Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...............................................................................................2
Figures ...............................................................................................................3
Document Control ..............................................................................................4
1.1 Version History ....................................................................................4
1.2 Review Group & Website ....................................................................5
1.3 Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright ..........................................6
1.4 Disclaimer ............................................................................................6
2 Executive Summary and Introduction .........................................................7
2.1 Executive Summary ............................................................................7
2.2 Purpose ...............................................................................................7
2.3 Scope ..................................................................................................7
2.4 Objective..............................................................................................7
2.5 Structure of this Document ..................................................................7
3 Glossary & Conventions .............................................................................9
3.1 Document Conventions .......................................................................9
3.1.1 Market Segments .........................................................................9
3.1.2 Meter Functionality .......................................................................9
3.1.3 Meter Location ...........................................................................10
3.1.4 Meter and Metering System .......................................................10
3.2 Glossary ............................................................................................12
4 Local Communications Context ................................................................15
4.1 General Context ................................................................................15
4.2 Smart Utility Context for Local Communications ...............................16
4.3 Smarter Display Options Using Local Communications ...................17
4.4 Smart Home Context .........................................................................19
5 Associated Topics.....................................................................................22
5.1 A National Standard ..........................................................................22
5.2 Security..............................................................................................22
5.3 Delivering the Last Mile .....................................................................23
5.4 Local Device Classification ...............................................................24
5.5 Processes/Activities Required...........................................................24
5.6 Types of Data ....................................................................................25
5.7 Independent & Private Local Networks .............................................26
5.8 Wireless to Wired Options .................................................................30
5.8.1 Wired/Wireless Protocol Development ......................................31
5.9 British Housing Types .......................................................................31
5.9.1 Houses By Type .........................................................................32
6 Principles & Assumptions .........................................................................34
6.1 Local Communications Principles .....................................................34
6.2 Local Communications Assumptions ................................................34
7 Requirements ...........................................................................................36
7.1 Requirements ....................................................................................36
7.2 Requirements Notes..........................................................................38
7.3 Potential Additional Requirements ....................................................40
8 Solution Options .......................................................................................41
8.1 Solution Options Descriptions ...........................................................42
8.2 Other Solution Options ......................................................................52
9 Additional Considerations .........................................................................57
9.1 Network & Addressing Protocols .......................................................57
Page 2 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Figures
Figure 1: Smart Meter Locations .....................................................................10
Figure 2: Smart Metering Systems, Illustration of Flexible Approaches ..........11
Figure 3: SRSM Operational Framework Scope .............................................15
Figure 4: Smart Utility Context .........................................................................17
Figure 5: Smart Display Context ......................................................................18
Figure 6: Smart Home Context ........................................................................19
Figure 7: Smart Home Context & Clusters ......................................................20
Figure 8 Different Uses of Local Communications ..........................................21
Figure 9: Local Communications for the Last Mile ..........................................23
Figure 10 Technical WAN Interoperability .......................................................26
Figure 11: Simple Collection of Smart Meters and Local Devices ..................26
Figure 12: Independent Networks....................................................................27
Figure 13: Local Communication Signal Range ..............................................28
Figure 14: Overlapping Wireless Ranges ........................................................28
Figure 15: Required Local Comms Range Example .......................................29
Figure 16: Mesh Network to Concentrator .......................................................30
Page 3 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Document Control
1.1 Version History
Version Date Author Description Online Version
0_1 7 February Simon Initial draft snipurl.com/lcdgv1
2008 Harrison
0_2 10 March Simon Updated following snipurl.com/lcdgv2
2008 Harrison initial meeting of
development group:
Includes changes
made to the online
version of the
document by John
Cowburn of PRI, and
materials provided
off line by Dave
Baker of Microsoft
and Brian Back of
LPRA
0_2_1 15 April Simon Updated to include snipurl.com/lcdgv21
2008 Harrison information and a
number of
comments provided
prior to 2nd meeting
of Local Comms
Development Group
0_3 September Simon Significant update
2008 Harrison following two
meetings of the
Local Comms
Development Group
Page 4 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
The table below lists the organisations and companies who are members of
the group.
Full details of the membership of the group, its’ meetings and papers can be
viewed at the public website: http://www.srsmlocalcomms.wetpaint.com
Page 5 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
1.4 Disclaimer
This document presents proposals and options for the operation of smart
metering in Great Britain. We have used reasonable endeavours to ensure the
accuracy of the contents of the document but offer no warranties (express or
implied) in respect of its accuracy or that the proposals or options will work. To
the extent permitted by law, the Energy Retail Association and its members do
not accept liability for any loss which may arise from reliance upon information
contained in this document. This document is presented for information
purposes only and none of the information, proposals and options presented
herein constitutes an offer.
Page 6 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
2.2 Purpose
This document presents the context, requirements, issues and solutions
options for two-way Local Communication for smart Metering Systems.
2.3 Scope
The scope of this document is limited to the requirement for two way
communications between smart gas and electricity meters and local devices.
