Toronto Hydro Sells Natural Gas Retail Business

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

Alberta Capacity Market Overhaul faces scrutiny over electricity costs, reliability targets, investor certainty, and AESO design, as UCP reviews NDP reforms, renewables integration, and deregulated energy-only alternatives impacting generators, ratepayers, and future power price volatility.

Key Points

A shift paying generators for capacity and energy to improve reliability; critics warn of higher electricity costs.

✅ UCP reviewing NDP plan and subsidies amid market uncertainty

✅ AESO cites reliability needs as coal retires, renewables grow

✅ Critics predict overprocurement and premature launch cost spikes

Jason Kenney's government is facing renewed pressure to cancel a massive overhaul of Alberta's power market that one player says will needlessly spike costs by hundreds of millions of dollars, amid an electricity sector in profound change today.

Nick Clark, who owns the Calgary-based electricity retailer Spot Power, has sent the Alberta government an open letter urging it to walk away from the electricity market changes proposed by the former NDP government.

"How can you encourage new industry to open up when one of their raw material costs will increase so dramatically?" Clark said. "The capacity market will add more costs to the consumer and it will be a spiral downwards."

But NDP Leader Rachel Notley, whose government ushered in the changes, said fears over dramatic cost increases are unfounded.

"There are some players within the current electricity regime who have a vested interest in maintaining the current situation," Notley said

Kenney's UCP vowed during the recent election to review the current and proposed electricity market options, as the electricity market heads for a reshuffle, with plans to report on its findings within 90 days.

The party also promised to scrap subsidies for renewable power, while ensuring "a market-based electricity system" that emphasizes competition in Alberta's electricity market for consumers.

The New Democrats had opted to scrap the current deregulated power market — in place since the Klein era — after phasing out coal-fired generation and ushering in new renewable power as part of changes in how Alberta produces and pays for electricity under their climate change strategy.

The Alberta Electric System Operator, which oversees the grid, says the province will need new sources of electricity to replace shuttered coal plants and backstop wind and solar generators, while meeting new consumer demand.

After consulting with power companies and investors, the AESO concluded in late 2016 the electricity market couldn't attract enough investment to build the needed power generation under the current model.

The AESO said at the time investors were concerned their revenues would be uncertain once new plants are running. It recommended what's known as a capacity market, which compensates power generators for having the ability to produce electricity, even when they're not producing it.

In other words, producers would collect revenue for selling electricity into the grid and, separately, for having the capacity to produce power as a backstop, ensuring the lights stay on. Power generators would use this second source of income to help cover plant construction costs.

Clark said the complex system introduces unnecessary costs, which he believes would hurt consumers in the end. He said what's preventing investment in the power market is uncertainty over how the market will be structured in the future.

"What investors need to see in this market is price certainty, regulatory ease, and where the money they're putting into the marketplace is not at risk," he said.

"They can risk their own money, but if in fact the government comes in and changes the policy as it was doing, then money stayed away from the province."

Notley said a capacity market would not increase power bills but would avoid big price swings, with protections like a consumer price cap on power bills also debated, while bringing greener sources of energy into Alberta's grid.

"Moving back to the [deregulated] energy-only market would make a lot of money for a few people, and put consumers, both industrial and residential, at great risk."

Clark disagrees, citing Enmax's recent submissions to the Alberta Utilities Commission, in which the utility argues the proposed design of the capacity market is flawed.

In its submissions to the commission, which is considering the future of Alberta's power market, Enmax says the proposed system would overestimate the amount of generation capacity the province will need in the future. It says the calculation could result in Alberta procuring too much capacity.

The City of Calgary-owned utility says this could drive up costs by anywhere from $147 million to $849 million a year. It says a more conservative calculation of future electricity demand could avoid the extra expense.

An analysis by a Calgary energy consulting firm suggests a different feature of the proposed power market overhaul could also lead to a massive spike in costs.

EDC Associates, hired by the Consumers' Coalition of Alberta, argues the proposal to launch the new system in November 2021 may be premature, because it could bring in additional supplies of electricity before they're needed.

The consultant's report, also filed with the Alberta Utilities Commission, estimates the early launch date could require customers to pay 40 per cent more for electricity amid rising electricity prices in the province — potentially an extra $1.4 billion — in 2021/22.

"The target implementation date is politically driven by the previous government," said Duane Reid-Carlson, president of EDC Associates.

Reid-Carlson recommends delaying the launch date by several years and making another tweak: reducing the proposed target for system reliability, which would scale back the amount of power generation needed to backstop renewable sources.

"You could get a result in the capacity market that would give a similar cost to consumers that the [deregulated] energy-only market design would have done otherwise," he said.

"You could have a better risk profile associated with the capacity market that would serve consumers better through lower cost, lower price volatility, and it would serve generators better by giving them better access to capital at lower costs."

The UCP government did not respond to a request for comment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One Power Restoration showcases outage recovery after a severe windstorm, with crews repairing downed power lines, broken poles and crossarms, partnering with utilities and contractors to boost grid resilience and promote emergency kit preparedness.

