Engineers meeting in Philadelphia for the first public technical session about the Aug. 14 blackout said recently that to avoid a recurrence, the industry should be more tightly linked, through mutual regulation and data sharing, though the path to that point was unclear.
The moderator of the session, Gerry W. Cauley, director for reliability performance at the North American Electric Reliability Council, a voluntary industry group founded after the 1965 Northeast blackout, said, "We can't go through another summer like this."
But Mr. Cauley added that the August blackout did not occur on a peak demand day, and that a large-scale blackout like the one in August "can happen at any time."
The engineers discussed whether their industry should have a system of peer review, like the one the nuclear industry uses, in which experts from various control rooms audit one another's workplace. Another idea at the daylong conference was better data integration, so the technicians who operate transmission systems could see trouble brewing in their neighbors' territory.
"You need it for the area that you could affect and the area that could affect you," said Don Watkins, a transmission expert at the Bonneville Power Administration, which operates federally owned hydroelectric installations and transmission lines in the Pacific Northwest.
A report on the blackout by a Canadian-American task force, many of whose members gave presentations recently, found that two Midwestern entities, the FirstEnergy Corporation and the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, had violated the existing voluntary rules. A representative of the Midwest system operator said his group was taking steps to improve its operations by the end of the year.
Federal officials and industry executives have anticipated better regulation through action by Congress, which has discussed authorizing federal regulators to impose mandatory reliability standards. That idea is popular in Washington, but the legislation to establish them was incorporated into a mammoth energy bill that so far has failed to pass the Senate. A similar approach also failed in 2002.
The provision in the energy bill would have allowed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is mostly an economic regulator, to designate the North American Electric Reliability Council to set reliability rules. But now, Mr. Cauley said, the industry should proceed "with or without Congress." The chairman of the commission, Pat Wood, took a similar position earlier this month and asked his staff to investigate whether the agency already had the authority that could be used to enact such standards.
But the problem, engineers agreed, extends far beyond setting standards, to actually instituting them. "We're going to need some monitoring mechanisms in place," said David W. Hilt, the director for compliance of the North American Electric Reliability Council. The goal, Mr. Hilt said, was to "assure we really do implement the recommendations."
Marjorie R. Philips, director of market policy at P.S.E.G. Energy Resources and Trade, an affiliate of a company that provides electricity and gas in New Jersey, said it would take more than monitoring.
"If there's no consequence, you have not done what you set out to do," she said. For violators, she suggested monetary penalties or "public shunning."
The industry has not even standardized the method for calculating how much electricity a line can carry, said Tapani O. Seppa, president of the Valley Group, a consulting firm in Ridgefield, Conn.
On Aug. 14, FirstEnergy was assuming a wind of 4.4 feet per second, he said, but actual conditions in much of its territory were dead calm. Without any cooling from wind, the cables would be 40 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit higher, he said, and would sag more, leading to cables hitting the trees. Tree contact for a fully loaded line is equivalent to "two or three sticks of dynamite," Mr. Seppa said.
On that day, 23 percent of weather observations in the area were showing a wind speed of zero, he said.
Europe's Nuclear Energy Policy shapes responses to the energy crisis, soaring gas prices, EU taxonomy rules, net-zero goals, renewables integration, baseload security, SMRs, and Russia-Ukraine geopolitics, exposing cultural, financial, and environmental divides.
Key Points
A policy guiding nuclear exits or expansion to balance energy security, net-zero goals, costs, and EU taxonomy.
✅ Divergent national stances: phase-outs vs. new builds
✅ Costs, delays, and waste challenge large reactors
✅ SMRs, renewables, and gas shape net-zero pathways
As the Fukushima disaster unfolded in Japan in 2011, then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a dramatic decision that delighted her country’s anti-nuclear movement: all reactors would be ditched.
What couldn’t have been predicted was that Europe would find itself mired in one of the worst energy crises in its history. A decade later, the continent’s biggest economy has shut down almost all its capacity already. The rest will be switched off at the end of 2022 — at the worst possible time.
Wholesale power prices are more than four times what they were at the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Governments are having to take emergency action to support domestic and industrial consumers faced with crippling bills, which could rise higher if the tension over Ukraine escalates. The crunch has not only exposed Europe’s supply vulnerabilities, but also the entrenched cultural and political divisions over the nuclear industry and a failure to forge a collective vision.
Other regions meanwhile are cracking on, challenging the idea that nuclear power is in decline worldwide. China is moving fast on nuclear to try to clean up its air quality. Its suite of reactors is on track to surpass that of the U.S., the world’s largest, by as soon as the middle of this decade. Russia is moving forward with new stations at home and has more than 20 reactors confirmed or planned for export construction, according to the World Nuclear Association.
