From Port Credit to The Beach and, now, the Town of Georgina, the future of gas power plant development in Ontario is being fought neighbourhood by neighbourhood as Premier Dalton McGuinty pushes his plan to close coal-fired electricity plants.
It has, some say, created a clash of cultures. To local councillors, residents and activists in the Town of Georgina, plans to build a 350-megawatt gas-fired electricity plant in northern York Region hail from a bygone era, before energy conservation and cleaner technology.
To McGuinty's government, the single-cycle natural gas generator planned for the area means reliable electricity, and if not very green, it is better than the coal plants he has promised to close by 2014 as part of a massive restructuring of the way energy will be produced in Ontario.
"I think the people are way ahead of the decision makers," says Georgina town councillor David Szollosy. "They (the decision makers) keep falling back on the old technologies, the old way of thinking, that we have to have these mega plants.
"This is not a rejection of electricity. It is the decision to restrict discussion to one model of technology – that is what is being rejected."
Mississauga's Port Credit neighbourhood blocked plans for a plant to replace the coal-fired Lakeview Generating Station on its lakeshore, instead promoting a waterfront renaissance.
Beach residents and others argued against the 550-megawatt Portlands Energy Centre, built on Toronto land designated for waterfront development. But their protest ultimately failed and the first stage is now up and running during peak periods, beside where the now-disabled R.L. Hearn coal-fired plant still stands. While large gas plants in Brampton and Halton Hills have been approved, residents in northern York Region are asking: Why the rush to build the least-efficient gas generator? Why not build smaller and cleaner power plants? And, why not get more aggressive on conservation?
Debbie Gordon organized "Megawhat?" – a group protesting the wisdom of the plant. The group, along with Georgina council and MPP Frank Klees (Newmarket-Aurora), want Energy Minister Gerry Phillips to reconvene an earlier working group on electricity to examine other solutions before pushing forward with the plant.
"I am not disputing that we need energy," Gordon says. "But in this day and age, when we know about climate change... I don't understand why we would build something like this when there are other options."
Momentum is growing. NDP MPP Peter Tabuns (Toronto Danforth) recently brought forward a private member's bill that would prohibit building and operating single-cycle generating stations larger than 30 megawatts in certain municipalities. And Tory MPP Julia Munro has asked the energy minister to do an environmental assessment before putting a shovel in the ground.
The Ontario Power Authority is mandated to develop electricity sources across the province. And at the government's direction, it has created a sweeping plan to produce new sources of energy, to replace the coal-fired stations, and promote energy conservation.
The OPA has chosen five private energy companies to locate a potential site in northern York Region. The formal request for proposals will be held this summer, says Brian Hay, OPA spokesperson. The "peak" plant will operate for short periods, usually on scorching summer days when air conditioners send demand for electricity soaring. Hay says emissions won't be high, because the plant does not run all year.
There are three types of natural gas-powered plants. The "simple single cycle" plant, proposed for northern York Region, uses a gas turbine to power a generator that spins to create electricity. It converts 35-40% of the energy that was in the natural gas into electricity.
The "combined-cycle" plant uses the same generating process as the single cycle but has more equipment that takes the heat created by the generator and uses it to make steam. It is then used to create more electricity. It has an "efficiency rate" of 40% to 60%. (The 875 megawatt plant in Brampton and the 683 megawatt station in Halton Hills will both be combined cycle.)
The "combined heat and power" plant creates electricity and steam. It needs a nearby building that can take the steam and use it. It has an efficiency rate of at least 80%.
"We did an analysis and concluded that a peaking plant of 350 megawatts was the right solution for the region," Hay says.
The OPA, counters Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, prefers the 350 megawatt station because it is easier for a bureaucracy to build one large plant than manage the complications of many smaller, more efficient generating stations in hospitals, malls, condominiums and office buildings. Gibbons says the smaller stations could be built in basements or on the rooftops of companies that use them.
"That's a lot of work," he says. "And they prefer the easy way out."
National Grid power supply warning highlights electricity shortage risks amid low wind output, generator outages, and cold weather, reducing capacity margins and grid stability; considering demand response and reserve power to avoid blackout risk.
Key Points
An alert that reduced capacity from low wind and outages requires actions to maintain UK grid stability.
✅ Low wind output and generator outages reduce capacity margins
✅ ESO exploring demand response and reserve generation options
✅ Aim: maintain grid stability and avoid blackout risk
National Grid has warned that Britain’s electricity will be in short supply over the next few days after a string of unplanned power plant outages and unusually low wind speeds this week, as cheap wind power wanes across the system.
