Prairie Power, Inc. Selects OSI for a Centralized Member Cooperative Distribution SCADA System

California Ports Electric Truck Leasing accelerates zero-emission logistics, cutting diesel pollution at Los Angeles and Long Beach. A $250 million nonprofit plan funds heavy-duty EVs and charging infrastructure to improve air quality and community health.

Key Points

A nonprofit's $250M plan to lease EV trucks at LA/Long Beach ports to cut diesel emissions and improve air quality.

✅ $250M lease program for heavy-duty EVs at LA/Long Beach ports

✅ Cuts diesel emissions; improves air quality in nearby communities

✅ Requires robust charging infrastructure and OEM partnerships

In a significant move towards sustainable transportation, a prominent U.S. nonprofit has announced plans to invest $250 million in leasing electric trucks for operations at California ports. This initiative aims to reduce air pollution and promote greener logistics, responding to the urgent need for environmentally friendly solutions in the transportation sector.

Addressing Environmental Concerns

California’s ports, particularly the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, are among the busiest in the United States. However, they also contribute significantly to air pollution due to the heavy reliance on diesel trucks for cargo transport. These ports are essential for the economy, facilitating trade and commerce, but the environmental toll is considerable. Diesel emissions are linked to respiratory issues and other health problems in nearby communities, which often bear the brunt of pollution.

The nonprofit's investment in electric trucks is a critical step towards mitigating these environmental challenges. By transitioning to electric vehicles (EVs), the project aims to significantly cut emissions from port operations, contributing to California's broader goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality.

The Scale of the Initiative

This ambitious initiative involves leasing a fleet of electric trucks that will operate within the ports and surrounding areas. The $250 million investment is expected to facilitate the acquisition of hundreds of electric vehicles, which will replace conventional diesel trucks used for cargo transport. This fleet will help demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of electric trucks in heavy-duty applications, paving the way for broader adoption.

The plan includes partnerships with established electric truck manufacturers, such as the Volvo VNR Electric platform, and local logistics companies to ensure seamless integration of these vehicles into existing operations. By collaborating with industry leaders, the initiative seeks to establish a model that can be replicated in other major logistics hubs across the country.

Economic and Community Benefits

The introduction of electric trucks is expected to yield multiple benefits, not only in terms of environmental impact but also economically. As these trucks begin operations, and as other fleets adopt electric mail trucks, they will create jobs within the green technology sector, from manufacturing to maintenance and charging infrastructure development. The project is anticipated to stimulate local economies, providing new opportunities in communities that have historically been disadvantaged by pollution.

Moreover, the initiative is poised to enhance public health. By reducing diesel emissions, the nonprofit aims to improve air quality for residents living near the ports, and emerging research links EV adoption to fewer asthma-related ER visits in local communities. This could lead to decreased healthcare costs associated with pollution-related illnesses, benefiting both the community and the healthcare system.

Challenges Ahead

While the initiative is promising, challenges remain. The successful implementation of electric trucks at scale requires a robust charging infrastructure capable of supporting the significant power needs of a large fleet. Additionally, the transition from diesel to electric vehicles involves significant upfront costs, even with leasing arrangements. Ensuring that logistics companies can manage these costs effectively will be crucial for the project's success.

Furthermore, electric trucks currently face limitations in terms of range and payload capacity compared to their diesel counterparts. Continued advancements in battery technology and infrastructure development will be necessary to fully realize the potential of electric vehicles in heavy-duty applications.

The Bigger Picture

This investment in electric trucks aligns with broader national and global efforts to combat climate change. As governments and organizations commit to reducing carbon emissions, initiatives like this one represent crucial steps toward achieving sustainability goals, and ports worldwide are also piloting complementary technologies like hydrogen-powered cranes to decarbonize cargo handling.

California has set ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including a mandate for all new trucks to be zero-emission by 2045. The nonprofit’s investment not only supports these goals, amid ongoing debates over funding priorities in the state, but also serves as a pilot program that could inform future policies and investments in clean transportation.

The $250 million investment in electric trucks for California ports marks a significant milestone in the push for sustainable transportation solutions. By addressing the urgent need for cleaner logistics, this initiative stands to benefit the environment, public health, and the economy. As the project unfolds, it will be closely watched as a potential model for similar efforts across the country and beyond, with developments such as the all-electric berth at London Gateway illustrating parallel advances, highlighting the critical intersection of innovation, sustainability, and community well-being in the modern logistics landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Maine Climate Council Act targets 80% renewable power by 2030 and 100% by 2050, slashing greenhouse gas emissions via clean electricity, grid procurement, long-term contracts, wind and hydro integration, resilience planning, and carbon sequestration.

Key Points

A Maine policy forming a Climate Council to reach 80% renewables in 2030 100% in 2050 and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

✅ 80% renewable electricity by 2030; 100% by 2050.

✅ 45% GHG cut by 2030; 80% by 2050.

✅ Utility procurement authority for clean capacity and energy.

