Why Electric Vehicles Are "Greener" Than Ever In All 50 States


ev states

NFPA 70e Training

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:
$199
Coupon Price:
$149
Reserve Your Seat Today

UCS EV emissions study shows electric vehicles produce lower life-cycle emissions than gasoline cars across all states, factoring tailpipe, grid mix, power plant sources, and renewable energy, delivering mpg-equivalent advantages nationwide.

 

Key Points

UCS study comparing EV and gas life-cycle emissions, finding EVs cleaner than new gas cars in every U.S. region.

✅ Average EV equals 93 mpg gas car on emissions.

✅ Cleaner than 50 mpg gas cars in 97% of U.S.

✅ Regional grid mix included: tailpipe to power plant.

 

One of the cautions cited by electric vehicle (EV) naysayers is that they merely shift emissions from the tailpipe to the local grid’s power source, implicating state power grids as a whole, and some charging efficiency claims get the math wrong, too. And while there is a kernel of truth to this notion—they’re indeed more benign to the environment in states where renewable energy resources are prevalent—the average EV is cleaner to run than the average new gasoline vehicle in all 50 states. 

That’s according to a just-released study conducted the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which determined that global warming emissions related to EVs has fallen by 15 percent since 2018. For 97 percent of the U.S., driving an electric car is equivalent or better for the planet than a gasoline-powered model that gets 50 mpg. 

In fact, the organization says the average EV currently on the market is now on a par, environmentally, with an internal combustion vehicle that’s rated at 93 mpg. The most efficient gas-driven model sold in the U.S. gets 59 mpg, and EV sales still trail gas cars despite such comparisons, with the average new petrol-powered car at 31 mpg.

For a gasoline car, the UCS considers a vehicle’s tailpipe emissions, as well as the effects of pumping crude oil from the ground, transporting it to a refinery, creating gasoline, and transporting it to filling stations. For electric vehicles, the UCS’ environmental estimates include both emissions from the power plants themselves, along with those created by the production of coal, natural gas or other fossil fuels used to generate electricity, and they are often mischaracterized by claims about battery manufacturing emissions that don’t hold up. 

Of course the degree to which an EV ultimately affects the atmosphere still varies from one part of the country to another, depending on the local power source. In some parts of the country, driving the average new gasoline car will produce four to eight times the emissions of the average EV, a fact worth noting for those wondering if it’s the time to buy an electric car today. The UCS says the average EV driven in upstate New York produces total emissions that would be equivalent to a gasoline car that gets an impossible 255-mpg. In even the dirtiest areas for generating electricity, EVs are responsible for as much emissions as a conventionally powered car that gets over 40 mpg.

 

Related News

Related News

25.5% Of US Electricity Coming From Renewable Energy

US Renewable Energy Growth drives the US electricity mix as wind, solar, and hydropower rise while coal, natural gas, and nuclear decline, boosting market share month over month and year over year across the grid.

 

Key Points

US Renewable Energy Growth tracks rising wind, solar, and hydro shares in the mix as coal, gas, and nuclear decline.

✅ Wind and solar surpass nuclear in April share

✅ Renewables reach 29.3% of US electricity in April

✅ Coal and natural gas shares trend lower since 2020

 

Electricity generated by renewable energy sources continues to grow month over month and year over year in the United States. In April 2022, the share of US electricity coming from renewable energy was up to 29.3%, surpassing a record April level reported previously in national data. That was up from 24.8% in April 2020 and 25.7% in April 2021.

Looking at the first four months of the year, renewables provided 25.5% of US electricity, and were the second-most U.S. source in 2020 as well, while the figure for January–April 2020 was 21.7% and the figure for January–April 2021 was 22.5%.

Coal power (20.2% of US electricity) was down year over year in this time period (from 22% in January–April 2021), even as renewables surpassed coal in 2022 nationwide, but is admittedly still a bit higher than it was in January–April 2020 (16.8%).

Electricity from natural gas is also down year over year, but only very slightly (34.7% for both years). Though, it has dropped significantly since January–April 2020 (39.6%).

Electricity from nuclear power continued to take a steady, step-by-step tumble.

