Idaho Power forms citizens' committee

U.S. coal-fired generation 2021 rose as higher natural gas prices, stable coal costs, and a recovering power sector shifted the generation mix; capacity factors rebounded despite low coal stocks and ongoing plant retirements.

Key Points

Coal output rose 22% on high gas prices and higher capacity factors; a 5% decline is expected in 2022.

✅ Natural gas delivered cost averaged $4.93/MMBtu, more than double 2020

✅ Coal capacity factor rose to ~51% from 40% in 2020

✅ 2022 coal generation forecast to fall about 5%

We expect 22% more U.S. coal-fired generation in 2021 than in 2020, according to our latest Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO). The U.S. electric power sector has been generating more electricity from coal-fired power plants this year as a result of significantly higher natural gas prices and relatively stable coal prices, even as non-fossil sources reached 40% of total generation. This year, 2021, will yield the first year-over-year increase in coal generation in the United States since 2014, highlighted by a January power generation jump earlier in the year.

Coal and natural gas have been the two largest sources of electricity generation in the United States. In many areas of the country, these two fuels compete to supply electricity based on their relative costs and sensitivity to policies and gas prices as well. U.S. natural gas prices have been more volatile than coal prices, so the cost of natural gas often determines the relative share of generation provided by natural gas and coal.

Because natural gas-fired power plants convert fuel to electricity more efficiently than coal-fired plants, record natural gas generation has at times underscored that advantage, and natural gas-fired generation can have an economic advantage even if natural gas prices are slightly higher than coal prices. Between 2015 and 2020, the cost of natural gas delivered to electric generators remained relatively low and stable. This year, however, natural gas prices have been much higher than in recent years. The year-to-date delivered cost of natural gas to U.S. power plants has averaged $4.93 per million British thermal units (Btu), more than double last year’s price.

The overall decline in electricity demand in 2020 and record-low natural gas prices led coal plants to significantly reduce the percentage of time that they generated power. In 2020, the utilization rate (known as the capacity factor) of U.S. coal-fired generators averaged 40%. Before 2010, coal capacity factors routinely averaged 70% or more. This year’s higher natural gas prices have increased the average coal capacity factor to about 51%, which is almost the 2018 average, a year when wind and solar reached 10% nationally.

Although rising natural gas prices have resulted in more U.S. coal-fired generation than last year, this increase in coal generation will most likely not continue as solar and wind expand in the generation mix. The electric power sector has retired about 30% of its generating capacity at coal plants since 2010, and no new coal-fired capacity has come online in the United States since 2013. In addition, coal stocks at U.S. power plants are relatively low, and production at operating coal mines has not been increasing as rapidly as the recent increase in coal demand. For 2022, we forecast that U.S. coal-fired generation will decline about 5% in response to continuing retirements of generating capacity at coal power plants and slightly lower natural gas prices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

SaskPower 10% Electricity Rebate promises one-year bill relief for households, farms, businesses, hospitals, schools, and universities in Saskatchewan, boosting affordability amid COVID-19, offsetting rate hikes, and countering carbon tax impacts under Scott Moe's plan.

Key Points

One-year 10% SaskPower rebate lowering bills for residents, farms, and institutions, funded by general revenue.

✅ Applies automatically to all customers for 12 months from Dec 2020.

✅ Average savings: $215 residential; $845 farm; broad sector coverage.

✅ Cost $261.6M, paid from the general revenue fund; separate from carbon tax.

Saskatchewan Party leader Scott Moe says SaskPower customers can expect a one-year, 10 per cent rebate on electricity if they are elected government.

Moe said the pledge aims to make life more affordable for people, including through lower electricity rates initiatives seen in other provinces. The rate would apply to everyone, including residential customers, farmers, businesses, hospitals, schools and universities.

The plan, which would cost government $261.6 million, expects to save the average residential customer $215 over the course of the year and the average farm customer $845.  

“This is a very equitable way to ensure that we are not only providing that opportunity for those dollars to go back into our economy and foster the economic recovery that we are working towards here, in Saskatchewan, across Canada and around the globe, but it also speaks to the affordability for our Saskatchewan families, reducing the dollars a day off to pay for their for their power bill,” Moe said.

The rebate would be applied automatically to all SaskPower bills for 12 months, starting in December 2020. 

