Leading South Korean energy company Korea Electric Power Corporation will award engineering, procurement and construction sub-contracts worth $10 billion to South Korean companies to build nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
In December, a KEPCO-led consortium signed a $20.7 billion civilian nuclear agreement with the UAE to design, build and operate four nuclear power reactors with a capacity of 1,400 MW each. The consortium includes Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction Limited, Toshiba Corporation, Samsung C&T, Westinghouse Electric LLC and Hyundai Heavy Industries Company, Limited. Three main sub-contracts are expected to cost about 50% of the total project cost. Sources indicate that KEPCO is in talks with its consortium partners to finalize the sub-contracts.
The construction period will span 10 years. The first nuclear reactor will begin to supply power to the national grid by 2017. The remaining three units will be commissioned by 2020. The four nuclear reactors are expected to take care of 25% of UAE's power demand.
Nasser Ahmad Al-Souwaidi, Chairman of Abu Dhabi Department of Economic Development, indicated that KEPCO was selected for its proven experience and expertise in nuclear technology implementation, delivery time, and the company's assurance that it will create jobs in the UAE. South Korea, which has more than 30 years of experience in building and operating nuclear power plants, has not witnessed any serious incidents in nuclear installations.
In a related development, Turkish energy entity, Elektrik Uretim AS (EUAS) will finalize a nuclear cooperation agreement with KEPCO shortly. As part of the agreement, KEPCO will provide assistance in developing APR-1400 nuclear power plants in the Sinop province on Turkey's Black Sea coast. Turkey also has urged KEPCO to expedite the preliminary preparatory activities, which KEPCO had indicated would require about two years to complete. EUAS and KEPCO have agreed to perform the preliminary activities and then sign the main agreement, if conditions are acceptable to both parties.
KEPCO is holding discussions with Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS to build a $20 billion nuclear power plant on Turkey's Black Sea coast. Enka Insaat is likely to hold a 50% stake in the venture, which will build six reactors of 1,400 MW each.
Turkey, which relies heavily on energy imports, is planning to build two nuclear reactors. Despite imports, the country's power generating capacity is unable to keep up with its growing economy. During the 2003-08 period, Turkey's economy grew at an annual average of 6%. The country has plans to build a nuclear power generating capacity of about 8,000 to 10,000 MW. Since the 1960s, Turkey has made four attempts to build and operate nuclear power plants. However, the plans had to be deferred due to spiraling costs and environmental concerns.
In 2008, a Turkish court cancelled the nuclear power construction tender awarded to Russia's nuclear power services company JSC Atomstroyexport, citing tariff and pricing issues. The project was jointly developed by Turkey with Atomstroyexport and Inter-RAO EES OAO. In January, the Turkish government reinitiated talks with Russia and agreed to provide licenses to build a nuclear power plant at Mersin, in the Akkuyu hamlet on the Mediterranean Coast. Several domestic and international firms have expressed interest to be part of Turkey's nuclear power program. The government has indicated that the country was open to signing nuclear cooperation pacts with France, Canada and the U.S.
Presently, about 50% of Turkey's power generating capacity is gas-fed. According to "Turkey Power Report — First Quarter 2010," which is published by Business Monitor International, Turkey's population is expected to increase to 76.6 million in 2014, from 72.2 million in 2009. By 2014, the country's per capita power consumption is expected to increase by 20% to 179 terawatt-hours. By 2030, the Turkish government is optimistic that nuclear power will account for nearly 20% of the primary energy demand.
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 income-based utility charges face bipartisan pushback as the PUC weighs fixed fees for PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison, reshaping rate design, electricity affordability, energy equity, and privacy amid proposed per-kWh reductions.
Key Points
PUC-approved fixed fees tied to household income for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, offset by lower per-kWh rates.
✅ Critics warn admin, privacy, legal risks and higher bills for savers
✅ Backers say lower-income pay less; kWh rates cut ~33% in PG&E area
Efforts are being made across California's political landscape to derail a legislative initiative that introduced income-based utility charges for customers of Southern California Edison and other major utilities.
Legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed bills aimed at nullifying the 2022 legislation that established a sliding scale for utility charges based on customer income, a decision made in a late-hour session and subsequently endorsed by Governor Gavin Newsom.
The plan, pending final approval from the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) — all of whose current members were appointed by Governor Newsom — would enable utilities like Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and PG&E to apply new income-based charges as early as this July.
Among the state legislators pushing back against the income-based charge scheme are Democrats Jacqui Irwin and Marc Berman, along with Republicans Janet Nguyen, Kelly Seyarto, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Scott Wilk, Brian Dahle, Shannon Grove, and Roger Niello.
A cadre of specialists, including economist Ahmad Faruqui who has advised all three utilities implicated in the fee proposal, have outlined several concerns regarding the PUC's pending decision.
Faruqui and his colleagues argue that the proposed charges are excessively high in comparison to national standards, reflecting soaring electricity prices across the state, potentially leading to administrative challenges, legal disputes, and negative unintended outcomes, such as penalizing energy-conservative consumers.
Advocates for the income-based fee model, including The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the National Resources Defense Council, argue it would result in higher charges for wealthier consumers and reduced fees for those with lower incomes. They also believe that the utilities plan to decrease per kilowatt-hour rates as part of a broader rate structure review to balance out the new fees.
However, even supporters like TURN and the Natural Resources Defense Council acknowledge that the income-based fee model is not a comprehensive solution to making soaring electricity bills more affordable.
If implemented, California would have the highest income-based utility fees in the country, with averages far surpassing the national average of $11.15, as reported by EQ Research:
Southern California Edison would charge $51.
San Diego Gas & Electric would levy $73.31.
PG&E would set fees at $50.92.
The proposal has raised concerns among state legislators about the additional financial burden on Californians already struggling with high electricity costs.
Critics highlight several practical challenges, including the PUC's task of assessing customers' income levels, a process fraught with privacy concerns, potential errors, and constitutional questions regarding access to tax information.
Economists have pointed out further complications, such as the difficulty in accurately assessing incomes for out-of-state property owners and the variability of customers' incomes over time.
The proposed income-based charges would differ by income bracket within the PG&E service area, for example, with lower-income households facing lower fixed charges and higher-income households facing higher charges, alongside a proposed 33% reduction in electricity rates to help mitigate the fixed charge impact.
Yet, the economists warn that most customers, particularly low-usage customers, could end up paying more, essentially rewarding higher consumption and penalizing efficiency.
This legislative approach, they caution, could inadvertently increase costs for moderate users across all income brackets, a sign of major changes to electric bills that could emerge, challenging the very goals it aims to achieve by promoting energy inefficiency.
Electric Vehicle Adoption Barriers include range anxiety, charging infrastructure, and cost parity; consumer demand, tax credits, lithium-ion batteries, and performance benefits are accelerating EV uptake, pushing SUVs and self-driving tech toward mainstream mobility.
Key Points
They are the key hurdles to mainstream EV uptake: range anxiety, sparse charging networks, and high upfront costs.
✅ Range targets of 300+ miles reduce anxiety and match ICE convenience
✅ Expanded home, work, and public charging speeds adoption
✅ Falling battery costs and incentives drive price parity
The automotive industry is hurtling toward a future that will change transportation the same way electricity changed how we light the world. Electric and self-driving vehicles will alter the automotive landscape forever — it's only a question of how soon, and whether the age of electric cars arrives ahead of schedule.
Like any revolution, this one will be created by market demand. Beyond the environmental benefit, electric vehicle owners enjoy the performance, quiet operation, robust acceleration, style and interior space. And EV owners like not having to buy gasoline. We believe the majority of these customers will stay loyal to electric cars, and U.S. EV sales are soaring into 2024 as this loyalty grows.
But what about non-EV owners? Will they want to buy electric, and is it time to buy an electric car for them yet? About 25 years ago, when we first considered getting into the electric vehicle business with a small car that had about 70 miles of range, the answer was no. But today, the results are far more encouraging.
