Nevada signs energy-saving contract

Alberta Electricity Market faces energy-only vs capacity debate as transmission, distribution, and administration fees surge; rural rates rise amid a regulated duopoly of investor-owned utilities, prompting calls for competition, innovation, and lower bills.

Key Points

Alberta's electricity market is an energy-only system with rising delivery charges and limited rural competition.

✅ Energy-only design; capacity market scrapped

✅ Delivery charges outpace energy on monthly bills

✅ Rural duopoly limits competition and raises rates

Last week, Alberta’s new Energy Minister Sonya Savage announced the government, through its new electricity rules, would be scrapping plans to shift Alberta’s electricity to a capacity market and would instead be “restoring certainty in the electricity system.”

The proposed transition from energy only to a capacity market is a contentious subject as a market reshuffle unfolds across the province that many Albertans probably don’t know much about. Our electricity market is not a particularly glamorous subject. It’s complicated and confusing and what matters most to ordinary Albertans is how it affects their monthly bills.

What they may not realize is that the cost of their actual electricity used is often just a small fraction of their bill amid rising electricity prices across the province. The majority on an average electricity bill is actually the cost of delivering that electricity from the generator to your house. Charges for transmission, distribution and franchise and administration fees are quickly pushing many Alberta households to the limit with soaring bills.

According to data from Alberta’s Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA), and alongside policy changes, in 2004 the average monthly transmission costs for residential regulated-rate customers was below $2. In 2018 that cost was averaging nearly $27 a month. The increase is equally dramatic in distribution rates which have more than doubled across the province and range wildly, averaging from as low as $10 a month in 2004 to over $80 a month for some residential regulated-rate customers in 2018.

Where you live determines who delivers your electricity. In Alberta’s biggest cities and a handful of others the distribution systems are municipally owned and operated. Outside those select municipalities most of Alberta’s electricity is delivered by two private companies which operate as a regulated duopoly. In fact, two investor-owned utilities deliver power to over 95 per cent of rural Alberta and they continue to increase their share by purchasing the few rural electricity co-ops that remained their only competition in the market. The cost of buying out their competition is then passed on to the customers, driving rates even higher.

As the CEO of Alberta’s largest remaining electricity co-op, I know very well that as the price of materials, equipment and skilled labour increase, the cost of operating follows. If it costs more to build and maintain an electricity distribution system there will inevitably be a cost increase passed on to the consumer. The question Albertans should be asking is how much is too much and where is all that money going with these private- investor-owned utilities, as the sector faces profound change under provincial leadership?

The reforms to Alberta’s electricity system brought in by Premier Klein in the late 1900s and early 2000s contributed to a surge in investment in the sector and led to an explosion of competition in both electricity generation and retail. 

More players entered the field which put downward pressure on electricity rates, encouraged innovation and gave consumers a competitive choice, even as a Calgary electricity retailer urged the government to scrap the overhaul. But the legislation and regulations that govern rural electricity distribution in Alberta continue to facilitate and even encourage the concentration of ownership among two players which is certainly not in the interests of rural Albertans.

It is also not in the spirit of the United Conservative Party platform commitment to a “market-based” system. A market-based system suggests more competition. Instead, what we have is something approaching a monopoly for many Albertans. The UCP promised a review of the transition to a capacity market that would determine which market would be best for Alberta, and through proposed electricity market changes has decided that we will remain an energy-only market.
Consumers in rural Alberta need electricity to produce the goods that power our biggest industries. Instead of regulating and approving continued rate increases from private multinational corporations, we need to drive competition and innovation that can push rates down and encourage growth and investment in rural-based industries and communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Norway Electricity Export Limits weigh hydro reservoirs, energy security, EU-UK interconnectors, and record power prices amid Russia gas cuts; Statnett grid constraints and subsidies debate intensify as reservoir levels fall, threatening winter supply.

Key Points

Rules to curb Norway's power exports when reservoirs are very low, protecting supply security and easing extreme prices.

