U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

40–588 PDF 2008

FACILITATING THE TRANSITION TO A

SMART ELECTRIC GRID

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 3, 2007

Serial No. 110–41

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

energycommerce.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

Vice Chairman

LOIS CAPPS, California

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JANE HARMAN, California

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

JOE BARTON, Texas

Ranking Member

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk

BUD ALBRIGHT, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia, Chairman

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina,

Vice Chairman

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JANE HARMAN, California

TOM ALLEN, Maine

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio)

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois,

Ranking Member

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

SUE D. SHERIDAN, Senior Counsel

JOHN JIMISON, Counsel

MARGARET HORN, Clerk

DAVID MCCARTHY, Counsel

(V)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................................ 1

Hon. Jane Harman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement ........................................................................................ 2

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Texas, prepared statement .................................................................................. 3

Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 4

Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Illinois, prepared statement ................................................................................ 5

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 6

WITNESSES

Michael W. Howard, senior vice president, research & development, Electric

Power Research Institute .................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 157

Kurt Yeager, executive director, Galvin Electricity Initiative ............................. 67

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 176

Dean Kamen, president, Deka Research and Development Corporation ............ 82

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 85

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 181

Brad Gammons, vice president, IBM Global Energy and Utilities Industry ...... 91

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 93

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 172

Dan Delurey, executive director, Demand Response and Advanced Metering

Coalition ................................................................................................................ 95

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 97

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 166

John Bryson, chairman, chief executive officer, and president, Edison International ................................................................................................................. 103

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 105

Audrey A. Zibelman, chief operating officer, PJM Interconnection ..................... 108

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 110

Jon Wellinghoff, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ......... 128

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 130

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 190

Robert F. Lieberman, commissioner, Illinois Commerce Commission ................ 133

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 135

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 185

Kevin Kolevar, Director, Office of Energy Delivery and Electricity Reliability,

U.S. Department of Energy ................................................................................. 137

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 140

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 161
(1)

FACILITATING THE TRANSITION TO A SMART

ELECTRIC GRID

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in room

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick Boucher

(chairman) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Barrow, Markey, Wynn,

Doyle, Harman, Inslee, Matheson, Dingell, Whitfield, Shimkus,

Bono, Rogers, Burgess, and Barton.

Staff present: Sue Sheridan, John Jimison, Laura Vaught, Chris

Treanor, Margaret Horn, David McCarthy, Kurt Bilas, Peter

Kielty, Matthew Johnson, and Garrett Golding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH

OF VIRGINIA

Mr. BOUCHER. The subcommittee will come to order.

This morning the subcommittee will examine the evolution of our

electricity transmission and distribution network into a smart grid,

a subject regarding which I personally have a longstanding interest. In the coming weeks this committee will produce legislation for

House floor consideration this summer, having the overall objective

of promoting greater national energy self-sufficiency. It is my hope

that today’s hearing will yield useful legislative suggestions for

smart grid development that we can then incorporate in the larger

bill that this committee will soon assemble, and I would encourage

our witnesses this morning to make legislative recommendations to

us.

Given the number of witnesses who are testifying before the subcommittee both on this opening panel and also on the second panel,

I intend to defer any further opening statement on my part and use

the time allotted to me to ask questions of these outstanding witnesses. I would simply note that our first panel of witnesses is comprised of individuals who are well positioned to offer a vision of

how a smart grid would be configured, how it would operate, what

benefits it would confer upon utilities, upon consumers and upon

society generally, what barriers exist to its development and what

role government can play in overcoming those hurdles. Our second

panel of government representatives can then respond to the sug-
2

gestions made by witnesses on the first panel and of course offer

their own recommendations.

I want to welcome today’s witnesses and say that I very much

look forward to their testimony, and I thank each of you for taking

time to join us and share your views with us.

I will now recognize for an opening statement of 5 minutes the

gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and I certainly look forward to the hearing this morning and I am going to

waive my opening statement and look forward to the testimony of

our witnesses and welcome them.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Whitfield.

The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Wynn.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will also waive.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Wynn. And the gentle lady from

California, Ms. Harman.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I don’t waive, have I created

some kind of national crisis?

Mr. BOUCHER. Ms. Harman, we are always delighted to hear

from you. You would be welcome.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. HARMAN. In that case, very briefly and succinctly, I would

like to welcome our witnesses and especially an old good friend,

John Bryson of California. I want everyone to know that John was

an environmentalist before he was a captain of industry, but the

good news is, he is still an environmentalist while he is a captain

of industry and I think that his testimony, and I assume the testimony of others, will show us a way forward that I think is enormously promising.

If we do one thing in this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, and I

hope we are going to do many more than one thing, I think focusing on a smart electric grid is it because that is the way we really

can get our arms around how we use energy and how we can conserve energy and I just want to note that my house in Venice, California, has solar panels on the roof, and when I expanded my house

I added more solar panels. I got a rebate from the city of Los Angeles but I thought it was important to invest in solar power. The

problem is that there really is not a way for me to sell excess energy back to the utility the way I think I should be able to do, and

until I can do it, I know my neighbors aren’t going to be that excited about putting solar panels on their roof.

So this testimony will tell us more than we presently know or at

least tell me about real-time metering, smart appliances and a twoway system for buying and selling electricity and the benefits that

that can have. Information technology should be a weapon against

the climate challenge and our dependence on foreign oil. If everyone up here including old Grandma can learn to use a Black Berry

and a fancy cell phone, I think I could even maybe understand

what advantages could come from facilitating a transition to a

smart electric grid.

I just want to finally add that this also has advantages not just

for homes and appliances but for cars and trucks and we have been
3

talking about the tough issues around pushing transportation in

the right direction. A smart grid could lay the groundwork for plugin electric hybrid vehicles that would help cut our oil imports and

it could also help us use effectively the new battery technologies

that are being developed, for example, by Toyota and Honda in my

congressional district and could help people who drive cars and

trucks with those technologies know how to store energy, for example, when energy prices are sky high. So it just seems to me this

is the key to understanding a way forward on climate change and

I think we have the right panels, and I have abused all the members here so that I could tell my little story, and I appreciate you

yielding me the time.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Harman, and we appreciate that opening statement.

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because we have got

so much to get through today, I will just insert my comments into

the record. I would like to welcome Mr. Brad Gammons here from

my home State of Texas. It is good to see you, sir, on the panel and

I look forward to the testimony. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about smart grid technology.

The forces of supply and demand have long governed prices in a free enterprise

system. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the electricity market.

Consumers pay the same rate per kilowatt during the day, when demand is high,

as they are in the middle of the night, when demand is low.

This disguises the true costs of electricity and prevents consumers from adjusting

their demand to the actual cost of electricity.

The Smart Grid technology that we will learn more about today has the capacity

to bring the power of the market to electric consumers at the retail level by providing them with real-time prices. This will allow them to make rational decisions

about demanding electricity and if it costs more to wash a load of towels during the

day than it does in the evening, I may wait until 8 p.m. to do my laundry.

If a whole lot of other people make that same decision, we may be able to move

enough electricity load to off-peak times to avoid building a new power plant or substation.

That’s real energy savings.

Mr. Chairman, conservation and efficiency must play an important role in our

strategy to wean ourselves from our dependence on foreign energy, so I thank you

for holding this hearing today.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Burgess.

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, is recognized for 3

minutes.

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. BARROW. In the interest of time, I would like to state an area

of concern up front that I hope the witnesses will address as they

are able in the course of their presentations. Advanced metering is

one of the key things we can do to involve consumers in the management of their demand for energy and yet there is a marked dif-
4

ference in terms of the penetration in the market for advanced metering technology. The FERC has done a survey and they show that

in the electric co-op sector we have got 13 percent of the folks. It

has been 13 percent penetration for advanced metering in the electric co-op market. The investor-owned utility field, it is only about

6 percent. It is less than half of what they are doing in the electric

co-op. So what I would like you all to do is address what we can

do to try and get the investor-owned utility community to be more

like the electrical co-op community in terms of implementing advanced metering technology and involving the consumers.

Thank you.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Barrow.

We will turn to our witnesses momentarily, and we are awaiting

the arrival of one other Member who has indicated interest in taking part in our hearing this morning, and he is just arriving, and

it gives me pleasure at this time to recognize the chairman of the

full Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for a 5-minute opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Chairman DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I will try and

be more brief in this matter than your generosity would permit.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the hearing.

Second of all, I commend for the outstanding leadership that you

are giving this committee in its consideration of energy matters.

The committee and the country owe you a great thanks.

The Nation stands in a position where we could reap significant

benefits from new technologies which will maximize the efficiency

of our electric power delivery system. These benefits include greater reliability, lower cost to consumers, improved ability of the industry to operate proactively, and alternatives for improving the

Nation’s energy infrastructure, which is unfortunately aging. The

shorthand term for these new technologies is smart grid. Our focus

today is on public policies that will facilitate the rapid deployment

and adoption of these technologies without disruptions or increased

costs. There are a number of challenging requirements created by

these opportunities and I know under your leadership that we will

address them.

First, the electric grid must continue to balance and constantly

do so between ever-shifting demand and supply. That is a very difficult task for a product that moves, as we know, at the speed of

light and offers no effective means of storage. Second, the product,

electricity, must also be exceptionally reliable. In today’s computerized, high-tech society, even a momentary interruption of power

can create dramatic, costly losses to the economy and to the society.

Third, the ever-growing demands of our aging electric infrastructure are a serious concern. Projections show the demand for power

increasing significantly in the coming years. Absent some extraordinary innovation, we would need to invest tremendous resources

to increase capacity and ensure greater reliability.

Fortunately, smart technologies appear to address these challenges and with substantial benefits to both the electricity sector
5

as well as to the consumer. These new technologies, by working

smarter, not harder, promise electric generation and delivery that

is more efficient, economic and environmentally responsive. It is expected that at some point smart grid technology will ultimately

provide for our transportation sector’s energy needs through plugin hybrid vehicles such as plug-in hybrids that provide valuable

electricity storage back to the grid.

While this transition will not quick or easy, the move towards

smart grid technology is coming and your leadership, Mr. Chairman, is extremely valuable. Again, I want to thank you for holding

this hearing which will enable us all to learn about the issues associated with the transition, and I want to thank our witnesses who

are here today and I know that their contribution to this process

will be valued.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Chairman Dingell.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, is recognized for

3 minutes.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I will waive my opening remarks. I

just want to welcome the panelists, especially Ms. Zibelman from

PJM.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle.

Any other statements for the record will be accepted at this time.

[The prepared statements of Messrs. Hastert and Barton follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. J. DENNIS HASTERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. Smart grid technologies

hold much promise for the United States. Deployment of these technologies will help

reduce our electricity use, keep energy costs down, provide jobs for Americans, and

increase our energy security. This is something I think we all can support.

When I first started my career in public office I wrote the Illinois Public Utilities

Act. A lot has changed in providing electricity since then.

Smart grid technology will allow for the more efficient operation of the electric

grid. It does this in a number of ways: better communication, distributed generation,

appliances that can ‘‘talk’’ to the grid and if needed, help support the grid. It can

also lead to distributed storage of electricity through batteries and other devices,

and facilitate the deployment of new generation of vehicles such as plug-in hybrids.

These technologies also have the ability to reduce peak demand on the electric

system. This helps everyone by reducing the need for new generation and transmission facilities saving consumers money.

It also reduces peak period fuel use, which is usually natural gas. This reduces

price pressure on natural gas, freeing it up for industrial and residential use. Ultimately keeping jobs in America from moving overseas.

Furthermore, reduced electricity demand and the related reduced fuel demand

means emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases such as CO2 are lessened. As

I have said before, good energy policy is good environmental policy. Smart grid technology does both.

Using our energy resources wisely and more efficiently is always a good idea. The

better we use our domestic resources to generate electricity, and power the next

generation of vehicles, such as plug-in hybrid vehicles, the less we will depend on

unstable foreign sources of energy. Improving our energy security now and into the

future must be our priority. I am confident we can do that leaving a stronger and

cleaner Nation for generations to come. And new technology will lead the way.

Many of our best and brightest are involved in developing smart grid technology.

I am particularly pleased to see Dean Kamen here today before the committee to

testify. I have had the pleasure of knowing Dean for some years now and he is probably known best as the inventor of the Segway. However, his work in developing

technology that generates electricity and clean water could be further reaching.

Dean is developing a device that continuously outputs a kilowatt of electricity,

enough to light 70 energy efficient light bulbs, all on abundant sources of fuel like
6

cow manure. In developing countries with populations that have never had electricity this is life changes technology.

It is technology and innovation from companies like Dean’s that will lead energy

needs and efficiencies into the future not only in this country but around the world.

As work on smart grids comes to maturity, it should be utilized in developing nations, so they too will have the ability to manage growing electricity and energy demands and improve their environment. Improvements in emissions in places like

China and India benefit everyone around the globe.

I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony today, I want to wish them the best

in developing these new technologies that will make such a difference in so many

peoples’ lives.

Thank you, Chairman Boucher, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Thank you, Chairman Boucher, for holding this hearing today on smart grid technologies. I also want to thank our witnesses here today. This is an exciting area

and I look forward to your testimony.

Smart grid technologies combine advanced communications technologies, electric

distribution technologies and end-use electric technologies in order to create a more

efficient electric system. Just as advancing computer and communications technologies over the last 25 years have transformed our everyday lives with Black Berries, e-mail, cell phones, and broadband Internet, so too will smart grid technologies

transform the way utilities and consumers use the electric system. And the resulting system will be better.

I have always supported a market-based approach to the electric utility system.

The market requires three things: suppliers, consumers, and a distribution method.

Congress has done a great deal to increase the number of competitive suppliers,

starting with the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 and extending

through the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Competition at the wholesale level for electricity supply has brought benefits to consumers. The Federal Regulatory Energy

Commission and many States have reformed their regulations and laws to bring the

benefits of competition to consumers.

What has been missing in this system is the ability for the consumer to respond

to price signals. Just like in any market, as prices rise, consumers use less of the

product. Except electricity, which doesn’t come with a price tag. Consequently, almost no one has the ability to actually know the price of power as they buy it. When

prices rise, it takes a month for the bad news to show up in your mailbox. Price

competition doesn’t work when the producer won’t or can’t tell the customer the

price, and this has been a fatal flaw in many deregulated markets starting in California in 2000.

I can’t think of much else that I would buy without knowing the price, and it

looks like smart grid technologies may finally be able to fill in this last hole in the

market by allowing me and other consumers to know the price and act accordingly.

A true electricity market may be on the horizon.

But there are benefits beyond the creation of a true competitive market. Smart

grid technologies can help the utility distribute electricity more efficiently. This may

mean fewer new transmission lines, substations and generating units. And this

means lower costs for consumers.

These technologies can help consumers use electricity more efficiently reducing

demand and consumer costs. Greater efficiency in the distribution and use of electricity can also result in less pollution and a cleaner environment. It also improves

our energy security. There is a lot to look forward to as a result of these technologies.

I am sure though, that like any new technology and its penetration into the American market, there will be bumps along the road. There may be significant up-front

coats before the results are apparent. Some of the technologies may not perform as

promised. But the bottom line is that these technologies will be our future and we

on this Committee should do everything we can to see that Americans reap the benefits of these new technologies.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BOUCHER. We now turn to our panel of witnesses, and I will

simply say a brief word of introduction concerning each.
7

Mr. Michael Howard is the senior vice president for Research

and Development Group for the Electric Power Research Institute.

Mr. Kurt Yeager is the executive director of the nonprofit Galvin

Electricity Initiative. Mr. Dean Kamen is the president of DEKA

Research and Development Corporation. Mr. Kamen is also the inventor of the Segway, known to most in this country, and many

other innovative products. Mr. Brad Gammons is vice president of

IBM Global Energy and Utilities Industry of the IBM Corporation.

Mr. Dan Delurey is the executive director of the Demand Response

and Advanced Metering Coalition. Mr. John Bryson is the chief executive officer and president of Edison International, the parent

company of the utility, Southern California Edison. And Ms. Audrey Zibelman is the chief operating officer and executive vice

president of the PJM Regional Transmission Organization. We are

pleased to have each of our witnesses with us today.

Your prepared opening statements will be made a part of the

record and we would welcome your oral summaries of approximately 5 minutes.

Mr. Howard, we will be pleased to begin with you.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. HOWARD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PALO ALTO, CA

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Hastert and members of the committee. I am Michael Howard, senior vice president of the Research and Development Group for the

Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit, collaborative research and development organization with major offices in Palo

Alto, California, Charlotte, North Carolina, and Knoxville, Tennessee. My comments today reflect the work of the talented scientists and engineers who work across our institute on the many

issues associated with an electric power delivery system.

EPRI’s purpose is to work collaboratively with the electric utility

industry to develop the technologies that will ensure our existing

grid infrastructure continues to work reliably and safely while at

the same time facilitate the transition to an intelligent grid that

supports both the changing generation mix in a carbon-constrained

world and a more effective and efficient participation by consumers

in managing their use of electricity.

During the last 5 years, we have been helping the electric utility

industry develop and deploy the concept of an intelligent grid

through the implementation of our IntelliGrid initiative. The

IntelliGrid initiative is developing the methodology, tools and integrating technologies that will help the industry and equipment

manufacturers start transitioning the electric grid of the future.

We believe the grid of the future will include six important features. It will be a dynamic system that is interactive with consumers and markets. It will be self-healing and adaptive. It will be selfoptimized to make best use of resources and equipment. The grid

of the future will be predictive rather than reactive and it will be

able to store large amounts of energy and able to accommodate a

variety of generation options including renewable energy.

Achieving these objectives will require a power system that incorporates millions of sensors all connected through an advanced com-
8

munication and data acquisition system. A distributed computing

system will analyze in real time the information from the millions

of sensors to enable predictive rather than reactive response to a

blink-of-the-eye disruption.

I mentioned that one of the six important grid of the future features is a dynamic system that is interactive with the consumers

and markets. An example of a dynamic system that is interactive

with consumers and markets is what we refer to as ‘‘Prices to Devices.’’ An example is an intelligent air conditioning unit with embedded software and hardware capable of two-way interaction with

the power system. The intelligent air conditioning unit will receive

day-ahead and hourly electricity prices and day-ahead weather

forecast through the Internet. The system will learn the rate of

building cool-down and heat-up based on factors such as occupant

habits, outside temperature and time of ear, and finally the air

conditioning unit will self-optimize to minimize energy costs.

The potential energy efficiency savings from the intelligent air

conditioner and similar devices remains a matter of ongoing analysis. A peer-reviewed analysis of 11 studies in 2004 by EPRI indicated an achievable savings of 24 percent of the total U.S. electricity demand, although there was substantial variation among

the studies that we reviewed.

Another benefit of the grid of the future is improved reliability

and power equality. The total estimated annual cost for the U.S.

economy from power outages and power quality disturbances, what

I refer to as blink-of-the-eye disruptions, is over $100 billion. By

implementing the six important grid of the future features outlined

in this testimony, we will enable a robust, interactive and efficient

power delivery system that is more energy efficient, more reliable,

more immune to power quality disturbances and better able to support a vigorous and growing national economy.

It is a pleasure being here today, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate

the opportunity to provide testimony to the committee on facilitating the transition to a smart electric grid. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Howard follows:]
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Howard.

Mr. Yeager.

STATEMENT OF KURT YEAGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

GALVIN ELECTRICITY INITIATIVE, PALO ALTO, CA

Mr. YEAGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Kurt Yeager, executive director of the nonprofit Galvin Electricity Initiative. This initiative is described more fully in my written statement.

Today the United States faces a rapidly approaching perfect energy storm of rapidly rising costs, carbon constraints and declining

security. The electric grid can either continue to be a vulnerable liability in meeting this threat or the key to its resolution and to the

protection of our Nation’s economy and its environment. The choice

is clearly ours. We do have the technological means to achieve the

prompt transition to a smart electric grid and we certainly have

the economic and the environmental motives and opportunity as a

Nation to do so now.

Over the three decades, the U.S. electricity grid has had to survive an effective moratorium on innovation and little more than a

life-support level of infrastructure investment. This dangerous situation has left us in a very vulnerable situation. The result is an

electric grid system that now costs the Nation, as Dr. Howard indicated, over $100 billion each year in avoidable reliability losses,

has very limited ability to reduce its carbon emissions, and faces

hundreds of billions of dollars in pent-up infrastructure expansion

costs just over the coming decade.

In contrast, a small electric grid can largely eliminate these reliability losses and simultaneously increase both the efficiency of

electricity use and the consumption of clean renewable energy. The

result will be a very large reduction in infrastructure investment

costs. For example, it costs about one-third as much to save energy

through efficiency improvements than to build a new power plant

to produce the same amount of energy. In addition, at least $1 trillion a year more in U.S. gross domestic product could be produced

through the greater economic productivity and competitiveness in

the global market that such a smart system would provide. All of

these smart grid advantages could be achieved at an aggregate cost

that is equivalent to about 1 year’s worth of the unreliability penalty we are now paying, in effect a 1-year payback.

A smart grid is an electronically controlled, self-healing electrical

supply system that maintains the instantaneous and continuous

flow of both energy and information between electricity consumers

and suppliers. It is indeed a two-way street entirely open to consumers and most importantly to their end-use devices. Key innovative technologies that enable this, instantaneous digital electronic

sensors and controls, the integration of communications, which is

what makes it smart. The electricity business of the future is not

based on how many kilowatt-hours we sell but how much value we

can put on each electron as it enables a microprocessor through

both information and energy. Transforming the electricity meter,

what I would call the iron curtain of electricity, behind which we

are all still captive, into a true consumer gateway that allows realtime price signals, demand response decisions and network intelligence as well as electricity to flow instantaneously back and forth
68

between utilities and consumers and their end-use devices. The incorporation of a wide range of distributed energy resources and

combined heat and power capabilities that are key to incorporating

significantly more renewable energy into the grid, and finally, highly efficient smart electric buildings, appliances and devices which

frankly cannot be utilized to best advantage until we have truly a

smart grid. This can reduce energy consumption by at least 30 percent and even more during peak demand periods with comparable

reductions in emissions and in costs.

The quickest path to transforming the performance and to realizing the value of the smart grid is to target the breakthrough technical innovations on the consumer’s interface with the grid, that is,

on the local electricity distribution system. In this way, the tipping

point to achieving a universal national transition to a smart electric grid can be achieved within 5 years.

In closing, Federal Government policies and actions can certainly

be a critical motivator for the smart grid transition. These would

include, in my judgment, first expediting new energy efficiency

standards and establishing market incentives for much higher efficiency consumer products and best practices and buildings such as

universally applying the International Energy Construction Code.

Second, raising the reliability standards for the electricity grid to

levels that are compatible with today’s digital economy and society,

not measured in minutes of outage but in fractions of a second.

