The North American Electric Reliability Corporation NERC is one step closer to approving a new version of the cybersecurity standard, the Critical Cyber Asset Identification CIP-002-4.
The proposed changes provide significant improvements to the existing standard by including a specific list of criteria for entities to identify their critical assets.
“Confirmation by the registered entities of their critical assets was a key priority for my first year as president and CEO of NERC,” says Gerry Cauley, President and CEO of NERC. “Recognizing that protecting cyber assets is critical to the electric utility’s infrastructure, as well as national and international security, the revisions to CIP-002-4 were advanced ahead of other cyber security standard improvements. This initial passage by the stakeholders represents a major progression in protecting the North American grid and ensuring reliability. I commend the stakeholders and the standard drafting team for the tremendous work they have done.”
CIP-002-4 is a foundational standard with the remaining CIP standards CIP-002 through CIP-009 relying on a complete and accurate identification of assets critical to reliability. Because entities are so tightly interconnected, a vulnerability that seems insignificant to a single entity can place the entire grid in a state of vulnerability.
“While NERC’s ANSI-based standard process requires a final “recirculation” ballot to allow stakeholders to confirm or modify their previous ballots, this standard appears to be on a path for approval by the end of the year or shortly thereafter,” says Cauley. The standard then goes to the NERC Board of Trustees for approval and then the new standard is filed with the with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for approval under provisions of the Federal Power Act section 215.
In addition to working on the implementation of the CIP-002-4 standard, NERC is expediting implementation of the NERC/Department of Energy High Impact, Low Frequency reportÂ’s geomagnetic and electromagnetic pulse recommendations. As part of this effort, NERC will establish independent validation and industry approaches to develop and deploy Geomagnetic Disturbance mitigation strategies and technologies to protect the power grid.
California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.
Key Points
Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.
✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure
✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak
✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions
The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.
Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.
Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.
What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐varying cost of additional electricity supply.
Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.
The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.
The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐cost rooftop to lower‐cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.
Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.
Central Asia power shortages strain grids across Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, driven by drought-hit hydropower, aging coal and gas plants, rising demand, cryptomining loads, and winter peak consumption risks.
Key Points
Regionwide blackouts from drought, aging plants and grids, rising demand, and winter peaks stressing Central Asia.
✅ Drought slashes hydropower in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan
✅ Aging coal and gas TPPs and weak grids cause frequent outages
✅ Cryptomining loads and winter heating spike demand and stress supply
Central Asians from western Kazakhstan to southern Tajikistan are suffering from power and energy shortages that have caused hardship and emergency situations affecting the lives of millions of people.
On October 14, several units at three power plants in northeastern Kazakhstan were shut down in an emergency that resulted in a loss of more than 1,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity.
It serves as an example of the kind of power failures that plague the region 30 years after the Central Asian countries gained independence and despite hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in energy infrastructure and power grids, and echo risks seen in other advanced markets such as Japan's near-blackouts during recent cold snaps.
Some of the reasons for these problems are clear, but with all the money these countries have allocated to their energy sectors and financial help they have received from international financial institutions, it is curious the situation is already so desperate with winter officially still weeks away.
The Current Problems Three power plants were affected in the October 14 shutdowns of units: Ekibastuz-1, Ekibastuz-2, and the Aksu power plant.
Ekibastuz-1 is the largest power plant in Kazakhstan, capable of generating some 4,000 MW, roughly 13 percent of Kazakhstan’s total power output.
The Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company (KEGOC) explained the problems resulted partially from malfunctions and repair work, but also from overuse of the system that the government would later say was due to cryptominers, a large number of whom have moved to Kazakhstan recently from China after Beijing banned the mining needed by Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, amid its own China's power cuts across several provinces in 2021.
But between November 8 and 9, rolling blackouts were reported in the East Kazakhstan, North Kazakhstan, and Kyzylorda provinces, as well as the area around Almaty, Kazakhstan’s biggest city, and Shymkent, its third largest city.
People in Uzbekistan say they, too, are facing blackouts that the Energy Ministry described as “short-term outages,” even as authorities have looked to export electricity to Afghanistan to support regional demand, though it has been clear for several weeks that the country will have problems with natural gas supplies this winter.
Power lines in Uzbekistan Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov continues to say there won't be any power rationing in Kyrgyzstan this winter, but at the end of September the National Energy Holding Company ordered “restrictions on the lighting of secondary streets, advertisements, and facades of shops, cafes, and other nonresidential customers.”
Many parts of Tajikistan are already experiencing intermittent supplies of electricity.
Even in Turkmenistan, a country with the fourth-largest reserves of natural gas in the world, there were reports of problems with electricity and heating in the capital, Ashgabat.
What Is Going On? The causes of some of these problems are easy to see.
The population of the region has grown significantly, with the population of Central Asia when the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991 being some 50 million and today about 75 million.
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are mountainous countries that have long been touted for their hydropower potential and some 90 percent of Kyrgyzstan’s domestically produced electricity and 98 percent of Tajikistan’s come from hydropower.
But a severe drought that struck Central Asia this year has resulted in less hydropower and, in general, less energy for the region, similar to constraints seen in Europe's reduced hydro and nuclear output this year.
Tajik authorities have not reported how low the water in the country’s key reservoirs is, but Kyrgyzstan has reported the water level in the reservoir at its Toktogul hydropower plant (HPP) is 11.8 billion cubic meters (bcm), the lowest level in years and far less than the 14.7 bcm of water it had in November 2020.
The Toktogul HPP, with an installed capacity of 1,200 MW, provides some 40 percent of the country's domestically produced electricity, but operating the HPP this winter to generate desperately needed energy brings the risk of leaving water levels at the reservoir critically low next spring and summer when the water is also needed for agricultural purposes.
This year’s drought is something Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will have to take into consideration as they plan how to provide power for their growing populations in the future. Hydropower is a desirable option but may be less reliable with the onset of climate change, prompting interest in alternatives such as Ukraine's wind power to diversify generation.
Uzbekistan is also feeling the effects of this year’s drought, and, like the South Caucasus where Georgia's electricity imports have increased, supply shortfalls are testing grids.
According to the International Energy Agency, HPPs account for some 12 percent of Uzbekistan’s generating capacity.
Uzbekistan’s Energy Ministry attributed low water levels at HPPs that have caused a 23 percent decrease in hydropower generation this year.
A reservoir in Kyrgyzstan Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are the most populous Central Asian countries, and both depend on thermal power plants (TPP) for generating most of their electricity.
Most of the TPPs in Kazakhstan are coal-fired, while most of the TPPs in Uzbekistan are gas-fired.
Kazakhstan has 68 power plants, 80 percent of which are coal-fired TPPs, and most are in the northern part of the country where the largest deposits of coal are located. Kazakhstan has the world's 10th largest reserves of coal.
About 88 percent of Uzbekistan’s electricity comes from TTPs, most of which use natural gas.
Uzbekistan’s proven reserves are some 800 billion cubic meters, but gas production in Uzbekistan has been decreasing.
In December 2020, Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoev ordered a halt to the country’s gas exports and instructed that gas to be redirected for domestic use. Mirziyoev has already given similar instructions for this coming winter.
How Did It Come To This? The biggest problem with the energy infrastructure in Central Asia is that it is generally very old. Nearly all of its power plants date back to the Soviet era -- and some well back into the Soviet period.
The use of power plants and transmission lines that some describe as “obsolete” and a few call “decrepit” has unfortunately been a necessity in Central Asia, even as regional players pursue new interconnections like Iran's plan to transmit electricity to Europe as a power hub.
Reporting on Kazakhstan in September 2016, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) said, “70 percent of the power generation infrastructure is in need of rehabilitation.”
The Ekibastuz-1 TPP is relatively new by the power-plant standards of Central Asia. The first unit of the eight units of the TPP was commissioned in 1980.
The first unit at the AKSU TPP was commissioned in 1968, and the first unit of the gas- and fuel-fired TPP in southern Kazakhstan’s Zhambyl Province was commissioned in 1967.
Washington Grid Resilience Grant funds DOE-backed modernization to harden Washington's electric grid against extreme weather, advancing clean energy, affordable and reliable electricity, and community resilience under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law via projects and utility partnerships.
Key Points
A $23.4M DOE grant to modernize Washington's grid, boost weather resilience, and deliver clean, reliable power.
✅ Targets outages, reliability, and community resilience statewide.
✅ Prioritizes disadvantaged areas and quality clean energy jobs.
✅ Backed by Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and DOE funding.
Washington state has received a $23.4 million Grid Resilience State and Tribal Formula Grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to modernize the electric grid through smarter electricity infrastructure and reduce impacts due to extreme weather and natural disasters. Grid Resilience State and Tribal Formula Grants aim to ensure the reliability of power sector infrastructure so that communities have access to affordable, reliable, clean electricity.
“Electricity is an essential lifeline for communities. Improving our systems by reducing disruptive events is key as we cross the finish line of a 100% clean electricity grid and ensure equitable benefits from the clean energy economy reach every community,” said Gov. Jay Inslee.
The federal funding for energy resilience will enhance and expand ongoing current grid modernization and resilience efforts throughout the state. For example, working directly with rural and typical end-of-the-line customers to develop resilience plans and collaborating with communities and utilities, including smart city efforts in Spokane as examples, on building resilient and renewable infrastructure for essential services.
