Standing under the mesmerizing blades of the new wind energy park up at Dawson Creek was a moment to celebrate: The gentle giants at British Columbia's first wind farm are now feeding clean electricity onto the grid.
The most striking thing about the new wind farm is how utterly normal it all seems. Looking out over Mike's Steak House to the ridge in the distance, the wind park is simply a quiet symbol of hope in a world addicted to fossil fuels.
I also couldn't help but think: frankly it's about time. Given all the chatter about B.C.'s climate leadership, you would think wind turbines and solar panels would be as common as in Germany.
We're often lulled into thinking we're "green" because of the big hydro dams built by previous generations. But three-quarters of the energy used in B.C. — to move us around, heat our homes and run our economy — still comes from fossil fuels. And whether B.C. will catch up to our neighbours is now in question since the regulators, government and BC Hydro are tangled in a quasi-judicial conflict at the BC Utilities Commission. Will future clean energy projects get bogged down in a swamp of legal-sized paper?
We really can't allow that to happen. With record temperatures and fires raging, British Columbians are seeing the dangers of a hotter planet first hand. The blanket of heat trapping gases already in the atmosphere means we've only seen the beginning. It is imperative that we do our part to eliminate fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
We are among the luckiest people on the planet and B.C. has enviable advantages. With the base load power from the big hydro dams backing up a modern renewable grid, B.C. can build a model for a fossil fuel-free world. It will take aggressive action by government, the private sector and all British Columbians to promote efficiency, clean energy and switch off fossil fuels by deploying technologies like electric transit and vehicles.
Similarly, our federal representatives need pressure. Canada has become known as one of the "bad boys" of international climate negotiations and Ottawa is allowing incentives for renewable power to run dry. The next climate negotiations are coming up this December in Copenhagen.
A clean energy economy is within our grasp, but it needs focus. The Obama administration is outspending Canada 14-1 (per capita) in its green jobs surge towards a new energy economy. The Europeans are out ahead. And now China, South Korea and other Asian nations have joined the clean energy race in a massive way.
It's not as widely known as it should be that B.C. has some of the most innovative and promising clean-tech companies in the world. We can make massive cuts in our energy consumption. We can green buildings and urban planning. We can take our homes and factories and transportation off fossil fuels. There is reason for hope but no time to waste.
And we have our own contradictions to deal with. Ramping up fossil fuel production in the North is a huge source of carbon emissions. We are still mining and exporting coal. And we should not even be considering pipelines from the tar sands to tanker ports on our west coast.
Instead we can focus on using energy much more wisely. I know this sounds dull but it is hugely important and the gains are impossible without public acceptance of conservation policies — through voluntary programs, sure, but we also need to support changes to our cities, more dynamic pricing and harnessing the potential of a "smart" grid. And legislation like Japan's "top-runner" law, where the most inefficient products are regularly removed from the market, driving companies to be ever more efficient.
The transition off fossil fuels also requires effort and acceptance from all of us. We can match legislation like Ontario's new Green Energy Act to spur clean energy development. We can demand that our governments impose ever-stricter caps on carbon pollution as well as constantly stricter mandates on buildings and vehicles.
Did you know that China has stricter vehicle standards than the new ones proposed for Canada? Or that Warren Buffet is betting his fortune on electric cars made in China? Clearly we can raise our game.
British Columbians can be justifiably proud that our province broke the Canadian logjam of inaction on global warming and clean energy. But we shouldn't underestimate the scale of the challenge ahead. It is time for a renewed leadership effort.
British Columbia electricity rate increase will raise BC Hydro bills 3.75% over 2025-2026 to fund infrastructure, Site C, and clean energy, balancing affordability, reliability, and energy security while keeping prices below the North American average.
Key Points
BC will raise BC Hydro rates 3.75% in 2025-2026, about $3.75/month, to fund grid upgrades, Site C, and clean energy.
