OLG Slots at Woodbine goes green

OpenAI Washington Policy Expansion spotlights AI policy, energy infrastructure, data centers, and national security, advocating AI economic zones and a national transmission grid to advance U.S. competitiveness and align with pro-tech administration priorities.

Key Points

OpenAI's D.C. push to scale policy outreach and AI infrastructure across energy, data centers, and national security.

✅ Triples D.C. policy team to expand bipartisan engagement

✅ Advocates AI economic zones and transmission grid build-out

✅ Aligns with pro-tech leadership, prioritizing national security

OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, is significantly expanding its presence in Washington, D.C., aiming to influence policy decisions that will shape the future of artificial intelligence (AI) and its integration into critical sectors like energy and national security. This strategic move comes as the company seeks to position itself as a key player in the U.S. economic and security landscape, particularly in the context of global competition with China in strategic industries.

Expansion of Policy Team

To enhance its influence, OpenAI is tripling the size of its Washington policy team. While the 12-person team is still smaller compared to tech giants like Amazon and Meta, it reflects OpenAI's commitment to engaging more actively with policymakers, as debates over Biden's climate law shape the regulatory landscape. The company has recruited individuals from across the political spectrum, including former aides to President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, to ensure a diverse and comprehensive approach to policy advocacy.

Strategic Initiatives

OpenAI is promoting an ambitious plan to develop tech and energy infrastructure tailored for AI development. This initiative aims to deliver more affordable energy to data centers and reduce corporate electricity bills, which are essential for AI operations. The company is advocating for the establishment of AI economic zones and a national transmission highway to support the growing energy demands of AI technologies. By aligning these proposals with the incoming Trump administration's pro-tech stance, OpenAI seeks to secure federal support for its projects.

Engagement with the Trump Administration

The transition from the Biden administration to the incoming Trump administration presents new opportunities for OpenAI, even as state legal challenges shape early energy policy moves. The Trump administration is perceived as more favorable toward the tech industry, with appointments of Silicon Valley figures like Elon Musk and David Sacks to key positions. OpenAI is leveraging this environment to advocate for policies that support AI development and infrastructure expansion, positioning itself as a strategic asset in the U.S.-China economic and security competition.

The AI industry is increasingly viewed as a critical component of national security and economic competitiveness. OpenAI's efforts to engage with policymakers reflect a broader industry push to be recognized as a vital player in the U.S. economic and security landscape. By promoting AI as a strategic asset, OpenAI aims to secure support for its initiatives, including clean-energy projects in coal communities, and ensure that the U.S. remains at the forefront of AI innovation.

OpenAI's strategic expansion in Washington, D.C., underscores its commitment to influencing policy decisions that will shape the future of AI and its integration into critical sectors. By enhancing its policy team, advocating for infrastructure development, where Alberta's data center boom illustrates rising demand, and aligning with the incoming administration's priorities, even as energy dominance goals face real-world constraints, OpenAI aims to position itself as a key player in the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence. This proactive approach reflects the company's recognition of the importance of policy engagement in driving innovation and securing a competitive edge in the global AI arena.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Renewable Power Overtakes Fossil Fuels, reflecting a greener energy mix as wind, solar, and hydro expand, cutting CO2 emissions and curbing coal while negative prices rise amid pandemic-driven demand drops.

Key Points

A milestone as renewables surpass fossil power in the EU, driven by wind, solar, hydro growth and pandemic demand.

✅ 40% renewables vs 34% fossil in H1 across 27 EU states

✅ Wind, solar, hydro rose; coal generation fell 32% year-on-year

✅ Lower demand, carbon prices, grid priority boosted clean output

Renewable power for the first time contributed a bigger share in the European generation mix than fossil fuels, as described in Europe's green surge as the fallout from the pandemic cut energy demand.

About 40 percent of the electricity in the first half in the 27 EU countries came from renewable sources, exceeding the global renewables share reported elsewhere, compared with 34 percent from plants burning fossil fuels, according to environmental group Ember in London. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector fell 23 percent.