Wind & Solar Power Growth Strong
As reported earlier, April was the first month that wind and solar power provided more electricity than nuclear across the United States. Wind and solar power provided 21% of US electricity, while nuclear power provided 17.8% of US electricity (coal, incidentally, also provided 17.8% of US electricity, but wind and solar had provided more electricity than coal in some previous months as well).

Wind and solar power’s combined market share for the first four months of the year was up from just 14.6% in 2020 and 18.4% in 2021.

Looking at their growth year over year, you can see strong and continuous expansion of solar-provided electricity and wind-provided electricity, amid favorable government plans that have supported deployment.

Solar grew from 2.9% in January–April 2020 to 3.6%in January–April 2021 to, eventually, 4.4% in January–April 2022, with solar's 2022 share rising to 4.7% for the full year. Wind rose from 9.2% to 10.3% to 12.2%.

Together, wind and solar were up from 12.1% in January–April 2020 to 13.9% in January–April 2021, reflecting a surge in wind power within the U.S. electricity mix over this period, to 16.7% January–April 2022.

Hydropower (6.5%) is holding approximately the same position as the same period in 2021 (6.5%), but it is down a significant chunk from April 2020 (8.2%).

 

Related News

View more

Scores more wind turbines proposed for Long Island’s South Shore

New York Offshore Wind Expansion adds Equinor's Empire Wind 2 and Beacon Wind, boosting megawatts, turbines, and grid connections for Long Island and Queens, with jobs, assembly at South Brooklyn Marine Terminal, and clean energy.

 

Key Points

A statewide initiative proposing new Equinor and partner projects to scale offshore wind capacity, jobs, and grid links.

✅ Adds 2,490 MW via Empire Wind 2 and Beacon Wind

✅ Connects to Nassau County and Queens grids for reliability

✅ Creates 3,000+ NY jobs with South Brooklyn Marine Terminal work

 

Scores more 600-foot tall wind turbines would be built off Jones Beach under a new proposal.

Norwegian energy conglomerate Equinor has bid to create another 2,500 megawatts of offshore wind power for New York state and Long Island, where offshore wind sites are being evaluated, with two projects. One, which would connect to the local electric grid in Nassau County, would more than double the number of turbines off Long Island to some 200. A second would be built around 50 miles from Montauk Point and connect to the state grid in Queens. The plan would also include conducting assembly work in Brooklyn.

In disclosures Tuesday in response to a state request for proposals, Equinor said it would bolster its already state-awarded, 819-megawatt Empire Wind project off Long Island’s South Shore with another called Empire Wind 2 that will add 1,260 megawatts. Turbines of at least 10 megawatts each would mean that the prior project’s 80 or so turbines could be joined by another 120. Equinor’s federally approved lease area off Long Island encompasses some 80,000 acres, starting 15 miles due south of Long Beach and extending east and south.

Equinor on Tuesday also submitted plans to offer a second project called Beacon Wind that would be built 50 miles from Montauk Point, off the Massachusetts South Coast area. It would be 1,230 megawatts and connect through Long Island Sound to Queens.

Equinor said its latest energy projects would generate more than 3,000 New York jobs, including use of the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal for “construction activities” and an operations and maintenance base.

The new proposals came in response to a New York State Energy Research and Development Authority bid request for renewable projects in the state. In a statement, Siri Espedal Kindem, president of Equinor Wind U.S., said the company’s plans would include “significant new benefits for New York – from workforce training, economic development, and community benefits – alongside a tremendous amount of homegrown, renewable energy.”

Meanwhile, Denmark-based Orsted, working with New England power company Eversource, has also submitted plans for a new offshore wind project called Sunrise Wind 2, a proposal that includes “multiple bids” that would create “hundreds of new jobs, and infrastructure investment,” according to a company statement. Con Edison Transmission will also work to develop transmission facilities for that project, the companies said.

Orsted and Eversource already have contracts to develop a 130-megawatt wind farm for LIPA to serve the South Fork, and an 880-megawatt wind farm for the state. All of its hundreds of turbines would be based in a lease area off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, where Vineyard Wind has progressed as a key project.