✅ Triggered by low hydro levels and record day-ahead prices

✅ Considers EU/UK cables, Statnett operations, seasonal thresholds

✅ Aims to secure winter supply and expand subsidies

Norway, one of Europe’s biggest electricity exporters, is considering measures to limit power shipments to prevent domestic shortages amid surging prices, according to local media reports.

The government may propose a rule to limit exports if the water level for Norway’s hydro reservoirs drops to “very low” levels, to ensure security of supply, said Energy Minister Terje Aasland, according NTB newswire. The limit would take account of seasonality and would differ across the about 1,800 hydro reservoirs, he said. 

Russia’s gas supply cuts in retaliation for European sanctions over the war in Ukraine have triggered the continent’s worst energy crisis in decades, with demand surging for cheap Norwegian hydro electricity. Yet the government faces increasing calls from the public and opposition to limit flows abroad. Prices are near record levels in some parts of the Nordic nation as hydro-reservoir levels have plunged in the south after a drier-than-normal spring. 

The government has been under pressure to do something about exports since before April. Flows on the cables are regulated by deals with both the European Union and the UK energy market and Norway can’t simply cut flows. It’s the latest test of European solidarity and a wake-up call for Europe when it comes to energy supplies. Hungary is trying to ban energy exports after it declared an energy emergency.

Back in May, grid operator Statnett SF warned that Norway could face a strained power situation after less snowfall than usual during the winter. At the end of last week, the level of filling in Norwegian hydro reservoirs was 66.5%, compared with a median 74.9% for the corresponding time in 2002-2021, regulator NVE said. Day-ahead electricity prices in southwest Norway soared to a record 423 euros per megawatt-hour late last month, partly due to bottlenecks in the grid limiting supply from the northern regions.

The grid operator has been asked to present by Oct. 1 possible measures that need to be taken to secure supply and infrastructure security ahead of the winter. Statnett operates cables to the UK and Germany aimed at selling surplus electricity and would likely take a financial hit if curbs were introduced. “Operations of these will always follow current laws and regulations,” Irene Meldal, a company spokeswoman, said Friday by email. 

Premier Jonas Gahr Store signaled his minority government will file proposals that also include more subsidies to families and companies and align with Europe’s emergency price measures during August, according to an interview with TV2 on Thursday. Meanwhile, opposition politicians plan to hold an extraordinary parliament meeting to discuss boosting the subsidies.

Aasland will summon the parties’ representatives to a meeting on Monday on the electricity crisis, the Aftenposten newspaper reported on Friday, without citing anyone. He intends to inform the parties about the ongoing work and aims to “avoid rushed decisions” by the parliamentary majority.

Norway Faces Pressure to Curb Power Exports as Prices Surge (1)

The nation gets almost all of its electricity from its vast hydro resources. Historically, it has been able to export a hefty surplus and still have among the lowest prices in Europe. 
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Central Asia power shortages strain grids across Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, driven by drought-hit hydropower, aging coal and gas plants, rising demand, cryptomining loads, and winter peak consumption risks.

Key Points

Regionwide blackouts from drought, aging plants and grids, rising demand, and winter peaks stressing Central Asia.

✅ Drought slashes hydropower in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan

✅ Aging coal and gas TPPs and weak grids cause frequent outages

✅ Cryptomining loads and winter heating spike demand and stress supply

Central Asians from western Kazakhstan to southern Tajikistan are suffering from power and energy shortages that have caused hardship and emergency situations affecting the lives of millions of people.

On October 14, several units at three power plants in northeastern Kazakhstan were shut down in an emergency that resulted in a loss of more than 1,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity.

It serves as an example of the kind of power failures that plague the region 30 years after the Central Asian countries gained independence and despite hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in energy infrastructure and power grids, and echo risks seen in other advanced markets such as Japan's near-blackouts during recent cold snaps.

