Toronto Zoo wants to run on animal waste

Australia Electricity Supply Shortfall highlights AEMO's warning of reduced reserves as coal retirements outpace capacity, risking load shedding. Calls for 1GW strategic reserves and investment in renewables, storage, and dispatchable power in Victoria.

Key Points

It is AEMO's forecast of reduced reserves, higher outage risk, and a need for 1GW strategic backup capacity.

✅ Coal retirements outpacing firm, dispatchable capacity

✅ AEMO urges 1GW strategic reserves in Victoria and South Australia

✅ Investment needed: renewables, storage, grid and reliability services

Australia’s electricity operator has warned of threats to electricity supply including a shortfall in generation and reduced power reserves on the horizon.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has called for further investment in the country’s energy portfolio as retiring coal plants are replaced by intermittent renewables poised to eclipse coal, leaving the grid with less back-up capacity.

AEMO has said this increases the chances of supply interruption and load shedding.

It added the federal government should target 1GW of strategic reserves in the states most at risk – Victoria and South Australia, even as the Prime Minister has ruled out taxpayer-funded power plants in the current energy battle.

CEO of the Clean Energy Council, Kane Thornton, said the shortfall in generation, reflected in a short supply of electricity, was due a decade of indecisiveness and debate leading to a “policy vacuum”.

He added: “The AEMO report revealed that the new projects added to the system under the renewable energy target will help to improve reliability over the next few years.

“We need to accept that the energy system is in transition, with lessons from dispatchable power shortages in Europe, and long term policy is now essential to ensure private investment in the most efficient new energy technology and solutions.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Labrador Island Link Reliability faces scrutiny as Nalcor Energy and General Electric address software issues; Liberty Consulting warns of Holyrood risks, winter outages, grid stability concerns, and PUB oversight for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Key Points

It is the expected dependability of the link this winter, currently uncertain due to GE software and Holyrood risks.

✅ GE software delays may hinder reliable in-service by mid-November.

✅ Holyrood performance issues increase winter outage risk.

✅ PUB directs Hydro to plan contingencies and improve assets.

An independent consultant is questioning if the brand new Labrador Island link can be counted on to supply power to Newfoundland this coming winter.

In June, Nalcor Energy confirmed it had successfully sent power from Churchill Falls to the Avalon Peninsula through its more than 1500-kilometre link, but now the Liberty Consulting Group says it doesn't expect the link will be up and running consistently this winter.

"What we have learned supports a conclusion that the Labrador Island Link is unlikely to be reliably in commercial operation at the start of the winter," says the report dated Aug. 30, 2018.

The link relies on software provided by General Electric but Liberty says there are lingering questions about GE's ability to ensure the necessary software will be in place this fall.

"At an August meeting, company representatives did not express confidence in GE's ability to meet an in-service date for the Labrador Island Link of mid-November," says the report.

Liberty also says testing the link for a brief period this spring and fall doesn't demonstrate long-term reliability.

"The link will remain prone to the uncertainties any new major facility faces early in its operating life, especially one involving technology new to the operating company," according to the report.

Holyrood trouble

The report goes on to say island residents should also be worried about the reliability of the troubled Holyrood facility — a facility that's important when demand for energy is high during winter months.

Liberty says "poor performance at the Holyrood thermal generating station increases the risk of outages considerably."

The group's report concludes the deteriorating condition of Holyrood is a major threat to the island's power supply and Liberty says that threat "could produce very severe consequences when the Labrador Island Link is unavailable."

The consultant says questions about the Labrador Island Link's readiness combined with concerns about the reliability of Holyrood may mean power outages, and for vulnerable customers, debates over hydro disconnections policies often intensify during winter.

"This all suggests that, for at least part of this winter, the island interconnected system may be at the mercy of the weather, where severe events can test utilities' storm response efforts further."

The consultant's report also includes five recommendations to the PUB, reflecting the kind of focused nuclear alert investigation follow-up seen elsewhere.

In essence, Liberty is calling for the board to direct Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to make plans for the possibility that the link won't be available this winter. It's also calling on hydro to do more to improve the reliability of its other assets, such as Holyrood, as some operators have even contemplated locking down key staff to maintain operations during crises.

