FLIR Technology Solutions Will Help Refineries and Utilities Reduce Risk of Explosions, Fines, Global Warming

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

Manitoba Hydro capacity constraints challenge clean energy growth as industrial demand, hydrogen projects, EV batteries, and electrification strain the grid; limited surplus, renewables, storage, and transmission bottlenecks hinder new high-load connections.

Key Points

Limited surplus power blocks new energy-intensive loads until added generation and transmission expand Manitoba's grid.

✅ No firm commitments for new energy-intensive industrial customers

✅ Single large load could consume remaining surplus capacity

✅ New renewables need transmission; gas, nuclear face trade-offs

Manitoba Hydro lacks the capacity to provide electricity to any new "energy intensive" industrial customers, the Crown corporation warns in a confidential briefing note that undercuts the idea this province can lure large businesses with an ample supply of clean, green energy, as the need for new power generation looms for the utility.

On July 28, provincial economic development officials unveiled an "energy roadmap" that said Manitoba Hydro must double or triple its generating capacity, as electrical demand could double over the next two decades in order to meet industrial and consumer demand for electricity produced without burning fossil fuels.

Those officials said 18 potential new customers with high energy needs were looking at setting up operations in Manitoba — and warned the province must be careful to choose businesses that provide the greatest economic benefit as well as the lowest environmental impact.

In a briefing note dated Sept. 13, obtained by CBC News, Manitoba Hydro warns it doesn't have enough excess power to hook up any of these new heavy electricity-using customers to the provincial power grid.

There are actually 57 proposals to use large volumes of electricity, Hydro says in the note, including eight projects already in the detailed study phase and nine where the proponents are working on construction agreements.

"Manitoba Hydro is unable to offer firm commitments to prospective customers that may align with Manitoba's energy roadmap and/or provincial economic development objectives," Hydro warns in the note, explaining it is legally obliged to serve all existing customers who need more electricity.

"As such, Manitoba Hydro cannot reserve electric supply for particular projects."

Hydro says in the note its "near-term surplus electricity supply" is so limited amid a Western Canada drought that "a single energy-intensive connection may consume all remaining electrical capacity."

Adding more electrical generating capacity won't be easy, even with new turbine investments underway, and will not happen in time to meet demands from customers looking to set up shop in the province, Hydro warns.

The Crown corporation goes on to say it's grappling with numerous requests from existing and prospective energy-intensive customers, mainly for producing hydrogen, manufacturing electric vehicle batteries and switching from fossil fuels to electricity, such as to use electricity for heat in buildings.

In a statement, Hydro said it wants to ensure Manitobans know the corporation is not running out of power — just the ability to meet the needs of large new customers, and continues to provide clean energy to neighboring provinces today.

"The size of loads looking to come to Manitoba are significantly larger than we typically see, and until additional supply is available, that limits our ability to connect them," Hydro spokesperson Bruce Owen said in a statement.

Adding wind power or battery storage, for example, would require the construction of more transmission lines, and deals such as SaskPower's purchase depend on that interprovincial infrastructure as well.

Natural gas plants are relatively inexpensive to build but do not align with efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear power plants require at least a decade of lead time to build, and tend to generate local opposition.

Hydro has also ruled out building another hydroelectric dam on the Nelson River, where the Conawapa project was put on hold in 2014.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Medicine Hat Bitcoin Mining Deal delivers 42 MW electricity to Hut 8, enabling blockchain data centres, cryptocurrency mining expansion, and economic diversification in Alberta with low-cost power, land lease, and rapid construction near Unit 16.

Key Points

A pact to supply 42 MW and lease land, enabling Hut 8's blockchain data centres and crypto mining growth in Alberta.

✅ 42 MW electricity from city; land lease near Unit 16

✅ Hut 8 expands to 60.7 MW; blockchain data centres

✅ 100 temporary jobs; 42 ongoing roles in Alberta

The City of Medicine Hat has agreed to supply electricity and lease land to a Toronto-based cryptocurrency mining company, at a time when some provinces are pausing large new crypto loads in a deal that will see $100 million in construction spending in the southern Alberta city.

The city will provide electric energy capacity of about 42 megawatts to Hut 8 Mining Corp., which will construct bitcoin mining facilities near the city's new Unit 16 power plant.

The operation is expected to be running by September and will triple the company's operating power to 60.7 megawatts, Hut 8 said, amid broader investments in new turbines across Canada.

#google#

"The signing of the electricity supply agreement and the land lease represents a key component in achieving our business plan for the roll-out of our BlockBox Data Centres in low-cost energy jurisdictions," said the company's board chairman, Bill Tai, in a release.