“This is a significant opportunity to supplement our state investments in building a robust, resilient electric grid that supports our long-term vision for clean, affordable and reliable electricity – the foundation for economic growth and job creation that strengthens our communities and keeps Washington globally competitive. It shows once again that we are maximizing the federal funding being made available by the Biden-Harris Administration to invest in the country’s infrastructure,” said Washington State Department of Commerce Director Mike Fong.
Reducing the frequency, duration and impact of outages as climate change impacts on the grid intensify while enhancing resiliency in historically disadvantaged communities. Strengthening prosperity by expanding well-paying, safe clean energy jobs accessible to all workers and ensuring investments have a positive effect on quality job creation and equitable economic development.
Building a community of practice and maximizing project scalability by identifying pathways for scaling innovations such as integrating solar into the grid across programs.
“The Grid Resilience Formula Grants will enable communities in Washington to protect households and businesses from blackouts or power shutdowns during extreme weather,” said Maria Robinson, Director, Grid Deployment Office, U.S. Department of Energy. “Projects selected through this program will benefit communities by creating good-paying jobs to deliver clean, affordable, and reliable energy across the country.”
“An innovative, reliable, and efficient power grid is vital to Washington’s continued economic growth and for community resilience especially in disadvantaged areas,” said U.S. Rep. Strickland, Co-Lead of the bipartisan Grid Innovation Caucus. “The funding announced today will invest in our energy grid, support good-paying jobs, and means a cleaner, more energy-efficient future.”
Funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and administered by DOE’s Grid Deployment Office, with related efforts such as California grid upgrades advancing nationwide, the Grid Resilience State and Tribal Formula Grants distribute funding to states, territories, and federally recognized Indian Tribes, over five years based on a formula that includes factors such as population size, land area, probability and severity of disruptive events, and a locality’s historical expenditures on mitigation efforts. Priority will be given to projects that generate the greatest community benefit providing clean, affordable, and reliable energy.
Ontario Global Adjustment Supreme Court Appeal spotlights a constitutional challenge to Ontario's electricity charge, pitting National Steel Car against the IESO over regulatory charge vs tax, procurement policy, and renewable energy feed-in tariff contracts.
Key Points
An SCC leave bid on whether Ontario's global adjustment is a valid regulatory charge or an unconstitutional tax.
✅ Appeals Court revived case for full record review
✅ Dispute centers on regulatory charge vs tax classification
✅ FIT renewables contracts and procurement policies at issue
The Ontario government wants the Supreme Court of Canada to weigh in on a constitutional challenge being brought against a large provincial electricity charge, a case the province claims raises issues of national importance.
Ontario’s attorney general and its Independent Electricity System Operator applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in January, according to the court’s website.
The province is trying to appeal a Court of Appeal decision reinstating the challenge from November that said a legal challenge by Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. should be sent back to a lower-court for a full hearing.
Court reinstates constitutional challenge to Ontario's hefty ‘global adjustment’ electricity charge National Steel Car appealing decision in legal challenge of Ontario electricity fee it calls an unconstitutional tax Doug Ford’s cancellation of green energy deals costs Ontario taxpayers $231 million National Steel Car launched its legal challenge in 2017, with the maker of steel rail cars claiming the province’s global adjustment electricity charge was a tax intended to fund certain post-financial-crisis policy goals. Since it is allegedly a tax, and one not imposed by the provincial legislature, the company’s argument is the global adjustment is unconstitutional, and also in breach of a provincial law requiring a referendum for new taxes.
The global adjustment mostly bridges the gap between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts and regulated rates with power generators. It also helps cover the cost of building new electricity infrastructure and providing conservation programs, but the fee now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household power bill in the province.
Ontario argued the global adjustment is a valid regulatory charge, and moved to have National Steel Car’s challenge thrown out. An Ontario Superior Court judge agreed, and dismissed the challenge in 2018, saying it was “plain, obvious and beyond doubt” it could not succeed. However, an appeals court judge disagreed, writing in a decision last November that the “merits should not have been determined on a pleadings motion and without the development of a full record.”
In filings made to the Supreme Court, both the IESO and Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General argued their proposed appeals raise “issues of national and public importance,” such as whether incorporating environmental and social policy goals in procurement could turn attempts by a public body to recover costs into an unconstitutional tax.
Most applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court are dismissed, but the Ontario government claims the court’s guidance is required in this case, as it could lead to questions being raised about other fees or charges, such as money raised from fishing licences.
“A failure to dispose of this claim at the pleadings stage may well result in such uncertainty that public authorities across Canada decline to incorporate the kind of environmental and social policy goals objected to in this case into the decisions they make about how to spend funds raised from regulatory charges,” the filing from the attorney general states. “Alternatively, it may induce governments not to engage in cost recovery in connection with publicly supplied goods and services, which can otherwise be sound public policy.”
