Putting wasted PC power to work in climate fight

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

Kentucky Coal Wage Protection Bill strengthens performance bond enforcement, links Energy and Environment Cabinet and Labor Cabinet notifications, addresses Blackjewel bankruptcy fallout, safeguards unpaid miners, ties mining permits to payroll bonds, penalizes violators via revocations.

Key Points

A Kentucky plan to enforce wage bonds and revoke mining permits to protect miners after bankruptcies.

✅ Requires wage bonds for firms under 5 years

✅ Links Energy and Environment Cabinet and Labor Cabinet

✅ Violators face permit revocation in 90 days

Following the high-profile bankruptcy of a coal company that left hundreds of Kentucky miners with bad checks last month, Sen. Johnny Ray Turner (D-Prestonsburg) said he will pre-file a bill Thursday aimed at closing a loophole that allowed the company to operate in violation of state law.

The bill would also compel state agencies to determine whether other companies are currently in violation of the law, and could revoke mining permits if the companies don't comply.

Turner's bill would amend an already-existing law that requires coal and construction companies that have been operating in Kentucky for less than five years to post a performance bond to protect wages if the companies cease their operations.

Blackjewel LLC., which employed hundreds of miners in Eastern Kentucky, failed to post that bond. When it shut its mines down and filed for bankruptcy last month, it left hundreds of miners without payment for 3 weeks and one day of work.

The bond issue has sparked criticism from various state officials, including Attorney General Andy Beshear, who said Tuesday that he would investigate whether other companies are currently in violation, similar to an external investigation of utility workers in another jurisdiction.

Blackjewel issued cold checks to its employees June 28, and when the checks bounced days later, many employees were left with bank accounts overdrawn by more than $1,000. The bankruptcy left many miners and their families with concerns over upcoming bill and mortgage payments, and, as unpaid days off at utilities elsewhere show, the strain on workers can be severe, and fostered a ongoing protest that blocked a train hauling coal from one of the company's Harlan County mines.

Blackjewel had been operating in Kentucky for about two years before it filed for bankruptcy, so it should have paid the performance bond, according to state law.

David A. Dickerson, the Kentucky Labor Cabinet Secretary, said the law as it's currently written does not set up any mechanism that notifies the cabinet, or provides comparable public reporting at large utility projects elsewhere, when a company opens in Kentucky that is supposed to pay the bond.

That allowed Blackjewel to operate for two years without any protection for workers before it closed its mines. Had the company posted the bond according to state law, miners likely would have been paid for the work they had already completed, officials said.

The law requires companies to set aside enough money to cover payroll for four weeks.

Turner's bill would compel the state Energy and Environment Cabinet to notify the Labor Cabinet's Department of Workplace Standards of any application for a mining permit from a company that has been doing business in Kentucky for less than five years.

It also compels the EEC to notify the Labor Cabinet of any companies that already have permits that are subject to the bond.

"It should have already been that way, but I'm happy so our children don't have to go through this," said Jeff Willig, a former Blackjewel miner who helped launch the protest at the railroad.

Willig said he and other miners will continue to block the tracks until they receive payment for their past work.

Any company currently operating in violation of the law would have 90 days to become compliant before its mining permits are revoked. New companies that are applying for permits will be required post the bond before permits are issued.

"Hopefully it will take care of the loopholes that had been exploited by Blackjewel," Turner said.

The bill will be taken up by the legislature when it returns to session in January. It would also cover attorneys' fees if workers are forced to sue their employer to cover wages, underscoring broader worker safety concerns during health emergencies.

Turner said he has reached out to Republican leadership in the Senate, and expects the bill to have bipartisan support come January.

Turner announced the legislation at a press conference in Harlan, the county with the highest population of Blackjewel employees affected by the bankruptcy, and as prolonged utility outages after tornadoes have strained other Kentucky communities.

State rep. Angie Hatton (D-Whitesburg) was also in attendance, along with rep. Chris Fugate (R-Chavies) and state Sen. Morgan McGarvey (D-Louisville).

Hatton said the bankruptcy has had serious economic impact throughout Eastern Kentucky, including in Letcher County, which is home to more than 130 former Blackjewel workers.

