The USNAP specification and USNAP modules (http://usnap.org) provide a communications protocol agnostic method to enable smart grid connectivity to in-home devices via user removable communications modules. While not an architecture in of itself, this open standard can reduce costs and facilitate innovation in HAN devices by decoupling the communications from the HAN device. For devices that will connect directly to the AMI network, this module approach will provide a lasting benefit given the diversity of AMI network suppliers.
Both AMI network communications providers and device vendors can realize cost benefits by avoiding costs required to engineer a diversity of tightly-coupled network-device combinations – instead a UNSAP enabled device accepts any USNAP communications module. For devices that will connect to the smart grid through a gateway, this module approach provides a migration path until the diversity of HAN communications protocols is reduced to a reasonable number of options where embedded communication designs become cost-effective for device providers.
Showing posts with label Phase 3 Topics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phase 3 Topics. Show all posts
Friday, March 12, 2010
Tim Spets: Choice and Innovation are Key Drivers
The home network is an emerging landscape filled with legacy and emerging
technologies. The home network will continue to change and evolve as
demand for devices and communication requirements change. Access to the Home Network devices should be interoperable, reliable, secure, simple and usable. Home Network devices should not be limited to a single technology, and be allowed to evolve with new technologies that address a constantly changing market.
Guidelines and requirements should be created to insure the current and future standards provide a secure and stable environment for access to Home Devices. Choice and innovation has been and will continue to be the main driver to consumer solutions to insure rapid technology evolution along with competitive pricing models. Other industries have data communication standards and solutions that are proven and implemented that should be leveraged rather than excluded in the emerging solution set. -Tim Spets 4Home Inc.
technologies. The home network will continue to change and evolve as
demand for devices and communication requirements change. Access to the Home Network devices should be interoperable, reliable, secure, simple and usable. Home Network devices should not be limited to a single technology, and be allowed to evolve with new technologies that address a constantly changing market.
Guidelines and requirements should be created to insure the current and future standards provide a secure and stable environment for access to Home Devices. Choice and innovation has been and will continue to be the main driver to consumer solutions to insure rapid technology evolution along with competitive pricing models. Other industries have data communication standards and solutions that are proven and implemented that should be leveraged rather than excluded in the emerging solution set. -Tim Spets 4Home Inc.
Yvan Castilloux: Education and Standards
1. How are low-income consumers best served by home-to-grid technology?
I agree that instituting an education program about the benefits of home-to-grid technology would greatly benefit everyone, including low-income consumers. Communication standards should also be simple enough to be implemented in low-cost devices that everyone can afford and that can be subsidied by utilities or third parties.
2. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation?
First, a hardware connection standard, such as U-SNAP, would provide a way for manufacturers to be future proof in the short term without having to choose a technology. As the use cases and requirements in the home become proven on the field, the manufacturers will be able to choose a few candidate standards. I think it would be premature to choose a technology in the near term.
3. How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made "plug and play" for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks?
In order to be "plug and play", home-to-grid technology has to be extremely reliable and easy to use, with minimal user intervention. For example, if a smart dryer is installed in a basement, the consumer should only have to turn ON the dryer to make it work. If the communication technology is wireless, its range should cover the whole house as much as possible such that no repeater or intermediary node is needed for the dryer to speak to the primary gateway. Repeaters not only make it extremely difficult for the system to be installed but also add considerable costs to the system. Repeaters also reduce reliability since if one repeater fails, the whole system may stop functioning and require expert troubleshooting.
Home-to-grid technologies should go through certification processes that test and certify "plug and play" operation before products are shipped to consumers.
4. If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: the utility or the consumer?
For home products not interacting directly with the electric grid, I think the consumer should pay for the gateways and adapters in order to ensure that he/she chooses the best product for his/her needs. Utilities and third parties can then compete and offer subdidy for the hardware in order to offer their value-added services.
I agree that instituting an education program about the benefits of home-to-grid technology would greatly benefit everyone, including low-income consumers. Communication standards should also be simple enough to be implemented in low-cost devices that everyone can afford and that can be subsidied by utilities or third parties.
2. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation?
First, a hardware connection standard, such as U-SNAP, would provide a way for manufacturers to be future proof in the short term without having to choose a technology. As the use cases and requirements in the home become proven on the field, the manufacturers will be able to choose a few candidate standards. I think it would be premature to choose a technology in the near term.
3. How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made "plug and play" for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks?
In order to be "plug and play", home-to-grid technology has to be extremely reliable and easy to use, with minimal user intervention. For example, if a smart dryer is installed in a basement, the consumer should only have to turn ON the dryer to make it work. If the communication technology is wireless, its range should cover the whole house as much as possible such that no repeater or intermediary node is needed for the dryer to speak to the primary gateway. Repeaters not only make it extremely difficult for the system to be installed but also add considerable costs to the system. Repeaters also reduce reliability since if one repeater fails, the whole system may stop functioning and require expert troubleshooting.
Home-to-grid technologies should go through certification processes that test and certify "plug and play" operation before products are shipped to consumers.
4. If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: the utility or the consumer?
For home products not interacting directly with the electric grid, I think the consumer should pay for the gateways and adapters in order to ensure that he/she chooses the best product for his/her needs. Utilities and third parties can then compete and offer subdidy for the hardware in order to offer their value-added services.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Stan Klein: Standards and ... Standards
The first issue is whether "low income" also means "technology challenged." I would assume that in the future, many low income people would not be technology challenged. Also, as the background indicates, the technology must not only address the washing machine and thermostat, but also the solar cells on the roof, the batteries and geothermal heating system in the basement, and the PEV in the driveway. Hopefully, in the future, these technologies will reach sufficiently low cost to be ubiquitous, even in low income households.
The items being interfaced to the grid have much longer planned lifetimes than communications technology, that advances at a rapid pace. This suggests the desirability of separating the device functional interface (e.g., on, off, mode selection) from a communications/control interface that could be upgraded or replaced as its technology advances.
Both the applicance manufacturers and the relevant legislation call for use of "open standards." There are at least a dozen definitions of open standards that have been proposed by various organizations and individual experts. I raised the issue of open standards in my comments on the Framework/Roadmap. There is a Federal definition of "voluntary consensus standard" but no definition of "open standard". In its response to my comments, NIST chose the definition that was most permissive of SDO practices that restrict/encumber visibility into their processes, access to their documents, and implementation/use of their technology. The definition selected by NIST essentially defines a voluntary consensus standard as being an open standard. However, the two are not synonyms, and consumer site standards should be subject to much more serious open standards requirements.
The technology selected for the consumer site should be in the mainstream of available open standards definitions. An example would be public visibility during development, all documents freely downloadable from the internet, royalty-free/unencumbered implementation by anyone, and serious avoidance of any proprietary preference in the underlying technology.
An example of a ubiquitous open standards technology that could satisfy the needs of appliances, distributed resources, and PEVs is available in suggestions regarding "61850-Lite" that is a "discussion item" in the EPRI Report to NIST. Such a standard could be built on the application of web services (XML) communications to a 61850 object model found in the wind power extension to 61850, specifically in 61400-25-4 Annex A. The object model is extensible. It is compatible with 61850, which will be used for DER and likely for PEV. The web services standards are openly published by W3C and implementations are broadly available, including open source implementations. All that would be needed to develop the standard is to identify the initial set of data objects and supporting 61850 services.
The 61850 technology is self-describing, a necessary prerequisite for plug-and-play. Some negotiation functionality might need to be added, but that is an issue commonly addressed in plug-and-play systems. A greater concern might be security, where an unskilled person could be more easily "social engineered" into establishing a dangerous configuration (assuming the default configuration is itself secure).
Regarding gateways/adapters, the utility should probably make a baseline capability available that the consumer could optionally replace with a more sophisticated capability.
The items being interfaced to the grid have much longer planned lifetimes than communications technology, that advances at a rapid pace. This suggests the desirability of separating the device functional interface (e.g., on, off, mode selection) from a communications/control interface that could be upgraded or replaced as its technology advances.
Both the applicance manufacturers and the relevant legislation call for use of "open standards." There are at least a dozen definitions of open standards that have been proposed by various organizations and individual experts. I raised the issue of open standards in my comments on the Framework/Roadmap. There is a Federal definition of "voluntary consensus standard" but no definition of "open standard". In its response to my comments, NIST chose the definition that was most permissive of SDO practices that restrict/encumber visibility into their processes, access to their documents, and implementation/use of their technology. The definition selected by NIST essentially defines a voluntary consensus standard as being an open standard. However, the two are not synonyms, and consumer site standards should be subject to much more serious open standards requirements.
The technology selected for the consumer site should be in the mainstream of available open standards definitions. An example would be public visibility during development, all documents freely downloadable from the internet, royalty-free/unencumbered implementation by anyone, and serious avoidance of any proprietary preference in the underlying technology.
An example of a ubiquitous open standards technology that could satisfy the needs of appliances, distributed resources, and PEVs is available in suggestions regarding "61850-Lite" that is a "discussion item" in the EPRI Report to NIST. Such a standard could be built on the application of web services (XML) communications to a 61850 object model found in the wind power extension to 61850, specifically in 61400-25-4 Annex A. The object model is extensible. It is compatible with 61850, which will be used for DER and likely for PEV. The web services standards are openly published by W3C and implementations are broadly available, including open source implementations. All that would be needed to develop the standard is to identify the initial set of data objects and supporting 61850 services.
The 61850 technology is self-describing, a necessary prerequisite for plug-and-play. Some negotiation functionality might need to be added, but that is an issue commonly addressed in plug-and-play systems. A greater concern might be security, where an unskilled person could be more easily "social engineered" into establishing a dangerous configuration (assuming the default configuration is itself secure).
Regarding gateways/adapters, the utility should probably make a baseline capability available that the consumer could optionally replace with a more sophisticated capability.
David Bachus: We need a Holistic Approach - Education and Enablement
While many companies use their latest innovation to introduce Smart Grid to the general public, it is more important to take a more holistic approach that addresses consumer concerns while enabling the next generation of electric infrastructure. Technologies may seem exciting to industry insiders, but they can be very abstract or even off-putting to the average consumer. It is critical to get consumers on board by educating and engaging them, building a common understanding through communication and devising a program to get their sustained buy-in. Specifically, we should explain what factors drive energy use and offer strategies with intuitive, non-technical, controls which can be used to reduce consumer impact on the system. This can lead to the main consumer driver for Smart Grid, the potential savings on monthly electric bills. A great deal of attention should also be paid to lessons learned from the experiences of other industries and technology booms – for example what happened to the communication industry beginning with the demise of Ma-Bell to today’s wireless industry delivering trends leading to products like iPhone, VOIP and so on.
Much of the uncertainty involved in bringing Smart Grid to the general public is based on myths and rumors that surround it and associated technologies. To address these concerns there needs to be more transparency between utilities and the consumer to address specific myths that are of particular risk to the successful deployment of a Smart Grid. An implementation of this scope should be designed to provide a level of transparency and fairness to the consumer who currently does not have much control over the design of the Smart Grid.
Bottom line – make the consumer feel involved – not the victim.
Much of the uncertainty involved in bringing Smart Grid to the general public is based on myths and rumors that surround it and associated technologies. To address these concerns there needs to be more transparency between utilities and the consumer to address specific myths that are of particular risk to the successful deployment of a Smart Grid. An implementation of this scope should be designed to provide a level of transparency and fairness to the consumer who currently does not have much control over the design of the Smart Grid.
Bottom line – make the consumer feel involved – not the victim.
Kevin Fennell: We need Standards and Policies
1. How are low-income consumers best served by home-to-grid technology?
As with all consumer segments, but perhaps even more so for low income consumers, the simple, clear and regular presentment of consumption data, ideally aligned to price or time-of-use information, is a path to consumer responsibility and empowerment for their energy “life”. One of the benefits of the smart meter as the primary hub for consumption data into the home, is that it is a “leveler” in the marketplace – where each metered premise, with standardized technologies (like ZigBee /SEP1.0) can be a vehicle to deliver that data to consumers, rather than relying on either broadband access, IP TV access or expensive in-home energy management systems. The smart metering system can also enable innovations & new business models that would allow low-income consumers to plan and manage their energy budget through prepaid or pay-as-you-go programs.
2. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation?
We have what we need today to deliver energy and pricing data securely & accurately to and from smart appliances and smart gateways – ZigBee and SEP1.0 (smart energy profile). Furthermore, there is a massive base of devices that will support this currently available technology. As of 2009 more than 3 million ZigBee enabled meters were deployed. Further, over 35M smart meters contracted worldwide are projected to include ZigBee . Over 360 companies participate in the ZigBee Alliance, of which over 180 are US companies.
ZigBee is a low power, low energy consumption, low protocol complexity, high data rate, and rich topology communications solution, built specifically for small sensor technology and perfectly adapted to work for in-home energy management. In this regard it surpasses alternative wireless technologies like WiFi because it ensures always on plug and play connectivity to appliances without the need for human intervention after events such as power outages.
Over time, ZigBee will harmonize with other physical solutions, like Homeplug, for hard-to-reach or RF-challenged environments and work is already underway to move the ZigBee Smart Energy Profile protocol into the international IEC standards development process.
In the end, today’s SEP1.0 is positioned to push the market forward – there is no need to wait for new standards, specifications or evolutions. SEP 1.0 is fully provisioned to give real benefits to consumers, allowing for secure in-home connectivity, presentment of consumption data, load management, thermostat setback, duty cycling for in-home products, presentment of time of use pricing and critical peak pricing events.
3. How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made ''plug and play'' for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks?
First, we need to use standard interfaces (e.g.: ZigBee and SEP1.0). Secondly testing and interoperability processes that are simple and easy for manufactures to test connectivity and data transfer will reduce post-sale support issues. Finally, ever evolving and improving “pairing mechanisms” for smart devices to smart meters/gateways. This should include very low tech approaches, as we have today, of calling a “service provider” to enable pairing all the way to smart devices that recognize the smart meter/HAN and “auto-attach”.
4. If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: The utility or the consumer?
As mentioned, for utility-driven energy management experiences that require measurement & verification, the smart meter is the vehicle to collect and deliver accurate measurement, verification and presentment data. In this case, through either back office connectivity or standard interfaces for home area networking (like ZigBee and SEP1.0) this data can be delivered to 3rd parties as well. Again, however, there will be other business models for information presentment.
In either case, technology evolution, even with the existence of standards, will defacto drive the market to continually innovate as they find new ways to connect, to use the information and will create new business models. Early adopters of these technologies and solutions may indeed find themselves in a position of needing additional hardware in order to take advantage of new innovations – such as bridges, gateways or new equipment. This condition is not unique to the utility industry. Technology is constantly evolving and as it does, new or upgraded hardware and connectors are often required. If the new technology is a software application, the consumer may need to upgrade their computer in order to take advantage of new features. If a cable television or internet service provider offers a new service or feature, there is typically a cost to the consumer to take advantage of it. Many times those costs are in the form of a monthly lease fee that offsets cost of new hardware.
Ultimately, the consumer must perceive a benefit to participation and is likely to perform either a formal or informal cost benefit analysis based on their own situation. If the cost benefit analysis isn’t favorable, a consumer isn’t likely to pay for enabling equipment. In turn, the innovators’ business models may also have cost benefits analysis which would drive the business case for bridges and gateways.
As with all consumer segments, but perhaps even more so for low income consumers, the simple, clear and regular presentment of consumption data, ideally aligned to price or time-of-use information, is a path to consumer responsibility and empowerment for their energy “life”. One of the benefits of the smart meter as the primary hub for consumption data into the home, is that it is a “leveler” in the marketplace – where each metered premise, with standardized technologies (like ZigBee /SEP1.0) can be a vehicle to deliver that data to consumers, rather than relying on either broadband access, IP TV access or expensive in-home energy management systems. The smart metering system can also enable innovations & new business models that would allow low-income consumers to plan and manage their energy budget through prepaid or pay-as-you-go programs.
