Emerson Process Management, a division of Emerson Electric Company, has secured a contract to upgrade operator interface stations at the Barking power plant in the United Kingdom.
Under the contract, the firm will supply an Ovation expert control system to replace the ABB Bailey Operator Interface Stations connected to the Bailey INFI 90 system. The interface between the new system and existing proprietary controllers and other third-party products would either be through a direct mechanism or through the Object Linking and Embedding technology for Process Control.
As part of the contract, Emerson will install and commission the new equipment and will also provide graphics and database conversion services. It will also supply its SureService program, which offers a range of support services aimed at minimizing operating and maintenance costs while ensuring peak performance of the systems.
The planned migration to the Ovation system is a flexible and low-cost alternative to total control systems replacement. By using the latest technologies, the migration enables communication between the Ovation system and Bailey Command, and the Network 90 and INFI 90 systems, enabling users of existing systems to benefit from the new digital bus technologies without having to incur the initial cost of entirely replacing the control equipment.
The project plan does not require the power plant to be shut down for installation of the new systems and will allow for parallel operation during the migration. Emerson will ensure full integration between the Ovation workstations and the existing Bailey controllers and will also oversee alignment of the new systems with other information technology functions in the power plant. The solution, which is totally customizable to match plant architecture, will give the plant a flexible alternative to its aging Bailey systems.
Emerson Process Management is a world leader in the automation of production, processing and distribution processes in the power, water, wastewater, mining, oil, gas and other sectors. The Ovation system, developed by the firm specifically for the power generation industry, has been installed in power plants in Nebraska, India and Thailand. It is an integral component in Emerson's PlantWeb digital plant architecture, which relies on a network of predictive intelligence to forecast process and equipment problems before they occur.
The Ovation system consists of commercially available hardware components, operating systems and network architecture, and includes a number of advanced technologies. Benefits at project level include faster start-up, lower cost and reduced risks. At the operational level, it offers improved availability and reliability by integrating data obtained from thousands of instruments located throughout the plant to detect and predict conditions that could lead to process or equipment failure. The system also facilitates future automation upgrades, as its components allow for easy integration with other systems and software.
The Barking power station was constructed between 1992 and 1995 at Dagenham, Essex, and is one of the largest privately owned power stations in the U.K. It utilizes the combined-cycle gas turbine technology to operate five gas turbines and two steam turbines at more than 50% thermal efficiency with low levels of emissions. It has a power generation capacity of 1,000 megawatts that amounts to nearly 2% of the peak power demand in England and Wales.
Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target highlights how rising greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation and natural gas power plants threaten Ontario’s climate goals, environmental sustainability, and clean energy transition efforts amid growing economic and policy challenges.
Why is Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target?
Ontario Poised to Miss 2030 Emissions Target examines the province’s setback in meeting climate goals due to higher power-sector emissions and shifting energy policies.
✅ Rising greenhouse gas emissions from gas-fired electricity generation
✅ Climate policy uncertainty and missed environmental targets
✅ Balancing clean energy transition with economic pressures
Ontario’s path toward meeting its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target has taken a sharp turn for the worse, according to internal government documents obtained by Global News. The province, once on track to surpass its reduction goals, is now projected to miss them—largely due to rising emissions from electricity generation, even as the IEA net-zero electricity report highlights rising demand nationwide.
In October 2024, the Ford government’s internal analysis indicated that Ontario was on track to reduce emissions by 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, effectively exceeding its target. But a subsequent update in January 2025 revealed a grim reversal. The new forecast showed an increase of about eight megatonnes (Mt) of emissions compared to the previous model, with most of the rise attributed to the province’s energy policies.
“This forecast is about 8 Mt higher than the October 2024 forecast, mainly due to higher electricity sector emissions that reflect the latest ENERGY/IESO energy planning and assumptions,” the internal document stated.
While the analysis did not specify which policy shifts triggered the change, experts point to Ontario’s growing reliance on natural gas. The use of gas-fired power plants has surged to fill temporary gaps created by nuclear refurbishment projects and other grid constraints, even as renewable energy’s role grows. In fact, natural gas generation in early 2025 reached its highest level since 2012.
