The developers of a proposed $90 million biomass power plant in Southern Indiana say it would release hundreds of tons of nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide, as well as some hazardous air pollutants, by burning wood waste to generate electricity.
Liberty Green Renewables LLC estimates in its state air permit application that the plant would release 245 tons of nitrogen oxide and 226 tons of carbon dioxide a year.
The project, about 30 miles northwest of Louisville, Ky., also would produce more than 11 tons of chemicals listed as hazardous air pollutants, the application states.
Liberty's permit application begins a months-long review process by state regulators, although the company still must submit water-quality applications to the state and the Army Corps of Engineers.
The 32-megawatt Milltown operation is one of several Liberty expects to develop in the Midwest. The plant would burn wood waste from sawmills, furniture factories and land clearing to generate power. It also would burn some switch grass and corn stover.
But nearby residents, environmental activists and others are concerned about how the plant would contribute to local air and water pollution.
The Crawford County Commissioners voted unanimously this spring to ask federal authorities to conduct a full environmental impact study of the project.
Liberty's goal is to obtain a state air permit in early 2010 and to fire up the burners by 2011. The state has 120 days from the submission to issue a permit.
In the next few months, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's staff will write a permit setting out the details of the project, including emissions limits.
Liberty estimates that levels of each type of air emission would be below a key threshold for air pollution: 250 tons a year. That would let the plant avoid classification as a "major source" of pollution and a more involved review process.
US Utilities Shift From Coal as natural gas stays cheap, renewables like wind and solar scale, Clean Power Plan uncertainty lingers, and investors, state policies, and emissions targets drive generation choices and accelerate retirements.
Key Points
A long-term shift by utilities from coal to cheap natural gas, expanding renewables, and lower-emission generation.
✅ Cheap natural gas undercuts coal on price and flexibility.
✅ Renewables costs falling; wind and solar add competitive capacity.
✅ State policies and investors sustain emissions reductions.
When President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week to sweep away Obama-era climate change regulations, he said it would end America's "war on coal", usher in a new era of energy production and put miners back to work.
But the biggest consumers of U.S. coal - power generating companies - remain unconvinced about efforts to replace Obama's power plant overhaul with a lighter-touch approach.
Reuters surveyed 32 utilities with operations in the 26 states that sued former President Barack Obama's administration to block its Clean Power Plan, the main target of Trump's executive order. The bulk of them have no plans to alter their multi-billion dollar, years-long shift away from coal, suggesting demand for the fuel will keep falling despite Trump's efforts.
The utilities gave many reasons, mainly economic: Natural gas - coal’s top competitor - is cheap and abundant; solar and wind power costs are falling; state environmental laws remain in place; and Trump's regulatory rollback may not survive legal challenges, as rushed pricing changes draw warnings from energy groups.
Meanwhile, big investors aligned with the global push to fight climate change – such as the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund – have been pressuring U.S. utilities in which they own stakes to cut coal use.
"I’m not going to build new coal plants in today’s environment," said Ben Fowke, CEO of Xcel Energy, which operates in eight states and uses coal for about 36 percent of its electricity production. "And if I’m not going to build new ones, eventually there won’t be any."
Of the 32 utilities contacted by Reuters, 20 said Trump's order would have no impact on their investment plans; five said they were reviewing the implications of the order; six gave no response. Just one said it would prolong the life of some of its older coal-fired power units.
North Dakota's Basin Electric Power Cooperative was the sole utility to identify an immediate positive impact of Trump's order on the outlook for coal.
"We're in the situation where the executive order takes a lot of pressure off the decisions we had to make in the near term, such as whether to retrofit and retire older coal plants," said Dale Niezwaag, a spokesman for Basin Electric. "But Trump can be a one-termer, so the reprieve out there is short."
Trump's executive order triggered a review aimed at killing the Clean Power Plan and paving the way for the EPA's Affordable Clean Energy rule to replace it, though litigation is ongoing. The Obama-era law would have required states, by 2030, to collectively cut carbon emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels. It was designed as a primary strategy in U.S. efforts to fight global climate change.
The U.S. coal industry, without increases in domestic demand, would need to rely on export markets for growth. Shipments of U.S. metallurgical coal, used in the production of steel, have recently shown up in China following a two-year hiatus - in part to offset banned shipments from North Korea and temporary delays from cyclone-hit Australian producers.
RETIRING AND RETROFITTING
Coal had been the primary fuel source for U.S. power plants for the last century, but its use has fallen more than a third since 2008 after advancements in drilling technology unlocked new reserves of natural gas.
Hundreds of aging coal-fired power plants have been retired or retrofitted. Huge coal mining companies like Peabody Energy Corp and Arch Coal fell into bankruptcy, and production last year hit its lowest point since 1978.
