Bangladesh, India sign power deal

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

UK Energy Networks Coronavirus Contingency outlines ESO's lockdown electricity demand forecast, reduced industrial and commercial load, rising domestic use, Ofgem guidance needs, grid resilience, control rooms, mutual aid, and backup centers.

Key Points

A coordinated plan with ESO forecasts, safeguards, and mutual aid to keep power and gas services during a lockdown.

✅ ESO forecasts lower industrial use, higher domestic demand

✅ Control rooms protected; backup sites and cross-trained staff

✅ Mutual aid and Ofgem coordination bolster grid resilience

National Grid ESO is predicting a reduction in electricity demand, consistent with residential use trends observed during the pandemic, in the case of the coronavirus spread prompting a lockdown across the country.

Its analysis shows the reduction in commercial and industrial use would outweigh an upsurge in domestic demand, mirroring Ontario demand data seen as people stayed home, according to similar analyses.

The prediction was included in an update from the Energy Networks Association (ENA), in which it sought to reassure the public that contingency plans are in place, reflecting utility disaster planning across electric and gas networks, to ensure services are unaffected by the coronavirus spread.

The body, which represents the UK's electricity and gas network companies, said "robust measures" had been put in place to protect control rooms and contact centres, similar to staff lockdown protocols considered by other system operators, to maintain resilience. To provide additional resilience, engineers have been trained across multiple disciplines and backup centres exist should operations need to be moved if, for example, deep cleaning is required, the ENA said.

Networks also have industry-wide mutual aid arrangements, similar to grid response measures outlined in the U.S., for people and the equipment needed to keep gas and electricity flowing.

ENA chief executive, David Smith, said, echoing system reliability assurances from other markets: "The UK's electricity and gas network is one of the most reliable in the world and network operators are working with the authorities to ensure that their contingency plans are reviewed and delivered in accordance with the latest expert advice. We are following this advice closely and reassuring customers that energy networks are continuing to operate as normal for the public."

Utility Week spoke to a senior figure at one of the networks who reiterated the robust measures in place to keep the lights on, even as grid alerts elsewhere highlight the importance of contingency planning. However, they pleaded for more clarity from Ofgem and government on how its workers will be treated if the coronavirus spread becomes a pandemic in the UK.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

U.S. Majority Renewables by 2030 targets over half of electricity from wind, solar, hydropower, and energy storage, enabling a resilient, efficient grid, deep carbon reductions, fair market rules, and job growth across regions.

Key Points

A joint industry pledge for over 50% U.S. power from wind, solar, hydropower, and storage by 2030.

✅ Joint pledge by AWEA, SEIA, NHA, and ESA for a cleaner grid

✅ Focus on resilience, efficiency, affordability, and fair competition

✅ Storage enables flexibility to integrate variable renewables

Within a decade, more than half of the electricity generated in the U.S. will come from clean, renewable resources, with analyses indicating that wind and solar could meet 80% of U.S. electricity demand, supported by energy storage, according to a joint commitment today from the American wind, solar, hydropower, and energy storage industries. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), National Hydropower Association (NHA), and Energy Storage Association (ESA) have agreed to actively collaborate across their industry segments to achieve this target. 

The four industries have released a set of joint advocacy principles that will enable them to realize this bold vision of a majority renewables grid. Along with increased collaboration, these shared principles include building a more resilient, efficient, sustainable, and affordable grid; achieving carbon reductions; and advancing greater competition through electricity market reforms and fair market rules. Each of these areas is critical to attaining the shared vision for 2030.  

The leaders of the four industry associations gathered to announce the shared vision, aligned with a broader 100% renewables pathway pursued nationwide, during the first CLEANPOWER annual conference for businesses across the renewable and clean energy spectrum. 

