Revised and updated, to bring up-to-date feasibility of the EV cars, year 2025.

Hirsch Vivat P.E.  M.Sc. Auto-transport & mobile equipment.

That article discusses total real overall energy efficiency WTW of Electric car (EV) in comparison to the Gas powered (ICEV) based on CO2 polution.                                  

There are worldwide registries of 1.474 billion cars and only 2.4% are EVs. (Jan. 2024).                   EV sales are rapidly increasing (2024).     

Comparison of the Overall Energy Efficiency of internal Combustion Engine Vehicles vs. to EV will be calculated by using identical fuel. This is an “APPLE TO APPLE” approach. The benefit of renewable energy will be added in consequences calculations, page 4.

Energy efficiency of "Refinery" producing Fuel oil for Power Plants and Gasoline is about equal. (94.5% vs. 88.6%) or 1.07 ratios. The fuel oil #4 for power plants has a higher BTU content per gallon than gasoline on 1,137 ratios. The difference between them will be added in "total energy efficiency calculations"

 -The Total Energy Efficiency of EV is a multiplication of three components: (efficiency of the Refinery) x (efficiency of the Power Plant and Power Grid) x (efficiency of the EV car itself).  Or “Refinery -- to Power plant and Grid -- to the wheels” 

-Total Energy Efficiency for the gas-powered vehicle is a multiplication of two components: (efficiency of the Refinery) x (the ICEV car efficiency). Or “Refinery -- to the wheels”

- In both cases the “Well” to - “Oil supply”- to “Refinery”  is equal values for EV and ICEV and it cancel each other; Calculations will start for both vehicles equally, from “Refinery” to - "the Wheels”.

 Efficiency vs. energy consumption on gas-powered vehicle is RELATIVELY STABLE, when efficiency vs. energy consumption of EV is VARIABLE and it depends on the weather temperature, battery age, power plant fuel source, and added percentage of renewable non-fossil energy. In all published work of EV study a brand new EV is selected for testing and calculation? It is wrong; 6 years old EV with original used battery and 70000 mi mileage should be used for calculations and testing!  The average age of a car on US roads is now 12.2 years. 

  Average Power plant efficiency running on oil is n= 0.39; it happened to be about the same value as the average world efficiency of power generation n=0.40; power generation in USA n=0.40            Ref.16 U.S. Renewable Energy Factsheet | Center for Sustainable Systems (umich.edu)

Scope, calculation & summary.  “Efficiency” in engineering is measured by “ratio of useful output to total input” and designated in percentage or ratio coefficient (n=1 is equal to 100%). In most articles you may find non-engineering efficiencies which are measured in miles, watt hour per mile (Wh/mi) , MPGe, gas prices vs. electricity price, all calculated and tested at ideal non variable invariament. It is misleading and cannot be used for engineering assessment.        

TOTAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CALCULATION OF EV can and should be done by using the “SYSTEM OF MULTIPLE COMPONENTS” : (regenerative breaking will be added)                                                                                                                                       1) For purpose of “apple to apple” comparison Total efficiency of power plants is taken  n=0.40      2) Efficiency loss of electrical transmission through the electrical grid is 6 % or efficiency factor is n=94;                                                                                                

3) Efficiency loss of electrical car battery is 10%  when is charged.  Charging efficiency factor is n= 0.9;                  

4) Efficiency loss of an electrical car battery when discharged is 10%, efficiency factor is n= 0.9;

5) Efficiency loss of an electrical battery when temperature falls below -20 C is n=0.60-0.65 for a 6 years old   battery. Ref#2     For calculation we will take n= 0.85 (not everywhere and not all the time is winter.) 

6) Efficiency loss of 15% of electrical power used for heating or A/C, efficiency n=0.85;

7) Mechanical efficiency:  only n=0.90;

8) Finally efficiency of an EV electrical motor is n= 0.90   (.80 -.94)  Ref #6

9) Battery efficiency for 6 years old battery is n=0.80 (Battery life is about 10 -12 years).  

10) EV “Charging invertor’’ from AC to DC has efficiency factor n=0.95;

Ref#13  Battery degradation results for our base EV and AEV for the composite... | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)   

   Efficiency calculations are made without adding 10-14 metric ton of the CO2 emission as a result of manufacturing the lithium-ion batteries; However CO2 battery footprint emission will be added for obtaining the TOTAL EFFICIENCY based on CO2 EMISSION on a page 4.          

NOW WE CAN CALCULATE THE TOTAL GLOBAL EFFICIENCY OF ELECTRICAL CAR, BASED ON OIL POWER PLANT GENERATION. (“Apples to apple” approach): Total EV efficience based on “global” electric power generation at the cold winter for a 6 years old EV is:                             

1.137 x 1.07 x 0.40 x 0.94 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.85 x 0.85 x 0. 90 x 0.90 x 0.80 x 0.95= 0.17    It looks that gasoline powered car today at the same conditions is a bit more efficient device than 6 years old EV when is driven by using identical fuel at winter as ICEV. Most of the EV efficiency studies are done within speed range from 0 to 100km/h. Only in a few studies you may find that additional energy of 40% is required to reach speed 140km/h or 25% additional energy required more than gas-powered car. That means that EV efficiency on high speed will drop even farther down.   Using the same approach but for a brand new EV at ideal conditions without using A/C or heater with added regenerative braking EV efficiency may reach 0.28-0.32, which is the same efficiency as latest ICEV models (028) or (diesel 0.37). Ref #12    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/ehicle-energy-economy-at-different-speeds_fig1_326822085

EPA is testing EVs only till 104 km/h, it is very low! 140 km/h would be acceptable.  When regenerative braking is used it will add15% to battery power; it will raise the total efficiency only to 0.20 at the winter conditions: [0.17 : O.80 x (0,80 + 0.15)] = 0.20

 Discussion:  Based on above calculation efficiency for 6 years old EV at the cold winter or hot summer is 0.20 . For gas-powered Cars (fuel tank- to- wheels) efficiency is reaching to 0.28 for new models (diesel powered is reaching 0.37). See Ref#15.  The EV  CONS are: high initial cost and maintenance, battery replacement cost, power loss by aging, less efficiency on the higher speed, additional weight of 1000 lb., charging time, blackouts. Travel for long distances on EV is not recommended. Ref#2  (See axle overload to asphalt pavement and EV tire wear Ref#14 . One of the most noticeable PROS of EV is reduction of the LOCAL CO2 pollution reverting it to the power plant chimney when running on fossil fuel and CO2 reduction when renewable portion of energy is added. Actual and total CO2 emission should be the main concern when buying an EV or Hybrid.

  Total worldwide electricity production consists of 27% renewable, 10% nuclear and 63% of fossil fuel. 37 % of non-fossil is divided by: 1/3 from “other sources”, 1/3 from nuclear and the rest from hydro plants build 10-70 years ago. It took more than 20 years to build up energy generation from “other resources “(solar, wind, thermo).  The new “project” is to convert worldwide remaining 63% of fossil fuel generation to renewable for 20 -30 years! Entire Electrical Grids (Globally) would be reconstructed and also expended to generate additional electricity to operate EVs.         5 out of 8 billion people are inhabitants of the relatively poor countries and would not be able to contribute funds for such mega-project. All western countries are responsible for 25% CO2 emission. For the next 12 years a HYBRID vehicle would be a better choice.  Hybrid car is more reliable with lower CO2 emission.  It may take another 10-15 years to produce a reliable EV car with a better charging system.  EV battery is very expensive to produce and dispose.  EV Battery last about 12 years at the range of 100000 - 200000 mi with the efficiency loss of 0.65 on the end of battery life. Cost of the EV battery is $16000 plus replacement cost. Disposal of lithium batteries can be hazardous for the environment. Ref#4https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-footprint-of-lithium-ion-battery-production/

In the future EV market may be divided by two groups: one being able to afford a new expensive EV and another group would be left to buy used EVs with replaced batteries. So far the industry is in process to find sustainable batteries which will last 16-20 years.

