This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Arthur K. Allington
Interesting to note that this effort continues along the same road, as do many other Government programs, that our Citizens are not up to the task of understanding routine issues and "Need Help" from a Government program.
In the event you haven't noticed utility companies are issuing scores of programs, brochures, and other media to address this very same issue. In addition, I, along with the vast majority of energy consumers, am acutely aware of energy usage in the form of monies paid.
I use common sense to set my energy usage and adjust to seasonal changes to enhance less usage. About the only folks who don't give energy consumption much thought are those who are subsidized by Government programs. I view, with great suspicion, this program, along with other like related programs that presume we are not intelligent enough to make independent decisions and need the help of a Government overseer to direct our actions. Again, "To What End? Is this the first stage of a new level of Government Regulation & Control? Are you acting "In the Best Interests" of our Citizens, or are you helping to create another Government Agency that is in line with a Progressive Agenda.
To the Smart Grid approach you propose, I say NO!!! We are more intelligent that you assume.
Arthur K. Allington
Friday, February 26, 2010
Angela C. Newton: Do Not Burden the Middle Class Consumer!
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Angela C. Newton
Hello All- Leave middle class families alone! It's hard enough to find the money to buy groceries and gas, let alone deal with the government telling us how much heat or air conditioning we can use.
I consider myself a democrat who believes that the government is capable of doing good, but I'm not an idiot. It is up to each individual consumer to decide how much heat or ac she needs, NOT the government.
Angela C. Newton
Hello All- Leave middle class families alone! It's hard enough to find the money to buy groceries and gas, let alone deal with the government telling us how much heat or air conditioning we can use.
I consider myself a democrat who believes that the government is capable of doing good, but I'm not an idiot. It is up to each individual consumer to decide how much heat or ac she needs, NOT the government.
Angela C. Newton
C. F. Chase: Keep the Goverment Out of It
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by C. F. Chase
As a tax-paying CITIZEN and resident of the United States of America, I am adamantly opposed to ANY use of tax payer funds in the development of the so-called "smart grid." This scheme is far more about "Orwellian" government control and micro-management of its citizenry than it is about energy efficiency.
As a consumer of electricity I own all of the data related to that consumption and I REFUSE to allow any outside third-party access to my usage data. Moreover, the various ways in which I consume electricity is MY BUSINESS and I will never cede control to some nefarious, globalist government such as this criminal Obama administration who would seek to control MY thermostat, etc.
I will NEVER purchase a so-called "smart" grid compatible appliance even if the result is a higher utility bill. I will use any means necessary to preserve my PRIVACY and FREEDOM and to resist the tentacles of government intrusion into yet another aspect of my life. THIS TYRANNY IS UNACCEPTABLE! Respectfully submitted,
C. F. Chase
As a tax-paying CITIZEN and resident of the United States of America, I am adamantly opposed to ANY use of tax payer funds in the development of the so-called "smart grid." This scheme is far more about "Orwellian" government control and micro-management of its citizenry than it is about energy efficiency.
As a consumer of electricity I own all of the data related to that consumption and I REFUSE to allow any outside third-party access to my usage data. Moreover, the various ways in which I consume electricity is MY BUSINESS and I will never cede control to some nefarious, globalist government such as this criminal Obama administration who would seek to control MY thermostat, etc.
I will NEVER purchase a so-called "smart" grid compatible appliance even if the result is a higher utility bill. I will use any means necessary to preserve my PRIVACY and FREEDOM and to resist the tentacles of government intrusion into yet another aspect of my life. THIS TYRANNY IS UNACCEPTABLE! Respectfully submitted,
C. F. Chase
Walt Brewer: Trust and Individual Control
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Walt Brewer
Response to Q1. No, the Smart Meter should not be the Primary Gateway. Attempting to use the smart meter as the primary gateway poses a significant risk to the public acceptance of the program - particularly with regards to the demand response signals. There are two primary issues I see with the use of the smart meter as the primary gateway; Trust and Meter Lifespan. The trust issue is associated with providing control of the gateway to the utilities. It may be perceived that the utilities have a conflict of interest with regard to which segment of end users are impacted by grid power events as the utilities valuation of certain users may differ.
Allowing users to control "opt in" or "opt out" decisions for individual demand response events may be critical to acceptance and the Smart Meter as a Primary Gateway is not conducive to this. Second: The anticipated lifespan on residential power meters is 20 years. To allow for upgrades as technology advances the Smart Meter functions should be limited to reporting the power consumption to the utilities. The rest of the gateway functions should be integrated into devices or interfaces that can be updated far more frequently.
Response to Q2. An IP based Data Gateway is the most logical network for communicating price data, demand response, and gathering internal energy usage data on a voluntary basis. This will allow the ESIs and utilities to experiment dynamically with a variety of methods for demand response While keeping the utility models simplified.
Response to Q3. There are a number of architectures that could be used to support innovation in home energy services. The most obvious architecture is publishing real time pricing in formats that ESI companies can use to make graduated usage decisions. Other options include creating a scale which represents the risk of localized power quality or power capacity related events that would allow a consumer defined "low value" power consumption to be turned off automatically.
I view a primary requirement for wide spread acceptance of demand response systems in the United States that it is voluntary to make the default opt-in with per incident option to opt-out of the demand response action. I don't think a per incident opt-out will have a significant impact on any given event - but failing to include this option I believe will reduce the acceptance of this program by the general public.
Walt Brewer
Response to Q1. No, the Smart Meter should not be the Primary Gateway. Attempting to use the smart meter as the primary gateway poses a significant risk to the public acceptance of the program - particularly with regards to the demand response signals. There are two primary issues I see with the use of the smart meter as the primary gateway; Trust and Meter Lifespan. The trust issue is associated with providing control of the gateway to the utilities. It may be perceived that the utilities have a conflict of interest with regard to which segment of end users are impacted by grid power events as the utilities valuation of certain users may differ.
Allowing users to control "opt in" or "opt out" decisions for individual demand response events may be critical to acceptance and the Smart Meter as a Primary Gateway is not conducive to this. Second: The anticipated lifespan on residential power meters is 20 years. To allow for upgrades as technology advances the Smart Meter functions should be limited to reporting the power consumption to the utilities. The rest of the gateway functions should be integrated into devices or interfaces that can be updated far more frequently.
Response to Q2. An IP based Data Gateway is the most logical network for communicating price data, demand response, and gathering internal energy usage data on a voluntary basis. This will allow the ESIs and utilities to experiment dynamically with a variety of methods for demand response While keeping the utility models simplified.
Response to Q3. There are a number of architectures that could be used to support innovation in home energy services. The most obvious architecture is publishing real time pricing in formats that ESI companies can use to make graduated usage decisions. Other options include creating a scale which represents the risk of localized power quality or power capacity related events that would allow a consumer defined "low value" power consumption to be turned off automatically.
I view a primary requirement for wide spread acceptance of demand response systems in the United States that it is voluntary to make the default opt-in with per incident option to opt-out of the demand response action. I don't think a per incident opt-out will have a significant impact on any given event - but failing to include this option I believe will reduce the acceptance of this program by the general public.
Walt Brewer
Jon Milan: Keeping the Consumer Preferences
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Jon Milan
My schooling is in electrical engineering (digital systems), with many years engineering integrated manufacturing solutions, public safety solutions, and now residential automation solutions.
Aside from the reliability requirements for the backbone of smart grid solution, I’d like to emphasize some key requirements for the consumer environment as I see them.
First, the consumer's in-home or in-building interface must be robust. More specifically, the power distribution point within the consumer's building must not be adversely affected by the presence or absence of the consumer's interface. Unintentional or malicious activities at the consumer's interface should not propagate through the smart grid system.
Second, the consumer's in-home or in-building interface must be private and secure. Third, the consumer interface must be open, i.e. the interface must be publicly available for use by suppliers as they see fit. Many homes have intelligent systems already installed, and these suppliers will want to interface with the distribution panel within the home.
I have already seen that distribution of smart thermostats is moving into the area of public utility companies. I do not recommend this. The public utility companies should have responsibility to the utility meter, to include their network interface (wireless or wired). From there, private enterprise should be responsible for equipment within the home.
Jon Milan
My schooling is in electrical engineering (digital systems), with many years engineering integrated manufacturing solutions, public safety solutions, and now residential automation solutions.
Aside from the reliability requirements for the backbone of smart grid solution, I’d like to emphasize some key requirements for the consumer environment as I see them.
First, the consumer's in-home or in-building interface must be robust. More specifically, the power distribution point within the consumer's building must not be adversely affected by the presence or absence of the consumer's interface. Unintentional or malicious activities at the consumer's interface should not propagate through the smart grid system.
Second, the consumer's in-home or in-building interface must be private and secure. Third, the consumer interface must be open, i.e. the interface must be publicly available for use by suppliers as they see fit. Many homes have intelligent systems already installed, and these suppliers will want to interface with the distribution panel within the home.
I have already seen that distribution of smart thermostats is moving into the area of public utility companies. I do not recommend this. The public utility companies should have responsibility to the utility meter, to include their network interface (wireless or wired). From there, private enterprise should be responsible for equipment within the home.
Jon Milan
Roy Perry: Don't Bottleneck The New Grid with the Old Meter
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Roy Perry, CableLabs
Response to Q1 -- Smart meters are the most expensive form of residential gateway for residential usage data, price data, and demand response signals, for several reasons. First, they require a dedicated network to connect them to the utility. Second, they are proprietary resulting in less competition and more fragmentation of the market. Third, they are depreciated over 20 year cycles, typically, but the gateway technology in the smart meter will be obsolete in 3-5 years which is the life of network technology. This will result in huge write-offs. Other far less expensive gateways are available that use the Internet and can perform the same functions for a fraction of the cost, and if the market is allowed to be competitive, will compete with each other further driving down costs.
Response to Q2 --Absolutely – this is actually a superior approach. The use of third party gateways should not only be allowed, but should be encouraged. All of the contemplated consumer benefits of the Smart Grid, i.e., energy reduction, energy management, and demand response can all be achieved with non-utility solutions. A level playing field, where non-utilities would compete fairly with utilities, would create competition for energy management services and drive the net costs for consumers down and their options up. However, to do this, the federal government must mandate the following consumer-to-utility interface standards. This will give market entrants national markets for their solutions, rather than having to adapt to proprietary utility solutions deployed by each utility. They [the necessary consumer-to-utility interface standards] are: a simple standard for querying pricing signals from any given utility over the Internet; and a simple standard for accessing electric meter data in real-time.