✅ 3.75% over 2025-2026; about $3.75/month on $100 average bill
✅ Funds Site C, grid maintenance, and clean energy capacity
✅ Keeps BC Hydro rates below North American averages
British Columbia's electricity rates will experience a 3.75% increase over the next two years, following an earlier 3% rate increase approval that set the stage, as confirmed by the provincial government on March 17, 2025. The announcement was made by Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, Adrian Dix, who emphasized the decision's necessity for maintaining BC Hydro’s infrastructure while balancing affordability for residents.
For most households, the increase will amount to an additional $3.75 per month, based on an average BC Hydro bill of $100, though some coverage framed an earlier phase as a BC Hydro $2/month proposal that later evolved. While this may seem modest, the increase reflects a broader strategy to stabilize the utility's rates amidst economic challenges and ensure long-term energy security for the province.
Reasons Behind the Rate Hike
The rate increase comes during a period of rising costs in both global markets and local economies. According to Dix, the economic uncertainty stemming from trade dynamics and inflation has forced the government to act. Despite these pressures, and after a prior B.C. rate freeze to moderate impacts, the increase remains below cumulative inflation over the last several years, a move designed to shield consumers from the full force of these economic changes.
Dix also noted that, when adjusted for inflation, electricity rates in British Columbia in 2025 are effectively at the same price they were four decades ago. This stability, he argued, underscores the provincial government’s commitment to keeping rates as low as possible for residents, even as operating costs rise.
“We must take urgent action to protect British Columbians from the uncertainty posed by rising costs while building a strong, resilient electricity system for the long-term benefit of B.C.’s energy independence,” Dix said. He also highlighted the government's approach to minimizing the financial burden on consumers by keeping electricity costs well below the North American average.
Infrastructure and Maintenance Costs
The primary justification for the rate increase is to allow BC Hydro to continue its critical infrastructure development, including the Site C hydroelectric project, which is expected to become operational in the coming years. The increased costs of maintaining and upgrading the province's electricity grid also contribute to the need for higher rates.
The Site C project, a massive hydroelectric dam under construction on the Peace River, is expected to provide a substantial increase in clean, renewable energy capacity. However, such large-scale projects require significant investment and maintenance, both of which have contributed to the increased operating costs for BC Hydro.
A Strategic Move for Rate Stability
The provincial government has been clear that the rate increase will allow for a continuation of infrastructure development while keeping the rates manageable for consumers. The 3.75% increase will be spread across two years, with the first hike scheduled for April 1, 2025, reflecting the typical April rate changes BC Hydro implements, and the second for April 1, 2026.
Dix confirmed that the rate hike would still keep electricity costs among the lowest in North America, noting that British Columbians pay about half of what residents in Alberta pay for electricity. This is part of a broader effort by the provincial government to provide stable energy pricing while bolstering the transition to clean energy solutions, such as the Site C project and other renewable energy initiatives.
Addressing Public Concerns
Although the government has framed the increase as a necessary measure to ensure the province's long-term energy independence and reliability, the rate hikes are likely to face scrutiny from residents, particularly those already struggling with the rising cost of living, even as provinces like Ontario face their own Ontario hydro rate increase pressures this fall.
Public reactions to utility rate increases are often contentious, as residents feel the pressure of rising prices across various sectors, from housing to healthcare. However, the government has promised that the new rates will remain manageable, especially considering the relatively low rate increases compared to inflation and other regions where Manitoba Hydro scaled back a planned increase to temper impacts.
Furthermore, the increase comes as part of a broader strategy that aims to keep the overall impact on consumers as low as possible. Minister Dix emphasized that these rate increases were intended to ensure the continued reliability of BC Hydro’s services, without overwhelming ratepayers.
Long-Term Goals
Looking ahead, the province's strategy centers on not only maintaining affordable electricity rates but also reinforcing the importance of renewable energy, while some jurisdictions consider a 2.5% annual increase plan over multiple years to stabilize their grids. As climate change becomes an increasingly pressing issue, BC’s investments in clean energy projects like Site C aim to provide sustainable power for generations to come.
The government’s long-term vision involves building a resilient, energy-independent province that can weather future economic and environmental challenges. In this context, the rate increases are framed not just as a response to immediate inflationary pressures but as a necessary step in preparing BC’s energy infrastructure for the future.
