CAA Quebec Shines at the Quebec Electric Vehicle Show

Vancouver October 2024 Windstorm brought extreme weather to British Columbia, causing power outages, storm damage, and downed lines as BC Hydro crews led emergency response and restoration, highlighting climate change resilience and community preparedness.

Key Points

A severe storm with 100 km/h gusts that caused outages and damage in Vancouver, prompting wide power restoration.

✅ 100 km/h gusts toppled trees and downed power lines

✅ Over 200,000 BC Hydro customers lost electricity

✅ Crews and communities coordinated emergency response

In October 2024, a powerful windstorm swept through the Vancouver area, resulting in widespread power outages and disruption across the region. The storm, characterized by fierce winds and heavy rainfall, reflected conditions seen when strong winds in the Miami Valley knocked out power earlier this year, and was part of a larger weather pattern that affected much of British Columbia. Residents braced for the impacts, with local authorities and utility companies preparing for the worst.

The Storm's Impact

The windstorm hit Vancouver with wind gusts exceeding 100 km/h, toppling trees, and downing power lines. As the storm progressed, reports of damaged properties and fallen trees began to flood in. Many neighborhoods experienced significant power outages, mirroring widespread outages in Quebec earlier in the season, with thousands of residents left without electricity for extended periods. The areas hardest hit included the West End, Kitsilano, and parts of the North Shore, where the impact of the storm was particularly severe.

Utility companies, including BC Hydro operations, mobilized their crews quickly in response to the storm's aftermath. Emergency response teams worked tirelessly to restore power, often facing challenging conditions. The restoration efforts were complicated by the sheer number of outages reported—over 200,000 customers were affected at the height of the storm. Crews encountered not only downed lines but also hazardous conditions as they navigated through debris-laden streets.

Community Response and Resilience

In the wake of the storm, the community showcased remarkable resilience. Local residents rallied together to assist one another, sharing resources and providing support to those most affected. Many community centers opened their doors as emergency shelters, offering warmth and safety to those without power, a step also taken when a London power outage disrupted mornings for thousands across the city.

Authorities also emphasized the importance of preparedness in such situations. They urged residents to have emergency kits ready, including food, water, and essential supplies, noting that nearby areas like North Seattle can face sudden outages with little warning. Local officials highlighted the value of staying informed through weather updates and alerts, allowing residents to make informed decisions during extreme weather events.

The Role of Climate Change

The October windstorm serves as a stark reminder of the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, a trend often linked to climate change. Experts have noted that rising global temperatures are contributing to more severe weather patterns, including stronger storms and increased Toronto flooding events. As cities like Vancouver face the reality of climate change, discussions about infrastructure resilience and adaptation strategies have gained urgency.

City planners and environmental advocates are pushing for initiatives that enhance the city's ability to withstand extreme weather. This includes improving stormwater management systems, increasing green spaces to absorb rainfall, and investing in renewable energy sources. By addressing these challenges proactively, Vancouver aims to mitigate the impacts of future storms and protect its residents.

Moving Forward

As recovery efforts continue, the focus now shifts to restoring normalcy and preparing for future weather events. Residents are encouraged to report any ongoing outages or hazards to local authorities and to stay updated through reliable news sources. BC Hydro and other utility companies are committed to transparency, providing regular updates on power restoration efforts, even as outages can persist for days as seen in Toronto after a spring storm.

The October 2024 windstorm will be remembered not only for its immediate impacts but also as a catalyst for discussions on resilience and community preparedness. As Vancouver looks ahead, the lessons learned from this storm will shape strategies for better handling extreme weather, ensuring that the city is equipped to face the challenges posed by a changing climate.

In conclusion, while the windstorm caused significant disruption and hardship for many, it also highlighted the strength of community spirit and the importance of proactive planning in the face of climate challenges. Vancouver's response and recovery will be crucial in building a more resilient future for all its residents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Germany Energy Demand Decline reflects economic stagnation, IEA forecasts, and the Energiewende, as industrial output slips and efficiency gains, renewables growth, and cost-cutting reduce fossil fuel use while reshaping sustainability and energy security.

Key Points

A projected 7% drop in German energy use driven by industrial slowdown, efficiency gains, and renewables expansion.