American Wind Energy Association 

"This collaborative promise sets the stage to deliver on the American electric grid of the future powered by wind, solar, hydropower, and storage," said Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. "Market opportunities for projects that include a mix of technologies have opened up that didn't exist even a few years ago. And demand is growing for integrated renewable energy options. Individually and cooperatively, these sectors will continue growing to meet that demand and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs to strengthen economies from coast to coast, building a better, cleaner tomorrow. In the face of significant challenges the country is currently facing across pandemic response, economic, climate and social injustice problems, we are prepared to help lead toward a healthier and more equitable future."

Solar Energy Industries Association

"These principles are just another step toward realizing our vision for a Solar+ Decade," said Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. "In the face of this dreadful pandemic, our nation must chart a path forward that puts a premium on innovation, jobs recovery and a smarter approach to energy generation, reflecting expected solar and storage growth across the market. The right policies will make a growing American economy fueled by clean energy a reality for all Americans."

National Hydropower Association 

"The path towards an affordable, reliable, carbon-free electricity grid, supported by an ongoing grid overhaul for renewables, starts by harnessing the immense potential of hydropower, wind, solar and storage to work together," said Malcolm Woolf, President and CEO of the National Hydropower Association. "Today, hydropower and pumped storage are force multipliers that provide the grid with the flexibility needed to integrate other renewables onto the grid. By adding new generation onto existing non-powered dams and developing 15 GW of new pumped storage hydropower capacity, we can help accelerate the development of a clean energy electricity grid."

Energy Storage Association 

"We are pleased to join forces with our clean energy friends to substantially reduce carbon emissions by 2030, guided by practical decarbonization strategies, building a more resilient, efficient, sustainable, and affordable grid for generations to come," said ESA CEO Kelly Speakes-Backman. "A majority of generation supplied by renewable energy represents a significant change in the way we operate the grid, and the storage industry is a fundamental asset to provide the flexibility that a more modern, decarbonized grid will require. We look forward to actively collaborating with our colleagues to make this vision a reality by 2030."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Income-Based Utility Fees would overhaul electricity bills as CPUC weighs fixed charges tied to income, grid maintenance costs, AB 205 changes, and per-kilowatt-hour rates, shifting from pure usage pricing to hybrid utility rate design.

Key Points

Income-based utility fees are fixed monthly charges tied to earnings, alongside per-kWh rates, to help fund grid costs.

✅ CPUC considers fixed charges by income under AB 205

✅ Separates grid costs from per-kWh energy charges

✅ Could shift rooftop solar and EV charging economics

Electricity bills in California are likely to change dramatically in 2026, with major changes under discussion statewide.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is in the midst of an unprecedented overhaul of the way most of the state’s residents pay for electricity, as it considers revamping electricity rates to meet grid and climate goals.

Utility bills currently rely on a use-more pay-more system, where bills are directly tied to how much electricity a resident consumes, a setup that helps explain why prices are soaring for many households.

California lawmakers are asking regulators to take a different approach, and some are preparing to crack down on utility spending as oversight intensifies. Some of the bill will pay for the kilowatt hours a customer uses and a monthly fixed fee will help pay for expenses to maintain the electric grid: the poles, the substations, the batteries, and the wires that bring power to people’s homes.

The adjustments to the state’s public utility code, section 739.9, came about because of changes written into a sweeping energy bill passed last summer, AB 205, though some lawmakers now aim to overturn income-based charges in subsequent measures.

A stroke of a pen, a legislative vote, and the governor’s signature created a move toward unprecedented income-based fixed charges across the state.

“This was put in at the last minute,” said Ahmad Faruqui, a California economist with a long professional background in utility rates. “Nobody even knew it was happening. It was not debated on the floor of the assembly where it was supposedly passed. Of course, the governor signed it.”

Faruqui wonders who was responsible for legislation that was added to the energy bill during the budget writing process. That process is not transparent.

“It’s a very small clause in a very long bill, which is mostly about other issues,” Faruqui said.

But that small adjustment could have a massive impact on California residents, because it links the size of a monthly flat fee for utility service to a resident’s income. Earn more money and pay a higher flat fee.

That fee must be paid even before customers are charged for how much power they draw.

Regulators interpreted legislative change as a mandate, but Faruqui is not sold.

