Coal plant backers still fired up about prospects

Ontario Global Adjustment Supreme Court Appeal spotlights a constitutional challenge to Ontario's electricity charge, pitting National Steel Car against the IESO over regulatory charge vs tax, procurement policy, and renewable energy feed-in tariff contracts.

Key Points

An SCC leave bid on whether Ontario's global adjustment is a valid regulatory charge or an unconstitutional tax.

✅ Appeals Court revived case for full record review

✅ Dispute centers on regulatory charge vs tax classification

✅ FIT renewables contracts and procurement policies at issue

The Ontario government wants the Supreme Court of Canada to weigh in on a constitutional challenge being brought against a large provincial electricity charge, a case the province claims raises issues of national importance.

Ontario’s attorney general and its Independent Electricity System Operator applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in January, according to the court’s website.

The province is trying to appeal a Court of Appeal decision reinstating the challenge from November that said a legal challenge by Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. should be sent back to a lower-court for a full hearing.

Court reinstates constitutional challenge to Ontario's hefty ‘global adjustment’ electricity charge
National Steel Car appealing decision in legal challenge of Ontario electricity fee it calls an unconstitutional tax
Doug Ford’s cancellation of green energy deals costs Ontario taxpayers $231 million
National Steel Car launched its legal challenge in 2017, with the maker of steel rail cars claiming the province’s global adjustment electricity charge was a tax intended to fund certain post-financial-crisis policy goals. Since it is allegedly a tax, and one not imposed by the provincial legislature, the company’s argument is the global adjustment is unconstitutional, and also in breach of a provincial law requiring a referendum for new taxes.

The global adjustment mostly bridges the gap between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts and regulated rates with power generators. It also helps cover the cost of building new electricity infrastructure and providing conservation programs, but the fee now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household power bill in the province.

Ontario argued the global adjustment is a valid regulatory charge, and moved to have National Steel Car’s challenge thrown out. An Ontario Superior Court judge agreed, and dismissed the challenge in 2018, saying it was “plain, obvious and beyond doubt” it could not succeed. However, an appeals court judge disagreed, writing in a decision last November that the “merits should not have been determined on a pleadings motion and without the development of a full record.”

In filings made to the Supreme Court, both the IESO and Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General argued their proposed appeals raise “issues of national and public importance,” such as whether incorporating environmental and social policy goals in procurement could turn attempts by a public body to recover costs into an unconstitutional tax.

Most applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court are dismissed, but the Ontario government claims the court’s guidance is required in this case, as it could lead to questions being raised about other fees or charges, such as money raised from fishing licences.

“A failure to dispose of this claim at the pleadings stage may well result in such uncertainty that public authorities across Canada decline to incorporate the kind of environmental and social policy goals objected to in this case into the decisions they make about how to spend funds raised from regulatory charges,” the filing from the attorney general states. “Alternatively, it may induce governments not to engage in cost recovery in connection with publicly supplied goods and services, which can otherwise be sound public policy.”

The government has so far had to pay National Steel Car $250,000 in legal costs “to avoid responding to the credible claim that the Global Adjustment is an unconstitutional tax,” said David Trafford of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers.

“The application for leave to appeal is the next step in this effort to avoid having to respond to the case on the merits,” Trafford added in an email.

The application for leave to appeal is the next step in this effort to avoid having to respond to the case on the merits

David Trafford of Morse Shannon, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers
 
National Steel Car has particularly taken issue with the part of the global adjustment that funded contracts for renewable energy under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which the company called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity.”

The FIT program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place and form part of the global adjustment. Ontario’s auditor general estimated in 2015 that electricity consumers would pay $9.2 billion more for renewable energy under the government’s guaranteed-price program, a figure that later featured in a dispute between the auditor and the electricity regulator that drew political attention.

National Steel Car said its global adjustment costs grew from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, reflecting how high electricity rates have pressured manufacturers, to almost $3.4 million in 2016. For 2018, there was approximately $11.2 billion in global adjustment collected, according to the IESO’s reporting.

A spokesperson for the IESO said it “is not in a position to comment” because the case is still before the courts.

Electricity prices have been an ongoing problem for both Ontario consumers and politicians, which the previous Liberal government tried to address in 2017 by, among other things, refinancing global-adjustment costs through the Fair Hydro Plan and other measures.