“Sunrise Wind 2 will create good-paying jobs for New York, support economic growth, and further reduce emissions while delivering affordable clean energy to Long Island and the rest of New York,” Joe Nolan, executive vice president for Eversource, said in a statement.

 

Related News

View more

UK leads G20 for share of electricity sourced from wind

UK Wind Power Leadership in 2020 highlights record renewable energy growth, G20-leading wind share, rapid coal phase-out, and rising solar integration, advancing decarbonization targets under the Paris Agreement and momentum ahead of COP26.

 

Key Points

The UK led the G20 in wind power share in 2020, displacing coal, expanding solar, and cutting power-sector emissions.

✅ G20-leading wind share; second for combined wind and solar

✅ Fastest coal decline among G20 from 2015 to 2020

✅ Emissions risk rising as post-pandemic demand returns

 

Nearly a quarter of the UK’s electricity came from wind turbines in 2020 – making the country the leader among the G20 for share of power sourced from the renewable energy, a new analysis finds.

The UK also moved away from coal power at a faster rate than any other G20 country from 2015 to 2020, according to the results.

And it ranked second in the G20, behind Germany, for the proportion of electricity sourced from both wind and solar in 2020, after first surpassing coal in 2016.

“It’s crazy how much wind power has grown in the UK and how much it has offset coal, and how it’s starting to eat at gas,” Dave Jones, Ember’s global lead analyst, told The Independent.

But it is important to bear in mind that “we’re only doing a great job by the standards of the rest of the world”, he added, noting that low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 in the UK.

Ember’s Global Electricity Review notes that the world’s power sector emissions were two per cent higher in 2020 than in 2015 – the year that countries agreed to slash their greenhouse gas pollution as part of the Paris Agreement.

Power generated from coal fell by a record amount from 2019 to 2020, the analysis finds. However, this decline was greatly facilitated by lockdowns introduced to stop the spread of Covid-19, as global electricity demand was temporarily stifled before rebounding, the analysts say.

Coal is the most polluting of the fossil fuels. The UK government hopes to convince all countries to stop building new coal-fired power stations at Cop26, a climate conference that is to be held in Glasgow later this year.

UN chief Antonio Guterres has also called for all countries to end their “deadly addiction to coal”.

At a summit held earlier this month, he described ending the use of coal in electricity generation as the “single most important step” to meeting the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

“There is definitely a concern that, in the pandemic year of 2020, coal hasn’t fallen as fast as it needed to,” said Mr Jones, even as the UK set coal-free power records recently.

“There is concern that, once electricity demand returns, we won’t be seeing that decline in coal anymore.”

 

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

These companies are using oceans and rivers to generate electricity

Tidal Energy harnesses ocean currents with tidal turbines to deliver predictable, renewable power. From Scotland's Orkney to New York's East River, clean baseload electricity complements wind and solar in decarbonizing grids.

 

Key Points

Tidal energy uses underwater turbines to capture predictable ocean currents, delivering reliable, low-carbon power.

✅ Predictable 2-way flows enable forecastable baseload

✅ Higher energy density than wind, slower flow speeds

✅ Costs remain high; scaling and deployment are challenging

 

As the world looks to curb climate change and reduce fossil fuel emissions, some companies are focusing on a relatively untapped but vast and abundant source of energy — tidal waves.

On opposite sides of the Atlantic, two firms are working to harness ocean currents in different ways to try to generate reliable clean energy.

Off the coast of Scotland, Orbital Marine Power operates what it says is the "most powerful tidal turbine in the world." The turbine is approximately the size of a passenger airplane and even looks similar, with its central platform floating on the water and two wings extending downwards on either side. At the ends of each wing, about 60 feet below the surface, are large rotors whose movement is dictated by the waves.

"The energy itself of tidal streams is familiar to people, it's kinetic energy, so it's not too dissimilar to something like wind," Andrew Scott, Orbital's CEO, told CNN Business. "The bits of technology that generate power look not too different to a wind turbine."

But there are some key differences to wind energy, primarily that waves are far more predictable than winds. The ebb and flow of tides rarely differs significantly and can be timed far more precisely.

Orbital Marine Power's floating turbines off the Scottish coast produce enough energy to power 2,000 homes a year, while another Scottish tidal project recently produced enough for nearly 4,000 homes.