Three, mandating universal advanced electric metering infrastructure and real-time pricing and support of demand response on the

part of every consumer. Four, establishing a national public education campaign to inform consumers about the value of a smart

grid and to encourage local implementation. And finally, and I believe most importantly, convening the State electricity regulatory

community and instilling in them the critical national importance

of the smart grid and the need for their universal regulatory support. The rapidly approaching and unavoidable onslaught of rising

cost rate cases that they face I believe provides a window of opportunity for regulators to incent and enable the smart grid on behalf

of all their consumers, and in this regard, regulators must also decouple utilities’ profits from the amount of energy they sell and

make them whole on the basis of the reliability, efficiency and

quality of consumer service they provide.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yeager follows:]
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Yeager

Mr. Kamen, we will be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF DEAN KAMEN, PRESIDENT, DEKA RESEARCH

AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MANCHESTER, NH

Mr. KAMEN. First, I have to give the disclaimer that I am not an

expert on either policy or mega and giga scale energy. I suspect I

was invited here because of another project I have been working

on for about 10 years that ironically was intended for people that

live in a world where there is no grid whatsoever, and I am happy

to tell you that after about 8 years of working on a little box about

the size of a dorm room refrigerator, we were able to convince ourselves it was reliable enough, robust enough, efficient enough that

it could be tested, and this box was intended to produce enough

electricity for a small village anywhere in the world where they

have no grid. There are 1.6 billion people in Asia and Africa that

have never used electricity and in our lifetime are unlikely to see

a grid suddenly appear, and we said what if we could make a small

box, the size I just said, that could be moved into a village that

would run for many years, presumably and hopefully on any local

fuel, anything that burns, liquid or gaseous, and produce a few

kilowatts, also could do it in a place where you could use the waste

heat. I am happy to tell you that about a year ago we placed two

of those units in two villages, one about 75 kilometers north of

Dacca, one 75 miles west of Dacca, in Bangladesh and for 24 weeks

around the clock we did a trial. We electrified these villages and

they ran without interruption. Not bad compared to what most

utilities in this country can do. It turns out that we certainly have

more work to do there but some of the members know about this

box and I think the United States ought to work on these things

and maybe help around the world but that is probably for a different committee.

How could that box or similar boxes be useful in this country?

I think you have heard all the reasons. I would just simply ask you

to do the mental experiment that the average homeowner puts a

box in their house similar to their water heater or their furnace

that can sit there and burn any locally available fuel. By the way,

I should tell you the only thing that went into either of these boxes

in Bangladesh for 24 weeks, they were put next to a small pit and

cow dung, very naturally evolving methane gas with no intervention by any exotic biodigester was the only source of fuel, and by

the way, it was preventing the methane that was coming off at 20

times the environmental damage of CO2 from coming off. We then

turned it into the CO2 it would have become anyway. In any event,

what does that got to do with all this? Well, it seemed to us hearing the great debate going on in this country that if you could put

that unit in a house, you might have a very, very significant impact

on a bunch of things.

The real effect of reliability and the real effect of measurement

of how much energy we use and what we get for it and I would

be the first to admit to the giant power company guys around here

that a good, large closed-cycle steam turbine or other device can

turn heat into electricity at about 40 percent efficiency. My little

sterling cycle device does it at about 20 percent. Most people would
83

therefore say my device is only half as efficient as a great big generator. I think that 19th century mindset has to change when you

say what do you mean by efficiency because that 40 percent efficient system, let us say it makes a gigawatt, 1,000 megawatts, if

it does it at 40 percent efficiency, it means you made 400

megawatts of electricity to go out through those lines which they

do very well. That is why we built central plants for 100 and something years. The other 600 million watts creates the waste heat sitting in the river somewhere killing fish or polluting but that 60

percent, that 600 megawatts, can’t easily be moved so it is gone.

That is why we say 40 percent efficiency. My little box or other

similar boxes that could do CHP, combined heat and power, could

sit in somebody’s house and only turn 20 percent of the fuel that

goes into them into electricity but the other 80 percent is the heat

that heats your house and your shower and washes your dishes

and your clothes.

In other words, in most average homes in the United States, only

20 or 30 percent of the power coming in was meant to be electricity. The rest of the power the homeowner buys was from the gas

company or the oil company because a unit of energy in terms of

that you need for heat is substantially cheaper to buy than a very

high-quality unit of energy called electricity. If you could take all

the fuel that you would have burned in these central plants and

build miniature power plants in somebody’s home, as long as you

burned that fuel efficiently and cleanly, you could make use of virtually all of the waste; it is no longer waste. Then for every unit

of fuel we could use in this country, you would find that you make

less of a carbon footprint, you got more overall total efficiency and

a bunch of the advantages that you have heard about. If you put

small distributed units around the country, even if they are only

a couple of kilowatts apiece in people’s homes, just do the math.

If every homeowner got a couple of thousand dollar boxes put in

his house and you put a million of them out there and each one

was a couple of kilowatts, you get a couple of gigawatts without

building another big plant. None of that power goes through the

grid, which is getting a little old and a little tired and a little less

reliable. If you build your smart transmission grids and these little

boxes can talk to each other in the neighborhood, you get other

benefits like energy security because no one plant going down will

stop people from getting their critical loads. They will probably

turn off their air conditioning and their Jacuzzi but if they can

make a couple of kilowatts in their home, there is not a crisis when

there is a snowstorm or other kind of interruption. Second, you can

burn any locally made fuel which is, A, more efficient, and B, you

can economically certainly advantage the homeowner in doing it

that way, and oh, by the way, you can encourage all sorts of other,

once you make this thing smart, interactions such that in a day

where invention is now finally hitting the world of energy production the way it hit computing 30 or 40 years ago. We suddenly had

to go from mainframes to distributed computing and then the cell

phones took the 100-year system where you had to work with Ma

Bell and gave us so many different ways to communicate, it got

better and simpler and the Internet got—you guys had to start updating the way that people could do it. I think we are now at a
84

point where whether it is solar cells getting attractive and efficient,

wind turbines getting attractive and efficient, sterling cycle, any

kind of device getting more efficient, you are going to see lots of

inventions that could become great innovations, that could make

this whole thing better and make great new jobs but you have got

to create an environment—you asked for recommendations. You

have got to create an environment where all these different new

ways of thinking are encouraged rather than the technology is

there but your systems are not keeping up with allowing them to

be implemented.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kamen follows:]
85
86
87
88
89
90
91

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Kamen, very much. We will have

some questions of you shortly.

Mr. Gammons, we will be happy to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF BRAD GAMMONS, VICE PRESIDENT, IBM

GLOBAL ENERGY AND UTILITIES INDUSTRY, AMARILLO, TX

Mr. GAMMONS. Good morning, Chairman Boucher and members

of the House energy committee. I am Brad Gammons, vice president of IBM Global Energy and Utility Industry. IBM appreciates

the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee today.

Innovation is a major theme of any leader’s agenda today. Listening to Mr. Kamen, that came up quite clearly. CEOs, academics,

government leaders agree that innovating their business models,

policies, problem-solving approaches and execution models are key

drivers of economic opportunity. In fact, the pressure to innovate

is heavy. In order to establish and sustain competitive differentiation and institutional value or to make advances in the world’s

most pressing issues from health care, globalization, the energy efficiency and the environment, you must innovate.

Across all industries, there are two significant changes in technology that have occurred which are providing the foundation for

innovation. First, the Internet and other communication technologies have connected a million businesses and a billion people,

making it in essence the world’s operational infrastructure and it

is still only in its infancy. Soon trillions of things will be virtually

connected. Right now we have nearly 3 billion people that subscribe

to wireless technology. This network ubiquity provides a vehicle for

people and things to work and operate in a collaborative way. Second is open standards very much to what Mr. Kamen was talking

about, is you have to have a way for these things to communicate

together to allow for innovation. The evolution in open standards

presents the opportunity in the utility industry to accelerate and

optimize the implementation of a smart grid or what IBM calls an

intelligent utility network. An intelligent utility network or a smart

grid will provide an IT-enabled continuous sensing network which

connects all parts of the utility, equipment, control systems, applications, employees providing for the automatic collection of data

and asset conditions from across the utility on which analytic simulation and modeling to perform. Ultimately the smart grid will

also connect the utility with the consumer, which will be bringing

increased options, more control over energy usage and more choices

for energy rates. It will literally bring power to the people.

In the utility industry, there is a great desire to achieve new levels of operational effectiveness, reliability and energy stewardship

to reach beyond efficiently managing generation or transmission or

distribution to have the business management and operational visibility across these domains and even to include raw materials,

transportation, supply chain and the customer experience, in effect

the entire energy ecosystem.

The evolution of the power grid or the smart grid is the connective tissue and the enabler for these utility desires but the appropriate infrastructure investment and policy is needed to create this

reality.
92

The utility industry faces a series of significant dilemmas. How

can a utility company contain costs while increasing power reliability? How can they ensure energy security while still providing access to all? How do they bring new supply into the system to meet

growing loads when the current system is challenged to accommodate new energy sources? How do they build new generation and

transmission facilities when there is significant social and political

resistance? And as a matter of policy, how can energy be a source

of economic growth while preserving environmental sustainability?

Innovation of business processes, operational practices and models will be key to addressing these competing demands utilities are

facing so let us look at several examples of how utilities can enable

innovation in their business by leveraging technology. We can use

that technology in three important ways. First, to automate the

power grid to make it stronger, cleaner and less costly; second, to

integrate the power grid and create an end-to-end network; and finally, to expand the value of the grid with service and information.

If we do these things, the grid can evolve to become an intelligent

utility network or smart grid providing an interactive energy management system enabled by existing technologies such as system

sensors, smart meters, analytical tools, high-speed communication

networks and digitally enabled equipment and assets.

In most cases, these technologies are not new. What is new is

how proven technology often developed for solutions in other industries are being applied to the utility industry to generate tangible

benefits and foster innovative business models today. Imagine if a

company were to integrate all these capabilities with the smart

grid. Such a pilot is underway in Washington State, the Pacific

Northwest Gridwise Project represents a groundbreaking collaboration between Pacific Northwest National Lab, utility companies

and technology partners such as IBM. This initiative allowed a select group of homeowners on the Olympic Peninsula to have more

information about their energy use and its costs as an incentive to

reduce power consumption at peak times. Automated controls will

adjust appliances and thermostats based on pre-determined instructions from the homeowners, allowing consumers to choose to

curtail energy when prices are higher than their set preferences.

We talked how technology can address and help the current state

of the grid. The benefits for our Nation’s transformation to a smart

grid will make the journey well worth it. In other words, a smart

grid is a platform to enable the future. It can improve the Nation’s

ability to respond to increased energy demands and increased need

for energy independence, improving reliability while still providing

for a secure infrastructure. It can also help drive innovation across

the energy supply chain providing value and enhancing the competitive position of all players in the U.S. energy industry, and oh,

by the way, huge energy users like the IBM Corporation. It can enhance energy independence and protection of the Nation’s critical

infrastructure and save billions in energy productivity and increase

national competitiveness.

The good news is, this innovation of new technology is not a factor from a policy standpoint. The technology is sufficiently mature

and adaptation for utilities can be addressed.

Thank you for your time this morning.
93

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gammons follows:]

TESTIMONY OF BRAD GAMMONS

Chairman Boucher and members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, my name is Brad Gammons and I am Vice President

of IBM Global Energy and Utility Industry. IBM appreciates the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee.

Innovation is a major theme of any leader’s agenda today. CEO’s, academics and

government leaders agree that innovating their business designs, policies, problemsolving approaches and execution models are key drivers of economic opportunity.

In fact, the pressure to innovate is heavy in order to establish and sustain competitive differentiation, institutional value, and to make advances in the world’s most

pressing issues from healthcare and globalization to energy efficiency and the environment.

It is easy to confuse innovation and invention. Invention of new technologies is

important to IBM and other companies in the technology industry. However, technology invention, in and of itself, is not what we mean by ‘‘innovation.’’ Instead, we

think about technology as an enabler of business, academic and government innovation. Technology is an enabler of new ways to do things whether that is developing

a set of products and services, executing a set of management processes or rethinking entire business models.

Across industries, there are two significant changes in technology which are providing great leverage:

1) The Internet. The Internet and other communications technologies have connected a million businesses and a billion people. The Internet is, in essence, the

world’s operational infrastructure. And, it is still only in its infancy. Right now, we

have nearly three billion people subscribed to wireless technology. This network

ubiquity provides the vehicle for people and things to work and operate in a collaborative way.

2) Open Standards. Starting with Internet Protocol, the software industry has

made major strides in establishing and delivering to the market open standardsbased products and technology. Whole new classes of software, like middleware,

make it easier to build solutions faster and based on ‘‘off the shelf’’ components and

products. Open standards has been evolving over the last decade beyond traditional

IT to include networks, digital media, industrial components like sensors and more.

It has expended IT standards to previously closed and proprietary domains.

Leaders want to put in place new business designs that break down traditional

and operational silos and enable horizontally-integrated institutions and enterprises. This is made possible with these open and ubiquitous technologies. The horizontally-integrated institution can make firms incredibly flexible in responding to

business, marketplace and global needs.

In the utilities industry, there is a great desire to achieve new levels of operational effectiveness and to reach beyond efficiently managing generation, transmission or distribution. There is a desire to have business management and operational visibility across these domains and even to include raw materials, transportation, supply management and the customer experience—in effect, the entire energy ecosystem.

The desire is to improve network planning, operations and maintenance—improve

the transparency of information, experience fewer and shorter outages, provide better customer service, and provide a platform for adding renewable energy and improved utilization.

The power grid is the ‘‘connective tissue’’ of the utility ecosystem. Today, we are

here because we know the power grid challenges need to be dealt with now.

We need appropriate infrastructure investment as well as policies to encourage

investment. No one cares about putting in a smart grid or what IBM calls an Intelligent Utility Network (IUN) just for the sake of it. What truly matters is creating

advantage for your enterprise, value to your customers, and the ability to improve

long-term environmental effects.

The utility industry faces a series of significant dilemmas. How can utility companies contain costs while increasing power reliability? How can they ensure energy

security, while still providing access to all? How can they deliver increasing levels

of service while at the same time being unaware that entire neighborhoods are without power? How do they bring new supply into the system—to meet growing load—

when the current system is challenged to accommodate new energy sources? How

do they build new generation and transmission facilities when there is significant
94

social and political resistance? And, as a matter of policy, how can energy be a

source of economic growth while preserving environmental sustainability?

In order to address these dilemmas, we need to innovate. Other industries have

faced their own dilemmas and have responded by innovating their business models.

Let’s consider another capital intensive ‘‘grid,’’ but for the transportation industry—the airline industry. Airlines are able to change pricing structures and how

they manage supply and demand in almost real time. If airlines operated the same

way utilities do, they would charge one price for every seat, regardless of the class

of service or the time of purchase or available capacity. This scenario is not different

from demand management and pricing in the utility industry where customers are

challenged in their ability to monitor and adjust their energy consumption.

Let’s think about the banking industry. Banks can account for every dollar of

every transaction every time. They can even leverage the data they have about consumer habits to target customers with new products and services. In the utility industry, kilowatt hours are the currency. But utilities are challenged to track kilowatt hours completely and use data to improve customer service.

Let’s look at some examples of how utilities can innovate their business designs

by leveraging technology.

We can use technology in three important ways.

(1) To automate the power grid to make it stronger, cleaner and less costly;

(2) To integrate the power grid and create an end-to-end network;

(3) And, to expand the value of the grid with new services and new markets.

If we do these things, the grid can evolve to become a Smart Grid.

Building intelligence into the grid provides the information backbone to better understand our energy use, and empowers utilities, regulators and consumers to better

manage their energy environment and practices.

A smart grid represents the transformation into an interactive energy-management system. The proliferation of sensors and existing technology such as smart meters, analytical tools, Services Oriented Architecture, high-speed communication networks and digitally-enabled equipment have made this possible.

In most cases, these technologies are not new. What’s new is how proven technology, often developed for solutions in other industries, is being applied to the utility industry to generate tangible benefits and foster innovative business models

today.

Again, we’re not talking about new technology invention. We’re talking about applying mature technologies to new approaches. In my view, there’s tremendous potential to seize the ‘‘low-hanging fruit’’ for ‘‘no-regrets’’ investments.

Utilities are extending equipment life and minimizing unnecessary substation inspections through remote asset monitoring and control. This defers costly equipment

upgrades, maximizes the utilization of existing assets, and reduces and mitigates

blackouts.

Utilities like Xcel have consolidated their multiple operational and IP networks

and are using existing telecommunications infrastructure to transport data from

equipment to the back-office to make it available across the enterprise and apply

analytical tools to turn data into information.

Utilities are extending the value of their networks by using Advanced Meter Management. The installation of AMM includes the customer premise as part of the network enabling demand response and time-of-use pricing models.

CenterPoint Energy is deploying a number of smart grid solutions including remote connect/disconnect and Advanced Meter Management for Houston area customers. This will give utilities serving consumers better usage information and

make power distribution more reliable. With more detailed information on usage

and pricing, consumers can potentially save money by changing their consumption

patterns.

A smart grid will allow for safe and reliable integration of distributed energy—

such as wind, solar, storage and other environmentally desirable solutions—into the

power grid. Examples of innovation at the intersection of the transportation and

utility sector are: Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, Xcel, and Austin Energy’s vehicle-to-grid technology. This technology allows for two-way sharing

of electricity between electric vehicles and plug-in electric hybrid vehicles and the

electric power grid. The technology turns each vehicle into a power storage system,

increasing power reliability and the amount of renewable energy available to the

grid during peak power usage.

Imagine if a company were to integrate all of these capabilities. Such a pilot is

underway in Washington State. The GridWise Pacific Northwest Gridwise Project

represents a groundbreaking collaboration between the Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory and utility companies and technology partners such as IBM.
95

This initiative will give homeowners on the Olympic Peninsula more information

about their energy use and its cost as an incentive to reduce their power consumption at peak times. Automated controls will adjust appliances and thermostats based

on pre-determined instructions from the homeowners. This allows consumers to

choose to curtail energy use when prices are higher than their set preferences.

The smart grid is a platform to enable the future. It can improve the nation’s ability to respond to increased energy demands and increased need for energy independence while mitigating security concerns and the economic impact of blackouts.

Smart grid can also help drive innovation across the energy supply chain providing value to and enhancing the competitive position of all players in the US energy

industry.

Smart grid can enhance energy independence and protection of the nation’s critical infrastructure, save billions in energy productivity, and substantially increase

national competitiveness.

The invention of new technology is not a factor from a policy standpoint. The technology is sufficiently mature and the adaptations for utilities can be addressed.

At the same time, utilities must embrace innovation and collaboration to transform their business models and substantially improve the infrastructure. Technology

providers must seize the opportunity to demonstrate how existing technologies can

be applied for immediate improvement, as well as be a strong partner in research

and development for future solutions on the horizon—for the benefit of consumers,

the market and the environment.

Thank you.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Gammons.

Mr. Delurey.

STATEMENT OF DAN DELUREY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEMAND RESPONSE AND ADVANCED METERING COALITION,

WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. DELUREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan

Delurey and I serve as executive director of Demand Response and

Advanced Metering Coalition, otherwise known as DRAM. DRAM

members include the leading providers of smart metering, communications and control technologies as well as companies that use

those technologies to provide blocks of megawatts to utilities with

these blocks being equivalent to what they would otherwise procure

from conventional power plants.

Demand response is the term that refers to the business and policy area where electricity customers reduce or shift their electricity

use on peak in response to price signals or other incentives. Demand response addresses the fact that in order to have a smart

grid, we need to have smart rates and smart prices and smart technologies that provide customers and utilities alike with new options

for how to manage electricity. That is not what we have today.

Under our present system, the vast majority of customers and almost all residential customers pay no more for electricity on the

hottest summer afternoon when the electricity system is strained

and the cost to produce electricity is extremely high than they do

in the middle of the night on a spring or fall day. That is not a

smart system, especially when having only a percentage of those

customers modify their peak use to prevent reliability problems

and lower prices for all customers on the system. In order to deploy

demand response, it is necessary for two things to happen. First,

technology must be in place that allows electricity usage to be

measured in time intervals instead of the present system where

usage is measured cumulatively and all kilowatt-hours are treated

equally. That information has to then be communicated in a timely
96

fashion to utilities, customers and other parties. Second, customers

must be provided with time-differentiated price options and/or

other incentives to reward them for modifying their on-peak usage.

As to the pricing part, Congress is not in position to set prices

for electricity. That is clearly for States and other bodies of jurisdiction over utilities to decide but it can ensure that the level of

attention, support and funding is provided that will allow the

States to tackle their role in establishing demand response and creating a smart grid. Congress began to address this in the Energy

Policy Act of 2005 in section 1252. It established a requirement

that States and other bodies with utility oversight examine whether or not its jurisdictional utilities should provide time-based rates

and smart meters to all their customers. While many States still

have a proceeding underway to consider this requirement, the majority of those States that have concluded their proceedings have

decided not to adopt this new requirement. That is not to say that

this section of law has not had a positive effect; it has. Demand response and smart metering are being discussed in more States and

in more places than ever before. But in terms of States trying to

tackle a new and multifaceted issue such as demand response and

its enabling technology, they clearly have not received the training,

education, technical assistance or other support they have needed

as they have taken up this new requirement. States need more

support from Congress so they can do the job that they have to.

Smart grid will not happen with one big bang or in one fell swoop,

and more than people think, much of it will happen in a

disaggregated fashion by actions at the State level.

With these issues in mind and at the chairman’s request, I would

like to just highlight some of the policy recommendations that I

have included in my written testimony. The first area would be

taxation, recognizing that is not the jurisdiction of this committee

but as with energy efficiency and renewable energy, the proper tax

incentives, for example, reduction tax credit to go along with the

production tax credit that is given lift to the wind industry, that

would go a long way in helping this industry, and I think this committee could in terms of definition, policy frameworks and statements do a lot in terms of that. I think that the establishment of

a temporary national commission on electricity modernization

should be established with funding provided that could conduct the

proper assessment of the smart grid and look at funding options

and also develop a national action plan on demand response and

grid modernization, not just a plan, not just a report but an actively managed plan that would do the things necessary in the

many different places they need to be done to make sure that this

happens. Congress should consider in terms of funding these new

investments looking at a national assessment on the transmission

system. Even an extremely small wire charge would generate significant revenue earmarked for smart grid investment.

In terms of the Federal Government showing leadership, Congress should consider establishing peak demand reduction standards for Federal agencies. In terms of appliances, you have heard

about prices to devices. Congress should consider moving to additional types of appliance standards beyond those that govern internal energy efficiency. Congress should consider how to integrate
97

smart metering systems in climate change strategies and regimes

so that such systems and other technologies can be used to more

precisely measure and verify energy reductions and the monetary

rewards that accrue to those carbon reductions. Congress should

consider providing funding and technical assistance to States or

groups of States to undertake smart grid and demand response actions on their own or in conjunction with a national program as I

described. Congress should consider requiring the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission to develop a framework on interoperability,

something that has already been touched upon but is one of the

key threshold issues to the growth of demand response and the

smart grid.