This document references, but does not define, the opportunity to use the
Local Communications capability of a smart meter to provide a ‘Last Mile’
option to deliver WAN Communications.
This document does not address the commercial issues arising from
communications requirements.
2.4 Objective
The objective of the Local Communications Development exercise is to fully
document and evaluate the options relating to Local Communications for
smart metering, and if possible to produce a solution recommendation (or
recommendations) to the ERA SRSM Steering Group.
o Section 2 – Introduction
o Section 3 – Glossary and Document Conventions
- Local Communications Context
o Section 4 – Local Communications Context – a plain English
explanation of the context for smart metering and local
communications
o Section 5 –Associated Topics – information on related topics
considered by the SRSM project or the Local Communications
Development Group
- Requirements
o Section 6 – Principles and Assumptions – established by the Local
Communications Development Group
o Section 7 – Local Communications Requirements
- Solution Options
o Section 8 – Definition of the solution options considered by the
Group using a standard proforma
o Section 9 – Additional Considerations – providing detail on key
solution related topics – frequency, protocols etc.
- Evaluation & Recommendation
o Section 10 – Evaluation Criteria and process completed by the Local
Communications Development Group
o Section 11 – Recommendation – by the Local Communications
Development Group to the SRSM Project Steering Group
- Additional
o Section 12 – Issues – ongoing and unresolved general issues
relating to Local Communications Solutions
o Section 13 – References – links to papers referred to by this report
o Appendix – Field test undertaken by group members
Page 8 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
The SRSM project has agreed, and discussed with meter manufacturers and
the wider energy stakeholders, a set of functional requirements for gas and
electricity smart meters. These requirements do not represent final proposals
and are presented here to give context to the WAN Communications
discussions.
1
For electricity, the inclusion of a switch/breaker/contactor has been agreed for all meters.
The inclusion of similar, valve-based functionality for all gas meters remains subject to cost.
Page 9 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
It is also the case that the placement and location of meters as shown in
diagrams is illustrative.
Page 10 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Software
In all cases, the metrology functions must be delivered by a regulated measuring instrument.
Generally, no component of the smart Metering System will be reliant upon equipment
owned by the customer (e.g. broadband router), or services under the control of the
customer (e.g. telephony provider). There may be individual circumstances where use of the
customers equipment is unavoidable (customer chooses to own the meter, or particularly
within a non-domestic context where additional energy supply contractual terms can be
applied).
Figure 2: Smart Metering Systems, Illustration of Flexible Approaches
Page 11 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
3.2 Glossary
A number of these definitions are necessarily drawn directly from the Smart
Metering Operational Framework, as they apply across the scope of that
document and not just to Local Communications.
Term Meaning
Access Control The method by which the Operational Framework controls
access to smart Metering Systems, smart metering data and
associated devices.
Authorised Party Means the Supplier or another person authorised by
configuration of the Access Control security policies in the
Metering System to interrogate or configure the Metering
System.
Authorised Parties could include a communications service
provider, a meter operator, a network operator etc.
BoM Bill of Materials – term used by manufacturers to cover a list
of materials and components used to make an assembled
item.
CECED European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers
– representing white goods and appliance manufacturers.
Have developed AIS (Application Interface Standard),
currently in the process of obtaining CENELEC standards
approval.
CMOS Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor – a type of
microchip
Data Exchange Electronic interactions including the transmission of data
between Metering Systems and Authorised Parties or
Metering Systems and Local Devices
DEST Danish Energy Savings Trust
DLMS Device Language Message Specification – European data
protocol for meter communications
ERA Energy Retail Association
GFSK Gaussian Frequency Shift Keying – a form of modulation
used for radio communications – is used by Bluetooth and Z-
Wave
GMSK Gaussian Minimum Shift Keying – a form of modulation used
for radio communications – is used by GSM
GPIO General Purpose Input/Output
Hand Held Unit A mobile device, usually used by a Meter Worker, capable
of interaction with a Metering System using Local (or WAN)
Communications.
Could also include devices that interact with a Metering
System using a dedicated optical port.
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IP Internet Protocol
Interoperability To allow a smart Metering System to be used within market
rules by the registered Supplier, its nominated agents and
parties selected by the customer without necessitating a
change of Metering System.
Security of the smart Metering System infrastructure, with
Page 12 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Term Meaning
structured Access Control, is a key interoperability
requirement.
ISM Industrial, Scientific, Medical – term describing unlicensed
international radio frequency bands
Local Communications between a Metering System and Local
Communications Devices within the premises in which the Metering System is
installed.
Local Device A Local Device can be any piece of equipment within
premises that communicates directly with the Metering
System using Local Communications.
MCU Micro Controller Unit
Metering System A single device or meter, or a combination of devices used
to deliver the Lowest Common Denominator as defined in
the Operational Framework Schedule L ‘Smart Meter
Functional Specification’.
Meter Variant Classification of meter type under the Operational
Framework. A ‘Standard’ variant is suitable for installation at
the majority of meter points in Great Britain. Other variants
exist to cover specific supply, circuit or customer issues at a
site.