Roy Perry
Response to Q1 -- Smart meters are the most expensive form of residential gateway for residential usage data, price data, and demand response signals, for several reasons. First, they require a dedicated network to connect them to the utility. Second, they are proprietary resulting in less competition and more fragmentation of the market. Third, they are depreciated over 20 year cycles, typically, but the gateway technology in the smart meter will be obsolete in 3-5 years which is the life of network technology. This will result in huge write-offs. Other far less expensive gateways are available that use the Internet and can perform the same functions for a fraction of the cost, and if the market is allowed to be competitive, will compete with each other further driving down costs.
Response to Q2 --Absolutely – this is actually a superior approach. The use of third party gateways should not only be allowed, but should be encouraged. All of the contemplated consumer benefits of the Smart Grid, i.e., energy reduction, energy management, and demand response can all be achieved with non-utility solutions. A level playing field, where non-utilities would compete fairly with utilities, would create competition for energy management services and drive the net costs for consumers down and their options up. However, to do this, the federal government must mandate the following consumer-to-utility interface standards. This will give market entrants national markets for their solutions, rather than having to adapt to proprietary utility solutions deployed by each utility. They [the necessary consumer-to-utility interface standards] are: a simple standard for querying pricing signals from any given utility over the Internet; and a simple standard for accessing electric meter data in real-time.
Roy Perry
Bruce Nordman: Change W/O Burdening the Meter
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Bruce Nordman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Response to Q1-- The meter should make current consumption available to the building and to the utility/grid. It should not be burdened with providing historic consumption data. Price data should be provided multiple ways, including through the meter. Demand response should be phased out in favor of price signals. The key is to make dynamic prices more attractive than fixed prices so that the great majority of customers quickly adopt them. Aside from price and consumption, the meter should not play a role in the electricity system.
Response to Q2 -- The utility/grid need not rely on other sources for data about current total consumption. Price data should be broadcast over multiple media.
Response to Q3 -- Develop a network architecture for buildings that enables functionality that we don't have today; use this network to save energy as a side benefit. Use the Internet as a model, with smart end notes and a dumb network. Most useful energy services will be provided by intelligent devices on the building network that can interoperate with other intelligent devices (and people) through globally standard protocols. Price data should be available through multiple streams.
Bruce Nordman
Response to Q1-- The meter should make current consumption available to the building and to the utility/grid. It should not be burdened with providing historic consumption data. Price data should be provided multiple ways, including through the meter. Demand response should be phased out in favor of price signals. The key is to make dynamic prices more attractive than fixed prices so that the great majority of customers quickly adopt them. Aside from price and consumption, the meter should not play a role in the electricity system.
Response to Q2 -- The utility/grid need not rely on other sources for data about current total consumption. Price data should be broadcast over multiple media.
Response to Q3 -- Develop a network architecture for buildings that enables functionality that we don't have today; use this network to save energy as a side benefit. Use the Internet as a model, with smart end notes and a dumb network. Most useful energy services will be provided by intelligent devices on the building network that can interoperate with other intelligent devices (and people) through globally standard protocols. Price data should be available through multiple streams.
Bruce Nordman
Arron Burstein, Ari Schwartz, Longhao Wang - UC Berkely Center for Democracy & Technology
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Aaron Burstein, UC Berkeley; Ari Schwartz and Longhao Wang, Center for Democracy & Technology.
Response to Q1 -- Any analysis of the privacy, security, and innovation issues raised by making the smart meter into the home’s primary energy data gateway must begin with a recognition that states that have led the way in Smart Grid deployment have already endorsed this architecture.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), for example, has approved plans by the three major investor-owned utilities in the states to deploy smart meters that have an embedded controller for devices within the home,3 implying that the meter will serve as a gateway usage data, price data, and demand response signals.
Other regulations lay the groundwork for utilities to collect home energy usage data with increasing frequency as the state’s smart meter initiative matures. Similarly, in a rule adopted by the Texas Public Utilities Commission requires advanced meters that provide a “capability to communicate with devices inside the premises, . . . through a home area network (HAN), based on open standards and protocols that comply with nationally recognized non-proprietary standards such as ZigBee , Home-Plug, or the equivalent.”
The privacy risks in this architecture are still unclear; they depend in large part on future decisions by consumers, utilities, and state regulators. On one hand, utilities are the most likely recipients of this data, making it relatively easy for consumers and regulators to monitor their privacy practices. On the other hand, if utilities are granted exclusive access to this data, they will not be subject to other energy management services that may compete on privacy and other dimensions. Much to its credit, the CPUC has modified rulemaking to extend to data privacy, but it will necessarily develop these rules after millions of smart meters containing data gateways are already in place.
Other states will presumably follow California’s lead, but state-by-state decisions could impose duplicative costs and create inconsistent rules. Moreover, though public utilities commissions have broad expertise in consumer protection issues, it is less clear that they possess specific, deep expertise in data privacy. Two further points about making smart meters into energy data gateways bear on both privacy and innovation.
First, utilities and device manufacturers will use this data to control device behavior. This creates a need to designate which devices will respond to demand response signals, and how. In use cases considered within prominent standards and in state Smart Grid proceedings, the utility is often responsible for registering consumers’ devices. This not only constrains the choices available to device manufacturers but also creates the possibility that utilities (and, perhaps, third parties they authorize) will have access to device-specific usage data. This would further exacerbate the privacy risks entailed in collecting highly temporally resolved, household-specific usage data. Second, the choice between on-meter and off-meter gateways need not be binary.
Even if consumers are served by utilities that deploy smart meters with embedded gateways, they should be able to choose to use third-party gateways. A full analysis of the privacy risks of both architectures would help inform these choices. Federal agencies such as NIST could marshal the efforts of all stakeholders to analyze the privacy risks in this architecture.
A comment filed by the Center for Democracy & Technology on NIST’s draft Smart Grid cybersecurity requirements provides a start by laying out how widely Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) apply to Smart Grid data. As that comment notes, however, additional work, such as developing privacy use cases, is necessary to fully understand the privacy risks of smart meters with an embedded gateway. This analysis would provide valuable guidance to technology firms and state policymakers.
Response to Q2 -- Considering an alternative architecture—routing Smart Grid through a home Internet connection, for example—gives a sense of the relative risks to privacy, innovation, and cybersecurity. An off-meter gateway could help protect consumers’ privacy by limiting the amount of information that is sent beyond the boundaries of the home. For instance, a gateway that is separate from the meter could receive incoming price and demand response signals, send them to an in-home energy management system (EMS), and, in conjunction with the EMS, manage devices solely through in-home communications. This architecture would obviate any need to register appliances and other devices with a utility, further limiting the disclosure of information from inside the home.
The smart meter, of course, would still be able to measure and report energy consumption to the utility. Still, fully understanding the privacy risks of such this architecture requires a more detailed analysis of specific technologies and their uses. Again, relevant policy considerations include:
(1) whether consumers have ongoing choices about how much data to disclose about their energy use;
(2) what type(s) of entities that receive and process this data; and
(3) which regulators (if any) have jurisdiction over those entities.
It is possible that neither a data gateway outside the smart meter nor the entities that provide services based on data flowing through that gateway will be subject to state utility commission authorities. Though this could give rise to competition among device and service providers, it also raises the question of how to encourage those firms to build privacy into their products. Comparing the cybersecurity risks of these two architectures is also difficult to do in the abstract. Maintaining the availability of electricity service is a fundamental requirement of the Smart Grid. The integrity of price, usage, and demand response data is crucial for consumers and utilities. The price and demand response signals that consumers receive must be correct.
Likewise, the usage data that utilities receive must be free from corruption, whether introduced by malicious attacks or accidental errors, in order to manage load and to bill customers correctly. However, certain security benefits of separating the smart meter from demand response and home area network traffic are evident: this architecture would isolate the meter from devices in the home. It would also simplify the functional requirements of the smart meter, which should make the task of securing this critical Smart Grid element easier. Evaluating the security of different architectures and implementations is an enormously complex task. But this complexity lends itself to a simple point: statements about the Smart Grid security are most meaningful when they pertain to a specific system, are explained through a clearly stated threat model, and are supported by an analysis that is open to scrutiny.
Aaron Burstein, Ari Schwartz and Longhao Wang
Response to Q1 -- Any analysis of the privacy, security, and innovation issues raised by making the smart meter into the home’s primary energy data gateway must begin with a recognition that states that have led the way in Smart Grid deployment have already endorsed this architecture.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), for example, has approved plans by the three major investor-owned utilities in the states to deploy smart meters that have an embedded controller for devices within the home,3 implying that the meter will serve as a gateway usage data, price data, and demand response signals.
Other regulations lay the groundwork for utilities to collect home energy usage data with increasing frequency as the state’s smart meter initiative matures. Similarly, in a rule adopted by the Texas Public Utilities Commission requires advanced meters that provide a “capability to communicate with devices inside the premises, . . . through a home area network (HAN), based on open standards and protocols that comply with nationally recognized non-proprietary standards such as ZigBee , Home-Plug, or the equivalent.”
The privacy risks in this architecture are still unclear; they depend in large part on future decisions by consumers, utilities, and state regulators. On one hand, utilities are the most likely recipients of this data, making it relatively easy for consumers and regulators to monitor their privacy practices. On the other hand, if utilities are granted exclusive access to this data, they will not be subject to other energy management services that may compete on privacy and other dimensions. Much to its credit, the CPUC has modified rulemaking to extend to data privacy, but it will necessarily develop these rules after millions of smart meters containing data gateways are already in place.
Other states will presumably follow California’s lead, but state-by-state decisions could impose duplicative costs and create inconsistent rules. Moreover, though public utilities commissions have broad expertise in consumer protection issues, it is less clear that they possess specific, deep expertise in data privacy. Two further points about making smart meters into energy data gateways bear on both privacy and innovation.
First, utilities and device manufacturers will use this data to control device behavior. This creates a need to designate which devices will respond to demand response signals, and how. In use cases considered within prominent standards and in state Smart Grid proceedings, the utility is often responsible for registering consumers’ devices. This not only constrains the choices available to device manufacturers but also creates the possibility that utilities (and, perhaps, third parties they authorize) will have access to device-specific usage data. This would further exacerbate the privacy risks entailed in collecting highly temporally resolved, household-specific usage data. Second, the choice between on-meter and off-meter gateways need not be binary.
