Proposed power plant gets no static at meeting

Texas power grid highlights ERCOT reliability strains from extreme heat, climate change, and low wind, as natural gas and renewables balance tight capacity amid EV charging growth, heat pumps, and blackout risk across the U.S.

Key Points

Texas power grid is ERCOT-run and isolated, balancing natural gas and wind amid extreme weather and electrification.

✅ Isolated from other U.S. grids, limited import support

✅ Vulnerable to extreme heat, winter storms, low wind

✅ Demand growth from EVs and heat pumps stresses capacity

Texas has a unique state-run power grid facing a Texas grid crisis that has raised concerns, but its issues with extreme weather, and balancing natural gas and wind, hold lessons for an entire U.S. at risk for power outages from climate change.

Grid operator the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which has drawn criticism from Elon Musk recently, called on consumers to voluntarily reduce power use on Monday when dangerous heat gripped America’s second-most populous state.

The action paid off as the Texas grid avoided blackouts — and a repeat of its winter crisis — despite record or near-record temperatures that depleted electric supplies amid a broader supply-chain crisis affecting utilities this summer, and risked lost power to more than 26 million customers. ERCOT later on Monday lifted the call for conservation.

For sure, it’s a unique situation, as the state-run power grid system runs outside the main U.S. grids. Still, all Americans can learn from Texas about the fragility of a national power grid that is expected to be challenged more frequently by hot and cold weather extremes brought on by climate change, including potential reliability improvements policymakers are weighing.

The grid will also be tested by increased demand to power electric vehicles (EVs) and conversions to electric heat pumps — all as part of a transition to a “greener” future.

Why is Texas different?
ERCOT, the main, but not only, Texas grid, is unique in its state-run, and not regional, format used by the rest of the country. Because it’s an energy-rich state, Texas has been able to set power prices below those seen in other parts of the country, and its independence gives it more pricing authority, while lawmakers consider market reforms to avoid blackouts. But during unusual strain on the system, such as more people blasting their air conditioners longer to combat a record heat wave, it also has no where else to turn.

A lethal winter power shortage in February 2021, during a Texas winter storm that left many without power and water, notoriously put the state and its independent utility in the spotlight when ERCOT failed to keep residents warm and pipes from bursting. Texas’s 2021 outage left more than 200 people dead and rang up $20 billion in damage. Fossil-fuel CL00, 0.80% backers pointed to the rising use of intermittent wind power, which generates 23% of Texas’s electricity. Others said natural-gas equipment was frozen under the extreme conditions.

This week, ERCOT is asking for voluntary conservation between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. local time daily due to record high electricity demand from the projected heat wave, and also because of low wind. ERCOT said current projections show wind generation coming in at less than 10% of capacity. ERCOT stressed that no systemwide outages are expected, and Gov. Greg Abbott has touted grid readiness heading into fall, but it was acting preemptively.

A report late last year from the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) said the Texas system without upgrades could see a power shortfall of 37% in extreme winter conditions. NERC’s outlook suggested the state and ERCOT isn’t prepared for a repeat of weather extremes.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Consumption drives debate on blockchain mining, proof-of-work, carbon footprint, and emissions, with CCAF estimates in terawatt hours highlighting electricity demand, fossil fuel reliance, and sustainability concerns for data centers and cryptocurrency networks.

Key Points

Electricity used by Bitcoin proof-of-work mining, often fossil-fueled, estimated by CCAF in terawatt hours.

✅ CCAF: 40-445 TWh, central estimate ~130 TWh

✅ ~66% of mining electricity sourced from fossil fuels

✅ Proof-of-work increases hash rate, energy, and emissions

The University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) studies the burgeoning business of cryptocurrencies.

It calculates that Bitcoin's total energy consumption is somewhere between 40 and 445 annualised terawatt hours (TWh), with a central estimate of about 130 terawatt hours.

The UK's electricity consumption is a little over 300 TWh a year, while Argentina uses around the same amount of power as the CCAF's best guess for Bitcoin, as countries like New Zealand's electricity future are debated to balance demand.

And the electricity the Bitcoin miners use overwhelmingly comes from polluting sources, with the U.S. grid not 100% renewable underscoring broader energy mix challenges worldwide.

The CCAF team surveys the people who manage the Bitcoin network around the world on their energy use and found that about two-thirds of it is from fossil fuels, and some regions are weighing curbs like Russia's proposed mining ban amid electricity deficits.

Huge computing power - and therefore energy use - is built into the way the blockchain technology that underpins the cryptocurrency has been designed.

It relies on a vast decentralised network of computers.

