This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Conrad Eustis, Portland General Electric Company
1. How are low-income consumers best served by home-to-grid technology?
A single, standardized interface at the appliance, ensures that when a low income customer buys a used appliance that the utility, customer or social agency will be able to provide an appropriate communication and control method for the customer’s use. Appliances with embedded HAN communication protocols have a very strong chance of being obsolete by the time they find service in a second home. Just look at the millions of now obsolete ZigBee 1.0 chips installed in smart meters in California and Texas. In every case, additional hardware will now be required to translate information from these old chips to future smart appliances with embedded communication protocols of a different design. Portland General Electric, as part of the approval of its smart metering implementation in 2007, promised our Public Utility Commission and low income advocates that we would pursue the approach of a standardized interface to serve the public interest.
2. Some appliance manufacturers have announced plans to market Smart Grid-enabled appliances in late 2011 provided that appropriate communication standards are defined in 2010. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation? How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made ‘‘plug and play’’ for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks? If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: The utility or the consumer?
Do not try to pick Phy/Mac communication protocol winners at this point in time. Very experienced electronics manufacturers such as Intel and Dell, added WiFi external to laptops via PCMCIA before embedding it in the laptop even though, at the time, WiFi was a standard much more mature than ZigBee or HomePlug are today. Engineering best practices dictate obtaining market experience with a new communication protocol in millions of homes AND market acceptance before committing to embedding a communication protocol. With all due respect to the likes of Whirlpool and General Electric, I do not think they have the communication engineering experience to go against best practices established elsewhere in the consumer electronics industry to implement embedded communications protocols and get it right the first time. Appliances last much longer than communication protocols. I still use a freezer in my house that was in service before I bought my first 486 computer with Windows 3.1. AOL hadn’t even happened yet, and when I did sign up for AOL a bit later, I connected the PC to the internet via a standardized interface called the serial port with an external 9,600 baud modem. The risk of obsolescence with embedded wireless communication protocols in the appliance is very real. Security risks with immature protocols are an even bigger concern. The answer to plug and play is the standardized interface that EPRI and U-SNAP are currently working to define. Don’t start the Smart Home without it.
Conrad Eustis
Director of Retail Technology Development
Portland General Electric Company
Monday, March 15, 2010
Girish Ghatikar: A Technology View
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Girish Ghatikar, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Q1 : Low income and all other customers would be best served by two options:
A wireless access option from the meter that uses open standards, with a customer portal and customer selected data security requirements (that meets their privacy requirements). This would allow the customer to provide access to meter data to any third-party provider or directly to an appliance with embedded applications that might need this data. Third-party providers like cable, telecom, home security companies and appliance vendors might choose to develop API’s that the customer could authorize and/or prohibit individually with a password based on their own assessment of the value and cost of each application.
One solution would be to publish the price and reliability event signals over a public network/service that could be received through low-cost customer owned devices or through subsidized utility provided control units – not requiring Internet access. Such a solution would also allow entities such as the public broadcast would provide low cost access and would allow third-party service providers and appliance vendors to embed logic or to develop API’s that do not require Internet Protocol (IP).
Girish Ghatikar, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Q1 : Low income and all other customers would be best served by two options:
A wireless access option from the meter that uses open standards, with a customer portal and customer selected data security requirements (that meets their privacy requirements). This would allow the customer to provide access to meter data to any third-party provider or directly to an appliance with embedded applications that might need this data. Third-party providers like cable, telecom, home security companies and appliance vendors might choose to develop API’s that the customer could authorize and/or prohibit individually with a password based on their own assessment of the value and cost of each application.
One solution would be to publish the price and reliability event signals over a public network/service that could be received through low-cost customer owned devices or through subsidized utility provided control units – not requiring Internet access. Such a solution would also allow entities such as the public broadcast would provide low cost access and would allow third-party service providers and appliance vendors to embed logic or to develop API’s that do not require Internet Protocol (IP).
Girish Ghatikar, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Mark Strauch: Don't Categorize Consumer Groups!
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Mark Strauch
Q1. What do "low-income" consumers have to do with this versus other consumers? I am offended by this question.
Q2. As the various smart grid working groups have outlined, there are a number of standard data communication interfaces that could be employed. To reduce cost, power line communication would seem to be the best transport layer. In posing the question of who should pay, the consumer always pays. The utility will pass on the costs they incur to consumers.
Mark Strauch
Q1. What do "low-income" consumers have to do with this versus other consumers? I am offended by this question.
Q2. As the various smart grid working groups have outlined, there are a number of standard data communication interfaces that could be employed. To reduce cost, power line communication would seem to be the best transport layer. In posing the question of who should pay, the consumer always pays. The utility will pass on the costs they incur to consumers.
Mark Strauch
Crystal Borde: Accelerate Innovation!
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Crystal Borde, Galvin Electricity Initiative
Q1: Low-income consumers are best served by having access to the secure, wireless, near-real-time usage data, all pricing data from all sources and possibly a rebate for an in-home device that can provide low-income users with access to this data. It is imperative that low-income consumers be provided with a choice regarding post meter devices to ensure competitive pricing and innovation that will improve performance. It may make sense to offer low-income users a choice regarding the advanced meter supplier. This also will accelerate innovation and cost reductions. The industry needs to establish standards for the advanced meters and post meter devices to protect consumers. Without competition for advanced meters and post meter devices, low-income consumers could be saddled with obsolescence and higher costs.
Q2-4: It is imperative that the industry settle on an advanced meter, secure, wireless, interface standard that allows all suppliers (e.g., appliances, post meter devices, cable companies, Internet providers, etc.) to build equipment that can communicate directly with secure, wireless meter usage data and price data from the utility, ISO and third-party providers.
Additional Comments:
Section I, second paragraph states, “Demand-side Smart Grid technologies include “smart meters” (which provide two-way, near-real-time data communications between the utility and consumer premises), “smart appliances” (which provide data communications and control options) and “smart interfaces” that can integrate distributed energy resources, demand response resources or other energy loads and storage devices such as plug-in electric and hybrid electric vehicles.”
Comments from the Initiative:
Comment 1: Smart meters should be defined as providing two-way, near-real-time data communications between the smart meter to the consumer’s premises and the utility.
Comment 2: The smart grid definition should include, “smart transparent pricing that provides consumers with access to dynamic and market pricing.”
Comment 3: The Home Area Network (HAN) is fundamental to achieving the “Electronet” รข€• the Internet equivalent for electricity. It is through this open market vehicle that entrepreneurial innovation will enable a truly sustainable energy, economic and environmental future for our nation.
Comment 4: The Federal government must provide the national leadership needed to ensure that the benefits of the smart grid transformation are achieved. The immediate economic benefits are at least four times the cost of implementation when the emphasis is placed on consumer value. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 defined much of the needed steps but lacked the authority necessary to achieve success.
Crystal Borde
Galvin Electricity Initiative
Q1: Low-income consumers are best served by having access to the secure, wireless, near-real-time usage data, all pricing data from all sources and possibly a rebate for an in-home device that can provide low-income users with access to this data. It is imperative that low-income consumers be provided with a choice regarding post meter devices to ensure competitive pricing and innovation that will improve performance. It may make sense to offer low-income users a choice regarding the advanced meter supplier. This also will accelerate innovation and cost reductions. The industry needs to establish standards for the advanced meters and post meter devices to protect consumers. Without competition for advanced meters and post meter devices, low-income consumers could be saddled with obsolescence and higher costs.
Q2-4: It is imperative that the industry settle on an advanced meter, secure, wireless, interface standard that allows all suppliers (e.g., appliances, post meter devices, cable companies, Internet providers, etc.) to build equipment that can communicate directly with secure, wireless meter usage data and price data from the utility, ISO and third-party providers.
Additional Comments:
Section I, second paragraph states, “Demand-side Smart Grid technologies include “smart meters” (which provide two-way, near-real-time data communications between the utility and consumer premises), “smart appliances” (which provide data communications and control options) and “smart interfaces” that can integrate distributed energy resources, demand response resources or other energy loads and storage devices such as plug-in electric and hybrid electric vehicles.”
Comments from the Initiative:
Comment 1: Smart meters should be defined as providing two-way, near-real-time data communications between the smart meter to the consumer’s premises and the utility.
Comment 2: The smart grid definition should include, “smart transparent pricing that provides consumers with access to dynamic and market pricing.”
Comment 3: The Home Area Network (HAN) is fundamental to achieving the “Electronet” รข€• the Internet equivalent for electricity. It is through this open market vehicle that entrepreneurial innovation will enable a truly sustainable energy, economic and environmental future for our nation.
Comment 4: The Federal government must provide the national leadership needed to ensure that the benefits of the smart grid transformation are achieved. The immediate economic benefits are at least four times the cost of implementation when the emphasis is placed on consumer value. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 defined much of the needed steps but lacked the authority necessary to achieve success.
Crystal Borde
Galvin Electricity Initiative
Mary Zientara: Remove the Barriers - Open Participation
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Mary Zientara, Reliant Energy
Q1: Low-income consumers are best served by home-to-grid technology when barriers to participation are minimized; out-of-pocket investments should not be required to take advantage of Smart Grid enabled products. Universal deployment of a standard interoperable interface will allow a HAN device to easily and securely join the ESI at any premise. Moreover, interoperability will drive HAN device manufacturers to innovate and differentiate their product offerings such that competitively priced HAN devices will be readily available.
The key to delivering Smart Grid benefits to low-income customers are (1) to ensure customers are not required to have access to an additional communication technology (e.g. internet, broadband, etc) or advanced technology like an energy management system; and (2) through interoperability standards, to encourage competitive innovation among HAN device manufactures that drives down prices to a point at which the savings realized by a low-income consumer quickly offsets the price of a device.
Q2-4: A widely acknowledged and referenced set of requirements for Smart Grid data communications interface to customer devices was set forth in the OpenHAN SRS published in 2008 and recognized by NIST as a low hanging fruit and in NIST standards Roadmap v 1.0. The purpose of the OpenHAN SRS is set forth on page 10 of the document:
“The UtilityAMI 2008 Home Area Network System Requirements Specification:
-Promotes open standards-based HANs that are interoperable
-Provides the vendor community with a common set of principles and requirements around which to build products
-Ensures reliable and sustainable HAN platforms
-Supports various energy policies in a variety of states, provinces, and countries
-Empowers citizens with the information they need to make decisions on their energy use by enabling the vision of a home energy ecosystem”
This requirements specification is currently being updated in an open collaborative process which includes participation from appliance manufacturers, other original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), software developers, utilities, and many other participants.
As mentioned, the OpenHAN SRS is technology independent. Therefore, technology companies and organizations should be called upon to implement the requirements from OpenHAN to develop “plug and play” technology and products for customers, including certification processes. One example of this occurrence is the efforts of the ZigBee Alliance and its members which produced the ZigBee Smart Energy profile as the first implementation of a standard data communication interface based on the OpenHAN SRS. The ZigBee Alliance also provides certification for ZigBee Smart Energy products to ensure customers and equipment manufacturers realize a “plug and play” interoperable experience. ZigBee Smart Energy HAN device products connected to the Smart Grid are available and being installed in customer homes today in the regions of Texas with retail competition. These devices are being used s without any additional gateways or adaptors between the Smart Grid and the HAN devices.
Mary Zientara
Reliant Energy
Q1: Low-income consumers are best served by home-to-grid technology when barriers to participation are minimized; out-of-pocket investments should not be required to take advantage of Smart Grid enabled products. Universal deployment of a standard interoperable interface will allow a HAN device to easily and securely join the ESI at any premise. Moreover, interoperability will drive HAN device manufacturers to innovate and differentiate their product offerings such that competitively priced HAN devices will be readily available.
The key to delivering Smart Grid benefits to low-income customers are (1) to ensure customers are not required to have access to an additional communication technology (e.g. internet, broadband, etc) or advanced technology like an energy management system; and (2) through interoperability standards, to encourage competitive innovation among HAN device manufactures that drives down prices to a point at which the savings realized by a low-income consumer quickly offsets the price of a device.
Q2-4: A widely acknowledged and referenced set of requirements for Smart Grid data communications interface to customer devices was set forth in the OpenHAN SRS published in 2008 and recognized by NIST as a low hanging fruit and in NIST standards Roadmap v 1.0. The purpose of the OpenHAN SRS is set forth on page 10 of the document:
“The UtilityAMI 2008 Home Area Network System Requirements Specification:
-Promotes open standards-based HANs that are interoperable
-Provides the vendor community with a common set of principles and requirements around which to build products
-Ensures reliable and sustainable HAN platforms
-Supports various energy policies in a variety of states, provinces, and countries
-Empowers citizens with the information they need to make decisions on their energy use by enabling the vision of a home energy ecosystem”
This requirements specification is currently being updated in an open collaborative process which includes participation from appliance manufacturers, other original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), software developers, utilities, and many other participants.
As mentioned, the OpenHAN SRS is technology independent. Therefore, technology companies and organizations should be called upon to implement the requirements from OpenHAN to develop “plug and play” technology and products for customers, including certification processes. One example of this occurrence is the efforts of the ZigBee Alliance and its members which produced the ZigBee Smart Energy profile as the first implementation of a standard data communication interface based on the OpenHAN SRS. The ZigBee Alliance also provides certification for ZigBee Smart Energy products to ensure customers and equipment manufacturers realize a “plug and play” interoperable experience. ZigBee Smart Energy HAN device products connected to the Smart Grid are available and being installed in customer homes today in the regions of Texas with retail competition. These devices are being used s without any additional gateways or adaptors between the Smart Grid and the HAN devices.
Mary Zientara
Reliant Energy
Jeffery Dygert: Let the Free Market Work it Out
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Jeffrey Dygert, AT&T Services, Inc.
This area of inquiry raises numerous and complicated issues, but they are issues that industry, not government, is best suited to resolve. As the RFI acknowledges, a standardized physical communications interface will facilitate the speedy and broad deployment of smart appliances. However, AT&T strongly believes that policy makers should avoid selecting or endorsing a particular form of connectivity for the appliance industry. Rather, appliance manufacturers should be allowed to reach consensus among themselves about the interface or interfaces that best meet the needs of the marketplace. We note that smart appliances will need to be able to operate effectively in at least three different environments:
In homes that are not served by Smart Grid capabilities and where a HAN may or may not exist, smart appliances will need to communicate with their manufacturers for firmware upgrades and diagnostics.
In homes served by Smart Grid capabilities but without a HAN to mediate communications, smart appliances will need to receive and respond to signals or instructions coming through the smart meter.
In homes served by Smart Grid and equipped with a HAN, smart appliances likely will need to communicate with both the HAN and the smart meter to accomplish different tasks.
Each of these environments presents its own unique communications challenges and limitations, which appliance manufacturers – likely in consultation with HAN equipment manufacturers and communications service providers – are best suited to address. Moreover, for the promise of smart appliances to be fully realized, it will be necessary for consumers to embrace the technology. This is particularly true when the appliances will need to fit into homes that consumers are already networking for other purposes. Appliance manufacturers are more likely to achieve broad consumer acceptance if they are responding to market signals, rather than to a government decision mandating a particular communications interface. Manufacturers may settle on a single interface, or they may determine that it is most effective to equip appliances with multiple options (or even offer adapters or converters) to ensure that they are more broadly functional. In either event, manufacturers will be responding to what their consumers want, thereby driving broader adoption.
Additionally, leaving this question up to industry and the marketplace likely will spur greater innovation over the long run, as manufacturers remain free to respond to new developments in technology or consumer preference.
As we discuss above, in addition to communicating with the smart meter, smart appliances are likely to communicate with manufacturers for diagnostics and firmware upgrades and, potentially, with third-parties providing energy management services. Given this broader scope of communications, many of which will not involve the smart meter, it is best to avoid mandating a particular interface for communicating with the Smart Grid. Rather, manufacturers should be allowed to determine what interface best suits the numerous different communications that appliances will need to make.
This is not to say, however, that government does not have an important role to play with respect to smart appliance communications interfaces.