“I don’t think we’re ever going to see consensus across Europe with regards to the continued running of existing assets, let alone the construction of new ones,” said Peter Osbaldstone, research director for power and renewables at Wood Mackenzie Group Ltd. in the U.K. “It’s such a massive polarizer of opinions that national energy policy is required in strength over a sustained period to support new nuclear investment.”
France, Europe’s most prolific nuclear energy producer, is promising an atomic renaissance as its output becomes less reliable. Britain plans to replace aging plants in the quest for cleaner, more reliable energy sources. The Netherlands wants to add more capacity, Poland also is seeking to join the nuclear club, and Finland is starting to produce electricity later this month from its first new plant in four decades.
Belgium and Spain, meanwhile, are following Germany’s lead in abandoning nuclear, albeit on different timeframes. Austria rejected it in a referendum in 1978.
Nuclear power is seen by its proponents as vital to reaching net-zero targets worldwide. Once built, reactors supply low-carbon electricity all the time, unlike intermittent wind or solar.
Plants, though, take a decade or more to construct at best and the risk is high of running over time and over budget. Finland’s new Olkiluoto-3 unit is coming on line after a 12-year delay and billions of euros in financial overruns.
Then there’s the waste, which stays hazardous for 100,000 years. For those reasons European Union members are still quarreling over whether nuclear even counts as sustainable.
Electorates are also split. Polling by YouGov Plc published in December found that Danes, Germans and Italians were far more nuclear-skeptic than the French, British or Spanish.
“It comes down to politics,” said Vince Zabielski, partner at New York-based law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, who was a nuclear engineer for 15 years. “Everything political ebbs and flows, but when the lights start going off people have a completely different perspective.”
What’s Behind Europe’s Skyrocketing Energy Prices
Indeed, there’s a risk of rolling blackouts this winter. Supply concerns plaguing Europe have sent gas and electricity prices to record levels and inflation has ballooned. There’s also mounting tension with Russia over a possible invasion of Ukraine, which could lead to disrupted supplies of gas. All this is strengthening the argument that Europe needs to reduce its dependence on international sources of gas.
Europe will need to invest 500 billion euros ($568 billion) in nuclear over the next 30 years to meet growing demand for electricity and achieve its carbon reduction targets, according to Thierry Breton, the EU’s internal market commissioner. His comments come after the bloc unveiled plans last month to allow certain natural gas and nuclear energy projects to be classified as sustainable investments.
“Nuclear power is a very long-term investment and investors need some kind of guarantee that it will generate a payoff,” said Elina Brutschin at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. In order to survive in liberalized economies like the EU, the technology needs policy support to help protect investors, she said.
That already looks like a tall order. The European Commission has been told by a key expert group that the labeling risks raising greenhouse gas emissions and undermining the bloc’s reputation as a bastion for environmentally friendly finance.
Austria has threatened to sue the European Commission over attempts to label atomic energy as green. The nation previously attempted a legal challenge, when the U.K. was still an EU member, to stop the construction of Electricite de France SA’s Hinkley Point C plant, in the west of England. It has also commenced litigation against new Russia-backed projects in neighboring Hungary.
Germany, which has missed its carbon emissions targets for the past two years, has been criticized by some environmentalists and climate scientists for shutting down a supply of clean power at the worst time, despite arguments for a nuclear option for climate policy. Its final three reactors will be halted this year. Yet that was never going to be reversed with the Greens part of the new coalition government.
The contribution of renewables in Germany has almost tripled since the year before Fukushima, and was 42% of supply last year. That’s a drop from 46% from the year before and means the country’s new government will have to install some 3 gigawatts of renewables — equivalent to the generating capacity of three nuclear reactors — every year this decade to hit the country's 80% goal.
“Other countries don’t have this strong political background that goes back to three decades of anti-nuclear protests,” said Manuel Koehler, managing director of Aurora Energy Research Ltd., a company analyzing power markets and founded by Oxford University academics.
At the heart of the issue is that countries with a history of nuclear weapons will be more likely to use the fuel for power generation. They will also have built an industry and jobs in civil engineering around that.
Germany’s Greens grew out of anti-nuclear protest movements against the stationing of U.S. nuclear missiles in West Germany. The 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, which sent plumes of radioactive fallout wafting over parts of western Europe, helped galvanize the broader population. Nuclear phase-out plans were originally laid out in 2002, but were put on hold by the country's conservative governments. The 2011 Fukushima meltdowns reinvigorated public debate, ultimately prompting Merkel to implement them.
