Canada labeled a global carbon “bully”

Ontario Global Adjustment Charge faces constitutional scrutiny as a regulatory charge vs tax; Court of Appeal revives case over electricity pricing, feed-in tariff contracts, IESO policy, and hydro rate impacts on consumers and industry.

Key Points

A provincial electricity fee funding generator contracts, now central to a court fight over tax versus regulatory charge.

✅ Funds gap between market price and contracted generator rates

✅ At issue: regulatory charge vs tax under constitutional law

✅ Linked to feed-in tariff, IESO policy, and hydro rate hikes

Ontario’s court of appeal has decided that a constitutional challenge of a steep provincial electricity charge should get its day in court, overturning a lower-court judgment that had dismissed the legal bid.

Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. launched the challenge in 2017, saying Ontario’s so-called global adjustment charge was unconstitutional because it is a tax — not a valid regulatory charge — that was not passed by the legislature.

The global adjustment funds the difference between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts to power generators. It is “the component that covers the cost of building new electricity infrastructure in the province, maintaining existing resources, as well as providing conservation and demand management programs,” the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator says.

However, the global adjustment now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household electricity bill, and its costs have ballooned, as regulators elsewhere consider a proposed 14% rate hike in Nova Scotia.

Ontario’s auditor general said in 2015 that global adjustment fees had increased from $650 million in 2006 to more than $7 billion in 2014. She added that consumers would pay $133 billion in global adjustment fees from 2015 to 2032, after having already paid $37 billion from 2006 to 2014.

National Steel Car, which manufactures steel rail cars and faces high electricity rates that hurt Ontario factories, said its global adjustment costs went from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, according to an Ontario Court of Appeal decision released on Wednesday.

The company claimed the global adjustment was a tax because one of its components funds electricity procurement contracts under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which National Steel Car called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity,” the decision said.

Ontario’s auditor general said the FIT program “paid excessive prices to renewable energy generators.” The program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place.

National Steel Car claimed the FIT program “was actually designed to accomplish social goals unrelated to the generation of electricity,” such as helping rural and indigenous communities, and was therefore a tax trying to help with policy goals.

“The appellant submits that the Policy Goals can be achieved by Ontario in several ways, just not through the electricity pricing formula,” the decision said.

National Steel Car also argued the global adjustment violated a provincial law that requires the government to hold a referendum for new taxes.

“The appellant’s principal claim is that the Global Adjustment was a ‘colourable attempt to disguise a tax as a regulatory charge with the purpose of funding the costs of the Policy Goals,’” the decision said. “The appellant pressed this argument before the motion judge and before this court. The motion judge did not directly or adequately address it.”

The Ontario government applied to have the challenge thrown out for having “no reasonable cause of action,” and a Superior Court judge did so in 2018, saying the global adjustment is not a tax.

National Steel Car appealed the decision, and the decision published Wednesday allowed the appeal, set aside the lower-court judgment, and will send the case back to Superior Court, where it could get a full hearing.

“The appellant’s claim is sufficiently plausible on the evidentiary record it put forward that the applications should not have been dismissed on a pleadings motion before the development of a full record,” wrote Justice Peter D. Lauwers. “It is not plain, obvious and beyond doubt that the Global Adjustment, and particularly the challenged component, is properly characterized as a valid regulatory charge and not as an impermissible tax.”

Jerome Morse of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers, said the Ontario government would now have 60 days to decide whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“What the court has basically said is, ‘this is a plausible argument, here are the reasons why it’s plausible, there was no answer to this,’” Morse told the Financial Post.

Ontario and the IESO had supported the lower-court decision, but there has been a change in government since the challenge was first launched, with Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford replacing the Liberals and Kathleen Wynne in power. The Liberals had launched a plan aimed at addressing hydro costs before losing in a 2018 election, the main thrust of which had been to refinance global adjustment costs.