2. What standard data communications interfaces(s) should be supported by appliances and the smart meter or data gateway so that appliance manufacturers can cost-effectively produce smart appliances that can communicate with the Smart Grid anywhere in the nation?
We have what we need today to deliver energy and pricing data securely & accurately to and from smart appliances and smart gateways – ZigBee and SEP1.0 (smart energy profile). Furthermore, there is a massive base of devices that will support this currently available technology. As of 2009 more than 3 million ZigBee enabled meters were deployed. Further, over 35M smart meters contracted worldwide are projected to include ZigBee . Over 360 companies participate in the ZigBee Alliance, of which over 180 are US companies.
ZigBee is a low power, low energy consumption, low protocol complexity, high data rate, and rich topology communications solution, built specifically for small sensor technology and perfectly adapted to work for in-home energy management. In this regard it surpasses alternative wireless technologies like WiFi because it ensures always on plug and play connectivity to appliances without the need for human intervention after events such as power outages.
Over time, ZigBee will harmonize with other physical solutions, like Homeplug, for hard-to-reach or RF-challenged environments and work is already underway to move the ZigBee Smart Energy Profile protocol into the international IEC standards development process.
In the end, today’s SEP1.0 is positioned to push the market forward – there is no need to wait for new standards, specifications or evolutions. SEP 1.0 is fully provisioned to give real benefits to consumers, allowing for secure in-home connectivity, presentment of consumption data, load management, thermostat setback, duty cycling for in-home products, presentment of time of use pricing and critical peak pricing events.
3. How can communication between smart appliances and the Smart Grid be made ''plug and play'' for consumers who do not have the skills or means to configure data networks?
First, we need to use standard interfaces (e.g.: ZigBee and SEP1.0). Secondly testing and interoperability processes that are simple and easy for manufactures to test connectivity and data transfer will reduce post-sale support issues. Finally, ever evolving and improving “pairing mechanisms” for smart devices to smart meters/gateways. This should include very low tech approaches, as we have today, of calling a “service provider” to enable pairing all the way to smart devices that recognize the smart meter/HAN and “auto-attach”.
4. If gateways or adapters are needed, who should pay for them: The utility or the consumer?
As mentioned, for utility-driven energy management experiences that require measurement & verification, the smart meter is the vehicle to collect and deliver accurate measurement, verification and presentment data. In this case, through either back office connectivity or standard interfaces for home area networking (like ZigBee and SEP1.0) this data can be delivered to 3rd parties as well. Again, however, there will be other business models for information presentment.
In either case, technology evolution, even with the existence of standards, will defacto drive the market to continually innovate as they find new ways to connect, to use the information and will create new business models. Early adopters of these technologies and solutions may indeed find themselves in a position of needing additional hardware in order to take advantage of new innovations – such as bridges, gateways or new equipment. This condition is not unique to the utility industry. Technology is constantly evolving and as it does, new or upgraded hardware and connectors are often required. If the new technology is a software application, the consumer may need to upgrade their computer in order to take advantage of new features. If a cable television or internet service provider offers a new service or feature, there is typically a cost to the consumer to take advantage of it. Many times those costs are in the form of a monthly lease fee that offsets cost of new hardware.
Ultimately, the consumer must perceive a benefit to participation and is likely to perform either a formal or informal cost benefit analysis based on their own situation. If the cost benefit analysis isn’t favorable, a consumer isn’t likely to pay for enabling equipment. In turn, the innovators’ business models may also have cost benefits analysis which would drive the business case for bridges and gateways.
David Wollman: The Final Set of Comments
We appreciate all of the comments that have been provided on last week's Blog subject of data ownership and access, and if there is additional input we will allow comments through the Week 2 Blog link. Starting now (below) we encourage you to contribute your ideas on the final set of questions, dealing with data communications standards for consumer appliances. David Wollman, NIST
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)