New York Climate Transition Costs highlight rising utility bills for ratepayers as the state pursues renewable energy, electrification, and a zero-emissions grid, with Inflation Reduction Act funding to offset consumer burdens while delivering health benefits.
Key Points
Ratepayer-funded costs to meet New York's renewable targets and zero-emissions grid, offset by federal incentives.
✅ $48B in projects funded by consumers over two decades
✅ Up to 10% of utility bills already paid by some upstate users
✅ Targets: 70% renewables by 2030; zero-emissions grid by 2040
A generational push to tackle climate change in New York that includes its Green New Deal is quickly becoming a pocketbook issue headed into 2024.
Some upstate New York electric customers are already paying 10 percent of their electricity bills to support the state’s effort to move off fossil fuels and into renewable energy. In the coming years, people across the state can expect to give up even bigger chunks of their income to the programs — $48 billion in projects is set to be funded by consumers over the next two decades.
The scenario is creating a headache for New York Democrats grappling with the practical and political risk of the transition.
It’s an early sign of the dangers Democrats across the country will face as they press forward with similar policies at the state and federal level. New Jersey, Maryland and California are also wrestling with the issue and, in some cases, are reconsidering their ambitious plans, including a 100% carbon-free mandate in California.
“This is bad politics. This is politics that are going to hurt all New Yorkers,” said state Sen. Mario Mattera, a Long Island Republican who has repeatedly questioned the costs of the state’s climate law and who will pay for it.
Democrats, Mattera said, have been unable to explain effectively the costs for the state’s goals. “We need to transition into renewable energy at a certain rate, a certain pace,” he said.
Proponents say the switch will ultimately lower energy bills by harnessing the sun and wind, result in significant health benefits and — critically — help stave off the most devastating climate change scenarios. And they hope new money to go green from the Inflation Reduction Act, celebrating its one-year anniversary, can limit costs to consumers.
New York has statutory mandates calling for 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and a fully “zero emissions” grid by 2040, among the most aggressive targets in the country, aligning with a broader path to net-zero electricity by mid-century. The grid needs to be greened, while demand for electricity is expected to more than double by 2050 — the same year when state law requires emissions to be cut by 85 percent from 1990 levels.
But some lawmakers in New York, particularly upstate Democrats, and similar moderates across the nation are worried about moving too quickly and sparking a backlash against higher costs, as debates over Minnesota's 2050 carbon-free plan illustrate. The issue is another threat to Democrats heading into the critical 2024 battleground House races in New York, which will be instrumental in determining control of Congress.
Even Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who is fond of saying that “we’re the last generation to be able to do anything” about climate change, last spring balked at the potential price tag of a policy to achieve New York’s climate targets, a concern echoed in debates over a fully renewable grid by 2030 elsewhere. And she’s not the only top member of her party to say so.
“If it’s all just going to be passed along to the ratepayers — at some point, there’s a breaking point, and we don’t want to lose public support for this agenda,” state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, a Democrat, warned in an interview.
PG&E Public Safety Power Shutoff curbs wildfire risk amid high winds, triggering California outages across Northern California and Bay Area counties; grid safety measures, outage maps, campus closures, and restoration timelines guide residents and businesses.
Key Points
A preemptive outage program by PG&E to reduce wildfire ignition during extreme wind events in California.
✅ Cuts power during red flag, high wind, dry fuel conditions
✅ Targets Northern California, Bay Area counties at highest risk
California utility Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) has cut off power supply to hundreds of thousands of residents in Northern and Central California as a precaution to possible breakout of wildfires, a move examined in reasons for shutdowns by industry observers.
PG&E confirmed that about 513,000 customers in many counties in Northern California, including Napa, Sierra, Sonoma and Yuba, were affected in the first phase of Public Safety Power Shutoff, a preemptive measure it took to prevent wildfires believed likely to be triggered by strong, dry winds.
The utility said the decision to shut off power was, amid ongoing debate over nuclear's status in California, "based on forecasts of dry, hot and windy weather including potential fire risk."
"This weather event will last through midday Thursday, with peak winds forecast from Wednesday morning through Thursday morning and reaching 60 mph (about 96 km per hour) to 70 mph (about 112 km per hour) at higher elevations," it said, while abroad National Grid warnings about short supply have highlighted parallel reliability concerns.
PG&E noted that about 234,000 residents in mostly counties of San Francisco Bay Area such as Alameda, Alpine, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara were impacted in the second phase of the power shutoff, as the state considers power plant closure delays with potential grid impacts, that began around noon in Wednesday.