Policy makers can help the industry to achieve consensus by establishing an open, collaborative process to examine the issues and reach a decision, much as the National Institute of Standards and Technology has done with its Smart Grid standard setting process. The NIST standard-setting process also can contribute significantly to integrating smart appliances into the Smart Grid by establishing standards governing how appliances and home gateways will authenticate themselves and communicate with the grid.
AT&T appreciates the opportunity to contribute its views on these important issues and looks forward to continued engagement with policy makers throughout the federal government as the conversation about Smart Grid and its exciting potential continues.
Dorothy Attwood
Senior Vice President, Public Policy
& Chief Privacy Officer
This area of inquiry raises numerous and complicated issues, but they are issues that industry, not government, is best suited to resolve. As the RFI acknowledges, a standardized physical communications interface will facilitate the speedy and broad deployment of smart appliances. However, AT&T strongly believes that policy makers should avoid selecting or endorsing a particular form of connectivity for the appliance industry. Rather, appliance manufacturers should be allowed to reach consensus among themselves about the interface or interfaces that best meet the needs of the marketplace. We note that smart appliances will need to be able to operate effectively in at least three different environments:
In homes that are not served by Smart Grid capabilities and where a HAN may or may not exist, smart appliances will need to communicate with their manufacturers for firmware upgrades and diagnostics.
In homes served by Smart Grid capabilities but without a HAN to mediate communications, smart appliances will need to receive and respond to signals or instructions coming through the smart meter.
In homes served by Smart Grid and equipped with a HAN, smart appliances likely will need to communicate with both the HAN and the smart meter to accomplish different tasks.
Each of these environments presents its own unique communications challenges and limitations, which appliance manufacturers – likely in consultation with HAN equipment manufacturers and communications service providers – are best suited to address. Moreover, for the promise of smart appliances to be fully realized, it will be necessary for consumers to embrace the technology. This is particularly true when the appliances will need to fit into homes that consumers are already networking for other purposes. Appliance manufacturers are more likely to achieve broad consumer acceptance if they are responding to market signals, rather than to a government decision mandating a particular communications interface. Manufacturers may settle on a single interface, or they may determine that it is most effective to equip appliances with multiple options (or even offer adapters or converters) to ensure that they are more broadly functional. In either event, manufacturers will be responding to what their consumers want, thereby driving broader adoption.
Additionally, leaving this question up to industry and the marketplace likely will spur greater innovation over the long run, as manufacturers remain free to respond to new developments in technology or consumer preference.
As we discuss above, in addition to communicating with the smart meter, smart appliances are likely to communicate with manufacturers for diagnostics and firmware upgrades and, potentially, with third-parties providing energy management services. Given this broader scope of communications, many of which will not involve the smart meter, it is best to avoid mandating a particular interface for communicating with the Smart Grid. Rather, manufacturers should be allowed to determine what interface best suits the numerous different communications that appliances will need to make.
This is not to say, however, that government does not have an important role to play with respect to smart appliance communications interfaces.
Policy makers can help the industry to achieve consensus by establishing an open, collaborative process to examine the issues and reach a decision, much as the National Institute of Standards and Technology has done with its Smart Grid standard setting process. The NIST standard-setting process also can contribute significantly to integrating smart appliances into the Smart Grid by establishing standards governing how appliances and home gateways will authenticate themselves and communicate with the grid.
AT&T appreciates the opportunity to contribute its views on these important issues and looks forward to continued engagement with policy makers throughout the federal government as the conversation about Smart Grid and its exciting potential continues.
Dorothy Attwood
Senior Vice President, Public Policy
& Chief Privacy Officer
Michael Balog: Protocol Standardization
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Michael A. Balog, BuLogics , Inc.
Q1. This will only help low-income consumers if it is extended beyond the meter.
Q2. A plug-in module that has universal RF communication. Perhaps different modules with different RF standards. As for physical communications SPI & UART. The most important component is the protocol that all these modules will use. This should be simple and stay strict to the requirements of the smart grid communication that is required, thus not implementing components that are specific to the different RF communication requirements. That information / requirements should be handled in the module itself.
For Example: If using RF communication XYZ, the requirements of running XYZ RF network should not be part of the protocol between the module and the appliance. Simply telling the module to join or leave a network should be sufficient.
Q3. A well defined and interoperable protocol should be used and a strict interoperability standard be set where each module is tested for compliance.
Q4. The Gateway to the Smart Grid should be provided by the utility and the adapters for the appliance should be purchased by the consumer.
Michael A. Balog, PhD
Chief Technology Officer
BuLogics, Inc.
Q1. This will only help low-income consumers if it is extended beyond the meter.
Q2. A plug-in module that has universal RF communication. Perhaps different modules with different RF standards. As for physical communications SPI & UART. The most important component is the protocol that all these modules will use. This should be simple and stay strict to the requirements of the smart grid communication that is required, thus not implementing components that are specific to the different RF communication requirements. That information / requirements should be handled in the module itself.
For Example: If using RF communication XYZ, the requirements of running XYZ RF network should not be part of the protocol between the module and the appliance. Simply telling the module to join or leave a network should be sufficient.
Q3. A well defined and interoperable protocol should be used and a strict interoperability standard be set where each module is tested for compliance.
Q4. The Gateway to the Smart Grid should be provided by the utility and the adapters for the appliance should be purchased by the consumer.
Michael A. Balog, PhD
Chief Technology Officer
BuLogics, Inc.
Bill Muston: Standards (SEP2) to break away from proprietary deployments
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Bill Munston, Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC
What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation?
For communication to meters, the ZigBee Smart Energy Profile 1.0 is available and should be supported today. When the Smart Energy Profile 2.0 becomes final and available, it should be supported. SEP 2.0 will likely replace SEP 1.0 in many smart meters, due to the more robust set of functionalities it supports. This will be the customer’s choice. It is Oncor’s intention to support both ZigBee SEP 1.0 and ZigBee 2.x simultaneously over the network; however, only one protocol will be supported at any particular meter. The customers who are early adopters with ZigBee SEP 1.0 equipment will need to decide if they want to: 1) continue to use SEP 1.0, 2) upgrade/modify devices in the home to SEP 2.x, or 3) provide a gateway/protocol converter between systems. SEP 2.0 is designed to be transmitted over any transport medium that supports IPv6 addressing. Meters being deployed by Oncor utilize the ZigBee wireless transport. For appliances sold prior to the availability of SEP 2.0, a USB port should be provided that will allow the appliance to be upgraded from 1.0 to 2.0, since 2.0 will not be backwards compatible with 1.0.
This question presumes a particular HAN architecture that requires the appliance to communicate directly with the meter. Home energy management systems may also have a network hub within the home that is not the meter, and those may utilize other protocols such as WiFi . In those instances, the smart appliance may be set to communicate with the home energy management hub, and the home energy management hub communicates with meters.
Communication limitations of wireless systems for home use may make powerline transport a more attractive option. For instance, a HomePlug implementation of SEP 2.0 could be an attractive option for home energy management systems configured to support it.
Since SEP 2.0 will be agnostic to the transport layer, the choice of transport medium should be left open to the market to ensure flexibility and innovation.
How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made ‘‘plug and play’’ for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks?
“Plug and play” is often associated with USB capability, where hardware interfaces and functionalities are pre-defined and standardized, and new devices can be plugged into an operating computer. The “communication” between the new device and the computer is for basic functionality associated with the device, but does not address application level issues.
Just like a home area network operating on WiFi in a secure mode requires either the homeowner or a computer professional to make settings for new devices to work on that secured network, smart appliances or any other home energy management system will require provisioning through a process that meets security requirements associated with smart meters and systems. Oncor will provide to consumers a self-serve provisioning or registration capability through the Smart Meter Texas web portal. If consumers do not have internet access or the skills required for this self-serve provisioning, then this may be a service that can be provided by the appliance retailer, just like delivery and installation is provided for other appliances and home entertainment systems as an additional service at point of sale. Likewise, a utility or, in Texas, a retail electric provider, may provide that service as part of a rate package that will provide for price or time of use signals to the appliances.
If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: The utility or the consumer?
Since this is a retail matter, state public utility commissions may choose to have utilities provide a gateway or adapter for a separate charge, just as other additional services are provided for a separate charge today, or they might determine that the cost of such gateways should be spread across all customers. In the competitive Texas market, it is likely that the retail electric providers will work in conjunction with smart appliance makers and other home energy management system manufacturers to construct packaged services that will include the cost of gateways or adapters.
Bill Muston
Manager, Research & Development
Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC
What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation?
For communication to meters, the ZigBee Smart Energy Profile 1.0 is available and should be supported today. When the Smart Energy Profile 2.0 becomes final and available, it should be supported. SEP 2.0 will likely replace SEP 1.0 in many smart meters, due to the more robust set of functionalities it supports. This will be the customer’s choice. It is Oncor’s intention to support both ZigBee SEP 1.0 and ZigBee 2.x simultaneously over the network; however, only one protocol will be supported at any particular meter. The customers who are early adopters with ZigBee SEP 1.0 equipment will need to decide if they want to: 1) continue to use SEP 1.0, 2) upgrade/modify devices in the home to SEP 2.x, or 3) provide a gateway/protocol converter between systems. SEP 2.0 is designed to be transmitted over any transport medium that supports IPv6 addressing. Meters being deployed by Oncor utilize the ZigBee wireless transport. For appliances sold prior to the availability of SEP 2.0, a USB port should be provided that will allow the appliance to be upgraded from 1.0 to 2.0, since 2.0 will not be backwards compatible with 1.0.
This question presumes a particular HAN architecture that requires the appliance to communicate directly with the meter. Home energy management systems may also have a network hub within the home that is not the meter, and those may utilize other protocols such as WiFi . In those instances, the smart appliance may be set to communicate with the home energy management hub, and the home energy management hub communicates with meters.
Communication limitations of wireless systems for home use may make powerline transport a more attractive option. For instance, a HomePlug implementation of SEP 2.0 could be an attractive option for home energy management systems configured to support it.
Since SEP 2.0 will be agnostic to the transport layer, the choice of transport medium should be left open to the market to ensure flexibility and innovation.
How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made ‘‘plug and play’’ for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks?
“Plug and play” is often associated with USB capability, where hardware interfaces and functionalities are pre-defined and standardized, and new devices can be plugged into an operating computer. The “communication” between the new device and the computer is for basic functionality associated with the device, but does not address application level issues.
Just like a home area network operating on WiFi in a secure mode requires either the homeowner or a computer professional to make settings for new devices to work on that secured network, smart appliances or any other home energy management system will require provisioning through a process that meets security requirements associated with smart meters and systems. Oncor will provide to consumers a self-serve provisioning or registration capability through the Smart Meter Texas web portal. If consumers do not have internet access or the skills required for this self-serve provisioning, then this may be a service that can be provided by the appliance retailer, just like delivery and installation is provided for other appliances and home entertainment systems as an additional service at point of sale. Likewise, a utility or, in Texas, a retail electric provider, may provide that service as part of a rate package that will provide for price or time of use signals to the appliances.
If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: The utility or the consumer?
Since this is a retail matter, state public utility commissions may choose to have utilities provide a gateway or adapter for a separate charge, just as other additional services are provided for a separate charge today, or they might determine that the cost of such gateways should be spread across all customers. In the competitive Texas market, it is likely that the retail electric providers will work in conjunction with smart appliance makers and other home energy management system manufacturers to construct packaged services that will include the cost of gateways or adapters.
Bill Muston
Manager, Research & Development
Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC
Barry Haaser: Standardized Component Based Interconnectivity
Posted by Barry Haaser, USNAP Alliance – Response to question: What standard data communications interface(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateways so that appliance manufacturers can cost effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart grid anywhere in the nation? There are numerous communication standards available today capable of supporting connectivity between consumer appliances, heating and air conditioning systems, computing equipment, lighting controls, pool and spa controls and consumer electronics. This variety of communication options as well as the high rate of technology change with emerging HAN communications protocols presents a significant challenge the smart grid industry.
The computer industry successfully utilizes removable modules to deliver products to consumers while interoperating with multiple evolving protocols. Today, the Smart Grid industry is challenged with maintaining interoperability between smart grid components being installed today such as smart meters that must interoperate with generations of consumer products over the lifetime of the smart grid.. USNAP provides a removable module to address this challenge, similar to the computer industry module approach.
The USNAP Alliance was formed to facilitate the Home Area Network (HAN) market by offering manufacturers a simple, cost effective connector interface for to connect Smart Grid “ready” products to the Smart Grid, thereby enabling devices to enter the market independently from the communications. Today the USNAP Alliance includes more than 30 members spanning utilities, energy service providers, communication providers, information technology companies, and an ecosystem of product suppliers including appliances, thermostats, in-home displays, load control devices, energy storage appliances, and meters.
The USNAP concept is rather simple. Allow manufacturers to produce communication agnostic products that can support any HAN communications protocol today or in the future. By incorporating a low cost USNAP interface into products, manufacturers can offer Smart Grid “ready” products that consumers can use in any geography. Products can be sold with or without communication modules installed. USNAP enabled products can be upgraded in the field by replacing the module in order to adapt at the same pace as technological innovation. By decoupling communications from the product it is possible to create a durable competitive environment for Smart Grid Modules capable of leveraging economies of scale. Giving consumers multiple sources of supply at competitive prices.
USNAP Communication Modules (UCMs) are available for key wireless technologies, including ZigBee , Wi-Fi, Z-Wave, FM/RDS as well as AMI networks. The first USNAP enabled products will be available in retail shelves for consumers this summer.
How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart grid be made “plug and play” for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks? Most HAN solutions today support a simple “plug and play” mechanism for connecting devices together either using self-configuration software or a configuration button. The USNAP approach is protocol agnostic and supports whatever installation methodology is used by the particular protocol used. USNAP modules are designed to be easily installed by consumers.
The computer industry successfully utilizes removable modules to deliver products to consumers while interoperating with multiple evolving protocols. Today, the Smart Grid industry is challenged with maintaining interoperability between smart grid components being installed today such as smart meters that must interoperate with generations of consumer products over the lifetime of the smart grid.. USNAP provides a removable module to address this challenge, similar to the computer industry module approach.
The USNAP Alliance was formed to facilitate the Home Area Network (HAN) market by offering manufacturers a simple, cost effective connector interface for to connect Smart Grid “ready” products to the Smart Grid, thereby enabling devices to enter the market independently from the communications. Today the USNAP Alliance includes more than 30 members spanning utilities, energy service providers, communication providers, information technology companies, and an ecosystem of product suppliers including appliances, thermostats, in-home displays, load control devices, energy storage appliances, and meters.
The USNAP concept is rather simple. Allow manufacturers to produce communication agnostic products that can support any HAN communications protocol today or in the future. By incorporating a low cost USNAP interface into products, manufacturers can offer Smart Grid “ready” products that consumers can use in any geography. Products can be sold with or without communication modules installed. USNAP enabled products can be upgraded in the field by replacing the module in order to adapt at the same pace as technological innovation. By decoupling communications from the product it is possible to create a durable competitive environment for Smart Grid Modules capable of leveraging economies of scale. Giving consumers multiple sources of supply at competitive prices.
USNAP Communication Modules (UCMs) are available for key wireless technologies, including ZigBee , Wi-Fi, Z-Wave, FM/RDS as well as AMI networks. The first USNAP enabled products will be available in retail shelves for consumers this summer.
How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart grid be made “plug and play” for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks? Most HAN solutions today support a simple “plug and play” mechanism for connecting devices together either using self-configuration software or a configuration button. The USNAP approach is protocol agnostic and supports whatever installation methodology is used by the particular protocol used. USNAP modules are designed to be easily installed by consumers.
Reliant Energy: The View from Texas
March 12, 2010
Comments of Reliant Energy Retail Services, LLC to the OSTP Questions
Background of Reliant Energy
Reliant Energy Retail Services, LLC, (“Reliant Energy”), a competitive retail electric provider, is a wholly owned subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., a national wholesale power generation company with over 24,000 MW of generation in 13 states. Reliant Energy provides electricity and energy related products to more than 1.6 million customers in Texas.
