Trends in Electricity Prices in Europe: Expect More Volatility

US Electricity Demand Stagnation reflects decoupling from GDP as TVA's IRP revises outlook, with energy efficiency, distributed generation, renewables, and cheap natural gas undercutting coal, reshaping utility business models and accelerating grid modernization.

Key Points

US electricity demand stagnation is flat load growth driven by efficiency, DG, and decoupling from GDP.

✅ Flat sales pressure IOU profits and legacy baseload investments.

✅ Efficiency and rooftop solar reduce load growth and capacity needs.

✅ Utilities must pivot to services, DER orchestration, and grid software.

The US electricity sector is in a period of unprecedented change and turmoil, with emerging utility trends reshaping strategies across the industry today. Renewable energy prices are falling like crazy. Natural gas production continues its extraordinary surge. Coal, the golden child of the current administration, is headed down the tubes.

In all that bedlam, it’s easy to lose sight of an equally important (if less sexy) trend: Demand for electricity is stagnant.

Thanks to a combination of greater energy efficiency, outsourcing of heavy industry, and customers generating their own power on site, demand for utility power has been flat for 10 years, with COVID-19 electricity demand underscoring recent variability and long-run stagnation, and most forecasts expect it to stay that way. The die was cast around 1998, when GDP growth and electricity demand growth became “decoupled”:

This historic shift has wreaked havoc in the utility industry in ways large and small, visible and obscure. Some of that havoc is high-profile and headline-making, as in the recent requests from utilities (and attempts by the Trump administration) to bail out large coal and nuclear plants amid coal and nuclear industry disruptions affecting power markets and reliability.

Some of it, however, is unfolding in more obscure quarters. A great example recently popped up in Tennessee, where one utility is finding its 20-year forecasts rendered archaic almost as soon as they are released.

Falling demand has TVA moving up its planning process

Every five years, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) — the federally owned regional planning agency that, among other things, supplies electricity to Tennessee and parts of surrounding states — develops an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) meant to assess what it requires to meet customer needs for the next 20 years.

The last IRP, completed in 2015, anticipated that there would be no need for major new investment in baseload (coal, nuclear, and hydro) power plants; it foresaw that energy efficiency and distributed (customer-owned) energy generation would hold down demand.

Even so, TVA underestimated. Just three years later, the Times Free Press reports, “TVA now expects to sell 13 percent less power in 2027 than it did two decades earlier — the first sustained reversal in the growth of electricity usage in the 85-year history of TVA.”

TVA will sell less electricity in 10 years than it did 10 years ago. That is bonkers.

This startling shift in prospects has prompted the company to accelerate its schedule. It will now develop its next IRP a year early, in 2019.

Think for a moment about why a big utility like TVA (serving 9 million customers in seven states, with more than $11 billion in revenue) sets out to plan 20 years ahead. It is investing in extremely large and capital-intensive infrastructure like power plants and transmission lines, which cost billions of dollars and last for decades. These are not decisions to make lightly; the utility wants to be sure that they will still be needed, and will still pay off, for many years to come.

Now think for a moment about what it means for the electricity sector to be changing so fast that TVA’s projections are out of date three years after its last IRP, so much so that it needs to plunge back into the multimillion-dollar, year-long process of developing a new plan.

TVA wanted a plan for 20 years; the plan lasted three.

The utility business model is headed for a reckoning

TVA, as a government-owned, fully regulated utility, has only the goals of “low cost, informed risk, environmental responsibility, reliability, diversity of power and flexibility to meet changing market conditions,” as its planning manager told the Times Free Press. (Yes, that’s already a lot of goals!)

But investor-owned utilities (IOUs), which administer electricity for well over half of Americans, face another imperative: to make money for investors. They can’t make money selling electricity; monopoly regulations forbid it, raising questions about utility revenue models as marginal energy costs fall. Instead, they make money by earning a rate of return on investments in electrical power plants and infrastructure.