We recently held consumer clinics in Los Angeles and Chicago and presented people with six SUV choices: three gasoline and three electric. When we asked for their first choice to purchase, 40% of the Chicago respondents chose an electric SUV, and 45% in LA did the same. This is despite a several thousand-dollar premium on the price of the electric models, and despite that EV sales still lag gas cars nationally today, consumer interest was strong (but also before crucial government tax credits that we believe will continue to drive people toward electric vehicles and help fuel market demand).
They had concerns, to be sure. Most people said they want vehicles that can match gasoline-powered vehicles in range, ease of ownership and cost. The sooner we can break down these three critical barriers, the sooner electric cars will become mainstream.
Range Range is the single biggest barrier to EV acceptance. Just as demand for gas mileage doesn't go down when there are more gas stations, demand for better range won't ease even as charging infrastructure improves. People will still want to drive as long as possible between charges.
Most consumers surveyed during our clinics said they want at least 300 miles of range. And if you look at the market today, which is driven by early adapters, electric cars have hit an inflection point in demand, and the numbers bear that out. The vast majority of electric vehicles sold — almost 90% — are six models with the highest range of 238 miles or more — three Tesla models, the Chevrolet Bolt EV, the Hyundai Kona and the Kia Niro, according to IHS Markit data.
Lithium-ion batteries, which power virtually all electric cars on the road today, are rapidly improving, increasing range with each generation. At GM, we recently announced that our 2020 Chevrolet Bolt EV will have a range of 259 miles, a 21-mile improvement over the previous model. Range will continue to improve across the industry, and range anxiety will dissipate.
Charging infrastructure Our research also shows that, among those who have considered buying an electric vehicle, but haven't, the lack of charging stations is the number one reason why.
For EVs to gain widespread acceptance, manufacturers, charging companies, industry groups and governments at all levels must work together to make public charging available in as many locations as possible. For example, we are seeing increased partnership activity between manufacturers and charging station companies, as well as construction companies that build large infrastructure projects, as the American EV boom approaches, with the goal of adding thousands of additional public charging stations in the United States.
Private charging stations are just as important. Nearly 80% of electric vehicle owners charge their vehicles at home, and almost 15% at work, with the rest at public stations, our research shows. Therefore, continuing to make charging easy and seamless is vital. To that end, more partnerships with companies that will install the chargers in consumers' homes conveniently and affordably will be a boon for both buyers and sellers.
Cost Another benefit to EV ownership is a lower cost of operation. Most EV owners report that their average cost of operation is about one-third of what a gasoline-powered car owner pays. But the purchase price is typically significantly higher, and that's where we should see change as each generation of battery technology improves efficiency and reduces cost.
Looking forward, we think electric vehicle propulsion systems will achieve cost parity with internal combustion engines within a decade or sooner, and will only get better after that, driving sticker prices down and widening the appeal to the average consumer. That will be driven by a number of factors, including improvements with each generation of batteries and vehicles, as well as expected increased regulatory costs on gasoline and diesel engines.
Removing these barriers will lead to what I consider the ultimate key to widespread EV adoption — the emergence of the EV as a consumer's primary vehicle — not a single-purpose or secondary vehicle. That will happen when we as an industry are able to offer the utility, cost parity and convenience of today's internal combustion-based cars and trucks.
To get the electric vehicle to first-string status, manufacturers simply must make it as good or better than the cars, trucks and crossovers most people are used to driving today. And we must deliver on our promise of making affordable, appealing EVs in the widest range of sizes and body styles possible. When we do that, electric vehicle adoption and acceptance will be widespread, and it can happen sooner than most people think.
Mark Reuss is president of GM. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.
EU Renewable Energy Transition is accelerating under REPowerEU, as wind and solar generation hit records, improving energy security, efficiency, and decarbonization while reducing reliance on Russian fossil fuels across the EU grid.
Key Points
EU shift to wind and solar under REPowerEU to cut fossil fuels, boost efficiency, and secure energy supply.
