Juneau forced to cope with sudden energy shortage

Hydro One investment risk reflects Ontario government influence, board shakeup, Avista acquisition uncertainty, regulatory hearings, dividend growth prospects, and utility M&A moves in Peterborough, with stock volatility since the 2015 IPO.

Key Points

Hydro One investment risk stems from political control, governance turnover, regulatory outcomes, and uncertain M&A.

✅ Ontario retains near-50% stake, affecting autonomy and policy risk

✅ Board overhaul and CEO exit create governance uncertainty

✅ Avista deal, OEB hearings, local utility M&A drive outcomes

Hydro One may be only half-owned by the province on Ontario but that’s enough to cause uncertainty about the company’s future, thus making for an investment risk, says Douglas Kee of Leon Frazer & Associates.

Since its IPO in November of 2015, Hydro One has seen its share of ups and downs, including a Q2 profit decline earlier this year, mostly downs at this point. Currently trading at $19.87, the stock has lost 11 per cent of its value in 2018 and 12 per cent over the last 12 months, despite a one-time gain boosting Q2 profit that followed a court ruling.

This year has been a turbulent one, to say the least, as newly elected Ontario premier Doug Ford made good this summer on his campaign promise re Hydro One by forcing the resignation of the company’s 14-person board of directors along with the retirement of its chief executive, an event that saw Hydro One shares fall amid the turmoil. An interim CEO has been found and a new 10-person board and chairman put in place, but Kee says it’s unclear what impact the shakeup will ultimately have, other than delaying a promising-looking deal to purchase US utility Avista Corp, with the companies moving to ask the U.S. regulator to reconsider the order.

Douglas Kee’s take on Hydro One stock

“We looked at Hydro One a couple of times two years ago and just decided that with the Ontario government’s still owning a big chunk of the company … there are other public companies where you get the same kind of yield, the same kind of dividend growth, so we just avoided it,” says Kee, managing director and chief investment officer with Leon Frazer & Associates, to BNN Bloomberg.

“The old board versus the new board, I’m not sure that there’s much of an improvement. It was politics more than anything,” he says. “The unfortunate part is that the acquisition they were making in the United States is kind of on hold for now. The regulatory procedures have gone ahead but they are worried, and I guess the new board has to make a decision whether to go ahead with it or not.”

“Their transmissions side is coming up for regulatory hearings next year, which could be difficult in Ontario,” says Kee. “The offset to that is that there are a lot of municipal distributions systems in Ontario that may be sold — they bought one in Peterborough recently, which was a good deal for them. There may be more of that coming too.”

Last month, Hydro One reached an agreement with the City of Peterborough to buy its Peterborough Distribution utility which serves about 37,000 customers for $105 million. Another deal to purchase Orillia Power Distribution Corp for $41 million has been cancelled after an appeal to the Ontario Energy Board was denied in late August. Hydro One’s sought-after Avista Corp acquisition is reported to be worth $7 billion.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

USDA Rural Energy Infrastructure Funding boosts renewable energy, BESS, and transmission upgrades, delivering grid modernization, resilience, and clean power to rural cooperatives through loans and grants aligned with climate goals, decarbonization, and energy independence.

Key Points

USDA Rural Energy Infrastructure Funding is a $4.37B program advancing renewables, BESS, and grid upgrades for rural power.

✅ Loans and grants for cooperatives modernizing rural grids.

✅ Prioritizes BESS to integrate wind and solar reliably.

✅ Upgrades transmission to cut losses and boost grid stability.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced a major investment of $4.37 billion aimed at upgrading rural electric cooperatives across the nation. This funding will focus on advancing renewable energy projects, enhancing battery energy storage systems (BESS), and upgrading transmission infrastructure to support a grid overhaul for renewables nationwide.

The USDA’s Rural Development initiative will provide loans and grants to cooperatives, supporting efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources that help rural America thrive, improve energy resilience, and modernize electrical grids in rural areas. These upgrades are expected to bolster the reliability and efficiency of energy systems, making rural communities more resilient to extreme weather events and fostering the expansion of renewable energy.

