Climate bill would end EPA/state programs

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

Manitoba Hydro 3.5 Percent Rate Increase proposes a smaller electricity rate hike under Public Utilities Board oversight to bolster financial reserves, address debt and Bipole III costs, amid shifting export sales and water flow conditions.

Key Points

It is Manitoba Hydro's proposed 3.5% electricity rate hike for 2019-20 to shore up finances under PUB oversight.

✅ PUB review sought without lengthy hearing

✅ Revenue boost forecast at 59 million dollars

✅ Natural gas rates flat; class shifts adjust bills

Manitoba Hydro is scaling back its rate hike request for next year, instead of the annual 7.9 per cent hikes the Crown corporation previously said it would need until 2023-24 to address debt. 

Hydro is asking the Public Utilities Board for a 3.5 per cent rate increase next year, which would take effect on April 1.

In last week's application, Hydro said its new board is reviewing the corporation's financial picture. Once that is complete, the utility expects to submit a new multi-year rate plan in late 2019 that addresses the organization's long-term future.

"It's too speculative at this point to discuss any possible future rate increases," spokesperson Bruce Owen said in an email.

The proposed increase next year is similar to other jurisdictions and nearly in line with the Public Utilities Board's decision to allow an average 3.6 per cent jump in electricity rates in 2018-19, which began this summer.

"The requested 3.5 per cent rate increase … generates a modest level of net income under average water flow conditions that will assist in gradually building the revenue base and reduce the risk of the corporation incurring a loss" in 2019-20, the rate application said.

If approved, consumers would face their second rate increase from Hydro in under a year.

Crown Services Minister Colleen Mayer said she's sympathetic to customers bracing for another rate increase amid NL rate hike concerns that far exceeds the rate of inflation.

"I hear that, very clearly," she said. "The NDP left us with an insurmountable problem — we're trying to fix that."

Hydro goes to court over special rate class for First Nations residents in Manitoba

National Energy Board OK's Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project

Next year's rate increase is projected to bring in $59 million of revenue, boosting the Crown corporation's financial reserves by $31 million.

Without it, the utility would deal with a net loss, it said.

This time, Hydro officials are asking PUB to forgo a rate hearing, suggesting neither itself nor the board has the resources for a lengthy six- to nine-month process to review an application where not much has changed financially and would generate a "minimum level of net income," Hydro said in a letter to the board.

The short-term rate relief, the letter recommends, should be "awarded in a timely and cost-effective manner, recognizing that the corporation's long-term financial forecasts will be finalized and available for review" in late 2019.

Hydro's net income next year will be lower than projected, the rate application said, due to a reduction in export sales and increases in depreciation and financing costs from Bipole III.

"Even though they had a total implosion of their previous board, on this very issue, they haven't learned lessons and they continue to be cheerleaders for these rapid rate increases," Kinew said, referring to the exodus of every board member but one earlier this year.

Manitoba Hydro's burgeoning debt surpasses $19 billion

On natural gas, Manitoba Hydro is asking PUB for no rate increase for the next two years.

There will, however, be some changes in rates in different customer classes, Owen said, resulting in modest rate reductions for mainly residential customers and increases for customers who use a lot of natural gas.

The corporation also wants to stop collecting fees to support the furnace replacement program. The initiative will continue with existing fees.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Utility Spending Bill scrutinizes how ratepayer funds are used by utilities, targeting lobbying, advertising, wildfire prevention cost pass-throughs, and CPUC oversight to curb high electricity bills and increase accountability and transparency statewide.

Key Points

Legislation restricting utilities from using ratepayer money for lobbying and ads, with stronger CPUC oversight.

✅ Bans ratepayer-funded lobbying and political advertising

✅ Expands prohibited utility communications and influence spending

✅ Aims to curb bills, boost transparency, and CPUC accountability

California's legislators are about to vote on a bill that would impose stricter regulations on how utility companies spend the money they collect from ratepayers. This legislation directly responds to the growing discontent among Californians who are already grappling with high electricity bills, as Californians ask why electricity prices are soaring amid wildfire prevention efforts.

Consumer rights groups have been vehemently critical of how utilities have been allocating customer funds, amid growing calls for regulatory action from state officials. They allege that a substantial portion of this money is being funnelled into lobbying efforts and advertising campaigns that yield no direct benefits for the customers themselves.

