Xcel uses wood chips for generation in Wisconsin

Hydro One Avista merger faces regulatory scrutiny in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, as political risk outweighs defensive utilities fundamentals like stable cash flow, rate base growth, EPS outlook, and a near 5% dividend yield.

Key Points

A planned Hydro One-Avista acquisition awaiting key state approvals amid elevated political and regulatory risk.

✅ Hold rating, $24 price target, 28.1% implied return

✅ EPS forecast: $1.27 in 2018; $1.38 in 2019

✅ Defensive utility: stable cash flow, 4-6% rate base growth

A seemingly positive development for Hydro One is overshadowed by ongoing political and regulatory risk, as seen after the CEO and board ouster, Industrial Alliance Securities analyst Jeremy Rosenfield says.

On October 4, staff from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission filed updated testimony in support of the merger of Hydro One and natural gas distributor Avista, which had previously received U.S. antitrust clearance from federal authorities.

The merger, which was announced in July of 2017 has received the green light from federal and key states, with Washington, Oregon and Idaho being exceptions, though the companies would later seek reconsideration from U.S. regulators in the process.

But Rosenfield says even though decisions from Oregon and Idaho are expected by December, there are still too many unknowns about Hydro One to recommend investors jump into the stock.

Hydro One stock defensive but risky

“We continue to view Hydro One as a fundamentally defensive investment, underpinned by (1) stable earnings and cash flows from its regulated utility businesses (2) healthy organic rate base and earning growth (4-6%/year through 2022) and (3) an attractive dividend (~5% yield, 70-80% target payout),” the analyst says. “In the meantime, and ahead of key regulatory approvals in the AVA transaction, we continue to see heightened political/regulatory risk as an overhand on the stock, outweighing Hydro One’s fundamentals in the near term.”

In a research update to clients today, Rosenfield maintained his “Hold” rating and one year price target of $24.00 on Hydro One, implying a return of 28.1 per cent at the time of publication.

Rosenfield thinks Hydro One will generate EPS of $1.27 per share in fiscal 2018, even though its Q2 profit plunged 23% as electricity revenue fell. He expects that number will improve to EPS of $1.38 a share the following year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New York Climate Transition Costs highlight rising utility bills for ratepayers as the state pursues renewable energy, electrification, and a zero-emissions grid, with Inflation Reduction Act funding to offset consumer burdens while delivering health benefits.

Key Points

Ratepayer-funded costs to meet New York's renewable targets and zero-emissions grid, offset by federal incentives.

✅ $48B in projects funded by consumers over two decades

✅ Up to 10% of utility bills already paid by some upstate users

✅ Targets: 70% renewables by 2030; zero-emissions grid by 2040

A generational push to tackle climate change in New York that includes its Green New Deal is quickly becoming a pocketbook issue headed into 2024.

Some upstate New York electric customers are already paying 10 percent of their electricity bills to support the state’s effort to move off fossil fuels and into renewable energy. In the coming years, people across the state can expect to give up even bigger chunks of their income to the programs — $48 billion in projects is set to be funded by consumers over the next two decades.

The scenario is creating a headache for New York Democrats grappling with the practical and political risk of the transition.

It’s an early sign of the dangers Democrats across the country will face as they press forward with similar policies at the state and federal level. New Jersey, Maryland and California are also wrestling with the issue and, in some cases, are reconsidering their ambitious plans, including a 100% carbon-free mandate in California.

“This is bad politics. This is politics that are going to hurt all New Yorkers,” said state Sen. Mario Mattera, a Long Island Republican who has repeatedly questioned the costs of the state’s climate law and who will pay for it.

Democrats, Mattera said, have been unable to explain effectively the costs for the state’s goals. “We need to transition into renewable energy at a certain rate, a certain pace,” he said.

Proponents say the switch will ultimately lower energy bills by harnessing the sun and wind, result in significant health benefits and — critically — help stave off the most devastating climate change scenarios. And they hope new money to go green from the Inflation Reduction Act, celebrating its one-year anniversary, can limit costs to consumers.

New York has statutory mandates calling for 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and a fully “zero emissions” grid by 2040, among the most aggressive targets in the country, aligning with a broader path to net-zero electricity by mid-century. The grid needs to be greened, while demand for electricity is expected to more than double by 2050 — the same year when state law requires emissions to be cut by 85 percent from 1990 levels.

But some lawmakers in New York, particularly upstate Democrats, and similar moderates across the nation are worried about moving too quickly and sparking a backlash against higher costs, as debates over Minnesota's 2050 carbon-free plan illustrate. The issue is another threat to Democrats heading into the critical 2024 battleground House races in New York, which will be instrumental in determining control of Congress.

Even Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who is fond of saying that “we’re the last generation to be able to do anything” about climate change, last spring balked at the potential price tag of a policy to achieve New York’s climate targets, a concern echoed in debates over a fully renewable grid by 2030 elsewhere. And she’s not the only top member of her party to say so.

