New York Faces Soaring Energy Bills

Nova Scotia Power Active Demand Control Tariff lets the utility direct Port Hawkesbury Paper load, enabling demand response, efficiency, and industrial electricity rates, while regulators assess impacts on ratepayers, grid reliability, mill viability, and savings.

Key Points

A four-year tariff letting the utility control the mill load for demand response, efficiency, and lower costs.

✅ Utility can increase or reduce daily consumption at the mill

✅ Projected savings of $10M annually for other ratepayers to 2023

✅ Regulators reviewing cost allocation, monitoring, and viability

Nova Scotia Power is scheduled to appear before government regulators Tuesday morning seeking approval for a unique discount rate for its largest customer.

Under the four-year plan, Nova Scotia Power would control the supply of electricity to Port Hawkesbury Paper, a move referenced in a grid operations report that urges changes, with the right to direct the company to increase or reduce daily consumption throughout the year.

The rate proposal is supported by the mill, which says it needs to lower its power bill to keep its operation viable.

The rate went into effect on Jan. 1 on a temporary basis, pending the outcome of a hearing this week before the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, amid broader calls for an independent body to lead electricity planning.

The mill accounts for 10 per cent of the provincial electricity load, even as a neighbouring utility pursues more Quebec power for the region, producing glossy paper used in magazines and catalogs.

Nova Scotia Power says controlling how much electricity the mill uses — and when — will allow it to operate the system much more efficiently, as it expands biomass generation initiatives, saving other customers $10 million a year until the rate expires in 2023.

Ceding control 'not an easy decision'
In its opening statement that was filed in advance, Port Hawkesbury Paper said ceding the control of its electrical supply to Nova Scotia Power was "not an easy decision" to make, but the company is confident the arrangement will work.

In September 2019, Nova Scotia Power and the mill jointly applied for an "extra large active demand control tariff," which would provide electricity to the mill for about $61 per megawatt hour, well below the full cost of generating the electricity.

The utility said "fully allocating costs" would result in "prices in excess of $80/MWh ... and [would] not [be] financially viable for the mill."

In its statement, Port Hawkesbury Paper said since the initial filing "there have been greater near term declines in market demand and pricing for PHP's product than was forecast at that time, continuing to put pressure on our business and further highlighting the need to maintain the balance provided for in the new tariff."

Consumer advocate sees 'advantage,' but will challenge
Bill Mahody represents Nova Scotia Power's 400,000 residential customers before the review board. He wants proof the mill will pay enough toward the cost of generating the electricity it uses, amid concerns over biomass use in the province today.

"We filed evidence, as have others involved in the proceeding, that would call into question whether or not the rate design is capturing all of those costs and that will be a significant issue before the board," Mahody said.

Still, he sees value in the proposal.

The proposed new rate went into effect on Jan. 1 on a temporary basis. (The Canadian Press)
"This proposed rate gives Nova Scotia Power the ability to control that sizable Port Hawkesbury Paper load to the advantage of other ratepayers, as the province pursues more wind and solar projects, because Nova Scotia Power would be reducing the costs that other ratepayers are going to face," he said.

Mahody is also calling for a mechanism to monitor whether the mill's position actually improves to the point where it could pay higher rates.

"An awful lot can change during a four-year period, with new tidal power projects underway, and I think the board ought to have the ability to check in on this and make sure that their preferential rate continues to be justified," he said.

Major employer
Port Hawkesbury Paper, owned by Stern Partners in Vancouver, has received discounted power rates since it bought the idled mill in 2012. But the "load retention tariff" as it was called, expired at the end of 2019.

Regulators have accepted Nova Scotia Power's argument that it would cost other customers more if the mill ceased to operate.

The mill said it spends between $235 million and $265 million annually, employing 330 people directly and supporting 500 other jobs indirectly.

The Nova Scotia government pledged $124 million in financial assistance as part of the reopening in 2012.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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.  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.

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.

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, 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.

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 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 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.

As Quebec prepares to ramp up electricity production to meet its ambitious economic goals, the government is trying to extend a power deal that has caused decades of resentment in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Around 15 per cent of Quebec's electricity comes from the Churchill Falls dam in Labrador, through a deal set to expire in 2041 that is widely seen as unfair. Quebec Premier François Legault not only wants to extend the agreement, he wants another dam on the Churchill River to help make his province what he has called a "world leader for the green economy."