The funding will primarily support energy storage technologies, such as BESS, which allow excess energy from renewable sources like wind energy, solar, and hydropower technology to be stored and used during periods of high demand or when renewable generation is low. These systems are critical for integrating more renewable energy into the grid, ensuring a stable and sustainable power supply.

In addition to energy storage, the USDA’s investment will go toward enhancing the transmission networks that carry electricity across rural regions, aligning with a recent rule to boost renewable transmission across the U.S. By upgrading these systems, the USDA aims to reduce energy losses, improve grid stability, and ensure that rural communities have reliable access to power, particularly in remote and underserved areas.

This investment aligns with the Biden administration’s broader climate and clean energy goals, focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fostering sustainable energy practices, including next-generation building upgrades that lower demand. The USDA's support will also promote energy independence in rural areas, enabling local cooperatives to meet the energy demands of their communities while decreasing reliance on fossil fuels.

The funding is expected to have a far-reaching impact, not only reducing carbon footprints but also creating jobs in the renewable energy and construction sectors. By modernizing energy infrastructure, rural electric cooperatives can expand access to clean, affordable energy while contributing to the nationwide shift toward a more sustainable energy future.

The USDA’s commitment to supporting rural electric cooperatives marks a significant step in the transition to a more resilient and sustainable energy grid, mirroring grid modernization projects in Canada seen in recent years. By investing in renewables and modernizing transmission and storage systems, the government aims to improve energy access and reliability in rural communities, ultimately driving the growth of a cleaner, more energy-efficient economy.

As part of the initiative, the USDA has also highlighted its commitment to helping rural cooperatives navigate the challenges of implementing new technologies and infrastructure. The agency has pledged to provide technical assistance, ensuring that cooperatives have the resources and expertise needed to successfully complete these projects.

In conclusion, the USDA’s $4.37 billion investment represents a significant effort to improve the energy landscape of rural America. By supporting the development of renewable energy, energy storage, and transmission upgrades, the USDA is not only fostering a cleaner energy future but also enhancing the resilience of rural communities. This initiative will contribute to the nationwide transition toward a sustainable, low-carbon economy, ensuring that rural areas are not left behind in the global push for renewable energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Income-Based Utility Fees would overhaul electricity bills as CPUC weighs fixed charges tied to income, grid maintenance costs, AB 205 changes, and per-kilowatt-hour rates, shifting from pure usage pricing to hybrid utility rate design.

Key Points

Income-based utility fees are fixed monthly charges tied to earnings, alongside per-kWh rates, to help fund grid costs.

✅ CPUC considers fixed charges by income under AB 205

✅ Separates grid costs from per-kWh energy charges

✅ Could shift rooftop solar and EV charging economics

Electricity bills in California are likely to change dramatically in 2026, with major changes under discussion statewide.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is in the midst of an unprecedented overhaul of the way most of the state’s residents pay for electricity, as it considers revamping electricity rates to meet grid and climate goals.

Utility bills currently rely on a use-more pay-more system, where bills are directly tied to how much electricity a resident consumes, a setup that helps explain why prices are soaring for many households.

California lawmakers are asking regulators to take a different approach, and some are preparing to crack down on utility spending as oversight intensifies. Some of the bill will pay for the kilowatt hours a customer uses and a monthly fixed fee will help pay for expenses to maintain the electric grid: the poles, the substations, the batteries, and the wires that bring power to people’s homes.

The adjustments to the state’s public utility code, section 739.9, came about because of changes written into a sweeping energy bill passed last summer, AB 205, though some lawmakers now aim to overturn income-based charges in subsequent measures.

A stroke of a pen, a legislative vote, and the governor’s signature created a move toward unprecedented income-based fixed charges across the state.