Smart Grid, as it relates to enabling informed participation by end-use customers, has been a focus of Reliant Energy’s business for the past three years. Reliant Energy’s involvement in the Smart Grid is focused on the Distribution, Customer and Service Provider domains, as depicted in the NIST Conceptual Reference Model [1], through two primary activities: (1) active involvement in the development of interoperable Smart Grid standards between these domains of interest, and (2) developing and offering retail products enabled by the Smart Grid that allow customers to become more active participants in their consumption of energy. Reliant Energy has been an active participant in facilitating the Smart Grid market design and developing business requirements both in Texas and nationally, through various stakeholder processes, including the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) Advanced Metering Implementation Team, North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), UCAIug OpenSG , ZigBee Alliance, Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP) and the SGIP Governing Board (SGIPGB). These forums accelerate the development and adoption of national and international Smart Grid standards that ensure interoperability between the components of the Smart Grid system, especially with the Customer domain.
In October 2009, Reliant Energy was selected for a DOE Smart Grid Investment Grant (SGIG) to accelerate the development and deployment of a suite of retail products that will enable informed participation in the Smart Grid for Texas residential customers. The success of Reliant Energy’s SGIG Project is dependent upon a reliable and interoperable consumer interface with the Smart Grid. This interface must provide for the secure bi-directional transfer of information, including energy usage and other messages to home-area-network devices.
Responses to Questions
Reliant Energy appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments in response to the OSTP’s request.
1. Should the smart meter serve as the primary gateway for residential energy usage data, price data, and demand response signals? What are the most important factors in making this assessment, and how might those factors change over time?
Answer: The smart meter is an integral part of the Smart Grid that provides a new communication interface between the Distribution and Customer domains and between the Service Provider and Customer domains as shown graphically in Figure 1. The importance of this interface should not be underestimated. It should be the primary interface / gateway for customer energy usage data, price data, and demand response signals.
Figure 1 Interaction of actors in different Smart Grid Domains through Secure Communication Flows and Electrical Flows.[2]
Alternative “gateways” to provide customer energy usage information should be supported and encouraged, but not to the exclusion of the smart meter interface. For example, broadband internet service is often described as an alternative for communication of energy information. Yet, not all customers have broadband service and an internet / broadband interface requires the customer to have an additional technology service provider and home area network device to collect the near real time energy consumption information from the smart meter. Therefore using broadband as an alternative interface represents an added cost to the customer.
NIST describes the Smart Grid interface to the Customer Domain as being composed of “two distinct elements that, together, provide the interface to the Customer Domain: the meter and the Energy Services Interface (ESI)” [3]. The meter functions “to measure, record, and communicate energy usage” [4] and is owned by the utility, which is solely responsible for providing data to support both retail energy billing and wholesale energy settlement. The ESI [5] provides the security - and often the coordination functions - to enable secure interactions between the home area network (HAN) devices (e.g. electric meter, programmable communicating thermostats, displays, smart appliances, energy management systems, plug-in electric vehicles (PEV), etc.) and the Service Provider (e.g. utility, retail electric provider, Demand Response providers, Energy Service Providers, etc.) over the utility AMI communications network. In smart meter deployments in Texas, the ESI is located in the smart meter. Through the ESI, HAN devices can receive, display, and respond to real-time energy usage information accessed directly from the smart meter. Once a customer securely joins a HAN device to the ESI, the device can receive real-time usage information independent of any Service Provider program.
The ESI is the unique interface between the Customer domain and the Distribution domain. The ESI can also serve as the secure interface between the Service Provider and Customer domains for communicating price data, demand response signals, and other information associated with a specific Service Provider retail program (e.g. smart appliance, DR, pre-pay, PEV, etc.). Although a Service Provider may use an alternative communication path (e.g. internet, broadband, etc.) to send price data and demand response signals to consumer HAN devices, at least one HAN device must be present and securely joined to the ESI, to tie the price or demand response signal to the consumer’s real time energy consumption when needed to verify customer participation in the Service Provider’s program.
Other interfaces may be available to consumers for other purposes. For example, a business to business back office interface, such as described by Open Automatic Data Exchange (OpenADE) can provide billing quality day-after energy usage data, retrieved from the smart meter and subjected to a utility validation, editing and estimation (VEE) process.
Important factors Service Providers and Customers should consider in making a decision on which interface to utilize are program specific and relate to the need for timely data (e.g. real-time usage data, day-after historical data), the accuracy of the data (e.g. real time non-billing usage data, VEE billing quality usage data) and the need to validate a customer’s participation in a specific program. Also, whether or not the consumer is willing to incur the additional cost for an alternative interface should be considered.
In conclusion, other interfaces could be available and utilized by Service Providers to supply customer price data and demand response signals but the smart meter / ESI provides the unique secure interface between the Distribution and Customer domains and the Service Provider and Customer domains for real-time usage data accessed from the smart meter.
2. Should a data gateway other than the smart meter be used for all or a subset of the data described in question 1?
Answer: An additional data gateway, other than the smart meter / ESI, may be used by the Service Provider and Customer but should not be required. As discussed in question 1, an internet gateway may be used by the Service Provider for price data and demand response signals, but this gateway must be securely joined to the ESI to tie the price data or demand response signal to real time customer usage. Also, whether or not the customer has the ability to provide an alternative cost effective communication path (e.g. internet, broadband service, etc.) to the Service Provider should be considered.
3. If the smart meter, via the utility network, is the primary gateway for the data described in question 1, will consumers and their authorized third party service providers be able to access the data easily and in real time?
Answer: If the smart meter / ESI is the primary gateway, then customers will be able to access their data easily and in real time if the ESI and the customer’s HAN devices conform to the requirements of an interoperable standard. Whether or not an authorized third party service provider has access through the smart meter / ESI interface is governed by jurisdictional regulatory and legislative rules. In the regions of Texas with retail competition, customers have access to their real-time usage data through the smart meter / ESI interface and can grant third party service provider’s access to their data through an OpenADE type interface. This access is required by PUCT rules and is enabled by the use of interoperable standards. NIST has recognized the requirements standard for home-area networks and devices, UtilityAMI 2008 Home Area Network System Requirements Specification v1.04 [6] (“OpenHAN SRS”), which includes specific requirements for the ESI and HAN devices that enable customers to access data easily and in real time, where appropriate.
4. Who owns the home energy usage data? Should individual consumers and their authorized third-party service providers have the right to access energy usage data directly from the meter?
Answer: Customer access to their electrical usage data is governed by regulatory and legislative rules in the jurisdictions in which they live. In the regions of Texas with retail competition, this policy question has been answered in Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) Sec. 39.107 (b), which provides in pertinent part: “All meter data, including all data generated, provided or otherwise made available, by advance meters and meter information networks, shall belong to a customer…”. Additionally, PUCT Substantive Rule 25.130(j) requires a utility to provide customers access to their usage data and allows customers to make their data available to a third-party service provider of their choice. In the regions of Texas with retail competition, consumers who have smart meters may access non-billing usage data in real time through the smart meter / ESI and billing quality usage data on a day-after basis through an OpenADE type interface (i.e., Smart Meter Texas, an early version of the OpenADE interface). Customers may also grant a third party service provider access to their usage data through the Smart Meter Texas. Both of these methods to access usage data are enabled by the PUCT requirement to utilize interoperable standards.
5. How are low-income consumers best served by home-to-grid technology?
Answer: Low-income consumers are best served by home-to-grid technology when barriers to participation are minimized; out-of-pocket investments should not be required to take advantage of Smart Grid enabled products. Universal deployment of a standard interoperable interface will allow a HAN device to easily and securely join the ESI at any premise. Moreover, interoperability will drive HAN device manufacturers to innovate and differentiate their product offerings such that competitively priced HAN devices will be readily available.
The key to delivering Smart Grid benefits to low-income customers are (1) to ensure customers are not required to have access to an additional communication technology (e.g. internet, broadband, etc) or advanced technology like an energy management system; and (2) through interoperability standards, to encourage competitive innovation among HAN device manufactures that drives down prices to a point at which the savings realized by a low-income consumer quickly offsets the price of a device.
6. 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?
Answer: The OpenHAN SRS identified several technology independent architectural scenarios which support innovation in home energy services. These scenarios enable customer choice by supporting architectures that include both traditional utility programs and programs offered by third party providers. The OpenHANSRS includes a broad set of platform- and technology- independent requirements that enable applications such as display of customer consumption and billing, remote load control, energy management and optimization, plug-in electric vehicles, and distributive energy resources. In addition, the OpenHAN SRS provides a mapping of requirements to the functionality of devices to serve as guidance to HAN device vendors.
7. Some appliance manufacturers have announced plans to market Smart Grid-enabled appliances in late 2011 provided that appropriate communication standards are defined in 2010. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation? How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made ‘‘plug and play’’ for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks? If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: The utility or the consumer?
Answer: A widely acknowledged and referenced set of requirements for Smart Grid data communications interface to customer devices was set forth in theOpenHAN SRS published in 2008 and recognized by NIST as a low hanging fruit and in NIST standards Roadmap v 1.0. The purpose of the OpenHAN SRS is set forth on page 10 of the document:
“The UtilityAMI 2008 Home Area Network System Requirements Specification:
- Promotes open standards-based HANs that are interoperable
- Provides the vendor community with a common set of principles and requirements around which to build products
- _Ensures reliable and sustainable HAN platforms
- _Supports various energy policies in a variety of states, provinces, and countries
- _Empowers citizens with the information they need to make decisions on their energy use by enabling the vision of a home energy ecosystem”___
This requirements specification is currently being updated in an open collaborative process which includes participation from appliance manufacturers, other original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), software developers, utilities, and many other participants.
As mentioned, the OpenHAN SRS is technology independent. Therefore, technology companies and organizations should be called upon to implement the requirements from OpenHAN to develop “plug and play” technology and products for customers, including certification processes. One example of this occurrence is the efforts of the ZigBee Alliance and its members which produced the ZigBee Smart Energy profile as the first implementation of a standard data communication interface based on the OpenHAN SRS. The ZigBee Alliance also provides certification for ZigBee Smart Energy products to ensure customers and equipment manufacturers realize a “plug and play” interoperable experience. ZigBee Smart Energy HAN device products connected to the Smart Grid are available and being installed in customer homes today in the regions of Texas with retail competition. These devices are being used s without any additional gateways or adaptors between the Smart Grid and the HAN devices.
[1] NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0, page 33.
[2] Ibid, page 33
[3]Ibid, page 41
[4] Ibid
[5] Utility AMI 2008 Home Area Network System Requirements Specification v 1.04, page 13
[6] OpenHAN SRS v1.4 was identified as a requirements standard by NIST in the NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0, page 58. One of the audiences of this document are vendors that make consumer products like communicating thermostats, energy management systems, load control switches, in-home displays, smart appliances, plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles, and distributed generation resources.
Comments of Reliant Energy Retail Services, LLC to the OSTP Questions
Background of Reliant Energy
Reliant Energy Retail Services, LLC, (“Reliant Energy”), a competitive retail electric provider, is a wholly owned subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., a national wholesale power generation company with over 24,000 MW of generation in 13 states. Reliant Energy provides electricity and energy related products to more than 1.6 million customers in Texas.
Smart Grid, as it relates to enabling informed participation by end-use customers, has been a focus of Reliant Energy’s business for the past three years. Reliant Energy’s involvement in the Smart Grid is focused on the Distribution, Customer and Service Provider domains, as depicted in the NIST Conceptual Reference Model [1], through two primary activities: (1) active involvement in the development of interoperable Smart Grid standards between these domains of interest, and (2) developing and offering retail products enabled by the Smart Grid that allow customers to become more active participants in their consumption of energy. Reliant Energy has been an active participant in facilitating the Smart Grid market design and developing business requirements both in Texas and nationally, through various stakeholder processes, including the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) Advanced Metering Implementation Team, North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), UCAIug OpenSG , ZigBee Alliance, Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP) and the SGIP Governing Board (SGIPGB). These forums accelerate the development and adoption of national and international Smart Grid standards that ensure interoperability between the components of the Smart Grid system, especially with the Customer domain.
In October 2009, Reliant Energy was selected for a DOE Smart Grid Investment Grant (SGIG) to accelerate the development and deployment of a suite of retail products that will enable informed participation in the Smart Grid for Texas residential customers. The success of Reliant Energy’s SGIG Project is dependent upon a reliable and interoperable consumer interface with the Smart Grid. This interface must provide for the secure bi-directional transfer of information, including energy usage and other messages to home-area-network devices.
Responses to Questions
Reliant Energy appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments in response to the OSTP’s request.
1. Should the smart meter serve as the primary gateway for residential energy usage data, price data, and demand response signals? What are the most important factors in making this assessment, and how might those factors change over time?
Answer: The smart meter is an integral part of the Smart Grid that provides a new communication interface between the Distribution and Customer domains and between the Service Provider and Customer domains as shown graphically in Figure 1. The importance of this interface should not be underestimated. It should be the primary interface / gateway for customer energy usage data, price data, and demand response signals.
Figure 1 Interaction of actors in different Smart Grid Domains through Secure Communication Flows and Electrical Flows.[2]
Alternative “gateways” to provide customer energy usage information should be supported and encouraged, but not to the exclusion of the smart meter interface. For example, broadband internet service is often described as an alternative for communication of energy information. Yet, not all customers have broadband service and an internet / broadband interface requires the customer to have an additional technology service provider and home area network device to collect the near real time energy consumption information from the smart meter. Therefore using broadband as an alternative interface represents an added cost to the customer.
NIST describes the Smart Grid interface to the Customer Domain as being composed of “two distinct elements that, together, provide the interface to the Customer Domain: the meter and the Energy Services Interface (ESI)” [3]. The meter functions “to measure, record, and communicate energy usage” [4] and is owned by the utility, which is solely responsible for providing data to support both retail energy billing and wholesale energy settlement. The ESI [5] provides the security - and often the coordination functions - to enable secure interactions between the home area network (HAN) devices (e.g. electric meter, programmable communicating thermostats, displays, smart appliances, energy management systems, plug-in electric vehicles (PEV), etc.) and the Service Provider (e.g. utility, retail electric provider, Demand Response providers, Energy Service Providers, etc.) over the utility AMI communications network. In smart meter deployments in Texas, the ESI is located in the smart meter. Through the ESI, HAN devices can receive, display, and respond to real-time energy usage information accessed directly from the smart meter. Once a customer securely joins a HAN device to the ESI, the device can receive real-time usage information independent of any Service Provider program.
The ESI is the unique interface between the Customer domain and the Distribution domain. The ESI can also serve as the secure interface between the Service Provider and Customer domains for communicating price data, demand response signals, and other information associated with a specific Service Provider retail program (e.g. smart appliance, DR, pre-pay, PEV, etc.). Although a Service Provider may use an alternative communication path (e.g. internet, broadband, etc.) to send price data and demand response signals to consumer HAN devices, at least one HAN device must be present and securely joined to the ESI, to tie the price or demand response signal to the consumer’s real time energy consumption when needed to verify customer participation in the Service Provider’s program.
Other interfaces may be available to consumers for other purposes. For example, a business to business back office interface, such as described by Open Automatic Data Exchange (OpenADE) can provide billing quality day-after energy usage data, retrieved from the smart meter and subjected to a utility validation, editing and estimation (VEE) process.
Important factors Service Providers and Customers should consider in making a decision on which interface to utilize are program specific and relate to the need for timely data (e.g. real-time usage data, day-after historical data), the accuracy of the data (e.g. real time non-billing usage data, VEE billing quality usage data) and the need to validate a customer’s participation in a specific program. Also, whether or not the consumer is willing to incur the additional cost for an alternative interface should be considered.
In conclusion, other interfaces could be available and utilized by Service Providers to supply customer price data and demand response signals but the smart meter / ESI provides the unique secure interface between the Distribution and Customer domains and the Service Provider and Customer domains for real-time usage data accessed from the smart meter.
2. Should a data gateway other than the smart meter be used for all or a subset of the data described in question 1?
Answer: An additional data gateway, other than the smart meter / ESI, may be used by the Service Provider and Customer but should not be required. As discussed in question 1, an internet gateway may be used by the Service Provider for price data and demand response signals, but this gateway must be securely joined to the ESI to tie the price data or demand response signal to real time customer usage. Also, whether or not the customer has the ability to provide an alternative cost effective communication path (e.g. internet, broadband service, etc.) to the Service Provider should be considered.
