The information is on a new website, and its creators hope the public disclosure will inspire a global cleanup of polluting power plants.
Around the world, 50,000 plants generate electricity: Every year, the thousands that burn coal and other fossil fuels spew 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide, making a major contribution to climate change, according to the Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) site.
The problem stands to get worse, with hundreds more coal-fired plants set to be built during the next decade, says David Wheeler of the Centre for Global Development, which compiled the database.
Political rhetoric increasingly stresses the need to cut emissions, "but the reality on the ground is going in the other direction," Wheeler said in an interview.
"Information leads to action.... If you can get a coherent database to the public, you can have quite a substantial impact."
About 60 per cent of the world's electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels, and those power plants create one-quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions, CARMA says.
The countries with, by far, the most dirty plants are the United States and China: Together, they produce more than half the global power plant emissions.
Canada is well back in 15th place. Thanks to its many sources of hydro and nuclear power, Canada also produces relatively few greenhouse gases in proportion to the electricity generated.
Among individual plants, the biggest emitters are in China, Taiwan, South Korea, Russia and the U.S.
Ontario Power Generation's Nanticoke plant on Lake Erie is 65th on the list, at about 17.6 million tons of greenhouse gases a year.
It operates only intermittently to generate electricity at times of peak demand. If it ran as often as most large plants it would be a "world scale" polluter, Wheeler said.
While 4,000 companies run power plants, only 100 produce 57 per cent of the emissions, Wheeler noted. "One hundred CEOs are accountable for that much."
Research for the site – CARMA.org – confirmed "the dismaying persistence" of coal as a fuel, despite its well-known contribution to climate change, he said.
Along with hundreds of coal-fired plants being built in Asia, the U.S. plans 83 and Western Europe, 38.
The work also undermined the argument, often made in international negotiations, that climate change is caused by wealthy industrialized nations and, therefore, the developing world merits a pass while it attempts to rise out of poverty. This year, for the first time, greenhouse emissions from power plants in developing nations will exceed those in the developed world.
The view that the "South" can wait is outmoded, Wheeler said.
It's "moving into crisis territory on its own now, even if there was no more carbon dioxide from the 'North.'"
The solution, Wheeler said, must be "some grand bargain" among all 203 nations included in the database to regulate emissions and reduce them through new technology, renewable sources, conservation and efficiency.
Public disclosure is already credited with reducing air and water emissions of toxic substances in Canada, the U.S. and even in China, Wheeler said.
It can lead to public pressure on polluters. As well, he said, banks are sometimes unwilling to back companies that might face pollution lawsuits or appear to be wasteful. And corporate executives occasionally want to improve their image. Disclosure can, "set off soul-searching in corporate suites."
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.
California Renewable Energy Curtailment highlights grid congestion, midday solar peaks, limited battery storage, and market constraints, with WEIM participation and demand response programs proposed to balance supply-demand and reduce wasted solar and wind generation.
Key Points
It is the deliberate reduction of solar and wind output when grid limits or low demand prevent full integration.
✅ Grid congestion restricts transmission capacity
✅ Midday solar peaks exceed demand, causing surplus
✅ Storage, WEIM, and demand response mitigate curtailment
California has long been a leader in renewable energy adoption, achieving a near-100% renewable milestone in recent years, particularly in solar and wind power. However, as the state continues to expand its renewable energy capacity, it faces a growing challenge: the curtailment of excess solar and wind energy. Curtailment refers to the deliberate reduction of power output from renewable sources when the supply exceeds demand or when the grid cannot accommodate the additional electricity.
Increasing Curtailment Trends
Recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) highlights a concerning upward trend in curtailments in California. In 2024, the state curtailed a total of 3,102 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity generated from solar and wind sources, surpassing the 2023 total of 2,660 GWh. This represents a 32.4% increase from the previous year. Specifically, 2,892 GWh were from solar, and 210 GWh were from wind, marking increases of 31.2% and 51.1%, respectively, compared to the first nine months of 2023.