 Conclusion:  My statement is valid only if all undersigned countries of the Paris Climate Agreement will be in compliance of all requirements.  To predict global transition to EV is challenging and unpredictable.   My TAKE:  The future (20-25 years) of the Global auto transportation: the larger part of transportation sector will be taken by PLUG-IN HYBRID vehicles ( ref# 17 Ensuring greenhouse gas reductions from electric vehicles compared to hybrid gasoline vehicles requires a cleaner U.S. electricity grid | Scientific Reports (nature.com) ) , next will be EV cars , the rest will be vehicles with high efficient turbocharged gas or/and diesel powered engines, shared with HYDROGEN powered vehicles.  (EV HUMMER, EV F-150 and TESLA CUBERTRUCK are not going to save the planet). A hydrogen vehicle does not require charging, it would not overload the Grid to some degree.ref#18 Optimal design of grid-connected green hydrogen plants considering electrolysis internal parameters and battery energy storage systems - ScienceDirect. Refuelling of Hydrogen vehicles will take couple minutes and would be performed on already existing gas station. Total transportation sector is contributing 21% pollutions globally; Road transportation 15.5%.  Cars, motorcycles and vans are contributing only 7.6% pollutions globally. As it is projected, 25 years from now car sector 7.6% will drop down to 4.0% globally by implementing EVs.  Landfill and water pollution from the battery manufactories and disposal will become in some countries unmanageable.   Semi-trailers responsible for 2% of global pollution temporary would be and can be left as it is. Last models of semi-trailers powered with new diesel engines are significantly more efficient and with fewer pollutant. Ref11. However maritime shipping as a part of transportation is responsible for 3% of the global pollution would be difficult to convert to electrical; new mega-large vessels may become nuclear powered. Aviation transport is 2.5% of the world CO2 emission. The necessity and demands to achieve the 3.6% reduction of CO2 pollution for the passengers cars are stated bellow:  there are 280 million registered vehicles in USA and 1.47 billion cars worldwide for now and that amount will grow. It is projected worldwide electrical energy will double up for the next 30 years. It would be very questionable to achieve that without adding Nuclear Power Plants. FAST  Supercharging stations for trucks (350 KW 480V) may cost $50,000 per charger or more with additional  high cost connecting them to the Electrical Grid; EV would require 50 KW per one FAST charger or slow overnight car charger only 10kw at home. Fast charging stations (level 3) require 4-5 times more energy demand from the Grid than SLOW charging stations (level 2). Fast charging systems will require additional Grid enlargement to fasciculate that demand. When only 20% of all registered vehicles in USA will be converted to EV a charge during one or two days would require, 28 million home chargers and 3 million public charging stations would be installed. That might not happen in other countries where citizens do not own detached homes with double garages. Other countries will need more public chargers. The cost of the global grid upgrading for 2035 is estimated to reach 2.5 trillion dollars (IEA). There are a lot of approximate not approved estimates by 195 countries including USA. Industry is trying to solve the inefficient battery performance by introducing new and better battery storages for EV. New inexpensive energy storages will make EV more attractive for consumers and better for environment; however it would not lower the pollutions emitted by the Power Plants running on fossil fuel. Finely, when new high efficiency battery storages will be introduced and implemented by industry, my “study” would not become obsolete, it would be updated to reflect the positive impact of the new technology.                                                                                            

Ref#1  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228794163_Comparing_Apples_to_Apples_Well-to-Wheel_Analysis_of_Current_ICE_and_Fuel_Cell_Vehicle_Technologies

 Ref#2    https://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/10/3/107

Ref #3   https://www.ieso.ca/en/Learn/Ontario-Supply-Mix/Ontario-Energy-Capacity                                                                                                                                                                                                   Ref #5  Everything You Need to Know About the Fastest-Growing Source of Global Emissions: Transport | World Resources Institute (wri.org)                                                                                                                                                                                                  Ref #6  https://x-engineer.org/automotive-engineering/vehicle/electric-vehicles/ev-design-electric-motors/                                                                                                                                                                         Ref #7  IEA international energy agency.                                                                                                                  (Neither IEA or SAE international haven’t issued any standards for the total EV efficiency testing.  SAE so far has only standards for charging (connective elements), battery energy consumption for 5 range cycles tests and EV vibration test.  SAE is using only new EV components.                                                                                                                                                                                  Only EPA is providing a 5 cycle “fuel economy” test inside the building on dynamometer using maximum lower temperature  -7C (20F) and max speed 104 km/hour (65m/h). In my opinion a 6 years old EV with 70000mi should be stored and tested  at  -20C (-4 F) at the speed  reaching  140km/hour (87m/h) with the heater “on”. EV should be charged at -20C without preheating battery (manually or automatic); If preheating procedure is selected, energy used for preheating should be added as an efficiency loss. Finally EPA conclusions are based on non-compatible comparison between “receptacle - to-wheels” of EV vs. “well-to-wheels” for a gas-powered car. Those misleading results are advertised without mentioning, that electric generation in USA is still originated from 59% of burning the fossil fuels.  Test results by EPA are wrong and misleading. (See Page 4, USA).               Electric cars are only as clean as their power supply. Ref # 9  Fuel Economy and EV Range Testing | US EPA             Ref#10 Comparison of the Overall Energy Efficiency for Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles and Electric Vehicles (sciendo.com)           Ref#11  Advantages of Diesel Engines | Cummins Inc.     Total  global “road transportation” is contributing 15.5% OF CO2. (Total transportation sector is 21%)    CARS, MOTOCUCLES, VANS  as a subsector  are contributing only 7.67% ;  All other global sectors responsible for remaining  79% of  CO2 EMISSION.  It is predicted by UNFCCC that at 2050 year 700 million cars globally will be EV and WORLD power plants will be 8o% non-fossil fuel effective; that will decrease CO2 and other greenhouse gasses emission. The “car” sector CO2 pollution will drop down to 4.0% from the 7.67 %  it is a great achievement and used by politicians as the most important subject for the public discussions avoiding or lessen conversations for remaining 79 % CO2 pollution of the “other sectors”.     Ref#8   https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-overview    

.                                                                                                                                                                                     RESULTS:   PAGE 4  TOTAL EFFICIENCY  based on CO2 EMISSION.