Wednesday’s decision states that “Ontario’s counsel advised the court that the current Ontario government ‘does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement policy (since-repealed).’

“The government’s view is that: ‘The solution does not lie with the courts, but instead in the political arena with political actors,’” it adds.

A spokesperson for Ontario Energy Minister Greg Rickford said in an email that they are reviewing the decision but “as this matter is in the appeal period, it would be inappropriate to comment.” 

Ontario had also requested to stay the matter so a regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, could weigh in, while the Nova Scotia regulator approved a 14% hike in a separate case.

“However, Ontario only sought this relief from the motion judge in the alternative, and given the motion judge’s ultimate decision, she did not rule on the stay,” Thursday’s decision said. “It would be premature for this court to rule on the issue, although it seems incongruous for Ontario to argue that the Superior Court is the convenient forum in which to seek to dismiss the applications as meritless, but that it is not the convenient forum for assessing the merits of the applications.”

National Steel Car’s challenge bears a resemblance to the constitutional challenges launched by Ontario and other provinces over the federal government’s carbon tax, but Justice Lauwers wrote “that the federal legislative scheme under consideration in those cases is distinctly different from the legislation at issue in this appeal.”

“Nothing in those decisions impacts this appeal,” the judge added.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK EV Per-Mile Taxes are reshaping road pricing and vehicle taxation for electric cars, raising fairness concerns, climate policy questions, and funding needs for infrastructure and charging networks across the country.

Key Points

They are per-mile road charges on EVs to fund infrastructure, raising fairness, emissions, and vehicle taxation concerns.

✅ Propose tax relief or credits for EV owners

✅ Consider emission-based road user charging

✅ Invest in charging networks and road infrastructure

As the UK continues its push towards a greener future with increased adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and surging EV interest during supply disruptions, a growing number of electric car drivers are voicing their frustration over the current tax system. The debate centers around the per-mile vehicle taxes that are being proposed and implemented, which many argue are unfairly burdensome on EV owners. This issue has sparked a broader campaign advocating for a more equitable approach to vehicle taxation, one that reflects the evolving landscape of transportation and environmental policy.

Rising Costs for Electric Car Owners

Electric vehicles have been hailed as a crucial component in the UK’s strategy to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. Government incentives, such as grants for EV purchases and tax breaks, have been instrumental in encouraging the shift from petrol and diesel cars to cleaner alternatives, even as affordability concerns persist among many UK consumers. However, as the number of electric vehicles on the road grows, the financial dynamics of vehicle taxation are coming under scrutiny.

One of the key issues is the introduction and increase of per-mile vehicle taxes. While these taxes are designed to account for road usage and infrastructure costs, they have been met with resistance from EV drivers who argue that they are being disproportionately affected. Unlike traditional combustion engine vehicles, electric cars typically have lower running costs compared to petrol or diesel models and, in many cases, benefit from lower or zero emissions. Yet, the current tax system does not always reflect these advantages.

The Taxation Debate

The crux of the debate lies in how vehicle taxes are structured and implemented. Per-mile taxes are intended to ensure that all road users contribute fairly to the maintenance of transport infrastructure. However, the implementation of such taxes has raised concerns about fairness and affordability, particularly for those who have invested heavily in electric vehicles.

Critics argue that per-mile taxes do not adequately take into account the environmental benefits of driving an electric car, noting that the net impact depends on the electricity generation mix in each market. While EV owners are contributing to a cleaner environment by reducing emissions, they are also facing higher taxes that could undermine the financial benefits of their greener choice. This has led to calls for a reassessment of the tax system to ensure that it aligns with the UK’s climate goals and provides a fair deal for electric vehicle drivers.

Campaigns for Fairer Taxation

In response to these concerns, several advocacy groups and individual EV owners have launched campaigns calling for a more balanced approach to vehicle taxation. These campaigns emphasize the need for a system that supports the transition to electric vehicles and recognizes their role in reducing environmental impact, drawing on ambitious EV targets abroad as useful benchmarks.

