Hiccups causing major delays at nuclear plant

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

Illinois NextGrid redefines utility, customer, and provider roles with grid modernization, DER valuation, upfront rebates, net metering reform, and non-wires alternatives, leveraging rooftop solar, batteries, and performance signals to enhance reliability and efficiency.

Key Points

Illinois NextGrid is an ICC roadmap to value DER and modernize the grid with rebates and non-wires solutions.

✅ Upfront Value-of-DER rebates reward location, time, and performance.

✅ Locational DER reduce peak demand and defer wires and substations.

✅ Encourages non-wires alternatives and data-driven utility planning.

How does the electric utility fit in to a rapidly-evolving energy system? That’s what the Illinois Commerce Commission is trying to determine with its new effort, "NextGrid". Together, we’re rethinking the roles of the utility, the customer, and energy solution providers in a 21st-century digital grid landscape.

In some ways, NextGrid will follow in the footsteps of New York’s innovative Reforming the Energy Vision process, a multi-year effort to re-examine how electric utilities and customers interact. A new approach is essential to accelerating the adoption of clean energy technologies and building a smarter electricity infrastructure in the state.

Like REV, NextGrid is gaining national attention for stakeholder-driven processes to reveal new ways to value distributed energy resources (DER), like rooftop solar and batteries. New York and Illinois’ efforts also seek alternatives, such as virtual power plants, to simply building more and more wires, poles, and power plants to meet the energy needs of tomorrow.

Yet, Illinois is may go a few steps beyond New York, creating a comprehensive framework for utilities to measure how DER are making the grid smarter and more efficient. Here is what we know will happen so far.

On Wednesday, April 5, at the second annual Grid Modernization Forum in Chicago, I’ll be discussing why these provisions could change the future of our energy system, including insights on grid modernization affordability for stakeholders.

Value of distributed energy

The Illinois Commerce Commission’s NextGrid plans grew out of the recently-passed future energy jobs act, a landmark piece of climate and energy policy that was widely heralded as a bipartisan oddity in the age of Trump. The Future Energy Jobs Act will provide significant new investments in renewables and energy efficiency over the next 13 years, redefine the role and value of rooftop solar and batteries on the grid, and lead to significant greenhouse gas emission reductions.

NextGrid will likely start laying the groundwork for valuing distributed energy resources (DER) as envisioned by the Future Energy Jobs Act, which introduces the concept of a new rebate. Illinois currently has a net metering policy, which lets people with solar panels sell their unused solar energy back to the grid to offset their electric bill. Yet the net metering policy had an arbitrary “cap,” or a certain level after which homes and businesses adding solar panels would no longer be able to benefit from net metering.

Although Illinois is still a few years away from meeting that previous “cap,” when it does hit that level, the new policy will ensure additional DER will still be rewarded. Under the new plan, the Value-of-DER rebate will replace net metering on the distribution portion of a customer’s bill (the charge for delivering electricity from the local substation to your house) with an upfront payment, which credits the customer for the value their solar provides to the local grid over the system’s life. Net metering for the energy supply portion of the bill would remain – i.e. homes and businesses would still be able to offset a significant portion of their electric bills by selling excess energy.

What is unique about Illinois’ approach is that the rebate is an upfront payment, rather than on ongoing tariff or reduced net metering compensation, for example. By allowing customers to get paid for the value solar provides to the system at the time it is installed, in the same way new wires, poles, and transformers would, this upfront payment positions DER investments as equally or more beneficial to customers and the electric grid. This is a huge step not only for regulators, but for utilities as well, as they begin to see distributed energy as an asset to the system.

This is a huge step for utilities, as they begin to see distributed energy as an asset to the system.

The rebate would also factor-in the variables of location, time, and performance of DER in the rebate formula, allowing for a more precise calculation of the value to the grid. Peak electricity demand can stress the local grid, causing wear and tear and failure of the equipment that serve our homes and businesses. Power from DER during peak times and in certain areas can alleviate those stresses, therefore providing a greater value than during times of average demand.

In addition, factoring-in the value of performance will take into account the other functions of distributed energy that help keep the lights on. For example, batteries and advanced inverters can provide support for helping avoid voltage fluctuations that can cause outages and other costs to customers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Shift from Fossil Fuels to Renewables signals an energy transition and decarbonization, as investors favor wind and solar over coal, oil, and gas due to falling ROI, policy shifts, and accelerating clean-tech innovation.