"[Medicine Hat] offers stable, cost-competitive utility rates and has been very welcoming and supportive of Hut 8's fast-paced growth plans."

In bitcoin mining operations, rows upon rows of power-consuming computers are used to solve mathematical puzzles in exchange for bitcoins and confirm crytopcurrency transactions. The verified transactions are then added to the public ledger known as the blockchain.

Hut 8's existing 18.7-megawatt mining operation at Drumheller, Alta. — a gated compound filled with rows of shipping containers housing the computers — has so far mined 750 bitcoins. Bitcoin was trading Tuesday morning for about $11,180.

Medicine Hat Mayor Ted Clugston says the deal is part of the city's efforts to diversify its economy.

We've made economic development a huge priority down here because we were hit very, very hard by the oil and gas decline," he said, noting that being the generator and vendor of its own electricity puts the city in a uniquely good position.

"Really we're just turning gas into electricity and they're taking that electricity and turning it into blockchain, or ones and zeroes."

Elsewhere in Canada, using more electricity for heat has been urged by green energy advocates, reflecting broader electrification debates.

Hut 8 says construction of the facility is starting right away and will create about 100 temporary jobs. The project is expected to be finished by the third-quarter of this year.

The Medicine Hat mining operation will generate 42 ongoing jobs for electricians, general labourers, systems technicians and security staff.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

New England Solar Interconnection Costs highlight distributed generation strains, transmission charges, distribution upgrades, and DAF fees as National Grid maps hosting capacity, driving queue delays and FERC disputes in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

Key Points

Rising upfront grid upgrade and DAF charges for distributed solar in RI and MA, including some transmission costs.

✅ Upfront grid upgrades shifted to project developers

✅ DAF and transmission charges increase per MW costs

✅ Queue delays tied to hosting capacity and cluster studies

Solar developers in Rhode Island and Massachusetts say soaring charges to interconnect with the electric grid are threatening the viability of projects. 

As more large-scale solar projects line up for connections, developers are being charged upfront for the full cost of the infrastructure upgrades required, a long-common practice that they say is now becoming untenable amid debates over a new solar customer charge in Nova Scotia. 

“It is a huge issue that reflects an under-invested grid that is not ready for the volume of distributed generation that we’re seeing and that we need, particularly solar,” said Jeremy McDiarmid, vice president for policy and government affairs at the Northeast Clean Energy Council, a nonprofit business organization. 

Connecting solar and wind systems to the grid often requires upgrades to the distribution system to prevent problems, such as voltage fluctuations and reliability risks highlighted by Australian distributors in their networks. Costs can vary considerably from place to place, depending on the amount of distributed generation coming online and the level of capacity planning by regulators, said David Feldman, a senior financial analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

“Certainly the Northeast often has more distribution challenges than much of the rest of the country just because it’s more populous and often the infrastructure is older,” he said. “But it’s not unique to the Northeast — in the Midwest, for example, there’s a significant amount of wind projects in the queues and significant delays.”

In Rhode Island and Massachusetts, where strong incentive programs are driving solar development, the level of solar coming online is “exposing the under-investment in the distribution system that is causing these massive costs that National Grid is assigning to particular projects or particular groups of projects,” McDiarmid said. “It is going to be a limiting factor for how much clean energy we can develop and bring online.”

Frank Epps, chief executive officer at Energy Development Partners, has been developing solar projects in Rhode Island since 2010. In that time, he said, interconnection charges on his projects have grown from about $80,000-$120,000 per megawatt to more than $400,000 per megawatt. He attributed the increase to a lack of investment in the distribution network by National Grid over the last decade.

He and other developers say the utility is now adding further to their costs by passing along not just the cost of improving the distribution system — the equivalent of the city street of the grid that brings power directly to customers — but also costs for modifying the transmission system — the interstate highway that moves bulk power over long distances to substations. 

Solar developers who are only requesting to hook into the distribution system, and not applying for transmission service, say they should not be charged for those additional upgrades under state interconnection rules unless they are properly authorized under the federal law that governs the transmission system. 

A Rhode Island solar and wind developer filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in February over transmission system improvement charges for its four proposed solar projects. Green Development said National Grid subsidiaries Narragansett Electric and New England Power Company want to charge the company more than $500,000 a year in operating and maintenance expenses assessed as so-called direct assignment facility charges. 

“This amount nearly doubles the interconnection costs associated with the projects,” which total 38.4 megawatts in North Smithfield, the company says in its complaint. “Crucially, these charges are linked to recovering costs associated with providing transmission service — even though no such transmission service is being provided to Green Development.”