Orbital Marine Power's floating turbines off the Scottish coast produce enough energy to power 2,000 homes a year.

"You can predict those motions years and decades [in] advance," Scott said. "But also from a direction perspective, they only really come from two directions and they're almost 180 degrees," he added, unlike wind turbines that must account for wind from several different directions at once.

Tidal waves are also capable of generating more energy than wind, Scott says.

"Seawater is 800 times the density of wind," he said. "So the flow speeds are far slower, but they generate far more energy."

The Orbital turbine, which is connected to the electricity grid in Scotland's Orkney, can produce up to two megawatts — enough to power 2,000 homes a year — according to the company.

Scott acknowledges that the technology isn't fully mainstream yet and some challenges remain including the high cost of the technology, but the reliability and potential of tidal energy could make it a useful tool in the fight against climate change, as projects like Sustainable Marine in Nova Scotia begin delivering power to the grid.

"It is becoming increasingly apparent that ... climate change is not going to be solved with one silver bullet," he said.


'Could be 24/7 power'
Around 3,000 miles away from Orbital's turbines, Verdant Power is using similar technology to generate power near Roosevelt Island in New York City's East River. Although not on the market yet, Verdant's turbines set up as part of a pilot project help supply electricity to New York's grid. But rather than float near the surface, they're mounted on a frame that's lowered to the bottom of the river.

"The best way to envision what Verdant Power's technology is, is to think of wind turbines underwater," the company's founder, Trey Taylor, told CNN Business. And river currents tend to provide the same advantages for energy generation as ocean currents, he explained (though the East River is also connected to the Atlantic).

"What's nice about our rivers and systems is that could be 24/7 power," he said, even as U.S. offshore wind aims to compete with gas. "Not to ding wind or solar, but the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. But river currents, depending on the river, could be 24/7."

Verdant Power helps supply electricity to New York City
Over the course of eight months, Verdant has generated enough electricity to power roughly 60 homes — though Taylor says a full-fledged power plant built on its technology could generate enough for 6,000 homes. And by his estimate, the global capacity for tidal energy is enormous, with regions like the Bay of Fundy pursuing new attempts around Nova Scotia.


A costly technology
The biggest obstacle to reaching that goal at the moment is how expensive it is to set up and scale up tidal power systems.

"Generating electricity from ocean waves is not the challenge, the challenge is doing it in a cost-effective way that people are willing to pay for that competes with ... other sources of energy," said Jesse Roberts, Environmental Analysis Lead at the US government-affiliated Sandia National Laboratories. "The added cost of going out into the ocean and deploying in the ocean... that's very expensive to do," he added. According to 2019 figures from the US Department of Energy, the average commercial tidal energy project costs as much as $280 per megawatt hour. Wind energy, by comparison, currently costs roughly $20 per megawatt hour and is "one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today," with major additions like the UK's biggest offshore wind farm starting to supply the grid, according to the agency.

When operational, the Orbital turbine's wing blades drop below the surface of the water and generate power from ocean currents.

When operational, the Orbital turbine's wing blades drop below the surface of the water and generate power from ocean currents.

Roberts estimates that tidal energy is two or three decades behind wind energy in terms of adoption and scale.

The costs and challenges of operating underwater are something both Scott and Taylor acknowledge.
"Solar and wind are above ground. It's easy to work with stuff that you can see," Taylor said. "We're underwater, and it's probably easier to get a rocket to the moon than to get these to work underwater."
But the goal of tidal power is not so much to compete with those two energy sources as it is to grow the overall pie, alongside innovations such as gravity power that can help decarbonize grids.

"The low hanging fruit of solar and wind were quite obvious," Scott said. "But do they have to be the only solution? Is there room for other solutions? I think when the energy source is there, and you can develop technologies that can harness it, then absolutely."
 

 

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

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

Live Online & In-person Group Training

Advantages To Instructor-Led Training – Instructor-Led Course, Customized Training, Multiple Locations, Economical, CEU Credits, Course Discounts.

Request For Quotation

Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person instruction, our electrical training courses can be tailored to meet your company's specific requirements and delivered to your employees in one location or at various locations.