Smart Grid: Smart Grid Stimulus Bill: DOE Snubs IOUs and Meters - Smart Grid News

Smart Grid News
Feature Article
Smart Grid Stimulus Bill: DOE Snubs IOUs and Meters
Apr 20, 2009

The Department of Energy last week issued its first preliminary guidelines for Smart Grid stimulus projects. The result appears to be a bias against investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and smart meters.

Note: Smart Grid News is developing consensus criteria for evaluating Smart Grid stimulus projects. Go to our Smart Grid Scorecard and use the comment form at the bottom to share your opinions. Please comment before April 24 so we have the advantage of your suggestions before we send a revised version to state governors and the DOE.

For an up-to-the-minute recap of stimulus development, click on our Stimulus News Roundup.

In general, the solicitation seems to indicate that the DOE favors:

Coops and municipals over IOUs
Science projects over deployments
Isolation over interoperability
Rate increases over private sector funding
Almost anything over smart meters

Below we outline the major provisions and then give you a quick explanation of the five points above. We finish up with links to the DOE materials plus useful news stories and commentary.

The Major Provisions

In remarks delivered in Jefferson City, Missouri, Vice President Joe Biden and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke announced the Department of Energy’s initial disbursal of funds for Smart Grid projects as provided for in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or stimulus bill.

“We need an upgraded electrical grid to take full advantage of the vast renewable resources in this country — to take the wind from the Midwest and the sun from the Southwest and power areas across the country,” remarked Vice President Biden in his prepared statement. “By investing in updating the grid now, we will lower utility bills for American families and businesses, lessen our dependence on foreign oil and create good jobs that will drive our economic recovery — a strong return on our investment.”

The outlined plans included two broad categories: $3.375 billion in grants for Smart Grid development and $615 million for Smart Grid demonstration projects. The Grant Program consists of two kinds of grants:

Grants for Smart Grid deployment ranging from $500,000 to $20 million.
Grants for grid monitoring devices ranging from $100,000 to $5 million.

The second, or demonstration funding category, provides grants for three kinds of demonstrations:

Smart Grid Regional Demonstrations to nail down costs and benefits, confirm technological viability, and explore news business models.
Utility-Scale Storage Demonstrations to examine battery, ultra-capacitor, flywheel, and compressed air energy systems as well as programs for wind and photovoltaic integration and relief for grid congestion.
Grid Monitoring Demonstrations for installing and networking grid monitoring devices that enable transmission system operators to monitor and control electricity flows.

Among the eligible grant applicants listed in the draft “Notice of Intent” are the following:

Electric utilities, such as investor-owned utilities, municipality-owned utilities, and rural electric cooperatives
Load serving entities, or load distribution companies, which provide electricity distribution services
Retail distributors or marketers of electricity, which sell electricity to consumers
System operators that coordinate, control, and monitor the operation of the electrical power transmission systems within a single state or region, and
Manufacturers of appliances and equipment to enable smart grid functionalities. (NOI, page 5.)

Finally, Secretary Locke acknowledged the need for standards before development goes much further. “A smart electricity grid will revolutionize the way we use energy, but we need standards in place to ensure that all this new technology is compatible and operating at the highest cyber security standards to protect the smart grid from hackers and natural disasters,” said Locke. Locke spoke of the summit meetings of industry leaders to be held starting next week in Reston, Virginia, to address standards issues, as previously reported in SGN.

The draft Notice of Intent has a 20-day comment period before becoming final. SGN will be presenting a revised version of to our Smart Grid Scorecard.

What It All Means

Before we start with our analysis, we want to acknowledge the difficulty of the DOE’s challenge. They are doing the very best they can to juggle competing interests and come up with the right compromise. They have far too few people and far too little time for this immense challenge.

We wouldn’t want this job.

That said, it behooves us all to be very thoughtful and critical about the DOE’s decisions. We’re borrowing the Stimulus money from our children and grandchildren. We owe it to them to spend it wisely.

Viewed from that perspective, the Notice of Intent includes some good news — but also some disappointments.

Favoring Coops and Munis

IOUs are welcome to submit projects, but the relatively small grant size -- $20M tops plus $20M in matching funds – is viewed as a disappointment by most IOUs, who were hoping for something in the $50-$100M range. One Wall Street analyst told his private clients he now believes that the grants will not be a material incentive for large or medium IOUs to deploy smart meters. For example, $20M will only cover about 5% of the cost for a large smart metering deployment.

