June 15, 2007

Smart grid still just a "vision thing"

Kennedy Maize

Smart Grid, GridWise, IntelliGrid, AMI (advanced metering interface), Modern Grid, Smart Modern Grid, Grid Modernization. All of these terms float around today's discourse on the future shape of electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) in the U.S.

 

But could all of them be bogus? Alternatively, I propose "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" as the catchphrase for tomorrow's electricity delivery infrastructure. After all, there's a decidedly psychedelic tone to the whole discussion of the future of U.S. T&D, which is driven by words such as "smart," "intelligent," and "modern" that have no common meaning (Figure 1).

 

 

As you read this and ponder what's going on with the grid, I urge you to focus on the difference between transmission and distribution: the movement of high-voltage current across state lines versus the delivery of lower-voltage supply to homes and businesses. Is it a distinction without a difference? What does the difference mean, and who will be responsible for accommodating it?

Those questions have bedeviled discussions on electricity T&D for decades. The "smart grid" buzz doesn't resolve long-standing jurisdictional and political issues. Beyond that, there are daunting technical and legal issues involved in using existing and future lines to do more than just deliver power where it is needed.

More talk, less action

Grid gurus assembled in Washington in late April for a confab billed as GridWeek by its sponsor, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and attended by a lot of big-time private-sector players. The focus was almost entirely on the vision of an intelligent grid. Participants began by trying to wrap their too-short intellectual arms around the large question of where the "grid of the future" is headed and the route it will take.

I was there, and, in my opinion, the conference wasn't entirely a success. Not a failure, but not a success. Nice try, but incomplete. More to come next year, the organizers promise.

While much of the industry is still divining the implications of the August 2003 collapse of the northeastern transmission system, the movers and shakers of electricity policy are trying to anticipate a T&D future they don't really understand and can't quite conceptualize. At this point, the best they can do is to call it by a generic term, such as "smart grid."

In the meantime, the grid of today, not the grid of the future, isn't getting built. The results are higher electric prices (or costs not passed on to consumers) in congested areas and more risk of grid failure. While the industry ponders the wonders of a smart grid, consumers face the immediate problems of not enough grid.

Several years ago, EPRI broached the notion of a smart grid that would use modern telecommunications technology, implanted on the grid from busbar to toaster, to balance supply and demand. That would lead to a world of optimum outcomes for consumers and providers of electricity. Peaks would be shaved, dumped power would vanish, and all would be right in the world.

The smart grid would enable time-sensitive rates, empower consumers with demand response, and make real fantasies such as automatic peak shaving, plug-in hybrid cars, and toasters that won't toast when demand is high. Remember the "smart houses" of the 1980s? Welcome to the smart grid, which is even smarter than your 1980s smart house.That's why I like "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" as a catchphrase for the smart grid. It sounds groovy. But how the grid would work, and who would pay for it, are major questions that remain unanswered by the many players in the business. Those problems were the back story at the GridWeek celebration of new grid technologies. There wasn't a lot of talk about the obstacles, but they definitely served as the undertone of the meeting.

---