The internal report cited “changing electricity generation,” nuclear power refurbishment, and “policy uncertainty” as major risks to achieving the province’s climate goals. But the situation may be even worse than the government’s updated forecast suggests.
On Wednesday, Ontario’s auditor general warned that the January projections were overly optimistic. The watchdog’s new report concluded the province could fall even further behind its 2030 emissions target, noting that reductions had likely been overestimated in several sectors, including transportation—such as electric vehicle sales—and waste management. “An even wider margin” of missed goals was now expected, the auditor said.
Environment Minister Todd McCarthy defended the government’s position, arguing that climate goals must be balanced against economic realities. “We cannot put families’ financial, household budgets at risk by going off in a direction that’s not achievable,” McCarthy said.
The minister declined to commit to new emissions targets beyond 2030—or even to confirm that the existing goals would be met—but insisted efforts were ongoing. “We are continuing to meet our commitment to at least try to meet our commitment for the 2030 target,” he told reporters. “But targets are not outcomes. We believe in achievable outcomes, not unrealistic objectives.”
Environmental advocates warn that Ontario’s reliance on fossil-fuel generation could lock the province into higher emissions for years, undermining national efforts to decarbonize Canada’s electricity grid. With cleaning up Canada’s electricity expected to play a central role in both industrial growth and climate action, the province’s backslide represents a significant setback for Canada’s overall emissions strategy.
As Ontario weighs its next steps, the tension between energy security, affordability, and environmental responsibility continues to define the province’s path toward a lower-carbon future and Canada’s 2050 net-zero target over the long term.
US Power Grid Cyberattacks target utilities and nuclear plants, probing SCADA, ICS, and business networks at sites like Wolf Creek; suspected Russian actors, malware, and spear-phishing trigger DHS and FBI alerts on critical infrastructure resilience.
Key Points
Intrusions on energy networks probing ICS and SCADA, seeking persistence and elevating risks to critical infrastructure.
✅ Wolf Creek nuclear plant targeted; no operational systems breached
✅ Attackers leveraged stolen credentials, malware, and spear-phishing
✅ DHS and FBI issued alerts; utilities enhance cyber resilience
Hackers working for a foreign government recently breached at least a dozen US power plants, including the Wolf Creek nuclear facility in Kansas, according to current and former US officials, sparking concerns the attackers were searching for vulnerabilities in the electrical grid.
The rivals could be positioning themselves to eventually disrupt the nation’s power supply, warned the officials, who noted that a general alert, prompting a renewed focus on protecting the U.S. power grid, was distributed to utilities a week ago. Adding to those concerns, hackers recently infiltrated an unidentified company that makes control systems for equipment used in the power industry, an attack that officials believe may be related.
The chief suspect is Russia, according to three people familiar with the continuing effort to eject the hackers from the computer networks. One of those networks belongs to an ageing nuclear generating facility known as Wolf Creek -- owned by Westar Energy Inc, Great Plains Energy Inc, and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Inc -- on a lake shore near Burlington, Kansas.
The possibility of a Russia connection is particularly worrying, former and current official s say, because Russian hackers have previously taken down parts of the electrical grid in Ukraine and appear to be testing increasingly advanced tools, including cyber weapons to disrupt power grids, to disrupt power supplies.
The hacks come as international tensions have flared over US intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia tried to influence the 2016 presidential election, and amid U.S. government condemnation of Russian power-grid hacking in recent advisories. The US, which has several continuing investigations into Russia’s activities, is known to possess digital weapons capable of disrupting the electricity grids of rival nations.
“We don’t pay attention to such anonymous fakes,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, in response to a request to comment on alleged Russian involvement.
It was unclear whether President Donald Trump was planning to address the cyber attacks at his meeting on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In an earlier speech in Warsaw, Trump called out Russia’s “destabilising activities” and urged the country to join “the community of responsible nations.”
The Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation said they are aware of a potential intrusion in the energy sector. The alert issued to utilities cited activities by hackers since May.
