From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Audrey Streb

Major global asset managers including BlackRock and Blackstone have been looking to buy power utilities across America in a move that some industry insiders warn could harm consumers, raise electricity costs and advance a climate-driven energy agenda.

In recent months, Blackstone reportedly sought regulatory approval to buy utilities in New Mexico and Texas all while a BlackRock-led group won approval Friday to purchase a major utility in Minnesota. While BlackRock and other huge asset managers have distanced themselves from environmental, social and governance (ESG) investment practices in recent years, some energy experts and consumer advocates that spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation are concerned that buying up utilities may represent a new frontier of financial giants orchestrating “climate mandates.”

“BlackRock isn’t just influencing utilities anymore, they’re buying them. After years of ESG-driven coercion that pushed utilities to abandon reliable energy in favor of China-dependent renewables, BlackRock is now taking direct control. The result will be more of the same: higher costs, weaker grids, and millions in unpaid bills, all driven by the very climate mandates they lobbied for,” Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, told the DCNF. “Minnesotans should brace for more unreliable power, rising rates, and a media narrative that blames Trump for ending taxpayer-funded handouts instead of holding the woke politicians and Wall Street elites responsible for the crisis.”

Electricity demand is on the rise after years of stagnancy as the artificial intelligence (AI) race ushers in the build out of power-hungry data centers. Utility costs are also spiking as demand takes off in a trend that dates back to the Biden administration.

Against this backdrop, private investment titans like BlackRock and Blackstone are reportedly moving to buy power utility companies and invest in data center expansions and startups.

Minnesota recently granted the BlackRock-led group known as Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) approval to buy one of the state’s major power utilities, Allete. GIP is also reportedly on the cusp of acquiring the major energy company, AES, according to sources familiar with the matter that spoke with Reuters. The Financial Times reported that the deal may be for $38 billion.

BlackRock referred the DCNF to Allete’s statement on regulators approving its partnership with GIP and declined to comment further for this story.

Allete’s statement notes that the impending partnership with the BlackRock-led group includes “guaranteed access to capital to fund ALLETE’s five-year plan for advancing transmission and renewable energy goals [and a] $50 million Clean Firm Technology Fund to support regional clean-energy projects and partnerships.”

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) renewed BlackRock’s ability to own up to 20% of utility voting shares in April, with former FERC Commissioner Mark Christie stating that BlackRock “pledged not to use its holdings to influence utility management” and that utilities need the access to capital.

Christie also warned in September 2024 that “this is an issue that deserves much greater scrutiny” and that “the influence that large shareholders, BlackRock or otherwise, can potentially exert across the consumer-serving utility industry should not be underestimated.”

Blackstone has reportedly sought regulatory approval to buy out the Public Service Company of New Mexico and Texas New Mexico Power Co. recently, according to The Associated Press. The asset management giant also secured a 19.9% stake in a Northern Indiana public utility for over $2 billion in January 2024.

“Blackstone’s sustainability strategy prioritizes accelerating decarbonization by investing in the energy transition and driving value accretive emissions reduction in our portfolio,” Blackstone’s 2024 sustainability report states. “We believe the transition to cleaner energy creates meaningful investment opportunities for private capital. For over a decade, we have pursued attractive investments in companies and assets that are part of the global energy transition as part of our broader energy investing strategy.”

Blackstone also announced on Sept. 15 that private equity funds affiliated with Blackstone Energy Transition Partners will acquire the Pennsylvania-based Hill Top Energy Center natural gas plant for almost $1 billion. The company also announced in July that funds managed by Blackstone Infrastructure and Blackstone Real Estate would invest over $25 billion to help build out Pennsylvania’s energy infrastructure to support the AI “revolution.”

“Renewable” energy goals and ESG investment tend to align with emissions-reduction targets, with some power companies, utilities and states that set goals to cut emissions striving to retire conventional energy sources like coal plants. Isaac added that companies like American Electric Power, in which BlackRock owns a significant stake, have been decommissioning coal plants and replacing them with intermittent sources like solar.

“What happens is when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining, then you have to ramp those generational assets back up, and that’s when price spikes happen,” Isaac said.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor of finance Greg Brown told the AP that the reason behind these buyouts are “very simple. Because there’s a lot of money to be made.”

Other experts devoted to consumer protection like Executive Director of Consumers’ Research Will Hild told the DCNF that investment companies like BlackRock stand to gain more than just a profit from these purchases.

