My comments are specific to home area networks and residential/small business consumers, but hopefully will also logically extend to cover the more complex requirements of commercial and industrial electricity consumers.
I believe a necessary first step is to require the inclusion of HAN technology in all future government-supported smart metering initiatives. Forcing a specific standard or communicating protocol at this time is premature, and realistically we've already missed the window for mandating HAN support in the current batch of SGIG-funded metering initiatives. Instead we should re-focus our efforts on providing appropriate levels of motivation and resources to existing standards bodies, helping them to achieve our desired objectives and outcomes.
I would presently prefer to see the work of several different alliances and standards groups promoted, with greater emphasis and pressure placed on standards harmonization, open source licensing terms, and additional HAN-related education services for utility implementers, 3rd parties, and consumers.
The capital markets should ultimately determine which technical approaches, standards, and implementations are most successful. Smart meters are the producers of consumption data and absolutely should be the primary gateway for passing energy use information to devices inside the home or business. I believe we are doing a major disservice to consumers if we don’t promote solutions and system design practices that allow real-time access to energy use information. Also, keep in mind that utility requirements for energy use data are generally quite different from those of consumers (e.g. 15-min billing intervals versus real-time data access). As such, AMI networks and utility systems are not (and probably should not be) designed to support real-time collection of energy use data for an entire service territory of consumers. Certainly demand response and pricing signals from the utility can take several alternative paths to the consumer (e.g. broadband Internet, cellular) but existing AMI network technologies are already fairly well-suited for those types of broadcast (or one-to-many) messages.
As the founder of a technology start-up building an energy management gateway, I am in favor of consumer choice and market-based selection. I believe any standards promoted by NIST and/or other government agencies should not preclude or prevent the use of an ESI or gateway device by the consumer (or utility). In my opinion the ESI does offer a more flexible approach - greater features, superior upgradability, better separation of concerns, etc.
I would not suggest that it should be the primary or only interface for all consumer use cases and utility deployment scenarios, however, I think it is vitally important to establish a significant install base of HAN-enabled smart meters, even if that means several standards are initially in widespread deployment. So long as each utility is selecting vendors that use open standards and apply non-restrictive licensing terms, 3rd party market participants will have financial incentives to create devices and solutions that bridge differences between AMI deployments and the various communicating standards used by consumer-owned devices. As others have mentioned, we are already seeing early interoperability work from organizations like the U-SNAP Alliance, sponsored research from NIST and the DoE , as well as efforts by individual technology providers and start-up companies.
We need take actions that promote improved standardization and open design, but this is a complex problem and building consensus amongst so many stakeholders will take time.
Showing posts with label Phase 1 Topics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phase 1 Topics. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Yvan Castilloux: Supporting Roy Perry Comments
Roy Perry makes some excellent points about not bottlenecking the new grid. He and Dr. Ken Wacks elaborate further in the white paper "Creating a Robust Market for Residential Energy Management through an Open Energy Management Architecture" about the importance of policies that embrace a diverse ecosystem of home network and energy management technologies to compete for consumer's pocketbooks. By being truly open and enabling startups and large companies alike to compete to motivate the consumer to reduce their energy waste, we will make the fastest progress in bringing the benefits of the Smart Grid to the most people.
Jerry FitzPatrick: NIST Welcomes Alternative Suggestions!
One of the characteristics of the Smart Grid defined by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) is the “provision to consumers of timely information and control options.“ The goals of this characteristic are to give customers the ability to see their energy usage as it happens, rather than some time later when the bill arrives, and to have better control over how they use energy. The idea is to enable greater participation by customers, not enforce it, by giving them options for deferring or reducing their energy usage in ways that help to lower their costs and benefit the environment.
This demand response approach, where customers voluntarily reduce their energy consumption following the communication of a price or other signal during extreme peak usage, is one way of mitigating the cost of installing new transmission and distribution lines with greater capacity and/or resorting to more expensive power generation. This blog seeks to get answers regarding the best way to give customers more choices and control. NIST has created several working groups that are addressing issues of privacy, ensuring the security of energy usage data, and on how best to communicate with the customer.
We welcome all perspectives shared on this blog. Some ideas have been raised about alternatives to the smart meter as a communication gateway to the home. It has been suggested, for example, that alternative pathways (besides the smart meter) should be explored for conveying price signals and demand response signals to the consumer, and for enabling consumers to monitor and control their energy use. Alternative pathways could include a gateway device separate from the meter, direct communication to customer thermostats and appliances (with customer opt-in), a customer website with energy usage information, a consumer-installed meter reader to home area network, and others.
Jerry FitzPatrick , NIST
This demand response approach, where customers voluntarily reduce their energy consumption following the communication of a price or other signal during extreme peak usage, is one way of mitigating the cost of installing new transmission and distribution lines with greater capacity and/or resorting to more expensive power generation. This blog seeks to get answers regarding the best way to give customers more choices and control. NIST has created several working groups that are addressing issues of privacy, ensuring the security of energy usage data, and on how best to communicate with the customer.
We welcome all perspectives shared on this blog. Some ideas have been raised about alternatives to the smart meter as a communication gateway to the home. It has been suggested, for example, that alternative pathways (besides the smart meter) should be explored for conveying price signals and demand response signals to the consumer, and for enabling consumers to monitor and control their energy use. Alternative pathways could include a gateway device separate from the meter, direct communication to customer thermostats and appliances (with customer opt-in), a customer website with energy usage information, a consumer-installed meter reader to home area network, and others.
Jerry FitzPatrick , NIST
Nathan Ota: The Meter should Not be the only Gateway
The smart meter should not serve as the primary gateway for in-home devices – where gateway is a device that provides network connectivity between two networks and that may also provide application level connectivity between devices and/or applications. The most common example of this architecture is a smart meter with an AMI communications radio and a separate ZigBee radio for home area network communications – however, in this architecture the separate communications capability for home area network communications could be any technology, not necessarily ZigBee .
There are several primary risks with a meter-as-gateway architecture. The historical rate of technology change in other emerging technologies from the IT and computing industries as well as the existing track record for HAN technologies suggests that technology obsolescence of the home area network communications technology is a significant risk. The lifecycle for home area network technologies can be as short as 1/10th the product life of a smart meter – thus physically coupling these two communications technologies “under the glass” will lead to only one of two scenarios: increased costs to update the meter in order to keep pace with the evolution of HAN technology or hinder the rate of innovation in the HAN by not updating the meter to keep pace with HAN technology. Second, poor connectivity between the smart meter and home area network devices may reduce program efficacy, such as time-of-use programs, that utilize enabling technologies such as a PCT. Lastly, selecting a single HAN technology to embed in the smart meter - where the smart meter is the primary gateway for price, usage, and demand response information – will limit market diversity and will hinder innovation. The effect of this architecture not only limits the ability of the HAN market to effectively address consumer demand (for example, the consumer would like Technology A, but the meter only supports Technology A) but also limits the consumer’s ability to receive information through alternative methods.