Key Points

An economic and policy-driven move redirecting capital from coal, oil, and gas to scalable wind and solar power.

✅ Driven by ROI, risk, and protests curbing fossil fuel projects

✅ Coal declines as wind and solar capacity surges globally

✅ Policy, technology, and markets speed the energy transition

This article is an excerpt from "Changing Tides: An Ecologist's Journey to Make Peace with the Anthropocene" by Alejandro Frid. Reproduced with permission from New Society Publishers. The book releases Oct. 15.

The climate and biodiversity crises reflect the stories that we have allowed to infiltrate the collective psyche of industrial civilization. It is high time to let go of these stories. Unclutter ourselves. Regain clarity. Make room for other stories that can help us reshape our ways of being in the world.

For starters, I’d love to let go of what has been our most venerated and ingrained story since the mid-1700s: that burning more fossil fuels is synonymous with prosperity. Letting go of that story shouldn’t be too hard these days. Financial investment over the past decade has been shifting very quickly away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies, as Europe's oil majors increasingly pivot to electrification. Even Bob Dudley, group chief executive of BP — one of the largest fossil fuel corporations in the world — acknowledged the trend, writing in the "BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017": "The relentless drive to improve energy efficiency is causing global energy consumption overall to decelerate. And, of course, the energy mix is shifting towards cleaner, lower carbon fuels, driven by environmental needs and technological advances." Dudley went on:

Coal consumption fell sharply for the second consecutive year, with its share within primary energy falling to its lowest level since 2004. Indeed, coal production and consumption in the U.K. completed an entire cycle, falling back to levels last seen almost 200 years ago around the time of the Industrial Revolution, with the U.K. power sector recording its first-ever coal-free day in April of this year. In contrast, renewable energy globally led by wind and solar power grew strongly, helped by continuing technological advances.

According to Dudley’s team, global production of oil and natural gas also slowed down in 2016. Meanwhile, that same year, the combined power provided by wind and solar energy increased by 14.6 percent: the biggest jump on record. All in all, since 2005, the installed capacity for renewable energy has grown exponentially, doubling every 5.5 years, as investment incentives expand to accelerate clean power.

The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money, and Trump-era oil policies even reshaped Wall Street’s energy strategies.

It is important to celebrate that King Coal — that grand initiator of the Industrial Revolution and nastiest of fossil fuels — has just begun to lose its power over people and the atmosphere. But it is even more important to understand the underlying causes for these changes. The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because the bulk of investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money.

The easy fossil fuels — the kind you used to be able to extract with a large profit margin and relatively low risk of disaster — are essentially gone. Almost all that is left are the dregs: unconventional fossil fuels such as bitumen, or untapped offshore oil reserves in very deep water or otherwise challenging environments, like the Arctic. Sure, the dregs are massive enough to keep tempting investors. There is so much unconventional oil and shale gas left underground that, if we burned it, we would warm the world by 6 degrees or more. But unconventional fossil fuels are very expensive and energy-intensive to extract, refine and market. Additionally, new fossil fuel projects, at least in my part of the world, have become hair triggers for social unrest. For instance, Burnaby Mountain, near my home in British Columbia, where renewable electricity in B.C. is expanding, is the site of a proposed bitumen pipeline expansion where hundreds of people have been arrested since 2015 during multiple acts of civil disobedience against new fossil fuel infrastructure. By triggering legal action and delaying the project, these protests have dented corporate profits. So return on investment for fossil fuels has been dropping.

It is no coincidence that in 2017, Petronas, a huge transnational energy corporation, withdrew their massive proposal to build liquefied natural gas infrastructure on the north coast of British Columbia, as Canada's race to net-zero gathers pace across industry. Petronas backed out not because of climate change or to protect essential rearing habitat for salmon, but to backpedal from a deal that would fail to make them richer.

Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, even as fossil-fuel workers signal readiness to support the transition, does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity.

Neoliberal shifts to favor renewable energies can be completely devoid of concern for climate change. While in office, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry questioned climate science and cheered for the oil industry, yet that did not stop him from directing his state towards an expansion of wind and solar energy, even as President Obama argued that decarbonization is irreversible and anchored in long-term economics. Perry saw money to be made by batting for both teams, and merely did what most neoliberal entrepreneurs would have done.