The 3.75% rate increase set for 2025 and 2026 represents a balancing act between managing the financial health of BC Hydro and protecting consumers from higher costs. While the increase will have a modest effect on household bills, the long-term goal is to build a more robust and sustainable electricity system for British Columbia’s future. Through investments in clean energy and strategic infrastructure development, the province aims to keep electricity rates competitive while positioning itself as a leader in energy independence and climate action.
UK Coal Phase-Out signals an energy transition, accelerating decarbonization with offshore wind, solar, and storage, advancing net-zero targets, cleaner air, and a just transition for communities impacted by fossil fuel decline.
Key Points
A policy to end coal power in the UK, boosting renewables and net-zero goals while improving air quality.
✅ Coal electricity fell from 40% in 2012 to under 3% by 2022
✅ Offshore wind and solar expand capacity; storage enhances reliability
✅ Just transition funds retrain workers and support coal regions
The United Kingdom is poised to mark a significant milestone in its energy history by phasing out coal power entirely, ending a reliance that has lasted for 142 years. This decision underscores the UK’s commitment to combating climate change and transitioning toward cleaner energy sources, reflecting a broader global energy transition away from fossil fuels. As the country embarks on this journey, it highlights both the achievements and challenges of moving towards a sustainable energy future.
A Historic Transition
The UK’s relationship with coal dates back to the Industrial Revolution, when coal was the backbone of its energy supply, driving factories, trains, and homes. However, as concerns over air quality and climate change have mounted, the nation has progressively shifted its focus toward renewable energy sources amid a global decline in coal-fired electricity worldwide. The decision to end coal power represents the culmination of this transformation, signaling a definitive break from a past heavily reliant on fossil fuels.
In recent years, the UK has made remarkable strides in reducing its carbon emissions. From 2012 to 2022, coal's contribution to the country's electricity generation plummeted from around 40% to less than 3%, as policies like the British carbon tax took effect across the power sector. This dramatic decline is largely due to the rise of renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, which have increasingly filled the gap left by coal.
Environmental and Health Benefits
The move away from coal power has significant environmental benefits. Coal is one of the most carbon-intensive energy sources, releasing substantial amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other harmful pollutants into the atmosphere. By phasing out coal, the UK aims to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, which has been linked to serious health issues such as respiratory diseases and cardiovascular problems.
The UK government has set ambitious net zero policies, aiming to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Ending coal power is a critical step in reaching this target, demonstrating leadership on the global stage and setting an example for other countries still dependent on fossil fuels. This transition not only addresses climate change but also promotes a healthier environment for future generations.
The Role of Renewable Energy
As the UK phases out coal, renewable energy sources are expected to play a central role in meeting the country's energy needs. Wind power, in particular, has surged in prominence, with the UK leading the world in offshore wind capacity. In 2020, wind energy surpassed coal for the first time, accounting for over 24% of the country's electricity generation.
Solar energy has also seen significant growth, contributing to the diversification of the UK’s energy mix. The government’s investments in renewable energy infrastructure and technology have facilitated this rapid transition, providing the necessary framework for a sustainable energy future.
Economic Implications
While the transition away from coal power presents environmental benefits, it also carries economic implications. The coal industry has historically provided jobs and economic activity, particularly in regions where coal mining was a mainstay, a dynamic echoed in analyses of the decarbonization of Canada's electricity grid and its regional impacts. As the UK moves toward a greener economy, there is an urgent need to support communities that may be adversely affected by this transition.
To address potential job losses, the government has emphasized the importance of investing in retraining programs and creating new opportunities in the renewable energy sector. This will be vital in ensuring a just transition that supports workers and communities as the energy landscape evolves.
Challenges Ahead
Despite the progress made, the journey toward a coal-free UK is not without challenges. One significant concern is the need for reliable energy storage solutions to complement intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. Ensuring a stable energy supply during periods of low generation will be critical for maintaining grid reliability.