The rise is significant and encouraging for law makers as Europe prepares to spend billions of euros to recover from the virus, with wind power investments underscoring the momentum, and set the bloc on track to neutralize its carbon footprint by the middle of the century.

“This marks a symbolic moment ​in the transition of Europe’s electricity sector,” said Dave Jones, an electricity analyst at Ember. “For countries like Poland and Czech Republic grappling with how to get off coal, there is now a clear way out.”

While power demand slumped, output from wind and solar farms increased, reflecting global wind and solar gains, because more plants came online in breezy and sunny weather. At the same time, wet conditions boosted hydro power in Iberia and the Nordic markets.

Those conditions helped renewables become a rare bright spot throughout the economic tumult this year. In many areas, renewable sources of electricity have priority to the grid, meaning they could keep growing even as demand shrank and other power plants were turned off.

Electricity demand in the EU fell 7 percent overall. Fossil-fuel power generation plunged 18 percent in the first half compared with a year earlier. Renewable generation grew by 11 percent, according to Ember.

Coal was by far the biggest loser in 2020. It’s one of the most-polluting sources of power and its share is slumping in Europe as the price of carbon increases, with renewables surpassing coal in the US illustrating the broader shift, and governments move to cut emissions. Power from coal fell 32 percent across the EU.

Despite the economics, the decision to shut off coal for good will come down to political agreements between producers and governments, while reducing reliance on Russian energy reshapes policy debates.

One consequence of the jump in renewables is that negative prices have increased, as solar is reshaping prices in Northern Europe in similar ways. On particularly windy or sunny days when there isn’t much demand, the grid can be flooded with power. That’s leading wind farms to be shut off and customers to be paid to consume electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

New York Climate Transition Costs highlight rising utility bills for ratepayers as the state pursues renewable energy, electrification, and a zero-emissions grid, with Inflation Reduction Act funding to offset consumer burdens while delivering health benefits.

Key Points

Ratepayer-funded costs to meet New York's renewable targets and zero-emissions grid, offset by federal incentives.

✅ $48B in projects funded by consumers over two decades

✅ Up to 10% of utility bills already paid by some upstate users

✅ Targets: 70% renewables by 2030; zero-emissions grid by 2040

A generational push to tackle climate change in New York that includes its Green New Deal is quickly becoming a pocketbook issue headed into 2024.

Some upstate New York electric customers are already paying 10 percent of their electricity bills to support the state’s effort to move off fossil fuels and into renewable energy. In the coming years, people across the state can expect to give up even bigger chunks of their income to the programs — $48 billion in projects is set to be funded by consumers over the next two decades.

The scenario is creating a headache for New York Democrats grappling with the practical and political risk of the transition.

It’s an early sign of the dangers Democrats across the country will face as they press forward with similar policies at the state and federal level. New Jersey, Maryland and California are also wrestling with the issue and, in some cases, are reconsidering their ambitious plans, including a 100% carbon-free mandate in California.

“This is bad politics. This is politics that are going to hurt all New Yorkers,” said state Sen. Mario Mattera, a Long Island Republican who has repeatedly questioned the costs of the state’s climate law and who will pay for it.

Democrats, Mattera said, have been unable to explain effectively the costs for the state’s goals. “We need to transition into renewable energy at a certain rate, a certain pace,” he said.

Proponents say the switch will ultimately lower energy bills by harnessing the sun and wind, result in significant health benefits and — critically — help stave off the most devastating climate change scenarios. And they hope new money to go green from the Inflation Reduction Act, celebrating its one-year anniversary, can limit costs to consumers.

New York has statutory mandates calling for 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and a fully “zero emissions” grid by 2040, among the most aggressive targets in the country, aligning with a broader path to net-zero electricity by mid-century. The grid needs to be greened, while demand for electricity is expected to more than double by 2050 — the same year when state law requires emissions to be cut by 85 percent from 1990 levels.

But some lawmakers in New York, particularly upstate Democrats, and similar moderates across the nation are worried about moving too quickly and sparking a backlash against higher costs, as debates over Minnesota's 2050 carbon-free plan illustrate. The issue is another threat to Democrats heading into the critical 2024 battleground House races in New York, which will be instrumental in determining control of Congress.

