Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) evaluations will benefit greatly from creating an appropriate DR portfolio as part of the overall solution.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), Congress sent a strong message to electric utilities, consumers, and industry regulators that they need to get serious about advanced metering, time-based rates, and demand response (DR).

To underline this point, EPACT states:

Some states, including Illinois, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas, have been considering smart-metering questions as part of rate cases and resource-planning discussions. Other states, such as Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, and Virginia, have initiated EPACT Section 1252 inquiries separately from other proceedings. The tenor of the discussion also varies from state to state, with high-cost power states generally more attracted to AMI than low-cost states are.

Whether it’s an aging workforce, the impact of competitive markets, or an outdated transmission system, today’s energy and utility organizations are facing a whole new set of challenges. What many people in the industry don’t realize is that the utility sector is not the first to face these kinds of issues. The U.S. military is dealing with, or has dealt with, a strikingly similar set of problems in recent years.

What a difference a year makes. In 2004, automated metering infrastructure (AMI) was in something of a slump, but the Energy Policy Act of 2005, an uptick in natural disasters, and encouraging results from pilot projects have strengthened the business case for investing in AMI.

What a difference a year makes.

In 2004, the automated metering industry was in something of a slump. After the 2003 Northeast blackout, and facing rising gas prices and diminished investor confidence during a time of war, many utilities put automated meter reading (AMR) on the back burner.

The “N-word” in the title first appeared in this journal more than 20 years ago, courtesy of the celebrated environmentalist Amory Lovins and his widely quoted piece, “Saving Gigabucks with Negawatts” (Fortnightly, 1985). Scroll forward a few decades. With restructuring of wholesale electric markets at FERC, plus formation of regional transmission organizations and independent system operators, the game was changed.

In our annual technology forum, we talk with tech/information specialists at four companies: Patricia Lawicki at PG&E; Ken Fell at the New York ISO; Mark C. Williamson at American Transmission Co.; and John Seral at GE Energy.

When President Bush signed the energy bill on August 8, he set in motion a chain of events that might lead to major changes in the way utilities price and meter retail electric services—and ultimately in the way they value and use non-traditional energy resources.

Off Peak

May 15, 2001

Now Do as You're Told

 

Regulators count on price signals to force consumers to behave.

Boise, Idaho: Tues. Apr. 10, 2001, 8 a.m.

 

How Colorado's settlement in the Xcel merger builds a case for treating needy ratepayers as a separate class entitled to merger benefits.

PYRAMIDS FALL. While I enjoyed reading the "Pyramid Schemes" article in your May 1, 1998 issue, as the lead prosecutor in the Federal Trade Commission's action against FutureNet I feel a clarification is in order. While the FTC's complaint focused on FutureNet's Internet access program, certain concerns attach to any program which focuses on recruitment since one of the hallmarks of a pyramid is the lack of any relationship between the compensation paid to a distributor for recruiting and the sale of any product. (Webster v. Omnitrition International Inc., 79 F. 3d 776, 781 [9th Cir.