One of the main purposes of EV is reduction of harmful emissions.                          In subsequent calculations the non-fossil amount of efficiency will be assumed as 100% effective and not being added in calculations, only efficiency from the power plant to the wheels of EV will be calculated. However CO2 battery footprint emission will be added for calculations; it adds 27% of hazardous emission per year, based on the EV lifespan.  Ref#4.       ICEV yearly emission is 4.6 ton CO2 per year. EV may last 12 years. Annual emission of CO2 as a result of battery manufacturing (14 : 12) : 4.6 = 27%).  As additional information to that study most likely that replaced battery may perform less than 12 years, in that case the annual added EV battery footprint may be increased to 40%. It would drastically reduce the TOTAL EFFICIENCY based on CO2.The subsequent calculations are conservative (the secondary battery is not added). EV tires wear is 30% higher (not added) Ref#14 Road Hazard: Evidence Mounts on Toxic Pollution from Tires - Yale E360     

1) ONTARIO, CANADA ; 28% OF THE GENERATION IS PRODUCED BY FOSSIL FUEL (OIL AND GAS, ABOUT 50/50 with the plant efficiency of 0.415). THE CO2 EMISSION COMES FROM 29% OF FOSSIL FUEL. Adding numerical number of 27% to CO2 emission as a result of battery manufacturing will increase the total percentage to 55%. Calculation on the page 2 is based on 100% use of fossil fuel. Adding 45% of non-fossil fuel (1 – 55 = 0.45) will change the outcome of the equation as it is shown : for “non-ideal” condition: (0.17 x 0.55)+ (0.17 x 1/0.415 x 0.45) = 0.28 and “for ideal” condition:  (0.30 x 0.55) + (0.30 x 1/0.415 x 0.45)= 0.49  The average will be (0.30 + 0.49) : 2 = 0.40   There some contribution of using an EV in Ontario; it will reduce pollution to 40% and it will totally eliminate the local CO2 emission at heavy slow moving city traffic. The plug-in Hybrid will reduce pollution by 25-35% just a bit less than EV percentage but without larger demand of electricity from the Electric Grid. Consumer shell read CONS and PROS described on the page 2. (EV may require the battery replacement in the future which may drastically increase the CO2 emission). Taking in account the high EV price and EV CONS the Plug-in HYBRID may be the first choice in Ontario, second choice would be EV. However, EV may become the first choice when it is used durng the long day in a heavy slow traffic and charged during the night on a slow 10kw charger. For BC and Quebec the EV will be the best choice for the reduction of harmful emissions. Alberta is using 89% of fossil fuel for electro generation; obviously EV would not be effective there at all.  Canada is using at average 21% of fossil fuel.               

 2) California: 46.5% electricity is generated by natural gas; adding 27% of CO2 emission as a result of battery manufacturing will increase the total percentage: 46.5 + 27 =73%   Calculating using the same approach as above, the efficiency responsible for CO2 emission will fluctuate from 0.22 to 0.40 or average 0.32. Plug-in Hybrids is justified in California. However EV will not be justified.                 3) USA is using in average 59% of fossil fuel to generate electricity (2024) , with the exception to Maine,  Vermont, Washington state, partially California and South Carolina.  Adding 27% of the harmful emission as a result of battery manufacturing will increase the total fossil emission higher.   Finally EV is not feasible to use in USA for now, Plug-in-Hybrid and latest ICEV models will be a better choice. At mentioned states with lower fossil fuel emission EV may be acceptable as a first choice.

4)France: 7% fossil, 70% nuclear, 23% renewable. EV in France counts as a “clean car”.                                                                                                                      

 -The EV efficiency on the EPA “stick-on” label is wrong and misleading and obtained using “receptacle-to- wheels” approach. It is ignored that 59% of US energy is generated by burning fossil fuel (21% in Canada). Only “well-to-wheels” method will evaluate the total efficiency correctly. Additional QR code on the stick-on car label can be added and used for “well-to-wheels” method to evaluate efficiency of the EV based on CO2 harmful pollution at the location where QR code is scanned. It is amazing that the EPA has come up with a measuring unit MPGe and Wh/mi that is based on converting an invariant unit to some arbitrary equivalent based on "equivalence" of energy; it is totally incorrect and misleading! (MPGe is mainly used in USA).  Finally, measuring efficiency units should be alike to European Union and the rest of the world using EEA unit counting CO2 in g/km. EV is “certified” by EPA as a “Zero-emission-vehicle” (ZEV) which is totally wrong and misleading. (European Environment agency EEA and the rest of the world do not have such non-technical invalid “certifications”, Europeans just call it LEV       (low emission). There are no any EV in USA, Mexico and Canada which are not emitting CO2. EV pollutants are just reverted to the Power plant chimneys; also battery carbon footprint is a part of the EV pollutants and should be included in CO2 harmful EV emission. One of the main purposes of EV is reduction of harmful emissions.  When renewable and nuclear energy will account for 60% or higher EV will become more justifiable.  See Ref#19 and Ref#20

Ref#19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production#Renewable_production_(percent)

Ref#20 Which countries get the most electricity from low-carbon sources? - Our World in Data

Wikipedia: "Electricity sector in Brazil."

Brazil has the largest electricity sector in Latin America, + in 2024, Brazil added a substantial 10.9 GW of new power generation capacity, with a total installed capacity of 209 GW, of which nearly 85% was renewable. [Recall that a gigawatt or GW is equivalent to the instantaneous or power rating of a typical nuclear power plant.]. "The installed capacity grew from 11,000 MW in 1970 with an average yearly growth of 5.8% per year."

Impressively, Brazil has the largest capacity for water storage in the world, based largely on hydroelectricity generation capacity, which meets over 60% of its electricity demand. "The national grid runs at 60 Hz, just like in the US, and is powered 83% from renewable sources." This dependence on hydropower makes Brazil vulnerable to power supply shortages in drought years, as was demonstrated by the 2001–2002 energy crisis.

"In 2023, the output of Brazil's electricity system, serving over 88 million consumers, exceeded that of all other South American nations combined." Anticipated investments surpassing $100 billion by 2029 aim to expand utility-scale + distributed generation, alongside transmission + distribution projects. "The National Interconnected System (SIN) comprises the electricity companies in the South, South-East, Center-West, North-East and part of the North region." Only 3.4% of the country's electricity production is located outside the SIN, in small isolated systems located mainly in the Amazonian region.

Fascinating country in so many ways. From my background in infectious disease, problems with zika, dengue fever, malaria. But the specter of drought hangs over the Amazon + Brazil's power sector, as in many areas of the world. Since Brazil is about 92% tropical, it seems to me they should diversify further into solar + storage.

AAAS: "Scientists have only discovered a tiny fraction of living insect species."

From half-meter-long moths to fairy wasps smaller than sand grains, insects come in a stunning variety of shapes and sizes and constitute the most diverse animal group on Earth. "But the insect species discovered so far may represent just a fraction of the total crawling, flying, and burrowing around the planet, according to a new study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." Using statistical methods borrowed from epidemiologists, a team of entomologists estimates there may be as many as 20 million insect species on our planet—more than three times the previous estimate.

"Over the past 3 centuries, biologists have described about 1 million insect species, but finding and describing them all would be a daunting—if not impossible—task." However, a subfamily of parasitoid wasps known as Microgastrinae, which infamously lay their eggs inside living caterpillars, are extremely well-studied. "Over the past several years, scientists conducting surveys of flying insects in the park have identified 388 species of Microgastrinae."

Independently, when scientists surveyed caterpillars that had been parasitized within the park, they identified only 889 wasp species. With almost no overlap, the mismatch between the 2 studies allowed a statistical estimate of a whopping 2394 Microgastrinae species. Applying this as a multiple to all 53,945 known insect species within Guanacaste suggests the park is actually home to 332,846 insect species, most of which have gone unobserved.

