MCD to generate power from garbage

NERC COVID-19 Grid Security Alert urges utilities to update business continuity plans, assess supply chain risk, and harden cybersecurity against spearphishing, social engineering, and remote-work vulnerabilities to protect the U.S. power grid and critical infrastructure.

Key Points

A notice urging U.S. utilities to fortify pandemic continuity, secure supply chains, and enhance cybersecurity.

✅ Mandates updates to business continuity and pandemic readiness plans

✅ Flags supply chain risks for PPE, electronics, chemicals, and logistics

✅ Warns of spearphishing, social engineering, VPN and remote-work threats

The top U.S. grid security monitor urged power utilities to prepare for the new coronavirus in a rare alert yesterday, adding to a chorus of warnings from federal and private organizations.

The North American Electric Reliability Corp. called for power providers to update business continuity plans in case of a pandemic outbreak and weigh the need to prioritize construction or maintenance projects, including updates on major projects like BC Hydro's Site C, while the COVID-19 virus continues to spread.

NERC is requiring electric utilities to answer questions on their readiness for a possible pandemic, including potential staffing strategies such as on-site sequestering, by March 20, an unusual step that underscores the severity of the threat to U.S. power systems.

The Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, NERC's hub for getting the word out on dangers and vulnerabilities for the grid, also sent out an "all-points bulletin" on Feb. 5 addressing the coronavirus outbreak. That nonpublic document covered "potential supply chain issues stemming from a manufacturing slowdown in Asia," NERC spokeswoman Kimberly Mielcarek said.

Among offering basic hygiene and awareness recommendations, NERC's latest alert also encourages utilities to take stock of resources with supply chains affected by the virus. Because "China and nearby southeast Asian nations" have been impacted, NERC said, the supply chain hits will likely include "electronics, personal protective equipment and sanitation supplies, chemicals, and raw materials." The nonprofit grid overseer also warned of global transportation disruptions.

NERC also recommended utilities be on the lookout for cyberattacks taking advantage of the panic and using "coronavirus-themed opportunistic social engineering attacks" to hack into power companies' networks. Social engineering attacks are when hackers use social interactions to manipulate targets into giving up sensitive information.

"Spearphishing, watering hole, and other disinformation tactics are commonly used to exploit public interest in significant events," the alert said.

Electric utility representatives said they're working on or have already completed some of the steps outlined in NERC's alert, though nuclear plant workers have cited a lack of precautions in some cases.

"At this point, many of our members are activating and/or reviewing their business continuity and preparedness plans to ensure that operations and infrastructure are properly supported," said Tobias Sellier, director of media relations for the American Public Power Association, which represents around 1,400 electric utilities.

The power providers are also collaborating with other utilities such as "water, wastewater and gas," Sellier said.

Stephen Bell, senior director of media and public relations at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, said his group's members "have already taken a number of steps recommended by NERC" while continuing to maintain operations.

"Co-ops continue working with local, state and federal stakeholders to remain vigilant and prepared. These preparations include more frequent communications to key stakeholders, updating business continuity plans and monitoring new information from public health officials," said Bell.

Last week the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC), a panel of government and industry officials charged with responding to power-sector emergencies, scheduled a conference call discussing how to protect the grid from disruption if the virus infects system operators. Ohio-based utility American Electric Power Co. said it is limiting public visits, has created a high-level response team and is working to ensure operations can continue, while reinforcing downed power line safety, if the virus keeps spreading (Energywire, March 6).

Scott Aaronson, vice president for security and preparedness of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents major investor-owned utilities, said that the electric sector practices "contingency planning" to deal with unusual situations such as the coronavirus. That means that while the type of emergency may be new, dealing with an emergency situation is not, he said. Aaronson added that many of NERC's recommendations are based on what companies are already doing.

"We have heightened awareness given the circumstances, and we have messaging to employees all the way up and down the chain — from CEOs to frontline workers — that: given this time of heightened awareness and potential vulnerability, we have to practice hygiene both of the personal and cyber variety," said Aaronson.

Aaronson said that the ESCC had another call this week with the departments of Energy and Homeland Security and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stay on top of the issue.

Hacking concerns
In a cybersecurity event yesterday, Lisa Monaco, co-chair of the Aspen Cybersecurity Group and former homeland security adviser during the Obama administration, warned that the coronavirus should be considered a national security threat.

"Frankly, [pandemic] is the thing that kept me up at night amongst many, many things that kept me up at night for four years in the White House," Monaco said.