The low ceiling and the decision to fund lots of small projects seem to favor municipals and coops, assuming those smaller organizations have the staff, funding, and expertise to crank out proposals quickly.

Favoring Science Projects over Deployments

$40 million projects have merit, to be sure, but they are too small to have systemic impact on an entire region. Xcel Energy’s Smart Grid City is a $100 million project on its own and involves only a single city within Xcel’s large territory.

In addition, the DOE is asking projects to test a wide variety of technologies, even though many utilities already know which technologies they prefer. The CEO of a Pacific Northwest utility told SGN Executive Editor Jesse Berst over dinner recently that “we don’t need any more #!^& pilots and science projects! We need help to pay for the foundational technologies. Then we can start building out applications.”

Our understanding is that the DOE was afraid a few large IOUs would swoop in and grab all the money. By putting such a low cap, the DOE seems to have solved that problem while creating a new one. (As we said, we wouldn’t want this job.)

Favoring Isolation over Interoperability

Instead of 30 to 60 regional projects with multiple utilities, the DOE is likely to end up with 150 to 250 small projects with individual utilities. This will perpetuate our country’s current system, where every utility reinvents the wheel and duplicates basic functionality, with almost no thought to efficiencies of scale or interoperability with other utilities.

Favoring Rate Increases

At a maximum match of $20 million, private financiers will find these projects too small to bother with, especially considering the extra red tape and the uncertainty of winning. That means the DOE prefers to see utilities supply the matching funds themselves by raising their rates. (You’ll also see lots of utilities trying to claim “in-kind” contributions by asking to count salaries and utility equipment as part of the match.”)

Favoring Almost Anything over Smart Meters

The language in the NOI suggests that DOE wants to see most of the stimulus funds directed to non-smart meter projects. We suspect the traditional T&D providers were able to successfully lobby to deemphasize smart meters. This is bad news for meter makers, but good news for those who sell distribution automation, D-VARs, storage, control room software, superconducting cables, and perhaps demand response equipment (as long as it does not require smart meters to function).

What’s your take? Hit the Comment button below.

CNet news report

Energetics news report

Government site summarizing the new programs

DOE’s Notice of Intent of the new funding scheme (PDF)

SGN report on upcoming standards summit

Leave comments on the Smart Grid Scorecard

Talk Back to the Author

Current Comments (26)

Leave a Comment

maybe smart meters is a dumb idea

Maybe the response to your concerns lies in your own words. The mass replacement of meters with "smart meters" will be tremendously expensive. Still the case has yet to be made as to what the investment will yield. Unless and until that "smart" meter can communicate with someone or something that will actually modify consumption and/or demand then it is form over substance, great technology but of little practical value other than automated meter reading and remote sensing. The value add here is a device than can actually control end use consumption and demand, transparent to the customer. When that is achieved, the business model will work and the pieces will fall into place!

Steve Morgan - 04/22/2009 - 07:48

Definitions / Explanations

Your mission would be well served by educating the public on the definitions of Smart grid and Smart Meters and how they will save energy and ultimately the customers money.

Raymond Martens - 04/22/2009 - 07:59

What is a Smart Grid Without Smart Meters

I am confused about this. The DOE is saying they want to deemphasize smart meters and emphassize more on T&D automation systems. How does that make sense. I belived that the smart meters would be able to give REPs the ability to understand loads and be able to help with transmission and distribution companies and their abilty to offset loads that are not needed in some areas and spread these loads to areas consuming more creating a demand response system. Can someone tell me how this makes sense. Does a smart grid not rely on smart meters and T&D automation in order to have the abilty to understand our consumption needs which then will give us the abilty to move the energy more efficiently to those areas of need. I also thought efficiency was the new number 1 energy. we cannot become more efficient if the consumer has no abilty to understand their consumption. the smart meter allows consumers both residetial and commercial to see their usage real time instead of a rear view picture. this allows the consumer the abilty to make changes in consumption by either conservation or by obtaining more energy efficient products. It just seems without smart meters we are again hindering our abilities to become an actual smart grid system with the beliefs of the DOE. I do understand that their does need to be a certain standard that allows all of these new products to to be able to communicate with all other products but if anyone understands this more please help me. What do I not get here?

Sky Miller - 04/22/2009 - 08:00

Not consistant with the DOE document

I would disagree with this analysis of the DOE document. However, it's just my opinion. The DOE doesn't say anything that the author proclaims. I would encourage everyone to read the document themselves.