The slide appears likely to continue: U.S. power companies now expect to retire or convert more than 8,000 megawatts of coal-fired plants in 2017 after shutting almost 13,000 MW last year, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration and Thomson Reuters data.
Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, acknowledged Trump's efforts would not return the coal industry to its "glory days," but offered some hope.
"There may not be immediate plans for utilities to bring on more coal, but the future is always uncertain in this market," he said.
Many of the companies in the Reuters survey said they had been focused on reducing carbon emissions for a decade or more while tracking 2017 utility trends that reinforce long-term planning, and were hesitant to change direction based on shifting political winds in Washington D.C.
"Utility planning typically takes place over much longer periods than presidential terms of office," Berkshire Hathaway Inc-owned Pacificorp spokesman Tom Gauntt said.
Several utilities also cited falling costs for wind and solar power, which are now often as cheap as coal or natural gas, thanks in part to government subsidies for renewable energy and recent FERC decisions affecting the grid.
In the meantime, activist investors have increased pressure on U.S. utilities to shun coal.
In the last year, Norway's sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, has excluded more than a dozen U.S. power companies - including Xcel, American Electric Power Co Inc and NRG Energy Inc - from its investments because of their reliance on coal-fired power.
Another eight companies, including Southern Co and NorthWestern Corp, are "under observation" by the fund.
Wyoming-based coal miner Cloud Peak Energy said it doesn't blame utilities for being lukewarm to Trump's order.
"For eight years, if you were a utility running coal, you got the hell kicked out of you," said Richard Reavey, a spokesman for the company. "Are you going to turn around tomorrow and say, 'Let's buy lots of coal plants'? Pretty unlikely."
Atlanta Airport Power Outage disrupts Hartsfield-Jackson as an underground fire cripples switchgear redundancy, canceling flights during holiday travel; Georgia Power restores electricity overnight while utility crews probe causes and monitor system resilience.
Key Points
A major Hartsfield-Jackson blackout from an underground fire; power restored as switchgear redundancy is investigated.
✅ Underground fire near Plane Train tunnel damaged switchgear systems
✅ Over 1,100 flights canceled; holiday travel severely disrupted
✅ Georgia Power restored service; redundancy and root cause under review
Power has been restored at the world’s busiest airport after a massive outage Sunday afternoon left planes and passengers stranded for hours, forced airlines to cancel more than 1,100 flights and created a logistical nightmare during the already-busy holiday travel season.
An underground fire caused a complete power outage Sunday afternoon at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, resulting in thousands of canceled flights at the world's busiest terminal and affecting travelers worldwide.
The massive outage didn’t just leave passengers stranded overnight Sunday, it also affected travelers with flights Monday morning schedules.
According to Paul Bowers, the president and CEO of Georgia Power, “From our standpoint, we apologize for the inconvenience,” he said. The utility restored power to the airport shortly before midnight.
Utility Crews are monitoring the fixes that restored power and investigating what caused the fire and why it was able to damage redundant systems. Bowers said the fire occurred in a tunnel that runs along the path of the underground Plane Train tunnel near Concourse E.
Sixteen highly trained utility personnel worked in the passageway to reconnect the network.“Our investigation is going through the process of what do we do to ensure we have the redundancy going back at the airport, because right now we are a single source feed,” Bowers said.
“We will have that complete by the end of the week, and then we will turn to what caused the failure of the switchgear.”
Though the cause isn’t yet known, he said foul play is not suspected.“There are two things that could happen,” he said.
“There are inner workings of the switchgear that could create the heat that caused the fire, or the splicing going into that switchgear -- that the cable had a failure on that going into the switch gear.”
When asked if age of the system could have been a failure, Bowers said his company conducts regular inspections.“We constantly inspect,” he said. “We inspect on an annual basis to ensure the reliability of the network, and that redundancy is protection for the airport.”Bowers said he is not familiar with any similar fire or outage at the airport.
“The issue for us is to ensure the reliability is here and that it doesn’t happen again and to ensure that our network is resilient enough to withstand any kind of fire,” he said. He added that Georgia Power will seek to determine what can be done in the future to avoid a similar event, such as those experienced during regional outages in other communities.
India Renewable Energy Surge 2024 signals coal's decline as solar and wind capacity soar, aided by policy incentives, grid upgrades, energy storage, and falling costs, accelerating decarbonization and clean power growth.
Key Points
Q1 2024 saw renewables outpace coal in new capacity, led by cheaper solar, wind, policy support, and storage.
✅ 71.5% of new Q1 capacity came from renewables
✅ Solar and wind expand on falling costs and faster permitting
✅ Grid integration needs storage, skills, and just transition
In a landmark shift for the world's second-most populous nation, coal has finally been dethroned as the king of India's energy supply. The first quarter of 2024 saw a historic surge in renewable energy capacity, particularly on-grid solar development across states, pushing its share of power generation past 71.5%. This remarkable feat marks a turning point in India's journey towards a cleaner and more sustainable energy future.