Even if consumers are served by utilities that deploy smart meters with embedded gateways, they should be able to choose to use third-party gateways. A full analysis of the privacy risks of both architectures would help inform these choices. Federal agencies such as NIST could marshal the efforts of all stakeholders to analyze the privacy risks in this architecture.
A comment filed by the Center for Democracy & Technology on NIST’s draft Smart Grid cybersecurity requirements provides a start by laying out how widely Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) apply to Smart Grid data. As that comment notes, however, additional work, such as developing privacy use cases, is necessary to fully understand the privacy risks of smart meters with an embedded gateway. This analysis would provide valuable guidance to technology firms and state policymakers.
Response to Q2 -- Considering an alternative architecture—routing Smart Grid through a home Internet connection, for example—gives a sense of the relative risks to privacy, innovation, and cybersecurity. An off-meter gateway could help protect consumers’ privacy by limiting the amount of information that is sent beyond the boundaries of the home. For instance, a gateway that is separate from the meter could receive incoming price and demand response signals, send them to an in-home energy management system (EMS), and, in conjunction with the EMS, manage devices solely through in-home communications. This architecture would obviate any need to register appliances and other devices with a utility, further limiting the disclosure of information from inside the home.
The smart meter, of course, would still be able to measure and report energy consumption to the utility. Still, fully understanding the privacy risks of such this architecture requires a more detailed analysis of specific technologies and their uses. Again, relevant policy considerations include:
(1) whether consumers have ongoing choices about how much data to disclose about their energy use;
(2) what type(s) of entities that receive and process this data; and
(3) which regulators (if any) have jurisdiction over those entities.
It is possible that neither a data gateway outside the smart meter nor the entities that provide services based on data flowing through that gateway will be subject to state utility commission authorities. Though this could give rise to competition among device and service providers, it also raises the question of how to encourage those firms to build privacy into their products. Comparing the cybersecurity risks of these two architectures is also difficult to do in the abstract. Maintaining the availability of electricity service is a fundamental requirement of the Smart Grid. The integrity of price, usage, and demand response data is crucial for consumers and utilities. The price and demand response signals that consumers receive must be correct.
Likewise, the usage data that utilities receive must be free from corruption, whether introduced by malicious attacks or accidental errors, in order to manage load and to bill customers correctly. However, certain security benefits of separating the smart meter from demand response and home area network traffic are evident: this architecture would isolate the meter from devices in the home. It would also simplify the functional requirements of the smart meter, which should make the task of securing this critical Smart Grid element easier. Evaluating the security of different architectures and implementations is an enormously complex task. But this complexity lends itself to a simple point: statements about the Smart Grid security are most meaningful when they pertain to a specific system, are explained through a clearly stated threat model, and are supported by an analysis that is open to scrutiny.
Aaron Burstein, Ari Schwartz and Longhao Wang
Mark Dunger: The Meter Lives Too Long - Innovate
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Mark Dunger, ESCO Technologies.
Response to Q1 -- The smart meter should NOT serve as the primary gateway. Technological advancements in electronic products within the home and the evolution of communications protocols (which might also address evolving security concerns) embedded within such products will likely render as obsolete any gateway embedded within a meter within a matter of years.
Considering that there is an expectation of meter longevity (perhaps 10+ years) for meters placed in the field, and the cost that would be required to upgrade / update hardware within a meter once installed in the field, the inclusion of a gateway within the meter does not (intuitively) seem to be an economical approach to achieving state of the art Smart Grid communications over the long run.
Response to Q2-- Yes, a data gateway other than the smart meter should be used for all signals that require two-way communications. Again, it should be expected that a gateway within a meter will become outdated prior to the end of life expectancy of the meter asset.
Response to Q3 -- Bandwidth requirements will vary depending upon the applications that the utility hopes to employ via that smart grid, and so true needs / infrastructure cost over the planning term should be taken into account in a decision as to the use of alternative architectures.
AMI systems that utilize private networks, such as powerline or radio frequency technologies, may adequately serve the purpose of providing a communications architecture that links an in-home gateway to the utility head-end while providing real-time or near real-time data.
Public networks such as cellular or satellite might also be used. Again, an economic analysis of the communication path needs to be considered in reaching a formal conclusion as to a proper architecture. Intuitively, consumers that incur the largest energy load are also likely to have a broadband internet connection to their premise, and so the use of ISPs as a medium for interaction with consumer gateways makes some sense. Use of an AMI system as a backup would have virtues in this scenario, and so the ability to engage in IP connectivity with the primary AMI system has merit. Real-time communications with low-income consumers is probably not a pressing matter, as they are unlikely to be introducing significant loads to the grid. Therefore, some latency in the system design / architecture may be acceptable. Therefore, an alternative architecture that consists of high bandwidth internet coupled with a lower bandwidth AMI network is likely the optimal solution.
Mark Dunger
Response to Q1 -- The smart meter should NOT serve as the primary gateway. Technological advancements in electronic products within the home and the evolution of communications protocols (which might also address evolving security concerns) embedded within such products will likely render as obsolete any gateway embedded within a meter within a matter of years.
Considering that there is an expectation of meter longevity (perhaps 10+ years) for meters placed in the field, and the cost that would be required to upgrade / update hardware within a meter once installed in the field, the inclusion of a gateway within the meter does not (intuitively) seem to be an economical approach to achieving state of the art Smart Grid communications over the long run.
Response to Q2-- Yes, a data gateway other than the smart meter should be used for all signals that require two-way communications. Again, it should be expected that a gateway within a meter will become outdated prior to the end of life expectancy of the meter asset.
Response to Q3 -- Bandwidth requirements will vary depending upon the applications that the utility hopes to employ via that smart grid, and so true needs / infrastructure cost over the planning term should be taken into account in a decision as to the use of alternative architectures.
AMI systems that utilize private networks, such as powerline or radio frequency technologies, may adequately serve the purpose of providing a communications architecture that links an in-home gateway to the utility head-end while providing real-time or near real-time data.
Public networks such as cellular or satellite might also be used. Again, an economic analysis of the communication path needs to be considered in reaching a formal conclusion as to a proper architecture. Intuitively, consumers that incur the largest energy load are also likely to have a broadband internet connection to their premise, and so the use of ISPs as a medium for interaction with consumer gateways makes some sense. Use of an AMI system as a backup would have virtues in this scenario, and so the ability to engage in IP connectivity with the primary AMI system has merit. Real-time communications with low-income consumers is probably not a pressing matter, as they are unlikely to be introducing significant loads to the grid. Therefore, some latency in the system design / architecture may be acceptable. Therefore, an alternative architecture that consists of high bandwidth internet coupled with a lower bandwidth AMI network is likely the optimal solution.
Mark Dunger
Jack Audet:
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Jack Audet.
When pared down to a fundamental level, an electric utility’s base function is to provide a flow of energy into a consumer’s facility (typically a flow of electrons) and bill the consumer accordingly. While this gives the utility business a certain monopoly on information, it does not limit or dictate how the consumer uses, measures or controls the energy purchased.
Currently little is done in the way of real time monitoring of energy consumption on a residential level. As convenient as it would be to utilize the power measuring apparatus already installed in the existing utility meter (or future smart meter), the inertia against changes needed at the utility and regulatory level to achieve this may be insurmountable. There is little stopping a consumer from adding a small, cost effective energy monitoring device on the incoming power circuit, water main or gas main at his home. Once easy access to this real time information is available to the consumer, an entire world of innovation in monitoring and efficiency is possible.
Existing internet channels, wireless communications and IP gateways can be utilized to interface with services that collect, analyze and optimize this data. The next logical step would be allowing these same services to control demand response measures (or more accurately, cost control measure). The utilities can focus on generating and delivering commodities (electricity, water, gas, oil, etc) but, will need to develop real time energy pricing schemes and new ways to communicate these price structures to the consumers.
The hesitation by consumers to allow utilities into their homes in the form of demand response controls has been obvious. The hesitation regarding demand response in general has been obvious for years. Consumers want control and authority over their energy purchases. Real time energy pricing and the cost of peak time consumption will be what a consumer will react to and learn to control. Simply knowing the real time cost of energy use will go a long way towards efficiency.
While these changes will make load planning, generation dispatch and infrastructure planning more complex, the net benefit will be reduced load, reduced peaks and reduced overall energy use.
Jack Audet
When pared down to a fundamental level, an electric utility’s base function is to provide a flow of energy into a consumer’s facility (typically a flow of electrons) and bill the consumer accordingly. While this gives the utility business a certain monopoly on information, it does not limit or dictate how the consumer uses, measures or controls the energy purchased.
Currently little is done in the way of real time monitoring of energy consumption on a residential level. As convenient as it would be to utilize the power measuring apparatus already installed in the existing utility meter (or future smart meter), the inertia against changes needed at the utility and regulatory level to achieve this may be insurmountable. There is little stopping a consumer from adding a small, cost effective energy monitoring device on the incoming power circuit, water main or gas main at his home. Once easy access to this real time information is available to the consumer, an entire world of innovation in monitoring and efficiency is possible.
Existing internet channels, wireless communications and IP gateways can be utilized to interface with services that collect, analyze and optimize this data. The next logical step would be allowing these same services to control demand response measures (or more accurately, cost control measure). The utilities can focus on generating and delivering commodities (electricity, water, gas, oil, etc) but, will need to develop real time energy pricing schemes and new ways to communicate these price structures to the consumers.
The hesitation by consumers to allow utilities into their homes in the form of demand response controls has been obvious. The hesitation regarding demand response in general has been obvious for years. Consumers want control and authority over their energy purchases. Real time energy pricing and the cost of peak time consumption will be what a consumer will react to and learn to control. Simply knowing the real time cost of energy use will go a long way towards efficiency.
While these changes will make load planning, generation dispatch and infrastructure planning more complex, the net benefit will be reduced load, reduced peaks and reduced overall energy use.
Jack Audet
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Rick Porter: Open Interface from the Meter
I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by Chris King in his 2010-02-23-14:22 posting. In particular, his position that "The best thing the government can do is enable an open interface from the meter (the exclusive source of usage information), then allow the market to deliver, and consumers to choose from, the many potential alternatives." is one that is fundamentally sound.