The unprecedented power outages sweeping across Northern California has darkened homes and forced schools and business to close, even as the UK paused an emergency energy plan amid its own supply concerns.
University of California, Berkeley canceled all classes for Wednesday due to expected campus power loss over the next few days.
The university said it has received notice from PG&E, as China's power woes cloud U.S. solar supplies that could aid resilience, that "most of the core campus will be without power" possibly for 48 hours.
A freshman at California State University San Jose told Xinhua that their classes were canceled Wednesday as the campus was running out of power.
"I had to go home because even our dormitory went without electricity," the student added.
However, PG&E noted in an updated statement Wednesday night that only 4,000 customers would be affected in the third phase being considered for Kern County in Central California, compared to an earlier forecast of 43,000 people who would experience power outage.
The PG&E power shutoff was the largest preemptive measure ever taken to prevent wildfires in the state's history, and it comes as clean power grows while fossil declines across California's grid, highlighting broader transition challenges.
The San Francisco-based California utility was held responsible for poor management of its power lines that sparked fatal wildfires in Northern California and killed 86 people last year in what was called Camp Fire, the single-deadliest wildfire in California's history.
Several lawsuits and other requests for compensation from wildfire victims that amounted to billions of U.S. dollars forced the embattled the company to claim bankruptcy protection early this year.
TTC Winter E-Bike and E-Scooter Ban addresses lithium-ion battery safety, mitigating fire risk on Toronto public transit during cold weather across buses, subways, and streetcars, while balancing micro-mobility access, infrastructure gaps, and evolving regulations.
Key Points
A seasonal TTC policy limiting lithium-ion e-bikes and scooters on transit in winter to cut battery fire risk.
✅ Targets lithium-ion fire hazards in confined transit spaces
✅ Applies Nov-Mar across buses, subways, and streetcars
✅ Sparks debate on equity, accessibility, and policy alternatives
The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Board recently voted to implement a ban on lithium-ion-powered electric bikes (e-bikes) and electric scooters during the winter months, a decision that reflects growing safety concerns. This new policy has generated significant debate within the city, particularly regarding the role of these transportation modes in the lives of Torontonians, and the potential risks posed by the technology during cold weather.
A Growing Safety Concern
The move to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters from TTC services during the winter months stems from increasing safety concerns related to battery fires. Lithium-ion batteries, commonly used in e-bikes and scooters, are known to pose a fire risk, especially in colder temperatures, and as systems like Metro Vancouver's battery-electric buses expand, robust safety practices are paramount. In recent years, Toronto has experienced several high-profile incidents involving fires caused by these batteries. In some cases, these fires have occurred on TTC property, including on buses and subway cars, raising alarm among transit officials.
The TTC Board's decision was largely driven by the fear that the cold temperatures during winter months could make lithium-ion batteries more prone to malfunction, leading to potential fires. These batteries are particularly vulnerable to damage when exposed to low temperatures, which can cause them to overheat or fail during charging or use. Since public transit systems are densely populated and rely on close quarters, the risk of a battery fire in a confined space such as a bus or subway is considered too high.
The New Ban
The new rule, which is expected to take effect in the coming months, will prohibit e-bikes and scooters powered by lithium-ion batteries from being brought onto TTC vehicles, including buses, streetcars, and subway trains, even as the agency rolls out battery electric buses across its fleet, during the winter months. While the TTC had previously allowed passengers to bring these devices on board, it had issued warnings regarding their safety. The policy change reflects a more cautious approach to mitigating risk in light of growing concerns.
The winter months, typically from November to March, are when these batteries are at their most vulnerable. In addition to environmental factors, the challenges posed by winter weather—such as snow, ice, and the damp conditions—can exacerbate the potential for damage to these devices. The TTC Board hopes the new ban will prevent further incidents and keep transit riders safe.
Pushback and Debate
Not everyone agrees with the TTC Board's decision. Some residents and advocacy groups have expressed concern that this ban unfairly targets individuals who rely on e-bikes and scooters as an affordable and sustainable mode of transportation, while international examples like Paris's e-scooter vote illustrate how contentious rental devices can be elsewhere, adding fuel to the debate. E-bikes, in particular, have become a popular choice among commuters who want an eco-friendly alternative to driving, especially in a city like Toronto, where traffic congestion can be severe.