“There is no indication of a threat to public safety, as any potential impact appears to be limited to administrative and business networks,” the government agencies said in a joint statement.
The Department of Energy also said the impact appears limited to administrative and business networks and said it was working with utilities and grid operators to enhance security and resilience.
“Regardless of whether malicious actors attempt to exploit business networks or operational systems, we take any reports of malicious cyber activity potentially targeting our nation’s energy infrastructure seriously and respond accordingly,” the department said in an emailed statement.
Representatives of the National Security Council, the Director of National Intelligence and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission declined to comment. While Bloomberg News was waiting for responses from the government, the New York Times reported that hacks were targeting nuclear power stations.
The North American Electric Reliability Corp, a nonprofit that works to ensure the reliability of the continent’s power system, said it was aware of the incident and was exchanging information with the industry through a secure portal.
“At this time, there has been no bulk power system impact in North America,” the corporation said in an emailed statement.
In addition, the operational controls at Wolf Creek were not pierced, according to government officials, even as attackers accessed utility control rooms elsewhere in the U.S., according to separate reports. “There was absolutely no operational impact to Wolf Creek,” Jenny Hageman, a spokeswoman for the nuclear plant, said in a statement to Bloomberg News.
“The reason that is true is because the operational computer systems are completely separate from the corporate network.”
Determining who is behind an attack can be tricky. Government officials look at the sophistication of the tools, among other key markers, when gauging whether a foreign government is sponsoring cyber activities.
Several private security firms, including Symantec researchers, are studying data on the attacks, but none has linked the work to a particular hacking team or country.
“We don’t tie this to any known group at this point,” said Sean McBride, a lead analyst for FireEye Inc, a global cyber security firm. “It’s not to say it’s not related, but we don’t have the evidence at this point.”
US intelligence officials have long been concerned about the security of the country’s electrical grid. The recent attack, striking almost simultaneously at multiple locations, is testing the government’s ability to coordinate an effective response among several private utilities, state and local officials, and industry regulators.
Specialised teams from Homeland Security and the FBI have been scrambled to help extricate the hackers from the power stations, in some cases without informing local and state officials. Meanwhile, the US National Security Agency is working to confirm the identity of the hackers, who are said to be using computer servers in Germany, Italy, Malaysia and Turkey to cover their tracks.
Many of the power plants are conventional, but the targeting of a nuclear facility adds to the pressure. While the core of a nuclear generator is heavily protected, a sudden shutdown of the turbine can trigger safety systems. These safety devices are designed to disperse excess heat while the nuclear reaction is halted, but the safety systems themselves may be vulnerable to attack.
Homeland Security and the FBI sent out a general warning about the cyber attack to utilities and related parties on June 28, though it contained few details or the number of plants affected. The government said it was most concerned about the “persistence” of the attacks on choke points of the US power supply. That language suggests hackers are trying to establish backdoors on the plants’ systems for later use, according to a former senior DHS official who asked not to be identified.
Those backdoors can be used to insert software specifically designed to penetrate a facility’s operational controls and disrupt critical systems, according to Galina Antova, co-founder of Claroty, a New York firm that specialises in securing industrial control systems.
“We’re moving to a point where a major attack like this is very, very possible,” Antova said. “Once you’re into the control systems -- and you can get into the control systems by hacking into the plant’s regular computer network -- then the basic security mechanisms you’d expect are simply not there.”
The situation is a little different at nuclear facilities. Backup power supplies and other safeguards at nuclear sites are meant to ensure that “you can’t really cause a nuclear plant to melt down just by taking out the secondary systems that are connected to the grid,” Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a phone interview.
The operating systems at nuclear plants also tend to be legacy controls built decades ago and don’t have digital control systems that can be exploited by hackers. Wolf Creek, for example, began operations in 1985. “They’re relatively impervious to that kind of attack,” Lyman said.
The alert sent out last week inadvertently identified Wolf Creek as one of the victims of the attack. An analysis of one of the tools used by the hackers had the stolen credentials of a plant employee, a senior engineer. A US official acknowledged the error was not caught until after the alert was distributed.