Examples include Polyphase, Semi-Concealed or 5
Terminal variants.
The full table of Meter Variants can be found in Schedule L
‘Smart Meter Functional Specification’.
Meter Worker A generic Operational Framework term referring to any
person attending a metering point for the purposes of
installation, maintenance, investigation, replacement or
removal of the Metering System.
Includes existing energy industry defined roles of Meter
Operator, Meter Asset Maintainer, Meter Reader, Data
Retriever etc.
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
Open Standard The European Union definition of an open standard (taken
from “European Interoperability Framework for pan-
European eGovernment Services”) is:
• The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a
not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development
occurs on the basis of an open decision-making
procedure available to all interested parties (consensus
or majority decision etc.).
• The standard has been published and the standard
specification document is available either freely or at a
nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy,
distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
• The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present -
of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available
on a royalty-free basis.
There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.
Operational Smart Metering Operational Framework Proposals and
Framework Options
Page 13 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Term Meaning
OTP One Time Programmable
POR Power On Reset
PWM Pulse Width Modulation
RAND Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition, generally an
industrial control system managed by a computer.
SoC System on Chip
SRSM Project Supplier Requirements of Smart Metering project.
Exercise in 2006-08 undertaken by ERA to develop the
Operational Framework.
Page 14 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
The diagram below shows the SRSM project representation of the operational
architecture for smart metering and therefore the scope of the Operational
Framework – this document specifically relates to the ‘Local Comms’ section
on the left hand side of the diagram.
Industry Interfaces
Data Transport
(internet)
Page 15 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Please note that ‘clip on’ or similar devices where information is captured via a
pulse counter, optical port, or by use of a sensor around an electricity cable
are not considered smart under the definitions of the Operational Framework
and are not included in this context. However, through the development of a
standard for smart metering local communications, any future ‘standalone’
devices could utilize the frequencies and protocols defined by the Operational
Framework.
This has been the typical approach in other smart metering initiatives, usually
on a proprietary basis, where the meter manufacturer provides the display
device alongside the meter for electricity only. The manufacturer decides upon
the communications medium, the protocols and data formats used.
This ‘one size fits all’ solution means that all customers get the same solution
that works straight out of the box, usually an LCD device that is portable or
fixed in a more accessible location than the meter itself.
However, having such a ‘closed loop’ offering for the display of consumption
information raises a number of issues:
• Restricting the opportunities for Suppliers to differentiate display
products in a competitive retail market.
• Variances in the quality and functionality of offerings from meter
manufacturers.
• Customers cannot choose how energy consumption information is
displayed to them.
• Innovation in display device technology would be controlled by meter
manufacturers or Meter Asset Providers.
• There could be limited support for future demand management and
demand response requirements. Access to the information from the
smart meter is under the control of the proprietary solution from the
meter manufacturer.
• In order to provide a ‘total utility’ solution, the display device must
communicate successfully with the gas and water meters – further
compounding the potential single source/proprietary solution issue.
Page 16 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
As shown, the gas, electricity and water meters can communicate with a
display device. Further, the gas and water meters may use the same
communications medium to interact with the electricity meter, which could act
as a ‘hub’ for WAN communications for all utilities.
Page 17 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
The step from the illustration of a smart utility context to a smarter display
context is one of interoperability. As long as the energy smart meters all
communicate using the same technology, protocols and a standard data
format, it will be possible for display functionality to be added to a number of
differing delivery devices.
Page 18 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
The final context illustration below presents the smart home context for the
smart metering local communications solution(s).
Page 19 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Microgeneration ‘Cluster’
Sensor ‘Cluster’
The opportunity to offer services that utilise the WAN communications link
within a smart meter is a product of establishing an interoperable platform for
Local Communications for smart metering.
The illustration below shows how the Local Communications Solution could be
utilised to deliver a platform to serve both the smart metering activities of
energy Suppliers and the requirements of 3rd parties to access the HAN and
Local Devices.
Page 20 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
HAN Radio
WAN Comms
utility devices uses same
HAN radio, but is less All remote
critical – restricted to price/ communications with
tariff and consumption smart meters are over the
information from the meter secure WAN connection
Page 21 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
5 Associated Topics
This section of the document includes further information to assist with setting
the requirements, solutions and evaluation into a specific GB smart metering
context.
This would mean that all smart Metering Systems would include hardware
capable of meeting the local communications standard. This does not
necessarily mean the same chip/hardware in every meter, but would mean
conformity in their capability.
5.2 Security
Due to the nature of data and functionality that will be accessible via Local
Communications, security is a paramount concern.
Consumption and other data from a smart meter may not initially be
considered as confidential – energy tariffs are publicly available, meter
readings on their own are not personal data or at risk of increasing identity
theft. 2
2
The SRSM project is considering the issues surrounding ownership of smart metering data
within a separate workstream, therefore they will not be covered within this document.