"The researchers then scaled this number globally using another diverse group of organisms: trees...[with] 1200 [to] 1500 tree species within Guanacaste and about 73,000 on Earth, meaning the park contains between 1.6% and 2.1% of global tree diversity." If the same percentage holds true for insects, then there’s anywhere between 13.3 million and 24.7 million insect species on Earth, with a safe middle-of-the-road estimate of 20.3 million species.

While you may think this epidemiological calculation represents biodiversity run riot, recall that many insect species are in decline from pesticides + habitat loss + climate change. Do not be sanguine.

By Kennedy Maize

Fuel cells, a proven way to make electricity without combustion, fission, or gravity, are making serious inroads into the red-hot market for producing power for artificial intelligence data centers.

Last Tuesday (June 30), fuel cell vendor Bloom Energy (NYSE:BE) announced what they described as a “$25 billion” deal with Canadian financial holding company Brookfield (NYSE,TSN:BN) that is a five-fold increase in Brookfield’s initial investment last October in the San Jose-based solid-oxide fuel cell developer. In a news release, Bloom said, “The expanded partnership reflects strong and sustained demand from hyperscalers and AI infrastructure developers for fast, reliable, and community-friendly power.” 

Aman Joshi, Bloom’s chief commercial officer, said, “When we formed this partnership, we said it was the first phase of a much larger vision. Today’s commitment reflects the momentum we are seeing in the market, as evidenced by recently announced large-scale deals. Bloom is uniquely positioned to address the urgent need for clean, reliable power to support the rapid growth of AI.”

Brookfield, with a trillion-dollar diversified portfolio that includes real estate, infrastructure, renewable energy, private equity, and insurance, is one of the world’s largest financial holding companies. In late 2022, it spun off private equity investor Brookfield Asset Management (NYSE,TSX:BAM), which relocated to New York City in 2024.

The Bloom-Brookfield compact was the second major AI coup for Bloom. In April, Texas-based technology giant Oracle Corp. announced a deal with the company to develop a behind-the-meter 2.45-GW artificial intelligence  data center in the New Mexico desert, dubbed Project Juniper, powered by Bloom’s fuel cells.

 At the time, Oracle explained its choice of fuel cell technology: “Fuel cells generate electricity without combustion, meaning the Bloom microgrid is highly efficient with low emissions and water use. Compared to its previously planned gas turbines, Project Jupiter with the Bloom microgrid will reduce NOₓ emissions by approximately 92% and will use a negligible amount of water.” 

A week before the Bloom-Brookfield deal (June 24), Connecticut-based FuelCell Energy (Nasdaq: FCEL) and Fit Energy USA LP of Boca Raton, Fla., a “Foreign Limited Partnership” formed in February under Florida law, announced a “strategic agreement for up to 380 megawatts (MW) of clean, baseload on-site power for data centers using FuelCell Energy’s utility-scale fuel cell technology. The agreement includes an immediate deposit for an initial 30 MW of power scheduled to begin delivery later this year.”

Jason Few, FuelCell Energy president and CEO, said, “This agreement further validates our decision to scale our operations to 500 MW, preserving our ability to serve a broad and growing pipeline of customers.” Fit Energy CEO Joel Leonoff, said, “Today’s announcement marks a critical step in building the power foundation required for the next generation of AI infrastructure. FuelCell Energy’s technology aligns with our growth objectives and our goal of delivering behind-the-meter power solutions to data centers at gigawatt scale.”

According to a joint news release, the two companies said that “under the arrangement, Fit Energy will be eligible to receive warrants tied to future deployment milestones of up to 380 MW. The warrant structure is designed to align long-term value creation with successful project execution and customer deployment.”

Fuel cells generate electricity through electrochemical reactions between a fuel (often pure hydrogen) and an oxidizing agent (typically oxygen) without combustion. As the Department of Energy describes it, “A fuel cell consists of two electrodes—a negative electrode (or anode) and a positive electrode (or cathode)—sandwiched around an electrolyte. A fuel, such as hydrogen, is fed to the anode, and air is fed to the cathode….The electrons go through an external circuit, creating a flow of electricity.”

In the middle of the new fuel cell announcements, Norwegian energy consulting firm Rystad Energy issued a very bullish report on the fuel cell-data center connection, predicting “a tenfold increase in fuel cell market revenues by 2030, rising from around $2.8 billion in 2025 to roughly $30 billion, as AI computing demand drives unprecedented growth in data center construction.”

Backing up that prediction, says Rystad, is a “contracted order book of approximately 9 gigawatts (GW), including framework agreements with Oracle, AEP, Equinix, and Brookfield, points to growing confidence among major operators in fuel cells as a viable long-term power source.”

Fuel cells are particularly well suited for what the consultants see as a decided move to “on-site power generation rather than grid connection. Unlike conventional grid connections or large gas plants, fuel cells can be deployed quickly and run on natural gas today, transitioning to biogas, renewable natural gas or hydrogen as supply matures, while producing lower on-site emissions than combustion alternatives.”

Rystad’s Lein Mann Bergsmark said, “Power availability has become one of the defining constraints on data center growth, and operators are increasingly looking beyond the grid for solutions. Fuel cells have moved from a niche application to a measurable part of the firm power mix. The question now is whether the supply chain can scale at the same pace as demand.”

The Quad Report, covering energy policy and politics

When utility professionals think about grid modernization, the conversation naturally gravitates toward large-scale upgrades: high-voltage transmission lines, massive utility-scale storage, and centralized distribution management systems. We think big because our grids are big.

But a quiet infrastructure success story unfolding in rural Haiti turns this capital-intensive, top-down philosophy entirely on its head. It suggests that in highly volatile or capital-constrained environments, the ultimate grid architecture might not be a massive upgrade at all—but rather a modular network of "nickel-and-dime" mesh grids.

Bypassing the Centralized Bottleneck

In my recent coverage for Forbes--picked up by Yahoo Finance--I looked closely at how decentralized solar mesh grids are successfully delivering clean, affordable electricity to thousands of rural Haitian households. These are not mini-utilities or traditional microgrids that require centralized generation and a mini-distribution network. Instead, they connect small clusters of homes via localized, modular nodes. If one node or home drops off, the rest of the mesh network self-heals and keeps running.

For utility professionals, the structural takeaways from this model are profound:

• Radical De-Risking: Traditional grid extensions require massive upfront capital expenditure before the first customer flips a switch. Mesh grids scale organically. You build out a few homes at a time, matching capital deployment precisely with localized demand.

• Operational Resilience Under Strain: Conventional wisdom says infrastructure requires political stability. Mesh networks prove that localized, modular assets can thrive in environments of absolute instability precisely because they have no single point of failure. If it can maintain reliability in rural Haiti, the underlying architecture has cleared the ultimate stress test.

• The Capital Sequencing Blueprint: Perhaps the most scalable lesson is how these projects are funded. Developers utilized early-stage philanthropy to absorb the initial execution risk. Once the operational data proved the model's viability, it unlocked major follow-on funding from multilateral institutions like the World Bank and the IDB Lab.

The Macro Value of Micro-Networks

As global utilities face mounting challenges from extreme weather, physical security threats, and skyrocketing interconnection queues, the "all-or-nothing" approach to grid expansion is looking increasingly fragile.

Haiti’s mesh grid success isn't just a humanitarian milestone; it’s a technical proof of concept. It proves that a highly decentralized, modular power architecture can deliver 40% lower costs and unmatched resilience. For an industry staring down the barrel of a complex energy transition, it’s time to realize that sometimes, thinking small is the most strategic way to scale.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2026/07/01/despite-crippling-poverty-haiti-is-quietly-switching-the-lights-on/?ss=energy

A new IISD report shows village-level solar can undercut grid tariffs by nearly half, but storage costs, seasonal surplus and DISCOM planning will decide whether rural solar villages actually work.