Monaco went on to say the virus will strain organizations' IT infrastructure as more employees work remotely and households face higher electricity bills, and lead to "potentially more vulnerabilities for bad actors when it comes to cybersecurity."

On Friday, the DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency released advice on steps that can be taken to lessen the virus's impact on supply chains and cybersecurity, as well as tips for defending against scams exploiting coronavirus fears.

Cybersecurity firms also have been reporting a dramatic increase in spear-phishing attacks, with hackers reportedly using the coronavirus topic as a lure to trick victims into clicking a malicious link. Whether it's hackers aiming at industries susceptible to shipping disruptions, attacking countries like Italy hit particularly hard by the virus or even masquerading as the World Health Organization, cybercriminals are taking full advantage of the crisis, experts say.

Greg Young, vice president of cybersecurity at Trend Micro, said businesses should continue to expect an increase in targeted phishing attacks.

"With a large majority of businesses switching to a work-from-home model and less emphasis on in-person meetings, we also anticipate that malicious actors will start to impersonate digital tools such as 'free' remote conferencing services and other cloud computing software," said Young.

Working from home can be especially risky, as often home networks are less secure than corporate offices, Young said — meaning a hacker aiming to get into an enterprise network could find an "easier attack path" from a home office.

The Department of Energy is asking employees to make sure they can work remotely when needed, even as some agencies set limits with EPA telework policy, including updating security questions and asking those with government-furnished laptops to be sure they have a VPN, or virtual private network, account. In a post added this week to the agency's website, Chief Information Officer Rocky Campione said the department over the next two weeks will be initiating steps to ensure there is adequate network capacity to carry out DOE's work.

"Ensuring the continued operations of the department's many varied missions requires diligence," Campione said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

U.S. Climate Change Donation Survey reveals Americans' willingness to fund sustainability via government incentives, electrification, and renewable energy. Public opinion favors wind, solar, and decarbonization, highlighting policy support post-pandemic amid economic recovery efforts.

Key Points

A 2020 U.S. poll on climate attitudes: donation willingness, renewable support, and views on government incentives.

✅ 70% would donate income; 31% would donate nothing.

✅ 59% prefer government incentives; 47% support taxes, conservation.

✅ 85% land wind, 83% offshore wind, 90% solar support.

A new study of American consumers' attitudes toward climate change finds that more than two-thirds of respondents (70%) indicate their willingness to give or donate a percentage of their personal income to support the fight against climate change and the path to net-zero electricity emissions by mid-century. 

Twenty-eight percent indicated they were willing to provide less than 1% of their income; 33% said they would be willing to contribute 1-5% of their income; 6% said they would give between 6-10% of their income; and 3% indicated they would contribute more than 10% of their income. Just under one-third (31%) of those surveyed indicated they were unwilling to give or donate any percentage of their income to support the fight against climate change.

The U.S. findings are part of a series of surveys commissioned by Nexans in the U.S., UK and France, in order to determine public opinion on climate change and related issues in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.S. study was conducted online by Researchscape from August 20 – 24, 2020. It had 1,013 respondents, ages 18 or older, with the results weighted to be representative of the overall population (variables available upon request).

Nexans, is headquartered in Paris with a major offshore wind cable manufacturing facility in Charleston, S.C. and an industrial cable manufacturing facility in El Dorado, Ark. The company is fully committed to fighting climate change and is helping to make sustainable electrification possible. The survey was developed as part of its celebration of the first Climate Day in Paris which included a roundtable event with world-renowned experts, the release of an unprecedented global study by Roland Berger on the challenges raised by the electrification of the world, the question of whether the global energy transition is on track, and Nexans' own commitment to be carbon neutral by 2030.

Paying the Tab to Address Climate Change

Participants were given the opportunity to choose from seven multiple responses to the question "How should the fight against climate change be paid for?" The majority (59%) replied it should be paid for by "government incentives for both businesses and consumers." It was followed by "federal, state and/or local taxes" and "conservation programs" (tied at 47%); "business investments" (42%), such as carbon-free electricity initiatives, and "consumer-driven purchases" (33%). Just 9% selected none of the above and 2% selected other.