Key proposals from these campaigns include:

1. Tax Relief for EV Owners: Advocates suggest providing targeted tax relief for electric vehicle owners to offset the costs of per-mile taxes. This could include subsidies or tax credits that acknowledge the environmental benefits of EVs and help to make up for higher road usage fees.

2. Emission-Based Taxation: An alternative approach is to design vehicle taxes based on emissions rather than mileage. This system would ensure that those driving high-emission vehicles contribute more to road maintenance, while EV owners, who are already reducing emissions, are not penalized.

3. Infrastructure Investments: Campaigners also call for increased investments in infrastructure that supports electric vehicles, such as charging networks and proper grid management practices that balance load. This would help to address concerns about the adequacy of current road maintenance and support the growing number of EVs on the road.

Government Response and Future Directions

The UK government faces the challenge of balancing revenue needs with environmental goals. While there is recognition of the need to update the tax system in light of increasing EV adoption, there is also a focus on ensuring that any changes are equitable and do not disincentivize the shift towards cleaner vehicles, while considering whether the UK grid can handle additional EV demand reliably.

Discussions are ongoing about how to best implement changes that address the concerns of electric vehicle owners while ensuring that the transportation infrastructure remains adequately funded. The outcome of these discussions will be critical in shaping the future of vehicle taxation in the UK and supporting the country’s broader environmental objectives.

Conclusion

As electric vehicle adoption continues to rise in the UK, the debate over vehicle taxation becomes increasingly important. The campaign for fairer per-mile taxes highlights the need for a tax system that supports the transition to cleaner transportation while also being fair to those who have made environmentally conscious choices. Balancing these factors will be key to achieving the UK’s climate goals and ensuring that all road users contribute equitably to the maintenance of transport infrastructure. The ongoing dialogue and policy adjustments will play a crucial role in shaping a sustainable and just future for transportation in the UK.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Texas Utility COVID-19 Relief suspends disconnections, waives late fees, extends payment plans, and supports broadband access as electric, gas, and internet providers help customers during the statewide emergency with speed upgrades and student WiFi initiatives.

Key Points

Texas utilities pause disconnections, waive fees, expand access, and offer flexible payment plans during COVID-19.

✅ Disconnections and late fees suspended by gas, power, internet.

✅ Payment plans and deferred balances after emergency.

✅ Bandwidth caps lifted; student WiFi access for remote learning.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Texas utility companies have taken unprecedented steps to keep customers' lights on, gas flowing, and online connections stable -- even if they can't pay, amid concerns over pandemic electricity shutoffs nationwide.

Meantime, Palestine City Council members plan to discuss hardship measures Monday, as some states such as New Jersey and New York implement moratoriums on shut-offs, but have no plans yet to ease the burden of paying two other essential services during the statewide emergency -- trash collection and water. Those services are billed through the city.

For many residents, money will be tight after the statewide emergency declaration. Businesses are cutting back or closing. Workers are staying home to avoid the coronavirus.

"We are putting our customers first," Larry Ball, spokesman for Atmos Energy, a Dallas-based natural gas company, told the Herald-Press Friday. "The safety of all of our customers has always been our first priority."

While the declared emergency remains in effect, Atmos has suspended all late fees and customer disconnections, a step similar to PG&E's shutoff moratorium in California.

"Atmos Energy's commitment to safety, paired with our culture, have led us during unique times," Kevin Akers, Atmos President and CEO said. "This will be no different."

Internet Service Providers SuddenLink and Centurylink have similarly suspended all disconnections and late fees. Additionally, Centurylink, a global company serving 36 states, has promised to scrap bandwidth limits, while ensuring the highest speeds possible.

SuddenLink, a division of Altice Business, is also partnering with school districts in their service area to offer its Student WiFi product free for 60 days. That will allow students who have school-issued devices, but no dedicated home Internet access, the ability to use the Optimum WiFi Hot Spot Network to access their school's network and resources.