Since National Steel Car filed its lawsuits, though, the Liberals lost power in the province and were succeeded in 2018 by Premier Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives, who made changes to the previous government’s power policies, including legislation to lower electricity rates introduced early in their mandate.

The province has also pursued interprovincial power arrangements, including building on an electricity deal with Quebec as part of its broader energy strategy.

“The present government of Ontario does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement program, which ceased awarding new contracts in 2016,” Ontario’s attorney general said in a filing. “However, Ontario submits that (the lower-court judge) was correct in holding that it does not give rise to a claim susceptible to being remedied by the courts.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Romania Ends CGN Cernavoda Nuclear Deal, as Nuclearelectrica moves to terminate negotiations on reactors 3 and 4, citing the EU Green Deal, US partnership, NATO, and a shift to alternative nuclear capacity options.

Key Points

Romania orders Nuclearelectrica to end CGN talks on Cernavoda units 3-4 and pursue alternative nuclear options.

✅ Negotiations on Cernavoda units 3-4 to be formally terminated

✅ EU Green Deal and US partnership cited over security concerns

✅ Board to draft strategies for new domestic nuclear capacity

Romania's government has mandated the managing board of local nuclear power producer Nuclearelectrica to initiate procedures for terminating negotiations with China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) on building two new reactors at the Cernavoda nuclear power plant, where IAEA safety reports continue to shape operations.

The government also mandated the managing board to analyse and draw up strategic options on the construction of new electricity generation capacities from nuclear sources, as other countries such as India take steps to get nuclear back on track in response to demand.

The company will negotiate the termination of the agreement signed in 2015 for developing and operating units 3 and 4 at Cernavoda, even as Germany turns away from nuclear within the European landscape. 

At the end of last month, Economy Minister Virgil Popescu said that the collaboration with the Chinese company couldn't continue as it has yielded no results in seven years, despite China's nuclear program expanding steadily elsewhere.

"We have a strategic partnership with the US, and we hold on to it, we respect our partners. We are members of the EU and Nato, even as Germany's final reactor closures unfold in Europe. Aside from that, I think that seven years since this collaboration with the Chinese company began is enough to realise that we can't move on," Popescu said at that time.

Liberal Prime Minister Ludovic Orban announced in January that the government would exit the deal with its Chinese partner. He invoked the European Union's Green Deal rather than security issues or cost concerns circulated previously as the main reason behind a potential end of the deal with CGN to expand Romania's only nuclear power plant, amid concerns that Europe is losing nuclear power when it needs energy.

In August last year, the US included CGN on a blacklist for allegedly trying to get nuclear technology from the US to be used for military purposes in China, even as nuclear cooperation with Cambodia expands in the region.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Courtyard by Marriott Lancaster Solar Array delivers 100% renewable electricity via photovoltaic panels at Greenfield Corporate Center, Pennsylvania, a High Hotels and Marriott sustainability initiative reducing grid demand and selling excess power for efficient operations.

Key Points

A $1.5M PV installation powering the 133-room hotel with 100% renewable electricity in Greenfield Center, Lancaster.

✅ 2,700 PV panels generate 1,239,000 kWh annually

✅ First Marriott in the US with 100% solar electricity

✅ $504,900 CFA grant; excess power sold to the utility

High Hotels Ltd., a hotel developer and operator, recently announced it is installing a $1.5 million solar array that will generate 100% of the electrical power required to operate one of its existing hotels in Greenfield Corporate Center. The completed installation will make the 133-room Courtyard by Marriott-Lancaster the first Marriott-branded hotel in the United States with 100% of its electricity needs generated from solar power. It is also believed to be the first solar array in the country installed for the sole purpose of generating 100% of the electricity needs of a hotel, mirroring how other firms are commissioning their first solar power plant to meet sustainability goals.

“This is an exciting approach to addressing our energy needs that aligns very well with High’s commitment to environmental stewardship,”

“We’ve been advancing many environmentally responsible practices across our hotel portfolio, including converting the interior and exterior lighting at the Lancaster Courtyard to LED, which will lower electricity demand by 15%,” said Russ Urban, president of High Hotels. “Installing solar is another important step in this progression, and we will look to apply lessons from this as we expand our portfolio of premium select-service hotels.”

The Lancaster-based hotel developer, owner and operator is working in partnership with Marriott International Inc. to realize this vision, in step with major brands announcing new clean energy projects across their portfolios.

