Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. Completes Acquisition of The Empire District Electric Company

Russia Bitcoin Mining Ban highlights electricity deficits, grid stability concerns, and sustainability challenges, prompting stricter cryptocurrency regulation as mining operations in Siberia face shutdowns, relocations, and renewed focus on energy efficiency and resource allocation.

Key Points

Policy halting Bitcoin mining in key regions to ease electricity deficits, stabilize the grid, and prioritize energy.

✅ Targets high-load regions like Siberia facing electricity deficits

✅ Protects residential and industrial energy security, limits outages

✅ Prompts miner relocations, regulation, and potential renewables

In a significant shift in its stance on cryptocurrency, Russia has announced plans to ban Bitcoin mining in several key regions, primarily due to rising electricity deficits. This move highlights the ongoing tensions between energy management and the growing demand for cryptocurrency mining, which has sparked a robust debate about sustainability and resource allocation in the country.

Background on Bitcoin Mining in Russia

Russia has long been a major player in the global cryptocurrency landscape, particularly in Bitcoin mining. The country’s vast and diverse geography offers ample opportunities for mining, with several regions boasting low electricity costs and cooler climates that are conducive to operating the high-powered computers used for mining, similar to Iceland's mining boom in cold regions.

However, the boom in mining activities has put a strain on local electricity grids, as seen with BC Hydro suspensions in Canada, particularly as demand for energy continues to rise. This situation has become increasingly untenable, leading government officials to reconsider the viability of allowing large-scale mining operations.

Reasons for the Ban

The decision to ban Bitcoin mining in certain regions stems from a growing electricity deficit that has been exacerbated by both rising temperatures and increased energy consumption. Reports indicate that some regions are struggling to meet domestic energy needs, and jurisdictions like Manitoba's pause on crypto connections reflect similar grid concerns, particularly during peak consumption periods. Officials have expressed concern that continuing to support cryptocurrency mining could lead to blackouts and further strain on the electrical infrastructure.

Additionally, this ban is seen as a measure to redirect energy resources toward more critical sectors, including residential heating and industrial needs. By curbing Bitcoin mining, the government aims to prioritize the energy security of its citizens and maintain stability within its energy markets and the wider global electricity market dynamics.

Regional Impact

The regions targeted by the ban include areas that have seen a significant influx of mining operations, often attracted by the low costs of electricity. For instance, Siberia, known for its abundant natural resources and inexpensive power, has become a major center for miners. The ban is likely to have profound implications for local economies that have come to rely on the influx of investments from cryptocurrency companies.

Many miners are expected to be affected financially as they may have to halt operations or relocate to regions with more favorable regulations. This could lead to job losses and a decline in local business activities that have sprung up around the mining industry, such as hardware suppliers and tech services.

Broader Implications for Cryptocurrency in Russia

This ban reflects a broader trend within Russia’s approach to cryptocurrencies. While the government has been cautious about outright banning digital currencies, it has simultaneously sought to regulate the industry more stringently. Recent legislation has aimed to establish a legal framework for cryptocurrencies, focusing on taxation and oversight while navigating the balance between innovation and regulation.

As other countries around the world grapple with the implications of cryptocurrency mining, Russia’s decision adds to the narrative of the challenges associated with energy consumption in this sector. The international community is increasingly aware of the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining, which has come under fire for its significant energy use and carbon footprint.

Future of Mining in Russia

Looking ahead, the future of Bitcoin mining in Russia remains uncertain. While some regions may implement strict bans, others could potentially embrace a more regulated approach to mining, provided it aligns with energy availability and environmental considerations. The country’s vast landscape offers opportunities for innovative solutions, such as utilizing renewable energy sources, even as India's solar growth slows amid rising coal generation, to power mining operations.

As global attitudes toward cryptocurrency evolve, Russia will likely continue to adapt its policies in response to both domestic energy needs and international pressures, including Europe's shift away from Russian energy that influence policy choices. The balance between fostering a competitive cryptocurrency market and ensuring energy sustainability will be a key challenge for Russian policymakers moving forward.