Advocates argue that instead of an outright ban, the TTC should invest in safer infrastructure, such as designated storage areas for e-bikes and scooters, or offer guidelines on how to safely store and transport these devices during winter, and, in assessing climate impacts, consider Canada's electricity mix alongside local safety measures. They also point out that other forms of electric transportation, such as electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters, are not subject to the same restrictions, raising questions about the fairness of the new policy.
In response to these concerns, the TTC has assured the public that it remains committed to finding alternative solutions that balance safety with accessibility. Transit officials have stated that they will continue to monitor the situation and consider adjustments to the policy if necessary.
Broader Implications for Transportation in Toronto
The TTC’s decision to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters is part of a broader conversation about the future of transportation in urban centers like Toronto. The rise of electric micro-mobility devices has been seen as a step toward reducing carbon emissions and addressing the city’s growing congestion issues, aligning with Canada's EV goals that push for widespread adoption. However, as more people turn to e-bikes and scooters for daily commuting, concerns about safety and infrastructure have become more pronounced.
The city of Toronto has yet to roll out comprehensive regulations for electric scooters and bikes, and this issue is further complicated by the ongoing push for sustainable urban mobility and pilots like driverless electric shuttles that test new models. While transit authorities grapple with safety risks, the public is increasingly looking for ways to integrate these devices into a broader, more holistic transportation system that prioritizes both convenience and safety.
The TTC’s decision to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters during the winter months is a necessary step to address growing safety concerns in Toronto's public transit system. Although the decision has been met with some resistance, it highlights the ongoing challenges in managing the growing use of electric transportation in urban environments, where initiatives like TTC's electric bus fleet offer lessons on scaling safely. With winter weather exacerbating the risks associated with lithium-ion batteries, the policy seeks to reduce the chances of fires and ensure the safety of all transit users. As the city moves forward, it will need to find ways to balance innovation with public safety to create a more sustainable and safe urban transportation network.
Siemens Gamesa SG 14-222 DD advances offshore wind with a 14 MW direct-drive turbine, 108 m blades, a 222 m rotor, optional 15 MW boost, powering about 18,000 homes; prototype 2021, commercial launch 2024.
Key Points
A 14 MW offshore wind turbine with 108 m blades and a 222 m rotor, upgradable to 15 MW, targeting commercial use in 2024.
✅ 14 MW direct-drive, upgradable to 15 MW
✅ 108 m blades, 222 m rotor diameter
✅ Powers about 18,000 European homes annually
Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE) has released details of a 14-megawatt (MW) offshore wind turbine, as offshore green hydrogen production gains attention, in the latest example of how technology in the sector is increasing in scale.
With 108-meter-long blades and a rotor diameter of 222 meters, the dimensions of the SG 14-222 DD turbine are significant.
In a statement Tuesday, SGRE said that one turbine would be able to power roughly 18,000 average European households annually, while its capacity can also be boosted to 15 MW if needed. A prototype of the turbine is set to be ready by 2021, and it’s expected to be commercially available in 2024, as forecasts suggest a $1 trillion business this decade.
Last December, for example, Dutch utility Eneco started to purchase power produced by the prototype of GE Renewable Energy’s Haliade-X 12 MW wind turbine. That turbine has a capacity of 12 MW, a height of 260 meters and a blade length of 107 meters.
The announcement of Siemens Gamesa’s new turbine plans comes against the backdrop of the coronavirus pandemic, which is impacting renewable energy companies around the world, even as wind power sees growth despite Covid-19 in many markets.
Earlier this month, the European company said Covid-19 had a “direct negative impact” of 56 million euros ($61 million) on its profitability between January and March, amid factory closures in Spain and supply chain disruptions. This, it added, was equivalent to 2.5% of revenues during the quarter.
The pandemic has, in some parts of the world, altered the sources used to power society. At the end of April, for instance, it was announced that a new record had been set for coal-free electricity generation in Great Britain, where UK offshore wind growth has accelerated, with a combination of factors — including coronavirus-related lockdown measures — playing a role.
On Tuesday, the CEO of another major wind turbine manufacturer, Danish firm Vestas, sought to emphasize the importance of renewable energy in the years and months ahead, and the lessons the U.S. can learn from the U.K. on wind deployment.
“I think we have actually, throughout this crisis, also shown to all society that renewables can be trusted,” Henrik Andersen said during an interview on CNBC’s Street Signs.
“But we both know ... that that transformation of energy sources is not going to happen overnight, it’s not going to happen from a quarter to a quarter, it’s going to happen by consistently planning year in, year out.”