But Ted Kresse, a spokesperson for National Grid, said the direct assignment facility, or DAF, construct has been in place for decades and has been applied to any customer affecting the need for transmission upgrades.

“It is the result of the high penetration and continued high volume of distributed generation interconnections that has recently prompted the need for transmission upgrades, and subsequently the pass-through of the associated DAF charges,” he said. 

Several complaints before the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission object to these DAF and other transmission charges.

One petition for dispute resolution concerns four solar projects totaling 40 MW being developed by Energy Development Partners in a former gravel pit in North Kingstown. Brown University has agreed to purchase the power. 

The developer signed interconnection service agreements with Narragansett Electric in 2019 requiring payment of $21.6 million for costs associated with connecting the projects at a new Wickford Junction substation. Last summer, Narragansett sought to replace those agreements with new ones that reclassified a portion of the costs as transmission-level costs, through New England Power, National Grid’s transmission subsidiary.

That shift would result in additional operational and maintenance charges of $835,000 per year for the estimated 35-year life of the projects, the complaint says.

“This came as a complete shock to us,” Epps said. “We’re not just paying for the maintenance of a new substation. We are paying a share of the total cost that the system owner has to own and operate the transmission system. So all of the sudden, it makes it even tougher for distributed energy resources to be viable.”

In its response to the petition, National Grid argues that the charges are justified because the solar projects will require transmission-level upgrades at the new substation. The company argues that the developer should be responsible for the costs rather than ratepayers, “who are already supporting renewable energy development through their electric rates.”

Seth Handy, one of the lawyers representing Green Development in the FERC complaint, argues that putting transmission system costs on distribution assets is unfair because the distributed resources are “actually reducing the need to move electricity long distances. We’ve been fighting these fights a long time over the underestimating of the value of distributed energy in reducing system costs.”

Handy is also representing the Episcopal Diocese of Rhode Island before the state Supreme Court in its appeal of an April 2020 public utilities commission order upholding similar charges for a proposed 2.2-megawatt solar project at the diocese’s conference center and camp in Glocester. 

Todd Bianco, principal policy associate at the utilities commission, said neither he nor the chairperson can comment on the pending dockets contesting these charges. But he noted that some of these issues are under discussion in another docket examining National Grid’s standards for connecting distributed generation. Among the proposals being considered is the appointment of an independent ombudsperson to resolve interconnection disputes. 

Separately, legislation pending before the Rhode Island General Assembly would remove responsibility for administering the interconnection of renewable energy from utilities, and put it under the authority of the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank, a financing agency.

Handy, who recently testified in support of the bill, said he believes National Grid has too many conflicting interests to administer interconnecting charges in a timely, transparent and fair fashion, and pointed to utility moves such as changes to solar compensation in other states as examples. In particular, he noted the company’s interests in expanding natural gas infrastructure. 

“There are all kinds of economic interests that they have that conflict with our state policy to provide lower-cost renewable energy and more secure energy solutions,” Handy said.

In testimony submitted to the House Committee on Corporations opposing the legislation, National Grid said such powers are well beyond the purpose and scope of the infrastructure bank. And it cited figures showing Rhode Island is third in the country for the most installed solar per square mile (behind New Jersey and Massachusetts).

Nadav Enbar, program manager at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit research organization for the utility industry, said interconnection delays and higher costs are becoming more common due to “the incredible uptake” in distributed renewable energy, particularly solar.

That’s impacting hosting capacity, the room available to connect all resources to a circuit without causing adverse harm to reliability and safety. 

“As hosting capacity is being reduced, it’s causing an increasing number of situations where utilities need to study their systems to guarantee interconnection without compromising their systems,” he said. “And that is the reason why you’re starting to see some delays, and it has translated into some greater costs because of the need for upgrades to infrastructure.”

The cost depends on the age or absence of infrastructure, projected load growth, the number of renewable energy projects in the queue, and other factors, he said. As utilities come under increasing pressure to meet state renewable goals, and as some states pilot incentives like a distributed energy rebate in Illinois to drive utility innovation, some (including National Grid) are beginning to provide hosting capacity maps that provide detailed information to developers and policymakers about the amount of distributed energy that can be accommodated at various locations on the grid, he said. 

In addition, the coming availability of high-tech “smart inverters” should help ease some of these problems because they provide the grid with more flexibility when it comes to connecting and communicating with distributed energy resources, Enbar said. 