Russia’s decision to ban Bitcoin mining in key regions marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of cryptocurrency and energy management. As the nation navigates its energy deficits, the implications for the mining industry and the broader cryptocurrency landscape will be significant. This move not only underscores the need for responsible energy consumption in the digital age but also reflects the complexities of integrating emerging technologies within existing frameworks of governance and infrastructure. As the situation unfolds, all eyes will be on how Russia balances innovation with sustainability in its approach to cryptocurrency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Massachusetts Solar Net Metering faces new demand charges and elimination of residential time-of-use rates under an MDPU order, as Eversource cites grid cost fairness while clean energy advocates warn of impacts on distributed solar growth.

Key Points

Policy letting solar customers net out usage with exports; MDPU now adds demand charges and ends TOU rates.

✅ New residential solar demand charges start Dec 31, 2018.

✅ Optional residential TOU rates eliminated by MDPU order.

✅ Eversource cites grid cost fairness; advocates warn slower solar.

A recent Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities' rate case order changes the way solar net metering works and eliminates optional residential time-of-use rates, stirring controversy between clean energy advocates and utility Eversource and potential consumer backlash over rate design.

"There is a lot of room to talk about what net-energy metering should look like, but a demand charge is an unfair way to charge customers," Mark LeBel, staff attorney at non-profit clean energy advocacy organization Acadia Center, said in a Tuesday phone call. Acadia Center is an intervenor in the rate case and opposed the changes.

The Friday MDPU order implements demand charges for new residential solar projects starting on December 31, 2018. Such charges are based on the highest peak hourly consumption over the course of a month, regardless of what time the power is consumed.

Eversource contends the demand charge will more fairly distribute the costs of maintaining the local power grid, echoing minimum charge proposals aimed at low-usage customers. Net metering is often criticized for not evenly distributing those costs, which are effectively subsidized by non-net-metered customers.

"What the demand charge will do is eliminate, to the extent possible, the unfair cross subsidization by non-net-metered customers that currently exists with rates that only have kilowatt-hour charges and no kilowatt demand, Mike Durand, Eversource spokesman, said in a Tuesday email. 

"For net metered facilities that use little kilowatt-hours, a demand charge is a way to charge them for their fair share of the cost of the significant maintenance and upgrade work we do on the local grid every day," Durand said. "Currently, their neighbors are paying more than their share of those costs."

It will not affect existing facilities, Durand said, only those installed after December 31, 2018.

Solar advocates are not enthusiastic about the change and see it slowing the growth of solar power, particularly residential rooftop solar, in the state.

"This is a terrible outcome for the future of solar in Massachusetts," Nathan Phelps, program manager of distributed generation and regulatory policy at solar power advocacy group Vote Solar, said in a Tuesday phone call.

"It's very inconsistent with DPU precedent and numerous pieces of legislation passed in the last 10 years," Phelps said. "The commonwealth has passed several pieces of legislation that are supportive of renewable energy and solar power. I don't know what the DPU was thinking."

 

TIME-OF-USE PRICING ELIMINATED

It does not matter when during the month peak demand occurs -- which could be during the week in the evening -- customers will be charged the same as they would on a hot summer day, LeBel said. Because an individual customer's peak usage does not necessarily correspond to peak demand across the utility's system, consumers are not being provided incentives to reduce energy usage in a way that could benefit the power system, Acadia Center said in a Tuesday statement.

However, Eversource maintains that residential customer distribution peaks based on customer load profiles do not align with basic service peak periods, which are based on Independent System Operator New England's peaks that reflect market-based pricing, even as a Connecticut market overhaul advances in the region, according to the MDPU order.

"The residential Time of Use rates we're eliminating are obsolete, having been designed decades ago when we were responsible for both the generation and the delivery of electricity," Eversource's Durand said.

"We are no longer in the generation business, having divested of our generation assets in Massachusetts in compliance with the law that restructured of our industry back in the late 1990s. Time Varying pricing is best used with generation rates, where the price for electricity changes based on time of day and electricity demand and can significantly alter electric bills for households," he said.

