To borrow a term from change management, utilities may therefore look for a single “burning platform” — advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) modernization, distributed energy resources (DER) integration, cybersecurity, land mobile radio (LMR) replacement or broadband capacity constraints — to justify the investment. But the value of communications is rarely confined to one application, which makes a single-use-case justification an incomplete measure of its long-term value.

This piecemeal approach made sense when communications infrastructure supported discrete functions: a radio system for the field, a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) network for telemetry, or a fiber route connecting a critical site. Those systems were built around specific operational needs. Today’s operating model, however, increasingly depends on shared information flows across many systems, assets and applications, all being evaluated together.

Networks underpin the modern utility’s broader operating model. Like a substation that supports multiple feeders or a transmission line that serves more than one customer, a well-planned communications architecture can provide the foundation for multiple applications and operating needs, which means its value can grow over time. Private LTE may be an important part of that architecture where the requirements support it, but the starting point should be the utility’s operating needs (e.g., coverage, latency, resiliency, cybersecurity, life-cycle support and control), not a preferred technology.

The challenge is that although communications value is distributed across the operating model, many investment decisions are still evaluated one application at a time.

When utilities calculate total cost of ownership in that narrow manner, they overlook the broader platform those investments can share and understate their full strategic value. A lone application can rarely justify a network by itself. But asking if a planned communications architecture can support the broader set of reliability, automation, DER integration, field mobility, cybersecurity and operational resilience outcomes the utility is already pursuing is a different justification exercise, and one that proves to be much more successful and strategically valuable.

Recent moves by two electric utilities illustrate how communications investments can create value across an enterprise:

• Tampa Electric, which serves more than 800,000 customers in the Tampa Bay region, has secured dedicated access to 900 MHz spectrum across its west-central Florida service territory for an initial 20-year term, with options for extension, to support critical broadband needs.
• Oncor, the largest transmission and distribution utility in Texas, has entered into a $102.5 million agreement for 900 MHz broadband spectrum to support a private LTE network focused on grid awareness, operational intelligence, resilience and innovation.

Neither utility appears to be treating spectrum access as a one-application investment. Both are creating long-term platforms capable of supporting multiple critical functions as operational needs evolve.

Guidance from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) points to the same conclusion: Communications decisions should begin with operating requirements, not with a preferred technology or a single application. Geography, reliability expectations, latency needs, cybersecurity considerations, restoration priority, governance, life-cycle support and future operating models should shape the architecture. A stronger business case starts with what the utility needs the grid to do, both today and over time.

In fact, a single “burning platform” may never emerge — and that does not indicate a weak investment case. It may instead reflect how communications value is created: through a portfolio of interdependent capabilities that become more valuable as the grid becomes more automated, distributed and data-driven. 

Communications planning might pause, but grid modernization does not. Every new device, data source, automation scheme and control system adds requirements that legacy communications architectures might not have been designed to support. Over time, deferring communications investment can increase costs, deepen dependencies on legacy systems, and make it harder to integrate the capabilities the modern grid demands.

To meet near-term requirements, utilities often use a patchwork of public cellular services, leased networks, application-specific solutions and incremental upgrades. Individually, these decisions may be reasonable. Collectively, they can leave utilities building their future operating models on disconnected infrastructure that is not fully owned, controlled or designed for modern grid operations.

The result is often greater operational complexity, inconsistent cybersecurity practices and limited visibility into long-term costs. In short: a communications environment that becomes more difficult to manage as grid demands evolve.

The DOE Electricity Advisory Committee highlights one consequence of that default approach. When telecommunications infrastructure is controlled by outside providers, electric industry participants potentially have less visibility into threats, vulnerabilities and common points of failure because equipment, performance, service quality and security practices vary across providers. For utilities, that creates concern not only about cybersecurity, but also about governance and operational control.

The risk is not simply that utilities wait too long to invest. By waiting, they allow their communications architecture to be shaped by urgent project needs instead of a deliberate long-term operating strategy. In many cases, delay is therefore not a neutral decision; it is an implicit choice to let disconnected, short-term requirements define the future communications environment. 

The strongest case for communications investment is that it helps other major grid investments deliver their full value. A substation automation program, DER integration strategy, advanced metering deployment or distribution automation investment can only perform at scale if the utility has the visibility, control and data movement needed to operate those systems reliably.

When planned as a shared, long-term platform, communications acts as a force multiplier. The same resilient network can support outage detection, asset health monitoring, distribution automation, predictive maintenance, adaptive protection schemes, DER coordination and storm response — without requiring a separate connectivity solution for each application.

Reliable communications can also help utilities use existing transmission and distribution assets more effectively by providing the visibility and control needed to manage a larger, more dynamic system. That can support better situational awareness, faster isolation and restoration, improved use of field data, more coordinated switching and greater ability to integrate distributed resources without overbuilding physical infrastructure. Communications does more than connect assets; it helps convert data into action and increases the usefulness, flexibility and longevity of the broader capital base.

As more data sources and control systems come online, the value of that shared architecture grows. Without it, automation remains limited, data becomes siloed and operators have fewer opportunities to improve performance across the system. 

Utilities have spent decades refining how they plan transmission and distribution infrastructure. The communications layer deserves the same level of long-term planning because it will increasingly determine how effectively those physical assets can be operated.

Contributions from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to the DOE Modern Distribution Grid Project emphasize the importance of well-articulated objectives, integrated planning, a systems-engineering approach and proportional deployment strategies. Those principles apply directly to communications planning.

The process should begin with long-term operational requirements: what the utility needs to monitor, control, automate, protect and coordinate across the system today and in the future. Technology selection follows. That approach moves utilities beyond project-by-project connectivity decisions and reframes communications as an enterprise architecture focus with implications for funding, governance and deployment. Just as important, it also helps prevent a series of reasonable project-level decisions from becoming an accidental communications strategy.

Utilities are already incorporating communications into modernization road maps, resilience programs, operational technology strategies and long-range capital plans. In doing so, they are treating communications as a strategic infrastructure layer that supports multiple business objectives.

As grid modernization accelerates, a utility-wide communications architecture will become central to long-range capital decisions. The question is no longer whether communications matters to utility operations; it does. The better question is whether planning, funding and governance models have caught up to that reality. Utilities that build the Third Grid intentionally will be better positioned to make modernization investments perform. Those that do not might still build it, but incrementally, through a growing collection of disconnected decisions.