Electric companies such as TXU and Houston-based Gexa Energy also are working to keep customers safe and connected, and Entergy's relief fund highlights additional support for customers.

During the declared emergency, Gexa is waiving all disconnection and reconnection fees, as well as late fees, a policy focus that later intersected with debates over a proposed electricity market bailout in Texas. Payment plans will be set up for customers, after the crisis ends, Gexa Energy officials said.

"Everyone needs their power on," a Gexa spokesman said. "That is our number one priority."

TXU, based in Irving, is waiving late fees, extending payment due dates with no down-payment required, and deferring customer balances over multiple installments, while some retailers like Griddy underscored the risks of variable-rate plans.

If customers still can't pay, TXU officials said, the company will keep their lights on, a commitment underscored after the Texas winter storm outages exposed vulnerabilities. Customers in need should call 800-242-9113.

"The coronavirus is causing uncertainty and many hardships," Scott Hudson, president of TXU energy, said. "We are committed to serving our communities."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions rose in Q2 as electricity and transport pollution increased, despite renewable energy growth. Net zero targets, carbon dioxide equivalent metrics, and land use changes underscore mixed trends in decarbonisation.

Key Points

About 499-500 Mt CO2-e annually, with a 2% quarterly rise led by electricity and transport.

✅ Q2 emissions rose to 127 Mt from 124.4 Mt seasonally adjusted

✅ Electricity sector up to 41.6 Mt; transport added nearly 1 Mt

✅ Land use remains a net sink; renewables expanded capacity

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rose in the June quarter by about 2% as pollution from the electricity sector and transport increased.

Figures released on Tuesday by the Morrison government showed that on a year to year basis, emissions for the 12 months to last June totalled 498.9m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That tally was down 2.1%, or 10.8m tonnes compared with the same period a year earlier.

However, on a seasonally adjusted quarterly basis, emissions increased to 127m tonnes, or just over 2%, from the 124.4m tonnes reported in the March quarter. For the year to March, emissions totalled 494.2m tonnes, underscoring the pickup in pollution in the more recent quarter even as global coal power declines worldwide.

A stable pollution rate, if not a rising one, is also implied by the government’s release of preliminary figures for the September quarter. They point to 125m tonnes of emissions in trend terms for the July-September months, bringing the year to September total to about 500m tonnes, the latest report said.

The government has made much of Australia “meeting and beating” climate targets. However, the latest statistics show mostly emissions are not in decline despite its pledge ahead of the Glasgow climate summit that the country would hit net zero by 2050, and AEMO says supply can remain uninterrupted as coal phases out over the next three decades.

“Nothing’s happening except for the electricity sector,” said Hugh Saddler, an honorary associate professor at the Australian National University. Once Covid curbs on the economy eased, such as during the current quarter, emission sources such as from transport will show a rise, he predicted.

Falling costs for new wind and solar farms, with the IEA naming solar the cheapest in history worldwide, are pushing coal and gas out of electricity generation, as well as pushing down power prices. In seasonally adjusted terms, though, emissions for that sector rose from 39.7m tonnes the March quarter to 41.6m in the June one.

Most other sectors were steady, with pollution from transport adding almost 1m tonnes in the June quarter.

On an annual basis, a 500m tonnes tally is the lowest since records began in the 1990s, and IEA reported global emissions flatlined in 2019 for context. That lower trajectory, though, is lower due much to the land sector remaining a net sink even as some experts raise questions about the true trends when it comes to land clearing.

According to the government, this sector – known as land use, land-use change and forestry – amounted to a net reduction of emissions of 24.4m tonnes, or almost negative 5% of the national total, in the year to June.

Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

“The magnitude of this net sink has decreased by 0.6% (0.2 Mt CO2-e) on the previous 12 months due to an increase in emissions from agricultural soils, partially offset by a continuing decline in land clearing emissions,” the latest report said.