Additionally, only 0.02% of residential customers take service on Eversource's TOU rates and it would be difficult for residential customers to avoid peak period rates because they do not have the ability to shift or reduce load, according to the order.

"The Department allowed the Companies' proposal to eliminate their optional residential TOU rates in order to consolidate and align their residential rates and tariffs to better achieve the rate structure goal of simplicity," the MDPU said in the order.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Maryland Community Solar Program enables renters and condo residents to subscribe to offsite solar, earn utility bill discounts, and support projects across BGE, Pepco, Delmarva, and Potomac Edison territories, with low to moderate income participation.

Key Points

A pilot allowing residents to subscribe to offsite solar and get bill credits and savings, regardless of home ownership.

✅ 5-10 percent discounts on standard utility rates

✅ Available in BGE, Pepco, Delmarva, Potomac Edison areas

✅ Includes low and moderate income subscriber carve-outs

Maryland has launched a pilot program that will allow anyone to power their home with solar panels — even if they are renters or condo-dwellers, or live in the shade of trees.

Solar developers are looking for hundreds of residents to subscribe to six power projects planned across the state, including recently announced sites in Owings Mills and Westminster. Their offers include discounts on standard electric rates.

The developers need a critical mass of customers who are willing to buy the projects’ electricity before they can move forward with plans to install solar panels on about 80 acres. Under state rules, the customer base must include low- and moderate-income residents, many of whom face energy insecurity challenges.

The idea of the community solar program is to tap into the pool of residential customers who don’t want to get their energy from fossil fuels but currently have no way to switch to a cleaner alternative.

That could significantly expand demand for solar projects, said Gary Skulnik, a longtime Maryland solar entrepreneur.

Skulnik is now CEO of Neighborhood Sun, a company recruiting customers for the six projects.

“You’re signing up for a project that won’t exist unless we get enough subscribers,” Skulnik said. “You’re actually getting a new project built.”

It could also stoke simmering conflicts over what sort of land is appropriate for solar development.

The General Assembly authorized the community solar pilot program in 2015. But not-in-my-backyard opposition and concerns about the loss of agricultural land have slowed progress.

Community solar could force more communities to confront those sorts of clashes — and to consider more carefully where solar farms belong.

“We are going to see a lot more solar development in the state,” said Megan Billingsley, assistant director of the Valleys Planning Council in Baltimore County. “One of the things we haven’t seen is any direction or thoughtful planning on where we want to see solar development.”

The General Assembly authorized about 200 megawatts in community solar projects — enough to power about 40,000 households — over three years.

Customers can sign up for projects built within the territory of their electric utility. About half of that solar energy load has been allotted for the region served by Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.

By subscribing to a community solar project, customers won’t actually be getting their electricity from its photovoltaic panels. But their payments will help finance it and, in some cases, complementary battery storage solutions as well.

The Public Service Commission has approved six projects so far: Two in BGE territory, in Owings Mills and near Westminster; one in Pepco territory, in Prince George’s County; two in Delmarva Power and Light territory, in Caroline and Worcester counties; and one in Potomac Edison territory, in Washington County where planning officials have developed proposed recommendations.

More projects are expected to win approval in the next two years.

But none of them can be built unless they catch on with electricity customers. The developers are looking for 2,600 customers statewide.

Skulnik would not say how many customers an individual project needs to get the green light. But he said that the Prince George’s proposal, a 25-acre array atop a Fort Washington landfill is the closest, with about 100 subscribers so far.

The terms of subscription vary by project, but discounts range from 5 percent to 10 percent off utility rates. Customers are asked to commit to the projects for as long as 25 years. (They can break the contracts with advance notice, or if they move to a different utility service area.)

Maryland joins more than a dozen states in advancing community solar projects, as scientists work to improve solar and wind power technology.

Corey Ramsden is an executive for Solar United Neighbors, a nonprofit that promotes the solar industry in eight states and the District of Columbia.

He said potential customers are often confused by the mechanics of subscribing to community solar, or hesitant to commit for years or even decades. The industry is working to answer questions and get people more comfortable with the idea, he said.

