You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
If the U.S. wants to compete on EVs, it will have to catch up to the rest of the world.
On Wednesday, the Biden administration finalized sweeping new rules that will sharply limit how much carbon pollution new cars and trucks can emit into the atmosphere. The rules — which rank as one of Biden’s most important climate moves — are aimed at accelerating the country’s transition to electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, requiring most new cars sold in 2032 to burn little gasoline or none at all.
My colleague Emily Pontecorvo has an excellent explainer on how the new rules work. But I want to focus on one more aspect: Why they are able to do so much more than previous tailpipe regulations.
The new rules are not the Environmental Protection Agency’s first foray into regulating climate-warming pollution from vehicle tailpipes. Since 2010, the EPA has periodically tightened new limits on the amount of climate-warming pollution that cars and light-duty trucks can emit. The new rules are in some ways merely the next evolution of that approach.
But they also go much further than the agency ever has before. Where previous regulations essentially required automakers only to sell some conventional hybrids and electric vehicles, by the beginning of next decade, the lion’s share of cars sold in the United States must be electric vehicles or hybrids, the EPA now says.
Why is that ambition possible? One reason is that the United States has a more aggressive climate law on the books now than it has had during past rulemakings. Biden’s climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, will subsidize the purchase, leasing, and manufacturing of electric vehicles. Because of how the EPA calculates the costs and benefits of its proposals, these subsidies will significantly cut the projected cost of even an ambitious rule — in this case by as much as $65 billion. (The agency calculates that consumers will save even more money — up to a staggering $230 billion — by paying less gasoline tax because they will be buying less fuel.)
Yet the IRA is not the only reason — or even the main reason — these rules can go so much further than what was previously imagined. If the United States can pursue such an ambitious standard now, that’s because it’s following on the heels of electric vehicle policy passed in other jurisdictions: China, California, and the European Union. These state and national policies have set the pace for the EV transition around the world, setting new market expectations or significantly cutting the costs of building an electric car.
They also created a sense of inevitability around electric vehicles. “The future is electric. Automakers are committed to the EV transition,” John Bozella, the president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a car-industry trade group in Washington, said in a statement Wednesday on the EPA rules.
Corey Cantor, an analyst at the market research firm BNEF, summed it all up. “What is different this time — compared to say, where the world was in 2016 — is that there is now a thriving global EV market, versus a nascent one,” he said. There are also a handful of global companies poised to profit from a global EV transition, regardless of what Ford, Toyota, General Motors, and other legacy auto brands do.
Even before Biden asked the EPA to issue new regulations, in other words, these policies had changed the metaphorical game board — and changed how far the agency could push the rules.
These global policies don’t all take the same form. California and the European Union already require that all new cars sold in 2035 must be electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids, although the EU has carved out an exception for a theoretical zero-carbon gasoline replacement.
Due to a longstanding provision in the Clean Air Act, other U.S. states can opt into California’s stricter air pollution laws. So far, 14 in total — making up more than 40% of America’s light-duty car market — have adopted California’s 2035 zero-emissions vehicle mandate.
China, meanwhile, has not set a requirement that all cars must plug in by a certain year. Instead, it will require that “new energy vehicles” — a category that can include EVs and plug-in hybrids, but also conventional hybrids — must make up half of all car sales by 2035. But Chinese companies have raced ahead of this target. Wang Chuanfu, the CEO of the massive Chinese automaker BYD, estimated this weekend that 50% of China’s car sales could be new energy vehicles as soon as June.
All together, these mandates added up to a strong market signal. By last year, more than half of the global auto market was already covered by some form of clean vehicle rule — even before the EPA did anything final. Now, if the new EPA rules are enforced as written, then more than 60% of the world’s car market will be subject to some kind of emissions mandate.
This reflects, at least in part, a recognition that the global car market is changing beyond the ability of Washington politicians to influence it. “If we’re talking 10 years from now, policy probably won’t be needed, at least in leading markets. EVs will have just naturally taken over the market,” Stephanie Searle, who leads research programs at the International Council on Clean Transportation, told me.