Causes of Increased Curtailment
Several factors contribute to the rising levels of curtailment:
Grid Congestion: California's transmission infrastructure has struggled to keep pace with the rapid growth of renewable energy sources. This congestion limits the ability to transport electricity from generation sites to demand centers, leading to curtailment.
Midday Solar Peaks: Amid California's solar boom, solar energy production typically peaks during the midday when electricity demand is lower. This mismatch between supply and demand results in excess energy that cannot be utilized, necessitating curtailment.
Limited Energy Storage: While battery storage technologies are advancing, California's current storage capacity is insufficient to absorb and store excess renewable energy for later use. This limitation exacerbates curtailment issues.
Regulatory and Market Constraints: Existing market structures and regulatory frameworks may not fully accommodate the rapid influx of renewable energy, leading to inefficiencies and increased curtailment.
Economic and Environmental Implications
Curtailment has significant economic and environmental consequences. For renewable energy producers, curtailed energy represents lost revenue and undermines the economic viability of new projects. Environmentally, curtailment means that clean, renewable energy is wasted, and the grid may rely more heavily on fossil fuels to meet demand, counteracting the benefits of renewable energy adoption.
Mitigation Strategies
To address the rising curtailment levels, California is exploring several strategies aligned with broader decarbonization goals across the U.S.:
Grid Modernization: Investing in and upgrading transmission infrastructure to alleviate congestion and improve the integration of renewable energy sources.
Energy Storage Expansion: Increasing the deployment of battery storage systems to store excess energy during peak production times and release it during periods of high demand.
Market Reforms: Participating in the Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM), a real-time energy market that allows for the balancing of supply and demand across a broader region, helping to reduce curtailment.
Demand Response Programs: Implementing programs that encourage consumers to adjust their energy usage patterns, such as shifting electricity use to times when renewable energy is abundant.
Looking Ahead
As California continues to expand its renewable energy capacity, addressing curtailment will be crucial to ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of its energy transition. By investing in grid infrastructure, energy storage, and market reforms, the state can reduce curtailment levels and make better use of its renewable energy resources, while managing challenges like wildfire smoke impacts on solar output. These efforts will not only enhance the economic viability of renewable energy projects but also contribute to California's 100% clean energy targets by maximizing the use of clean energy and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
While California's renewable energy sector faces challenges related to curtailment, proactive measures and strategic investments can mitigate these issues, as scientists continue to improve solar and wind power through innovation, paving the way for a more sustainable and efficient energy future.
California Renewable Energy Record highlights near-100% clean power as CAISO reports solar, wind, and storage meeting demand, with Interstate 10 arrays and distributed rooftop photovoltaics boosting the grid during Stagecoach, signaling progress toward 100%.
Key Points
CA Renewable Energy Record marks CAISO's peak when renewables nearly met total load, led by utility solar and storage.
✅ CAISO hit 99.87% renewables serving load at 2:50 p.m.
✅ Two-thirds of power came from utility-scale solar along I-10.
Renewable electricity met just shy of 100% of California's demand for the first time on Saturday, officials said, much of it from large amounts of solar power, part of a California solar boom, produced along Interstate 10, an hour east of the Coachella Valley.
While partygoers celebrated in the blazing sunshine at the Stagecoach music festival, "at 2:50 (p.m.), we reached 99.87 % of load served by all renewables, which broke the previous record," said Anna Gonzales, spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator, a nonprofit that oversees the state's bulk electric power system and transmission lines. Solar power provided two-thirds of the amount needed.
Environmentalists who've pushed for years for all of California's power to come from renewables and meet clean energy targets were jubilant as they watched the tracker edge to 100% and slightly beyond.
"California busts past 100% on this historic day for clean energy!" Dan Jacobson, senior adviser to Environment California, tweeted.
"Once it hit 100%, we were very excited," said Laura Deehan, executive director for Environment California. She said the organization and others have worked for 20 years to push the Golden State to complete renewable power via a series of ever tougher mandates, even as solar and wind curtailments increase across the grid. "California solar plants play a really big role."
But Gonzales said CAISO double-checked the data Monday and had to adjust it slightly because of reserves and other resource needs, an example of rising curtailments in the state.