In the absence of having more time to address it, I would like

to talk perhaps in response to a question Congresswoman Harman

introduced, an idea that doesn’t get talked about enough and that

does all this relate to the environment, and I have some comments

on that. I would be happy to answer in response to a question in

terms of how a smart meter is a green meter. But what I would

like to do in closing is more make the comment that it is important

as we talk about the smart grid to not always talk about it in future tense. Yes, better technology will come along. Meters and

other demand response technologies are now high-tech items and

as with other high-tech items, they will continue to evolve and improve but smart meters and other smart technologies are available

now that provide all of the benefits that my testimony describes.

If consumers and businesses had waited to buy their first computer

or cell phone until the best technology came along, they would likely have gone for years without a computer or phone and in the

meantime have foregone the obvious benefits of using the existing

technology. The barrier to demand response and smart grid is not

more R&D. What is needed most is to put demand response and

the smart grid on a national commitment basis and to make policy

changes that will help implement the smart grid.

With that, let me express my thanks once again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Delurey follows:]

TESTIMONY OF DAN DELUREY

My name is Dan Delurey and I am executive director of the Demand Response

and Advanced Metering Coalition (DRAM). DRAM is the trade association for companies that provide technologies, products and services in the electricity industry

segment known as demand response. Its members include the leading providers of

smart metering systems, communications and control technologies, meter data management systems, smart thermostats and other ‘‘smart’’ equipment. DRAM welcomes the opportunity to provide testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air

Quality on why demand response needs to be included in electricity policy, planning

and operations, and to offer comments on how demand response and its enabling

technologies, such as smart meters, not only relate to but are in fact necessary for

the development of the smart grid.

Our testimony seeks to do several things:

Provide a brief explanation as to what demand response is, why it is important

to national energy policy, and why it is an important element of a ‘‘smart grid’’.

Provide a brief overview and explanation on demand response technologies such

as smart meters.

Discuss the many and varied benefits that demand response and its enabling

technologies deliver to various parties.
98

Discuss the state of demand response policy and comment on the impact of provisions on demand response and smart meters included in the Energy Policy Act of

2005.

Present policy options that the Congress can consider and act upon to accelerate

the deployment of demand response technologies, increase the amount of demand

response in the national electricity mix, and put the foundation in place for development of the smart grid.

WHAT IS DEMAND RESPONSE?

Demand response refers to the policy and business area whereby electricity customers reduce or shift their peak demand usage in response to price signals or other

types of incentives. At present, the vast majority of electricity customers, and virtually all residential customers, are on rates or prices that have them paying the

same unit price for electricity at any time of day and any time of year, no matter

how much the cost to produce or deliver electricity fluctuates as demands on the

system rise and fall. These existing ‘‘flat’’ rates do nothing to stem peak electricity

usage, which continues to grow unconstrained across the U.S. The lack of any disincentive to on-peak consumption does nothing to address the reliability of the electricity system, which continues to be threatened by the rapid growth in peak demand. When demand response is introduced, and when even a small percentage of

customers modify their peak usage, outages can be prevented, overall prices to all

customers can be reduced, and customers, utilities and many other stakeholders can

reap significant benefits. More discussion of benefits will be provided in a later section of this testimony.

As with any new field, definitions of demand response are still in development

within the policy and business community. One definition that many policy makers

have accepted was developed by the non-profit U.S. Demand Response Coordinating

Committee (DRCC), a diverse group exclusively dedicated to the development of new

content and information on demand response. Its definition is as follows:Providing

electricity customers in both retail and wholesale electricity markets with a choice

whereby they can respond to dynamic or time-based prices or other types of incentives by reducing and/or shifting usage, particularly during peak periods, such that

these demand modifications can address issues such as pricing, reliability, emergency response, and infrastructure planning, operation, and deferral.

An examination of this definition reveals that there are a number of different facets to demand response. While this can make an appreciation of demand response

more challenging, it also means that the amount and type of benefits can collectively be very high. Each of these facets will be discussed in the benefits section

below, but it is worthwhile to note that key to this definition, and to any definition

of demand response, is that it is focused on customers, and providing them with new

options to manage their energy use and reduce their energy bills.

One more background item is worth noting. Just as energy efficiency was at one

point referred to as ‘‘energy conservation,’’ early forms of demand response were

known as load management. Under that name, a number of utilities have operated

successful programs over the years where in return for some incentive, customers

allowed utilities to put controls on certain of their appliances and turn those appliances off when peak demands on hot summer days or cold winter days threatened

the reliability and integrity of the system. These programs have functioned well in

years past and many continue today. The difference between demand response and

load management is that new technologies in the area of metering, communications

and controls means that many new types of demand response options are available

to customers. These options are ‘‘smarter’’ and allow customers to maintain and

share control of appliances and equipment or to employ automated controls that can

respond to price and other signals. These options also allow other demand response

options to be provided such as time-based rates.

DEMAND RESPONSE TECHNOLOGIES

The most ubiquitous demand response technology is the meter, and some background on metering can be helpful in understanding demand response, its benefits

and how it plays a role in the development of the smart grid.

The vast majority of electricity customers in the U.S. do not have a smart meter

on their home or business. (The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in its Report to Congress required by EPACT 2005, estimates only 6 percent have smart meters). Many customers still have the basic type of meter that has been in use for

decades. This meter has one function—to ‘‘count’’ the units of electricity that the

customer consumes and to maintain a cumulative total of that usage that at some

point is multiplied by the price of that unit to produce a total electricity bill. In a
99

modern society where customers can easily and quickly obtain information about the

things they purchase, such meters and the information they provide are anomalies.

A customer with a basic meter gets no informational feedback on how and when

they are using electricity or information they can apply to their future electricity

purchases. They also are unable to take advantage of any time-differentiated rates

or prices that could help them reduce their electricity bill.

A smart metering system does two important things. First, it measures and stores

electricity usage in intervals, normally on at least an hourly basis. This time-based

measurement allows time-based pricing and rates to be offered and accepted. Second, the smart meter is part of a communications network that allows the data

measured and stored to be collected and retrieved on a timely basis—at least daily—

for use by the utility and other parties and for presentation to the customer. This

communications network and connectivity with the customers’ premise provides

other non-demand response benefits to utilities and customers alike, as is described

below.

Smart meters are not the only new technologies that enable demand response and

that help create the smart grid. ‘‘Smart’’ advances have been made in remote controlled and price-sensitive thermostats and lighting systems that allow the new

products to be utilized in demand response applications. Energy Management Systems (EMS), formerly only used for energy efficiency purposes, are being made

smarter and thus capable of empowering demand response applications. New inhome display devices are available that can transmit information from the meter

to the customer in real time. New building automation and management technologies are available that allow optimization of energy use with respect to time of

use. New thermal and battery storage systems are available that allow dynamic

storage and release in concert with peak demand management. Even automobiles

are developing into dynamic storage media in the case of the Plug-In Hybrid Electric

Vehicle (PHEV), where the replacement of petroleum with electricity has been

shown to have environmental benefits as well as helping to optimize grid management.

It is important to note that it is not just the technology but also how it is employed and applied that creates demand response. For example, some demand response companies have a service, or resource-based business model, whereby they

contract with utilities to provide a block of demand response (e.g. 10, 20, 30 or even

40 MWs) in the same manner as if they were offering a peaking power plant to the

utility. The demand response provider takes on the responsibility for enrolling and

aggregating customers and controlling the peak loads of those they enlist so as to

create a ‘‘negawatt’’ resource for the utility that is a substitute for additional power

generation.

DEMAND RESPONSE AND THE SMART GRID

It is perhaps intuitive to understand why demand response technologies such as

smart metering are an integral part of the Smart Grid. In the context of the smart

grid, demand response and its enabling technologies such as smart meters are the

place where the smart grid touches the customer. The vision of a smart grid is that

of an intelligent, dynamic ‘‘organism’’ that allows the electricity system to be

planned and operated in a way that optimizes all of its components to lower costs,

increase reliability and utilize new informational and communications technologies.

That vision includes an optimization of not only supply side options but also demand

side options, and demand response is the way for demand side resources to effectively and dynamically be engaged.

Viewed another way, given that the smart grid will not arrive in one instant in

time or in one fell swoop, smart meters and other related communications and control technologies are, collectively, the building blocks of the smart grid that will provide the foundation upon which the rest of the smart grid will be built. Timely, and

in some cases, on-demand information from customers will help smart grid operators better monitor grid conditions and assess potential threats to the reliability

and/or security of the electricity system. By providing information, including price

signals, to customers, those operators will in turn be able to deploy customer reductions as a resource. Demand response technologies allow information and control

over the demand side to be individually addressed yet aggregated into sizable blocks

of ‘‘negawatts’’ that will be key to the success of smart grid development. Not only

will the deployment of demand response technologies help avoid electricity outages,

but also will help utilities and regional operators restore electricity faster than otherwise when outages do occur. In the case of the last major Northeast Blackout,

New York State, where a substantial number of demand response technologies are

deployed with large customers, was able to use those technologies and customer con-
100

nections to do a controlled restoration which resulted in power being restored a full

day earlier than expected.

BENEFITS OF DEMAND RESPONSE AND ITS ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES

Demand response and its enabling technologies offer many different benefits in

many different areas. In terms of reliability, a reduction in peak electricity demand

reduces the threat of outages. In terms of electricity markets, demand response and

its technologies allow dynamic demand reductions to be deployed instead of resorting to additional power production, with the result being lower wholesale prices,

which all customers pay one way or the other. Also related to markets, reductions

in peak demand serve as a means of mitigating market power of suppliers, which

can otherwise occur when demand increases unconstrained during peak periods due

to consumers not paying prices anywhere near the cost of producing the electricity

during that critical peak period.

In almost all cases, technology is required to enable demand response even if it

is only for time-based measurement purposes. In the case of the smart metering system, however, non-demand response benefits are introduced when the technology is

deployed for demand response. A good example is grid outage management and restoration. At present, many utilities rely on customers who lose service due to a

storm to make a telephone call to let the utility know of the outage. In other cases,

utility truck crews drive around to identify which homes and businesses are out.

With the communications and connectivity abilities that come with smart metering

systems, a utility customer service operator can instantly know when a customer

is out and can optimize dispatch of crews to address the situation, increasing the

speed and decreasing the cost of restoration. Other types of benefits in the areas

of customer service, outage management, system planning, system operations and

security maintenance are possible when demand response technologies are deployed.

In terms of customer benefits, demand response and its technologies offer many

new benefits. Customers will get information on their electricity usage that they

have never had before and get it in a timely manner such that it acts as feedback

to reinforce their energy management efforts. They will have price and rate options

that will stimulate them to be more efficient energy consumers. Demand response

technologies will be the answer to the question ‘‘how can you manage what you cannot measure?’’. Studies have shown that even where customers are not on time-differentiated rates, they may reduce their electricity usage by 11 percent just as a

result of being more informed and understanding better how and when they are

using electricity.

In terms of addressing climate change and other environmental issues, demand

response can make important contributions. The obvious one is in the enhancement

and reinforcement of customer energy efficiency, the accepted cornerstone of emission reduction policies. Demand response control and information technologies such

as smart meters can be the platform upon which the U.S. moves to an entirely new,

more expansive and effective era of energy efficiency. Also, demand response technologies and practices will not only lead to greater energy efficiency but also to

greater accountability of reductions, something that will be increasingly important

under any policy where emissions are constrained and reduction-based offsets are

monetized. Indeed, the smart electricity meter, while not an energy efficiency device

in and of itself, may prove to be not only a smart meter, but also a green meter,

as it helps improve overall energy efficiency and track energy savings.

In the case of some pollutants such as NOx, time-based emissions (e.g. during hot

summer afternoons) can lead to ozone non-attainment. In the case of NOx and

ozone, demand response holds out the potential to be a dynamic emissions tool that

can be used to reduce power plant productions (and emissions) precisely when they

contribute the most to non-attainment. Finally, and still in the area of environmental benefits, is the contribution that demand response can make to renewable

energy development. In the case of wind energy, a particular geographic wind resource may not be available during peak demand periods. By matching that wind

resource with demand response during the period that wind is non-available, the

wind resource may become more viable. The result is a greater chance that less environmentally friendly resources can be avoided through a combination of wind and

demand response.

EXISTING POLICY ON DEMAND RESPONSE

Congress. Section 1252 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 represents the first legislation by Congress on demand response. It included several important provisions:

• A new PURPA standard that would require that utilities provide time-based

rates and smart meters to all customers.
101

As with other PURPA standards, States and other bodies with jurisdiction over

electric utilities were required by EPACT to conduct an investigation as to whether

this new standard was appropriate for its particular jurisdiction and to make a finding on such. States and other bodies were given until August 2007 to complete their

investigation and make a finding.

Some observers questioned the impact that this new PURPA standard would have

at the time of EPACT enactment, pointing out that the only true requirement in

the provision was for states to consider the standard, i.e. utilities were not required

directly by the statute to do anything with respect to time-based rates and smart

meters.

While many states to date have chosen to not adopt the standards, EPAct 1252

has had significant impact across the country. It has become the common framework

within which heightened discussion and debate on demand response has taken place

at the state level over the past two years. While many state commissions are still

in the middle of their proceeding to consider the standards, the level of attention,

awareness and action has risen significantly from where it was prior to EPACT enactment.

Attachment A depicts the status of State Commission proceedings on the new

PURPA standard at this time, based on DRAM’s assessment: • A requirement that FERC conduct an assessment and report to Congress on various aspects and characteristics of demand response, including an estimation of the

existing penetration of smart meters.

FERC completed this report on time and the document delivered to Congress represents the first ever nationwide survey of smart metering and other demand response technologies and programs. It also includes a substantial amount of other information on demand response, including barriers to it and how they might be overcome. • A requirement that DOE make an assessment and report to Congress on the

nationwide potential for demand response and provide recommendations as to how

to achieve a specific target by a date certain.

DOE delivered its report to Congress within six months of enactment as required

by EPACT but it did not address the question of ‘‘how much by how soon.’’ According to DOE, the short turn around time of six months to undertake and complete

the report did not allow for such. Instead, DOE opted for a compendium approach

where it produced a report that presented the range of work by other parties on

estimating demand response potential.

FERC. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has in the past several years made significant strides in fostering the development of demand response. It views demand response as a vital ingredient to the success of wholesale

markets and has sought to foster demand response programs and markets at the

various regional RTOs and ISOs. As a result, some of the newest demand response

resources that have been developed are at the wholesale level. FERC continues to

push to demand response both through its actions in party-specific proceedings and

in generic rulemakings.

States, In order to employ demand response, it is necessary for two things to happen. First, technology must be in place that allows electricity usage to be measured

in time intervals (instead of the present system where usage is measured cumulatively and where all kilowatt hours are treated equally) and provided to utilities,

customers and other parties in a timely manner. Adding automated controls and

other technologies that monitor and control usage enhances and increases the

amount of demand response that can occur. Second, customers must be provided

with time-differentiated price options and/or other incentives to reward them for

modifying their on-peak usage.

Each of these requirements present state public policy issues that are only beginning to be addressed and resolved. As discussed above, the investigation required

by EPAct 2005 represents for many states the first demand response activity they

have undertaken. In many cases, state policy makers have been reluctant to support

utility investment in new metering deployments. In many more cases, state policy

makers have expressed significant reluctance to introduce time-based rates to customers, citing the political backlash that could or would occur. These expressions

of concern have come even in the face of suggestions that such time-based rates

would be voluntary, and even after research continues to accumulate that customers

like having such rate options and the information and technology that comes along

with them.

States for the most part ‘‘have the ball’’ on demand response and smart metering.

They also therefore have much of the ball on development of the smart grid, even

though this is not conventional thought on this topic. Yet states have the least

amount of resources to adequately assess and understand demand response and the
102

smart grid. It is imperative to the success of both that states receive additional support to be able to play their necessary role.

POLICY OPTIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION

DRAM believes that there are a number of steps which Congress can consider to

develop demand response, which will in turn be steps toward development of the

smart grid. Recognizing that some of these may not be jurisdictional to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, we list them as follows:

Congress should recognize that smart meters represent new, high-technology

hardware and software and should be treated for tax and regulatory purposes as

such. Tax policy should be changed to accelerate depreciation on smart meters and

other demand response technologies.

Tax incentives should be provided to utilities and other parties, including customers, to install demand response technologies as quickly as possible so as to develop as much demand response as possible in the Nation’s electricity mix. One option would be a reduction tax credit, similar to the production tax credit that has

allowed the renewable energy industry to gain traction and grow. Such a credit

could only be granted when reductions are measured and verified using demand response technologies and applications, in recognition of the capabilities of such. Another option would be an investment tax credit which helps accelerate the installation of devices and equipment.

A temporary National Commission on Electricity Modernization should be established, with funding provided, that would undertake the following tasks:

(a) Conduct a national assessment of the state of the grid and provide detailed

proposals to Congress, the President and the States on how to accelerate the deployment of a smart grid. Included in the Commission’s work would be development of

a framework for how the smart grid would operate and how its components would

effectively communicate and interface. Also included would be a proposal for funding

the investment necessary to put smart grid infrastructure in place.

(b) Develop a National Action Plan on Demand Response and Smart Technologies

that would provide support for education and training of policy makers, customers

and other stakeholders, as well as a nationwide communications and outreach program that would lead to greater deployment of demand response.

A temporary independent Commission would allow the efforts of industry, state

policy makers and other stakeholders to be integrated with the efforts of DOE,

FERC and other Federal agencies in a holistic, comprehensive and effective manner.

It would also be able to provide the required support to states, where much demand

response activity must take place to realize the potential of the resource.

Congress should consider providing additional funds to develop demand response

resources and the smart grid in general via the introduction of a national assessment on the transmission system. Even an extremely small ‘‘wires charge’’ would

generate significant revenue earmarked for smart grid investments.

Congress should consider requiring the Federal Government to demonstrate leadership by establishing peak demand reduction standards for Federal agencies. These

standards would require progressive reduction in peak electricity demand as compared to a baseline year, in a manner similar to renewable portfolio standards or

energy efficiency resource standards. These standards would complement and enhance the other efficiency activities that Federal agencies already are required to

do and/or have underway.

With the development of new communications and control technologies that allow

individual consumer appliances to receive and ‘‘act’’ upon price signals and other

control signals for purposes of demand response, Congress should consider moving

to additional types of appliance standards beyond those that govern internal energy

efficiency.

Congress should consider how to integrate smart metering systems into climate

change strategies and regimes to allow such systems and other demand response

technologies to be used to more precisely measure and verify energy reductions and

the monetary rewards that accrue to the associated carbon reductions.

Congress should consider providing funding and technical assistance to States or

groups of States for developing smart grid assessments and action plans which will

allow them to move forward to begin to create smart grid components in their jurisdiction.

Congress should consider requiring the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to

develop a framework on interoperability, one of the key threshold issues to the

growth of demand response and the smart grid.

As with any major endeavor such as the transformation of the Nation’s electric

system into a smart grid, it is important to consider the timing and nature of the
103

transition. In the case of the smart grid, it is easy to always see it as something

that is out in the future somewhere, just out of reach. It is easy to see it as something that requires substantial research and development and that can only be accomplished if new technologies, not necessarily yet invented, are developed and

made available. Some aspects of the smart grid may indeed meet this future-oriented test. But in the case of demand response, smart meters and other smart technologies and applications, the future is now. These technologies, as with any modern

technology such as in the computer or telecommunications area, will be on a continual path of evolution and will continue to improve over time. Yet those businesses

and consumers do not wait for the next great product to be developed before deploying a computer or cellphone so as to capture the many benefits that present technology provides, even while recognizing that new technology will certainly replace

what they have at some point. It is important to take this perspective with the

smart grid and not in all cases wait for future technology. Demand response and

smart technologies are available today which can deliver immediate benefits to utilities, customers, other stakeholders and the Nation as a whole. With a greater commitment by state and Federal policy makers to deploying these technologies now,

expressed through funding and other types of support, the construction of the smart

grid can begin now instead of in the future.

ATTACHMENT A

Status of State Commission proceedings to consider EPACT section 1252 PURPA

standard requiring utilities to offer time-based pricing and advanced metering

ONGOING PROCEEDINGS ON STANDARD

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,

Washington, Wyoming

COMPLETED PROCEEDINGS AND/OR DECISION ON STANDARDS MADE

Delaware—decided to not adopt but proceeding still open

Florida—decided to not adopt

Iowa—decided to not adopt

Idaho—decided to not adopt

Kentucky—decided to not adopt

Michigan—decided to not adopt but proceeding still open

Montana—deferred adoption

Tennessee—decided to not adopt but proceeding still open

Ohio—decided to adopt; proceeding still open

Utah—decided to not adopt

Vermont—deferred adoption

Virginia—decided to not adopt

West Virginia—decided to not adopt

PROCEEDING DEFERRED

Colorado

Maryland

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Delurey.

Mr. Bryson, we will be happy to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF JOHN BRYSON, CHAIRMAN, CEO AND

PRESIDENT, EDISON INTERNATIONAL, ROSEMEAD, CA

Mr. BRYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I won’t provide a summary of my testimony. The panel is so

strong IN its entirely correct affirmation of the smart grid. I

thought I might pick out the things I can distinctively offer and see

if they add some value.

The smart grid makes sense, Mr. Chairman. Your letter inviting

us to testify indicated arguably the smart grid has lots of benefits.
104

The short answer is absolutely very great benefits and we need to

move in that direction, and Chairman Dingell defined the problem

well at the outset. Electricity moves at the speed of light. Anything

short of an automated high-technology means of controlling electricity is fundamentally insufficient, and as business consumers,

residential consumers increasingly digitize their homes, their businesses, the traditional means, low-tech means of operating an electric grid simply mean lack of reliability, slow response, poor service, high cost. Changes are absolutely essential and some of them

have been well described by members of the panel.

I thought I would say a little bit about what we are doing at

Southern California Edison and I want to underscore, this is with

the really great support of the State of California. California has

had its reliability and its cost problems. The response now from the

Governor, across the regulators, across legislators, Federal and

State, Congresswoman Harman underscored the values we bring to

this, has been so strong. It is enabling us to make investments that

as recently as 4 or 5 years ago we couldn’t make. So my key focus

will be to describe some of the things that we are doing in a utility,

a very large utility that serves a large part of southern California

and central California that are smart grid-type initiatives, and I

want to underscore just what Congresswoman Harman said and

that is, the smart grid more than any one component of the system,

it is the heart of it. It is the essence of bringing all these things

together—reliability, cost reduction, environmental benefit. Let me

just say just a little about that. I will start extremely briefly with

the distribution system, then the transmission system, then talk

about the reach to retail customers through energy meters and I

will respond to some of the questions.

But very briefly. First, distribution systems in the country are

critical. They reach all the consumers. They are aging. They are old

technology. Designing them as we designed them in the past is just

absolutely insufficient. A transition in that respect will be costly

but it must be done. So just one example of what we are doing at

Southern California Edison and I believe it is leading the country

in most of these respects but we are now employing and will first

put into operation this summer something called the Avanti Circuit

so it is a distribution circuit. It will be installed and fully operational in July of this summer in San Bernardino County, enormously fast growing east of Los Angeles. To oversimplify, it incorporates the best, most advanced monitoring and control systems.

