New hybrid technologies boost efficiency

Ontario Global Adjustment Deferral offers COVID-19 electricity bill relief to industrial and commercial consumers not on the RPP, aligning GA to March levels for Class A and Class B manufacturers to improve cash flow.

Key Points

A temporary GA deferral easing electricity costs for Ontario industrial and commercial users not on the RPP.

✅ Sets Class B GA at $115/MWh; Class A gets equal percentage cut.

✅ Applies April-June 2020; automatic bill adjustments and credits.

✅ Deferred charges repaid over 12 months starting January 2021.

Manufacturers welcome the Government of Ontario's decision to defer a portion of Global Adjustment (GA) charges as part of support for industrial and commercial electricity consumers that do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan.

"Manufacturers are pleased the government listened to Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) member recommendations and is taking action to reduce Ontario electricity bills immediately," said Dennis Darby, President & CEO of CME.

"The majority of manufacturers have identified cash flow as their top concern during the crisis, "added Darby. "The GA system would have caused a nearly $2 billion cost surge to Ontario manufacturers this year. This new initiative by the government is on top of the billions in support already provided to help manufacturers weather this unprecedented storm, while other provinces accelerate British Columbia's clean energy shift to drive long-term competitiveness. All these measures are a great start in helping businesses of all sizes stay afloat during the crisis and, keeping Ontarians employed."

"We call on the Ontario government to continue to consider the impact of electricity costs on the manufacturing sector, even after the COVID-19 crisis is resolved," stated Darby. "High prices are putting Ontario manufacturers at a significant competitive disadvantage and, discourages investments." A recent report from London Economics International (LEI) found that when compared to jurisdictions with similar manufacturing industries, Ontario's electricity prices can be up to 75% more expensive, underscoring the importance of planning for Toronto's growing electricity needs to maintain affordability.

To provide companies with temporary immediate relief on their electricity bills, the Ontario government is deferring a portion of Global Adjustment (GA) charges for industrial and commercial electricity consumers that do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan (RPP), starting from April 2020, as some regions saw reduced electricity demand from widespread remote work during the pandemic. The GA rate for smaller industrial and commercial consumers (i.e., Class B) has been set at $115 per megawatt-hour, which is roughly in line with the March 2020 value. Large industrial and commercial consumers (i.e., Class A) will receive the same percentage reduction in GA charges as Class B consumers.

The Ontario government intends to keep this relief in place through the end of June 2020, alongside investments like smart grid technology in Sault Ste. Marie to support reliability, subject to necessary extensions and approvals to implement this initiative.

Industrial and commercial electricity consumers will automatically see this relief reflected on their bills. Consumers who have already received their April bill should see an adjustment on a future bill.

Related initiatives include developing cyber standards for electricity sector IoT devices to strengthen system security.

The government intends to bring forward subsequent amendments that would, if approved, recover the deferred GA charges (excluding interest) from industrial and commercial electricity consumers, as Toronto prepares for a surge in electricity demand amid continued growth, over a 12-month period beginning in January 2021.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Ukraine Power Grid Restoration accelerates across liberated Kharkiv, restoring electricity, heat, and water amid missile and drone strikes, demining operations, blackouts, and winterization efforts, showcasing resilience, emergency repairs, and critical infrastructure recovery.

Key Points

Ukraine's rapid push to repair war-damaged grids, restore heat and water, and stabilize key services before winter.

✅ Priority repairs restore electricity and water in liberated Kharkiv.

✅ Crews de-mine lines and work under shelling, drones, and missiles.

✅ Winterization adds generators, mobile stoves, and large firewood supplies.

On the freshly liberated battlefields of northeast Ukraine, a pile of smashed glass windows outside one Soviet-era block of apartments attests to the violence of six months of Russian occupation, and of Ukraine’s sweeping recent military advances.

Indoors, in cramped apartments, residents lived in the dark for weeks on end.

Now, with a hard winter looming, they marvel at the speed and urgency with which Ukrainian officials have restored another key ingredient to their survival: electric power, a critical effort to keep the lights on this winter across communities.

Among those things governments strive to provide are security, opportunity, and minimal comfort. With winter approaching, and Russia targeting Ukraine’s infrastructure, add to that list heat and light, even as Russia hammers power plants nationwide. It’s requiring a concerted effort.

“Thank God it works! Electricity is civilization – it is everything,” says Antonina Krasnokutska, a retired medical worker, looking affectionately at the lightbulb that came on the day before, and now burns again in her tiny spotless kitchen.