The problem is, with demand stagnant, there’s not much need for new hardware. And a drop in investment means a drop in profit. Unable to continue the steady growth that their investors have always counted on, IOUs are treading water, watching as revenues dry up

Utilities have been frantically adjusting to this new normal. The generation utilities that sell into wholesale electricity markets (also under pressure from falling power prices; thanks to natural gas and renewables, wholesale power prices are down 70 percent from 2007) have reacted by cutting costs and merging. The regulated utilities that administer local distribution grids have responded by increasing investments in those grids, including efforts to improve electricity reliability and resilience at lower cost.

But these are temporary, limited responses, not enough to stay in business in the face of long-term decline in demand. Ultimately, deeper reforms will be necessary.

As I have explained at length, the US utility sector was built around the presumption of perpetual growth. Utilities were envisioned as entities that would build the electricity infrastructure to safely and affordably meet ever-rising demand, which was seen as a fixed, external factor, outside utility control.

But demand is no longer rising. What the US needs now are utilities that can manage and accelerate that decline in demand, increasing efficiency as they shift to cleaner generation. The new electricity paradigm is to match flexible, diverse, low-carbon supply with (increasingly controllable) demand, through sophisticated real-time sensing and software.

That’s simply a different model than current utilities are designed for. To adapt, the utility business model must change. Utilities need newly defined responsibilities and new ways to make money, through services rather than new hardware. That kind of reform will require regulators, politicians, and risky experiments. Very few states — New York, California, Massachusetts, a few others — have consciously set off down that path.

Flat or declining demand is going to force the issue

Even if natural gas and renewables weren’t roiling the sector, the end of demand growth would eventually force utility reform.

To be clear: For both economic and environmental reasons, it is good that US power demand has decoupled from GDP growth. As long as we’re getting the energy services we need, we want overall demand to decline. It saves money, reduces pollution, and avoids the need for expensive infrastructure.

But the way we’ve set up utilities, they must fight that trend. Every time they are forced to invest in energy efficiency or make some allowance for distributed generation (and they must always be forced), demand for their product declines, and with it their justification to make new investments.

Only when the utility model fundamentally changes — when utilities begin to see themselves primarily as architects and managers of high-efficiency, low-emissions, multidirectional electricity systems rather than just investors in infrastructure growth — can utilities turn in earnest to the kind planning they need to be doing.

In a climate-aligned world, utilities would view the decoupling of power demand from GDP growth as cause for celebration, a sign of success. They would throw themselves into accelerating the trend.

Instead, utilities find themselves constantly surprised, caught flat-footed again and again by a trend they desperately want to believe is temporary. Unless we can collectively reorient utilities to pursue rather than fear current trends in electricity, they are headed for a grim reckoning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Russian Cyberattacks on U.S. Critical Infrastructure target energy grids, nuclear plants, water systems, and aviation, DHS and FBI warn, using spear phishing, malware, and ICS/SCADA intrusion to gain footholds for potential sabotage and disruption.

Key Points

State-backed hacks targeting U.S. energy, nuclear, water and aviation via phishing and ICS access for sabotage.

✅ DHS and FBI detail multi-stage intrusion since 2016

✅ Targets include energy, nuclear, water, aviation, manufacturing

✅ TTPs: spear phishing, lateral movement, ICS reconnaissance

Russia is attacking the U.S. energy grid, with reported power plant breaches unfolding alongside attacks on nuclear facilities, water processing plants, aviation systems, and other critical infrastructure that millions of Americans rely on, according to a new joint analysis by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

In an unprecedented alert, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FBI have warned of persistent attacks by Russian government hackers on critical US government sectors, including energy, nuclear, commercial facilities, water, aviation and manufacturing.

The alert details numerous attempts extending back to March 2016 when Russian cyber operatives targeted US government and infrastructure.

The DHS and FBI said: “DHS and FBI characterise this activity as a multi-stage intrusion campaign by Russian government cyber-actors who targeted small commercial facilities’ networks, where they staged malware, conducted spear phishing and gained remote access into energy sector networks.

“After obtaining access, the Russian government cyber-actors conducted network reconnaissance, moved laterally and collected information pertaining to industrial control systems.”

The Trump administration has accused Russia of engineering a series of cyberattacks that targeted American and European nuclear power plants and water and electric systems, and could have sabotaged or shut power plants off at will.