It’s not easy to undo that commitment, said Mark Hibbs, a Bonn, Germany-based nuclear analyst at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, or to envision any resurgence of nuclear in Germany soon: “These are strategic decisions, that have been taken long in advance.”
In France, President Emmanuel Macron is about to embark on a renewed embrace of nuclear power, even as a Franco-German nuclear dispute complicates the debate. The nation produces about two-thirds of its power from reactors and is the biggest exporter of electricity in Europe. Notably, that includes anti-nuclear Germany and Austria.
EDF, the world’s biggest nuclear plant operator, is urging the French government to support construction of six new large-scale reactors at an estimated cost of about 50 billion euros. The first of them would start generating in 2035.
But even France has faced setbacks. Development of new projects has been put on hold after years of technical issues at the Flamanville-3 project in Normandy. The plant is now scheduled to be completed next year.
In the U.K., Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said that the global gas price crisis underscores the need for more home-generated clean power. By 2024, five of Britain’s eight plants will be shuttered because they are too old. Hinkley Point C is due to be finished in 2026 and the government will make a final decision on another station before an election due in 2024.
One solution is to build small modular reactors, or SMRs, which are quicker to construct and cheaper. The U.S. is at the forefront of efforts to design smaller nuclear systems with plans also underway in the U.K. and France. Yet they too have faced delays. SMR designs have existed for decades though face the same challenging economic metrics and safety and security regulations of big plants.
The trouble, as ever, is time. “Any investment decisions you make now aren’t going to come to fruition until the 2030s,” said Osbaldstone, the research director at Wood Mackenzie. “Nuclear isn’t an answer to the current energy crisis.”
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.
NGCP-SGCC Partnership drives transmission grid modernization in the Philippines, boosting high-voltage capacity, reliability, and resilience, while developing engineering talent via the Trailblazers Program to meet Southeast Asia best practices and utility standards.
Key Points
A partnership to modernize the Philippines' grid, boost high-voltage capacity, and upskill NGCP engineers.
✅ Modernizes transmission assets and grid reliability nationwide
✅ Trailblazers Program develops NGCP's engineering leadership
✅ SGCC knowledge transfer on UHV, high-voltage, and best practices
The National Grid Corp. of the Philippines (NGCP) is building on its partnership with State Grid Corp of China (SGCC) to expand and modernize transmission facilities, as well as enhance the capabilities of its personnel to advance the country's grid network, aligning with smart grid transformation in Egypt seen in other markets. NGCP Internal Affairs Department head Edwin Natividad said the grid operator is implementing various development programs with SGCC to make the country's power grid among the best power utilities in Asia.
"We have to look at policies aligned with best global practices, including smart grid solutions increasingly adopted worldwide, that we can choose in adopting in the Philippines too," he said. One of NGCP's flagship development program is the Trailblazers Program, the company's strategy to further develop engineers "who will not just be technical experts, but also be the change agents and movers in the NGCP organization as well as in the Philippines' power sector," Natividad said.
"Having the support of the largest utility in the world gives us comfort that this program is designed and implemented by the best in the power industry," he said. Under the program, high performing personnel participating will be prepared for bigger roles later on in their careers at NGCP.
Business ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1 "The advantage of such a pool is that it provides flexibility and, eventually, organizational self-sufficiency around the current and future talent needs of NGCP," Natividad said. Now on its third edition, the Trailblazers Program has already sent 76 personnel since it started in November 2016. Natividad said more than 16 of those who previously attended similar programs have already assumed higher roles in NGCP.
Apart from technical skills development, NGCP's partnership with SGCC also provides technical development to improve on the physical transmission assets. "If you will compare the facilities being handled by SGCC with other countries, in terms of handling high voltage capability, SGCC is way ahead.
The higher the voltage it's going to be more difficult to handle," Natividad said, adding they can handle more power to distribute to power distributors. As an example, SGCC's transmission facilities can handle high voltage to as much as 1,000 kiloVolts (kV), whereas the Philippines only has one high voltage facility, the interconnection between Luzon and Visayas, which can handle 500 kV, echoing proposals for macrogrids in Canada to improve reliability.
Natividad said NGCP was the first and biggest investment of SGCC outside of China before it made investments in other parts of the world, even as cybersecurity concerns in Britain have influenced supplier choices. A consortium among businessmen Henry Sy Jr., Robert Coyuito Jr., and SGCC as technical partner, NGCP holds a 25-year concession contract to operate and maintain the country's transmission grid.