Response to Liberty's report

Nalcor CEO Stan Marshall defended the Crown corporation's winter preparedness in an email statement to CBC.

"The right level of planning and investment has been made for our existing equipment so we can continue to meet all of our customer electricity needs for this coming winter season," he wrote.

Regarding the Labrador Island Link, Marshall called for patience.

"This is new technology for our province and integrating the new transmission assets into our current electricity system is complex work that takes time," he said.

There is also a more detailed response from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which was sent to the province's Public Utiltiies Board.

Hydro says it will keep testing the Labrador Island Link and increasing the megawatts that are wheeled through it. It also says in October it will begin to give the PUB regular reports on the link's anticipated in-service date.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Proton Conducting Fuel Cells enable reversible hydrogen energy storage, coupling electrolyzers and fuel cells with ceramic catalysts and proton-conducting membranes to convert wind and solar electricity into fuel and back to reliable grid power.

Key Points

Proton conducting fuel cells store renewable power as hydrogen and generate electricity using reversible catalysts.

✅ Reversible electrolysis and fuel-cell operation in one device

✅ Ceramic air electrodes hit up to 98% splitting efficiency

✅ Scalable path to low-cost grid energy storage with hydrogen

If we want a shot at transitioning to renewable energy, we’ll need one crucial thing: technologies that can convert electricity from wind, sun, and even electricity from raindrops into a chemical fuel for storage and vice versa. Commercial devices that do this exist, but most are costly and perform only half of the equation. Now, researchers have created lab-scale gadgets that do both jobs. If larger versions work as well, they would help make it possible—or at least more affordable—to run the world on renewables.

The market for such technologies has grown along with renewables: In 2007, solar and wind provided just 0.8% of all power in the United States; in 2017, that number was 8%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But the demand for electricity often doesn’t match the supply from solar and wind, a key reason why the U.S. grid isn't 100% renewable today. In sunny California, for example, solar panels regularly produce more power than needed in the middle of the day, but none at night, after most workers and students return home.

Some utilities are beginning to install massive banks of cheaper solar batteries in hopes of storing excess energy and evening out the balance sheet. But batteries are costly and store only enough energy to back up the grid for a few hours at most. Another option is to store the energy by converting it into hydrogen fuel. Devices called electrolyzers do this by using electricity—ideally from solar and wind power—to split water into oxygen and hydrogen gas, a carbon-free fuel. A second set of devices called fuel cells can then convert that hydrogen back to electricity to power cars, trucks, and buses, or to feed it to the grid.

But commercial electrolyzers and fuel cells use different catalysts to speed up the two reactions, meaning a single device can’t do both jobs. To get around this, researchers have been experimenting with a newer type of fuel cell, called a proton conducting fuel cell (PCFC), which can make fuel or convert it back into electricity using just one set of catalysts.

PCFCs consist of two electrodes separated by a membrane that allows protons across. At the first electrode, known as the air electrode, steam and electricity are fed into a ceramic catalyst, which splits the steam’s water molecules into positively charged hydrogen ions (protons), electrons, and oxygen molecules. The electrons travel through an external wire to the second electrode—the fuel electrode—where they meet up with the protons that crossed through the membrane. There, a nickel-based catalyst stitches them together to make hydrogen gas (H2). In previous PCFCs, the nickel catalysts performed well, but the ceramic catalysts were inefficient, using less than 70% of the electricity to split the water molecules. Much of the energy was lost as heat.

Now, two research teams have made key strides in improving this efficiency, and a new fuel cell concept brings biological design ideas into the mix. They both focused on making improvements to the air electrode, because the nickel-based fuel electrode did a good enough job. In January, researchers led by chemist Sossina Haile at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, reported in Energy & Environmental Science that they came up with a fuel electrode made from a ceramic alloy containing six elements that harnessed 76% of its electricity to split water molecules. And in today’s issue of Nature Energy, Ryan O’Hayre, a chemist at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, reports that his team has done one better. Their ceramic alloy electrode, made up of five elements, harnesses as much as 98% of the energy it’s fed to split water.