“This was put in at the last minute,” said Ahmad Faruqui, a California economist with a long professional background in utility rates. “Nobody even knew it was happening. It was not debated on the floor of the assembly where it was supposedly passed. Of course, the governor signed it.”

Faruqui wonders who was responsible for legislation that was added to the energy bill during the budget writing process. That process is not transparent.

“It’s a very small clause in a very long bill, which is mostly about other issues,” Faruqui said.

But that small adjustment could have a massive impact on California residents, because it links the size of a monthly flat fee for utility service to a resident’s income. Earn more money and pay a higher flat fee.

That fee must be paid even before customers are charged for how much power they draw.

Regulators interpreted legislative change as a mandate, but Faruqui is not sold.

“They said the commission may consider or should consider,” Faruqui said. “They didn’t mandate it. It’s worth re-reading it.”

In fact, the legislative language says the commission “may” adopt income-based flat fees for utilities. It does not say the commission “should” adopt them.

Nevertheless, the CPUC has already requested and received nine proposals for how a flat fee should be implemented, as regulators face calls for action amid soaring electricity bills.

The suggestions came from consumer groups, environmentalists, the solar industry and utilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric tractors are surging, with battery-powered models, grid-tethered JD GridCON, and solar-charged designs delivering autonomous guidance, high efficiency, low maintenance, quiet operation, robust PTO compatibility, and durability for sustainable, precision agriculture.

Key Points

Electric tractors use battery or grid power to run implements with high efficiency, low noise, and minimal maintenance.

✅ Battery, grid-tethered, or solar-charged power options

✅ Lower operating costs, reduced noise, fewer moving parts

✅ Autonomous guidance, PTO compatibility, and quick charging

Car and truck manufacturers are falling off the fossil fuel bandwagon in droves and jumping on the electric train.

Now add tractors to that list.

Every month, another e-tractor announcement comes across our desks. Environmental factors drive this trend, along with energy efficiency, lower maintenance, lower noise level and motor longevity, and even autonomous weed-zapping robots are emerging.

Let’s start with the Big Daddy of them all, the 400 horsepower JD GridCON. This tractor is not a hybrid and it has no hassle with batteries. The 300 kilowatts of power come to the GridCON through a 1,000 metre extension cord connected to the grid, including virtual power plants or an off-field generator. A reel on the tractor rolls the cable in and out. The cable is guided by a robotic arm to prevent the tractor from running over it.

It uses a 700 volt DC bus for electric power distribution onboard and for auxiliary implements. It uses a cooling infrastructure for off-board electrical use. Total efficiency of the drive train is around 85 percent. A 100 kilowatt electric motor runs the IVT transmission. There’s an auxiliary outlet for implements powered by an electric motor up to 200 kW.

GridCON autonomously follows prescribed routes in the field at speeds up to 12 m.p.h., leveraging concepts similar to fleet management solutions for coordination. It can also be guided manually with a remote control when manoeuvring the tractor to enter a field. Empty weight is 8.5 tonnes, which is about the same as a 6195R but with double the power. Deere engineers say it will save about 50 percent in operating costs compared to battery powered tractors.

Solectrac
Two California-built all-battery powered tractors are finally in full production. While the biggest is only 40 horsepower, these are serious tractors that may foretell the future of farm equipment.

The all-electric 40 h.p. eUtility tractor is based on a 1950s Ford built in India. Solectrac is able to buy the bare tractor without an engine, so it can create a brand new electric tractor with no used components for North American customers. One tractor has already been sold to a farmer in Ontario. | Solectrac photo
The tractors are built by Solectrac, owned by inventor Steve Heckeroth, who has been doing electric conversions on cars, trucks, race cars and tractors for 25 years. He said there are three main reasons to take electric tractors seriously: simplicity, energy efficiency and longevity.

“The electric motor has only one moving part, unlike small diesel engines, which have over 300 moving parts,” Heckeroth said, adding that Solectrac tractors are not halfway compromise hybrids but true electric machines that get their power from the sun or the grid, particularly in hydro-rich regions like Manitoba where clean electricity is abundant, whichever is closest.