✅ IEA projects up to 7% demand drop in the next year

✅ Industrial slowdown and efficiency programs cut consumption

✅ Energiewende shifts mix to wind, solar, and less fossil fuel

Germany is on the verge of experiencing a significant decline in energy demand, with forecasts suggesting that usage could hit a record low as the country grapples with economic stagnation. This shift highlights not only the immediate impacts of sluggish economic growth but also broader trends in energy consumption, Europe's electricity markets, sustainability, and the transition to renewable resources.

Recent data indicate that Germany's economy is facing substantial challenges, including high inflation and reduced industrial output. As companies struggle to maintain profitability amid nearly doubled power prices and rising costs, many have begun to cut back on energy consumption. This retrenchment is particularly pronounced in energy-intensive sectors such as manufacturing and chemical production, which are crucial to Germany's export-driven economy.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has projected that German energy demand could decline by as much as 7% in the coming year, a stark contrast to the trends seen in previous decades. This decline is primarily driven by a combination of factors, including reduced industrial activity, increased energy efficiency measures, and a shift toward alternative energy sources, as well as mounting pressures on local utilities to stay solvent. The current economic landscape has led businesses to prioritize cost-cutting measures, including energy efficiency initiatives aimed at reducing consumption.

In the context of these developments, Germany’s energy transition—known as the "Energiewende"—is becoming increasingly significant. The country has made substantial investments in renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass in recent years. As energy efficiency improves and the share of renewables in the energy mix rises, traditional fossil fuel consumption has begun to wane. This transition is seen as both a response to climate change and a strategy for energy independence, particularly in light of geopolitical tensions and Europe's wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels across the continent.

However, the current stagnation presents a paradox for the German energy sector. While lower energy demand may ease some pressures on supply and prices, it also raises concerns about the long-term viability of investments in renewable energy infrastructure, even as debates continue over electricity subsidies for industry to support competitiveness. The economic slowdown has the potential to derail progress made in reducing carbon emissions and achieving energy targets, particularly if it leads to decreased investment in green technologies.

Another layer to this issue is the potential impact on employment within the energy sector. As energy demand decreases, there may be a ripple effect on jobs tied to traditional energy production and even in renewable energy sectors if investment slows. Policymakers are now tasked with balancing the immediate need for economic recovery, illustrated by the 200 billion-euro energy price shield, with the longer-term goal of achieving sustainability and energy security.

The effects of the stagnation are also being felt in the residential sector. As households face increased living costs and rising heating and electricity costs, many are becoming more conscious of their energy consumption. Initiatives to improve home energy efficiency, such as better insulation and energy-efficient appliances, are gaining traction among consumers looking to reduce their utility bills. This shift toward energy conservation aligns with broader national goals of reducing overall energy consumption and carbon emissions.

Despite the challenges, there is a silver lining. The current situation offers an opportunity for Germany to reassess its energy strategies and invest in technologies that promote sustainability while also addressing economic concerns. This could include increasing support for research and development in green technologies, enhancing energy efficiency programs, and incentivizing businesses to adopt cleaner energy practices.

Furthermore, Germany’s experience may serve as a case study for other nations grappling with similar issues. As economies around the world face the dual pressures of recovery and sustainability, the lessons learned from Germany’s current energy landscape could inform strategies for balancing these often conflicting priorities.

In conclusion, Germany is poised to witness a historic decline in energy demand as economic stagnation takes hold. While this trend poses challenges for the energy sector and economic growth, it also highlights the importance of sustainability and energy efficiency in shaping the future. As the nation navigates this complex landscape, the focus will need to be on fostering innovation and investment that aligns with both immediate economic needs and long-term environmental goals. The path forward will require a careful balancing act, but with the right strategies, Germany can emerge as a leader in sustainable energy practices even in challenging times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Site C Dam Electricity Demand underscores B.C.'s decarbonization path, enabling electrification of EVs, heat pumps, and industry, aligning with BC Hydro forecasts and 2030/2050 GHG targets to supply dependable, renewable baseload power.

Key Points

Projected clean power tied to Site C, driven by B.C. electrification to meet 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas targets.

✅ Aligns with 25-30% by 2030 and 55-70% by 2050 GHG cuts

✅ Supports EVs, heat pumps, and industrial electrification

✅ Provides dependable baseload alongside efficiency gains

There are valid reasons not to build the Site C dam. There are also valid reasons to build it. One of the latter is the rapid increase in clean electricity needed to reduce B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions from burning natural gas, gasoline, diesel and other harmful fossil fuel products.