Moe said residential customers who are net metering and generating their own power, such as solar power, would receive a $215 rebate over the 12-month period, which is the equivalent of the average residential rebate.

The $261.6 million in costs would be covered by the government’s general revenue fund.   

The Saskatchewan NDP said the proposed reduction is "a big change in direction from the Sask. Party’s long history of making life more expensive for Saskatchewan families." and recently took aim at a SaskPower rate hike approval as part of that critique.

Trent Wotherspoon, NDP candidate for Regina Rosemont and former finance critic, called the pledge criticized the one year time frame and said Saskatchewan people need long term, reliable affordability, noting that the Ontario-Quebec hydro deal has not reduced hydro bills for consumers. Something, he said, is reflected in the NDP plan.

“We've already brought about announcements that bring about affordability, such as the break on SGI auto insurance that'll happen, year after year after year, affordable childcare which has been already announced and committed to things like a decent minimum wage instead of having the lowest minimum wage in Canada,” Wotherspoon said.

The NDP pointed out SaskPower bills have increased by 57 per cent since 2007 for families with an average household income of $75,000, while Nova Scotia's 14% rate hike was recently approved by its regulator.

It said the average bill for such household was $901 in 2007-08 and is now $1,418 in 2019-20, while in neighbouring provinces Manitoba rate increases of 2.5 per cent annually have also been proposed for three years.

"This is on top of the PST increases that the Sask. Party put on everyday families – costing them more than $700 a year," the NDP said.

Moe took aim at the federal Liberal government’s carbon tax, citing concerns that electricity prices could soar under national policies.

He said if the Saskatchewan government wins its court fight against Ottawa, all SaskPower customers can expect to save an additional $150 million per year, and he questioned the federal 2035 net-zero electricity grid target in that context.

“As it stands right now, the Trudeau government plans to raise the carbon tax from $30 to $40 a tonne on Jan. 1,” Moe said. “Trudeau plans to raise taxes and your SaskPower bill, in the middle of a pandemic.  The Saskatchewan Party will give you a break by cutting your power bill.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

COVID-19 Energy Burden drives higher electricity bills as income falls, intensifying energy poverty, utility shut-offs, and affordability risks for low-income households; policy moratoriums, bill relief, and efficiency upgrades are vital responses.

Key Points

The COVID-19 energy burden is the rising share of income spent on energy as bills increase and earnings decline.

✅ Rising home demand and lost wages increase energy cost share.

✅ Mandated shut-off moratoriums and reconnections protect health.

✅ Fund assistance, efficiency, and solar for LMI households.

I have asthma. It’s a private piece of medical information that I don’t normally share with people, but it makes the potential risks associated with exposure to the coronavirus all the more dangerous for me. But I’m not alone. 107 million people in the U.S. have pre-existing medical conditions like asthma and heart disease; the same pre-existing conditions that elevate their risk of facing a life-threatening situation were we to contract COVID-19. There are, however, tens of millions more house-bound Americans with a condition that is likely to be exacerbated by COVID-19: The energy burden.

The energy burden is a different kind of pre-existing condition:
In the last four weeks, 22 million people filed for unemployment. Millions of people will not have steady income (or the healthcare tied to it) to pay rent and utility bills for the foreseeable future which means that thousands, possibly millions of home-bound Americans will struggle to pay for energy.

Your energy burden is the amount of your monthly income that goes to paying for energy, like your monthly electric bill. So, when household energy use increases or income decreases, your energy burden rises. The energy burden is not a symptom of the pandemic and the economic downturn; it is more like a pre-existing condition for many Americans.

Before the coronavirus outbreak, I shared a few maps that showed how expensive electricity is for some. The energy burden in most pronounced in places already struggling economically, like in Appalachia, where residents in some counties must put more than 30 percent of their income toward their electric bills, and in the Midwest where states such as Michigan have some families spending more than 1/5 of their income on energy bills. The tragic facts are that US families living below the poverty line are far more likely to also be suffering from their energy burden.

But like other pre-existing conditions, the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic are exacerbating the underlying problems afflicting communities across the country.

Critical responses to minimize the spread of COVID-19 are social distancing, washing hands frequently, covering our faces with masks and staying at home. More time at home for most will drive up energy bills, and not by a little. Estimates on how much electricity demand during COVID-19 will increase vary but I’ve seen estimates as high as a 20% increase on average. For some families that’s a bag of groceries or a refill on prescription medication.