Over the past year, a parade of cheap new EVs from Chinese automakers — including the BYD Seagull, a sub-$10,000 hatchback that gets up to 251 miles of range — have stunned the automotive industry. Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford, told investors last month that the company was reorienting its strategy to combat the rise of Chinese electric-car makers, such as BYD and Geely.
“If you cannot compete fair and square with the Chinese around the world, then 20% to 30% of your revenue is at risk,” Farley said at an industry conference last month. He disclosed that Ford had set up a secret internal “skunkworks” engineering team to make an affordable electric vehicle that could compete head-to-head with Chinese models on cost. The company has delayed the release of a new electric three-row SUV in order to produce three roughly $25,000 models, according to a Bloomberg report last week.
“Automakers see the future is electrified, and they see that Chinese companies will eat their lunch if they don’t get going,” Searle, the clean transportation researcher, said. “There’s no putting the genie back in the bottle.”
But China’s dominance was not inevitable — it was itself the result of ambitious industrial policies. Roughly 15 years ago, China identified the electric vehicle industry as a sector where it could eventually become a global leader in export markets, Benjamin Bradlow, a Princeton professor of sociology and international affairs, told me.
Since then, the country’s leaders have targeted the EV sector with generous subsidies far beyond what Americans lawmakers considered for the IRA, he said. They have also encouraged the EV industry’s geographic spread across China and required automakers to sell a certain percentage of EVs across their vehicle fleet.
“It’s a very different style of policymaking” from what America has done with the IRA, Bradlow said, although like that law it also aimed to lower the cost of technologies. “[China] is targeting a sector and it’s being very specific about being at the technological and price frontier — it’s very export-oriented.”
These policies have succeeded beyond imagining. China is now the world’s largest exporter of cars, and it has become a goliath in the EV industry. The country has achieved what hippies and renegades have long claimed is possible: a thriving and cutthroat electric vehicle industry, where consumers are willing to buy EVs without significant subsidies. (Indeed, China’s electric-car makers have been locked in a price war over the past year, driving even greater adoption as prices fall.)
These Chinese industrial policies — along with American and European-funded R&D — have cut tens of thousands of dollars from EV prices. Over the past three decades, the cost of manufacturing a battery has fallen by 97%, and by 2027 manufacturing a new EV battery is projected to cost less than $100 a kilowatt-hour, a long-theorized benchmark at which an electric vehicle will be competitive with a gasoline vehicle.
In the United States, mandates and subsidies in achieving mass EV adoption have not been quite as enthusiastically received. Some 7% of new cars sold in the United States last year were EVs, an all-time high. Plug-in and conventional hybrids made up an additional 8% of new car sales, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Those sales shares will need to double repeatedly in the years ahead for American automakers to meet the EPA’s new standards. And they point to at least one form of success that has alluded American policymakers so far: creating a robust, popular EV industry that can win over consumers on its own terms.
“The ultimate success of the policy and transition overall is a mix between policy, consumer adoption, and the automakers themselves,” Cantor, the BNEF analyst, told me.
For the first time ever, in other words, “automakers who fall behind may pay a far higher cost for failure to transition,” Cantor said. And that — above anything else — is what makes these EPA rules different from any that have come before.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On COP30 jitters, a coal mega-merger gone bust, and NYC airport workers get heated
Current conditions: Hurricane Erin is lashing Virginia Beach with winds up to 80 miles per hour, the Mid-Atlantic with light rain, and New York City with deadly riptides • Europe’s wildfires have now burned more land than any blazes in two decades • Catastrophic floods have killed more than 300 in Pakistan and at least 50 in Indian-administered Kashmir.
Offshore oil rigs in California. Mario Tama/Getty Images
Two weeks after de-designating millions of acres of federal waters to offshore wind development, the Trump administration Tuesday set a new schedule for auctions of oil-and-gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s Cook Inlet, stretching all the way out to 2040. In a press release, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum cited the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a “landmark step toward unleashing America’s energy potential” by “putting in place a bold, long-term program that strengthens American Energy Dominance, creates good-paying jobs and ensure we continue to responsibly develop our offshore resources.”