3. If the smart meter, via the utility network, is the primary gateway for the data described in question 1, will consumers and their authorized third party service providers be able to access the data easily and in real time?
Answer: If the smart meter / ESI is the primary gateway, then customers will be able to access their data easily and in real time if the ESI and the customer’s HAN devices conform to the requirements of an interoperable standard. Whether or not an authorized third party service provider has access through the smart meter / ESI interface is governed by jurisdictional regulatory and legislative rules. In the regions of Texas with retail competition, customers have access to their real-time usage data through the smart meter / ESI interface and can grant third party service provider’s access to their data through an OpenADE type interface. This access is required by PUCT rules and is enabled by the use of interoperable standards. NIST has recognized the requirements standard for home-area networks and devices, UtilityAMI 2008 Home Area Network System Requirements Specification v1.04 [6] (“OpenHAN SRS”), which includes specific requirements for the ESI and HAN devices that enable customers to access data easily and in real time, where appropriate.
4. Who owns the home energy usage data? Should individual consumers and their authorized third-party service providers have the right to access energy usage data directly from the meter?
Answer: Customer access to their electrical usage data is governed by regulatory and legislative rules in the jurisdictions in which they live. In the regions of Texas with retail competition, this policy question has been answered in Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) Sec. 39.107 (b), which provides in pertinent part: “All meter data, including all data generated, provided or otherwise made available, by advance meters and meter information networks, shall belong to a customer…”. Additionally, PUCT Substantive Rule 25.130(j) requires a utility to provide customers access to their usage data and allows customers to make their data available to a third-party service provider of their choice. In the regions of Texas with retail competition, consumers who have smart meters may access non-billing usage data in real time through the smart meter / ESI and billing quality usage data on a day-after basis through an OpenADE type interface (i.e., Smart Meter Texas, an early version of the OpenADE interface). Customers may also grant a third party service provider access to their usage data through the Smart Meter Texas. Both of these methods to access usage data are enabled by the PUCT requirement to utilize interoperable standards.
5. How are low-income consumers best served by home-to-grid technology?
Answer: Low-income consumers are best served by home-to-grid technology when barriers to participation are minimized; out-of-pocket investments should not be required to take advantage of Smart Grid enabled products. Universal deployment of a standard interoperable interface will allow a HAN device to easily and securely join the ESI at any premise. Moreover, interoperability will drive HAN device manufacturers to innovate and differentiate their product offerings such that competitively priced HAN devices will be readily available.
The key to delivering Smart Grid benefits to low-income customers are (1) to ensure customers are not required to have access to an additional communication technology (e.g. internet, broadband, etc) or advanced technology like an energy management system; and (2) through interoperability standards, to encourage competitive innovation among HAN device manufactures that drives down prices to a point at which the savings realized by a low-income consumer quickly offsets the price of a device.
6. 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?
Answer: The OpenHAN SRS identified several technology independent architectural scenarios which support innovation in home energy services. These scenarios enable customer choice by supporting architectures that include both traditional utility programs and programs offered by third party providers. The OpenHANSRS includes a broad set of platform- and technology- independent requirements that enable applications such as display of customer consumption and billing, remote load control, energy management and optimization, plug-in electric vehicles, and distributive energy resources. In addition, the OpenHAN SRS provides a mapping of requirements to the functionality of devices to serve as guidance to HAN device vendors.
7. Some appliance manufacturers have announced plans to market Smart Grid-enabled appliances in late 2011 provided that appropriate communication standards are defined in 2010. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation? How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made ‘‘plug and play’’ for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks? If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: The utility or the consumer?
Answer: A widely acknowledged and referenced set of requirements for Smart Grid data communications interface to customer devices was set forth in theOpenHAN SRS published in 2008 and recognized by NIST as a low hanging fruit and in NIST standards Roadmap v 1.0. The purpose of the OpenHAN SRS is set forth on page 10 of the document:
“The UtilityAMI 2008 Home Area Network System Requirements Specification:
- Promotes open standards-based HANs that are interoperable
- Provides the vendor community with a common set of principles and requirements around which to build products
- _Ensures reliable and sustainable HAN platforms
- _Supports various energy policies in a variety of states, provinces, and countries
- _Empowers citizens with the information they need to make decisions on their energy use by enabling the vision of a home energy ecosystem”___
This requirements specification is currently being updated in an open collaborative process which includes participation from appliance manufacturers, other original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), software developers, utilities, and many other participants.
As mentioned, the OpenHAN SRS is technology independent. Therefore, technology companies and organizations should be called upon to implement the requirements from OpenHAN to develop “plug and play” technology and products for customers, including certification processes. One example of this occurrence is the efforts of the ZigBee Alliance and its members which produced the ZigBee Smart Energy profile as the first implementation of a standard data communication interface based on the OpenHAN SRS. The ZigBee Alliance also provides certification for ZigBee Smart Energy products to ensure customers and equipment manufacturers realize a “plug and play” interoperable experience. ZigBee Smart Energy HAN device products connected to the Smart Grid are available and being installed in customer homes today in the regions of Texas with retail competition. These devices are being used s without any additional gateways or adaptors between the Smart Grid and the HAN devices.
[1] NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0, page 33.
[2] Ibid, page 33
[3]Ibid, page 41
[4] Ibid
[5] Utility AMI 2008 Home Area Network System Requirements Specification v 1.04, page 13
[6] OpenHAN SRS v1.4 was identified as a requirements standard by NIST in the NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0, page 58. One of the audiences of this document are vendors that make consumer products like communicating thermostats, energy management systems, load control switches, in-home displays, smart appliances, plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles, and distributed generation resources.
Clarke Stevens: Keep it Inexpensive and Simple
1.How are low-income consumers best served by home-to-grid technology?
Low-income consumers are best served by simple, effective low-cost solutions. These solutions develop in open competitive markets with widely adopted standards. These criteria point to IP-based technologies. Regardless of how the technology is paid for, cheap and reliable is better.
2.What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation?
Open, proven and inexpensive technologies are key. Manufacturers can choose the MAC and PHY layer technologies that best suit their application. The IP layer ensures interoperability.
3.How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made ‘‘plug and play’’ for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks?
Base interoperability on the tried and true and inexpensive IP technology. There are numerous ways to make the connection "plug and play." Universal Plug-n-Play (UPnP ) technology is one such "zero configure" technology.
4.If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: the utility or the consumer?
Ultimately, the consumer will pay for them, but this could happen in many ways. They could be provided by the utility with the consumer paying through a power bill surcharge. The consumer could have a similar arrangmentment through an Internet service provider. The consumer could purchase them directly from a retail store. Low-income customers may pay for them trough taxes and a government subsidy. A free market with minimal government regulation will produce the most efficient solutions. An IP interoperability layer will ensure a robust market with thousands of commoditized solutions already available at low cost.
Low-income consumers are best served by simple, effective low-cost solutions. These solutions develop in open competitive markets with widely adopted standards. These criteria point to IP-based technologies. Regardless of how the technology is paid for, cheap and reliable is better.
2.What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation?
Open, proven and inexpensive technologies are key. Manufacturers can choose the MAC and PHY layer technologies that best suit their application. The IP layer ensures interoperability.
3.How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made ‘‘plug and play’’ for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks?
Base interoperability on the tried and true and inexpensive IP technology. There are numerous ways to make the connection "plug and play." Universal Plug-n-Play (UPnP ) technology is one such "zero configure" technology.
4.If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: the utility or the consumer?
Ultimately, the consumer will pay for them, but this could happen in many ways. They could be provided by the utility with the consumer paying through a power bill surcharge. The consumer could have a similar arrangmentment through an Internet service provider. The consumer could purchase them directly from a retail store. Low-income customers may pay for them trough taxes and a government subsidy. A free market with minimal government regulation will produce the most efficient solutions. An IP interoperability layer will ensure a robust market with thousands of commoditized solutions already available at low cost.
Matthew Williams: Consumer Focus and Clear Standards
The following comments are submitted by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM).
1. Should the smart meter serve as the primary gateway for residential energy usage data, price data, and demand response signals? What are the most important factors in making this assessment, and how might those factors change over time?
2. Should a data gateway other than the smart meter be used for all or a subset of the data described in question 1?
3. If the smart meter, via the utility network, is the primary gateway for the data described in question 1, will it be technically and commercially feasible for consumers and their authorized third-party service providers to access the data easily and in real time?
AHAM’s response to questions 1-3 is that Smart Grid enabled homes will have varying levels of sophistication, depending on the type of appliances, devices, and networks that are installed. There are many configurations, combinations, and options for energy management inside the home. Some possibilities could include a simple email notice for a manual demand response by the consumer, a smart meter directly communicating with a specific appliance to ask it to turn on and off, or a meter communicating with a Programmable Communicating Thermostat allowing for temperature adjustment. As a more sophisticated example, a smart meter communicates with an Energy Management System (EMS) home controller inside the house. This EMS home controller could wirelessly connect in-home Smart Appliances simultaneously to the Smart Meter and to the demand response backend system over the Internet using an existing broadband connection. An Internet-based approach also could provide users with control and flexibility to define their energy saving profiles, and an established, secure suite of communication protocols that manages several Smart Appliances while connecting to the Internet to receive messages and rate information. With so many flexible options, there must be standardized communication protocols available that allow proper interaction from utilities demand response systems to the smart meters, home controllers, gateways, displays, and devices.
4. Who owns the home energy usage data? Should individual consumers and their authorized third-party service providers have the right to access energy usage data directly from the meter?
Communication or interaction inside the home should be under the control of the consumer.
5. How are low-income consumers best served by home-to-grid technology?
The goal of a Smart Grid, as it relates to consumers, is to manage energy use more efficiently, save money on electricity, and provide technology and processes that are integrated into the appliances and devices consumers use in their everyday lives – all without causing significant disruption. A successful Smart Grid will allow consumers to receive valuable and understandable information that enables them to make intelligent and informed choices about how they use energy, all while minimizing consumer cost and out-of-pocket expenses that could arise with the implementation of the Smart Grid. The willingness of consumers to accept and participate in the Smart Grid could be severely impaired if the cost outweighs the benefits.
6. 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?
The Time of Use (TOU) tariff creates the conditions that encourage the consumer to change their or the appliance’s behavior by using appliances when the rates are lower, which if properly developed will save the consumer money on their total electricity bill. There are other benefits when the consumer is incentivized by the rate structure to intelligently manage energy usage. If the consumer can receive information relating to what type of power is available, in addition to the price, choices can be made to utilize renewable energy sources when they are available. For example, if there is a strong wind blowing across a wind turbine generation facility, it may be advantageous to consume power during that time so that it is not used when a higher emission alternative may be the only option.
In order to be effective, dynamic pricing requires the following:
• Clear standards are required to describe dynamic pricing information across the United States. A FERC report on demand response & advanced metering surveyed the various time-based rate programs around the country and found that only 20 programs fit the commission’s definition of critical peak pricing programs. The programs that fit FERC’s definition are small in size and few in number. Model tariffs and rate structures guidelines should be developed to fully enable the potential of Smart Appliances. Each utility should harmonize according to standards that apply across the United States. A fragmented system of tariff structures across the more than 3,000 utilities would present an impediment to the interstate commerce and use of consumer products. Tariffs, while approved regionally, must collectively provide benefits to consumers that invest in Smart Appliances.
• The pricing structure must allow manufacturers to build devices or appliances that are capable of managing this benefit and provide consumers with the proper incentives. For example, rate charges based on energy (kilowatt-hours) could encourage consumers to “shift” their energy use over time. Similarly, rate charges based on power (watts) could incentivize the consumer to “spread-out” their overall usage.
• Timely delivery of the pricing information from the utility is required for the consumer to make well-timed decisions about energy usage.
• The consumer must be able to easily set rules defining their preferences to govern their usage of electricity in the home. This applies to many possible architectural configurations, e.g., from a single Smart Appliance in the homes to including a comprehensive home energy management system. Some configurations may require a more sophisticated panel or display in the home or the assistance of web services outside the home.
7. Some appliance manufacturers have announced plans to market Smart Grid-enabled appliances in late 2011 provided that appropriate communication standards are defined in 2010. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation? How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made “plug and play” for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks? If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: The utility or the consumer?
One of three essential requirements outlined in AHAM’s December 2009 Smart Grid White Paper, The Home Appliance Industry’s Principles & Requirements for Achieving a Widely Accepted Smart Grid (found at www.aham.org/smartgrid), is that communication standards must be open, flexible, secure and not so numerous that they become burdensome, confusing, and conflicting. Significant effort is being expended by the Department of Energy and the NIST to identify standards that are applicable to the Smart Grid.
Appliance manufacturing is an investment-intensive activity that results in standardized products for national distribution. Customizing products for every proprietary communication protocol would be impractical. Moreover, every time a consumer moves or otherwise relocates to another utility service area they should not be forced to replace or change appliances in order to accommodate the specific technology being utilized by the utility in their service territory. AHAM strongly encourages the adoption of a single common Home Area Network communication standard for communication from/to the meter.
For these reasons, AHAM has begun a technical evaluation of communication standards and protocols as they relate to the development and interoperability of the Smart Grid and what standards and protocols would be most effective for the appliance industry. The Smart Appliance Communication Standard study will evaluate and narrow the number of protocols that best meet the appliance industry requirements.
Some meter manufacturers have developed proprietary protocols for communicating with devices inside the residence. These proprietary protocols create challenges for appliance and device manufacturers. Gateways and adapters that are required to communicate with the meter should be limited in number in the home to minimize costs. Many of the remaining details, including who will pay, will be determined by the market.
1. Should the smart meter serve as the primary gateway for residential energy usage data, price data, and demand response signals? What are the most important factors in making this assessment, and how might those factors change over time?
2. Should a data gateway other than the smart meter be used for all or a subset of the data described in question 1?
3. If the smart meter, via the utility network, is the primary gateway for the data described in question 1, will it be technically and commercially feasible for consumers and their authorized third-party service providers to access the data easily and in real time?
AHAM’s response to questions 1-3 is that Smart Grid enabled homes will have varying levels of sophistication, depending on the type of appliances, devices, and networks that are installed. There are many configurations, combinations, and options for energy management inside the home. Some possibilities could include a simple email notice for a manual demand response by the consumer, a smart meter directly communicating with a specific appliance to ask it to turn on and off, or a meter communicating with a Programmable Communicating Thermostat allowing for temperature adjustment. As a more sophisticated example, a smart meter communicates with an Energy Management System (EMS) home controller inside the house. This EMS home controller could wirelessly connect in-home Smart Appliances simultaneously to the Smart Meter and to the demand response backend system over the Internet using an existing broadband connection. An Internet-based approach also could provide users with control and flexibility to define their energy saving profiles, and an established, secure suite of communication protocols that manages several Smart Appliances while connecting to the Internet to receive messages and rate information. With so many flexible options, there must be standardized communication protocols available that allow proper interaction from utilities demand response systems to the smart meters, home controllers, gateways, displays, and devices.
4. Who owns the home energy usage data? Should individual consumers and their authorized third-party service providers have the right to access energy usage data directly from the meter?
Communication or interaction inside the home should be under the control of the consumer.
5. How are low-income consumers best served by home-to-grid technology?
The goal of a Smart Grid, as it relates to consumers, is to manage energy use more efficiently, save money on electricity, and provide technology and processes that are integrated into the appliances and devices consumers use in their everyday lives – all without causing significant disruption. A successful Smart Grid will allow consumers to receive valuable and understandable information that enables them to make intelligent and informed choices about how they use energy, all while minimizing consumer cost and out-of-pocket expenses that could arise with the implementation of the Smart Grid. The willingness of consumers to accept and participate in the Smart Grid could be severely impaired if the cost outweighs the benefits.
6. 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?