Key Points

A coordinated response by Hydro One and partners to repair storm damage, restore outages, strengthen grid resilience.

✅ Crews repaired downed lines, broken poles, and crossarms

✅ Partners and contractors aided rapid outage restoration

✅ Investments improve grid resilience and emergency readiness

Hydro One crews have restored power to more than 277,000 customers following back-to-back storms, with impacts felt in communities like Sudbury where local crews worked to reconnect service, including a damaging windstorm on that caused 57 broken poles, 27 broken crossarms, as well as downed power lines and fallen trees on lines. Hydro One crews restored power to more than 140,000 customers within 24 hours of Friday's windstorm, even as Toronto outages persisted for some customers elsewhere.

'We understand power outages bring life to a halt, which is why we are continuously improving our storm response, as employee COVID-19 support demonstrated, while making smart investments in a resilient, reliable and sustainable electricity system to energize life for families, businesses and communities for years to come,' said David Lebeter, Chief Operating Officer, Hydro One. 'We thank our customers for their patience as our crews worked tirelessly, alongside our utility partners and contractors, including Ontario crews in Florida, to restore power as quickly and as safely as possible.'

Hydro One thanks all of its utility partners and contractors who assisted with restoration efforts following the windstorm (alongside similar Quebec outages that highlighted the broader impact), including Durham High Voltage, EPCOR, ERTH Power, K-Line Construction Ltd., Lakeland Power Distribution Ltd., North Bay Hydro, Sproule Powerline Construction Ltd. and Valard Construction.

Hydro One encourages customers to restock their emergency kits following these storms, which utilities such as BC Hydro have also characterized as atypical, and to be aware of support programs like our pandemic relief fund that can help during difficult periods, to ensure they're prepared for an emergency or extended power outage.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

NYSERDA Offshore Wind Data initiative funds geophysical and geotechnical surveys, seabed and soil studies on New York's shelf to accelerate siting, optimize foundation design, reduce costs, and advance clean energy deployment.

Key Points

State funding to support surveys and soil studies guiding offshore wind siting, design, and cost reduction.

✅ Up to $5.5M for geophysical and geotechnical data collection

✅ Focus on seabed soils, shelf geology, and foundation design inputs

✅ Accelerates siting, reduces risk, and lowers offshore wind costs

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is investing up to $5.5 million for the collection of geophysical and geotechnical data to determine future offshore wind development sites.

The funding is to look at seabed soil and geological data for the preliminary design and installation requirements for future offshore wind projects. Its part of N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomos plan to develop 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy by 2035.

Todays announcement is another step in Governor Cuomos steadfast march to achieving 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2035, putting New York in a clear national leadership position when it comes to advancing this new industry through large-scale energy projects across the state. The surveys NYSERDA will be funding under this solicitation will expand the offshore wind industrys access to geophysical and geotechnical data that will provide the foundation for future offshore wind development in these areas, and accelerate project development while driving down costs, NYSERDA President and CEO Alicia Barton said.

NYSERDA will select one or more contractors to do the investigations, while recent DOE wind energy awards support complementary research, and develop a model for describing geophysical and geotechnical conditions. NYSERDA will also select a contractor to support project management and host the data that is collected. The submission deadline is Jan. 21, 2020.

Todays announcement builds on the data collected in a Geotechnical and Geophysical Desktop Study also released today, which includes information on the middle continental shelf off the shore of New York and New Jersey, where BOEM lease requests are shaping activity, creating a regional overview of the seafloor and sub-seafloor environment as it relates to offshore wind development.

Strong knowledge of environmental conditions and factors, including seabed soil conditions, are essential for the installation of offshore projects, such as Long Island proposals, but only a limited amount of soil sampling and testing has been undertaken to date.

The collection of geophysical and geotechnical data from areas off of New Yorks Atlantic coast is yet another demonstration of New Yorks leadership promoting the responsible development of offshore wind. The data generated by this initiative will ultimately lead to better projects, lower cost, and enhanced safety. New York is leading the way to a clean energy future, as the state finalizes renewable project contracts that expand capacity, and relying on data collection and sound science to get us there, New York Offshore Wind Alliance Director Joe Martens said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

New England Clean Energy Connect advances despite court delays, installing steel poles on a Maine corridor for Canadian hydropower, while legal challenges seek environmental review; permits, jobs, and grid upgrades drive the renewable transmission project.

Key Points

An HV line in Maine delivering 1,200 MW of Canadian hydropower to New England to cut emissions and stabilize costs.

✅ Appeals court pauses 53-mile new section; upgrades continue

✅ 1,200 MW hydropower aims to cut emissions, stabilize rates

✅ Permits issued; environmental review litigation ongoing

Construction on part of a $1 billion electricity transmission corridor through sparsely populated woods in western Maine is on hold because of legal action, echoing Clean Line's Iowa withdrawal amid court uncertainty, but that doesn't mean all building has been halted.