“If it’s all just going to be passed along to the ratepayers — at some point, there’s a breaking point, and we don’t want to lose public support for this agenda,” state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, a Democrat, warned in an interview.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Puerto Rico Earthquakes continue as a seismic swarm with aftershocks, landslides near Pef1uelas, damage in Ponce and Guayanilla, grid outages from Costa Sur Plant, PREPA recovery, vulnerable buildings post-Hurricane Maria raising safety concerns.

Key Points

Recurring seismic events impacting Puerto Rico, causing damage, aftershocks, outages, and displacement.

✅ Seismic swarm with 6.4 and 5.9 magnitude quakes and ongoing aftershocks

✅ Costa Sur Plant offline; PREPA urges conservation amid grid repairs

✅ Older, code-deficient buildings and landslides raise safety risks

Some in Puerto Rico are beginning to fear the ground will never stop shaking. The island has been pummeled by hundreds of earthquakes in recent weeks, including the recent 5.9 magnitude temblor, where there were reports of landslides in the town of Peñuelas along the southern coast, rattling residents already on edge from the massive 6.4 magnitude quake, and raising wider concerns about climate risks to the grid in disaster-prone regions.

That was the largest to strike the island in more than a century causing hundreds of structures to crumble, forcing thousands from their homes and leaving millions without power, a scenario echoed by Texas power outages during winter storms too. One person was killed and several others injured.

Utility says 99% of customers have electricity

Puerto Rico's public utility, PREPA, tweeted some welcome news Monday: that nearly all of the homes and businesses it serves have had electric power restored. Still it is urging customers to conserve energy amid utility supply-chain shortages that can slow critical repairs.

Reporting from the port city of Ponce, NPR's Adrian Florido said the Costa Sur Plant, which produces more than 40% of Puerto Rico's electricity, was badly damaged in last week's quake. It remains offline indefinitely, even as grid operators elsewhere have faced California blackout warnings during extreme heat.

He also reports many residents are still reeling from the devastation caused by Hurricane Maria, a deadly Category 4 storm that battered the island in September 2017. The storm exposed the fact that buildings across the island were not up to code, similar to how aging systems have contributed to PG&E power line fires in California. The series of earthquakes are only amplifying fears that structures have been further weakened.

"People aren't coping terribly well," Florido said on NPR's Morning Edition Monday, noting that households elsewhere have endured pandemic power shutoffs and burdensome bills.

Many earthquake victims sleeping outdoors

Florido spoke to one displaced resident, Leticia Espada, who said more than 50 homes in her town of Guayanilla, about an hour drive east of the port city of Ponce, had collapsed.

After sleeping outside for days on her patio following Tuesday's quake, she eventually came to her town's baseball stadium where she's been sleeping on one of hundreds of government-issued cots.

She's like so many others sleeping in open-air shelters, many unwilling to go back to their homes until they've been deemed safe, while even far from disaster zones, brief events like a Northeast D.C. outage show how fragile service can be.

"Thousands of people across several towns sleeping in tents or under tarps, or out in the open, protected by nothing but the shade of a tree with no sense of when these quakes are going to stop," Florido reports.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

British Columbia Bomb Cyclone disrupts coastal travel with severe wind gusts, heavy rainfall, widespread power outages, ferry cancellations, flooding, and landslides across Vancouver Island, straining emergency services and transport networks during the early holiday season.

Key Points

A rapidly intensifying storm hitting B.C.'s coast, causing damaging winds, heavy rain, power outages, and ferry delays.

✅ Wind gusts over 100 km/h and well above normal rainfall

✅ Power outages, flooded roads, and downed trees across the coast

✅ Ferry cancellations isolating communities and delaying supplies

A powerful storm, dubbed a "bomb cyclone," recently struck the British Columbia coast, wreaking havoc across the region. This intense weather system led to widespread disruptions, including power outages affecting tens of thousands of residents and the cancellation of ferry services, crucial for travel between coastal communities. The bomb cyclone is characterized by a rapid drop in pressure, resulting in extremely strong winds and heavy rainfall. These conditions caused significant damage, particularly along the coast and on Vancouver Island, where flooding and landslides led to fallen trees blocking roads, further complicating recovery efforts.

The storm's ferocity was especially felt in coastal areas, where wind gusts reached over 100 km/h, and rainfall totals were well above normal. The Vancouver region, already susceptible to storms during the winter months, faced dangerous conditions as power lines were downed, and transportation networks struggled to stay operational. Emergency services were stretched thin, responding to multiple weather-related incidents, including fallen trees, damaged infrastructure, and local flooding.

The ferry cancellations further isolated communities, especially those dependent on these services for essential supplies and travel. With many ferry routes out of service, residents had to rely on alternative transportation methods, which were often limited. The storm's timing, close to the start of the holiday season, also created additional challenges for those trying to make travel arrangements for family visits and other festive activities.

As cleanup efforts got underway, authorities warned that recovery would take time, particularly due to the volume of downed trees and debris. Crews worked to restore power and clear roads, while local governments urged people to stay indoors and avoid unnecessary travel, and BC Hydro's winter payment plan provided billing relief during outages. For those without power, the storm brought cold temperatures, and record electricity demand in 2021 showed how cold snaps strain the grid, making it crucial for families to find warmth and supplies.

