While companies scramble to drive down the price of power produced by sun and wind, many say a dearth of transmission lines in remote areas ideal for wind farms and solar plants is a bigger impediment than cost to spurring U.S. growth of renewable energy.
Demand is soaring for renewable energy projects to help reduce both pollutants and consumption of ever-costlier fossil fuels. At issue for developers of wind and solar projects, however, is that the resources to power them are most abundant in sparsely populated areas such as the Southwest's sun-baked Mojave desert and the blustery plains of the Midwest.
Building lines to channel that clean electricity to urban areas will be no small task, and renewable energy executives at a conference in New York this week warned that many planned solar and wind projects may never see the light of day if policymakers do not expand power grids to accommodate them.
"Unless we figure out a way to move capital into transmission, moving power from the Dakotas to Chicago or from the Mojave to Los Angeles is going to be a great dream," Dan Reicher, the executive in charge of Google Inc's green energy push, said at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum.
He added that the progress of new transmission "in many respects will define whether 2 percent or 20 percent of U.S. electricity is renewable."
Problems integrating renewable power with the grid are already playing out in Texas, the state with by far the most wind power.
Major power lines are needed to transfer wind generation from West Texas to Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, where electric demand is highest, and congestion on the state's grid has sent power prices soaring.
Texas power regulators are weighing the benefits and costs of new transmission lines that will cost several-billion dollars to build, but executives said grid operators would not be the only ones to foot the bill for such projects.
The head of BP Plc's alternative energy business, Vivienne Cox, said the British oil major would consider putting some of its considerable resources into transmission to help speed the growth of its renewable energy developments.
"So far we haven't made big investments in infrastructure projects, but I wouldn't rule that out at all," Cox told reporters at the conference.
A bigger issue than costs, said many conference attendees, will be agreeing on where to put the bulky transmission lines needed to move considerable amounts of power.
"I don't think the barrier to transmission will be capital adequacy or availability. It will be resistance to adding capacity by people who don't want it in their neighborhood," Raymond Wood, head of Credit Suisse's alternative energy investment banking practice, said at the conference.
As an example, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association trade group, Rhone Resch, pointed to a battle in California over Sempra Energy unit San Diego Gas & Electric's proposal to build a 150-mile (240-km) high-voltage transmission line from the desert to San Diego that would go through a state park.
Environmentalists argue the power line would ruin the park, while the utility claims it will not be able to meet California's renewable energy requirements without it.
Meanwhile, plans for thousands of megawatts of wind power, solar thermal and geothermal projects in remote areas of the United States are marching forward, and executives said power lines to link them to the grid should already be in the works.
"A new transmission line cutting through a new route can take five to 10 years to bring online," said Robert Rogan, executive vice president of corporate development for eSolar, a privately held solar thermal company backed by Google. "A best case scenario requires that people are working on this now."
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.
Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.
Key Points
Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.
✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.
✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.
Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.
It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.
Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”
And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.
Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.
As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.
So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.
In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.
When is a Green not green? The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.
At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.
With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.
Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.
Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.
German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.
“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.
Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.
To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.
But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.
Global Power Sector CO2 Surge 2021 shows electricity demand outpacing renewable energy, with coal and fossil fuels rebounding, undermining green recovery goals and climate change targets flagged by the IEA and IPCC.
Key Points
Record rise in power sector CO2 in 2021 as demand outpaced renewables and coal rebounded, undermining a green recovery.
✅ Electricity demand rose 5% above pre-pandemic levels
✅ Fossil fuels supplied 61% of power; coal led the rebound
✅ Wind and solar grew 15% but lagged demand
Carbon dioxide emissions from the global electric power sector surged past pre-pandemic levels to record highs in the first half of 2021, according to new research by London-based environmental think tank Ember.
Electricity demand and emissions are now 5% higher than where they were before the Covid-19 outbreak, which prompted worldwide lockdowns that led to a temporary drop in global greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity demand also surpassed the growth of renewable energy, and surging electricity demand is putting power systems under strain, the analysis found.
The findings signal a failure of countries to achieve a so-called “green recovery” that would entail shifting away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy, though European responses to Covid-19 have accelerated the electricity system transition by about a decade, to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
The report found that 61% of the world’s electricity still came from fossil fuels in 2020. Five G-20 countries had more than 75% of their electricity supplied from fossil fuels last year, with Saudi Arabia at 100%, South Africa at 89%, Indonesia at 83%, Mexico at 75% and Australia at 75%.
