Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

I recently had the opportunity to interview the Chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Robert F. Powelson, regarding his views on smart meter opt-outs and other issues affecting Pennsylvania’s energy future. Because I live and practice in Pennsylvania, I may be biased but I think Smart Grid Legal News readers will agree it is refreshing and rare to hear regulators like Chairman Powelson promote smart meters, energy efficiency and other practices that advance our energy future.

Evers: Chairman Powelson, thank you for taking the time to discuss smart meters with me. Why is it important for customers to have smart meters?

Powelson: Act 129 of 2008 has really paved the way for the rollout of smart meters, also referred to as Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), and the implementation of Act 129 continues to benefit Pennsylvania customers. As I see it, smart meter technology is a “win-win” situation for the Commonwealth – both electricity customers and electricity providers alike reap the benefits of advanced meters. 

Smart meters give customers greater control over their energy consumption by allowing them to measure their energy usage, monitor real-time electricity prices, and adjust their consumption and behavior in order to realize significant savings on monthly bills. Customers can even shut down appliances during peak periods or pre-program appliances and devices to operate only at predetermined (and lower cost) timeframes if they so choose.

Similarly, electricity providers also benefit from increased smart meter deployment. The two key concepts here are efficiency and reliability. AMI makes meter reading quicker and more efficient by eliminating the current practice of estimated meter readings. Additionally, with smart meters, utilities have the ability to monitor distribution networks to allow for the immediate detection of irregularities, which leads to drastically reduced response time in addressing outages. 

Finally, smart meters can help reduce both overall electricity use and peak demand use, leading to lower emissions from fossil power plants that will not have to generate as much power – a direct environmental benefit.

Evers: Chairman, across the country several states have implemented an opt-out process due to customers concerns about health and privacy. I am concerned about the impact of an opt-out process as people relocate in and out of homes with smart meters. I call it a smart meter mosaic. I joke that real estate disclosure forms will soon have to start indicating the home’s level of smartness. Seriously, I think the implementation and long-term management of such a process could eventually put upward pressure on rates for everyone. What are your views regarding a smart meter opt-out process?

Powelson: In May, I testified before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Consumer Affairs Committee on a proposal to partially repeal Act 129 and permit smart meter “opt-out” programs in the Commonwealth. My testimony addressed two pieces of legislation – House Bill 2186, which would allow consumers to opt out of having smart meters installed at their premises, and House Bill 2188, which would require consumer consent in order to share information from electric meters with government agencies. These bills represent a significant step backward in policy, with the potential to negate all of the reductions already achieved under Act 129.

The proliferation of opt-out requirements for AMI deployment has the potential to cripple efforts to modernize grid technology. Maine has received a lot of attention regarding its AMI opt-out, and Central Maine Power (CMP) has considered, analyzed and provided substantial cost information relating to a variety of potential solutions or mitigation measures for customers seeking to opt out of CMP’s Smart Meter Program. CMP estimates these incremental infrastructure and support costs to be as high as $70 million over the life of the AMI project – and that is assuming only 1 to 2 percent of CMP customers opt out. At an opt-out level of 10 percent, these incremental costs grow to hundreds of millions of dollars – exceeding the costs of CMP’s advanced meter project.

While I appreciate that there are consumers who have security and privacy concerns with respect to AMI, the PUC, legislature, and Electric Distribution Companies (EDCs) may be able to help alleviate these concerns through increased education and outreach. It is worth noting that many EDCs and their customers have had AMI in place for years, namely PPL and PECO. Additionally, we are already facilitating the continued implementation of smart grid technology by establishing rules that more precisely address conduct in the areas of reliability, privacy and security. California and Ontario have undertaken similar efforts through a “Privacy by Design” rulebook, which was integral to customer support for advanced meter roll out.

In sum, opt-outs cause operational gaps that will lead to additional costs for companies and their customers, defeating the stated purposes of Act 129. Such a system reduces reliability for all customers, as well as the benefits of a completely modernized electric grid. Simply put, there is no compelling reason for an “opt-out” program.

Evers: Smart meters have received a lot of attention but there is so much more to the concept of smart grid. Beyond smart meters, what do you see as other benefits as utilities upgrade their systems?

Powelson: Nationally, billions of dollars are being invested in smart grid technology because of the many benefits to consumers and utilities, as well as the positive impact on the environment through increased energy efficiency. (By way of background, federal support for the development of smart meter systems began with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, was supplemented with passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – which set aside $11 billion for the creation of a smart grid.)

For me it is not just about the technology. The most important objective is to better serve the needs of consumers and build stronger, more vibrant communities in which to live, work, and play. Smart meter and smart grid programs will be much more efficient in delivering electricity to homes and businesses; responding to outages and other emergencies; monitoring and seeking to curtail usage, especially during peak periods; preventing theft and fraud; and helping electric customers save dollars on their monthly bill. In short, the benefits to Pennsylvanians will continue to grow.

Evers: Recently many utilities have partnered with Opower and Facebook to allow customers to form teams for energy saving contests and compare energy usage with friends, hopefully creating positive peer pressure. Why are innovations like this important to our energy future?