Even Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who is fond of saying that “we’re the last generation to be able to do anything” about climate change, last spring balked at the potential price tag of a policy to achieve New York’s climate targets, a concern echoed in debates over a fully renewable grid by 2030 elsewhere. And she’s not the only top member of her party to say so.

“If it’s all just going to be passed along to the ratepayers — at some point, there’s a breaking point, and we don’t want to lose public support for this agenda,” state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, a Democrat, warned in an interview.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act proposes DOE grants for utility companies to fund wildfire mitigation, grid resilience upgrades, undergrounding power lines, fast-tripping protection, weather monitoring, and vegetation management, prioritizing rural electric cooperatives.

Key Points

A federal bill funding utility wildfire mitigation and grid hardening via DOE grants, prioritizing rural utilities.

✅ $1B DOE matching grants for grid upgrades and wildfire mitigation.

✅ Prioritizes rural utilities; supports undergrounding and hardening.

✅ Funds fast-tripping protection, weather stations, vegetation management.

U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley today introduced new legislation, amid transmission barriers that persist, to incentivize utility companies to do more to reduce wildfire risks as aging power infrastructure ignite wildfires in Oregon and across the West.

Wyden and Merkley's Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act of 2020 would ensure power companies do their part to reduce the risk of wildfires through power system upgrades, even as California utility spending crackdown seeks accountability, such as the undergrounding of power lines, fire safety equipment installation and proper vegetation management.

"First and foremost, this is a public safety issue. Fire after fire ignited this summer because the aging power grid could not withstand a major windstorm during the season's hottest and driest days," Wyden said. "Many utility companies are already working to improve the resiliency of their power grid, but the sheer costs of these investments must not come at the expense of equitable regulation for rural utility customers. Congress must do all that it can to stop the catastrophic wildfires decimating the West, and that means improving rural infrastructure. By partnering with utilities around the country, we can increase wildfire mitigation efforts at a modest cost -- a fire prevention investment that will pay dividends by saving lives, homes and businesses."

"When this year's unprecedented wildfire event hit, I drove hundreds of miles across our state to see the damage firsthand and to hear directly from impacted communities, so that I could go back to D.C. and work for the solutions they need," said Merkley. "What I saw was apocalyptic--and we have to do everything we can to reduce the risk of this happening again. That means we have to work with our power companies to get critical upgrades and safety investments into place as quickly as possible."

The Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act of 2020:

* Establishes a $1 billion-per-year matching grant program for power companies through the Department of Energy, even as ACORE opposed DOE subsidy proposals, to reduce the risk of power lines and grid infrastructure causing wildfires.

* Gives special priority to smaller, rural electric companies to ensure mitigation efforts are targeted to forested rural areas.

* Promotes proven methods for reducing wildfire risks, including undergrounding of lines, installing fast-tripping protection systems, and constructing weather monitoring stations to respond to electrical system fire risks.

* Provides for hardening of overhead power lines and installation of fault location equipment where undergrounding of power lines is not a favorable option.

* Ensures fuels management activities of power companies are carried out in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

* Requires power companies to have "skin in the game" by making the program a 1-to-1 matching grant, with an exception for smaller utilities where the matching requirement is one third of the grant.

* Delivers accountability on the part of utilities and the Department of Energy by generating a report every two years on efforts conducted under the grant program.

Portland General Electric President and CEO Maria Pope: "We appreciate Senator Wyden's and Senator Merkley's leadership in proposing legislation to provide federal funding that will help protect Oregon from devastating wildfires. When passed, this will help make Oregon's electric system safer, faster, without increasing customer prices. That is especially important given the economy and hotter, drier summers and longer wildfire seasons that Oregon will continue to face."

Lane County Commission Chair Heather Butch: " In a matter of hours, the entire Lane County community of Blue River was reduced to ashes by the Holiday Farm Fire. Since the moment I first toured that devastation I've been committed to building it back better. I applaud Senators Wyden and Merkley for drafting the Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act, as it could well provide the path towards meeting this important goal. Moreover, the resultant programs will better protect rural communities from the increasing dangers of wildfires through a number of preventative measures that would otherwise be difficult to implement."

