ABB claims its Terra 360 is the "world's fastest electric car charger"


abb charger

Arc Flash Training CSA Z462 - Electrical Safety Essentials

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 6 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$249
Coupon Price:
$199
Reserve Your Seat Today

ABB Terra 360 EV Charger offers 360 kW DC fast charging, ultra-fast top-ups, and multi-vehicle capability for Ionity, Electrify America, and depot installations, adding 100 km in under 3 minutes with compact footprint.

 

Key Points

ABB's Terra 360 is a 360 kW DC fast charger for EVs, powering up to four vehicles simultaneously with a compact footprint.

✅ 360 kW DC output; adds 100 km in under 3 minutes

✅ Charges up to four vehicles at once; small footprint

✅ Rolling out in Europe 2021; US and beyond in 2022

 

Swiss company ABB, which supplies EV chargers to Ionity and Electrify America amid intensifying charging network competition worldwide, has unveiled what it calls the "world's fastest electric car charger." As its name suggests, the Terra 360 has a 360 kW capacity, and as electric-car adoption accelerates, it could fully charge a (theoretical) EV in 15 minutes. More realistically, it can charge four vehicles simultaneously, saving space at charging stations. 

The Terra 360 isn't the most powerful charger by much, as companies like Electrify America, Ionity and EVGo have been using 350 kW chargers manufactured by ABB and others since at least 2018. However, it's the "only charger designed explicitly to charge up to four vehicles at once," the company said. "This gives owners the flexibility to charge up to four vehicles overnight or to give a quick refill to their EVs in the day." They also have a relatively small footprint, allowing installation in small depots or parking lots, helping as US automakers plan 30,000 new chargers nationwide. 

There aren't a lot of EVs that can handle that kind of charge. The only two approaching it are Porsche's Taycan, with 270 kW of charging capacity and the new Lucid Air, which allows for up to 300 kW fast-charging. Tesla's Model 3 and Model Y EVs can charge at up to 250 kW, while Hyundai's Ioniq 5 is rated for 232 kW DC fast charging in optimal conditions. 

Such high charging levels aren't necessarily great for an EV's battery, and the broader grid capacity question looms as the American EV boom gathers pace. Porsche, for instance, has a battery preservation setting on its Plug & Charge Taycan feature that lowers power to 200 kW from the maximum 270 kW allowed — so it's essentially acknowledging that faster charging degrades the battery. On top of that, extreme charging levels don't necessarily save you much time, as Car and Driver found. Tesla recently promised to upgrade its own Supercharger V3 network from 250kW to 300kW, with energy storage solutions emerging to buffer high-power sites. 

ABB's new chargers will be able to add 100 km (62 miles) of range in less than three minutes. They'll arrive in Europe by the end of the year and start rolling out in the US and elsewhere in 2022.

 

Related News

Related News

Massachusetts Issues Energy Storage Solicitation Offering $10M

Massachusetts Energy Storage Solicitation offers grants and matching funds via MassCEC and DOER for grid-connected, behind-the-meter projects, utility partners, and innovative business models, targeting 600 MW, clean energy leadership, and ratepayer savings.

 

Key Points

MassCEC and DOER matching-fund program for grid-connected storage pilots, advancing innovation and ratepayer savings.

✅ $100k-$1.25M matching funds; 50% cost share required

✅ Grid-connected, utility-partnered and behind-the-meter eligible

✅ 10-15 awards; proposals due June 9; install within 18 months

 

Massachusetts released a much-awaited energy storage solicitation on Thursday offering up to $10 million for new projects.

Issued by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) and the Department of Energy Resources (DOER), the solicitation makes available $100,000 to $1.25 million in matching funds for each chosen project.

The solicitation springs from a state report issued last year that found Massachusetts could save electricity ratepayers $800 million by incorporating 600 MW of energy storage projects. The state plans to set a specific energy storage goal, now the subject of a separate proceeding before the DOER.

The state is offering money for projects that showcase examples of future storage deployment, help to grow the state’s energy storage economy, and contribute to the state’s clean energy innovation leadership.

MassCEC anticipates making about 10-15 awards. Applicants must supply at least 50 percent of total project cost.

