For the first time in more than two decades, a hydroelectric plant is being built in Southern California.
Nevada Hydro Co., in conjunction with Morgan Stanley Commodities, has established a limited liability corporation to build a hydroelectric power plant in Lake Elsinore. LEAPS Hydro LLC will build and operate the $1.1 billion Lake Elsinore Advanced Pump Storage project and the accompanying transmission lines.
The project is pending final license approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Construction will begin after both the commission and California grant final approvals, which will happen within the next six to eight months, said Chris Wysocki, a spokesman for Nevada Hydro. Construction of the transmission line that will connect San Diego Gas and Electric to Edison International in Northern California will take about 18 months to complete.
The hydroelectric plant will tie in to the transmission line to provide electricity to the San Diego area. The hydroelectric plant will take three to four years to complete. The plant will be operational in 2011. Construction is expected to produce more than 500 new jobs.
Siemens Power, Transmission and Distribution in Wendell, N.C., will build the hydroelectric plant and the transmission line. Once the hydroelectric plant is operational, it will require 20-30 full time employees. The plant will create power by recycling water between Lake Elsinore and an upper reservoir located in the Cleveland National Forest.
LEAPS will be ready to generate 500 megawatts on a moment's notice by releasing water from an upper reservoir in Decker Canyon into Lake Elsinore, Nevada Hydro Vice President Rex Wait said in a release. The water will be pumped back into the reservoir during times when power demand is low. The hydroelectric facility will deliver energy during high-demand periods.
Alberta Utility Rate Rider will add a modest fee to electricity bills and natural gas charges as the AUC recovers outstanding debt from the COVID-19 deferral program via AESO and the Balancing Pool.
Key Points
A temporary surcharge on Alberta power and gas bills to recover unpaid COVID-19 deferral debt, administered by the AUC.
✅ Applies per kWh and per GJ based on consumption
✅ Recovers unpaid balances from 2020-21 bill deferrals
✅ Collected via AESO and the Balancing Pool under AUC oversight
The province says Alberta ratepayers should expect to see an extra fee on their utility bills in the coming months.
That fee is meant to recover the outstanding debt owed to gas and electricity providers resulting from last year's three-month utility deferral program offered to struggling Albertans during the pandemic.
The provincial government announced the utility deferral program in March 2020 then formalized it with legislation, alongside a consumer price cap on power bills that shaped later policy decisions.
The program allowed residential, farm and small commercial customers who used less than 250,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year — or consumed less than 2,500 gigajoules per year — to postpone their bills amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the province, 350,000 customers, or approximately 13 per cent of the natural gas and electricity consumer base, took advantage of the program.
Customers had a year to repay providers what they owed. That deadline ended June 18, 2021.
The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC), which regulates the utilities sector and natural gas and electricity markets and oversees a rate of last resort framework, said the vast majority of consumers have squared up.
But for those who didn't, provincial legislation dictates that Alberta ratepayers must cover any unpaid debt. The legislation exempts Medicine Hat utility customers for electricity and gas co-operative customers for gas.
"When the program was announced, it was very clear that it was a deferral program and that the monies would need to be paid back," said Geoff Scotton, a spokesperson with the Alberta Utilities Commission.
"Now we're in the situation where the providers, in good faith, who enabled those payment deferrals, need to be made whole. That's really the goal here."
Amount to be determined Margeaux Maron, a spokesperson for Associate Minister of Natural Gas and Electricity Dale Nally, said based on early estimates, $13 to $16 million of $92 million in deferred payments remain outstanding.
As a result, the province expects the average Albertan will end up paying, unlike jurisdictions offering a lump-sum credit, a fraction of a dollar extra per monthly gas and electricity bill over a handful of months.
Scotton said at this point, there are too many unknown factors to know the exact size of the rate rider. However, he said he expects it to be modest.
Scotton said affected parties first have until the end of this week to notify the AUC exactly how much they are still owed.
Those parties include the Alberta Electric System Operator and the Balancing Pool, who essentially acted as bankers with respect to the distribution and transmission of the utilities to customers who deferred their payments.
Regulated service providers may also seek reimbursement on administrative and carrying costs, even as issues like a BC Hydro fund surplus spark debate elsewhere.