Moreover, public acceptance and engagement will be crucial, as illustrated by debates over New Zealand's electricity transition and its pace, as the UK navigates this transition. Engaging communities in discussions about energy policies and developments can foster understanding and support for the changes ahead.
Looking to the Future
The UK’s decision to phase out coal power after 142 years marks a significant turning point in its energy policy and environmental strategy. This historic shift not only aligns with the country’s climate goals but also showcases its commitment to a cleaner, more sustainable future.
As the UK continues to invest in renewable energy and transition away from fossil fuels, it sets an important example for other nations, including those on China's path to carbon neutrality, grappling with similar challenges. By embracing this transition, the UK is not only addressing pressing environmental concerns but also paving the way for a greener economy that can thrive in the decades to come.
Philippines coal dependency underscores energy transition challenges, climate change risks, and air pollution, as rising electricity demand, fossil fuels, and emissions shape policy shifts toward renewable energy, grid reliability, and sustainable development.
Key Points
It is rising reliance on coal for power, driven by demand and cost, with climate, air pollution, and policy risks.
✅ Driven by rising demand, affordability, and grid reliability.
✅ Worsens emissions, air pollution, and public health burdens.
✅ Policy shifts aim at renewable energy, efficiency, and standards.
In a striking development, the Philippines has surpassed China and Indonesia to become the nation most dependent on coal-generated power in recent years. This shift highlights significant implications for the country's energy strategy, environmental policies, and its commitment to sustainable development, and comes as global power demand continues to surge worldwide.
Rising Dependency on Coal
The Philippines' increasing reliance on coal-generated power is driven by several factors, including rapid economic growth, rising electricity demand, and regional uncertainties in China's electricity sector that influence fuel markets, and the perceived affordability and reliability of coal as an energy source. Coal has historically been a key component of the Philippines' energy mix, providing a stable supply of electricity to support industrialization and urbanization efforts.
Environmental and Health Impacts
Despite its economic benefits, coal-generated power comes with significant environmental and health costs, especially as soaring electricity and coal use amplifies exposure to pollution. Coal combustion releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, contributing to global warming and climate change. Additionally, coal-fired power plants emit pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, which pose health risks to nearby communities and degrade air quality.
Policy and Regulatory Landscape
The Philippines' energy policies have evolved to address the challenges posed by coal dependency while promoting sustainable alternatives. The government has introduced initiatives to encourage renewable energy development, improve energy efficiency, and, alongside stricter emissions standards on coal-fired power plants, is evaluating nuclear power for inclusion in the energy mix to meet future demand. However, balancing economic growth with environmental protection remains a complex and ongoing challenge.
International and Domestic Pressures
Internationally, there is growing pressure on countries to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and transition towards cleaner energy sources as part of global climate commitments under the Paris Agreement, illustrated by the United Kingdom's plan to end coal power within its grid. The Philippines' status as the most coal-dependent nation underscores the urgency for policymakers to accelerate the shift towards renewable energy and reduce carbon emissions to mitigate climate impacts.
Challenges and Opportunities
Transitioning away from coal-generated power presents both challenges and opportunities for the Philippines. Challenges include overcoming entrenched interests in the coal industry, addressing energy security concerns, and navigating the economic implications of energy transition, particularly as clean energy investment in developing nations has recently declined, adding financial headwinds. However, embracing renewable energy offers opportunities to diversify the energy mix, reduce dependence on imported fuels, create green jobs, and improve energy access in remote areas.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Engaging communities and stakeholders is crucial in shaping the Philippines' energy transition strategy. Local residents, environmental advocates, industry leaders, and policymakers play essential roles in fostering dialogue, raising awareness about the benefits of renewable energy, and advocating for policies that promote sustainable development and protect public health.
Future Outlook
The Philippines' path towards reducing coal dependency and advancing renewable energy is critical to achieving long-term sustainability and resilience against climate change impacts. By investing in renewable energy infrastructure, enhancing energy efficiency measures, and fostering innovation in clean technologies, as renewables poised to eclipse coal indicate broader momentum, the country can mitigate environmental risks, improve energy security, and contribute to global efforts to combat climate change.