The state is offering money for projects that showcase examples of future storage deployment, help to grow the state’s energy storage economy, and contribute to the state’s clean energy innovation leadership.

MassCEC anticipates making about 10-15 awards. Applicants must supply at least 50 percent of total project cost.

The state plans to allot about half of the money from the energy storage solicitation to projects that include utility partners. Both distribution scale and behind-the-meter projects, including net-zero buildings among others, will be considered, but must be grid connected.

The solicitation seeks innovative business models that showcase the commercial value of energy storage in light of the specific local energy challenges and opportunities in Massachusetts.

Projects also should demonstrate multiple benefits/value streams to ratepayers, the local utility, or wholesale market.

And finally, projects should help uncover market and regulatory issues as well as monetization and financing barriers.

The state anticipates teams forming to apply for the grants. Teams may include public and private entities and are are encouraged to include the local utility.

Proposals are due June 9. The state expects to notify winners September 8, with contracts issued within the following month. Projects must be installed within 18 months of receiving contracts.

 

 

Related News

View more

UK sets new record for wind power generation

Britain Wind Generation Record underscores onshore and offshore wind momentum, as National Grid ESO reported 20.91 GW, boosting zero-carbon electricity, renewables share, and grid stability amid milder weather, falling gas prices, and net zero goals.

 

Key Points

The Britain wind generation record is 20.91 GW, set on 30 Dec, driven by onshore and offshore turbines.

✅ Set on 30 Dec 2022 with peak output of 20.91 GW.

✅ Zero-carbon sources hit 87.2% of grid supply.

✅ Driven by onshore and offshore wind; ESO reported stability.

 

Britain has set a new record for wind generation as power from onshore and offshore turbines helped boost clean energy supplies late last year.

National Grid’s electricity system operator (ESO), which handles Great Britain’s grid operations, said that a new record for wind generation was set on 30 December, when 20.91 gigawatts (GW) were produced by turbines.

This represented the third time Britain’s fleet of wind turbines set new generation records in 2022. In May, National Grid had to ask some turbines in the west of Scotland to shut down, as the network was unable to store such a large amount of electricity when a then record 19.9GW of power was produced – enough to boil 3.5m kettles.

The ESO said a new record was also set for the share of electricity on the grid coming from zero-carbon sources – renewables and nuclear – which supplied 87.2% of total power. These sources have accounted for about 55% to 59% of power over the past couple of years.

The surge in wind generation represents a remarkable reversal in fortunes as a cold snap that enveloped Britain and Europe quickly turned to milder weather.

Power prices had soared as the freezing weather forced Britons to increase their heating use, pushing up demand for energy despite high bills.

The cold weather came with a period of low wind, reducing the production of Britain’s windfarms to close to zero.

Emergency coal-fired power units at Drax in North Yorkshire were put on standby but ultimately not used, while gas-fired generation accounted for nearly 60% of the UK’s power output at times.

However, milder weather in the UK and Europe in recent days has led to a reduction in demand from consumers and a fall in wholesale gas prices. It has also reduced the risk of power cuts this winter, which National Grid had warned could be a possibility.

Wind generation is increasingly leading the power mix in Britain and is seen as a crucial part of Britain’s move towards net zero. The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, is expected to overturn a moratorium on new onshore wind projects with a consultation on the matter due to run until March.

 

Related News

View more

Ukraine sees new virtue in wind power: It's harder to destroy

Ukraine Wind Energy Resilience shields the grid with wind power along the Black Sea, dispersing turbines to withstand missile attacks, accelerate clean energy transition, aid EU integration, and strengthen energy security and rapid recovery.

 

Key Points

A strategy in Ukraine using wind farms to harden the grid, ensure clean power, and speed recovery from missile strikes.

✅ Distributed turbines reduce single-point-of-failure risk

✅ Faster repair of substations and lines than power plants

✅ Supports EU-aligned clean energy and grid security goals

 

The giants catch the wind with their huge arms, helping to keep the lights on in Ukraine — newly built windmills, on plains along the Black Sea.