But renewing that contract "won't be easy," Normand Mousseau, scientific director of the Trottier Energy Institute at Polytechnique Montréal, said in a recent interview. Extending the Churchill Falls deal is not essential to meet Quebec's energy plans, but without it, Mousseau said, "we would have some problems."

The Legault government is enticing global companies, such as manufacturers of electric vehicle batteries, to set up shop in the province and access its hydroelectricity. But demand for Quebec's power has exceeded its supply, limiting the government's vision.

Last month, Quebec's hydro utility released its strategic plan(opens in a new tab), calling for a production increase of 60 terawatt hours by 2035, which represents the installed capacity of three of Hydro-Québec's largest facilities. Churchill Falls produces roughly 30 terawatt hours, and Quebec would need to replace that power if it can't strike a deal to extend the contract, Mousseau said.

If Quebec wants to keep buying power from Churchill Falls, the government is going to have to pay more, said Mousseau, who is also a physics professor at Université de Montréal. "We're paying one-fifth of a cent a kilowatt hour — that's not much," he said.

Under the 1969 contract, Quebec assumed most of the financial risk of building the Churchill Falls dam in exchange for the right to buy power at a fixed price. The deal has generated more than $28 billion for Hydro-Québec; it has returned $2 billion to Newfoundland and Labrador.

That lopsided deal has stoked anti-Quebec sentiment in Newfoundland and Labrador and contributed to nationalist politics, including threats of separation from Canada around a decade and a half ago, when Danny Williams was premier, said Jerry Bannister, a history professor at Dalhousie University.

"We tend to forget what it was like during the Williams era — he hauled down the Canadian flag," Bannister said. "There was a type of angry, combative nationalism which defined energy development. And particularly Muskrat Falls, it was payback, it was revenge."

Power from the Muskrat Falls generating station, also on the Churchill River, would be sold to Nova Scotia instead of Quebec. But that project has suffered technical problems and cost overruns: as of June 29, the price of Muskrat Falls had reached $13.5 billion; the province had estimated the total cost would be $7.4 billion when it sanctioned the project in 2012.

Anti-Quebec feelings may have subsided, but Bannister said the Churchill Falls deal continues to influence Newfoundland politics.

In September, Premier Andrew Furey said Legault would have to show him the money(opens in a new tab) to extend th Legault's office said Tuesday that discussions are ongoing, while the Newfoundland and Labrador government said in an emailed statement Thursday that it wants to maximize the value of its "assets and future opportunities" along the Churchill River.

Whatever negotiations are happening, Grand Chief Simon Pokue of the Innu Nation of Labrador(opens in a new tab) said he has been left out of them.

Churchill Falls flooded 6,500 square kilometres of traditional Innu land, Pokue said, adding that in response, the Innu Nation filed a $4 billion lawsuit against Hydro-Québec in 2020, which is ongoing.

"A lot of damage has been done to our lands, our land is flooded and we'll never see it again," Pokue said in a recent interview. "Nobody will ever repair that."

As well, a portion of Muskrat Falls profits was supposed to go to the Innu Nation, but the cost overruns and a refinancing deal between the federal government and Newfoundland and Labrador have limited whatever money they will see.

If Legault wants another dam on the Churchill River, at Gull Island, the Innu Nation needs to be paid the kind of money it was expecting from Muskrat Falls, he said.

"You did it once, but you're not going to do it again," Pokue said. "It's not going to start until we are consulted and involved."

Meanwhile, Quebec may face competition for Churchill Falls power, Mousseau said, with at least one Labrador mining company expressing interest in buying a significant portion of its output — though he added that the dam's capacity could be increased. The low price paid by Quebec has meant there has been little incentive to upgrade the plant's turbines.

As demand for electricity rises across the country, Mousseau said he thinks it would be better for provinces to work together, sharing expertise and costs as they look across provincial borders to find the best locations for projects, rather than acting as rivals.