Environment California pushed for 1 million solar rooftops statewide, which has been achieved, adding what some say is a more environmentally friendly form of solar power, though wildfire smoke can undermine gains, than the solar farms, which eat up large swaths of the Mojave desert and fragile landscapes.
Want more climate news? Sign up for Climate Point once a week in your inbox
What's everyone talking about? Sign up for our trending newsletter to get the latest news of the day
'Need to act with that same boldness':A record 10% of the world's power was generated by wind, solar methods in 2021
Deehan said in a statement that more needs to be done, especially at the federal level. "Despite incredible progress illustrated by the milestone this weekend, and the fact that U.S. renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022, a baffling regulatory misstep by the Biden administration has advocates concerned about backsliding on California’s clean energy targets."
Deehan said a Department of Commerce inquiry into tariffs on imported solar panels is delaying thousands of megawatts of solar-storage projects in California, even as U.S. renewable energy hit a record 28% in April across the grid.
Still, Deehan said, “California has shown that, for one brief and shining moment, we could do it! It's time to move to 100% clean energy, 100% of the time.”
Natrium small modular reactor pairs a sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt storage to deliver load-following, dispatchable nuclear power, enhancing grid flexibility and peaking capacity as TerraPower and GE Hitachi pursue factory-built, affordable deployment.
Key Points
A TerraPower-GE Hitachi SMR joining a sodium-cooled reactor with molten salt storage for flexible, dispatchable power.
✅ 345 MW base; 500 MW for 5.5 hours via thermal storage
✅ Sodium-cooled coolant and molten salt storage enable load-following
✅ Backed by major utilities; factory-built modules aim lower costs
Nuclear power is the Immovable Object of generation sources. It can take days just to bring a nuclear plant completely online, rendering it useless as a tool to manage the fluctuations in the supply and demand on a modern energy grid.
Now a firm launched by Bill Gates in 2006, TerraPower, in partnership with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, believes it has found a way to make the infamously unwieldy energy source a great deal nimbler, drawing on next-gen nuclear ideas — and for an affordable price.
The new design, announced by TerraPower on August 27th, is a combination of a "sodium-cooled fast reactor" — a type of small reactor in which liquid sodium is used as a coolant — and an energy storage system. While the reactor could pump out 345 megawatts of electrical power indefinitely, the attached storage system would retain heat in the form of molten salt and could discharge the heat when needed, increasing the plant’s overall power output to 500 megawatts for more than 5.5 hours.
“This allows for a nuclear design that follows daily electric load changes and helps customers capitalize on peaking opportunities driven by renewable energy fluctuations,” TerraPower said.
Dubbed Natrium after the Latin name for sodium ('natrium'), the new design will be available in the late 2020s, said Chris Levesque, TerraPower's president and CEO.
TerraPower said it has the support of a handful of top U.S. utilities, including Berkshire Hathaway Energy subsidiary Pacificorp, Energy Northwest, and Duke Energy.
The reactor's molten salt storage add-on would essentially reprise the role currently played by coal- or gas-fired power stations or grid-scale batteries: each is a dispatchable form of power generation that can quickly ratchet up or down in response to changes in grid demand or supply. As the power demands of modern grids become ever more variable with additions of wind and solar power — which only provide energy when the wind is blowing or the sun shining — low-carbon sources of dispatchable power are needed more and more, and Europe is losing nuclear power at a difficult moment for energy security. California’s rolling blackouts are one example of what can happen when not enough power is available to be dispatched to meet peak demand.
The use of molten salt, which retains heat at extremely high temperatures, as a storage technology is not new. Concentrated solar power plants also collect energy in the form of molten salt, although such plants have largely been abandoned in the U.S. The technology could enjoy new life alongside nuclear plants: TerraPower and GE Hitachi Nuclear are only two of several private firms working to develop reactor designs that incorporate molten salt storage units, including U.K.- and Canada-based developer Moltex Energy.