A new framework from the International Institute for Sustainable Development finds that solarising Indian villages can slash electricity costs well below state benchmarks, but only if utilities plan storage, surplus power and grid integration together rather than chasing rooftop installation targets village by village.

👉 Read the full story: https://indoen.com/news/rural-indias-solar-reckoning-why-village-grids-need-more-than-panels-to-work

Two highly relevant metrics for analysing energy operations—which invariably involve the interest of various companies and institutions—are $/kWh and kWh/activity.

$/kWh refers to the cost of all consumed energy sources normalised to a single unit.

kWh/activity represents energy consumption relative to a specific operational measure, such as tons delivered, units produced, or—in the case of buildings—the number of occupants.

By tracking these two metrics month-by-month, one can gauge the performance of energy managers on two fronts: the cost of energy procurement and energy efficiency relative to output!

Best of all, monitoring a chart is easy, simple, and quick for everyone involved with energy management—an area that typically ranks among the top 10 (and often the top 5) cost categories.

I have been writing about the problem of medium and high impact NERC CIP systems being “illegal” in the cloud for close to ten years. At one point, I gave up on the idea that things would ever get better, since I thought the changes that would need to be made to the existing CIP standards would be too much for the power industry.

The problem was (and is) that prescriptive, device-based requirements like CIP-007 R2 and CIP-010 R1 can’t work in the cloud. These will all need to be rewritten as risk based. However, the industry is worried about how auditors would audit true risk-based requirements, since NERC’s Rules of Procedure were originally developed with only prescriptive requirements in mind. Since all the NERC Reliability Standards except for CIP are ultimately based on the laws of physics, prescriptive requirements are the only ones that make sense for those standards; but cybersecurity is based on risk, and all cyber requirements should be risk-based.

Thus, I was pleasantly surprised when in December 2023 a very well-written Standards Authorization Request (SAR) for fixing the cloud problem was approved by the NERC Standards Committee. Note that, by “cloud problem” I’m referring to the fact that medium and high impact BES Cyber Systems (BCS), Electronic Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS) and Physical Access Control Systems (PACS) cannot be implemented or utilized in the cloud without violating over thirty NERC CIP Requirements and Requirement Parts. I break the cloud problem into three “sub-problems”: BCS in the cloud, EACMS in the cloud and PACS in the cloud.

Note the cloud problem is separate from the problem of BES Cyber System Information (BCSI) being stored or utilized in the cloud. The BCSI problem was solved when CIP-004-7 and CIP-011-3 came into effect on January 1, 2024, although hardly anybody in the NERC community seems to believe that the problem really was solved. As a result, a lot of NERC entities are needlessly refraining from using cloud-based services (SaaS) that sometimes uses BCSI, such as cloud-based MFA and configuration management.

The Risk Management for Third-Party Cloud Services Standards Drafting Team was constituted in the spring of 2024 (in response to the SAR’s approval) and started meeting in the summer; they have been meeting continually since then. However, the SDT has yet to publish a single draft standard or definition for comment, even though they are currently working on about twelve new standards and an undetermined number of new definitions.

If I’d been told a year and a half ago that the SDT would still be meeting today and that they wouldn’t yet have drafted any new standards, I would probably have said that’s not surprising, given how ambitious the project is; in fact, I predicted in late 2024 that it would be 2031 before new standards would be drafted, approved and in effect.

However, starting in early 2025, I began to see some red flags that made me worry the SDT might ultimately fail – i.e., disband without having solved the three cloud problems. Those red flags have only multiplied since then. Below are brief descriptions of about ten of those red flags. Once draft standards and definitions are posted, I’ll have a lot more to discuss.

1. The SDT decided in early 2025 that they would not only draft new standards for cloud-based systems, but they would develop new standards (called the “100-series”: CIP-102, 103, etc.) that would apply to both on-premises and cloud-based systems. At the time, I didn’t see how standards that apply to both types of systems could possibly work (since on-premises systems can be directly audited, but cloud-based systems can’t). But the SDT members assured me (since at that time I was attending at least two SDT meetings per month) that this would be no problem. I still don’t know if or how CIP auditing will work for cloud-based systems.

2. In order not to alienate NERC entities that are happy (or at least not terribly unhappy) with the current CIP standards and don’t want to go through a huge effort to revise all their documentation, procedures, etc., the SDT wants to let them stick with the current standards for on-premises systems, but utilize the 100 series standards for cloud-based systems. However, NERC entities that have both on-premises and cloud-based systems subject to CIP compliance will also be able to have their on-prem systems audited on compliance with the 100 series.

The SDT’s hope is that ultimately all systems subject to NERC CIP compliance will be audited based on the 100 series standards. This is a fine idea, but I know of no provision in the NERC Rules of Procedure that allows a NERC entity to choose not to comply with a group of standards, even though they’re technically required to comply with them. All NERC entities with on premises control systems and with assets (mostly Control Centers, Transmission substations and generating facilities) that meet one of the “bright line” criteria in Attachment 1 of CIP-002 must comply with the CIP standards.

The SDT might address this problem by changing Section 4 of each existing CIP standard to say that the standard isn’t applicable to entities that have chosen to follow the 100-series equivalent of that standard (e.g., CIP-105 for CIP-005). However, negotiating this wording with the NERC lawyers will be a bear. Instead, the SDT seems to be pursuing a strategy of hoping the lawyers won’t notice what they’re doing. Good luck with that.

3. The above is one of at least two – and perhaps more – aspects of the new standards that are likely to violate the Rules of Procedure. Of course, the RoP can be changed, although not by an SDT. Nobody has been able to tell me how the RoP can be changed, but it’s certainly going to require a long process and will almost certainly require both NERC and FERC approval. The SDT’s leaders have told me, probably with fingers crossed, that RoP changes won’t be needed (although one of them said something very different to me less than a year ago). We’ll see what happens, but this is another red flag.

4. The proposed 100 series standards will supposedly fix the cloud problem, which of course is the SDT’s mandate (see below for more on this topic). But the SDT decided early last year that they wanted to add a huge task that isn’t in their mandate at all: rewrite the current CIP standards to be entirely risk-based (or “objectives-based”, to use the current NERC term). Even though NERC entities will be allowed to stay on the current standards for their on-premises systems, the 100 series standards are intended to be the next version of CIP, so sooner or later all NERC entities will have to comply with them, no matter where their systems are located.

I’ve been saying for years that the current CIP standards need to be rewritten as risk-based. In fact, in 2018 I wrote more than half of a book explaining the problems I see with the current CIP standards and describing how they could be fixed. However, I abandoned it when I became too busy (I may be working with someone soon to finally finish the book. If you’re interested in joining this effort, let me know).

But I’m not the only person with ideas about how to improve the CIP standards; just about every NERC entity who must comply with CIP has something to say about the current standards, some of it printable and some not. If this SDT wants to rewrite the current standards for on-premises systems, I suggest they stop what they’re doing now and draft a SAR for doing that, since they have no mandate to do this now. In drafting that SAR, they need to hold listening sessions with NERC entities to get their ideas on how to fix CIP; if they try to impose their own ideas on a very passion-filled topic, they aren’t likely to get approved by the NERC ballot body.