"We need to talk and work with other provinces, but for this you need to build confidence, and there's no confidence from the Newfoundland side with respect to Quebec," he said. "So that's a challenge: how do you work on this relationship that has been broken for 50 years?"e contract, but the two premiers have said little since.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is at the forefront of Canada’s energy transformation, demonstrating a robust commitment to sustainable energy solutions. One of the most promising avenues under exploration is the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These innovative technologies represent a significant leap forward in the quest for reliable, clean, and cost-effective energy generation, aligning with Ontario’s ambitious climate goals and energy security needs.

Understanding Small Modular Reactors

Small Modular Reactors are advanced nuclear power plants that are designed to be smaller in size and capacity compared to traditional nuclear reactors. Typically generating up to 300 megawatts of electricity, SMRs can be constructed in factories and transported to their installation sites, offering flexibility and scalability that larger reactors do not provide. This modular approach reduces construction time and costs, making them an appealing option for meeting energy demands.

One of the key advantages of SMRs is their ability to provide baseload power—energy that is consistently available—while simultaneously supporting intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. As Ontario continues to increase its reliance on renewables, SMRs could play a crucial role in ensuring that the energy supply remains stable and secure.

OPG’s Initiative

In its commitment to advancing clean energy technologies, OPG has been a strong advocate for the adoption of SMRs. The province of Ontario has announced plans to develop three additional small modular reactors, which would further enhance the region’s energy portfolio. This initiative aligns with both provincial and federal climate objectives, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition toward a low-carbon economy.

The deployment of SMRs in Ontario is particularly strategic, given the province’s existing nuclear infrastructure. OPG operates a significant portion of Ontario’s nuclear fleet, and leveraging this existing expertise can facilitate the integration of SMRs into the energy mix. By building on established operational frameworks, OPG can ensure that new reactors are deployed safely and efficiently.

Economic and Environmental Benefits

The introduction of SMRs is expected to bring substantial economic benefits to Ontario. The construction and operation of these reactors will create jobs, stimulate local economies, and foster innovation in nuclear technology. Additionally, SMRs have the potential to attract investment from both domestic and international stakeholders, positioning Ontario as a leader in advanced nuclear technology.

From an environmental perspective, SMRs are designed with enhanced safety features and lower waste production compared to traditional reactors. They can significantly contribute to Ontario’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. By providing a reliable source of clean energy, SMRs will help mitigate the impacts of climate change while supporting the province's transition to a sustainable energy future.

Community Engagement and Collaboration

Recognizing the importance of community acceptance and stakeholder engagement, OPG is committed to an open dialogue with local communities and Indigenous groups. This collaboration is essential to addressing concerns and ensuring that the deployment of SMRs is aligned with the values and priorities of the residents of Ontario. By fostering a transparent process, OPG aims to build trust and support for this innovative energy solution.

Moreover, the development of SMRs will involve partnerships with various stakeholders, including government agencies, research institutions, and private industry. These collaborations will not only enhance the technical aspects of SMR deployment but also ensure that Ontario can capitalize on shared expertise and resources.

Looking Ahead

As Ontario Power Generation moves forward with plans for three additional Small Modular Reactors, the province stands at a critical juncture in its energy evolution. The integration of SMRs into Ontario’s energy landscape promises a sustainable, reliable, and economically viable solution to meet growing energy demands while addressing climate change challenges.

With the support of government initiatives, community collaboration, and continued innovation in nuclear technology, Ontario is poised to become a leader in the advancement of Small Modular Reactors. The successful implementation of these projects could serve as a model for other jurisdictions seeking to transition to cleaner energy sources, highlighting the role of nuclear power in a balanced and sustainable energy future.

In conclusion, OPG's commitment to developing Small Modular Reactors not only reinforces Ontario’s energy security but also demonstrates a proactive approach to addressing the pressing challenges of climate change and environmental sustainability. The future of energy in Ontario looks promising, driven by innovation and a commitment to clean energy solutions.

California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill aimed at expanding load flexibility in state grid planning, citing conflicts with California’s resource adequacy framework and concerns over grid reliability and energy planning uncertainty.

Why has Newsom vetoed the Bill to Codify Load Flexibility?

Governor Gavin Newsom’s veto blocks legislation that would have required the California Energy Commission to incorporate load flexibility into the state’s energy planning and policy framework, a move that has stirred debate across the clean energy sector.