In Massachusetts, the Department of Public Utilities has opened a docket to explore ways to better plan for and share the cost of upgrading distribution infrastructure to accommodate solar and other renewable energy sources as part of a grid overhaul for renewables nationwide. National Grid has been conducting “cluster studies” there that attempt to analyze the transmission impacts of a group of solar projects and the corresponding interconnection cost to each developer.

Kresse, of National Grid, said the company favors cost-sharing methodologies under consideration that would “provide a pathway to spread cost over the total enabled capacity from the upgrade, as opposed to spreading the cost over only those customers in the queue today.” 

Solar developers want regulators to take an even broader approach that factors in how the deployment of renewables and the resulting infrastructure upgrades benefit not just the interconnecting generator, but all customers. 

“Right now, if your project is the one that causes a multimillion-dollar upgrade, you are assigned that cost even though that upgrade is going to benefit a lot of other projects, as well as make the grid stronger,” said McDiarmid, of the clean energy council. “What we’re asking for is a way of allocating those costs among a variety of developers, as well as to the grid itself, meaning ratepayers. There’s a societal benefit to increasing the modernization of the grid, and improving the resilience of the grid.”

In the meantime, BlueHub Capital, a Boston-based solar developer focused on serving affordable housing developments, recently learned from National Grid that, as a part of one of the area studies, it will be required to pay $5.8 million in transmission and distribution upgrades to interconnect a 2-megawatt solar-plus-storage project that leverages cheaper batteries to enhance resilience, approved for a brownfield site in Gardner, Massachusetts. 

According to testimony submitted to the department, the sum is supposed to be paid within the next year, even though the project will have to wait to be interconnected until April 2027, when a new transmission line is completed. In addition, BlueHub will be responsible for DAF charges totaling $3.4 million over the 20-year life of the project. 

“We’re being asked to pay a fortune to provide solar that the state wants,” said DeWitt Jones, BlueHub’s president. “It’s so expensive that the upgrades are driving everyone out of the interconnection queue. The costs stay the same, but they fall on fewer projects. We need a process of grid design and modernization to guide this.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EU Electricity Market Reform seeks to curb gas-driven volatility by expanding CfDs and PPAs, decoupling power from gas, and aligning consumer bills with low-cost renewables and nuclear, as Brussels advances market redesign.

Key Points

An EU plan to curb price spikes by expanding long-term contracts and tying bills to cheap renewables.

✅ Expands CfDs and PPAs to lock in predictable power prices

✅ Aims to decouple bills from gas-driven wholesale volatility

✅ Seeks investment certainty for renewables, nuclear, and grids

European Union energy ministers meet on Monday to debate upcoming power market reforms. Brussels is set to propose the revamp next month, but already countries are split over how to "fix" the energy system - or whether it needs fixing at all.

Here's what you need to know.

POST-CRISIS CHANGES
The European Commission pledged last year to reform the EU's electricity market rules, after record-high gas prices - caused by cuts to Russian gas flows - sent power prices soaring during an energy crisis for European companies and citizens.

The aim is to reform the electricity market to shield consumer energy bills from short-term swings in fossil fuel prices, and make sure that Europe's growing share of low-cost renewable electricity translates into lower prices, even though rolling back electricity prices poses challenges for policymakers.

Currently, power prices in Europe are set by the running cost of the plant that supplies the final chunk of power needed to meet overall demand. Often, that is a gas plant, so gas price spikes can send electricity prices soaring.

EU countries disagree on how far the reforms should go.

Spain, France and Greece are among those seeking a deep reform.

In a document shared with EU countries, seen by Reuters, Spain said the reforms should help national regulators to sign more long-term contracts with electricity generators to pay a fixed price for their power.

Nuclear and renewable energy producers, for example, would receive a "contract for difference" (CfD) from the government to provide power during their lifespan - potentially decades - at a stable price that reflects their average cost of production.

Similarly, France suggests, as part of a new electricity pricing scheme, requiring energy suppliers to sign long-term, fixed-price contracts with power generators - either through a CfD, or a private Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between the parties.

French officials say this would give the power plant owner predictable revenue, while enabling consumers to have part of their energy bill comprised of this more stable price.

Germany, Denmark, Latvia and four other countries oppose a deep reform, and, as nine EU countries oppose reforms overall, have warned the EU against a "crisis mode" overhaul of a complex system that has taken decades to develop.

They say Europe's existing power market is functioning well, and has fostered years of lower power prices, supported renewable energy and helped avoid energy shortages.

Those countries support only limited tweaks, such as making it easier for consumers to choose between fluctuating and fixed-price power contracts.