The winds of change have shifted and are blowing Northward, as Maine’s Governor, Janet T. Mills, has put forth an act establishing a Climate Council to guide the state’s consumption to 80% renewable electricity in 2030 and 100% by 2050, echoing New York's Green New Deal ambitions underway.

The act, LR 2478 (pdf), also sets a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45% in 2030 and 80% by 2050. The document will be submitted to the state Legislature for consideration.

The commission would have the authority to direct investor owned transmission and distribution utilities to run competitive procurement processes, and enter into long-term contracts for capacity resources, energy resources, renewable energy credit contracts, and participate in regional programs, as these all lead toward the clean electricity and emissions-reducing goals that mirror California's 100% mandate debates today.

The Climate Council would convene industry working groups, including Scientific and Technical, Transportation, Coastal and Marine, Energy, and Building & Infrastructure working groups, plus others as needed, where examples like New Zealand's electricity transition could inform discussions.

Membership within the council would include two members of the State Senate, two members of the House, a tribal representative, many department commissioners (Education, Defense, Transportation, etc.), multiple directors, business representatives, environmental non-profit members, and climate science and resilience representatives as well.

The council would update the Maine State Climate Plan every four years, and solicit input from the public and report out progress on its goals every two years, similar to planning underway in Minnesota's carbon-free plan framework. The first Climate Action Plan would be submitted to the legislature by December 1, 2020.

Specifically, the responsibilities of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee were laid out. The group would be scheduled to meet at least every six months, beginning no later than October 1, 2019. The group would be tasked with reviewing existing scientific literature, including net-zero electricity pathways research, to use it as guidance, recognizing gaps in the state’s knowledge, and guiding outside experts to ascertain this knowledge.  The group would consider ocean acidification, and climate change effects on the state’s species; establish science-based sea-level rise projections for the state’s coastal regions by December 1, 2020; create a climate risk map for flooding and extreme weather events; and consider carbon sequestration via biomass growth.

The state’s largest power plants (above image), generate about 31% from gas, 28% from wood and 41% from hydro+wind. Already, the state has a very clean electricity profile, much like efforts to decarbonize Canada's power sector continue apace. Below, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) notes that 51% of electricity generation within the state comes from mostly wind+hydro, with a small touch from solar power. The state also gets 24% from wood and other biomass, which would lead some to argue that the state is already at 75% “renewable electricity”. The Governor’s document does reference wind power specifically as a renewable, however, no other specific electricity source. And there is much reference to forestry, agriculture, and logging – specifically noting carbon sequestration – but nothing regarding electricity.

The state’s final 25% of electricity mostly comes from natural gas, even as renewable electricity momentum builds across North America, with this author choosing to put “other” under the fossil percentage noted above.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

GMP Tesla Powerwall Program replaces utility meters with smart battery storage, enabling virtual power plant services, demand response, and resilient homes, integrating solar readiness, EV charging support, and smart grid controls across Vermont households.

Key Points

Green Mountain Power uses Tesla Powerwalls as smart meters, creating a VPP for demand response and home backup.

✅ $30 monthly for 10 years or $3,000 upfront for two units

✅ Utility controls batteries for peak shaving and demand response

✅ Enables backup power, solar readiness, and EV charging support

There are more than 100 million single-family homes in the United States of America. If each of these homes were to have two 13.5 kWh Tesla Powerwalls, that would total 2.7 Terawatt-hours worth of electricity stored. Prior research has suggested that this volume of energy storage could get us halfway to the 5.4 TWh of storage needed to let the nation get 80% of its electricity from solar and wind, as states like California increasingly turn to grid batteries to support the transition.

Vermont utility Green Mountain Power (GMP) seeks to remove standard electric utility metering hardware and replace it with the equipment inside of a Tesla Powerwall, as part of a broader digital grid evolution underway. Mary Powell, President and CEO of Green Mountain Power, says, “We have a vision of a battery system in every single home” and they’ve got a patent pending software solution to make it happen.

The Resilient Home program will install two standard Tesla Powerwalls each in 250 homes in GMP’s service area. The homeowner will pay either $30 a month for ten years ($3,600), or $3,000 up front. At the end of the ten year period, payments end, but the unit can stay in the home for an additional five years – or as long as it has a usable life.

A single Powerwall costs approximately $6,800, making this a major discount.

GMP notes that the home must have reliable internet access to allow GMP and Tesla to communicate with the Powerwall. GMP will control the functions of the Powerwall, effectively operating a virtual power plant across participating homes, expanding the scope of programs like those that saved the state’s ratepayers more than $500,000 during peak demand events last year. The utility specifically notes that customers agree to share stored energy with GMP on several peak demand days each year.

The hardware can be designed to interact with current backup generators during power outages, or emerging fuel cell solutions that maintain battery charge longer during extended outages, however, the units will not charge from the generator. As noted the utility will be making use of the hardware during normal operating times, however, during a power outage the private home owner will be able to use the electricity to back up both their house and top off their car.

The utility told pv magazine USA that the Powerwalls are standard from the factory, with GMP’s patent pending software solution being the special sauce (has a hint of recent UL certifications). GMP said the program will also get home owners “adoption ready” for solar power, including microgrid energy storage markets, and other smart devices.