The Time of Use (TOU) tariff creates the conditions that encourage the consumer to change their or the appliance’s behavior by using appliances when the rates are lower, which if properly developed will save the consumer money on their total electricity bill. There are other benefits when the consumer is incentivized by the rate structure to intelligently manage energy usage. If the consumer can receive information relating to what type of power is available, in addition to the price, choices can be made to utilize renewable energy sources when they are available. For example, if there is a strong wind blowing across a wind turbine generation facility, it may be advantageous to consume power during that time so that it is not used when a higher emission alternative may be the only option.
In order to be effective, dynamic pricing requires the following:
• Clear standards are required to describe dynamic pricing information across the United States. A FERC report on demand response & advanced metering surveyed the various time-based rate programs around the country and found that only 20 programs fit the commission’s definition of critical peak pricing programs. The programs that fit FERC’s definition are small in size and few in number. Model tariffs and rate structures guidelines should be developed to fully enable the potential of Smart Appliances. Each utility should harmonize according to standards that apply across the United States. A fragmented system of tariff structures across the more than 3,000 utilities would present an impediment to the interstate commerce and use of consumer products. Tariffs, while approved regionally, must collectively provide benefits to consumers that invest in Smart Appliances.
• The pricing structure must allow manufacturers to build devices or appliances that are capable of managing this benefit and provide consumers with the proper incentives. For example, rate charges based on energy (kilowatt-hours) could encourage consumers to “shift” their energy use over time. Similarly, rate charges based on power (watts) could incentivize the consumer to “spread-out” their overall usage.
• Timely delivery of the pricing information from the utility is required for the consumer to make well-timed decisions about energy usage.
• The consumer must be able to easily set rules defining their preferences to govern their usage of electricity in the home. This applies to many possible architectural configurations, e.g., from a single Smart Appliance in the homes to including a comprehensive home energy management system. Some configurations may require a more sophisticated panel or display in the home or the assistance of web services outside the home.
7. Some appliance manufacturers have announced plans to market Smart Grid-enabled appliances in late 2011 provided that appropriate communication standards are defined in 2010. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation? How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made “plug and play” for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks? If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: The utility or the consumer?
One of three essential requirements outlined in AHAM’s December 2009 Smart Grid White Paper, The Home Appliance Industry’s Principles & Requirements for Achieving a Widely Accepted Smart Grid (found at www.aham.org/smartgrid), is that communication standards must be open, flexible, secure and not so numerous that they become burdensome, confusing, and conflicting. Significant effort is being expended by the Department of Energy and the NIST to identify standards that are applicable to the Smart Grid.
Appliance manufacturing is an investment-intensive activity that results in standardized products for national distribution. Customizing products for every proprietary communication protocol would be impractical. Moreover, every time a consumer moves or otherwise relocates to another utility service area they should not be forced to replace or change appliances in order to accommodate the specific technology being utilized by the utility in their service territory. AHAM strongly encourages the adoption of a single common Home Area Network communication standard for communication from/to the meter.
For these reasons, AHAM has begun a technical evaluation of communication standards and protocols as they relate to the development and interoperability of the Smart Grid and what standards and protocols would be most effective for the appliance industry. The Smart Appliance Communication Standard study will evaluate and narrow the number of protocols that best meet the appliance industry requirements.
Some meter manufacturers have developed proprietary protocols for communicating with devices inside the residence. These proprietary protocols create challenges for appliance and device manufacturers. Gateways and adapters that are required to communicate with the meter should be limited in number in the home to minimize costs. Many of the remaining details, including who will pay, will be determined by the market.
Cameron Brooks: Focus on the Kinds of Information
COMMENTS OF TENDRIL NETWORKS, INC.
Office of Science and Technology Policy Forum:
Consumer Interface with the Smart Grid Blog
March 12, 2010
“We are on the cusp of a new energy future,” President Obama declared last fall. Development of the smart grid, he observed, is expected to create tens of thousands of new jobs, save consumers more than $20 billion over the next decade and reduce the annual losses of $150 billion from power outages. It will increase renewable energy production, support electric vehicles and reduce carbon pollution.
Tendril agrees and we welcome the opportunity to contribute to this dialogue initiated by OSTP. We believe that the smart grid will serve as a platform for innovation enabling new industries to flourish, creating new jobs and keepin the nation the leader in global competitiveness.
To seize this opportunity requires leadership. It also requires coordinated action among the various federal agencies, state regulators and policy makers that have jurisdiction over these efforts. It requires accelerated deployment, involving both funding and the elimination of policy barriers. The Administration has an opportunity to lead this transformation and, in the words of the President, “make the energy future we dream of a reality.”
Experience tells us core to all innovation is open access to information. Consumer markets thrive with transparent and healthy competition. We believe this energy future will include new rates and business models that reflect the real-time economic and environmental costs of energy. It will bring forth innovative new technologies that automate customer transactions and provide services we are only beginning to understand.
As Tendril CEO, Adrian Tuck, observed in recent Senate testimony, “The consumer market is a powerful force for change. But like all markets, it will only be truly effective when it has accurate and actionable information. Federal policy, supporting entrepreneurs and American competitiveness, can provide that information and support innovation.”
Our comments are offered in the spirit of seizing this opportunity for the nation.
1. Should the smart meter serve as the primary gateway for residential energy usage data, price data, and demand response signals? What are the most important factors in making this assessment, and how might those factors change over time?
The smart meter is a vital component of the smart grid, but there is no reason to believe that it will or should remain the only gateway for residential energy usage data. Further, we do not believe that there is a need to stipulate a single gateway. Multiple interfaces and pathways for information exchange will best support market innovation.
In order to address this question, we believe it is helpful to distinguish between different kinds of information. For example, the information needed by a consumer to save energy in real time is different from the information the utility needs to generate an accurate billing statement. Many of the current discussions regarding smart grid seem to assume that all information types will utilize the same communication system, but that may not be required or advisable in order to encourage the market to develop. We see four broad classes of information for which different “gateways” may be suggested.
1. “Actionable” Information – This is the real-time information needed by consumers to implement control strategies in the home. Examples include a direct signal from the meter or information about the current sources of generation. In order to be effective, it is most important that the information be timely and sufficiently granular, though it may not be essential that it is precise. It may be sufficient to have a one-way flow information, which can mitigate many security concerns. Currently, an expedient source of this information is directly from the meter or from a signal provided by the meter.
2. “Revenue” Information – This is historical information that is required in order to generate an accurate bill for retail services. This information must be verifiable and precise, but does not need to be collected continuously. A meter data management system can be utilized as the source of this type of information. (For example, a business-to-business interface, such as Open Automatic Data Exchange (OpenADE) can be used to transfer revenue-quality data to energy service providers.) In most cases it may not necessary to utilize a two-way communication system or to have high bandwidth networks.
3. “Transactional” Information – This is real-time or forward-scheduling information that enables market transactions or control signals to be sent, received and verified. Demand response signals fall into this category and require two-way flows of information in order to verify that the ‘transaction’ was completed. Looking ahead, vehicle charging transactions (especially for roaming vehicles) will rely on this kind of information. In some, but not all, situations it will be important that the communication be conducted in real time.
4. “Analytical” Information – This is historical information on consumption and price that allows analysis of a time series of usage data. The depth of analysis being conducted will determine the need for granularity. For example, in order to understand how energy use varies through on a daily or weekly basis, 15-minute or longer interval data may be sufficient, whereas understanding the impacts of specific devices or appliances may require shorter time intervals. Two-way communication is not required in most cases and communication likely does not need to occur in real time, but likely will benefit from high bandwidth networks.
The most important factor in making assessments about the appropriate information gateways is the kind of information being communicated and its application. Without question, these needs will evolve rapidly in the years ahead, which is why we believe that attempting to specify a single gateway today would be imprudent public policy that will most likely restrict innovation.
In all cases, we believe that is critical that the consumer have access to each class of information. However, this does not mean that they must have access in the same way or through the same systems. For example, while 15’ interval data that is available after some delay (24 hours, typically) is appropriate for analytical purposes, it is entirely insufficient for implementing control strategies and therefore is not ‘actionable’ information.
2. Should a data gateway other than the smart meter be used for all or a subset of the data described in question 1?
There is no question that there should not be a single designated gateway for accessing and exchanging data. As we’ve described above, there are various kinds of information and a wide range of applications. It is difficult to imagine that a single gateway will be capable of accommodating all of the information needs today or in the future.
Tendril research fundamentally confirms what others have observed through this online forum. Consumers respond to technology with intuitive interfaces that respect their needs for control, authority and privacy. These needs are not likely to be met by a single consumer interface. While the foundation of a smart utility network is likely to remain the AMI network in the near term, we believe that consumers and energy service innovators should have the ability to take advantage of a wide range of communications and data technologies. Limiting the market to a single architecture will not encourage innovation.
As an earlier posting in this forum declared, “Flexibility in the way information flows is central to that innovative future.”
3. If the smart meter, via the utility network, is the primary gateway for the data described in question 1, will consumers and their authorized third party service providers be able to access the data easily and in real time?
We believe that the smart meter can provide a valuable source of real-time information. There are standards in place and under development (such as OpenADE and OpenHAN) that can facilitate this access by consumers and their authorized third-party service providers. However, as we have stated, we believe that the smart meter and the utility network should be viewed as only one of many potential pathways for data.
Enabling easy, real-time access to energy usage data, price data, and demand response signals will be greatly enhanced by consistent data access policies. Establishing strong federal leadership and coordination regarding data access will provide a strong platform for market innovation in the near term.
4. Who owns the home energy usage data? Should individual consumers and their authorized third-party service providers have the right to access energy usage data directly from the meter?
Consumers and authorized third parties must be provided real-time information in order to bring the smart grid to life. We believe that the Energy Information and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 establishes a powerful policy foundation for the smart grid. This Act declares it the policy of the United States to “support the modernization of the Nation's electricity transmission and distribution system” in order to achieve a range of goals, including “provision to consumers of timely information and control options.” Achieving this goal requires direct, real-time access to meter data.
The question of “ownership” of home energy usage data is common in smart grid policy discussions. We believe that it is best to consider the application of certain “uses” and “rights of access” (with attendant responsibilities and obligations) rather than ownership. In our opinion, “ownership” implies mutual exclusion of access and use that does not reflect real-world situations.
At this point, there is no consistency at the federal or state level with regard to data access rights. Tendril’s CEO highlighted this need during recent Senate testimony when he stated, “Getting clarity at a federal level about what the rights should be for consumers to get access to their energy information is critical.”
We believe firmly that the consumer is the primary source of consent for the disclosure of any personal information. Certainly, the utility requires access to metering and usage information in order to perform basic functions related to the generation and delivery of energy (billing, reliability, system operations, etc.). This right of access carries obligations to protect that confidential data from inappropriate disclosure or uses that are not related to the primary operation of the electric system. In this respect, utilities are custodians of information and have obligations to treat that information confidentially, responsibly and in accordance with consumer expectations.
Similarly, the consumer requires access to usage information in real time in order to manage their home energy usage and contribute to smart grid functions. Consumers also have rights to control disclosure of information for secondary uses. Smart grid technology and applications raise new questions with regard to the new level of detailed information generated by advanced metering technology. In this regard, we believe that the meter provides a useful demarcation point between where the utility has a right to access and where the consumer has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
For example, the data stream available from real-time metering information can be used to identify individual appliances and occupancy patterns of individual consumers. The ability of the utility or any third party to access or use this information does not establish a right to use this information absent consumer choice.
We agree with an earlier posting that observed, “It is incumbent upon regulators and legislators (sate and federal) to establish rules to outline the permissible uses for each entity who uses the data to ensure the consumer’s data is not compromised.”
5. How are low-income consumers best served by home-to-grid technology?
Low-income consumers are well-served by the smart grid in many ways. First, studies have repeatedly confirmed that direct access to energy usage information results in reduced consumption. Insight into what drives energy bills and the ability to take immediate action will empower all consumers to control their energy costs. Numerous studies confirm that this kind of “energy awareness” prompts consumers to reduce their consumption.
Second, it is well understood that the typical flat rate structure that applies to most consumers in the United States results in potentially pernicious cross-subsidization. Consumers that cost less to serve subsidize consumers that cost more to serve. Peak load demand drives disproportionate costs in annual energy expenditures. A report issued by the Government Accountability Office in 2004 observed that, “Although the 100 highest priced hours of the year account for only about 1% of the hours in a year, they can account for 10-20% of the total electricity expenditures for the year.”
We believe that low-income consumers are, by and large, low-cost consumers to serve and are not the largest contributors to peak demand. However, there is little publicly available data that can be used to analyze how low-income consumer might benefit from more equitable rate structures. We believe that another opportunity for federal leadership is to analyze the potential cost savings from (1) reduced energy consumption from “energy awareness”, (2) reduced cross-subsidization across customer classes and (3) reduction in peak load demand.
It is our observation that the majority of decisions regarding how the low-income population is enabled with new technology will be made by state-level regulators. These regulators require verifiable information that can be included in their decision-making records. A tremendous opportunity for federal leadership lies in assessing and analyzing the cost drivers in the electricity system that can help state regulators make informed decisions.
We further believe there are opportunities for federal leadership to align current weatherization programs and other low-income support mechanisms by encouraging greater access to information and technology. A federally supported rebate program could greatly accelerate the deployment of home energy monitors, bringing benefits to the low-income community and advancing the market. As an earlier posting suggested, “regulators should look to LIHEAP-type programs to distribute in-home displays that will give low-income consumers information to control their energy usage.” We agree and believe there are existing models for how consumer rebates can accelerate technology transformation.
6. 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?
Tendril believes that multiple architectures are both possible and desirable. The smart meter can be a valuable gateway into the home, but it is only one of many. There are many other communication pathways that are ubiquitous today, most notably broadband, cable and telephone. Regardless of the specific pathway, open innovation will be supported by access to information according to open standards.
The FCC has indicated that its National Broadband Plan will include strategies to encourage innovation and increased energy efficiency. We strongly support the FCC’s initial recommendations regarding the National Broadband Plan. In particular, we support the integration of broadband into the smart grid and provisions to ensure consumer access to information.
7. Some appliance manufacturers have announced plans to market Smart Grid-enabled appliances in late 2011 provided that appropriate communication standards are defined in 2010. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation? How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made ‘‘plug and play’’ for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks? If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: The utility or the consumer?
Key to all of future smart grid scenarios is the degree to which the consumer is engaged in this transformation. Tendril fundamentally believes that if the smart grid does not provide a compelling value to the consumer, it will never reach the full potential envisioned. The value of the smart grid does not stop at the meter. Therefore, it is imperative that smart appliances are supported. National policy established in EISA anticipates the “integration of ‘smart’ appliances and consumer devices.”
Federal and state agencies have the opportunity to complement their existing retrofit and energy efficiency programs with smart-grid capable devices and strategies. This includes the promotion of open standards and programs that certify devices and appliances as “smart-grid capable.”
In our view, energy efficiency is best measured across at least two dimensions. On the one hand, we can and must focus on improving the throughput efficiency of the electric system and the buildings it serves, including programs to fund improvements in insulation, caulking and replacing appliances. On the other hand, we must also consider the real-time market and environmental information that can drive true transactional and behavior changes. The impacts of these changes can drive tangible energy efficiency and environmental benefits.
Federal leadership can drive the adoption of smart appliances and smart devices in the home. Direct consumer rebate programs have proven effective in driving adoption of new technologies. The transition to digital television provides a very relevant and recent example. We believe that a consumer rebate program targeted at home energy management systems and smart appliances will accelerate the introduction of new technologies and help consumer realize the benefits of the smart grid today.
Standards exist today that allow smart appliances to be integrated into the home. Most notably, the Smart Energy Profile 1.0 can support the near-term deployment of appliances and devices.
Conclusion
We believe the transformation of the energy economy will be every bit as great as the transformation of the information and communication economy we have witnessed over the past 20 years. We see similar sustained wealth and job creation opportunities for the nation if we seize the initiative. The current Administration should seize on this opportunity by (1) providing clear, consistent federal policy, especially regarding data access, (2) providing leadership and coordination of various agency and state efforts, and (3) implementing rebates and other consumer programs that will bring tangible benefits to every American.