✅ Wind and solar set record 22% of EU electricity in 2022
✅ REPowerEU targets over 40% renewables and 15% lower demand by 2030
✅ Diversifies away from Russian fuels; partners with US and Norway
Europe is producing all-time highs of wind and solar energy as the 27-country group works to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels from Russia, a shift underscored by Europe's green surge across the bloc.
Four months after Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the European Commission launched REPowerEU. This campaign aims to:
Boost the use of renewable energy.
Reduce overall energy consumption.
Diversify energy sources.
EU countries were already moving toward renewable energy, but Russia’s war against Ukraine accelerated that trend. In 2022, for the first time, renewables surpassed fossil fuels and wind and solar power surpassed gas as a source of electricity. Wind and solar provided a record-breaking 22% of EU countries’ electrical supply, according to London-based energy think tank Ember.
“We have to double down on investments in home-grown renewables,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in October 2022. “Not only for the climate but also because the transition to the clean energy is the best way to gain independence and to have security of energy supply.”
Across the continent, growth in solar generation rose by 25% in 2022, according to Ember, as solar reshapes electricity prices in Northern Europe. Twenty EU countries produced their highest share of solar power in 2022. In October, Greece ran entirely on renewables for several hours and is seven years ahead of schedule for its 2030 solar capacity target.
By 2030, RePowerEU aims to provide more than 40% of the EU’s total power from renewables, aligning with global renewable records being shattered worldwide.
To meet the European Commission’s goal to cut EU energy usage by 15%, people and governments changed their habits and became more energy-efficient, while Germany's solar power boost helped bolster supply. Among their actions:
Germany turned down the heat in public buildings and lowered the cost of train tickets to reduce car usage, as clean energy hit 50% in Germany during this period.
Spain ordered stores and public buildings to turn off their lights at night.
France dimmed the Eiffel Tower and reduced city speed limits.
For the oil and gas that the EU still needed to import, countries turned to partners such as Norway and the United States.
Houston Power Outage Heatwave intensifies a prolonged blackout, straining the grid and infrastructure resilience; emergency response, cooling centers, and power restoration efforts race to protect vulnerable residents amid extreme temperatures and climate risks.
Key Points
A multi-day blackout and heatwave straining Houston's grid, limiting cooling, and prompting emergency response.
✅ Cooling centers, aid groups support vulnerable residents
Houston is enduring significant frustration and hardship as a power outage stretches into its fourth day amid a sweltering heatwave. The extended blackout has exacerbated the challenges faced by residents in one of the nation’s largest and most dynamic cities, underscoring the critical need for reliable infrastructure and effective emergency response systems.
The power outage began early in the week, coinciding with a severe heatwave that has driven temperatures to dangerous levels. With the city experiencing some of the highest temperatures of the year, the lack of electricity has left residents without essential cooling, contributing to widespread discomfort and health risks. The heatwave has placed an added strain on Houston's already overburdened power grid, which has struggled to cope with the soaring demand for air conditioning and cooling.
The prolonged outage has led to escalating frustration among residents. Many households are grappling with sweltering indoor temperatures, leading to uncomfortable living conditions and concerns about the impact on vulnerable populations, including the elderly, young children, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions. The lack of power has also disrupted daily routines, as morning routine disruptions in London demonstrate, including access to refrigeration for food, which has led to spoilage and further complications.
Emergency services and utility companies have been working around the clock to restore power, but progress has been slow, echoing how Texas utilities struggled to restore power during Hurricane Harvey, as crews contended with access constraints. The complexity of the situation, combined with the high demand for repairs and the challenging weather conditions, has made it difficult to address the widespread outages efficiently. As the days pass, the situation has become increasingly dire, with residents growing more impatient and anxious about when they might see a resolution.
Local officials and utility providers have been actively communicating with the public, providing updates on the status of repairs and efforts to restore power. However, the communication has not always been timely or clear, leading to further frustration among those affected. The sense of uncertainty and lack of reliable information has compounded the difficulties faced by residents, who are left to manage the impacts of the outage with limited guidance.