Neither tractor uses hydraulics. Instead, Heckeroth uses electric linear actuators. The ones he installs provide 1,000 pounds of dynamic load and 3,000 lb. static loads. He uses linear actuators because they are 20 times more efficient than hydraulics.

The eUtility and eFarmer are two-wheel drive only, but engineers are working on compact four-wheel drive electric tractors. Each tractor carries a price tag of US$40,000. Because production numbers are still limited, both tractors are available on a first to deposit basis. One e-tractor has already been sold and delivered to a farmer in Ontario.

The eUtility is a 40 h.p. yard tractor that accepts all Category 1, 540 r.p.m. power take-off implements on the rear three-point hitch, except those requiring hydraulics. An optional hydraulic pump can be installed for $3,000 for legacy implements that require hydraulics. For that price, a dedicated electricity believer might instead consider converting the implement to electric.

“The eUtility is actually a converted new 1950s Ford tractor made in a factory in India that was taken over after the British were kicked out in 1948,” Heckeroth said.

“I am able to buy only the parts I need and then add the motor, controller and batteries. I had to go to India because it’s one of the few places that still makes geared transmissions. These transmissions work the best for electric tractors. Gear reduction is necessary to keep the motor in the most efficient range of about 2,000 r.p.m. It has four gears with a high and low range, which covers everything from creep to 25 m.p.h.

On his eUtility, a single 30 kWh onboard battery pack provides five to eight hours of run time, depending on loads. It can carry two battery packs. The Level 2 quick charge gives an 80 percent charge for one pack in three hours. Two packs can receive a full charge overnight with support from home batteries like Powerwall for load management.

The integrated battery management system protects the batteries during charging and discharging, while backup fuel cell chargers can keep storage healthy in remote deployments. Batteries are expected to last about 10 years, depending on the number of operating cycles and depth of discharge.

Exchangeable battery packs are available to keep the tractor running through the full work day. These smaller 20 kWh packs can be mounted on the rear hitch to balance the weight of the optional front loader or carried in the optional front loader to balance the weight of heavy implements mounted on the rear hitch.

The second tractor is the 20 kWh eFarmer, which features high visibility for row crop farms at a fraction of the cost of diesel fuel tractors. The 30 h.p. eFarmer is basically just a tube frame with the necessary components attached. A simple joystick controls steering, speed and brakes.

Harvest
Introduced to the North American public this spring by Motivo Engineering in California, the Harvest tractor is simply a big battery on wheels. The complex electrical system takes power in through a variety of renewable energy sources, such as solar panels with smart solar inverters enabling optimized PV integration, water wheels, wind turbines or even intermittent electrical grids. It stores electrical power on-board and delivers it when and where required, putting power out to a large number of electrical tools and farm implements. It operates in AC or DC modes.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Medicine Hat Smart Grid AI modernizes electricity distribution with automation, sensors, and demand response, enhancing energy efficiency and renewable integration while using predictive analytics and real-time data to reduce consumption and optimize grid operations.

Key Points

An initiative using smart grid tech and AI to optimize energy use, cut waste, and improve renewable integration.

✅ Predictive analytics forecast demand to balance load and prevent outages.

✅ Automation, sensors, and meters enable dynamic, resilient distribution.

✅ Integrates solar and wind with demand response to cut emissions.

The city of Medicine Hat, Alberta, is taking bold steps toward enhancing its energy infrastructure and reducing electricity consumption with the help of innovative technology. Recently, several grant winners have been selected to improve the city's electricity grid distribution and leverage artificial intelligence (AI) to adapt to electricity demands while optimizing energy use. These projects promise to not only streamline energy delivery but also contribute to more sustainable practices by reducing energy waste.