These are the so-called Bitcoin "miners" who enable new Bitcoins to be created, but also independently verify and record every transaction made in the currency.

In fact, the Bitcoins are the reward miners get for maintaining this record accurately.

It works like a lottery that runs every 10 minutes, explains Gina Pieters, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and a research fellow with the CCAF team.

Data processing centres around the world, including hotspots such as Iceland's mining strain, race to compile and submit this record of transactions in a way that is acceptable to the system.

They also have to guess a random number.

The first to submit the record and the correct number wins the prize - this becomes the next block in the blockchain.

Estimates for bitcoin's electricity consumption
At the moment, they are rewarded with six-and-a-quarter Bitcoins, valued at about $50,000 each.

As soon as one lottery is over, a new number is generated, and the whole process starts again.

The higher the price, says Prof Pieters, the more miners want to get into the game, and utilities like BC Hydro suspending new crypto connections highlight grid pressures.

"They want to get that revenue," she tells me, "and that's what's going to encourage them to introduce more and more powerful machines in order to guess this random number, and therefore you will see an increase in energy consumption," she says.

And there is another factor that drives Bitcoin's increasing energy consumption.

The software ensures it always takes 10 minutes for the puzzle to be solved, so if the number of miners is increasing, the puzzle gets harder and the more computing power needs to be thrown at it.

Bitcoin is therefore actually designed to encourage increased computing effort.

The idea is that the more computers that compete to maintain the blockchain, the safer it becomes, because anyone who might want to try and undermine the currency must control and operate at least as much computing power as the rest of the miners put together.

What this means is that, as Bitcoin gets more valuable, the computing effort expended on creating and maintaining it - and therefore the energy consumed - inevitably increases.

We can track how much effort miners are making to create the currency.

They are currently reckoned to be making 160 quintillion calculations every second - that's 160,000,000,000,000,000,000, in case you were wondering.

And this vast computational effort is the cryptocurrency's Achilles heel, says Alex de Vries, the founder of the Digiconomist website and an expert on Bitcoin.

All the millions of trillions of calculations it takes to keep the system running aren't really doing any useful work.

"They're computations that serve no other purpose," says de Vries, "they're just immediately discarded again. Right now we're using a whole lot of energy to produce those calculations, but also the majority of that is sourced from fossil energy, and clean energy's 'dirty secret' complicates substitution."

The vast effort it requires also makes Bitcoin inherently difficult to scale, he argues.

"If Bitcoin were to be adopted as a global reserve currency," he speculates, "the Bitcoin price will probably be in the millions, and those miners will have more money than the entire [US] Federal budget to spend on electricity."

"We'd have to double our global energy production," he says with a laugh, even as some argue cheap abundant electricity is getting closer to reality today. "For Bitcoin."

He says it also limits the number of transactions the system can process to about five per second.

This doesn't make for a useful currency, he argues.

Rising price of bitcoin graphic
And that view is echoed by many eminent figures in finance and economics.

The two essential features of a successful currency are that it is an effective form of exchange and a stable store of value, says Ken Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

He says Bitcoin is neither.

"The fact is, it's not really used much in the legal economy now. Yes, one rich person sells it to another, but that's not a final use. And without that it really doesn't have a long-term future."

What he is saying is that Bitcoin exists almost exclusively as a vehicle for speculation.

So, I want to know: is the bubble about to burst?

"That's my guess," says Prof Rogoff and pauses.

"But I really couldn't tell you when."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Clean Power Plan Rollback signals EPA's shift to inside-the-fence efficiency at coal plants, emphasizing heat-rate improvements over sector-wide decarbonization, renewables, natural gas switching, demand-side efficiency, and carbon capture under Clean Air Act constraints.

Key Points

A policy shift by the EPA to replace broad emissions rules with plant-level efficiency standards, limiting CO2 cuts.

✅ Inside-the-fence heat-rate improvements at coal units

✅ Potential CO2 cuts limited to about 6% per plant

✅ Alternatives: fuel switching, renewables, carbon capture

President Barack Obama’s signature plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation took years to develop and touched every aspect of power production and use, from smokestacks to home insulation.

The Trump administration is moving to scrap that plan and has signaled that any alternative it might adopt would take a much less expansive approach, possibly just telling utilities to operate their plants more efficiently.

That’s a strategy environmentalists say is almost certain to fall short of what’s needed.