When both teams run their setups in reverse, the fuel electrode splits H2 molecules into protons and electrons. The electrons travel through an external wire to the air electrode—providing electricity to power devices. When they reach the electrode, they combine with oxygen from the air and protons that crossed back over the membrane to produce water.

The O’Hayre group’s latest work is “impressive,” Haile says. “The electricity you are putting in is making H2 and not heating up your system. They did a really good job with that.” Still, she cautions, both her new device and the one from the O’Hayre lab are small laboratory demonstrations. For the technology to have a societal impact, researchers will need to scale up the button-size devices, a process that typically reduces performance. If engineers can make that happen, the cost of storing renewable energy could drop precipitously, thereby moving us closer to cheap abundant electricity at scale, helping utilities do away with their dependence on fossil fuels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Transcranial electrical stimulation synchronizes brain waves to bolster working memory, aligning neural oscillations across the prefrontal and temporal cortex. This noninvasive brain stimulation may counter cognitive aging by restoring network coupling and improving short-term recall.

Key Points

Transcranial electrical stimulation applies scalp currents to synchronize brain waves, briefly enhancing working memory.

✅ Synchronizes prefrontal-temporal networks to restore coupling

✅ Noninvasive tES/tACS protocols show rapid, reversible gains

✅ Effects lasted under an hour; durability remains to be tested

To read this sentence, you hold the words in your mind for a few seconds until you reach the period. As you do, neurons in your brain fire in coordinated bursts, generating electrical waves that let you hold information for as long as it is needed, much as novel devices can generate electricity from falling snow under specific conditions. But as we age, these brain waves start to get out of sync, causing short-term memory to falter. A new study finds that jolting specific brain areas with a periodic burst of electricity might reverse the deficit—temporarily, at least.

The work makes “a strong case” for the idea that out-of-sync brain waves in specific regions can drive cognitive aging, says Vincent Clark, a neuroscientist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, who was not involved in the research. He adds that the brain stimulation approach in the study may result in a new electrical therapy for age-related deficits in working memory.

Working memory is “the sketchpad of the mind,” allowing us to hold information in our minds over a period of seconds. This short-term memory is critical to accomplishing everyday tasks such as planning and counting, says Robert Reinhart, a neuroscientist at Boston University who led the study. Scientists think that when we use this type of memory, millions of neurons in different brain areas communicate through coupled bursts of activity, a form of electrical conduction that coordinates timing across networks. “Cells that fire together, wire together,” Reinhart says.

But despite its critical role, working memory is a fragile cognitive resource that declines with age, Reinhart says. Previous studies had suggested that reduced working-memory performance in the elderly is linked to uncoupled activity in different brain areas. So Reinhart and his team set out to test whether recoupling brain waves in older adults could boost the brain’s ability to temporarily store information, a systems-level coordination challenge akin to efforts to use AI for energy savings on modern power grids.

To do so, the researchers used jolts of weak electrical current to synchronize waves in the prefrontal and temporal cortex—two brain areas critical for cognition, a targeted approach not unlike how grids use batteries to stabilize power during strain—and applied the current to the scalps of 42 healthy people in their 60s and 70s who showed no signs of decline in mental ability. Before their brains were zapped, participants looked at a series of images: an everyday object, followed briefly by a blank screen, and then either an identical or a modified version of the same object. The goal was to spot whether the two images were different.

Then the participants took the test again, while their brains were stimulated with a current. After about 25 minutes of applying electricity, participants were on average more accurate at identifying changes in the images than they were before the stimulation. Following stimulation, their performance in the test was indistinguishable from that of a group of 42 people in their 20s. And the waves in the prefrontal and temporal cortex, which had previously been out of sync in most of the participants, started to fire in sync, the researchers report today in Nature Neuroscience, a synchronization imperative reminiscent of safeguards that prevent power blackouts on threatened grids. No such effects occurred in a second group of older people who received jolts of current that didn’t synchronize waves in the prefrontal and temporal cortex.

By using bursts of current to knock brain waves out of sync, the researchers also modulated the brain chatter in healthy people in their 20s, making them slower and less accurate at spotting differences in the image test.

