Cool summer softened demand for power

US Nuclear Generating Costs 2017 show USD33.50/MWh for nuclear energy, the lowest since 2008, as capital expenditures, fuel costs, and operating costs declined after license renewals and uprates, supporting a reliable, low-carbon grid.

Key Points

The 2017 US nuclear average was USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008, driven by reduced capital, fuel, and operating costs.

✅ Average cost USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008

✅ Capital, fuel, O&M costs fell sharply since 2012 peak

✅ License renewals, uprates, market reforms shape competitiveness

Average total generating costs for nuclear energy in 2017 in the USA were at their lowest since 2008, according to a study released by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), amid a continuing nuclear decline debate in other regions.

The report, Nuclear Costs in Context, found that in 2017 the average total generating cost - which includes capital, fuel and operating costs - for nuclear energy was USD33.50 per megawatt-hour (MWh), even as interest in next-generation nuclear designs grows among stakeholders. This is 3.3% lower than in 2016 and more than 19% below 2012's peak. The reduction in costs since 2012 is due to a 40.8% reduction in capital expenditures, a 17.2% reduction in fuel costs and an 8.7% reduction in operating costs, the organisation said.

The year-on-year decline in capital costs over the past five years reflects the completion by most plants of efforts to prepare for operation beyond their initial 40-year licence. A few major items - a series of vessel head replacements; steam generator replacements and other upgrades as companies prepared for continued operation, and power uprates to increase output from existing plants - caused capital investment to increase to a peak in 2012. "As a result of these investments, 86 of the [USA's] 99 operating reactors in 2017 have received 20-year licence renewals and 92 of the operating reactors have been approved for uprates that have added over 7900 megawatts of electricity capacity. Capital spending on uprates and items necessary for operation beyond 40 years has moderated as most plants are completing these efforts," it says.

Since 2013, seven US nuclear reactors have shut down permanently, with the Three Mile Island debate highlighting wider policy questions, and another 12 have announced their permanent shutdown. The early closure for economic reasons of reliable nuclear plants with high capacity factors and relatively low generating costs will have long-term economic consequences, the report warns: replacement generating capacity, when needed, will produce more costly electricity, fewer jobs that will pay less, and, for net-zero emissions objectives, more pollution, it says.

NEI Vice President of Policy Development and Public Affairs John Kotek said the "hardworking men and women of the nuclear industry" had done an "amazing job" reducing costs through the institute's Delivering the Nuclear Promise campaign and other initiatives, in line with IAEA low-carbon lessons from the pandemic. "As we continue to face economic headwinds in markets which do not properly compensate nuclear plants, the industry has been doing its part to reduce costs to remain competitive," he said.

"Some things are in urgent need of change if we are to keep the nation's nuclear plants running and enjoy their contribution to a reliable, resilient and low-carbon grid. Namely, we need to put in place market reforms that fairly compensate nuclear similar to those already in place in New York, Illinois and other states," Kotek added.

Cost information in the study was collected by the Electric Utility Cost Group with prior years converted to 2017 dollars for accurate historical comparison.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

London, Ontario Power Outage disrupts the electricity grid, causing a citywide blackout, stalled commuters, dark traffic signals, and closed businesses, as London Hydro crews race restoration after a transformer malfunction and infrastructure failures.

Key Points

A blackout caused by a transformer malfunction, disrupting commuters, businesses, and traffic across London, Ontario.

✅ Traffic signals dark; delays and congestion citywide

✅ London Hydro crews repairing malfunctioning transformer

✅ Businesses closed; transit routes delayed and rerouted

A widespread power outage early Monday morning left thousands of residents in London, Ontario, without electricity, causing significant disruption for commuters and businesses at the start of the workday. The outage, which affected several neighborhoods across the city, lasted for hours, creating a chaotic morning as residents scrambled to adjust to the unexpected interruption.

The Outage Strikes

The power failure was first reported at approximately 6:30 a.m., catching many off guard as they began their day. The affected areas included several busy neighborhoods, with power lines down and substations impacted, issues that windstorms often exacerbate for utilities. Early reports indicated that the outage was caused by a combination of issues, including technical failures and possible equipment malfunctions. London Hydro, the city's primary electricity provider, responded quickly to the situation, assuring residents that crews were dispatched to restore power as soon as possible.

"Crews are on site and working hard to restore power to those affected," a spokesperson for London Hydro said. "We understand the frustration this causes and are doing everything we can to get the power back on as soon as possible."