The electricity system operator said it will take action to “make sure there is enough generation” during the cold weather spell, including virtual power plants and other demand-side measures, to prevent a second major blackout in as many years.
“Unusually low wind output coinciding with a number of generator outages means the cushion of spare capacity we operate the system with has been reduced,” the company told its Twitter followers.
“We’re exploring measures and actions to make sure there is enough generation available to increase our buffer of capacity.”
A spokeswoman for National Grid said the latest electricity supply squeeze was not expected to be as severe as recorded last month, following reports that the government’s emergency energy plan was not going ahead, and added that the company did not expect to issue an official warning in the next 24 hours.
“We’re monitoring how the situation develops,” she said.
The warning is the second from the electricity system operator in recent weeks. In mid-September the company issued an official warning to the electricity market as peak power prices climbed, that its ‘buffer’ of power reserves had fallen below 500MW and it may need to call on more power plants to help prevent a blackout. The notice was later withdrawn.
Concerns over National Grid’s electricity supplies have been relatively rare in recent years. It was forced in November 2015 to ask businesses to cut their demand as a “last resort” measure to keep the lights on after a string of coal plant breakdowns.
But since then, National Grid’s greater challenge has been an oversupply of electricity, partly due to record wind generation, which has threatened to overwhelm the grid during times of low electricity demand.
National Grid has already spent almost £1bn on extra measures to prevent blackouts over the first half of the year by paying generators to produce less electricity during the coronavirus lockdown, as daily demand fell.
The company paid wind farms to turn off, and EDF Energy to halve the nuclear generation from its Sizewell B nuclear plant, to avoid overwhelming the grid when demand for electricity fell by almost a quarter from last year.
The electricity supply squeeze comes a little over a year after National Grid left large parts of England and Wales without electricity after the biggest blackout in a decade left a million homes in the dark. National Grid blamed a lightning strike for the widespread power failure.
Similar supply strains have recently caused power cuts in China, underscoring how weather and generation mix can trigger blackouts.
Wall Street Fossil Fuel Pivot signals banks reassessing ESG, net-zero, and decarbonization goals, reviving oil, gas, and coal financing while recalibrating clean energy exposure amid policy shifts, regulatory rollbacks, and investment risk realignment.
Key Points
A shift as major U.S. banks ease ESG limits to fund oil, gas, coal while rebalancing alongside renewables.
✅ Banks revisit lending to oil, gas, and coal after policy shifts.
✅ ESG and net-zero commitments face reassessment amid returns.
✅ Renewables compete for capital as risk models are updated.
The global energy finance sector, worth a staggering $1.4 trillion, is undergoing a significant transformation, largely due to former President Donald Trump's renewed support for the oil, gas, and coal industries. Wall Street, which had previously aligned itself with global climate initiatives and the energy transition and net-zero goals, is now reassessing its strategy and pivoting toward a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance.
This shift represents a major change from the earlier stance, where many of the largest U.S. banks and financial institutions took a firm stance on decarbonization push, including limiting their exposure to fossil-fuel projects. Just a few years ago, these institutions were vocal supporters of the global push for a sustainable future, with many committing to support clean energy solutions and abandon investments in high-carbon energy sources.
However, with the change in administration and the resurgence of support for traditional energy sectors under Trump’s policies, these same banks are now rethinking their strategies. Financial institutions are increasingly discussing the possibility of lifting long-standing restrictions that limited their investments in controversial fossil-fuel projects, including coal mining, where emissions drop as coal declines, and offshore drilling. The change reflects a broader realignment within the energy finance sector, with Wall Street reexamining its role in shaping the future of energy.
One of the most significant developments is the Biden administration’s policy reversal, which emphasized reducing the U.S. carbon footprint in favor of carbon-free electricity strategies. Under Trump, however, there has been a renewed focus on supporting the traditional energy sectors. His administration has pushed to reduce regulatory burdens on fossil-fuel companies, particularly oil and gas, while simultaneously reintroducing favorable tax incentives for the coal and gas industries. This is a stark contrast to the Biden administration's efforts to incentivize the transition toward renewable energy and zero-emissions goals.
Trump's policies have, in effect, sent a strong signal to financial markets that the fossil-fuel industry could see a resurgence. U.S. banks, which had previously distanced themselves from financing oil and gas ventures due to the pressure from environmental activists and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investors, as seen in investor pressure on Duke Energy, are now reconsidering their positions. Major players like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are reportedly having internal discussions about revisiting financing for energy projects that involve high carbon emissions, including controversial oil extraction and gas drilling initiatives.