Sonnen’s ecoLinx is already directly interacting with a home’s electrical panel (literally throwing wifi enabled circuit breakers). Now with Tesla Powerwalls being used to replace utility meters, we see one further layer of integration that will lead to design changes that will drive residential solar toward $1/W. Electric utilities are also experimenting with controlling module level electronics and smart solar inverters in 100% residential penetration situations. And of course, considering that California is requiring solar – and probably storage in the future – in all new homes, we should expect to see further experimentation in this model. Off grid solar inverter manufacturers already include electric panels with their offerings.

If we add in the electric car, and have vehicle-to-grid abilities, we start to see a very strong amount of electricity generation and energy storage, helping to keep the lights on during grid stress, potentially happening in more than 100 million residential power plants. Resilient homes indeed.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies 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

UK Free Electricity Debate weighs soaring energy prices against market regulation, renewables, and social equity, examining price caps, funding via windfall taxes, grid investment, and consumer protection in the UK's evolving energy policy landscape.

Key Points

A policy dispute over free power, balancing consumer relief with market stability, renewables, and investment.

✅ Pros: relief for households; boosts efficiency and green adoption.

✅ Cons: risks to market signals, quality, and grid investment.

✅ Policy options: price caps, windfall taxes, targeted subsidies.

In recent months, the debate over free electricity in the UK has intensified, revealing a divide within the energy sector. With soaring energy prices and economic pressures impacting consumers, the discussion around providing free electricity has gained traction. However, the idea has sparked significant controversy among industry stakeholders, each with their own perspectives on the feasibility and implications of such a move.

The Context of Rising Energy Costs

The push for free electricity is rooted in the UK’s ongoing energy crisis, exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As energy prices reached unprecedented levels, households faced the harsh reality of skyrocketing bills, prompting calls for government intervention to alleviate financial burdens.

Supporters of free electricity argue that it could serve as a vital lifeline for struggling families and businesses. The proposal suggests that by providing a certain amount of electricity for free, the government could help mitigate the effects of rising costs while encouraging energy conservation and efficiency.

Industry Perspectives

However, the notion of free electricity has not been universally embraced within the energy sector. Some industry leaders express concerns about the financial viability of such a scheme. They argue that providing free electricity could undermine the market dynamics that incentivize investment in infrastructure and renewable energy, in a market already exposed to natural gas price volatility today. Critics warn that if energy companies are forced to absorb costs, it could lead to diminished service quality and investment in necessary advancements.

Additionally, there are worries about how free electricity could be funded. Proponents suggest that a tax on energy companies could generate the necessary revenue, but opponents question whether this would stifle innovation and competition. The fear is that placing additional financial burdens on energy providers could ultimately lead to higher prices in the long run.

Renewable Energy and Sustainability

Another aspect of the debate centers around the UK’s commitment to transitioning to renewable energy sources. Supporters of free electricity emphasize that such a policy could encourage more widespread adoption of green technologies by making energy more accessible. They argue that by removing the financial barriers associated with energy costs, households would be more inclined to invest in solar panels, heat pumps, and other sustainable solutions.

On the other hand, skeptics contend that the focus should remain on ensuring a stable and reliable energy supply as the UK moves toward its climate goals. They caution against implementing policies that might disrupt the balance of the energy market, potentially hindering the necessary investments in renewable infrastructure.

Government's Role

As discussions unfold, the government’s role in this debate is crucial. Policymakers must navigate the complex landscape of energy regulation, market dynamics, and consumer needs. The government has already introduced measures aimed at assisting vulnerable households, such as energy price caps and direct financial support. However, the question remains whether these initiatives go far enough in addressing the root causes of the energy crisis.

In this context, the government faces pressure from both consumers demanding relief and industry leaders advocating for market stability, including proposals to end the link between gas and electricity prices to curb price volatility. The challenge lies in finding a middle ground that balances immediate support for households with long-term sustainability and investment in the energy sector.

Future Implications

The ongoing debate about free electricity in the UK underscores broader themes related to energy policy, market regulation, and social equity, with rising electricity prices abroad offering context for comparison. As the country navigates its energy transition, the decisions made today will have far-reaching implications for both consumers and the industry.

If the government chooses to pursue a model that includes free electricity, it will need to carefully consider how to implement such a system without jeopardizing the market. Transparency, stakeholder engagement, and thorough impact assessments will be essential to ensure that any new policies are sustainable and equitable.

Conversely, if the concept of free electricity is ultimately rejected, the focus will likely shift back to addressing energy costs through other means, such as enhancing energy efficiency programs or increasing support for vulnerable populations.

The divide within the UK’s energy industry regarding free electricity highlights the complexities of balancing consumer needs with market stability. As the energy crisis continues to unfold, the conversations surrounding this issue will remain at the forefront of public discourse. Ultimately, finding a solution that addresses the immediate challenges while promoting a sustainable energy future will be key to navigating this critical juncture in the UK’s energy landscape.

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