If the SDT does this right, it will take them six months to a year to conduct “listening tours” (physical and virtual, of course), then draft the new SAR. This might seem to be an unnecessary use of the SDT’s time, but deciding for themselves what NERC entities need and then forcing them to swallow the team’s ideas whole isn’t going to work.

5.  However, there’s one problem that currently makes all the others moot: Since the beginning of the year, the SDT has been sprinting (although running hard in place is a better description) to meet a seemingly arbitrarily imposed September “deadline” to submit the new standards and definitions for the first ballot for NERC entities to vote on. The SDT is no more likely to meet that deadline than I am to score a goal in the World Cup. Here’s why:

a)      Given everything that needs to go on before the first ballot, the team needs to have at least an agreed upon set of about 12 draft standards ready in a few weeks – this will be the “posting for comment” for the NERC community. Yet, after 22 or 23 months of work, the SDT has yet to agree on a single draft standard; in fact, there is at least one standard that the team hasn’t yet decided whether it will even be part of the package they submit. Will they really be able to finalize all twelve standards in a few weeks? Is it possible that the reason why they’re having so much trouble drafting the 100 series standards is that they’re trying to do too much at once - like end global warming, square the circle, and invent a perpetual motion machine in one fell swoop?

b)     When the team first started discussing new standards to apply to the cloud, they started using terms like “BES Cyber Systems or Services” and building the requirements on them. However, they never finalized any definitions and still haven’t done so; in fact, there isn’t even agreement on what terms are needed. This is just another task that needs to be accomplished in the next few weeks (this is also one reason why none of the standards are finalized. How can you finalize a requirement without being sure what the terms in it mean?). I note that the team that drafted CIP version 5 – the last major change to the CIP standards before this one – developed their fundamental definition, BES Cyber System, in 2008 or 2009. That was two years before they started drafting v5 and seven years before it came into effect, not three weeks before they first posted the standards for comment.

c)      In recent years, the primary guidance for a new or revised NERC standard is its Technical Rationale (TR) – a document prepared by the drafting team that explains what they had in mind when they developed the standard. This SDT is already at work on a TR for each standard (to be more exact, a few individuals are at work on TRs. Given the huge volume of work remaining to be done and the pressure to finish up, it’s not clear they’ll have much time to coordinate with each other). I’ve seen some of the language in one of the TRs; it’s quite complex, which is a huge red flag in my book. If a requirement can’t be described in concise language, it shouldn’t be a requirement, since it will result in endless audit fights.

d)     Before the SDT can post the standards for the first ballot, they need to take two steps: The first is posting the draft standards for comment, so that members of the NERC community can submit questions and comments. This comment period is normally at least 25 days; anything less than that will be a big problem, since a NERC compliance team at a major utility can’t just whip something up in a couple of weeks and submit it without any review; in fact, comment periods are normally 45 days.

e)     Once the comments are received, the SDT needs to respond to them, including at least all the negative ones (although they can group comments that seem to be similar). However, after responding, the hard work begins: the team needs to decide which negative comments are valid and make changes to the standards or definitions to address those comments. Finally, they need to post the revised draft standards for comment, so NERC entities can verify that they have in fact taken their comments seriously. If the SDT tries to skip this step, they risk making a lot of NERC entities unhappy, and anxious to take their revenge on the SDT in the balloting.

f)       The second step the SDT needs to take before the first ballot posting is the Quality Review, in which the draft standards are submitted to a group of NERC lawyers and auditors for their comments (actually, the SDT should have had at least one meeting with the auditors already. If they had done so – as I was repeatedly promised - they might have avoided running into a brick wall in the QR, with the lawyers and/or auditors telling them they have to restart the drafting process from the beginning.

g)      I think this is a real possibility, although it’s still better than having the standards get approved by NERC (which is almost certain to take at least a year) and then go to FERC for their judgment. It might take more than one year for FERC to render judgment (I believe the CIP record was 17 months for version 1), given the importance of the cloud changes and given the fact that, unlike almost every other change in or addition to the CIP standards, FERC didn’t order the changes. Thus, if FERC has problems with what’s submitted to them, they might not do what they normally have done with CIP: approve the standard but require that changes be made in a new version. Instead, they might simply remand the standard entirely, so the SDT will have to restart the drafting process from the beginning. This would add at least two years to the amount of time the SDT has wasted. Of course, this would be a catastrophe for NERC, since so many NERC entities have been waiting for so long to – finally! – have full access to the cloud. If they suddenly find themselves in another long wait just when they thought their problem was finally solve…I have no idea what would happen, but it’s unlikely to be pretty.

h)     It should be clear that the two comment periods (one for the general community and one for the NERC lawyers and auditors) will take at least two months each – which alone puts the SDT far past their September “deadline” for the first ballot posting. However, that assumes that none of the negative comments will require substantial changes to the standards (and anything more than a misspelling might require a substantial change). But it’s close to certain that many substantial changes will be required, to the point that the SDT may have to throw out everything they’ve drafted so far and start over (in fact, in the last SDT meeting, it was pointed out that one feature of the draft standards – even though they haven’t been officially drafted yet – has already drawn substantial negative comments from one group of NERC entities. There will likely be other such cases as well).

i)       Given this, the earliest possible date for posting for a first ballot is probably January, but even that will depend on not needing to make any substantial changes after either the posting for public comment or the quality review.  Since that’s not a realistic assumption, I’d say the SDT will be lucky if they can have a first ballot before next spring or even summer. On the other hand, it will be much worse if the initial draft standards make it to the first ballot posting substantially unchanged, since I don’t see any reasonable path to their getting passed by even a majority of the NERC ballot body (i.e., the NERC entities that say they want to vote on these changes), let alone the required supermajority. If the SDT is forced to go back to the drawing board soon (say, after the public posting for comment) rather than 1-3 years from now, it will be a very bad day at the office for the NERC community in general, but especially the SDT members.

Thus, I think it will realistically be at least 3-5 years (including allowance for an implementation period after FERC approves the new standards and definitions) before the standards now being worked on by the SDT come into effect (which brings me back to my original prediction of 2031, although I wasn’t aiming for that result). Given that the team has already met for two years with very little to show for that effort, I wonder how many members will be willing to stick around that long.

I want to point out that there are two scenarios in which I can at least imagine that the most important part of the CIP-in-the-cloud problem would be solved (i.e., an enforceable set of standards and definitions would be in place) in the next two years:

1. When I moved to Chicago decades ago, there was a common saying in politics: “The fix is in.” This meant there was no point in fighting some political move that had recently been made or was about to be made, since the people in charge (which was certainly not the voters at that time!) had already decided what they wanted; they would make it happen no matter what anyone else said. I certainly hope that can’t happen in this case, but given the obviously huge pressure on the drafting team to meet the September deadline for the first ballot, I’m not so sure it won’t.

After all, the NERC Board of Trustees has various emergency powers at their disposal. I can’t imagine what emergency would justify not going through the normal standards approval process in the case of CIP and the cloud. However, I do know that short-circuiting that process would be a huge and extremely costly mistake if it happened. NERC literally might not recover from that.