Powelson: Any method of educating consumers and raising consumer awareness is vital. The real benefits will come when people start to realize that we are all in this together, and everyone contributing a little adds up to significant decreases in demand, which then puts a downward pressure on prices.

I particularly like this idea of comparing energy usage with neighbors and friends, as it dovetails nicely with the idea of “competition” in Pennsylvania’s electricity market. The more customers learn about competitive electricity providers, and the benefits and potential price savings available in the marketplace, the better. Increased dialogue that leads to decreased energy usage is exactly what we are looking for under Act 129.

Evers: Are there any other thoughts regarding Pennsylvania’s energy future you would like to share?

Powelson: Pennsylvania has really embraced a two-pronged approach in considering its energy future. On one hand, we are doing all that we can as regulators, providers, and consumers to comply with Act 129 and become more energy efficient. On the other hand, we are strengthening Pennsylvania’s competitive marketplace to increase competition among electric generation suppliers and produce better pricing and greater savings for the Commonwealth’s 5.6 million electric customers.

In addition to fulfilling its regulatory and oversight responsibilities, the Pennsylvania PUC will continue to educate consumers on the benefits of both energy efficiency and conservation, including smart meter technology, as well the advantages of shopping with competitive suppliers for their electric generation.

georgearnold_pic.jpgAlthough the term “smart grid” has recently become vogue, the phrase is everyday lingo to many at the National Institute of Standards (“NIST”). In 2009, NIST launched a plan to expedite the development of smart grid interoperability standards. Recently FERC issued an order regarding five families of standards up for consideration. Today, I am honored to discuss FERC’s order with George Arnold, the national coordinator for smart grid interoperability at NIST.

Evers: George, I’d like to join in with the hundreds of others and personally thank you for your leadership and hard work towards helping to make the smart grid a reality. George, the FERC order is certainly complementary of NIST and the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (“SGIP”), of which I am a member. However, the order declines to institute a rulemaking process to adopt the five families of standards. What is your reaction to the order?

Arnold: NIST supports the Commission’s order. It is consistent with NIST’s public comments to the Commission that it can send appropriate signals to the marketplace by recommending use of the NIST Framework and that it would be impractical and unnecessary for the Commission to adopt individual interoperability standards.

Additionally, NIST is pleased that FERC supports the NIST interoperability framework process, including the work done by the SGIP, for development of smart grid interoperability standards. As the Commission’s order reaffirms, the NIST Framework is comprehensive and represents the best vehicle for developing standards for the smart grid. NIST appreciates FERC’s guidance encouraging stakeholders to actively participate and look to the NIST-coordinated process for guidance on smart grid standards.

Evers: What happens now to the five families of standards? 

Arnold: They are already widely used in industry, either in their entirety or their constituent parts. The work on these and many other standards continues. I have said all along, the standards continue to evolve. These standards are among the 83 others making their way through the SGIP process.

Evers: Thanks George. Please take a moment to explain interoperability and the SGIP.

Arnold: Interoperability is the capability of different systems and devices to communicate and operate effectively with one another without significant manufacturer or user intervention. Devices that are fully interoperable are often described as having “plug and play” characteristics: i.e., connect them and they work together. This is important because interoperability impacts customer satisfaction, reliability, life cycle cost, and regulatory compliance.

NIST initiated the SGIP to support NIST in fulfilling its responsibility, under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, to coordinate standards development for the Smart Grid. Established in late 2009, the SGIP is a public/private partnership that defines requirements for essential communication protocols and other common specifications and coordinates development of these standards by collaborating organizations.

The SGIP is composed of over 670 member organizations representing 22 stakeholder categories, including federal agencies as well as state and local regulators. More than 1,700 individuals are participating in SGIP activities. Membership is free and open to all organizations interested in achieving the Smart Grid vision.

Evers: George, I really appreciate your time. I hope your explanation encourages others to get involved in this important work  by joining the SGIP.

On December 21, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) announced plans to hold an additional Smart Grid technical conference on January 31, 2011 at 1 p.m. EST at FERC’s headquarters at 888 First Street, Washington, DC, 20426. According to the notice, the purpose of the technical conference is to assist FERC in making a determination of whether there is “sufficient consensus” that the five families of standards posted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) and included in this proceeding are ready for Commission consideration in a rulemaking proceeding, as directed by section 1305(d) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The conference is open to the public and those not able to attend will be able to listen via webcast. FERC held its first technical conference on the five families of standards last November in Atlanta, GA.

NIST has posted technical narrative summaries of the standards to assist FERC and other interested Smart Grid stakeholders. These five IEC standards are concerned with the structure of messages exchanged within and across Smart Grid domains and are fundamental to interoperability:

  • IEC 61970 and IEC 61968: Provide a Common Information Model (CIM) necessary for exchanges of data between devices and networks, primarily in the transmission (IEC 61970) and distribution (lEC 61968) domains.
  • IEC 61850: Facilitates substation automation and communication as well as interoperability through a common data format.
  • IEC 60870-6: Facilitates exchanges of information between control centers. 
  • IEC 62351: Addresses the cyber security of the communication protocols defined by the preceding IEC standards.

George Arnold, national coordinator for smart grid interoperability, states in a letter to FERC, these standards will be updated as Smart Grid requirements evolve.