Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Attendees
Name Company
Alastair Manson ERA
John de Longa Data Direct Technologies
Geoff Huckerby E.ON UK
Les Woolner Horstmann
Christophe Dugas Coronis / Elster
Rob Steele Elster
Eric Beattie National Grid
Dave Egan Ember
Graeme Sharp Orsis UK
Colin Fraser Npower
David Osman Npower
Geoff Mathews IMserv
Robin Heydon Cambridge Silicon Radio
Alistair Wright REM
Jane Chang Centrica
Nigel Punchard Centrica Comms
Eugene Bakker Zensys / Z-Wave technology
Simon Higgins Arqiva
John Stanton Utilihub
Jack Worsnop Siemens
Berny Goodheart Secure Electrans Ltd
Mike Buss Actaris / SBGI
Nick Slocombe EDF Energy
Fabio Toledo EDF Energy
Stuart Archer Renesas
Mark Knight SSE
Ben Pirt ONZO
Simon Anderson GEO
Jason Brodgen ERA
John Cowburn PRI
Ian Graham Landis and Gyr
Amyas Phillips ALERTME.com
Alistair Morfey Cambridge Consultants
Brian Back LPRA
Peter Westwood Trilliant
Simon Harrison ERA
Page 1 of 4
SRSM&B Meeting Notes
Seating plan
Agenda
• Introductions
• Notes of previous meeting
• Workstream progress/plans
• Status of Report
• Refine requirements
• Discuss evaluation criteria
• Evaluation Process
• AOB & Dates for remaining sessions
These notes are intended to cover conclusions and recommendations made and not
to cover detailed opinions given at the meeting, these are to be captured in updates
to documents.
Introductions
Jason Brogden (JB) introduced the meeting
Workstream Progress
Simon Harrison (SH) presented a summary of the workgroup’s progress and plans
As follows:
SMOF requirements
Document SRSM context
Document solution options
Refine / clarify requirements This workshop
Agree evaluation process This workshop
Evaluate Options August
Produce conclusions / recommendations September
SH noted that the external perception is that this group is doing work that is key to GB
smart metering
SH described the status of the report – and noted progress of documentation but still
some gaps including some requiring input for them to be filled in.
Requirements
SH ran through some considerations of the requirements
Page 2 of 4
SRSM&B Meeting Notes
Some queries were raised:
Retrofit
It was agreed that retrofit is not excluded as a solution for gas metering
2- way comms - It was note there is a requirement for 2 way comms but it was queried
where this is a requirement for duplex. It was agreed there is no need to state duplex
Alistair Morfey (AM) suggested the need to specify interoperability at an appropriate OSI
level. And noted there will be a need to assess the relative strengths of high and low end
use of the various packages.
AM also noted that there is a key requirement to upgrade the code. It was queried how
often this would be needed. Although the key point is that you might want to do one
upgrade
Data security
It was suggested that this is an area where the requirements are much too vague and the
suppliers will need to specify requirements. AM suggested there may be a requirement
for security to be upgradable. There was discussion over power consumption and duty
cycles of comms. And it was suggested there can be measures that make very
economical use of the battery – WAN comms for critical messages such as credit updates
being initiated by button press at the meter
It was suggested that for meter operators they would want to not require special tools
It was suggested that data should not be constrained to a list – e.g. there may be need
for the system to handle reactive power.
It was also suggested data might include units such as (generated) CO2.
Evaluation process
JB stressed that this is a desktop exercise and while an outcome might include the
recommendation for field test we cannot do a field test in this exercise.
SH outlined suggested process whereby at next meeting - the morning will be take up by
presentations representing
Page 3 of 4
SRSM&B Meeting Notes
• M-Bus
• Wavenis
• ZigBee (considering 868MHz and 2.4GHz independently)
• Z Wave
• Bluetooth Low Energy
With the afternoon is spent scoring these solutions according to the evaluation criteria
It was noted that the project (ERA suppliers + project team) will have to make the final
decision on a final recommendation
Evaluation Criteria
SH proposed that:
Criteria are either ‘must have’ or desirable. Then for assessment they might be:
- Yes / No
- Ranked
- scored
It was suggested that for the scores to be filled in on the day would be impossible.
[Following the meeting, the project team have secured approval from the ERA for an
additional meeting – allowing the group more time to undertake the scoring process]
Actions
Project to issue updated version of the report
Next Meetings
nd
2 September 10am-4pm Holiday Inn Regents Park
nd
2 October 10am-4pm 60 Cannon Street, London
Page 4 of 4