According to a security researcher who has seen the report, the malware that activated the engineer’s username and password was designed to be used once the hackers were already inside the plant’s computer systems.
The tool tries to connect to non-public computers, and may have been intended to identify systems related to Wolf Creek’s generation plant, a part of the facility typically more modern than the nuclear reactor control room, according to a security expert who asked to note be identified because the alert is not public.
Even if there is no indication that the hackers gained access to those control systems, the design of the malware suggests they may have at least been looking for ways to do so, the expert said.
Stan Luke, the mayor of Burlington, the largest community near Wolf Creek, which is surrounded by corn fields and cattle pastures, said he learned about a cyber threat at the plant only recently, and then only through golfing buddies.
With a population of just 2,700, Burlington boasts a community pool with three water slides and a high school football stadium that would be the envy of any junior college. Luke said those amenities lead back to the tax dollars poured into the community by Wolf Creek, Coffey County’s largest employer with some 1,000 workers, 600 of whom live in the county.
E&E News first reported on digital attacks targeting US nuclear plants, adding it was code-named Nuclear 17. A senior US official told Bloomberg that there was a bigger breach of conventional plants, which could affect multiple regions.
Industry experts and US officials say the attack is being taken seriously, in part because of recent events in Ukraine. Antova said that the Ukrainian power grid has been disrupted at least twice, first in 2015, and then in a more automated attack last year, suggesting the hackers are testing methods.
Scott Aaronson, executive director for security and business continuity at the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group, said utilities, grid operators and federal officials were already dissecting the attack on Ukraine’s electric sector to apply lessons in North America before the US government issued the latest warning to “energy and critical manufacturing sectors”. The current threat is unrelated to recently publicised ransomware incidents or the CrashOverride malware, Mr Aaronson said in an emailed statement.
Neither attack in Ukraine caused long-term damage. But with each escalation, the hackers may be gauging the world’s willingness to push back.
“If you think about a typical war, some of the acts that have been taken against critical infrastructure in Ukraine and even in the US, those would be considered crossing red lines,” Antova said.
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.
Columbia River Treaty Negotiations involve Canada-U.S. talks on B.C. dams, flood control, hydropower sharing, and downstream benefits, prioritizing ecosystem health, First Nations rights, and salmon restoration while balancing affordable electricity for northwest consumers.
Key Points
Talks to update flood control, hydropower, and ecosystem terms for fair benefits to B.C. and U.S. communities.
✅ Public consultations across B.C.'s Columbia Basin
✅ First Nations priorities include salmon restoration
✅ U.S. seeks cheaper power; B.C. defends downstream benefits
With talks underway between Canada and the U.S. on the future of the Columbia River Treaty, the B.C. New Democrats have launched public consultations in the region most affected by the high-stakes negotiation.
“We want to ensure Columbia basin communities are consulted, kept informed and have their voices heard,” said provincial cabinet minister Katrine Conroy via a press release announcing meetings this month in Castlegar, Golden, Revelstoke, Nakusp, Nelson and other communities.
As well as having cabinet responsibility for the talks, Conroy’s Kootenay West riding includes several places that were inundated under the terms of the 1964 flood control and power generation treaty.
“We will continue to work closely with First Nations affected by the treaty, to ensure Indigenous interests are reflected in the negotiations,” she added by way of consolation to Indigenous people who’ve been excluded from the negotiating teams on both sides of the border.
#google#
The stakes are also significant for the province as a whole. The basics of the treaty saw B.C. build dams to store water on this side of the border, easing the flood risk in the U.S. and allowing the flow to be evened out through the year. In exchange, B.C. was entitled to a share of the additional hydro power that could be generated in dams on the U.S. side.
B.C.’s sale of those downstream benefits to the U.S has poured almost $1.4 billion into provincial coffers over the past 10 years, albeit at a declining rate these days amid scrutiny from a regulator report on BC Hydro that raised concerns, because of depressed prices for cross-border electricity sales.
Politicians on the U.S. side have long sought to reopen the treaty, believing there was now a case for reducing B.C.’s entitlement.
They did not get across the threshold under President Barack Obama.