"Through the organization of this Climate Day, Nexans is asserting itself not only as an actor but also a thought leader of the energy transition for a sustainable electrification of the world. This electrification raises a number of challenges and paradoxes that must be overcome. And it will only happen with the direct involvement of the populations concerned. These surveys provide a better understanding of the level of information and disinformation, including climate change denial, in public opinion as well as their level of acceptability of these lifestyle changes," said Christopher Guérin, CEO, Nexans.

Among other findings, 44% are dissatisfied with the job that federal and state governments are doing to address climate change, while utilities like Duke Energy face investor pressure to release climate reports, 35% are somewhat satisfied and 21% are either very satisfied or completed satisfied with government's role.

Americans expressed overwhelmingly favorable views of wind and solar renewable energy proposals, as carbon emissions fall when electricity producers move away from coal. Specifically, 85% stated being in favor of wind turbines on land (15% against), 83% in favor of wind turbines off the coast (17% against) and 90% in support of solar panel farms (10% opposed).

Those surveyed were asked about their current and changing priorities towards climate change as influenced by the coronavirus pandemic and impacts like extreme heat on electricity bills. Thirty-nine percent indicated that climate change was no more and no less a priority due to the current health emergency; just under a third (31%) indicated that climate change is more of a priority while 30% said it was less of a priority.

In similar research conducted by Nexans in the United Kingdom, nearly two thirds (65.8%) of UK respondents said they would be willing to donate part of their salary to fight climate change. Furthermore, nearly a third (29%) of the UK's consumers believe that combating climate change has become more of a priority in light of the coronavirus pandemic. The UK research was conducted online by Savanta from August 21 – 24, 2020. A total of 2210 respondents, aged 16 and above, representative of the UK population took part.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Alberta Last-Resort Power Rate Reform outlines consumer protection against market volatility, price spikes, and wholesale rate swings, promoting fixed-rate plans, price caps, transparency, and stable pricing mechanisms within Alberta's deregulated power market.

Key Points

Alberta Last-Resort Power Rate Reform seeks stable, transparent pricing and stronger consumer protections.

✅ Caps or hedges shield bills from wholesale price spikes

✅ Expand fixed-rate options and enrollment nudges

✅ Publish clear, real-time pricing and market risk alerts

Alberta’s electricity market is facing growing instability, with rising prices leaving many consumers struggling. The province's rate of last resort, a government-set price for people who haven’t chosen a fixed electricity plan, has become a significant concern. Due to volatile market conditions, this rate has surged, causing financial strain for households. Experts, like energy policy analyst Blake Shaffer, argue that the current market structure needs reform. They suggest creating more stability in pricing, ensuring better protection for consumers against unexpected price spikes, and addressing the flaws that lead to market volatility.

As electricity prices climb, many consumers are feeling the pressure. In Alberta, where energy deregulation is the norm in the electricity market, people without fixed-rate plans are automatically switched to the last-resort rate when their contracts expire. This price is based on fluctuating wholesale market rates, which can spike unexpectedly, leaving consumers vulnerable to sharp price increases. For those on tight budgets, such volatility makes it difficult to predict costs, leading to higher financial stress.

Blake Shaffer, a prominent energy policy expert, has been vocal about the need to address these issues. He has highlighted that while some consumers benefit from fixed-rate plans, with experts urging Albertans to lock in rates when possible, those who cannot afford them or who are unaware of their options often find themselves stuck with the unpredictable last-resort rate. This rate can be substantially higher than what a fixed-plan customer would pay, often due to rapid shifts in energy demand and supply imbalances.

Shaffer suggests that the province’s electricity market needs a restructuring to make it more consumer-friendly and less vulnerable to extreme price hikes. He argues that introducing more transparency in pricing and offering more stable options for consumers through new electricity rules could help. In addition, there could be better incentives for consumers to stay informed about their electricity plans, which would help reduce the number of people unintentionally placed on the last-resort rate.

One potential solution proposed by Shaffer and others is the creation of a more predictable and stable pricing mechanism, though a Calgary electricity retailer has urged the government to scrap an overhaul, where consumers could have access to reasonable rates that aren’t so closely tied to the volatility of the wholesale market. This could involve capping prices or offering government-backed insurance against large price fluctuations, making electricity more affordable for those who are most at risk.

The increasing reliance on market-driven prices has also raised concerns about Alberta’s energy policy changes and overall direction. As a province with a large reliance on oil and gas, Alberta’s energy sector is tightly connected to global energy trends. While this has its benefits, it also means that Alberta’s electricity prices are heavily influenced by factors outside the control of local consumers, such as geopolitical issues or extreme weather events. This makes it hard for residents to predict and plan their energy usage and costs.