#google#

United States officials and private security firms saw the attacks as a signal by Moscow that it could disrupt the West’s critical facilities in the event of a conflict.

They said the strikes accelerated in late 2015, at the same time the Russian interference in the American election was underway. The attackers had compromised some operators in North America and Europe by spring 2017, after President Trump was inaugurated.

In the following months, according to the DHS/FBI report, Russian hackers made their way to machines with access to utility control rooms and critical control systems at power plants that were not identified. The hackers never went so far as to sabotage or shut down the computer systems that guide the operations of the plants.

Still, new computer screenshots released by the Department of Homeland Security have made clear that Russian state hackers had the foothold they would have needed to manipulate or shut down power plants.

“We now have evidence they’re sitting on the machines, connected to industrial control infrastructure, that allow them to effectively turn the power off or effect sabotage,” said Eric Chien, a security technology director at Symantec, a digital security firm.

“From what we can see, they were there. They have the ability to shut the power off. All that’s missing is some political motivation,” Mr. Chien said.

American intelligence agencies were aware of the attacks for the past year and a half, and the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. first issued urgent warnings to utility companies in June, 2017. Both DHS/FBI have now offered new details as the Trump administration imposed sanctions against Russian individuals and organizations it accused of election meddling and “malicious cyberattacks.”

It was the first time the administration officially named Russia as the perpetrator of the assaults. And it marked the third time in recent months that the White House, departing from its usual reluctance to publicly reveal intelligence, blamed foreign government forces for attacks on infrastructure in the United States.

In December, the White House said North Korea had carried out the so-called WannaCry attack that in May paralyzed the British health system and placed ransomware in computers in schools, businesses and homes across the world. Last month, it accused Russia of being behind the NotPetya attack against Ukraine last June, the largest in a series of cyberattacks on Ukraine to date, paralyzing the country’s government agencies and financial systems.

But the penalties have been light. So far, President Trump has said little to nothing about the Russian role in those attacks.

The groups that conducted the energy attacks, which are linked to Russian intelligence agencies, appear to be different from the two hacking groups that were involved in the election interference.

That would suggest that at least three separate Russian cyberoperations were underway simultaneously. One focused on stealing documents from the Democratic National Committee and other political groups. Another, by a St. Petersburg “troll farm” known as the Internet Research Agency, used social media to sow discord and division. A third effort sought to burrow into the infrastructure of American and European nations.

For years, American intelligence officials tracked a number of Russian state-sponsored hacking units as they successfully penetrated the computer networks of critical infrastructure operators across North America and Europe, including in Ukraine.

Some of the units worked inside Russia’s Federal Security Service, the K.G.B. successor known by its Russian acronym, F.S.B.; others were embedded in the Russian military intelligence agency, known as the G.R.U. Still others were made up of Russian contractors working at the behest of Moscow.

Russian cyberattacks surged last year, starting three months after Mr. Trump took office.

American officials and private cybersecurity experts uncovered a series of Russian attacks aimed at the energy, water and aviation sectors and critical manufacturing, including nuclear plants, in the United States and Europe. In its urgent report in June, the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. notified operators about the attacks but stopped short of identifying Russia as the culprit.

By then, Russian spies had compromised the business networks of several American energy, water and nuclear plants, mapping out their corporate structures and computer networks.

They included that of the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, which runs a nuclear plant near Burlington, Kan. But in that case, and those of other nuclear operators, Russian hackers had not leapt from the company’s business networks into the nuclear plant controls.

Forensic analysis suggested that Russian spies were looking for inroads — although it was not clear whether the goal was to conduct espionage or sabotage, or to trigger an explosion of some kind.

In a report made public in October, Symantec noted that a Russian hacking unit “appears to be interested in both learning how energy facilities operate and also gaining access to operational systems themselves, to the extent that the group now potentially has the ability to sabotage or gain control of these systems should it decide to do so.”

The United States sometimes does the same thing. It bored deeply into Iran’s infrastructure before the 2015 nuclear accord, placing digital “implants” in systems that would enable it to bring down power grids, command-and-control systems and other infrastructure in case a conflict broke out. The operation was code-named “Nitro Zeus,” and its revelation made clear that getting into the critical infrastructure of adversaries is now a standard element of preparing for possible conflict.

Reconstructed screenshot fragments of a Human Machine Interface that the threat actors accessed, according to DHS

Sanctions Announced

The US treasury department has imposed sanctions on 19 Russian people and five groups, including Moscow’s intelligence services, for meddling in the US 2016 presidential election and other malicious cyberattacks.

Russia, for its part, has vowed to retaliate against the new sanctions.

The new sanctions focus on five Russian groups, including the Russian Federal Security Service, the country’s military intelligence apparatus, and the digital propaganda outfit called the Internet Research Agency, as well as 19 people, some of them named in the indictment related to election meddling released by special counsel Robert Mueller last month.

In announcing the sanctions, which will generally ban U.S. people and financial institutions from doing business with those people and groups, the Treasury Department pointed to alleged Russian election meddling, involvement in the infrastructure hacks, and the NotPetya malware, which the Treasury Department called “the most destructive and costly cyberattack in history.”

The new sanctions come amid ongoing criticism of the Trump administration’s reluctance to punish Russia for cyber and election meddling. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said that, ahead of the 2018 mid-term elections, the administration’s decision was long overdue but not enough. “Nearly all of the entities and individuals who were sanctioned today were either previously under sanction during the Obama Administration, or had already been charged with federal crimes by the Special Counsel,” Warner said.

Warning: The Russians Are Coming

In an updated warning to utility companies, DHS/FBI officials included a screenshot taken by Russian operatives that proved they could now gain access to their victims’ critical controls, prompting a renewed focus on protecting the U.S. power grid among operators.

American officials and security firms, including Symantec and CrowdStrike, believe that Russian attacks on the Ukrainian power grid in 2015 and 2016 that left more than 200,000 citizens there in the dark are an ominous sign of what the Russian cyberstrikes may portend in the United States and Europe in the event of escalating hostilities.

Private security firms have tracked the Russian government assaults on Western power and energy operators — conducted alternately by groups under the names Dragonfly campaigns alongside Energetic Bear and Berserk Bear — since 2011, when they first started targeting defense and aviation companies in the United States and Canada.

By 2013, researchers had tied the Russian hackers to hundreds of attacks on the U.S. power grid and oil and gas pipeline operators in the United States and Europe. Initially, the strikes appeared to be motivated by industrial espionage — a natural conclusion at the time, researchers said, given the importance of Russia’s oil and gas industry.

But by December 2015, the Russian hacks had taken an aggressive turn. The attacks were no longer aimed at intelligence gathering, but at potentially sabotaging or shutting down plant operations.

At Symantec, researchers discovered that Russian hackers had begun taking screenshots of the machinery used in energy and nuclear plants, and stealing detailed descriptions of how they operated — suggesting they were conducting reconnaissance for a future attack.

Eventhough the US government enacted sanctions, cybersecurity experts are still questioning where the Russian attacks could lead, given that the United States was sure to respond in kind.

“Russia certainly has the technical capability to do damage, as it demonstrated in the Ukraine,” said Eric Cornelius, a cybersecurity expert at Cylance, a private security firm, who previously assessed critical infrastructure threats for the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration.

“It is unclear what their perceived benefit would be from causing damage on U.S. soil, especially given the retaliation it would provoke,” Mr. Cornelius said.

Though a major step toward deterrence, publicly naming countries accused of cyberattacks still is unlikely to shame them into stopping. The United States is struggling to come up with proportionate responses to the wide variety of cyberespionage, vandalism and outright attacks.

Lt. Gen. Paul Nakasone, who has been nominated as director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command, the military’s cyberunit, said during his recent Senate confirmation hearing, that countries attacking the United States so far have little to worry about.

“I would say right now they do not think much will happen to them,” General Nakasone said. He later added, “They don’t fear us.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

U.S. Power Grid Cybersecurity combats DHS-FBI flagged threats to energy infrastructure, with PJM Interconnection using ICS/SCADA segmentation, phishing defenses, incident response, and resilience exercises against Russia-linked attacks and pipeline intrusions.