Some of the reasons for these problems are clear, but with all the money these countries have allocated to their energy sectors and financial help they have received from international financial institutions, it is curious the situation is already so desperate with winter officially still weeks away.

The Current Problems
Three power plants were affected in the October 14 shutdowns of units: Ekibastuz-1, Ekibastuz-2, and the Aksu power plant.

Ekibastuz-1 is the largest power plant in Kazakhstan, capable of generating some 4,000 MW, roughly 13 percent of Kazakhstan’s total power output.

The Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company (KEGOC) explained the problems resulted partially from malfunctions and repair work, but also from overuse of the system that the government would later say was due to cryptominers, a large number of whom have moved to Kazakhstan recently from China after Beijing banned the mining needed by Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, amid its own China's power cuts across several provinces in 2021.

But between November 8 and 9, rolling blackouts were reported in the East Kazakhstan, North Kazakhstan, and Kyzylorda provinces, as well as the area around Almaty, Kazakhstan’s biggest city, and Shymkent, its third largest city.

People in Uzbekistan say they, too, are facing blackouts that the Energy Ministry described as “short-term outages,” even as authorities have looked to export electricity to Afghanistan to support regional demand, though it has been clear for several weeks that the country will have problems with natural gas supplies this winter.

Power lines in Uzbekistan
Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov continues to say there won't be any power rationing in Kyrgyzstan this winter, but at the end of September the National Energy Holding Company ordered “restrictions on the lighting of secondary streets, advertisements, and facades of shops, cafes, and other nonresidential customers.”

Many parts of Tajikistan are already experiencing intermittent supplies of electricity.

Even in Turkmenistan, a country with the fourth-largest reserves of natural gas in the world, there were reports of problems with electricity and heating in the capital, Ashgabat.

What Is Going On?
The causes of some of these problems are easy to see.

The population of the region has grown significantly, with the population of Central Asia when the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991 being some 50 million and today about 75 million.

Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are mountainous countries that have long been touted for their hydropower potential and some 90 percent of Kyrgyzstan’s domestically produced electricity and 98 percent of Tajikistan’s come from hydropower.

But a severe drought that struck Central Asia this year has resulted in less hydropower and, in general, less energy for the region, similar to constraints seen in Europe's reduced hydro and nuclear output this year.

Tajik authorities have not reported how low the water in the country’s key reservoirs is, but Kyrgyzstan has reported the water level in the reservoir at its Toktogul hydropower plant (HPP) is 11.8 billion cubic meters (bcm), the lowest level in years and far less than the 14.7 bcm of water it had in November 2020.

The Toktogul HPP, with an installed capacity of 1,200 MW, provides some 40 percent of the country's domestically produced electricity, but operating the HPP this winter to generate desperately needed energy brings the risk of leaving water levels at the reservoir critically low next spring and summer when the water is also needed for agricultural purposes.

This year’s drought is something Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will have to take into consideration as they plan how to provide power for their growing populations in the future. Hydropower is a desirable option but may be less reliable with the onset of climate change, prompting interest in alternatives such as Ukraine's wind power to diversify generation.

Uzbekistan is also feeling the effects of this year’s drought, and, like the South Caucasus where Georgia's electricity imports have increased, supply shortfalls are testing grids.

According to the International Energy Agency, HPPs account for some 12 percent of Uzbekistan’s generating capacity.

Uzbekistan’s Energy Ministry attributed low water levels at HPPs that have caused a 23 percent decrease in hydropower generation this year.

A reservoir in Kyrgyzstan
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are the most populous Central Asian countries, and both depend on thermal power plants (TPP) for generating most of their electricity.

Most of the TPPs in Kazakhstan are coal-fired, while most of the TPPs in Uzbekistan are gas-fired.

Kazakhstan has 68 power plants, 80 percent of which are coal-fired TPPs, and most are in the northern part of the country where the largest deposits of coal are located. Kazakhstan has the world's 10th largest reserves of coal.

About 88 percent of Uzbekistan’s electricity comes from TTPs, most of which use natural gas.