"This is something that has done a lot of damage to Eastern Kentucky," Hatton said.

Hatton plans to file the same bill in the state House of Representatives.

Fugate commended community members in Harlan County and elsewhere who have banded together in support of the miners by donating children's clothing, school supplies, food and other goods, while other regions have created a coal transition fund to help displaced workers.

Mosley called the bankruptcy "totally unprecedented" and said the current performance bond law, which has been on-the-books since 1986, lacked the enforcement necessary to protect miners in bankruptcies like Blackjewel's, even as a workplace safety fine in another case shows regulatory consequences in other industries.

"There was a law, there wasn't good enough process," Mosley said.

Blackjewel received court approval to sell many of its mines last month, including many in Kentucky, to Kopper Glo Mining, LLC.

As part of the sale agreement, Kopper Glo said it would pay $450,000 to cover the past wages of Blackjewel miners, and collect a per ton fee accumulating up to $550,000 that it will also contribute to pay back wages.

That total $1 million is less than half of all back wages owed to Blackjewel miners, but attorneys who filed a class action suit against the company said miners have a priority lien on the purchase price. That could allow former Blackjewel employees to make good on their back wages as bankruptcy proceedings continue.

Mosley said he spoke with a Kopper Glo official Thursday, who said the company is working to re-open the mines as quickly as possible. The official did not give an exact timeline.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

bGen Thermal Energy Storage stores high-temperature heat in crushed rocks, enabling on-demand steam, hot water, or hot air; integrates renewables, shifts load with off-peak electricity, and decarbonizes campus heating at SUNY Purchase with NYPA.

Key Points

A rock-based TES system storing heat to deliver steam, hot water, or hot air using renewables or off-peak power.

✅ Uses crushed rocks to store high-temperature heat

✅ Cuts about 550 metric tons CO2 annually at SUNY Purchase

✅ Integrates renewables and off-peak electricity with NYPA

Brenmiller Energy Ltd. (NASDAQ: BNRG), in collaboration with the New York Power Authority (NYPA), a utility pursuing grid software modernization to improve reliability, has successfully deployed its first bGen™ thermal energy storage (TES) system in the United States at the State University of New York (SUNY) Purchase College. This milestone project, valued at $2.5 million, underscores the growing role of TES in advancing sustainable energy solutions.

Innovative TES Technology

The bGen™ system utilizes crushed rocks to store high-temperature heat, which can be harnessed to generate steam, hot air, or hot water on demand. This approach allows for the efficient use of excess renewable energy or off-peak electricity, and parallels microreactor storage advances that broaden thermal options, providing a reliable and cost-effective means of meeting heating needs. At SUNY Purchase College, the bGen™ system is designed to supply nearly 100% of the heating requirements for the Physical Education Building.

Environmental Impact

The implementation of the bGen™ system is expected to eliminate approximately 550 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually. This reduction aligns with New York State's ambitious climate goals, including a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, even as transmission constraints can limit cross-border imports. The project also demonstrates the potential of TES to support the state's transition to a cleaner and more resilient energy system.

Collaborative Effort

The successful deployment of the bGen™ system at SUNY Purchase College is the result of a collaborative effort between Brenmiller Energy and NYPA. The project was partially funded by a grant from the Israel-U.S. Binational Industrial Research and Development (BIRD) Foundation. This partnership highlights the importance of international cooperation in advancing innovative energy technologies, as seen in OPG-TVA nuclear collaboration efforts across North America.

Future Prospects

The successful installation and operation of the bGen™ system at SUNY Purchase College serve as a model for broader adoption of TES technology in institutional settings, as OPG's SMR commitment signals parallel low-carbon investment across the region. Brenmiller Energy and NYPA plan to share the project's findings through a webinar hosted by the Renewable Thermal Collaborative on May 19, 2025. This initiative aims to promote the scalability and replicability of TES solutions across New York State and beyond.

As the demand for sustainable energy solutions continues to grow, the successful deployment of the bGen™ system at SUNY Purchase College marks a significant step forward in the integration of TES technology into the U.S. energy landscape, while projects like Pickering B refurbishment underscore parallel clean power investments. The project not only demonstrates the feasibility of TES but also sets a precedent for future initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions and enhancing energy efficiency.