Page 22 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
It is accepted that no solution can be completely secure and resist all attempts
to intercept or interfere, but the Local Communications Solution should be
capable of addressing known security attacks – replay, man-in-the-middle,
delay, spoofing, sequence change and deletion.
The Local Communications Solution should also be future flexible, allowing for
firmware/software upgrades to improve security.
This would typically be for high density and metropolitan areas where the
signal propagation and power consumption restrictions of low power radio
solutions are less of an issue.
The SRSM project has considered the potential to use low power radio to
deliver the last mile, as shown in the diagram below. This also demonstrates a
number of options for backhaul for WAN Communications, which is out of
scope for the Local Communications Development work.
Metering System Options
Substation
Low Power
Radio
PLC High Speed Link
Infrastructure (Copper/Fibre)
Low Power Data Trans-
RF to Elec Low Concentrator former
Power
RF
Type Supplier
Cellular A
Infrastructure
A number of RF
Data Transport
solutions include
the capability to
(internet)
create ‘Mesh’
networks, where a Data
large number of
Concentrator
nodes can be
crossed to reach
the concentrator. Low Power
RF Type
There will be, however, local devices that will only send or receive data.
Examples could include:
- a fridge magnet to display consumption cost information would only
receive data
- a temperature sensor would only send data
These types of devices could be classified, for the purposes of smart metering
Local Communications, as distinct groups. The Local Communications
solution could recognise the classification of local devices in order to
determine the data exchange types, access control details and network
addressing/protocols.
Finally, there may be devices capable of sending and receiving data, but that
would not act as network repeaters in a number of topologies.
Additionally, it has been suggested that Hand Held Units, as may be used by
Meter Workers, could form a category of their own.
It should be noted that a number of the solution options provide for device
classification within their profile regimes.
Page 24 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Another issue associated with data will be the end to end format – it is not
anticipated that enterprise applications will use the Local Communications
data format – therefore some system within the network is expected to act as a
gateway, translating Local Communications data exchanges into format that
can eventually be read by Authorised Party applications.
Page 25 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Meter with
WAN Hardware
Enterprise
Sta
n
Standard Applications
Pro dard Head End Gateway
t o co
l
Supplier IT Architecture
The house on the left has a gas meter in an external meter cupboard, a water
meter fitted at the boundary point, and has a TV capable of displaying smart
metering information.
Page 26 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
The house on the right differs in that there is no water meter, the gas meter is
located at the rear of the house and the preferred display solution is a portable
LCD display, usually kept in the kitchen.
The topology of the network within premises does not need to be specified, as
these could vary significantly by property type.
Page 27 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
This simple illustration, without allowing for signal drop off as it passes through
walls, shows how all of the devices in the left hand house are within reach of
the electricity meter in the right hand house. It is a requirement for the
information from one customers’ metering not to be visible on their
neighbours’ display.
The illustration below shows how much overlap there will be between signals
for this simple configuration of smart meters and devices. The TV display in
the left hand house is in range of all four energy smart meters.
In reality, the range of the wireless signals is likely to be much greater than
shown.
Finally, there are circumstances where the wireless signal could be required to
transfer data between properties.
Page 29 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
It is not an ambition for smart meters to directly interact with all of these
systems, as this would introduce complexity and cost into the meters
themselves.
Page 30 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Some customers may already own and use equipment theoretically capable of
providing a bridge between wireless and wired communications media, and
which could include the necessary software to make data and services
interoperable between distinct networks and systems. The obvious example is
a home PC, but broadband routers, set top boxes and games consoles
already include most of the technology to provide a link between smart meters
and existing wired and wireless networks.
The proposed solution would allow either a wired (electricity mains cable) or
wireless (802.15.4 radio) physical layer for the Zigbee smart energy profile.
Metal meter cabinets (mantel units) could also adversely impact wireless
signals – creating Faraday Cages - a situation that is apparent from ongoing
technology trials by the energy Suppliers.
Although not a core requirement of the SRSM project, it must also be noted
that the installed base of water meters in Britain can also be in a tricky location
for low power radio signals. A significant proportion of water meters are
installed in boundary boxes at the edge of a customer’s land. Similarly the use
of pits for water meters will have an effect on signal propagation.
The figures presented below show that the particular challenges associated
with flats, where the energy consumption could be significantly ‘remote’ from
the energy meter, do not represent a minority concern.
English Data:
Dwelling Type 000’s %
Small Terraced House 2,665 12
Medium/Large Terraced 3,634 17
House
Semi-Detached House 5,897 27
Detached House 3,753 17
Bungalow 2,028 9
Converted Flat 716 3
Purpose Built Low Rise 2,783 13
Flat3
Purpose Built High Rise 305 1
Flat
Total 21,781 100
Stock Profile – English House Condition Survey 2005
Scottish Data:
Dwelling Type 000’s %
Detached 472 20
Semi-Detached 501 22
Terrace 522 23
Tenement 449 20
4-in-a-block 251 11
Tower/Slab 71 3
Flat in conversion 36 2
Total 2,301 100
3
Defined as: ‘a flat in a purpose built block less than 6 storeys high. Includes cases where
there is only one flat with independent access in a building which is also used for non-
domestic purposes’. High Rise therefore being blocks over 6 storeys high.