The Trump administration is making "a wholesale retreat from EPA’s legal, scientific and moral obligation to address the threats of climate change," said former Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, the architect of Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

President Donald Trump promised to rip up the initiative, echoing an end to the 'war on coal' message from his campaign, which mandated that states change their overall power mix, displacing coal-fired electricity with that from wind, solar and natural gas. The EPA is about to make it official, arguing the prior administration violated the Clean Air Act by requiring those broad changes to the electricity sector, according to a draft obtained by Bloomberg.

Possible Replacements

Later, the agency will also ask the public to weigh in on possible replacements. The administration will ask whether the EPA can or should develop a replacement rule -- and, if so, what actions can be mandated at individual power plants, though some policymakers favor a clean electricity standard to drive broader decarbonization.

Follow the Trump Administration’s Every Move

Such changes -- such as adding automation or replacing worn turbine seals -- would yield at most a 6 percent gain in efficiency, along with a corresponding fall in greenhouse gas emissions, according to earlier modeling by the Environmental Protection Agency and other analysts. That compares to the 32 percent drop in emissions by 2030 under Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

"In these existing plants, there’s only so many places to look for savings," said John Larsen, a director of the Rhodium Group, a research firm. "There’s only so many opportunities within a big spinning machine like that."

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined such an "inside-the-fence-line" approach in 2014, later embodied in the Affordable Clean Energy rule that industry groups backed, when he served as Oklahoma’s attorney general. Under his blueprint, states would set emissions standards after a detailed unit-by-unit analysis, looking at what reductions are possible given "the engineering limits of each facility."

The EPA has not decided whether it will promulgate a new rule at all, though it has also proposed new pollution limits for coal and gas plants in separate actions. In a forthcoming advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA will ask "what inside-the-fence-line options are legal, feasible and appropriate," according to a document obtained by Bloomberg.

Increased efficiency at a coal plant -- known as heat-rate improvement -- translates into fewer carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of electric power generated.

Under Obama, the EPA envisioned utilities would make some straightforward efficiency improvements at coal-fired power plants as the first step to comply with the Clean Power Plan. But that was expected to coincide with bigger, broader changes -- such as using more cleaner-burning natural gas, adding more renewable power projects and simply encouraging customers to do a better job turning down their thermostats and turning off their lights.

Obama’s EPA didn’t ask utilities to wring every ounce of efficiency they could out of coal-fired power plants because they saw the other options as cheaper. A plant-specific approach "would be grossly insufficient to address the public health and environmental impacts from CO2 emissions," Obama’s EPA said.

That approach might yield modest emissions reductions and, in a perverse twist, might event have the opposite effect. If utilities make coal plants more efficient -- thereby driving down operating costs -- they also make them more competitive with natural gas and renewables, "so they might run more and pollute more," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force.  

In a competitive market, any improvement in emissions produced for each unit of energy could be overwhelmed by an increase in electrical output, and debates over changes to electricity pricing under Trump and Perry added further uncertainty.

"A very minor heat rate improvement program would very likely result in increased emissions," Schneider said. "It might be worse than nothing."

Power companies want to get as much electricity as possible from every pound of coal, so they already have an incentive to keep efficiency high, said Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant EPA administrator now at Bracewell LLP. But an EPA regulation known as “new source review” has discouraged some from making those changes, for fear of triggering other pollution-control requirements, he said.

"If EPA’s replacement rule allows companies to improve efficiency without triggering new source review, it would make a real difference in terms of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions," Holmstead said.

Modest Impact

A plant-specific approach doesn’t have to mean modest impact.

"If you’re thinking about what can be done at the power plants by themselves, you don’t stop at efficiency tune-ups," said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean air program. "You look at things like switching to natural gas or installing carbon capture and storage."

Requirements that facilities use carbon capture technology or swap in natural gas for coal could actually come close to hitting the same goals as in Obama’s Clean Power Plan -- if not go even further, Schneider said. They just would cost more.

The benefit of the Clean Power Plan "is that it enabled states to create programs and enabled companies to find a reduction strategy that was the most efficient and made the most sense for their own content," said Kathryn Zyla, deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center. "And that flexibility was really important for the states and companies."

Some utilities, including Houston-based Calpine Corp., PG&E Corp. and Dominion Resources Inc., backed the Obama-era approach. And they are still pushing the Trump administration to be creative now.

"The Clean Power Plan achieved a thoughtful, balanced approach that gave companies and states considerable flexibility on how best to pursue that goal," said Melissa Lavinson, vice president of federal affairs and policy for PG&E’s Pacific Gas and Electric utility. “We look forward to working with the administration to devise an alternative plan for decarbonizing the U.S. economy."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Gas Plant Extensions keep Ormond Beach, AES Alamitos, and Huntington Beach on standby for grid reliability during heat waves, as regulators balance renewables, battery storage, and power, pending State Water Resources Control Board approval.