This leadership is needed today. The pressing challenges and national priorities to create clean energy, high-value jobs, electric vehicles and global competitiveness require that the smart grid be more than merely a more efficient set of wires. The smart grid must be a platform for innovation.
As the President stated last fall, this conversation is, “A debate between looking backwards and looking forward; between those who are ready to seize the future and those are afraid of the future.” We agree with his conclusion: “We’ve always been a people who were unafraid to reach for that more promising future.”
Office of Science and Technology Policy Forum:
Consumer Interface with the Smart Grid Blog
March 12, 2010
“We are on the cusp of a new energy future,” President Obama declared last fall. Development of the smart grid, he observed, is expected to create tens of thousands of new jobs, save consumers more than $20 billion over the next decade and reduce the annual losses of $150 billion from power outages. It will increase renewable energy production, support electric vehicles and reduce carbon pollution.
Tendril agrees and we welcome the opportunity to contribute to this dialogue initiated by OSTP. We believe that the smart grid will serve as a platform for innovation enabling new industries to flourish, creating new jobs and keepin the nation the leader in global competitiveness.
To seize this opportunity requires leadership. It also requires coordinated action among the various federal agencies, state regulators and policy makers that have jurisdiction over these efforts. It requires accelerated deployment, involving both funding and the elimination of policy barriers. The Administration has an opportunity to lead this transformation and, in the words of the President, “make the energy future we dream of a reality.”
Experience tells us core to all innovation is open access to information. Consumer markets thrive with transparent and healthy competition. We believe this energy future will include new rates and business models that reflect the real-time economic and environmental costs of energy. It will bring forth innovative new technologies that automate customer transactions and provide services we are only beginning to understand.
As Tendril CEO, Adrian Tuck, observed in recent Senate testimony, “The consumer market is a powerful force for change. But like all markets, it will only be truly effective when it has accurate and actionable information. Federal policy, supporting entrepreneurs and American competitiveness, can provide that information and support innovation.”
Our comments are offered in the spirit of seizing this opportunity for the nation.
1. Should the smart meter serve as the primary gateway for residential energy usage data, price data, and demand response signals? What are the most important factors in making this assessment, and how might those factors change over time?
The smart meter is a vital component of the smart grid, but there is no reason to believe that it will or should remain the only gateway for residential energy usage data. Further, we do not believe that there is a need to stipulate a single gateway. Multiple interfaces and pathways for information exchange will best support market innovation.
In order to address this question, we believe it is helpful to distinguish between different kinds of information. For example, the information needed by a consumer to save energy in real time is different from the information the utility needs to generate an accurate billing statement. Many of the current discussions regarding smart grid seem to assume that all information types will utilize the same communication system, but that may not be required or advisable in order to encourage the market to develop. We see four broad classes of information for which different “gateways” may be suggested.
1. “Actionable” Information – This is the real-time information needed by consumers to implement control strategies in the home. Examples include a direct signal from the meter or information about the current sources of generation. In order to be effective, it is most important that the information be timely and sufficiently granular, though it may not be essential that it is precise. It may be sufficient to have a one-way flow information, which can mitigate many security concerns. Currently, an expedient source of this information is directly from the meter or from a signal provided by the meter.
2. “Revenue” Information – This is historical information that is required in order to generate an accurate bill for retail services. This information must be verifiable and precise, but does not need to be collected continuously. A meter data management system can be utilized as the source of this type of information. (For example, a business-to-business interface, such as Open Automatic Data Exchange (OpenADE) can be used to transfer revenue-quality data to energy service providers.) In most cases it may not necessary to utilize a two-way communication system or to have high bandwidth networks.
3. “Transactional” Information – This is real-time or forward-scheduling information that enables market transactions or control signals to be sent, received and verified. Demand response signals fall into this category and require two-way flows of information in order to verify that the ‘transaction’ was completed. Looking ahead, vehicle charging transactions (especially for roaming vehicles) will rely on this kind of information. In some, but not all, situations it will be important that the communication be conducted in real time.
4. “Analytical” Information – This is historical information on consumption and price that allows analysis of a time series of usage data. The depth of analysis being conducted will determine the need for granularity. For example, in order to understand how energy use varies through on a daily or weekly basis, 15-minute or longer interval data may be sufficient, whereas understanding the impacts of specific devices or appliances may require shorter time intervals. Two-way communication is not required in most cases and communication likely does not need to occur in real time, but likely will benefit from high bandwidth networks.
The most important factor in making assessments about the appropriate information gateways is the kind of information being communicated and its application. Without question, these needs will evolve rapidly in the years ahead, which is why we believe that attempting to specify a single gateway today would be imprudent public policy that will most likely restrict innovation.
In all cases, we believe that is critical that the consumer have access to each class of information. However, this does not mean that they must have access in the same way or through the same systems. For example, while 15’ interval data that is available after some delay (24 hours, typically) is appropriate for analytical purposes, it is entirely insufficient for implementing control strategies and therefore is not ‘actionable’ information.
2. Should a data gateway other than the smart meter be used for all or a subset of the data described in question 1?
There is no question that there should not be a single designated gateway for accessing and exchanging data. As we’ve described above, there are various kinds of information and a wide range of applications. It is difficult to imagine that a single gateway will be capable of accommodating all of the information needs today or in the future.
Tendril research fundamentally confirms what others have observed through this online forum. Consumers respond to technology with intuitive interfaces that respect their needs for control, authority and privacy. These needs are not likely to be met by a single consumer interface. While the foundation of a smart utility network is likely to remain the AMI network in the near term, we believe that consumers and energy service innovators should have the ability to take advantage of a wide range of communications and data technologies. Limiting the market to a single architecture will not encourage innovation.
As an earlier posting in this forum declared, “Flexibility in the way information flows is central to that innovative future.”
3. If the smart meter, via the utility network, is the primary gateway for the data described in question 1, will consumers and their authorized third party service providers be able to access the data easily and in real time?
We believe that the smart meter can provide a valuable source of real-time information. There are standards in place and under development (such as OpenADE and OpenHAN) that can facilitate this access by consumers and their authorized third-party service providers. However, as we have stated, we believe that the smart meter and the utility network should be viewed as only one of many potential pathways for data.
Enabling easy, real-time access to energy usage data, price data, and demand response signals will be greatly enhanced by consistent data access policies. Establishing strong federal leadership and coordination regarding data access will provide a strong platform for market innovation in the near term.
4. Who owns the home energy usage data? Should individual consumers and their authorized third-party service providers have the right to access energy usage data directly from the meter?
Consumers and authorized third parties must be provided real-time information in order to bring the smart grid to life. We believe that the Energy Information and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 establishes a powerful policy foundation for the smart grid. This Act declares it the policy of the United States to “support the modernization of the Nation's electricity transmission and distribution system” in order to achieve a range of goals, including “provision to consumers of timely information and control options.” Achieving this goal requires direct, real-time access to meter data.
The question of “ownership” of home energy usage data is common in smart grid policy discussions. We believe that it is best to consider the application of certain “uses” and “rights of access” (with attendant responsibilities and obligations) rather than ownership. In our opinion, “ownership” implies mutual exclusion of access and use that does not reflect real-world situations.
At this point, there is no consistency at the federal or state level with regard to data access rights. Tendril’s CEO highlighted this need during recent Senate testimony when he stated, “Getting clarity at a federal level about what the rights should be for consumers to get access to their energy information is critical.”
We believe firmly that the consumer is the primary source of consent for the disclosure of any personal information. Certainly, the utility requires access to metering and usage information in order to perform basic functions related to the generation and delivery of energy (billing, reliability, system operations, etc.). This right of access carries obligations to protect that confidential data from inappropriate disclosure or uses that are not related to the primary operation of the electric system. In this respect, utilities are custodians of information and have obligations to treat that information confidentially, responsibly and in accordance with consumer expectations.
Similarly, the consumer requires access to usage information in real time in order to manage their home energy usage and contribute to smart grid functions. Consumers also have rights to control disclosure of information for secondary uses. Smart grid technology and applications raise new questions with regard to the new level of detailed information generated by advanced metering technology. In this regard, we believe that the meter provides a useful demarcation point between where the utility has a right to access and where the consumer has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
For example, the data stream available from real-time metering information can be used to identify individual appliances and occupancy patterns of individual consumers. The ability of the utility or any third party to access or use this information does not establish a right to use this information absent consumer choice.
We agree with an earlier posting that observed, “It is incumbent upon regulators and legislators (sate and federal) to establish rules to outline the permissible uses for each entity who uses the data to ensure the consumer’s data is not compromised.”
5. How are low-income consumers best served by home-to-grid technology?
Low-income consumers are well-served by the smart grid in many ways. First, studies have repeatedly confirmed that direct access to energy usage information results in reduced consumption. Insight into what drives energy bills and the ability to take immediate action will empower all consumers to control their energy costs. Numerous studies confirm that this kind of “energy awareness” prompts consumers to reduce their consumption.
Second, it is well understood that the typical flat rate structure that applies to most consumers in the United States results in potentially pernicious cross-subsidization. Consumers that cost less to serve subsidize consumers that cost more to serve. Peak load demand drives disproportionate costs in annual energy expenditures. A report issued by the Government Accountability Office in 2004 observed that, “Although the 100 highest priced hours of the year account for only about 1% of the hours in a year, they can account for 10-20% of the total electricity expenditures for the year.”
We believe that low-income consumers are, by and large, low-cost consumers to serve and are not the largest contributors to peak demand. However, there is little publicly available data that can be used to analyze how low-income consumer might benefit from more equitable rate structures. We believe that another opportunity for federal leadership is to analyze the potential cost savings from (1) reduced energy consumption from “energy awareness”, (2) reduced cross-subsidization across customer classes and (3) reduction in peak load demand.
It is our observation that the majority of decisions regarding how the low-income population is enabled with new technology will be made by state-level regulators. These regulators require verifiable information that can be included in their decision-making records. A tremendous opportunity for federal leadership lies in assessing and analyzing the cost drivers in the electricity system that can help state regulators make informed decisions.
We further believe there are opportunities for federal leadership to align current weatherization programs and other low-income support mechanisms by encouraging greater access to information and technology. A federally supported rebate program could greatly accelerate the deployment of home energy monitors, bringing benefits to the low-income community and advancing the market. As an earlier posting suggested, “regulators should look to LIHEAP-type programs to distribute in-home displays that will give low-income consumers information to control their energy usage.” We agree and believe there are existing models for how consumer rebates can accelerate technology transformation.
6. 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?
Tendril believes that multiple architectures are both possible and desirable. The smart meter can be a valuable gateway into the home, but it is only one of many. There are many other communication pathways that are ubiquitous today, most notably broadband, cable and telephone. Regardless of the specific pathway, open innovation will be supported by access to information according to open standards.
The FCC has indicated that its National Broadband Plan will include strategies to encourage innovation and increased energy efficiency. We strongly support the FCC’s initial recommendations regarding the National Broadband Plan. In particular, we support the integration of broadband into the smart grid and provisions to ensure consumer access to information.
7. Some appliance manufacturers have announced plans to market Smart Grid-enabled appliances in late 2011 provided that appropriate communication standards are defined in 2010. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation? How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made ‘‘plug and play’’ for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks? If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: The utility or the consumer?
Key to all of future smart grid scenarios is the degree to which the consumer is engaged in this transformation. Tendril fundamentally believes that if the smart grid does not provide a compelling value to the consumer, it will never reach the full potential envisioned. The value of the smart grid does not stop at the meter. Therefore, it is imperative that smart appliances are supported. National policy established in EISA anticipates the “integration of ‘smart’ appliances and consumer devices.”
Federal and state agencies have the opportunity to complement their existing retrofit and energy efficiency programs with smart-grid capable devices and strategies. This includes the promotion of open standards and programs that certify devices and appliances as “smart-grid capable.”
In our view, energy efficiency is best measured across at least two dimensions. On the one hand, we can and must focus on improving the throughput efficiency of the electric system and the buildings it serves, including programs to fund improvements in insulation, caulking and replacing appliances. On the other hand, we must also consider the real-time market and environmental information that can drive true transactional and behavior changes. The impacts of these changes can drive tangible energy efficiency and environmental benefits.
Federal leadership can drive the adoption of smart appliances and smart devices in the home. Direct consumer rebate programs have proven effective in driving adoption of new technologies. The transition to digital television provides a very relevant and recent example. We believe that a consumer rebate program targeted at home energy management systems and smart appliances will accelerate the introduction of new technologies and help consumer realize the benefits of the smart grid today.
Standards exist today that allow smart appliances to be integrated into the home. Most notably, the Smart Energy Profile 1.0 can support the near-term deployment of appliances and devices.
Conclusion
We believe the transformation of the energy economy will be every bit as great as the transformation of the information and communication economy we have witnessed over the past 20 years. We see similar sustained wealth and job creation opportunities for the nation if we seize the initiative. The current Administration should seize on this opportunity by (1) providing clear, consistent federal policy, especially regarding data access, (2) providing leadership and coordination of various agency and state efforts, and (3) implementing rebates and other consumer programs that will bring tangible benefits to every American.
This leadership is needed today. The pressing challenges and national priorities to create clean energy, high-value jobs, electric vehicles and global competitiveness require that the smart grid be more than merely a more efficient set of wires. The smart grid must be a platform for innovation.
As the President stated last fall, this conversation is, “A debate between looking backwards and looking forward; between those who are ready to seize the future and those are afraid of the future.” We agree with his conclusion: “We’ve always been a people who were unafraid to reach for that more promising future.”
Friday, March 12, 2010
Nathan Ota: Flexibility and Component Level Modularity
The USNAP specification and USNAP modules (http://usnap.org) provide a communications protocol agnostic method to enable smart grid connectivity to in-home devices via user removable communications modules. While not an architecture in of itself, this open standard can reduce costs and facilitate innovation in HAN devices by decoupling the communications from the HAN device. For devices that will connect directly to the AMI network, this module approach will provide a lasting benefit given the diversity of AMI network suppliers.
Both AMI network communications providers and device vendors can realize cost benefits by avoiding costs required to engineer a diversity of tightly-coupled network-device combinations – instead a UNSAP enabled device accepts any USNAP communications module. For devices that will connect to the smart grid through a gateway, this module approach provides a migration path until the diversity of HAN communications protocols is reduced to a reasonable number of options where embedded communication designs become cost-effective for device providers.
Both AMI network communications providers and device vendors can realize cost benefits by avoiding costs required to engineer a diversity of tightly-coupled network-device combinations – instead a UNSAP enabled device accepts any USNAP communications module. For devices that will connect to the smart grid through a gateway, this module approach provides a migration path until the diversity of HAN communications protocols is reduced to a reasonable number of options where embedded communication designs become cost-effective for device providers.
Tim Spets: Choice and Innovation are Key Drivers
The home network is an emerging landscape filled with legacy and emerging
technologies. The home network will continue to change and evolve as
demand for devices and communication requirements change. Access to the Home Network devices should be interoperable, reliable, secure, simple and usable. Home Network devices should not be limited to a single technology, and be allowed to evolve with new technologies that address a constantly changing market.
Guidelines and requirements should be created to insure the current and future standards provide a secure and stable environment for access to Home Devices. Choice and innovation has been and will continue to be the main driver to consumer solutions to insure rapid technology evolution along with competitive pricing models. Other industries have data communication standards and solutions that are proven and implemented that should be leveraged rather than excluded in the emerging solution set. -Tim Spets 4Home Inc.
technologies. The home network will continue to change and evolve as
demand for devices and communication requirements change. Access to the Home Network devices should be interoperable, reliable, secure, simple and usable. Home Network devices should not be limited to a single technology, and be allowed to evolve with new technologies that address a constantly changing market.
Guidelines and requirements should be created to insure the current and future standards provide a secure and stable environment for access to Home Devices. Choice and innovation has been and will continue to be the main driver to consumer solutions to insure rapid technology evolution along with competitive pricing models. Other industries have data communication standards and solutions that are proven and implemented that should be leveraged rather than excluded in the emerging solution set. -Tim Spets 4Home Inc.