The Gates-backed venture and its partner touted the "significant cost savings" that would be achieved by building major portions of their Natrium plants through not a custom but an industrial process — a defining feature of the newest generation of advanced reactors is that their parts can be made in factories and assembled on-site — although more details on cost weren't available. Reuters reported earlier that each plant would cost around $1 billion.
NuScale Power
A day after TerraPower and GE Hitachi's unveiled their new design, another nuclear firm — Portland, Oregon-based NuScale Power — announced that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had completed its final safety evaluation of NuScale’s new small modular reactor design.
It was the first small modular reactor design ever to receive design approval from the NRC, NuScale said.
The approval means customers can now pursue plans to develop its reactor design confident that the NRC has signed off on its safety aspects. NuScale said it has signed agreements with interested parties in the U.S., Canada, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Jordan, and is in the process of negotiating more.
NuScale previously said that construction on one of its plants could begin in Utah in 2023, with the aim of completing the first Power Module in 2026 and the remaining 11 modules in 2027.
NuScale An artist’s rendering of NuScale Power’s small modular nuclear reactor plant. NUSCALE POWER NuScale’s reactor is smaller than TerraPower’s. Entirely factory-built, each of its Power Modules would generate 60 megawatts of power. The design, typical of advanced reactors, uses pressurized water reactor technology, with one power plant able to house up to 12 individual Power Modules.
In a sign of the huge amounts of time and resources it takes to get new nuclear technology to the market’s doorstep, NuScale said it first completed its Design Certification Application in December 2016. NRC officials then spent as many as 115,000 hours reviewing it, NuScale said, in what was only the first of several phases in the review process.
In January 2019, President Donald Trump signed into law the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA), designed to speed the licensing process for advanced nuclear reactors, and the DOE under Secretary Rick Perry moved to advance nuclear development through parallel initiatives. The law had widespread bipartisan support, underscoring Democrats' recent tentative embrace of nuclear power.
An industry eager to turn the page
After a boom in the construction of massive nuclear power plants in the 1960s and 70s, the world's aging fleet of nuclear plants suffers from rising costs and flagging public support. Nuclear advocates have for years heralded so-called small modular reactors or SMRs as the cheaper and more agile successors to the first generation of plants, and policy moves such as the UK's green industrial revolution lay out pathways for successive waves of reactors. But so far a breakthrough on cost has proved elusive, and delays in development timelines have been abundant.
Edwin Lyman, the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, suggested on Twitter that the nuclear designs used by TerraPower and GE Hitachi had fallen short of a major innovation. “Oh brother. The last thing the world needs is a fleet of sodium-cooled fast reactors,” he wrote.
Still, climate scientists view nuclear energy as a crucial source of zero-carbon energy, with analyses arguing that net-zero emissions may be impossible without nuclear in many scenarios, if the world stands a chance at limiting global temperature increases to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Nearly all mainstream projections of the world’s path to keeping the temperature increase below those levels feature nuclear energy in a prominent role, including those by the United Nations and the International Energy Agency (IEA).
According to the IEA: “Achieving the clean energy transition with less nuclear power is possible but would require an extraordinary effort.”
Canadian Power Crews Aid Florida after Hurricane Irma, supporting power restoration for Tampa Electric and Florida Power & Light. Hydro One and Nova Scotia Power teams provide mutual aid to speed outage repairs across communities.
Key Points
Mutual aid effort sending Canadian utility crews to restore power and repair outages in Florida after Hurricane Irma.
✅ Hydro One and Nova Scotia Power deploy line technicians
✅ Support for Tampa Electric and Florida Power & Light
✅ Goal: rapid power restoration and outage repairs statewide
Hundreds of Canadian power crews are heading to Florida to help restore power to millions of people affected by Hurricane Irma.
Two dozen Nova Scotia Power employees were en route Tampa on Tuesday morning. An additional 175 Hydro One employees from across Ontario are also heading south. Tuesday to assist after receiving a request for assistance from Tampa Electric.
Nearly 7½ million customers across five states were without power Tuesday morning as Irma — now a tropical storm — continued inland, while a power outage update from the Carolinas underscored the regional strain.