The installation of more than 2,700 ballasted photovoltaic panels will fill an area more than two football fields in size. After evaluating several on-site and near-site alternatives, High Hotels decided to install the solar array on the roof of a nearby building in Greenfield Corporate Center. Using the existing roof saves more than three acres of open land and has additional aesthetic benefits, aligning with recommendations for solar farms under consideration by local planners. The solar array will produce 1,239,000 kWh of power for the hotel, which consumes 1,177,000 kWh. Any excess power will be sold to the utility, though affordable solar batteries are making on-site storage increasingly feasible.

High Hotels received a grant of $504,900 from the Commonwealth Financing Authority (CFA) through the Solar Energy Program to complete the project. An independent agency of the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), the CFA is responsible for evaluating projects and awarding funds for a variety of economic development programs, including the Solar Energy Program and statewide initiatives like solar-power subscriptions that broaden access. The project will receive a solar renewable energy credit which will be conveyed to the CFA to provide the agency with more funds to offer grants in the future.

“This is a cutting-edge project that is exactly the kind we are looking for to promote the generation and use of solar energy,” said DCED Secretary Dennis Davin. “I am very pleased that the first Marriott in the US to receive 100% of its electric needs through renewable solar energy is located right here in Central Pennsylvania.” Secretary Davin also serves as chairman of the CFA’s board.

Panels for the solar array will be Q Cells manufactured by Hanwha Cells Co., Ltd., headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. Ephrata, Pa.-based Meadow Valley Electric Inc. will install the array in the second and third quarters of 2018 with commissioning targeted for September 2018.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

NB Power Smart Meter Opt-Out Fees reflect cost causation principles set before the Energy and Utilities Board, covering meter reading charges, transmitter-disable options, rollout targets, and education plans across New Brunswick's smart metering program.

Key Points

Fees NB Power may apply to customers opting out of smart meters, reflecting cost causation and meter-reading costs.

✅ Based on cost causation and meter reading expenses

✅ BC and Quebec charge monthly opt-out surcharges

✅ Policy finalized during rollout after EUB review

NB Power customers who do not want a smart meter installed on their home could be facing a stiff fee for that decision, but so far the utility is not saying how much it might be.  

"It will be based on the principles of cost causation, but we have not gotten into the detail of what that fee would be at this point," said NB Power Senior Vice President of Operations Lori Clark at Energy and Utilities Board hearings on Friday.

In other jurisdictions that have already adopted smart meters, customers not wanting to participate have faced hundreds of dollars in extra charges, while Texas utilities' pullback from smart-home networks shows approaches can differ.

In British Columbia, power customers are charged a meter reading fee of $32.40 per month if they refuse a smart meter, or $20 per month if they accept a smart meter but insist its radio transmitter be turned off. That's a cost of between $240 and $388.80 per year for customers to opt out.

In Quebec, smart meters were installed beginning in 2012. Customers who refused the devices were initially charged $98 to opt out plus a meter reading fee of $17 per month. That was eventually cut by Quebec's energy board in 2014 to a $15 refusal fee and a $5 per month meter reading surcharge.

NB Power said it may be a year or more before it settles on its own fee.

"The opt out policy will be developed and implemented as part of the roll out.  It will be one of the last things we do," said Clark.

Customers need to be on board

NB Power is in front of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board seeking permission to spend $122.7 million to install 350,000 smart meters province wide, as neighboring markets grapple with major rate increases that heighten affordability concerns.  

The meters are capable of transmitting consumption data of customers back to NB Power in real time, which the utility said will allow for a number of innovations in pricing and service, and help address old meter inaccuracies that affected some households.

The meters require near universal adoption by customers to maximize their financial benefit — like eliminating more than $20 million a year NB Power currently spends to read meters manually. The utility has said the switch will not succeed if too many customers opt out.

"We certainly wouldn't be looking at making an investment of this size without having the customer with us," said Clark.

On Thursday, Kent County resident Daniel LeBlanc, who along with Roger Richard, is opposing the introduction of smart meters for health reasons, predicted a cool reception for the technology in many parts of the province, given concerns that include health effects and billing disputes in Nova Scotia reported elsewhere.

"If one were to ask most of the people in the rural areas, I'm not sure you would get a lot of takers for this infrastructure," said LeBlanc, who is concerned with the long-term effect microwave frequencies used by the meters to transmit data may have on human health.