Brenmiller Energy's commitment to innovation and sustainability positions the company as a key player in the evolving energy sector. With continued support from partners like NYPA and the BIRD Foundation, and as jurisdictions advance first SMR deployments in North America, Brenmiller Energy is poised to expand the reach of its TES solutions, contributing to a more sustainable and resilient energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Israel Electricity Reform Competition opens the supply segment to private suppliers, challenges IEC price controls, and promises consumer choice, marginal discounts, and market liberalization amid natural gas generation and infrastructure remaining with IEC.

Key Points

Policy opening 40% of supply to private vendors, enabling consumer choice and small discounts while IEC retains the grid.

✅ 40% of retail supply opened to private electricity suppliers

✅ IEC keeps meters, lines; tariffs still regulated by the authority

✅ Expected discounts near 7%, not dramatic price cuts initially

"See the pseudo-reform in the electricity sector: no lower prices, no opening the market to competition, and no choice of electricity suppliers, with a high rate for consumers despite natural gas." This is an advertisement by the Private Power Producers Forum that is appearing everywhere: Facebook, the Internet, billboards, and the press.

Is it possible that the biggest reform in the economy with a cost estimated by Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) (TASE: ELEC.B22) at NIS 7 billion is really a pseudo-reform? In contrast to the assertions by the private electricity producers, who are supposedly worried about our wallets and want to bring down the cost of electricity for us, the reform will open a segment of electricity supply to competition, as agreed in the final discussions about the reform. No less than 40% of this segment will be removed from IEC's exclusive responsibility and pass to private hands.

This means that in the not-too-distant future, one million households in Israel will be able to choose between different electricity suppliers. IEC will retain the infrastructure, with its meter and power lines, but for the first time, the supplier who sends the monthly bill to our home can be a private concern.

Up until now, the only regulatory agency determining the electricity rate in Israel was the Public Utilities Authority (electricity), i.e. the state. Now, in the framework of the reform, as a result of opening the supply segment to competition, private electricity producers will be able to offer a lower rate than IEC's, with mechanisms like electricity auctions shown to cut costs in some markets, while IEC's rate will still be controlled by the Public Utilities Authority (electricity).

This situation differs from the situation in almost all European countries, where the electricity market is fully open to competition and the EU is pursuing an electricity market revamp to address pricing challenges, with no electricity price controls and free switching by consumers between electricity producers, just as in the mobile phone market. This measure has not lowered electricity prices in Europe, where rates are higher than in Israel, which is in the bottom third of OECD countries in its electricity rate.

Regardless of reports, supply will be opened to competition and we will be able to choose between electricity suppliers in the future. Are the private electricity producers nevertheless right when they say that the electricity sector will not be opened to "real competition"?

What is obviously necessary is for the private producers to offer a substantially lower rate than IEC in order to attract as many new customers as possible and win their trust. Can the private producers offer a significantly lower rate than IEC? The answer is no, at least not in the near future. The teams handling the negotiations are aware of this. "The private supplier's price will not be significantly cheaper than IEC's controlled price; there will be marginal discounts," a senior government source explains. "What is involved here is another electricity intermediary, so it will not contribute to competition and lowering the price," he added.

There are already private electricity producers supplying electricity to large business customers - factories, shopping malls, and so forth - at a 7% discount. The rest of the electricity that they produce is sold to the system manager. When supply is opened to competition, it can be assumed that the private suppliers will also be able to offer a similar discount to private consumers.

Will a 7% discount cause a home consumer to leave reliable and familiar IEC for a private producer, given evidence from retail electricity competition in other markets? This is hard to know.

#google#

Why cannot private electricity producers offer a larger discount that will really break the monopoly, as their advertisement says they want to do? Chen Herzog, chief economist and partner at BDO Consulting, which is advising the Private Power Producers Forum, says, "Competition in supply requires the construction of competitive power plants that can compete and offer cheaper electricity.

"The power plants that IEC will sell in the reform, which will go on selling electricity to IEC, are outmoded, inefficient, and non-competitive. In addition, the producer will have to continue employing IEC workers in the purchased plants for at least five years. The producer will generate electricity in IEC power stations with IEC employees and additional overhead of a private producer, with factors such as cost allocation further shaping end-user rates. This amounts to being an IEC subcontractor in production. There is no saving on costs, so there will be no surplus to deduct from the consumer price," he adds.