So that means something very simple. It means the kind of minor

disturbances to the electric system that turns people’s clocks off in

homes, for example, that affects businesses should be substantially

overcome. This is an initial 2,000 customers. It needs to go much

further but it is beginning. I wanted to say this was a test program. My engineers say don’t say it is a test program, it is really

the real thing, it will go further. That is distribution. I could talk

much more about that.

Let me talk about transmission, the large wires that carry electricity and necessarily across a large region. So transmission has

a long way to go, again a fundamentally not very sophisticated system. It is not a dumb system but is at best a half smart system.

What needs to be done? Well, let me talk about one thing we are
105

doing: synchronous phasor measurement developed by engineers

with the help of the Electric Power Research Institute and others.

We have now installed this new means of providing instantaneous

reads on stress across a very large regional transmission system.

We have installed them at our 500kV substations, some smaller

substations. They allow us now, and this is brand new, everything

I am talking about is brand new, to take readings on stresses on

the system 30 times a second. So that is appropriate to the speed

of electricity. It allows our manual operators of the system to get

these reads, we act faster, identify problems. Over the next 2 to 5

years we will put in the automation system that allows this means

of identifying from multiple sources stresses on the system and an

automated response. That is the kind of thing that needs to be

done at the transmission level.

Then let me turn to the retail level, the consumer level. The electric meters, there is talk about them. I think there should be no

misunderstanding about the degree of which they need to be developed further so the meters that were available in the market as recently as 1 year ago were not cost-effective on our system. They are

a modest improvement but still largely analog. Not a whole array

of features of the best sort can be drawn from the computer world,

Silicon Valley, so we declined to go ahead with those meters and

instead use the base of 5 million meters that we will install and

we have reliably committed to install them and challenge vendors

to come forth and we set out specifications for an array of services

and capabilities in these meters. And the very good news is that

we have in our labs right now from eight manufacturers meters

that we believe will meet our specifications for interoperability, for

two-way communication, for an array of quality consumer-friendly

services as well as smart grid friendly services. The key is tying

it all together. It needs to be integrated. So what we see with this

new capability is the installation on our system for an estimated

$1.3 billion, so a large investment, starting next year and over 4

years across all our customers, not just large businesses, small

businesses, residential customers. These meters will do lots of

things and we don’t have time to describe them all but kind of the

immediate thing they do is what others have referred to and that

is time-sensitive or time-abuse pricing that will allow consumers to

better manage their energy, better manage their bills, respond to

price signals. Costs are relatively high of electricity, that is certainly true in our area in California, but we want to engage consumers in helping us manage the system. So simply put, one of the

most expensive things on an electric system is building power

plants that are used only occasionally to meet peak load needs. The

meters can help with that. They can do multiple other things. I am

getting the time signal so I will stop there but I can take that further. There are large environmental as well as reliability benefits.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryson follows:]

TESTIMONY OF JOHN BRYSON

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee.
106

I am John Bryson, the chairman, CEO and president of Edison International, the

parent company of the regulated utility Southern California Edison and the competitive power generation business Edison Mission Group.

My message to you today is that a high-tech world can no longer afford a lowtech electricity grid. We must together build the smart electricity grid of the future.

This will require substantial capital investment in the modernization of our transmission and distribution systems, and in the replacement of the dinosaurs of our

industry—analog household electricity meters—with state of the art digital meters.

We are fortunate that in California our public officials have provided the necessary

regulatory environment to make these investments possible. I’m pleased to have the

opportunity to share a few observations from our experience.

I’ll begin my comments by addressing the application of smart grid technology to

the transmission and distribution system before focusing my comments on our advanced metering initiative.

At SCE, our distribution system—the component of the electricity grid that delivers power directly to most customers—is both aging and growing. In response, and

with the support of the California Public Utilities Commission, we are making capital investments in the system at an all-time high rate.

We should not, however, continue to invest in the same old circuit designs. Even

momentary interruptions can now cause significant economic loss for business customers. And residential customers using more digital home electronics have understandably higher expectations for service. The old standards are not good enough.

An early example of the smart grid’s potential will be a 12 kV circuit that will

become operational this July serving 2000 customers in the San Bernardino area.

Called the Avanti Circuit, it will feature a large array of advanced monitoring and

control capabilities and will interface with our new smart meters. What will that

mean for customers? Current distribution technology can now take more than a

minute to locate and isolate a problem on the system. The Avanti Circuit will do

the job in seconds, limiting outages and improving reliability.

At the transmission level, we now have sophisticated new tools to measure stress

on the system, including a new early warning system called Synchronous Phasor

Measurement in which SCE leads the Nation. Over the next two to five years, we

will increasingly have the ability to act on this warning system with faster and

more sophisticated control technology. The result will be substantially improved system reliability.

Let me give you a sense of how significant this is. If the technology I just described had existed in August 2003, the Northeast blackout, which affected 50 million customers, some for as many as four days, would likely have been largely controlled.

These same advances will also facilitate the continued development of renewable

power. The smart grid will be better able to react to the variability of wind and

solar generation by activating other resources, dampening peak demand, and

smoothing out disruptions. This is particularly important to us, since SCE leads the

Nation with nearly 17 percent of our generation coming from renewable sources.

The feature of smart grid technology most immediately visible to customers will

be the advanced electricity meter. This is a game-changer for our industry.

Through our advanced metering infrastructure effort, which we call Edison

SmartConnect, every household in our service territory will be equipped with a truly

state of the art ‘‘smart’’ all-digital electricity meter. These new meters will actually

be small but powerful computers and communication systems.

Among many benefits, smart meters will allow time-of-use electricity pricing for

all customers, including small business and residential. Time-of-use pricing will create powerful incentives for customers to save money by shifting their use to off-peak

hours when electricity costs are much lower. Customers will be able to interface

with these meters through their home computers to develop efficient usage patterns

that can help reduce their electric bills.

In a few years, it will likely be common to see signs in appliance stores labeling

household devices as ′′communicating.′′ Communicating thermostats already exist.

Soon we will have communicating dishwashers, electric dryers, refrigerators and

pool pumps. Some customers will program their appliances to respond to the smart

meters and automatically reduce usage when power costs rise. Others will sign up

for programs that allow the utility to control many of their appliances remotely

when needed, in exchange for guaranteed additional cost savings.

Let me spend a few moments emphasizing the importance of this benefit. One of

the keys to meeting our Nation’s power needs in an environmentally friendly way—

along with a large increase in generation from renewable sources and the commercialization of new clean generation technologies—is the substantial expansion of energy efficiency and demand response programs.
107

California and Edison International have led the way in both. We lead the Nation’s utilities in helping our customers save electricity through energy efficiency

programs. Since the Department of Energy started tracking energy efficiency in

1992, we have helped our customers conserve more than nine million megawatthours of electricity. To put this number in some perspective, that’s enough to power

1.1 million homes for a year.

The CPUC has long supported this effort both by the commitment of program

funds and also at a more fundamental level through ratemaking that decouples

sales and revenue. For utilities this increases our risks because it requires more frequent rate cases, but constructive regulation makes it work in California.

Edison also has the largest demand response program in California. When needed, we can call on more than 1,000 megawatts of interruptible power. That’s roughly

equivalent to the size of a large power plant. It has the additional benefit of being

spread across our service territory, which helps us manage the grid more effectively

during times of peak demand.

Peak consumption levels are a key factor in determining generating capacity requirements, so managing peak load is essential to controlling the need to build expensive new power plants. We see demand response programs therefore as an absolutely vital part of our effort to provide cost-effective and cleaner power to customers.

After a one-in-fifty-year heat wave hit in Southern California last July, the CPUC

very appropriately challenged us to increase substantially customer participation in

our demand response programs. We responded with an enrollment push that since

August of last year has added 58,000 new customers, bringing total participation

to more than 250,000 customers. The added potential for load relief associated with

those new enrollments is 105 megawatts, bringing total potential relief to nearly

500 megawatts. By the time summer arrives, we expect an additional 70 megawatts.

Here is the key point: We added this capacity in less than a year, far less than time

than it would take to build a generating station or transmission line.

We can achieve even more in this area and we see advanced metering as a significant step forward. When fully deployed, we estimate that Edison SmartConnect

could reduce peak demand on our system by as much as 1,000 megawatts, essentially doubling our current portfolio.

It is important to note that participation in time-of-use and other pricing options

will be completely voluntary. Some customers will surely choose not to participate

and thus forego any direct benefits, although they may still benefit if SCE is able

to defer the costs associated with building new generation.

Smart meters can offer other potentially significant benefits as well.

They will enable faster outage response. With the aid of our new meters, dispatchers will know immediately when and where an outage occurs. Crews will be able

to respond faster.

All customers will benefit from improved customer service and service automation. For example, the residential meters include a service switch that provides the

ability to remotely turn-on our customers; service—a real benefit for the more than

one million customers who move each year.

For example, wind energy generally peaks in the early morning hours and solar

energy generally peaks mid-day, so any shift in usage to those off-peak hours facilitates the future use of new solar and especially new wind power.

These new meters are compatible with future plug in hybrid vehicles which offer

the promise of replacing petroleum consumption with clean electric power. A soon

to be released EPRI study will quantify the savings in greenhouse gases and other

pollutants from this shift. Even using power from traditional coal plants to charge

a plug in hybrid is environmentally superior (for CO2 and criteria pollutants) to

driving a regular Toyota Prius. This trend increases over time as newer, clean generating plants replace older, less efficient ones.

Just as importantly, integrating all these meters to a single open standards based

system provides utilities additional communication and pricing tools and flexibility

to respond to outages and emergencies in a far less disruptive manner than rolling

blackouts.

A little more than a year ago, no existing meter technology met our requirements

for cost effectiveness and customer benefits. So we used the prospect of a five million meter purchase by SCE to drive the development of technology that met our

requirements for open standards and future flexibility.

Our strategy was successful and as a result new meters and communication networks from several manufacturers are being tested right now by SCE technicians.

Field tests will be underway by the end of the year. And by 2013 we plan to install

five million advanced meters with the largest array of customer-service features offered by any utility in the United States.
108

Beginning with the first meter installations in 2008, we expect a transition period

of learning and assessment. Large commercial and industrial customers (above

200KW) have already received smart meters, so we have already begun to climb the

learning curve.

Edison SmartConnect meters are a completely new breed. They contain two way

communication capabilities and advanced software and computer capabilities that

make them entirely different than the previous generation of meters. Edison International along with a number of other utilities has been working with the House

Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee on new tax policies

that better reflect the nature of the new generation of high technology metering

equipment.

Just last week, at a first-of-its-kind conference sponsored by the U.S. Department

of Energy and others here in Washington, SCE received one of the inaugural awards

for ‘‘Outstanding Leadership for the Advancement of a Smart Grid.’’ We were the

only utility to be recognized.

None of this would be possible without the full support and backing of the California Public Utilities Commission, which to its great credit saw the potential value

of the Edison SmartConnect program and is strongly encouraging the other utilities

in the state to adopt the same fully digital technology.

Thank you.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Bryson.

Ms. Zibelman.

STATEMENT OF AUDREY A. ZIBELMAN, CHIEF OPERATING

OFFICER, PJM INTERCONNECTION, NORRISTOWN, PA

Ms. ZIBELMAN. Thank you, Chairman Boucher and to the members of the committee. We are absolutely delighted to be here today

and are very pleased that the committee is embracing the recognition that the smart grid is actually going to be a very critical element if we are going to meet our goals of having an independent

energy future and one that keeps electricity both affordable and environmentally sustainable, and we have provided written comments

but let me summarize.

Like Mr. Bryson, I wanted to talk in terms of real time, since

PJM is the real-time operator, of how we see the smart grid innovation helping us do what we need to do, and the two things that

PJM needs to do most is, we operate a reliable grid 7 days a week,

24 hours a day, and in an area that serves 13 States plus the District of Columbia, which is about 51 million people and represents

about 19 percent of the GDP. And the other thing we look at is,

we look at how do we manage the markets to continuously optimize

the efficiency of the investment we make both in terms of providing

affordable electricity but also in terms of taking advantage of renewables and other types of investment so that we see true innovation in the marketplace. And with that, let me talk about the two

things that we see the smart grid doing. One is clearly improving

reliability. As Representative Dingell and as all the panelists I

think have said, electricity is a real-time product. It is at the speed

of light which means we can’t move faster that the speed of light.

That means from our operators, in order to keep the grid in balance, they always have to anticipate what is the next event that

can create a disturbance and then they operate in order to secure

against that next event. The more information you can get in the

hands of the operator so that they can anticipate that next event

quicker, they can respond quicker and that is through automation,

and if we do that, what that means is, you are operating the transmission system at its actual limits, not some predictable limits, and
109

if you do that, what you are doing is, you are producing greater efficiency of the grid, you are having to produce less electricity in

order to manage the grid responsibly, and the net effect is reduced

prices, greater optimization, and if you are producing less energy

from carbon-producing resources, a better environment. So there is

no question it is going to improve reliability. The automation also

helps us against blackouts. One of the things that happens with a

blackout is, if you can’t see what is going on, you might have a cascading event like we saw in 2003. A smart grid allows the grid to

essentially heal itself. We call it grid sectionalization so that we island the system and we don’t create the cascading failures. That

certainly helps the economy, it certainly helps the security and allows us to restore the grid because it is a physical machine, it will

have disturbances, and the issue is just like any other machine we

operate, how do we optimize it, and it is the intelligence and the

smarts that allows us to do that.

The second is of course in terms of economic efficiency. Over the

last several years PJM has begun in its markets to include a revenue source for demand response that is equal to the types of revenue sources we provide generators and we have had a tremendous

increase in the amount of demand response in our markets. Again,

what we do is, we keep electricity in balance by either increasing

generation output or decreasing demand output. When by setting

the price signals from the wholesale market to industrial load and

other providers, what they will do is, they will respond to that price

and reduce their take in response to that price. The benefit is that

they are actually paid from the market at the incremental energy

price but the fact is that by reducing demand, they reduce the demand curve, the supply curve and therefore we produce less expensive energy to relieve load. To give you an example, last year during our peak week, the first week in August 2006, PJM paid demand providers approximately $5 million from the energy market

to reduce demand during the pricing peak. These are voluntary

participants who have said this is my price point and I will reduce

my demand during these prices. As a result of that, we are able

to reduce the demand curve, and over the course of that week we

calculated that the cost savings to the market represented approximately $650 million. So from the market perspective, we provide

demand responders a payment of $5 million. As a result of their

reduced demand, the peak prices in the market drop about $650

million, which we think is a fairly decent investment. The same

time during that time because we were reducing the production of

energy, we were able to save large gas and oil and we calculated

that equivalated to about 13,000, to 14,000 barrels of oil or about

227,000 MCF of natural gas.

So the net effect is pretty clear. Demand response is the cheapest

way to keep the energy system in balance. If we can do it this way,

if we can provide these types of price signals to customers, then

they could become active participants in the market, and while we

are talking at the wholesale level, if we do it with our retail providers, they can work with their residential customers and the customers then, we have a conversion from electricity being a commodity to a service and where customers will be able to dictate how
110

much they want to buy, at what price, from whom, during what

hours. For us, that is the way of the future.

Again, thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions

[The prepared statement of Ms. Zibelman follows:]

TESTIMONY OF AUDREY ZIBELMAN

I wish to thank Chairman Boucher and the Sub-Committee on Energy and Air

Quality for inviting PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) to address you on this very

important subject. We are encouraged that the subcommittee recognizes the importance of gathering information on the need to transform our Nation’s transmission

infrastructure into the Smart Grid of the 21st Century as a key element of ensuring

the country’s energy independent future.

PJM is responsible for ensuring the reliable and non-discriminatory planning and

operations of the transmission grid and the fair and efficient administration of the

real-time wholesale electric market that serves 51 million people in an area that includes 13 States plus the District of Columbia. PJM operates the high voltage electric power grid in all or parts of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,

the District of Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio,

Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Tennessee. It is an area of the Nation that, standing

alone, represents approximately 19 percent of the Nation’s Gross Domestic Product.

The power system under PJM’s control is the largest in North America and one of

the largest and most complex in the world. The PJM region incorporates 56,000

miles of transmission lines, 1,250 generating plants and 6,000 substations. PJM has

250 intertie points with adjacent systems in the Eastern Interconnection. This

means that along with managing the PJM system, our operators manage the seams

between PJM and seven adjacent electric systems. To put this in perspective, the

next most extensively interconnected power grid in the world is the transmission

system that serves France, which has 41 interties. To maintain reliability of the system, PJM has identified approximately $10 billion in new transmission investments

that will be required over the next 15-year planning period. When built, we believe

this transmission will help reduce current congestion on the system at a value that

will approximate $1 billion a year in savings.

The wholesale markets that PJM operates represent the largest competitive organized wholesale markets for electricity in the world. The PJM spot markets were

started in 1997 and in the last 10 years grew from $450 million to $23 billion in

annual revenues. Today, there are more than 450 members of PJM representing all

segments of the industry as well as financial and trading institutions that add liquidity to the marketplace. The buyers and sellers into and from the PJM Markets

also include many generators and load serving entities from adjacent regions, all of

whom benefit from the transparency and robustness of the marketplace.

The installed generation capacity in the PJM region currently exceeds 165,000

MW while the peak demand for the PJM region reached a record 144,644 MW in

August of 2006. This peak demand exceeded the peak achieved in 2005 by 10.627

MW. In short, in one year we saw an increase in peak load that is equal to the level

of generation that is required to serve a large American city. Although we do not

anticipate that sizeable an increase in peak demand each year, we do anticipate

load growth in the region to remain in the range of 1.5 percent annually over the

next 10 to 15 years. During this same period, we envision retirements of older, less

efficient generating units, which necessitates further development of new more efficient generation. Indeed, the pattern of retirement of older generating plants affected by environmental laws as well as the region’s increasing demand for electricity has created new challenges. If we tried to meet this increased demand for

electricity solely by building new generating plants, over the next 15 years this combination of factors could require as much as 55,000 MW of new generation investment, an amount equivalent to four large nuclear plants or coal plants being constructed every year.

To summarize, the industry challenges confronting the PJM community are reflective of those we are experiencing throughout the Nation. We are an electricity-dependent economy. The demand for electricity continues to rise reflecting a growing

digital age economy. Yet, we have an aging infrastructure that will require significant new investment in all segments of the industry, from the fuel input to the customer meter. We also must actively consider how we can help achieve the energy

independence that the country demands, while continuing to focus on maintaining

fair and affordable electric prices and reducing our carbon footprint. We are in a

period when we cannot afford to ignore the contributions of any segment of the industry to our energy policy objectives. In fact, based on PJM’s perspectives as a grid
111

operator and market administrator, we believe that the transformation of the bulk

power transmission system to a Smart Grid of the 21st century should be considered

part of the foundation of meeting America’s energy policy and climate change objectives. I am attaching a brochure which was part of PJM’s recently released Strategic

Report. It is designed to explain the Smart Grid in understandable terms for the

general public.

With this in mind, my remaining testimony will focus on four primary areas:

1. The PJM vision of the Smart Grid;

2. How Smart Grid implementation can increase reliable, secure and efficient system operations;

3. How a Smart Grid will enable true consumer participation in the electric marketplace as a means of gaining greater environmental benefit and affordable electric

prices; and

4. The actions and public policy efforts we should focus on today to establish the

right platforms for a 21st century electric power system.

1. THE PJM VISION OF THE SMART GRID

There are many industry definitions and descriptions of the Smart Grid. For PJM,

where we are required to keep the grid in balance 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,

the Smart Grid is not a theoretical concept or a ‘‘gee, it would be nice’’ item. PJM’s

perspective derives from its dual focus on continuously looking for ways to improve

secure, reliable and efficient grid operations, while assuring a robust competitive

wholesale electric market that supports Federal and state energy policies. PJM’s vision of a Smart Grid encompasses the transformation of the interconnected electric

system in three critical ways: • Ensuring a Multi-Directional Grid: The industry needs to transition from today’s radial system linking generation to load to a true network with full

connectivity and interoperability. The goal of this change will be to allow horizontal

interconnectivity all the way through the energy value chain—from fuel management through to the end customer energy use. We have achieved much of this

connectivity goal in telecommunications, yet are only beginning to work on this in

the electricity sector; • Moving to a Digital Grid: We will need to convert from today’s electro-mechanical grid to a digital system that supports information and automation-enabled grid

assets. The objective of this conversion is to allow for more efficient, cost-effective

and secure system operations; • Moving to an Interactive Grid: The grid of the future will require two-way

communication between the system operator and the end-user. The objective of twoway communication is to convert end-users from passive to active participants in the

marketplace.

Each of these elements will be a necessary component of implementing Federal

and state energy policies.

2. Developing a grid that promotes a more reliable, secure and cost effective electric transmission system

The interconnected electric system is often alternatively described as either a single complex engine comprised of generators, transmission and distribution systems

and end-user devices or an ecosystem with many interdependent elements. In either

case, there are four fundamental attributes of the interconnected system that help

explain the value of a transformation to a Smart Grid. First, is the fact that the

system is interconnected. As the Nation learned again on August 14, 2003, an uncontrolled disturbance on one part of the system can cascade and impact large segments of the grid. A second attribute reflects that electricity is a speed of light product. Operators today must always operate the system in anticipation of what might

happen next. Third, electricity is the only commodity that is consumed at the same

time it is produced. At least at this time, large scale storage of electricity is not

practical or economical. Fourth, the information environment required to operate

and control the system is extraordinarily sophisticated. The information requirements of the grid continues to grow. Today, PJM employs an energy management

system that processes about 88,000 bits of information every two to three seconds.

This information need will grow in magnitude as we add more diverse demand side

and generation resources on the system. The challenge for grid owners and operators is to make certain that we maintain the sophistication to be able to instantaneously translate this data into the information operators will need to perform their

jobs.

PJM’s Smart Grid vision contemplates transitioning the system from one which

is highly dependent on human interaction to a system that is highly monitored and

provides human operators with the best of current and future computing technology.
112

Advanced transmission technologies such as super conducting and other devices that

are also considered part of the Smart Grid will further produce a system that is capable of moving energy more efficiently than the current system allows.

There are several direct benefits of this transformation. First, having a highly

monitored transmission system will enable the grid itself to better optimize the performance of the system than can be accomplished today. Voltage and current can

be monitored continuously and the system will be able to automatically adjust performance of the component parts. This will in turn allow operators the ability to

manage the throughput on the system more accurately and efficiently. The societal

benefits will include a more secure and efficient system from both an economic and

environmental perspective. These objectives will be accomplished through the reduction of unaccounted-for energy, the reduction of transmission congestion since the

grid assets will be operated at higher and more accurate limits, and the more efficient use of generation resources. In other words, to use our engine analogy, consumer demands will be met by a better running and operated machine.

The presence of monitoring devices will also increase the asset management capabilities of owners. By deploying a Smart Grid, owners will not be required to send

employees in the field to identify potential problems on the system. Rather, they

will have better information about the state of the system and be able to better target employees’ repair and restoral efforts. This will in turn allow owners and operators improved capability to assure the reliability of the system at lower costs.