The role of the smart meter with respect to the home area network should be to provide near real-time meter data access (e.g. on the order of minute-by-minute data) to the consumer -- “meter-as-server” rather than “meter-as-gateway”. Meter data access within the HAN should be considered separately from gateway functionality, despite often being combined into a single discussion around embedding home area network communications into a smart meter.
A gateway to in-home devices should be provided through a dedicated standalone device (similar to a consumer Internet gateway) or embedded in an in-home device such as a programmable communicating thermostat. An external gateway could utilize the AMI network or an alternative network such as the Internet – the discussion of the physical location of the HAN gateway should not be confused with the network to transport the information to the HAN. Utilizing an architecture where the HAN gateway is external to the smart meter has numerous benefits in addition to addressing the risks associated with the meter-as-gateway architecture. First, an external gateway decouples the evolution HAN technology from smart meter, thus avoiding meter replacement to upgrade to future HAN technologies.
Even if smart meters provide over the air upgradeability, they will have limited future extensibility due to physical hardware constraints. Second, a smart grid deployment that utilizes an external HAN gateway allows for a lower total deployment cost compared to a smart meter that includes a HAN gateway, assuming reasonable assumptions for technology lifecycles, meter replacement costs, and technology adoption by consumers. External HAN gateways allow the utility to continue a deploy-as-you-go approach for individual consumers as they adopt new programs – this not only minimizes costs to the utility but provides consumers access to HAN technology at its natural rate of innovation . This external HAN gateway architecture is more cost effective approach compared to deploying the HAN connectivity in every meter – where only a fraction of the households are likely to adopt new programs like technology-enabled demand response. Third, an external HAN gateway can potentially address connectivity issues with the meter since it can be located in a more central location in the residence. Lastly, an external gateway architecture enables market innovation by allow energy service providers, regardless of deregulation, to utilize the most appropriate technologies demanded by consumers – rather than artificially constraining all HAN devices to utilize the HAN communications technology embedded in a meter.
Finally, the application of a user-removable communications module is a complementary architectural component – in addition to HAN gateways external to the smart meter – that address the risks of the meter-as-gateway architecture. The USNAP specification and USNAP modules (http://usnap.org) provide a communications protocol agnostic method to enable smart grid connectivity to in-home devices. While not an architecture in of itself, this open standard facilitates innovation in HAN devices by decoupling the communications from the HAN device and facilitating market innovation
There are several primary risks with a meter-as-gateway architecture. The historical rate of technology change in other emerging technologies from the IT and computing industries as well as the existing track record for HAN technologies suggests that technology obsolescence of the home area network communications technology is a significant risk. The lifecycle for home area network technologies can be as short as 1/10th the product life of a smart meter – thus physically coupling these two communications technologies “under the glass” will lead to only one of two scenarios: increased costs to update the meter in order to keep pace with the evolution of HAN technology or hinder the rate of innovation in the HAN by not updating the meter to keep pace with HAN technology. Second, poor connectivity between the smart meter and home area network devices may reduce program efficacy, such as time-of-use programs, that utilize enabling technologies such as a PCT. Lastly, selecting a single HAN technology to embed in the smart meter - where the smart meter is the primary gateway for price, usage, and demand response information – will limit market diversity and will hinder innovation. The effect of this architecture not only limits the ability of the HAN market to effectively address consumer demand (for example, the consumer would like Technology A, but the meter only supports Technology A) but also limits the consumer’s ability to receive information through alternative methods.
The role of the smart meter with respect to the home area network should be to provide near real-time meter data access (e.g. on the order of minute-by-minute data) to the consumer -- “meter-as-server” rather than “meter-as-gateway”. Meter data access within the HAN should be considered separately from gateway functionality, despite often being combined into a single discussion around embedding home area network communications into a smart meter.
A gateway to in-home devices should be provided through a dedicated standalone device (similar to a consumer Internet gateway) or embedded in an in-home device such as a programmable communicating thermostat. An external gateway could utilize the AMI network or an alternative network such as the Internet – the discussion of the physical location of the HAN gateway should not be confused with the network to transport the information to the HAN. Utilizing an architecture where the HAN gateway is external to the smart meter has numerous benefits in addition to addressing the risks associated with the meter-as-gateway architecture. First, an external gateway decouples the evolution HAN technology from smart meter, thus avoiding meter replacement to upgrade to future HAN technologies.
Even if smart meters provide over the air upgradeability, they will have limited future extensibility due to physical hardware constraints. Second, a smart grid deployment that utilizes an external HAN gateway allows for a lower total deployment cost compared to a smart meter that includes a HAN gateway, assuming reasonable assumptions for technology lifecycles, meter replacement costs, and technology adoption by consumers. External HAN gateways allow the utility to continue a deploy-as-you-go approach for individual consumers as they adopt new programs – this not only minimizes costs to the utility but provides consumers access to HAN technology at its natural rate of innovation . This external HAN gateway architecture is more cost effective approach compared to deploying the HAN connectivity in every meter – where only a fraction of the households are likely to adopt new programs like technology-enabled demand response. Third, an external HAN gateway can potentially address connectivity issues with the meter since it can be located in a more central location in the residence. Lastly, an external gateway architecture enables market innovation by allow energy service providers, regardless of deregulation, to utilize the most appropriate technologies demanded by consumers – rather than artificially constraining all HAN devices to utilize the HAN communications technology embedded in a meter.
Finally, the application of a user-removable communications module is a complementary architectural component – in addition to HAN gateways external to the smart meter – that address the risks of the meter-as-gateway architecture. The USNAP specification and USNAP modules (http://usnap.org) provide a communications protocol agnostic method to enable smart grid connectivity to in-home devices. While not an architecture in of itself, this open standard facilitates innovation in HAN devices by decoupling the communications from the HAN device and facilitating market innovation
Dave Wollman: shifting to next topics tomorrow
We appreciate all of the comments that have been provided so far, and if there is additional input we will allow comments on this posting through March 12. Starting tomorrow (March 2), we encourage you to contribute your ideas on the next set of questions, dealing with policy questions on data ownership and access.
David Wollman, NIST
David Wollman, NIST
Donald Pollock: It's the Network - Security - and Flexibilty in the Home
Response Q1. A Secure Smart Meter could act as the Energy Consumption Data Interface to the residence and SMB. This places a requirement on the utility “network to meter” link to enable robust two-way communications, a throughput rate able to handle foreseen data traffic, a reduced latency over the whole network to allow for acceptable reaction times to consumer queries, and secure communications at every level (OSI) of the data exchange (and storage at the meter) to ensure confidentiality and control of user data.
One of the issues encountered with some legacy systems installed is that they rely on Network Master Keys for security at layer 2, an NMK is a shared key amongst all nodes within a network, so the presumption is that all nodes are secure and “friendly,” which cannot be guaranteed. More robust and secure communications links over the layers must be established.
