A Free-Market Energy Blog

Smart Grid or Strong Grid? Comment on Ken Maize

By -- July 8, 2009

Ken Maize’s recent post arguing for a strong grid instead of a smart one made an important point: the Smart Grid is largely an assortment of tweaks and minor fixes that lets America’s utilities get by with the transmission status quo to cope with the growing demand and integration of intermittent renewables.

Policy should instead aim at a strong grid. Redundancies and “excess” capacity could better maintain reliability and lower delivered power costs in a world of monopoly utilities. It would also facilitate market transactions if competitive retail and wholesale power markets prevail.

Maize has well-founded concerns about how utilities in a smart-grid world will

1) administer their new gizmo-heavy systems;

2) justify the benefits that small consumers will get in return for higher bills, and

3) make up for the prospect for increased vulnerability to innocent or serious hacking.

Rate Base Aplenty

Unfortunately, the Smart Grid has one great upside for utilities. If politics force them to invest less in generation (what they should be doing), they will need to plug a hole in their rate bases, i.e. the assets on which they can earn regulated returns with near-certainty. The Smart Grid does just this; its sheer size will require lots of costly meters, communications hardware and software, equipment to process the information produced, and still more investments to dispatch generation and manage demand on the basis of that information. The full cost also includes stuff on the consumers side of the meter, some of which utilities are also likely to supply.

The best part for utilities is that there is no logical ceiling on what they can spend. Build enough capacity to reliably meet load growth and you have no reason to build any more. But with the smart grid, there’s always something you can buy or someone you can hire to squeeze just a little more savings out of the system.

The Smart Grid story is akin to the nuclear delays and overruns of the 1980s. The politics were similar, stemming from overblown concerns about fossil- fuel exhaustion and the environmental effects of combustion, supplemented by a mix of legitimate environmental concerns and fraudulent posturing.

Then it was nuclear, and now it’s renewables that promise clean and soon-to-be-inexpensive power. Both the past and present crises would mobilize the public to conservation, with what power people still needed would come from the new technologies.

Just imagine: Turning the lights off when you leave the room will morph into fiddling with a computer display of hourly power prices and the kwh your appliances are currently expending. In case your life lacks meaning, the California Public Utilities Commission has already announced that it wants energy efficiency to become “a way of life.”

Nuclear Redux?

Like nuclear power at launch, a “successful” Smart Grid will require investment in untested technologies on a massive scale. The GridWise alliance of smart suppliers and utilities echoes the early standardized “turnkey” nuclear plants. They were loss leaders for General Electric and Westinghouse that produced a mass of commitments from utilities that insisted on customizing their plants and handling their own construction. Customization, incompetence and random events drove nuclear costs to unheard-of levels, but utilities had little to fear as long as the politics were with them. Only after Three Mile Island changed the public’s risk perceptions would some state commissions begin assessing penalties for cost overruns in nuclear construction that had little to do with safety.

In contrast to the case of nuclear power, however, there is no obvious event that will trigger a change in the regulatory climate to one of distrusting the Smart Grid—short of a major blackout that can be so linked. But should regulatory conditions change, Smart Grid hardware just might become the next generation of “stranded costs” to be picked up by ratepayers.


  1. Jim Clarkson  

    One of the advantages touted for the smart grid is the use of real-time pricing to communicate marginal costs to customers. Customer responses will then provide much needed feed-back for utility planning. However most of the benefits of such rational planning can be obtained right now with existing equipment. A major problem is that utilities have not properly designed rates to reflect their time-sensitive costs. One of the reasons is that utility rates have the problem of cross-subsidies based on the political clout of customer groups. As Bob says there is a bias in utility planning for capital investment over other alternatives.


  2. Cooler Heads Digest 10 July 2009 | GlobalWarming.org  

    […] Smart Grid or Strong Grid? Robert Michaels, MasterResource.org, 8 July 2009 […]


  3. José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.  

    I love the concept of the Strong Grid, as it fits nicely with the Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF) that has emerged to replace the Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Architecture Framework (IOUs-AF).

    This is how it fits. The Smart Grid is based on the policy: economy first, system performance second. The strong Grid is based on system performance first, economy second.

    A Strong Grid will result in a simple, not simplistic, power industry, which can be divided into two highly cohesive systems that are lightly coupled and that mutually reinforce each other. The systems are a primary regulated power service transportation system and a secondary open market commercialization business system. That is my key discovery.

    Please go to the EWPC Blog (my website) to learn about the Greek Tragedy that will cost the American ratepayers and/or taxpayers billions of dollars.


  4. Strong & Smart Grid  

    This is an upgrade to my previous comment.


  5. Strong & Smart Grid | Intelligent Utility  

    […] & Smart Grid Posted on: Tue, 07/21/2009 – 5:53am – By: javs@ieee.org Smart Grid or Strong Grid? Comment on Ken Maize is a timely post by by Robert Michaels, on July 8, 2009, in MasterResource: A free-market […]


Leave a Reply