As for the benefits of Smart Meters, this is an emerging technology. Much of what will make this successful is under development. However, nobody will develop anything if we do not give them a customer base for which to sell to. We all benefit (consumer and utility) through operational efficiences this will make available. That takes into consideration Smart Meter technologies available today (i.e. MEM and MDMS). Giving the consumer interval data to view (via Smart Meter) will help them visualize their usage. How many of you reading this message pay no attention to peak time on your personal cell phone (not for business use)? Personnaly, I look at those buckets on my bill. Consumers will grow into this shift in energy consumption transparancy, and many will modify their usage when presented with this kind of data. This speaks nothing to the internal operational benefits to ROI these changes.

I believe the DOE gets that and that the bill reflects it as well.

Greg Stoehr - 04/22/2009 - 09:28

What's so smart about touted smart meters?

What is being abusively called smart meter is just a digital meter with network connectivity. The major flaw in the much hoopla'ed smart meter approach is that billions of dollars are getting spent on having a dedicated/closed network for meters that only one utility owns and controls. Single-purpose networks are a waste of money and a thing of the past. Second and bigger flaw in "smart meters": the concept that these meters need to be the one and only gateway to interact with a user's appliances or load control devices, again using utility-only schemes that don't line up with anything that exists on the open market (Internet-enabled devices, etc.). No, thank you. The meter is just a billing instrument. Get me the information about my usage or about my need to shed load and relieve the grid via the plethora of existing means (phone, email, text, web) and let me change my behavior or instrument my home the way I see fit, not the way the utility sees fit, as long as I'm delivering on my requirement to save or shed or pay up when I don't.

The money should be rightly applied to helping consumers become more efficient (rebates on investments they make for efficiency) and to preparing the grid for a vastly higher number of energy input points (from wind, solar, etc.).

It should not be applied to trying to make pigs fly by turning billing devices into the end-all-be-all for energy management within the private customer premises.

Roland Acra - 04/22/2009 - 09:29

Point Tactics vs. System Strategy

Many of the large independent utilities have demonstrated that they can roll out smart meters without government (e.g., DOE) intervention. ConEdison, Constellation, and Duke Energy (to name a few) have already worked on rate increase approvals and begun substantial smart meter rollouts. What is missing is investments into understanding how the entire system works together (like the Xcel project). Perhaps these are what the DOE sponsored demonstrations will reveal. The grid is in great need of modernization to accommodate population growth, regardless of our energy concerns. It seems to make sense for government to address this modernization and let the utilities commodotize the endpoint meters.

Philip Stiff - 04/22/2009 - 09:56

Who gains from this approach?

The criteria has obviously been biased for the benefit of someone. T&D suppliers are obvious suspects but there are also major meter manufacturers who don't have viable solutions and stand to lose major market share if the stimulus funds are used for smart metering projects. The benefits of smart metering are clear and offer immediate savings potential to end customers who could save an estimated $20 per month on their electric bill. That money could then be used to increase savings and/or discretionary spending which is the primary intent of the stimulus act. It will be interesting to see if the DOE will allow the obvious manipulations of a few suppliers to derail the original intent of the stimulus bill to the detriment of vast numbers of american taxpayers.

Mark Thayer - 04/22/2009 - 09:59

Re: Who gains from this approach?

Mark: you ask a good question.

However the same argument can be made in the opposite direction, i.e. the "smart meter" vendors (or AMI vendors) attempting to reduce the "smart grid" to a meter upgrade scope, which is way too tactical.

The connected meters have an operational benefit to utilities themselves, regardless of load shedding by consumers: they won't need to send people around to read meters. They get the information remotely and with more time-based granularity. All good.

End-customers saving an estimated $20/month on their electric bill is predicated on receiving in timely manner Time-of-Use pricing information or Demand/Response signals, for them to act on their consumption and achieve the savings you mention.

What is highly questionable is that "smart meters" are the best way (much less the only way) to convey this information to end-customers. A message from the grid would do, via the plethora of existing communications means (Internet, Phone, Cell, Radio, etc.). We do this for mission-critical warnings such as tornado or flood watch messages, so let's not invoke the argument of "reliability".

Roland Acra - 04/22/2009 - 10:17

Smart Grid-wasting time and money

The idea that the utility should control every individual load, should interfere into the personal life of everyone, is wrong. Instead of investing in so called "smart grid", we should invest in alternative energy sources (SOLAR and WIND)and modernize the TRANSMISSION GRID.Creating a new, modernized generation and transmission system should be the primary direction for the stimulus money.

