Erich W. Gunther Chairman and CTO - EnerNex Corporation Chairman UtilityAMI, OpenHAN, AMI-SEC

(1)

Field and Device Technologies:

Consumer Portals, Home Area Networks

and Connected Devices

Erich W. Gunther

Chairman and CTO - EnerNex Corporation

Chairman – UtilityAMI, OpenHAN, AMI-SEC

(2)

What is a Consumer Portal?

“A combination of hardware and software that enables

two-way communication between energy service

organizations and equipment within the consumers’

premises.”

(3)

What could a portal look like?

• A consumer portal is an

idea

, not a particular device!

• EPRI IntelliGrid is developing a

reference design

– A standard “virtual appearance” for a portal

– A clearly defined set of interfaces

– May be incorporated into a variety of devices

– May be

distributed

among several devices

• The physical device(s) may vary, but the virtual device

must be standardized

to ensure

– Interoperability between vendors

– Reduction in cost due to economies of scale

• Some vendors already provide portal-like devices, but

they are

not standard

and

not interoperable

.

(4)

What could a portal look like?

Some Options:

PLC

Portal in a meter _{Portal in a set-top box}

`

ADSL

Portal in a local energy management system Portal in a stand-alone device or PC

(5)

Intelligently Connecting the Utility to Customers

• Enable Energy Smart Customers

– Integrated information from utility

– Payment options (e.g., pre-payment)

– Outage & service condition information

– Support rate option innovations

• Manage Distributed Resources

– Economic dispatch of load resources

– Dispatch of load for grid management

– Intelligent net metering

– Management of distributed energy resources

resources

• Operational Efficiencies

– Field communication links to distribution

– Revenue cycle improvements

– Situational data in near real-time

– Wholesale - retail markets integration

• Built with the future in mind

– Upgradeable WAN/HAN communications

– Leverage open architecture principles in system design

(6)

Utility/Consumer Interface Architecture Options

• Meter as sole gateway to HAN

– Support use cases

– Lowest cost, meets business case

– Can be implemented over 4 years ubiquitously to all 5 million customers – Seen as starting point for eventual shift to customer gateway controlled HAN

• Meter as interface to in-home gateway (with protocol converter as needed)

– Supports use case

– Higher cost, may require customer knowledge / configuration – Higher cost, may require customer knowledge / configuration – Seen as eventual end state over life of system

• Third party gateway(s) only to load control devices

– Slow market adoption – could take 10 years to reach 70% market penetration like internet

– Does not support near-real time access to energy data from meter at no incremental cost to customer

– Security, network management, QOS more challenging – If challenges met, compatible with overall architecture – Avoids meter interface technology obsolescence

(7)

Scenario A: Meter as Gateway

Private Fixed Networks WAN/LAN

Meter

2-way

T24 PCT

RDS/FM or pager broadcast (disabled when utility network

operational)

1-way

• interval energy • time

• billing start time • peak power • messages

• acknowledgements • price signals • reliability signals

Third-Party Provider

Utility Owned

Consumer Owned

T24 PCT

Appliance

Sub-meter

Display Devices

1.e.g., 802.11b, proven mesh LAN protocol, etc.

2-way

(8)

Scenario B: Evolution to Multiple Gateway Model

Private Fixed Networks WAN/LAN Any PSTN/DSL/Cable/Satellite WAN/LAN 2-way _2-way Any gateway

HAN Protocols³ Zigbee Z-wave 2-way

T24 PCT

RDS/FM or pager broadcast

1-way 2-way

Third-Party Provider Third-Party Provider Third-Party Provider Third-Party Provider

Utility Owned

Consumer Owned

interval meter or pole-top collector (protocol xfr) •Special box

•Internet modem

•Router

•Media PC

•Security panel

•…….. Z-wave Insteon Wi-Fi EIA709 HomePlug Bluetooth T24 PCT 2-way

HAN access using expansion port

Sub-meter

Appliances

1.e.g., 802.11b, proven mesh LAN protocol, etc. 2.To be determined

3.Up to 45 active protocols worldwide

Broadband TV, music 2-way 2-way RF-TX1 PLC-TX² and/or 2-way Ron Hofmann 2-way

(9)

Scenario C: 3rd Party Communication Channel/Gateways Only

Private Fixed Networks2

WAN/LAN

PSTN/DSL/Cable/Satellite WAN/LAN

2-way

Any gateway

HAN Protocols³ Zigbee Z-wave 2-way

RDS/FM or pager broadcast

1-way 2-way

Third-Party Provider Third-Party Provider Third-Party Provider Third-Party Provider utility.com