Conclusion
As the Philippines surpasses China and Indonesia in coal-generated power dependency, the nation faces pivotal decisions regarding its energy future. Balancing economic growth with environmental stewardship requires strategic investments in renewable energy, robust policy frameworks, and proactive engagement with stakeholders to achieve a sustainable and resilient energy system. By prioritizing clean energy solutions, the Philippines can pave the way towards a greener and more sustainable future for generations to come.
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.
Hydro One-Avista acquisition sparks Idaho regulatory scrutiny over foreign ownership, utility merger impacts, rate credits, and public interest, as FERC and FCC approvals advance and consumers question governance, service reliability, and long-term rate stability.
Key Points
A cross-border utility merger proposal with Idaho oversight, weighing foreign ownership, rates, and reliability.
✅ Idaho PUC review centers on public interest and rate impacts.
✅ FERC and FCC approvals granted; state decisions pending.
✅ Avista to retain name and Spokane HQ post-transaction.
“Please don’t sell us to Canada.” That refrain, or versions of it, is on full display at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, which admittedly isn’t everyone’s go-to entertainment site. But it is vitally important for this reason: the first big test of the expansionist dreams of the politically tempest-tossed Hydro One, facing political risk as it navigates markets, rests with its successful acquisition of Avista Corp., provider of electric generation, transmission and distribution to retail customers spread from Oregon to Washington to Montana and Idaho and up into Alaska.
The proposed deal — announced last summer, but not yet consummated — marks the first time the publicly traded Hydro One has embarked upon the acquisition of a U.S. utility. And if Idahoans spread from Boise to Coeur d’Alene to Hayden are any indication, they are not at all happy with the idea of foreign ownership. Here’s Lisa McCumber, resident of Hayden: “I am stating my objection to this outrageous merger/takeover. Hydro One charges excessive fees to the people it provides for, this is a monopoly beyond even what we are used to. I, in no way, support or as a customer, agree with the merger of this multi-billion-dollar, foreign, company.”
#google#
Or here’s Debra Bentley from Coeur d’Alene: “Fewer things have more control over a nation than its power source. In an age where we are desperately trying to bring American companies back home and ‘Buy American’ is somewhat of a battle cry, how is it even possible that it would or could be allowed for this vital necessity … to be controlled by a foreign entity?”
Or here’s Spencer Hutchings from Sagle: “This is an incredibly bad idea.”
There are legion of similar emails from concerned consumers, and the Maine transmission line debate offers a parallel in public opposition.
The rationale for the deal? Last fall Hydro One CEO Mayo Schmidt testified before the Idaho commission, which regulates all gas, water and electricity providers in the state. “Hydro One is a pure-play transmission and distribution utility located solely within Ontario,” Schmidt told commissioners. “It seeks diversification both in terms of jurisdictions and service areas. The proposed Transaction with Avista achieves both goals by expanding Hydro One into the U.S. Pacific Northwest and expanding its operations to natural gas distribution and electric generation. The proposed Transaction with Avista will deliver the increased scale and benefits that come from being a larger player in the utility industry.”
Translation: now that it is a publicly traded entity, Hydro needs to demonstrate a growth curve to the investment community. The value to you and me? Arguable. This is a transaction framed as a benefit to shareholders, one that won’t cause harm to customers. Premier Kathleen Wynne is feeling the pain of selling off control of an essential asset. In his testimony to the commission, Schmidt noted that the Avista acquisition would take the province’s Hydro ownership to under 45 per cent. (The Electricity Act technically prevents the sale of shares that would take the government’s ownership position below 40 per cent, though acquisitions appear to allow further dilution. )
Stratospheric compensation, bench-marked against other chief executives who enjoy similarly outsized rewards, is part of this game. I have written about Schmidt’s unconscionable compensation before, but that was when he was making a relatively modest $4 million. Relative, that is, to his $6.2 million in 2017 compensation ($3.5 million of that is in the form of share based awards).