Then, last fall his successor Donald Trump served notice of intent, initiating the formal negotiations that commenced with a two day session last week in Washington, D.C. The next round is set for mid-August in B.C.
American objectives in the talks include “continued, careful management of flood risk; ensuring a reliable and economical power supply; and better addressing ecosystem concerns,” with recognition of recent BC Hydro demand declines during the pandemic.
“Economical power supply,” being a diplomatic euphemism for “cheaper electricity for consumers in the northwest states,” achievable by clawing back most of B.C.’s treaty entitlement.
On taking office last summer, the NDP inherited a 14-point statement of principles setting out B.C. hopes for negotiations to “continue the treaty” while “seeking improvements within the existing framework” of the 54-year-old agreement.
The New Democrats have endorsed those principles in a spirit of bipartisanship, even as Manitoba Hydro governance disputes play out elsewhere in Canada.
“Those principles were developed with consultation from throughout the region,” as Conroy advised the legislature this spring. “So I was involved, as well, in the process and knew what the issues were, right as they would come up.”
The New Democrats did chose to put additional emphasis on some concerns.
“There is an increase in discussion with Canada and First Nations on the return of salmon to the river,” she advised the house, recalling how construction of the enormous Grand Coulee Dam on the U.S. side in the 1930s wiped out salmon runs on the upper Columbia River.
“There was no consideration then for how incredibly important salmon was, especially to the First Nations people in our region. We have an advisory table that is made up of Indigenous representation from our region, and also we are discussing with Canada that we need to see if there’s feasibility here.”
As to feasibility, the obstacles to salmon migration in the upper reaches of the Columbia include the 168-metre high Grand Coulee and the 72-metre Chief Joseph dams on the U.S. side, plus the Keenleyside (52 metres), Revelstoke (175 metres) and Mica (240 metres) dams on the Canadian side.
Still, says Conroy “the First Nations from Canada and the tribes from the United States, have been working on scientific and technical documents and research to see if, first of all, the salmon can come up, how they can come up, and what the things are that have to be done to ensure that happens.”
The New Democrats also put more emphasis on preserving the ecosystem, aligning with clean-energy efforts with First Nations that support regional sustainability.
“I know that certainly didn’t happen in 1964, but that is something that’s very much on the minds of people in the Columbia basin,” said Conroy. “If we are going to tweak the treaty, what can we do to make sure the voices of the basin are heard and that things that were under no consideration in the ’60s are now a topic for consideration?”
With those new considerations, there’s still the status quo concern of preserving the downstream benefits as a trade off for the flooding and other impacts on this side of the border.
The B.C. position on that score is the same under the New Democrats as it was under the Liberals, despite a B.C. auditor general report on deferred BC Hydro costs.
“The level of benefits to B.C., which is currently solely in the form of the (electricity) entitlement, does not account for the full range of benefits in the U.S. or the impacts in B.C.,” says the statement of principle.
“All downstream U.S. benefits such as flood risk management, hydropower, ecosystems, water supply (including municipal, industrial and agricultural uses), recreation, navigation and other related benefits should be accounted for and such value created should be shared equitably between the two countries.”
No surprise if the Americans do not see it the same way. But that is a topic for another day.
US Electricity Demand 2018-2050 projects slower growth as energy consumption, power generation, air conditioning, and electric heating shift with efficiency standards, commercial floor space, industrial load, and household growth across the forecast horizon.
Key Points
A forecast of US power use across homes, commercial space, industrial load, and efficiency trends from 2018 to 2050.
✅ 2018 generation hit record; residential sales up 6%.
✅ Efficiency curbs demand; growth lags population and floor space.
✅ Commercial sales up 2%; industrial demand fell 3% in 2018.
Last year's Houston cold winter and hot summer drove power use to record levels, especially among households that rely on electricity for air conditioning during extreme weather conditions.
Electricity generation increased 4 per cent nationwide in 2018 and produced 4,178 million megawatt hours, driven in part by record natural gas generation across the U.S., surpassing the previous peak of 4,157 megawatt hours set in 2007, the Energy Department reported.