Establishing an open interface would foster continuous and un-stifled innovation to meet the needs of the "market". It also would eliminate many of the barriers to prolific adoption of new technology solutions that would otherwise not be developed or implemented, due to perceived risk of obsolescence. In addition to supporting new technologies, an open interface would also optimize utilization of existing infrastructure capabilities and communications protocols by not requiring their premature replacement, One such open interface that is under consideration is the one proposed by the non-proprietary USNAP Alliance.
It seeks to provide an open standard and specifications for a low-cost interface to be incorporated into consumer devices that would likely benefit from having Smart Grid communications capabilities. Much like a USB port on a PC, a USNAP enabled device would allow the user to easily install different modules for communications, based on the architecture of the environment the device would be used in. If the customer wanted to benefit from device communications to and from their energy provider, they could optionally acquire the USNAP module needed to do so.
If they wanted to only have the device communicate internally to their own H.A.N,, they could install a Wi-Fi, Zigbee, or other type of module. That would permit proliferation of Smart Grid ready devices while addressing the concern, and perhaps paranoia, that "big brother" automatically would have access to them for control, or for gathering information.
Without an open interface such as USNAP, or something like it, I don't hold much hope for any material progress to be made in enabling the consumer-to-Smart Grid interface in the near future.
Establishing an open interface would foster continuous and un-stifled innovation to meet the needs of the "market". It also would eliminate many of the barriers to prolific adoption of new technology solutions that would otherwise not be developed or implemented, due to perceived risk of obsolescence. In addition to supporting new technologies, an open interface would also optimize utilization of existing infrastructure capabilities and communications protocols by not requiring their premature replacement, One such open interface that is under consideration is the one proposed by the non-proprietary USNAP Alliance.
It seeks to provide an open standard and specifications for a low-cost interface to be incorporated into consumer devices that would likely benefit from having Smart Grid communications capabilities. Much like a USB port on a PC, a USNAP enabled device would allow the user to easily install different modules for communications, based on the architecture of the environment the device would be used in. If the customer wanted to benefit from device communications to and from their energy provider, they could optionally acquire the USNAP module needed to do so.
If they wanted to only have the device communicate internally to their own H.A.N,, they could install a Wi-Fi, Zigbee, or other type of module. That would permit proliferation of Smart Grid ready devices while addressing the concern, and perhaps paranoia, that "big brother" automatically would have access to them for control, or for gathering information.
Without an open interface such as USNAP, or something like it, I don't hold much hope for any material progress to be made in enabling the consumer-to-Smart Grid interface in the near future.
Lance McKee: All Providers Are Not Preceived (by the consumer) as Equal
Jay Morrison notes that, "cooperatives have used non-price-based demand response programs very successfully for over 30 years to improve service, enhance reliability and lower energy costs for their members."
It should be noted that members of coops and customers of publicly traded utilities have fundamentally different relationships with their suppliers; and trust -- essential to widespread smart grid adoption -- is higher among coop members.
It should be noted that members of coops and customers of publicly traded utilities have fundamentally different relationships with their suppliers; and trust -- essential to widespread smart grid adoption -- is higher among coop members.
Jon Smirl: Keep it Simple and Standardized and Interoperable
I have seven mixed home automation networks in my house. It is a situation that only a software engineer can deal with and I can't even keep it running all of the time. If home automation is going to expand to the broad population it is going to have to standardize. We have to be able to purchase smart appliances, dimmers, thermostats, etc and have the expectation that they will all work together. It is unreasonable to expect the broad population to call in a CEDIA integrator every time they want to change a light switch.
Remember 1985 when we had Arcnet, token ring, SMCnet, Ethernet, modems, proprietary radio mixed with Netware, MSNet, Netbeui, DECNet, SNA, Vines, Appletalk? We agreed on TCP/IP and now we have the Internet. Everyone is better off.
The obvious choice for the networking protocol is IPv6 extended with things like 6lowpan/ROLL/6lowapp. There are two key features to IPv6 - lots of addresses and it's routable. Being routable allows multiple PHY layers in the house and also allows remote control from the Internet. Almost every home router is Linux based. It is likely that these routers will be central to routing between multiple PHY layers in the house. These routers are cheap and can be used without a connection to the Internet.
It is critical that these standardized networking protocols be kept free from IP licensing even if they are more inefficient. IP licensing is incompatible with the GPL. Let's not repeat the problem Siemens had when they went to contribute a Zigbee implementation to the Linux kernel and discovered that Zigbee licensing was GPL incompatible. Look at the mess H.264 licensing is causing Mozilla and YouTube . There is no IP licensed technology that is so valuable that it is worth shutting out the GPL world.
As for the PHY layer... It looks like we will end up with multiple PHYs. Wifi and switched Ethernet is already in the house. But Wifi/Ethernet/Moca are too expensive (OFDM) to be used in things like dimmers. Non-OFDM powerline needs phase couplers which are tricky for a non-technical person to install. That leaves simple radio like 802.15.4. 802.15.4 radios are cheap (under $2) and produced by a lot of vendors. I'll change my position on this if someone can make open, $2 wifi radios.
So my dream installation would be 802.15.4 smartmeter, 802.15.4 dimmers, 802.15.4 orwifi appliances, cheap router between wifi/802.15.4/Ethernet. And no home energy display. Give me another standalone display and I will throw it away. Instead provide apps for smart phones, PCs and Internet enabled TVs to get the data from the meter and display it. Widget on my TV is the best display, now my family can look at the graphs together.
Remember 1985 when we had Arcnet, token ring, SMCnet, Ethernet, modems, proprietary radio mixed with Netware, MSNet, Netbeui, DECNet, SNA, Vines, Appletalk? We agreed on TCP/IP and now we have the Internet. Everyone is better off.
The obvious choice for the networking protocol is IPv6 extended with things like 6lowpan/ROLL/6lowapp. There are two key features to IPv6 - lots of addresses and it's routable. Being routable allows multiple PHY layers in the house and also allows remote control from the Internet. Almost every home router is Linux based. It is likely that these routers will be central to routing between multiple PHY layers in the house. These routers are cheap and can be used without a connection to the Internet.
It is critical that these standardized networking protocols be kept free from IP licensing even if they are more inefficient. IP licensing is incompatible with the GPL. Let's not repeat the problem Siemens had when they went to contribute a Zigbee implementation to the Linux kernel and discovered that Zigbee licensing was GPL incompatible. Look at the mess H.264 licensing is causing Mozilla and YouTube . There is no IP licensed technology that is so valuable that it is worth shutting out the GPL world.
As for the PHY layer... It looks like we will end up with multiple PHYs. Wifi and switched Ethernet is already in the house. But Wifi/Ethernet/Moca are too expensive (OFDM) to be used in things like dimmers. Non-OFDM powerline needs phase couplers which are tricky for a non-technical person to install. That leaves simple radio like 802.15.4. 802.15.4 radios are cheap (under $2) and produced by a lot of vendors. I'll change my position on this if someone can make open, $2 wifi radios.
So my dream installation would be 802.15.4 smartmeter, 802.15.4 dimmers, 802.15.4 orwifi appliances, cheap router between wifi/802.15.4/Ethernet. And no home energy display. Give me another standalone display and I will throw it away. Instead provide apps for smart phones, PCs and Internet enabled TVs to get the data from the meter and display it. Widget on my TV is the best display, now my family can look at the graphs together.
Lance McKee: Protect and Enhance Citizen Autonomy
Many US citizens suspect that big institutions work against them, and they fear unfamiliar and complex requirements that threaten to further befuddle and impoverish them. Distrust is likely to increase in the likely scenario that energy becomes more expensive and less reliable and the recession persists. So it's imperative that the Smart Grid be implemented in ways that actually, obviously and directly protect and enhance citizens' autonomy, mental comfort and financial security.
One way to do this would be make the smart grid default a simple device that displays the minute-by-minute grid price for electricity. Homeowners would turn appliances on and off manually or set them to respond to price communicated within an isolated home network (which also displays usage), instead of responding to shut-off instructions from the utility and giving the utility more information about usage than it already gets from a standard meter. This assumes, of course, a dynamic and transparent free market in electricity.
Smart grid acceptance would benefit from feed-in tariffs and other policies to encourage microgeneration. Homeowners and small businesses selling electricity would likely accept distribution companies' requirement for enough digital information to protect line workers and to balance load & supply, but this information exchange could be minimal and isolated from home networks.
Another way to reassure homeowners and small business people would be to promote policies that encourage rather than forbid micro-grids, and that encourage off-grid passive homes. The Smart Grid can be positioned within the framework of the Obama administration's place-based policy initiative, which is consistent with basic conservative values of individual and local autonomy.
Also, Senator Cantwell's "cap and dividend" bill, which would redistribute proceeds from a carbon tax to middle and lower income homeowners, could include incentives to invest the dividend in home energy efficiency and microgeneration. Incidentally, a global boom in microgeneration might do more than anything else to raise the median global income level that Americans are unavoidably sinking to because of globalism.
One way to do this would be make the smart grid default a simple device that displays the minute-by-minute grid price for electricity. Homeowners would turn appliances on and off manually or set them to respond to price communicated within an isolated home network (which also displays usage), instead of responding to shut-off instructions from the utility and giving the utility more information about usage than it already gets from a standard meter. This assumes, of course, a dynamic and transparent free market in electricity.
Smart grid acceptance would benefit from feed-in tariffs and other policies to encourage microgeneration. Homeowners and small businesses selling electricity would likely accept distribution companies' requirement for enough digital information to protect line workers and to balance load & supply, but this information exchange could be minimal and isolated from home networks.
Another way to reassure homeowners and small business people would be to promote policies that encourage rather than forbid micro-grids, and that encourage off-grid passive homes. The Smart Grid can be positioned within the framework of the Obama administration's place-based policy initiative, which is consistent with basic conservative values of individual and local autonomy.
Also, Senator Cantwell's "cap and dividend" bill, which would redistribute proceeds from a carbon tax to middle and lower income homeowners, could include incentives to invest the dividend in home energy efficiency and microgeneration. Incidentally, a global boom in microgeneration might do more than anything else to raise the median global income level that Americans are unavoidably sinking to because of globalism.
