A case for public networks in the smart grid communications debate August 31, 2010

If you think about the public vs. private smart grid communications debate for too long, you’ll become more indecisive than Brett Favre. And speaking of people who call Mississippi home, I chatted with SmartSynch chief marketing officer Campbell McCool over the phone recently about this very argument.

Unlike Favre, Campbell is back in Mississippi – why shouldn’t an Ole Miss grad spend more time at the revered Grove? – and he certainly doesn’t waver on his sentiment concerning the benefits of a public network. He, like CEO Stephen Johnston (who recently predicted that, in two years, no one will ever buy a mesh network again), are certainly biased in their points of view – SmartSynch makes a smart meter system that uses Internet protocol (IP) networks, connecting meters to utilities over public, broadband networks managed by carriers like AT&T. Texas-New Mexico Power and the City of Griffin (Ga.) are two recent customers. Memphis Light, Gas and Water chose SmartSynch for its pilot earlier this month.

Johnston and McCool speak with conviction. And, in a week where mesh competitor Silver Spring Networks landed a deal with Indianapolis Power & Light, who doesn’t like a little bravado from the hard-charging alternative?

“The bottom line is the mesh system is getting (utilities) where they need to be right now,” McCool said. “But to get it to be able to do future needs, mesh is going to be like a Chevy Nova and utilities are going to go, ‘Ouch.’”

McCool also noted that Andres Carvallo, the former CIO at Austin Energy who’s now at Grid Net, once said mesh is the equivalent of using AOL dial-up. Thanks to falling prices, companies like SmartSynch are making the case for public an easier sell.

McCool addressed four common concerns utilities share about public networks:

1. Availability: The utility that serves the guy in tiny Uncertain, Tex. (a real place) will likely share some concerns about using a public (likely cellular) network. “That’s always been a misnomer,” McCool said. “The smart meter antenna is four times as powerful as the average cell phone. Secondly, it’s closer to the sending equivalent of a text than a phone call.”

2. Bandwidth: McCool said that AT&T performed a study that determined if every electric, water and gas meter in the country (around 300 million) transmitted data daily every 15 minutes, the increase would be less than 1/500th of 1% on AT&T’s network. (Even Lloyd Christmas would think that’s a small number.)

3. Security: It’s the issue no one really wants to confront as smart grids are implemented at a frantic pace. AT&T’s network security, as McCool notes, is good enough for President Barack Obama’s BlackBerry. “It’s far superior to anything a mesh network can offer,” McCool said.

4. Price: The big one. The legitimate reason utilities could not feasibly use public networks for their smart grid deployments – until recently. In 2005, the cost was approximately $5 per meter per month. In the last 12 months, depending on the volume, the cost is around 10 cents per meter per month. Carriers have dropped their rates by up to 95% in the last year. “All of a sudden,” McCool said, “it’s hard for utilities to ignore this model.”

You could waffle back and forth on this discussion like Favre in the offseason: “Well, Silver Spring did land Pacific Gas & Electric and says it can build a grid for less money,” might go the argument, “but, on the other hand, public networks are becoming more affordable…but, on the other hand, utilities might not want to give up control…but, on the other hand, they wouldn’t have extra responsibilities with a public network…and there’s positives and negatives to either renting or buying…and the flexibility to upgrade in a public network would be nice…”

Utilities will have to pick a side. Just don’t ask Favre for help.

To our readers:
To show our appreciation for your loyal readership, we are offering you a free Chartwell report. Click here to fill out the form.