Electric Utilities Say They Need Their Own Networks
Electric utilities and telecom carriers clashed over whether utilities can rely on commercial networks to meet most of their communications needs during a disaster. More than a dozen parties filed reply comments on a Public Safety Bureau inquiry notice from April about the survivability of broadband networks. The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) said utilities need their own secure networks and dedicated spectrum.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
"In order to provide safe, reliable electric service, utilities must have communications systems that are robust and reliable,” said EEI. “Electric utilities are concerned that telecom carriers cannot match electric utility standards of system recovery, particularly in remote areas.” EEI noted complaints by some wireless carriers that their main vulnerability during a disaster is loss of power at cell sites. If utilities must rely on commercial carriers, they'll be caught in a Catch-22, EEI said. “Utilities are unable to rely on commercial communications networks due to power outages, but are unable to quickly and effectively respond to power outages due to communications network outages."
"While commercial carriers may be able to meet some utility communications needs, most utilities will rely on private internal communications networks to support mission-critical applications that protect the safety, reliability and security of the nation’s electric grid and other critical infrastructure industries,” UTC said. “Moreover, access to spectrum will be critical for the cost effective and timely deployment of smart grid systems, and should be provided, notwithstanding carrier claims of reliability."
UTC disputed claims that utilities could take advantage of government programs providing priority service during emergencies. They include the Wireless Priority Service and the Government Emergency Telecommunications Service. “Even if all the communications services on which utilities rely would qualify for these programs, they are not a substitute for a private internal network,” UTC said. And “these services are only as good as the networks on which they are provided."
AT&T disagreed in its reply comments, saying the record shows that commercial networks would survive most disasters. “The fact is that commercial broadband networks today effectively support utility companies, and Smart Grid partnerships between broadband network operators and electric utilities are increasing,” the carrier said. “By leaving network survivability in the hands of operators and industry standards groups, broadband network operators have developed and implemented many innovative strategies that promote survivability and minimize points of failure.”
"Commercial wireless service and networks are sufficiently reliable for most smart grid applications and other utility emergency communications needs,” T-Mobile said. “Wireless operators are already engaged with individual utilities on smart grid applications."
CTIA said the FCC doesn’t need to impose additional regulations on carriers (CD Sept 7 p11). PCIA agreed: “Wireless network architecture and the standards for the design and construction of cell sites ensure that cell sites are likely not individual points of failure within wireless networks. Further, in the event of a widespread network failure or usage spike, wireless service and infrastructure providers have in place effective response plans to ensure that service is continuity maintained or quickly restored."
The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates said the FCC shouldn’t close off the possibility that more regulation may be necessary. NASUCA said carriers make many of the usual arguments against regulation. “Among them is that ‘one size fits all’ regulation will rob providers of flexibility to adapt to evolving problems,” the group said. “Regulation that sets minimum performance standards, but does not dictate how that minimum performance is to be achieved, does allow the flexibility to address new issues and difficulties.”