2. Last November, I realized that the three components of the Cloud CIP problem - BCS, EACMS and PACS in the cloud – could all be solved with eight small changes to the existing standards and definitions (seven of the changes are trivial. One, the definition of “system”, is less trivial but is certainly doable with a few SDT meetings). I also realized that by far the most important of these problems was (and continues to be) the “EACMS problem” (although the “PACS problem”, which is literally word for word identical with the EACMS problem if you just replace every instance of EACMS with PACS, is a close number two). In fact, the 2023 Standards Authorization Request (linked earlier), under which this SDT was constituted, mentioned – nay, pleaded – in a couple of places that the SDT should address the EACMS problem before the others. I don’t think the SDT ever seriously considered this request, mainly because they spent their first six months drafting their own SAR, which didn’t mention this issue at all.

When I realized early this year that this SDT was probably on the road to failure and needed some sort of quick fix, I realized that just the last four of the eight changes (now highlighted in red) in my November post linked earlier were all that are needed to fix both the EACMS and PACS problems (but not the BCS problem, which ironically is the least important today); all four of these are trivial changes that should be easy to draft and shouldn’t be controversial at all. I’m sure that, if the drafting team starts to draft these changes soon (they won’t require a new SAR), both EACMS and PACS in the cloud could be “legal” by the end of next year (Note to the SDT: The scheduling problem with CIP-002 that you discussed in your meeting on Thursday doesn’t apply to these changes, since no change to CIP-002 is needed).

Here’s a final kicker: I’m close to certain that whatever standards the SDT drafts for the posting for comment will not solve the problem of either EACMS or PACS in the cloud. In other words, even if by some miracle the SDT can get the currently envisioned standards and definitions approved by both NERC and FERC, they will still have to go back and make the four changes I listed in that post. Why not make these changes now, rather than wait for NERC entities - who have only on-premises systems, but want to utilize a cloud-based access control or monitoring service or PACS service - to realize they still can’t legally use the cloud when they start to get audited for the 100 series? Boy, will they be p___..…umm, unhappy.

Tom Alrich’s Blog, too is a reader-supported publication. You can view new posts for two months after they come out by becoming a free subscriber. You can also access all my 1300 existing posts dating back to 2013, as well as support my work, by becoming a paid subscriber for $30 for one year (and if you feel so inclined, you can donate more than that or become a founding subscriber for $100). Whichever option you choose, please subscribe. 

If you would like to comment on what you have read here, I would love to hear from you. Please comment in my chat or email me at [email protected].

A utility can invest years modernizing its enterprise systems and still be flying blind operationally. The culprit is usually the same: an integration layer between GIS and everything else that was never built for how spatial data actually works. 

Traditional enterprise integration was designed for business records. Work orders, customer accounts, asset registers. It moves structured, predictable data between systems on a schedule. That approach works reasonably well until GIS enters the equation. 

Spatial data is different in kind, not just degree. 

Every GIS feature carries geometry, network connectivity, and geographic relationships that directly affect field operations. A transformer or water valve isn't a row in a table. It exists within a physical network, and that network has to stay accurate across every system that touches it, in near real time, at scale. 

When it doesn't, the consequences aren't theoretical: 

• Field crews stop trusting the operational map 

• Asset records drift from physical reality 

• Manual verification quietly replaces the automated workflows organizations paid to build 

One organization we've worked with discovered that missing synchronization identifiers had generated hundreds of thousands of duplicate service connections during testing. They eventually abandoned automated synchronization altogether and reverted to manual processes. That's not a technical failure. That's an organizational one. 

What makes this harder: spatial integrations don't fail all at once. They drift. 

An ERP upgrade introduces a revised API. A workflow shifts. And data that was flowing cleanly stops doing so, without triggering any alarm. By the time someone notices, operational trust has already eroded. Rebuilding it takes far longer than fixing the integration. 

Keeping those connections stable as enterprise environments evolve requires expertise on both sides of the equation, geospatial and enterprise systems. That combination is rarer than most organizations expect, and the gap tends to show up at the worst possible moment. 

GIS is now central to digital twin programs, predictive maintenance, mobile workforce operations, and real-time network monitoring. It's not a mapping department tool. It's the operational layer connecting enterprise systems to the physical world. 

That layer deserves an integration strategy built for what it actually is. 

Modernization efforts don't stall because organizations lack ambition. They stall because the infrastructure connecting systems wasn't designed to last. Getting that foundation right isn't a technical detail. It's a strategic one. 

For CEOs leading modernization efforts, these are the questions that keep surfacing in my conversations with other executives: 

• Did we build an integration layer that understands network topology, or are we treating spatial features as generic records? 

• Is critical geospatial and enterprise systems expertise concentrated in one or two people on our team? What happens to our operations if that knowledge walks out the door? 

• Do we have a clear way of knowing when spatial data synchronization starts to drift, or are we relying on our teams noticing after trust has already been lost? 

• When we upgrade ERP, GIS, or other enterprise platforms, do we have a repeatable process to validate that our integrations still hold? 

• Do our field crews trust the operational map, or have they quietly reverted to manual processes? 

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/marcmontalvo_pjm-powermarkets-gridreliability-share-7478503506308571136-Wld5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAABMsYcB3I6zhtjaqBqVcePEOQqxsZNzj5E

• Mind the gap: Between 2024 and 2025, forced outages reduced coal availability by 39.8 TWh and gas availability by 19.1 TWh, NERC noted in its 2026 State of Reliability report. These shortfalls put a dent in the country’s deployable reserves—a concerning trend as demand only continues to grow.

• Clean energy is also hitting a huge speed bump: Renewable developers are racing to kick off construction before the July 4 federal tax credit cutoff. After this deadline, renewable PPA prices could jump by over 40% across the US grid (and more than double in ERCOT).

Electrification power struggles are intensifying in the energy octagon.

Resilience and agility will separate winners from losers. But not before buckets of political blood have been spilled.

First, to the grid, where we have a spike in energy security concerns.

Respondents to DNV’s survey of more than 1,000 senior energy executives and engineers point to several major challenges affecting their ability to manage disruption and meet demand.

Key theme in the 2026 findings of the global risk management company’s annual poll: resilience required.

More specifically, resilience in energy security, resilience in grid infrastructure, and resilience in energy system organizations.

The DNV report found examples of threadbare resilience across all three categories.

For example, 69% of the survey’s respondents said that dependence on imported energy sources has increased the vulnerability of their energy grids.

Energy demand is also outpacing supply, especially in North America, where 78% of survey respondents waved supply and infrastructure red flags.

Less than half of the respondents (44%) said their government is doing enough to secure long-term energy security. In North America, that percentage dropped to 37%.

What about greening the grid and the decarbonization din?

On the energy security side, it remains audible, but predictability and balance now have the ear of the market.

They are efficiency fundamentals.

“The energy industry,” as the DNV report notes, “benefits from long periods of stable prioritization and policy certainty.”

Not much of that today on any front. Instead, we have political policy uncertainty and prioritization instability on all fronts.

And that short-circuits energy business efficiency.

Simen Moxnes, a senior new energy systems adviser at Equinor, a Norway-based energy company, underscored that in the DNV report.

“Within the energy trilemma [energy security, energy affordability, and environmental sustainability], we cannot bounce from corner to corner,” he said. “We need a long-term strategy aiming for balance. If you chase one dimension too hard and ignore the others, you inevitably create new problems.”

So, we need a multi-dimensional approach. That means mixing old with new and resisting political pressures to replace old with new before new is ready for prime time.

The DNV survey respondents agree.

They support the wisdom of combining old with new to bolster energy security rather than eroding it with ill-advised bouncing “from corner to corner.”

While 79% said expanding renewable energy capacity improves energy security, 74% added that oil and gas will be critical to ensuring that security over the next decade.