But it has been a challenge across the country, including debates over New England grid upgrades, and in Maryland. Advocates for solar say there is broad support for renewable energy generation. The state has set goals to increase green energy use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Still, many Marylanders don’t welcome the reality when a project attempts to move in.

Rural land is often the most desirable for solar developers, because it requires the least effort to prepare for an array of panels. But community groups in those areas have asked whether land historically used for farming is right for a more industrial use.

“People are very much in favor of going for a lot more renewables, for whatever reason,” said Dru Schmidt-Perkins, the former president of the land conservation group 1,000 Friends of Maryland. “That support comes to a screeching halt when land that is perceived to be valuable for other things, whether a historic view­shed or farming, suddenly becomes a target of a location for this new project.”

Such concerns have at least temporarily stalled the momentum for solar across the state. Anne Arundel County had at least five small community solar projects in the pipeline in December when officials decided to pause development for eight months. Baltimore County officials imposed a four-month moratorium on solar development before passing an ordinance last year to limit the size and number of solar farms.

Billingsley said the Valley Plannings Council, which advocates for historic and rural areas in western Baltimore County, is frustrated that there hasn’t been more discussion about which areas the county should target for solar development — and which it shouldn’t.

She said she fears that pressure to expand solar farms across rural lands is only going to grow as community solar projects launch, and as lawmakers in Annapolis talk about more policies to promote investment in renewable energy.

Schmidt-Perkins called community solar “an amazing program” for those who would install solar panels on their roofs if they could. But she said its launch heightens the importance of discussions about a broader solar strategy.

“Most communities are caught a little flat-footed on this and are somewhat at the mercy of an industry that’s chomping at the bit,” she said. “It’s time for Maryland to say, ‘Okay, let’s come up with our plan so that we know how much solar can we really generate in this state on lands that are not conflict-based.’”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

UK Free Electricity Debate weighs soaring energy prices against market regulation, renewables, and social equity, examining price caps, funding via windfall taxes, grid investment, and consumer protection in the UK's evolving energy policy landscape.

Key Points

A policy dispute over free power, balancing consumer relief with market stability, renewables, and investment.

✅ Pros: relief for households; boosts efficiency and green adoption.

✅ Cons: risks to market signals, quality, and grid investment.

✅ Policy options: price caps, windfall taxes, targeted subsidies.

In recent months, the debate over free electricity in the UK has intensified, revealing a divide within the energy sector. With soaring energy prices and economic pressures impacting consumers, the discussion around providing free electricity has gained traction. However, the idea has sparked significant controversy among industry stakeholders, each with their own perspectives on the feasibility and implications of such a move.

The Context of Rising Energy Costs

The push for free electricity is rooted in the UK’s ongoing energy crisis, exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As energy prices reached unprecedented levels, households faced the harsh reality of skyrocketing bills, prompting calls for government intervention to alleviate financial burdens.

Supporters of free electricity argue that it could serve as a vital lifeline for struggling families and businesses. The proposal suggests that by providing a certain amount of electricity for free, the government could help mitigate the effects of rising costs while encouraging energy conservation and efficiency.

Industry Perspectives

However, the notion of free electricity has not been universally embraced within the energy sector. Some industry leaders express concerns about the financial viability of such a scheme. They argue that providing free electricity could undermine the market dynamics that incentivize investment in infrastructure and renewable energy, in a market already exposed to natural gas price volatility today. Critics warn that if energy companies are forced to absorb costs, it could lead to diminished service quality and investment in necessary advancements.

Additionally, there are worries about how free electricity could be funded. Proponents suggest that a tax on energy companies could generate the necessary revenue, but opponents question whether this would stifle innovation and competition. The fear is that placing additional financial burdens on energy providers could ultimately lead to higher prices in the long run.

Renewable Energy and Sustainability

Another aspect of the debate centers around the UK’s commitment to transitioning to renewable energy sources. Supporters of free electricity emphasize that such a policy could encourage more widespread adoption of green technologies by making energy more accessible. They argue that by removing the financial barriers associated with energy costs, households would be more inclined to invest in solar panels, heat pumps, and other sustainable solutions.