In an update On Tuesday, Florida Power & Light said its "army" of crews had already restored power to 40 per cent of the five million customers affected by Irma in the first 24 hours.
FPL said it expects to have power restored in nearly all of the eastern half of the state by the end of this coming weekend. Almost everyone should have power restored by the end of day on Sept. 22, except for areas still under water.Jason Cochrane took a flight from Halifax Stanfield International Airport along with 19 other NSP power line technicians, two supervisors and a restoration team lead, drawing on lessons from the Maritime Link first power project between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. "It's different infrastructure than what we have to a certain extent, so there'll be a bit of a learning curve there as well," Cochrane said. "But we'll be integrated into their workforce, so we'll be assisting them to get everything put back together."
The NSP team will join 86 other Nova Scotians from their parent company, Emera, who are also heading to Tampa. Halifax-based Emera, whose regional projects include the Maritime Link, owns a subsidiary in Tampa.
"We're going to be doing anything that we can to help Tampa Electric get their customers back online," said NSP spokesperson Tiffany Chase. "We know there's been significant damage to their system as a result of that severe storm and so anything that our team can do to assist them, we want to do down in Tampa."
Crews have been told to expect to be on the ground in the U.S. for two weeks, but that could change as they get a better idea of what they're dealing with.
'It's neat to have an opportunity like this to go to another country and to help out.'- Jason Cochrane, power line technician
"It's neat to have an opportunity like this to go to another country and to help out and to get the power back on safely," said Cochrane.
Chase said she doesn't know how much the effort will cost but it will be covered by Tampa Electric. She also said Nova Scotia Power will pull its crews back if severe weather heads toward Atlantic Canada, as utilities nationwide work to adapt to climate change in their planning.
EPA Telework Policy restricts remote work, balancing work-from-home guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic with flexible schedules, union contracts, OMB guidance, and federal workforce rules, impacting managers, SES staff, and non-bargaining employees nationwide.
Key Points
A directive limiting many EPA staff to two telework days weekly, with pandemic exceptions and flexible schedules.
✅ Limits telework to two days per week for many employees
✅ Allows flexible schedules, including maxiflex, during emergencies
✅ Aligns with OMB, OPM, CDC guidance; honors union agreements
EPA has moved forward on a new policy that would restrict telework even as agency leadership has encouraged staff to work from home during the coronavirus outbreak.
The new EPA order obtained by E&E News would require employees to report to the office at least three days every week.
"Full-time employees are expected to report to the official worksite and duty station a minimum of three (3) days per week," says the order, dated as approved on Feb. 27. It went into effect March 15 — that night, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler authorized telework for the entire agency due to the pandemic.
The order focuses on EPA employees' work schedules and gives them new flexibilities that could come in handy during a public health emergency like the COVID-19 virus, when parts of the power sector consider on-site staffing to ensure continuity.
It also stipulates a deep reduction in EPA employees' capability to work remotely, leaving them with two days of telework per week. An agency order on telework, issued in January 2016, said staff could telework full time.
"The EPA supports the use of telework," said that order. "Regular telework may range from one day per pay period up to full time."
An EPA spokeswoman said the new order doesn't change the agency's guidance to staff to work from home during the pandemic.
"The health and safety of our employees is our top priority, and that is why we have requested that all employees telework, even as residential electricity use increases with more people at home, until at least April 3. There is no provision in the work schedules policy, telework policy or collective bargaining agreement that limits this request," said the spokeswoman.
"While EPA did implement the national work schedule policy effective 3/15/2020, it was implemented in order to provide increased work schedule flexibilities for non-bargaining unit employees who were not previously afforded flexible schedules, including maxiflex," she added.
"The implementation of the policy does not currently impact telework opportunities for EPA employees, and EPA has strongly encouraged all staff to telework," she said.
Still, the new order has caused consternation among EPA employees.
One EPA manager described it as another move by the Trump administration to restrict telework across the government.
"Amidst the COVID-19 crisis, this policy seems particularly ill-timed and unwise. It doesn't even give the administration the chance to evaluate the situation once the COVID-19 pandemic passes," said the manager.