That issue is before the EUB next week.

Haven't tested the waters

NB Power acknowledged it has not measured public opinion on adopting smart meters but is confident it can convince customers it is a good idea for them and the utility, even as seasonal rate proposals in New Brunswick have prompted consumer backlash.

"People don't understand what the smart meter is," said Clark. "We need to educate our customers first to allow them to make an informed decision so that will be part of the roll out plan."

Clark noted that smart meters, helped by stiff opting out penalties, were eventually accepted by 98 per cent of customers in British Columbia and by 97.4 per cent of customers in Quebec.

"We will check and adjust along the way if there are issues with customer uptake," said Clark.

"This is very similar to what has been done in other jurisdictions and they haven't had those challenges."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Minnesota Carbon-Free Power by 2050 aims to shift utilities to renewable energy, wind and solar, boosting efficiency while managing grid reliability, emissions, and costs under a clean energy mandate and statewide climate policy.

Key Points

A statewide goal to deliver 100% carbon-free power by 2050, prioritizing renewables, efficiency, and grid reliability.

✅ Targets 100% carbon-free electricity statewide by 2050

✅ Prioritizes wind, solar, and efficiency before fossil fuels

✅ Faces utility cost, reliability, and legislative challenges

Gov. Tim Walz's plan for Minnesota to get 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2050, similar to California's 100% carbon-free mandate in scope, was criticized Tuesday at its first legislative hearing, with representatives from some of the state's smaller utilities saying they can't meet that goal.

Commerce Commissioner Steve Kelley told the House climate committee that the Democratic governor's plan is ambitious. But he said the state's generating system is "aging and at a critical juncture," with plants that produce 70 percent of the state's electricity coming up for potential retirement over the next two decades. He said it will ensure that utilities replace them with wind, solar and other innovative sources, and increased energy efficiency, before turning to fossil fuels.

"Utilities will simply need to demonstrate why clean energy would not work whenever they propose to replace or add new generating capacity," he said.

Walz's plan, announced last week, seeks to build on the success of a 2007 law that required Minnesota utilities to get at least 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. The state largely achieved that goal in 2017 thanks to the growth of wind and solar power, and the topic of climate change has only grown hotter, with some proposals like a fully renewable grid by 2030 pushing even faster timelines, hence the new goal for 2050.

But Joel Johnson, a lobbyist for the Minnkota Power Cooperative, testified that the governor's plan is "misguided and unrealistic" even with new technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Johnson added that even the big utilities that have set goals of going carbon-free by mid-century, such as Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy, acknowledge they don't know yet how they'll hit the net-zero electricity by mid-century target they have set.

Minnkota serves northwestern Minnesota and eastern North Dakota.

Tim Sullivan, president and CEO of the Wright-Hennepin Cooperative Electric Association in the Twin Cities area, said the plan is a "bad idea" for the 1.7 million state electric consumers served by cooperatives. He said Minnesota is a "minuscule contributor" to total global carbon emissions, even as the EU plans to double electricity use by 2050 to meet electrification demands.

"The bill would have a devastating impact on electric consumers," Sullivan said. "It represents, in our view, nothing short of a first-order threat to the safety and reliability of Minnesota's grid."

Isaac Orr is a policy fellow at the Minnesota-based conservative think tank, the Center for the American Experiment, which released a report critical of the plan Tuesday. Orr said all Minnesota households would face higher energy costs and it would harm energy-intensive industries such as mining, manufacturing and health care, while doing little to reduce global warming.

"This does not pass a proper cost-benefit analysis," he testified.

Environmental groups, including Conservation Minnesota and the Sierra Club, supported the proposal while acknowledging the challenges, noting that cleaning up electricity is critical to climate pledges in many jurisdictions.

"Our governor has called climate change an existential crisis," said Kevin Lee, director of the climate and energy program at the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. "This problem is the defining challenge of our time, and it can feel overwhelming."

Rep. Jean Wagenius, the committee chairwoman and Minneapolis Democrat who's held several hearings on the threats that climate change poses, said she expected to table the bill for further consideration after taking more testimony in the evening and would not hold a vote Tuesday.

While the bill has support in the Democratic-controlled House, it's not scheduled for action in the Republican-led Senate. Rep. Pat Garofalo, a Farmington Republican, quipped that it "has a worse chance of becoming law than me being named the starting quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News