The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved Entergy Corp.'s plan to spin off its northeastern and Michigan nuclear plants into an independent company, the Enexus Energy Corp.
The New Orleans company plans to transfer the operating licenses of six nuclear plants that sell power on the open market - FitzPatrick, Indian Point Units 2 and 3, Palisades, Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee - to Enexus, along with the license for the permanently closed Indian Point Unit 1 and the independent spent fuel storage installation at Big Rock Point.
Entergy still needs permission from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and from state regulators in New York and Vermont before it can spin off Enexus Energy. The deal had been expected to take place at the end of the third quarter of 2008, but will likely be delayed by a recent New York court decision lengthening the time for public comment.
Entergy wants to spin off it northeastern nuclear plants to give investors clearer choices on where to put their money. Entergy's nuclear business and its regulated utility business operate under different sets of rules, and separating them makes it easier for shareholders to understand how the companies are performing and gives them the choice of whether to invest in one or both.
The company also hopes that the spin-off will prove lucrative at a time when the nation - and investors - are hungry for more low-cost power sources.
Depending on market conditions, Enexus may issue about $4.5 billion in bonds when the spin-off occurs. About $4 billion of that money could be used to repurchase shares or pay down debt at Entergy and about $500 million could be used to provide working capital for Enexus, according to Burns.
While Enexus Energy will hold the licenses, another company called EquaGen Nuclear LLC - previously Entergy Nuclear Operations - will operate the plants. EquaGen will be jointly owned by Enexus and Entergy.
Entergy will retain ownership of the four regulated nuclear plants that provide power to its regional utility companies: Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Mississippi, River Bend Nuclear Station and Waterford in Louisiana, and Arkansas Nuclear One, which has two units. Entergy Operations Inc. will continue to run those plants.
Duration Portfolio Energy Storage aligns layered peak demand with right-sized batteries, enabling peak shaving, gas peaker replacement, and solar-plus-storage synergy while improving grid flexibility, reliability, and T&D deferral through two- to four-hour battery durations.
Key Points
An approach that layers battery durations to match peaks, cut costs, replace peakers, and boost grid reliability.
✅ Layers 2- to 4-hour batteries by peak duration
✅ Enables solar-plus-storage and peak shaving
✅ Cuts T&D upgrades, emissions, and fuel costs
The debate over energy storage replacing gas-fired peakers has raged for years, but a new approach that shifts the terms of the argument could lead to an acceleration of storage deployments.
Rather than looking at peak demand as a single mountainous peak, some analysts now advocate a layered approach that allows energy storage to better match peak needs and complement ongoing efforts to improve solar and wind power across the grid.
"You don’t have to have batteries that run to infinity."
Some developers of solar-plus-storage projects, bolstered by cheap batteries, say they can already compete head-to-head with gas-fired peakers. "I can beat a gas peaker anywhere in the country today with a solar-plus-storage power plant," Tom Buttgenbach, president and CEO of developer 8minutenergy Renewables, recently told S&P Global.
Customers are very busy these days and rebate programs need to fit the speed of their life. Participation should be quick, easy, and accessible anywhere.
Others disagree. Storage is not disruptive for generation, but will be disruptive for transmission and distribution, Kris Zadlo, executive vice president and chief development officer at Invenergy, told the audience at a Bloomberg New Energy Finance conference last spring. Invenergy, like many renewable power developers, develops generation, energy storage and transmission projects.
But there is another path that avoids the pitfalls of positions on either end of the all-or-none approach. "Do the analysis of the need itself," Ray Hohenstein, market applications director at Fluence, told Utility Dive. If the need is only two hours in duration, it may be best served by a two-hour battery. "You don’t have to have batteries that run to infinity."
Storage vs. fossil fuel peakers
Energy storage has several benefits over traditional fossil fuel peaking plants, Hohenstein said. It is instantaneous, it has no emissions and requires no fuel, and has limited infrastructure needs. It can also help the grid absorb higher levels of renewable generation by soaking up excess output, such as solar power at noon, and many planned storage additions will be paired with solar in the next few years. But the one thing energy storage cannot do, he said, is provide limitless energy.
So, instead of looking at replacing an individual peaker, Hohenstein advocated a "duration portfolio" approach that uses energy storage to shave peak load.