“There is no world in which BlackRock’s ownership of American energy benefits ordinary American consumers,” Hild told the DCNF. “This is the same firm that proudly brought us the radical ESG rules and Net-Zero nonsense that forced all our energy bills to skyrocket. We wouldn’t have the scourge of woke capitalism without Larry Fink, who already controls nearly $13 trillion in assets and has been sued for violating anti-trust laws.”

ESG investors weigh a company by its social and environmental choices as well as its finances in a move that critics say bogs down businesses with new costs while doing little to combat climate change. One August 2023 InfluenceMap report showed that as Republicans at the state level and in Congress ramped up their opposition to ESG-focused practices, BlackRock and other major U.S. asset managers decreased their support for climate-related resolutions.

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink also said in June 2023 that he no will no longer use the term ESG because it has been “politicized,” less than a year after he noted that climbing energy prices are “accelerating” the green energy transition.

“BlackRock has backpedaled on its ESG messaging and its aggressive, unapologetic imposition of ESG on everything they touch. But the leopard hasn’t changed its spots,” President of the Heartland Institute James Taylor told the DCNF. “It still has the same management group with the same values, and it’s still doing whatever it can to impose ESG on everything it touches, in actuality, if not in name.”

Taylor argued that whether BlackRock buys or acquires a large stake of a utility, it “can now assert itself over legislatures in dictating energy policy.”

Notably, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) threw their weight behind an antitrust lawsuit against major asset managers that alleges the firms colluded to tank coal production with their embrace of zero-emissions goals in May.

The lawsuit, backed by 11 state attorneys general, alleges that BlackRock and multiple other asset managers used their market power to suppress coal production, thereby hurting consumers by causing the price of coal to climb.

The DOJ and FTC’s “support for this baseless case undermines the Trump Administration’s goal of American energy independence,” a BlackRock spokesperson previously told the DCNF. “As we made clear in our earlier motion to dismiss, this case is trying to re-write antitrust law and is based on an absurd theory that coal companies conspired with their shareholders to reduce coal production.”

From Resource Works

By Stewart Muir

Is the Trans Mountain a fake, like some say the moon landing was faked?

It’s hard to interpret otherwise a persistent claim being made in media by British Columbia’s premier, David Eby.

This week he said that Alberta is “not even using” the new Trans Mountain pipeline from Edmonton to Metro Vancouver.

Could that be true? We decided to look into it.

Here’s what we discovered.

Since May 2024 when the Trans Mountain expansion project was opened, Alberta oil has flowed steadily down the pipeline from its origin in a suburb of Edmonton.

Credible international news organizations have reported that the new pipeline is 85% full. Indications are that by the period 2027-28, it will reach as close to 100% full as it’s possible to.

The number of ship calls to the Westridge coastal loading facility in Burnaby is on track to reach 400 by the end of the year. This strongly supports the contention that Alberta oil is flowing through the pipeline.

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/8439-trans-mountain-pipeline-delivering

I often say Trans Mountain is “paying Canada’s rent,” and I mean it literally. Ottawa owns the pipeline through Trans Mountain Corporation, and it’s already sending more than a billion dollars a year back to the federal treasury in dividends, interest, and fees.

It’s also boosting export revenues by letting Alberta oil reach world markets instead of being trapped at a discount — raising royalties, taxes, and paycheques across the Prairies. And every tanker that sails from Burnaby keeps tug crews, port workers, and coastal suppliers in business. That’s real money flowing through the economy — the kind that actually pays the rent for Canada.

In total, Resource Works examined nine claims that would all need to be true if Premier Eby is telling the truth about the pipeline being empty:

Truth Test: “Alberta isn’t even using the pipeline we bought them last time.”