Maryland Renewable Energy Violations highlight RPS compliance gaps as facilities selling renewable energy certificates, including waste-to-energy, biomass, and paper mills, face emissions and permit issues, prompting PSC and Attorney General scrutiny of environmental standards.
Key Points
Alleged RPS noncompliance by REC-eligible plants, prompting PSC review and potential decertification under Maryland law.
✅ Complaint targets waste-to-energy, biomass plants, and paper mills
✅ Facilities risk loss of REC certification for environmental violations
✅ PSC may investigate nonreporting; AG reviewing evidence
Many facilities that supply Maryland with renewable energy have exceeded pollution limits or otherwise broken environmental rules, violating a state law, according to a complaint sent by environmental groups to state energy and law enforcement officials.
Maryland law says that any company that contributes to a state renewable energy goal — half the state’s energy portfolio must come from renewable sources by 2030 — must “substantially comply” with rules on air and water quality and waste management. The complaint says more than two dozen power generators, including paper mills and trash incinerators, have records of formal or informal enforcement actions by environmental authorities.
For years, environmental groups have criticized Maryland policy that counts power plants that produce planet-warming carbon dioxide and health-threatening pollution as “renewable” energy generation, and similar tensions have emerged in California’s reliance on fossil fuels despite ambitious targets, but lawmakers concerned about protecting industrial jobs have resisted reforms. The renewable label qualifies the companies for subsidies drawn from energy bills across the state.
In a complaint filed this week, the groups asked the attorney general and Public Service Commission to step in.
“We’re subsidizing companies to produce dirty energy, but we’re also using ratepayer money to support companies that in many instances are paying environmental fines or just flouting the law,” said Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “There’s no one to hold them to account in Maryland.”
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Brian Frosh said his office would review the complaint, which was signed by Whitehouse and Mike Ewall, executive director of the Energy Justice Network.
Public Service Commission officials said the facilities must notify them if found out of compliance with environmental rules, while at the federal level FERC action on aggregated DERs is shaping market participation, and the commission can then revoke certification under the state renewable energy program. In a statement, commission officials said they would launch an investigation if any facility had failed to notify them of any environmental violations, and encouraged anyone with evidence of such a transgression to file a complaint.
Companies named in the document accused the groups of painting an inaccurate picture.
“This complaint is based on misleading arguments designed to halt waste-to-energy practices that have clear environmental benefits recognized by the global scientific community,” said Jim Connolly, vice president of environment, health and safety for Wheelabrator, which owns a Baltimore trash incinerator.
Maryland launched its renewable energy program in 2004, diversifying the state’s energy portfolio with more environmentally friendly sources of power, even as regional debates over a Maine-Québec transmission line highlight cross-border impacts. Under the program, separate from the electricity they generate and sell to the grid, renewable power facilities can sell what are known as renewable energy certificates. Utilities such as Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. are required to buy a growing number of the certificates each year, essentially subsidizing the renewable energy facilities with money from ratepayer bills.
A dozen types of power generation qualify to sell the certificates: Solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric plants, as well as “biomass” facilities that burn wood and other organic matter, waste-to-energy plants that burn household trash and paper mills that burn a byproduct known as black liquor.
The complaint focuses on waste incinerators, biomass plants and paper mills, all of which environmental groups have cast as counter to the renewable energy program’s environmental goals, even as ACORE criticized a coal and nuclear subsidy proposal in federal proceedings.
“By subsidizing these corporations, Maryland is diverting the hard-earned income of Maryland ratepayers to wealthy corporations with poor environmental compliance records and undermining the state’s transition to clean renewable energy,” Whitehouse and Ewall wrote.
For example, they note that the Wheelabrator plant in Southwest Baltimore has been fined for exceeding mercury limits in the past. That occurred in 2011, when the plant settled with state regulators for violations in 2010 and 2009.
Connolly said there is “no question” the facility complies with Maryland’s renewable energy law.
Incinerators in Montgomery County and in Fairfax County, Virginia, that are owned by Covanta and sell the energy certificates in Maryland have been cited for accidental fires inside both facilities. The Maryland incinerator violated emissions rules in 2014, the same year that New Jersey forbade the Virginia facility from selling energy certificates into that state’s renewable energy program over concerns it wasn’t following ash testing regulations.
James Regan, a spokesman for Covanta, said both facilities “have excellent compliance records and they operate well below their permitted limits.” He said the Virginia facility is complying with ash testing requirements, and that both facilities emit far lower levels of pollutants such as particulate matter than vehicles do.