What happens when the power gets turned off?
Under normal conditions, if you cannot pay your electric bill your electricity can get turned off. This can have devastating consequences. Most states have protections for health and medical reasons and some states have protections during extreme heat or cold weather. But enforcement of those protections can vary by utility service area and place unnecessary burdens on the customer.

UCS
Only Florida has no protections of any kind against utility shut-offs when health or medical reasons would merit protection against it. However, when it comes to protection against extreme heat, only a few states have mandatory protections based on temperature thresholds.

The NAACP has also pointed out that utilities have unceremoniously disconnected the power of millions of people, disproportionally African-American and Latinx households.

April tends to be a mild month for most of the country, but the South already had its first heat wave at the end of March. If this pandemic lasts into the summer, utility disconnects could become deadly, and efforts to prevent summer power outages will be even more critical to public health. In the summer, during extreme summer heat families can’t turn off the A/C and go to the movies if we are following public health measures and sheltering in place. Lots of families that don’t have or can’t afford to run A/C would otherwise gather at local community pools, beaches, or in cooling centers, but with parks, pools and community groups closed to prevent the virus’s spread, what will happen to these families in July or August?

But we won’t have to wait till the summer to see how families will be hard hit by falling behind on bills and losing power. Here are a few ways electricity disconnection policies cause people harm during the pandemic:

Loss of electricity during the COVID-19 pandemic means families will lose their ability to refrigerate essential food supplies.
Child abuse guidance discusses how unsanitary household conditions are a contributing factor to child protective services involvement. Unsanitary household conditions can include, for example, rotting food (which might happen if electricity is cut off).

HUD’s handbook on federally subsidized housing includes a chapter on termination, which says that lease agreements can be terminated for repeated minor infractions including failing to pay utilities.
Airway machines used to treat respiratory ailments—pre-existing conditions in this pandemic—will not work. Our elderly neighbors in particular might rely on medicine that requires refrigeration or medical equipment that requires electricity. They too have fallen victim to utility shut-offs even during the pandemic.

Empowering solutions are available today

Decisionmakers seeking solutions can look to implement utility shut off moratoriums as a good start. Good news is that many utilities have voluntarily taken action to that effect, and New Jersey and New York have suspended shut-offs, one of the best trackers on who is taking what action has been assembled by Energy Policy Institute.

But voluntary actions do not always provide comprehensive protection, and they certainly have not been universally adopted across the country. Some utilities are waiving fees as relief measures, and some moratoriums only apply to customers directly affected by COVID-19, which will place additional onerous red tape on households that are stricken and perhaps unable to access testing. Others might only be an extension of standard medical shut off protections. Moratoriums put in place by voluntary action can also be revoked or lifted by voluntary action, which does not provide any sense of certainty to people struggling to make ends meet.

This is why the US needs mandatory moratoriums on all utility disconnections. These normally would be rendered at the state level, either by a regulatory commission, legislative act, or even an emergency executive order. But the inconsistent leadership among states in response to the COVID-19 crisis suggests that Congressional action is needed to ensure that all vulnerable utility customers are protected. That’s exactly what a coalition of organizations, including UCS, is calling for in future federal aid legislation. UCS has called for a national moratorium on utility shut-offs.

And let’s be clear, preventing new shut-offs isn’t enough. Cutting power off at residence during a pandemic is not good public policy. People who are without electricity should have it restored so residents can safely shelter in place and help flatten the curve. So far, only Colorado and Wisconsin’s leadership has taken this option.

Addressing the root causes of energy poverty
Preventing shut-offs is a good first step, but the increased bill charges will nevertheless place greater economic pressure on an incalculable number of families. Addressing the root of the problem (energy affordability) must be prioritized when we begin to recover from the health and economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

One way policymakers can do that is to forgive outstanding balances on utility bills, perhaps with an eligibility cap based on income. Additional funds could be made available to those who are still struggling to pay their bills via capping bills, waiving late payment fees, automating payment plans or other protective measures that rightfully place consumers (particularly vulnerable consumers) at the center of any energy-related COVID-19 response. Low-and-moderate-income energy efficiency and solar programs should be funded as much as practically possible.

New infrastructure, particularly new construction that is slated for public housing, subsidized housing, or housing specifically marketed for low- and moderate-income families, should include smart thermostats, better insulation, and energy-efficient appliances.

