Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...............................................................................................2
Figures ...............................................................................................................3
Tables ................................................................................................................4
Document Control ..............................................................................................5
1.1 Version History ....................................................................................5
1.2 Review Group & Website ....................................................................6
1.3 Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright ..........................................7
1.4 Disclaimer ............................................................................................7
2 Executive Summary and Introduction .........................................................8
2.1 Executive Summary ............................................................................8
2.2 Purpose ...............................................................................................8
2.3 Scope ..................................................................................................9
2.4 Objective..............................................................................................9
2.5 Structure of this Document ..................................................................9
3 Glossary & Conventions ...........................................................................11
3.1 Document Conventions .....................................................................11
3.1.1 Market Segments .......................................................................11
3.1.2 Meter Functionality .....................................................................11
3.1.3 Meter Location ...........................................................................12
3.1.4 Meter and Metering System .......................................................12
3.2 Glossary ............................................................................................14
4 Local Communications Context ................................................................21
4.1 General Context ................................................................................21
4.2 Smart Utility Context for Local Communications ...............................22
4.3 Smarter Display Options Using Local Communications ...................23
4.4 Smart Home Context .........................................................................25
5 Associated Topics.....................................................................................28
5.1 A National Standard ..........................................................................28
5.2 Security..............................................................................................28
5.3 Delivering the Last Mile .....................................................................29
5.4 Local Device Classification ...............................................................30
5.5 Processes/Activities Required...........................................................30
5.6 Types of Data ....................................................................................31
5.7 Independent & Private Local Networks .............................................32
5.8 Distinguising Local Communications from the HAN .........................36
5.9 Wireless to Wired Options .................................................................38
5.9.1 Wired/Wireless Protocol Development ......................................39
5.10 British Housing Types .......................................................................39
5.10.1 Houses By Type .........................................................................40
5.11 Support for Third Party Applications .................................................41
6 Principles & Assumptions .........................................................................43
6.1 Local Communications Principles .....................................................43
6.2 Local Communications Assumptions ................................................43
7 Requirements ...........................................................................................45
7.1 Requirements ....................................................................................45
7.2 Requirements Notes..........................................................................47
7.3 Potential Additional Requirements ....................................................49
8 Solution Options .......................................................................................50
8.1 Solution Options Descriptions ...........................................................51
Page 2 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
Figures
Figure 1: Smart Meter Locations .....................................................................12
Figure 2: Smart Metering Systems, Illustration of Flexible Approaches ..........13
Figure 3: SRSM Smart Metering Operational Framework Scope ...................21
Figure 4: Smart Utility Context .........................................................................23
Figure 5: Smart Display Context ......................................................................24
Figure 6: Smart Home Context ........................................................................25
Figure 7: Smart Home Context & Clusters ......................................................26
Figure 8 Different Uses of Local Communications ..........................................27
Page 3 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
Tables
Table 1 Local Communications Group Members ..............................................7
Table 2 Glossary ..............................................................................................20
Table 3 Stock Profile - English House Condition Survey 2005........................40
Table 4 Type of Dwelling - Scottish House Condition Survey 2004/5 .............40
Table 5 1998 Welsh House Condition Survey .................................................40
Table 6 'Overall' British Housing Type Volumes ..............................................41
Table 7 Local Communications Principles.......................................................43
Table 8 Local Communications Assumptions..................................................44
Table 9 Local Communications Requirements ................................................47
Table 10 Local Communications Requirements Notes ...................................49
Table 11 Solution Options Guide .....................................................................51
Table 12 Bluetooth low energy ........................................................................52
Table 13 M-Bus ................................................................................................52
Table 14 Wavenis ............................................................................................54
Table 15 ZigBee @ 868MHz ...........................................................................55
Table 16 ZigBee @ 2.4GHz .............................................................................58
Table 17 Z-Wave .............................................................................................61
Table 18 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................77
Table 19 Evaluation Scorecard........................................................................80
Table 20 Evaluation Notes ............................................................................ 116
Table 21 Evaluation Scenario Suggestions .................................................. 117
Table 22 Evaluation Testing Recommendations .......................................... 123
Table 23 Issues ............................................................................................. 127
Table 24 References..................................................................................... 129
Table 25 Referential Integrity........................................................................ 132
Table 26 Last Mile Evaluation Criteria .......................................................... 132
Table 27 Field Test Results .......................................................................... 134
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
Communications
Development Group
0_3 September Simon Significant update snipurl.com/lcdgv3
2008 Harrison following two
meetings of the
Local
Communications
Development Group
0_4 27 October Simon Interim draft snipurl.com/lcdgv4
2008 Harrison prepared for meeting
#6 of the group
Updated following
review & evaluation
meeting of Local
Communications
Development Group
0_5 5 Simon Updated following
November Harrison final meeting of
2008 Local
Communications
Development Group
Table 1 below lists the organisations and companies who are members of the
group.