Linn County Commissioner Roger Nyquist: "This legislation is a smart strategic investment for the future safety of our residents as well as the economic vitality of our community."

Marion County Commissioner Kevin Cameron: "After experiencing a traumatic evacuation during the Beachie Creek and Lion's Head wild fires, I understand the need to strengthen the utility Infrastructure. The improvements resulting from Senator Wyden and Merkley's bill will reduce disasters in the future, but improve everyday reliability for our citizens who live, work and protect the environment in potential wildfire areas."

Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn: "EEI thanks Senator Wyden and Senator Merkley for their leadership in introducing the Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act. This bill will help support and accelerate projects already planned and underway to enhance energy grid resiliency and mitigate the risk of wildfire damage to power lines. Electric companies across the country are committed to working with our government partners and other stakeholders on preparation and mitigation efforts that combat the wildfire threat and on the rapid deployment of technology solutions, including aggregated DERs at FERC, that address wildfire risks, while still maintaining the safe, reliable, and affordable energy we all need."

Oregon Rural Electric Cooperative Association Executive Director Ted Case: "Oregon's electric cooperatives support the Wildfire Resilient Power Grid Act and appreciate Senator Wyden's and Senator Merkley's leadership and innovative approach to wildfire mitigation, particularly for small, rural utilities. This legislation includes targeted assistance that will help us to continue to provide affordable, reliable and safe electricity to over 500,000 Oregonians."

Sustainable Northwest Director of Government Affairs & Program Strategy Dylan Kruse: "In recent years, the West has seen too many wildfires originate due to poorly maintained or damaged electric utility transmission and distribution infrastructure. This legislation plays an important role to ensure that power lines do not contribute to wildfire starts, while providing safe and reliable power to communities during wildfire events. Utilities must, even as Wyoming clean energy bill proposals emerge, live up to their legal requirements to maintain their infrastructure, but this bill provides welcome resources to expedite and prioritize risk reduction, while preventing cost increases for ratepayers."

Oregon Wild Wilderness Program Manager Erik Fernandez: "2020 taught Oregon the lesson that California learned in the Paradise Fire, and SCE wildfire lawsuits that followed underscore the stakes. Addressing the risk of unnaturally caused powerline fires is an increasingly important critical task. I appreciate Senator Ron Wyden's efforts to protect our homes and communities from powerline fires."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro COVID-19 Bill Relief offers pandemic support with bill credits, rate cuts, and deferred payments for residential, small business, and industrial customers across B.C., easing utilities costs during COVID-19 economic hardship.

Key Points

COVID-19 bill credits, a rate cut, and deferred payments for eligible B.C. homes, small businesses, and industrial customers.

✅ Non-repayable credits equal to 3 months of average bills.

✅ Small businesses closed can skip bills for three months.

✅ Large industry may defer 50% of electricity costs.

B.C. residents who have lost their jobs or had their wages cut will get a three-month break on BC Hydro bills, while small businesses, amid commercial consumption plummets during COVID-19, are also eligible to apply for similar relief.

Premier John Horgan said Wednesday the credit for residential customers will be three times a household’s average monthly bill over the past year and does not have to be repaid as part of the government’s support package during the COVID-19 pandemic, as BC Hydro demand down 10% highlights the wider market pressures.

He said small businesses that are closed will not have to pay their power bills for three months, and in Ontario an Ontario COVID-19 hydro rebate complemented similar relief, and large industrial customers, including those operating mines and pulp mills, can opt to have 50 per cent of their electricity costs deferred, though a deferred costs report warned of long-term liabilities.

BC Hydro rates will be cut for all customers by one per cent as of April 1, a move similar to Ontario 2021 rate reductions that manufacturers supported lower rates at the time, after the B.C. Utilities Commission provided interim approval of an application the utility submitted last August.

Eligible residential customers can apply for bill relief starting next week and small business applications will be accepted as of April 14, while staying alert to BC Hydro scam attempts during this period, with the deadline for both categories set at June 30.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News