The right change for the wrong reasons brings no guarantees. Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity. Once again, let’s look at Perry. As U.S. secretary of energy under Trump’s presidency, in 2017 he called the global shift from fossil fuels "immoral" and said the United States was "blessed" to provide fossil fuels for the world.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Gas Plant Extensions keep Ormond Beach, AES Alamitos, and Huntington Beach on standby for grid reliability during heat waves, as regulators balance renewables, battery storage, and power, pending State Water Resources Control Board approval.

Key Points

State plan extending three coastal gas plants to 2026, adding capacity as California expands renewables and storage.

✅ Extends Ormond Beach, AES Alamitos, AES Huntington Beach

✅ Mitigates blackout risk during extreme heat and peak demand

✅ Pending State Water Resources Control Board approval

Temperatures in many California cities are cooling down this week, but a debate is simmering on how to generate enough electricity to power the state through extreme weather events while transitioning away from a reliance on fossil fuels as clean energy progress indicates statewide.

The California Energy Commission voted Wednesday to extend the life of three gas power plants along the state’s southern coast through 2026, even as natural-gas electricity records persist nationwide, postponing a shutoff deadline previously set for the end of this year. The vote would keep the decades-old facilities _ Ormond Beach Generating Station, AES Alamitos and AES Huntington Beach — open so they can run during emergencies.

The state is at a greater risk of blackouts during major events when many Californians simultaneously crank up their air conditioning, such as a blistering heat wave, illustrated by widespread utility shutoffs in recent years.

“We need to move faster in incorporating renewable energy. We need to move faster at incorporating battery storage. We need to build out chargers faster,” commissioner Patricia Monahan said amid an ongoing debate over the classification of nuclear power in California. “We’re working with all the energy institutions to do that, but we are not there yet.”

The plan, put together by the state’s Department of Water Resources, still needs final approval from the State Water Resources Control Board, which may vote on the issue next week. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation last year creating an energy reserve the state could use as a last resort if there is likely to be an energy shortage, a challenge mirrored by Ontario electricity shortfall concerns elsewhere. The law allowed the Department of Water Resources to fund or secure power sources in those instances, after PG&E shutdown reasons drew attention to grid vulnerabilities.

The commission acknowledged it was a difficult decision. Environmentalists say the state needs to transition to more short- and long-term solutions that will help it move away from fossil fuels and to rely more on renewable energy sources like solar and wind, similar to Ontario's clean power push in recent years. They’re also concerned about the health impacts associated with pollution from gas plants.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

2022 US Renewable Power Milestone highlights EIA data: wind and solar outpaced coal and nuclear, hydropower contributed, with falling levelized costs, grid integration, battery storage, and transmission upgrades shaping affordable, reliable clean power growth.

Key Points

The year US renewables, led by wind and solar, generated more power than coal and nuclear, per EIA.

✅ Wind and solar rose; levelized costs fell 70%-90% over decade

✅ Renewables surpassed coal and nuclear in 2022 per EIA

✅ Grid needs storage and transmission to manage intermittency

Electricity generated from renewables surpassed coal in the United States for the first time in 2022, as wind and solar surpassed coal nationwide, the U.S. Energy Information Administration has announced.

Renewables also surpassed nuclear generation in 2022 after first doing so last year, and wind and solar together generated more electricity than nuclear for the first time in the United States.

Growth in wind and solar significantly drove the increase in renewable energy and contributed 14% of the electricity produced domestically in 2022, with solar producing about 4.7% of U.S. power overall. Hydropower contributed 6%, and biomass and geothermal sources generated less than 1%.

“I’m happy to see we’ve crossed that threshold, but that is only a step in what has to be a very rapid and much cheaper journey,” said Stephen Porder, a professor of ecology and assistant provost for sustainability at Brown University.

California produced 26% of the national utility-scale solar electricity followed by Texas with 16% and North Carolina with 8%.

The most wind generation occurred in Texas, which accounted for 26% of the U.S. total, while wind is now the most-used renewable electricity source nationwide, followed by Iowa (10%) and Oklahoma (9%).

“This booming growth is driven largely by economics,” said Gregory Wetstone, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy, as renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source in 2020 nationwide. “Over the past decade, the levelized cost of wind energy declined by 70 percent, while the levelized cost of solar power has declined by an even more impressive 90 percent.”