A Smart Grid also provides operators a better and more rapid opportunity to anticipate disturbances on the system. Today, operators have limited control over the

entirety of the grid (which includes the distribution system as well as the high voltage transmission grid) and still make many emergency decisions over the telephone.

The grid of the future will have pervasive control systems and rely on secure computers to help identify the best step to take if there is a potential disturbance created by a failed generator or transformer or line outage on the system. System operators will also be able to rely on secure and distributed computing capabilities to

develop sophisticated decision support analyses so that they can select the best solution to either optimize the system or to reduce the risk of system failure. We call

this a fast look-ahead simulation. The benefits are to provide greater predictability

and security. This again allows operators to optimize the operations and secure the

system at a much greater level of granularity and certainty.

The third advantage of a Smart Grid becomes readily apparent when there is in

fact a significant disturbance. One critical goal of the Smart Grid is known as

‘‘islanding’’ or grid-sectionalization. This occurs when there is a disturbance. In

these circumstances, pre-identified solutions will cause the affected part of the grid

to ‘‘island’’ itself into defined self-sustaining regions. This avoids the type of cascading failures we witnessed in 2003 and also, when there is a failure, allows for much

quicker and easier restoration. In turn, our economy and society as a whole realizes

the direct benefit of a reduction in the risk and costs of widespread blackouts.

3. The Smart Grid will help reduce electric prices and produce environmental benefit by promoting a customer-centric electric energy marketplace

One of the primary lessons that PJM has learned repeatedly over the last ten

years is that the information ubiquity provided by organized markets is the single

most important factor differentiating well-functioning markets. With accurate and

timely market information about the value of their generating asset to the marketplace, owners of generation operate their generating assets more efficiently which,

in turn, makes electricity available at lower costs to consumers. With timely and

accurate pricing information, the grid works better. PJM operators are able to find

ways to optimize the system continuously by dispatching the lowest priced generator

among a broad diversity of resources. Information availability and markets also allows greater diversity of resources and innovation. Wind generators and other forms

of interruptible resources can compete more efficiently in the marketplace by participating on their own terms—not terms dictated by traditional utility operations.

Finally, and most importantly, we have also learned in the last several years, that

with real time information ubiquity provided by markets, end-use customers have

the opportunity to participate in the electricity market and as a result save money

and contribute to a cleaner environment.

As I mentioned, one of the chief attributes that contributes to the complexity of

the electric power system is that electricity is not able to be stored in large quantities. To keep the lights on, the operator must keep the system in balance—which

on a real-time basis means continuously increasing or decreasing the output of generators to meet the electric demands of customers and the economy as a whole. In

a competitive market, we accomplish this objective by selecting the generators based

on their price—and in the absence of reliability requirements—the generator payment is based on the lowest incremental price offered for that time period.
113

Until the last several years, competition in the electric industry has largely been

characterized by the ability of customers to choose among generators at the wholesale level and, in certain states, suppliers at the retail level. However, several years

ago, PJM and its members changed the characteristic of the wholesale market by

starting to match every source of revenues provided to generators that sell their energy and capacity into the market to a similar revenue source for load customers

who are willing to sell their demand into the market.

As I stated, as a reliability operator, PJM’s responsibility is to make certain that

generation and load are in balance. As an independent market administrator, we

are indifferent whether that next megawatt of change occurs because we are increasing generation or decreasing load. When operating the grid in real time, PJM

is also indifferent to the next megawatt of supply or demand that is produced or

saved due to the operations of a central station power plant, a wind generator, a

roof-top solar device, a stand-by combined cycle turbine at a manufacturing plant,

a restaurant dimming its lighting or a family turning down the air conditioner. For

the market and the system, that next megawatt has the same value. For customers

however, there is a clear difference—since the price of electricity varies depending

on the level of load on the system, reducing load by controlling demand allows us

to run less expensive generation which ultimately saves customers money.

The benefit, of course, is a more efficient economic marketplace, both in terms of

the economy and the environment. For example, during the week of extreme peak

conditions last August, PJM calculated that it paid demand providers approximately

$5 million to participate in reducing demand in the wholesale market. As a consequence, reducing that demand reduced the incremental price of electricity by approximately $650 million. On the assumption that during this period, PJM would

have been dispatching coal or oil plants, the savings could also be seen as a reduction of 1,367 tons of coal or 15,855 barrels of oil. Similarly, a study prepared by the

Brattle Group for PJM and a coalition of Mid-Atlantic State Commissions showed

that a modest reduction in electricity usage by 3% through demand response could

save consumers, on an extremely conservative basis, up to $182 million annually.

I would note that this calculation only involved a portion of the PJM region. However, for demand response to work most effectively, we must have the ability to

know with certainty that the load on the system is reducing in response to the price,

similar to what now occurs when generating units produce more or less electricity.

For PJM then the issue is a truly a no-brainer. We have an opportunity and, I

would suggest from a societal standpoint, an obligation to continue to promote demand response as a critical component of our electric market. The future as we

would like to see it requires transforming wholesale competition, which today is almost exclusively among generators of power, to a new form of competition where

customers are empowered, through interactive technology, to be able to select how

much electricity they want to purchase, at what price, from what vendor and at

what time. In other words, a truly customer-focused market that enables new technologies such as advanced metering, plug-in cars and distributed generation and

storage, will result in innovative new ways of providing electric service at a net benefit to the economy and the environment.

To achieve this vision, we will need certain key elements in place. First, and most

important, customers, whether directly or through an automatic metering device,

need to receive timely price information so that they know the value of reducing or

altering usage and can respond accordingly. Second, as the system operator, PJM

has to have accurate information that the load is responding to price—otherwise we

cannot guarantee reliability. Depending on the size of the customer load, this information can be provided directly or through the local utility. Third, since we are now

talking about numerous devices on the system working in concert (a true network),

we will need to make sure that these devices are interoperable. The PJM energy

management system, the brains of our network, must be able to use the same communication protocol whether that information is coming from a large central station

generator or an individual ‘‘smart’’ appliance in the home. Fourth, PJM and third

parties will need to develop the computing capability to optimize this system. Today,

PJM processes approximately 88,000 bits of information every two to three seconds.

In the future, as we operate the system as a complex network of centralized and

dispersed generators—in essence, an intelligent grid with active consumer participation—the information needs and the ability of computers to process that information

will increase significantly.

4. The actions and pubic policy efforts that will support Smart Grid development

PJM has identified several actions that we believe should be taken today to support development of the Smart Grid. There is no one government or business organization that can make the Smart Grid happen all at once. Rather, from our perspective there are activities that have to be taken at the Federal and state levels and
114

among all segments of the industry for the transformation to occur. With that said,

however, we believe that there are some first steps that Congress can and should

support:

• Development of a regional technology plan—Today PJM and its members and

stakeholders develop long-term regional transmission plans that are designed to

identify the transmission infrastructure required to assure reliability and economic

efficiency. We believe that for the Smart Grid to develop we should work with our

asset owners to develop a living technology plan to ensure that we have a coordinated, deliberate and realistic plan to make this transformation. In our view, this

collaboration is essential to make sure that, in the end, the installations that are

being made throughout the system will work together to achieve our common goals.

• Promotion of horizontal network systems, including standard communication

protocol and service oriented architecture—Industry and policy makers must support the development of a web-based communications network that uses service oriented architecture to enable the Smart Grid network. In other words, industry and

government must insist on the goal of interoperability to ensure that all devices on

the system are able to communicate. This is the same sort of common information

protocol that enabled the Internet. We believe that Congress can help ‘‘jump-start’’

this effort through encouraging the industry to develop uniform interoperability protocols, the equivalent of open network architecture that guided the development of

today’s telecommunications network. Today, there are a plethora of agencies with

jurisdiction over some part of the Smart Grid—ranging from state PUCs, to the Departments of Energy and Homeland Security to the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission. We believe that a coordinated effort among these agencies can help to

reinforce industry efforts at developing common protocols.

• Regulatory reform at multiple levels—We need to look at the current methods

in place to regulate retail and wholesale utilities and identify any and all impediments to Smart Grid implementation. For example, industry and regulators must

examine whether the timing and mechanisms currently used to recover capital assets are impediments to investment in new infrastructure and technology. We believe it is incumbent on regulators to examine methods for regulating retail utilities

which might inadvertently be serving as impediments to advancing energy efficiency

and demand response. If utilities are only economically rewarded for increasing

throughput and making new investment in traditional generation, transmission and

distribution plant, it will be difficult for them to embrace a regime where the goal

is less throughput and increased consumption efficiencies.

In closing, we are on the precipice of requiring billions of dollars of investment

in the electric industry, including billions of dollars in transmission infrastructure.

This investment is necessary to ensure the continuing reliability of our electric infrastructure and hence, the well being of our Nation’s economy. The challenge and

opportunity before us must be to ensure that investments in technology and infrastructure are transformational and will allow us to secure a reliable, economically

efficient and environmentally-responsible industry future.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Ms. Zibelman, and thank you to each

of the witnesses for what has been a very informative series of

presentations on your part. We have two votes pending on the

Floor of the House of Representatives and all of us are required to

respond to that. It is sometimes the most disagreeable thing I have

to do all day because I wind up leaving very interesting conversations such as this in order to do it. But we will be going to the

House floor, and my intention is to recess the subcommittee pending these two votes. We should be back in about a half-hour, and

so stay where you are, if you will. Leave the room if you like, just

come back in about a half-hour. And as soon as the last vote is

over, perhaps 5 minutes following that we will reconvene this hearing. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. BOUCHER. The subcommittee will come to order, and thanks

for everyone’s indulgence while we completed our business on the

House floor, at least for this period of the day, and I am going to
115

recognize myself for 8 minutes in order to propound a series of

questions to our witnesses.

Mr. Delurey, let me begin with you. We worked very closely with

you as we were placing in EPAct 2005, the energy bill that was

signed in August of that year, provisions relating to smart meters

and real-time pricing, and as you described in your testimony, that

provision required the States to at least consider putting in place

a regulation that would require real-time pricing and facilitate the

introduction of smart meters. In your testimony today, you indicated that the States have made some efforts to follow through on

those proceedings and consider rules, and I think you also said that

of the States that have done so, most have decided not to adopt

rules

Mr. DELUREY. That is correct.

Mr. BOUCHER. And I was somewhat concerned to hear that. Let

me get you, if you will, to tell us how many States have followed

the direction of EPAct 2005 and decided to undertake at least an

examination of whether or not a rule is necessary and how many

States are in that category, and among those that have started

such a proceeding, how many have decided to adopt rules and how

many have decided not to, and then finally, what is the reason that

the States have given for not adopting rules and what I take are

the very large number of instances where they have not?

Mr. DELUREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The provisions that

you speak of indeed established a requirement for all States as well

as jurisdictional bodies with respect to co-opportunities and municipal utilities and so on to conduct an investigation but also importantly to make a finding as to whether or not utilities under their

jurisdiction should be required to offer not just real-time rates but

time-based rates and the smart meters that are needed to go along

with them. The legislation gave them until August 2007 to complete their work and to make a finding so there are still a large

number of proceedings underway. By our count, approximately 14

States have completed their proceeding. Only one State has made

a definitive adoption, a clear adoption of the standards, but not all

the other States are complete rejection, at least I wouldn’t want to

characterize them, and this is what I referred to in my testimony

where I think these provisions have had a big impact in terms of

building awareness and visibility for this entire area and it has

had States looking into this that have clearly never looked into it

before but most have rejected it. Some have rejected it in a formal

way but they have requested that their utilities move forward in

certain directions so I want to be fair and state that.

In terms of why they haven’t done it, in some cases they have

stated, and this is factual, that they have had these types of rates

‘‘on the books’’ for a number of years and that customers don’t seem

to be interested in them. But again, I think that is looking backwards and not forwards. The type of metering technology we are

talking about today is what is available over the years and it was

very expensive to put a customer on these types of rates. So I think

those States incorrectly looked backwards to cast forward instead

of really assessing the current situation.

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, it is not a very encouraging report but I appreciate your making it nonetheless.
116

So let me ask the obvious question. What do we need to do now

in order to improve the situation and address the shortcomings

that exist and encourage both the time of use and real-time pricing

methodologies at the State level, and also encourage the greater deployment of the smart meters? What is our role in helping to narrow that gap and move all of this forward?

I would ask that question of everyone, not just one.

Mr. DELUREY. One of the things I would say, and this also perhaps is an additional answer to the question of why it hasn’t happened to a greater extent than it has, and that is, your average

State utility commission, I think the challenges of trying to put all

this together, the many moving parts of demand response and the

smart grid, the technologies, the prices and all of that, that can be

a challenging endeavor and I know from having witnessed some of

these proceedings that they haven’t necessarily had the resources,

the training, the technical assistance, the tools and so on to be able

to maybe do the best job that they would otherwise could have.

Mr. BOUCHER. So the State commissions need better resources in

order to carry this forward?

Mr. DELUREY. I believe so and I think that is an area where the

Congress could be of assistance.

Mr. BOUCHER. Do you have concrete recommendations for us on

that?

Mr. DELUREY. Well, again, as I noted in my oral remarks today

and in my testimony, I think there are vehicles by which you can

create that type of supportive infrastructure, if you will, to be able

to do that. I think whether it be through the establishment of a

new temporary commission and a national action plan in this area,

I think that is one way to do it. There are probably other ways as

well.

Mr. BOUCHER. All right. Would other witnesses care to comment?

Ms. Zibelman.

Ms. ZIBELMAN. A couple things that come to mind that we have

been talking about. One is this whole issue is just education and

I think with adding to it, as I was indicating, we measure the impact of demand response on the markets because we actually have

that price information. I think something that we would look forward to working with DOE and FERC and our States on is, how

do we get a consistent way of measuring it because if the States

could see the cost benefit, that would enable them to answer to

their constituents, why are we putting this new investment in,

what is the benefit back to us, so I think having a consistent way

of measuring it so everybody understands how to do it and then the

RTOs or the utilities can come up with these measuring devices.

We are already doing this with renewables when we measure emissions and I think adding this type of information would be helpful.

I think the second piece that we have identified is actually technological obsolescence. One of the problems, as you are well aware

from the telecommunications industry, of moving from copper wire

to fiber optics is how do you deal with old technology that is not

depreciated. So rather than actually tax incentives, I would think

that looking at the rules of depreciation and encouraging utilities

to invest more in technologies which will depreciate faster and hav-
117

ing the structures that support that would also be another way of

moving forward.

Mr. BOUCHER. Is there any need for national uniform standard

setting with regard to smart grid technologies?

Ms. ZIBELMAN. Absolutely. The other issue is, I think looking at

the national standard setting and the various agencies that are

going to be interested in that like Homeland Security, DOE and

FERC and coordinating that. We think it is going to be very important. Our issue, as the witness from IBM said, is going to be interoperability. It makes no sense for a retail utility to put a meter on

and that the device of that meter can’t communicate back to the

brains of the energy management system and vice versa. And so

we need to move to an open architecture system, very much like

we have seen in telecommunications, and we need to make sure,

insist on interoperability among all these devices, which is a common information protocol and something this Congress can do is insist on that as the first stage of developing the smart grid.

Mr. BOUCHER. Should we designate a lead agency, the FERC, for

example?

Ms. ZIBELMAN. I think that looking at the national institute

standards, maybe with coordination of the DOE. The challenge

with the FERC is that they don’t regulate all the potential providers, namely municipals and co-ops, so I think if you have a broader-based energy working with the FERC as well as Homeland Security would be a good way to go.

Mr. BOUCHER. OK. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Yeager, we will hear from you.

Mr. YEAGER. Based on my own experience, I would underscore

the fact that you have a cultural issue in the regulatory community

to deal with. The regulators and their staffs view themselves in effect as the agent of the customer and the customers are

commoditized, if you will, behind that. So any time you talk about

reducing that role and being the representative, you run into resistance. So I think what you have to recognize is that is part of

the culture. I saw it in California and I have seen it in other States

as well.

Mr. BOUCHER. OK. Dr. Howard.

Mr. HOWARD. Let me just reinforce a couple of comments that

have already been made. From what we are seeing, there is not a

uniform standard and it is something that is certainly needed. I

spoke last week at Grid Week that was here in Washington about

the importance of a uniform standard so that you could have plug

and play, whether it is the meter or it is an air conditioner or

something else. If we didn’t have that in the computer industry,

just imagine what it would be like on a USB port. We wouldn’t

have one. And so we must move in that direction on the smart grid,

and part of what we are doing with our IntelliGrid Initiative is to

help reinforce that and lay out the blueprint that would help develop some of these standards, and I know that Mr. Bryson, his

utility is certainly leading that by looking at what they are doing

on their advanced meter and trying to standardize some of these

so that they are interoperable, they communicate together and they

tie with all the other devices that fit on the grid so that you can
118

truly have millions of sensors that work together, communicate together to optimize the whole system.

Mr. BOUCHER. From my work in telecommunications, I am aware

of the IEEE and the outstanding job it does just on the private side

in national standard setting for new technologies. Is there a role

for IEEE or some parallel organization to help with this?

Mr. HOWARD. Absolutely. In fact, we have been heavily involved

in several of those activities and working with other government

agencies and utilities but we all have to come together to develop

the right standard and——

Mr. BOUCHER. You are saying it is not happening fast enough?

Mr. HOWARD. It is not happening fast enough. That is correct.

Mr. BOUCHER. And so government has a role to play in order to

facilitate it moving forward more quickly?

Mr. HOWARD. Well, there is a role that the government would

play along with the utilities. Even manufacturers of equipment

have to come together and focus on a standard being implemented,

and that was a big part of my statement last week at Grid Week.

Mr. BOUCHER. All right. I think we understand that. I am trespassing on other members’ time here.

Mr. Gammons, can you be very brief?

Mr. GAMMONS. Just one comment. Most of the times that standards are adopted, it is driven by the industry itself so it is really

implicitly needed that the utilities, the consumers of these products

demand the standards. There are a lot of standards, both international standards and U.S.-based standards that are out there

and working very well. The real key is for the industry to demand

those standards and the interoperability and that will drive the

standards change. That has been key in every industry.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you all very much.

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is great to have you all here. I would concur based upon the

years here that we have to have national uniform standards, especially if we move to hopefully a distributed system. Otherwise that

inhibits all the advancements and I think that is something that

we will work on with the chairman to ensure that. I have got some

questions that my staff didn’t feed me. There is a debate. On the

next panel I have got one individual from the Illinois Commerce

Commission and of course Illinois is going through some interesting electricity issues so let me just pose this question. I am a competitive market guy and I like wholesale wielding of power, retail

folks, but the question I pose is, are we best to get to this new era

with the investment required through a regulated monopoly or is

the competitive market system the best way to get to this next generation of how we I think produce power because that is on one end

but also consume it and manage it on the other. And if you can be

real brief because the chairman only gave me 5 minutes, and anyone who wants to address that issue. Monopolistic system or a competitive market model? Mr. Yeager?

Mr. YEAGER. Thank you, sir. The Galvin Electricity Initiative

started by Bob Galvin, one of the leaders in your State, is really

based on opening up the system to entrepreneurial competition just
119

as was done with telecommunications and computing, and it is in

fact the last network industry that is in this closed monopoly position. There is a great deal of private money out there that can increase the quality and reliability of service with the creation of

microgrids that connect the bulk power grid to the consumer,

bringing in all the technologies that my colleagues here at the table

have talked about but applying them in a private sector environment that really raises the quality bar on electricity. It uses the

bulk power grid as the primary energy source but does not be constrained by the reliability and quality—there are tremendous numbers of very large entities in the private sector who both need and

are prepared to provide and help in that whole effort.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Anyone else? And please be quick if you can. Go

ahead. Just go left to right.

Mr. DELUREY. I will just quickly say that with demand response

and smart metering, in one sense it doesn’t matter in terms of

making it happen. You can do it under a traditional vertically regulated system or you can do it in a competitive system. One note of

history——

Mr. SHIMKUS. But the real question is capital formation. How do

you get the money and is that through a regulated price increase

set by the commission or by a market response on a return on investment?

Mr. BRYSON. We have competitive power generation in Illinois

there. We have the regulated utility in California. I think California has taken a reasonably good approach to this mix of competition where there are competitive advantages. There are opportunities with a competitive system to introduce new products and drive

costs and innovation, and having a regulated distributed system so

they can work effectively together, it is a question of thinking hard

about which works best and which model so fundamentally the distribution system as a system that serves universally everybody is

driven by forces that innovation bring I think are working well in

California. Certainly that has contributed to our leadership on all

the smart grid technology.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great.

Ms. Zibelman.

Ms. ZIBELMAN. I would echo. The way we look at it is, the distribution system will remain regulated but unless you have the

competitive markets that support the prices to the devices, you

won’t get the customer response and so you do need to continue on

the march towards competition and true innovation.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And innovation, it is easy when you build a new

home to put in the new technology and the wiring stuff but it is

folks like me who have a home, want to stay there and then rewiring, reconnecting and stuff to get to a smart system and that is

where we come in with maybe tax incentives and how we do that.

Ms. ZIBELMAN. And I think though that is where you can change

the model because if you have competition, it may not be that the

homeowner actually makes the investment but that somebody else

looks at your load and realizes that is valuable in the market and

actually pays you for your load, which is as valuable to the market

as generation. And so you are changing the model of the industry
120

from a commodity model to a service model and that is really

where the true innovation I think will occur.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And Mr. Chairman, if I may, with one last question. I also serve on the Telecommunications Subcommittee. We see

a convergence obviously in all this stuff in the digital age. There

is a lot of debate about high-speed Internet access over electric

wires. That is all part of this, isn’t it? Or could it be? Because if

you are able to send digital information over the current distribution and transmission system, then that will help us in the interactivity that has to be done with the metering systems and the individual appliances. Is that a correct analysis?

Mr. DELUREY. I would say that is correct. There is a number of

different communications technologies that all compete today—

power line technologies, wireless radio frequency—and in terms of

your own home, your existing home, there is a lot of work that has

been done for in-home wireless devices that allow the meter to talk

to other devices in the home as well as through the existing power

lines within your home.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus.

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Harman, is recognized for

5 minutes.

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the testimony

of our witnesses exceeded expectations. This is a fascinating subject

and I continue to believe that if we only do one thing, this is what

we should do. But if course we should do more than one thing.

Mr. Kamen, you have charmed us all and all of us want to learn

more about what you do. I just had a thought that maybe one of

your little black boxes ought to be used to power Congress. We generate a lot of wasted heat here and some would even say we can

produce cow dung, and what we need here is some light. So I would

just like you to think about this. It might be a project that would

be worthy.

I have lots of questions but limited time and I do want to direct

a question to John Bryson. I hosted an energy expo in California

a couple of weeks ago at the large green industrial facility that

Toyota has and I think it is the largest green industrial building

in America and I commend Toyota for that. Edison was one of the

exhibitors and participated in panels on what individuals can do

and what are the big policy issues on climate change. But there

was a guy outside with his plug-in hybrid and he showed how he

had improved the engine of what was a hybrid car to add the electric feature and he said that his total energy costs per year for his

car and his house, which had solar panels on the roof, was $44. So

in 3 minutes and 18 seconds, I would love to hear what these

smart technologies could do to move us all along to plus-in hybrids

and other car engines that would eliminate our dependence on oil

and give us clean and abundant energy.