On the other hand, skeptics contend that the focus should remain on ensuring a stable and reliable energy supply as the UK moves toward its climate goals. They caution against implementing policies that might disrupt the balance of the energy market, potentially hindering the necessary investments in renewable infrastructure.

Government's Role

As discussions unfold, the government’s role in this debate is crucial. Policymakers must navigate the complex landscape of energy regulation, market dynamics, and consumer needs. The government has already introduced measures aimed at assisting vulnerable households, such as energy price caps and direct financial support. However, the question remains whether these initiatives go far enough in addressing the root causes of the energy crisis.

In this context, the government faces pressure from both consumers demanding relief and industry leaders advocating for market stability, including proposals to end the link between gas and electricity prices to curb price volatility. The challenge lies in finding a middle ground that balances immediate support for households with long-term sustainability and investment in the energy sector.

Future Implications

The ongoing debate about free electricity in the UK underscores broader themes related to energy policy, market regulation, and social equity, with rising electricity prices abroad offering context for comparison. As the country navigates its energy transition, the decisions made today will have far-reaching implications for both consumers and the industry.

If the government chooses to pursue a model that includes free electricity, it will need to carefully consider how to implement such a system without jeopardizing the market. Transparency, stakeholder engagement, and thorough impact assessments will be essential to ensure that any new policies are sustainable and equitable.

Conversely, if the concept of free electricity is ultimately rejected, the focus will likely shift back to addressing energy costs through other means, such as enhancing energy efficiency programs or increasing support for vulnerable populations.

The divide within the UK’s energy industry regarding free electricity highlights the complexities of balancing consumer needs with market stability. As the energy crisis continues to unfold, the conversations surrounding this issue will remain at the forefront of public discourse. Ultimately, finding a solution that addresses the immediate challenges while promoting a sustainable energy future will be key to navigating this critical juncture in the UK’s energy landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Manitoba Hydro rate hikes face public hearings over electricity rates, utility bills, and debt, with impacts on low-income households, Indigenous communities, and Winnipeg services amid credit rating pressure and rising energy costs.

Key Points

Manitoba Hydro seeks 7.9% annual increases to stabilize finances and debt, impacting electricity costs for households.

✅ Proposed hikes: 7.9% yearly through 2023/24

✅ Driven by debt, credit rating declines, rising interest

✅ Disproportionate impact on low-income and Indigenous communities

Hearings began Monday into Manitoba Hydro’s request for consecutive annual rate hikes of 7.9 per cent.  The crown corporation is asking for the steep hikes to commence April 1, 2018.

The increases would continue through 2023/2024, under a multi-year rate plan before dropping to what Hydro calls “sustainable” levels.

Patti Ramage, legal counsel for Hydro, said while she understands no one welcomes the “exceptional” rate increases, the company is dealing with exceptional circumstances.

It’s the largest rate increase Hydro has ever asked for, though a scaled-back increase was discussed later, saying rising debt and declining credit ratings are affecting its financial stability.

President and CEO Kelvin Shepherd said Hydro is borrowing money to fund its interest payments, and acknowledged that isn’t an effective business model.

Hydro’s application states that it will be spending up to 63 per cent of its revenue on paying financial expenses if the current request for rate hikes is not approved.

If it does get the increase it wants, that number could shrink to 45 per cent – which Ramage says is still quite high, but preferable to the alternative.

She cited the need to take immediate action to fix Hydro’s finances instead of simply hoping for the best.

“The worst thing we can do is defer action… that’s why we need to get this right,” Ramage said.

A number of intervenors presented varying responses to Hydro’s push for increased rates, with many focusing on how the hikes would affect Manitobans with lower incomes.

Senwung Luk spoke on behalf of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, and said the proposed rates would hit First Nations reserves particularly hard.

He noted that 44.2 per cent of housing on reserves in the province needs significant improvement, which means electricity use tends to be higher to compensate for the lower quality of infrastructure.

Luk says this problem is compounded by the higher rates of poverty in Indigenous populations, with 76 per cent of children on reserves in Manitoba living below the poverty line.

