Following is the viewpoint of the writer, director of energy and water policy for the Saskatchewan Environmental Society.
Bruce Power is seeking government approval to build a 2,200 megawatt nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan.
It says there will be demand for at least another 1,000 megawatts of electricity in our province by 2020. The additional power created by its nuclear plant would be exported to Alberta.
Bruce Power's proposal is a big financial gamble for Saskatchewan taxpayers. Ontario just received a bid from Atomic Energy of Canada on a slightly bigger nuclear power plant of 2,400 MW. The estimated cost was $26 billion.
Ontario wisely declined to proceed. Consumers there are still paying a monthly levy on their power bills to cover the huge cost overruns on nuclear reactors built in the 1980s and 1990s.
What would a better alternative to a nuclear power plant look like? My suggestion is that SaskPower opt for a range of electricity efficiency and renewable electricity measures that have low greenhouse gas emissions.
If we need another 1,000 megawatts of extra power by 2020 to supply our own needs, here is what the package could look like:
2) 50 mW of biomass generation (burning wood wastes to generate electricity), with new jobs for communities along the forest fringe;
3) 25 mW from waste heat recovery at natural gas compressor stations and installation of landfill gas at large city landfills;
4) 300 mW from efficiency measures. For example, as existing electric motors wear out, incentives would be offered to industry to install the most efficient ones on the market. Restaurants would be encouraged to install super energy efficient refrigeration units and farmers would be supported in installing the most energy efficient irrigation systems available. Every electricity consumer in Saskatchewan would get financial help to become more efficient in using electricity.
Vermont and California have done this for years and proven that energy efficiency creates many new jobs and is the cheapest option for achieving additional capability from your electricity system;
5) 200 mW from co-generation. We already have a 228 mW co-generation plant at the Cory potash mine, where both electricity and steam for industrial processing are produced on-site. Co-generation is a much more efficient way to use natural gas, operating at more than 56 per cent efficiency versus 33 per cent for a conventional power plant;
6) 300 mW of wind power, geographically dispersed across southern Saskatchewan. This could take the form of joint ventures between SaskPower and wind farm co-operatives owned by farmers. The wind power output should be coordinated with hydro from Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
As Denmark and the state of Washington have demonstrated, the cost is very low to co-ordinate wind power and hydro power to provide reliable base load electricity.
This package creates jobs all across Saskatchewan rather than jobs only where a nuclear power plant is built. It is greenhouse gas-friendly. These smaller projects can be constructed as needed, rather than come on line all at once in 2020. Finally, this package is a lot cheaper than a nuclear power plant.
At best, a nuclear plant will cost 15 cents a kW hour. Our renewable energy and energy efficiency package will cost no more than 10 cents a kW hour. The energy efficiency measures can be done by SaskPower for less than seven cents per kW hour.
We in Saskatchewan don't need a nuclear power plant. We are blessed with much better alternatives.
Washington-Led Lawsuit Against Energy Emergency challenges President Trump's executive order, citing state rights, environmental reviews, permitting, and federal overreach; coalition argues record energy output undermines emergency claims in Seattle federal court.
Key Points
Multistate suit to void Trump's energy emergency, alleging federal overreach and weakened environmental safeguards.
? Challenges executive order's legal basis and scope
? Seeks to halt emergency permits for non-emergencies
In a significant legal move, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown has spearheaded a coalition of 15 states in filing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump's executive order declaring a national energy emergency. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Seattle on May 9, 2025, challenges the legality of the emergency declaration, which aims to expedite permitting processes for fossil fuel projects in pursuit of an energy dominance vision by bypassing key environmental reviews.
Background of the Energy Emergency Declaration
President Trump's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, asserts that the United States faces an inadequate and unreliable energy grid, particularly affecting the Northeast and West Coast regions. The order directs federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior, to utilize "any lawful emergency authorities" to facilitate the development of domestic energy resources, with a focus on oil, gas, and coal projects. This includes expediting reviews under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, potentially reducing public input and environmental oversight.
Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit
The coalition of states, led by Washington and California, argues that the emergency declaration is an overreach of presidential authority, echoing disputes over the Affordable Clean Energy rule in federal courts. They contend that U.S. energy production is already at record levels, and the declaration undermines state rights and environmental protections. The lawsuit seeks to have the executive order declared unlawful and to halt the issuance of emergency permits for non-emergency projects.
Implications for Environmental Protections
Critics of the energy emergency declaration express concern that it could lead to significant environmental degradation. By expediting permitting processes, including geothermal permitting, and reducing public participation, the order may allow projects to proceed without adequate consideration of their impact on water quality, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources. Environmental advocates argue that such actions could set a dangerous precedent, enabling future administrations to bypass essential environmental safeguards under the guise of national emergencies, even as the EPA advances new pollution limits for coal and gas plants to address the climate crisis.
