India aims to add 1,200 megawatts (MW) of power capacity during its 11th five-year plan period (2007-2012) through bagasse cogeneration projects. As of September 2007, bagasse-based cogeneration projects accounted for 690 MW of the total power produced in the country.
Bagasse, which is formed as a fibrous byproduct when sugarcane is crushed to extract juice, is economically used as boiler fuel to generate both electric power and steam that is further used in mill operations. This process of cogeneration uses a single fuel to produce two forms of energy, one of which is heat and the other may be electrical or mechanical energy.
While use of bagasse makes sugar mills self-sufficient in addressing their power requirements, in some cases surplus electricity is also produced, which is sold to the power grid. This is achieved by efficient combustion of bagasse during the harvest season and by use of alternate fossil fuels or biomass during off-season.
This process, which was initially adopted by sugar mills as a cost-cutting measure, is now turning into a lucrative option. Cogeneration is relatively inexpensive compared to the use of expensive fossil fuels for captive power generation. Further, by exporting surplus power to the grid, sugar mills are able to claim Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) benefits. However, seasonal variations in the sale price of bagasse in the market may affect the viability of cogeneration.
DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited (DSCL) currently exports 27.5 MW of surplus power to the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). DSCL currently has a cogeneration capacity of 70.5 MW and aims to add another 24 MW this year. The company received its full claim of $335,000 in CDM benefits last year. UPPCL also receives 20 MW of surplus power from the Deoband Bagasse Cogeneration Power Project.
Sri Chamundeswari Sugars is setting up a 26 MW bagasse-based cogeneration unit at its plant in Karnataka and expects to generate 18 MW of surplus power that will be exported to state utilities. Several leading power equipment giants, including ABB, are looking to bag contracts for supplying automation systems to upcoming cogeneration plants in India.
In view of the increasing popularity of cogeneration, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (New Delhi) has directed state regulators to facilitate alliances between distribution utilities and cogeneration unit owners to ensure smooth supply of surplus power from such plants to the grid. The government is aggressively promoting the development of cogeneration units by providing incentives in the form of capital subsidy, relief from taxes and duties, accelerated depreciation, and term loans from the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (New Delhi).
India is the second-largest sugarcane producer in the world. This sector also ranks as the second largest agro-industrial segment of the country. During fiscal year 2007-08, sugar production reached a record 28 million tons, resulting in high bagasse production from 322 million tons of stalk harvested.
It is estimated that sugar mills in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh with a crushing capacity of more than 2,500 tons per day can generate up to 5,000 MW of surplus power through optimum bagasse cogeneration.
Conservative estimates suggest a huge potential of over 20,000 MW from cogeneration units in India. As per the Integrated Energy Policy Report prepared by an expert committee constituted by the Planning Commission, renewable sources may contribute to nearly 6% of India's energy mix by 2032.
Electricity used to be boring. Public utilities that provided power to homes and businesses were regulated monopolies and, by law, guaranteed a fixed rate-of-return on their generation, transmission, and distribution assets. Prices per kilowatt-hour were set by utility commissions after lengthy testimony from power companies, wanting higher rates, and consumer groups, wanting lower rates.
About 25 years ago, the electricity landscape started to change as economists and others argued that competition could lead to lower prices and stronger grid reliability. Opponents of competition argued that consumers weren’t knowledgeable enough about power markets to make intelligent choices in a competitive pricing environment. Nonetheless, today 20 states have total or partial competition for electricity, allowing independent power generators to compete in wholesale markets and retail electric providers (REPs) to compete for end-use customers, a dynamic echoed by the Alberta electricity market across North America. (Transmission, in all states, remains a regulated natural monopoly).
A recent study by the non-partisan Pacific Research Institute (PRI) provides compelling evidence that competition in power markets has been a boon for consumers. Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), PRI’s researchers found that wholesale electricity prices in competitive markets have been generally declining or flat, prompting discussions of free electricity business models, over the last five years. For example, compared to 2015, wholesale power prices in New England have dropped more than 44 percent, those in most Mid-Atlantic States have fallen nearly 42 percent, and in New York City they’ve declined by nearly 45 percent. Wholesale power costs have also declined in monopoly states, but at a considerably slower rate.