Should the acquisition of Avista be approved, amendments to the CIC, or change in control agreements, for certain named Avista executive officers will allow them to voluntarily terminate their employment without “good reason.” That includes Scott Morris, the company’s CEO, who will exit with severance of $6.9 million (U.S.) and additional benefits taking the total to a potential $15.7 million.
Back to the deal: cost savings over time could be achieved, Schmidt continued in his testimony, though he was unable to quantify those. The integration between the two companies, he promised, will be “seamless.” Retail customers in Idaho, Washington and Oregon would benefit from proposed “Rate Credits” equalling an estimated $15.8 million across five years, even as Hydro One seeks to redesign its bills in Ontario. Idahoans would see a one per cent rate decrease through that period.
While Avista would become a wholly owned Hydro subsidiary, it would retain its name, and its headquarters in Spokane, Wash. In the case of Idaho specifically, a proposed settlement in April, subject to final approval by the commission, stipulates agreements on everything from staffing to governance to community contributions.
Will that meet the test? It’s up to the commission to determine whether the proposed transaction will keep a lid on rates and is “consistent with the public interest.” Hydro One is hoping for a decision from regulatory agencies in all the named states by mid-August and a closing date by the end of September, though U.S. regulators can ultimately determine the fate of such deals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted its approval in January, followed last week by the Federal Communications Commission. Washington and Alaska have reached settlement agreements. These too are pending final state approvals.
The $5.3-billion deal (or $6.7 billion Canadian) is subject to ongoing hearings in Idaho, and elsewhere rate hikes face opposition as hearings begin. Members of the public are encouraged to have their say. The public comment deadline is June 27.
EPA Telework Policy restricts remote work, balancing work-from-home guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic with flexible schedules, union contracts, OMB guidance, and federal workforce rules, impacting managers, SES staff, and non-bargaining employees nationwide.
Key Points
A directive limiting many EPA staff to two telework days weekly, with pandemic exceptions and flexible schedules.
✅ Limits telework to two days per week for many employees
✅ Allows flexible schedules, including maxiflex, during emergencies
✅ Aligns with OMB, OPM, CDC guidance; honors union agreements
EPA has moved forward on a new policy that would restrict telework even as agency leadership has encouraged staff to work from home during the coronavirus outbreak.
The new EPA order obtained by E&E News would require employees to report to the office at least three days every week.
"Full-time employees are expected to report to the official worksite and duty station a minimum of three (3) days per week," says the order, dated as approved on Feb. 27. It went into effect March 15 — that night, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler authorized telework for the entire agency due to the pandemic.
The order focuses on EPA employees' work schedules and gives them new flexibilities that could come in handy during a public health emergency like the COVID-19 virus, when parts of the power sector consider on-site staffing to ensure continuity.
It also stipulates a deep reduction in EPA employees' capability to work remotely, leaving them with two days of telework per week. An agency order on telework, issued in January 2016, said staff could telework full time.
"The EPA supports the use of telework," said that order. "Regular telework may range from one day per pay period up to full time."
An EPA spokeswoman said the new order doesn't change the agency's guidance to staff to work from home during the pandemic.
"The health and safety of our employees is our top priority, and that is why we have requested that all employees telework, even as residential electricity use increases with more people at home, until at least April 3. There is no provision in the work schedules policy, telework policy or collective bargaining agreement that limits this request," said the spokeswoman.
"While EPA did implement the national work schedule policy effective 3/15/2020, it was implemented in order to provide increased work schedule flexibilities for non-bargaining unit employees who were not previously afforded flexible schedules, including maxiflex," she added.
"The implementation of the policy does not currently impact telework opportunities for EPA employees, and EPA has strongly encouraged all staff to telework," she said.
Still, the new order has caused consternation among EPA employees.
One EPA manager described it as another move by the Trump administration to restrict telework across the government.
"Amidst the COVID-19 crisis, this policy seems particularly ill-timed and unwise. It doesn't even give the administration the chance to evaluate the situation once the COVID-19 pandemic passes," said the manager.
