This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


A Manufacturer's Case for Electricity Infrastructure Investment

image credit: Getty Images, used under license
Scott Graybeal's picture
CEO Caelux Corporation

CEO of Caelux Corporation, a leader in perovskite solutions that improve the performance of new crystalline silicone solar modules by 30% using its proprietary materials system, manufacturing...

  • Member since 2021
  • 3 items added with 750 views
  • Apr 13, 2021

Over the weekend, I was talking with a friend about the Biden administration’s proposed $2.3 trillion infrastructure bill. My friend, a pragmatist with strong ‘small government’ leanings was struggling with the rationale behind the massive infrastructure plan. In particular:  why invest in electricity infrastructure—Texas power outage notwithstanding? I’d love to say that I was able to spout all the facts & figures in the moment—but as usual, I came up with a much better argument after the moment had passed.[1]

Back when we (at Flex) were dabbling in transmission & distribution  I recalled an article written by Dr. Massoud Amin, the “Father of the Smart Grid” and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Minnesota to help anchor my thinking.  Here are the key stats from Dr. Amin’s article that I tucked away in my Evernote file back in 2014:

Average customer electricity outage per year (minutes):

  • United Kingdom – 70 min
  • France – 53 min
  • Netherlands – 29 min
  • Japan – 6 min
  • Singapore – 2 min
  • United States: 214 minutes. USA is #1 again! Oh, wait, wrong thing to be #1 at.
  • In Japan the average customer loses power once every 20 years
  • In the US, once every 9 months

Granted, his article was written in 2011, but I have yet to find another as well-researched document to refute this data that doesn’t start with: “well, when I was chairman of the National Electron Health & Welfare Commission back in ’95, I think we did a pretty darn good job…” Additionally, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, in 2018 the annual cost of outages was about $44B—a 25% increase since 2006. Prognosis: the patient is sick and getting sicker. (I welcome anyone that has more recent data or a reference to please comment below because I don’t think the situation has changed much.)

To me this is another example of a favorite adage: “pay me now or pay me later” or for the Age of Enlightenment buffs out there: “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”  The advantage of paying now is that it can be forecasted with a degree of precision; “paying later” invites uncertainty, risk, and unplanned interruptions. Payment Deferral and its mean-spirited cousin, Uncertainty, cannot be weighed equally against Investment; a dollar of planned maintenance or upgraded expense is not equal to a dollar in short term avoidance because of longer term consequences.  

Let’s walk through the rationale from a small manufacturer’s perspective. Electricity outages lead to production delays. The amount of time that it takes to produce something will go up and it will be less efficient to produce the same amount of goods because of two effects: first, the time it takes to make something is directly proportional to the interval of the material arriving at the next step in the process. In other words, if it takes longer for materials to arrive at a given station/node/factory to begin work, then it will take you longer to make something and fixed costs are amortized over fewer units. Taking longer can lead to scarcity; scarcity causes prices and costs to go up. So, the consumer pays anyway in the form of higher prices.

As we all learned as kids: time is money.

Second, with increasing frequency of outages that shut down this little factory, its operations teams will begin to “under plan” or reserve capacity for “just in case” episodes. This leads to capital inefficiency, further exacerbating the problem. For example, if the factory GM needs a machine that produces 500 units an hour for $100,000 but she knows that there will be random electrical interruptions, she is going to buy the oversized machine for $190,000 that can do 1,000 units an hour even though she really only needs one that can produce 500 units an hour. 

Why would she take this path? Because she will be a heroine later when the factory needs to catch up to meet its quarterly output target and she will be rewarded for her “strategic thinking” and not derided for spending almost twice as much on a piece of equipment whose full capacity is only needed twice a year.

Who pays for that machine? You do, ultimately.

