Thursday, September 9, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Conrad Eustis: Stay Flexible and Open
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)