The proposed bill would significantly broaden the definition of what constitutes prohibited advertising and political influence activities on the part of utility companies, separate from income-based fixed electricity charges proposals that affect rate design. This would effectively restrict the ways in which utilities can utilize customer funds for such purposes.

While consumer advocacy groups have favored the legislation, it has drawn opposition from utility companies and some labor unions, as lawmakers weigh overturning income-based utility charges in parallel debates. Opponents contend that it would hinder utilities' ability to communicate effectively with their customers and advocate for their interests. Additionally, they express concerns that the bill could result in job losses within the utility sector.

The vote on the bill is expected to take place on Monday. The outcome of the vote is uncertain, but it is sure to be a closely watched development for Californians struggling with the burden of high electricity bills, with many wondering about major changes to their electric bills in the near term.

California's Electricity Rates: A Burden for Residents

A recent report by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) revealed that the average Californian household spends a significantly higher amount on electricity compared to the national average. This disparity in electricity rates can be attributed to a number of factors, including the financial costs associated with wildfire prevention measures, investments in renewable energy infrastructure, and maintenance of aging electrical grids, even as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid.

Examples of Utility Company Spending that Raise Concerns

Consumer rights groups have specifically highlighted instances where utility companies have used customer money to fund lavish executive compensation packages, sponsor professional sports teams, and finance political campaigns. They argue that these expenditures do not provide any tangible benefits to ratepayers and should not be funded through customer bills.

The Need for Accountability and Prioritization

Proponents of the bill believe that the legislation is necessary to ensure that utility companies are held accountable for how they spend customer funds. They believe that the stricter regulations would compel utilities to prioritize investments that directly improve the quality and reliability of electricity services for Californians, alongside discussions of income-based flat-fee utility bills that could reshape rate structures.

The impending vote on the bill underscores the ongoing tension between the need for reliable electricity services and the desire to keep utility rates affordable for Californians. The outcome of the vote is likely to have a significant impact on how utility companies operate in the state and how much Californians pay for their electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia Cap-and-Trade Program joins Western Climate Initiative to leverage emissions trading IT systems, track allowances, and manage compliance, while setting in-province caps, carbon pricing signals, and third-party verified reporting for industrial and fuel suppliers.

Key Points

A provincial emissions trading system using WCI services to cap GHGs, track allowances, and enforce verified compliance.

✅ Uses WCI IT system to manage allowances and registry

✅ Initial trading limited to in-province participants

✅ Third-party verification and annual reporting deadlines

Nova Scotia is yet to set targets for its new cap and trade regime to reduce greenhouse gases, but the province announced Monday that it has joined the Western Climate Initiative Inc. -- a non-profit corporation formed to provide administrative and technical services to states and provinces with emissions trading programs.

Environment Minister Iain Rankin said joining the initiative would allow the province to use its IT system to manage and track its new cap and trade program.

Rankin said the province can join without trading greenhouse gas emission allowances with other jurisdictions -- California, Quebec, and Ontario are currently linked through the program, with Hydro-Québec's U.S. sales highlighting cross-border dynamics. Nova Scotia currently has no plans to trade outside the province as it works on emissions caps Rankin said will be ready sometime in June.

#google#

Nova Scotia is yet to set targets for its new cap and trade regime to reduce greenhouse gases, but the province announced Monday that it has joined the Western Climate Initiative Inc. -- a non-profit corporation formed to provide administrative and technical services to states and provinces with emissions trading programs.

Environment Minister Iain Rankin said joining the initiative would allow the province to use its IT system to manage and track its new cap and trade program.

Rankin said the province can join without trading greenhouse gas emission allowances with other jurisdictions -- California, Quebec, and Ontario are currently linked through the program. Nova Scotia currently has no plans to trade outside the province as it works on emissions caps Rankin said will be ready sometime in June.

"By keeping our system internal it ensures that our greenhouse gas reductions are happening within our province," said Rankin. "But we do have that opportunity (to join) and if there are new entrants or we need more access to credits then that may shift our strategy."

The use of the system will cost Nova Scotia about US$314,000 for 2018-19, with an annual cost in subsequent years of about US$228,000 or more, if the province requests modifications.

"If we were to do something like that internally we would have to build a full database and hire more people, so this was an obvious choice for us," said Rankin.

Nova Scotia has already met the national reduction target of 30 per cent below 2005 levels and says it's on track to have 40 per cent of electricity generation from renewables by 2020, underscoring how cleaning up Canada's electricity supports climate pledges.