For its part, the government also touted the increase of renewable energy, as seen in Canada's electricity progress too, as central to driving emissions lower.

“Since 2017, Australia’s consumption of renewable energy has grown at a compound annual rate of 4.6%, with more than $40bn invested in Australia’s renewable energy sector,” Angus Taylor, the federal energy minister said, while UK net zero policy changes show a different approach. “Last year, Australia deployed new solar and wind at eight times the global per capita average.”

ANU’s Saddler said the main driver had been the 2020 Renewable Energy Target that the Coalition government had cut, and had anyway been implemented “a very considerable time ago”.

Tim Baxter, the Climate Council’s senior researcher, said “the time for leaning on the achievements of others is long since past”.

“We need a federal government willing to step up on emissions reductions and take charge with real policy, not wishlists,” he said, referring to the government’s net zero plan to rely on technologies to cut pollution in pursuit of a sustainable electric planet in practice, some of which don’t exist now.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Surkhan-Pul-e-Khumri Power Line links Uzbekistan and Afghanistan via a 260-kilometer transmission line, boosting electricity exports, grid reliability, and regional trade; ADB-backed financing could open Pakistan's energy market with 24 million kWh daily.

Key Points

A 260-km line to expand Uzbekistan power exports to Afghanistan, ADB-funded, with possible future links to Pakistan.

✅ 260 km Surkhan-Pul-e-Khumri transmission link

✅ +70% electricity exports; up to 24M kWh daily

✅ ADB $70M co-financing; $32M from Uzbekistan

Senior officials with Uzbekistan’s state-run power company have said work has begun on building power cables to Afghanistan that will enable them to increase exports by 70 per cent, echoing regional trends like Ukraine resuming electricity exports after grid repairs.

Uzbekenergo chief executive Ulugbek Mustafayev said in a press conference on March 24 that construction of the Afghan section of the 260-kilometer Surkhan-Pul-e-Khumri line will start in June.

The Asian Development Bank has pledged $70 million toward the final expected $150 million bill of the project. Another $32 million will come from Uzbekistan.

Mustafayev said the transmission line would give Uzbekistan the option of exporting up to 24 million kilowatt hours to Afghanistan daily, similar to Ukraine's electricity export resumption amid shifting regional demand.

“We could potentially even reach Pakistan’s energy market,” he said, noting broader regional ambitions like Iran's bid to be a power hub linking regional grids.

#google#

This project was given fresh impetus by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s visit to Tashkent in December, mirroring cross-border energy cooperation such as Iran-Iraq energy talks in the region. His Uzbek counterpart, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, had announced at the time that work was set to begin imminently on the line, which will run from the village of Surkhan in Uzbekistan’s Surkhandarya region to Pul-e-Khumri, a town in Afghanistan just south of Kunduz.

In January, Mirziyoyev issued a decree ordering that the rate for electricity deliveries to Afghanistan be dropped from $0.076 to $0.05 per kilowatt.

Mustafayev said up to 6 billion kilowatt hours of electricity could eventually be sent through the power lines. More than 60 billion kilowatt hours of electricity was produced in Uzbekistan in 2017.

According to Tulabai Kurbonov, an Uzbek journalist specializing in energy issues, the power line will enable the electrification of the the Hairatan-Mazar-i-Sharif railroad joining the two countries. Trains currently run on diesel. Switching over to electricity will help reduce the cost of transporting cargo.

There is some unhappiness, however, over the fact that Uzbekistan plans to sell power to Afghanistan when it suffers from significant shortages domestically and wider Central Asia electricity shortages persist.

"In the villages of the Ferghana Valley, especially in winter, people are suffering from a shortage of electricity,” said Munavvar Ibragimova, a reporter based in the Ferghana Valley. “You should not be selling electricity abroad before you can provide for your own population. What we clearly see here is the favoring of the state’s interests over those of the people.”

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