The situation has also raised questions about the resilience of Houston’s power infrastructure. The outage has highlighted vulnerabilities in the city's energy grid, similar to how a recent windstorm caused significant outages elsewhere, which has faced previous challenges but has not experienced an extended failure of this magnitude in recent years. The inability of the grid to withstand the extreme heat and maintain service during a critical time underscores the need for infrastructure improvements and upgrades to better handle similar situations in the future.
In response to the crisis, community organizations and local businesses have stepped up to provide support to those in need, much like Toronto's cleanup after severe flooding mobilized volunteers and services, in order to aid affected residents. Cooling centers have been established to offer relief from the heat, providing a respite for individuals who are struggling to stay cool at home. Additionally, local food banks and charitable organizations are distributing essential supplies to those affected by food spoilage and other challenges caused by the power outage.
The power outage and heatwave have also sparked broader discussions about climate resilience and preparedness. Extreme weather events and prolonged heatwaves are becoming increasingly common due to climate change, as strong winds knocked out power across the Miami Valley recently, raising concerns about how cities and infrastructure systems can adapt to these new realities. The current situation in Houston serves as a stark reminder of the importance of investing in resilient infrastructure and developing comprehensive emergency response plans to mitigate the impacts of such events.
As the outage continues, there is a growing call for improved strategies to manage power grid failures, with examples like the North Seattle outage affecting 13,000 underscoring the need, and better support for residents during crises. Advocates are urging for a reevaluation of emergency response protocols, increased investment in infrastructure upgrades, and enhanced communication systems to ensure that the public receives timely and accurate information during emergencies.
In summary, Houston's power outage, now extending into its fourth day amid extreme heat, has caused significant frustration and hardship for residents. The prolonged disruption has underscored the need for more resilient energy infrastructure, as seen when power outages persisted for hundreds in Toronto, and effective emergency response measures. With temperatures soaring and the situation continuing to unfold, the city faces a critical challenge in restoring power, managing the impacts on its residents, and preparing for future emergencies. The crisis highlights broader issues related to infrastructure resilience and climate adaptation, emphasizing the need for comprehensive strategies to address and mitigate the effects of extreme weather events.
Ontario Electricity Rates update: OEB sets time-of-use and tiered pricing for residential customers, with kWh charges for peak, mid-peak, and off-peak periods reflecting COVID-19 impacts on demand, supply costs, and pricing.
Key Points
Ontario Electricity Rates are OEB-set time-of-use and tiered prices that set per-kWh costs for residential customers.
✅ Tiered: 12.6 cents/kWh up to 1000 kWh, then 14.6 cents/kWh
✅ Average 700 kWh home pays about $2.24 more per month
Energy bills for the typical Ontario home are going up by about two per cent with fixed pricing coming to an end on Nov. 1, the Ontario Energy Board says.
The province's electricity regulator has released new time-of-use pricing and says the rate for the average residential customer using 700 kWh per month will increase by about $2.24.
The change comes as Ontario stretches into its eight month of the COVID-19 pandemic with new case counts reaching levels higher than ever seen before.
Time-of-use pricing had been scrapped for residential bills for much for the pandemic with a single fixed COVID-19 hydro rate set for all hours of the day. The move, which came into effect June 1, was meant "to support families, small business and farms while Ontario plans for the safe and gradual reopening of the province," the OEB said at the time.
Fixed pricing meant customers' bills reflected how much power they used, rather than when they used it. Customers were charged 12.8 cents/kWh under the COVID-19 recovery rate no matter their time of use.
Beginning November, the province says customers can choose between time-of-use and tiered pricing options. Rates for time-of-use plans will be 21.7 cents/kWh during peak hours, 15 cents/kWh for mid-peak use and 10.5 cents/kWh for off-peak use.
Customers choosing tiered pricing will pay 12.6 cents/kWh for the first 1000 kWh each month and then 14.6 cents/kWh for any power used beyond that.
The energy board says the increase in pricing reflects "a combination of factors, including those associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, that have affected demand, supply costs and prices in the summer and fall of 2020."
Asked for his reaction to the move Tuesday, Premier Doug Ford said, "I hate it," adding the province inherited an energy "mess" from the previous Liberal government and are "chipping away at it."