Page 32 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Welsh Data:
Dwelling Type 000’s %
Detached 264 23
Semi-Detached 387 33
Terrace 405 35
Flats 101 9
Total 1,157 100
Figures taken from 1998 Welsh House Condition Survey
Assuming that flats are the dwelling types that could present signal
propagation issues for wireless solutions, these are highlighted in blue in the
tables above and collated to provide the overall ‘British’ position shown below.
Page 33 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
No Assumption
A.1 The Local Communications Solution will be compliant with relevant
legislation and regulations
A.2 Smart meter functionality is broadly equivalent to the SRSM Smart
Meter Specification
A.3 SRSM Smart Meters are expected to have an asset life in excess of 10-
15 years
Page 34 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
No Assumption
A.4 The Local Communications Solution will be utility robust. This means
that for the purposes of delivering utility services to a customer it will
not be reliant upon, or affected by, devices owned by a customer or
other 3rd party
Page 35 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
7 Requirements
The requirements shown below are the result of iterative development by the
Local Communications Development Group. The starting requirements for the
group were taken from the Supplier requirements published in the ERA Smart
Metering Operational Framework Proposals and Options v1, dated August
2007.
The requirements have been developed with the participation of parties other
than energy retailers – meter manufacturers, network operators, meter
operators and display and device manufacturers are all parties to the Local
Communications Development Group. There are no specific requirements for
any single group, as the Local Communications Solution should meet the
overall requirements of those parties with an interest in the development of
smart metering. Therefore there is no specific requirement to address a
network operators specific use case of load and device control – this should be
addressed by the general requirements below.
7.1 Requirements
The requirements below are grouped by topic
Ref Requirement Notes
General
GEN.1 The Local Communications Solution The maximum requirement
must provide for data exchange is for intermittent
between smart meters and local communication between a
devices Metering System and a
Local Device at a
configurable time granularity
that can be measured in
seconds.
GEN.2 The Local Communications Solution
must be interoperable, allowing smart
meters and local devices from a range
of manufacturers to exchange data
using a defined data standard.
Page 36 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Page 37 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Page 38 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Ref Factor
Some European smart meter installations use low power (30v) wired
connections to link gas, water, heat and electricity meters for
communications purposes.
There are key regulations and standards relating to gas meters and potential
explosive atmospheres (ATEX).
Products are available to introduce two way communications for gas meters
that do not compromise the safety of the meters, or introduce battery life
issues.
A particular issue for GB gas metering is the extensive use of meter boxes,
which would require modification to meet ATEX requirements.
Ref Factor
messages are picked up quickly (or the customer could be prompted
to press a button to receive a ‘refresh’ of balances)
- where the gas supply has been disabled, remain dormant until the
customer pushes a button on the meter to reinstate gas supply (as
required by the SRSM meter specification)
More detailed work is required to establish the preferred minimum position, if
an agreed position is required.
Specific requirements for the smart metering system may also arise from the
Local Communications solution where a meter may be required to store data
for onward periodic transmission. Examples could include services configured
to transmit gas meter data on a daily basis via the electricity meter, or an
annual boiler diagnostic report.
Page 40 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
8 Solution Options
This section of the document presents a number of solution options for the
hardware to be included as part of a smart metering system.
A number of solution options support more than one network protocol, or are
offered by vendors at different frequencies. Therefore there is not always a
one to one relationship between the silicon, the frequency, the protocol and
the data set supported.
Page 42 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
7
Dutch Smart Meter Requirements v2.1 Final – February 2008 – page 6 of the P2 Companion
Standard describes the use of Wired and Wireless M-Bus communications.
Page 43 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Page 44 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Data Specified in the ZigBee Smart Energy Profile which can be added
Exchange to if required.
Format:
Use in other Total ZigBee node and chipset units – 5 million in 2006, 120 million
applications: in 20118
Home automation, telecoms (local)
Use in other
markets:
Maturity: Smart Energy Profile due for release March 2008, ZigBee Pro
Stack available January 2008
Support for
‘Last Mile’:
For:
Against:
Notes:
Reference: Collated by SRSM project team from group activities
8
In-Stat Market Research “ZigBee 2007: What it Iz and What it Iz not”
Page 46 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Page 47 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Use in other Total ZigBee node and chipset units – 5 million in 2006, 120 million
applications: in 201110
Home automation, telecoms (local)
Use in other ZigBee has a wide appeal across multiple markets, and is currently
markets: in use in products in;
- Smart Energy, for local communications e.g. Southern California
Edison in the USA, Victoria in Australia, and last mile
communications, e.g. City of Gothenburg
- Home Automation, including lighting control (e.g. Control4),
heating control (e.g. Kalirel), security (e.g. Alertme.com), roller
blinds etc.