Yvan Castilloux: Education and Standards
1. How are low-income consumers best served by home-to-grid technology?
I agree that instituting an education program about the benefits of home-to-grid technology would greatly benefit everyone, including low-income consumers. Communication standards should also be simple enough to be implemented in low-cost devices that everyone can afford and that can be subsidied by utilities or third parties.
2. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation?
First, a hardware connection standard, such as U-SNAP, would provide a way for manufacturers to be future proof in the short term without having to choose a technology. As the use cases and requirements in the home become proven on the field, the manufacturers will be able to choose a few candidate standards. I think it would be premature to choose a technology in the near term.
3. How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made "plug and play" for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks?
In order to be "plug and play", home-to-grid technology has to be extremely reliable and easy to use, with minimal user intervention. For example, if a smart dryer is installed in a basement, the consumer should only have to turn ON the dryer to make it work. If the communication technology is wireless, its range should cover the whole house as much as possible such that no repeater or intermediary node is needed for the dryer to speak to the primary gateway. Repeaters not only make it extremely difficult for the system to be installed but also add considerable costs to the system. Repeaters also reduce reliability since if one repeater fails, the whole system may stop functioning and require expert troubleshooting.
Home-to-grid technologies should go through certification processes that test and certify "plug and play" operation before products are shipped to consumers.
4. If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: the utility or the consumer?
For home products not interacting directly with the electric grid, I think the consumer should pay for the gateways and adapters in order to ensure that he/she chooses the best product for his/her needs. Utilities and third parties can then compete and offer subdidy for the hardware in order to offer their value-added services.
I agree that instituting an education program about the benefits of home-to-grid technology would greatly benefit everyone, including low-income consumers. Communication standards should also be simple enough to be implemented in low-cost devices that everyone can afford and that can be subsidied by utilities or third parties.
2. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation?
First, a hardware connection standard, such as U-SNAP, would provide a way for manufacturers to be future proof in the short term without having to choose a technology. As the use cases and requirements in the home become proven on the field, the manufacturers will be able to choose a few candidate standards. I think it would be premature to choose a technology in the near term.
3. How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made "plug and play" for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks?
In order to be "plug and play", home-to-grid technology has to be extremely reliable and easy to use, with minimal user intervention. For example, if a smart dryer is installed in a basement, the consumer should only have to turn ON the dryer to make it work. If the communication technology is wireless, its range should cover the whole house as much as possible such that no repeater or intermediary node is needed for the dryer to speak to the primary gateway. Repeaters not only make it extremely difficult for the system to be installed but also add considerable costs to the system. Repeaters also reduce reliability since if one repeater fails, the whole system may stop functioning and require expert troubleshooting.
Home-to-grid technologies should go through certification processes that test and certify "plug and play" operation before products are shipped to consumers.
4. If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: the utility or the consumer?
For home products not interacting directly with the electric grid, I think the consumer should pay for the gateways and adapters in order to ensure that he/she chooses the best product for his/her needs. Utilities and third parties can then compete and offer subdidy for the hardware in order to offer their value-added services.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Stan Klein: Standards and ... Standards
The first issue is whether "low income" also means "technology challenged." I would assume that in the future, many low income people would not be technology challenged. Also, as the background indicates, the technology must not only address the washing machine and thermostat, but also the solar cells on the roof, the batteries and geothermal heating system in the basement, and the PEV in the driveway. Hopefully, in the future, these technologies will reach sufficiently low cost to be ubiquitous, even in low income households.
The items being interfaced to the grid have much longer planned lifetimes than communications technology, that advances at a rapid pace. This suggests the desirability of separating the device functional interface (e.g., on, off, mode selection) from a communications/control interface that could be upgraded or replaced as its technology advances.
Both the applicance manufacturers and the relevant legislation call for use of "open standards." There are at least a dozen definitions of open standards that have been proposed by various organizations and individual experts. I raised the issue of open standards in my comments on the Framework/Roadmap. There is a Federal definition of "voluntary consensus standard" but no definition of "open standard". In its response to my comments, NIST chose the definition that was most permissive of SDO practices that restrict/encumber visibility into their processes, access to their documents, and implementation/use of their technology. The definition selected by NIST essentially defines a voluntary consensus standard as being an open standard. However, the two are not synonyms, and consumer site standards should be subject to much more serious open standards requirements.
The technology selected for the consumer site should be in the mainstream of available open standards definitions. An example would be public visibility during development, all documents freely downloadable from the internet, royalty-free/unencumbered implementation by anyone, and serious avoidance of any proprietary preference in the underlying technology.
An example of a ubiquitous open standards technology that could satisfy the needs of appliances, distributed resources, and PEVs is available in suggestions regarding "61850-Lite" that is a "discussion item" in the EPRI Report to NIST. Such a standard could be built on the application of web services (XML) communications to a 61850 object model found in the wind power extension to 61850, specifically in 61400-25-4 Annex A. The object model is extensible. It is compatible with 61850, which will be used for DER and likely for PEV. The web services standards are openly published by W3C and implementations are broadly available, including open source implementations. All that would be needed to develop the standard is to identify the initial set of data objects and supporting 61850 services.
The 61850 technology is self-describing, a necessary prerequisite for plug-and-play. Some negotiation functionality might need to be added, but that is an issue commonly addressed in plug-and-play systems. A greater concern might be security, where an unskilled person could be more easily "social engineered" into establishing a dangerous configuration (assuming the default configuration is itself secure).
Regarding gateways/adapters, the utility should probably make a baseline capability available that the consumer could optionally replace with a more sophisticated capability.
The items being interfaced to the grid have much longer planned lifetimes than communications technology, that advances at a rapid pace. This suggests the desirability of separating the device functional interface (e.g., on, off, mode selection) from a communications/control interface that could be upgraded or replaced as its technology advances.
Both the applicance manufacturers and the relevant legislation call for use of "open standards." There are at least a dozen definitions of open standards that have been proposed by various organizations and individual experts. I raised the issue of open standards in my comments on the Framework/Roadmap. There is a Federal definition of "voluntary consensus standard" but no definition of "open standard". In its response to my comments, NIST chose the definition that was most permissive of SDO practices that restrict/encumber visibility into their processes, access to their documents, and implementation/use of their technology. The definition selected by NIST essentially defines a voluntary consensus standard as being an open standard. However, the two are not synonyms, and consumer site standards should be subject to much more serious open standards requirements.
The technology selected for the consumer site should be in the mainstream of available open standards definitions. An example would be public visibility during development, all documents freely downloadable from the internet, royalty-free/unencumbered implementation by anyone, and serious avoidance of any proprietary preference in the underlying technology.
An example of a ubiquitous open standards technology that could satisfy the needs of appliances, distributed resources, and PEVs is available in suggestions regarding "61850-Lite" that is a "discussion item" in the EPRI Report to NIST. Such a standard could be built on the application of web services (XML) communications to a 61850 object model found in the wind power extension to 61850, specifically in 61400-25-4 Annex A. The object model is extensible. It is compatible with 61850, which will be used for DER and likely for PEV. The web services standards are openly published by W3C and implementations are broadly available, including open source implementations. All that would be needed to develop the standard is to identify the initial set of data objects and supporting 61850 services.
The 61850 technology is self-describing, a necessary prerequisite for plug-and-play. Some negotiation functionality might need to be added, but that is an issue commonly addressed in plug-and-play systems. A greater concern might be security, where an unskilled person could be more easily "social engineered" into establishing a dangerous configuration (assuming the default configuration is itself secure).
Regarding gateways/adapters, the utility should probably make a baseline capability available that the consumer could optionally replace with a more sophisticated capability.
David Bachus: We need a Holistic Approach - Education and Enablement
While many companies use their latest innovation to introduce Smart Grid to the general public, it is more important to take a more holistic approach that addresses consumer concerns while enabling the next generation of electric infrastructure. Technologies may seem exciting to industry insiders, but they can be very abstract or even off-putting to the average consumer. It is critical to get consumers on board by educating and engaging them, building a common understanding through communication and devising a program to get their sustained buy-in. Specifically, we should explain what factors drive energy use and offer strategies with intuitive, non-technical, controls which can be used to reduce consumer impact on the system. This can lead to the main consumer driver for Smart Grid, the potential savings on monthly electric bills. A great deal of attention should also be paid to lessons learned from the experiences of other industries and technology booms – for example what happened to the communication industry beginning with the demise of Ma-Bell to today’s wireless industry delivering trends leading to products like iPhone, VOIP and so on.
Much of the uncertainty involved in bringing Smart Grid to the general public is based on myths and rumors that surround it and associated technologies. To address these concerns there needs to be more transparency between utilities and the consumer to address specific myths that are of particular risk to the successful deployment of a Smart Grid. An implementation of this scope should be designed to provide a level of transparency and fairness to the consumer who currently does not have much control over the design of the Smart Grid.
Bottom line – make the consumer feel involved – not the victim.
Much of the uncertainty involved in bringing Smart Grid to the general public is based on myths and rumors that surround it and associated technologies. To address these concerns there needs to be more transparency between utilities and the consumer to address specific myths that are of particular risk to the successful deployment of a Smart Grid. An implementation of this scope should be designed to provide a level of transparency and fairness to the consumer who currently does not have much control over the design of the Smart Grid.
Bottom line – make the consumer feel involved – not the victim.
Kevin Fennell: We need Standards and Policies
1. How are low-income consumers best served by home-to-grid technology?
As with all consumer segments, but perhaps even more so for low income consumers, the simple, clear and regular presentment of consumption data, ideally aligned to price or time-of-use information, is a path to consumer responsibility and empowerment for their energy “life”. One of the benefits of the smart meter as the primary hub for consumption data into the home, is that it is a “leveler” in the marketplace – where each metered premise, with standardized technologies (like ZigBee /SEP1.0) can be a vehicle to deliver that data to consumers, rather than relying on either broadband access, IP TV access or expensive in-home energy management systems. The smart metering system can also enable innovations & new business models that would allow low-income consumers to plan and manage their energy budget through prepaid or pay-as-you-go programs.
2. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation?
We have what we need today to deliver energy and pricing data securely & accurately to and from smart appliances and smart gateways – ZigBee and SEP1.0 (smart energy profile). Furthermore, there is a massive base of devices that will support this currently available technology. As of 2009 more than 3 million ZigBee enabled meters were deployed. Further, over 35M smart meters contracted worldwide are projected to include ZigBee . Over 360 companies participate in the ZigBee Alliance, of which over 180 are US companies.
ZigBee is a low power, low energy consumption, low protocol complexity, high data rate, and rich topology communications solution, built specifically for small sensor technology and perfectly adapted to work for in-home energy management. In this regard it surpasses alternative wireless technologies like WiFi because it ensures always on plug and play connectivity to appliances without the need for human intervention after events such as power outages.
Over time, ZigBee will harmonize with other physical solutions, like Homeplug, for hard-to-reach or RF-challenged environments and work is already underway to move the ZigBee Smart Energy Profile protocol into the international IEC standards development process.
In the end, today’s SEP1.0 is positioned to push the market forward – there is no need to wait for new standards, specifications or evolutions. SEP 1.0 is fully provisioned to give real benefits to consumers, allowing for secure in-home connectivity, presentment of consumption data, load management, thermostat setback, duty cycling for in-home products, presentment of time of use pricing and critical peak pricing events.
3. How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made ''plug and play'' for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks?
First, we need to use standard interfaces (e.g.: ZigBee and SEP1.0). Secondly testing and interoperability processes that are simple and easy for manufactures to test connectivity and data transfer will reduce post-sale support issues. Finally, ever evolving and improving “pairing mechanisms” for smart devices to smart meters/gateways. This should include very low tech approaches, as we have today, of calling a “service provider” to enable pairing all the way to smart devices that recognize the smart meter/HAN and “auto-attach”.
4. If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: The utility or the consumer?
As mentioned, for utility-driven energy management experiences that require measurement & verification, the smart meter is the vehicle to collect and deliver accurate measurement, verification and presentment data. In this case, through either back office connectivity or standard interfaces for home area networking (like ZigBee and SEP1.0) this data can be delivered to 3rd parties as well. Again, however, there will be other business models for information presentment.
In either case, technology evolution, even with the existence of standards, will defacto drive the market to continually innovate as they find new ways to connect, to use the information and will create new business models. Early adopters of these technologies and solutions may indeed find themselves in a position of needing additional hardware in order to take advantage of new innovations – such as bridges, gateways or new equipment. This condition is not unique to the utility industry. Technology is constantly evolving and as it does, new or upgraded hardware and connectors are often required. If the new technology is a software application, the consumer may need to upgrade their computer in order to take advantage of new features. If a cable television or internet service provider offers a new service or feature, there is typically a cost to the consumer to take advantage of it. Many times those costs are in the form of a monthly lease fee that offsets cost of new hardware.
Ultimately, the consumer must perceive a benefit to participation and is likely to perform either a formal or informal cost benefit analysis based on their own situation. If the cost benefit analysis isn’t favorable, a consumer isn’t likely to pay for enabling equipment. In turn, the innovators’ business models may also have cost benefits analysis which would drive the business case for bridges and gateways.
As with all consumer segments, but perhaps even more so for low income consumers, the simple, clear and regular presentment of consumption data, ideally aligned to price or time-of-use information, is a path to consumer responsibility and empowerment for their energy “life”. One of the benefits of the smart meter as the primary hub for consumption data into the home, is that it is a “leveler” in the marketplace – where each metered premise, with standardized technologies (like ZigBee /SEP1.0) can be a vehicle to deliver that data to consumers, rather than relying on either broadband access, IP TV access or expensive in-home energy management systems. The smart metering system can also enable innovations & new business models that would allow low-income consumers to plan and manage their energy budget through prepaid or pay-as-you-go programs.
2. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation?
We have what we need today to deliver energy and pricing data securely & accurately to and from smart appliances and smart gateways – ZigBee and SEP1.0 (smart energy profile). Furthermore, there is a massive base of devices that will support this currently available technology. As of 2009 more than 3 million ZigBee enabled meters were deployed. Further, over 35M smart meters contracted worldwide are projected to include ZigBee . Over 360 companies participate in the ZigBee Alliance, of which over 180 are US companies.
ZigBee is a low power, low energy consumption, low protocol complexity, high data rate, and rich topology communications solution, built specifically for small sensor technology and perfectly adapted to work for in-home energy management. In this regard it surpasses alternative wireless technologies like WiFi because it ensures always on plug and play connectivity to appliances without the need for human intervention after events such as power outages.
Over time, ZigBee will harmonize with other physical solutions, like Homeplug, for hard-to-reach or RF-challenged environments and work is already underway to move the ZigBee Smart Energy Profile protocol into the international IEC standards development process.
In the end, today’s SEP1.0 is positioned to push the market forward – there is no need to wait for new standards, specifications or evolutions. SEP 1.0 is fully provisioned to give real benefits to consumers, allowing for secure in-home connectivity, presentment of consumption data, load management, thermostat setback, duty cycling for in-home products, presentment of time of use pricing and critical peak pricing events.
3. How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made ''plug and play'' for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks?
First, we need to use standard interfaces (e.g.: ZigBee and SEP1.0). Secondly testing and interoperability processes that are simple and easy for manufactures to test connectivity and data transfer will reduce post-sale support issues. Finally, ever evolving and improving “pairing mechanisms” for smart devices to smart meters/gateways. This should include very low tech approaches, as we have today, of calling a “service provider” to enable pairing all the way to smart devices that recognize the smart meter/HAN and “auto-attach”.
4. If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: The utility or the consumer?
As mentioned, for utility-driven energy management experiences that require measurement & verification, the smart meter is the vehicle to collect and deliver accurate measurement, verification and presentment data. In this case, through either back office connectivity or standard interfaces for home area networking (like ZigBee and SEP1.0) this data can be delivered to 3rd parties as well. Again, however, there will be other business models for information presentment.
In either case, technology evolution, even with the existence of standards, will defacto drive the market to continually innovate as they find new ways to connect, to use the information and will create new business models. Early adopters of these technologies and solutions may indeed find themselves in a position of needing additional hardware in order to take advantage of new innovations – such as bridges, gateways or new equipment. This condition is not unique to the utility industry. Technology is constantly evolving and as it does, new or upgraded hardware and connectors are often required. If the new technology is a software application, the consumer may need to upgrade their computer in order to take advantage of new features. If a cable television or internet service provider offers a new service or feature, there is typically a cost to the consumer to take advantage of it. Many times those costs are in the form of a monthly lease fee that offsets cost of new hardware.