Impact on Commuters and Businesses

The power outage had an immediate impact on the morning commute. Traffic lights across the affected areas were down, leading to delays and rush-hour disruptions at major intersections. Drivers were forced to navigate through intersections without traffic control, creating an additional layer of complexity for those trying to get to work or school.

Public transit was also affected, with some bus routes delayed due to the power loss at key transit stations. The situation added further stress to commuters already dealing with the challenges of a typical Monday morning rush.

Businesses in the affected neighborhoods faced a variety of challenges. Some were forced to close early or delay their opening hours due to a lack of electricity. Many shops and offices struggled with limited access to the internet and phone lines, which hindered their ability to process orders and serve customers. Local coffee shops, often a go-to for busy workers, were also unable to operate their coffee machines or provide basic services, forcing customers to go without their usual morning caffeine fix.

"For a lot of people, it's their first stop in the morning," said one local business owner. "It’s frustrating because we rely on power to function, and with no warning, we had to turn away customers."

The Response

As the hours ticked by, residents were left wondering when the power would return. London Hydro’s social media accounts were filled with updates, keeping residents informed about the restoration efforts, a practice echoed when BC Hydro crews responded during an atypical storm. The utility company urged those who were experiencing issues to report them online to help prioritize repair efforts.

"We are aware that many people are affected, and our teams are working tirelessly to restore power," the utility posted on Twitter. "Please stay safe, and we thank you for your patience."

Throughout the morning, the power was gradually restored to different areas of the city. However, some parts remained without electricity well into the afternoon, a situation reminiscent of extended outages that test city resilience. London Hydro confirmed that the outage was caused by a malfunctioning transformer, and the necessary repairs would take time to complete.

Long-Term Effects and Community Concerns

While the immediate effects of the outage were felt most acutely during the morning hours, some residents expressed concern about the potential long-term effects. The city’s reliance on a stable electricity grid became a focal point of discussion, with many wondering if similar outages could occur in the future, as seen in the North Seattle outage earlier this year.

"I understand that things break, but it’s frustrating that it took so long for power to come back," said a London resident. "This isn’t the first time something like this has happened, and it makes me wonder about the reliability of our infrastructure."

City officials responded by reassuring residents that efforts are underway to upgrade the city's infrastructure to prevent such outages from happening in the future. A report released by London Hydro highlighted ongoing investments in upgrading transformers and other key components of the city's power grid. Province-wide, Hydro One restored power to more than 277,000 customers after damaging storms, underscoring the scale of upgrades needed. Despite these efforts, however, experts warn that older infrastructure in some areas may still be vulnerable to failure, especially during extreme weather events or other unforeseen circumstances.

The morning outage serves as a reminder of how reliant modern cities are on stable electricity networks. While the response from London Hydro was swift and effective in restoring power, it’s clear that these types of events can cause significant disruptions to daily life. As the city moves forward, many are calling for increased investment in infrastructure and proactive measures to prevent future outages, especially after Toronto outages persisted following a spring storm in the region.

In the meantime, Londoners have adapted, finding ways to go about their day as best they can. For some, it’s a reminder of the importance of preparedness in an increasingly unpredictable world. Whether it’s an extra flashlight or a backup power source, residents are learning to expect the unexpected and be ready for whatever the next workday might bring.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Canada Nuclear Power Expansion highlights SMRs, clean energy, net-zero targets, and robust regulation to deliver safe, reliable baseload electricity, spur investment, and economically decarbonize remote communities, mines, and grids across provinces securely.

Key Points

Canada Nuclear Power Expansion grows SMRs and reactors to meet climate targets with safe, reliable baseload power.

✅ Deploys SMRs for remote communities, mines, and industrial sites

✅ Streamlines regulation to ensure safety, trust, and timely approvals

✅ Provides clean, reliable baseload to hit net-zero electricity goals

Canada must expand its nuclear power capacity if it is to reach its climate targets, according to Canadian Minister of Natural Resources Seamus Oregan.

Speaking to the Canadian Nuclear Association’s annual conference, Seamus O’Regan said the industry has to grow.

“As the world tackles a changing climate, nuclear power is poised to provide the next wave of clean, affordable, safe and reliable power,” he told a packed room.