In the aftermath of the bomb cyclone, experts highlighted the increasing frequency of such extreme weather events, driven in part by climate change and prolonged drought across the province. With the potential for more intense storms in the future, the region must be better prepared for these rapid weather shifts. Authorities are now focused on bolstering infrastructure to withstand such events, as all-time high demand has strained the grid recently, and improving early warning systems to give communities more time to prepare.

In the coming weeks, as British Columbia continues to recover, lessons learned from this storm will inform future responses to similar weather systems. For now, residents are advised to remain vigilant and prepared for any additional weather challenges, with recent blizzard and extreme cold in Alberta illustrating how conditions can deteriorate quickly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

US Renewable Power Outlook 2030 projects surging capacity, solar PV and wind growth, grid modernization, and favorable tax credits, detailing market trends, CAGR, transmission expansion, and policy drivers shaping clean energy generation and consumption.

Key Points

A forecast of US power capacity, generation, and consumption, highlighting solar, wind, tax credits, and grid modernization.

✅ Targets 48.4% renewable capacity share by 2030

✅ Strong growth in solar PV and onshore wind installations

✅ Investment and tax credits drive grid and transmission upgrades

GlobalData’s latest report, ‘United States Power Market Outlook to 2030, Update 2021 – Market Trends, Regulations, and Competitive Landscape’ discusses the power market structure of the United States and provides historical and forecast numbers for capacity, generation and consumption up to 2030. Detailed analysis of the country’s power market regulatory structure, competitive landscape and a list of major power plants are provided. The report also gives a snapshot of the power sector in the country on broad parameters of macroeconomics, supply security, generation infrastructure, transmission and distribution infrastructure, about a quarter of U.S. electricity from renewables in recent years, electricity import and export scenario, degree of competition, regulatory scenario, and future potential. An analysis of the deals in the country’s power sector is also included in the report.

Renewable power held a 19% share of the US’s total power capacity in 2020, and in that year renewables became the second-most prevalent source in the U.S. electricity mix by generation; this share is expected to increase significantly to 48.4% by 2030. Favourable policies introduced by the US Government will continue to drive the country’s renewable sector, particularly solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind power, with wind now the most-used renewable source in the U.S. generation mix. Installed renewable capacity* increased from 16.5GW in 2000 to 239.2GW in 2020, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.3%. By 2030, the cumulative renewable capacity is expected to rise to 884.6GW, growing at a CAGR of 14% from 2020 to 2030. Despite increase in prices of renewable equipment, such as solar modules, in 2021, the US renewable sector will show strong growth during the 2021 to 2030 period as this increase in equipment prices are short term due to supply chain disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The expansion of renewable power capacity during the 2000 to 2020 period has been possible due to the introduction of federal schemes, such as Production Tax Credits, Investment Tax Credits and Manufacturing Tax Credits. These have massively aided renewable installations by bringing down the cost of renewable power generation and making it at par with power generated from conventional sources. Over the last few years, the cost of solar PV and wind power installations has declined sharply, and by 2023 wind, solar, and batteries made up most of the utility-scale pipeline across the US, highlighting investor confidence. Since 2010, the cost of utility-scale solar PV projects decreased by around 82% while onshore wind installations decreased by around 39%. This has supported the rapid expansion of the renewable market. However, the price of solar equipment has risen due to an increase in raw material prices and supply shortages. This may slightly delay the financing of some solar projects that are already in the pipeline.

The US will continue to add significant renewable capacity additions during the forecast period as industry outlooks point to record solar and storage installations over the coming years, to meet its target of reaching 80% clean energy by 2030. In November 2021, President Biden signed a $1tr Infrastructure Bill, within which $73bn is designated to renewables. This includes not just renewable capacity building, but also strengthening the country’s power grid and laying new high voltage transmission lines, both of which will be key to driving solar and wind power capacity additions as wind power surges in the U.S. electricity mix nationwide.

The US was one of the worst hit countries in the world due to the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. With respect to the power sector, the electricity consumption in the country declined by 2.5% in 2020 as compared to 2019, even as renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022 in the generation mix, highlighting continued structural change. Power plants that were under construction faced delays due to unavailability of components due to supply chain disruptions and unavailability of labour due to travel restrictions.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, 61 power projects, having a total capacity of 2.4GWm which were under construction during March and April 2020 were delayed because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Among renewable power technologies, solar PV and wind power projects were the most badly affected due to the pandemic.

In March and April 2020, 53 solar PV projects, having a total capacity of 1.3GW, and wind power projects, having a total capacity of 1.2GW, were delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Moreover, several states suspended renewable energy auctions due to the pandemic.

For instance, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) had issued a new offshore wind solicitation for 1GW and up to 2.5GW in April 2020, but this was suspended due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In July 2020, the authority relaunched the tender for 2.5GW of offshore wind capacity, with a submission deadline in October 2020.

To ease the financial burden on consumers during the pandemic, more than 1,000 utilities in the country announced disconnection moratoria and implemented flexible payment plans. Duke Energy, American Electric Power, Dominion Power and Southern California Edison were among the major utilities that voluntarily suspended disconnections.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News