Coal generation did fall a record 4% in 2020, but overall coal supplied 43% of the additional energy demand between 2019 and 2020, with soaring electricity and coal use underscoring persistent demand pressures. Asia currently generates 77% of the world’s coal electricity and China alone generates 53%, up from 44% in 2015.
The world’s transition out of coal power, which contributes to roughly 30% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, is happening far too slowly to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the study warned. And the International Energy Agency forecasts coal generation will rebound in 2021 as electricity demand picks up again, even as renewables are poised to eclipse coal by 2025 according to other analyses.
“Progress is nowhere near fast enough. Despite coal’s record drop during the pandemic, it still fell short of what is needed,” Ember lead analyst Dave Jones said in a statement.
Jones said coal power usage must collapse by 80% by the end of the decade to avoid dangerous levels of global warming above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
“We need to build enough clean electricity to simultaneously replace coal and electrify the global economy,” Jones said. “World leaders have yet to wake up to the enormity of the challenge.”
The findings come ahead of a major U.N. climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, in November, where negotiators will push for more ambitious climate action and emissions reduction pledges from nations.
Without immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions to global emissions, scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warn that the average global temperature will likely cross the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold within 20 years.
The study also highlighted some upsides. Wind and solar generation, for instance, rose by 15% in 2020, and low-emissions sources are set to cover almost all the growth in global electricity demand in the next three years, producing nearly a tenth of the world’s electricity last year and doubling production since 2015.
Some countries now get about 10% of their electricity from wind and solar, including India, China, Japan, Brazil. The U.S. and Europe have experienced the biggest growth in wind and solar, and in the EU, wind and solar generated more electricity than gas last year, with Germany at 33% and the U.K. leads the G20 for wind power at 29%.
Idaho Power Valmy Settlement outlines early closure of the North Valmy coal-fired plant in Nevada, accelerated depreciation recovery, a 1.17% base-rate increase, and impacts for customers, NV Energy co-ownership, and Idaho Public Utilities Commission review.
Key Points
A proposed agreement to close North Valmy early, recover costs via a 1.17% rate hike, and seek PUC approval.
✅ Unit 1 closes 2019; Unit 2 closes 2025 in Nevada.
✅ 1.17% base-rate hike; about $1.20 per 1,000 kWh monthly bill.
✅ Idaho PUC comment deadline May 25; NV Energy co-owner.
State regulators have set a May 25 deadline for public comment on a proposed settlement related to the early closure of a coal-fired plant co-owned by Idaho Power, even as some utilities plan to keep a U.S. coal plant running indefinitely in other jurisdictions.
The settlement calls for shuttering Unit 1 of the North Valmy Power Plant in Nevada in 2019, with Unit 2 closing in 2025, amid regional coal unit retirements debates. The units had been slated for closure in 2031 and 2035, respectively.
If approved by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, the settlement would increase base rates by approximately $13.3 million, or 1.17 percent, in order to allow the company to recover its investment in the plant on an accelerated basis.
That equates to an additional $1.20 on the monthly bill of the typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours of energy per month.
Idaho Power, which co-owns the plant with NV Energy, maintains that closing Valmy early rather than continuing to operate it until it is fully depreciated in 2035, will ultimately save customers $103 million in today's dollars.
The company said a significant decrease in market prices for electricity has made it uneconomic to operate the plant except during extremely cold or hot weather, when the demand for energy peaks, a trend underscored by transactions involving the San Juan Generating Station deal elsewhere. The company also said plant balances have increased by approximately $70 million since its last general rate case in 2011, due to routine maintenance and repairs, as well as investments required to meet environmental regulations.
The proposed settlement reflects a number of changes to Idaho Power's original proposal regarding Valmy, and comes in the wake of discussions with interested parties in February and April, against the backdrop of a broader energy debate over plant closures and reliability.
In its initial application, filed in October, Idaho Power proposed closing both units in 2025. The original proposal would have increased base rates by $28.5 million, or about 2.5 percent, in order to allow the company to recover its costs associated with the plant's accelerated depreciation, decommissioning and anticipated investments, with cautionary examples such as the Kemper power plant costs illustrating potential risks.
Concurrently, Idaho Power asked for commission approval to adjust depreciation rates for its other plants and equipment based on the result of a study it conducts every five years, as outlined in Case IPC-E-16-23. The adjustment would have led to a $6.7 million increase to base rates.
The two requests filed in October would have increased customer costs by a total of $35.2 million or 3.1 percent, leading to a $3.08 increase on the bills of the typical residential customer who uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month.