Advancing the Electricity Grid

Medicine Hat’s electricity grid is undergoing a significant transformation, thanks to a new set of initiatives funded by government grants that advance a smarter electricity infrastructure vision for the region. The city has long been known for its commitment to sustainable energy practices, and these new projects are part of that legacy. The winners of the grants aim to modernize the city’s electricity grid to make it more resilient, efficient, and adaptable to the changing demands of the future, aligning with macrogrid strategies adopted nationally.

At the core of these upgrades is the integration of smart grid technologies. A smart grid is a more advanced version of the traditional power grid, incorporating digital communications and real-time data to optimize the delivery and use of electricity. By connecting sensors, meters, and control systems across the grid, along with the integration of AI data centers where appropriate, the grid can detect and respond to changes in demand, adjust to faults or outages, and even integrate renewable energy sources more efficiently.

One of the key aspects of the grant-funded projects involves automating the grid. Automation allows for the dynamic adjustment of power distribution in response to changes in demand or supply, reducing the risk of blackouts or inefficiencies. For instance, if an area of the city experiences a surge in energy use, the grid can automatically reroute power from less-used areas or adjust the distribution to avoid overloading circuits. This kind of dynamic response is crucial for maintaining a stable and reliable electricity supply.

Moreover, the enhanced grid will be able to better incorporate renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power, reflecting British Columbia's clean-energy shift as well, which are increasingly important in Alberta’s energy mix. By utilizing a more flexible and responsive grid, Medicine Hat can make the most of renewable energy when it is available, reducing reliance on non-renewable sources.

Using AI to Reduce Energy Consumption

While improving the grid infrastructure is an essential first step, the real innovation comes in the form of using artificial intelligence (AI) to reduce energy consumption. Several of the grant winners are focused on developing AI-driven solutions that can predict energy demand patterns, optimize energy use in real-time, and encourage consumers to reduce unnecessary energy consumption.

AI can be used to analyze vast amounts of data from across the electricity grid, such as weather forecasts, historical energy usage, and real-time consumption data. This analysis can then be used to make predictions about future energy needs. For example, AI can predict when the demand for electricity will peak, allowing the grid operators to adjust supply ahead of time, ensuring a more efficient distribution of power. By predicting high-demand periods, AI can also assist in optimizing the use of renewable energy sources, ensuring that solar and wind power are utilized when they are most abundant.

In addition to grid management, AI can help consumers save energy by making smarter decisions about how and when to use electricity. For instance, AI-powered smart home devices can learn household routines and adjust heating, cooling, and appliance usage to reduce energy consumption without compromising comfort. By using data to optimize energy use, these technologies not only reduce costs for consumers but also decrease overall demand on the grid, leading to a more sustainable energy system.

The AI initiatives are also expected to assist businesses in reducing their carbon footprints. By using AI to monitor and optimize energy use, industrial and commercial enterprises can cut down on waste and reduce energy-related operational costs, while anticipating digital load growth signaled by an Alberta data centre agreement in the province. This has the potential to make Medicine Hat a more energy-efficient city, benefiting both residents and businesses alike.

A Sustainable Future

The integration of smart grid technology and AI-driven solutions is positioning Medicine Hat as a leader in sustainable energy practices. The city’s approach is focused not only on improving energy efficiency and reducing waste but also on making electricity consumption more manageable and adaptable in a rapidly changing world. These innovations are a crucial part of Medicine Hat's long-term strategy to reduce carbon emissions and meet climate goals while ensuring reliable and affordable energy for its residents.

In addition to the immediate benefits of these projects, the broader impact is likely to influence other municipalities across Canada, including insights from Toronto's electricity planning for rapid growth, and beyond. As the technology matures and proves successful, it could set a benchmark for other cities looking to modernize their energy grids and adopt sustainable, AI-driven solutions.

By investing in these forward-thinking technologies, Medicine Hat is not only future-proofing its energy infrastructure but also taking decisive steps toward a greener, more energy-efficient future. The collaboration between local government, technology providers, and the community marks a significant milestone in the city’s commitment to innovation and sustainability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies 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