It doesn't matter what one's opinion of the use is. This could very easily spiral out into a larger societal problem.
> It said the pause ordered by the government was in response to "the very real prospect that devoting such a large proportion of the available electrical power supply to one industry would leave less energy for other uses which might result in increased costs to all other residential and industry customers in B.C."
Industry-scale resource usage requires planning and coordination.
One difference from other industries: > Energy Minister Josie Osborne said when the policy was introduced that cryptocurrency mining consumes ... adds “very few jobs” to the local economy.
See in Texas how the Bitcoin mining industry negotiated agreements for curtailing and greatly help scaling the grid better... this seems like a way more efficient approach to these offer/demand and scaling issues than "we can't let you buy our product because other people want to buy it".
They get paid not to use power to prevent the grid from collapsing. That's not what I want my tax dollars spent on, and such silliness is why I tend not to look at Texas for good governance.
The keywords are scaling and stability, if you prefer to piss this money away on building plants that will work at 50% capacity for years you essentially pay for the rest of the capacity with no other utility, that's bad governance.
1) They estimated an equivalent of half a million apartments worth of electricity. That's a massive allocation for
2) Something that provides no additional benefits to the countries labor force
3) Creates a currency that also doesn't benefit the country
4) Is inherently risky and could collapse at anytime
What they're asking is to greatly increase the demand, potentially leading to higher costs for a service that doesn't benefit the country at all.
I understand your comment, and I'm agreeing that it should be investigated but I disagree about it being "nasty".
B.C. is not incredibly populated and also they are appealing for cheap electricity.
Asking for the power they want is a substantial undertaking that would cause higher utility prices for everyone living there.
If the cause somehow out-weighed the potential of higher costs it would be fair, but it's not.
Allowing this without investigation and diligence would be "nasty"
The Slippery Slope is a common logical fallacy. There is no evidence of any spiraling happening.
> should at the least be heavily investigated by the governing regulatory body of the region.
This went fully through the legal system:
"Conifex Timber had gone to the B.C. Supreme Court to have the policy declared invalid. But Justice Michael Tammen ruled Friday that the government’s move in December 2022 to pause new connections for cryptocurrency mining for 18 months was 'reasonable' and not 'unduly discriminatory.'"
That decision seems very reasonable.
It seems like the perfect case for an authority to step in.
Think about what the rationale for having a common utility even is: a group pools its resources so everyone can have a better power system (more reliable, cheaper) than each could have running their own. Obviously, for that to work though, there has to be a way to prevent individuals from abusing the system.
I agree it shouldn't matter what anyone's opinion of the use is, but that doesn't appear to be what's happening here.
Just because something is a public utility, that doesn't mean it can or should be free, limitless and unlimited.