El Paso customers to get refund

Quebec Energy Bill Tariff Delay disrupts Canada-U.S. trade, renewable energy investment, hydroelectric expansion, and clean technology projects, as Trump tariffs on aluminum and steel raise costs, threatening climate targets and green infrastructure timelines.

Key Points

A policy pause in Quebec from U.S. tariff threats, disrupting clean investment, hydro expansion, and climate targets.

✅ Tariff risk inflates aluminum and steel project costs.

✅ Quebec delays clean energy legislation amid trade uncertainty.

✅ Hydroelectric reliance complicates emissions reduction timelines.

The Trump administration's tariff threat has had a significant impact on Quebec's energy sector, with tariff threats boosting support for projects even as the uncertainty resulted in the delay of a critical energy bill. Originally introduced to streamline energy development and tackle climate change, the bill was meant to help transition Quebec towards greener alternatives while fostering economic growth. However, the U.S. threat to impose tariffs on Canadian goods, including energy products, introduced a wave of uncertainty that led to a pause in the bill's legislative process.

Quebec’s energy bill had ambitious goals of transitioning to renewable sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. It sought to support investments in clean technologies and the expansion of the province's clean energy infrastructure, as the U.S. demand for Canadian green power continues to grow across the border. Moreover, it emphasized the reduction of carbon emissions, an important step towards meeting Quebec's climate targets. At its core, the bill aimed to position the province as a leader in green energy development in Canada and globally.

The interruption caused by President Donald Trump's tariff rhetoric has, however, cast a shadow over the legislation. Tariffs, if enacted, would disproportionately affect Canada's energy exports, with electricity exports at risk under growing tensions, particularly in sectors like aluminum and steel, which are integral to energy infrastructure development. These tariffs could increase the cost of energy-related projects, thereby hindering Quebec's ability to achieve its renewable energy goals and reduce carbon emissions in a timely manner.

The tariff threat was seen as a part of the broader trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada, a continuation of the trade war that had escalated under Trump’s presidency. In this context, the Quebec government was forced to reconsider its legislative priorities, with policymakers citing concerns over the potential long-term consequences on the energy industry, as leaders elsewhere threatened to cut U.S.-bound electricity to exert leverage. With the uncertainty around tariffs and trade relations, the government opted to delay the bill until the geopolitical situation stabilized.

This delay underscores the vulnerability of Quebec’s energy agenda to external pressures. While the provincial government had set its sights on an ambitious green energy future, it now faces significant challenges in ensuring that its projects remain economically viable under the cloud of potential tariffs, even as experts warn against curbing Quebec's exports during the dispute. The delay in the energy bill also reflects broader challenges faced by the Canadian energy sector, which is highly integrated with the U.S. market.

The situation is further complicated by the province's reliance on hydroelectric power, a cornerstone of its energy strategy that supplies markets like New York, where tariffs could spike New York energy prices if cross-border flows are disrupted. While hydroelectric power is a clean and renewable source of energy, there are concerns about the environmental impact of large-scale dams, and these concerns have been growing in recent years. The tariff threat may prompt a reevaluation of Quebec’s energy mix and force the government to balance its environmental goals with economic realities.

The potential imposition of tariffs also raises questions about the future of North American energy cooperation. Historically, Canada and the U.S. have enjoyed a symbiotic energy relationship, with significant energy trade flowing across the border. The energy bill in Quebec was designed with the understanding that cross-border energy trade would continue to thrive. The Trump administration's tariff threat, however, casts doubt on this stability, forcing Quebec lawmakers to reconsider how they proceed with energy policy in a more uncertain trade environment.

Looking forward, Quebec's energy sector will likely need to adjust its strategies to account for the possibility of tariffs, while still pushing for a sustainable energy future, especially if Biden outlook for Canada's energy proves more favorable for the sector in the medium term. It may also open the door for deeper discussions about diversification, both in terms of energy sources and trade partnerships, as Quebec seeks to mitigate the impact of external threats. The delay in the energy bill, though unfortunate, may serve as a wake-up call for Canadian lawmakers to rethink how they balance environmental goals with global trade realities.

Ultimately, the Trump tariff threat highlights the delicate balance between regional energy ambitions and international trade dynamics. For Quebec, the delay in the energy bill could prove to be a pivotal moment in shaping the future of its energy policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Twin States Clean Energy Link connects New England to Hydro-Quebec via a 1,200 MW transmission line, DOE-backed capacity, underground segments, existing corridors, boosting renewable energy reliability across Vermont and New Hampshire with cross-border grid flexibility.

Key Points

DOE-backed 1,200 MW line linking Hydro-Quebec to New England, adding clean capacity with underground routes.