As for end-users, states that have competitive retail electricity markets have seen smaller price increases, as consumers can shop for electricity in Texas more cheaply than in monopoly states. Again, using EIA data, PRI found that in 14 competitive jurisdictions, retail prices essentially remained flat between 2008 and 2020. By contrast, retail prices jumped an average of 21 percent in monopoly states. The ten states with the largest retail price increases were all monopoly-based frameworks. A 2017 report from the Retail Energy Supply Association found customers in states that still have monopoly utilities saw their average energy prices increase nearly 19 percent from 2008 to 2017 while prices fell 7 percent in competitive markets over the same period.
The PRI study also observed that competition has improved grid reliability, the recent power disruptions in California and Texas, alongside disruptions in coal and nuclear sectors across the U.S., notwithstanding. Looking at two common measures of grid resiliency, PRI’s analysis found that power interruptions were 10.4 percent lower in competitive states while the duration of outages was 6.5 percent lower.
Citing data from the EIA between 2008 and 2018, PRI reports that greenhouse gas emissions in competitive states declined on average 12.1 percent compared to 7.3 percent in monopoly states. This result is not surprising, and debates over whether Israeli power supply competition can bring cheaper electricity mirror these dynamics. In a competitive wholesale market, independent power producers have an incentive to seek out lower-cost options, including subsidized renewables like wind and solar. By contrast, generators in monopoly markets have no such incentive as they can pass on higher costs to end-users. Perhaps the most telling case is in the monopoly state of Georgia where the cost to build nuclear Plant Vogtle has doubled from its original estimate of $14 billion 12 years ago. Overruns are estimated to cost Georgia ratepayers an average of $854, and there is no definite date for this facility to come on line. This type of mismanagement doesn’t occur in competitive markets.
Unfortunately, some critics are attempting to halt the momentum for electricity competition and have pointed to last winter’s “deep freeze” in Texas that left several million customers without power for up to a week. But this example is misplaced. Power outages in February were the result of unprecedented and severe weather conditions affecting electricity generation and fuel supply, and numerous proposals to improve Texas grid reliability have focused on weatherization and fuel resilience; the state simply did not have enough access to natural gas and wind generation to meet demand. Competitive power markets were not a factor.
The benefits of wholesale and retail competition in power markets are incontrovertible. Evidence shows that households and businesses in competitive states are paying less for electricity while grid reliability has improved. The facts also suggest that wholesale and retail competition can lead to faster reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In short, competition in power markets is good for consumers and good for the environment.
Bernard L. Weinstein is emeritus professor of applied economics at the University of North Texas, former associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, and a fellow of Goodenough College, London. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.
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.
BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.
Key Points
Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.
✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.
✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.
✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.
President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.
That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.
The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.
Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's
Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.
"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.
The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."
McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."
The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.
But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.
The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."
The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.
The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."
But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.
Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.
Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."
None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.
What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.
Atlantic Clean Power Superhighway outlines a federally backed transmission grid upgrade for Atlantic Canada, adding 2,000 MW of renewable energy via interprovincial ties, improved hydro access from Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, with utility-regulator funding.
Key Points
A federal-provincial plan upgrading Atlantic Canada's grid to deliver 2,000 MW of renewables via interprovincial links.
✅ $2M technical review to rank priority transmission projects
✅ Target: add 2,000 MW renewable power to Atlantic grid
✅ Cost-sharing by utilities, regulators, and federal-provincial funding
The federal government will spend $2 million on an engineering study to improve the Atlantic region's electricity grid.
The study was announced Friday at a news conference held by 10 federal and provincial politicians at a meeting of the Atlantic Growth Strategy in Halifax, which includes ongoing regulatory reform efforts for cleaner power in Atlantic Canada.
The technical review will identify the most important transmission projects including inter-provincial ties needed to move electricity across the region.
Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil said the results are expected in July.
Provinces will apply to the federal government for federal funding to build the infrastructure. Utilities in each province will be expected to pay some portion of the cost by applying to respective regulators, but what share falls to ratepayers is not known.
Federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc characterized the grid improvements as something that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
"We have a historic opportunity to quickly get to work on upgrading ultimately a whole series of transmission links of inter-provincial ties. That's something that the government of Canada would be anxious to work with in terms of collaborating with the provinces on getting that right."
Premier McNeil referred specifically to improving hydro access from Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.
For context, a massive cross-border hydropower line to New York is planned, illustrating the scale of projects under consideration.
Goal of 2,000 megawatts
McNeil said the goal was to bring an additional 2,000 megawatts of renewable electricity into the region.
"I can't stress to you enough how critical this will be for the future economic success and stability of Atlantic Canada, especially as Atlantic grids face intensifying storms," he said.
Federal Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen also announced a pilot project to attract immigrant workers will be extended by two years to the end of 2021.
International graduate students will be given 24 months to apply under the program — a one-year increase.
100% Clean Energy Targets drive renewable electricity, decarbonization, and cost savings through state policies, CCAs, RECs, and mandates, with timelines and interim goals that boost jobs, resilience, and public health across cities, counties, and utilities.
Key Points
Policies for cities and states to reach 100% clean power by set dates, using mandates, RECs, and interim goals.
✅ Define eligible clean vs renewable resources
✅ Mandate vs goal framework with enforcement
✅ Timelines with interim targets and escape clauses
“An enormous amount of authority still rests with the states for determining your energy future. So we can build these policies that will become a postcard from the future for the rest of the country,” said David Hochschild, chair of the California Energy Commission, speaking last week at a UCLA summit on state and local progress toward 100 percent clean energy.
According to a new report from the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, 13 states, districts and territories, as well as more than 200 cities and counties, with standout clean energy purchases by Southeast cities helping drive momentum, have committed to a 100 percent clean electricity target — and dozens of cities have already hit it.
This means that one of every three Americans, or roughly 111 million U.S. residents representing 34 percent of the population, live in a community that has committed to or has already achieved 100 percent clean electricity, including communities like Frisco, Colorado that have set ambitious targets.
“We’re going to look back on this moment as the moment when local action and state commitments began to push the entire nation toward this goal,” said J.R. DeShazo, director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation.
Not all 100 percent targets are alike, however. The report notes that these targets vary based on 1) what resources are eligible, 2) how binding the 100 percent target is, and 3) how and when the target will be achieved.
These distinctions will carry a lot of weight as the policy discussion shifts from setting goals to actually meeting targets. They also have implications for communities in terms of health benefits, cost savings and employment opportunities.
100% targets come in different forms
One key attribute is whether a target is based on "renewable" or "clean" energy resources. Some 100 percent targets, like Hawaii’s and Rhode Island’s 2030 plan, are focused exclusively on renewable energy, or sources that cannot be depleted, such as wind, solar and geothermal. But most jurisdictions use the broader term “clean energy,” which can also include resources like large hydroelectric generation and nuclear power.
States also vary in their treatment of renewable energy certificates, used to track and assign ownership to renewable energy generation and use. Unbundled RECs allow for the environmental attributes of the renewable energy resource to be purchased separately from the physical electricity delivery.
The binding nature of these targets is also noteworthy. Seven states, as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, have passed 100 percent clean energy transition laws. Of the jurisdictions that have passed 100 percent legislation, all but one specifies that the target is a “mandate,” according to the report. Nevada is the only state to call the target a “goal.”
Governors in four other states have signed executive orders with 100 percent clean energy goals.
Target timelines also vary. Washington, D.C. has set the most ambitious target date, with a mandate to achieve 100 percent renewable electricity by 2032. Other states and cities have set deadline years between 2040 and 2050. All "100 percent" state laws, and some city and county policies, also include interim targets to keep clean energy deployment on track.
In addition, some locations have included some form of escape clause. For instance, Salt Lake City, which last month passed a resolution establishing a goal of powering the county with 100 percent clean electricity by 2030, included “exit strategies” in its policy in order to encourage stakeholder buy-in, said Mayor Jackie Biskupski, speaking last week at the UCLA summit.
“We don’t think they’ll get used, but they’re there,” she said.