Key Points

Strategies, controls, and training that protect U.S. electric infrastructure from cyber threats and disruptions.

✅ ICS/SCADA network segmentation and zero-trust architecture

✅ Employee phishing drills and incident response playbooks

✅ DOE-led grid exercises and threat intelligence sharing

The joint alert from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security last month warning that Russia was hacking into critical U.S. energy infrastructure, as outlined in six essential reads on Russian hacks from recent coverage, came as no surprise to the nation’s largest grid operator, PJM Interconnection.

“You will never stop people from trying to get into your systems. That isn’t even something we try to do.” said PJM Chief Information Officer, Tom O’Brien. “People will always try to get into your systems. The question is, what controls do you have to not allow them to penetrate? And how do you respond in the event they actually do get into your system?”

PJM is the regional transmission organization for 65 million people, covering 13 states, including Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C.

On a rainy day in early April, about 10 people were working inside PJM’s main control center, outside Philadelphia, closely monitoring floor-to-ceiling digital displays showing real-time information from the electric power sector throughout PJM’s territory in the mid-Atlantic and parts of the midwest, amid reports that hackers accessed control rooms at U.S. utilities.

#google#

Donnie Bielak, a reliability engineering manager, was overseeing things from his office, perched one floor up.

“This is a very large, orchestrated effort that goes unnoticed most of the time,” Bielak said. “That’s a good thing.”

But the industry certainly did take notice in late 2015 and early 2016, when hackers successfully disrupted power to the Ukrainian grid. The outages lasted a few hours and affected about 225,000 customers. It was the first publicly-known case of a cyber attack causing major disruptions to a power grid. It was widely blamed on Russia.

One of the many lessons of the Ukraine attacks was a reminder to people who work on critical infrastructure to keep an eye out for odd communications.

“A very large percentage of entry points to attacks are coming through emails,” O’Brien said. “That’s why PJM, as well as many others, have aggressive phishing campaigns. We’re training our employees.”

O’Brien doesn’t want to get into specifics about how PJM deals with cyber threats. But one common way to limit exposure is by having separate systems: For example, industrial controls in a power plant are not connected to corporate business networks, a separation underscored after breaches at U.S. power plants prompted reviews across the sector.

Since 2011, North American grid operators and government agencies have also done large, security exercises every two years. Thousands of people practice how they’d respond to a coordinated physical or cyber event, including rising substation attacks that highlight resilience gaps.

So far, nothing like that has happened in the U.S. It’s possible, but not likely, according to Robert M. Lee, a former military intelligence analyst, who runs the industrial cybersecurity firm Dragos.

“The more complex the system, the harder it is to have a scalable attack,” said Lee, who co-authored a report analyzing the Ukraine attacks. “If you wanted to take out a power generation station– that isn’t the most complex thing. Let’s say you cause an hour of outage. But now you want to cause two months of outages? That’s an exponential increase in effort required.”

For example, he said, it would very difficult for hackers to knock out power to the entire east coast for a long time. But briefly disrupting a major city is easier. That’s the sort of thing that keeps him up at night.

“I worry about an adversary getting into, maybe, Washington D.C.’s portion of the grid, taking down power for 30 minutes,” he said.

The Department of Energy is creating a new office focused on cybersecurity and emergency response, following the U.S. government’s condemnation of power grid hacking by Russia.

Deterrence may be one reason why there has not yet been a major attack on the U.S. grid, said John MacWilliams, a former senior DOE official who’s now a fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

“That’s obviously an act of war,” he said. “We have the capability of responding either through cyber mechanisms or kinetic military.”

In the meantime, small-scale incidents keep happening.

This spring, another cyber attack targeted natural gas pipelines. Four companies shut down their computer systems, just in case, but they say no service was disrupted.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

California Ports Electric Truck Leasing accelerates zero-emission logistics, cutting diesel pollution at Los Angeles and Long Beach. A $250 million nonprofit plan funds heavy-duty EVs and charging infrastructure to improve air quality and community health.

Key Points

A nonprofit's $250M plan to lease EV trucks at LA/Long Beach ports to cut diesel emissions and improve air quality.