When it comes to energy security, the European Union is at a critical crossroads, magnified by the Strait of Hormuz crisis.

That energy security intersection is among the issues discussed in the Carnegie Endowment’s Grand Strategy for Europe’s Clean Industrial Future.

The EU’s ambitious embrace of renewable energy at the expense of fossil fuel reliability has left it a power pauper dependent on other regions and vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions and disputes.

“Europe’s energy and foreign policies are not yet suited to today’s harsh geopolitical environment,” the Carnegie report points out. “Since the 2019 European Green Deal, the European Union (EU) has cut emissions by reducing fossil fuel consumption. But it has created new dependencies by swapping them for energy technologies and imported fuels.”

Energy realities have also recalibrated commercial shipping’s green ambitions.

As the Substack Shipping News has documented, the International Maritime Organization’s Net Zero Framework goal of net-zero commercial shipping emissions by 2050 is drifting further off course.

Electrification infrastructure and alternative fuel technology initiatives in the maritime goods-moving network remain marginal at best.

Consider, for example, that, according to DNV, only 4% of the global shipping fleet is equipped with high-voltage connections to access port shore power, and only 3% of the 3,400 ports that service ships of more than 5,000 gross tonnes provide electric shore power connections.

DNV estimates that implementing widespread use of electrical shore power could reduce fuel oil demand for large commercial freighters by approximately 3.5%, which equates to “an estimated annual reduction potential of 9.24 Mtoe (million tonnes of oil equivalent) fuel and 29 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.”

While an estimated 51% of orders for new container ships include dual-fuel technology, only around 3,000 ships in the world’s 121,000 commercial-vessel fleet are equipped with the technology to burn anything other than heavy marine oil.

That is a mere 2%.

Small wonder then that DNV recently revised its outlook for transportation’s prime driver.

It originally forecast that oil, which currently provides 90% of global transportation’s energy needs, would reduce its share to 67% by 2040; DNV has revised that to 76%.

So, energy octagon winner and still champ: oil.

timothyrenshaw.substack.com

www.linkedin.com/in/timothyrenshaw

[email protected]

@timothyrenshaw

Power grid capacity and modernization investment is atop the energy security priority list for energy executives and engineers, according to a DNV energy system resilience survey | DNV Energy Industry Insights 2026

• The deal: The tech titan has inked a 20-year PPA with Chevron to fuel a planned data center in West Texas, which is set to receive its first power in 2028. This could become one of the country’s biggest projects of its kind.

• The demand: The data center would gobble up enough electricity to power two million homes. But Chevron is optimistic it’ll have extra power to send to the grid, CNBC reported. 

• Meanwhile in Virginia, state Democrats have agreed to put a temporary two-year tax on data centers, which would cost the industry roughly $600M annually. (But data centers pull in $2B from sales tax exemptions each year.) The potential tax is part of a budget agreement that still needs approval from other state officials and Gov. Abigail Spanberger.

• The tab: TransAlta wants a refund for the nearly $20M it has spent keeping its Centralia plant in Washington state open—but not generating power—for the past six months, per orders from Energy Sec. Chris Wright. The most recent arrived earlier this month.

• Who pays? The company proposed splitting the bill between several organizations, including the Bonneville Power Administration and CAISO (who are not actually responsible here…but were mistakenly named in the initial DOE order). All these organizations have, unsurprisingly, pushed back.

• The stakes: If FERC approves TransAlta’s request for reimbursements, the costs would be passed directly onto ratepayers, a representative at Environmental Defense Fund told Energy Central.

Grist: "Alaska’s $44 billion bet on natural gas." Since his first day in office, Trump has focused on “unleashing Alaska’s extraordinary resource potential.” Proponents like Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy extoll the economic benefits the pipeline will bring to Alaska and the energy security it will provide to allies. 

"But the cost is staggering: Official estimates put it at $44 billion, though independent analysts suggest it could top $70 billion." North Slope of Alaska holds about 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, making it one of the largest known sources in the US. "But with the project’s steep price tag and no firm commitments from buyers, oil majors like ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil have backed away over the last decade."

Glenfarne Group, a privately held energy firm that has never operated a liquified natural gas export terminal, stepped in last year. Incredibly, "shortly after Trump was elected, state officials handed the company a 75 percent stake in the project in a NO-BID DEAL, the details of which have been kept even from the legislature." Glenfarne will lead the project’s development + financing efforts and, if the company decides to move forward, oversee construction + operation of the pipeline, gas treatment plant, + export terminal.

"Though the state has not paid Glenfarne directly, it has poured at least $600 million into planning, design, and permitting—and initially floated paying Glenfarne an additional $50 million for its costs, even if the company decided to walk away." The pipeline’s backers are already eyeing additional federal support, including $30 billion in loan guarantees. 

“Every taxpayer should be furious that the federal government is chasing this project,” said Cooper Freeman, the state director for The Center for Biological Diversity, which is suing the federal government over the proposed pipeline’s threat to endangered species.

I didn't even have to look up how to spell boondoggle. Which is not a breed of dog. Or is it?

As always, hats off to our fossil fuel buddies.

Conventional wisdom suggests using residential demand response (DR) to help offset growing electricity demand from data centers. We wanted to test that assumption - and also examine the impact of rapidly growing EV ownership.

Our analysis produced two surprising results:

• Residential DR does not reduce the utility peak associated with data center growth because residential and data center peak loads occur at different times. Rebound effects largely offset temporary residential load reductions.

• Managed EV charging produces the opposite result. Under every G&T cost structure evaluated, the program generated net savings after program costs—and in some cases reduced annual residential electric costs by nearly $8/residential customer base while avoiding $40/residential customer base in unmanaged EV costs.

 For example, an electric cooperative with rate Structure II serving a suburban residential customer base of 20,000 with 10% EV ownership could increase annual revenue/reduce customer prices by $93,000.  

Study results are based on the MAISY® Utility Customer Database, Grid Impact Model analysis and industry EV data. Our paper includes the complete methodology, assumptions, and example calculations for four representative G&T cost structures and is available at https://maisy.com/dcevrates.htm

Enterprise technology and data programs live or die by how budget is allocated. The line between Capital and O&M shapes what gets funded, how work is classified, and whether data capture is treated as core program infrastructure or pushed to a separate budget. Utilities that get this right unlock capacity. Those that do not see delays, data and work‑posting shortfalls, and reporting gaps compound across the organization.

This session starts with the financial foundation: how to approach Capital versus O&M allocation strategically, not just for compliance, and how that framing expands what is possible. We will explore practical approaches to fund data work across capital and enterprise programs, including how to scope data capture, validation, and posting as capital‑eligible activities tied directly to the assets being built.

We will then connect that strategy to execution by walking through the capital and data programs that benefit most from this approach, including high‑volume construction data, asset records, GIS alignment, and the workflows that support enterprise requirements. The result is a funding model and operating rhythm that scales with program volume and gives utilities the visibility and control needed to manage enterprise data effectively.

You will leave with:

• A clear framework for improving Capital and O&M allocation decisions

• Practical approaches for funding data work as part of capital programs

• A better understanding of which programs benefit most from this alignment

• Proven ways to scale data and construction workflows while improving visibility and control

Panelists:

• Clarke Wiley, Director, SSP Innovations

• Brandon Vossler: Principal Consultant, PG Partners

• Darius Elder, Senior Consultant, PG Partners

Access the replay now