Other locales, meanwhile, have decided to go well beyond 100 percent clean electricity. The State of California and 44 cities have set even more challenging targets to also transition their entire transportation, heating and cooling sectors to 100 percent clean energy sources, and proposals like requiring solar panels on new buildings underscore how policy can accelerate progress across sectors.
Businesses are simultaneously electing to adopt more clean and renewable energy. Six utilities across the United States have set their own 100 percent clean or carbon-free electricity targets. UCLA researchers did not include populations served by these utilities in their analysis of locations with state and city 100 percent clean commitments.
“We cannot wait”
All state and local policies that require a certain share of electricity to come from renewable energy resources have contributed to more efficient project development and financing mechanisms, which have supported continued technology cost declines and contributed to a near doubling of renewable energy generation since 2008.
Many communities are switching to clean energy in order to save money, now that the cost calculation is increasingly in favor of renewables over fossil fuels, as more jurisdictions get on the road to 100% renewables worldwide. Additional benefits include local job creation, cleaner air and electricity system resilience due to greater reliance on local energy resources.
Another major motivator is climate change. The electricity sector is responsible for 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, second only to transportation. Decarbonizing the grid also helps to clean up the transportation sector as more vehicles move to electricity as their fuel source.
“The now-constant threat of wildfires, droughts, severe storms and habitat loss driven by climate change signals a crisis we can no longer ignore,” said Carla Peterman, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at investor-owned utility Southern California Edison. “We cannot wait and we should not wait when there are viable solutions to pursue now.”
Prior to joining SCE on October 1, Peterman served as a member of the California Public Utilities Commission, which implements and administers renewable portfolio standard (RPS) compliance rules for California’s retail sellers of electricity. California’s target requires 60 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy resources by 2030, and all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.
How CCAs are driving renewable energy deployment
One way California communities are working to meet the state’s ambitious targets is through community-choice aggregation, especially after California's near-100% renewable milestone underscored what's possible, via which cities and counties can take control of their energy procurement decisions to suit their preferences. Investor-owned utilities no longer purchase energy for these jurisdictions, but they continue to operate the transmission and distribution grid for all electricity users.
A second paper released by the Luskin Center for Innovation in recent days examines how community-choice aggregators are affecting levels of renewable energy deployment in California and contributing to the state’s 100 percent target.
The paper finds that 19 CCAs have launched in California since 2010, growing to include more than 160 towns, cities and counties. Of those communities, 64 have a 100 percent renewable or clean energy policy as their default energy program.
Because of these policies, the UCLA paper finds that “CCAs have had both direct and indirect effects that have led to increases in the clean energy sold in excess of the state’s RPS.”
From 2011 to 2018, CCAs directly procured 24 terawatt-hours of RPS-eligible electricity, 11 TWh of which have been voluntary or in excess of RPS compliance, according to the paper.
The formation of CCAs has also had an indirect effect on investor-owned utilities. As customers have left investor-owned utilities to join CCAs, the utilities have been left holding contracts for more renewable energy than they need to comply with California’s clean energy targets, amid rising solar and wind curtailments that complicate procurement decisions. UCLA researchers estimate that this indirect effect of CCA formation has left IOUs holding 13 terawatt-hours in excess of RPS requirements.
The paper concludes that CCAs have helped to accelerate California’s ability to meet state renewable energy targets over the past decade. However, the future contributions of CCAs to the RPS are more uncertain as communities make new power-purchasing decisions and utilities seek to reduce their excess renewable energy contracts.
“CCAs offer a way for communities to put their desire for clean energy into action. They're growing fast in California, one of only eight states where this kind of mechanism is allowed," said UCLA's Kelly Trumbull, an author of the report. "State and federal policies could be reformed to better enable communities to meet local demand for renewable energy.”
Pickering Nuclear Alert Error prompts Ontario investigation into the Alert Ready emergency alert system, Pelmorex safeguards, and public response at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, including potassium iodide orders and geo-targeted notification issues.
Key Points
A mistaken Ontario emergency alert about the Pickering plant, now under probe for human error and system safeguards.