Mr. BRYSON. I appreciate the question and I will try to do it

within 3 minutes. This is an enormously exciting period of time for

those of us that love this field. We see electric transportation as

transforming. It can’t take place unless it is enabled by a smart

grid. It just won’t happen. So we have to have the capacity as soon

as possible to price to customers in ways that reflect our true cost,
121

and since our true costs are so very low through the night, the

plug-in electric vehicle is a natural complement to an electric system. And by the way, the electric system is so much more controlled environmentally than, for example, the existing or future

generations of conventional gasoline-powered automobiles.

It doesn’t matter what section of the country you are talking

about, even let us say it is coal-fired power generation, the controls

are sufficient that generating electricity as a transportation fuel

has huge environmental benefits even with the dirtiest source of

traditional fuels for electricity.

But what can happen, wait for 15 years, have this lack of transportation work in California? Now Ford Motors says it will come

forth by 2010 with a plug-in electric vehicle. General Motors has

a similar time frame. Toyota doesn’t announce but you know Toyota is doing a lot in this area so there has been a kind of monopoly

on gasoline and petroleum as fuels for vehicles. That will change.

The U.S. Department of Energy itself did this study. It is an amazing study that said we had this fundamentally wasted resource in

the electric grid because so much of it is built to serve only those

needle-peak times like California in the summertime when it is so

strikingly hot. In the inland we demand all the electricity. The rest

of it goes to waste. The electric vehicles could tie into that, reflect

the low cost of adding service to them with overnight in the garage,

simple plug-in. We could empower, the Department of Energy says,

over 70 percent. It just won’t happen but it is an image, over 70

percent of the vehicles existing today could be transformed into

electric vehicles and no additional demand on the infrastructure of

the electric system. So high productivity, you bring in the additional revenues, you bring down costs for everybody, so it would be

economical, it would be environmentally beneficial and it would

provide transportation alternatives.

Finally, as you know, Congresswoman Harman, it is not just vehicles. There has to be electrification of transportation in Los Angeles simply to meet air quality standards. The ports have to change.

Idling trucks in truck stops have to change. So electrification with

a smart grid can make a huge difference. Oh, by the way, the last

point, on the sell back, we have at Southern California Edison a

new program that would allow, for example, plug-in electric vehicles, solar on rooftops, to sell back into our system and reduce their

net bill.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Harman.

The ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from

Texas, Mr. Barton, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to take

that much time. I have got to go to the Texas delegation lunch so

I will just make a few comments more than a question. I think this

is an excellent area that we can work together on with the stakeholders because it has such potential. The only problem I see is the

perennial problem, do we preempt the States as we do this, but it

is obvious that there is emerging technology and technologies that

are about to emerge that would make our grid much more efficient

and market sensitive, time sensitive in terms of pricing and things

like this. So you have got three panels. I will try to get back for

one of the other panels later this afternoon but this is a very in-
122

formative, fact-based hearing and it is the kind of thing that we

need to be doing, and I want to commend our witnesses for being

here, especially Mr. Kamen, who I have worked with before on

some of his innovations for handicapped folks. I think we have got

a winner in this hearing today.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Barton.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, is recognized for

8 minutes.

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a fascinating hearing, and thank you to all our panelists. I

was just telling my good friend Jane Harman here that Mr.

Kamen, I would like to have one of your little boxes in my home

in Pittsburgh but I can’t figure out where to put the cow. I guess

that is a technology issue.

Actually, we are delighted to have you here. I co-chair the Distributed Generation Caucus with my good friend Lee Terry from

Nebraska and like you, I believe that distributed generation technology can, should and must play an important role here, and you

know, when you look at some of the barriers to widespread deployment of distributed generation, it includes, No. 1, just a lack of

public understanding about the benefits of distributed generation,

the higher cost up front to the consumer and the lack of ability to

sell excess generation back into the electric market. I just want to

get your thoughts. What do you think we can do as a Congress to

address some of the barriers that exist to widespread deployment,

and in an ideal world, what role would you see distributed generation technology playing?

Mr. KAMEN. The first thing I can tell you is you don’t need the

cow.

Mr. DOYLE. We don’t have a lot of them in Pittsburgh.

Mr. KAMEN. Well, the great thing about that little engine is, it

is omnivorous. It likes hydrogen, methane, propane, natural gas,

diesel fuel, gasoline. It is external combustion. It literally doesn’t

care. The cow worked just fine but you can use whatever is in your

house, which we think is critically valuable and important and

maybe to answer your question about what you could do, I could

tell you a short story. While we did develop that thing for the world

that has no grid, here where we do have a grid I don’t think it

should be seen as a competitor. Where you already have a grid, I

think it is a perfect complement, and I was very nervous this morning that I would hear people saying quite the contrary but since everybody recognizes the fundamental issue here, I would say one of

the great things about a little box like ours or anybody’s that can

do combined heat and power since every home I know of needs a

kilowatt or 2 of electricity and at least 3 or 4 or 5 kilowatts of heat

and if you could use at least the fuel whatever is your cheapest

fuel, your gasoline, your heating oil, few people would use electricity to make heat, until you run out of the need for heat, you

essentially used every unit of your energy to first turn 20 percent

of it into the electricity and then the heat, you would have a system which is better for everybody, not just the environment. It

would be cheaper for every homeowner and that is a good thing.
123

You are not asking anybody to do anything except save money

here. That is good.

I took that story to someone who will remain nameless, a CEO

of another company, probably near the scale of Mr. Bryson’s, and

said why don’t we put this thing in people’s homes, why don’t we

try distributed power, and they are a massive, massive organization that burns a lot of coal, and he literally said to me, if I could

put that thing in the rate base, I would buy 10,000 of them right

now. He had a lot of his experts in the room with him. They started explaining the rules to me including ones, and I may get this

wrong, well, since we are a power producer, of course we can’t own

the transmission, something about regulation and deregulation,

and all I am literally thinking if this is like telling a doctor he can’t

own a stethoscope.

And then he goes on telling me and his experts more and more

about the incentives or disincentives, the regulations, the rules or

barriers, but it all came down to what I think is the good news,

that these guys are saying look, if I could incrementally add when

I need generating capacity instead of 10 years later I got to add

a gigawatt so in the meantime I spend a few years with undercapacity, then I build it and it is overcapacity and these days it

takes 10 years to—for all sorts of reasons he said for the billion

dollars, if I could buy a million machines, put them in a million

homes, he ticked through the same things I said. It would be way

more convenient for me. I could build my capacity incrementally.

I could know that I could put critical load capability and control in

every home, and we have heard, people are more and more concerned about reliability. You are already at 99.96. You are only off

by 0.04. That is 200 minutes a year. You are not going to be able

to get those 200 minutes by even hundreds of billions of dollars of

spending because you are too close to perfect now. But if you could

put little boxes everywhere so that during that 200 minutes your

critical stuff wasn’t the problem, you turned a potential catastrophe

into an inconvenience.

So all the issues that I thought I would have to sell him on looking at the 21st century with the 21st century in mind instead of

a 19th century infrastructure, I thought he would buy. He did but

he ended up saying maybe this is what you guys have to fix, I don’t

know how, your problem. He literally said it is not clear whether

a utility company could own such a box. It is not clear how they

would account for it. He had a load of issues, and by the way, we

are one of those few companies that does do electricity and gas and

heat but there is a lot of places in the country that are different

than that and they have different vested interests, keeping them

separate, and your box sits at the nexus. You plug your cow, your

natural gas, your heating oil into one side, your electric into the

other. You are a hermaphrodite. We wouldn’t know what to do with

it. And in the end, I left there thinking it is interesting that once

again technology got ahead of an old system but what I would say

and what I would hope you would agree with is, we are not only

not competitive to the utility companies at this point but seeing

what this country wants, what people need, what costs are, what

the global issues are, we could help them extend the life of an

aging grid that could use a little support out there. We could solve
124

a lot of these other issues of reliability. And I personally think that

even, and I was saying that a few minutes ago, why I think this

would be so great for a utility company if you guys can encourage

them or at least not prevent them or discourage them from doing

it is, I think we have a society that has grown up with a grid. In

Bangladesh, everybody will be pure distributed. In the developing

world, there are more cell phones per capita than here because the

enemy of great is good. We have a pretty good grid so the rest of

the world is going to leapfrog, we stay here.

But as I was saying, where does the grid fit, where does the utility company fit. How do we make this work? If I knocked on a door

in this town or any town where you live and said to Grandma who

opens the door, I got this box, I am going to put it in your basement, it will sit in that dark corner next to the thing that makes

hot water or the things that make electricity and you never go

down there and you don’t worry about it, I will give it to you free

and it will save you money on your electric bill and on your oil bill,

I am pretty sure if I could walk around giving them away free, I

couldn’t do it because the average homeowner has grown up in a

society where I don’t worry about that magical stuff down there but

I really care that my house stays warm and my lights stay on and

that big utilities, whatever it costs, they do this for me and that

is what I need. Even if I put these in production or any private industry other than maybe the really, really big guys, I don’t think

you could do it, but if I could give those boxes to the utility company or those utility companies could go to Grandma and say last

month you spent $70 on electricity and $50 on oil, if I put this box

down next to the other boxes you have down there which you may

own or I may own and she doesn’t even know, I am going to lower

your monthly aggregate bill, I will give you more reliable electricity

and more heat and I will take care of all of this and you don’t have

to pay for the box, if a utility company was encouraged to do that,

I think the rate of adoption of distributed power because they could

control it, they would win, they get past the problem of who is connecting to who because they are on both sides of that connection,

it would be simple and straightforward. You ought to figure out

how to do it.

Mr. DOYLE. Ms. Zibelman, with 5 seconds left on my question

time, you operate a pretty big grid. What do you think about what

he just said?

Ms. ZIBELMAN. I think that is the lead-in in terms of where we

need to go. We have a rule, we talk about it in terms of behindthe-meter generation, which is what distributed generation is, and

I think one of the things that we can do which is actually something within the congressional and Federal arena is to make sure

that the rules that are in place, particularly where we have markets, is that behind-the-meter generation is treated fairly in the

markets both in terms of maintaining reliability standards as well

as the ability for load to sell into the markets. If we do that so

again from a perspective is from a market administrator, we don’t

care if that next megawatt of generation comes from a central station, power plant or a distributed generator. We are just going to

optimize and then where the role of FERC can come in is making

sure that the rules around demand response in the organized mar-
125

kets are fair and treat demand response as well as central station

generation and distributed generation in a way that would eliminate any impediments to market participation.

Mr. DOYLE. Fascinating stuff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle.

The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it has been a fascinating hearing.

Mr. Bryson, in your testimony you noted some customers will

program their appliances to respond to smart meters and automatically reduce usage when power costs rise. We have also heard talk

about we can have appliances that will automatically do that and

customers don’t need to program it but of course everyone already

owns their appliances now and you are not going to see everyone

go out and buy the automatic ones right away. I assume that is

what you are talking about in terms of customers who respond.

Mr. BRYSON. Slightly different. What we see and I think will

evolve quite rapidly in California is customers that want to have

remotely controlled or automated appliances will have these communicating appliances. Thermostats exist today, air conditioners,

dishwashers, electric dryers. But we will offer a program in which

a customer on a voluntary basis says to the utility, will you please

manage that at least cost for us, give us some parameters, we will

do it remotely with the aid of the advance meter and the communication systems associated with it or the computer, the individual

homeowner’s computer or business owner’s computer can do it

without us being involved.

Mr. MATHESON. As I look at the issue of smart meters and sending price signals to consumers to affect behavior, one of the impediments that I am trying to figure out and maybe the panel can help

us with this, is that right now we have time-of-day metering and

time-of-day rates for large industrial users but at least where I live

as a residential customer, I don’t, and I have no incentive to get

a smart meter or any of this until my utility adopts a rate structure that sends me those price signals, and Congress isn’t going to

go out and tell all the utilities to do this. It is up to the State regulators, as I understand it, and I know this is probably a good topic

for the next panel actually. But isn’t that really the impediment to

getting people, one of the impediments to having consumers go out

and embrace the notion of getting smart meters in their home?

Mr. DELUREY. That is part of the conundrum. You can’t have a

smart meter and not do the pricing. You can’t have the pricing if

you don’t have a smart meter. And so a lot of that does come down

to the State regulator having to decide and many of them have

been politically concerned about changing what have been decades

of flat rates that customers are used to. Even when presented with

options where it would be voluntary for those customers to be on

those rates, there has still been reluctance, and I think part of the

remedy is what I talked about before, we need more support in

many different ways provided to State regulators but also the State

regulator as the watchdog for how the money is spent in a State.

Anything we can do to buy down the cost of these technologies to

get them in more quickly would be useful as well.
126

Mr. MATHESON. But when you talk about a conundrum, in my

mind this is not one of those which came first, the chicken or the

egg. I think you have to have the rates and the price signals in

place before people are going to get the meters. Would you agree

with that?

Mr. DELUREY. Well, you actually can’t do it that way though. If

you don’t have a meter in place that measures on a time basis, you

can’t bill on a time basis.

Mr. MATHESON. Understood, but I am not going to go buy a

meter if the rate is not in place. Maybe I am missing something

here, but to me, the utilities have to indicate to me what a cost is

at 2 o’clock in the afternoon versus 2 o’clock in the morning, and

once I know that as a consumer, I can make an informed decision

and go out and buy one of these meters but I am sure as heck not

going to go buy a meter when the utility says yes, some day we will

tell you what the price is and we will give you those price signals

later, go out and buy your meter now.

Mr. BRYSON. The model needs to be that the utilities go forth and

put the smart meters and smart grid in, and I guess I am at least

cautiously optimistic about that. With what we put out, we put out

this, as I indicated, challenge to the market and they have come

forth. We are doing this on an open architectural model. We have

eight manufacturers in the last year that have come up with this.

We have utilities all over the country, all over the world coming to

our offices in southern California to see how this is going. A Canadian utility is moving with one part of this. So I don’t want to be

overly Pollyannaish about this but I think this is coming and coming fast.

Ms. ZIBELMAN. If I could just add, you are absolutely right. The

only way you are going to have customers see the value of participating is if they get the price information, and then they become

partners, and plus from the standpoint of the operator, the operator needs to see the customer respond as well because that is the

only way we know that the system is going to remain reliable so

we need the price signal to get the customer and then we need the

signal back to the operator to preserve reliability.

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUCHER. Very good, Mr. Matheson. Thank you.

The gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, is recognized

for 5 minutes.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I really appreciate your ideas. One of the

reasons I appreciate your testimony is, you have confirmed my

prejudice, which is always comforting. I just spent a year writing

a book about clean energy and looked at the great things people

are doing right now in energy efficiency, both business-wise and

consumer-wise, and you are sort of confirming this potential. I sort

of hear you say there is somewhere between a 5 and 20 percent reduction of electrical usage while still enjoying our lifestyle that we

now enjoy and that is a huge number when you start looking at

the challenges we face on global warming and everything else. I

really appreciate your testimony.

I wanted to ask you if any of you had comments about the idea

of decoupling utilities to inspire them to start to make investments

in the smart grid or otherwise take actions to really move to a
127

more efficient system. Some of us have looked at some other models where decoupling would suggest it would help utilities move in

that direction where there would be an economic incentive to sell

less product rather than more. The current situation in most utilities is, the way the rate structure is set up, there is an economic

incentive to sell more product and the more electricity you sell, the

more money you make, whereas our need in global warming is to

quit wasting energy and particularly that created by CO2-emitting

generating facilities. So it seems to me that is an opportunity. I

just wonder if any of you have any comments about that. And I am

sorry if you have talked about this already. I was at a global warming hearing the rest of this morning.

Mr. BRYSON. I would be pleased, in fact excited to respond to

what I think is an incredibly important issue and question, and I

will give you just a little personal—California has decoupled so

there is no linkage between the opportunity for revenues or more

importantly for net income for investor-owned utilities in California

associated with additional sales of electricity. That goes all the way

back to the second oil price spikes of 1979. Just a personal note,

I was made chairman of the California Public Utilities Commission

at the time. I had this environmental background. But we did that

in 1981 and it has been true with a short lapse ever since. That

I think in turn has enabled a lot of the programs that we have in

California so it is in my testimony but our company was very

pleased that the Department of Energy has given us this recognition. We, through what I think have been cost-effective programs

of energy efficiency and energy conservation, support from the utility had much higher level of energy conservation and efficiency associated with our programs than any utility in the United States

but that delinkage is essential because otherwise we have these

conflicting incentives. That is the reason it was changed in 1981

and the California Public Utilities Commission is now looking at a

proceeding as indicated. It will not only make it neutral with the

decoupling so it is neutral to the opportunity for a utility to earn

but will affirmatively incentivize it so as of something like August

of this year, it is anticipated that the State of California for investor-owned utilities will provide an affirmative earnings opportunity

for efficiency programs.

Mr. INSLEE. Does anyone else want to comment on that? Yes?

Mr. YEAGER. I would just observe that I think we are entering

into a period that is going to force considerable change at the regulatory level and introduce the kind of smart technology we are talking about, and it is basically that rate cases are a political third

rail for regulators and usually for the governments in the State.

We have frozen rates for years, decades. They cannot be frozen any

longer and I think if the commissions go to their communities and

say we are going to double your rates but we are not going to give

you any better service and we are not going to give you any control

over your bill, I hope there is considerable pushback. In fact, I have

seen that here in Maryland recently. I think you are going to see

that all over and basically this is an offer that can’t be refused. We

can offer you much better service, we can offer you the ability to

control your bill and we can also fundamentally reduce the cost of

the infrastructure we have to put in because we are going to effec-
128

tively have the customer build some of that infrastructure and also

reduce the demand. So I think there is a window of opportunity

here but I think that the commissions really have to be, I don’t

want to use the word educated but I think that their consciousness

and they have to be encouraged to move in this direction.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. The witnesses have all been helpful. I

want to leave you with some optimism today. Things are happening

here in Congress and you are helping that. I have introduced several bills that I think would advance this agenda, a net metering

bill which I have been trying to pass for 4 years, we now have a

good chance of passing that to help the smart grid develop, a plugin hybrid bill to incentivize the creation of plug-in hybrids which

will give us a large battery to use our generating capacity. It is incredible. This study came out saying we got enough capacity, idle

capacity at night if we have a storage facility for all that energy,

we don’t have to build any more plants. In the western United

States, we have got existing infrastructure built that we just need

a storage capacity. The Low Carbon Fuels Act, which will create a

standard for low-carbon fuels which will incentivize, making the

grid more efficient, so I appreciate your testimony. I think we are

going to get some things done here, and thank you for your work.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Inslee.

I would like to again express the committee’s appreciation to this

panel for your excellent presentations here today. This is one of the

more interesting panels we have had the privilege to hear from,

and we are grateful for your taking time to join us here. There

probably will be some additional questions that other members

would like to propound to you. That will be done in writing. And

when you receive a letter, if you could respond to it promptly within a matter of a week to 10 days, that would be much appreciated.

And the record shall remain open for the purpose of those questions and answers. With the committee’s thanks, this panel is excused.

We now welcome our second panel of witnesses consisting of

three witnesses. The Honorable Jon Wellinghoff is a commissioner

of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who has been very

active on the issue of advanced metering and smart grid development. The Honorable Robert F. Lieberman is a commissioner with

the Illinois Commerce Commission. Mr. Kevin Kolevar is the director of the Office of Energy Delivery and Electricity Reliability at

the U.S. Department of Energy. I want to say welcome to each of

our three government representatives today. We appreciate your

taking time to testify before us. Your prepared written statements

will be made a part of the record and we would welcome your oral

summaries hopefully kept to approximately 3 minutes.

We will be pleased to begin with Commissioner Wellinghoff from

the FERC.

STATEMENT OF JON WELLINGHOFF, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON,

DC

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. Thank you, Chairman Boucher and members

of the committee. I first want to indicate that I am testifying here

today on my own behalf and not on behalf of the Commission but
129

I would like to thank you all for inviting me here to testify before

you on this very important issue, the smart grid. I actually found

the last panel fascinating. I am going to send all my remarks right

out the window. I know you are going to put them in the record.

I am going to sort of shoot from the hip here a little bit with respect to a few comments that I have on the last panel and some

of the things that were said.

As you are all I am sure aware, the FERC does regulate wholesale rates and the wholesale electric markets. We are very interested in ensuring that those markets work effectively and work on

behalf of consumers. We think we can do that with competition but

we think competition has to be on both sides of the meter. We have

to have competition on the supply side and we have to have competition on the demand side. With respect to demand response, we

heard earlier Mr. Delurey talk about it. I think that it is important

that demand response have an equal place to play in those competitive markets and I think by doing that, we can enable the

smart grid. We need to give consumers the opportunity and the

tools to respond to a smart grid. As you heard from the earlier

panel, we do need to have price signals correct but consumers have

to have means to respond to those price signals, and the way they

can respond to those price signals best is, No. 1, have regulatory

tariffs in place that allow them for economic benefits for responding

to them and No. 2, have the technology in place to be able to respond. We heard about some of the technologies that I think are

very important to recognize. One that Mr. Gammons talked about

that the Pacific Northwest National Labs is doing, the Olympic Peninsula experiment that they have done, very interesting work by

embedding in appliances in homes certain types of chips that can

respond to the grid and frequencies in the grid and price signals

from the grid. Those things need to be enabled so that consumers

have opportunities to respond.

Mr. Kamen’s box I think is fascinating and I think it is complementary to the grid. We need to figure out how to enable distributed generation and look at choices between capital flows between centralized generating plants and more distributed generation. I think distributed generation in fact can be an enabler for

the smart grid because when consumers in fact put distributed generation in their facilities both their commercial and residential facilities ultimately will allow more smart grid technology to be

pulled in.

And then finally, I would like to mention plug-in hybrid electric

vehicles. I think those vehicles also can be an enabler for the smart

grid because we can use them not only to charge from off-peak

times and also do things like integrate better in wind technology

and other renewables into the grid but we can also use them to

provide power back to the grid, do things like regulation and

spending reserve. In fact, there was a recent study that came out

by the National Renewable Energy Lab that indicated that payments could be provided back to an individual owner of a plug-in

hybrid electric vehicle as much as $2,000 to $4,000 per year per vehicle for spending reserve and regulation services. This could in

fact allow consumers to buy these vehicles at cost that would be

similar to a gasoline vehicle and also provide for efficiency of the
130

grid. If we can make the grid just 5 percent more efficient, we can

ultimately reduce the need for 85 large coal plants. That is power

we don’t have to use, emissions we don’t have to make.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wellinghoff follows:]

TESTIMONY OF JON WELLINGHOFF

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hastert, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Jon Wellinghoff, and I am currently serving as a Commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

I would like to thank you for inviting me to appear before you to discuss a vitally

important issue: the potential of a smart electric transmission grid that employs advanced communications and control technologies to enable and utilize bidirectional

flows of information. Before addressing that issue, however, I wish to indicate that

I am speaking only on my own behalf and not on behalf of the Commission. By way

of background, I have 32 years of experience in the field of electric utility regulation

and electric system analysis and oversight. I authored the Nation’s first comprehensive integrated resource planning statute for electric utilities (enacted in Nevada in

1983), as well as one of the Nation’s first electric utility portfolio standards that

combines renewable energy and energy efficiency in a single portfolio (enacted in

Nevada in 2005). A copy of my biography is attached to my testimony.

