The Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of the Parts

Differing Perspectives of the Smart Grid

A couple of weeks ago, I was talking with a former CEO from the industry.  He observed that people tend to think about the Smart Grid based on their frame of reference within the industry and/or their personal biases. After thinking about it for a while, I believe he is probably correct and, despite my own occasional tendency to do the same thing, it is unfortunate. Thinking holistically about an opportunity as large as the Smart Grid will make the decades-long journey easier and more rewarding for everyone.

By way of example, an energy supply professional may talk about benefits and drawbacks associated with renewable mandates whereas a system operator may talk about the pros and cons of assimilating renewable energy into the grid. Similarly, those consumers who are concerned with carbon emissions will strongly advocate for renewable generation and those who want to have a real-time view of consumption and pricing information will advocate for automation on the consumer side of the meter.

Individually, each of those components, along with all of the others such as operational efficiency achieved through better use of technology, offers benefits to utilities and consumers.  As an industry, though, we need to recognize that cost-justifying the Smart Grid based on individual components will be nearly impossible. The largest value is when all of the components are in place and working in concert and we need to keep that end goal in mind. There are many components and much work to do, which is why this is such a long and expensive journey. 

Similarly, aligning support or opposition to the Smart Grid based on individual elements consumes a lot of time and resources for supporters and detractors and does little to capture the potential benefits that come from deploying new technologies. Consider the issue of smart meters. In a few regulatory jurisdictions, there is much angst about smart meters and whether or not utilities should give consumers an option about having a smart meter and if smart meters are somehow dangerous (despite many tests indicating that they are perfectly safe).

Debating the deployment of smart meters is, in short, a large expenditure of time and resources that will likely have little long-term effect on the eventual deployment of smart meters. This is especially true because the age of mechanical meters has essentially passed.  Just like the car replaced the horse, the smart meter will replace its predecessors. Time and obsolescence march onward while the debate continues.

Should one occur, a regulatory freeze on progress by forbidding the implementation of new and better technologies, such as smart meters, would be a disastrous precedent and a long-term disservice to consumers. I’m glad that the linemen serving my community get to use a bucket truck and only rarely have to climb poles. Similarly, I’m glad that my meter is read in an automated manner and that a meter reader no longer has to climb through snow banks in the winter – and, I get the cost benefits of demand side management technologies as well! New technologies, while sometimes difficult and expensive to implement, nearly always result in a better way of doing things.

Supporters and advocates, including those of us who study and analyze the industry, need to break free from the temptation to focus on individual components and do a better job at considering, analyzing and evaluating the entire smart grid environment. The value of the whole smart grid far exceeds the cost or benefits of any single component.