In 15 months of war, Russia has launched countless missiles and exploding drones at power plants, hydroelectric dams and substations, trying to black out as much of Ukraine as it can, as often as it can, even amid talk of limiting attacks on energy sites that has surfaced, in its campaign to pound the country into submission.

The new Tyligulska wind farm stands only a few dozen miles from Russian artillery, but Ukrainians say it has a crucial advantage over most of the country’s grid, helping stabilize the system even as electricity exports have occasionally resumed under fire.

A single, well-placed missile can damage a power plant severely enough to take it out of action, but Ukrainian officials say that doing the same to a set of windmills — each one tens of meters apart from any other — would require dozens of missiles. A wind farm can be temporarily disabled by striking a transformer substation or transmission lines, but these are much easier to repair than power plants.

“It is our response to Russians,” said Maksym Timchenko, CEO of DTEK Group, the company that built the turbines in the southern Mykolaiv region — the first phase of what is planned as Eastern Europe’s largest wind farm. “It is the most profitable and, as we know now, most secure form of energy.”

Ukraine has had laws in place since 2014 to promote a transition to renewable energy, both to lower dependence on Russian energy imports, with periods when electricity exports resumed to neighbors, and because it was profitable. But that transition still has a long way to go, and the war makes its prospects, like everything else about Ukraine’s future, murky.

In 2020, 12% of Ukraine’s electricity came from renewable sources — barely half the percentage for the European Union. Plans for the Tyligulska project call for 85 turbines producing up to 500 megawatts of electricity. That’s enough for 500,000 apartments — an impressive output for a wind farm, but less than 1% of the country’s prewar generating capacity.

After the Kremlin began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the need for new power sources became acute, prompting deliveries such as a mobile gas turbine power plant to bolster capacity. Russia has bombarded Ukraine’s power plants and cut off delivery of the natural gas that fueled some of them.

Russian occupation forces have seized a large part of the country’s power supply, and Russia has built power lines to reactivate the Zaporizhzhia plant in occupied territory, ensuring that its output does not reach territory still held by Ukraine. They hold the single largest generator, the 5,700-megawatt Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which has been damaged repeatedly in fighting and has stopped transmitting energy to the grid, with UN inspectors warning of mines at the site during recent visits. They also control 90% of Ukraine’s renewable energy plants, which are concentrated in the southeast.

The postwar recovery plans Ukraine has presented to supporters including the European Union, which it hopes to join, feature a major new commitment to clean energy, even as a controversial proposal on Ukraine’s nuclear plants continues to stir debate.

 

Related News

View more

Spread of Electric Cars Sparks Fights for Control Over Charging

Utility-Controlled EV Charging shapes who builds charging stations as utilities, regulators, and private networks compete over infrastructure, grid upgrades, and pricing, impacting ratepayers, competition, and EV adoption across states seeking cleaner transport.

 

Key Points

Utility-controlled EV charging is utilities building charging networks affecting rates, competition and grid costs.

✅ Regulated investment may raise rates before broader savings.

✅ Private firms warn monopolies stifle competition and innovation.

✅ Regulators balance access, equity, and grid upgrade needs.

 

Electric vehicles are widely seen as the automobile industry’s future, but a battle is unfolding in states across America over who should control the charging stations that could gradually replace fuel pumps.

From Exelon Corp. to Southern California Edison, utilities have sought regulatory approval to invest millions of dollars in upgrading their infrastructure as state power grids adapt to increased charging demand, and, in some cases, to own and operate chargers.

The proposals are sparking concerns from consumer advocates about higher electric rates and oil companies about subsidizing rivals. They are also drawing opposition from startups that say the successors to gas stations should be open to private-sector competition, not controlled by monopoly utilities.

That debate is playing out in regulatory commissions throughout the U.S. as states and utilities promote wider adoption of electric vehicles. At stake are charging infrastructure investments expected to total more than $13 billion over the next five years, as an American EV boom accelerates, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. That would cover roughly 3.2 million charging outlets.

Calvin Butler Jr., who leads Exelon’s utilities business, said many states have grown more open to the idea of utilities becoming bigger players in charging as electric vehicles have struggled to take off in the U.S., where they make up only around 2% of new car sales.

“When the utilities are engaged, there’s quicker adoption because the infrastructure is there,” he said.