For decades, coal has been the backbone of India's power sector, fueling rapid economic growth but also leading to concerning levels of air pollution. However, a confluence of factors has driven this dramatic shift, even as coal generation surges create short-term fluctuations in the mix. Firstly, the cost of solar and wind power has plummeted in recent years, making them increasingly competitive with coal. Secondly, the Indian government has set ambitious renewable energy targets, aiming for 50% of cumulative power generation capacity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. Thirdly, growing public awareness about the environmental impact of coal has spurred a demand for cleaner alternatives.
This surge in renewables is not just about replacing coal. The first quarter of 2024 witnessed a record-breaking addition of 13,669 megawatts (MW) of power generation capacity, with renewables accounting for a staggering 71.5% of that figure, aligning with 30% global renewable electricity milestones seen worldwide. This rapid expansion is driven by factors like falling equipment costs, streamlined permitting processes, and attractive government incentives. Solar and wind energy are leading the charge, and in other major markets renewables are projected to reach one-fourth of U.S. generation in the near term, with large-scale solar farms and wind turbine installations dotting the Indian landscape.
The transition away from coal presents both opportunities and challenges. On the positive side, cleaner air will lead to significant health benefits for millions of Indians. Additionally, India can establish itself as a global leader in the renewable energy sector, attracting investments and creating new jobs, echoing how China's solar PV expansion reshaped markets in the previous decade. However, challenges remain. Integrating such a large amount of variable renewable energy sources like solar and wind into the grid requires robust energy storage solutions. Furthermore, millions of jobs in the coal sector need to be transitioned to new opportunities in the green economy.
Despite these challenges, India's move towards renewables is a significant development with global implications, as U.S. renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022, underscoring broader momentum. It demonstrates the growing viability of clean energy solutions and paves the way for other developing nations to follow suit. India's success story can inspire a global shift towards a more sustainable energy future, one powered by the sun, wind, and other renewable resources.
Looking ahead, continued government support, technological advancements, and innovative financing mechanisms will be crucial for sustaining India's renewable energy momentum. The future of India's energy sector is undoubtedly bright, fueled by the clean and abundant power of the sun and the wind, as wind and solar surpassed coal in the U.S. in recent comparisons. The world will be watching closely to see if India can successfully navigate this energy transition, setting an example for other nations struggling to balance development with environmental responsibility.
Ontario IESO Accounting Dispute highlights tensions over public sector accounting standards, auditor general oversight, electricity market transparency, KPMG advice, rate-regulated accounting, and an alleged $1.3B deficit understatement affecting Hydro bills and provincial finances.
Key Points
A PSAS clash between Ontario's auditor general and the IESO, alleging a $1.3B deficit impact and transparency failures.
✅ Auditor alleges deficit understated by $1.3B
✅ Dispute over PSAS vs US-style accounting
✅ KPMG support, transparency and co-operation questioned
The bad blood between the Ontario government and auditor general bubbled to the surface once again Monday, with the Liberal energy minister downplaying a dispute between the auditor and the Crown corporation that manages the province's electricity market, even as the government pursued legislation to lower electricity rates in the province.
Glenn Thibeault said concerns raised by auditor general Bonnie Lysyk during testimony before a legislative committee last week aren't new and the practices being used by the Independent Electricity System Operator are commonly endorsed by major auditing firms.
"(Lysyk) doesn't like the rate-regulated accounting. We've always said we've relied on the other experts within the field as well, plus the provincial controller," Thibeault said.
#google#
"We believe that we are following public sector accounting standards."
Thibeault said that Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and many other provinces and U.S. states use the same accounting practices.
"We go with what we're being told by those who are in the field, like KPMG, like E&Y," he said.
But a statement from Lysyk's office Monday disputed Thibeault's assessment.
"The minister said the practices being used by the IESO are common in other jurisdictions," the statement said.
"In fact, the situation with the IESO is different because none of the six other jurisdictions with entities similar to the IESOuse Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards. Five of them are in the United States and use U.S. accounting standards."
Lysyk said last week that the IESO is using "bogus" accounting practices and her office launched a special audit of the agency late last year after the agency changed their accounting to be more in line with U.S. accounting, following reports of a phantom demand problem that cost customers millions.
Lysyk said the accounting changes made by the IESO impact the province's deficit, understating it by $1.3 billion as of the end of 2017, adding that IESO "stalled" her office when it asked for information and was not co-operative during the audit.
Lysyk's full audit of the IESO is expected to be released in the coming weeks and is among several accounting disputes her office has been engaged in with the Liberal government over the past few years.