Key Points

State plan extending three coastal gas plants to 2026, adding capacity as California expands renewables and storage.

✅ Extends Ormond Beach, AES Alamitos, AES Huntington Beach

✅ Mitigates blackout risk during extreme heat and peak demand

✅ Pending State Water Resources Control Board approval

Temperatures in many California cities are cooling down this week, but a debate is simmering on how to generate enough electricity to power the state through extreme weather events while transitioning away from a reliance on fossil fuels as clean energy progress indicates statewide.

The California Energy Commission voted Wednesday to extend the life of three gas power plants along the state’s southern coast through 2026, even as natural-gas electricity records persist nationwide, postponing a shutoff deadline previously set for the end of this year. The vote would keep the decades-old facilities _ Ormond Beach Generating Station, AES Alamitos and AES Huntington Beach — open so they can run during emergencies.

The state is at a greater risk of blackouts during major events when many Californians simultaneously crank up their air conditioning, such as a blistering heat wave, illustrated by widespread utility shutoffs in recent years.

“We need to move faster in incorporating renewable energy. We need to move faster at incorporating battery storage. We need to build out chargers faster,” commissioner Patricia Monahan said amid an ongoing debate over the classification of nuclear power in California. “We’re working with all the energy institutions to do that, but we are not there yet.”

The plan, put together by the state’s Department of Water Resources, still needs final approval from the State Water Resources Control Board, which may vote on the issue next week. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation last year creating an energy reserve the state could use as a last resort if there is likely to be an energy shortage, a challenge mirrored by Ontario electricity shortfall concerns elsewhere. The law allowed the Department of Water Resources to fund or secure power sources in those instances, after PG&E shutdown reasons drew attention to grid vulnerabilities.

The commission acknowledged it was a difficult decision. Environmentalists say the state needs to transition to more short- and long-term solutions that will help it move away from fossil fuels and to rely more on renewable energy sources like solar and wind, similar to Ontario's clean power push in recent years. They’re also concerned about the health impacts associated with pollution from gas plants.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

WA $600 Electricity Credit supports households with power bills as a budget stimulus, delivering an automatic rebate via Synergy and Horizon, funded by the Bell Group settlement to aid COVID-19 recovery and local spending.

Key Points

A one-off $600 power bill credit for all Synergy and Horizon residential accounts, funded by the Bell Group settlement.

✅ Automatic, not means-tested; applied to Synergy and Horizon accounts.

✅ Can offset upcoming bills or carry forward to future statements.

✅ Funded by Bell Group payout; aims to ease cost-of-living pressures.

Washington Premier Mark McGowan has announced more than a million households will receive a $600 electricity credit on their electricity account before their next bill.

The $650 million measure will form part of Thursday's pre-election state budget, similar to legislation to lower electricity rates in other jurisdictions, which has been delayed since May because of the pandemic and will help deflect criticism by the opposition that Labor hasn't done enough to stimulate WA's economy.

Mr McGowan made the announcement on Sunday while visiting a family in the electorate of Bicton.

"Here in WA, our state is in the best possible position as we continue our strong recovery from COVID-19, but times are still tough for many West Australians, and there is always more work to do," he said.

"[The credit] will mean WA families have a bit of extra money available in the lead up to Christmas.

"But I have a request, if this credit means you can spend some extra money, use it to support our local WA businesses."

The electricity bill credit will be automatically applied to every Synergy or Horizon residential account from Sunday, echoing moves such as reconnections for nonpayment by Hydro One in Canada.

It can be applied to future bills and will not be means tested.

"The $600 credit is fully funded through the recent Bell Group settlement, for the losses incurred in the Bell Group collapse in the early 1990s," Mr McGowan said.

"It made sense that these funds go straight back to Western Australians."

In September, the liquidator for the Bell Group and its finance arm distributed funds to its five major creditors, including $670 million to the WA government. The payment marked the close of the 30-year battle to recover taxpayer funds squandered during the WA Inc era of state politics.

The payout is the result of litigation stemming from the 1988 partnership between then Labor government and entrepreneur Alan Bond in acquiring major interests in Robert Holmes à Court’s failing Bell Group, following the 1987 stock market crash.

WA shadow minister for cost of living, Tony Krsticevic, said the $600 credit was returning money back into West Australian's pockets from "WA Labor's darkest days".

“This is taxpayers’ money out of a levy which was brought in to pay for Labor’s scandalous WA Inc losses of $450 million in the 1980s,” he said.