Then, Scotton said, once the outstanding amounts are known, the AUC will hold a public proceeding, similar to a Nova Scotia rate case, to determine the amount and the duration of the rate rider to be applied to each natural gas and electricity bill.
The amount will be based on consumption: per kilowatt hour for electricity and per gigajoule for natural gas.
That means larger businesses will end up paying more than the average Albertan.
Scotton said the AUC will expedite the hearing process and it expects to have a decision by the end of the summer.
Rate rider a 'surprise' Joel MacDonald with Energyrates.ca — an organization which compares energy rates across the country — said it's not the amount of the rate rider that bothers him, but the fact that the repayment process wasn't made clear at the onset of the program.
"It came to us as a bit of a surprise," MacDonald said.
He said what was sold as a deferral program seems more like an electricity rebate program, or an "ability to pay" program.
"As opposed to the retailers looking into collection methods, anything that wasn't paid is basically just being forced upon all Alberta consumers," MacDonald said.
The expectation set out in the deferral legislation and regulations state utility providers such as Enmax and Epcor are expected to use reasonable efforts to try to collect the unpaid balances. It must then detail those reasonable efforts to the AUC.
A spokesperson for Enmax said it first works with its customers to find manageable payment arrangements and connects them with support services if they are unable to pay.
Then, if payment can't be arranged, it said it will work with a collection agency, which may even result in disconnection of service.
The spokesperson said only after all efforts have failed would Enmax seek reimbursement through this program.
Use tax revenues? MacDonald also questioned why a government program isn't being paid for through general tax revenues.
He compared the utility deferral program to a mortgage subsidy program.
"Imagine that [Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation] said, 'Hey, we had to give mortgage deferrals and some of these people never paid back their deferrals, so we're going to add an extra $300 to everyone's mortgage,'" he said.
"You'd expect that to come off of some sort of general taxation — not being assigned to other people's mortgages, right?"
In response, Maron said due to the current fiscal challenges facing the government — and the expected minimal costs to consumers, and even as a consumer price cap on electricity remains in place — it was determined that a rate rider would be an appropriate mechanism to repay bad debt associated with the program.
Scotton said rate riders aren't unusual — they're used to fine-tune rates for a set period of time.
He said under normal circumstances, regulated service providers can apply to the AUC to impose a rate rider to recover unexpected costs. And in some instances, they can provide a credit.
But in this situation, he said the debt is aggregated and, in turn, being collected more broadly.
UK Clean Energy Supply Chain Delays are slowing decarbonization as transformer lead times, grid infrastructure bottlenecks, and battery storage contractors raise costs and risk 2030 targets despite manufacturing expansions by Siemens Energy and GE Vernova.
Key Points
Labor and equipment bottlenecks delay transformers and grid upgrades, risking the UK's 2030 clean power target.
✅ Transformer lead times doubled or tripled, raising project costs
✅ Grid infrastructure and battery storage contractors in short supply
The United Kingdom's ambitious plans to transition to clean energy are encountering significant obstacles due to prolonged delays in obtaining essential equipment such as transformers and other electrical components. These supply chain challenges are impeding the nation's progress toward decarbonizing its power sector by 2030, even as wind leads the power mix in key periods.
Supply Chain Challenges
The global surge in demand for renewable energy infrastructure, including large-scale storage solutions, has led to extended lead times for critical components. For example, Statera Energy's storage plant in Thurrock experienced a 16-month delay for transformers from Siemens Energy. Such delays threaten the UK's goal to decarbonize power supplies by 2030.
Economic Implications
These supply chain constraints have doubled or tripled lead times over the past decade, resulting in increased costs and straining the energy transition as wind became the main source of UK electricity in a recent milestone. Despite efforts to expand manufacturing capacity by companies like GE Vernova, Hitachi Energy, and Siemens Energy, the sector remains cautious about overinvesting without predictable demand, and setbacks at Hinkley Point C have reinforced concerns about delivery risks.
Workforce and Manufacturing Capacity
Additionally, there is a limited number of companies capable of constructing and maintaining battery sites, adding to the challenges. These issues underscore the necessity for new factories and a trained workforce to support the electrification plans and meet the 2030 targets.