The smart meter is nothing else than an extension of utility SCADA system into everyone house to give the utility some control over every individual peak load demand.

Making the domestic costumer low-voltage network a part of the distribution system it doesn't make sense.It's going to be a tremendous burden for the utilities and for the customers'pocket.

Why to complicate things? Simplify, if possible...

Ion Stanciu - 04/22/2009 - 10:47

DOE Smart Grid Draft FOA

Jesse, as I read theFOA it looks to me like IOUs are favored over Publicly Owned Utilities. The grant sizes are $20-40 mil and $5-20 mil, respectively (see table page 21) and DPE anticipates 6-8 Regional Demo projects with IOUs and only 2-4 with piblic utilities. There is another $4 billion dedicated to actual infrastructure matching grants for thngs liek Smart Meters. The Regional Demo Projects seem really focused on perfecting the Smart Grid technology platform in practice - something critically needed.

James Mater

QUalityLogic, Inc

James Mater - 04/22/2009 - 10:58

Hmm...

Hi Philip,

The DOE document is not such a departure from common sense as you seem to imply rather bluntly. Saying you feel sorry for them won't make up for it. I am sure they don't feel sorry for themselves. They have a tremendous opportunity to make a difference and maybe it's just that you and other critics wish that control would be in the hands of IOUs instead.

Smart Metering, and other closed loop proprietary networking technologies have always been an obvious choice for IOUs because they provide a captive market for them.

Let's come back to basics and call the DEO notice of intent what it is:

It's a great stride towards enabling the emergence of open technology by promoting the smaller and most community-oriented utilities to innovate and deploy technology. This will have a great effect and favor technologies that will deliver efficiency at the lowest cost to the consumer.

Smart Metering is just a buzz word that means different things to different people. What's sure is that smart grid technology will involve smart monitoring and networking technology. It's important that these technologies be as open as possible to allow for as many combinations of manufacturers, operators, and distribution schemes as possible. Anything else will create new de facto monopolies of the IOUs and wall-street backed tech players.

I wouldn't want your job either. So kudos for speaking your mind nevertheless!

Marc

Marc Minolt - 04/22/2009 - 11:10

Who benefits?

Besides potential benefits to the future consumers after the smart grid is deployed it seems like the only private sector participants to benefit are big utilities and large coporations. Utilities are not operating with losses so do they really need the assistance? On the other hand there does not seem to be any help for small businesses at all. Will there be a provision in the grants that part of the work will be (mandatorily) shared with small businesses?

Amit.

Amit Jain - 04/22/2009 - 12:49

Smart Grid

Great article, and I agree with the point that all these innovative technologies we call "smart grid" must have interoperability and work with each other including smart meters, smart appliances, smart on-site distrubuted generation systems, thermostats and controls, and interface with liughting and water heating systems (to name a few).

Scott Sklar - 04/22/2009 - 13:08

Response to James Mater

James - Yes, the regional demos favor IOUs but as you point out they are only a small piece of the pie. The bulk of the $4.5 billion is earmarked for grants that, by dint of their size, seem to favor munis and coops. Whatever the intent of DOE, I can tell you that many IOUs are quite upset. Depending on whose numbers you believe, IOUs generate roughly 75-85% of the country's electricity and believe a similar percentage of the stimulus bill should be in support of their efforts. - Jesse

Jesse Berst - 04/22/2009 - 13:24

Smart meters?

As a utility director of a small utility I implemented smart meters because I could model my customers for rate making and load shifting purposes plus I could model the delivery system to monitor and improve delivery, identify and notify customers of outages, reduce losses, plan for expansion, detect theft, match power purchase with delivered energy, etc.

That to me is a smart grid. It was also internet based so my customers could see their usage patterns. Of course it was open software.

But it all began with a meter that could communicate.

Paul Eichenberger - 04/22/2009 - 15:06

Coments on your April 20, 2009 Feature Article

I find your apparent bias towards smart meters rather uninformed. Smart Grid does not equal Smart Meters. This may have been the notion on Capitol Hill only a couple of years ago, but no longer so. Yes, the DOE has had a difficult task to balance but they have made a valiant effort to allow for technologies beyond smart meters. Also, they are recognizing that Smart Grid does not start or stop at distribution but it ought to include transmission and even generation. Let us not forget the basic cause of the August 14, 2003 blackout. It had nothing to to with smart meters or distribution. Among many factors, it was lack of visibility of wide area awareness on overhead transmission line conditions that prevented avoidance or mitigation of that catastrophic event. Let us all take a holistic view of the entire network and try to put the available funds to best use and first bolster the reliability of our nation's electric grid.

