Daniels urged to oppose coal plant

Alaska Coal-Fired CHP Plant opens near Usibelli mine, supplying electricity and district heat to UAF; remote location without gas pipelines, low wind and solar potential, and high heating demand shaped fuel choice.

Key Points

A 17 MW coal CHP at UAF producing power and campus heat, chosen for remoteness and lack of gas pipelines.

✅ 17 MW generator supplying electricity and district heat

✅ Near Usibelli mine; limited pipeline access shapes fuel

✅ Alternative options like LNG, wind, solar not cost-effective

One way to boost coal in the US: Find a spot near a mine with no access to oil or natural gas pipelines, where it’s not particularly windy and it’s dark much of the year.

That’s how the first coal-fired plant to open in the U.S. since 2015 bucked the trend in an industry that’s seen scores of facilities close in recent years. A 17-megawatt generator, built for $245 million, is set to open in April at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, just 100 miles from the state’s only coal mine.

“Geography really drove what options are available to us,” said Kari Burrell, the university’s vice chancellor for administrative services, in an interview. “We are not saying this is ideal by any means.”

The new plant is arriving as coal fuels about 25 percent of electrical generation in the U.S., down from 45 percent a decade earlier, even as some forecasts point to a near-term increase in coal-fired generation in 2021. A near-record 18 coal plants closed in 2018, and 14 more are expected to follow this year, according to BloombergNEF.

The biggest bright spot for U.S. coal miners recently has been exports to overseas power plants. At home, one of the few growth areas has been in pizza ovens.

There are a handful of other U.S. coal power projects that have been proposed, including plans to build an 850 megawatt facility in Georgia and an 895 megawatt plant in Kansas, even as a Minnesota utility reports declining coal returns across parts of its portfolio. But Ashley Burke, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, said she’s unaware of any U.S. plants actively under development besides the one in Alaska.

Future of power

“The future of power in the U.S. does not include coal,” Tessie Petion, an analyst for HSBC Holdings Plc, said in a research note, a view echoed by regions such as Alberta retiring coal power early in their transition.

Fairbanks sits on the banks of the Chena River, amid the vast subarctic forests in the heart of Alaska. The oil and gas fields of the state’s North slope are 500 miles north. The nearest major port is in Anchorage, 350 miles south.

The university’s new plant is a combined heat and power generator, which will create steam both to generate electricity and heat campus buildings. Before opting for coal, the school looked into using liquid natural gas, wind and solar, bio-mass and a host of other options, as new projects in Southeast Alaska seek lower electricity costs across the region. None of them penciled out, said Mike Ruckhaus, a senior project manager at the university.

The project, financed with university and state-municipal bonds, replaces a coal plant that went into service in 1964. University spokeswoman Marmian Grimes said it’s worth noting that the new plant will emit fewer emissions.

The coal will come from Usibelli Coal Mine Inc., a family-owned business that produces between 1.2 and 2 million tons per year from a mine along the Alaska railroad, according to the company’s website.

While any new plant is good news for coal miners, Clarksons Platou Securities Inc. analyst Jeremy Sussman said this one is "an isolated situation."

“We think the best producers can hope for domestically is a slow down in plant closures,” he said, even as jurisdictions like Alberta close their last coal plant entirely.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Rolling Blackouts expose grid reliability risks amid a heatwave, as CAISO curtails power while solar output fades at sunset, wind stalls, and scarce natural gas and nuclear capacity plus PG&E issues strain imports.

Key Points

Grid outages during heatwaves from low reserves, fading solar, weak wind, and limited firm capacity.

✅ Heatwave demand rose as solar output dropped at sunset

✅ Limited imports and gas, nuclear shortfalls cut reserves

✅ Policy, pricing, and maintenance gaps increased outage risk

Millions of Californians were denied electrical power and thus air conditioning during a heatwave, raising the risk of heatstroke and death, particularly among the elderly and sick. 

The blackouts come at a time when people, particularly the elderly, are forced to remain indoors due to Covid-19, and as later heat waves would test the grid again statewide.

At first, the state’s electrical grid operator last night asked customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use. But after lapses in power supply pushed reserves to dangerous levels it declared a “Stage 3 emergency” cutting off power to people across the state at 6:30 pm.

The immediate reason for the black-outs was the failure of a 500-megawatt power plant and an out-of-service 750-megawatt unit not being available. “There is nothing nefarious going on here,” said a spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator (CAISO). “We are just trying to run the grid.”