The electric transmission grid in the United States is one of the largest and most

complex machines in the world, capable of carrying over 850 gigawatts of energy.

Unfortunately, a decades-long decline in transmission investment and a precipitous

decline in investment in demand response, primarily in the last decade, now threaten to impair the reliability of that machine and cause billions of dollars in congestion costs.

This large and complex machine and our associated energy infrastructure are in

desperate need of improvement. However, it is essential to recognize that we cannot

simply build our way out of these problems. The primary impetus of change in the

past, and no doubt, of change that we will see in the future, is technology. Therefore, as we invest in new energy infrastructure, we must spend smartly. We must

spend efficiently. We must promote investment in efficient transmission facilities

and state-of-the-art transmission technologies, as well as facilitate demand response

and distributed generation, in order to address the Nation’s energy challenges and

ensure the greatest benefits for consumers. As an example, if we could make the

electric grid even 5 percent more efficient, we would save more than 42 gigawatts

of energy: the equivalent of production from 42 large coal-fired power plants. Those

are plants that we would not need to build and emissions that we would not

produce.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), the Congress emphasized many

of these same principles. In particular, the Congress required the Commission to

promote reliable and economically efficient transmission and bulk power markets

by, among other things, encouraging deployment of advanced technologies. Indeed,

in section 1223 of EPAct 2005, the Congress provided the Commission with guidance as to types of technologies to encourage, including, among others, controllable

load such as demand response; distributed generation, including fuel cells, microturbines, and photovoltaic energy systems (like the one now under construction at

Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada); energy storage devices; and enhanced power device monitoring.

The Congress recognized the benefits of these technologies and emphasized the

need for their wider deployment. These types of distributed resources can discipline

peak market prices, provide a hedge against volatile fuel prices, alleviate congestion,

improve reliability, and potentially be a cost-effective means to complement or defer

transmission expansion or improve the efficiency of transmission upgrades.

BENEFITS OF DEMAND RESPONSE

I would like to focus first on demand response, which the U.S. Department of Energy defined as follows in a February 2006 report to the Congress:

Changes in electric usage by end-use customers from their normal consumption

patterns in response to changes in the price of electricity over time, or to incentive

payments designed to induce lower electricity use at times of high wholesale market

prices or when system reliability is jeopardized.

The Commission’s Staff has reported that the total level of demand response reductions achieved by independent system operators (ISO) nationwide on peak days
131

during the summer of 2006 was approximately 8,800 megawatts. These reductions

represented between 1.4 and 4 percent of ISO system peaks, with reductions in load

pockets such as Southwest Connecticut approaching 6 percent. The corresponding

reductions in wholesale market clearing prices were between $100 and $300 per

megawatt hour. These price reductions mean that consumers saved hundreds of millions of dollars last summer alone due to the use of demand response by the ISOs

in these wholesale markets. The benefits of demand response are also the subject

of a study that Dr. Ahmad Faruqui of The Brattle Group presented at last week’s

National Town Meeting on Demand Response, which found that just a 5 percent reduction in U.S. peak demand is worth $31 billion (NPV) over a 20-year period, based

only on avoided costs.

We should not underestimate the power of consumers to drive smart-grid technologies. The more that consumers see economic benefits of demand response, the

more they will want demand response opportunities and the more they will support

investments in the smart electric grid that makes more demand response possible.

Thus, not only does a smart grid enable wider use of demand response, but demonstrating the benefits of demand response to consumers also brings us more rapid

implementation of the technologies necessary to enable a smart grid.

COMMISSION ACTION ON DEMAND RESPONSE AND OTHER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES

The Commission has taken to heart the Congress’s directive to encourage wider

deployment of demand response and other advanced transmission technologies. Over

just the past eight months, the Commission has taken several steps to develop a

platform to support a smart electric grid. For example, in February of this year, the

Commission reformed its open access transmission policies to, for the first time, put

demand response and other distributed resources on equal footing with other resources in directly contributing to the reliability and efficient operation and expansion of the electric transmission system. The Commission’s Order No. 890 provides

that demand response and distributed generation may provide a variety of ancillary

services when they are capable of doing so. The Commission also found that when

such resources are capable of performing needed functions, they should be permitted

to participate on a comparable basis in open, transparent transmission planning

processes, and that stakeholders should have a forum to come forward with demand

response project proposals that they wish to have considered in development of a

regional transmission plan.

The Commission has also taken steps to integrate demand response into new

mandatory electric reliability standards, the development of which is one of the

most important responsibilities that the Congress placed on the Commission in

EPAct 2005 (section 1211). In March, the Commission issued a Final Rule that

found that demand response should be allowed to be used to comply with reliability

standards governing contingency reserves, reactive power, emergencies, and planning the reliable bulk power system. The Final Rule also makes clear that demand

response must be technically capable of providing the function required by a reliability standard. The Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) will develop the process

for determining such technical capability through its standards development process.

Last fall, the Commission and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) jointly launched a Demand Response Collaborative to explore

how to better coordinate approaches to demand response policies and practices. The

Collaborative has laid a solid foundation in its initial meetings, and I look forward

to further discussions this summer. Initiatives are also underway at the Commission and several ISOs and regional transmission organizations (RTO) under our review to integrate demand response into energy and capacity markets. In addition,

the Commission is conducting a series of conferences to examine the state of competition in wholesale electric markets and to explore the role of demand response

in those markets. The Commission is also developing a plan for a new staff unit

that will focus on demand response in order to create additional expertise within

the Commission on such innovative technologies.

On a related matter, the Congress directed the Commission in section 1241 of

EPAct 2005 to provide incentives for transmission investment that promotes reliable

and economically efficient transmission and generation of electricity and to encourage deployment of transmission technologies and other measures to increase the capacity and efficiency of existing transmission facilities. In its rule implementing that

directive, the Commission highlighted the importance of investment in economically

and technologically efficient transmission infrastructure. I have emphasized in a

number of subsequent cases that the Commission should target incentives that increase an applicant’s return on equity to investments that provide incremental bene-
132

fits, such as gains that result from the deployment of best available technologies

that increase operational and energy efficiency. Targeting incentives in this manner

would encourage the deployment of smart grid technologies.

FURTHER STEPS TOWARD A SMART ELECTRIC GRID

Thus, the Commission is moving forward in developing a regulatory framework

to enable an efficiently designed, smart electric grid. It is my hope that States will

examine how their consumers can benefit most from that framework, including the

opportunities for demand response to participate in wholesale electric markets.

There is much more work to do, however, if we are to achieve the full potential

of a smart electric grid. For example, widespread deployment of advanced metering

technology will empower more consumers to take advantage of opportunities that

are available for demand response in the wholesale electric markets under the Commission’s jurisdiction. It is my understanding that other witnesses will discuss in

greater detail the provisions of EPAct 2005 that address advanced meters, including

provisions related to the responsibilities of State regulatory authorities. I would like

to highlight briefly an August 2006 report that the Commission’s Staff prepared in

response to a directive in section 1252(e)(3) of EPAct 2005. In preparing that report,

the Commission’s Staff developed a comprehensive national survey on demand response and advanced metering. The report concludes that demand response has an

important role to play in both wholesale and retail electric markets, and that the

potential immediate reduction in peak electric demand that could be achieved from

existing demand response resources is between 3 and 7 percent of peak electric demand in most regions. Unfortunately, the report also found that technologies such

as advancing metering that are needed to support significant deployment of demand

response resources have little market penetration.

I agree with the conclusion reached by the Commission’s Staff that demand response has an important role to play in both wholesale and retail electric markets.

I also see that conclusion as reinforcing the need for coordination of Federal and

state approaches to this issue. The Demand Response Collaborative launched by the

Commission and NARUC marks a promising step toward that goal. It also would

be valuable to more formally establish this coordination. I encourage the Congress

to establish a Federal-state working group through which the Commission and interested state representatives would be tasked with identifying best practices and

developing consistent standards for demand response.

Lastly, I would like to highlight two recent projects and an emerging technology

that illustrate how a smart electric grid can benefit a wide range of consumers. The

two projects are initiatives pursued by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

(PNNL), which I had the opportunity to visit earlier this year. First, the Olympic

Peninsula Distributed Resources Demonstration showed that residential, municipal,

and commercial consumers equipped with automated control technology took advantage of a virtual real-time market in which they could see real monetary benefits

to adjusting their consumption during times of peak demand. These demand response adjustments not only provided economic benefits to particular consumers,

but also created wider benefits by relieving congestion. Second, the Grid Friendly

Appliance Demonstration showed that smart appliances improved reliability by detecting fluctuations in frequency when the grid was under stress and responding

automatically within seconds by turning off some functions for short periods. That

automation increases the appeal and the benefits of demand response. These

projects, which PNNL conducted with support from DOE and other partners, hint

at the full potential that could be achieved through wider deployment of demand

response enabled by a smart grid.

The emerging technology I would like to highlight is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with vehicle-to-grid (V2G) capability. Substantial research has been conducted

on this technology, and important issues remain to be resolved before these vehicles

will be ready for large-scale commercial availability. Nonetheless, the potential of

this technology is enormous. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles could create widespread

demand response opportunities and offer emergency power supply through energy

storage, as well as smoothing the integration into the grid of renewable resources

such as wind generation. With V2G capability, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles would

improve efficient grid management by providing a variety of ancillary services and

thereby improve power plant efficiency. Because these additional services could also

create payment streams to individual vehicle owners that would significantly offset

the incremental first costs associated with these vehicles, V2G capability could be

an enabler of both plug-in hybrid electric vehicles themselves and the smart electric

grid.
133

In these ways, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with V2G capability exemplify the

benefits of demand response and a smart electric grid. We have only begun to capture those benefits, and doing so is essential to making the complex machine that

is our electric grid function in the efficient manner that will bring the greatest benefits to American consumers and address our Nation’s energy challenges.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Wellinghoff.

Mr. Lieberman, we will be happy to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. LIEBERMAN, COMMISSIONER,

ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION, OAK PARK, IL

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say, after

the sort of spanking that State commissions got from the other

panel, I ought to be clear that I am here representing only myself.

I as well am going to throw out my written remarks because the

panel this morning was really quite good and covered a lot of what

I was going to say.

I do want to say a couple of things quickly though. In anticipation of this discussion, I actually went and looked at half a dozen

of the EPAct smart metering dockets sort of from around the Midwest and I want to sort of follow up on your questions this morning. The three things that come across pretty clear when you read

those dockets, and again, they are not all done and they may end

up differently but at least the stuff that is in the record to this

point, there is really three things and I think these three things

represent from the State perspective the barriers and I think lead

to opportunities that the Federal Government could take advantage

of.

The three things are, there is really sticker shock. If you look at

the dockets, people go, ‘‘man, these are expensive.’’ These new

shiny gizmos that we want to install, they are really expensive.

Even if they lead to better price signals, all of the things that people said, I think the first response that you get out of the EPAct

dockets is man, this is expensive to do, and this is in the context

of course of rising energy prices and it would take a brave commission to throw additional costs on in light of that. Second, I think

the issue of what are the benefits, how do we measure them, is absolutely critical. In all of the dockets that I looked at, people said

we don’t know how to measure these benefits. We don’t know what

the value of doing this is. Commissions are used to thinking in a

sort of deterministic way. They are used to thinking about we can

measure what the benefits are if we can measure the costs and in

a sense what we are doing here is, we are saying we can measure

the cost but the benefits could be huge, they are great, everybody

thinks they are wonderful, and I think until we come up with some

systemic way to talk about the benefits, it is going to be difficult

to do. The third, and I thought this was pretty interesting. The

third was kind of across the board. In these dockets people are saying no one is asking us for this, no one is asking us for these, there

is no demand for these meters, which reminds me a little bit of

1979, the what would I do with a computer on my desk problem

but the dilemma is that we don’t really know, there is no demand

for this. In many States there has been a demand for wind power

and so people have started to think about how to provide wind
134

power, but this is very geeky and no one is going damn, I want one

of those meters.

So I think those are the three problems. Let me suggest three

approaches to getting to them. Without seeming hopelessly naive,

I would suggest that if putting in the smart grid and smart meter

was a serious Federal priority, I would think about a subsidy to

utilities, a subsidy in some way that Congress was recently very

generous to the nuclear industry and to the wind industry and I

think if we were actually serious about a cost-effective energy policy that provided energy independence and environmental benefits,

we would seriously think about subsidizing, getting over the sticker

shock, helping States to get over the sticker shock. Short of a direct

Federal subsidy, we are not proud, we will take an indirect Federal

subsidy. I think the depreciation question that was raised earlier

is an excellent idea. The question of the benefits, I have done a lot

of work with Kevin Kolevar’s division at DOE and I have a lot of

respect for them. I think that if they could provide additional resources to help States understand what the benefits are, develop

models, I think that would be extraordinarily useful. We don’t have

the resources to do this and I think until those resources are provided, it is going to be very difficult.

Let me close by saying we are all real smart and we know that

energy prices vary by the hour and we know that most of the hours

out of the day, the price of electricity is really low in the wholesale

markets. I will go out on a limb and say that 98 percent of the people in Illinois don’t know that. Ninety-eight percent of the people

in Illinois think the price of electricity is what they pay the utility

and I think that until people understand that there is a lot of inexpensive electricity out in that market that they can’t get because

the technology is not installed, I think you have to create a demand

for the meter, and the way you create that demand for the meter

is, you start making that transparent and you start educating people about the value that would be available to them. The reality

is, their prices would be lower if they could get hourly prices. But

they can’t because those aren’t available. Just as an example, and

I say this only half facetiously, which means I guess the other half

is not facetious, but imagine if DOE were to purchase time on the

Weather Channel so that every time they gave the weather for Chicago or Pittsburgh or Montpelier they told you what the hourly

electricity price was. You start driving the fact that the low-cost

power up there to people—right now people have no idea that that

is available. I think that using mechanisms to make those prices

transparent and to get people saying why can’t I have that, I am

interested in that, and I think that would be a public education

campaign that if DOE had the resources to run in conjunction with

the States to identify the opportunities to get people interested

would motivate commissions in ways that we haven’t seen up to

this point. When people don’t see any demand, they don’t see any

reason to take the regulatory risk.

Thank you. I am happy to take any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lieberman follows:]
135

TESTIMONY OF BOB LIEBERMAN

My name is Bob Lieberman and I have been a utility regulator in Illinois since

February 2005. I am currently the Chairman of the Midwest Demand Response Initiative, a collaborative effort of 14 Midwest state regulatory commissions, utilities

and other stakeholders trying to educate and learn from each other about how to

implement regional price responsive retail demand. I am also on the executive committee of the Organization of MISO States (OMS), a Regional State Committee

working together to ensure that the regional RTO—the Midwestern ISO—works in

the interests of customers as well as suppliers.

Before that, for nearly ten years, I ran a Chicago-based not-for-profit called the

Center for Neighborhood Technology where we created and managed communitybased demand response and energy efficiency programs in partnership with Commonwealth Edison, the local Chicago utility. As part of that effort, we introduced

the first in the Nation hourly pricing pilot for residential customers, the success of

which prompted the Illinois General Assembly to recently mandate that electric utilities offer such a program to all residential customers in the state. Prior to that,

among other things, in the mid–1980’s I worked with then-State Representative

Hastert on re-writing the Illinois Public Utility Act, a generally thankless if necessary task.

In testifying before you today, I do not represent the views of the Illinois Commerce Commission, the Organization of MISO States nor the National Association

of Regulatory Commissioners. My perspectives today are mine alone.

The question I was asked to address relates to possible actions that the Federal

Government might take to create incentives for state public utility commissions to

move more rapidly to upgrade retail electricity distribution information systems

from their current state of the art 1920’s technology to something that more closely

resembles early 21st century technology, i.e. systems that are digital rather than

analog, two way rather than one way, open rather than closed and network-based

rather than hierarchical.

Unfortunately, I have no easy answers. This is, in fact, a very difficult question

to answer as it goes right to the heart of the well-documented legal and institutional

eccentricities of our current regulatory and governance system for electricity markets.

In anticipation of this conversation and in order to more precisely underscore

some of the barriers to implementation, I have recently reviewed a few of the docketed cases from Midwest states that were initiated to address the Epact smart metering standard. To be fair, many of these dockets have not been completed, but I

think there is enough in the record at this point to be able to summarize what some

of the major issues are.

In short, most of the dockets express—roughly—the following concerns.

These new gizmos are really expensive; We have no way to measure the benefits,

or alternatively—in some of the dockets, there is no discussion of benefits at all;

There is no demand - no one is asking us for these meters;

Let me examine these barriers one at a time.

Expensive gizmos: I think it is fair to say that in many cases state commissions

and their staffs—when seeing the initial cost of a ‘‘smart grid’’ deployment—suffer

from sticker shock. The subtext, of course, is that in an era of rising energy prices,

it takes a brave Commission to pile more costs on, particularly given the indeterminacy and uncertainty of the benefits, even in the name of possible lower system

costs and more accurate customer incentives in the long run. Despite the fact that

the costs of deployment have fallen dramatically over the past ten years, and are

likely to continue to fall, the initial costs still seem high.

Unknown or unknowable benefits: The benefits are uncertain and hard to calculate. Most public utility regulatory commissions are—largely by history, design

and culture—what I will call ‘‘practical and practicing incrementalists.’’ Vision and

imagination are not our strong suit. We can only decide on the basis of the record

before us, and we generally react to the petitions of others. Future calculated benefits have to be greater than real visible costs. Rates have to be deemed just and

reasonable.

In the old days, before restructuring, state commissions’ assumed away the future

uncertainty implicit in their decisions and pretended to know what the costs and

benefits would be in the future. It was never a particularly good assumption, but

at least it allowed decisions to be made within the static analytic tools and existing

legal frameworks that were available. After restructuring, however, along with the

rise of organized regional wholesale markets, the ability to simply assume away the

uncertainty disappeared. Also, some state commissions may be more willing to shift

the uncertainty to some vague market mechanism to deliver benefits or costs, rather
136

than take the explicit responsibility for waving significant new costs into rates. In

either case, state commissions can no longer assume that we know what the future

looks like. The condition of indeterminacy—a constant reality of the world outside

of the regulatory process -is not the regulator’s friend. The inability to predict the

behavior of some critical variable vastly complicates the regulator’s job and in large

measure stymies the analytic tools regulators and their staff’s have at their disposal.

Lack of demand: One gets a sense that regulators are reluctant to take the initiative because they don’t perceive much of a demand from end-users for the increased

capacity and functionality that a wide-spread smart grid and smart meter deployment would provide. Why should they impose costs on customers when the customers aren’t asking for functionalities that the costs would support. Doesn’t this

remind you of the early days of telephone deregulation when you heard such things

as ‘‘plain old telephone service’’ and no one wanted to pay for network upgrades to

digital technologies?

For all these reasons—and given the context in which state regulators function—

a ‘‘transformational’’ technology innovation that requires a significant up-front investment to achieve an uncertain level of future benefits like ‘‘smart meters’’ or

‘‘smart grids’’ is viewed with some perhaps not unreasonable skepticism and trepidation.

So what is to be done?

First, I would suggest that—if possible - you deal with the sticker shock problem.

I don’t want to pretend that I understand the intricacies of the Federal budget process nor do I want to be seen as utterly naive, but if achieving a more rapid deployment of smart grid technologies was a high Federal priority, nothing would get it

to move faster than some kind of Federal subsidy. I have no idea what the likelihood of such a policy might be, but it occurs to me that the Congress was recently

quite generous—in the name of increased energy security and environmental improvement—to various electricity production technologies, including nuclear, coal

and wind power. If we were really interested in a policy of cost-effective energy security and environmental improvement—we should be at least as generous with

‘‘smart grid’’ deployment as we are with nuclear and wind. Giving consumers the

information and tools that they need to consume energy more efficiently and smarter is by far the most cost-effective energy production, security and environmental

improvement policy we could adopt. As far as I’m concerned, the ‘‘smart’’ in smart

grid and smart meters applies not only to the technology but to consumers as well.

Consumers, themselves, are a grid resource, just like a peaking turbine. What we

need are smart and efficient consumers—‘‘smart’’ grids and ‘‘smart’’ meters are—in

part - a tool to achieving that end.

In addition, a Federal subsidy could help to ensure interoperability and other important national criteria through the establishment of outcome-based performance

standards for the receipt of the subsidy.

However, we are not proud. Short of a direct Federal subsidy, we will take indirect Federal subsidies. One of the problems often cited as a barrier to rapid deployment is the fact that existing investments in traditional metering and distribution

information technologies are still in service and have not been fully depreciated. To

remedy this so-called stranded cost barrier, for example, Congress could tell the IRS

to allow accelerated depreciation for old transmission and distribution assets if they

are replaced with new ‘‘smart grid’’ assets.

State public utility commissions may be encouraged by this action to follow suit

and approve rate treatment that accelerates removing these antique meters from

the utility rate base.

Second, we need to deal with the uncertainty about the level of benefits that will

be achieved. Frankly, state regulatory commissions have limited staff and extremely

limited resources to take on new ideas and to develop new tools and methods. In

Illinois, we are so overwhelmed with our current assignments that the idea of trying

to develop the extensive knowledge base to adequately address these new technologies and new ideas is simply outside the realm of our current reality. In my conversations with other regulators, this is the case in many other states, as well. It

is my sense that when Congress simply tells the states to study this or study that,

the result is an effort commensurate with the State’s staffing and budget resources,

which—all other things being equal - usually provides for a less than satisfactory

outcome.

So we need help. We simply don’t have the resources to develop the knowledge

or the expertise on our own. We need help in developing the tools, analytic methods

and models that would allow us to understand how to manage uncertainty instead

of being overwhelmed by it, and how to estimate the benefits of a rapid deployment
137

of smart grid technology on a probabilistic basis. We need access to the best thinking from around the country in this regard.

To this end, I want to note that I have great regard for Kevin Kolevar, and the

staff at the Office of Energy Delivery and Electricity Reliability for the excellent

work they have done to educate stakeholders on the intricacies of these difficult

issues and to support regional efforts like the Mid-Atlantic Distributed Resources

Initiative and the Midwest Demand Response Initiative. In the future, it would be

enormously helpful if they had the additional resources to provide state commissions

with the kind of on-going technical assistance I mentioned above.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, we need to deal with the problem of the

lack of demand for the new functionalities provided by the new technologies. It really is no surprise to me that there is not a rising clamor among the population for

smart meters. For eighty years, we have lived—and prospered—with a dumb network and dumb meters. Other than the geeks among us, why would we even know

enough to want to change?