Infrastructure impacts tactical decisions like: should I invest in a UPS (uninterruptable power supply)? The answer may be “yes” not only if you have sensitive processes but also very high equipment utilization. It also raises  operations strategy questions, such as: “how much should I over-size my operation to deal with the impact of outages?”  If you are the “Apex Predator” in the value chain, your answer to this second question is probably “not a lot” since you are likely a market maker/price maker. For the rest of the world swimming in red oceans teaming with brutal and unforgiving competitors, the answer is likely, “I’ll take the big machine please. ” 

Building excess capacity creates a complex ripple effect that will create a wave of suboptimal decisions from forecasting to production. We see this play out in our daily lives, like when your laptop installs updates when you have a deadline, creating derivative anxiety; or one of the kids is late from their activity, creating a cascading effect down the entire schedule of events for the evening; or or a meeting runs late and you are "back to back" Zooming- you need to make up ground elsewhere. Unplanned interruptions are not just costly, they are frustrating.

What’s the takeaway? Infrastructure is an investment in productivity and efficiency. Money spent wisely upfront will have an outsized benefit in productivity, especially when scaled up on a national level.  To me, this isn’t an “Infrastructure Spending Plan”, it’s a “National Productivity Improvement Plan.” 

We can complain about  $2.4 trillion price tag for this infrastructure bill, but rest assured, kicking the can down the road will only be more expensive later. I will leave it to others to opine on broadband, roads, trains, airports and bridges. I am going to guess that similar arguments will apply. 



[1] In my argument, I went down the less fruitful and harder to argue path of the great builders like Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Octavian, and Ozymandias. Don't go there unless you want to have a master class in tu quoque fallacies.

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Apr 13, 2021

Average customer electricity outage per year (minutes):

United Kingdom – 70 min

France – 53 min

Netherlands – 29 min

Japan – 6 min

Singapore – 2 min

United States: 214 minutes. USA is #1 again! Oh, wait, wrong thing to be #1 at.

In Japan the average customer loses power once every 20 years

In the US, once every 9 months

This is hard to read! You would think this would be enough to get government agencies, politicians, etc. to unite and solve the very solvable problem!

Scott Graybeal's picture
Scott Graybeal on Apr 13, 2021

I know, right?

Audra Drazga's picture
Audra Drazga on Apr 15, 2021


I think the issue is that there is potentially some extra "pork" in the bill?  That said I think there is some middle ground consensus that we do need some work and investment in our Grid.  BTW.  I love that you brought up information from Prof. Massoud Amin, University of Minnesota.  He was a panelist on one of our  PowerSessions a while back (Emerging Cyber Threats and Actionable Responses: An Expert Roundtable ). If you want to listen to the on-demand recording you can access it here -


Thanks for your contributions to the community!  

Scott Graybeal's picture
Scott Graybeal on Apr 16, 2021

You are welcome and thank you for the thoughtful commentary.  There is likely pork in the bill, but I will submit that we need to focus on programs with solid returns on investment.  Further, we need to hold our politicians & technocrats accountable for capital efficiency-- both as an industry and as voters. The F35 program is one such (unrelated) example with a 1.7trillion price tag and little capability to show for it. 

Rami Reshef's picture
Rami Reshef on Apr 16, 2021

Hello Scott,

Thanks for your post, no question that power outages are a huge and growing cost for U.S. industry - interestingly your most recent figures are from 2018 which is not unexpected as that was the last year that Eaton published its annual blackout tracker...  With forecasts that climate crisis is causing increasing frequent and severe weather incidents that cause power outages and damages to the U.S. power infrastructure, climate scientists and accounting firms agree that short-term savings on investments in grid hardening are causing much higher costs for repairs in the long run, in addition to the lost productivity and other hidden costs to manufacturers that you mention in your post.  

Manufacturers will do well to invest in distributed energy resources to ensure that they have independent control over their power supply.  You made an important point that in the current energy environment often manufacturers may tend to invest in equipment overcapacity to counter downtime problems.  Similarly, many institutions have traditionally invested in over-capacity fossil fuel generators which must be activated monthly and cause excessive carbon emissions that pollute the air and soil. With today's better understanding of the importance of energy efficiency, businesses can invest wisely in right-sized clean backup power sources to keep their equipment running continuously and economically.

The Biden administration decision to invest in energy infrastructure will not only create new jobs, but hopefully enable grid modernization that will make utilities more efficient; combining these investments with incentives for businesses to make small investments to achieve more productive operations alongside carbon neutrality and energy independence would make a big win-win.



Scott Graybeal's picture
Thank Scott for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »