Minnesota is seeing a flurry of utility rate hikes either being considered or taking effect.

Those who support renewable energy warn there's some misleading information in the public sphere about what is behind the activity.

Xcel Energy has a pending rate hike before state regulators. If approved, it would boost electricity rates by 21% over three years. Minnesota Power also proposes a substantial increase.

Some policy groups opposed to renewable energy have launched campaigns suggesting the plans are solely caused by wind and solar projects.

Isabel Ricker, senior manager for clean electricity at Fresh Energy, countered it does not tell the whole story, noting there is aging infrastructure to be updated.

"The fundamentals of our electricity system; the poles, the wires, some of the larger equipment at substations," Ricker outlined.

Xcel Energy acknowledged upgrades would help the utility better transition to clean energy. And Fresh Energy contended a more modern system would make it easier for Minnesota to rely on such sources, also arguing they are still a less-expensive investment than traditional power plants.

Both utilities won approval for smaller, interim hikes late last year.

Annie Levenson-Falk, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) of Minnesota, pointed out while her group is fighting some rate hikes, utilities do see the need for investments in energy sources more economically viable in the long run.

"The sooner that utilities can move off of that old power generation, the more money that they are actually going to save for their customers," Levenson-Falk asserted.

Investment banking firm Lazard said wind and solar costs have declined by at least 70% over the past decade. As for rate hikes, CUB noted other factors, such as demand changes during COVID affecting utility revenue.

Fresh Energy emphasized there are still false claims being floated about the reliability of wind and solar.

Ricker stated in the Midwest, resources are managed in ways allowing them to function at a high-level in the winter.

"Wind turbines here are outfitted with winterizing equipment to ensure that they don't freeze, and they can operate at cold temperatures," Ricker stressed.

Ricker acknowledged other options, such as geothermal generators, will likely be needed to develop a robust renewable-energy system. Meanwhile, both groups say regulators traditionally try to keep rate hikes on the lower end, so customers are not paying for anything deemed unnecessary.

Arizona consumers are contesting a proposed $90 million Southwest Gas rate increase that analysts say would only benefit future - but not current - customers.

Its application to the Arizona Corporation Commission seeks to raise rates for natural gas customers by 11.5% to pay for increased profits, fund carbon offsets to reduce greenhouse gases, recover trade association dues, and recoup late-payment charges waived during the pandemic.

Keriann Conroy, research associate with the watchdog group Energy and Policy Institute, said the utility's two million Arizona customers can't afford another rate hike.

"Asking customers to foot the bill to build the customer base of Southwest Gas to folks who currently don't have gas," said Conroy, "which should not be the responsibility of the customers, and absolutely goes against greenhouse gas emission goals."

Southwest is asking for a 9.9% built-in return on equity, up from 9.1% granted in 2020.

Arizona regulators are recommending a rate of 9.3%. Nevada regulators rejected a similar rate request from Southwest earlier this year.

Conroy said that in the current economic climate, raising natural gas rates doesn't make any sense.

"In Arizona, the state is still recovering from the ongoing pandemic and we're at record inflation, and customers are already struggling to pay their utility bills," said Conroy, "And so now, to see such a high rate increase can have a really negative impact."

Conroy noted that the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, an intervenor in the case, claims Southwest Gas has never committed to specific goals for greenhouse gas reductions and is concerned about the lack of accountability in the utility's proposal.

"As of now, all the letters at the Arizona Corporation Commission from customers have been in opposition, and there have been many of them," said Conroy, "So, customers are very much engaged and they don't want to see this rate increase happen."

Conroy expects a ruling by year's end or in early 2023.

Georgia Power is reducing its reliance on coal by phasing out several coal-fired units. However, clean-energy advocates say the company should dispose of all its waste correctly and not pawn the cost of cleanup on ratepayers.

After years of pressure from concerned community members and clean-energy advocates, Georgia Power has been following a national trend by retiring some of its coal-fired power plants, the latest is Plant Wansley near Carrollton.

The welcome news for environmental groups is bittersweet since the next phase is trying to convince the company -- or force state regulators to make it -- to manage the leftover toxic waste known as coal ash, without harming the environment.

Charline Whyte, senior campaign representative for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign in Georgia, said she was glad to see the utility switch from "capping-in-place" to excavating the ash to a lined pit which prevents seepage into groundwater.

"So this shows that Georgia Power is willing and able to do the right thing and, too, do the safest options for the communities," Whyte acknowledged. "But they haven't opted to do so at many of its other coal ash ponds."

Georgia Power did not respond to a request for comment but has outlined plans to phase out most of its coal units in the next five years, claiming it no longer makes economic sense to keep the aging coal plants open.

Georgia's Public Service Commission agreed with all but one, deferring giving the company permission to shutter its Bowen Plant until at lest 2025.

The company plans to close 29 coal ash ponds with its efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to close to zero by 2050. Whyte argued the company should opt to add liners in all of its coal ash ponds.

"I would say that in Georgia, Plant Scherer pond is another example of an opportunity for the company to do the right thing from the beginning," Whyte urged. "Which is closing by removal rather than the planned closure by cap in place."

Whyte added she believes the utility should bear the responsibility and shoulder the costs of properly disposing of the waste instead of it being allowed to pass the cost on to consumers.

The Sierra Club has an interactive map on its website which lists 358 coal plants retired since 2010, or proposed to retire by 2031.

Washington state is considering a cleaner future for its buildings. The Washington State Building Code Council is holding public hearings, including one today in Yakima, on changes to the State Residential Energy Code that would move toward better energy efficiency and electric-run appliances in new residential buildings.

Eric Pravitz is director of real estate development for Homestead Community Land Trust, which is headquartered in Seattle and provides affordable homeownership for first-time buyers with low incomes. He supports the proposal to move away from natural gas in new buildings.

He said many of the folks his organization serves are people of color.

"They typically come from neighborhoods that feel the most effects from environmental pollution, the negative effects of climate change," Pravitz explained, "And so, they deserve to have a healthy home that is high performing, comfortable, low cost to operate."

Pravitz noted that houses with electric ranges and water heaters are cheaper for homeowners in the long run, as well as healthier. Opponents have argued the transition is costly in the construction phase.

The State Building Code Council holds another public hearing on its proposal on Oct. 14 in Olympia, and is also accepting public comments until that date.

Claire Richards, a nurse, is a member of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility's Climate Action Task Force. She is voicing concerns that gas stoves can have health drawbacks.

Richards listed them: "There are neurological impacts -- like fatigue and loss of concentration and judgment -- from particulate matter; asthma exacerbation, non-fatal heart attacks, like an arrhythmia, so irregular heartbeats and premature death."

Pravitz believes homes that run on electric appliances are the way to a less climate-intensive and healthier future, and said the affordable-housing sector should lead the way.

"We should use affordable housing as a model that the for-profit sector should be following, and that is building energy-efficient homes, decarbonizing, using sustainable materials," he added.