✅ Argues the bill conflicts with California’s existing Resource Adequacy system

✅ Draws backlash from clean energy and grid modernization advocates

✅ Exposes ongoing tension over how to manage renewable integration and demand response

California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed Assembly Bill 44, which would have required the California Energy Commission to evaluate and incorporate load management mechanisms into the state’s energy planning process. The move drew criticism from clean energy advocates who say it undermines efforts to strengthen grid reliability and reduce costs.

The bill directed the commission to adopt “upfront technical requirements and load modification protocols” that would allow load-serving entities to adjust their electrical demand forecasts. Proponents viewed this as a way to modernize California’s grid management, making it more responsive to demand fluctuations and renewable energy variability.

In his veto statement, Newsom said the bill was incompatible with existing energy planning frameworks. “While I support expanding electric load flexibility, this bill does not align with the California Public Utility Commission’s Resource Adequacy framework,” he said. “As a result, the requirements of this bill would not improve electric grid reliability planning and could create uncertainty around energy resource planning and procurement processes.”

Newsom’s decision comes shortly after he signed a broad package of energy legislation that set the stage for a regional Western electricity market and extended the state’s cap-and-trade program. However, that legislative package did not include continued funding for several key grid reliability programs — including what advocates have called the world’s largest virtual power plant, a distributed network of connected devices that can balance electricity demand in real time.

Clean energy supporters saw AB 44 as a crucial step toward integrating these distributed energy resources into long-term grid planning. “With Assembly Bill 44 being vetoed, the state has missed a huge opportunity to advance common-sense policy that would have lowered costs, strengthened the grid, and unlocked the full potential of advanced energy,” said Edson Perez, California lead at Advanced Energy United.

Perez added that the setback increases pressure on lawmakers to take stronger action in the next legislative session. “The pressure is on next session to ensure that California is using all tools in its policy toolbox to build critically needed infrastructure, strengthen the grid, and bring costs down,” he said.

California’s growing use of demand response programs and virtual power plants has been central to its strategy for managing grid stress during heat waves and wildfire seasons. These systems allow utilities and customers to temporarily reduce or shift energy use, helping to prevent blackouts and reduce the need for fossil-fuel peaker plants.

A recent report by the Brattle Group found that California’s taxpayer-funded virtual power plant could save ratepayers $206 million between 2025 and 2028 while reducing reliance on gas generation. The study, commissioned by Sunrun and Tesla Energy, highlighted the potential for flexible load management to improve both grid reliability and reduce costs.

Despite these findings, Newsom’s veto signals continued tension between state policymakers and clean energy advocates over how best to modernize California’s power grid. While the governor has prioritized large-scale renewable development and regional market integration, critics argue that failing to codify load flexibility could slow progress toward a more adaptive, resilient, and affordable clean energy future.

Related Articles

• USA Electricity News

The Manitoba government is planning to raise electricity rates by 2.5 per cent a year over the next three years.

Finance Minister Scott Fielding says the increases, to be presented in a bill before the legislature, are the lowest in a decade and will help keep rates among the lowest in Canada.

Crown-owned Manitoba Hydro had asked for a 3.5 per cent increase this year to help pay off billions of dollars in debt.

“The way we figured this out, we looked at the rate increases that were approved by PUB (Public Utilities Board) over the last ten years, (and) we went to 75 per cent of that,” Fielding said during a Thursday morning press conference.

“It’s a pandemic, we know that there’s a lot of people that are unemployed, that are struggling, we know that businesses need to recharge after the business (sic), so this will provide them an appropriate break.”

Electricity rates are normally set by the Public Utilities Board, a regulatory body that holds public hearings and examines the Crown corporation’s finances.

The Progressive Conservative government has temporarily suspended the regulatory process and has set rates itself.

Manitoba Liberal leader Dougald Lamont was quick to condemn the move, saying in a news release the PCs “are abusing their power and putting Hydro’s financial future at risk by fixing prices in the hope of buying some political popularity.”

“Hydro’s rates should be set by the PUB after public hearings, not figured out on the back of a napkin in the Premier’s office,” Lamont wrote.

Fielding noted the increase would appear as an amendment to Bill 35, which will appear in the legislature this fall.

“All members of the legislative assembly will vote and debate this rate increase on Bill 35,” Fielding said.

“This will give the PUB time to implement reforms, and allow the utilities to prepare a more rigorous, multi-year review application process.”