Stephen Thomas, energy campaign coordinator for the Ecology Action Centre, called the province's move an "important small step," stressing the importance of using the same administrative rules as the other jurisdictions involved.

But Thomas said Nova Scotia should go further and trade emissions with California, Quebec, and Ontario, and also put a price on carbon by auctioning credits as they do.

Thomas said Nova Scotia's system stands to be volatile because of the smaller number of participants -- about 20 including Nova Scotia Power, Northern Pulp, Lafarge, and large oil and gasoline companies such as ExxonMobil, Imperial and Irving.

"It's very likely to favour Nova Scotia Power as the largest single emitter with the most credits to sell here, and that would change if we had a linked system, at a time when Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA," Thomas said.

He said it's important to have a linked system and a regional approach in Atlantic Canada, which has more emissions per person and more emissions per GDP than places like Ontario, Quebec and California, and where policies like Newfoundland's rate reduction plan can influence electricity strategy.

"Reducing emissions, because we are so emissions-intensive here, is a little bit cheaper," said Thomas. "So it's possible that Ontario, Quebec and California could pay Nova Scotia to reduce its emissions."

Under its program, Nova Scotia requires industrial facilities generating 50,000 tonnes or more of greenhouse gas emissions per year to report emissions.

Regulations also cover petroleum product suppliers that import or produce 200 litres of fuel or more per year for consumption and natural gas distributors whose products produce at least 10,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year.

Companies were to have reported to the Environment Department by May 1 but Rankin said the deadline has been pushed back to June 1, a deadline that was to be followed in subsequent years in any event. Reports must be verified by a third party by Sept. 1 every year.

The Liberal government passed enabling legislation for cap and trade last fall.

As for the upcoming emissions caps, Rankin isn't tipping the province's hand yet, even as B.C.'s 2050 targets face a shortfall in some forecasts.

"Those caps will recognize the investments that have already been made and therefore will be the most cost-effective program that we can put together to meet the federal requirement," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

TEPCO Kashiwazaki-Kariwa restart plan clears NRA fitness review, anchored by a seven-point safety code, Niigata consent, Fukushima lessons, seismic risk analysis, and upgrades to No. 6 and No. 7 reactors, each rated 1.35 GW.

Key Points

TEPCO's plan to restart Kashiwazaki-Kariwa under NRA rules, pending Niigata consent and upgrades to Units 6 and 7.

✅ NRA deems TEPCO fit; legally binding seven-point safety code

✅ Local consent required: Niigata review of evacuation and health impacts

✅ Initial focus on Units 6 and 7; 1.35 GW each, seismic upgrades

Tokyo Electric Power Co. cleared a major regulatory hurdle toward restarting a nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture, but the utility’s bid to resume its operations still hangs in the balance of a series of political approvals.

The government’s nuclear watchdog concluded Sept. 23 that the utility is fit to operate the plant, based on new legally binding safety rules TEPCO drafted and pledged to follow, even as nuclear projects worldwide mark milestones across different regulatory environments today. If TEPCO is found to be in breach of those regulations, it could be ordered to halt the plant’s operations.

The Nuclear Regulation Authority’s green light now shifts the focus over to whether local governments will agree in the coming months to restart the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.

TEPCO is keen to get the plant back up and running. It has been financially reeling from the closure of its nuclear plants in Fukushima Prefecture following the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant in 2011 triggered by the earthquake and tsunami disaster.

In parallel, Japan is investing in clean energy innovations such as a large hydrogen system being developed by Toshiba, Tohoku Electric Power and Iwatani.

The company plans to bring the No. 6 and No. 7 reactors back online at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear complex, which is among the world’s largest nuclear plants, amid China’s nuclear energy continuing on a steady development track in the region.

The two reactors each boast 1.35 gigawatts in output capacity, while Kenya’s nuclear plant aims to power industry as part of that country’s expansion. They are the newest of the seven reactors there, first put into service between 1996 and 1997.

TEPCO has not revealed specific plans yet on what to do with the older five reactors.

In 2017, the NRA cleared the No. 6 and No. 7 reactors under the tougher new reactor regulations established in 2013 in response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, while jurisdictions such as Ontario support continued operation at Pickering under strict oversight.

It also closely scrutinized the operator’s ability to run the Niigata Prefecture plant safely, given its history as the entity responsible for the nation’s most serious nuclear accident.