Utility Owned

Consumer Owned

Any interval meter

2-way _{(protocol xfr)}Any gateway

•Special box

•Internet modem

•Router

•Media PC

•Security panel

•…….. Z-wave Insteon Wi-Fi EIA709 HomePlug Bluetooth 2-way T24 PCT 2-way

HAN access using expansion port

Other

Appliances

1.Utility information to/from utility network 2.Up to 45 active protocols worldwide

Broadband TV, music 2-way 2-way 2-way Ron Hofmann

(10)

Example Interface Technologies

• WiFi

– Standards based, multi-channel, widespread application, industry association – Complex configuration, no inherent mesh/range extension

– Transport only – no application layer application models

• ZigBee

– Mesh network, robust, products available, industry association – Standards based, multi-channel, interference mitigation

– Need well defined information models – work in progress

• HomePlug PLC

– Simple, robust, products exist, industry association

– Was proprietary – alliance supported, moving toward standardization – IEEE P1901 – Transport only – no application layer application models

– Cannot reach thermostat without a gateway

• ZWave

– Mesh network, robust, products available, industry association – Proprietary, single frequency (908.42 MHz), no agility mechanism – Need well defined information models – work in progress

(11)

Technology Summary

• None of the technologies have

standardized application layer

information models – must be

developed

• PLC ruled out as sole interface

due to need to reach thermostat

and other devices not reachable

by PLC (e.g. gas meter)

• All ISM band based devices

subject to interference

• Testing and applications in

home environments confirm

ability of MAC and application

layers to effectively mitigate

interference between ZigBee

and WiFi

• IEEE 802.15.4

– MAC and PHY only

IEEE 802.15.4 MAC

Upper Layer Stack

IEEE 802.2 LLC Other LLC

IEEE 802.15.4 2400 MHz PHY IEEE 802.15.4

868/915 MHz PHY

Metering Applications exist in the upper layer – control

the network, metering and load control applications

(12)

Adverse Scenario Mitigation

• The following adverse scenarios were evaluated

1. Interface technology versions quickly

2. Interface technology becomes obsolete in general marketplace

3. Interface technology becomes compromised due to increasing

interference

4. Interface technology becomes compromised from a security

perspective

• Mitigation

– Firmware upgrade capability handles scenario 1

– Market power could facilitate long term support by third parties of a

specific version freeze and mitigate scenarios 1 and 2 (discussed at

UtilityAMI HAN meeting)

– Adding a utility or third party provided gateway mitigates scenario 2

– The ability to remotely disable the meter interface and utilize third

(13)

Going Forward

• Select best comm technology to support utility applications over at

least a 5 year time horizon – ZigBee is a leading candidate

• Consider possibility of PLC interface in meter gateway in addition

to / instead of wireless – supports concept of keeping simple,

slower to change technologies on the utility side of the interface

• Plan to support information exchange (1 way – e.g. digital KYZ)

with third party in home gateways through published information

models

• Ensure back office architecture can support third party

communication channels and gateways to implement load control

use cases in event of meter gateway interface technology

obsolescence

• Ensure that cost of meter gateway interface technology is minimal

so that stranding it does not adversely impact overall business

(14)

California Programmable Communicating Thermostat

• CEC Title 24 Building Standards

– Current code mandates PT’s

– 2008 revision mandates PCT’s

• Specifies minimum requirements

• Points of Interoperability

– Communications Interface

• California WAN - RDBS

– HVAC Interface

• Standard Terminals

– Human Interface

• Standard Nomenclature

– Expansion Interface

• Communications options

• Memory cards

(15)

(16)

Expansion Interface - MMC

• MMC System Specification Version 3.31

• Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI)

(17)

Communications: Messaging Model

• Description of Messages & Data Payloads

Required for the CEC Title 24 PCT

Specification

• Messages Recognize Two Basic System

Event Modes

– Price Events

(18)

Industry Activities

• UtilityAMI

General Requirements

• OpenAMI

Vendors building stuff

• OpenHAN

HAN Requirements

AMI-SEC

UCA International Users Group

UCAIUG Technical Committee

Intelligent Grid Subcommittee

UtlityAMI Working Group

• AMI-SEC

Security Geeks Only

• OpenPCT

Title 24 Implementation

• AMI-Enterprise

SOA for MDMS / CIS

OpenHAN Task Force

AMI-SEC Task Force

OpenAMI Working Group

Data Model Task Group Reference Design Task Group Interoper-ability Task Group AMI-ENT Task Force