The Ottawa conference was the largest the industry has run with dozens of companies and more than 900 people in attendance. Provincial cabinet ministers from Saskatchewan and Ontario were also there. Those two provinces, along with New Brunswick, signed a memorandum in December as part of a premiers' nuclear initiative to work together on small modular reactor technology.

People need to know that it’s safe

Small modular reactors are units that produce less power than large generating stations, but can be constructed easier and are expected to be safer to operate. Canadian firms have about a dozen of the proposed reactors working their way through the regulatory process, with New Brunswick's SMR plans drawing scrutiny.

The smaller reactors could be used in groups to replace large units, but the industry also hopes to use them in rural or isolated communities, mines or even oilsands projects, potentially replacing the diesel power generators some remote communities use.

The Canadian government issued a road map to support the industry in 2018 and O’Regan committed Thursday to putting some teeth on that proposal later this year, as provinces like Ontario explore new large-scale nuclear plants to meet demand, with specific steps the government will take.

“We have been working so hard to support this industry. We are placing nuclear energy front and centre, something that has never been done before.”

O’Regan said the government’s role is a clear, streamlined regulatory system that will promote the industry, but also help the Canadian public to trust the reactors will be safe.

“People need to know that it’s safe. They need to know that it’s regulated. They need to know that it’s safe for them,” he said.

The Liberals promised during the campaign that they would gradually reduce Canada’s carbon emissions even after hitting the targets in the Paris Agreement by 2030. By 2050, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he expects Canada to be carbon neutral, mindful of lessons from Europe's power crisis on reliability.

The government hasn’t outlined how it will achieve that goal. O’Regan said more detail is coming, but it’s clear that nuclear is going to have to play a major part, echoing the UK’s green industrial revolution approach to reactor deployment.

“I have not seen a credible plan for net zero without nuclear as part of the mix. I don’t think we are going to be relying on any one technology. I think it’s going to be a whole host of things.”

O’Regan said large investors are looking for countries that are on the path to net zero.

“Everybody has their shirt sleeves rolled up and we know we need to work on this, not only do we have to work on this for the urgency of the planet, but we have to work on it for Canadian jobs.”

He added, “We must focus on those areas where Canada can and should lead, like nuclear.”

Canadians are ready to take a fresh look at nuclear

John Gorman, president of the Canadian Nuclear Association, said he was thrilled with O’Regan’s comments.

“I took the minister’s remarks this morning as being perhaps the strongest language of support for the nuclear industry in a number of years.”

Gorman said the industry is in strong shape and is working with utility companies such as Ontario Power Generation and regulators to move projects forward.

“It’s this amazing collaboration and coordination that is enabling us to beat others to the roll out of these small modular reactors,” he said.

He said provinces that might not have looked at nuclear before now have an incentive to do it, because of climate change. A former solar industry executive, Gorman said solar and wind power are important, as Ontario plans to seek new wind and solar power to ease supply pressures, but they won’t be able to keep up with rising power demands.

“Globally we are seeing increased recognition that climate change is real and that it’s a crisis, we are also seeing recognition that we are not making as much progress on decarbonizing our electricity system as we thought,” he said. “Canadians are ready to take a fresh look at nuclear and see the real facts.”

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

FPL Rate Increase Proposal 2026-2029 outlines $9B base-rate hikes as Florida grows, citing residential demand, grid infrastructure investments, energy mix diversification, and Florida PSC review impacting customer bills, reliability, and fuel price volatility mitigation.

Key Points

A $9B base-rate plan FPL filed with the Florida PSC to fund growth, grid upgrades, and energy diversification through 2029.

✅ Adds 275k since 2021; +335k customers projected by 2029.

✅ Monthly bills rise to about $157 by 2029, up ~22% total.

✅ Investments in poles, wires, transformers, substations, renewables.

Florida Power & Light (FPL), the state's largest utility provider, has submitted a proposal to the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) seeking a substantial increase in customer base rates over the next four years, amid ongoing scrutiny, including a recent hurricane surcharge controversy that heightened public attention.

Rationale Behind the Rate Increase

FPL's request is primarily influenced by Florida's robust population growth. Since 2021, the utility has added about 275,000 customers and projects an additional 335,000 by the end of 2029. This surge necessitates significant investments in transmission and distribution infrastructure, including poles, wires, transformers, and substations, to maintain reliable service. Moreover, FPL aims to diversify its energy mix to shield customers from fuel price volatility, even as the state declined federal solar incentives that could influence renewable adoption, ensuring a stable and sustainable power supply.