'DECOUPLE' PRICES?
The Commission initially pitched the reform as a chance to "decouple" gas and power prices in Europe, suggesting a redesign of the current system of setting power prices. But EU officials say Brussels now appears to be leaning towards more modest changes.

A public consultation on the reforms last month steered clear of a deep energy market intervention. Rather, it suggested expanding Europe's use of long-term contracts, outlining a plan for more fixed-price contracts that provide power plants with a fixed price for their electricity, like CfDs or PPAs.

The Commission said this could be done by setting EU-wide rules for CfDs and letting countries voluntarily use them, or require new state-funded power plants to sign CfDs. The consultation mooted the idea of forcing existing power plants to sign CfDs, but said this could deter much-needed investments in renewable energy.

RISKS, REWARDS
Pro-reform countries like Spain say a revamped power market will bring down energy prices for consumers, by matching their bills more closely with the true cost of producing lower-carbon electricity.

France says the aim is to secure investment in low-carbon energy including renewables, and nuclear plants like those Paris plans to build. It also says lowering power prices should be part of Europe's response to massive industrial subsidies in the United States and China - by helping European firms keep a competitive edge.

But sceptics warn that drastic changes to the market could knock confidence among investors, putting at risk the hundreds of billions of euros in renewable energy investments the EU says are needed to quit Russian fossil fuels under its plan to dump Russian energy and meet climate goals.

Energy companies including Engie (ENGIE.PA), Orsted (ORSTED.CO) and Iberdrola (IBE.MC) have said making CfDs mandatory or imposing them retroactively on existing power plants could deter investment and trigger litigation from energy companies.

POLITICAL DEBATE
EU countries' energy ministers discuss the reforms on Monday, before formal negotiations begin.

The Commission, which drafts EU laws, plans to propose the reforms on Mar. 14. After that, EU countries and lawmakers negotiate the final law, which must win majority support from European Parliament lawmakers and a reinforced majority of at least 15 countries.

Negotiations on major EU legislation often take more than a year, but some countries are pushing for a fast-tracked deal. France wants the law to be finished this year.

That has already hit resistance from countries like Germany, highlighting a France-Germany tussle over the scope of reform as they say deeper changes cannot be rushed through, and they would need an "in-depth impact assessment" - something the Commission's upcoming proposal is not expected to include, because it has been drafted so quickly.

The timeline is further complicated by European Parliament elections in 2024. That has raised concerns in reform-hungry states that failure to strike a deal before the election could significantly delay the reforms, if negotiations have to pause until a new EU parliament is elected.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Electrification Costs: report estimates $580B-$1.4T to scale renewable energy, wind, solar, and storage capacity to 2050, shifting from natural gas toward net-zero emissions and raising average household energy spending by $1,300-$3,200 annually.

Key Points

Projected national expense to expand renewables and electrify energy systems by 2050, impacting household energy bills.

✅ $580B-$1.4T forecast for 2020-2050 energy transition

✅ 278-422 GW wind, solar, storage capacity by 2050

✅ Household costs up $1,300-$3,200 per year on average

The Canadian Gas Association says building renewable electricity capacity to replace just half of Canada's current fossil fuel-generated energy, a shift with significant policy implications for grids across provinces, could increase national costs by as much as $1.4 trillion over the next 30 years.

In a report, it contends, echoing an IEA report on net-zero, that growing electricity's contribution to Canada's energy mix from its current 19 per cent to about 60 per cent, a step critical to meeting climate pledges that policymakers emphasize, will require an expansion from 141 gigawatts today to between 278 and 422 GW of renewable wind, solar and storage capacity by 2050.

It says that will increase national energy costs by between $580 billion and $1.4 trillion between 2020 and 2050, a projection consistent with recent reports of higher electricity prices in Alberta amid policy shifts, translating into an average increase in Canadian household spending of $1,300 to $3,200 per year.

The study, prepared by consulting firm ICF for the association, assumes electrification begins in 2020 and is applied in all feasible applications by 2050, with investments in the electricity system, guided by the implications of decarbonizing the grid for reliability and cost, proceeding as existing natural gas and electric end use equipment reaches normal end of life.

Association CEO Tim Egan says the numbers are "pretty daunting" and support the integration of natural gas with electric, amid Canada's race to net-zero commitments, instead of using an electric-only option as the most cost-efficient way for Canada to reach environmental policy goals.

But Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, says scientists are calling for the world to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, and Canada's net-zero by 2050 target underscores that urgency to avoid "catastrophic" levels of warming, so investing in natural gas infrastructure to then shut it down seems a "very expensive option."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News