The government has so far had to pay National Steel Car $250,000 in legal costs “to avoid responding to the credible claim that the Global Adjustment is an unconstitutional tax,” said David Trafford of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers.
“The application for leave to appeal is the next step in this effort to avoid having to respond to the case on the merits,” Trafford added in an email.
The application for leave to appeal is the next step in this effort to avoid having to respond to the case on the merits
David Trafford of Morse Shannon, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers
National Steel Car has particularly taken issue with the part of the global adjustment that funded contracts for renewable energy under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which the company called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity.”
The FIT program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place and form part of the global adjustment. Ontario’s auditor general estimated in 2015 that electricity consumers would pay $9.2 billion more for renewable energy under the government’s guaranteed-price program, a figure that later featured in a dispute between the auditor and the electricity regulator that drew political attention.
National Steel Car said its global adjustment costs grew from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, reflecting how high electricity rates have pressured manufacturers, to almost $3.4 million in 2016. For 2018, there was approximately $11.2 billion in global adjustment collected, according to the IESO’s reporting.
A spokesperson for the IESO said it “is not in a position to comment” because the case is still before the courts.
Electricity prices have been an ongoing problem for both Ontario consumers and politicians, which the previous Liberal government tried to address in 2017 by, among other things, refinancing global-adjustment costs through the Fair Hydro Plan and other measures.
Since National Steel Car filed its lawsuits, though, the Liberals lost power in the province and were succeeded in 2018 by Premier Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives, who made changes to the previous government’s power policies, including legislation to lower electricity rates introduced early in their mandate.
The province has also pursued interprovincial power arrangements, including building on an electricity deal with Quebec as part of its broader energy strategy.
“The present government of Ontario does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement program, which ceased awarding new contracts in 2016,” Ontario’s attorney general said in a filing. “However, Ontario submits that (the lower-court judge) was correct in holding that it does not give rise to a claim susceptible to being remedied by the courts.”
Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways Program enables clean energy and grid modernization across Canada, funding wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and storage to cut GHG emissions and accelerate electrification toward a net-zero economy.
Key Points
A $964M Canadian program funding clean power and grid upgrades to cut emissions and build net-zero electrified economy.
✅ Funds wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and storage projects
✅ Modernizes grids for reliability, digitalization, and resilience
✅ Supports net-zero by 2050 with Indigenous and utility partners
Harnessing Canada's immense clean energy resources requires transformational investments to modernize our electricity grid. The Government of Canada is investing in renewable energy and upgrading the electricity grid, moving toward an electric, connected and clean economy, to make clean, affordable electricity options more accessible in communities across Canada.
The Honourable Seamus O'Regan Jr., Minister of Natural Resources, today launched a $964-million program, alongside a recent federal green electricity contract in Alberta that underscores momentum, to support smart renewable energy and grid modernization projects that will lower emissions by investing in clean energy technologies, like wind, solar, storage, hydro, geothermal and tidal energy across Atlantic Canada.
The Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways Program (SREPs) supports building Canada's low-emissions energy future and a renewable, electrified economy through projects that focus on non-emitting, cleaner energy technologies, such as storage, and modernizing electricity system operations.
Investing in these technologies reduces greenhouse gas emissions by creating a cleaner, more connected electrical system, supporting progress toward zero-emissions electricity by 2035 goals, while helping Canada reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
Minister O'Regan launched the program during the Canadian Electricity Association's (CEA) virtual regulatory forum on Electricity Regulation & the Four Disruptors – Decarbonization, Decentralization, Digitalization and Democratization, highlighting evolving regulatory approaches as B.C. streamlines clean energy approvals to support deployment nationwide. The launch also coincides with Canadian Environment Week, which celebrates Canada's environmental accomplishments and encourages Canadians to contribute to conserving and protecting the environment.
Through SREPs and other programming, the government is working with provinces and territories, with the Prairie Provinces leading renewable growth in the years ahead, utilities, Indigenous partners and others, including diverse businesses and communities, to deliver these clean and reliable energy initiatives. With Canadian innovation, technology and skilled energy workers, we can provide more communities, households and businesses with an increased supply of clean electricity and a cleaner electrical grid.
To help interested stakeholders find information on SREPs, a new webpage has been launched, which includes a comprehensive guide for eligible projects.
This supports Canada's strengthened climate plan, A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy. Canada is advancing projects that support the clean grid of the future and seize opportunities in the global electricity market to boost competitiveness. Collectively with investments from the Fall Economic Statement 2020 and Budget 2021, Canada will achieve our climate change commitments and ensure a healthier environment and more prosperous economy for future generations.
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.