Major auto makers including General Motors Co. and Ford Motor Co. are accelerating production of electric vehicles, and models like Tesla’s Model 3 are shaping utility planning, and a number of states have set ambitious EV goals—most recently California, which aims to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. But a patchy charging-station network remains a huge impediment to mass EV adoption.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has called for building more than 500,000 new public charging outlets in a decade as part of his plan to combat climate change, amid Biden’s push to electrify the transportation sector. But exactly how that would happen is unclear. The U.S. currently has fewer than 100,000 public outlets, according to the Energy Department. President Trump, who has weakened federal tailpipe emissions targets, hasn’t put forward an electric-vehicle charging plan, though he backed a 2019 transportation bill that would have provided $1 billion in grants to build alternative fueling infrastructure, including for electric vehicles.

Charging access currently varies widely by state, as does utility involvement, with many utilities bullish course on EV charging to support growth, which can range from providing rebates on home chargers to preparing sites for public charging—and even owning and operating the equipment needed to juice up electric vehicles.

As of September, regulators in 24 states had signed off on roughly $2.6 billion of utility investment in transportation electrification, according to Atlas Public Policy, a Washington, D.C., policy firm. More than half of that spending was authorized in California, where electric vehicle adoption is highest.

Nearly a decade ago, California blocked utilities from owning most charging equipment, citing concerns about potentially stifling competition. But the nation’s most populous state reversed course in 2014, seeking to spur electrification.

Regulators across the country have since been wrestling with similar questions, generating a patchwork of rules.

Maryland regulators signed off last year on a pilot program allowing subsidiaries of Exelon and FirstEnergy Corp. to own and operate public charging stations on government property, provided that the drivers who use them cover at least some of the costs.

Months later, the District of Columbia rejected an Exelon subsidiary’s request to own public chargers, saying independent charging companies had it covered.

Some charging firms argue utilities shouldn’t be given monopolies on car charging, though they might need to play a role in connecting rural customers and building stations where they would otherwise be uneconomical.

“Maybe the utility should be the supplier of last resort,” said Cathy Zoi, chief executive of charging network EVgo Services LLC, which operates more than 800 charging stations in 34 states.

Utility charging investments generally are expected to raise customers’ electricity bills, at least initially. California recently approved the largest charging program by a single utility to date: a $436 million initiative by Southern California Edison, an arm of Edison International, as the state also explores grid stability opportunities from EVs. The company said it expects the program to increase the average residential customer’s bill by around 50 cents a month.

But utilities and other advocates of electrification point to studies indicating greater EV adoption could help reduce electricity rates over time, by giving utilities more revenue to help cover system upgrades.

Proponents of having utilities build charging networks also argue that they have the scale to do so more quickly, which would lead to faster EV adoption and environmental improvements such as lower greenhouse gas emissions and cleaner air. While the investments most directly help EV owners, “they accrue immediate benefits for everyone,” said Jill Anderson, a Southern California Edison senior vice president.

Some consumer advocates are wary of approving extensive utility investment in charging, citing the cost to ratepayers.

“It’s like, ‘Pay me now, and maybe someday your rates will be less,’” said Stefanie Brand, who advocates on behalf of ratepayers for the state of New Jersey, where regulators have yet to sign off on any utility proposals to invest in electric vehicle charging. “I don’t think it makes sense to build it hoping that they will come.”

Groups representing oil-and-gas companies, which stand to lose market share as people embrace electric vehicles, also have criticized utility charging proposals.

“These utilities should not be able to use their monopoly power to use all of their customers’ resources to build investments that definitely won’t benefit everybody, and may or may not be economical at this point,” said Derrick Morgan, who leads federal and regulatory affairs at the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a trade organization.

Utility executives said their companies have long been used to further government policy objectives deemed to be in the public interest, drawing on lessons from 2021 to guide next steps, such as improving energy efficiency.

“This isn’t just about letting market forces work,” said Mike Calviou, senior vice president for strategy and regulation at National Grid PLC’s U.S. division.

 

Related News

View more

California introduces new net metering regime

California NEM-3 Tariff ushers a successor Net Energy Metering framework, revising export compensation, TOU rates, and non-bypassable charges to balance ratepayer impacts, rooftop solar growth, and energy storage adoption across diverse communities.