Alcatel-Lucent Alertme.com
All Island Power Association of Meter Operators
Arm Arqiva
Atmel British Electrotechnical & Allied
Manufacturers Association
BERR BGlobal Metering
British Gas EDF Energy
Cambridge Consultants Cambridge Silicon Radio
Cason Engineering Coronis
Daintree Networks Data Direct
DEFRA Echelon
E.ON UK Npower
Electralink Elster
Ember Ewgeco
Energy Retail Association Engage Consulting
Federation of Communication Freescale
Services
Freescale First Utility
Fujitsu Green Energy Options
Himsley Meter Revenue Services Horstmann
I+P Services Imserv
Ingenium Itron
Laird Technologies Acute Technology
Landis+Gyr Low Power Radio Association
Microsoft More Associates
National Grid Ofcom
Ofgem Onzo
Orsis PRI UK Ltd
Q’Vedis Radiocrafts
Remote Energy Monitoring Renesas Technology
ScottishPower Scottish & Southern Energy
Sensus Metering Services Sentec
Siemens Energy Services Sustainability First
Society of British Gas Industries Secure Electrans
theowl.com Tridium
Trilliant Networks Utilihub
Zensys ZigBee
ZigBee Alliance Acute Technology
Table 1 Local Communications Group Members
Full details of the membership of the group, its’ meetings and papers can be
viewed at the public website: srsmlocalcomms.wetpaint.com
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.
It recommends;
• that further work be undertaken to address areas of ambiguity and
complexity in requirements
• that there are gaps in the approaches of all of the solution options that will
need to be understood and addressed in order to fully deliver the smart
metering requirements
• that the evaluation process be completed using a combination of field and
laboratory testing and a panel review process
• that work continue in a timely fashion, as this is an area where global
activity in smart metering and other activities is developing the
technologies very quickly
2.2 Purpose
This document presents the context, requirements, issues and solution
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.
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 Local 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 11 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
It is also the case that the placement and location of meters as shown in
diagrams is illustrative.
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
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
3-DES An enhanced form of Data Encryption Standard, where the
cipher is used three times to increase the protection
provided by the encryption
6LoWPAN IPv6 over Low power Wireless Personal Area Networks.
A developing set of protocols aiming to enable IPv6 packets
of data to be transmitted over IEEE 802.15 networks (e.g.
Bluetooth and ZigBee).
Access Control The method by which the Smart Metering Operational
Framework controls access to smart Metering Systems,
smart metering data and associated devices.
Active Line Access Also known as Ethernet Active Line Access
A communications model based upon high speed
broadband to gateway equipment in the home.
More detail is available at :
www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/discussnga/eala/
AEC Advanced Energy Control – an application profile of the Z
Wave standard
AES Advanced Encryption Standard
AES-128 Where the Advance Encryption Standard uses 128 bit key
AFH Adaptive Frequency Hopping - a method of transmitting
radio signals by rapidly switching between frequency
channels, used by Bluetooth
AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure, an approach to smart
metering, generally describing the whole system to include
meters, communications and systems
AMR Automated Meter Reading, the collection and
communication of metering information from meters to
systems. Can be done using handheld (walk by) or drive by
equipment, or be based on a fixed network
AMS Advanced Microsensors – a semiconductor fabricator
API Application programming interface – a piece of software
enabling other applications to make use of existing
operating systems or services
APS Application Support layer – part of the ZigBee protocol stack
ASE Advanced Silicon Etch – a semiconductor fabricator
ASIC Application Specific Integrated Circuit – a chip designed
solely for a particular use
AtEx ATmosphères EXplosibles
The AtEx Directive is two EU directives describing what
equipment and work environment is allowed in an
environment with an explosive atmosphere.