Although former Premier Christy Clark casually avoided near-term emissions targets, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has set Canadian targets for both 2030 and 2050, and cleaning up Canada's electricity is critical to meeting them. Studies by my research group at Simon Fraser University and other independent analysts show that B.C.’s cost-effective contribution to these national targets requires us to reduce our emissions 25 to 30 per cent by 2030 and 55 to 70 per cent by 2050 — an energy evolution involving, among other things, a much greater use of electricity in buildings, vehicles and industry.

Recent submissions to the Site C hearing have offered widely different estimates of B.C.’s electricity demand in the decade after the project’s completion in 2025, some arguing the dam’s output will be completely surplus to domestic need for years and perhaps decades, even though improved B.C.-Alberta grid links could help balance regional demand. Some of this variation in demand forecasts is understandable. Industrial demand is especially difficult to predict, dependent as it is on global economic conditions and shifting trade relations. And there are legitimate uncertainties about B.C. Hydro’s ability to reduce electricity demand by promoting efficient products and behaviour through its Power Smart program. But some of the forecasts appear to be deliberate exaggerations, designed to support fixed positions for or against Site C.

Our university-based research team models the energy system changes required to meet national and provincial emissions targets, and we have been comparing estimates of the electricity demand implications. These estimates are produced by academics, as well as by key institutions like B.C. Hydro, the National Energy Board, and the governments of Canada and B.C.

Most electricity forecasts for B.C., including the most recent by B.C. Hydro, do not assume that B.C. reduces its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 30 per cent by 2030 and 55 to 70 per cent by 2050. When we adjust Hydro’s forecast for just the low end of these targets, we find that in its latest, August 30, submission to the Site C hearing, which followed the premier’s over-budget go-ahead on the project, Hydro has underestimated the demand for its electricity by about three terawatt-hours in 2025, four in 2030 and 10 in 2035. Hydro’s forecast indicates that it will need the five terawatt-hours from Site C. Our research shows that even if Hydro’s demand forecast is too high, appropriate climate policy nationally and in B.C. will absorb all the electricity the dam can produce soon after its completion.

B.C. Hydro does not forecast electricity demand to 2050. But, studies by us and others show that B.C. electricity demand will be almost double today’s levels if we are to reduce emissions by 55 to 70 per cent, even amid a documented risk of missing the 2050 target, in just over three decades while our population, economy, buildings and equipment grow significantly. Most mid- and small-sized vehicles will be electric. Most buildings will be well insulated and heated by electric resistance or electric heat-pumps, either individually or via district heating systems. And many low temperature industrial applications will be electric.

Aggressive efforts to promote energy efficiency will make an important contribution, such that energy demand will not grow nearly as fast as the economy. But it is delusional to think that humans will stop using energy. Even climate policy scenarios in which we assume unprecedented success with energy efficiency show dramatic increases in the consumption of electricity, this being the most favoured zero-emission form of energy as a replacement for planet-destroying gasoline and natural gas.

The completion of the Site C dam is a complicated and challenging societal choice, and delay-related cost risks highlighted by the premier underscore the stakes. There is unbiased evidence and argument supporting either completion or cancellation. But let’s stick to the unbiased evidence. In the case of our 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets, such evidence shows that we must substantially increase our generation of dependable electricity. If the Site C dam is built, and if we are true to our climate goals, all its electricity will be used in B.C. soon after completion.

Mark Jaccard is a professor of sustainable energy in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Noncarbon Electricity Investment Strategy helps utilities hedge policy uncertainty, carbon tax risks, and emissions limits by scaling wind, solar, and CCS, avoiding stranded assets while balancing costs, reliability, and climate policy over decades.

Key Points

A strategy for utilities to invest 20-30 percent of capacity in low carbon sources to hedge emissions and carbon risks.

✅ Hedges future carbon tax and emissions limits

✅ Targets 20-30 percent of new generation from clean sources

✅ Reduces stranded asset risk and builds renewables capacity

When utility executives make decisions about building new power plants, a lot rides on their choices. Depending on their size and type, new generating facilities cost hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. They typically will run for 40 or more years — 10 U.S. presidential terms. Much can change during that time.

Today one of the biggest dilemmas that regulators and electricity industry planners face is predicting how strict future limits on greenhouse gas emissions will be. Future policies will affect the profitability of today’s investments. For example, if the United States adopts a carbon tax 10 years from now, it could make power plants that burn fossil fuels less profitable, or even insolvent.