Political and Legal Reactions
The Trump administration defends the executive order, asserting that the president has the authority to declare national emergencies and that the energy emergency is necessary to address perceived deficiencies in the nation's energy infrastructure and potential electricity pricing changes debated by industry groups. However, legal experts suggest that the broad application of emergency powers in this context may face challenges in court. The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for the balance of power between state and federal authorities, as well as the future of environmental regulations in the United States.
The legal challenge led by Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over energy policy and environmental protection. As the lawsuit progresses through the courts, it will likely serve as a bellwether for future conflicts between state and federal governments regarding the scope of executive authority and the preservation of environmental standards, amid ongoing efforts to expand uranium and nuclear energy programs nationwide. The outcome may set a precedent for how national emergencies are declared and managed, particularly concerning their impact on state governance and environmental laws.
Ontario Electricity Export Retaliation signals tariff-fueled trade tensions as Doug Ford leverages cross-border energy flows to the U.S., risking grid reliability, higher power prices, and escalating a Canada-U.S. trade war over protectionist policies.
Key Points
A policy threat by Ontario to cut power exports to U.S. states in response to tariffs, leveraging grid dependence.
✅ Powers about 1.5M U.S. homes in NY, MI, and MN
✅ Risks price spikes, shortages, and legal challenges
✅ Part of Canada's CAD 30B retaliatory tariff package
In a move that underscores the escalating trade tensions between Canada and the United States, Ontario Premier Doug Ford has threatened to halt electricity exports to U.S. states in retaliation for the Trump administration's recent tariffs. This bold stance highlights Ontario's significant role in powering regions across the U.S. and serves as a warning about the potential consequences of trade disputes.
The Leverage of Ontario's Electricity
Ontario's electricity exports are not merely supplementary; they are essential to the energy supply of several U.S. states. The province provides power to approximately 1.5 million homes in states such as New York, Michigan, and Minnesota, even as it eyes energy independence through domestic initiatives. This substantial export positions Ontario as a key player in the regional energy market, giving the province considerable leverage in trade negotiations.
Premier Ford's Ultimatum
Responding to the Trump administration's imposition of a 25% tariff on Canadian imports, Premier Ford, following a Washington meeting, declared, "If they want to play tough, we can play tough." He further emphasized his readiness to act, stating, "I’ll cut them off with a smile on my face." This rhetoric underscores Ontario's willingness to use its energy exports as a bargaining chip in the trade dispute.
Economic and Political Ramifications
The potential cessation of electricity exports to the U.S. would have profound economic implications. U.S. states that rely on Ontario's power could face energy shortages, leading to increased prices, particularly New York energy prices, and potential disruptions. Such an action would not only strain the energy supply but also escalate political tensions, potentially affecting other areas of bilateral cooperation.
Canada's Retaliatory Measures
Ontario's threat is part of a broader Canadian strategy to counteract U.S. tariffs. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods worth approximately CAD 30 billion, targeting products such as food, textiles, and furniture. These measures aim to pressure the U.S. administration into reconsidering its trade policies.
The Risk of Escalation
While leveraging energy exports provides Ontario with a potent tool, it also carries significant risks, as experts warn against cutting Quebec's energy exports amid tariff tensions. Such actions could lead to a full-blown trade war, with both countries imposing tariffs and export restrictions. The resulting economic fallout could affect various sectors, from manufacturing to agriculture, and lead to job losses and increased consumer prices.
International Trade Relations
The dispute also raises questions about the stability of international trade agreements and the rules governing cross-border energy transactions. Both Canada and the U.S. are signatories to various trade agreements that promote the free flow of goods and services, including energy. Actions like export bans could violate these agreements and lead to legal challenges.
Public Sentiment and Nationalism
The trade tensions have sparked a surge in Canadian nationalism, with public sentiment largely supporting tariffs on energy and minerals as retaliatory measures. This sentiment is evident in actions such as boycotting American products and expressing discontent at public events. However, while national pride is a unifying force, it does not mitigate the potential economic hardships that may result from prolonged trade disputes.
The Path Forward
Navigating this complex situation requires careful diplomacy and negotiation. Both Canada and the U.S. must weigh the benefits of trade against the potential costs of escalating tensions. Engaging in dialogue, seeking compromise, and adhering to international trade laws are essential steps to prevent further deterioration of relations and to ensure the stability of both economies.
Ontario's threat to cut off electricity exports to the U.S. serves as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of global trade and the potential consequences of protectionist policies. While such measures can be effective in drawing attention to grievances, they also risk significant economic and political fallout. As the situation develops, it will be crucial to monitor the responses of both governments and the impact on industries and consumers alike, including growing support for Canadian energy projects among stakeholders.