✅ $250M lease program for heavy-duty EVs at LA/Long Beach ports

✅ Cuts diesel emissions; improves air quality in nearby communities

✅ Requires robust charging infrastructure and OEM partnerships

In a significant move towards sustainable transportation, a prominent U.S. nonprofit has announced plans to invest $250 million in leasing electric trucks for operations at California ports. This initiative aims to reduce air pollution and promote greener logistics, responding to the urgent need for environmentally friendly solutions in the transportation sector.

Addressing Environmental Concerns

California’s ports, particularly the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, are among the busiest in the United States. However, they also contribute significantly to air pollution due to the heavy reliance on diesel trucks for cargo transport. These ports are essential for the economy, facilitating trade and commerce, but the environmental toll is considerable. Diesel emissions are linked to respiratory issues and other health problems in nearby communities, which often bear the brunt of pollution.

The nonprofit's investment in electric trucks is a critical step towards mitigating these environmental challenges. By transitioning to electric vehicles (EVs), the project aims to significantly cut emissions from port operations, contributing to California's broader goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality.

The Scale of the Initiative

This ambitious initiative involves leasing a fleet of electric trucks that will operate within the ports and surrounding areas. The $250 million investment is expected to facilitate the acquisition of hundreds of electric vehicles, which will replace conventional diesel trucks used for cargo transport. This fleet will help demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of electric trucks in heavy-duty applications, paving the way for broader adoption.

The plan includes partnerships with established electric truck manufacturers, such as the Volvo VNR Electric platform, and local logistics companies to ensure seamless integration of these vehicles into existing operations. By collaborating with industry leaders, the initiative seeks to establish a model that can be replicated in other major logistics hubs across the country.

Economic and Community Benefits

The introduction of electric trucks is expected to yield multiple benefits, not only in terms of environmental impact but also economically. As these trucks begin operations, and as other fleets adopt electric mail trucks, they will create jobs within the green technology sector, from manufacturing to maintenance and charging infrastructure development. The project is anticipated to stimulate local economies, providing new opportunities in communities that have historically been disadvantaged by pollution.

Moreover, the initiative is poised to enhance public health. By reducing diesel emissions, the nonprofit aims to improve air quality for residents living near the ports, and emerging research links EV adoption to fewer asthma-related ER visits in local communities. This could lead to decreased healthcare costs associated with pollution-related illnesses, benefiting both the community and the healthcare system.

Challenges Ahead

While the initiative is promising, challenges remain. The successful implementation of electric trucks at scale requires a robust charging infrastructure capable of supporting the significant power needs of a large fleet. Additionally, the transition from diesel to electric vehicles involves significant upfront costs, even with leasing arrangements. Ensuring that logistics companies can manage these costs effectively will be crucial for the project's success.

Furthermore, electric trucks currently face limitations in terms of range and payload capacity compared to their diesel counterparts. Continued advancements in battery technology and infrastructure development will be necessary to fully realize the potential of electric vehicles in heavy-duty applications.

The Bigger Picture

This investment in electric trucks aligns with broader national and global efforts to combat climate change. As governments and organizations commit to reducing carbon emissions, initiatives like this one represent crucial steps toward achieving sustainability goals, and ports worldwide are also piloting complementary technologies like hydrogen-powered cranes to decarbonize cargo handling.

California has set ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including a mandate for all new trucks to be zero-emission by 2045. The nonprofit’s investment not only supports these goals, amid ongoing debates over funding priorities in the state, but also serves as a pilot program that could inform future policies and investments in clean transportation.

The $250 million investment in electric trucks for California ports marks a significant milestone in the push for sustainable transportation solutions. By addressing the urgent need for cleaner logistics, this initiative stands to benefit the environment, public health, and the economy. As the project unfolds, it will be closely watched as a potential model for similar efforts across the country and beyond, with developments such as the all-electric berth at London Gateway illustrating parallel advances, highlighting the critical intersection of innovation, sustainability, and community well-being in the modern logistics landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hong Kong Electricity Tariff Increase reflects a projected 1-2% rise as HK Electric and CLP Power shift to cleaner fuel and natural gas, expand gas-fired units and LNG terminals, and adjust the fuel clause charge.