Government Initiatives
In response to these challenges, the UK government is exploring various strategies to bolster domestic manufacturing capabilities and streamline supply chains while supporting grid reform efforts underway to improve system resilience. Investments in infrastructure and workforce development are being considered to mitigate the impact of global supply chain disruptions and advance the UK's green industrial revolution for next-generation reactors.
The UK's energy transition is at a critical juncture, with supply chain delays posing substantial risks to achieving decarbonization goals, including the planned end of coal power after 142 years for the UK. Addressing these challenges will require coordinated efforts between the government, industry stakeholders, and international partners to ensure a sustainable and timely shift to clean energy.
CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.
Key Points
A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.
✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency
✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste
✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions
By Tom Baxter
The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.
I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.
As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.
There were many differences, here are three;
1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.
There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.
Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.
Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.
My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.
Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants
2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.
On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.
Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.
In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.
On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.
Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.
3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.
Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.
There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.
Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.
Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.
I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.
The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.
However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.
What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.
A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.
The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.
Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.
Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.
To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.
Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.
Key Points
Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.
✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps
✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic
✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns
A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.
Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.
Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.
This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.
However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.
The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.
The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).
However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.
Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.
Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.
Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.
In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.
Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.
As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Tesla Supercharger Billing Update details kWh-based pricing that now includes HVAC, battery thermal management, and other HV loads during charging sessions, improving cost transparency across pay-per-use markets and extreme climate scenarios.
Key Points
Tesla's update bills for kWh used by HVAC, battery heating, and HV loads during charging, reflecting true energy costs.
✅ kWh charges now include HVAC and battery thermal management
✅ Expect 10-25 kWh increases in extreme climates during sessions
✅ Some regions still bill per minute due to regulations
Tesla has updated its Supercharger billing policy to add the cost of electricity use for things other than charging, like HVAC, battery thermal management, etc, while charging at a Supercharger station, a shift that impacts overall EV charging costs for drivers.
For a long time, Tesla’s Superchargers were free to use, or rather the use was included in the price of its vehicles. But the automaker has been moving to a pay-to-use model over the last two years in order to finance the growth of the charging network amid the Biden-era charging expansion in the United States.
Not charging owners for the electricity enabled Tesla to wait on developing a payment system for its Supercharger network.
It didn’t need one for the first five years of the network, and now the automaker has been fine-tuning its approach to charge owners for the electricity they consume as part of building better charging networks across markets.
At first, it meant fluctuating prices, and now Tesla is also adjusting how it calculates the total power consumption.
Last weekend, Tesla sent a memo to its staff to inform them that they are updating the calculation used to bill Supercharging sessions in order to take into account all the electricity used:
The calculation used to bill for Supercharging has been updated. Owners will also be billed for kWhs consumed by the car going toward the HVAC system, battery heater, and other HV loads during the session. Previously, owners were only billed for the energy used to charge the battery during the charging session.
Tesla says that the new method should more “accurately reflect the value delivered to the customer and the cost incurred by Tesla,” which mirrors recent moves in its solar and home battery pricing strategy as well.
The automaker says that customers in “extreme climates” could see a difference of 10 to 25 kWh for the energy consumed during a charging session:
Owners may see a noticeable increase in billed kWh if they are using energy-consuming features while charging, e.g., air conditioning, heating etc. This is more likely in extreme climates and could be a 10-25 kWh difference from what a customer experienced previously, as states like California explore grid-stability uses for EVs during peak events.
Of course, this is applicable where Tesla is able to charge by the kWh for charging sessions. In some markets, regulations push Tesla to charge by the minute amid ongoing fights over charging control between utilities and private operators.
Electrek’s Take It actually looks like an oversight from Tesla in the first place. It’s fair to charge for the total electricity used during a session, and not just what was used to charge your battery pack, since Tesla is paying for both, even as some states add EV ownership fees like the Texas EV fee that further shape costs.
However, I wish Tesla would have a clearer way to break down the charging sessions and their costs.
There have been some complaints about Tesla wrongly billing owners for charging sessions, and this is bound to create more confusion if people see a difference between the kWhs gained during charging and what is shown on the bill.