“Renewable energy is now the most affordable source of new electricity in much of the country,” added Wetstone.

The Energy Information Administration projected that the wind share of the U.S. electricity generation mix will increase from 11% to 12% from 2022 to 2023 and that solar will grow from 4% to 5% during the period, and renewables hit a record 28% share in April according to recent data. The natural gas share is expected to remain at 39% from 2022 to 2023, and coal is projected to decline from 20% last year to 17% this year.

“Wind and solar are going to be the backbone of the growth in renewables, but whether or not they can provide 100% of the U.S. electricity without backup is something that engineers are debating,” said Brown University’s Porder.

Many decisions lie ahead, he said, as the proportion of renewables that supply the energy grid increases, with renewables projected to soon be one-fourth of U.S. electricity generation over the near term.

This presents challenges for engineers and policy-makers, Porder said, because existing energy grids were built to deliver power from a consistent source. Renewables such as solar and wind generate power intermittently. So battery storage, long-distance transmission and other steps will be needed to help address these challenges, he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Hydro Rate Relief Plan delivers short-term electricity bill cuts, while leaked cabinet forecasts show inflation-linked hikes, borrowing costs, and a Clean Energy Adjustment under the province's long-term energy plan.

Key Points

A provincial plan that cuts bills now but defers costs, projecting rate hikes and adding a Clean Energy Adjustment.

✅ 25% cut now, after 8% HST relief; extra 17% reduction applied.

✅ Forecast: inflation-linked hikes later; borrowing adds long-term costs.

✅ Clean Energy Adjustment line to repay deferred system costs.

The short-term gain of a 25 per cent hydro rate cut this summer could lead to long-term pain as a leaked cabinet document forecasts prices jumping again in five years.

In the briefing materials leaked and obtained by the Progressive Conservatives, rates will start rising 6.5 per cent a year in 2022 and top out at 10.5 per cent in 2028, when average monthly bills hit $215.

That would be up from $123 this year once the rate cut — the subject of long-awaited legislation to lower electricity rates unveiled Thursday by Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault — takes full effect. There will be another 17-per-cent cut in addition to the 8 per cent taken off bills in January when the provincial portion of the HST was waived.

The leaked papers overshadowed Thibeault’s efforts to tout the price break, which will be followed with four years of hydro rate increases at 2 per cent, roughly the rate of inflation.

Thibeault charged that the Conservatives used an “outdated” document to distract from the fact that they are the only major party without a plan for dealing with skyrocketing hydro rates, with a year to go until next June’s provincial election.

“It’s not a coincidence,” he told reporters, denying any plans for an eventual 10.5-per-cent rate hike and promising the government’s new long-term energy plan, due in a few months, will have better numbers.

“We are working hard right now to continue to pull costs out of the system.”

Opposition parties said the Liberal plan doesn’t deal with the underlying problems that have made electricity expensive and simply borrows money to spread the costs over a longer period of time, with $25 billion in interest charges over 30 years.

Some observers also noted that a deal with Quebec would not reduce hydro bills, highlighting concerns about lasting affordability.

“The price of electricity is going to skyrocket after the next election,” warned Conservative MPP Todd Smith (Prince Edward—Hastings).

“The government isn’t being honest with the people of Ontario when it comes to the price of electricity.”

The documents show average monthly bills peaking at $231 in the year 2047, before falling back to $210 the following year once the 30 years of interest payments are over.

Conservative sources say they obtained the papers stamped “confidential cabinet document” from a whistleblower after Thibeault’s rate cut plan was presented to cabinet ministers at a meeting in early March.

There is no date on the document, which the energy minister alternately dismissed as “inaccurate” or possibly one of many that have been prepared with different options in mind.

“We’ve had hundreds of briefings with hundreds of documents … I can’t comment on one graph when we’ve been looking at hundreds of scenarios.”

New Democrats, who have proposed a scheme to cut rates, if elected, also called the government plan an election ploy with Liberals lagging in the polls.

“We’re going to take on a huge debt so (Premier) Kathleen Wynne can look good on the hustings in the next few months, and for decades we’re going to pay for it,” said MPP Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth).

Thibeault acknowledged the Liberal plan will start repaying borrowed money in the mid- or late 2020s and it will show up separately on hydro bills as the “Clean Energy Adjustment”, a kind of electricity recovery rate that could raise costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News