“Without electricity there is no TV, no news, no clothes washing, no charging the phone,” says Ms. Krasnokutska, her gray hair pulled back and a small crucifix around her neck.

“Before, it was like living in the Stone Age,” says her grown son, Serhii Krasnokutskyi, who is more than a head taller. “As soon as it got dark, everyone would go to sleep.”

He shows a picture on his phone from a few days earlier, of a tangle of phone and computer charging cables – including his – plugged in at a local shop with a generator.

“We are very grateful for the people who repaired this electricity, even with shelling continuing,” he says. “They have a very complicated job.”

Indeed, although a lack of power might have been a novel inconvenience during the warm summer season, it increasingly has become a matter of great urgency for Ukrainian citizens and officials.

Coping through Ukraine’s winter with dignity and any degree of security will require courage and perseverance, as the severity and suffering that the season can bring here are being weaponized by Russia, as it seeks to compensate for a string of battlefield losses.

In recent days, Russian attacks have specifically targeted Ukraine’s electrical and other civilian infrastructure – all with the apparent aim of making this winter as hard as possible for Ukrainians, even as Moscow employs other measures to spread the hardship across Europe, while Ukraine helps Spain amid blackouts through grid support.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Monday that Russian barrages across the country with missiles and Iran-supplied kamikaze drones had destroyed 30% of Ukraine’s power stations in the previous eight days, including strikes on western Ukraine that caused outages. Thousands of towns have been left without electricity.

Kharkiv’s challenges
Emblematic of the national challenge is the one facing officials in the northeast Kharkiv region, where Ukraine recaptured more than 3,000 square miles in a September counteroffensive. Ukrainian forces are still making gains on that front, as well as in the south toward Kherson, where Wednesday Russia started evacuating civilians from the first major city it occupied, after launching its three-pronged invasion last February.

Across the Kharkiv region, Ukrainians are stockpiling as much wood, fuel, and food as possible while they still can, and adopting new energy solutions as they prepare, from sources as diverse as the floorboards of destroyed schools and the pine forests in Izium, which are pockmarked with abandoned Russian trenches adjacent to a mass burial site.

“Of course, we have this race against time,” says Serhii Mahdysyuk, the Kharkiv regional director in charge of housing, services, fuel, and energy. “Unfortunately, we probably stand in front of the biggest challenge in Ukraine.”

That is not only because of the scale of liberated territory, he says, but also because the Kharkiv region shares a long border with Russia, as well as with the Russian-controlled areas of the eastern Donbas.

“It’s a great mixture of all threats, and we are sure that shelling and bombings will continue, but we are ready for this,” says Mr. Mahdysyuk. “We know our weak spots that Russia can destroy, but we are prepared for what to do in these situations.”

Ukraine’s battlefield gains have meant a surging need to pick up the pieces after Russian occupation, even as electricity reserves are holding if no new strikes occur, to ensure habitable conditions as more and more surviving residents require services, and as others return to scenes of devastation.

Restoring electricity is the top priority, amid shifting international assistance such as the end of U.S. grid support, because that often restarts running water, too, says Mr. Mahdysyuk. But before that, the area beneath broken power lines must be de-mined.

Indeed, members of an electricity team reconnecting cables on the outskirts of Balakliia – one of the first towns to see power restored, at the end of September – say they lost two fellow workers in the previous two weeks. One died after stepping on an anti-personnel mine, another when his vehicle hit an anti-tank device.

Ukrainian electricity workers restore power lines damaged during six months of Russian military occupation in Balakliia, Ukraine, Sept. 29, 2022. Ukrainians in liberated territory say the restoration of the electrical grid, and with it often the water supply, is a return to civilization.
“For now, our biggest problem is mines,” says the team leader, who gave the name Andrii. “It’s fine within the cities, but in the fields it’s a disaster because it’s very difficult to see them. There is a lot of [them] around here – it will take years and years to get rid of.”

Yet officials only have a few weeks to execute plans to provide for hundreds of thousands of residents in this region, in their various states of need and distress. Some 50 field kitchens capable of feeding 200 to 300 people each have been ordered. Another 1,000 mobile stoves are on their way.

And authorities will provide nearly 200,000 cubic yards of firewood for those who have no access to it, and may have no other means of keeping warm – or where shelling continues to disrupt repairs, says Mr. Mahdysyuk.