If the need is for 150 MW of resources that will never need to run for more than two hours at a time, then a battery is "quite cheap," significantly less than a four or eight-hour battery, said Hohenstein. "If you fill up your peak by duration layer, it could be more cost effective."
NREL research driver
Fluence’s approach is informed by research by Paul Denholm and Robert Margolis at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), released last spring.
The NREL researchers looked at the California market where they said 11 GW of fossil fuel capacity is expected to be retired by 2029 because of new once-through-cooling requirements that are taking effect. A lot of that capacity is peaking capacity and, according to NREL’s analysis, a large fraction could be replaced with four-hour energy storage, assuming continued storage cost reductions and growth in solar installations.
The key in NREL’s research was the level of solar power penetration. There is a "synergistic" relationship between solar penetration and storage deployment, the researchers wrote, and other studies suggest wind and solar could meet 80% of U.S. demand as these trends continue.
Hertel-New York Interconnection delivers Hydro-Quebec renewable energy via a cross-border transmission line to New York City by 2025, supplying 1,250 MW through underground and underwater routes under a 25-year contract.
Key Points
A cross-border line delivering 1,250 MW of Hydro-Quebec hydropower to New York City via underground routes.
✅ 1,250 MW clean power to NYC by 2025
✅ 56.1 km underground, 1.6 km underwater in Quebec
✅ 25-year contract; Mohawk partnership revenue
Hydro-Quebec announced Thursday it has chosen the route for the Hertel-New York interconnection line, which will begin construction in the spring of 2023 in Quebec.
The project will deliver 1,250 megawatts of Quebec hydroelectricity to New York City starting in 2025, even as a recent electricity shortage report warns about rising demand at home.
It's a 25-year contract for Hydro-Quebec, the largest export contract for the province-owned company, and comes as hydrogen production investments gain traction in Eastern Canada.
The Crown corporation has not disclosed potential revenues from the project, but Premier François Legault mentioned on social media last September that a deal in principle worth more than $20 billion over 25 years was in the works.
The route includes a 56.1-kilometre underground and a 1.6-kilometre underwater section, similar to the Lake Erie Connector project planned under Lake Erie.
Eight municipalities in the Montérégie region will be affected: La Prairie, Saint-Philippe, Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur, Saint-Édouard, Saint-Patrice-de-Sherrington, Saint-Cyprien-de-Napierville, Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle and Lacolle.
Across the country, new renewables such as wind projects in Yukon are receiving federal support, reflecting broader grid decarbonization.
The last part of the route will run along Fairbanks Creek to the Richelieu River, where it will connect with the American network.
Further south, there will be a 545-kilometre link between the Canada-U.S. border and New York City, while a separate Maine transmission approval advances a New England pathway for Quebec power.
Hydro-Quebec is holding two consultations on the project, on Dec. 8 in Lacolle and Dec. 9 in Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur.
Elsewhere in Atlantic Canada, EV-to-grid integration pilots are underway to test how vehicles can support the power system.
Once the route is in service, the Quebec line will be subject to a partnership between Hydro-Quebec and the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, which will benefit from economic remunerations for 40 years.
UK Energy Network Profits are under scrutiny as Ofgem price controls, Citizens Advice claims, and National Grid margins spark debate over monopolies, allowed returns, consumer bills, rebates, and future investment under tougher regulation.
Key Points
UK Energy Network Profits are returns set by Ofgem for regulated grid operators, shaping consumer bills and investment
✅ Ofgem sets allowed returns for monopoly networks via price controls
✅ Dispute over interest rates, bond yields, and risk premiums
Companies that run Britain’s electricity and gas networks, including National Grid, are making “eye-watering” profits at the expense of households, according to a well-known consumer group.
Citizens Advice believes £7.5bn in “unjustified” profits should be returned to consumers who pay for network costs via their electricity and gas bills, with parallels seen in a deferred BC Hydro costs report abroad, although its figures have been contested by the energy industry and regulator.
Ownership of electricity and gas networks came under the spotlight in the run-up to June’s general election, after the Labour party said in its manifesto it would bring both national and regional grid infrastructure to back into public ownership, amid wider debates about grid privatization concerns elsewhere, over time.