Andrew Fry: The Meter is A Central Point
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Andrew Fry, Kansas Corporate Commission
Response to Q1 -- The smart meter should be the primary gateway for residential energy usage data, price data and demand response signals. With the meter being a necessary and existing fixture on the home, it would seem intuitive to utilize that connection for the baseline or primary connection to the home to provide data.
Important factors to evaluating the continuation of this practice might include clogging of the data stream. One might presume that as the presentation of this data develops, the amount of data transferred might also increase. More data types and a quicker frequency of updates up to real-time data are possible improvements. Streaming data or an increase could potentially clog or slow system data transfer of ageing systems.
Also, and maybe more importantly, the security of such a gateway and data transfer would be of utmost importance. Securing a consumer’s time of use, which could possibly indicate specific use of appliances by deduction, could be a concern to consumers. The movement in coming years to control in-home appliances and processes within the home, beyond the meter by a central hub, within the home, requires that the gateway point is not accessible to hacking or corruptibility. If this gateway were to be found to be weak in this area, another route or deeper encryption would be necessary.
Response to Q2 -- It is assumed that the term “gateway” implies that the smart meter would communicate with other components, such as visual displays or information hubs, which could be used in the home. This is as opposed to simply containing a display on what in most cases is a limited screen on the meter itself. Pertinent, urgent data such as pricing data and demand response signals would be best presented through a gateway in the meter, communicating with some sort of in-home display. Generally limited in their functions such display in contrast, may not be the best place to offer the consumer energy usage analysis, which can be more detailed and complex.
Possibly a better place for this data would be on a computer were the consumer can peruse and examine the energy usage more finely. A good example might be a consumer internet portal. With the majority of the public becoming computer savvy from a young age, it would seem a natural extension of these computer skills to put portions if not all this data online on a secure, personalized website. This would entail the meter sending back signals to the utility, rather than acting as a gateway into the home. Once the data was received by the utility, it would then be processed to be placed on the consumer’s individual web portal, possibly considered a second portal if the consumer already had an in-home display.
Looking ahead again to the proposed future advancements, control of appliances and devices within a consumer’s home will require some sort of hub device to send and receive these messages and inputs. In addition to controlling the devices it will allow the user to see their energy usage and the relation between their energy behaviors and the corresponding energy usage. Thus there will be communication between the meter and this hub. It may be wise to go ahead and utilize the meter as the main gateway and prepare for use of data hubs in preparation for such developments, rather setting up the infrastructure to support the internet energy usage reporting if it will be soon obsolete.
Rather than an alternative, it would seem that other currently available technologies would be appropriate parallel gateways of information. Text messaging, emails or automated voice recordings could be used to send out price data and demand response signals. These would allow the consumer to be informed of their energy status when they are away from home. These bits of information could then be employed to allow the consumer to access their device hub in the future via the internet to adjust their usage accordingly.
Response to Q3 -- It is not so much an alternative, but an addition to real-time electricity usage would be the concept exhibited in HANs in identifying the source of the energy usage. It will be only natural that as the HAN concept matures it will be integrated into new housing and remodeling projects. Rather than utilizing the current devices that plug into existing “dumb” outlets, or outlets that do not communicate with other devices, it seems rational that electric hardware producers and developers will incorporate control and monitoring capabilities into their devices. In addition to this, this concept could be expanded to monitoring specific circuits or isolating rooms to monitor and control. Besides allowing someone to identify appliances or devices, a consumer could identify rooms or persons residing in those spaces as regularly excessive energy users.
Andrew Fry
Response to Q1 -- The smart meter should be the primary gateway for residential energy usage data, price data and demand response signals. With the meter being a necessary and existing fixture on the home, it would seem intuitive to utilize that connection for the baseline or primary connection to the home to provide data.
Important factors to evaluating the continuation of this practice might include clogging of the data stream. One might presume that as the presentation of this data develops, the amount of data transferred might also increase. More data types and a quicker frequency of updates up to real-time data are possible improvements. Streaming data or an increase could potentially clog or slow system data transfer of ageing systems.
Also, and maybe more importantly, the security of such a gateway and data transfer would be of utmost importance. Securing a consumer’s time of use, which could possibly indicate specific use of appliances by deduction, could be a concern to consumers. The movement in coming years to control in-home appliances and processes within the home, beyond the meter by a central hub, within the home, requires that the gateway point is not accessible to hacking or corruptibility. If this gateway were to be found to be weak in this area, another route or deeper encryption would be necessary.
Response to Q2 -- It is assumed that the term “gateway” implies that the smart meter would communicate with other components, such as visual displays or information hubs, which could be used in the home. This is as opposed to simply containing a display on what in most cases is a limited screen on the meter itself. Pertinent, urgent data such as pricing data and demand response signals would be best presented through a gateway in the meter, communicating with some sort of in-home display. Generally limited in their functions such display in contrast, may not be the best place to offer the consumer energy usage analysis, which can be more detailed and complex.
Possibly a better place for this data would be on a computer were the consumer can peruse and examine the energy usage more finely. A good example might be a consumer internet portal. With the majority of the public becoming computer savvy from a young age, it would seem a natural extension of these computer skills to put portions if not all this data online on a secure, personalized website. This would entail the meter sending back signals to the utility, rather than acting as a gateway into the home. Once the data was received by the utility, it would then be processed to be placed on the consumer’s individual web portal, possibly considered a second portal if the consumer already had an in-home display.
Looking ahead again to the proposed future advancements, control of appliances and devices within a consumer’s home will require some sort of hub device to send and receive these messages and inputs. In addition to controlling the devices it will allow the user to see their energy usage and the relation between their energy behaviors and the corresponding energy usage. Thus there will be communication between the meter and this hub. It may be wise to go ahead and utilize the meter as the main gateway and prepare for use of data hubs in preparation for such developments, rather setting up the infrastructure to support the internet energy usage reporting if it will be soon obsolete.
Rather than an alternative, it would seem that other currently available technologies would be appropriate parallel gateways of information. Text messaging, emails or automated voice recordings could be used to send out price data and demand response signals. These would allow the consumer to be informed of their energy status when they are away from home. These bits of information could then be employed to allow the consumer to access their device hub in the future via the internet to adjust their usage accordingly.
Response to Q3 -- It is not so much an alternative, but an addition to real-time electricity usage would be the concept exhibited in HANs in identifying the source of the energy usage. It will be only natural that as the HAN concept matures it will be integrated into new housing and remodeling projects. Rather than utilizing the current devices that plug into existing “dumb” outlets, or outlets that do not communicate with other devices, it seems rational that electric hardware producers and developers will incorporate control and monitoring capabilities into their devices. In addition to this, this concept could be expanded to monitoring specific circuits or isolating rooms to monitor and control. Besides allowing someone to identify appliances or devices, a consumer could identify rooms or persons residing in those spaces as regularly excessive energy users.
Andrew Fry
Clarke Stevens: Consumer Driven Open Access
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Clarke Stevens, CableLabs
The Smart Grid Consumer Interface should include the following:
• Real-time access for the consumer to his/her own usage data
• Over the network the consumer chooses (e.g. IP-based)
• With the ability for the consumer to use the devices of his choosing
• And at his/her discretion the services of an open energy management provider of his/her choice
• To execute actions to manage his/her energy consumption
The Smart Grid should NOT specify a single or limited number of “approved” technologies in the consumer’s home limit the providers of energy management solutions to any limited number of technologies or providers (e.g. it should not favor the power companies or providers of specific technologies).
Clarke Stevens
The Smart Grid Consumer Interface should include the following:
• Real-time access for the consumer to his/her own usage data
• Over the network the consumer chooses (e.g. IP-based)
• With the ability for the consumer to use the devices of his choosing
• And at his/her discretion the services of an open energy management provider of his/her choice
• To execute actions to manage his/her energy consumption
The Smart Grid should NOT specify a single or limited number of “approved” technologies in the consumer’s home limit the providers of energy management solutions to any limited number of technologies or providers (e.g. it should not favor the power companies or providers of specific technologies).
Clarke Stevens
Jay Morrison: Don't Rush It!
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Jay Morrison, NRECA
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) understands the Administration’s sense of urgency with respect to Smart Grid. Smart grid technologies have the potential to provide consumers with significant energy and financial savings with concomitant benefits to the environment. Yet, many companies are waiting to implement valuable advances in technology because the lack of standards reduces the number and quality of technology options, raises the cost of integrating those technologies with existing systems and creates a risk that investments made today could be stranded if the standards ultimately adopted by the industry are inconsistent with the products installed in the meantime.
Nevertheless, NRECA’s experience developing MultiSpeak demonstrates that the standards development process cannot be unduly rushed. As Congress clearly recognized in the structure of section 1307 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA”) , standards have to be the product of an industry consensus-building process in which the utilities that will install and use the technologies, and the vendors that manufacture them, must work together to achieve an understanding of how best to move forward.
At this time the industry still cannot even agree on a single definition of “Smart Grid.” Many of the technology, software, and communications tools that will eventually comprise elements of the Smart Grid are not yet commercially available or have not yet been tested on a large scale. The industry lacks experience integrating these elements with one another on large scale. If rushed, many aspects of the interoperability standard required by section 1307, including customer interfaces, would have to be created out of whole cloth, rather through final consensus on a standard percolated and developed organically within the industry for a period of time.
Moreover, the list of potential functions for the Smart Grid is extremely broad, and it can be expected that different utilities and stakeholders will select differently amongst them, pursue them to different degrees, and use drastically different portfolios of technology, software, and communications media in order to achieve them. For interoperability and customer interface standards to work well for the industry, they must not inappropriately force adoption of one approach or foreclose the ability to adopt another approach. That means that the stakeholders must all understand the potential use cases for the technology and data. That is, they must understand: the range of potential data collection equipment; the business, financial, and operational purposes for which data will be employed; the kinds of software in which data will be manipulated; the variety of different telecommunications media by which it will be transmitted; and, the forms in which it can best be stored and accessed. Once armed with that knowledge, they must then develop standards and protocols that are as likely as possible to meet those known requirements and any future, unknown requirements.
Given the early state of the industry’s understanding of “Smart Grid” it will take time for the industry to reach a good understanding of the use cases for which an interoperability standard must work. While the lack of a standard does slow the maturation of the Smart Grid, a bad standard – developed with insufficient understanding of the manner in which the Smart Grid might be implemented – will do more long-term harm. Patience, although difficult, is critical.