Key Points

An expected 1-2% 2018 rise from cleaner fuel, natural gas projects, asset growth, and shrinking fuel cost surpluses.

✅ Expected 1-2% rise amid cleaner fuel and gas shift

✅ Fuel clause charge and asset expansion pressure prices

✅ HK Electric and CLP Power urged to use surpluses prudently

Hong Kong customers have been asked to expect higher electricity bills next year, as seen with BC Hydro rate increases in Canada, with a member of a government panel on energy policy anticipating an increase in tariffs of one or two per cent.

The environment minister, Wong Kam-sing, also hinted they should be prepared to dig deeper into their pockets for electricity, as debates over California electric bills illustrate, in the wake of power companies needing to use more expensive but cleaner fuel to generate power in the future.

HK Electric supplies power to Hong Kong Island, Lamma Island and Ap Lei Chau. Photo: David Wong

The city’s two power companies, HK Electric and CLP Power, are to brief lawmakers on their respective annual tariff adjustments for 2018, amid Ontario electricity price pressures drawing international attention, at a Legislative Council economic development panel meeting on Tuesday.

HK Electric supplies electricity to Hong Kong Island and neighbouring Lamma Island and Ap Lei Chau, while CLP Power serves Kowloon and the New Territories, including Lantau Island.

Wong said on Monday: “We have to appreciate that when we use cleaner fuel, there is a need for electricity tariffs to keep pace. I believe it is the hope of mainstream society to see a low-carbon and healthier environment.”

Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing believes most people desire a low-carbon environment. Photo: Sam Tsang

But he declined to comment on how much the tariffs might rise.

World Green Organisation chief executive William Yu Yuen-ping, also a member of the Energy Advisory Committee, urged the companies to better use their “overflowing” surpluses in their fuel cost recovery accounts.

Tariffs are comprised of two components: a basic amount reflecting a company’s operating costs and investments, and the fuel clause charge, which is based on what the company projects it will pay for fuel for the year.

William Yu of World Green Organisation says the companies should use their surpluses more carefully. Photo: May Tse

Critics have claimed the local power suppliers routinely overestimate their fuel costs and amass huge surpluses.

In recent years, the two managed to freeze or cut their tariffs thanks to savings from lower fuel costs. Last year, HK Electric offered special rebates to its customers, which saw its tariff drop by 17.2 per cent. CLP Power froze its own charge for 2017.

Yu said the two companies should use the surpluses “more carefully” to stabilise tariffs.

Rise after fall in Hong Kong electricity use linked to subsidies

“We estimate a big share of the surplus has been used up and so the honeymoon period is over.”

Based on his group’s research, Yu believed the tariffs would increase by one or two per cent.

Economist and fellow committee member Billy Mak Sui-choi said the expansion of the power companies’ fixed asset bases, such as building new gas-fired units and offshore liquefied natural gas terminals, a pattern reflected in Nova Scotia's 14% rate hike recently approved by regulators, would also cause tariffs to rise.

To fight climate change and improve air quality, the government has pledged to cut carbon intensity by between 50 and 60 per cent by 2020. Officials set a target of boosting the use of natural gas for electricity generation to half the total fuel mix from 2020.

Both power companies are privately owned and monitored by the government through a mutually agreed scheme of control agreements, akin to oversight seen under the UK energy price cap in other jurisdictions. These require the firms to seek government approval for their development plans, including their projected basic tariff levels.

At present, the permitted rate of return on their net fixed assets is 9.99 per cent. The deals are due to expire late next year.

Earlier this year, officials reached a deal with the two companies on the post-2018 scheme, settling on a 15-year term. The new agreements slash their permitted rate of return to 8 per cent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Russia Bitcoin Mining Ban highlights electricity deficits, grid stability concerns, and sustainability challenges, prompting stricter cryptocurrency regulation as mining operations in Siberia face shutdowns, relocations, and renewed focus on energy efficiency and resource allocation.

Key Points

Policy halting Bitcoin mining in key regions to ease electricity deficits, stabilize the grid, and prioritize energy.