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.
Ontario electricity pricing consultations will gather business input on OEB rate design, Industrial Conservation Initiative, dynamic pricing, global adjustment, and system costs through online feedback and sector-specific in-person sessions province-wide.
Key Points
Consultations gathering business input on rates, programs, and OEB policy to improve fairness and reduce system costs.
✅ Consults on ICI, GA, dynamic pricing structures
✅ Seeks views on OEB C&I rate design changes
✅ In-person sessions across key industrial sectors
The Ontario government has announced plans to hold consultations to seek input from businesses about industrial electricity pricing and programs. This will be done through Ontario's online consultations directory and though in-person sector-specific consultation sessions across the province. The in-person sessions will be held in all areas of Ontario, and will target "key industries," including automotive and the build-out of electric vehicle charging stations infrastructure, forestry, mining, agriculture, steel, manufacturing and chemicals.
On April 1, 2019, the Ontario government published a consultation notice for this process, confirming that it is looking for input on "electricity rate design, existing tax-based incentives, reducing system costs and regulatory and delivery costs," including related proposals such as the hydrogen rate reduction proposal under discussion. The consultation process includes a list of nine questions for respondents (and presumably participants in the in-person sessions) to address. These include questions about:
The benefits of the Industrial Conservation Initiative (described below), including how it could be changed to improve fairness and industrial competitiveness, and how it could complement programs like the Hydrogen Innovation Fund that support industrial innovation.
Dynamic pricing structures that allow for lower rates in return for responding to price signals versus a flat rate structure that potentially costs more, but is more stable and predictable, as Ontario's energy storage expansion accelerates.
Interest in an all-in commodity contract with an electricity retailer, even if it involves a risk premium.
Interested parties are invited to submit their comments before May 31, 2019.
The government's consultation announcement follows recent developments in the Ontario Energy Board's (OEB) review of electricity ratemaking for commercial and industrial customers, and intertie projects such as the Lake Erie Connector that could affect market dynamics.
In December 2018, the OEB published a paper from its Market Surveillance Panel (MSP) examining the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI), and potential alternative approaches. The ICI is a program that allows qualifying large industrial customers to base their global adjustment (GA) payments on their consumption during five peak demand hours in a year. Customers who find ways to reduce consumption at those times, perhaps through DERs and enabling energy storage options, will reduce their electricity costs. This shifts GA costs to other customers. The MSP found that the ICI does not fairly allocate costs to those who cause them and/or benefit from them, and recommends that a better approach should be developed.
In February 2019, the OEB released its Staff Report to the Board on Rate Design for Commercial and Industrial Electricity Customers, setting out recommendations for new rate designs for electricity commercial and industrial (C&I) rate classes as Ontario increasingly turns to battery storage to meet rising demand. As described in an earlier post, the Staff Report includes recommendations to: (i) establish a fixed distribution charge for commercial customers with demands under 10 kW; (ii) implement a demand charge (rather than the current volumetric charge) for C&I customers with demands between 10kW and 50kW; and (iii) introduce a "capacity reserve charge" for customers with load displacement generation to replace stand-by charges and provide for recognition of the benefits of this generation on the system. The OEB held a stakeholder information session in mid-March on this initiative, and interested parties are now filing submissions in response to the Staff Report.
Whether and how the OEB's processes will fit together with the government's consultation process remains to be seen.
Remote Work Energy Costs are rising as home offices and telecommuting boost electricity bills; utilities, broadband usage, and COVID-19-driven stay-at-home policies affect productivity, consumption patterns, and household budgets across the U.K. and Europe.
Key Points
Remote Work Energy Costs are increased household electricity and utility expenses from telecommuting and home office use.
✅ WFH shifts energy load from offices to households.
✅ Higher device, lighting, and heating/cooling usage drives bills.
✅ Broadband access gaps limit remote work equity.
Household electricity bills are set to soar, with rising residential electricity use tied to the millions of people now working at home to avoid catching the coronavirus.
Running laptops and other home appliances will cost consumers an extra 52 million pounds ($60 million) each week in the U.K., according to a study from Uswitch, a website that helps consumers compare the energy prices that utilities charge.
For each home-bound household, the pain to the pocketbook may be about 195 pounds per year extra, even as some utilities pursue pandemic cost-cutting to manage financial pressures.
The rise in price for households comes even as overall demand is falling rapidly in Europe, with wide swaths of the economy shut down to keep workers from gathering in one place, and the U.S. grid overseer issuing warnings about potential pandemic impacts on operations.
People stuck at home will plug in computers, lights and appliances when they’d normally be at the office, increasing their consumption.