“The level of opportunity and resources we have is not the same as the level of destruction,” he says. People in districts and buildings too destroyed to have services restored soon, such as in Saltivka in Kharkiv city, may be moved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Canada 2035 Gasoline Car Ban accelerates EV adoption, zero-emission transport, and climate action, with charging infrastructure, rebates, and industry investment supporting net-zero goals while addressing affordability, range anxiety, and consumer acceptance nationwide.

Key Points

A federal policy to end new gas car sales by 2035, boosting EV adoption, emissions goals, and charging infrastructure.

✅ Ends new gas car and light-truck sales by 2035

✅ Expands charging infrastructure and grid readiness

✅ Incentives, rebates, and industry investment drive adoption

Canada has set its sights on a bold and transformative goal: to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered passenger cars and light-duty trucks by the year 2035. This ambitious target, announced by the federal government, underscores Canada's commitment to combating climate change and accelerating the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) nationwide, supported by forthcoming EV sales regulations from Ottawa.

The Federal Initiative

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada aims to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, which accounts for a substantial portion of the country's carbon footprint. The initiative aligns with Canada's broader climate objectives, including achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

Driving Forces Behind the Decision

The decision to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles reflects growing recognition of the urgency to transition towards cleaner transportation alternatives, even as 2019 electricity from fossil fuels still powered a notable share of Canada's grid. Minister of Environment and Climate Change Jonathan Wilkinson emphasizes the environmental benefits of electric vehicles, citing their potential to lower emissions and improve air quality in urban centers across the country.

Challenges and Opportunities

While the move towards electric vehicles presents promising opportunities for reducing emissions, it also poses challenges. Key considerations include infrastructure development, affordability, and consumer acceptance of EV technology, amid EV shortages and wait times that can influence buying decisions. Addressing these hurdles will require coordinated efforts from government, industry stakeholders, and consumers alike.

Industry Response

The automotive industry plays a crucial role in realizing Canada's EV ambitions. Automakers are increasingly investing in electric vehicle production and innovation to meet evolving consumer demand and regulatory requirements, including cross-border Canada-U.S. collaboration on supply chains. The transition offers opportunities for job creation, technological advancement, and economic growth in the clean energy sector.

Provincial Perspectives

Provinces across Canada are pivotal in facilitating the transition to electric vehicles. Some provinces have already implemented incentives such as rebates for EV purchases, charging infrastructure investments, and policy frameworks to support emissions reduction targets, even as Quebec's EV dominance push faces scrutiny from experts. Collaborative efforts between federal and provincial governments are essential in ensuring a cohesive approach to achieving national EV goals.

Consumer Considerations

For consumers, the shift towards electric vehicles represents a paradigm shift in transportation choices. Factors such as range anxiety, charging infrastructure availability, and upfront costs, with one EV cost survey citing price as the main barrier, remain considerations for prospective buyers. Government incentives and subsidies aim to alleviate some of these concerns and promote widespread EV adoption.

Looking Ahead

As Canada navigates towards a future without gasoline-powered vehicles, stakeholders must work together to overcome challenges and capitalize on opportunities presented by the electric vehicle revolution, even as critics of the 2035 mandate question its feasibility. Continued investments in infrastructure, innovation, and consumer education will be critical in paving the way for a sustainable and prosperous automotive industry.

Conclusion

Canada's commitment to phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 marks a pivotal moment in the country's climate action agenda. By embracing electric vehicles, Canada aims to lead by example in combatting climate change, fostering innovation, and building a greener future for generations to come. The success of this ambitious initiative hinges on collective efforts to transform the automotive landscape and accelerate towards a sustainable transportation future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Spain Electricity Demand April 2020 saw a 17.3% year-on-year drop as COVID-19 lockdown curbed activity; renewables and wind power lifted the emission-free share, while combined cycle plants dominated islands, per REE data.

Key Points

A 17.3% y/y decline amid COVID-19 lockdown, with 47.9% renewables and wind at 21.3% of the national power mix.

✅ Mainland demand -17%; Balearic -27.6%; Canary -20.3%.

✅ Emission-free share: 49.7% on the peninsula in April.

✅ Combined cycle led islands; coal absent in Balearics.

Demand for electricity in Spain dropped by 17.3% year-on-year to an estimated 17,104 GWh in April, aligning with a 15% global daily demand dip during the pandemic, while the country’s economy slowed down under the national state of emergency and lockdown measures imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19.