The implications of this shift are far-reaching. In the past, a growing number of institutional investors had embraced ESG principles, with the goal of supporting the transition to renewable energy sources. However, Trump’s pro-fossil fuel stance appears to be emboldening Wall Street’s biggest players to rethink their commitment to green investing. Some are now advocating for a “balanced approach” that would allow for continued investment in traditional energy sectors, while also acknowledging the growing importance of renewable energy investments, a trend echoed by European oil majors going electric in recent years.
This reversal has led to confusion among investors and analysts, who are now grappling with how to navigate a rapidly changing landscape. Wall Street's newfound support for the fossil-fuel industry comes amid a backdrop of global concerns about climate change. Many investors, who had previously embraced policies aimed at curbing the effects of global warming, are now finding it harder to reconcile their environmental commitments with the shift toward fossil-fuel-heavy portfolios. The reemergence of fossil-fuel-friendly policies is forcing institutional investors to rethink their long-term strategies.
The consequences of this policy shift are also being felt by renewable energy companies, which now face increased competition for investment dollars from traditional energy sectors. The shift towards oil and gas projects has made it more challenging for renewable energy companies to attract the same level of financial backing, even as demand for clean energy continues to rise and as doubling electricity investment becomes a key policy call. This could result in a deceleration of renewable energy projects, potentially delaying the progress needed to meet the world’s climate targets.
Despite this, some analysts remain optimistic that the long-term shift toward green energy is inevitable, even if fossil-fuel investments gain a temporary boost. As the world continues to grapple with the effects of climate change, and as technological advancements in clean energy continue to reduce costs, the transition to renewables is likely to persist, regardless of the political climate.
The shift in Wall Street’s approach to energy investments, spurred by Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies, is reshaping the $1.4 trillion global energy finance market. While the pivot towards fossil fuels may offer short-term gains, the long-term trajectory for energy markets remains firmly in the direction of renewables. The next few years will be crucial in determining whether financial institutions can balance the demand for short-term profitability with their long-term environmental responsibilities.
Ontario Pickering Nuclear Closure will shift supply to natural gas, raising emissions as the electricity grid manages nuclear refurbishment, IESO planning, clean power imports, and new wind, solar, and storage to support electrification.
Key Points
Ontario will close Pickering and rely on natural gas, increasing emissions while other nuclear units are refurbished.
✅ 14% of Ontario electricity supplied by Pickering now
✅ Natural gas use rises; grid emissions projected up 375%
✅ IESO warns gas phaseout by 2030 risks blackouts, costs
The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall with natural gas-generated power in a move that will, as an analysis of Ontario's grid shows, hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions substantially in the coming years.
In a report released this week, a nuclear advocacy group urged Ontario to refurbish the aging facility east of Toronto, which is set to be shuttered in phases in 2024 and 2025, prompting debate over a clean energy plan after Pickering as the closure nears. The closure of Pickering, which provides 14 per cent of the province’s annual electricity supply, comes at the same time as Ontario’s other two nuclear stations are undergoing refurbishment and operating at reduced capacity.
Canadians for Nuclear Energy, which is largely funded by power workers' unions, argued closing the 50-year-old facility will result in job losses, emissions increases, heightened reliance on imported natural gas and an electricity supply gap across Ontario.
But Palmer Lockridge, spokesperson for the provincial energy minister, said further extending Pickering’s lifespan isn’t on the table.
“As previously announced in 2020, our government is supporting Ontario Power Generation’s plan to safely extend the life of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station through the end of 2025,” said Lockridge in an emailed response to questions.
“Going forward, we are ensuring a reliable, affordable and clean electricity system for decades to come. That’s why we put a plan in place that ensures we are prepared for the emerging energy needs following the closure of Pickering, and as a result of our government’s success in growing and electrifying the province’s economy.”
The Progressive Conservative government under Premier Doug Ford has invested heavily in electrification, sinking billions into electric vehicle and battery manufacturing and industries like steel-making to retool plants to run on electricity rather than coal, and exploring new large-scale nuclear plants to bolster baseload supply.
Natural gas now provides about seven per cent of the province’s energy, a piece of the pie that will rise significantly as nuclear energy dwindles. Emissions from Ontario’s electricity grid, which is currently one of the world’s cleanest with 94 per cent zero-emission power generation, are projected to rise a whopping 375 per cent as the province turns increasingly to natural gas generation. Those increases will effectively undo a third of the hard-won emissions reductions the province achieved by phasing out coal-fired power generation.
The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which manages Ontario’s grid, studied whether the province could phase out natural gas generation by 2030 and concluded that “would result in blackouts and hinder electrification” and increase average residential electricity costs by $100 per month.