Impact on Customer Bills

If approved, the proposed rate increases would affect residential customers as follows:

• 2026: An estimated increase of $11.52 per month, raising the typical bill to $145.66.

• 2027: An additional $6.05 per month, bringing the bill to $151.71.

• 2028: A further increase of $3.64 per month, totaling $155.35.

• 2029: An extra $2.06 per month, resulting in a final bill of $157.41.

These adjustments represent a cumulative increase of approximately 22% over the four-year period, while in other regions some customers face sharper spikes, such as Pennsylvania's winter price increases this season.

Comparison with Previous Rate Hikes

This proposal follows a series of rate increases approved in recent years, as California electricity bills have soared and prompted calls for action in that state. For instance, Tampa Electric Co. (TECO) received approval for rate hikes totaling $287.9 million in 2025, with additional increases planned for 2026 and 2027. Consumer groups have expressed intentions to challenge these rate hikes, indicating a trend of growing scrutiny over utility rate adjustments.

Regulatory Review Process

The PSC is scheduled to review FPL's rate increase proposal in the coming months. A staff recommendation is expected by March 14, 2025, with a final decision anticipated at a commission conference on March 20, 2025. This process allows for public input and thorough evaluation of the proposed rate changes, while elsewhere some utilities anticipate stabilization, such as PG&E's 2025 outlook in California.

Customer and Consumer Advocacy Responses

The proposed rate hikes have elicited concerns from consumer advocacy groups. Organizations like Food & Water Watch have criticized the scale of the increase, labeling it as the largest rate hike request in U.S. history, amid mixed signals such as Gulf Power's one-time 40% bill decrease earlier this year. They argue that such substantial increases could place undue financial strain on households, especially those with fixed incomes.

Additionally, the Florida Public Service Commission has faced challenges in approving rate hikes for other utilities, such as TECO, and a recent Florida court decision on electricity monopolies that may influence the policy landscape, with consumer groups planning to appeal these decisions. This backdrop of heightened scrutiny suggests that FPL's proposal will undergo rigorous examination.

As Florida continues to experience rapid growth, balancing the need for infrastructure development and reliable energy services with the financial impact on consumers remains a critical challenge. The PSC's forthcoming decisions will play a pivotal role in shaping the state's energy landscape, influencing both the economy and the daily lives of Floridians.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EIA U.S. Power Outlook 2023-2024 forecasts lower electricity demand, softer wholesale prices, and faster renewable growth from solar and wind, with steady natural gas, reduced coal generation, slight nuclear gains, and ERCOT market moderation.

Key Points

An EIA forecast of a 2023 demand dip, 2024 rebound, lower prices, and a higher renewable share in the U.S. power mix.

✅ Demand dips to 4,000 billion kWh in 2023; rebounds in 2024.

✅ ERCOT on-peak prices average about $35/MWh versus $80/MWh in 2022.

✅ Renewables grow to 24% share; coal falls to 17%; nuclear edges up.

U.S. power consumption is expected to slip about 1% in 2023 from the previous year as milder weather slows usage from the record high hit in 2022, consistent with recent U.S. consumption trends observed over the past several years, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said in its Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO).

EIA projected that electricity demand is on track to slide to 4,000 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2023 from a historic high of 4,048 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2022, reflecting patterns seen during COVID-19 demand shifts in prior years, before rising to 4,062 billion kWh in 2024 as economic growth ramps up.

Less demand coupled with more electricity generation from cheap renewable power sources and lower natural gas prices is forecast to slash wholesale power prices this year, the EIA said.

The on-peak wholesale price at the North hub in Texas’ ERCOT power market is expected to average about $35 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2023 compared with an average of nearly $80/MWh in 2022 after the 2022 price surge in power markets.

As capacity for renewables like solar and wind ramp up and as natural gas prices ease amid the broader energy crisis pressures, the EIA said it expects coal-fired power generation to be 17% less in the spring of 2023 than in the spring of 2022.

Coal will provide an average of 17% of total U.S. generation this year, down from 20% last year, as utilities shift investments toward electricity delivery and away from new power production, the EIA said.

The share of total generation supplied by natural gas is seen remaining at about the same this year at 39%. The nuclear share of generation is seen rising slightly to 20% this year from 19% in 2022. Generation from renewable energy sources grows the most in the forecast, increasing to 24% this year from a share of 22% last year, even as residential electricity bills rose in 2022 across the U.S.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News