✅ Targets high-load regions like Siberia facing electricity deficits

✅ Protects residential and industrial energy security, limits outages

✅ Prompts miner relocations, regulation, and potential renewables

In a significant shift in its stance on cryptocurrency, Russia has announced plans to ban Bitcoin mining in several key regions, primarily due to rising electricity deficits. This move highlights the ongoing tensions between energy management and the growing demand for cryptocurrency mining, which has sparked a robust debate about sustainability and resource allocation in the country.

Background on Bitcoin Mining in Russia

Russia has long been a major player in the global cryptocurrency landscape, particularly in Bitcoin mining. The country’s vast and diverse geography offers ample opportunities for mining, with several regions boasting low electricity costs and cooler climates that are conducive to operating the high-powered computers used for mining, similar to Iceland's mining boom in cold regions.

However, the boom in mining activities has put a strain on local electricity grids, as seen with BC Hydro suspensions in Canada, particularly as demand for energy continues to rise. This situation has become increasingly untenable, leading government officials to reconsider the viability of allowing large-scale mining operations.

Reasons for the Ban

The decision to ban Bitcoin mining in certain regions stems from a growing electricity deficit that has been exacerbated by both rising temperatures and increased energy consumption. Reports indicate that some regions are struggling to meet domestic energy needs, and jurisdictions like Manitoba's pause on crypto connections reflect similar grid concerns, particularly during peak consumption periods. Officials have expressed concern that continuing to support cryptocurrency mining could lead to blackouts and further strain on the electrical infrastructure.

Additionally, this ban is seen as a measure to redirect energy resources toward more critical sectors, including residential heating and industrial needs. By curbing Bitcoin mining, the government aims to prioritize the energy security of its citizens and maintain stability within its energy markets and the wider global electricity market dynamics.

Regional Impact

The regions targeted by the ban include areas that have seen a significant influx of mining operations, often attracted by the low costs of electricity. For instance, Siberia, known for its abundant natural resources and inexpensive power, has become a major center for miners. The ban is likely to have profound implications for local economies that have come to rely on the influx of investments from cryptocurrency companies.

Many miners are expected to be affected financially as they may have to halt operations or relocate to regions with more favorable regulations. This could lead to job losses and a decline in local business activities that have sprung up around the mining industry, such as hardware suppliers and tech services.

Broader Implications for Cryptocurrency in Russia

This ban reflects a broader trend within Russia’s approach to cryptocurrencies. While the government has been cautious about outright banning digital currencies, it has simultaneously sought to regulate the industry more stringently. Recent legislation has aimed to establish a legal framework for cryptocurrencies, focusing on taxation and oversight while navigating the balance between innovation and regulation.

As other countries around the world grapple with the implications of cryptocurrency mining, Russia’s decision adds to the narrative of the challenges associated with energy consumption in this sector. The international community is increasingly aware of the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining, which has come under fire for its significant energy use and carbon footprint.

Future of Mining in Russia

Looking ahead, the future of Bitcoin mining in Russia remains uncertain. While some regions may implement strict bans, others could potentially embrace a more regulated approach to mining, provided it aligns with energy availability and environmental considerations. The country’s vast landscape offers opportunities for innovative solutions, such as utilizing renewable energy sources, even as India's solar growth slows amid rising coal generation, to power mining operations.

As global attitudes toward cryptocurrency evolve, Russia will likely continue to adapt its policies in response to both domestic energy needs and international pressures, including Europe's shift away from Russian energy that influence policy choices. The balance between fostering a competitive cryptocurrency market and ensuring energy sustainability will be a key challenge for Russian policymakers moving forward.

Russia’s decision to ban Bitcoin mining in key regions marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of cryptocurrency and energy management. As the nation navigates its energy deficits, the implications for the mining industry and the broader cryptocurrency landscape will be significant. This move not only underscores the need for responsible energy consumption in the digital age but also reflects the complexities of integrating emerging technologies within existing frameworks of governance and infrastructure. As the situation unfolds, all eyes will be on how Russia balances innovation with sustainability in its approach to cryptocurrency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News