One issue that comes under the term “security” but is not a means to keep something confidential, but the securing of data from deviation due to non-eliminated noise, must be addressed in the Smart Meter. As high a robustness as possible must be required so that data to the utility from the meter especially, as well as data from the utility to the meter or to the consumer, must be error free, otherwise billing and possible customer support issues will arise, adding overhead for the utility and frustration for the consumer.
Response Q2. The majority of US residences have broadband connections from either a Telco wireline Service Provider, a Cable company, or a wireless Service Provider. These links should be utilized for data delivery when a two-way link is not able to be established through the Smart Meter for any reason, or the utility may elect to use an Internet-based and secure means to access data and take advantage of a Service Provider’s broadband connection to avoid the additional ad hoc data demands consumers could place on the utility’s grid data infrastructure, especially during peak or times of grid stress.
Regardless, the data must be secured at all levels.
Response Q3.The Smart Meter interface to the HAN, either wireless or wired, is a relatively inexpensive additional expense to the utility. The meter would have a substantial amount of the anticipated data to be provided such as usage history for the last x periods, current cost per KWh, etc. This data, of course, must be kept encrypted in the meter memory.
The HAN interface should be based on a standard, an international standard. The selection of technologies to use for the interface will be varied, as there are many choices for wireless and wired data transport. Further, as the roll out of the Smart Meter and Smart Grid infrastructure will take some many years, a decision at this point on any specific technology, when certain new technologies are just coming to market, would be premature if these technologies were not considered and eventually selected.
The decision must not be for today but for the long term, as that is where the benefits of Smart Grid and Smart Meters will truly become effective as they are deployed and mature.
A case in point is the ITU-T G.9960 family of standards, commonly referred to G.hn. The performance, security, and robustness of this technology goes far beyond what is available on the market today, and what will be available from derivative “updated” versions that are due to arrive this year. Further, as the SDOs and nations of Europe look to the ITU for leadership in communications, they are ensuring that Smart Grid initiatives and coverage are part of the G.hn standard’s enhancements now being worked on at ITU-T.
To have a US selection that does not include a future-proof and widely sought standard such as G.hn would be possibly creating a technology “island” in the US, just as has occurred with negative side effects with several other technologies that were selected without consideration for what was used by the rest of the globe.
And, as stated above, the undetected error issue must be designed against to the highest possible degree. G.hn has the most robust error detection and correction as well as avoidance available today and versus any derivatives of legacy products that may come to market in the near future.
One of the issues encountered with some legacy systems installed is that they rely on Network Master Keys for security at layer 2, an NMK is a shared key amongst all nodes within a network, so the presumption is that all nodes are secure and “friendly,” which cannot be guaranteed. More robust and secure communications links over the layers must be established.
One issue that comes under the term “security” but is not a means to keep something confidential, but the securing of data from deviation due to non-eliminated noise, must be addressed in the Smart Meter. As high a robustness as possible must be required so that data to the utility from the meter especially, as well as data from the utility to the meter or to the consumer, must be error free, otherwise billing and possible customer support issues will arise, adding overhead for the utility and frustration for the consumer.
Response Q2. The majority of US residences have broadband connections from either a Telco wireline Service Provider, a Cable company, or a wireless Service Provider. These links should be utilized for data delivery when a two-way link is not able to be established through the Smart Meter for any reason, or the utility may elect to use an Internet-based and secure means to access data and take advantage of a Service Provider’s broadband connection to avoid the additional ad hoc data demands consumers could place on the utility’s grid data infrastructure, especially during peak or times of grid stress.
Regardless, the data must be secured at all levels.
Response Q3.The Smart Meter interface to the HAN, either wireless or wired, is a relatively inexpensive additional expense to the utility. The meter would have a substantial amount of the anticipated data to be provided such as usage history for the last x periods, current cost per KWh, etc. This data, of course, must be kept encrypted in the meter memory.
The HAN interface should be based on a standard, an international standard. The selection of technologies to use for the interface will be varied, as there are many choices for wireless and wired data transport. Further, as the roll out of the Smart Meter and Smart Grid infrastructure will take some many years, a decision at this point on any specific technology, when certain new technologies are just coming to market, would be premature if these technologies were not considered and eventually selected.
The decision must not be for today but for the long term, as that is where the benefits of Smart Grid and Smart Meters will truly become effective as they are deployed and mature.
A case in point is the ITU-T G.9960 family of standards, commonly referred to G.hn. The performance, security, and robustness of this technology goes far beyond what is available on the market today, and what will be available from derivative “updated” versions that are due to arrive this year. Further, as the SDOs and nations of Europe look to the ITU for leadership in communications, they are ensuring that Smart Grid initiatives and coverage are part of the G.hn standard’s enhancements now being worked on at ITU-T.
To have a US selection that does not include a future-proof and widely sought standard such as G.hn would be possibly creating a technology “island” in the US, just as has occurred with negative side effects with several other technologies that were selected without consideration for what was used by the rest of the globe.
And, as stated above, the undetected error issue must be designed against to the highest possible degree. G.hn has the most robust error detection and correction as well as avoidance available today and versus any derivatives of legacy products that may come to market in the near future.
Jon Smirl: Upgrade the Breaker Box - not the Meter
Most consumers haven't got a clue as to what is really consuming the electricity that they use. Instead of focusing on smart meters I'd find it a lot more useful if electrical panels were required to have current transformers built into them on all of the branch circuits. Graph the consumption info from each branch on the family TV. The hard part is figuring out the right place to work on reducing your usage.
In this model you don't need a smart meter. Use the panel info combined with pricing data loaded from the Internet or transmitted in the data space of local TV signals. These new TVs/settop boxes with widget capability can eliminate the need for a PC and Internet connection.
In this model you don't need a smart meter. Use the panel info combined with pricing data loaded from the Internet or transmitted in the data space of local TV signals. These new TVs/settop boxes with widget capability can eliminate the need for a PC and Internet connection.
Paul Boynton: More on Alternative Gateways into the Home?
All perspectives on the smart grid are appreciated. We’d like to hear more discussion around alternatives to the smart meter as a gateway to the home. What other pathways should be explored for conveying price signals and demand response signals to the consumer, and for enabling consumers to monitor and control their energy use?
Friday, February 26, 2010
Aurther K. Allington: The Smart Grid is the Wrong Approach
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Arthur K. Allington
Interesting to note that this effort continues along the same road, as do many other Government programs, that our Citizens are not up to the task of understanding routine issues and "Need Help" from a Government program.
In the event you haven't noticed utility companies are issuing scores of programs, brochures, and other media to address this very same issue. In addition, I, along with the vast majority of energy consumers, am acutely aware of energy usage in the form of monies paid.
I use common sense to set my energy usage and adjust to seasonal changes to enhance less usage. About the only folks who don't give energy consumption much thought are those who are subsidized by Government programs. I view, with great suspicion, this program, along with other like related programs that presume we are not intelligent enough to make independent decisions and need the help of a Government overseer to direct our actions. Again, "To What End? Is this the first stage of a new level of Government Regulation & Control? Are you acting "In the Best Interests" of our Citizens, or are you helping to create another Government Agency that is in line with a Progressive Agenda.