Earlier, Sy, NGCP president and CEO, said the company is targeting to become the best utility firm in Southeast Asia. Since it took over the operations and maintenance of the country's power transmission network in 2009, the grid operator has introduced major physical and technological upgrades to ageing state-owned lines and facilities, while in Great Britain an independent operator model is being advanced to reshape system operations.
B.C. EV Charging Rebates boost CleanBC incentives as NRCan and ZEVIP funding covers up to 75% of Level 2 and DC fast-charger purchase and installation costs for homes, workplaces, condos, apartments, and fleet operators.
Key Points
Incentives in B.C. cover up to 75% of Level 2 and DC fast charger costs for homes, workplaces, and fleets.
✅ Up to 75% back; Level 2 max $5,000; DC fast max $75,000 for fleets.
✅ Funded by CleanBC with NRCan ZEVIP; time-limited top-up.
The Province and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) are making it more affordable for people to install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in their homes, businesses and communities, as EV demand ramps up across the province.
B.C. residents, businesses and municipalities can receive higher rebates for EV charging stations through the CleanBC Go Electric EV Charger Rebate and Fleets programs. For a limited time, funding will cover as much as 75% of eligible purchase and installation costs for EV charging stations, which is an increase from the previous 50% coverage.
“With electric vehicles representing 13% of all new light-duty vehicles sold in B.C. last year, our province has the strongest adoption rate of electric vehicles in Canada. We’re positioning ourselves to become leaders in the EV industry,” said Bruce Ralston, B.C.’s Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. “We’re working with our federal partners to increase rebates for home, workplace and fleet charging, and making it easier and more affordable for people to make the switch to electric vehicles.”
With a $2-million investment through NRCan’s Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Program (ZEVIP) to top up the Province’s EV Charger Rebate program, workplaces, condominiums and apartments can get a rebate for a Level 2 charging station for as much as 75% of purchase and installation costs to a maximum of $5,000. As many as 360 EV chargers will be installed through the program.
“We’re making electric vehicles more affordable and charging more accessible where Canadians live, work and play,” said Jonathan Wilkinson, federal Minister of Natural Resources. “Investing in more EV chargers, like the ones announced today in British Columbia, will put more Canadians in the driver’s seat on the road to a net-zero future and help achieve our climate goals.”
Through the CleanBC Go Electric Fleets program and in support of B.C. businesses that own and operate fleet vehicles, NRCan has invested $1.54 million through ZEVIP to top up rebates. Fleet operators can get combined rebates from NRCan and the Province for a Level 2 charging station as much as 75% to a maximum of $5,000 of purchase and installation costs, and 75% to a maximum of $75,000 for a direct-current, fast-charging station. As many as 450 EV chargers will be installed through the program.
CleanBC is a pathway to a more prosperous, balanced and sustainable future. It supports government’s commitment to climate action to meet B.C.’s emission targets and build a cleaner, stronger economy.
Quick Facts:
A direct-current fast charger on the BC Electric Highway allows an EV to get 100-300 kilometres of range from 30 minutes of charging.
Faster chargers, which give more range in less time, are coming out every year.
A Level 2 charger allows an EV to get approximately 30 kilometres of range per hour of charging.
It uses approximately the same voltage as a clothes dryer and is usually installed in homes, workplaces or for fleets to get a faster charge than a regular outlet, or in public places where people might park for a longer time.
A key CleanBC action is to strengthen the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act to require light-duty vehicle sales to be 26% zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2026, 90% by 2030 and 100% by 2035, five years ahead of the original target.
To learn more about home and workplace EV charging-station rebates, eligibility and application processes, visit: https://goelectricbc.gov.bc.ca/
To learn more about the Fleets program, visit: https://pluginbc.ca/go-electric-fleets/
To learn more about Natural Resources Canada’s Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Program, visit: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficiency/transportation-alternative-fuels/zero-emission-vehicle-infrastructure-program/21876
Russia-Ukraine Energy Ceasefire Violations escalate as U.S.-brokered truce frays, with drone strikes, shelling, and grid attacks disrupting gas supply and power infrastructure across Kursk, Luhansk, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk, prompting sanctions calls.
Key Points
Alleged breaches of a U.S.-brokered truce, with both sides striking power grids, gas lines, and critical energy nodes.
✅ Drone and artillery attacks reported on power and gas assets
✅ Both sides accuse each other of breaking truce terms
✅ U.S. mediation faces verification and compliance hurdles
Russia and Ukraine have traded fresh accusations regarding violations of a fragile energy ceasefire, brokered by the United States, which both sides had agreed to last month. These new allegations highlight the ongoing tensions between the two nations and the challenges involved in implementing a truce amid global energy instability in such a complex and volatile conflict.