According to the latest estimates by Spanish grid operator Red Electrica de Espana (REE), the decline in demand was registered across Spain’s entire national territory, similar to a 10% UK drop during lockdown. On the mainland, it decreased by 17% to 16,191 GWh, while on the Balearic and the Canary Islands it plunged by 27.6% and 20.3%, respectively.

Renewables accounted for 47.9% of the total national electricity production in April, echoing Britain’s cleanest electricity trends during lockdown. Wind power production went down 20% year-on-year to 3,730 GWh, representing a 21.3% share in the total power mix.

During April, electricity generation in the peninsula was mostly based on emission-free technologies, reflecting an accelerated power-system transition across Europe, with renewables accounting for 49.7%. Wind farms produced 3,672 GWh, 20.1% less compared to April 2019, while contributing 22% to the power mix, even as global demand later surpassed pre-pandemic levels in subsequent periods.

In the Balearic Islands, electricity demand of 323,296 MWh was for the most part met by combined cycle power plants, even as some European demand held firm in later lockdowns, which accounted for 78.3% of the generation. Renewables and emission-free technologies had a combined share of 6.4%, while coal was again absent from the local power mix, completing now four consecutive months without contributing a single MWh.

In the Canary Islands system, demand for power decreased to 558,619 MWh, even as surging demand elsewhere strained power systems across the world. Renewables and emission-free technologies made up 14.3% of the mix, while combined cycle power plants led with a 45.3% share.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Russian Utility Grid Cyberattacks reveal DHS findings on Dragonfly/Energetic Bear breaching control rooms and ICS/SCADA via vendor supply-chain spear-phishing, threatening blackouts and critical infrastructure across U.S. power utilities through stolen credentials and reconnaissance.

Key Points

State-backed ops breaching utilities via vendors to reach ICS/SCADA, risking grid disruption and control-room access.

✅ Spear-phishing and watering-hole attacks on vendor networks

✅ Stolen credentials used to reach isolated ICS/SCADA

✅ Potential to trigger localized blackouts and service disruptions

Hackers working for Russia were able to gain access to the control rooms of US electric utilities last year, allowing them to cause blackouts, federal officials tell the Wall Street Journal.

The hackers -- working for a state-sponsored group previously identified as Dragonfly or Energetic Bear -- broke into utilities' isolated networks by hacking networks belonging to third-party vendors that had relationships with the power companies, the Department of Homeland Security said in a press briefing on Monday.

Officials said the campaign had claimed hundreds of victims and is likely continuing, the Journal reported.

"They got to the point where they could have thrown switches" to disrupt the flow power, Jonathan Homer, chief of industrial-control-system analysis for DHS, told the Journal.

"While hundreds of energy and non-energy companies were targeted, the incident where they gained access to the industrial control system was a very small generation asset that would not have had any impact on the larger grid if taken offline," the DHS said in a statement Tuesday. "Over the course of the past year as we continued to investigate the activity, we learned additional information which would be helpful to industry in defending against this threat."

Organizations running the nation's energy, nuclear and other critical infrastructure have become frequent targets for cyberattacks in recent years due to their ability to cause immediate chaos, whether it's starting a blackout or blocking traffic signals. These systems are often vulnerable because of antiquated software and the high costs of upgrading infrastructure.

The report comes amid heightened tension between Russia and the US over cybersecurity, alongside US condemnation of power grid hacking in recent months. Earlier this month, US special counsel Robert Mueller filed charges against 12 Russian hackers tied to cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee.

Hackers compromised US power utility companies' corporate networks with conventional approaches, such as spear-phishing emails and watering-hole attacks as seen in breaches at power plants across the US that target a specific group of users by infecting websites they're known to visit, the newspaper reported. After gaining access to vendor networks, hackers turned their attention to stealing credentials for access to the utility networks and familiarizing themselves with facility operations, officials said, according to the Journal.

Homeland Security didn't identify the victims, the newspaper reports, adding that some companies may not know they had been compromised because the attacks used legitimate credentials to gain access to the networks.

Cyberattacks on electrical systems aren't an academic matter. In 2016, Ukraine's grid was disrupted by cyberattacks attributed to Russia, which is engaged in territorial disputes with the country over eastern Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula. Russia has denied any involvement in targeting critical infrastructure.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May designed to bolster the United States' cybersecurity by protecting federal networks, critical infrastructure and the public online. One section of the order focuses on protecting the grid like electricity and water, as well as financial, health care and telecommunications systems.

The Department of Homeland Security didn't respond to a request for comment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News