Sandy Aivaliotis - 04/22/2009 - 16:00

Smart meters v smart grid

Basically without hopefully over simplifying a complex issue - today the T&D network is a dumb piece of cabling with little or no remote monitoring or control. To address environmental, energy security and the future needs of society this must now be made capable of supporting a much more dynamic environment where generation and demand sources are constantly changing. Centralised generation will soon be supplanted to some degree by distributed generation requiring the networks to support complex multi directional and changing energy flows. The widescale adoption of electrical vehicles that are also sources of generation onto the grid would drive the need for even greater levels of remote management and configuration of the distribution networks. The economic benefits for introduction of such intelligence to the distribution grid are relatively clear today. Reliability improvements and reduction in operational costs alone support some level of investment in T&D intelligence. The same cannot be said for deployment of the ubiquitous infrastructure required to support smart metering alone. The truly "Smart" way forward would be to look at developing intelligence across the distribution grids themselves first and ensuring that this same communications infrastructure was in turn also employed to incrementally rollout Smart metering solutions if and when a realistic economic case can be identified.

David Healey - 04/23/2009 - 08:48

Smart Meters versus Common Cents

Smart Metering? What an over-hyped and over-priced concept. Why would you invest in a metering system that doesn't reduce costs? At this time, there is no value implementing a smart metering system. Besides, the technology is changing to rapidly and you run the risk of getting stuck with an expensive underperforming system. There are more economical ways of acquiring data for planning, OMS reporting, load flow analysis, and other strategic functions. However, if the purpose of the system is to load manage, then I can see the benefit, but you will need a high level of customer participation. As an option to these expensive systems, let's look at ways of reducing kWh system losses by upgrading circuit conductors, installing switched capacitor banks, converting to higher voltage distribution systems, and by increasing transmission voltages. Why do we still operate 69kV transmission and 46kV sub-transmission systems? Finally, let's stop the PV-solar sillyness- too costly and it doesn't eliminate conventional generation requirements.

Louis Todd Sumner - 04/23/2009 - 19:34

Difference of Interpretation

I read the DOE document and found it to be pretty comprehensive and balanced--though some adjustment towards IOUs may be needed. I certainly disagree with the assertion that they have a bias against smart meters. On the contrary, quite a lot seems to incorporate smart meters as a given prerequisite. Any monitoring or change of behavior, for example, would require a smart meter. This to me is peppered throughout the document, and would seem a boon to those taking AMI further than simple installation.

Todd Thompson - 04/24/2009 - 07:21

Good job DOE

Favoring Coops and Munis – Perhaps this is because the DOE knows most of these projects involve controlling demand, reducing cost of peak loads, and implementing distributed generation effectively. Many of the IOU’s manipulate SmartGrid projects so that their existing revenues and future growth in revenues are preserved rather than reduced. The significant cost reduction advantage for the customer of IOU projects is often lost in the IOU’s limited objectives and implementation priorities.

Favoring Science – There clearly needs to be more science and more demonstration of benefits to force the utilities to implement load reductions. The idea of implementing very large foundation technologies before the applications are built out and validated is too great a risk that the most important applications will be locked out by insufficient implemented technology. There are many alternative approaches to SmartGrid that do not require the implementation of Smart Meters and may be more effective than projects that are dedicated to Smart Meter implementation.

Favoring Isolation over Interoperability – While clearly there should be efficiencies of scale, this doesn’t mean that only regional implementations should get support. The DOE doesn’t have the resources to significantly underwrite large regional projects.

In conclusion I believe the DOE is doing a good job in a very difficult environment.

Chuck Drinnan - 04/24/2009 - 10:23

DOE Will Probably Increase the Ceiling

According to the Washington Post and others, the DOE may raise the ceiling "after major electric utilities complained that the proposed $20 million-per-grant limit was too low to encourage commercial-scale deployment of advanced technologies." One DOE spokesman said they might have a two-track system, one for small projects, one for large.

Jesse Berst - 04/24/2009 - 10:45

DOEs WISE NOI for an FOA

I find the above discussion a productive one, that was enabled by a well written and timely article. The main barrier to the smart grid is the obsolete IOUs Framework with demand as an externality and supply side power system planning, operation and control. That framework served very well its useful purpose up to close to 1970.