The proposed settlement submitted to the Commission on May 4 calls for $13,285,285 to be recovered from all customer classes through base rates until 2028, all related to the Valmy shutdown. That is an increase of 1.17 percent and would result in a $1.20 increase on the bills of the typical residential customer who uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month.
BC Hydro Trades Electrical Safety addresses electric contact incidents among trade workers, emphasizing power line hazards, overhead lines clearance, the 3 m rule, jobsite planning, and safety training to prevent injuries during spring and summer.
Key Points
BC Hydro Trades Electrical Safety is guidance and training to reduce power-line contact risks for trade workers.
✅ Stay at least 3 m from overhead power lines and equipment
✅ Plan worksites and spot hazards before starting tasks
✅ Use BC Hydro electrical awareness training near electricity
A BC Hydro report finds serious electrical contact incidents are more common among trades workers, and research shows this is partly due to a knowledge gap in the electricity sector in Canada.
Trade workers were involved in more than 60 per cent of electric contact incidents that led to serious injuries over the last three years, according to BC Hydro.
One-in-five trade workers have also either made contact or had a close call with electric equipment.
“New research finds many have had a close call with electricity on the job or have witnessed unsafe work near overhead lines or electrical equipment,” BC Hydro staff said in the report.
Most electrical contact incidents take place in the spring and summer, when trade workers are working outdoors and are working in close proximity to power lines.
BC Hydro offered tips for trades workers who may work closely to possible electrical contact points:
Look up and down – Observe the site beforehand and plan work so you can avoid contact with power lines
Stay back – You and your tools should stay at least 3 m away from an overhead power line
Call for help – If you come across a fallen power line, or a tree branch or object contacts a line—stay back 10 metres and call 911. Never try and move it yourself. If you must work closer than 3 m to a power line at your worksite, call BC Hydro before you begin.
Learn about the risks – BC Hydro offers in-person and online electrical awareness training, such as arc flash training, for anyone who works near electricity.
The report found that 38 per cent of trades workers who participated in the report said they only feel “somewhat informed” about safety measures around working near electricity and 71 per cent were unable to identify the correct distance they should be away from active power lines or electrical equipment.
BC Hydro said trade workers should participate in its electrical awareness training courses, including arc flash training, to make sure all safety measures are taken.
EECBG Program Funding empowers states, Tribes, and local governments with DOE grants to deploy clean energy, energy efficiency, EV infrastructure, and community solar, cutting emissions, lowering utility bills, and advancing net-zero decarbonization.
Key Points
EECBG Program Funding is a $550M DOE grant for states, Tribes, and governments to deploy clean energy and efficiency.
✅ Supports EV infrastructure and community solar deployment
✅ Cuts emissions and lowers utility costs via efficiency
✅ Prioritizes Justice40 benefits for underserved communities
The Biden-Harris Administration, through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), today released a Notice of Intent announcing $550 million to support community-based clean energy in state, Tribal, and local governments — serving more than 250 million Americans. This investment in American communities, through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program, will support communities across the country to develop local programming and deploy clean energy technologies to cut emissions, advance a 90% carbon-free electricity goal nationwide, and reduce consumers’ energy costs, and help meet President Biden’s goal of a net-zero economy by 2050.
“This funding is a streamlined and flexible tool for local governments to build their electricity future with clean energy,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “State, local, and Tribal communities nationwide will be able to leverage this funding to drive greater energy efficiency and conservation practices to lower utility bills and create healthier environments for American families.”
The EECBG Program will fund 50 states, five U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, 774 Tribes, and 1,878 local governments in a variety of capacity-building, planning, and infrastructure efforts to reduce carbon emissions and energy use and improve energy efficiency in the transportation, building, and other related sectors. For example, communities with this funding can build out electric vehicle infrastructure and deploy community solar to serve areas that otherwise do not have access to electric vehicles or clean energy, particularly through a rural energy security program where appropriate.
The $550 million made available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) represents the second time that the EECBG Program has been funded, the first of which was through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. With this most recent funding, communities can build on prior investments and leverage additional clean energy funding from DOE, other federal agencies, and the private sector to achieve sustained impacts, supported by a Clean Electricity Standard where applicable, that can put their communities on a pathway to decarbonization.
Through the EECBG Program and the Office of State and Community Energy Programs (SCEP), DOE will support the many diverse state, local, and tribal communities across the U.S., including efforts to revitalize coal communities through clean energy, as they implement this funding and other clean energy projects. To ensure no communities are left behind, the program aligns with President’s Justice40 initiative and efforts toward equity in electricity regulation to help ensure that 40% of the overall benefits of clean energy investments go to underserved and overburdened communities.
