Rick,

Your December Global Viewpoint struck a nerve with this well-worn distribution hack, and I developed an urgent need to share my thoughts with you.

Smart grid has become an overused term, and I share your observation that perhaps we should pause and reflect future designs. I am concerned about the passion expressed by so many experts about smart grid. I do believe this passion is obscuring their vision. We should strive to insure that failure of any smart device will render that device immobile. Too many of our industry's protection schemes now employ a “smart” relay that does everything including making coffee. The best failure mode should result in the device going to sleep and DOING NOTHING! Utilities typically include backup relays to “smart” relays to perform a singular protection function such as trip on over-current.

Some individuals both inside and outside of utilities express such passion for smart grid, one receives the impression this will solve all future problems to the extent of even changing the laws of physics. And that is while we are imposing more load and performance expectations on facilities that are of the vintage and functionality of a 1955 Nash automobile.

Our aging T&D facilities are simply going to require replacement, period. No amount of smart grid devices will change this fact.

Bart P. Angeli
Consulting Engineer
Substation Operating
Reliability Support Services
AmerenUE

Rick,

Thank you for your December editorial “Smart Enough to Play Dumb.” You truly struck an excellent point and a “nerve” at the same time.

K.I.S.S. We both know what it means: Keep it Simple Stupid.

I find that too many of my counterparts don't fully understand my “issue” with the IEC 61850 communication standard. If we are not careful, we could suffer the consequences of not building in safe mode to address potential issues.

If we decided to go full in and implement a “true 61850 system” in the substation, the “router” (or Ethernet switch, I'm simplifying here) would become the hub of substation communication activities.

That begs the question, What if you lose it?

Keep in mind that those who laid the foundation of our electric system did have “fail safe” in mind. I'm all for progress and searching for better ways of doing things. But with a true 61850 system, we still need to trip the breaker if the Ethernet switch fails. This is why the relay engineer inside me wants an active relay in the system. Communicate as needed. Pass information along. But in fail safe, I want the “base package” to trip the breaker.

This is just one example of why we need safe mode, Rick.

Kim Hensley
Substation Engineer
Huntsville Utilities