To the Smart Grid approach you propose, I say NO!!! We are more intelligent that you assume.
Arthur K. Allington
Interesting to note that this effort continues along the same road, as do many other Government programs, that our Citizens are not up to the task of understanding routine issues and "Need Help" from a Government program.
In the event you haven't noticed utility companies are issuing scores of programs, brochures, and other media to address this very same issue. In addition, I, along with the vast majority of energy consumers, am acutely aware of energy usage in the form of monies paid.
I use common sense to set my energy usage and adjust to seasonal changes to enhance less usage. About the only folks who don't give energy consumption much thought are those who are subsidized by Government programs. I view, with great suspicion, this program, along with other like related programs that presume we are not intelligent enough to make independent decisions and need the help of a Government overseer to direct our actions. Again, "To What End? Is this the first stage of a new level of Government Regulation & Control? Are you acting "In the Best Interests" of our Citizens, or are you helping to create another Government Agency that is in line with a Progressive Agenda.
To the Smart Grid approach you propose, I say NO!!! We are more intelligent that you assume.
Arthur K. Allington
Angela C. Newton: Do Not Burden the Middle Class Consumer!
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Angela C. Newton
Hello All- Leave middle class families alone! It's hard enough to find the money to buy groceries and gas, let alone deal with the government telling us how much heat or air conditioning we can use.
I consider myself a democrat who believes that the government is capable of doing good, but I'm not an idiot. It is up to each individual consumer to decide how much heat or ac she needs, NOT the government.
Angela C. Newton
Hello All- Leave middle class families alone! It's hard enough to find the money to buy groceries and gas, let alone deal with the government telling us how much heat or air conditioning we can use.
I consider myself a democrat who believes that the government is capable of doing good, but I'm not an idiot. It is up to each individual consumer to decide how much heat or ac she needs, NOT the government.
Angela C. Newton
C. F. Chase: Keep the Goverment Out of It
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by C. F. Chase
As a tax-paying CITIZEN and resident of the United States of America, I am adamantly opposed to ANY use of tax payer funds in the development of the so-called "smart grid." This scheme is far more about "Orwellian" government control and micro-management of its citizenry than it is about energy efficiency.
As a consumer of electricity I own all of the data related to that consumption and I REFUSE to allow any outside third-party access to my usage data. Moreover, the various ways in which I consume electricity is MY BUSINESS and I will never cede control to some nefarious, globalist government such as this criminal Obama administration who would seek to control MY thermostat, etc.
I will NEVER purchase a so-called "smart" grid compatible appliance even if the result is a higher utility bill. I will use any means necessary to preserve my PRIVACY and FREEDOM and to resist the tentacles of government intrusion into yet another aspect of my life. THIS TYRANNY IS UNACCEPTABLE! Respectfully submitted,
C. F. Chase
As a tax-paying CITIZEN and resident of the United States of America, I am adamantly opposed to ANY use of tax payer funds in the development of the so-called "smart grid." This scheme is far more about "Orwellian" government control and micro-management of its citizenry than it is about energy efficiency.
As a consumer of electricity I own all of the data related to that consumption and I REFUSE to allow any outside third-party access to my usage data. Moreover, the various ways in which I consume electricity is MY BUSINESS and I will never cede control to some nefarious, globalist government such as this criminal Obama administration who would seek to control MY thermostat, etc.
I will NEVER purchase a so-called "smart" grid compatible appliance even if the result is a higher utility bill. I will use any means necessary to preserve my PRIVACY and FREEDOM and to resist the tentacles of government intrusion into yet another aspect of my life. THIS TYRANNY IS UNACCEPTABLE! Respectfully submitted,
C. F. Chase
Walt Brewer: Trust and Individual Control
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Walt Brewer
Response to Q1. No, the Smart Meter should not be the Primary Gateway. Attempting to use the smart meter as the primary gateway poses a significant risk to the public acceptance of the program - particularly with regards to the demand response signals. There are two primary issues I see with the use of the smart meter as the primary gateway; Trust and Meter Lifespan. The trust issue is associated with providing control of the gateway to the utilities. It may be perceived that the utilities have a conflict of interest with regard to which segment of end users are impacted by grid power events as the utilities valuation of certain users may differ.
Allowing users to control "opt in" or "opt out" decisions for individual demand response events may be critical to acceptance and the Smart Meter as a Primary Gateway is not conducive to this. Second: The anticipated lifespan on residential power meters is 20 years. To allow for upgrades as technology advances the Smart Meter functions should be limited to reporting the power consumption to the utilities. The rest of the gateway functions should be integrated into devices or interfaces that can be updated far more frequently.
Response to Q2. An IP based Data Gateway is the most logical network for communicating price data, demand response, and gathering internal energy usage data on a voluntary basis. This will allow the ESIs and utilities to experiment dynamically with a variety of methods for demand response While keeping the utility models simplified.
Response to Q3. There are a number of architectures that could be used to support innovation in home energy services. The most obvious architecture is publishing real time pricing in formats that ESI companies can use to make graduated usage decisions. Other options include creating a scale which represents the risk of localized power quality or power capacity related events that would allow a consumer defined "low value" power consumption to be turned off automatically.
I view a primary requirement for wide spread acceptance of demand response systems in the United States that it is voluntary to make the default opt-in with per incident option to opt-out of the demand response action. I don't think a per incident opt-out will have a significant impact on any given event - but failing to include this option I believe will reduce the acceptance of this program by the general public.
Walt Brewer
Response to Q1. No, the Smart Meter should not be the Primary Gateway. Attempting to use the smart meter as the primary gateway poses a significant risk to the public acceptance of the program - particularly with regards to the demand response signals. There are two primary issues I see with the use of the smart meter as the primary gateway; Trust and Meter Lifespan. The trust issue is associated with providing control of the gateway to the utilities. It may be perceived that the utilities have a conflict of interest with regard to which segment of end users are impacted by grid power events as the utilities valuation of certain users may differ.
Allowing users to control "opt in" or "opt out" decisions for individual demand response events may be critical to acceptance and the Smart Meter as a Primary Gateway is not conducive to this. Second: The anticipated lifespan on residential power meters is 20 years. To allow for upgrades as technology advances the Smart Meter functions should be limited to reporting the power consumption to the utilities. The rest of the gateway functions should be integrated into devices or interfaces that can be updated far more frequently.
Response to Q2. An IP based Data Gateway is the most logical network for communicating price data, demand response, and gathering internal energy usage data on a voluntary basis. This will allow the ESIs and utilities to experiment dynamically with a variety of methods for demand response While keeping the utility models simplified.
Response to Q3. There are a number of architectures that could be used to support innovation in home energy services. The most obvious architecture is publishing real time pricing in formats that ESI companies can use to make graduated usage decisions. Other options include creating a scale which represents the risk of localized power quality or power capacity related events that would allow a consumer defined "low value" power consumption to be turned off automatically.