These investment choices also affect consumers. In South Carolina, utilities were allowed to charge their customers higher rates to cover construction costs for two new nuclear reactors, which have now been abandoned because of construction delays and weak electricity demand. Looking forward, if utilities are reliant on coal plants instead of solar and wind, it will be much harder and more expensive for them to meet future emissions targets, even as New Zealand's electrification push accelerates abroad. They will pass the costs of complying with these targets on to customers in the form of higher electricity prices.

With so much uncertainty about future policy, how much should we be investing in noncarbon electricity generation in the next decade? In a recent study, we proposed optimal near-term electricity investment strategies to hedge against risks and manage inherent uncertainties about the future.

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, 20 to 30 percent of new generation in the coming decade should be from noncarbon sources such as wind and solar energy across markets. For most U.S. electricity providers, this strategy would mean increasing their investments in noncarbon power sources, regardless of the current administration’s position on climate change.

Many noncarbon electricity sources — including wind, solar, nuclear power and coal or natural gas with carbon capture and storage — are more expensive than conventional coal and natural gas plants. Even wind power, which is often mentioned as competitive, is actually more costly when accounting for costs such as backup generation and energy storage to ensure that power is available when wind output is low.

Over the past decade, federal tax incentives and state policies designed to promote clean electricity sources spurred many utilities to invest in noncarbon sources. Now the Trump administration is shifting federal policy back toward promoting fossil fuels. But it can still make economic sense for power companies to invest in more expensive noncarbon technologies if we consider the potential impact of future policies.

How much should companies invest to hedge against the possibility of future greenhouse gas limits? On one hand, if they invest too much in noncarbon generation and the federal government adopts only weak climate policies throughout the investment period, utilities will overspend on expensive energy sources.

On the other hand, if they invest too little in noncarbon generation and future administrations adopt stringent emissions targets, utilities will have to replace high-carbon energy sources with cleaner substitutes, which could be extremely costly.

Economic modeling with uncertainty

We conducted a quantitative analysis to determine how to balance these two concerns and find an optimal investment strategy given uncertainty about future emissions limits. This is a core choice that power companies have to make when they decide what kinds of plants to build.

First we developed a computational model that represents the sectors of the U.S. economy, including electric power. Then we embedded it within a computer program that evaluates decisions in the electric power sector under policy uncertainty.

The model explores different electric power investment decisions under a wide range of future emissions limits with different probabilities of being implemented. For each decision/policy combination, it computes and compares economy-wide costs over two investment periods extending from 2015 to 2030.

We looked at costs across the economy because emissions policies impose costs on consumers and producers as well as power companies. For example, they may lead to higher electricity, fuel or product prices. By seeking to minimize economy-wide costs, our model identifies the investment decision that produces the greatest overall benefits to society.

More investments in clean generation make economic sense

We found that for a broad range of assumptions, the optimal investment strategy for the coming decade is for 20 to 30 percent of new generation to be from noncarbon sources. Our model identified this as the best level because it best positions the United States to meet a wide range of possible future policies at a low cost to the economy.

From 2005-2015, we calculated that about 19 percent of the new generation that came online was from noncarbon sources. Our findings indicate that power companies should put a larger share of their money into noncarbon investments in the coming decade.

While increasing noncarbon investments from a 19 percent share to a 20 to 30 percent share of new generation may seem like a modest change, it actually requires a considerable increase in noncarbon investment dollars. This is especially true since power companies will need to replace dozens of aging coal-fired power plants that are expected to be retired.

In general, society will bear greater costs if power companies underinvest in noncarbon technologies than if they overinvest. If utilities build too much noncarbon generation but end up not needing it to meet emissions limits, they can and will still use it fully. Sunshine and wind are free, so generators can produce electricity from these sources with low operating costs.

In contrast, if the United States adopts strict emissions limits within a decade or two, they could prevent carbon-intensive generation built today from being used. Those plants would become “stranded assets” — investments that are obsolete far earlier than expected, and are a drain on the economy.

Investing early in noncarbon technologies has another benefit: It helps develop the capacity and infrastructure needed to quickly expand noncarbon generation. This would allow energy companies to comply with future emissions policies at lower costs.