But the underlying reasons that California is experiencing rolling black-outs for the second time in less than a year stem from the state’s climate policies, which California policymakers have justified as necessary to prevent deaths from heatwaves, and which it is increasingly exporting to Western states as a model.

In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires after reports that its power lines may have started fires in recent seasons. The utility and California’s leaders had over the previous decade diverted billions meant for grid maintenance to renewables. 

And yesterday, California had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states.

It may be that California’s utilities and their regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, which is also controlled by Gov. Newsom, didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices even more than they had already raised them.

California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, helping explain why electricity prices are soaring across the state, due to its huge expansion of renewables. Republicans in the U.S. Congress point to that massive increase to challenge justifications by Democrats to spend $2 trillion on renewables in the name of climate change.

Even though the cost of solar panels declined dramatically between 2011 and 2019, their unreliable and weather-dependent nature meant that they imposed large new costs in the form of storage and transmission to keep electricity as reliable. California’s solar panels and farms were all turning off as the blackouts began, with no help available from the states to the East already in nightfall.

Electricity from solar goes away at the very moment when the demand for electricity rises. “The peak demand was steady in late hours,” said the spokesperson for CAISO, which is controlled by Gov. Gavin Newsom, “and we had thousands of megawatts of solar reducing their output as the sunset.”

The two blackouts in less than a year are strong evidence that the tens of billions that Californians have spent on renewables come with high human, economic, and environmental costs.

Last December, a report by done for PG&E concluded that the utility’s customers could see blackouts double over the next 15 years and quadruple over the next 30.

California’s anti-nuclear policies also contributed to the blackouts. In 2013, Gov. Jerry Brown forced a nuclear power plant, San Onofre, in southern California to close.

Had San Onofre still been operating, there almost certainly would not have been blackouts on Friday as the reserve margin would have been significantly larger. The capacity of San Onofre was double that of the lost generation capacity that triggered the blackout.

California's current and former large nuclear plants are located on the coast, which allows for their electricity to travel shorter distances, and through less-constrained transmission lines than the state’s industrial solar farms, to get to the coastal cities where electricity is in highest demand.

There has been very little electricity from wind during the summer heatwave in California and the broader western U.S., further driving up demand. In fact, the same weather pattern, a stable high-pressure bubble, is the cause of heatwaves, since it brought very low wind for days on end along with very high temperatures.

Things won’t be any better, and may be worse, in the winter, with a looming shortage as it produces far less solar electricity than the summer. Solar plus storage, an expensive attempt to fix problems like what led to this blackout, cannot help through long winters of low output.

California’s electricity prices will continue to rise if it continues to add more renewables to its grid, and goes forward with plans to shut down its last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025.

Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.

To manage the increasingly unreliable grid, California will either need to keep its nuclear plant operating, build more natural gas plants, underscoring its reliance on fossil fuels for reliability, or pay ever more money annually to reserve emergency electricity supplies from its neighbors.

After the blackouts last October, Gov. Newsom attacked PG&E Corp. for “greed and mismanagement” and named a top aide, Ana Matosantos, to be his “energy czar.” 

“This is not the new normal, and this does not take 10 years to solve,” Newsom said. “The entire system needs to be reimagined.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

SOO Green Underground Transmission Line proposes an HVDC corridor buried along Canadian Pacific railroad rights-of-way to deliver Iowa wind energy to Chicago, enhance grid interconnection, and reduce landowner disruption from new overhead lines.

Key Points

A proposed HVDC project burying lines along a railroad to move Iowa wind power to Chicago and link two grids.

✅ HVDC link from Mason City, IA, to Plano, IL

✅ Buried in Canadian Pacific railroad right-of-way

✅ Connects MISO and PJM grids for renewable exchange

The company behind a proposed underground transmission line that would carry electricity generated mostly by wind turbines in Iowa to the Chicago area said Monday that the $2.5 billion project could be operational in 2024 if regulators approve it, reflecting federal transmission funding trends seen recently.

Direct Connect Development Co. said it has lined up three major investors to back the project. It plans to bury the transmission line in land that runs along existing Canadian Pacific railroad tracks, hopefully reducing the disruption to landowners. It's not unusual for pipelines or fiber optic lines to be buried along railroad tracks in the land the railroad controls.