The idea of opening supply to electricity market competition on such a large scale sounds promising, but saving on electricity for consumers still looks a long way off.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Clean Electricity Regulations 2050 balance net-zero goals with grid reliability and affordability, setting emissions caps, enabling offset credits, and flexible provincial pathways, including support for non-grid facilities during the clean energy transition.

Key Points

A federal plan for a net-zero grid by 2050 with emissions caps, offsets, and flexible provincial compliance.

✅ Emissions cap targeting 181 Mt CO2 from the power sector by 2050

✅ Offset credits and annual limits enable compliance flexibility

✅ Support for remote, non-grid facilities and regional pathways

In December 2024, the Government of Canada announced a significant policy shift regarding its clean electricity objectives. The initial target to achieve a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 has been extended to 2050. This decision reflects the government's response to feedback from provinces and energy industry stakeholders, who expressed concerns about the feasibility of meeting the 2035 deadline.

Revised Clean Electricity Regulations

The newly finalized Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) outline the framework for Canada's transition to a net-zero electricity grid by 2050, advancing the goal of 100 per cent clean electricity nationwide.

• Emissions Reduction Targets: The regulations set a cap on emissions from the electricity sector, targeting a reduction of 181 megatonnes of CO₂ by 2050. This is a decrease from the previous goal of 342 megatonnes, reflecting a more gradual approach to emissions reduction.

• Flexibility Mechanisms: To accommodate the diverse energy landscapes across provinces, the CER introduces flexibility measures. These include annual emissions limits and the option to use offset credits, allowing provinces to tailor their strategies while adhering to national objectives.

• Support for Non-Grid Connected Facilities: Recognizing the unique challenges of remote and off-grid communities, the regulations provide accommodations for certain non-grid connected facilities, ensuring that all regions can contribute to the national clean electricity goals.

Implications for Canada's Energy Landscape

The extension of the net-zero electricity target to 2050 signifies a strategic recalibration of Canada's energy policy. This adjustment acknowledges the complexities involved in transitioning to a clean energy future, including:

• Grid Modernization: Upgrading the electrical grid to accommodate renewable energy sources and ensure reliability is a critical component of the transition, especially as Ontario's EV wave accelerates across the province.

• Economic Considerations: Balancing environmental objectives with economic impacts is essential. The government aims to create over 400,000 clean energy jobs, fostering economic growth while reducing emissions, supported by ambitious EV goals in the transport sector.

• Regional Variations: Provinces have diverse energy profiles and resources, and British Columbia's power supply challenges highlight planning constraints. The CER's flexibility mechanisms are designed to accommodate these differences, allowing for tailored approaches that respect regional contexts.

Public and Industry Reactions

The policy shift has elicited varied responses:

• Environmental Advocates: Some environmental groups express concern that the extended timeline may delay critical climate action, while debates over Quebec's push for EV dominance underscore policy trade-offs. They emphasize the need for more ambitious targets to address the escalating impacts of climate change.

• Industry Stakeholders: The energy sector generally welcomes the extended timeline, viewing it as a pragmatic approach that allows for a more measured transition, particularly amid criticism of the 2035 EV mandate in transportation policy. The flexibility provisions are particularly appreciated, as they provide the necessary leeway to adapt to evolving market and technological conditions.

Looking Forward

As Canada moves forward with the implementation of the Clean Electricity Regulations, the focus will be on:

• Monitoring Progress: Establishing robust mechanisms to track emissions reductions and ensure compliance with the new targets.

• Stakeholder Engagement: Continuing dialogue with provinces, industry, and communities to refine strategies and address emerging challenges, including coordination on EV sales regulations as complementary measures.

• Innovation and Investment: Encouraging the development and deployment of clean energy technologies through incentives and support programs.

The extension of Canada's net-zero electricity target to 2050 represents a strategic adjustment aimed at achieving a balance between environmental goals and practical implementation considerations. The Clean Electricity Regulations provide a framework that accommodates regional differences and industry concerns, setting the stage for a sustainable and economically viable energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News