Last fall, she accused the government of purposely obscuring the true financial impact of its 25% hydro rate cut by keeping billions in debt used to finance that plan off the province's books. Lysyk had said she would audit the IESO because of its role in the hydro plan's complex accounting scheme.
"Management of the IESO and the board would not co-operate with us, in the sense that they continually say they're co-operating, but they stalled on giving us information," she said last week.
Terry Young, a vice-president with the IESO, said the agency has fully co-operated with the auditor general. The IESO opened up its office to seven staff members from the auditor's office while they did their work.
"We recognize the work that she's doing and to that end we've tried to fully co-operate," he said. "We've given her all of the information that we can."
Young said the change in accounting standards is about ensuring greater transparency in transactions in the energy marketplace.
"It's consistent with many other independent electricity system operators are doing," he said.
Lysyk also criticized IESO's accounting firm, KPMG, for agreeing with the IESO on the accounting standards. She was critical of the firm billing taxpayers for nearly $600,000 work with the IESO in 2017, compared to their normal yearly audit fee of $86,500.
KPMG spokeswoman Lisa Papas said the accounting issues that IESO addressed during 2017 were complex, contributing to the higher fees.
The accounting practices the auditor is questioning are a "difference of professional judgement," she said.
"The standards for public sector organizations such as IESO are principles-based standards and, accordingly, require the exercise of considerable professional judgement," she said in a statement.
"In many cases, there is more than one acceptable approach that is compliant with the applicable standards."
Progressive Conservative energy critic Todd Smith said the government isn't being transparent with the auditor general or taxpayers, aligning with calls for cleaning up Ontario's hydro mess in the sector.
"Obviously, they have some kind of dispute but the auditor's office is saying that the numbers that the government is putting out there are bogus.
Those are her words," he said. "We've always said that we believe the auditor general's are the true numbers for the province of Ontario."
NDP energy critic Peter Tabuns said the Liberal government has decided to "play with accounting rules" to make its books look better ahead of the spring election, despite warnings that electricity prices could soar if costs are pushed into the future.
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.
BC Hydro COVID-19 Relief offers electricity bill credits for laid-off workers and small business support, announced by Premier John Horgan, while FortisBC customers face deferrals and billing arrangements across Kelowna, Okanagan, and West Kootenay.
Key Points
BC Hydro COVID-19 Relief gives bill credits to laid-off residents; FortisBC offers deferrals and payment plans.
✅ Credit equals 3x average monthly bill for laid-off BC Hydro users
✅ Small businesses on BC Hydro get three months bill forgiveness
✅ FortisBC waives late fees, no disconnections, offers deferrals
On April 1, B.C. Premier John Horgan announced relief for BC Hydro customers who are facing bills after being laid-off during the economic shutdown due to the COVID-19 epidemic, while the utility also explores time-of-use rates to manage demand.
“Giving people relief on their power bills lets them focus on the essentials, while helping businesses and encouraging critical industry to keep operating,” he said.
BC Hydro residential customers in the province who have been laid off due to the pandemic will see a credit for three times their average monthly bill and, similar to Ontario's pandemic relief fund, small businesses forced to close will have power bills forgiven for three months.
But a large region of the province which gets its power from FortisBC will not have the same bail out.
FortisBC is the electricity provider to the tens of thousands who live and work in the Silmikameen Valley on Highway 3, the city of Kelowna, the Okanagan Valley south from Penticton, the Boundary region along the U.S. border. as well as West Kootenay communities.
“We want to make sure our customers are not worried about their FortisBC bill,” spokesperson Nicole Brown said.
FortisBC customers will still be on the hook for bills despite measures being taken to keep the lights on, even as winter disconnection pressures have been reported elsewhere.
Recent storm response by BC Hydro also highlights how crews have kept electricity service reliable during recent atypical events.
“We’ve adjusted our billing practices so we can do more,” she said. “We’ve discontinued our late fees for the time being and no customer will be disconnected for any financial reason.”
Brown said they will work one-on-one with customers to help find a billing arrangement that best suits their needs, aligning with disconnection moratoriums seen in other jurisdictions.
Those arrangement, she said, could include a “deferral, an equal payment plan or other billing options,” similar to FortisAlberta's precautions announced in Alberta.
Global News inquired with the Premier’s office why FortisBC customers were left out of Wednesday’s announcement and were deferred to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
The Ministry referred us back to FortisBC on the issue and offered no other comment, even as peak rates for self-isolating customers remained unchanged in parts of Ontario.
“We’re examining all options of how we can further help our customers and look forward to learning more about the program that BC Hydro is offering,” Brown said.
Disappointed FortisBC customers took to social media to vent about the disparity.