“It’s clear to us there’s a lot of misleading and wrong information in this document," Regan said.
The Environmental Protection Agency endorsed waste-to-energy facilities under former President Barack Obama because, while burning household trash emits carbon dioxide, scientists said that still had a smaller impact on global warming than sending trash to landfills, even as industry groups have backed the EPA in a legal challenge to the ACE rule as regulatory approaches shifted.
Environmentalists and community groups say the facilities still are harmful because they emit high levels of pollutants such as mercury, nitrogen oxides and lead. The concerns prompted Baltimore City Council to pass an ordinance in February that tightened emissions limits on the Wheelabrator facility, even as the new EPA pollution limits for coal and gas plants are being proposed, so dramatically that the company said it would no longer be able to operate once the rules go into effect in 2022.
The complaint does not mention the century-old Luke paper mill in Western Maryland that long faced criticism for its participation in the renewable energy program, but which owner Verso Co. closed this year.
It does say several of paper company WestRock’s mills in North Carolina and Virginia have faced both formal and informal EPA enforcement actions for violation of the Clean Water Act, including evolving EPA wastewater limits for power plants and other facilities, and the Clean Air Act. A WestRock spokesperson could not be reached for comment.
The complaint also says a large biomass facility in South Boston, Virginia, owned by the Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative has a record of noncompliance with the Clean Air Act over three years.
John Rainey, the plant’s operations director, said it “experienced some small exceedances to its permit limits,” but that it addressed the issues with Virginia environmental officials and has installed new technology.
All those plants have sold credits in Maryland.
Whitehouse said the environmental groups’ goal is to clean up Maryland’s renewable energy program. They did not file a lawsuit because he said there was no clear cause of action to take the state to court, but said he hopes the complaint nonetheless spurs action.
“It’s not acceptable in a clean energy program that we’re subsidizing some of the most dirty sources of energy,” he said. “Those sources aren’t even in compliance with the law, and no one seems to care.”
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.
Canada Clean Electricity Regulations allow flexible, technology-neutral pathways to a 2035 net-zero grid, permitting limited natural gas with carbon capture, strict emissions standards, and exemptions for emergencies and peak demand across provinces and territories.
Key Points
Federal draft rules for a 2035 net-zero grid, allowing limited gas with CCS under strict performance and compliance standards.
✅ Performance cap: 30 tCO2 per GWh annually for gas plants
✅ CCS must sequester 95% of emissions to comply
✅ Emergency and peak demand exemptions permitted
After facing pushback from Alberta and Saskatchewan, and amid looming power challenges nationwide, Canada's draft net-zero electricity regulations — released today — will permit some natural gas power generation.
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault released Ottawa's proposed Clean Electricity Regulations on Thursday.
Provinces and territories will have a minimum 75-day window to comment on the draft regulations. The final rules are intended to pave the way to a net-zero power grid in Canada, aligning with 2035 clean electricity goals established nationally.
Calling the regulations "technology neutral," Guilbeault said the federal government believes there's enough flexibility to accommodate the different energy needs of Canada's diverse provinces and territories, including how Ontario is embracing clean power in its planning.
"What we're talking about is not a fossil fuel-free grid by 2035; it's a net zero grid by 2035," Guilbeault said.
"We understand there will be some fossil fuels remaining … but we're working to minimize those, and the fossil fuels that will be used in 2035 will have to comply with rigorous environmental and emission standards," he added.
Some analysts argue that scrapping coal-fired electricity can be costly and ineffective, underscoring the trade-offs in transition planning.
While non-emitting sources of electricity — hydroelectricity, wind and solar and nuclear — should not have any issues complying with the regulations, natural gas plants will have to meet specific criteria.
Those operations, the government said, will need to emit the equivalent of 30 tonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour or less annually to help balance demand and emissions across the grid.
Federal officials said existing natural gas power plants could comply with that performance standard with the help of carbon capture and storage systems, which would be required to sequester 95 per cent of their emissions.
"In other words, it's achievable, and it is achievable by existing technology," said a government official speaking to reporters Thursday on background and not for attribution.
The regulations will also allow a certain level of natural gas power production without the need to capture emissions. Capturing emissions will be exempted during emergencies and peak periods when renewables cannot keep up with demand.
Some newer plants might not have to comply with the rules until the 2040s, because the regulations apply to plants 20 years after they are commissioned, which dovetails with net-zero by 2050 commitments from electricity associations.
The two-decade grace period does not apply to plants that open after the regulations are expected to be finalized in 2025.
