Power is no longer just a utility that works the same way it always has. It now holds great potential as a strategic tool that can determine how quickly and efficiently infrastructure adapts to new demands.
As the world’s reliance on connected devices explodes, and networks become denser to meet the needs of always-on connectivity, traditional approaches to power distribution can become bottlenecks when the same old strategies are applied to modern challenges.
As requirements and expectations accelerate, it’s time to ask a new question: How can power be delivered reliably and flexibly to devices as they’re installed across campuses, large-scale sites, and sprawling venues?
Historically, there’s only been one answer to this question: install local power systems at every point of use. Today, however, building owners have two options to consider: stick with traditional local power solutions or embrace remote power?
The Differences Between Local Power vs. Remote Power
Local power is the traditional approach that has powered progress for centuries. Electricity is supplied at the point of use, meaning devices must be located near an AC outlet so they can be plugged in. Onsite infrastructure made up of conduit, subpanels, GFCIs, transformers, and drivers works behind the scenes to distribute electricity.
Remote power distributes energy to devices from a centralized source using low-voltage communications cables. Instead of scattering energy resources everywhere, distribution and control happen in one place. A single, intelligent hub sends electricity over long distances via a central rack/receiver/transmitter and cabling.
Remote power can be enabled through technologies like Power over Ethernet (PoE), traditional DC busways, central UPS feeds running to equipment rooms, and fault-managed power systems (FMPS).
How Remote Power Stacks Up Against Local Power in 6 Areas
For the sake of clarity, we’ll use modern FMPS to compare remote power to local power setups. It’s the most advanced type of remote power available and offers benefits the others can’t match.
Management and Control
With local power, every device or zone requires its own infrastructure, and each location is managed in isolation. With remote power, all power management and monitoring are centralized and software-defined. Devices can be connected, powered on/off, and controlled from a remote, central location.
Deployment Costs
Local power is costly to deploy and expand, requiring substantial investments in distributed hardware like panels, conduits, GFCIs, transformers, drivers, and wiring for each endpoint. On top of that, installation is labor- and time-intensive, which drives costs up more.
With remote power, the equipment and infrastructure required is significantly consolidated. A single centralized power source replaces dozens (or hundreds) of distributed components. Transmitters and receivers handle loads, and lightweight cables deliver power efficiently over long distances to remote devices. The system is fast and simple to install compared to traditional systems. This keeps material and labor costs down.
Maintenance and Upkeep
Traditional local power calls for regular maintenance, with multiple possible points of failure that can increase the risk of downtime if they go unnoticed for a little while (a breaker trips in an unused area or an equipment issue isn’t caught until inspection). When problems arise, they have to be troubleshot, diagnosed, and repaired onsite, which means technicians have to travel to each affected location.
Remote power reduces the amount of maintenance required, shifting routine upkeep to the central source. Instead of sending technicians out to individual sites, issues can be monitored, detected, and even addressed remotely in many cases. This saves time, resources, and costs. If onsite service is needed, technicians know exactly where to go based on diagnostics and alerts.
Safety and Risk Management
It’s well known that traditional AC systems present risks of electrical shock, especially during installation and maintenance.
With remote power, however, fault-managed power systems are often used. These systems detect and isolate faults, protecting people and equipment. When a fault is detected, power stops flowing immediately. This mitigates the risk of shock or fire that often occurs with conventional electricity.
Scalability and Future Expansion
Scaling up with local power often requires more outlets, panels, conduit, and rewiring. This work can be disruptive and costly, and it’s often the reason construction and renovation projects run over budget or are delayed. This bulky infrastructure may also restrict what owners can do with their space as needs evolve.
Adding devices in a remote-power environment is much more streamlined. New endpoints are typically powered by running lightweight cables from the central power source to the device. This flexibility makes it simple to support changing layouts, expansions, or technology upgrades with minimal (if any) disruption.
Space and Aesthetics
As we mentioned earlier, local power approaches require bulky infrastructure, such as panels and conduit. All these components have to be installed throughout a building, which can increase visual clutter and take up valuable space in dense environments.
Because it’s centralized, remote power can eliminate or greatly reduce the need for invasive hardware. Cabling can simply be run in existing trays, in plenum spaces, or alongside data lines.
Why Remote Power Adoption Is Accelerating
As buildings, campuses, and networks become increasingly complex and digital, the case for remote power grows stronger.
Compared to traditional local power setups, remote power—especially when delivered through advanced fault-managed power—offers greater centralization, streamlined management, lower deployment and upkeep costs, improved safety, and easier scalability.
For many building owners and operators, the question won’t be whether remote power is the right path, but when they should start planning for the shift.