“They said the commission may consider or should consider,” Faruqui said. “They didn’t mandate it. It’s worth re-reading it.”

In fact, the legislative language says the commission “may” adopt income-based flat fees for utilities. It does not say the commission “should” adopt them.

Nevertheless, the CPUC has already requested and received nine proposals for how a flat fee should be implemented, as regulators face calls for action amid soaring electricity bills.

The suggestions came from consumer groups, environmentalists, the solar industry and utilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Field-Induced Glass Softening reveals a Joule heating anomaly in silicate glass, where anode-side nanoscale alkali depletion drives ionic conduction, localized thermal runaway, melting, and evaporation, challenging homogeneity assumptions and refining materials processing models.

Key Points

An effect where electric fields lower glass softening temperature via nanoscale ionic migration and structural change.

✅ Anode-side alkali depletion creates extreme, localized heating

✅ Thermal runaway melts glass near the anode despite uniform bulk

✅ Findings refine Joule heating models and enable new glass processing

A team of scientists working with electrical currents and silicate glass have been left gobsmacked after the glass appeared to defy a basic physical law, in a field that also explores electricity-from-air devices for novel energy harvesting.

If you pass an electrical current through a material, the way that current generates heat can be described by Joule's first law. It's been observed time and time again, with the temperature always evenly distributed when the material is homogeneous (or uniform).

But not in this recent experiment. A section - and only a section - of silicate glass became so hot that it melted, and even evaporated. Moreover, it did so at a much lower temperature than the boiling point of the material.

The boiling point of pure silicate glass is 2,230 degrees Celsius (4,046 degrees Fahrenheit). The hottest temperature the researchers recorded in a homogeneous piece of silicate glass during the experiment was 1,868.7 degrees Celsius.

Say whaaaat.

"The calculations did not add up to explain what we were seeing as simply standard Joule heating," said engineer and materials scientist Himanshu Jain of Lehigh University.

"Even under very moderate conditions, we observed fumes of glass that would require thousands of degrees higher temperature than Joule's law could predict!"

Jain and his colleagues from materials science company Corning Incorporated were investigating a phenomenon they had described in a previous paper. In 2015, they reported that an electric field could reduce the temperature at which glass softens, by as much as a few hundred degrees, a line of inquiry that parallels work on low-cost heat-to-electricity materials in energy research. They called this "electric field-induced softening."

It was certainly a peculiar phenomenon, so they set up another experiment. They put pieces of glass in a furnace, and applied 100 to 200 volts in the form of both alternating and direct currents.

Next, a thin wisp of vapour emanated from the spot where the anode conveying the current contacted the glass.

"In our experiments, the glass became more than a thousand degrees Celsius hotter near the positive side than in the rest of the glass, which was very surprising considering that the glass was totally homogeneous to begin with," Jain said.

This seems to fly in the face of Joule's first law, so the team investigated more closely - and found that the glass wasn't remaining as homogeneous as it started out. The electric field changed the chemistry and the structure of the glass on nanoscale, in just a small section close to the anode.

This region heats faster than the rest of the glass, to the point of becoming a thermal runaway - where an increase in temperature further increases temperature in a blistering feedback loop.

As it turned out, that spot of structural change and dramatic heat resulted in a small area of glass reaching melting point while the rest of the material remained solid.

"Unlike electronically conducting metals and semiconductors, with time the heating of ionically conducting glass becomes extremely inhomogeneous with the formation of a nanoscale alkali-depletion region, such that the glass melts near the anode, even evaporates, while remaining solid elsewhere," the researchers wrote in their paper.

In other words, the material wasn't homogeneous any more, which means the glass heating experiment doesn't exactly change how we apply Joule's first law.

But it's an exciting result, since until now we didn't know a material could actually lose its homogeneity with the application of an electrical current, with possible implications for thin-film heat harvesters in electronics. (The thing is, no one had tried electrically heating glass to these extreme temperatures before.)

So the physical laws of the Universe are still okay, as a piece of glass hasn't broken them. But Joule's first law may need a bit of tweaking to take this effect into account, a reminder that unconventional energy concepts like nighttime solar cells also challenge our intuitions.