Workers installed the first of 829 steel poles Tuesday on a widened portion of the existing corridor that is part of the project near The Forks, as the groundwork is laid for the 145-mile ( 230-kilometre ) New England Clean Energy Connect, a project central to Maine's debate over the 145-mile line moving forward.

The work is getting started even though the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delayed construction of a new 53-mile ( 85-kilometre ) section.

Three conservation groups are seeking an injunction to delay the project while they sue to force the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a more rigorous environmental review.

In western Maine, workers already have staged heavy equipment and timber “mats” that will be used to prevent the equipment from damaging the ground. About 275 Maine workers already have been hired, and more would be hired if not for the litigation, officials said.

“This project has always promised to provide an economic boost to Maine’s economy, and we are already seeing those benefits take shape," Thorn Dickinson, CEO of the New England Clean Energy Connect, said Tuesday.

The electricity transmission line would provide a conduit for up to 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydropower, reducing greenhouse emissions and stabilizing energy costs in New England as states pursue Connecticut's market overhaul to improve market design, supporters say.

The project, which would be fully funded by Massachusetts ratepayers to meet the state's clean energy goals after New Hampshire rejected a Quebec-Massachusetts proposal elsewhere, calls for construction of a high-voltage power line from Mount Beattie Township on the Canadian border to the regional power grid in Lewiston, Maine.

Critics have been trying to stop the project, reflecting clashes over New Hampshire hydropower in the region, saying it would destroy wilderness in western Maine. They also say that the environmental benefits of the project have been overstated.

In addition to the lawsuit, opponents have submitted petitions seeking to have a statewide vote, even as a Maine court ruling on Hydro-Quebec exports has reshaped the legal landscape.

Sandi Howard, a leading opponent of the project, said the decision by the company to proceed showed “disdain for everyday Mainers” by ignoring permit appeals and ongoing litigation.

“For years, CMP has pushed the false narrative that their unpopular and destructive project is a ‘done deal’ to bully Mainers into submission on this for-profit project. But to be clear, we won’t stop until Maine voters (their customers), have the chance to vote,” said Howard, who led the referendum petition drive for the No CMP Corridor PAC.

The project has received permits from the Army Corps, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Maine Land Use Planning Commission and Maine Public Utilities Commission.

The final approval came in the form of a presidential permit issued last month from the U.S. Department of Energy, providing green light for the interconnect at the Canadian border, even as customer backlash to utility acquisitions elsewhere underscores public scrutiny.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Energy Pricing Factors span electricity generation, transmission, and distribution costs, plus natural gas supply-demand, renewables, seasonal peaks, and wholesale pricing effects across residential, commercial, and industrial customers, usage patterns, weather, and grid constraints.

Key Points

They are the costs and market forces driving electricity and natural gas prices, from generation to delivery and demand.

✅ Generation, transmission, distribution shape electricity rates

✅ Gas prices hinge on supply, storage, imports/exports

✅ Demand shifts: weather, economy, and fuel alternatives

There are a lot of factors that affect energy prices globally. What’s included in the price to heat homes and supply them with electricity may be a lot more than some people may think.

Electricity
Generating electricity is the largest component of its price, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Generation accounts for 56% of the price of electricity, while distribution and transmission account for 31% and 13% respectively.

Homeowners and businesses pay more for electricity than industrial companies, and U.S. electricity prices have recently surged, highlighting broader inflationary pressures. This is because industrial companies can take electricity at higher voltages, reducing transmission costs for energy companies.

“Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity,” EIA explains.

NYSEG said based on the average use of 600 kilowatt-hours per month, its customers spent the most money on delivery and transition charges in 2020, 57% or about $42, and residential electricity bills increased 5% in 2022 after inflation, according to national data. They also spent on average 35% (~$26) on supply charges and 8% (~$6) on surcharges.

Electricity prices are usually higher in the summer. Why? Because energy companies use sources of electricity that cost more money. It used to be that renewable sources, like solar and wind, were the most expensive sources of energy but increased technological advances have changed this, according to the International Energy Agency’s 2021 World Energy Outlook.

“In most markets, solar PV or wind now represents the cheapest available source of new electricity generation. Clean energy technology is becoming a major new area for investment and employment – and a dynamic arena for international collaboration and competition,” the report said.

Natural gas
The price of natural gas is driven by supply and demand. If there is more supply, prices are generally lower. If there is not as much supply, prices are generally higher the EIA explains. On the other side of the equation, more demand can also increase the price and less demand can decrease the price.

High natural gas prices mean people turn their home thermostats down a few degrees to save money, so the EIA said reduced demand can encourage companies to produce more natural gas, which would in turn help lower the cost. Lower prices will sometimes cause companies to reduce their production, therefore causing the price to rise.

The three major supply factors that affect prices: the amount of natural gas produced, how much is stored, and the volume of gas imported and exported. The three major demand factors that affect price are: changes in winter/summer weather, economic growth, and the broader energy crisis dynamics, as well as how much other fuels are available and their price, said EIA.

To think the price of natural gas is higher when the economy is thriving may sound counterintuitive but that’s exactly what happens. The EIA said this is because of increases in demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News