On January 13, 2011 the Rutland Herald ran an op-ed titled "The Hazards of Smart Grid". Several statements were made that are either incorrect or warrant further explanation. Below is a letter to the Editor from Dave Hallquist in response to this opinion piece.
~~~~~

January 18, 2011

Dear Editor:  

In a recent op-ed, Felix Kniazev and Olga Julinska linked concerns about a proposed cell tower to be built near their property to concerns about the smart grid. Several statements were made that are either incorrect or warrant further explanation.  Vermont Electric Cooperative (VEC) was one of the nation’s first utilities to develop a smart grid about five years ago. As VEC’s chief executive officer, I would like to share my knowledge and experience to clarify and correct some of those statements.

 First, there is confusion as to whether or not cell towers will be a part of the smart grid infrastructure. In VEC’s case, our smart grid does share the AT&T wireless cell phone network to obtain data from some, but not all, of our substations. We have found that the cellular network is not reliable enough for the demands of the smart grid and VEC is aggressively collaborating with telecommunications providers to replace that communications medium with fiber optic lines. In other words, cellular networks can be used as part of the smart grid, but they are not the only option. In fact, they are not necessarily the preferred option. 

Kniazev and Julinska go on to assert that the use of cellular networks for the smart grid will saturate the entire state of Vermont in electromagnetic radiation. VEC’s system, which supports approximately 33,000 consumers in northern Vermont, is not a radio-frequency based system. Instead, VEC transmits signals over the electric power lines using a power line carrier. This carrier uses a small and short pulse of the power line, which does not change the overall magnetic character of the waveform. There is no additional measurable electro-magnetic field above and beyond what the consumer induces through their usage. 

While the rest of Vermont’s utilities have not yet chosen their smart grid technologies, I suspect that they will mainly use pre-existing or pre-planned networks. In this case, there would not be additional radio-frequency penetration for the smart grid beyond what will be occurring with the ubiquitous rollout of the cell phone network. If Vermonters are concerned about being saturated in electromagnetic radiation, as Kniazev and Julinska contend will happen, it is misguided to focus on the smart grid instead of the cell phone network. 

Second, the writers are misinformed regarding the payback time on VEC’s investment in smart meters. Yes, there was a fast payback on the investment - in utility time.  The system paid for itself in five years.  We wish it were 3 months.  Five years is very good for systems that will perform reliably for 20 years.  This payback was indeed due to reductions in meter readers.  However, a very large component of the payback was reduced system losses as well as improvements in outage management.  VEC has cut its outages in ½ over the past few years, as well as reduced the duration of the outages. Smart meters have played a key role in these improvements. 

This brings me to a third point of clarification. The smart grid indeed has benefits for both utilities and consumers. In a state like Vermont, in which utilities are regulated, operational savings are reflected in rates. While many costs continue to rise, smart grid offers an important mechanism that enables utilities to operate more efficiently. This helps to offset rising costs in other areas. In fact, in the case of VEC, we are a member-owned cooperative. Every VEC customer is an owner in the utility. When we operate more efficiently, our member-owners benefit. 

One thing we agree upon is that it is not yet known how consumer behavior will change with the smart grid. Smart grid is in its early stages and holds much promise to provide tools that empower consumers to make informed decisions about how to manage electricity consumption. VEC believes that there is not yet enough data available to say how or if consumers will adopt the technology.  Federal funding will help VEC and others to conduct research to this end. 

One of VEC’s goals is to raise awareness, educate, and inform the public about the smart grid. As smart grid leaders, we have valuable experience to share. VEC’s original intention was to put a system in place to help VEC respond to outages efficiently, transfer meter data more cost effectively, and provide our consumers with more accurate information during storms. 

Many VEC members now use the VEC wattWATCHERS software to view their usage on an hourly and daily basis.  Our high usage complaints have been significantly reduced for these consumers because they are better able to determine activities that result in higher bills.  I can also report VEC member satisfaction with our outage management has greatly improved in large part because of smart grid technology. 

So why is smart grid getting so much attention and funding support? On average, the United States electric grid is being used to 45% of its capacity. Yet at certain peak times, the grid is in danger of reaching maximum capacity.  It certainly makes sense to try to figure out how to use the grid more efficiently instead of spending a lot of money on new power lines and generation plants.  Also, peak generation typically uses fossil fuels. The United States has an opportunity to clean up our carbon footprint and reduce power costs by better managing electric loads. To achieve this potential, we will need to determine how utilities, and consumers alike, can best utilize smart grid technology. 

At VEC, smart grid has already helped us to deliver increased value to our member-owners. The smart grid has made VEC a better utility and we are proud of it. 

David Hallquist, CEO