- Commercial Building Automation, including lighting and heating
control (e.g. TAC/Schneider, Siemens) and fire and safety.
- Industrial control such as ball valve monitoring/control (Eltav)
- Health monitoring products are in early stages of development.
- Niche markets such as marine electronics (e.g. Raymarine)
Geographically, ZigBee has products all around the world.
Maturity: The ZigBee Alliance was formed in 2002. ZigBee was first
released as a standard in December 2004. Since then there have
been 2 major releases of the standard, one in 2006 and the most
recent, adding ZigBee PRO features in 2007. With a number of
products now certifying for Home Automation, Manufacturer
Specific and Smart Energy, ZigBee 2007 is regarded now as
mature.
10
In-Stat Market Research “ZigBee 2007: What it Iz and What it Iz not”
Page 48 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Page 51 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
technologies.
For: • 2.4GHz interference risk is non-existent
• Lowest cost
• Lowest power consumption
• Full eco-system/cross-segment product portfolio available to
communicate to technically but also to build business
propositions with from a business perspective
• Advanced Energy Control framework builds on top of current
portfolio instead of starting from scratch
• Mesh networking and long range ensures minimum installation
costs and ease of installation
• Well accepted industry standard enables integration with
today’s and future in-home solutions
• Lowest risk for long-term, 10-20 year deployment
Against: • Is portrayed as “proprietary standard”
But program for second source / licensing is in place and
being executed upon
Notes:
Reference V1 provided April 2008 by Bernd Grohmann of Zensys
V2 provided Aug 2008 by Niels Thybo Johansen of Zensys
Solution ANT
Description Very low power – 10 year operation on a watch battery. Operates at
2.4GHz. Has 1 million nodes in operation. 43 member alliance.
Website www.thisisant.com
Reason for not Is a proprietary solution, also quite new.
including in
evaluation
Solution BACnet
Description American developed protocol used mainly for HVAC applications in
building automation.
Website www.bacnet.org
Reason for not Specifically aimed at building control – no apparent smart metering
including in utilisation
evaluation
Solution Bluetooth
Description Low power radio for personal area networks with up to seven
nodes.
Single chip radios are available from a wide variety of suppliers, at
approx $5 per end, with hundreds of millions of units sold per
annum. Very well established standard, particularly in the mobile
Page 52 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Solution EkaNET
Description Proprietary wireless solution, partnered with a number of meter
manufacturers,
Uses IPv6 standards.
Website www.ekasystems.com
Reason for not Appears to be aimed specifically at SCADA deployments, or
including in network based smart grid initiatives – also features WAN gateways
evaluation and other head-end systems
Solution HomePlug
Description: An open standard for powerline communications developed by a
consortium of companies.
Command and Control is available from Renesas, or Ytran chipset
plus line coupling devices. Cost of approx $8 per end.
Three standards exist depending upon the application:
- AV High speed
- Home Plug V1 for ethernet over mains applications
- Command and Contol running at speeds of 1-10 kBit/sec
depending on conditions.
The Command and Control standard is probably most suited to
metering due to its low cost.
Used in homes to network Ethernet devices.
Homeplug standard is reasonably mature. Command and Control
is a recent development
Website www.homeplug.org
Reason for Is a wired solution only – hence not suitable for gas metering.
not including Remains a potential option for electricity metering, or for inclusion
in evaluation in other RF capable components to provide links to Ethernet
devices.
Solution Insteon
Description Established North American home control protocol. Typically used
over wire, but also supports RF.
Website www.insteon.net
Reason for not Emphasis on wired solutions does not match gas requirements,
including in also does not currently support secure communications
evaluation
Solution ISA100.11a
Description Provides a wireless industrial process automation network to
Page 53 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Solution KNX
Description Originally developed by Siemens and Merten, primarily aimed at
home and building automation. Well established and promoted
standard based out of Brussels.
Documented by world and European standards – ISO/IEC 14543,
EN50090, EN13321-1
Uses the same upper-layer protocol for different physical layers –
twisted pair, power line, Ethernet and RF at 868MHz.
Communicates data at 16384 bits/sec.
Used the same modulation scheme as Wireless M-Bus in S2 mode.
Website www.knx.org
Reason for not Has not been proposed for use in energy metering.
including in Attempts to contact KNX alliance have not resulted in any interest
evaluation in participating.
Solution OneNet
Description Open Source low power wireless standard - partners include
Renesas, Freescale and Texas Instruments.
Features include:
• Low power wireless with 1000 foot range and 25 channels
• Claims to be very low cost - $2 in high volume
• Targetted at battery powered devices
• Supports secure encrypted comms
• Star and peer to peer topology
• 38 to 230 kbs
• 868 MHz
• Supports 2000 devices in a network
• 3 to 5 year battery life with AAA cell
Website www.one-net.info
Reason for not New standard, main focus appears to be battery operated devices.
including in
evaluation
Solution OpenTherm
Description Communications protocol used to control heating applications.
Appears to be wired and has been developed in Holland.