I view a primary requirement for wide spread acceptance of demand response systems in the United States that it is voluntary to make the default opt-in with per incident option to opt-out of the demand response action. I don't think a per incident opt-out will have a significant impact on any given event - but failing to include this option I believe will reduce the acceptance of this program by the general public.
Walt Brewer
Jon Milan: Keeping the Consumer Preferences
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Jon Milan
My schooling is in electrical engineering (digital systems), with many years engineering integrated manufacturing solutions, public safety solutions, and now residential automation solutions.
Aside from the reliability requirements for the backbone of smart grid solution, I’d like to emphasize some key requirements for the consumer environment as I see them.
First, the consumer's in-home or in-building interface must be robust. More specifically, the power distribution point within the consumer's building must not be adversely affected by the presence or absence of the consumer's interface. Unintentional or malicious activities at the consumer's interface should not propagate through the smart grid system.
Second, the consumer's in-home or in-building interface must be private and secure. Third, the consumer interface must be open, i.e. the interface must be publicly available for use by suppliers as they see fit. Many homes have intelligent systems already installed, and these suppliers will want to interface with the distribution panel within the home.
I have already seen that distribution of smart thermostats is moving into the area of public utility companies. I do not recommend this. The public utility companies should have responsibility to the utility meter, to include their network interface (wireless or wired). From there, private enterprise should be responsible for equipment within the home.
Jon Milan
My schooling is in electrical engineering (digital systems), with many years engineering integrated manufacturing solutions, public safety solutions, and now residential automation solutions.
Aside from the reliability requirements for the backbone of smart grid solution, I’d like to emphasize some key requirements for the consumer environment as I see them.
First, the consumer's in-home or in-building interface must be robust. More specifically, the power distribution point within the consumer's building must not be adversely affected by the presence or absence of the consumer's interface. Unintentional or malicious activities at the consumer's interface should not propagate through the smart grid system.
Second, the consumer's in-home or in-building interface must be private and secure. Third, the consumer interface must be open, i.e. the interface must be publicly available for use by suppliers as they see fit. Many homes have intelligent systems already installed, and these suppliers will want to interface with the distribution panel within the home.
I have already seen that distribution of smart thermostats is moving into the area of public utility companies. I do not recommend this. The public utility companies should have responsibility to the utility meter, to include their network interface (wireless or wired). From there, private enterprise should be responsible for equipment within the home.
Jon Milan
Roy Perry: Don't Bottleneck The New Grid with the Old Meter
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Roy Perry, CableLabs
Response to Q1 -- Smart meters are the most expensive form of residential gateway for residential usage data, price data, and demand response signals, for several reasons. First, they require a dedicated network to connect them to the utility. Second, they are proprietary resulting in less competition and more fragmentation of the market. Third, they are depreciated over 20 year cycles, typically, but the gateway technology in the smart meter will be obsolete in 3-5 years which is the life of network technology. This will result in huge write-offs. Other far less expensive gateways are available that use the Internet and can perform the same functions for a fraction of the cost, and if the market is allowed to be competitive, will compete with each other further driving down costs.
Response to Q2 --Absolutely – this is actually a superior approach. The use of third party gateways should not only be allowed, but should be encouraged. All of the contemplated consumer benefits of the Smart Grid, i.e., energy reduction, energy management, and demand response can all be achieved with non-utility solutions. A level playing field, where non-utilities would compete fairly with utilities, would create competition for energy management services and drive the net costs for consumers down and their options up. However, to do this, the federal government must mandate the following consumer-to-utility interface standards. This will give market entrants national markets for their solutions, rather than having to adapt to proprietary utility solutions deployed by each utility. They [the necessary consumer-to-utility interface standards] are: a simple standard for querying pricing signals from any given utility over the Internet; and a simple standard for accessing electric meter data in real-time.
Roy Perry
Response to Q1 -- Smart meters are the most expensive form of residential gateway for residential usage data, price data, and demand response signals, for several reasons. First, they require a dedicated network to connect them to the utility. Second, they are proprietary resulting in less competition and more fragmentation of the market. Third, they are depreciated over 20 year cycles, typically, but the gateway technology in the smart meter will be obsolete in 3-5 years which is the life of network technology. This will result in huge write-offs. Other far less expensive gateways are available that use the Internet and can perform the same functions for a fraction of the cost, and if the market is allowed to be competitive, will compete with each other further driving down costs.
Response to Q2 --Absolutely – this is actually a superior approach. The use of third party gateways should not only be allowed, but should be encouraged. All of the contemplated consumer benefits of the Smart Grid, i.e., energy reduction, energy management, and demand response can all be achieved with non-utility solutions. A level playing field, where non-utilities would compete fairly with utilities, would create competition for energy management services and drive the net costs for consumers down and their options up. However, to do this, the federal government must mandate the following consumer-to-utility interface standards. This will give market entrants national markets for their solutions, rather than having to adapt to proprietary utility solutions deployed by each utility. They [the necessary consumer-to-utility interface standards] are: a simple standard for querying pricing signals from any given utility over the Internet; and a simple standard for accessing electric meter data in real-time.
Roy Perry
Bruce Nordman: Change W/O Burdening the Meter
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Bruce Nordman, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Response to Q1-- The meter should make current consumption available to the building and to the utility/grid. It should not be burdened with providing historic consumption data. Price data should be provided multiple ways, including through the meter. Demand response should be phased out in favor of price signals. The key is to make dynamic prices more attractive than fixed prices so that the great majority of customers quickly adopt them. Aside from price and consumption, the meter should not play a role in the electricity system.
Response to Q2 -- The utility/grid need not rely on other sources for data about current total consumption. Price data should be broadcast over multiple media.
Response to Q3 -- Develop a network architecture for buildings that enables functionality that we don't have today; use this network to save energy as a side benefit. Use the Internet as a model, with smart end notes and a dumb network. Most useful energy services will be provided by intelligent devices on the building network that can interoperate with other intelligent devices (and people) through globally standard protocols. Price data should be available through multiple streams.
Bruce Nordman
Response to Q1-- The meter should make current consumption available to the building and to the utility/grid. It should not be burdened with providing historic consumption data. Price data should be provided multiple ways, including through the meter. Demand response should be phased out in favor of price signals. The key is to make dynamic prices more attractive than fixed prices so that the great majority of customers quickly adopt them. Aside from price and consumption, the meter should not play a role in the electricity system.
Response to Q2 -- The utility/grid need not rely on other sources for data about current total consumption. Price data should be broadcast over multiple media.
Response to Q3 -- Develop a network architecture for buildings that enables functionality that we don't have today; use this network to save energy as a side benefit. Use the Internet as a model, with smart end notes and a dumb network. Most useful energy services will be provided by intelligent devices on the building network that can interoperate with other intelligent devices (and people) through globally standard protocols. Price data should be available through multiple streams.
Bruce Nordman
Arron Burstein, Ari Schwartz, Longhao Wang - UC Berkely Center for Democracy & Technology
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Aaron Burstein, UC Berkeley; Ari Schwartz and Longhao Wang, Center for Democracy & Technology.
Response to Q1 -- Any analysis of the privacy, security, and innovation issues raised by making the smart meter into the home’s primary energy data gateway must begin with a recognition that states that have led the way in Smart Grid deployment have already endorsed this architecture.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), for example, has approved plans by the three major investor-owned utilities in the states to deploy smart meters that have an embedded controller for devices within the home,3 implying that the meter will serve as a gateway usage data, price data, and demand response signals.
Other regulations lay the groundwork for utilities to collect home energy usage data with increasing frequency as the state’s smart meter initiative matures. Similarly, in a rule adopted by the Texas Public Utilities Commission requires advanced meters that provide a “capability to communicate with devices inside the premises, . . . through a home area network (HAN), based on open standards and protocols that comply with nationally recognized non-proprietary standards such as ZigBee , Home-Plug, or the equivalent.”
The privacy risks in this architecture are still unclear; they depend in large part on future decisions by consumers, utilities, and state regulators. On one hand, utilities are the most likely recipients of this data, making it relatively easy for consumers and regulators to monitor their privacy practices. On the other hand, if utilities are granted exclusive access to this data, they will not be subject to other energy management services that may compete on privacy and other dimensions. Much to its credit, the CPUC has modified rulemaking to extend to data privacy, but it will necessarily develop these rules after millions of smart meters containing data gateways are already in place.
Other states will presumably follow California’s lead, but state-by-state decisions could impose duplicative costs and create inconsistent rules. Moreover, though public utilities commissions have broad expertise in consumer protection issues, it is less clear that they possess specific, deep expertise in data privacy. Two further points about making smart meters into energy data gateways bear on both privacy and innovation.
First, utilities and device manufacturers will use this data to control device behavior. This creates a need to designate which devices will respond to demand response signals, and how. In use cases considered within prominent standards and in state Smart Grid proceedings, the utility is often responsible for registering consumers’ devices. This not only constrains the choices available to device manufacturers but also creates the possibility that utilities (and, perhaps, third parties they authorize) will have access to device-specific usage data. This would further exacerbate the privacy risks entailed in collecting highly temporally resolved, household-specific usage data. Second, the choice between on-meter and off-meter gateways need not be binary.
Even if consumers are served by utilities that deploy smart meters with embedded gateways, they should be able to choose to use third-party gateways. A full analysis of the privacy risks of both architectures would help inform these choices. Federal agencies such as NIST could marshal the efforts of all stakeholders to analyze the privacy risks in this architecture.
A comment filed by the Center for Democracy & Technology on NIST’s draft Smart Grid cybersecurity requirements provides a start by laying out how widely Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) apply to Smart Grid data. As that comment notes, however, additional work, such as developing privacy use cases, is necessary to fully understand the privacy risks of smart meters with an embedded gateway. This analysis would provide valuable guidance to technology firms and state policymakers.
Response to Q2 -- Considering an alternative architecture—routing Smart Grid through a home Internet connection, for example—gives a sense of the relative risks to privacy, innovation, and cybersecurity. An off-meter gateway could help protect consumers’ privacy by limiting the amount of information that is sent beyond the boundaries of the home. For instance, a gateway that is separate from the meter could receive incoming price and demand response signals, send them to an in-home energy management system (EMS), and, in conjunction with the EMS, manage devices solely through in-home communications. This architecture would obviate any need to register appliances and other devices with a utility, further limiting the disclosure of information from inside the home.
The smart meter, of course, would still be able to measure and report energy consumption to the utility. Still, fully understanding the privacy risks of such this architecture requires a more detailed analysis of specific technologies and their uses. Again, relevant policy considerations include:
(1) whether consumers have ongoing choices about how much data to disclose about their energy use;
(2) what type(s) of entities that receive and process this data; and
(3) which regulators (if any) have jurisdiction over those entities.
It is possible that neither a data gateway outside the smart meter nor the entities that provide services based on data flowing through that gateway will be subject to state utility commission authorities. Though this could give rise to competition among device and service providers, it also raises the question of how to encourage those firms to build privacy into their products. Comparing the cybersecurity risks of these two architectures is also difficult to do in the abstract. Maintaining the availability of electricity service is a fundamental requirement of the Smart Grid. The integrity of price, usage, and demand response data is crucial for consumers and utilities. The price and demand response signals that consumers receive must be correct.
Likewise, the usage data that utilities receive must be free from corruption, whether introduced by malicious attacks or accidental errors, in order to manage load and to bill customers correctly. However, certain security benefits of separating the smart meter from demand response and home area network traffic are evident: this architecture would isolate the meter from devices in the home. It would also simplify the functional requirements of the smart meter, which should make the task of securing this critical Smart Grid element easier. Evaluating the security of different architectures and implementations is an enormously complex task. But this complexity lends itself to a simple point: statements about the Smart Grid security are most meaningful when they pertain to a specific system, are explained through a clearly stated threat model, and are supported by an analysis that is open to scrutiny.
Aaron Burstein, Ari Schwartz and Longhao Wang
Response to Q1 -- Any analysis of the privacy, security, and innovation issues raised by making the smart meter into the home’s primary energy data gateway must begin with a recognition that states that have led the way in Smart Grid deployment have already endorsed this architecture.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), for example, has approved plans by the three major investor-owned utilities in the states to deploy smart meters that have an embedded controller for devices within the home,3 implying that the meter will serve as a gateway usage data, price data, and demand response signals.
Other regulations lay the groundwork for utilities to collect home energy usage data with increasing frequency as the state’s smart meter initiative matures. Similarly, in a rule adopted by the Texas Public Utilities Commission requires advanced meters that provide a “capability to communicate with devices inside the premises, . . . through a home area network (HAN), based on open standards and protocols that comply with nationally recognized non-proprietary standards such as ZigBee , Home-Plug, or the equivalent.”
The privacy risks in this architecture are still unclear; they depend in large part on future decisions by consumers, utilities, and state regulators. On one hand, utilities are the most likely recipients of this data, making it relatively easy for consumers and regulators to monitor their privacy practices. On the other hand, if utilities are granted exclusive access to this data, they will not be subject to other energy management services that may compete on privacy and other dimensions. Much to its credit, the CPUC has modified rulemaking to extend to data privacy, but it will necessarily develop these rules after millions of smart meters containing data gateways are already in place.
Other states will presumably follow California’s lead, but state-by-state decisions could impose duplicative costs and create inconsistent rules. Moreover, though public utilities commissions have broad expertise in consumer protection issues, it is less clear that they possess specific, deep expertise in data privacy. Two further points about making smart meters into energy data gateways bear on both privacy and innovation.