✅ 1,200 MW cross-border capacity for the New England grid

✅ Uses existing corridors; underground in VT and northern NH

✅ DOE capacity contract lowers risk and spurs investment

A proposal to build a new transmission line to connect New England with Canadian hydropower is one step closer to reality.

The U.S. Department of Energy announced Monday that it has selected the Twin States Clean Energy Link as one of three transmission projects that will be part of its $1.3 billion cross-border transmission initiative to add capacity to the grid.

WBUR is a nonprofit news organization. Our coverage relies on your financial support. If you value articles like the one you're reading right now, give today.

Twin States is a proposal from National Grid, a utility company that serves Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, and also owns transmission in England and Wales as the region advances projects like the Scotland-to-England subsea link that expand renewable flows, and the non-profit Citizens Energy Corporation.

The transmission line would connect New England with power from Hydro-Quebec, moving into the United States from Canada in Northern Vermont and crossing into New Hampshire near Dalton. It would run through parts of Grafton, Merrimack, and Hillsborough counties, routing through a substation in Dunbarton and ending at a proposed new substation in Londonderry. (Here's a map of the Twin States proposal.)

The federal funding will allow the U.S. Department of Energy to purchase capacity on the planned transmission line, which officials say reduces the risk for other investors and can help encourage others to purchase capacity.

The project has gotten support from local officials in Vermont and New Hampshire, but there are still hurdles to cross. The contract negotiation process is beginning, National Grid said, and the proposal still needs approvals from regulators before construction could begin.

First Nations communities in Canada have opposed transmission lines connecting Hydro-Quebec with New England in the past, and the company has faced scrutiny from environmental groups.

What would Twin States look like?
Transmission projects, like the failed Northern Pass proposal, have been controversial in New England, though the Great Northern Transmission Line progressed in Minnesota.

But Reihaneh Irani-Famili, vice president of capital delivery, project management and construction at National Grid, said this one is different because the developers listened to community concerns before planning the project.

“They did not want new corridors of infrastructure, so we made sure that we're using existing right of way,” she said. “They did not want the visual impact and some of the newer corridors of infrastructure, we're making sure we're undergrounding portions of the line.”

In Vermont and northern New Hampshire, the transmission lines would be buried underground along state roads. South of Littleton, they would be located within existing transmission corridors.

The developers say the lines could provide 1,200 megawatts of transmission capacity. The project would have the ability to carry electricity from hydro facilities in Quebec to New England, and would also be able to bring electricity from New England into Quebec, a step toward broader macrogrid connectivity across regions.

“Those hydro dams become giant green batteries for the region, and they hold that water until we need the electrons,” Irani-Famili said. “So if you think about our energy system not as one that sees borders, but one that sees resources, this is connecting the Quebec resources to the New England resources and helping all of us get into that cleaner energy future with a lot less build than we otherwise would have.”

Irani-Famili says the transmission line could help facilitate more clean energy resources like offshore wind coming online. In a report released last week by New Hampshire’s Department of Energy, authors said importing Canadian hydropower could be one of the most cost-effective ways to move away from fossil fuels on the electric grid.

National Grid estimates the project will help save energy customers $8.3 billion in its first 12 years. The developers are constructing a $260 million “community benefits plan” that would take some profits from the transmission line and give that money back to communities that host the transmission lines and environmental justice communities in New England.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

London Underground Power Outage 2025 disrupted Tube lines citywide, with a National Grid voltage dip causing service suspensions, delays, and station closures; TfL recovery efforts spotlight infrastructure resilience, contingency planning, and commuter safety communications.

Key Points

A citywide Tube disruption on May 12, 2025, triggered by a National Grid voltage dip, exposing resilience gaps.

✅ Bakerloo, Waterloo & City, Northern suspended; Jubilee disrupted.

✅ Cause: brief National Grid fault leading to a voltage dip.

✅ TfL focuses on recovery, communication, and resilience upgrades.

On May 12, 2025, a significant power outage disrupted the London Underground during the afternoon rush hour, affecting thousands of commuters across the city. The incident highlighted vulnerabilities in the city's transport infrastructure, echoing a morning outage in London reported earlier, and raised concerns about the resilience of urban utilities.

The Outage and Its Immediate Impact

The power failure occurred around 2:30 PM, leading to widespread service suspensions and delays on several key Tube lines. The Bakerloo and Waterloo & City lines were completely halted, while the Jubilee line experienced disruptions between London Bridge and Finchley Road. The Northern line was also suspended between Euston and Kennington, as well as south of Stockwell. Additionally, Elizabeth Line services between Abbey Wood and Paddington were suspended. Some stations were closed for safety reasons due to the lack of power.

Commuters faced severe delays, with many stranded in tunnels or on platforms. The lack of information and communication added to the confusion, as passengers were left uncertain about the cause and duration of the disruptions.