Website www.opentherm.eu
Page 54 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Solution PhyNet
Description 802.15.4 solution that uses IP. Looks to be a competitor to ZigBee,
although it also looks more expensive and more suited to industrial
application for sensor management, rather than in a metering/home
context.
Website No website
Reason for not Very New
including in
evaluation
Solution Sensinode
Description The IEEE 802.15.4 compliant radio modules from Radiocrafts
combined with the 6LoWPAN compliant NanoStack from
Sensinode offers integrators super compressed IPv6 over low
power radios in a compact module solution. The use of end-to-end
open source IP technology over a proven radio platform provides
an excellent and scalable solution for IP-based monitoring and
control systems like AMI (advanced metering infrastructure) and
WSN (wireless sensor networks). The Sensinode NanoStack meets
the 6LoWPAN (IPv6 over Low power WPAN) specifications
released in 2007 and offers a scalable and robust architecture for a
wireless mesh network where all nodes cooperate to transport
information almost like the Internet. By using many small radio
modems, a low-power wireless network can cover large
geographical areas using the licence-free frequency band at 2,45
GHz. The self-configuring and self-healing properties of the
6LoWPAN network offer redundancy and low maintenance cost.
Website www.sensinode.com
Reason for not Very new
including in
evaluation
Solution SimpliciTI
Description Proprietary network protocol supporting up to 100 nodes in a simple
network – supports only 5 commands, uses very small amounts of
memory and power.
Offered in sub 1Ghz and 2.4GHz silicon
Website TI Website
Reason for not Proprietary solution – targets smaller devices – no specific smart
including in metering implementations
evaluation
Solution WiFi
Description Established high power standard, prevalent in many homes.
Typically used for broadband internet connections and multimedia
Page 55 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
delivery.
Works at 2.4GHz.
Website www.wi-fi.org
Reason for not Power consumption is very high, with propagation issues for a
including in significant proportion of GB home types. Also concerns over
evaluation conflicts and interference with customers’ existing wireless
networks.
Low Power WiFi options are emerging, mainly driven by Intel –
GainSpan have a prototype module that will run for 10 years on an
AA cell. The Intel ‘Cliffside’ initiative is also working in this area.
Page 56 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
9 Additional Considerations
The Local Communications Development Group, and the wider SRSM project,
has considered a number of topics related to Local Communications.
Placeholder to document the potential protocols that could be used for Local
Communications networks. A number of these may be specifically linked to
the physical media solution.
Protocol 6LowPan
Description: Stands for IPv6 over Low Power Wireless Personal Area
Networks, a protocol designed to send and receive IPv6 packets
over IEEE 802.15 networks.
A number of practical issues relating to packet sizes and
addressing schemes remain to be addressed.
Used by/for: Still being developed
Page 57 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
For: Could deliver end to end protocol solution for Suppliers and
Authorised Parties
Against: Protocol is still under development
Notes:
Page 58 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Frequency 169MHz
Description: Licensed band
Used by/for: Paging band, delegated to AMR
Signal
Propagation:
Power Efficient power per distance
requirements:
Longevity of
frequency
allocation:
Notes: No chipsets currently available for 2-way communications – it is
used for 1-way communication only
Frequency 184MHz
Description: Licensed band
Used by/for:
Signal
Propagation:
Power Efficient power per distance
requirements:
Longevity of
frequency
allocation:
Notes: Can purchase bandwidth from Ofcom.
Page 59 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Frequency 433-434MHz
Description: Unlicensed ISM band
Used by/for: Well used frequency, typically used for car key fobs.
Has been used for heat metering in Europe
Signal Good
Propagation:
Power More battery efficient than higher frequency options
requirements:
Longevity of
frequency
allocation:
Notes: Support (by existing chips) for open standards is not evident
Security may be an issue (e.g. for financial transactions)
Frequency 868-870MHz
Description: Unlicensed European ISM band (915MHz in North America)
Used by/for: Z-Wave, Wireless M Bus, ZigBee, Wavenis.
Minimal usage in other applications.
Signal Good
Propagation:
Power Has well defined maximum duty cycles and transmission powers
requirements: (5mW to 25mW).
Longevity of Unlicensed european band, unlikely to be revoked, but risk
frequency remains
allocation:
Notes: Supports 3 channels.
Current GB regulations prevent use of frequency for
communications outside of a property – i.e. could not form a mesh
of smart meters in a street to connect to a data concentrator.
Transmit duty cycle limited to 1%, or works on ‘listen before
transmit’ basis.
Less attractive to higher bandwidth applications.
Frequency 2.45GHz
Description: Unlicensed worldwide ISM band
Used by/for: ZigBee, WiFi, Bluetooth, Microwave Ovens, Home Video repeaters
Signal
Propagation:
Power Signal can be amplified to improve propagation
Requirements:
Longevity of Unlicensed global band, unlikely to be revoked, but risk remains
frequency
allocation:
Page 60 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
However, the current licensed band for metering in the UK, 184MHz, only
supports one-way communications, operates at a frequency unique to this
country, and has therefore not attracted solution providers in any significant
numbers.