And, of course, it's another piece of understanding that could help us in other ways too, including advances in thermoelectric materials that turn waste heat into electricity.

"Besides demonstrating the need to qualify Joule's law," Jain said, "the results are critical to developing new technology for the fabrication and manufacturing of glass and ceramic materials."

The research has been published in Scientific Reports.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Electricity Reserve Mandate requires 3.3 GW of new capacity to bolster grid reliability amid solar power volatility, peak demand, and wildfire-driven blackouts, as CPUC directs PG&E, Edison, and Sempra to procure resource adequacy.

Key Points

A CPUC order for utilities to add 3.3 GW of reserves, safeguarding grid reliability during variable renewables and peaks

✅ 3.3 GW procurement to meet resource adequacy targets

✅ Focus on grid reliability during peak evening demand

✅ Prioritizes renewables, storage; limits new fossil builds

As if California doesn’t have enough problems with its electric service, now state regulators warn the state may be short on power supplies by 2021 if utilities don’t start lining up new resources now.

In the hopes of heading off a shortfall as America goes electric, the California Public Utilities Commission has ordered the state’s electricity providers to secure 3.3 additional gigawatts of reserve supplies. That’s enough to power roughly 2.5 million homes. Half of it must be in place by 2021 and the rest by August 2023.

The move comes as California is already struggling to accommodate increasingly large amounts of solar power that regularly send electricity prices plunging below zero and force other generators offline so the region’s grid doesn’t overload. The state is also still reeling from a series of deliberate mass blackouts that utilities imposed last month to keep their power lines from sparking wildfires amid strong winds. And its largest power company, PG&E Corp., went bankrupt in January.

Now as natural gas-fired power plants retire under the state’s climate policies, officials are warning the state could run short on electricity on hot evenings, when solar production fades and commuters get home and crank up their air conditioners. “We have fewer resources that can be quickly turned on that can meet those peaks,” utilities commission member Liane Randolph said Thursday before the panel approved the order to beef up reserves.

The 3.3 gigawatts that utilities must line up is in addition to a state rule requiring them to sign contracts for 15% more electricity than they expect to need. Some critics question the need for added supplies, particularly after the state went on a plant-building boom in the 2000s.

But California’s grid managers say the risk of a shortfall is real and could be as high as 4.7 gigawatts, especially during heat waves that test the grid again. Mark Rothleder, with the California Independent System Operator, said the 15% cushion is a holdover from the days before big solar and wind farms made the grid more volatile. Now it may need to be increased, he said.

“We’re not in that world anymore,” said Rothleder, the operator’s vice president of state regulatory affairs. “The complexity of the system and the resources we have now are much different.”

The state’s three major utilities, PG&E, Edison International and Sempra Energy, will be largely responsible for securing new supplies. The commission banned fossil fuels from being used at any new power generators built to meet the requirement — though it left the door open for expansions at existing ones.

Some analysts argue California is exporting its energy policies to Western states, making electricity more costly and less reliable.

PG&E said in an emailed statement that it was pleased the commission didn’t adopt an earlier proposal to require 4 gigawatts of additional resources. Edison similarly said it was “supportive.” Sempra didn’t immediately respond with comment.

Extending Deadlines

The pending plant closures are being hastened by a 2020 deadline requiring California’s coastal generators to stop using aging seawater-cooling systems. Some gas-fired power plants have said they’ll simply close instead of installing costly new cooling systems. So the commission on Thursday also asked California water regulators to extend the deadline for five plants.

The Sierra Club, meanwhile, called on regulators to turn away from fossil fuels altogether, saying their decision Thursday “sets California back on its progress toward a clean energy future.”

The move to push back the deadline also faces opposition from neighboring towns. Redondo Beach Mayor Bill Brand, whose city is home to one of the plants in line for an extension, told the commission it wasn’t necessary, since California utilities already have plenty of electricity reserves.

“It’s just piling on to that reserve margin,” Brand said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News