 

Key Points

The CPUC's successor NEM policy redefining export credits and rates to sustain customer-sited solar and storage.

✅ Sets export compensation methodology beyond NEM 2.0

✅ Aligns TOU rates and non-bypassable charges with costs

✅ Encourages solar-plus-storage adoption and equity access

 

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has officially commenced its “NEM-3” proceeding, which will establish the successor Net Energy Metering (NEM) tariff to the “NEM 2.0” program in California. This is a highly anticipated, high-stakes proceeding that will effectively modify the rules for the NEM tariff in California, amid ongoing electricity pricing changes that affect residential rooftop solar – arguably the single most important policy mechanism for customer-sited solar over the last decade.

The CPUC’s recent order instituting rule-making (OIR) filing stated that “the major focus of this proceeding will be on the development of a successor to existing NEM 2.0 tariffs. This successor will be a mechanism for providing customer-generators with credit or compensation for electricity generated by their renewable facilities that a) balances the costs and benefits of the renewable electrical generation facility and b) allows customer-sited renewable generation to grow sustainably among different types of customers and throughout California’s diverse communities.”

This successor tariff proceeding was initiated by Assembly Bill 327, which was signed into law in October of 2013. AB 327 is best known as the legislation that directed the CPUC to create the “NEM 2.0” successor tariff, which was adopted by the CPUC in January of 2016.

The original Net Energy Metering program in California (“NEM 1.0”) effectively enabled full-retail value net metering “allowing NEM customers to be compensated for the electricity generated by an eligible customer-sited renewable resource and fed back to the utility over an entire billing period.” Under the NEM 2.0 tariff, customers were required to pay charges that aligned them more closely with non-NEM customer costs than under the original structure. The main changes adopted when the NEM 2.0 was implemented were that NEM 2.0 customer-generators must: (i) pay a one-time interconnection fee; (ii) pay non-bypassable charges on each kilowatt-hour of electricity they consume from the grid; and (iii) customers were required to transfer to a time-of-use (TOU) rate, with potential changes to electric bills for many customers.

NEM 2.0

The commencement of the NEM-3 OIR was preceded by the publishing of a 318-page Net Energy Metering 2.0 Lookback Study, which was published by Itron, Verdant Associates, and Energy and Environmental Economics. The CPUC-commissioned study had been widely anticipated and was expected to act as the starting reference point for the successor tariff proceeding. Verdant also hosted a webinar, which summarized the study’s inputs, assumptions, draft findings and results.

The study utilized several different tests to study the impact of NEM 2.0. The cost effectiveness analysis tests, which estimate costs and benefits attributed to NEM 2.0 include: (i) total resource cost test, (ii) participant cost test, (iii) ratepayer impact measure test, and (iv) program administrator test. The evaluation also included a cost of service analysis, which estimates the marginal cost borne by the utility to serve a NEM 2.0 customer.

The opening paragraph of the report’s executive summary stated that “overall, we found that NEM 2.0 participants benefit from the structure, while ratepayers see increased rates.” In every test that the author’s conducted the results generally supported this conclusion for residential customers. There were some exceptions in their findings. For example, in the cost of service analysis the report stated that “residential customers that install customer-sited renewable resources on average pay lower bills than the utility’s cost to serve them. On the other hand, nonresidential customers pay bills that are slightly higher than their cost of service after installing customer-sited renewable resources. This is largely due to nonresidential customer rates having demand charges (and other fixed fees), and the lower ratio of PV system size to customer load when compared to residential customers.”

Similar debates over solar rate design, including Massachusetts solar demand charges, highlight how demand charges and TOU decisions can affect customer economics.

NEM-3 timeline

Popular content
The preliminary schedule that the CPUC laid out in its OIR estimates that the proceeding will take roughly 15 months in total, starting with a November 2020 pre-hearing conference.

The real meat of the proceeding, where parties will present their proposals for what they believe the successor tariff should be, as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid, and really show their hand will not begin until the Spring of 2021. So we’re still a little ways away from seeing the proposals that the key parties to this proceeding, like the Investor Owned Utilities (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E), solar and storage advocates such as SEIA, CALSSA, Vote Solar, and ratepayer advocates like TURN) will submit.