The lease plan may violate federal law, however, as the administration has not conducted environmental analyses or held public hearings before putting the auctions on the calendar. “There’s no world in which we will allow the Trump Administration to hold dozens of oil sales in public waters, putting Americans, wildlife, and the planet in harm’s way, without abiding by the law,” Brettny Hardy, an oceans attorney at the environmental group Earthjustice, said in a statement. “Even with its passage of the worst environmental bill in U.S. history, the Republican-led Congress did not exempt these offshore oil sales from needing to comply with our nation’s environmental statutes.”
In an open letter published Tuesday, André Corrêa do Lago, the veteran Brazilian diplomat leading the next United Nations climate summit, warned that “geopolitical and economic obstacles are raising new challenges to international cooperation — including under the climate regime.” The letter comes after UN-sponsored talks over a plastics treaty collapsed last week, with the U.S. joining fellow oil producers Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran in standing athwart more than 100 other countries that supported a deal to curb production of new disposable plastics.
The climate summit, known as COP30, is set to take place in the Brazilian Amazon city of Belém in November. It will be the first global climate confab since President Donald Trump returned to office and, on his first day back in the White House, kicked off the process to withdraw the U.S. from the 2015 Paris climate deal.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Peabody Energy backed out of its $3.8 billion agreement to buy Anglo American’s coal mines following the unexpected closure of the deal’s flagship mine. On Tuesday, the largest U.S. coal producer said that an explosion last March at Anglo America’s Moranbah North mine in Australia resulted in a “material adverse change” to its deal. The move dealt a major blow to London-based Anglo American, which had planned to use the sale as part of a broader restructuring to fend off a hostile takeover attempt by rival BHP. Anglo American CEO Duncan Wanblad said he was “very disappointed,” according to the Financial Times, and the company said it would “seek damages for the wrongful termination.”
The deal comes amid a global comeback for the main fuel blamed for climate change. As my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote last month, “the evidence for coal’s stubborn persistence globally has been mounting for years. In 2021, the International Energy Agency forecast that by 2024, annual coal demand would hit an all-time high of just over 8,000 megatons. In 2024, it reported that coal demand in 2023 was already at 8,690 megatons, a new record; it also pushed out its prediction for a demand plateau to 2027, at which point it predicted annual demand would be 8,870 megatons.”
The California startup ChemFinity got a big boost on Tuesday, raising $7 million in a funding round led by At One Ventures and Overton Ventures. The company, spun out from the University of California, Berkeley, claims its critical mineral recovery system will be three times cheaper, 99% cleaner and 10 times faster than existing approaches currently found in the mining and recycling industries. “We basically act like a black box where recyclers or scrap yards or even other refiners can send their feedstock to us,” Adam Uliana, ChemFinity’s co-founder and CEO, told Heatmap’s Katie Brigham. “We act like a black box that spits out pure metal.”
At a time when record heat is regularly halting flights on sweltering tarmacs, service workers at New York City’s LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy airports are slated to protest on Wednesday to demand new workplace protections from extreme heat. The workers, many of whom handle cargo and ramp services for major airlines, said in a press release that extreme heat and lack of access to water, rest breaks, and proper training threatened more incidents of heat illness. One worker claimed to have recently lost consciousness inside the cargo hold of a plane due to heat. The members of chapter 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union will be joined by State Assemblymembers Steven Raga and Catalina Cruz in their demonstration, which is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. near LaGuardia’s Old Marine Terminal.
I swear by the shvitz. My great grandfather, after whom I’m named, went to the same Russian bathhouse in Manhattan that my cousin, brother, and I visit regularly to enjoy the sauna and cold plunge. Turns out amphibians feel the same. A researcher at Macquarie University in Sydney found that frogs could fight off the deadly chytrid fungal infection plaguing the green and golden bell frog by sitting in “frog saunas.” Spending a few hours a day in warm enclosures that reach temperatures higher than 83 degrees Fahrenheit for a week or less is all that’s needed to kill off the fungus.
Rob and Jesse quiz Mark Rothleder, chief operations officer at the California Independent System Operator.