The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, however, obtained draft documents from the electricity operator that showed it had studied, but not released publicly, other scenarios that involved phasing out natural gas without energy shortfalls, price hikes or increases in emissions.
The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall facing Ontario with natural gas-generated power in a move that will hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions.
One model suggested increasing carbon taxes and imports of clean energy from other provinces could keep blackouts, costs and emissions at bay, while another involved increasing energy efficiency, wind generation and storage.
“By banning gas-fired electricity exports to the U.S., importing all the Quebec water power we can with the existing transmission lines and investing in energy efficiency and wind and solar and storage — do all those things and you can phase out gas-fired power and lower our bills,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.
The IESO has argued in response that the study of those scenarios was not complete and did not include many of the challenges associated with phasing out natural gas plants.
Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith asked the IESO to develop “an achievable pathway to zero-emissions in the electricity sector and evaluate a moratorium on new-build natural gas generation stations,” said his spokesperson. That report, an early look at halting gas power, is expected in November.
Canada Clean Electricity Regulations outline a 2035 net-zero grid target, driving decarbonization via wind, solar, hydro, SMRs, carbon capture, and efficiency, balancing reliability, affordability, and federal-provincial collaboration while phasing out coal and limiting fossil-fuel generation.
Key Points
Federal rules to cap CO2 from power plants and deliver a reliable, affordable net-zero grid by 2035.
✅ Applies to fossil-fired units; standards effective by Jan 1, 2035.
✅ Promotes wind, solar, hydro, SMRs, carbon capture, and efficiency.
✅ Balances reliability, affordability, and emissions cuts; ongoing consultation.
Saskatchewan’s premier said the federal government is “changing goalposts” with its proposed target for a net-zero electricity grid.
“We were looking at a net-zero plan in Saskatchewan and across Canada by the year 2050. That’s now been bumped to 2035. Well there are provinces that quite frankly aren’t going to achieve those types of targets by 2035,” Premier Scott Moe said Wednesday.
Ottawa proposed the Clean Electricity Regulations – formerly the Clean Electricity Standard – as part of its target for Canada to transition to net-zero emissions by 2050.
The regulations would help the country progress towards an updated proposed goal of a net-zero electricity grid by 2035.
“They’re un-consulted, notional targets that are put forward by the federal government without working with industries, provinces or anyone that’s generating electricity,” Moe said.
The Government of Canada was seeking feedback from stakeholders on the plan’s regulatory framework document earlier this year, up until August 2022.
“The clean electricity standard is something that’s still being consulted on and we certainly heard the views of Saskatchewan – not just Saskatchewan, many other provinces – and I think that’s something that’s being reflected on,” Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s minister of natural resources, said during an event near Regina Wednesday.
“We also recognize that the federal government has a role to play in helping provinces to make the kinds of changes that would need to be made in order to actually achieve a clean grid,” Wilkinson added.
The information received during the consultation will help inform the development of the proposed regulations, which are expected to be released before the end of the year, according to the federal government.
NET-ZERO ELECTRICITY GRID The federal government said its Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) is part of a suite of measures, as the country moves towards a broad “decarbonization” of the economy, with Alberta's clean electricity path illustrating provincial approaches as well.
Net-zero emissions would mean Canada’s economy would either emit no greenhouse gas emissions or offset its emissions.
The plan encourages energy efficiency, abatement and non-emitting generation technologies such as carbon capture and storage and electricity generation options such as solar, wind, geothermal, small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and hydro, among others.
The government suggests consumer costs could be lowered by using some of these energy efficiency techniques, alongside demand management and a shift to lower-cost wind and solar power, echoing initiatives like the SaskPower 10% rebate aimed at affordability.
The CER focuses on three principles, each tied to affordability debates like the SaskPower rate hike in Saskatchewan:
Maximize greenhouse gas reductions to achieve the 2035 target Ensure a reliable electrical grid to support Canadians and the economy Maintain electrical affordability
“Achieving a net-zero electricity supply is key to reaching Canada’s climate targets in two ways,” the government said in its proposed regulations.
“First, it will reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions from the production of electricity. Second, using clean electricity instead of fossil fuels in vehicles, heating and industry will reduce emissions from those sectors too.
The regulations would regulate carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generating units that combust any amount of fossil fuel, have a capacity above a small megawatt threshold and sell electricity onto a regulated electricity system.
New rules would also be implemented for the development of new electricity generation units firing fossil fuels in or after 2025 and existing units. All units would be subject to emission standards by Jan. 1, 2035, at the latest.
The federal government launched consultations on the proposed regulations in March 2022.
Canada also has a 2030 emissions reduction plan that works towards meeting its Paris Agreement target to reduce emissions by 40-45 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. This plan includes regulations to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030.