Response to Q1 -- The state of technology and the nature of services that utilities and others will provide to consumers continue to evolve. At this time, consumers are receiving price data and demand response signals over a broad range of communication paths. While the meter will serve as the gateway for some consumers and some services, others will use the internet, wireless communications, radio communications, pager signals, WiMax signals, or other technologies that have not yet been determined.
Within some cooperative service territories, a combination of available communications media and economic factors have forced the cooperatives to adopt 2, 3, or even more different metering systems and different mechanisms for communicating with the meters. The lack of broadband access, rough terrain that blocks communication signals, low customer density, and low customer incomes combine to make use of a single technology impossible.
The factors that will determine the appropriate gateway for communicating with consumers will include the available communications technologies, the cost of different options, the level of functionality desired by consumers, and the level of functionality required to best provide consumers with safe, reliable, and affordable electric service. Those factors are unlikely to change over time, but the results of the analysis could and is likely to change significantly over time as the cost and availability of communications technologies, consumer’s expectations, and the tools available for taking advantage of the data all evolve. Many cooperatives today find it most cost effective to use power-line carrier technologies to haul meter data from the customer to the cooperative, the internet to provide price and cost information back to the consumer, and radio signal technologies to communicate demand response signals to consumer equipment. In ten years, when meter technologies, communications technologies, and customer equipment have all changed significantly, an entirely different portfolio of tools may present itself that can provide the same or more functionality at lower cost. We have no way of knowing today what that portfolio will be.
Response to Q2 -- Yes. As discussed above, the meter will be used as a gateway for some data under some circumstances. The Administration’s approach to smart grid, interoperability standards, and standards for consumer interfaces must be flexible enough to recognize both that utilities will use a wide range of technologies for communicating data depending on their local circumstances and that the technologies utilities select will change over time as the technology and value propositions they offer evolve.
Response to Q3 -- The question above assumes that real-time or near-real-time-prices are necessary to support home energy services. We disagree. Time varying and dynamic pricing may be a valuable tool in some circumstances but is unnecessary and undesirable in many circumstances. As discussed above, cooperatives have used non-price-based demand response programs very successfully for over 30 years to improve service, enhance reliability and lower energy costs for their members. The Administration should recognize the tremendous value available to consumers from non-price-based home energy services.
Jay Morrison
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) understands the Administration’s sense of urgency with respect to Smart Grid. Smart grid technologies have the potential to provide consumers with significant energy and financial savings with concomitant benefits to the environment. Yet, many companies are waiting to implement valuable advances in technology because the lack of standards reduces the number and quality of technology options, raises the cost of integrating those technologies with existing systems and creates a risk that investments made today could be stranded if the standards ultimately adopted by the industry are inconsistent with the products installed in the meantime.
Nevertheless, NRECA’s experience developing MultiSpeak demonstrates that the standards development process cannot be unduly rushed. As Congress clearly recognized in the structure of section 1307 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA”) , standards have to be the product of an industry consensus-building process in which the utilities that will install and use the technologies, and the vendors that manufacture them, must work together to achieve an understanding of how best to move forward.
At this time the industry still cannot even agree on a single definition of “Smart Grid.” Many of the technology, software, and communications tools that will eventually comprise elements of the Smart Grid are not yet commercially available or have not yet been tested on a large scale. The industry lacks experience integrating these elements with one another on large scale. If rushed, many aspects of the interoperability standard required by section 1307, including customer interfaces, would have to be created out of whole cloth, rather through final consensus on a standard percolated and developed organically within the industry for a period of time.
Moreover, the list of potential functions for the Smart Grid is extremely broad, and it can be expected that different utilities and stakeholders will select differently amongst them, pursue them to different degrees, and use drastically different portfolios of technology, software, and communications media in order to achieve them. For interoperability and customer interface standards to work well for the industry, they must not inappropriately force adoption of one approach or foreclose the ability to adopt another approach. That means that the stakeholders must all understand the potential use cases for the technology and data. That is, they must understand: the range of potential data collection equipment; the business, financial, and operational purposes for which data will be employed; the kinds of software in which data will be manipulated; the variety of different telecommunications media by which it will be transmitted; and, the forms in which it can best be stored and accessed. Once armed with that knowledge, they must then develop standards and protocols that are as likely as possible to meet those known requirements and any future, unknown requirements.
Given the early state of the industry’s understanding of “Smart Grid” it will take time for the industry to reach a good understanding of the use cases for which an interoperability standard must work. While the lack of a standard does slow the maturation of the Smart Grid, a bad standard – developed with insufficient understanding of the manner in which the Smart Grid might be implemented – will do more long-term harm. Patience, although difficult, is critical.
Response to Q1 -- The state of technology and the nature of services that utilities and others will provide to consumers continue to evolve. At this time, consumers are receiving price data and demand response signals over a broad range of communication paths. While the meter will serve as the gateway for some consumers and some services, others will use the internet, wireless communications, radio communications, pager signals, WiMax signals, or other technologies that have not yet been determined.
Within some cooperative service territories, a combination of available communications media and economic factors have forced the cooperatives to adopt 2, 3, or even more different metering systems and different mechanisms for communicating with the meters. The lack of broadband access, rough terrain that blocks communication signals, low customer density, and low customer incomes combine to make use of a single technology impossible.
The factors that will determine the appropriate gateway for communicating with consumers will include the available communications technologies, the cost of different options, the level of functionality desired by consumers, and the level of functionality required to best provide consumers with safe, reliable, and affordable electric service. Those factors are unlikely to change over time, but the results of the analysis could and is likely to change significantly over time as the cost and availability of communications technologies, consumer’s expectations, and the tools available for taking advantage of the data all evolve. Many cooperatives today find it most cost effective to use power-line carrier technologies to haul meter data from the customer to the cooperative, the internet to provide price and cost information back to the consumer, and radio signal technologies to communicate demand response signals to consumer equipment. In ten years, when meter technologies, communications technologies, and customer equipment have all changed significantly, an entirely different portfolio of tools may present itself that can provide the same or more functionality at lower cost. We have no way of knowing today what that portfolio will be.
Response to Q2 -- Yes. As discussed above, the meter will be used as a gateway for some data under some circumstances. The Administration’s approach to smart grid, interoperability standards, and standards for consumer interfaces must be flexible enough to recognize both that utilities will use a wide range of technologies for communicating data depending on their local circumstances and that the technologies utilities select will change over time as the technology and value propositions they offer evolve.
Response to Q3 -- The question above assumes that real-time or near-real-time-prices are necessary to support home energy services. We disagree. Time varying and dynamic pricing may be a valuable tool in some circumstances but is unnecessary and undesirable in many circumstances. As discussed above, cooperatives have used non-price-based demand response programs very successfully for over 30 years to improve service, enhance reliability and lower energy costs for their members. The Administration should recognize the tremendous value available to consumers from non-price-based home energy services.
Jay Morrison
John Teeter: Keep it Open, Flexible, and Innovative
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by John Teeter, People Power Company
Response to Q1 -- In our opinion, the Smart Meter should not be the primary gateway for residential energy information flow. It is quite possible that the institutionalization of this industry owned element as the primary gateway will be one of the major factors discouraging future transformative innovation by perpetuating the paradigm of the consumer as a utility controlled entity.
Response to Q2 -- The "data gateway" is, in our opinion, a logical element within the evolving energy architecture. As such, the innovative binding of this element to a physical infrastructure is one of the critical points of leverage moving forward. The actual data paths, routing, and communications infrastructures will quite likely be different in different deployment settings. Restricting the data gateway to a physical device that is owned by the energy service provider is likely not the best way to most flexibly and in the most innovative ways, take advantage of these local communications capabilities, nor to provide innovative services to the residential consumer. The integration of the future grid information space with the forthcoming National Broadband Initiative will, in our opinion, further enhance prospects for innovation to a greater degree than the establishment of a parallel (utility) private network reaching to the edge of the residential space.
Response to Q3 -- Alternative architectures are not necessarily the appropriate point of departure for the question. Rather, compare approaches to how we provide the functional elements of the architectures that are agreed upon in the Framework and Interoperabilty effort. This is the core of our response to this RFI. From the technical world, we have seen over the last 40 years that innovation has been strongly influenced by the ability of passionate and motivated people to engage and stimulate technology evolution. The advent of low cost micro processor based systems in the mid 70s provided accessibility that lead to open source implementations of operating systems and services, communications stacks, development tools, and full application and operating system deployments. The 40 year history of these open efforts have led to the demise of closed, proprietary solutions in all areas of technology as the open source efforts showed the way to innovative solutions to problems. The result has been a dramatic increase in innovative technology deployments throughout multiple market domains. Innovations that have been commercialized and furthered, where appropriate, into enterprise quality services.
This affect has been particularly apparent in the area of the internet, where government policy clearly influenced the development of open standards and implementations of those standards that are licensable at little or no cost. The most popular and most innovative features of the internet are either built from, or deployed upon the fruits of these open innovation initiatives. We feel that the BEST way to encourage, support, and to engage innovation in the energy infrastructure is to, similarly, provide strong policy leadership in the area of open source development, public licenses, and strong institutional deployments of open source solutions.
The models for open source initiatives are now firmly documented and understood. Communities in both the public and private sectors are engaged. OSCON (the Open Source Developers Conference) and GOSCON (the Government Open Source Development Conference) both show how it can be done. It is the underlying governmental policy decisions that can provide stimulation and guidance for these efforts.
Our company is committed to engaging this open business model as we deploy edge devices for consumption metering and control in the residential market place. We encourage Open, un-encumbered, standards and specifications within the NIST Framework and Interoperability road-map. At any point that there is protected IP, we foresee an impediment to innovation. The motivations for success of the individuals in this marketplace are still there, we will still have a growing and vibrant marketplace that provides our opportunity to succeed. But we will also have the ability to leverage fully the work of others, to innovate. And future entrepreneurs will be able to build upon our successes with innovations that will further transform the energy infrastructure of America and the world.
John Teeter
Response to Q1 -- In our opinion, the Smart Meter should not be the primary gateway for residential energy information flow. It is quite possible that the institutionalization of this industry owned element as the primary gateway will be one of the major factors discouraging future transformative innovation by perpetuating the paradigm of the consumer as a utility controlled entity.