“This money should be returned to West Australians.

“WA families are in desperate need of it because they are struggling under cost of living increases of $850 every year since 2017 under WA Labor, amid concerns elsewhere that an electricity recovery rate could lead to higher hydro bills.

“But they need more than just a one-off payment. These $850 cost of living increases are an on-going burden.”

Prior to the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, the opposition believed it was gaining traction by attacking the government's increases to fees and charges in its first three budgets, and by urging an electricity market overhaul to favor consumers.

Last year, Labor increased household fees and charges by $127.77, which came on top of increases over the prior two budgets, as other jurisdictions faced hydro rate increases of around 3 per cent.

According the state's annual report on its finances released in September, the $2.6 billion budget surplus forecast in the at the end of 2019 had been reduced by $920 million to $1.7 billion despite the impact of the coronavirus.

But total public sector net debt was at $35.4 billion, down from the $36.1 billion revision at the end of 2019 in the mid-year review.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FirstEnergy Nuclear Plant Closures threaten Ohio and Pennsylvania jobs, tax revenue, and grid stability, as Nuclear Matters and Brattle Group warn of higher carbon emissions and market pressures from PJM and cheap natural gas.

Key Points

Planned shutdowns of Davis-Besse, Perry, and Beaver Valley, with regional economic and carbon impacts.

✅ Over 3,000 direct jobs and local tax revenue at risk

✅ Emissions may rise until renewables scale, possibly into 2034

✅ Debate over subsidies, market design, and PJM capacity rules

A national nuclear lobby wants to remind people what's at stake for Ohio and Pennsylvania if FirstEnergy Solutions follows through with plans to shut down three nuclear plants over the next three years, including its Davis-Besse nuclear plant east of Toledo.

A report issued Monday by Nuclear Matters largely echoes concerns raised by FES, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., and other supporters of nuclear power about economic and environmental hardships and brownout risks that will likely result from the planned closures.

Along with Davis-Besse, Perry nuclear plant east of Cleveland and the twin-reactor Beaver Valley nuclear complex west of Pittsburgh are slated to close.

#google#

"If these plants close, the livelihoods of thousands of Ohio and Pennsylvania residents will disappear. The over 3,000 highly skilled individuals directly employed by these sites will leave to seek employment at other facilities still operating around the country," Lonnie Stephenson, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers president, said in a statement distributed by Nuclear Matters. Mr. Stephenson also serves on the Nuclear Matters advocacy council.

This new report and others like it are part of an extensive campaign by nuclear energy advocates to court state and federal legislators one more time for tens of millions of dollars of financial support or at least legislation that better suits the nuclear industry. Critics allege such pleas amount to a request for massive government bailouts, arguing that deregulated electricity markets should not subsidize nuclear.

The latest report was prepared for Nuclear Matters by the Brattle Group, a firm that specializes in analyzing economic, finance, and regulatory issues for corporations, law firms, and governments.

"These announced retirements create a real urgency to learn what would happen if these plants are lost," Dean Murphy, the Brattle report's lead author, said.

More than 3,000 jobs would be lost, as would millions of dollars in tax revenue. It also could take as long as 2034 for the region's climate-altering carbon emissions to be brought back down to existing levels, based on current growth projections for solar- and wind-powered projects, and initiatives such as ending coal by 2032 by some utilities, Mr. Murphy said.

His group's report only takes into account nuclear plant operations, though. Many of those who oppose nuclear power have long pointed out that mining uranium for nuclear plant fuel generates substantial emissions, as does the process of producing steel cladding for fuel bundles and the enrichment-production of that fuel. Still, nuclear has ranked among the better performers in reports that have taken such a broader look at overall emissions.

FES has accused the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, of creating market conditions that favor natural gas and, thus, make it almost impossible for nuclear to compete throughout its 13-state region, a debate intensified by proposed electricity pricing changes at the federal level.

PJM has strongly denied those accusations, and has said it anticipates no shortfalls in energy distribution if those nuclear plants close prematurely, even as a recent FERC decision on grid policy drew industry criticism.

FES, citing massive losses, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The target dates for closures of the FES properties are May 31, 2020 for Davis-Besse; May 31, 2021 for Perry and Beaver Valley Unit 1, and Oct. 31, 2021 for Beaver Valley Unit 2.

In addition to the three FES sites, the report includes information about the Three Mile Island Unit 1 plant near Harrisburg, Pa., which Chicago-based Exelon Generation Corp. has previously announced will be shut down in 2019. That plant and others are experiencing similar difficulties the FES plants face by competing in a market radically changed by record-low natural gas prices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News