CEO Trey Ward said he "believes that the SOO Green project will set the standard regarding how transmission lines are developed and constructed in the U.S."

A similar proposal from a different company for an overhead transmission line was withdrawn in 2016 after landowners raised concerns, even as projects like the Great Northern Transmission Line advanced in the region. That $2 billion Rock Island Clean Line was supposed to run from northwest Iowa into Illinois.

The new proposed line, which was first announced in 2017, would run from Mason City, Iowa, to Plano, Ill., a trend echoed by Canadian hydropower to New York projects. The investors announced Monday were Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, Jingoli Power and Siemens Financial Services.

The underground line would also connect two different regional power operating grids, as seen with U.S.-Canada cross-border transmission approvals in recent years, which would allow the transfer of renewable energy back and forth between customers and producers in the two regions.

More than 36 percent of Iowa's electricity comes from wind turbines across the state.

Jingoli Power CEO Karl Miller said the line would improve the reliability of regional power operators and benefit utilities and corporate customers in Chicago, even amid debates such as Hydro-Quebec line opposition in the Northeast.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

BCER Renewable Energy Permitting streamlines single-window approvals for wind, solar, and transmission projects in BC, cutting red tape, aligning with CleanBC, and accelerating investment, Indigenous partnerships, and low-carbon infrastructure growth provincewide.

Key Points

BC's single-window framework consolidates approvals for wind, solar, and transmission to accelerate energy projects.

✅ Single-window permits via BC Energy Regulator (BCER)

✅ Covers wind, solar, and high-voltage transmission lines

✅ Aligns with CleanBC, supports Indigenous partnerships

In a decisive move to bolster clean energy initiatives, the government of British Columbia (B.C.) has announced plans to overhaul the regulatory framework governing renewable energy projects. This initiative aims to expedite the development of wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources, positioning B.C. as a leader in sustainable energy production.

Transitioning Regulatory Authority to the BC Energy Regulator (BCER)

Central to this strategy is the proposed legislation, set to be introduced in spring 2025, which will transfer the permitting and regulatory oversight of renewable energy projects, aligning with offshore wind regulation plans at the federal level, from multiple agencies to the BC Energy Regulator (BCER). This transition is designed to create a "single-window" permitting process, simplifying approvals and reducing bureaucratic delays for developers.

Expanding BCER's Mandate

Historically known as the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission, the BCER's mandate has evolved to encompass a broader range of energy projects. The upcoming legislation will empower the BCER to oversee renewable energy projects, including wind and solar, as well as high-voltage transmission lines like the North Coast Transmission Line (NCTL), in step with renewable transmission planning efforts elsewhere in North America. This expansion aims to streamline the regulatory process, providing developers with a single point of contact throughout the project lifecycle.

Economic and Environmental Implications

The restructuring is expected to unlock significant economic opportunities. Projections suggest that the streamlined process could attract between $5 billion and $6 billion in private investment and complement recent federal grid modernization funding initiatives, generating employment opportunities and fostering economic growth. Moreover, by facilitating the rapid deployment of renewable energy projects, B.C. aims to enhance its clean energy capacity, contributing to global sustainability goals.

Strengthening Partnerships with Indigenous Communities

A pivotal aspect of this initiative is the emphasis on collaboration with Indigenous communities. The government has highlighted the importance of engaging First Nations in the development process, ensuring that projects are not only environmentally sustainable but also socially responsible. This approach seeks to honor Indigenous rights and knowledge, fostering partnerships that benefit all stakeholders.

Supporting Infrastructure Development

The acceleration of renewable energy projects necessitates corresponding infrastructure enhancements. The NCTL, for instance, is crucial for meeting the increased electricity demand from sectors such as mining, port electrification, and hydrogen production, and for addressing regional grid constraints that limit renewable integration. By improving the transmission infrastructure, B.C. aims to support the growing energy needs of these industries while promoting clean energy solutions.

Aligning with CleanBC Objectives

This regulatory overhaul aligns seamlessly with B.C.'s CleanBC initiative, which sets ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting energy efficiency, and supports Canada's goal of zero-emissions electricity by 2035 under active consideration. By removing regulatory barriers and expediting project approvals, the government aims to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy, positioning B.C. as a hub for clean energy innovation.