Uzbekistan’s proven reserves are some 800 billion cubic meters, but gas production in Uzbekistan has been decreasing.

In December 2020, Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoev ordered a halt to the country’s gas exports and instructed that gas to be redirected for domestic use. Mirziyoev has already given similar instructions for this coming winter.

How Did It Come To This?
The biggest problem with the energy infrastructure in Central Asia is that it is generally very old. Nearly all of its power plants date back to the Soviet era -- and some well back into the Soviet period.

The use of power plants and transmission lines that some describe as “obsolete” and a few call “decrepit” has unfortunately been a necessity in Central Asia, even as regional players pursue new interconnections like Iran's plan to transmit electricity to Europe as a power hub.

Reporting on Kazakhstan in September 2016, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) said, “70 percent of the power generation infrastructure is in need of rehabilitation.”

The Ekibastuz-1 TPP is relatively new by the power-plant standards of Central Asia. The first unit of the eight units of the TPP was commissioned in 1980.

The first unit at the AKSU TPP was commissioned in 1968, and the first unit of the gas- and fuel-fired TPP in southern Kazakhstan’s Zhambyl Province was commissioned in 1967.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Ferries Electrification accelerates zero-emission vessels, Canada Infrastructure Bank financing, and fast charging infrastructure to cut greenhouse gas emissions, lower operating costs, and reduce noise across British Columbia's Island-class routes.

Key Points

BC Ferries Electrification is the plan to deploy zero-emission ferries and charging, funded by CIB, to reduce emissions.

✅ $75M CIB loan funds four electric ferries and chargers

✅ Cuts 9,000 tonnes CO2e annually on short Island-class routes

✅ Quieter service, lower operating costs, and redeployed hybrids

British Columbia is taking a significant step towards a cleaner transportation future with the electrification of its ferry fleet. BC Ferries, the province's ferry operator, has secured a $75 million loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) to fund the purchase of four zero-emission ferries and the necessary charging infrastructure to support them.

This marks a turning point for BC Ferries, which currently operates a fleet reliant on diesel fuel. The new Island-class electric ferries will be deployed on shorter routes, replacing existing hybrid ships on those routes. These hybrid ferries will then be redeployed on routes that haven't yet been converted to electric, maximizing their lifespan and efficiency.

Environmental Benefits

The transition to electric ferries is expected to deliver significant environmental benefits. The new vessels are projected to eliminate an estimated 9,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually, and electric ships on the B.C. coast already demonstrate similar gains, contributing to British Columbia's ambitious climate goals. Additionally, the quieter operation of electric ferries will create a more pleasant experience for passengers and reduce noise pollution for nearby communities.

Economic Considerations

The CIB loan plays a crucial role in making this project financially viable. The low-interest rate offered by the CIB will help to keep ferry fares more affordable for passengers. Additionally, the long-term operational costs of electric ferries are expected to be lower than those of diesel-powered vessels, providing economic benefits in the long run.

Challenges and Opportunities

While the electrification of BC Ferries is a positive development, there are some challenges to consider. The upfront costs of electric ferries and charging infrastructure are typically higher than those of traditional options, though projects such as the Kootenay Lake ferry show growing readiness. However, advancements in battery technology are constantly lowering costs, making electric ferries a more cost-effective choice over time.

Moreover, the transition presents opportunities for job creation in the clean energy sector, with complementary initiatives like the hydrogen project broadening demand. The development, construction, and maintenance of electric ferries and charging infrastructure will require skilled workers, potentially creating a new avenue for economic growth in British Columbia.

A Pioneering Example

BC Ferries' electrification initiative sets a strong precedent for other ferry operators worldwide, including Washington State Ferries pursuing hybrid-electric upgrades. This project demonstrates the feasibility and economic viability of transitioning to cleaner marine transportation solutions. As battery technology and charging infrastructure continue to develop, we can expect to see more widespread adoption of electric ferries across the globe.

