceremony was the first-ever swearing-in hosted by a First Nation in British Columbia.

“British Columbia is a wonderful place to call home,” Eby said.

“At the same time, people are feeling uncertain about the future and worried about their families. I’m proud of the work done by John Horgan and our government to put people first. And there’s so much more to do. I’m ready to get to work with my team to deliver results that people will be able to see and feel in their lives and in their communities.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

European Energy Market Crisis drives record natural gas and electricity prices across the EU, as LNG supply constraints, Russian pipeline dependence, marginal pricing, and renewables integration expose volatility in liberalised power markets.

Key Points

A 2021 surge in European gas and electricity prices from supply strains, demand rebounds, and marginal pricing exposure.

✅ Record TTF gas and day-ahead power prices across Europe

✅ LNG constraints and Russian pipeline dependence tightened supply

✅ Debate over marginal pricing vs regulated models intensifies

By Ronan Bolton

The year 2021 was a turbulent one for energy markets across Europe, as Europe's energy nightmare deepened across the region. Skyrocketing natural gas prices have created a sense of crisis and will lead to cost-of-living problems for many households, as wholesale costs feed through into retail prices for gas and electricity over the coming months.

This has created immediate challenges for governments, but it should also encourage us to rethink the fundamental design of our energy markets as we seek to transition to net zero, with many viewing it as a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels across the bloc.

This energy crisis was driven by a combination of factors: the relaxation of Covid-19 lockdowns across Europe created a surge in demand, while cold weather early in the year diminished storage levels and contributed to increasing demand from Asian economies. A number of technical issues and supply-side constraints also combined to limit imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) into the continent.

Europe’s reliance on pipeline imports from Russia has once again been called into question, as Gazprom has refused to ride to the rescue, only fulfilling its pre-existing contracts. The combination of these, and other, factors resulted in record prices – the European benchmark price (the Dutch TTF Gas Futures Contract) reached almost €180/MWh on 21 December, with average day-ahead electricity prices exceeding €300/MWh across much of the continent in the following days.

Countries which rely heavily on natural gas as a source of electricity generation have been particularly exposed, with governments quickly put under pressure to intervene in the market.

In Spain the government and large energy companies have clashed over a proposed windfall tax on power producers. In Ireland, where wind and gas meet much of the country’s surging electricity demand, the government is proposing a €100 rebate for all domestic energy consumers in early 2022; while the UK government is currently negotiating a sector-wide bailout of the energy supply sector and considering ending the gas-electricity price link to curb bills.

This follows the collapse of a number of suppliers who had based their business models on attracting customers with low prices by buying cheap on the spot market. The rising wholesale prices, combined with the retail price cap previously introduced by the Theresa May government, led to their collapse.

While individual governments have little control over prices in an increasingly globalised and interconnected natural gas market, they can exert influence over electricity prices as these markets remain largely national and strongly influenced by domestic policy and regulation. Arising from this, the intersection of gas and power markets has become a key site of contestation and comment about the role of government in mitigating the impacts on consumers of rising fuel bills, even as several EU states oppose major reforms amid the price spike.

Given that renewables are constituting an ever-greater share of production capacity, many are now questioning why gas prices play such a determining role in electricity markets.

As I outline in my forthcoming book, Making Energy Markets, a particular feature of the ‘European model’ of liberalised electricity trade since the 1990s has been a reliance on spot markets to improve the efficiency of electricity systems. The idea was that high marginal prices – often set by expensive-to-run gas peaking plants – would signal when capacity limits are reached, providing clear incentives to consumers to reduce or delay demand at these peak periods.

This, in theory, would lead to an overall more efficient system, and in the long run, if average prices exceeded the costs of entering the market, new investments would be made, thus pushing the more expensive and inefficient plants off the system.

The free-market model became established during a more stable era when domestically-sourced coal, along with gas purchased on long-term contracts from European sources (the North Sea and the Netherlands), constituted a much greater proportion of electricity generation.

While prices fluctuated, they were within a somewhat predictable range, and provided a stable benchmark for the long-term contracts underpinning investment decisions. This is no longer the case as energy markets become increasingly volatile and disrupted during the energy transition.

The idea that free price formation in a competitive market, with governments standing back, would benefit electricity consumers and lead to more efficient systems was rooted in sound economic theory, and is the basis on which other major commodity markets, such as metals and agricultural crops, have been organised for decades.