Addressing Potential Challenges

While the initiative has been lauded for its potential, experts caution that careful consideration must be given to environmental assessments and Indigenous consultation processes, as well as to lessons from Alberta's solar expansion challenges on land use and grid impacts. Ensuring that projects meet environmental standards and respect Indigenous rights is crucial for the long-term success and acceptance of renewable energy developments.

The proposed changes mark a significant shift in B.C.'s approach to energy development, reflecting a commitment to sustainability and economic growth. As the legislation moves through the legislative process, stakeholders across the energy sector are closely monitoring developments, particularly as Alberta ends its renewables moratorium and resumes project approvals across the Prairies, anticipating a more efficient and transparent regulatory environment that supports the rapid expansion of renewable energy projects.

B.C.'s plan to streamline the regulatory process for clean energy projects represents a bold step toward a sustainable and prosperous energy future. By consolidating regulatory authority under the BCER, fostering Indigenous partnerships, and aligning with broader environmental objectives, the province is setting a precedent for effective governance in the transition to renewable energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Electricity Reliability covers grid resilience amid heat waves, rolling blackouts, renewable energy integration, resource adequacy, battery storage, natural gas peakers, ISO oversight, and peak demand management to keep homes, businesses, and industry powered.

Key Points

Dependable California power delivery despite heat waves, peak demand, and challenges integrating renewables into grid.

✅ Rolling blackouts revealed gaps in resource adequacy.

✅ Early evening solar drop requires fast ramping and storage.

✅ Agencies pledge planning reforms and flexible backup supply.

One hallmark of an advanced society is a reliable supply of electrical energy for residential, commercial and industrial consumers. Uncertainty that California electricity will be there when we need it it undermines social cohesion and economic progress, as demonstrated by the travails of poor nations with erratic energy supplies.

California got a small dose of that syndrome in mid-August when a record heat wave struck the state and utilities were ordered to impose rolling blackouts to protect the grid from melting down under heavy air conditioning demands.

Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly demanded that the three overseers of electrical service to most of the state - the Public Utilities Commission, the Energy Commission and the California Independent Service Operator – explain what went wrong.

"These blackouts, which occurred without prior warning or enough time for preparation, are unacceptable and unbefitting of the nation's largest and most innovative state," Newsom wrote. "This cannot stand. California residents and businesses deserve better from their government."

Initially, there was some fingerpointing among the three entities. The blackouts had been ordered by the California Independent System Operator, which manages the grid and its president, Steve Berberich, said he had warned the Public Utilities Commission about the potential supply shortfall facing the state.

"We have indicated in filing after filing after filing that the resource adequacy program was broken and needed to be fixed," he said. "The situation we are in could have been avoided."

However, as political heat increased, the three agencies hung together and produced a joint report that admitted to lapses of supply planning and grid management and promised steps to avoid a repeat next summer.

"The existing resource planning processes are not designed to fully address an extreme heat storm like the one experienced in mid August," their report said. "In transitioning to a reliable, clean and affordable resource mix, resource planning targets have not kept pace to lead to sufficient resources that can be relied upon to meet demand in the early evening hours. This makes balancing demand and supply more challenging."

Although California's grid had experienced greater heat-related demands in previous years, most notably 2006, managers then could draw standby power from natural gas-fired plants and import juice from other Western states when necessary.

Since then, the state has shut down a number of gas-fired plants and become more reliant on renewable but less reliable sources such as windmills and solar panels.

August's air conditioning demand peaked just as output from solar panels was declining with the setting of the sun and grid managers couldn't tap enough electrons from other sources to close the gap.

While the shift to renewables didn't, unto itself, cause the blackouts, they proved the need for a bigger cushion of backup generation or power storage in batteries or some other technology. The Public Utilities Commission, as Beberich suggested, has been somewhat lax in ordering development of backup supply.

In the aftermath of the blackouts, the state Water Resources Control Board, no doubt with direction from Newsom's office, postponed planned shutdowns of more coastal plants, which would have reduced supply flexibility even more.

Shifting to 100% renewable electricity, the state's eventual goal, while maintaining reliability will not get any easier. The state's last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, is ticketed for closure and demand will increase as California eliminates gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles in favor of "zero emission vehicles" as part of its climate policies push and phases out natural gas in homes and businesses.

Politicians such as Newsom and legislators in last week's blackout hearing may endorse a carbon-free future in theory, but they know that they'll pay the price as electricity prices climb if nothing happens when Californians flip the switch.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News