"I think this is a dramatic change in the flexibilities available to the EPA employees without any data to support such a drastic move," the manager said. "It has huge ramifications for employees, many of whom commute over an hour each way to the office, increasing air pollution in the process."
Another EPA staffer said, "I honestly think such an order, given current circumstances, would elicit little more than a scoff and a smirk."
The person added, "How tone-deaf and heavy-handed can one administration be?"
Inside EPA first reported on the new order. E&E News obtained the memo independently.
The recently issued policy applies only to non-bargaining-unit employees, including "full-time and part-time" agency staff as well as "supervisors and managers in the competitive, excepted, Senior Level, Scientific and Professional, and Senior Executive Service positions."
In addition, the order covers "Public Health Service Officers, Schedule C, Administratively Determined employees and non-EPA employees serving on Intergovernmental Personnel Act assignments to EPA."
Nevertheless, EPA employees covered under union contracts must adhere to those contracts if the policy runs counter to them.
"If provisions of this order conflict with the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, the provisions of the agreement must be applied," the order says.
EPA has taken a more restrictive approach with the agency's largest union, American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, which represents about 7,500 EPA employees. EPA imposed a contract on the council's bargaining unit employees last July that limited them to one day of telework per week, among other changes that triggered union protests.
EPA and AFGE have since relaunched contract negotiations, and how to handle telework is one of the issues under discussion. Both sides committed to complete those bargaining talks by April 15 and work with the Federal Service Impasses Panel if needed (Greenwire, Feb. 27).
Both sides of the telework debate EPA's new order has been under consideration for some time.
E&E News obtained a draft version last year. The agency had circulated it for comment in July, noting the proposal "limits the number of days an employee may telework per week," among other changes (Greenwire, Sept. 12, 2019).
EPA, like other federal agencies under the Trump administration, has sought to reduce employees' telework. That effort, though, has run into the headwinds of a global pandemic, with a U.S. grid warning highlighting broader risks, leading agency leaders to reverse course and now encourage staff to work remotely in order to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
Wheeler in an email last week told staff that he authorized telework for employees across the country. Federal worker unions had sought the opportunity for remote work on behalf of EPA employees, and the agency had already relaxed telework policies at various offices the prior week where the coronavirus had begun to take hold.
The EPA spokeswoman said the agency moved toward telework after guidance from other agencies.
"Consistent with [Office of Management and Budget], [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and [Office of Personnel Management] guidance, along with state and local directives, we have taken swift action in regions and at headquarters to implement telework for all employees. We continue to tell all employees to telework," said the spokeswoman.
Wheeler said in a later video message that his expectation was most EPA employees were working from home.
"I understand that this is a difficult and scary time for all of us," said the EPA administrator.
The coronavirus has become a real challenge for EPA, and utilities like BC Hydro Site C updates illustrate broader operational adjustments.
Agency staff have been exposed to the virus while some have tested positive, and nuclear plant workers have raised similar concerns, according to internal emails. That has led to employees self-quarantining while their colleagues worry they may next fall ill (Greenwire, March 20).
One employee said that since EPA's operations have been maintained with staff working from home, even as household electricity bills rise for many, it's harder for the Trump administration to justify restricting remote work.
"With the current climate, I think employees have shown we can keep the agency going with nearly 95% teleworking full time. It makes their argument hard to justify in light of things," said the EPA employee.
The Trump administration overall has pushed for more remote work by the federal workforce in the battle with the COVID-19 virus. The Office of Management and Budget issued guidance to agencies last week "to minimize face-to-face interactions" and "maximize telework across the nation."
Lawmakers have also pushed to expand telework for federal workers due to the virus.
Democratic senators sent a letter last week urging President Trump to issue an executive order directing agencies to use telework.
In addition, Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) introduced legislation that would allow federal employees to telework full time during the pandemic.
Some worry EPA's new order could further sour morale at the agency after the pandemic passes, as other utilities consider measures like unpaid days off to trim costs. Employees may leave if they can't work from home more.
"People will quit EPA over something like this. Maybe that's the goal," said the EPA manager.