COLLABORATION The province recently introduced the Saskatchewan First Act, in an attempt to confirm its own jurisdiction and sovereignty when it comes to natural resources.
The act would amend Saskatchewan’s constitution to exert exclusive legislative jurisdiction under the Constitution of Canada.
The province is seeking jurisdiction over the exploration of non-renewable resources, the development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural and forestry resources, and the operation of sites and facilities for the generation and production of electrical energy.
While the federal government and Saskatchewan have come head-to-head publicly over several policy concerns in the past year, both sides remain open to collaborating on issues surrounding natural resources.
“We do have provincial jurisdiction in the development of these natural resources. We’d like to work collaboratively with the federal government on developing some of the most sustainable potash, uranium, agri-food products in the world,” Moe said.
Minister Wilkinson noted that while both the federal and provincial governments aim to respect each other’s jurisdiction, there is often some overlap, particularly in the case of environmental and economic policies, with Alberta's electricity sector changes underscoring those tensions as well.
“My view is we should endeavour to try to figure out ways that we can work together, and to ensure that we’re actually making progress for Saskatchewanians and for Canadians,” Wilkinson said.
“I think that Canadians expect us to try to figure out ways to work together, and where there are some disputes that can’t get resolved, ultimately the Supreme Court will decide on the issue of jurisdiction as they did in the case on the price on pollution.”
Moe said Saskatchewan is always open to working with the federal government, but not at the expense of its “provincial, constitutional autonomy.”
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.
SaskPower Rate Hike 2022-2023 signals higher electricity rates in Saskatchewan as natural gas costs surge; the Rate Review Panel approved increases, affecting residential utility bills amid affordability concerns and government energy policy shifts.
Key Points
An 8% SaskPower electricity rate increase split 4% in Sept 2022 and 4% in Apr 2023, driven by natural gas costs.
✅ 4% increase Sept 1, 2022; +4% on Apr 1, 2023
✅ Panel-approved amid natural gas price surge and higher fuel costs
✅ Avg residential bill up about $5 per step; affordability concerns
The NDP Opposition is condemning the provincial government’s decision to approve the Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel’s recommendation to increase SaskPower’s rates for the first time since 2018, despite a recent 10% rebate pledge by the Sask. Party.
The Crown electrical utility’s rates will increase four per cent this fall, and another four per cent in 2023, a trajectory comparable to BC Hydro increases over two years. According to a government news release issued Thursday, the new rates will result in an average increase of approximately $5 on residential customers’ bills starting on Sept. 1, 2022, and an additional $5 on April 1, 2023.
“The decision to increase rates is not taken lightly and came after a thorough review by the independent Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel,” Minister Responsible for SaskPower Don Morgan said in a news release, amid Nova Scotia’s 14% hike this year. “World events have caused a significant rise in the price of natural gas, and with 42 per cent of Saskatchewan’s electricity coming from natural gas-fueled facilities, SaskPower requires additional revenue to maintain reliable operations.”
But NDP SaskPower critic Aleana Young says the rate hike is coming just as businesses and industries are struggling in an “affordability crisis,” even as Manitoba Hydro scales back a planned increase next year.
She called the announcement of an eight per cent increase in power bills on a summer day before the long weekend “a cowardly move” by the premier and his cabinet, amid comparable changes such as Manitoba’s 2.5% annual hikes now proposed.
“Not to mention the Sask. Party plans to hike natural gas rates by 17% just days from now,” said Young in a news release issued Friday, as Manitoba rate hearings get underway nearby. “If Scott Moe thinks his choices — to not provide Saskatchewan families any affordability relief, to hike taxes and fees, then compound those costs with utility rate hikes — are defensible, he should have the courage to get out of his closed-door meetings and explain himself to the people of this province.”
The province noted natural gas is the largest generation source in SaskPower’s fleet. As federal regulations require the elimination of conventional coal generation in Canada by 2030, SaskPower’s reliance on natural gas generation is expected to grow, with experts in Alberta warning of soaring gas and power prices in the region. Fuel and Purchased Power expense increases are largely driven by increased natural gas prices, and SaskPower’s fuel and purchased power expense is expected to increase from $715 million in 2020-21 to $1.069 billion in 2023-24. This represents a 50 per cent increase in fuel and purchased power expense over three years.
“In the four years since our last increase SaskPower has worked to find internal efficiencies, but at this time we require additional funding to continue to provide reliable and sustainable power,” SaskPower president & CEO Rupen Pandya said in the release “We will continue to be transparent about our rate strategy and the need for regular, moderate increases.”
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.