Use of a licensed band for local communications could also restrict the
number of devices within a home that would be capable of communicating
with a meter.
The use of unlicensed bands does come with the risk of interference from
other devices as they establish themselves at particular frequencies. The
2.4GHz band already includes microwave ovens, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, TV signal
repeaters and more. However, there are a number of techniques in use to
allow devices to co-exist effectively within frequency bands.
Data ANSI
Exchange
Format
Description: ANSI C12 is the collective prefix for a number of North American
electricity metering standards:
C12.18 – Protocol for 2 way communications using an optical port
C12.19 – Data tables for use with C12.18
C12.21 – Update of C12.18 for use with a modem
C12.22 – Interface to data communication networks
11
Technical Architecture for UK Domestic Smart Meter Systems, Alistair Morfey, Cambridge
Consultants 2007
Page 61 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Data Obis
Exchange DLMS/Cosem
Format
Description: Definition of standardised metering objects (Electricity, Water,
Heat, and Gas Metering covered)
Used by/for: Commonly used in Electricity metering in Europe, gaining adoption
elsewhere in metering
For: Standardised, EN13757-1 (Communication Systems for meters
and remote reading of meters -Part 1:Data Exchange)
Against: Seen as over-specified and too complex for use within the Local
Communications context
Notes: Parts of the standard are used in MBUS implementations.
Data XML
Exchange
Format
Description: Extensible Markup Language, a general purpose specification for
creating custom markup languages – allowing GB smart metering
to develop a bespoke and flexible data exchange format.
Used by/for: Global standard for data exchanges, used in an increasing number
of applications.
For: Would allow for an exact fit with GB smart metering requirements
and applications, would also remain future flexible to
accommodate market innovation.
Against: Use of XML for local communications could place an unacceptably
high overhead on the microcontroller itself. XML support could
easily require more space than is typically available on low power
radio microcontrollers. Implementation is feasible, but at the cost of
adding memory and co-processors and decreasing battery life.
Page 62 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Page 63 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Throughout the process, it has been noted that the technology receiving the
highest overall score will not necessarily be recommended by the group.
Note: In previous versions of this report, there was content covering data
traffic modelling to assist with understanding the type and scale of data
exchanges expected.
The weighting, which is directly applied to the scoring to give an overall view,
is shown in the scoring table below.
‘Must Have’ criteria carry a weighting of 4, with an additional caveat that any
technology failing to meet Boolean tests for Must Have criteria, or achieving a
low score on a Scored test is listed in the Evaluation Issues table below
Ranked criteria are rated from 0 to 5, with 5 being the best performing option
and 0 being the lowest performing option.
Page 65 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Page 66 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Page 68 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Page 70 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Page 71 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
The scoring for these specific criteria does not form part of the overall
evaluation results, but are recorded here to support any ongoing WAN
communications developments.
Page 72 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Interoperability
Power
Data Performance
Radio Performance
Security
Future Resistance
Cost
Page 73 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Desirable – 3
Desirable – 2
Desirable – 1
Total Score
Each of the solutions could be tested against a small number of ‘real world’
scenarios for performance when delivering typical smart metering activities:
- smart meter to smart meter data exchange
- smart meter to in home display data exchange
- smart meter to Local Device (e.g. smart thermostat, microgeneration
unit) data exchange
Page 74 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
11 Recommendation
[Placeholder for recommendation of the group. Will include any relevant notes,
issues or comments as required by the group]
[At the 2nd September meeting it was agreed that the recommendation should
include a clear recommendation for field testing of solutions in typical British
installations. Clarity relating to suggesting the ‘Who’, ‘How’ and ‘When’ for this
testing may be agreed at subsequent meetings]
Page 75 of 80 3-Sep-08
12 Issues
The table below provides an ongoing record of issues for consideration and
potential actions to resolve.
13 References
Shown below are references to relevant materials and resources.
Page 77 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
The test was carried out at the following locations, representing a cross
section of GB housing stock:
1 Stone cottage built in 1860 which was constructed with stone and had
lathe and plaster walls.
2 Semi-detached 1960’s three bedroom with no modifications.
3 Detached Bungalow circa 1950.
4 Detached modern two story house with no modifications.
5 Detached two story house with two story extension added.
6 First floor flat where the meter was in the flat not the basement.
Within each location the electricity meter was identified and the ZigBee
transmitter was switched on and placed beside the meter. The corresponding
receiver was activated and placed at the following locations within the
dwelling:
1 Kitchen window sill.
2 Lounge occasional table.
3 Lounge fireplace mantelpiece.
4 Hallway table.
5 Master bedroom.
The results of the test are set out in the table below. A figure of 255 denotes
full reception, whilst 0 denotes no reception. There is no reference to the
Page 78 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
Page 79 of 80 3-Sep-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_3
The full report, and responses from group members can be viewed online at:
http://snipurl.com/lcdfieldtest
Page 80 of 80 3-Sep-08