U.S. households bought 6 percent more electricity in 2018 than they did the previous year, despite longer-term declines in national consumption, reflecting the fact 87 percent of households cool their homes with air conditioning and 35 percent use electricity for heating.
Electricity sales to the commercial sector increased 2 percent in 2018 compared to the previous year while the industrial sector bought 3 percent less last year.
Going forward, the Energy Department forecasts that electricity consumption will grow at a slower pace than in recent decades, aligning with falling sales projections as technology improves and energy efficiency standards moderate consumption.
The economy and population growth are primary drivers of demand and the government predicts the number of households will grow at 0.7 percent per year from now until 2050 but electricity demand will grow only by 0.4 percent annually.
Likewise, commercial floor space is expected to increase 1 percent per year from now until 2050 but electricity sales will increase only by half that amount.
Globally, surging electricity demand is putting power systems under strain, providing context for these domestic trends.
Jersey Electricity Standby Charge proposes a grid-backup fee for commercial self-generators of renewable energy, with a review delaying implementation; potential tariff impacts include 10-15 percent price rises, cost recovery, and network reliability.
Key Points
A grid-backup fee for Jersey self-generating businesses to share network costs fairly and curb electricity price rises.
✅ Applies to commercial self-generation using renewables or not
✅ Excludes full exporters and pre-charge installations
✅ Aims to recover grid costs and avoid 10-15% price rises
Electricity prices could rise by ten to 15 per cent if a standby charge for some commercial customers is not implemented, the chief executive of Jersey Electricity has warned.
Jersey Electricity has proposed extending a monthly fee to commercial customers who generate their own power through renewable means but still wish to be connected to Jersey’s grid as a back-up, echoing Ontario energy storage efforts to shore up reliability.
The States recently unanimously backed a proposal lodged by Deputy Carolyn Labey to delay administering the levy until a review could be carried out, as seen in the UK grid's net-zero transformation debates influencing policy. The charge, was due to be implemented next month but will now not be introduced until May, or later if the review has not concluded.
But Chris Ambler, JE chief executive, warned that failing to implement the standby charge could lead to additional costs for customers.
Some of JE’s commercial customers have already been charged a standby fee after generating their own power through non-renewable means.
The charge does not apply to businesses which export all of their electricity back into the system as part of a buy-back scheme or those which install self-generation facilities before the charge is implemented.
Deputy Labey argued that the Island had done ‘absolutely nothing’ to support the use of renewable energies and instead were discouraging locally generated power by allowing JE to set a standby charge.
She added that she was pleased that the Council of Ministers had already starting reviewing the charges but the debate needed to go ahead to ensure the work continued after the May election.
During a States debate last month, she said: ‘It is increasingly concerning that we, as an island in the 21st century, are happy for our electricity to be provided to us by an unregulated, publicly listed for-profit company with a monopoly on energy.
‘I also think that introducing a charge on renewables at a time when the world is experiencing a revolution in renewable energies, including offshore vessel charging solutions, which are becoming increasingly economic, is something that needs to be investigated.
‘Jersey should be looking to diversify our electricity production and supply, to help protect us from price and currency fluctuations and to ensure that we, as an island, receive the best deal possible for Islanders.’
Mr Ambler said that any price increase would be dependent on the future take-up and use of renewable-energy technology in Jersey.
He said: ‘The cost impact would not be significant in the short term but in the long term it could be significant. I think that we are obliged to let our customers know that.
‘It is very difficult to assess but if we are not able to levy a fair charge, then, as electricity shortages in Canada have shown, we could see prices rise by ten to 15 per cent over time.’
Mr Ambler added that his company was in favour of the use of renewable energy, with a third of the company’s electricity being generated by hydroelectric sources, but that the costs of implementing it needed to be fairly distributed, given how big battery rule changes can affect project viability elsewhere in the market.
And he said that, while it was difficult to quantify how much could be lost if the standby charge was not implemented, it could cost the company over £10 million.
‘In 2014, we only increased our prices by one per cent,’ he said. ‘We are reviewing our prices at the moment but if we did put an increase in place it would be modest and it would not be linked to the standby charge.’
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.