The collaboration between BC Ferries and the CIB paves the way for a greener future for BC's transportation sector, where efforts like Harbour Air's electric aircraft complement marine electrification. With cleaner air, quieter operation, and a positive impact on climate change, this project is a win for the environment, the economy, and British Columbia as a whole.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hydro One CEO Mark Poweska aims to rebuild ties with Ontario's provincial government, investors, and communities, stabilize the executive team, boost earnings and dividends, and reset strategy after the scrapped Avista deal and regulatory setbacks.

Key Points

He plans to mend government and investor relations, rebuild the C-suite, and refocus growth after the failed Avista bid.

✅ Rebuild ties with Ontario government and regulators

✅ Stabilize executive team and governance

✅ Refocus growth after Avista deal termination

The incoming chief executive officer of Hydro One Ltd. said Thursday that he aims to rebuild the relationship between the Ontario electrical utility and the provincial government, as seen in COVID-19 support initiatives, as well as ties between the company and its investors.

Mark Poweska, the former executive vice-president of operations at BC Hydro, was announced as Hydro One’s new president and CEO in March. His hiring followed a turbulent period for Toronto-based Hydro One, Ontario’s biggest distributor and transmitter of electricity, with large-scale storm restoration efforts underscoring its role.

Hydro One’s former CEO and board of directors departed last year under pressure from a new Ontario government, the utility’s biggest shareholder. Earlier this year, the company’s plan for a $6.7-billion takeover fell apart over concerns of political interference and the utility clashed with the new provincial government and Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford over executive compensation levels, amid rate policy debates such as no peak rate cuts for self-isolating customers.

Hydro One facing $885 million charge as regulator upholds tax decision forcing it to share savings with customers

Shares of Hydro One were up more than eight per cent year-to-date on Wednesday, closing at $21.74. However, the stock price was up only six per cent from Hydro One’s 2015 initial public offering price, something its incoming CEO seems set on changing.

“One of my first priorities will be to solidify the executive team and build relationships with the Government of Ontario, our customers, informed by customer flexibility research, and communities, indigenous leaders, investors, and our partners across the electricity sector,” Poweska said Thursday on a conference call outlining Hydro One’s first-quarter results. “At the same time, I will be working to earn the trust and confidence of the investment community.”

Hydro One reported a profit of $171 million for the three months ended March 31, while peers such as Hydro-Québec reported pandemic-related losses as the sector adapted. Net income for the first quarter was down from $222 million a year earlier, which was due to $140 million in costs related to the scrapping of Hydro One’s proposed acquisition of U.S. energy company Avista Corp.

Hydro One Ltd. appointed Mark Poweska as President and CEO.

In January, Hydro One said the proposed takeover of Spokane, Wash.-headquartered Avista, an approximately $6.7-billion deal announced in July 2017, was being called off. As a result, Hydro One said it would pay Avista a US$103 million break fee.

Revenues net of purchased power for the first quarter rose to $952 million, up by 15.4 per cent compared to last year, Hydro One said, helped by higher distribution revenues. Adjusted profit for the quarter, which removes the Avista-related costs, was $311 million, up from $210 million a year ago.

The company is hiking its quarterly dividend to 24.15 cents per share, up five per cent from the last increase in May 2018, while also launching a pandemic relief fund for customers.

Poweska is taking over for acting president and CEO Paul Dobson this month, and the new executive will be charged with revamping Hydro One’s C-suite.

The company’s chief operating officer, chief legal officer, and chief corporate development officer have all departed this year. The company’s chief human resource officer has retired as well, although Poweska did announce Thursday that he had appointed acting chief financial officer Chris Lopez as CFO.

“Hydro One’s significant bench strength and management depth will ensure stability and continuity during this period of transition, as the sector pursues Hydro-Québec energy transition as well,” the company said in its first-quarter earnings press release.

Ontario remains Hydro One’s biggest shareholder, owning approximately 47 per cent of the company.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations 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