✅ Investigation led by Emergency Management Ontario
✅ Alert Ready and Pelmorex safeguards under review
✅ KI pill demand surged; geo-targeting questioned
A number of questions still remain a week after an emergency alert was mistakenly sent out to people across Ontario warning of an unspecified incident at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.
The province’s solicitor general has stepped in and says an investigation into the incident should be completed fairly quickly according to the minister.
However, the nuclear scare has still left residents on edge with tens of thousands of people ordering potassium iodide, or KI, pills that protect the body from radioactive elements in the days following the incident.
Here’s what we know and still don’t know about the mistaken Pickering nuclear plant alert:
Who sent the alert?
According to the Alert Ready Emergency Alert System website, the agency works with several federal, provincial and territorial emergency management officials, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Pelmorex, a broadcasting industry and wireless service provider, to send the alerts.
Martin Belanger, the director of public alerting for Pelmorex, a company that operates the alert system, said there are a number of safeguards built in, including having two separate platforms for training and live alerts.
"The software has some steps and some features built in to minimize that risk and to make sure that users will be able to know whether or not they're sending an alert through the... training platform or whether they're accessing the live system in the case of a real emergency," he said.
Only authorized users have access to the system and the province manages that, Belanger said. Once in the live system, features make the user aware of which platform they are using, with various prompts and messages requiring the user's confirmation. There is a final step that also requires the user to confirm their intent of issuing an alert to cellphones, radio and TVs, Belanger said.
Last Sunday, a follow-up alert was sent to cellphones nearly two hours after the original notification, and during separate service disruptions such as a power outage in London residents also sought timely information.
What has the investigation revealed?
It’s still unclear as to how exactly the alert was sent in error, but Solicitor General Sylvia Jones has tapped the Chief of Emergency Management Ontario to investigate.
"It's very important for me, for the people of Ontario, to know exactly what happened on Sunday morning," Jones said.
Jones said initial observations suggest human error was responsible for the alert that was sent out during routine tests of the emergency alert.
“I want to know what happened and equally important, I want some recommendations on insurances and changes we can make to the system to make sure it doesn't happen again,” Jones said.
Jones said she expects the results of the probe to be made public.
Can you unsubscribe from emergency alerts?
It’s not possible to opt out of receiving the alerts, according to the Alert Ready Emergency Alert System website, and Ontario utilities warn about scams to help customers distinguish official notices.
“Given the importance of warning Canadians of imminent threats to the safety of life and property, the CRTC requires wireless service providers to distribute alerts on all compatible wireless devices connected to an LTE network in the target area,” the website reads.
The agency explains that unlike radio and TV broadcasting, the wireless public alerting system is geo-targeted and is specific to the a “limited area of coverage”, and examples like an Alberta grid alert have highlighted how jurisdictions tailor notices for their systems.
“As a result, if an emergency alert reaches your wireless device, you are located in an area where there is an imminent danger.”
The Pickering alert, however, was received by people from as far as Ottawa to Windsor.
Is the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station closing?
The Pickering nuclear plant has been operating since 1971, and had been scheduled to be decommissioned this year, but the former Liberal government -- and the current Progressive Conservative government -- committed to keeping it open until 2024. Decommissioning is now set to start in 2028.
It operates six CANDU reactors, and in contingency planning operators have considered locking down key staff to maintain reliability, generates 14 per cent of Ontario's electricity and is responsible for 4,500 jobs across the region, according to OPG, while utilities such as Hydro One's relief programs have supported customers during broader crises.
What should I do if I receive an emergency alert?
Alert Ready says that if you received an alert on your wireless device it’s important to take action “safely”.
“Stop what you are doing when it is safe to do so and read the emergency alert,” the agency says on their website.
“Alerting authorities will include within the emergency alert the information you need and guidance for any action you are required to take, and insights from U.S. grid pandemic response underscore how critical infrastructure plans intersect with public safety.”
“This could include but is not limited to: limit unnecessary travel, evacuate the areas, seek shelter, etc.”
The wording of last Sunday's alert caused much initial confusion, warning residents within 10 kilometres of the plant of "an incident," though there was no "abnormal" release of radioactivity and residents didn't need to take protective steps, but emergency crews were responding.
“In the event of a real emergency, the wording would be different,” Jones said.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