With the Canadian government declaring a state of emergency due to the coronavirus, companies are enabling work-from-home structures to keep business running and help employees follow social distancing guidelines, and some utilities have even considered housing critical staff on site to maintain operations. However, working remotely has been on the rise for a while.
“The coronavirus is going to be a tipping point. We plodded along at about 10% growth a year for the last 10 years, but I foresee that this is going to really accelerate the trend,” Kate Lister, president of Global Workplace Analytics.
Gallup’s State of the Workplace 2017 study found that 43% of employees work remotely with some frequency. Research indicates that in a five-day workweek, working remotely for two to three days is the most productive. That gives the employee two to three days of meetings, collaboration and interaction, with the opportunity to just focus on the work for the other half of the week.
Remote work seems like a logical precaution for many companies that employ people in the digital economy, even as some federal agencies sparked debate with an EPA telework policy during the pandemic. However, not all Americans have access to the internet at home, and many work in industries that require in-person work.
According to the Pew Research Center, roughly three-quarters of American adults have broadband internet service at home. However, the study found that racial minorities, older adults, rural residents and people with lower levels of education and income are less likely to have broadband service at home. In addition, 1 in 5 American adults access the internet only through their smartphone and do not have traditional broadband access.
Full-time employees are four times more likely to have remote work options than part-time employees. A typical remote worker is college-educated, at least 45 years old and earns an annual salary of $58,000 while working for a company with more than 100 employees, according to Global Workplace Analytics, and in Canada there is growing interest in electricity-sector careers among younger workers.
New York, California and other states have enacted strict policies for people to remain at home during the coronavirus pandemic, which could change the future of work, and Canadian provinces such as Saskatchewan have documented how the crisis has reshaped local economies across sectors.
“I don’t think we’ll go back to the same way we used to operate,” Jennifer Christie, chief HR officer at Twitter, told CNBC. “I really don’t.”
Texas Electricity Complaints surged to a three-year high, highlighting Public Utility Commission data on billing disputes, meter problems, and service issues in the competitive retail electricity market and consumer protection process.
Key Points
Consumer filings to Texas PUC about billing, service, and meters, with 2018 reaching a three-year high.
✅ 5,371 complaints/inquiries in FY2018; 43.8% involved billing disputes.
✅ Service issues 15.8% and meters 12.6%; PUC publishes complaint stats.
✅ Advocates urge monitoring to keep deregulated retail market healthy.
The number of electricity service-related complaints and inquiries filed with the state’s Public Utility Commission reached a three-year high this past fiscal year, an advocacy group said Tuesday.
According to the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, a nonprofit that advocates for low electricity prices, Texans filed 5,371 complaints or inquiries with the commission between September 2017 and August of this year. That’s up from the 4,175 complaints or inquiries filed during the same period in 2017 and the 4,835 filed in 2016. The complaints and inquiries included concerns with billing, meters and service.
“This stark uptick in complaints is disappointing — especially after several years of generally improving numbers,” Jay Doegey, the coalition's executive director, said in a written statement. “In percentage terms, the year-to-year rise in complaints is the greatest in a decade. Clearly, many Texans remain frustrated with aspects of their electric service.”
The utility commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
While complaints and inquiries increased in 2018, the number of complaints and inquiries has generally decreased since 2009, when Texans filed 15,956 with the commission. That could be because there have been lower residential electricity prices and because Texans have become more familiar with the state’s competitive retail electricity system over the last decade, the coalition's report said.
And complaints from 2018 are well below 2003 levels, when the number of complaints and inquiries soared to more than 17,000, a year after Texas deregulated most of its electricity market structure at the time.
But Jake Dyer, a policy analyst at the coalition, said his group is closely watching the uptick in complaints this year as the Texas power grid faces recurring strains.
“We are invested in making sure the competition works,” Dyer said. “When you see an uptick like this, you should watch very closely to make sure the market remains healthy and to make sure there is not something else going on.”
However, Dyer said that it is too early to know what that something else that is going on might be.
According to the report, concerns about billing made up most of the complaints and inquiries filed this year at 43.8 percent. That’s up from 42.5 percent in fiscal year 2017. Concerns about the provision of electrical service and about electrical meters also ranked high, constituting 15.8 percent and 12.6 percent of the complaints and inquiries, respectively.
The Public Utility Commission publishes customer complaint statistics on its website. The Texas Coalition for Affordable Power takes into account both complaints and inquiries filed with the commission for its report in order “to gauge general consumer sentiment and to maintain a uniform methodology across the study period.”
Texans can file an official complaint with the the commission's Customer Protection Division. Under the complaint process, the complaint is sent to the electric company, which has 21 days to respond.
Some providers outside the competitive market, such as electric cooperatives, drew praise for performance during the 2021 winter storm.