For many Albertans, the current state of the electricity market feels precarious. As more people face unexpected price hikes, calls for a market overhaul continue to grow louder across Alberta. Shaffer and others believe that a new framework is necessary—one that balances the interests of consumers, the government, and energy companies, while ensuring that basic energy needs are met without overwhelming households with excessive costs.

In conclusion, Alberta’s last-resort electricity rate system is an increasing burden for many. While some may benefit from fixed-rate plans, others are left exposed to market volatility. Blake Shaffer advocates for reform to create a more stable, transparent, and affordable electricity market, one that could better protect consumers from the high risks associated with deregulated pricing. Addressing these challenges will be crucial in ensuring that energy remains accessible and affordable for all Alberta residents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Maple Ridge Lithium-Ion Battery Plant will be a $1B E-One Moli clean-tech facility in Canada, manufacturing high-performance cells for tools and devices, with federal and provincial funding, creating 450 jobs and boosting battery supply chains.

Key Points

A $1B E-One Moli facility in B.C. producing lithium-ion cells, backed by federal and provincial funding.

✅ $204.5M federal and up to $80M B.C. support committed

✅ E-One Moli to create 450 skilled jobs in Maple Ridge

✅ High-performance cells for tools, medical devices, and equipment

A lithium-ion battery cell production plant costing more than $1 billion will be built in Maple Ridge, B.C., Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier David Eby jointly announced on Tuesday.

Trudeau and Eby say the new E-One Moli facility will bolster Canada's role as a global leader in clean technology, as recent investments in Quebec's EV battery assembly illustrate today.

It will be the largest factory in Canada to manufacture such high-performance batteries, Trudeau said during the announcement, amid other developments such as a new plant in the Niagara Region supporting EV growth.

The B.C. government will contribute up to $80 million, while the federal government plans to contribute up to $204.5 million to the project. E-One Moli and private sources will supply the rest of the funding. 

Trudeau said B.C. has long been known for its innovation in the clean-technology sector, and securing the clean battery manufacturing project, alongside Northvolt's project near Montreal, will build on that expertise.

"The world is looking to Canada. When we support projects like E-One Moli's new facility in Maple Ridge, we bolster Canada's role as a global clean-tech leader, create good jobs and help keep our air clean," he said.

"This is the future we are building together, every single day. Climate policy is economic policy."

Nelson Chang, chairman of E-One Moli Energy, said the company has always been committed to innovation and creativity as creator of the world's first commercialized lithium-metal battery.

E-One Moli has been operating a plant in Maple Ridge since 1990. Its parent company, Taiwan Cement Corp., is based in Taiwan.

"We believe that human freedom is a chance for us to do good for others and appreciate life's fleeing nature, to leave a positive impact on the world," Chang said.

"We believe that [carbon dioxide] reduction is absolutely the key to success for all future businesses," he said.

The new plant will produce high-performance lithium-cell batteries found in numerous products, including vacuums, medical devices, and power and gardening tools, aligning with B.C.'s grid development and job plans already underway, and is expected to create 450 jobs, making E-One Moli the largest private-sector employer in Maple Ridge.

Eby said every industry needs to find ways to reduce their carbon footprint to ensure they have a prosperous future and every province should do the same, with resource plays like Alberta's lithium supporting the EV supply chain today.

It's the responsible thing to do given the record wildfires, extreme heat, and atmospheric rivers that caused catastrophic flooding in B.C., he said, with large-scale battery storage in southwestern Ontario helping grid reliability.

"We know that this is what we have to do. The people who suggest that we have to accept that as the future and stop taking action are simply wrong."

Trudeau, Eby and Chang toured the existing plant in Maple Ridge, east of Vancouver, before making the announcement.

The prime minister wove his way around several machines and apologized to technicians about the commotion his visit was creating.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation criticized the federal and B.C. governments for the announcement, saying in a statement the multimillion-dollar handout to the battery firm will cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for each job.

Federation director Franco Terrazzano said the Trudeau government has recently given "buckets of cash" to corporations such as Volkswagen, Stellantis, the Ford Motor Company and Northvolt.

"Instead of raising taxes on ordinary Canadians and handing out corporate welfare, governments should be cutting red tape and taxes to grow the economy," said Terrazzano. 