Response to Q2 -- The "data gateway" is, in our opinion, a logical element within the evolving energy architecture. As such, the innovative binding of this element to a physical infrastructure is one of the critical points of leverage moving forward. The actual data paths, routing, and communications infrastructures will quite likely be different in different deployment settings. Restricting the data gateway to a physical device that is owned by the energy service provider is likely not the best way to most flexibly and in the most innovative ways, take advantage of these local communications capabilities, nor to provide innovative services to the residential consumer. The integration of the future grid information space with the forthcoming National Broadband Initiative will, in our opinion, further enhance prospects for innovation to a greater degree than the establishment of a parallel (utility) private network reaching to the edge of the residential space.
Response to Q3 -- Alternative architectures are not necessarily the appropriate point of departure for the question. Rather, compare approaches to how we provide the functional elements of the architectures that are agreed upon in the Framework and Interoperabilty effort. This is the core of our response to this RFI. From the technical world, we have seen over the last 40 years that innovation has been strongly influenced by the ability of passionate and motivated people to engage and stimulate technology evolution. The advent of low cost micro processor based systems in the mid 70s provided accessibility that lead to open source implementations of operating systems and services, communications stacks, development tools, and full application and operating system deployments. The 40 year history of these open efforts have led to the demise of closed, proprietary solutions in all areas of technology as the open source efforts showed the way to innovative solutions to problems. The result has been a dramatic increase in innovative technology deployments throughout multiple market domains. Innovations that have been commercialized and furthered, where appropriate, into enterprise quality services.
This affect has been particularly apparent in the area of the internet, where government policy clearly influenced the development of open standards and implementations of those standards that are licensable at little or no cost. The most popular and most innovative features of the internet are either built from, or deployed upon the fruits of these open innovation initiatives. We feel that the BEST way to encourage, support, and to engage innovation in the energy infrastructure is to, similarly, provide strong policy leadership in the area of open source development, public licenses, and strong institutional deployments of open source solutions.
The models for open source initiatives are now firmly documented and understood. Communities in both the public and private sectors are engaged. OSCON (the Open Source Developers Conference) and GOSCON (the Government Open Source Development Conference) both show how it can be done. It is the underlying governmental policy decisions that can provide stimulation and guidance for these efforts.
Our company is committed to engaging this open business model as we deploy edge devices for consumption metering and control in the residential market place. We encourage Open, un-encumbered, standards and specifications within the NIST Framework and Interoperability road-map. At any point that there is protected IP, we foresee an impediment to innovation. The motivations for success of the individuals in this marketplace are still there, we will still have a growing and vibrant marketplace that provides our opportunity to succeed. But we will also have the ability to leverage fully the work of others, to innovate. And future entrepreneurs will be able to build upon our successes with innovations that will further transform the energy infrastructure of America and the world.
John Teeter
Jim Crawford: Open - Architecture - Definitions
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Jim Crawford, Trane
Response to Question 1: A resident energy management system needs to be able to access the meter directly to obtain real-time data on energy use, even though the utility may access that data only periodically [such as sampling the content of a data accumulator or register].
Advanced energy management control systems need to have real-time access to energy use data and real-time data on time TOU pricing. In the absence of real-time data, the system needs to have TOU pricing data in advance to be able to optimally schedule loads.
Duplex communication will be needed for full functionality, but the communication mechanism need not be the meter. Alternate communications mechanisms [media] should be accommodated such as DSL, broadband, wi-fi, etc.
Response to Question 2: The Smart Grid design should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate a range of mechanisms [media] for duplex communication between the consumer or consumer's property and the utility or other service providers. The gateway should be open to service providers other than the utility chosen at the option of the consumer. Further, there is no reason to assume that the gateway should necessarily be integrated in a smart meter. Assuming that the only gateway is the meter is too limiting in terms of technological limits [such as bandwidth] and free-enterprise competition.
Response to Question 3: The exact intent of the words "open innovation" is not clear. It is clear that the architecture in terms of physical structure, data structure and data coding, and algorithms should be a open and flexible as possible, while the detailed mechanisms of implementation should be left to the innovation of individual entrepreneurs.
In considering architecture it is important to define a minimum set of communication or data "channels" in terms of the data set or other information to be communicated. The structure of the architecture should be sufficiently flexible and open to permit substantial expansion of this minimum function set to accommodate proprietary functions and services developed by non-utility, third-party service providers.
As noted above, the data on an individual property is proprietary to the rate-payer.
Jim Crawford
Response to Question 1: A resident energy management system needs to be able to access the meter directly to obtain real-time data on energy use, even though the utility may access that data only periodically [such as sampling the content of a data accumulator or register].
Advanced energy management control systems need to have real-time access to energy use data and real-time data on time TOU pricing. In the absence of real-time data, the system needs to have TOU pricing data in advance to be able to optimally schedule loads.
Duplex communication will be needed for full functionality, but the communication mechanism need not be the meter. Alternate communications mechanisms [media] should be accommodated such as DSL, broadband, wi-fi, etc.
Response to Question 2: The Smart Grid design should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate a range of mechanisms [media] for duplex communication between the consumer or consumer's property and the utility or other service providers. The gateway should be open to service providers other than the utility chosen at the option of the consumer. Further, there is no reason to assume that the gateway should necessarily be integrated in a smart meter. Assuming that the only gateway is the meter is too limiting in terms of technological limits [such as bandwidth] and free-enterprise competition.
Response to Question 3: The exact intent of the words "open innovation" is not clear. It is clear that the architecture in terms of physical structure, data structure and data coding, and algorithms should be a open and flexible as possible, while the detailed mechanisms of implementation should be left to the innovation of individual entrepreneurs.
In considering architecture it is important to define a minimum set of communication or data "channels" in terms of the data set or other information to be communicated. The structure of the architecture should be sufficiently flexible and open to permit substantial expansion of this minimum function set to accommodate proprietary functions and services developed by non-utility, third-party service providers.
As noted above, the data on an individual property is proprietary to the rate-payer.
Jim Crawford
Michael Harding: Is there Consumer Research Available?
Has work been done to actually determine "what consumers want"? Is there a research report that someone can point to? Are there established scenarios or use cases? I can think of many situations where I would want to see energy system performance, all requiring different data display solutions (on-site, remote, shared access, mobile, etc.), and reporting options.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Gene Wang: Consumer Driven and Open
I believe the smart meter will be only one of several gateways in to the home. If by 2015 we have deployed 53m smart meters, that means the U.S. will still have around 80m dumb meters 5 years from now.
Furthermore, what consumers want is instant feedback. As they turn on a light or turn off their TV, they should see their electricity usage instantly change. Smart meters may report information that is a day old in 15 minute snapshots, which is too little too late. Finally, utilities will want to deploy meters once, then use them for a decade. Consumers want cool new gadgets that are easy to use out of the box, don't require professional installation and start saving them money right away.
To support open innovation in home energy services, developers need open source reference implementations. Open source will promote interoperability, accelerate development and delivery of innovative new products and services and improve security. Open source projects such as Linux and MySQL have become ubiquitous because developers everywhere can stand on each other's shoulders to optimize their development cycles. We need similar strategies to accelerate Smart Grid innovation, interoperability and time to market.
Gene Wang, People Power
Furthermore, what consumers want is instant feedback. As they turn on a light or turn off their TV, they should see their electricity usage instantly change. Smart meters may report information that is a day old in 15 minute snapshots, which is too little too late. Finally, utilities will want to deploy meters once, then use them for a decade. Consumers want cool new gadgets that are easy to use out of the box, don't require professional installation and start saving them money right away.
To support open innovation in home energy services, developers need open source reference implementations. Open source will promote interoperability, accelerate development and delivery of innovative new products and services and improve security. Open source projects such as Linux and MySQL have become ubiquitous because developers everywhere can stand on each other's shoulders to optimize their development cycles. We need similar strategies to accelerate Smart Grid innovation, interoperability and time to market.
Gene Wang, People Power
Steven Szymurski: The limitations of today
How do we see customer features implemented over time and how do gateways need to be expanded to accomdate those features
Real time pricing - meter can do that but no immediate reaction from consumer until information on price changes go to the customer and the customer can make adjustments on site or remotely. e.i. reset HVAC thermostat settings, turn off lights, stop close washer or drier, etc.
Programmable thermostats are available today, but normally set for specific timed sequences, but without capability to change settings based on changing electric prices, nor with the means of receiving that info whether from the meter, the internet or other gateways.
Real time pricing - meter can do that but no immediate reaction from consumer until information on price changes go to the customer and the customer can make adjustments on site or remotely. e.i. reset HVAC thermostat settings, turn off lights, stop close washer or drier, etc.
Programmable thermostats are available today, but normally set for specific timed sequences, but without capability to change settings based on changing electric prices, nor with the means of receiving that info whether from the meter, the internet or other gateways.
Larry Lackey: The Meter as Interface
As a consumer, I can now walk outside and read my meter. In a future world, I would want a “smart” equivalent – a digital interface for real-time usage information without any third part involvement. Fortunately, this demands little of a meter.
For other interactions a meter may or may not be the best interface, and the idea of a broader Energy Services Interface, which could, but need not, be the meter seems appropriate.
Regardless, all interactions should build on well established layered approaches:
• Standardized message-passing payloads
• Multiple transport protocols
• Multiple physical media
For other interactions a meter may or may not be the best interface, and the idea of a broader Energy Services Interface, which could, but need not, be the meter seems appropriate.
Regardless, all interactions should build on well established layered approaches:
• Standardized message-passing payloads
• Multiple transport protocols
• Multiple physical media
Paul Boynton: Administrative Comment
All comments submitted to smartgrid@ostp.gov will be posted here, given that they comply with the terms of participation -- Paul Boynton, NIST
Roy Perry: Administrative Question
Administrative question: will previously submitted comments to smartgrid@ostp.gov appear here?
Matt Maupin: The Meter as a Transitional Element
The answer is both and both have pros and cons depending on the use case.
Early on, it is best to have the meter as the gateway as this provides a good control point for the utilities and more importantly provides the quickest and most direct route into the home. If users want data, whether consumption, usage, etc, it can be directly received from the meter. if this data is required through a seperate ESI, that info is then going to go through the Internet, to a service provider. That data will not be real time as the backhaul from the meters today and for the near future is a much smaller pipe and only gives interval data.