Seeing beyond one president

The Trump administration is working to roll back Obama-era climate policies such as the Clean Power Plan, and to implement policies that favor fossil generation. But these initiatives should alter the optimal strategy that we have proposed for power companies only if corporate leaders expect Trump’s policies to persist over the 40 years or more that these new generating plants can be expected to run.

Energy executives would need to be extremely confident that, despite investor pressure from shareholders, the United States will adopt only weak climate policies, or none at all, into future decades in order to see cutting investments in noncarbon generation as an optimal near-term strategy. Instead, they may well expect that the United States will eventually rejoin worldwide efforts to slow the pace of climate change and adopt strict emissions limits.

In that case, they should allocate their investments so that at least 20 to 30 percent of new generation over the next decade comes from noncarbon sources. Sustaining and increasing noncarbon investments in the coming decade is not just good for the environment — it’s also a smart business strategy that is good for the economy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Massachusetts Solar Net Metering faces new demand charges and elimination of residential time-of-use rates under an MDPU order, as Eversource cites grid cost fairness while clean energy advocates warn of impacts on distributed solar growth.

Key Points

Policy letting solar customers net out usage with exports; MDPU now adds demand charges and ends TOU rates.

✅ New residential solar demand charges start Dec 31, 2018.

✅ Optional residential TOU rates eliminated by MDPU order.

✅ Eversource cites grid cost fairness; advocates warn slower solar.

A recent Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities' rate case order changes the way solar net metering works and eliminates optional residential time-of-use rates, stirring controversy between clean energy advocates and utility Eversource and potential consumer backlash over rate design.

"There is a lot of room to talk about what net-energy metering should look like, but a demand charge is an unfair way to charge customers," Mark LeBel, staff attorney at non-profit clean energy advocacy organization Acadia Center, said in a Tuesday phone call. Acadia Center is an intervenor in the rate case and opposed the changes.

The Friday MDPU order implements demand charges for new residential solar projects starting on December 31, 2018. Such charges are based on the highest peak hourly consumption over the course of a month, regardless of what time the power is consumed.

Eversource contends the demand charge will more fairly distribute the costs of maintaining the local power grid, echoing minimum charge proposals aimed at low-usage customers. Net metering is often criticized for not evenly distributing those costs, which are effectively subsidized by non-net-metered customers.

"What the demand charge will do is eliminate, to the extent possible, the unfair cross subsidization by non-net-metered customers that currently exists with rates that only have kilowatt-hour charges and no kilowatt demand, Mike Durand, Eversource spokesman, said in a Tuesday email. 

"For net metered facilities that use little kilowatt-hours, a demand charge is a way to charge them for their fair share of the cost of the significant maintenance and upgrade work we do on the local grid every day," Durand said. "Currently, their neighbors are paying more than their share of those costs."

It will not affect existing facilities, Durand said, only those installed after December 31, 2018.

Solar advocates are not enthusiastic about the change and see it slowing the growth of solar power, particularly residential rooftop solar, in the state.

"This is a terrible outcome for the future of solar in Massachusetts," Nathan Phelps, program manager of distributed generation and regulatory policy at solar power advocacy group Vote Solar, said in a Tuesday phone call.

"It's very inconsistent with DPU precedent and numerous pieces of legislation passed in the last 10 years," Phelps said. "The commonwealth has passed several pieces of legislation that are supportive of renewable energy and solar power. I don't know what the DPU was thinking."

 

TIME-OF-USE PRICING ELIMINATED

It does not matter when during the month peak demand occurs -- which could be during the week in the evening -- customers will be charged the same as they would on a hot summer day, LeBel said. Because an individual customer's peak usage does not necessarily correspond to peak demand across the utility's system, consumers are not being provided incentives to reduce energy usage in a way that could benefit the power system, Acadia Center said in a Tuesday statement.

However, Eversource maintains that residential customer distribution peaks based on customer load profiles do not align with basic service peak periods, which are based on Independent System Operator New England's peaks that reflect market-based pricing, even as a Connecticut market overhaul advances in the region, according to the MDPU order.

"The residential Time of Use rates we're eliminating are obsolete, having been designed decades ago when we were responsible for both the generation and the delivery of electricity," Eversource's Durand said.

"We are no longer in the generation business, having divested of our generation assets in Massachusetts in compliance with the law that restructured of our industry back in the late 1990s. Time Varying pricing is best used with generation rates, where the price for electricity changes based on time of day and electricity demand and can significantly alter electric bills for households," he said.

Additionally, only 0.02% of residential customers take service on Eversource's TOU rates and it would be difficult for residential customers to avoid peak period rates because they do not have the ability to shift or reduce load, according to the order.

"The Department allowed the Companies' proposal to eliminate their optional residential TOU rates in order to consolidate and align their residential rates and tariffs to better achieve the rate structure goal of simplicity," the MDPU said in the order.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Power Grid Cybersecurity combats DHS-FBI flagged threats to energy infrastructure, with PJM Interconnection using ICS/SCADA segmentation, phishing defenses, incident response, and resilience exercises against Russia-linked attacks and pipeline intrusions.

Key Points

Strategies, controls, and training that protect U.S. electric infrastructure from cyber threats and disruptions.

✅ ICS/SCADA network segmentation and zero-trust architecture

✅ Employee phishing drills and incident response playbooks

✅ DOE-led grid exercises and threat intelligence sharing

The joint alert from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security last month warning that Russia was hacking into critical U.S. energy infrastructure, as outlined in six essential reads on Russian hacks from recent coverage, came as no surprise to the nation’s largest grid operator, PJM Interconnection.

“You will never stop people from trying to get into your systems. That isn’t even something we try to do.” said PJM Chief Information Officer, Tom O’Brien. “People will always try to get into your systems. The question is, what controls do you have to not allow them to penetrate? And how do you respond in the event they actually do get into your system?”

PJM is the regional transmission organization for 65 million people, covering 13 states, including Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C.

On a rainy day in early April, about 10 people were working inside PJM’s main control center, outside Philadelphia, closely monitoring floor-to-ceiling digital displays showing real-time information from the electric power sector throughout PJM’s territory in the mid-Atlantic and parts of the midwest, amid reports that hackers accessed control rooms at U.S. utilities.

#google#

Donnie Bielak, a reliability engineering manager, was overseeing things from his office, perched one floor up.

“This is a very large, orchestrated effort that goes unnoticed most of the time,” Bielak said. “That’s a good thing.”

But the industry certainly did take notice in late 2015 and early 2016, when hackers successfully disrupted power to the Ukrainian grid. The outages lasted a few hours and affected about 225,000 customers. It was the first publicly-known case of a cyber attack causing major disruptions to a power grid. It was widely blamed on Russia.

One of the many lessons of the Ukraine attacks was a reminder to people who work on critical infrastructure to keep an eye out for odd communications.

“A very large percentage of entry points to attacks are coming through emails,” O’Brien said. “That’s why PJM, as well as many others, have aggressive phishing campaigns. We’re training our employees.”

O’Brien doesn’t want to get into specifics about how PJM deals with cyber threats. But one common way to limit exposure is by having separate systems: For example, industrial controls in a power plant are not connected to corporate business networks, a separation underscored after breaches at U.S. power plants prompted reviews across the sector.

Since 2011, North American grid operators and government agencies have also done large, security exercises every two years. Thousands of people practice how they’d respond to a coordinated physical or cyber event, including rising substation attacks that highlight resilience gaps.

So far, nothing like that has happened in the U.S. It’s possible, but not likely, according to Robert M. Lee, a former military intelligence analyst, who runs the industrial cybersecurity firm Dragos.

“The more complex the system, the harder it is to have a scalable attack,” said Lee, who co-authored a report analyzing the Ukraine attacks. “If you wanted to take out a power generation station– that isn’t the most complex thing. Let’s say you cause an hour of outage. But now you want to cause two months of outages? That’s an exponential increase in effort required.”

For example, he said, it would very difficult for hackers to knock out power to the entire east coast for a long time. But briefly disrupting a major city is easier. That’s the sort of thing that keeps him up at night.

“I worry about an adversary getting into, maybe, Washington D.C.’s portion of the grid, taking down power for 30 minutes,” he said.

The Department of Energy is creating a new office focused on cybersecurity and emergency response, following the U.S. government’s condemnation of power grid hacking by Russia.

Deterrence may be one reason why there has not yet been a major attack on the U.S. grid, said John MacWilliams, a former senior DOE official who’s now a fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

“That’s obviously an act of war,” he said. “We have the capability of responding either through cyber mechanisms or kinetic military.”

In the meantime, small-scale incidents keep happening.

This spring, another cyber attack targeted natural gas pipelines. Four companies shut down their computer systems, just in case, but they say no service was disrupted.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News