First, utilities and device manufacturers will use this data to control device behavior. This creates a need to designate which devices will respond to demand response signals, and how. In use cases considered within prominent standards and in state Smart Grid proceedings, the utility is often responsible for registering consumers’ devices. This not only constrains the choices available to device manufacturers but also creates the possibility that utilities (and, perhaps, third parties they authorize) will have access to device-specific usage data. This would further exacerbate the privacy risks entailed in collecting highly temporally resolved, household-specific usage data. Second, the choice between on-meter and off-meter gateways need not be binary.
Even if consumers are served by utilities that deploy smart meters with embedded gateways, they should be able to choose to use third-party gateways. A full analysis of the privacy risks of both architectures would help inform these choices. Federal agencies such as NIST could marshal the efforts of all stakeholders to analyze the privacy risks in this architecture.
A comment filed by the Center for Democracy & Technology on NIST’s draft Smart Grid cybersecurity requirements provides a start by laying out how widely Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) apply to Smart Grid data. As that comment notes, however, additional work, such as developing privacy use cases, is necessary to fully understand the privacy risks of smart meters with an embedded gateway. This analysis would provide valuable guidance to technology firms and state policymakers.
Response to Q2 -- Considering an alternative architecture—routing Smart Grid through a home Internet connection, for example—gives a sense of the relative risks to privacy, innovation, and cybersecurity. An off-meter gateway could help protect consumers’ privacy by limiting the amount of information that is sent beyond the boundaries of the home. For instance, a gateway that is separate from the meter could receive incoming price and demand response signals, send them to an in-home energy management system (EMS), and, in conjunction with the EMS, manage devices solely through in-home communications. This architecture would obviate any need to register appliances and other devices with a utility, further limiting the disclosure of information from inside the home.
The smart meter, of course, would still be able to measure and report energy consumption to the utility. Still, fully understanding the privacy risks of such this architecture requires a more detailed analysis of specific technologies and their uses. Again, relevant policy considerations include:
(1) whether consumers have ongoing choices about how much data to disclose about their energy use;
(2) what type(s) of entities that receive and process this data; and
(3) which regulators (if any) have jurisdiction over those entities.
It is possible that neither a data gateway outside the smart meter nor the entities that provide services based on data flowing through that gateway will be subject to state utility commission authorities. Though this could give rise to competition among device and service providers, it also raises the question of how to encourage those firms to build privacy into their products. Comparing the cybersecurity risks of these two architectures is also difficult to do in the abstract. Maintaining the availability of electricity service is a fundamental requirement of the Smart Grid. The integrity of price, usage, and demand response data is crucial for consumers and utilities. The price and demand response signals that consumers receive must be correct.
Likewise, the usage data that utilities receive must be free from corruption, whether introduced by malicious attacks or accidental errors, in order to manage load and to bill customers correctly. However, certain security benefits of separating the smart meter from demand response and home area network traffic are evident: this architecture would isolate the meter from devices in the home. It would also simplify the functional requirements of the smart meter, which should make the task of securing this critical Smart Grid element easier. Evaluating the security of different architectures and implementations is an enormously complex task. But this complexity lends itself to a simple point: statements about the Smart Grid security are most meaningful when they pertain to a specific system, are explained through a clearly stated threat model, and are supported by an analysis that is open to scrutiny.
Aaron Burstein, Ari Schwartz and Longhao Wang
Mark Dunger: The Meter Lives Too Long - Innovate
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Mark Dunger, ESCO Technologies.
Response to Q1 -- The smart meter should NOT serve as the primary gateway. Technological advancements in electronic products within the home and the evolution of communications protocols (which might also address evolving security concerns) embedded within such products will likely render as obsolete any gateway embedded within a meter within a matter of years.
Considering that there is an expectation of meter longevity (perhaps 10+ years) for meters placed in the field, and the cost that would be required to upgrade / update hardware within a meter once installed in the field, the inclusion of a gateway within the meter does not (intuitively) seem to be an economical approach to achieving state of the art Smart Grid communications over the long run.
Response to Q2-- Yes, a data gateway other than the smart meter should be used for all signals that require two-way communications. Again, it should be expected that a gateway within a meter will become outdated prior to the end of life expectancy of the meter asset.
Response to Q3 -- Bandwidth requirements will vary depending upon the applications that the utility hopes to employ via that smart grid, and so true needs / infrastructure cost over the planning term should be taken into account in a decision as to the use of alternative architectures.
AMI systems that utilize private networks, such as powerline or radio frequency technologies, may adequately serve the purpose of providing a communications architecture that links an in-home gateway to the utility head-end while providing real-time or near real-time data.
Public networks such as cellular or satellite might also be used. Again, an economic analysis of the communication path needs to be considered in reaching a formal conclusion as to a proper architecture. Intuitively, consumers that incur the largest energy load are also likely to have a broadband internet connection to their premise, and so the use of ISPs as a medium for interaction with consumer gateways makes some sense. Use of an AMI system as a backup would have virtues in this scenario, and so the ability to engage in IP connectivity with the primary AMI system has merit. Real-time communications with low-income consumers is probably not a pressing matter, as they are unlikely to be introducing significant loads to the grid. Therefore, some latency in the system design / architecture may be acceptable. Therefore, an alternative architecture that consists of high bandwidth internet coupled with a lower bandwidth AMI network is likely the optimal solution.
Mark Dunger
Response to Q1 -- The smart meter should NOT serve as the primary gateway. Technological advancements in electronic products within the home and the evolution of communications protocols (which might also address evolving security concerns) embedded within such products will likely render as obsolete any gateway embedded within a meter within a matter of years.
Considering that there is an expectation of meter longevity (perhaps 10+ years) for meters placed in the field, and the cost that would be required to upgrade / update hardware within a meter once installed in the field, the inclusion of a gateway within the meter does not (intuitively) seem to be an economical approach to achieving state of the art Smart Grid communications over the long run.
Response to Q2-- Yes, a data gateway other than the smart meter should be used for all signals that require two-way communications. Again, it should be expected that a gateway within a meter will become outdated prior to the end of life expectancy of the meter asset.
Response to Q3 -- Bandwidth requirements will vary depending upon the applications that the utility hopes to employ via that smart grid, and so true needs / infrastructure cost over the planning term should be taken into account in a decision as to the use of alternative architectures.
AMI systems that utilize private networks, such as powerline or radio frequency technologies, may adequately serve the purpose of providing a communications architecture that links an in-home gateway to the utility head-end while providing real-time or near real-time data.
Public networks such as cellular or satellite might also be used. Again, an economic analysis of the communication path needs to be considered in reaching a formal conclusion as to a proper architecture. Intuitively, consumers that incur the largest energy load are also likely to have a broadband internet connection to their premise, and so the use of ISPs as a medium for interaction with consumer gateways makes some sense. Use of an AMI system as a backup would have virtues in this scenario, and so the ability to engage in IP connectivity with the primary AMI system has merit. Real-time communications with low-income consumers is probably not a pressing matter, as they are unlikely to be introducing significant loads to the grid. Therefore, some latency in the system design / architecture may be acceptable. Therefore, an alternative architecture that consists of high bandwidth internet coupled with a lower bandwidth AMI network is likely the optimal solution.
Mark Dunger
Jack Audet:
This posted to smartgrid@ostp.gov by Jack Audet.
When pared down to a fundamental level, an electric utility’s base function is to provide a flow of energy into a consumer’s facility (typically a flow of electrons) and bill the consumer accordingly. While this gives the utility business a certain monopoly on information, it does not limit or dictate how the consumer uses, measures or controls the energy purchased.
Currently little is done in the way of real time monitoring of energy consumption on a residential level. As convenient as it would be to utilize the power measuring apparatus already installed in the existing utility meter (or future smart meter), the inertia against changes needed at the utility and regulatory level to achieve this may be insurmountable. There is little stopping a consumer from adding a small, cost effective energy monitoring device on the incoming power circuit, water main or gas main at his home. Once easy access to this real time information is available to the consumer, an entire world of innovation in monitoring and efficiency is possible.
Existing internet channels, wireless communications and IP gateways can be utilized to interface with services that collect, analyze and optimize this data. The next logical step would be allowing these same services to control demand response measures (or more accurately, cost control measure). The utilities can focus on generating and delivering commodities (electricity, water, gas, oil, etc) but, will need to develop real time energy pricing schemes and new ways to communicate these price structures to the consumers.
The hesitation by consumers to allow utilities into their homes in the form of demand response controls has been obvious. The hesitation regarding demand response in general has been obvious for years. Consumers want control and authority over their energy purchases. Real time energy pricing and the cost of peak time consumption will be what a consumer will react to and learn to control. Simply knowing the real time cost of energy use will go a long way towards efficiency.
While these changes will make load planning, generation dispatch and infrastructure planning more complex, the net benefit will be reduced load, reduced peaks and reduced overall energy use.
Jack Audet
When pared down to a fundamental level, an electric utility’s base function is to provide a flow of energy into a consumer’s facility (typically a flow of electrons) and bill the consumer accordingly. While this gives the utility business a certain monopoly on information, it does not limit or dictate how the consumer uses, measures or controls the energy purchased.
Currently little is done in the way of real time monitoring of energy consumption on a residential level. As convenient as it would be to utilize the power measuring apparatus already installed in the existing utility meter (or future smart meter), the inertia against changes needed at the utility and regulatory level to achieve this may be insurmountable. There is little stopping a consumer from adding a small, cost effective energy monitoring device on the incoming power circuit, water main or gas main at his home. Once easy access to this real time information is available to the consumer, an entire world of innovation in monitoring and efficiency is possible.
Existing internet channels, wireless communications and IP gateways can be utilized to interface with services that collect, analyze and optimize this data. The next logical step would be allowing these same services to control demand response measures (or more accurately, cost control measure). The utilities can focus on generating and delivering commodities (electricity, water, gas, oil, etc) but, will need to develop real time energy pricing schemes and new ways to communicate these price structures to the consumers.
The hesitation by consumers to allow utilities into their homes in the form of demand response controls has been obvious. The hesitation regarding demand response in general has been obvious for years. Consumers want control and authority over their energy purchases. Real time energy pricing and the cost of peak time consumption will be what a consumer will react to and learn to control. Simply knowing the real time cost of energy use will go a long way towards efficiency.
While these changes will make load planning, generation dispatch and infrastructure planning more complex, the net benefit will be reduced load, reduced peaks and reduced overall energy use.
Jack Audet
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Rick Porter: Open Interface from the Meter
I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by Chris King in his 2010-02-23-14:22 posting. In particular, his position that "The best thing the government can do is enable an open interface from the meter (the exclusive source of usage information), then allow the market to deliver, and consumers to choose from, the many potential alternatives." is one that is fundamentally sound.
Establishing an open interface would foster continuous and un-stifled innovation to meet the needs of the "market". It also would eliminate many of the barriers to prolific adoption of new technology solutions that would otherwise not be developed or implemented, due to perceived risk of obsolescence. In addition to supporting new technologies, an open interface would also optimize utilization of existing infrastructure capabilities and communications protocols by not requiring their premature replacement, One such open interface that is under consideration is the one proposed by the non-proprietary USNAP Alliance.
It seeks to provide an open standard and specifications for a low-cost interface to be incorporated into consumer devices that would likely benefit from having Smart Grid communications capabilities. Much like a USB port on a PC, a USNAP enabled device would allow the user to easily install different modules for communications, based on the architecture of the environment the device would be used in. If the customer wanted to benefit from device communications to and from their energy provider, they could optionally acquire the USNAP module needed to do so.
If they wanted to only have the device communicate internally to their own H.A.N,, they could install a Wi-Fi, Zigbee, or other type of module. That would permit proliferation of Smart Grid ready devices while addressing the concern, and perhaps paranoia, that "big brother" automatically would have access to them for control, or for gathering information.
Without an open interface such as USNAP, or something like it, I don't hold much hope for any material progress to be made in enabling the consumer-to-Smart Grid interface in the near future.
Establishing an open interface would foster continuous and un-stifled innovation to meet the needs of the "market". It also would eliminate many of the barriers to prolific adoption of new technology solutions that would otherwise not be developed or implemented, due to perceived risk of obsolescence. In addition to supporting new technologies, an open interface would also optimize utilization of existing infrastructure capabilities and communications protocols by not requiring their premature replacement, One such open interface that is under consideration is the one proposed by the non-proprietary USNAP Alliance.
It seeks to provide an open standard and specifications for a low-cost interface to be incorporated into consumer devices that would likely benefit from having Smart Grid communications capabilities. Much like a USB port on a PC, a USNAP enabled device would allow the user to easily install different modules for communications, based on the architecture of the environment the device would be used in. If the customer wanted to benefit from device communications to and from their energy provider, they could optionally acquire the USNAP module needed to do so.
If they wanted to only have the device communicate internally to their own H.A.N,, they could install a Wi-Fi, Zigbee, or other type of module. That would permit proliferation of Smart Grid ready devices while addressing the concern, and perhaps paranoia, that "big brother" automatically would have access to them for control, or for gathering information.
Without an open interface such as USNAP, or something like it, I don't hold much hope for any material progress to be made in enabling the consumer-to-Smart Grid interface in the near future.
Lance McKee: All Providers Are Not Preceived (by the consumer) as Equal
Jay Morrison notes that, "cooperatives have used non-price-based demand response programs very successfully for over 30 years to improve service, enhance reliability and lower energy costs for their members."
It should be noted that members of coops and customers of publicly traded utilities have fundamentally different relationships with their suppliers; and trust -- essential to widespread smart grid adoption -- is higher among coop members.
It should be noted that members of coops and customers of publicly traded utilities have fundamentally different relationships with their suppliers; and trust -- essential to widespread smart grid adoption -- is higher among coop members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)