Construction is expected to start next June, as EV assembly deals put Canada in the race, and the company plans for the facility to be fully operational in 2028.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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

PG&E 2024 Rate Hikes signal sharp increases to fund wildfire safety, infrastructure upgrades, and CPUC-backed reliability, with rates expected to stabilize in 2025, affecting rural residents, businesses, and high-risk zones across California.

Key Points

PG&E’s 2024 hikes fund wildfire safety and grid upgrades, with pricing expected to stabilize in 2025.

✅ Driven by wildfire safety, infrastructure, and reinsurance costs

✅ Largest impacts in rural, high-risk zones; business rates vary

✅ CPUC oversight aims to ensure necessary, justified investments

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is expected to implement a series of rate hikes that, amid analyses of why California electricity prices are soaring across the state, will significantly impact California residents. These increases, while substantial, are anticipated to be followed by a period of stabilization in 2025, offering a sense of relief to customers facing rising costs.

PG&E, one of the largest utility providers in the state, announced that its 2024 rate hikes are part of efforts to address increasing operational costs, including those related to wildfire safety, infrastructure upgrades, and regulatory requirements. As California continues to face climate-related challenges like wildfires, utilities like PG&E are being forced to adjust their financial models to manage the evolving risks. Wildfire-related liabilities, which have plagued PG&E in recent years, play a significant role in these rate adjustments. In response to previous fire-related lawsuits, including a bankruptcy plan supported by wildfire victims that reshaped liabilities, and the increased cost of reinsurance, PG&E has made it clear that customers will bear part of the financial burden.

These rate hikes will have a multi-faceted impact. Residential users, particularly those in rural or high-risk wildfire zones, will see some of the largest increases. Business customers will also be affected, although the adjustments may vary depending on the size and energy consumption patterns of each business. PG&E has indicated that the increases are necessary to secure the utility’s financial stability while continuing to deliver reliable service to its customers.

Despite the steep increases in 2024, PG&E's executives have assured that the company's pricing structure will stabilize in 2025. The utility has taken steps to balance the financial needs of the business with the reality of consumer affordability. While some rate hikes are inevitable given California's regulatory landscape and climate concerns, PG&E's leadership believes the worst of the increases will be seen next year.

PG&E’s anticipated stabilization comes after a year of scrutiny from California regulators. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has been working closely with PG&E to scrutinize its rate request and ensure that hikes are justifiable and used for necessary investments in infrastructure and safety improvements. The CPUC’s oversight is especially crucial given the company’s history of safety violations and the public outrage over past wildfire incidents, including reports that its power lines may have sparked fires in California, which have been linked to PG&E’s equipment.

The hikes, though significant, reflect the broader pressures facing utilities in California, where extreme weather patterns are becoming more frequent and intense due to climate change. Wildfires, which have grown in severity and frequency in recent years, have forced PG&E to invest heavily in fire prevention and mitigation strategies, including compliance with a judge-ordered use of dividends for wildfire mitigation across its service area. This includes upgrading equipment, inspecting power lines, and implementing more rigorous protocols to prevent accidents that could spark devastating fires. These investments come at a steep cost, which PG&E is passing along to consumers through higher rates.

For homeowners and businesses, the potential for future rate stabilization offers a glimmer of hope. However, the 2024 increases are still expected to hit consumers hard, especially those already struggling with high living costs. The steep hikes have prompted public outcry, with calls for action as bills soar amplifying advocacy group arguments that utilities should absorb more of the costs related to climate change and fire prevention instead of relying on ratepayers.

Looking ahead to 2025, the expectation is that PG&E’s rates will stabilize, but the question remains whether they will return to pre-2024 levels or continue to rise at a slower rate. Experts note that California’s energy market remains volatile, and while the rates may stabilize in the short term, long-term cost management will depend on ongoing investments in renewable energy sources and continued efforts to make the grid more resilient to climate-related risks.

As PG&E navigates this challenging period, the company’s commitment to transparency and working with regulators will be crucial in rebuilding trust with its customers. While the immediate future may be financially painful for many, the hope is that the utility's focus on safety and infrastructure will lead to greater long-term stability and fewer dramatic rate increases in the years to come.

Ultimately, California residents will need to brace for another tough year in terms of utility costs but can find reassurance that PG&E’s rate increases will eventually stabilize. For those seeking relief, there are ongoing discussions about increasing energy efficiency, exploring renewable energy alternatives, and expanding assistance programs for lower-income households to help mitigate the financial strain of these price hikes.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News