In this context, one of the real successes of the organized wholesale electricity

markets over the last decade—and a success that I think has been largely underappreciated—is the development of a visible and transparent hourly price. If you

know where to look, you can determine the value of electricity at any hour. If you

look at those hourly prices over time, you know that as much as 98% of the hours,

the prices are really low—in fact, often lower than the hedged same-price every hour

electricity product offered at retail by the distribution utilities. And if you take the

average of the hourly prices over the course of almost any year, they are almost universally lower than the hedged same-price-every-hour retail price.

But I would argue—based on my experience in Illinois—that 95% of all customers—residential, small commercial, municipal—have absolutely no idea that the

price of electricity varies by the hour and that the average of the hourly prices is

likely to be significantly lower than the hedged retail price they have traditionally

seen. And until they know that, they won’t realize that there is something in it directly for them; that investing in smart meters will give them access to lower cost

electricity. Unless they are informed of these benefits, why would they be willing

to start asking, and more importantly, start paying for the technologies that would

allow that to occur?

In many ways, therefore, it seems to me that the single most cost-effective way

to move state commissions to more rapid deployment is to increase the demand for

these technologies, and the most direct way to increase the demand is to explain

to consumers what they are missing. What we need is an independent third party

to make consumers aware of what the hourly prices are, to make them aware that

there are lower prices available and that they can’t have access to them because

the technology to give them access to those lower prices is not in place. State commissions or state energy offices are perfectly suited to this educational role with

DOE providing resources and technical assistance

I say this only half facetiously—I guess the other half is serious—but imagine the

RTO or DOE buying time on the Weather Channel so that every hour—when they

give the weather for Chicago, or for Cleveland, or for Philadelphia or for Washington

DC, they also told you what the local wholesale price of electricity was for that hour.

Or every time you checked the weather for your hometown on Yahoo, you also got

the hourly electricity price?

Until we make these markets transparent and the wholesale prices visible to retail customers—until we educate customers so that they understand what’s in it for

them to invest in these new technologies—we are unlikely to get a national deployment any time soon. We will continue to talk about actions needed rather than seeing a smart grid implemented.

Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Lieberman.

Mr. Kolevar.

STATEMENT OF KEVIN KOLEVAR, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENERGY DELIVERY AND ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. KOLEVAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. I will also

truncate my remarks as the first panel covered a lot of ground in

a particularly effective fashion.
138

The Department of Energy embraces its role as helping to lead

national efforts to modernize the electric grid by researching, developing and demonstrating next generation technologies for the grid.

To advance grid modernization, our approach is to assess the grid

from a systems perspective, taking into account electricity supply,

to electricity delivery and incorporating energy efficiency measures

throughout the system including demand response to produce peak

loads. We recognize that a change at one point in the system will

affect the whole system.

In the Office of Electricity, we sponsor a range of research and

development for grid modernization in areas such as advanced communications, energy storage, grid visualization and control technologies. For example, our office has helped develop an autonomous

storm detection system that adjusts system default levels during

thunderstorms and automatically resets them after the storm is

past. So how do we transition to a smart grid? First we need to recognize that grid modernization is a major undertaking for our Nation and that it will only be realized through the dedicated involvement and cooperation of Federal and State governments, industry

partners, academia and investment communities. Historically, the

Federal Government has had few tools available to help with the

transition to the smart grid as compared to those certainly in the

50 States and the District of Columbia. Notwithstanding this historical State primacy in regulating electricity distribution, the Federal Government should be active in encouraging the needed transition to a 21st century grid. Consider for a moment the implications of 51 different jurisdictions taking separate action. Put simply, the Federal and State governments need to work together to

address the challenges before us.

I am pleased to report that we already see positive movement toward collaboration. Some State regulatory commissions are engaging in a smart grid issue, in part as a result of provisions such as

EPAct section 1252 on smart metering. In addition, a handful of

States are or will be considering deploying smart and advanced

electric meters in residential and small commercial sectors. The

FERC and the National Association of Regulated Utility Commissioners have jointly established a collaborative informal working

group to consider all aspects of integrating demand respond between retail and wholesale markets. This effort is co-chaired by

Commissioner Wellinghoff of the FERC and Commissioners Irvin

and Reha of North Carolina and Minnesota, respectively. Jon is too

modest to mention this effort. I hope you will give him the opportunity to address it in Q&A. It is a very effective forum. Commissioner Lieberman has also played a role, a key role in evaluating

what is improved demand response through the new Midwest Demand Response Initiative. This kind of activity needs to continue

and grow if we are to effectively identify the types of practices to

be undertaken by the State and Federal Governments that will

complement one another to facilitate the development of an intelligent, resilient and reliable grid.

I would also like to announce that on April 26, the Department

released a competitive solicitation to work with utilities to implement smart grid technologies that achieve a 15 percent peak load

reduction on a feeder system.
139

So Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my statement by reflecting on

an event that amply demonstrated the growing momentum behind

the development of a smart grid. Last week the DOE was a partner

in hosting a 4-day national conference dedicated to advancing grid

modernization entitled Grid Week. This event provided a forum for

the individuals and organizations that are already working on various aspects of the smart grid concept to network and catapult the

electricity grid into the 21st century. We thank you for your participation in this event, sir, and we believe it is extremely promising that these key participants are now united in the vision of

bringing about the smart grid. It is now incumbent upon all levels

of government to work together to develop and implement this vision.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kolevar follows:]
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you to each of the witnesses.

Mr. Kolevar, let begin with you and ask if your department has

any legislative recommendations for us with respect to what we

might do in order to facilitate advancement of the smart grid.

Mr. KOLEVAR. Sir, at this time we do not. There are discussions

within the administration on this matter but I do not have anything for the committee today.

Mr. BOUCHER. Do you think you might have something in the

near time frame or is this something that has a longer incubation

period for you?

Mr. KOLEVAR. I think the decision to forward recommendations

to the Congress will be made by others above me so I would hesitate to jump to conclusions about the availability of recommendations, sir.

Mr. BOUCHER. A very cautious and wise answer.

Mr. KOLEVAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Lieberman, you and Congressman Matheson

touched on what I think is a very key point and that is that in the

absence of real-time pricing and a price signal sent to consumers,

there is going to be essentially no demand for smart meters, and

I listened carefully to your explanation of the kind of commentary

coming out of the various commissions that reflect their concerns.

You indicated that smart meters are expensive and they don’t want

to impose a cost in the absence perhaps of a demand or greater

knowledge about the benefits that could be derived. You indicated

that they can’t really measure those benefits and then you focused

on the fact that there really is no demand at the present time. But

it seems to me that all of this has to start with a regulatory regime

that says that utilities need to make electricity available at variable prices at different times of the day depending upon what the

real cost of electricity is at that hour as determined by whether it

is high peak time or low peak time, and why can’t there be a bifurcation of the approach so that you get the regulation in place first

without having to incur any cost at all with regard to smart meters? I think the regulation writing exercise perhaps for the State

would not be particularly costly or burdensome, a little controversial perhaps but maybe not costly and burdensome, so why not

take that step first and once that price signal is there and can be

sent, the demand will begin to grow for the smart meters and then

people are less concerned about taking the next steps in order to

make them available? What is wrong with that kind of step-by-step

approach?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I think the idea of price transparency, the idea

that these prices exist in the world and you don’t see them and you

can’t have them, which is really the circumstance we are in today.

Not only can’t you have them, you don’t even know they are there.

And I think that is really the first step in sort of generating a reason for customers, a reason for consumers to say why can’t we have

this. Before I got the regulator’s job, I ran a not-for-profit in Chicago where we put in place the first real-time pricing program for

residential customers in the country as a pilot in conjunction with

Commonwealth Edison, a program that was so successful, I say

modestly, that the Illinois General Assembly recently mandated

that utilities offer this to all residential customers. But the key
150

point that I took away from that experience was that people had

no way to know that there was value for them given the information systems that we have today. They didn’t know that prices in

the summer in the afternoons in July were high and that the rest

of the time that they were low. And once you started telling people

about that, once you started talking to that and once you started

explaining to people how they could manage that, they became very

interested. The pilot we ran had 98, 96 percent sign-up rate. People

kept signing up. And so I think the price transparency question,

and this was an issue perhaps for FERC or DOE or the RTOs because they really are the—the prices—one of the successes of the

wholesale markets, of the organized wholesale markets has been

the development of this hourly price.

Mr. BOUCHER. Let me come back to maybe a more precise formulation of the question. You don’t have to get, if you are a State commission, to the question of how expensive the meter is or the fact

that there is no demand for it until you have addressed the question of making sure that the real-time pricing is made available

and that it is advertised sufficiently so the consumer knows about

it, and once you have done that, then you can perhaps expect to

see the demand develop and then the consumer can make a choice

about whether or not he wants to incur costs in order to purchase

this meter, and I am going to ask you also basically how much this

meter costs. We don’t have that information. But don’t you agree

that that step-by-step approach makes sense and that commissions

at the State level could be encouraged and should be perhaps not

required but we are a little reluctant to take that step here for jurisdictional reasons but at least encouraged to put the real-time

pricing regulation in effect and to make sure that that price signal

gets sent and that customers are made aware of the fact that it is

available on that variable price basis?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I go into this in some more detail in my written

testimony. I think we are essentially saying the same thing. Until

people can see what the value is, they are not going to do it, whether you call it actually developing a rate or publicizing the hourly

price. One way or another, you have to make it transparent. You

have to give people an opportunity to see what they are getting

into.

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, I think we all agree with that, but I am asking a process question.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Without the meters in place, developing the

rate, I suppose we could. Well, in Illinois’ case, we do have the rate

and people who ask for I can get a meter and we will see over the

next few years what the level of demand for that is and I guess——

Mr. BOUCHER. So how long have you had that in place?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Since January 1.

Mr. BOUCHER. OK. So that is really very new.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. It is very new.

Mr. BOUCHER. And you don’t have any experience yet——

Mr. LIEBERMAN. It is very new, and as Congressman Shimkus

pointed out——

Mr. BOUCHER. How many States have done what you have done?

How many States have put it in place that way?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I actually don’t know. Not very many.
151

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, I think maybe I should call on my colleague.

All right. This is helpful and I thank you.

Mr. Shimkus.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The premise of these hearings is getting to an energy security

bill which as the panel before and EPRI would talk about CO2 and

these wedges, so energy efficiency issues like smart grid technologies, these things help us on that efficiency slice. That is why

it is important and that is why we are pursuing it I think somewhat aggressively in trying to pin down good responses, and there

are a lot of distributed issues on generation which there are a lot

of things that happened in Illinois recently that have caused great

interest and consternation and problems but we experienced over

the last year two major power outages that lasted over a period of

7 to 10 days, and I personally was affected in the first one for

about a week and my parents, who live about a mile way from me,

were. Mine was in the hottest part of the summer and hers was

the coldest part of the winter. So there is for distributed generation

issues, there is a signal being sent when you fall under catastrophic outages and I know that people are looking at, solar panels, battery ability to at least have a minimal capability of power

and I think that would transmit into distributed if we got to that

point or whether that generation hooked up to natural gas for electricity much like Mr. Kamen’s own power plant but this is a separate power plant. So there are other signals than just price if you

experience them. We hope people don’t experience catastrophic outages, but when you do, you start thinking about other aspects of

this debate which I think are helpful in a full picture. I was going

to continue on the line, Mr. Lieberman, on this smart metering

thing but I think the chairman really kind of cleared that out as

far as we are relatively new and we will see how the response—

I think it is going to be very positive. In Illinois, we are in difficult

straits because we moved to deregulation. We required the utilities

to cut retail consumer costs 20 percent and then we froze those

rates for 10 years. Eventually that ends. And we have had astronomical price increases and we have had, especially homes that

were incentivized to go all electric, it is sad and there is a lot of

pressure on the State legislators to freeze that even further, and

if you don’t have a capital investment to expand or do even this

new technology, you are always going to be behind the eight ball

so it is always capital formation. That is why I asked the question

earlier of what is the best way. I believe the capital markets

through a competitive system but you have got to have the price

signals to allow that to occur. So I don’t really have much more.

I was going to highlight the net metering and issues, Mr. Chairman, but I just wanted to make those points that there is, especially in my part of the State where we have had catastrophic

power losses over multiple days, there is a new variable in distributor power or net metering or battery power or solar or other generation that somehow, I don’t know how you throw in a price signal

but we should at least recognize that and put that in maybe in report language or just as an important aspect of energy security so

that if there is—even in the terroristic aspect. We talked about it
152

during September 11, if someone takes down transmission lines,

distributor power is going to be pretty important.

So I am waxing philosophically, Mr. Chairman, and I will just

yield back my time. Thanks to the panel for being here.

Mr. BOUCHER. You are welcome to wax on for at least another

30 seconds. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Shimkus.

Mr. Lieberman, let me come back to you and I am so glad we

have you here today because Illinois does in fact have the kind of

program now in place since January that we had hoped to see

other States put in place and I understand about seven States have

done something comparable to what Illinois has done. Is that correct?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I can’t really respond to that. I know that there

are a number of States that are experimenting with time use and

real-time rates but there are some pilots going on.

Mr. BOUCHER. OK. How expensive are these smart meters? You

mentioned cost, and we don’t have that number.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. It really depends who you talk to and it depends

what functionalities you want in the meter and it depends how you

frame them. The ones that we have been looking at in Illinois are

in the $100 to $150 range, and I think it is important to note that

meters with far less functionality 5 years ago cost $750 and that

in a way these devices are falling in price rapidly and—but $150,

if you don’t know what you are getting it for seems like a lot of

money.

Mr. BOUCHER. True, and so what is the deployment methodology

for these meters? Do the utilities take the responsibility for making

them available to their customers on an optional basis so that a

customer who wants to take advantage of real-time price can acquire from the utility for this $150, the meter, and then I guess

that cost is built into rates until it is paid off or something like

that?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Two things. The utility is responsible for the

meter and the utilities remain the monopoly distribution company

so that there are no sort of free market meters. The meters are all

owned by the utility. They put it in. We had to demonstrate in Illinois that there was value for everyone in the customers—that the

whole rate base, all the customers benefited from a reduction in

peak and that therefore we could spread some of the costs across

the whole rate base so in a recent case before the Illinois Commission the proponents demonstrated that everybody was better off if

we cut the peak and therefore their cost would not go up if they

in a sense spread the cost of the meter around. So basically the

way it is structured in Illinois today is that the person taking the

real-time price pays for half the cost of the meter and the other

half is spread over the rate base. And I think that the issue, the

methodology to show that is critically important and one of the

things in terms of benefits that I was trying to talk about earlier

is I think that that is a tool that needs, that DOE could help develop and give to States because the States don’t have the capacity

to do that, in part.

Mr. BOUCHER. I am sorry. What is the ‘‘that’’ in that sentence?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. It is measuring the tool, the methodology actually, the model to sort of demonstrate that there is a value to this.
153

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Kolevar, are you listening?

Mr. KOLEVAR. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOUCHER. OK.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. Kolevar’s office and his staff——

Mr. BOUCHER. I didn’t mean that in a scolding way.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. No, they have been very helpful. They have been

remarkably helpful in sort of building whatever capacity is out

there but I think that significant more capacity is needed. I know

in our case they have been very helpful in giving us access to people at Lawrence Berkeley who know about this stuff in ways that

you can’t really find. So I think that the next step for me, if I were

king would be to say we need these methodologies so that it is easier for the State commissions to understand and to develop what

the values are. Because that is one of the big things that holds this

is up is, nobody knows how to estimate what the value is.

Mr. BOUCHER. I have one other question and that relates to some

national standard for smart meter technology and for other equipment that would help facilitate the smart grid, and I would like to

have the comments of each of the three witnesses concerning the

value of that, the extent to which the Federal Government already

is involved in encouraging this or other ways facilitating it, and

what in the future you might be considering doing with regard to

a Federal role to help establish a national standard for this. So

who would like to begin and comment on that process? Mr.

Wellinghoff.

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my testimony that was submitted to the committee, I did recommend with

respect to this working group that Mr. Kolevar referenced, it is an

informal group that FERC and NARUC have put together to collaborate on demand response issues and I would indicate that I

think it would be helpful for Congress to further encourage and

focus that work by establishing a Federal-State working group

through which the commission and State representatives would be

tasked with identifying best practices in developing consistent

standards for demand response. I think that would be helpful in

encouraging that industry overall because certainly if we have

these demand response aggregators operating one region of the

country, one RTO, they want to know if they can go to other regions of the country, in essentially operate utilizing the same communication protocols and the same standards to be able to aggregate customers to participate in demand response in the wholesale

market. So I think that could be very helpful, very useful, and we

would appreciate that assistance.

Mr. BOUCHER. OK. Mr. Kolevar.

Mr. KOLEVAR. Mr. Chairman, I think the Department could play

a very useful role in working with the innovators who are developing these technologies, who have developed a lot of these technologies today. I hesitate to say that development of standards,

performance standards, metric standards would be the best way to

go. My initial concern with that would be that we might be unintentionally inhibiting innovative development and future generations of smart grid technologies. Of course, the Department assists

with this kind of development right now. We do do a great deal of

testing with respect to some technologies to determine what their
154

level of performance is versus standard equipment and infrastructure today. I think that there will be an ongoing role for the Department in that respect.

Mr. BOUCHER. Well, that is the classic tension of course between

the need to have uniformity on the one hand and to encourage continued innovation on the other. The previous panel testified I

thought rather generally that having some national standards

would be helpful and appropriate in terms of facilitating the introduction of smart grid applications.

Mr. KOLEVAR. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BOUCHER. Yes, Mr. Kolevar.

Mr. KOLEVAR. Mr. Chairman, if I could mention one point.

Mr. BOUCHER. Certainly.

Mr. KOLEVAR. I think we would be interested in seeing work go

on at the State level and in cooperation with the Federal Government to try and establish methodologies for incentivizing greater

and greater and greater performance. That might be one of the better tools. And then certainly if ether are questions about whether

or not technologies are capable of meeting some specific levels of

performance, I think the Department of Energy would play a role

in helping that kind of test.

Mr. BOUCHER. All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. Markey is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wellinghoff, on the question of smart grid technology to facilitate the use of plug-in hybrid vehicles technologies to store electric energy, you say that these vehicles would help smooth the integration into the electric grid of renewable generation resources

such as wind generation. Can you explain to us how that would

occur?

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. Yes. Ultimately when wind generation would

be providing into the grid at an amount that might be excess, in

some instances they might have to dump that wind generation or

it may not be able to fully integrate into the grid because of the

low loads on the grid. These smart plug-in hybrid electric vehicles

could be used as storage devices in essence to help integrate it better into the grid. There has been a number of papers written by

Dr. Willet Kempton of Delaware and I would commend you to Dr.

Kempton’s papers. In fact, I will be happy to provide them to the

committee. In fact, he explains exactly how this integration could

better work and better integrate in renewables using the plug-in

hybrid smart vehicle.

Mr. MARKEY. Would this type of innovation allow us to reduce

the number of very large, new central power stations that we have

to build and allow us to avoid the cost and the pollution that would

be associated with such plans?

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. In my opinion, yes, it would. And I mentioned

earlier, to the extent we can make the grid more efficient, if we

could make an 850-gigawatt grid just 5 percent more efficient, we

could in fact save the output of 42 large central plants.

Mr. MARKEY. Wow. Are there any estimates that you have seen

about the potential scale of the demand response and power storage opportunities that widespread deployment or plug-in hybrids

could lead to?
155

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. Well, we know that plug-in hybrids, if you

took all the automobiles on the road today and you converted them

into kilowatts instead of horsepower, I think it is like eight to 10

times the total energy capacity we currently have on our grid. So

you can see the opportunity there is vast if you converted them into

storage vehicles in essence for the grid.

Mr. MARKEY. So you wouldn’t have to build a single new power

plant? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. I am not saying that but I am certainly saying that between distributed generation and large amounts of storage through plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, you would——

Mr. MARKEY. Could you cut it in half, the number of plants?

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. I don’t have an exact number, Congressman

Markey, but I can tell you it would be substantial.

Mr. MARKEY. You are making me feel good. That is good enough.

You also suggested plug-in hybrids could provide a variety of ancillary services and thereby improve power efficiency. Can you be

more specific? What are the ancillary services that these plug-in

vehicles could provide?

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. I can. The two primary ancillary services are

spinning reserve and regulation which are the services that are required now by generators to provide the grid to maintain a very

narrow frequency level so the grid can remain stable. Generators

now have to ramp up and down to provide spinning reserve and

regulation services. These services, and I think it was indicated by

Mr. Gammons earlier, PNNL has demonstrated that appliances in

essence can in part provide these services through microprocessors

that PNNL has demonstrated on the Olympic Peninsula. But going

beyond that, a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle could in fact do these

services, provide them to the grid and that way obviate the need

of generators have to ramp up and down, ultimately making those

generators run more efficiently so ultimately make the grid more

efficient by putting in these plug-in hybrids to substitute for them,

for these——

Mr. MARKEY. How would the owner of one of these hybrid vehicles be compensated for services that their vehicle would be providing back to the grid?

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. I think somebody this morning talked about

millions of sensors and massive amounts of data. We have millions

of sensors and massive amounts of data right here. It would be

similar to how a cell phone operator keeps track of your length of

calls and how much the call costs.

Mr. MARKEY. And by the way, do you think we need more privacy laws if we are going to allow that kind of information about

the personal habits of Americans be gathered?

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. Certainly the data would have to be

encrypted and there would have to be privacy issues that are addressed. There is no question about that, but ultimately——

Mr. MARKEY. Do you think the Federal Trade Commission should

implement the rulemaking that does provide the protections that

they are already required to do?

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. I couldn’t speak to the Federal Trade Commission, Congressman.

Mr. MARKEY. Do we need more protections?
156

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. We may, yes.

Mr. MARKEY. You are not sure we do? OK. What regulatory obstacles do you see to widespread commercial deployment of such vehicles?

Mr. WELLINGHOFF. The regulatory obstacles are ensuring that we

have the tariffs in place so these vehicles can in fact get the payments that would be necessary to provide these services and we

starting to do that already in the organized markets in the RTOs

and ISOs through allowing demand response in fact to participate

in spinning reserve regulation, other types of services. So the regulatory tariffs have to be place so that the consumers in fact can get

the payments and the settlement processes have to be set up in the

wholesale market so in fact they can have those payments provided

back to them.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank you. I see my time is expired. I am going

to point out that the Federal Trade Commission, when I contacted

them recently, indicated that they are not going to issue any implementing regulations whatsoever to protect the privacy of consumers’ electricity bills or to combat slamming and cramming. They

have that authority, and what I am going to do is, I am going to

organize an effort to put the pressure on the Federal Trade Commission to build these privacy protections into the law because concomitant with the development of a capacity to gather all of this

information which gives a detailed profile of who Americans are

and their use of electricity, when they are home or not, very interesting for a crook to know what your electricity habits are. They

would be able to figure out when you are home or not, and I just

think that the Federal Trade Commission has a responsibility to

act in that fashion.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Markey.

We want to thank this panel of witnesses. We very much appreciate your sharing information with us today and thank you for

your patience. It has taken a while to get to you this afternoon, and

you have been very helpful in your answers to questions. There are

potentially other questions members may want to submit to you in

writing, and if so, we would appreciate your prompt response.

So with the thanks of the committee to this panel, this hearing

is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194