Category	Claim or Implication	Evidence / Data	Source(s)	Finding / Truth Rating
1. Pipeline utilization	TMX is unused or empty.	Trans Mountain reports 757,000 bpd throughput on an 890,000 bpd capacity system (≈ 85 %).	Trans Mountain Q1 2025 Financial Results; Reuters (30 Jul 2025).	False — pipeline is heavily used and approaching full capacity.
2. Export volumes	Few or no shipments.	306 vessels loaded at Westridge Marine Terminal by Q2 2025 (~20–25 per month).	Trans Mountain Q2 2025 Results; CER Market Snapshot (Sept 2025).	False — consistent, large-scale exports are underway.
3. Financial returns	No financial benefit to Canadians.	$729 million returned to federal government YTD 2025; projected >$1.25 billion for year.	Trans Mountain Q2 2025 Results.	False — major positive fiscal returns already realized.
4. Shipper commitments	No demand for pipeline capacity.	80 % of capacity contracted to long-term shippers; 20 % reserved for spot.	S&P Global Commodity Insights (Feb 2025); CER Snapshot.	False — demand is locked in by long-term contracts.
5. Operational timeline	Project still inactive or delayed.	Commercial service began May 1 2024; steady throughput growth each quarter.	Trans Mountain Corporate Reports 2024–25.	False — fully operational since 2024.
6. Regulatory data	No verified data exist.	Monthly throughput published by CER and Trans Mountain Corp.	Canada Energy Regulator (CER Data Portal).	False — independent regulators in fact consistently confirm the data.
7. Market impact	No improvement to Alberta’s market access.	WCS-Brent differential narrowed; Asia exports up sharply.	CER Market Snapshot (Sept 2025); S&P Global 2025 report.	False — there is clear evidence of improved market access.
8. Ownership context	B.C. or Alberta “owns” the pipeline.	Owned by Government of Canada via Trans Mountain Corporation.	Finance Canada; Trans Mountain Corp. Ownership Statement.	Misleading — federal ownership doesn’t mean Eby “bought Trans Mountain for Alberta.”
9. Provincial benefit analysis	No benefit to B.C. or Alberta.	Royalties, tax revenue, and employment gains in both provinces; marine services in B.C.	TMX Economic Impact Assessment 2024; CER regional reports.	False — both provinces gain fiscal and employment benefits.

Last year, on three occasions I visited the Westridge Marine Terminal, twice on tours of the land-based facilities and the third time from the water. Ships were docked at the terminal on all three occasions, and I was told by staff that they were being loaded.

I didn’t actually see any oil at the oil terminal, but…

I have to admit I did not actually see (or smell) any oil. But I’m also aware that it is very much in the interest of the Trans Mountain Corporation to never expose any oil to where it can be seen, touched or smelled, since this would result in stiff fines and other harsh repercussions.

At this point, I have to say that there is no supporting evidence whatsoever that Alberta is using the Trans Mountain pipeline as a moon landing style hoax for some nefarious goal. There is no sign of a massive fraud that required collaboration among energy regulators, Alberta oil producers, the pipeline company, the international business press, numerous federal ministers, trade union leaders, numerous environmental organizations that expend enormous efforts to try to curtail shipments of the oil that they say moves through the pipeline, and the many First Nations that have actively supported from and benefit from the project in its completed state.

Of course, I’m well aware there is a political context here. Since October 1, Premier Eby has been engaged in a war of words with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. She announced that she is determined to see get built another new pipe from her province to a federally regulated port somewhere on the Pacific coast.

And to be clear, this isn’t about giving Alberta a free pass. Premier Smith isn’t blameless either — she’s been happy to turn complex national issues into provincial sound bites when it suits her. The difference is that Canada can’t afford leaders on either side of the Rockies who substitute theatre for truth.

Premier Eby is right when he says British Columbians should not be forced to give up opportunities because another province wants to do something. Labour market fears are legitimate as we’ve seen in the recent past. But when it comes to infrastructure and investment opportunities, time and again Canadians have learned the hard way that “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” There is no guarantee that today’s opportunities, pushed away, will materialize again at any point in the future.

There’s also a public context. At no moment in recent times have British Columbia residents been more supportive of the idea of building more oil pipeline infrastructure. The following slide from a poll by Innovative Research Group (shared by pollster Greg Lyle at a recent event organized by Resource Works) is consistent with other findings:

Even without out this quite exceptional condition, the current situation deserves a vigorous public conversation. It also deserves the truthful use of information.

My final verdict is this: We can all be fully confident that the Trans Mountain Expansion is indeed 85 per cent full, that hundreds of tankers have already sailed, and that more than a billion dollars has flowed back to Canadians.

Bottom Line

The facts show a functioning, profitable national asset:

• Operational since May 2024
• 85% utilized and rising
• Hundreds of ships exporting Canadian oil
• Over $1 billion flowing back to the public purse from Trans Mountain – that’s even before counting the upstream employment and impacts

This Resource Works analysis is based on public reports from Trans Mountain Corporation (2024 & 2025), Canada Energy Regulator (2025), Statistics Canada, S&P Global Commodity Insights, and Reuters.

Stewart Muir, visting the Trans Mountain pipeline’s Westridge Marine Terminal.