So far on Shift Key Summer School we’ve covered how electricity gets made and how it gets sold. But none of that matters without the grid, which is how that electricity gets to you, the consumer. Who actually keeps the grid running? And what decisions did they make an hour ago, a day ago, a week ago, five years ago to make sure that it would still be running right this second?
This week on Shift Key, Rob and Jesse chat with Mark Rothleder, senior vice president and chief operating officer of the California Independent System Operator, which manages about 80% of the state’s electricity flow. As the longest-serving employee at CAISO , he’s full of institutional knowledge. How does he manage the resource mix throughout the day? What happens in a blackout? And how do you pronounce CAISO in the first place?
Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap’s executive editor.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Jesse Jenkins: To make this a little bit more concrete, walk through how you’re orchestrating the generation fleet. What is the typical mix of resources that you’re calling on at different times of day, on a typical California day. Let’s start at 8:00 a.m. and, you know, move through the day.
Mark Rothleder: So if it’s like today, it’s a moderate summer day, there would be in the. There would be some thermal resources, gas resources that would already be on, probably near their minimum load, which is probably about 30%, 40% of their full operating capability. And they would be sitting there waiting for dispatch instructions as the load increased.
And I talk about the morning because people start turning lights on. This is when the load starts to increase, in that morning hour. So to balance the system as that load increases relatively quickly, you’re going to have a combination of probably solar starting to come up and produce, naturally, because the sun is coming out. You may have a little bit of wind production starting to increase because the wind’s starting to blow because the temperatures and the system are driving that wind. If that’s not enough energy, we’re dispatching probably thermal resources, probably doing some exchanges through the Western Energy Imbalance Market with the neighbors.
And then you get to about probably 9 o’clock, 10 o’clock ,and things stabilize. And then what ends up happening, at least in our system, is you start to see solar production continue to go up, but the load is not increasing. It’s kind of flattened out. We start to probably see some backing off of thermal resources that were brought up during that morning load pull. And now we’re starting to back off on those, and maybe even getting to the point where surplus energy in the middle of the day — we’re exchanging and maybe exporting some of our energy to our neighbors because we have surplus. We’re probably starting to see batteries charge up in the middle of the day because now we’ve got this cheap energy. And this is going to probably go on until about 4 o’clock, 5 o’clock in the afternoon, when the traditional peak of the day is, and this is when the highest gross load is.
And then we start to see another dynamic happen, and that is, at least in our system, the sun starts to set and then the solar production starts to decrease. What’s interesting about that is, as the solar production decreases, it happens over about a three-, four-hour period, and it’s a relatively fast ramp out of those solar resources. The load is not dropping. And in fact, if you think about —
Jenkins: It’s rising often, right?
Rothleder: It’s actually still rising because some of the load that was previously served by behind the meter rooftop solar, that load is also coming back on the system because the solar production is decreasing. So again, to rebalance the system and keep that balanced and straight, we have to start ramping up a couple things. We start to turn, maybe, what was exports around, and we start importing energy from our neighbors. We start discharging the batteries that we just charged up earlier. And to the extent we still need other energy, we probably have a combination of thermal gas resources that we’re bringing them off their minimum load, dispatching them up during the day, and probably some hydro resources that are able to be dispatched during the day.
Between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. we hit what we call our net peak. We call it net peak because it’s the gross load minus wind and solar production. And that tends to be the most critical time when we need — since the ramp out of wind and solar, more solar, that kind of is the highest where we need other resources to be available and dispatched. And so once we get through that net peak, come around 6:30, 7 o’clock, things just start to gradually turn around. And then we’re ramping out over the rest of the day the thermal resources, the interchange, and the hydro resources that we previously dispatched up to get to that net peak. And this all starts over again the next morning.
Mentioned:
Jesse’s slides on long-run equilibrium and electricity markets
Shift Key Summer School episodes 1, 2, 3, and 4
Also on Shift Key: Spain’s Blackout and the Miracle of the Modern Power Grid
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Accelerate your clean energy career with Yale’s online certificate programs. Gain real-world skills, build strong networks, and keep working while you learn. Explore the year-long Financing and Deploying Clean Energy program or the 5-month Clean and Equitable Energy Development program. Learn more here.
Join clean energy leaders at RE+ 25, September 8–11 in Las Vegas. Explore opportunities to meet rising energy demand with the latest in solar, storage, EVs, and more at North America’s largest energy event. Save 20% with code HEATMAP20 at re-plus.com.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
An agreement to privatize Minnesota Power has activists activated both for and against.
For almost as long as utilities have existed, they have attracted suspicion. They enjoy local monopolies over transmission (and, in some places, generation). They charge regulated prices for electricity and make their money through engaging in capital investments with a regulated rate of return. They don’t face competition. Consumer advocates habitually suspect utilities of padding out their investments and of maintaining excessive — if not corrupt — proximity to the regulators and politicians designated to oversee them, suspicions that have proved correct over and over again.
Environmental groups have joined this chorus, accusing utilities of slow-walking the energy transition and preferring investments in new, large gas plants and local transmission as opposed to renewables, demand response, and energy efficiency.
Add private equity to the mix and you have a recipe for the kind of controversy playing out in Minnesota over the proposed acquisition of the northern Minnesota utility Minnesota Power by Global Infrastructure Partners, an infrastructure investment firm acquired by BlackRock, and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, the investment manager for Canadian retirement savings.
The deal has attracted activist opposition from environmental groups like the Sierra Club, consumer watchdogs in Minnesota, as well as national policy groups critical of both utilities and private equity. It’s also happening in a moment when utility ratemaking has come under increasing scrutiny on account of rising electricity prices.
Utilities across the countries have requested $29 billion of dollars in rate increases so far this year, according to PowerLines, the electricity policy research group, while as of May, retail electricity prices were climbing at twice the rate of inflation. Utilities earn regulated rates of return on capital projects, and with data centers and artificial intelligence driving up demand for new electricity, investors are eyeing utilities as potential cash cows. The Dow Jones Utilities index has even slightly outperformed the market so far this year.
Global Infrastructure Partners announced that it had agreed to buy the northern Minnesota utility Minnesota Power’s parent company, Allete, for over $6 billion million last May, and the deal has been working its way through the utilities regulatory process ever since. In July, the Minnesota Department of Commerce reached a settlement with the company and its potential buyers that, among other provisions, agreed to a rate freeze and a reduction in the return on capital investment the new owners will be to earn.
While the companies were able to win the support of one part of the Minnesota governmental apparatus, another one harshly condemned the deal. Following the settlement announcement, administrative law judge Megan McKenzie recommended that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ultimately reject the deal. The judge’s recommendation is non-binding, but it is a comprehensive review of the evidence and arguments made by supporters and opponents of the deal that could have sway over the commission’s final decision.
The judge’s recommendation largely echoed the case advocates had been making against the merger. The opinion was laced with criticisms of private equity as such, arguing that the new owners would “pursue profit in excess of public markets through company control.” Ultimately, McKenzie concluded that “this transaction carries real and significant costs and risks to Minnesota ratepayers and few, if any, benefits. Accordingly, the proposed Acquisition is not in the public interest.”
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is expected to make a final decision in September. In the meantime, advocates on either side are continuing to press their arguments.
Citing the administrative law judge, Karlee Weinman, a research and communications manager at the Energy and Policy Institute, a frequent critic of utilities, told me that the advocate objections to the deal were twofold: One, that Minnesota Power might not be able (or willing) to finance its capital needs; and two, that as a private company, it will no longer be required to file documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission, removing a lever for ratepayer advocates.
The “layer of transparency” provided by SEC filings “is something that consumer advocates are finding valuable to help inform both their understanding of the utility and their advocacy on behalf of ratepayers,” Weinman told me. Or as a coalition of public interest groups argued more formally in a utility commission filing, “privatization of ALLETE and the discontinuation of ALLETE’s SEC reporting obligations would significantly reduce information about ALLETE that is available to the Commission and Minnesota ratepayers.”
Going private “would make it more difficult for Minnesota regulators like our commission to monitor the board’s decisions and hold the company accountable to state law, but also to the public,” Jenna Yeakle, a campaign manager at the Sierra Club and resident of Duluth, told me.
“We do not have a choice where our electricity comes from,” she said. “We are the most impacted by Minnesota Power’s choices and the decisions made at the state and federal level when it comes to our electrical utility, because we don’t get a choice in the matter.”
Unions, on the other hand, often play well with utilities, using their regulated status to ensure good jobs for their members. Construction unions especially are big fans of big capital projects, which means more construction jobs.
One of those unions is the LIUNA Minnesota & North Dakota, an affiliate of the Laborers' International Union of North America, the construction workers union. “We just want the utility to work, the utility works well for us, they use union labor, they build projects, they create jobs,” Kevin Pranis, its marketing manager, told me.
Pranis was especially skeptical of opponents’ arguments that changing the investor in an investor-owned utility would make a huge difference in terms of how it conducted itself in front of the Public Utilities Commission. “There’s this bizarre fan fiction that has developed around publicly traded stocks, that somehow they are transparent,” he said. Corporate filings rarely, if ever have the kind of information ratepayers and their advocates need in rate cases, Pranis argued.
“The Securities Exchange Commission doesn’t care about ratepayers. The New York Stock Exchange doesn’t care about ratepayers. Those regulations don’t serve ratepayers in any way. They serve investors to know what you’re investing in.”
The environmental arguments also go in the other direction. One supporter of the deal, former Loans Program Office chief Jigar Shah, wrote in Utility Dive that “to fully decarbonize its electricity sales and keep pace with rising demand, Minnesota Power must navigate an increasingly complex and capital-intensive landscape.”
“What Minnesota Power needs is long-term vision and stable capital,” he continued, which is “precisely what this private investment offers. That’s the only way to do the big things required to serve its communities, especially when federal energy rhetoric doesn’t always align with real on-the-ground needs.”
Minnesota law mandates that the state reach 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040, which supporters of the deal have said justifies allowing Minnesota Power to be owned by deep-pocketed investors.
Two clean energy groups, the Center for Energy and Environment and Clean Energy Economy Minnesota, wrote in a filing that meeting that goal would require “significant and unprecedented investment,” and that “although the exact investment levels needed may be uncertain or disputed by parties, the scope of investment needed is clear, and the Acquisition makes that level of capital available to Minnesota Power today.”
LIUNA pressed the point more forcefully in another filing, arguing that opponents of the deal “have dangerously underestimated the threat posed by a lack of ready capital to undertake historic investments,” and that they were “whistling past the graveyard.”
Minnesota Power and its proposed buyers, for their part, have argued in a that Allete requires “more than $1 billion in new equity to fund its expected investment requirements over the next five years,” including to comply with the emissions requirements, and pointed out that “in the Company’s 75-year history in publicly traded markets, the Company has raised $1.3 billion in equity.”
Judge McKenzie disagreed in her opinion, arguing that capital commitments weren’t enforceable and echoing the public interest groups in saying that Minnesota Power had told its investors that it was able to access capital markets when it needed to. The company and its investors have argued this was conditional on its ability to find a buyer, and that “further analysis to identify its approach to comply with the Carbon Free Standard” showed the investment need.
Judge McKenzie also got to the heart of recent debates around data centers and grid management, arguing that the planned investments in new generation and transmission weren’t truly necessary to meet the legally mandated emissions standard. “ALLETE could reduce capital needs by making greater use of power purchase agreements (PPAs) to reduce capital spending on self-built generation. Greater use of demand response, energy efficiency measures, and grid-enhancing technologies could also reduce the need for capital spending on generation,” she wrote.
Ultimately, how Minnesota Power conducts itself — the projects it engages in, the rates it charges consumers and industrial customers — will be up to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and the state legislature, whether it’s owned by public investors or infrastructure and pension funds.
“None of those changes will affect the Commission’s authority, process, or obligation to regulate Minnesota Power’s actions,” the two clean energy groups wrote in a filing. Utility regulation will continue to be a challenge, but the investors may not matter as much as the utility.