After several rounds of meetings with top TEPCO managers, the NRA managed to hold the utility’s feet to the fire enough to make it pledge, in writing, to abide by a new seven-point safety code for the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.

The creation of the new code, which is legally binding, is meant to hold the company accountable for safety measures at the facility.

“As the top executive, the president of TEPCO will take responsibility for the safety of nuclear power,” one of the points reads. “TEPCO will not put the facility’s economic performance above its safety,” reads another.

The company promised to abide by the points set out in writing during the NRA’s examination of its safety regulations.

TEPCO also vowed to set up a system where the president is directly briefed on risks to the nuclear complex, including the likelihood of earthquakes more powerful than what the plant is designed to withstand. It must also draft safeguard measures to deal with those kinds of earthquakes and confirm whether precautionary steps are in place.

The utility additionally pledged to promptly release public records on the decision-making process concerning crucial matters related to nuclear safety, and to preserve the documents until the facility is decommissioned.

TEPCO plans to complete its work to reinforce the safety of the No. 7 reactor in December. It has not set a definite deadline for similar work for the No. 6 reactor.

To restart the Kashiwazki-Kariwa plant, TEPCO needs to obtain consent from local governments, including the Niigata prefectural government.

The prefectural government is studying the plant’s safety through a panel of experts, which is reviewing whether evacuation plans are adequate as off-limits areas reopen and the health impact on residents from the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Niigata Governor Hideyo Hanazumi said he will not decide on the restart until the panel completes its review.

The nuclear complex suffered damage, including from fire at an electric transformer, when an earthquake it deemed able to withstand hit in 2007.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Washington-Led Lawsuit Against Energy Emergency challenges President Trump's executive order, citing state rights, environmental reviews, permitting, and federal overreach; coalition argues record energy output undermines emergency claims in Seattle federal court.

Key Points

Multistate suit to void Trump's energy emergency, alleging federal overreach and weakened environmental safeguards.

? Challenges executive order's legal basis and scope

? Claims expedited permitting skirts environmental reviews

? Seeks to halt emergency permits for non-emergencies

In a significant legal move, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown has spearheaded a coalition of 15 states in filing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump's executive order declaring a national energy emergency. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Seattle on May 9, 2025, challenges the legality of the emergency declaration, which aims to expedite permitting processes for fossil fuel projects in pursuit of an energy dominance vision by bypassing key environmental reviews.

Background of the Energy Emergency Declaration

President Trump's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, asserts that the United States faces an inadequate and unreliable energy grid, particularly affecting the Northeast and West Coast regions. The order directs federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior, to utilize "any lawful emergency authorities" to facilitate the development of domestic energy resources, with a focus on oil, gas, and coal projects. This includes expediting reviews under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, potentially reducing public input and environmental oversight.

Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit

The coalition of states, led by Washington and California, argues that the emergency declaration is an overreach of presidential authority, echoing disputes over the Affordable Clean Energy rule in federal courts. They contend that U.S. energy production is already at record levels, and the declaration undermines state rights and environmental protections. The lawsuit seeks to have the executive order declared unlawful and to halt the issuance of emergency permits for non-emergency projects. 

Implications for Environmental Protections

Critics of the energy emergency declaration express concern that it could lead to significant environmental degradation. By expediting permitting processes, including geothermal permitting, and reducing public participation, the order may allow projects to proceed without adequate consideration of their impact on water quality, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources. Environmental advocates argue that such actions could set a dangerous precedent, enabling future administrations to bypass essential environmental safeguards under the guise of national emergencies, even as the EPA advances new pollution limits for coal and gas plants to address the climate crisis.

Political and Legal Reactions

The Trump administration defends the executive order, asserting that the president has the authority to declare national emergencies and that the energy emergency is necessary to address perceived deficiencies in the nation's energy infrastructure and potential electricity pricing changes debated by industry groups. However, legal experts suggest that the broad application of emergency powers in this context may face challenges in court. The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for the balance of power between state and federal authorities, as well as the future of environmental regulations in the United States.

The legal challenge led by Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over energy policy and environmental protection. As the lawsuit progresses through the courts, it will likely serve as a bellwether for future conflicts between state and federal governments regarding the scope of executive authority and the preservation of environmental standards, amid ongoing efforts to expand uranium and nuclear energy programs nationwide. The outcome may set a precedent for how national emergencies are declared and managed, particularly concerning their impact on state governance and environmental laws.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News