While the outcome for the new successor NEM tariff is anyone’s guess at this point, some industry policy folks are starting to speculate. We think it is safe to assume that the value of exported energy will get reduced, with debates over income-based utility charges also influencing rate design. How much and the mechanism for how exports get valued remains to be seen. Based on the findings from the lookback study, it seems like the reduction in export value will be more severe than what happened when NEM 2.0 got implemented. In NEM 2.0, non-bypassable charges, which are volumetric charges that must be paid on all imported energy and cannot be netted-out by exports, only equated to roughly $0.02 to $0.03/kWh.

Given that the value of exports will almost certainly get reduced, we expect that to be bullish for energy storage as America goes electric and load shapes evolve. Energy storage attachment rates with solar are already steadily rising in California. By the time NEM-3 starts getting implemented, likely in 2022, we think storage attachment rates will likely escalate further.

We would not be surprised to see future storage attachment rates in California look like the Hawaiian market today, which are upwards of 80% for certain types of customers and applications. Two big questions on our mind are: (i) will the NEM 3.0 rules be different for different customer class: residential, CARE (e.g., low-income or disadvantaged communities), and commercial & industrial; (ii) will the CPUC introduce some sort of glidepath or phased in implementation approach?

The outcome of this proceeding will have far reaching implications on the future of customer-sited solar and energy storage in California. The NEM-3 outcome in California may likely serve as precedent for other states, as California exports its energy policies across the West, and utility territories that are expected to redesign their Net Energy Metering tariffs in the coming years.

 

Related News

View more

US Army deploys its first floating solar array

Floating Solar at Fort Bragg delivers a 1 MW DoD-backed floatovoltaic array on Big Muddy Lake, boosting renewable energy, resilience, and efficiency via water cooling, with Duke Energy and Ameresco supporting backup power.

 

Key Points

A 1 MW floating PV array on Big Muddy Lake, built by the US Army to boost efficiency, resilience, and backup power.

✅ 1 MW array supplies backup power for training facilities.

✅ Water cooling improves panel efficiency and output.

✅ Partners: Duke Energy, Ameresco; DoD's first floating solar.

 

Floating solar had a moment in the spotlight over the weekend when the US Army unveiled a new solar plant sitting atop the Big Muddy Lake at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. It’s the first floating solar array deployed by the Department of Defense, and it’s part of a growing current of support in the US for “floatovoltaics” and other innovations like space-based solar research.

The army says its goal is to boost clean energy, support goals in the Biden solar plan for decarbonization, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and give the nearby training facility a source of backup energy during power outages. The panels will be able to generate about one megawatt of electricity, which can typically power about 190 homes, and, when paired with solar batteries, enhance resilience during extended outages.

The installation, the largest in the US Southeast, is a big win for floatovoltaics, and projects like South Korea’s planned floating plant show global momentum for the technology, which has yet to make a big splash in the US. They only make up 2 percent of solar installations annually in the country, according to Duke Energy, which collaborated with Fort Bragg and the renewable energy company Ameresco on the project, even as US solar and storage growth accelerates nationwide.

Upfront costs for floating solar have typically been slightly more expensive than for its land-based counterparts. The panels essentially sit on a sort of raft that’s tethered to the bottom of the body of water. But floatovoltaics come with unique benefits, complementing emerging ocean and river power approaches in water-based energy. Hotter temperatures make it harder for solar panels to produce as much power from the same amount of sunshine. Luckily, sitting atop water has a cooling effect, which allows the panels to generate more electricity than panels on land. That makes floating solar more efficient and makes up for higher installation costs over time.

And while solar in general has already become the cheapest electricity source globally, it’s pretty land-hungry, so complementary options like wave energy are drawing interest worldwide. A solar farm might take up 20 times more land than a fossil fuel power plant to produce a gigawatt of electricity. Solar projects in the US have already run into conflict with some farmers who want to use the same land, for example, and with some conservationists worried about the impact on desert ecosystems.

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Download the 2025 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified