Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Sep 3, 2010
Under the timely article The Positive Side of SmartGridCity: Despite all the controversy and negative press, good things are coming out of the project, says Xcel Energy, by Michael Kanellos, posted on September 3, 2010, I will add the following comment:
I strongly agree that your timely article “The Positive Side of SmartGridCity” provides “data likely won't completely reverse many opinions.” However, I borrow your phrase “good things are coming out of the project” to highlight the huge benefits for the global market, that should create great public opinion, as can be seen in this update of the EWPC post 2 Smart Grid Lessons Learned: Increasing Stimulus Grant was Mistaken. Utilities Must be restructured.
As with any lateral thinking insight goes, the first lesson should have been known all along. In fact, item “6.4 Recommendations to the Energy Industry - Roadmap to a Deployed Industry Architecture,” in “Volume I: User Guidelines and Recommendations” of the “Integrated Energy and Communication Systems Architecture (IECSA),” suggests an “Incremental approach: Start small and learn lessons,” which most utilities (not just Xcel Energy) so far did not follow.
As for the second lesson, in “Table 7: Areas beyond the scope of IECSA,” is “Industry Organizational Changes,” being a huge architecting error that had a negative impact on SmartGridCity and is bound to affect must other smart grid initiatives. I will recall my posts under your article The Biggest Green Market? Seven Reasons Why It’s Green IT, where I showed the importance of restructuring the electric power industry into a T&D Grid side and an Enterprise side.
In that post, I gave you convincing evidence of the benefits that enable me to write the EWPC post 3rd Smart Grid Lesson Learned: in the Enterprise side‘Everything Dies a Quick Death.’ As a result, the sense of urgency to restructure the electric power industry should be at an all time high.