Ultimately, the consumer must perceive a benefit to participation and is likely to perform either a formal or informal cost benefit analysis based on their own situation. If the cost benefit analysis isn’t favorable, a consumer isn’t likely to pay for enabling equipment. In turn, the innovators’ business models may also have cost benefits analysis which would drive the business case for bridges and gateways.
David Wollman: The Final Set of Comments
We appreciate all of the comments that have been provided on last week's Blog subject of data ownership and access, and if there is additional input we will allow comments through the Week 2 Blog link. Starting now (below) we encourage you to contribute your ideas on the final set of questions, dealing with data communications standards for consumer appliances. David Wollman, NIST
Stan Klein: Energy is Not Like Telecomm - It's a systemic effect
Ownership of the data is likely tied to other data ownership issues in the economy. It also probably depends on the interface to the home network. For example, if there is a separate interface (not the meter) and the customer has some kind of energy management system, the customer probably owns the data and can control what information is exposed to the utility. However, if the interface is the meter, then the homeowner has less control, and the utility may own the data.
I disagree with the idea that a point of demarcation can be identified for the Smart Grid interface to the home. Such a point can be identified for telecommunication services, because it is possible to test looking each way, and there is little (except -- and this is a Plain Old Telephone Service example -- for picking up a telephone on Mothers Day) that one customer can act to have an effect on others. However, in the electric grid every time I turn on a light I incrementally affect the frequency and load in the Eastern Interconnection, and somewhere in that Interconnection a generator must be adjusted to compensate for my action.
I disagree with the idea that a point of demarcation can be identified for the Smart Grid interface to the home. Such a point can be identified for telecommunication services, because it is possible to test looking each way, and there is little (except -- and this is a Plain Old Telephone Service example -- for picking up a telephone on Mothers Day) that one customer can act to have an effect on others. However, in the electric grid every time I turn on a light I incrementally affect the frequency and load in the Eastern Interconnection, and somewhere in that Interconnection a generator must be adjusted to compensate for my action.
Nathan Ota: Location and Ownership of Devices define ownership of data
Accessibility and ownership of meter data are related aspects. Data ownership may vary depending on market structures. Accessibility to meter data by the consumer and their authorized service providers should be ensured regardless of data ownership.
Often this discussion is presented in the context of near real-time meter data to an in-building display, but the consumer may have several different opportunities to access meter data. Consumer access to meter data and calculated energy usage information are provided at different resolutions and at different time availability depending on where the consumer accesses the meter data. For example, a meter may have up-to-the minute measurements, but an enterprise software application might be limited to 1-hour interval meter data. Technology solutions and policy for meter data access for consumers should span these different access points - near real-time data for up-to-the minute data by a local network connection in the HAN, previous day interval data provided by the AMI head end software, and historical interval data provide by the MDMS.
Meter data access between an in-building device and a meter using a local network connection provides a key type of meter data – the minute-level data used by the consumer to make spontaneous, unplanned behavioral modifications. The tradeoff for this low latency meter data access is potential data discrepancies compared to data available from an MDMS or AMI head end system. However, a smart meter that includes gateway functionality to obtain near real time data from the meter through the AMI network may face challenges providing meter data to consumer, devices, and third-party service providers. The smart meter may receive a large amount of requests from devices, where microprocessor limitations of the smart meter and network bandwidths may present real limitations on the availability of meter data. While the number of devices currently envisioned often ranges between 1-10 devices, it is reasonable to assume much larger device populations per home and an increasing amount of third party applications requesting this data within the lifetime of the smart meter.
Often this discussion is presented in the context of near real-time meter data to an in-building display, but the consumer may have several different opportunities to access meter data. Consumer access to meter data and calculated energy usage information are provided at different resolutions and at different time availability depending on where the consumer accesses the meter data. For example, a meter may have up-to-the minute measurements, but an enterprise software application might be limited to 1-hour interval meter data. Technology solutions and policy for meter data access for consumers should span these different access points - near real-time data for up-to-the minute data by a local network connection in the HAN, previous day interval data provided by the AMI head end software, and historical interval data provide by the MDMS.
Meter data access between an in-building device and a meter using a local network connection provides a key type of meter data – the minute-level data used by the consumer to make spontaneous, unplanned behavioral modifications. The tradeoff for this low latency meter data access is potential data discrepancies compared to data available from an MDMS or AMI head end system. However, a smart meter that includes gateway functionality to obtain near real time data from the meter through the AMI network may face challenges providing meter data to consumer, devices, and third-party service providers. The smart meter may receive a large amount of requests from devices, where microprocessor limitations of the smart meter and network bandwidths may present real limitations on the availability of meter data. While the number of devices currently envisioned often ranges between 1-10 devices, it is reasonable to assume much larger device populations per home and an increasing amount of third party applications requesting this data within the lifetime of the smart meter.
Xi bin Liu: It's like a Telecom Service
1. Consumer is the primary owner of the energy usage data, and can share the data to 3rd parties
Let’s think about the telecommunication system. A user has a mobile phone (analog to the Smart Meter). The usage of the telecommunication services (call, short messages, data services, etc) can be analog to the energy utilization. A user can get all the telecommunication service utilization data from his phone (through on-phone call log, or utilization tracking application designed for Smartphone), just as a consumer shall be able to get his energy utilization data from the Smart Meter.
A user owns the data he collected from his mobile phone (Smart Meter) and can share with any one as he wants.
How to share the energy utilization data from a Smart Meter by a consumer depends on the architecture of the consumer interface, as discussed in the 1st week, but it shall not go through the Utilities’ network. A Smart Meter can provide display, removable media, internet access, and any other proprietary interfaces so that the data can be shared. The data sharing must be granted by the consumer.
An authorized third party can use the shared data and do some special services: such as providing real-time data checking to the user via internet, doing data analysis, controlling the electrical appliances automatically according to the criteria set by the end user.
2. Utility has the authority to use the energy usage data, but can not share the data to any 3rd parties
Let’s go back to the he telecommunication system again. The telecommunication operator has the data of the user’s service usage in their system for billing purpose. The same thing applies to consumer energy utilization data collected in the utilities’ server. So the Utility is the authorized user of the data, and the authority cannot be revoked.
Just as a telecom operator cannot share the user’s private data to any third parties, the Utility cannot share the user’s energy usage data to anyone else, although it can use the data as demand response for the Smart Grid operations other than the billing purpose.
The utility can also provide some services to the end user based on the end user’s data. They can do what a third party can do as mentioned in part 1. And usually there shall be some free services provided like online checking of the real-time energy usage by a consumer.
This design makes the Utility network separated from the 3rd party services and gives the customers the confidence that their data will not be abused. Offering the data to third party are totally controlled by end user and it’s the third party service provider’s responsibility to earn customers’ trust for using their data.
Allowing third parties to access the Utility network and get a consumer’s data after the consumer’s permission is another form of the architecture. It simplifies the Smart Meter interface and make efficient use of the data collected by Utility network. However, it mixes the commercial development with the utilities’ responsibilities and makes the administration complicated.
3. Smart Meter Interfaces
In order to get energy usage data from the smart meter (or via home data gateway), the interface must be defined as part of the Smart Grid Interoperability Standards. On the internet interface, a strong authentication mechanism shall be defined for mutual authentication between the Smarter Meter and 3rd party services.
The smart meter must provide dual interfaces, one for the closed utility network, and one for the public network. There is no technical barrier to implement this.
4. Sub-Meter Considerations
When a building is sub-metered, each tenant is the owner of the data for her/his suite. She/he can share the sub-meter data with 3rd parties. The building owner owns the total energy usage data of the building, but not each tenant’s data. The Smart Meter for such buildings must be designed that tenants can control their energy usage data by their own.
Let’s think about the telecommunication system. A user has a mobile phone (analog to the Smart Meter). The usage of the telecommunication services (call, short messages, data services, etc) can be analog to the energy utilization. A user can get all the telecommunication service utilization data from his phone (through on-phone call log, or utilization tracking application designed for Smartphone), just as a consumer shall be able to get his energy utilization data from the Smart Meter.
A user owns the data he collected from his mobile phone (Smart Meter) and can share with any one as he wants.
How to share the energy utilization data from a Smart Meter by a consumer depends on the architecture of the consumer interface, as discussed in the 1st week, but it shall not go through the Utilities’ network. A Smart Meter can provide display, removable media, internet access, and any other proprietary interfaces so that the data can be shared. The data sharing must be granted by the consumer.
An authorized third party can use the shared data and do some special services: such as providing real-time data checking to the user via internet, doing data analysis, controlling the electrical appliances automatically according to the criteria set by the end user.
2. Utility has the authority to use the energy usage data, but can not share the data to any 3rd parties
Let’s go back to the he telecommunication system again. The telecommunication operator has the data of the user’s service usage in their system for billing purpose. The same thing applies to consumer energy utilization data collected in the utilities’ server. So the Utility is the authorized user of the data, and the authority cannot be revoked.
Just as a telecom operator cannot share the user’s private data to any third parties, the Utility cannot share the user’s energy usage data to anyone else, although it can use the data as demand response for the Smart Grid operations other than the billing purpose.
The utility can also provide some services to the end user based on the end user’s data. They can do what a third party can do as mentioned in part 1. And usually there shall be some free services provided like online checking of the real-time energy usage by a consumer.
This design makes the Utility network separated from the 3rd party services and gives the customers the confidence that their data will not be abused. Offering the data to third party are totally controlled by end user and it’s the third party service provider’s responsibility to earn customers’ trust for using their data.
Allowing third parties to access the Utility network and get a consumer’s data after the consumer’s permission is another form of the architecture. It simplifies the Smart Meter interface and make efficient use of the data collected by Utility network. However, it mixes the commercial development with the utilities’ responsibilities and makes the administration complicated.
3. Smart Meter Interfaces
In order to get energy usage data from the smart meter (or via home data gateway), the interface must be defined as part of the Smart Grid Interoperability Standards. On the internet interface, a strong authentication mechanism shall be defined for mutual authentication between the Smarter Meter and 3rd party services.
The smart meter must provide dual interfaces, one for the closed utility network, and one for the public network. There is no technical barrier to implement this.
4. Sub-Meter Considerations
When a building is sub-metered, each tenant is the owner of the data for her/his suite. She/he can share the sub-meter data with 3rd parties. The building owner owns the total energy usage data of the building, but not each tenant’s data. The Smart Meter for such buildings must be designed that tenants can control their energy usage data by their own.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Ashiss Dash: Ownership and Privacy are to Different Issues
1 Who owns the usage data?
Energy usage data of individuals or commercial entities is private and can have security, safety and societal implications if made public. The ownership clearly belongs to the consumer. The consumer generates this data and it is collected in the privacy of his or her premises. The data reflects the lifestyle and personal choices of the consumer.
However, Smart grid is an intricate network linking various assets by the constant flow of energy and data. Conversion of raw data into useful information is a critical step in equipping the grid with the right “intelligence”. This conversion requires tools, techniques and business rules for processing of the data. The consumer does not have this infrastructure or incentive to process the data but is definitely the central entity in the information. The question then really becomes “who protects this information?” and “who can use it?”
The accountability of protecting the information and the underlying data lies with the Utility. The Utility will have to protect the collection, flow, storage and archival of the data leading to the information. The owner, a consumer in this case, has the responsibility to ensure the protection measures put by the Utility are not compromised in any way. The regulators will have to be informed of all exceptions and breaches of security of the data. A parallel one can think of is the banking data. When we go to the ATM machine, we share private information at the ATM. The bank is accountable for providing a secure and safe way of collecting and dispersing information during the interaction. However, the responsibility of ensuring that the privacy and security measures put in by the Bank are not compromised remains with us. We own the data but the bank protects it – at least that is what we trust our banks with.
The usage of the information should be for the core objectives that a smartgrid needs to meet. Utilities and regulators alongwith authorized service providers should be able to use this data.
2. Should individual consumers and their authorized third-party service providers have the right to access energy usage data directly from the meter?
The short answer is “yes”. However, we must note that the Meter is just a paradigm. If we design our energy future smartly, we have to shift the paradigm and get away from our dependence on the meter as the single source of data. We have to leverage the advancement in user interface, intelligent devices and networking technologies to build that device. It is going to be an interface to the consumer in the form of a software or hardware. And yes, the individual consumers and their authorized third-party service providers have the right to access energy usage data and the related information from the Utility.
3. If the smart meter, via the utility network, is the primary gateway for obtaining residential energy usage data, will it be technically and commercially feasible for consumers and their authorized third-party service providers to access the data easily and in real time?
Yes. A home energy usage interface on a portal is commercially and technically feasible. This can be displayed on a secured website just like the way our banking or insurance data is displayed today.
(4) What types of policies are needed to gain consumer confidence that personal energy usage data is secure and not subject to abuse?
The policies need to address the following at the minimum:
a.> A proven technology to collect and store the data (verification: regular audits)
b.> Permission of the consumer before the data is shared or moved (verification: complaints to a 1-800 number)
c.> Restricted list of third parties who can potentially use the data (verification: full disclosure of the list to the consumer and consumer consent)
d.> Third party usage as per law (verification: Utility or the collecting agency to certify the third party)
e.> Strict punishment for misuse of data
Energy usage data of individuals or commercial entities is private and can have security, safety and societal implications if made public. The ownership clearly belongs to the consumer. The consumer generates this data and it is collected in the privacy of his or her premises. The data reflects the lifestyle and personal choices of the consumer.
However, Smart grid is an intricate network linking various assets by the constant flow of energy and data. Conversion of raw data into useful information is a critical step in equipping the grid with the right “intelligence”. This conversion requires tools, techniques and business rules for processing of the data. The consumer does not have this infrastructure or incentive to process the data but is definitely the central entity in the information. The question then really becomes “who protects this information?” and “who can use it?”
The accountability of protecting the information and the underlying data lies with the Utility. The Utility will have to protect the collection, flow, storage and archival of the data leading to the information. The owner, a consumer in this case, has the responsibility to ensure the protection measures put by the Utility are not compromised in any way. The regulators will have to be informed of all exceptions and breaches of security of the data. A parallel one can think of is the banking data. When we go to the ATM machine, we share private information at the ATM. The bank is accountable for providing a secure and safe way of collecting and dispersing information during the interaction. However, the responsibility of ensuring that the privacy and security measures put in by the Bank are not compromised remains with us. We own the data but the bank protects it – at least that is what we trust our banks with.
The usage of the information should be for the core objectives that a smartgrid needs to meet. Utilities and regulators alongwith authorized service providers should be able to use this data.
2. Should individual consumers and their authorized third-party service providers have the right to access energy usage data directly from the meter?
The short answer is “yes”. However, we must note that the Meter is just a paradigm. If we design our energy future smartly, we have to shift the paradigm and get away from our dependence on the meter as the single source of data. We have to leverage the advancement in user interface, intelligent devices and networking technologies to build that device. It is going to be an interface to the consumer in the form of a software or hardware. And yes, the individual consumers and their authorized third-party service providers have the right to access energy usage data and the related information from the Utility.
3. If the smart meter, via the utility network, is the primary gateway for obtaining residential energy usage data, will it be technically and commercially feasible for consumers and their authorized third-party service providers to access the data easily and in real time?
Yes. A home energy usage interface on a portal is commercially and technically feasible. This can be displayed on a secured website just like the way our banking or insurance data is displayed today.
(4) What types of policies are needed to gain consumer confidence that personal energy usage data is secure and not subject to abuse?
The policies need to address the following at the minimum:
a.> A proven technology to collect and store the data (verification: regular audits)
b.> Permission of the consumer before the data is shared or moved (verification: complaints to a 1-800 number)
c.> Restricted list of third parties who can potentially use the data (verification: full disclosure of the list to the consumer and consumer consent)
d.> Third party usage as per law (verification: Utility or the collecting agency to certify the third party)
e.> Strict punishment for misuse of data
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)