The U.S.-brokered ceasefire had initially aimed to reduce the intensity of the fighting, specifically in the energy sector, where both sides had previously targeted each other’s infrastructure. Despite this agreement, the accusations on Wednesday suggest that both Russia and Ukraine have continued their attacks on each other's energy facilities, a crucial aspect of the ceasefire’s terms.
Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed that Ukrainian forces had launched drone and shelling attacks in the western Kursk region, cutting power to over 1,500 homes. This attack allegedly targeted key infrastructure, leaving several localities without electricity. Additionally, in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Luhansk region, a Ukrainian drone strike hit a gas distribution station, severely disrupting the gas supply for over 11,000 customers in the area around Svatove.
In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the ceasefire. He claimed that Russian drone strikes had targeted an energy substation in Ukraine’s Sumy region, while artillery fire had damaged a power line in the Dnipropetrovsk region, leaving nearly 4,000 consumers without power even as Ukraine increasingly leans on electricity imports to stabilize the grid. Ukraine's accusations painted a picture of continued Russian aggression against critical energy infrastructure, a strategy that had previously been a hallmark of Russia’s broader military operations in the war.
The U.S. had brokered the energy truce as a potential stepping stone toward a more comprehensive ceasefire agreement. However, the repeated violations raise questions about the truce’s viability and the broader prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides are accusing each other of undermining the agreement, which had already been delicate due to previous suspicions and mistrust. In particular, the U.S. administration, led by President Donald Trump, has expressed impatience with the slow progress in moving toward a lasting peace, amid debates over U.S. national energy security priorities.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov defended Russia’s stance, emphasizing that President Vladimir Putin had shown a commitment to peace by agreeing to the energy truce, despite what he termed as daily Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. He reiterated that Russia would continue to cooperate with the U.S., even though the Ukrainian strikes were ongoing. This perspective suggests that Russia remains committed to the truce but views Ukraine’s actions as violations that could potentially derail efforts to reach a more comprehensive ceasefire.
On the other hand, President Zelensky argued that Russia was not adhering to the terms of the ceasefire. He urged the U.S. to take a stronger stance against Russia, including increasing sanctions on Moscow as punishment for its violations. Zelensky’s call for heightened sanctions is a continuation of his efforts to pressure international actors, particularly the U.S. and European countries, to provide greater energy security support for Ukraine’s struggle and to hold Russia accountable for its actions.
The ceasefire’s fragility is also reflected in the differing views between Ukraine and Russia on what constitutes a successful resolution. Ukraine had proposed a full 30-day ceasefire, but President Putin declined, raising concerns about monitoring and verifying compliance with the terms. This disagreement suggests that both sides are not entirely aligned on what a peaceful resolution should look like and how it can be realistically achieved.
The situation is complicated by the broader context of the war, which has now dragged on for over three years. The conflict has seen significant casualties, immense destruction, and deep geopolitical ramifications. Both countries are heavily reliant on their energy infrastructures, making any attack on these systems not only a military tactic but also a form of economic warfare. Energy resources, including electricity and natural gas, have become central to the ongoing conflict, with both sides using them to exert pressure on the other amid Europe's deepening energy crisis that reverberates beyond the battlefield.
As of now, it remains unclear whether the recent violations of the energy ceasefire will lead to a breakdown of the truce or whether the United States will intervene further to restore compliance, even as Ukraine prepares for winter amid energy challenges. The situation remains fluid, and the international community continues to closely monitor the developments. The U.S., which played a central role in brokering the energy ceasefire, has made it clear that it expects both sides to uphold the terms of the agreement and work toward a more permanent cessation of hostilities.
The continued accusations between Russia and Ukraine regarding the breach of the energy ceasefire underscore the challenges of negotiating peace in such a complex and entrenched conflict. While both sides claim to be upholding their commitments, the reality on the ground suggests that reaching a full and lasting peace will require much more than temporary truces. The international community, particularly the U.S., will likely continue to push for stronger actions to enforce compliance and to prevent the conflict from further escalating. The outcome of this dispute will have significant implications for both countries and the broader European energy landscape and security landscape.
CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.
Key Points
A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.
✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency
✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste
✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions
By Tom Baxter
The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.
I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.
As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.
There were many differences, here are three;
1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.
There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.
Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.
Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.
My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.
Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants
2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.
On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.
Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.
In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.
On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.
Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.
3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.
Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.
There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.
Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.
Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.
I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.
The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.
However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.
What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.
A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.
The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.
Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.
Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.
To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.
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.