Implementing these solutions may seem daunting, let us not forget that one of the best ways to ease people’s energy burden is to keep a utility’s overall energy costs low. That means state utility commissions must be vigilant in utility rate cases and fuel recovery cost dockets to protect people facing unfathomable economic pressures. Unscrupulous utilities have been known to hide unnecessary costs in our energy bills. Commissions and their staff are overwhelmed at this time, but they should be applying extra scrutiny during proceedings when utilities are recovering costs associated with delivering energy.

What might a utility try to get past the commission?
Well, residential demand is up, so for many people, bills will increase. However, wholesale electricity rates are low right now, in some cases at all-time lows. Why? Because industrial and commercial demand reductions (from social distancing at home) have more than offset residential demand increases. Overall US electricity demand is flat or declining, and supply/demand economics predicts that when demand decreases, prices decrease.

At the same time, natural gas prices have set record lows each month of this year and that’s a trend that is expected to hold true for a while.

Low demand plus low gas prices mean wholesale market prices are incredibly low. Utilities should be taking advantage of low market prices to ensure that they deliver electricity to customers at as low a cost as possible. Utilities must also NOT over-run coal plants uneconomically or lean on aging capacity despite disruptions in coal and nuclear that can invite brownouts because that will not only needlessly cost customers more, but it will also increase air pollution which will exacerbate respiratory issues and susceptibility to COVID-19, according to a recent study published by Harvard.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Renewable Energy Security strengthens affordability and grid reliability through electrification, wind, and solar, reducing fossil fuel volatility exposed by the Ukraine crisis, aligning with IEA guidance and the Paris Agreement to deliver resilient, low-cost power.

Key Points

Renewable energy security is reliable, affordable power from electrification, wind and solar, cutting fossil fuel risk.

✅ Wind and solar now outcompete gas for new power capacity.

✅ Diversifies supply and reduces fossil price volatility.

✅ Requires grid flexibility, storage, and demand response.

Oil, gas, and coal have been the central pillar of the global energy system throughout the 20th century. And for decades, these fossil fuels have been closely associated with energy security.  

The perception of energy security, however, is rapidly changing. Renewables form an increasing share of energy sectors worldwide as countries look to deliver on the Paris Agreement and mitigate the effects of climate change, with IEA clean energy investment now significantly outpacing fossil fuels. Moreover, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated how relying on fossil fuels for power, heating, and transport has left many countries vulnerable or energy insecure.  

The International Energy Agency (IEA) defines energy security as “the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price” (IEA, 2019a). This definition hardly describes today’s global energy situation, with the cancellation of natural gas deliveries and skyrocketing prices for oil and gas products, and with supply chain challenges in clean energy that also require attention. These circumstances have cascading effects on electricity prices in countries like the United Kingdom that rely heavily on natural gas to produce electricity. In Europe, energy insecurity has been even further amplified since the Russian corporation Gazprom recently cut off gas supplies to several countries.  

As a result, energy security has gained new urgency in Canada and worldwide, creating opportunities in the global electricity market for Canada. Recent events provide a stark reminder of the volatility and potential vulnerability of global fossil fuel markets and supply chains. Even in Canada, as one of the largest producers of oil and gas in the world, the price of fuels depends on global and regional market forces rather than government policy or market design. Thus, the average monthly price for gasoline in Canada hit a record high of CAD 2.07 per litre in May 2022 (Figure 1), and natural gas prices surged to a record CAD 7.54 per MMBtu in May 2022 (Figure 2).  

Energy price increases of this magnitude are more than enough to strain Canadian household budgets. But on top of that, oil and gas prices have accelerated inflation more broadly as it has become more expensive to produce, transport, and store goods, including food and other basic commodities (Global News, 2022).  

Renewable Energy Is More Affordable 

In contrast to oil and gas, renewable energy can reliably deliver affordable energy, as shown by falling wholesale electricity prices in markets with growing clean power. This is a unique and positive aspect of today’s energy crisis compared to historical crises: options for electrification and renewable-based electricity systems are both available and cost-effective.  