Electricity sector privatisation began in 1990 and the gas industry was privatised in 1986. Energy network companies — which own and operate the cables and wires that help deliver electricity and gas to homes and businesses — are in effect monopolies that are regulated by Ofgem. Ofgem evaluates what their costs, including the cost of capital to finance investments, might be over an eight-year “price control” period, similar to determinations like the OEB decision on Hydro One rates in Ontario, Canada. Citizens Advice claims many of the regulator’s calculations for the most recent price control went “considerably in networks’ financial favour”.
It believes assumptions Ofgem made about factors such as the future path of interest rates and returns on government bonds were too generous, with international contrasts like power theft challenges in India illustrating different risk contexts, as was the regulator’s assessment of the risk associated with operating a network company.
These “generous” assumptions will lead to network companies making average profit margins of 19 per cent and an average return of 10 per cent for their investors at the expense of consumers, Citizens Advice claims in a report published on Wednesday, which recommends a shorter price control period to allow for more accurate forecasting.
“Decisions made by Ofgem have allowed gas and electricity network companies to make sky-high profits that we’ve found are not justified by their performance,” said Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice. Ofgem defended its regulatory regime, saying it helped to cut costs, improve reliability and customer satisfaction.
“Ofgem has already cut costs to consumers by 6 per cent in the current price control and secured a rebate of over £4.5bn from network companies and is engaging with the industry to deliver further savings, with some regions seeing Ontario electricity rate reductions for businesses as well,” said Dermot Nolan, chief executive of the energy regulator.
Mr Nolan insisted the next price controls would be “tougher for investors”. The current price controls for the gas and electricity transmission networks, plus gas distribution, run until 2021 and until 2023 for local electricity distribution networks.
“While we don’t agree with its modelling and the figures it has produced, the Citizens Advice report raises some important issues about network regulation which will be addressed in the next control,” Mr Nolan said.
The Energy Networks Association, a trade body, refuted the claims of Citizens Advice, insisting that costs had fallen by 17 per cent in real terms since privatisation. The current regulatory framework was established after a public consultation, it said, adding that today’s report repeated several old claims that had previously been rejected by the Competition and Markets Authority.
“Our energy networks are among the most reliable and lowest cost in the world and their performance has never been better. In the next six years energy network companies are forecasted to deliver £45bn of investment in the UK economy,” a spokesman for the networks association added. National Grid said that since 2013 it had generated savings of £460m for bill payers.
Scottish Renewable Grid Upgrades address outdated infrastructure, expanding transmission lines, pylons, and substations to move clean energy, meet rising electricity demand, and integrate onshore wind, offshore wind, and battery storage across Scotland.
Key Points
Planned transmission upgrades in Scotland to move clean power via new lines and substations for a low-carbon grid.
✅ Fivefold expansion of transmission lines by 2030
✅ Enables onshore and offshore wind integration
✅ New pylons, substations, and routes face local opposition
Renewable energy in Scotland is being held back by outdated grid infrastructure, industry leaders said, with projects stuck on hold underscoring their warning that new pylons and power lines are needed to "ensure our lights stay on".
Scottish Renewables said new infrastructure is required to transmit the electricity generated by green power sources and help develop "a clean energy future" informed by a broader green recovery agenda.
A new report from the organisation - which represents companies working across the renewables sector - makes the case for electricity infrastructure to be updated, aligning with global network priorities identified elsewhere.
But it comes as electricity firms looking to build new lines or pylons face protests, with groups such as the Strathpeffer and Contin Better Cable Route challenging power giant SSEN over the route chosen for a network of pylons that will run for about 100 miles from Spittal in Caithness to Beauly, near Inverness.
Scottish Renewables said it is "time to be upfront and honest" about the need for updated infrastructure.
It said previous work by the UK National Grid estimated "five times more transmission lines need to be built by 2030 than have been built in the past 30 years, at a cost of more than £50bn".
The Scottish Renewables report said: "Scotland is the UK's renewable energy powerhouse. Our winds, tides, rainfall and longer daylight hours already provide tens of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of economic activity.
"But we're being held back from doing more by an electricity grid designed for fossil fuels almost a century ago, a challenge also seen in the Pacific Northwest today."
Investment in the UK transmission network has "remained flat, and even decreased since 2017", echoing stalled grid spending trends elsewhere, the report said.
It added: "We must build more power lines, pylons and substations to carry that cheap power to the people who need it - including to people in Scotland.
