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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)