For new power capacity, wind and solar are now cheaper than any other source, and wind power is making gains as a competitive source in Canada. According to Equinor (2022), wind and solar were already cheaper than gas-based power in 2020. This means that renewable energy was already the cheaper option for new power before the recent natural gas price spikes. As illustrated in Figure 3, the cost of new renewable energy has dropped so dramatically that, for many countries, it is cheaper to install new solar or wind infrastructure than to keep operating existing fossil fuel-based power plants (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2021). This means that replacing fossil-based electricity generation with renewables would save money and reduce emissions. Wind and solar prices are expected to continue their downward trends as more countries increase deployment and learn how to best integrate these sources into the grid. 

Renewable Energy Is Reliable 

To deliver on the uninterrupted availability side of the energy security equation, renewable power must remain reliable even as more variable energy sources, like wind and solar, are added to the system, and regional leaders such as the Prairie provinces will help anchor this transition. For Canada and other countries to achieve high energy security through electrification, grid system operations must be able to support this, and pathways to zero-emissions electricity by 2035 are feasible.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy 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

AI Energy Consumption strains corporate electricity bills as data centers and HPC workloads run nonstop, driving carbon emissions. Efficiency upgrades, renewable energy, and algorithm optimization help control costs and enhance sustainability across industries.

Key Points

AI Energy Consumption is the power used by AI compute and data centers, impacting costs and sustainability.

✅ Optimize cooling, hardware, and workloads to cut kWh per inference

✅ Integrate on-site solar, wind, or PPAs to offset data center power

✅ Tune models and algorithms to reduce compute and latency

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing industries with its promise of increased efficiency and productivity. However, as businesses integrate AI technologies into their operations, there's a significant and often overlooked impact: the strain on corporate electricity bills.

AI's Growing Energy Demand

The adoption of AI entails the deployment of high-performance computing systems, data centers, and sophisticated algorithms that require substantial energy consumption. These systems operate around the clock, processing massive amounts of data and performing complex computations, and, much like the impact on utilities seen with major EV rollouts, contributing to a notable increase in electricity usage for businesses.

Industries Affected

Various sectors, including finance, healthcare, manufacturing, and technology, rely on AI-driven applications for tasks ranging from data analysis and predictive modeling to customer service automation and supply chain optimization, while manufacturing is influenced by ongoing electric motor market growth that increases electrified processes.

Cost Implications

The rise in electricity consumption due to AI deployments translates into higher operational costs for businesses. Corporate entities must budget accordingly for increased electricity bills, which can impact profit margins and financial planning, especially in regions experiencing electricity price volatility in Europe amid market reforms. Managing these costs effectively becomes crucial to maintaining competitiveness and sustainability in the marketplace.

Sustainability Challenges

The environmental impact of heightened electricity consumption cannot be overlooked. Increased energy demand from AI technologies contributes to carbon emissions and environmental footprints, alongside rising e-mobility demand forecasts that pressure grids, posing challenges for businesses striving to meet sustainability goals and regulatory requirements.

Mitigation Strategies

To address the escalating electricity bills associated with AI, businesses are exploring various mitigation strategies:

1. Energy Efficiency Measures: Implementing energy-efficient practices, such as optimizing data center cooling systems, upgrading to energy-efficient hardware, and adopting smart energy management solutions, can help reduce electricity consumption.

2. Renewable Energy Integration: Investing in renewable energy sources like solar or wind power and energy storage solutions to enhance flexibility can offset electricity costs and align with corporate sustainability initiatives.

3. Algorithm Optimization: Fine-tuning AI algorithms to improve computational efficiency and reduce processing times can lower energy demands without compromising performance.

4. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Conducting thorough cost-benefit analyses of AI deployments to assess energy consumption against operational benefits and potential rate impacts, informed by cases where EV adoption can benefit customers in broader electricity markets, helps businesses make informed decisions and prioritize energy-saving initiatives.

Future Outlook

As AI continues to evolve and permeate more aspects of business operations, the demand for electricity will likely intensify and may coincide with broader EV demand projections that increase grid loads. Balancing the benefits of AI-driven innovation with the challenges of increased energy consumption requires proactive energy management strategies and investments in sustainable technologies.

Conclusion

The integration of AI technologies presents significant opportunities for businesses to enhance productivity and competitiveness. However, the corresponding surge in electricity bills underscores the importance of proactive energy management and sustainability practices. By adopting energy-efficient measures, leveraging renewable energy sources, and optimizing AI deployments, businesses can mitigate cost impacts, reduce environmental footprints, and foster long-term operational resilience in an increasingly AI-driven economy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News