Longer term as both the HAN and NAN are built out and interval data becomes more realtime, it makes sense to have both as it expands the use cases for the consumer to include enhanced services both in and outside the home.
Early on, it is best to have the meter as the gateway as this provides a good control point for the utilities and more importantly provides the quickest and most direct route into the home. If users want data, whether consumption, usage, etc, it can be directly received from the meter. if this data is required through a seperate ESI, that info is then going to go through the Internet, to a service provider. That data will not be real time as the backhaul from the meters today and for the near future is a much smaller pipe and only gives interval data.
Longer term as both the HAN and NAN are built out and interval data becomes more realtime, it makes sense to have both as it expands the use cases for the consumer to include enhanced services both in and outside the home.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Michael Stuber: The Meter - Not Ideal but it is what we have today
Most utilities expect that meters will have at least a fifteen year service life, yet many consumer electronics products have a life of only one to three years. The capabilities and demands of consumer electronics continue to grow and expand. (Think about the cell phone of three years ago relative to today's.) Building a meter today that will include all of the resources that consumer electronics may want far into the future is at best uneconomical, and likely to be impossible.
Simultaneously, utilities have a commitment to service all customers in their service territory. Assuming a broadband connection to the home, or that the utility will have access to it, isn't an option -- at least not today.
The meter is ubiquitous. It is not the ideal platform to serve as the residential gateway in the long term, but it provides a mechanism to jump start market, providing access to every home regardless of income. Meters can prime the market, providing a guaranteed mechanism for obtaining price and usage information. If future needs outstrip the meter's capability, other technologies can be used. The meter can continue to provide local usage information for its entire service life, even if other consumer communications become more and more complicated, requiring additional resources that may not be available at the meter.
Simultaneously, utilities have a commitment to service all customers in their service territory. Assuming a broadband connection to the home, or that the utility will have access to it, isn't an option -- at least not today.
The meter is ubiquitous. It is not the ideal platform to serve as the residential gateway in the long term, but it provides a mechanism to jump start market, providing access to every home regardless of income. Meters can prime the market, providing a guaranteed mechanism for obtaining price and usage information. If future needs outstrip the meter's capability, other technologies can be used. The meter can continue to provide local usage information for its entire service life, even if other consumer communications become more and more complicated, requiring additional resources that may not be available at the meter.
Chris King: historical perspective
Having observed and participated in utility meter automation for over two decades, the history of standards teaches us that three things are essential for success. When we think of examples, including VHS, IP, USB, and electrical sockets, the commonalities are readily apparent. They are
1) completely open and non-proprietary,
2) they are painfully simple, and
3) they were driven by the market, not government (nor regulator nor distribution utility company) fiat.
As we view the smart grid, success will require following these three principles. Regarding the architectural questions:
1) the smart meter should be one gateway, but the government should not specify that it be the primary gateway; if the market evolves that way, so be it;
2) again, the Energy Services Interface should be available as another available gateway, but the government should not decide when it should and should not be used; the market will quickly reveal its preference; and
3) the key architectures that come to mind are the following gateway options: meter, local communications concentrator (pole top), in-home Energy Services Interface, in-home personal computer; set-top box; and in-home Internet router.
There are probably others. The best thing the government can do is enable an open interface from the meter (the exclusive source of usage information), then allow the market to deliver, and consumers to choose from, the many potential alternatives.
1) completely open and non-proprietary,
2) they are painfully simple, and
3) they were driven by the market, not government (nor regulator nor distribution utility company) fiat.
As we view the smart grid, success will require following these three principles. Regarding the architectural questions:
1) the smart meter should be one gateway, but the government should not specify that it be the primary gateway; if the market evolves that way, so be it;
2) again, the Energy Services Interface should be available as another available gateway, but the government should not decide when it should and should not be used; the market will quickly reveal its preference; and
3) the key architectures that come to mind are the following gateway options: meter, local communications concentrator (pole top), in-home Energy Services Interface, in-home personal computer; set-top box; and in-home Internet router.
There are probably others. The best thing the government can do is enable an open interface from the meter (the exclusive source of usage information), then allow the market to deliver, and consumers to choose from, the many potential alternatives.
David Holmberg: Architectual Framework Document
For these architectural questions, it may be helpful to refer to the conceptual reference model in Figure 3-2 on page 35 of the “NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0” available at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/smartgrid_interoperability_final.pdf.
In addition, section 3.5 "Smart Grid Interface to the Customer Domain"(starting page 41) of that report provides some background discussion that may help discussion on these issues.
David Holmberg, NIST staff and lead of the building-to-grid (B2G) working group
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/smartgrid_interoperability_final.pdf.
In addition, section 3.5 "Smart Grid Interface to the Customer Domain"(starting page 41) of that report provides some background discussion that may help discussion on these issues.
David Holmberg, NIST staff and lead of the building-to-grid (B2G) working group
Dr. George Arnold: Ensuring a Positive Customer Connection to the Smart Grid
Posted by George W. Arnold, National Coordinator for Smart Grid Interoperability, NIST, February 19, 2010
Modernization of the nation’s electric grid is a vital component of the President’s comprehensive plans to build a clean energy economy. The Smart Grid will enable an array of new applications and benefits, from increasing use of renewable energy sources to averting construction of back-up (peak) power plants to enabling consumers to manage their energy use and electricity bills.
Timely information on price and even source of energy—wind, coal, or natural gas, for example—combined with responsive control capabilities will open the way to new patterns in purchasing and consuming electricity that will help to balance supply and demand and ensure reliability.
The Executive Branch wants to ensure that the consumer interface to the Smart Grid enables households to optimize their energy use. Ideally, the consumer interface will be practical and straightforward, encourage widespread adoption of Smart Grid applications, and promote U.S. innovation in clean energy technologies. This blog was created to provide a forum to hear your views on issues related to the architecture and standards for the consumer interface with the Smart Grid as well as policies concerning consumer access to and ownership of Smart Grid data. Your views will help inform government policies, the work of the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, and the actions and decisions of many others in the diverse Smart Grid community.
Modernization of the nation’s electric grid is a vital component of the President’s comprehensive plans to build a clean energy economy. The Smart Grid will enable an array of new applications and benefits, from increasing use of renewable energy sources to averting construction of back-up (peak) power plants to enabling consumers to manage their energy use and electricity bills.
Timely information on price and even source of energy—wind, coal, or natural gas, for example—combined with responsive control capabilities will open the way to new patterns in purchasing and consuming electricity that will help to balance supply and demand and ensure reliability.
The Executive Branch wants to ensure that the consumer interface to the Smart Grid enables households to optimize their energy use. Ideally, the consumer interface will be practical and straightforward, encourage widespread adoption of Smart Grid applications, and promote U.S. innovation in clean energy technologies. This blog was created to provide a forum to hear your views on issues related to the architecture and standards for the consumer interface with the Smart Grid as well as policies concerning consumer access to and ownership of Smart Grid data. Your views will help inform government policies, the work of the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, and the actions and decisions of many others in the diverse Smart Grid community.
Today, in most households, customer access to information about energy usage is limited to data provided on a monthly utility bill. The Smart Grid will provide consumers with near-real time information allowing them to manage when and how they use energy. Smart appliances will be able to adjust their operation based on time-of-day or dynamic electricity pricing and utility demand response signals. The NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards describes a flexible standards-based architecture to support these capabilities. Interoperability standards enable different suppliers’ smart meters, smart appliances, home energy management systems and other devices and systems to communicate and cooperate.
There is concern, however, that the large number of competing standards in the home-to-Smart Grid interface will impede or even undermine progress toward realizing the significant benefits that the Smart Grid can deliver to consumers. Also requiring attention are questions concerning the ownership and privacy of energy-consumption data; the pathways and gateways for routing and exchanging price, usage, and other energy-related information among consumers, utilities, and third-party service providers; and the standard data communication interfaces that manufacturers need to cost-effectively produce smart devices, appliances, and systems for homes. Some of these issues also are summarized in the Federal Register notice, published on Feb. 19, 2009,to announce this blog.
During the next three weeks, we would like to hear your views on a number of questions about architecture, data access and ownership, and standards related to the customer interface to the Smart Grid. Between February 23-March 1, we would like to focus on architectural questions. New topics with corresponding will be introduced on March 2 and March 8, as described in the introduction to this forum. Please do not feel limited by these questions. We welcome comments about the consumer-to-Smart Grid interface that may go beyond the scope of our questions.
To begin the discussion, what are your views on the following architectural questions:
Information on how to participate in this discussion can be found in the introduction to the blog. We look forward to hearing from you.
There is concern, however, that the large number of competing standards in the home-to-Smart Grid interface will impede or even undermine progress toward realizing the significant benefits that the Smart Grid can deliver to consumers. Also requiring attention are questions concerning the ownership and privacy of energy-consumption data; the pathways and gateways for routing and exchanging price, usage, and other energy-related information among consumers, utilities, and third-party service providers; and the standard data communication interfaces that manufacturers need to cost-effectively produce smart devices, appliances, and systems for homes. Some of these issues also are summarized in the Federal Register notice, published on Feb. 19, 2009,to announce this blog.
During the next three weeks, we would like to hear your views on a number of questions about architecture, data access and ownership, and standards related to the customer interface to the Smart Grid. Between February 23-March 1, we would like to focus on architectural questions. New topics with corresponding will be introduced on March 2 and March 8, as described in the introduction to this forum. Please do not feel limited by these questions. We welcome comments about the consumer-to-Smart Grid interface that may go beyond the scope of our questions.
To begin the discussion, what are your views on the following architectural questions:
- Should the smart meter serve as the primary gateway for residential energy usage data, price data, and demand response signals? What are the factors indicating this, and how will they change over time?
- Should a separate gateway (Energy Services Interface) be the primary gateway for all or a subset of this data?
- What alternative architectures involving real-time (or near-real-time) electricity usage and price data are there that could support open innovation in home energy services?
Information on how to participate in this discussion can be found in the introduction to the blog. We look forward to hearing from you.
NIST/OSTP Announcement for the Consumer Facing Smart Grid Forum
Office of Science and Technology Policy Forum: Consumer Interface with the Smart Grid Blog Page Contents: Overview The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP ...
More
More
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)