The public utility district of Chelan county has decided to raise rates on high density load customers. They are specifically targeting Bitcoin miners.
Because the area has lots of hydroelectric power, the rates there are quite low. This has attracted Bitcoin miners. The utility district claims these rate hikes are needed to cover the "fair and reasonable" costs associated with servicing these customers.
While it's true that a higher total demand for power can force infrastructure upgrades to power lines and power distribution equipment, it is an economic fact that it is cheaper per unit to service a high demand customer than many low demand customers. It is cheaper to provide 100 kW to one Bitcoin miner than 1Kw to each of 100 homes. This makes the argument that it's fair and reasonable to charge the miner more per unit somewhat dishonest.
Does Tropicana pay more per orange because they need a lot of oranges? Or does everyone else pay more for oranges because Tropicana adds to the demand while Tropicana still gets a very low rate because they make it very cheap to do business with them?
Could you even imagine orange farmers trying to charge Tropicana more per orange than the retail price at a grocery store because the additional demand Tropicana created meant that they had to farm on land that was less suitable or use more expensive fertilizers? Only a government monopoly could dictate such a perverse outcome.