As a Distribution System Operator for a large utility in New England, I can appreciate the value of improvements in SCADA controls and technology. Our utility currently has approximately 1,300 reclosers in service, and I believe the ultimate goal is well over 3,000. We have Cooper Form 3A, 4C and 6, Seimens Centurion and Advanced, and ScadaMate switches. We are still in the learning phase when it comes to the finer details of design and operation for various vintage recloser controls. My own concern is that the system is growing so large, so fast that our DSCADA (D for Distribution) management system is becoming overwhelmed. The amount of information being communicated from the field devices to the mainframe is staggering, when you consider the needs of the Distribution Engineers (real-time load and voltage monitoring), and the needs of Distribution System Operators (response time to operating commands, communications failure rates due to multiple device operations during complex loop scheme implementation, etc.) . Balancing the needs of the users with the budget to improve system operations would seem to be the challenge. Also, the inherent operating characteristics of different recloser designs cause some difficulties when troubleshooting unexpected system response. I am not comfortable with the prospect that there may be multiple suppliers to service a single product line. Inconsistencies in design, engineering and application could create more unique operating concerns than we've already seen (i.e. Cooper Form 6 mechanical lockups, Siemens controller logic nuances for Auto-Reclosing and Loop Scheme application, etc.). Having multiple suppliers for the same types of equipment would be, in my opinion, a nightmare when determining failure mechanisms and engineering deficiencies following a component failure. Too many supplier-specific contingencies to deal with, especially when you are dealing with literally thousands of devices in the field.