Cause of the Power Failure

Transport for London (TfL) attributed the outage to a brief fault in the National Grid's transmission network. Although the fault was resolved within seconds, it caused a voltage dip that affected local distribution networks, leading to the power loss in the Underground system.

The incident underscored the fragility of the city's transport infrastructure, particularly the aging electrical and signaling systems that are vulnerable to such faults, as well as weather-driven events like a major windstorm outage that can trigger cascading failures. While backup systems exist, their capacity to handle sudden disruptions remains a concern.

Broader Implications for Urban Infrastructure

This power outage is part of a broader pattern of infrastructure challenges facing London. In March 2025, a fire at an electrical substation in Hayes led to the closure of Heathrow Airport, affecting over 200,000 passengers, while similar disruptions at BWI Airport have underscored aviation vulnerabilities. These incidents have prompted discussions about the resilience of the UK's energy and transport networks.

Experts argue that aging infrastructure, coupled with increasing demand and climate-related stresses, poses significant risks to urban operations, as seen in a North Seattle outage and in Toronto storm-related outages that tested local grids. There is a growing call for investment in modernization and diversification of energy sources to ensure reliability and sustainability.

TfL's Response and Recovery Efforts

Following the outage, TfL worked swiftly to restore services. By 11 PM, all but one line had resumed operations, with only the Elizabeth Line continuing to experience severe delays. TfL officials acknowledged the inconvenience caused to passengers and pledged to investigate the incident thoroughly, similar to the Atlanta airport blackout inquiry conducted after a major outage, to prevent future occurrences.

In the aftermath, TfL emphasized the importance of clear communication with passengers during disruptions and committed to enhancing its contingency planning and infrastructure resilience.

Public Reaction and Ongoing Concerns

The power outage sparked frustration among commuters, many of whom took to social media to express their dissatisfaction, echoing sentiments during Houston's extended outage about communication gaps and delays. Some passengers reported being trapped in tunnels for extended periods without clear guidance from staff.

The incident has reignited debates about the adequacy of London's transport infrastructure and the need for comprehensive upgrades. While TfL has initiated reviews and improvement plans, the public remains concerned about the potential for future disruptions and the city's preparedness to handle them.

The May 12 power outage serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities inherent in urban infrastructure. As London continues to grow and modernize, ensuring the resilience of its transport and energy networks will be crucial. This includes investing in modern technologies, enhancing communication systems, and developing robust contingency plans to mitigate the impact of future disruptions. For now, Londoners are left reflecting on the lessons learned from this incident and hoping for a more reliable and resilient transport system in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Ontario EV Battery Separator Plant anchors Canada's EV supply chain, with Asahi Kasei producing lithium-ion battery separators in Niagara Region to support Honda's Alliston assembly, clean transportation growth, and sustainable manufacturing jobs.

Key Points

Asahi Kasei's Niagara Region plant makes lithium-ion battery separators supplying Honda's EV factory in Ontario.

✅ Starts up by 2027 to align with Honda EV output timeline.

✅ Backed by clean tech tax credits and public investment.

✅ Boosts local jobs, R&D, and clean transportation leadership.

The automotive industry is undergoing a seismic shift, and Canada is firmly planting its flag in the electric vehicle (EV) revolution, propelled by recent EV assembly deals across the country. A new $1.6 billion battery component plant in Ontario's Niagara Region signifies a significant step towards a cleaner, more sustainable transportation future. This Asahi Kasei facility, a key player in Honda's $15 billion electric vehicle supply chain investment, promises to create jobs, boost the local economy, and solidify Ontario's position as a leader in clean transportation technology.

Honda's ambitious project forms part of Honda's Ontario EV investment that involves constructing a dedicated battery plant adjacent to their existing Alliston, Ontario assembly facility. This new plant will focus on producing fully electric vehicles, requiring a robust supply chain for critical components. Asahi Kasei's Niagara Region plant enters the picture here, specializing in the production of battery separators – a thin film crucial for separating the positive and negative electrodes within a lithium-ion battery. These separators play a vital role in ensuring the battery functions safely and efficiently.

The Niagara Region plant is expected to be operational by 2 027, perfectly aligning with Honda's EV production timeline. This strategic partnership benefits both companies: Honda secures a reliable source for a vital component, while Asahi Kasei capitalizes on the burgeoning demand for EV parts. The project is a catalyst for economic growth in Ontario, creating jobs in construction and manufacturing, supporting an EV jobs boom province-wide, and potentially future research and development sectors. Additionally, it positions the province as a hub for clean transportation technology, attracting further investment and fostering innovation.

This announcement isn't an isolated event. News of Volkswagen constructing a separate EV battery plant in St. Thomas, Ontario, and the continuation of a major EV battery project near Montreal further underscore Canada's commitment to electric vehicles. These developments signify a clear shift in the country's automotive landscape, with a focus on sustainable solutions.

Government support has undoubtedly played a crucial role in attracting these investments. The Honda deal involves up to $5 billion in public funds. Asahi Kasei's Niagara Region plant is also expected to benefit from federal and provincial clean technology tax credits. This demonstrates a collaborative effort between government and industry, including investments by Canada and Quebec in battery assembly, to foster a thriving EV ecosystem in Canada.

The economic and environmental benefits of this project are undeniable. Battery production is expected to create thousands of jobs, while the shift towards electric vehicles will lead to reduced emissions and a cleaner environment. Ontario stands to gain significantly from this transition, becoming a leader in clean energy technology and attracting skilled workers and businesses catering to the EV sector, especially as the U.S. auto pivot to EVs accelerates across the border.

However, challenges remain. Concerns about the environmental impact of battery production, particularly the sourcing of raw materials and the potential for hazardous waste, need to be addressed. Additionally, ensuring a skilled workforce capable of handling the complexities of EV technology is paramount.

Despite these challenges, the future of electric vehicles in Canada appears bright. Major automakers are making significant investments, government support is growing, and consumer interest in EVs is on the rise. The Niagara Region plant serves as a tangible symbol of Canada's commitment to a cleaner and more sustainable transportation future. With careful planning and continued Canada-U.S. collaboration across the sector, this project has the potential to revolutionize the Canadian automotive industry and pave the way for a greener tomorrow.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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

Alberta Solar Energy Contracts secure low-cost photovoltaic PPAs for government operations, delivering renewable electricity at 4.8 cents/kWh, beating natural gas LCOE, enhancing summer grid efficiency across Hays, Tilley, and Jenner with Canadian Solar.

Key Points

Low-cost PV power agreements meeting 55% of Alberta government electricity demand via new Canadian Solar facilities.

✅ Price: 4.8 cents/kWh CAD, under gas-fired generation LCOE.

✅ Sites: Hays, Tilley, Jenner; 50% equity with Conklin Métis Local #193.

✅ Supplies 55% of provincial government electricity demand.

Three new solar electricity facilities to be built in south eastern Alberta (Canada) amid Alberta's solar growth have been selected through a competitive process to supply the Government of Alberta with 55 per cent of their annual electricity needs. The facilities will be built near Hays, Tilley, and Jenner, by Canadian Solar with Conklin Métis Local #193 as 50-percent equity owners.

The Government of Alberta's operations have been powered 100 per cent with wind power since 2007. Upon the expiration of some of these contracts, they have been renewed to switch from wind to solar energy. The average contract pricing will be $0.048 per kilowatt hour (3.6 cents/kWh USD), which is less than the average historical wholesale power pool price paid to natural gas-fired electricity in the province in years 2008 - 2018.

"The conversation about solar energy has long been fixated on its price competitiveness with fossil fuels," said John Gorman, CanSIA President & CEO. "Today's announcement demonstrates that low cost solar energy has arrived as a mainstream option in Alberta, even as demand for solar lags in Canada according to federal assessments. The conversation should next focus on how to optimize an all-of-the-above strategy for developing the province's renewable and non-renewable resources."

"This price discovery is monumental for the solar industry in Canada" said Patrick Bateman, CanSIA Director of Policy & Market Development. "At less than five cents per kilowatt hour, this solar electricity has a cost that is less than that of natural gas. Achieving Alberta's legislated 30 per cent by 2030 renewable electricity target just became a whole lot cheaper!".

Quick Facts:

• The contract price of 4.8 cents/kWh CAD to be paid by Alberta Infrastructure for this solar electricity represents a lower Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) than the average annual wholesale price paid by the power pool to combined-cycle and single-cycle natural gas-fired electricity generation which was 7.1 cents/kWh and 11.2 cents/kWh respectively from 2008 - 2018.

• Alberta receives more hours of sunshine than Miami, Florida in the summer months. Alberta's electricity supply is most strained in summer, highlighting challenges for solar expansion when high temperatures increase the resistance of the distribution and transmission systems, and reduce the efficiency of cooling thermal power plants. For this reason, solar facilities sited near to electricity demand improves overall grid efficiency. Supply shortages are atypical in Alberta in winter when solar energy is least available. When they do occur, imports are increased and large loads are decreased.

• In 2018, Alberta's solar electricity generation exceeded 50 MW. While representing much less than 1% of the province's electricity supply today, the Canadian Solar Industries Association (CanSIA) forecasts that solar energy could supply as much as 3 per cent of the province's electricity by 2030, supporting renewable energy job growth across Alberta. A recent supply chain study of the solar electricity sector in Alberta by Solas Energy Consulting Inc. found a potential of $4.1 billion in market value and a labour force rising to 10,000 in 2030.

To learn more about solar energy and the best way for consumers to go solar, please visit the Canadian Solar Industries Association at www.CanSIA.ca.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News