“This is a very nice and clear demonstration of how functional connections underlie memory in younger adults and how alterations … can lead to memory reductions in older adults,” says Cheryl Grady, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Rotman Research Institute at Baycrest in Toronto, Canada. It’s also the first time that transcranial stimulation has been shown to restore working memory in older people, says Michael O’Sullivan, a neuroscientist at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, though electricity in medicine extends far beyond neurostimulation.

But whether brain zapping could turbocharge the cognitive abilities of seniors or help improve the memories of people with diseases like Alzheimer’s is still unclear: In the study, the positive effects on working memory lasted for just under an hour—though Reinhart says that’s as far as they recorded in the experiment. The team didn’t see the improvements decline toward the end, so he suspects that the cognitive boost may last for longer. Still, researchers say much more work has to be done to better understand how the stimulation works.

Clark is optimistic. “No pill yet developed can produce these sorts of effects safely and reliably,” he says. “Helping people is the ultimate goal of all of our research, and it’s encouraging to see that progress is being made.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Electricity Rate Overhaul proposes a fixed fee and lower per-kWh rates to boost electrification, renewables, and grid reliability, while CPUC weighs impacts on conservation, low-income customers, and time-of-use pricing across the state.

Key Points

A proposal to add fixed fees and cut per-kWh prices to drive electrification, support renewables, and balance grid costs.

✅ Fixed monthly fee plus lower volumetric per-kWh charges

✅ Aims to accelerate EVs, heat pumps, and building electrification

✅ CPUC review weighs equity, conservation, and grid reliability

California is contemplating a significant overhaul to its electricity rate structure that could bring major changes to electric bills statewide, a move that has ignited debate among environmentalists and politicians alike. The proposed modifications, spearheaded by the California Energy Commission (CEC), would introduce a fixed fee on electric bills and lower the rate per kilowatt-hour (kWh) used.

Motivations for the Change

Proponents of the plan argue that it would incentivize Californians to transition to electric appliances and vehicles, a critical aspect of the state's ambitious climate goals. They reason that a lower per-unit cost would make electricity a more attractive option for applications like home heating and transportation, which are currently dominated by natural gas and gasoline. Additionally, they believe the plan would spur investment in renewable energy sources and distributed generation, ultimately leading to a cleaner electricity grid.

California has some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country, aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The transportation sector is the state's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and electrification is considered a key strategy for reducing emissions. A 2021 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that electrifying all California vehicles and buildings could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 2020 levels.

Concerns and Potential Impacts

Opponents of the proposal, including some consumer rights groups, express apprehensions that it would discourage conservation efforts. They argue that with a lower per-kWh cost, Californians would have less motivation to reduce their electricity consumption. Additionally, they raise concerns that the income-based fixed charges could disproportionately burden low-income households, who may struggle to afford the base charge regardless of their overall electricity consumption.

A recent study by the CEC suggests that the impact on most Californians would be negligible, even as regulators face calls for action over soaring bills from ratepayers across the state. The report predicts that the average household's electricity bill would change by less than $5 per month under the proposed system. However, some critics argue that this study may not fully account for the potential behavioral changes that could result from the new rate structure.

Similar Initiatives and National Implications

California is not the only state exploring changes to its electricity rates to promote clean energy. Hawaii and New York have also implemented similar programs to encourage consumers to use electricity during off-peak hours. These time-varying rates, also known as time-of-use rates, can help reduce strain on the electricity grid during peak demand periods.

The California proposal has garnered national attention as other states grapple with similar challenges in balancing clean energy goals with affordability concerns amid soaring electricity prices in California and beyond. The outcome of this debate could have significant implications for the broader effort to decarbonize the U.S. power sector.

The Road Ahead

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is reviewing the proposal and anticipates making a decision later this year, with a potential income-based flat-fee structure under consideration. The CPUC will likely consider the plan's potential benefits and drawbacks, including its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, electricity costs for consumers, and the overall reliability of the grid, even as some lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in the legislature.

The decision on California's electricity rates is merely one piece of the puzzle in the fight against climate change. However, it is a significant one, with the potential to shape the state's energy landscape for years to come, including the future of residential rooftop solar markets and investments.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News