If the increase goes forward, he said the AMC hopes to see a reduced rate for those living on reserves, despite a recent appeal court ruling on such pricing.

Byron Williams, speaking on behalf of the Consumers Coalition, said the 7.9 per cent increase unreasonably favours the interests of Hydro, and is unjustly biased against virtually everyone else.

In Saskatchewan, the NDP criticized an SaskPower 8 per cent rate hike as unfair to customers, highlighting regional concerns.

Williams said customers using electric space heating would be more heavily targeted by the rate increase, facing an extra $13.14 a month as opposed to the $6.88 that would be tacked onto the bills of those not using electric space heating.

Williams also called Hydro’s financial forecasts unreliable, bringing the 7.9 per cent figure into question.

Lawyer George Orle, speaking for the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, said the proposed rate hikes would “make a mockery” of the sacrifices made by First Nations across the province, given that so much of Hydro’s infrastructure is on Indigenous land.

The city of Winnipeg also spoke out against the jump, saying property taxes could rise or services could be cut if the hikes go ahead to compensate for increased, unsustainable electricity costs.

In British Columbia, a BC Hydro 3 per cent increase also moved forward, drawing attention to affordability.

A common theme at the hearing was that Hydro’s request was not backed by facts, and that it was heading towards fear-mongering.

Manitoba Hydro’s CEO begged to differ as he plead his case during the first hearing of a process that is expected to take 10 weeks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV-Driven Electricity Demand Growth will reshape utilities through electrification, EV adoption, grid modernization, and ratebasing of charging, as NREL forecasts rising terawatt-hours, CAGR increases, and demand-side flexibility to manage emissions and reliability.

Key Points

Growth in power consumption fueled by EV adoption and electrification, increasing utility sales and grid investment.

✅ NREL projects 20%-38% higher U.S. load by 2050

✅ Utilities see CAGR up to 1.6% and 80 TWh/year growth

✅ Demand-side flexibility and EV charging optimize grids

Utilities have struggled with flat demand for years, but analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory predicts steady growth across the next three decades — largely driven by the adoption of electric vehicles, including models like the Tesla Model 3 that are reshaping expectations.

The study considers three scenarios, a reference case and medium- and high-adoption electrification predictions. All indicate demand growth, but in the medium and high scenarios for 2050, U.S. electricity consumption increases by 20% and 38%, respectively, compared to business as usual.

Utilities could go from stagnant demand to compound annual growth rates of 1.6%, which would amount to sustained absolute growth of 80 terawatt-hours per year.

"This unprecedented absolute growth in annual electricity consumption can significantly alter supply-side infrastructure development requirements," the report says, and could challenge state power grids in multiple regions.

NREL's Trieu Mai, principal investigator for the study, cautions that more research is needed to fully assess the drivers and impacts of electrification, "as well as the role and value of demand-side flexibility."

"Although we extensively and qualitatively discuss the potential drivers and barriers behind electric technology adoption in the report, much more work is needed to quantitatively understand these factors," Mai said in a statement.

However, utilities have largely bought into the dream.

"Electric vehicles are the biggest opportunity we see right now," Energy Impact Partners CEO Hans Kobler told Utility Dive. And the impact could go beyond just higher kilowattt-hour sales, particularly as electric truck fleets come online.

"When the transportation sector is fully electrified, it will result in around $6 trillion in investment," Kobler said. "Half of that is on the infrastructure side of the utility." And the industry can also benefit through ratebasing charging stations and managing the new demand.

One benefit that NREL's report points to is the possibility of "expanded value streams enabled by electric and/or grid-connected technologies," such as energy storage and mobile chargers that enhance flexibility.

"Many electric utilities are carefully watching the trend toward electrification, as it has the potential to increase sales and revenues that have stagnated or fallen over the past decade," the report said, highlighting potential benefits for all customers as adoption grows. "Beyond power system planning, other motivations to study electrification include its potential to impact energy security, emissions, and innovation in electrical end-use technologies and overall efficient system integration. The impacts of electrification could be far-reaching and have benefits and costs to various stakeholders."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News