"I think this is a dramatic change in the flexibilities available to the EPA employees without any data to support such a drastic move," the manager said. "It has huge ramifications for employees, many of whom commute over an hour each way to the office, increasing air pollution in the process."
Another EPA staffer said, "I honestly think such an order, given current circumstances, would elicit little more than a scoff and a smirk."
The person added, "How tone-deaf and heavy-handed can one administration be?"
Inside EPA first reported on the new order. E&E News obtained the memo independently.
The recently issued policy applies only to non-bargaining-unit employees, including "full-time and part-time" agency staff as well as "supervisors and managers in the competitive, excepted, Senior Level, Scientific and Professional, and Senior Executive Service positions."
In addition, the order covers "Public Health Service Officers, Schedule C, Administratively Determined employees and non-EPA employees serving on Intergovernmental Personnel Act assignments to EPA."
Nevertheless, EPA employees covered under union contracts must adhere to those contracts if the policy runs counter to them.
"If provisions of this order conflict with the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, the provisions of the agreement must be applied," the order says.
EPA has taken a more restrictive approach with the agency's largest union, American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, which represents about 7,500 EPA employees. EPA imposed a contract on the council's bargaining unit employees last July that limited them to one day of telework per week, among other changes that triggered union protests.
EPA and AFGE have since relaunched contract negotiations, and how to handle telework is one of the issues under discussion. Both sides committed to complete those bargaining talks by April 15 and work with the Federal Service Impasses Panel if needed (Greenwire, Feb. 27).
Both sides of the telework debate EPA's new order has been under consideration for some time.
E&E News obtained a draft version last year. The agency had circulated it for comment in July, noting the proposal "limits the number of days an employee may telework per week," among other changes (Greenwire, Sept. 12, 2019).
EPA, like other federal agencies under the Trump administration, has sought to reduce employees' telework. That effort, though, has run into the headwinds of a global pandemic, with a U.S. grid warning highlighting broader risks, leading agency leaders to reverse course and now encourage staff to work remotely in order to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
Wheeler in an email last week told staff that he authorized telework for employees across the country. Federal worker unions had sought the opportunity for remote work on behalf of EPA employees, and the agency had already relaxed telework policies at various offices the prior week where the coronavirus had begun to take hold.
The EPA spokeswoman said the agency moved toward telework after guidance from other agencies.
"Consistent with [Office of Management and Budget], [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and [Office of Personnel Management] guidance, along with state and local directives, we have taken swift action in regions and at headquarters to implement telework for all employees. We continue to tell all employees to telework," said the spokeswoman.
Wheeler said in a later video message that his expectation was most EPA employees were working from home.
"I understand that this is a difficult and scary time for all of us," said the EPA administrator.
The coronavirus has become a real challenge for EPA, and utilities like BC Hydro Site C updates illustrate broader operational adjustments.
Agency staff have been exposed to the virus while some have tested positive, and nuclear plant workers have raised similar concerns, according to internal emails. That has led to employees self-quarantining while their colleagues worry they may next fall ill (Greenwire, March 20).
One employee said that since EPA's operations have been maintained with staff working from home, even as household electricity bills rise for many, it's harder for the Trump administration to justify restricting remote work.
"With the current climate, I think employees have shown we can keep the agency going with nearly 95% teleworking full time. It makes their argument hard to justify in light of things," said the EPA employee.
The Trump administration overall has pushed for more remote work by the federal workforce in the battle with the COVID-19 virus. The Office of Management and Budget issued guidance to agencies last week "to minimize face-to-face interactions" and "maximize telework across the nation."
Lawmakers have also pushed to expand telework for federal workers due to the virus.
Democratic senators sent a letter last week urging President Trump to issue an executive order directing agencies to use telework.
In addition, Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) introduced legislation that would allow federal employees to telework full time during the pandemic.
Some worry EPA's new order could further sour morale at the agency after the pandemic passes, as other utilities consider measures like unpaid days off to trim costs. Employees may leave if they can't work from home more.
"People will quit EPA over something like this. Maybe that's the goal," said the EPA manager.