"Electricity demand is set to increase by 50% in the next decade and double by mid-century, so it's therefore wrong to say that Scottish households don't need more power lines, pylons and substations.
Renewable energy in Scotland is being held back by outdated grid infrastructure, industry leaders said, as they warned new pylons and power lines are needed to "ensure our lights stay on".
Scottish Renewables said new infrastructure is required to transmit the electricity generated by green power sources and help develop "a clean energy future".
A new report from the organisation - which represents companies working across the renewables sector - makes the case for electricity infrastructure to be updated.
But it comes as electricity firms looking to build new lines or pylons face protests, with groups such as the Strathpeffer and Contin Better Cable Route challenging power giant SSEN over the route chosen for a network of pylons that will run for about 100 miles from Spittal in Caithness to Beauly, near Inverness.
Scottish Renewables said it is "time to be upfront and honest" about the need for updated infrastructure.
It said previous work by the UK National Grid estimated "five times more transmission lines need to be built by 2030 than have been built in the past 30 years, at a cost of more than £50bn".
The Scottish Renewables report said: "Scotland is the UK's renewable energy powerhouse. Our winds, tides, rainfall and longer daylight hours already provide tens of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of economic activity.
"But we're being held back from doing more by an electricity grid designed for fossil fuels almost a century ago."
Investment in the UK transmission network has "remained flat, and even decreased since 2017", the report said.
It added: "We must build more power lines, pylons and substations to carry that cheap power to the people who need it - including to people in Scotland.
"Electricity demand is set to increase by 50% in the next decade and double by mid-century, so it's therefore wrong to say that Scottish households don't need more power lines, pylons and substations.
"We need them to ensure our lights stay on, as excess solar can strain networks in the same way consumers elsewhere in the UK need them.
"With abundant natural resources, Scotland's home-grown renewables can be at the heart of delivering the clean energy needed to end our reliance on imported, expensive fossil fuel.
"To do this, we need a national electricity grid capable of transmitting more electricity where and when it is needed, echoing New Zealand's electricity debate as well."
Click to subscribe to ClimateCast with Tom Heap wherever you get your podcasts
Nick Sharpe, director of communications and strategy at Scottish Renewables, said the current electricity network is "not fit for purpose".
He added: "Groups and individuals who object to the construction of power lines, pylons and substations largely do so because they do not like the way they look.
"By the end of this year, there will be just over 70 months left to achieve our targets of 11 gigawatts (GW) offshore and 12 GW onshore wind.
"To ensure we maximise the enormous socioeconomic benefits this will bring to local communities, we will need a grid fit for the 21st century."
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.
Florida Electricity Deregulation Ruling highlights the Florida Supreme Court decision blocking a ballot measure on retail choice, preserving utility monopolies for NextEra and Duke Energy, while similar deregulation efforts arise in Virginia and Arizona.
Key Points
A high court decision removing a retail choice ballot measure, keeping Florida utility monopolies intact for incumbents.
✅ Petition language deemed misleading for 2020 ballot
✅ Preserves NextEra and Duke Energy market dominance
✅ Similar retail choice pushes in VA and AZ
Florida’s top court ruled against a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed customers to pick their electricity provider, even as Florida solar incentives face rejection by state leaders, threatening monopolies held by utilities such as NextEra Energy Inc. and Duke Energy Corp.
In a ruling Thursday, the court said the petition’s language is “misleading” and doesn’t comply with requirements to be included on the 2020 ballot, reflecting debates over electricity pricing changes at the federal level. The measure’s sponsor, Citizens for Energy Choice, said the move ends the initiative, even as electricity future advocacy continues nationwide.
“While we were confident in our plan to gather the remaining signatures required, we cannot overcome this last obstacle,” the group’s chair, Alex Patton, noting ongoing energy freedom in the South efforts, said in a statement.
The proposed measure was one of several efforts underway to deregulate U.S. electricity markets, including New York’s review of retail energy markets this year. Earlier this week, two Virginia state lawmakers unveiled a bill to allow residents and businesses to pick their electricity provider, threatening Dominion Energy Inc.’s longstanding local monopoly. And in Arizona, where Arizona Public Service Co. has long reigned, regulators are considering a similar move, while in New England Hydro-Quebec’s export bid has been energized by a court decision.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