The free-market model applied to electricity had clear limitations, however, as the majority of domestic consumers have not been exposed directly to real-time price signals. While this is changing with the roll-out of smart meters in many countries, the extent to which the average consumer will be willing or able to reduce demand in a predicable way during peak periods remains uncertain.

Also, experience shows that governments often come under pressure to intervene in markets if prices rise sharply during periods of scarcity, thus undermining a basic tenet of the market model, with EU gas price cap strategies floated as one option.

Given that gas continues to play a crucial role in balancing supply and demand for electricity, the options available to governments are limited, illustrating why rolling back electricity prices is harder than it appears for policymakers. One approach would be would be to keep faith with the liberalised market model, with limited interventions to help consumers in the short term, while ultimately relying on innovations in demand side technologies and alternatives to gas as a means of balancing systems with high shares of variable renewables.

An alternative scenario may see a return to old style national pricing policies, involving a move away from marginal pricing and spot markets, even as the EU prepares to revamp its electricity market in response. In the past, in particular during the post-WWII decades, and until markets were liberalised in the 1990s, governments have taken such an approach, centrally determining prices based on the costs of delivering long term system plans. The operation of gas plants and fuel procurement would become a much more regulated activity under such a model.

Many argue that this ‘traditional model’ better suits a world in which governments have committed to long-term decarbonisation targets, and zero marginal cost sources, such as wind and solar, play a more dominant role in markets and begin to push down prices.

A crucial question for energy policy makers is how to exploit this deflationary effect of renewables and pass-on cost savings to consumers, whilst ensuring that the lights stay on.

Despite the promise of storage technologies such as grid-scale batteries and hydrogen produced from electrolysis, aside from highly polluting coal, no alternative to internationally sourced natural gas as a means of balancing electricity systems and ensuring our energy security is immediately available.

This fact, above all else, will constrain the ambitions of governments to fundamentally transform energy markets.

Ronan Bolton is Reader at the School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh and Co-Director of the UK Energy Research Centre. His book Making Energy Markets: The Origins of Electricity Liberalisation in Europe is to be published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Energy Price Hikes are driving electricity tariffs, gas prices, and heating costs higher as wholesale markets surge after the Ukraine invasion; households face inflationary pressure despite relief measures and a renewables levy cut.

Key Points

Germany Energy Price Hikes reflect surging power and gas tariffs from wholesale spikes, prompting relief measures.

✅ Electricity tariffs to rise 19.5% in Apr-Jun

✅ Gas tariffs up 42.3%; heating and fuel costs soar

✅ Renewables levy ends July; saves €6.6 billion yearly

Record prices for electricity and gas in Germany will continue to rise in the coming months, the dpa agency, citing estimates from the consumer portal Verivox.

According to him, electricity suppliers and local utilities, in whose area of ​​responsibility there are 13 million households, made an announcement of tariff increases in April, May and June by 19.5%. Gas tariffs increased by an average of 42.3%.

According to Verivox, electricity prices in Germany have approximately doubled over the year - a pattern seen as European electricity prices rose more than double the EU average - if previously a household with a consumption of 4,000 kWh paid 1,171 euros a year, now the amount has risen to 1,737 euros. Gas prices have risen even more, though European gas prices later returned to pre-Ukraine war levels: last year, a household with a consumption of 20,000 kWh paid 1,184 euros in annual terms, and now it is 2,787 euros. 

Energy costs for the average German household are 52 percent higher than a year ago, adding to EU inflation pressures, according to energy contract sales website Check24. In a press release, the company said the wholesale electricity price was at €122.93 per megawatt-hour in February 2022, compared to €49 this time last year, while in the United States US electricity prices climbed at the fastest pace in 41 years. In addition, electricity prices on the power exchange haven been rising rapidly since Russian troops invaded Ukraine, comparison portal Strom Report said. Costs for heating rose the most, triggered by the high gas price (105 euros per megawatt-hour on the wholesale market) and around 100 USD per barrel of oil – its highest price since 2014. Driving also became more expensive with costs for petrol up 25 percent and diesel 30 percent, Check24 said.

The German government has decided on relief measures for low-income households, including a 200 billion euro energy shield, in response to high consumer energy costs. In July, it will abolish the renewables levy on the power price, saving consumers around €6.6 billion annually. In a reform proposal released this week, the ministry for economy and climate also detailed how it will legally oblige power suppliers to reduce their power bills when the levy is abolished.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News