The IOUs Framework is based on the business model of winning rate cases to the regulator for energy and transportation (T&D) sales. That Framework should remain for transportation only as the IOT Framework. The Smart Grid should enable business model innovations under competition in the open market to develop and integrate the resources of the demand side to power system planning, operation, and control.

I have written extensively in the Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) Blog, which emerge as a holistic Framework to replace the IOUs Framework. Please go to www(dot)energyblogs(dot)com(slash)ewpc to see the articles and posts.

The EWPC Framework divides the complex emergent whole power industry in two parts, which is the simplest wait to do it. One part is the open market on the value chain generation, retail, prosumer (a consumer that may produce). The other part is the regulated transporter (the T&D smart grid). The transporter’s compact will give IOTs the responsibility to transport in exchange for reasonable tolls. Distribution in fact will become indistinct from transmission.

I believe that the small grant size is well thought out. Like IBM with the PC development, IOUs need to set up independent units if they want to be funded and to stay in the game.

While under the IOUs Framework isolation will win over interoperability, under the EWPC Framework interoperability is about business model innovations competition for the federal retail market, by what I term Second Generation Retailers (search my blog for 2GR). Isolation thus becomes a losing proposition. Financiers’ will recognize the environment similar to that of the computer industry.

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. - 04/24/2009 - 13:47

DOEs WISE NOI for an FOA Part II

Jesse's post came while I was composing my post. I still think the DOEs NOI for an FOA is WISE.

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. - 04/24/2009 - 14:03

Smart Grid

While The U.S.Flounders on the rocks of ineficiancy,Europe will pick the low hanging fruit of eficiancy.To resist change, waste energy and ignore the Dire consequences is the American way.We need to pour the kind of money into this that we have on Imperialistic wars in the past.There is likly no Alternative but a planet that will resemble Mars anyway.Shouldn't we at least try?

Donald Wallace - 05/01/2009 - 16:40

Bottom Line

It appears to me that there is an unawareness of how smart meters save money and create value. A smart meter is a necessary but not sufficient part of a system that brings value. Utilities have to build power generation capacity for peak demand. Cheap sources like hydroelectric and nuclear plants run all the time because they are the cheapest. Oil generators would kick in for peak demand, and are the more costly. A utility has no way to know when it's customer base uses electricity and no way to bill them at a higher rate when their costs are higher. Smart meters are an enabler to a different payment structure. When a consumer has to pay more at peak hours, they will modify their behavior. They will run their clothes dryer in the evening. They will heat up their water during the night for morning showers and let their water temperatures drop during peak periods. This will tend to lower the peak demand and lower the costs to utilities to build that peak demand. Consumers are not forced to do anything, the utility doesn't dictate to them how they should behave. They can wash their clothes and dishes on the hottest day of the summer, or the coldest day of the winter (Peak power demand times, they will just pay more for doing so. It merely gives incentive to the consumer to act in a more efficient manner and aligns the customers payments more closely to the utilities costs. There are other smart meter value enablers. Want to sell solar power or power from your windmill back to the power company while you are out of town on vacation? You need a smart meter to do that. Want to plug in your electric car and charge it at night when power is cheap, and sell it back to the power company when it's expensive? Again, you need a smart meter.

Greg Phillips

Greg Phillips - 05/19/2009 - 18:04

Smart Grid

All this message traffic and no mention of Beacon Power? How did that happen?

TM - 06/02/2009 - 18:10

Leave a Comment

New to this Blog? Need some help?

Email:

[?]
We will not post or give your email address to anyone.

Full Real Name:

[?]
Real comments need a real name.

Subject:

[?]
Please provide a short subject for your comment.

Comment:[?]

Do not post commercial/sales messages here. They will be deleted. Try: pr@smartgridnews.com
PLEASE NOTE: All HTML codes will be removed from your comment.

CAPTCHA Security Code

The numbers (0) and (1) are not used.

[?]
Please type the characters you see into the box.

Remember my name? (Uncheck to forget.)

You can not edit or delete your comment once it is posted. Please check for spelling now.
Your IP Address is: 38.107.191.101

SMART GRID NEWS TALK BACK BUZZ
Information about "WIRES"
May I please have some more inforation on the charter of this coalition. Thank you. ...
Talk Back right now to Sandy K. Aivaliotis

SMART GRID NEWS SCORE CARDS

Get SGN's free email newsletter
What's in the SGN email? \| Twitter \| Facebook \| Linkedin