The equipment directive (94/9/EC) is relevant to gas
metering
Term Meaning
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.
BACnet A data communications protocol for building automation and
control networks
Balun A component in radio systems linking antennas to other
components
BCH Stands for Bose, Chaudhuri and Hocquenghem.
A BCH code is a multilevel, cyclic, error-correcting, variable
length digital code and can be used in low power
communications as error-correcting codes
Bluetooth A wireless communication standard using low power radio
See detail in section 8.
Body Area Network Describes a network where network devices are worn on (or
implanted in) the body.
BoM Bill of Materials – term used by manufacturers to cover a list
of materials and components used to make an assembled
item.
BPSK Binary Phase Shift Keying
A form of Phase Shift Keying
CBA Commercial Building Automation
CCM A form of cryptographic operations
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.
CE Product marking to signify conformance with European
Union regulations
CEN European Committee for Standardisation (Comité Européen
de Normalisation)
CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation
(Comité Européen de Normalisation Electrotechnique)
CEPT European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications
Administrations (Conférence européenne des
administrations des postes et des télécommunications)
CMOS Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor – a type of
microchip
COSEM COmpanion Standard for Energy Metering
The interface model for DLMS
CPU Central processing unit
CRC Cyclic redundancy check - a system of error control for data
transmission
CSMA-CA Carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance – part
Term Meaning
of a class of protocols to control how nodes in a network
communicate
Data Exchange Electronic interactions including the transmission of data
between Metering Systems and Authorised Parties or
Metering Systems and Local Devices
DES Data Encryption Standard, using 56 bit keys
DEST Danish Energy Savings Trust
DLMS Device Language Message Specification – European data
protocol for meter communications
DSSS Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum - a method of
transmitting radio signals by rapidly switching between
frequency channels
ECC Elliptic curve cryptography – an approach to public key
cryptography
ERA Energy Retail Association – trade association representing
the major domestic energy suppliers in Great Britain
ESMIG European Smart Metering Industry Group – an association of
companies with an interest in European smart metering
ETS 300-220 ESTI standard covering electromagnetic compatibility and
radio spectrum matters
ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute
EU European Union
EVA Kit Evaluation Kit – a software/hardware development tool
FCC Federal Communications Commission, US regulator of the
radio spectrum and other communications
FEC Forward Error Correction – a system of error control for data
transmission
FHSS Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum – a method of
transmitting radio signals by rapidly switching between
frequency channels
FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards
US Federal Standards for non-military applications.
Includes the P192 curve which is used in elliptical
cryptography
FIT Failures in time – a metric associated with reliability and
testing
FSK Frequency Shift Keying – a frequency modulation scheme
2FSK and 4FSK are different forms of Frequency Shift
Keying
Gateway Generally means a node on a WAN/HAN network that
facilitates connection between the two networks. A smart
meter may be a Gateway between enterprise applications
connected to the WAN and Local Devices connected to a
HAN. There are other Gateways that may be in a home that
will provide the same type of activity – e.g. BT HomeHub,
Sky Digital Box etc.
GFSK Gaussian Frequency Shift Keying – a form of modulation
used for radio communications – is used by Bluetooth and Z-
Page 16 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
Term Meaning
Wave
GMSK Gaussian Minimum Shift Keying – a form of modulation used
for radio communications – is used by GSM
GPIO General Purpose Input/Output
GPRS General Packet Radio System – a mobile telephony data
transmission system
GPS Global Positioning System
GSM Global System for Mobile communications – a mobile
telephony standard
HAN Home Area Network, typically a network of connected
devices within the confines of residential premises
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.
HomePlug A brand name for a technology providing communication
using powerline technology within a home
HTOL High temperature operating life – a form of estimating the
operating life of a product
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IC Integrated Circuit
IEEE 802.15.4 International standard specifying the physical layer and
medium access control for low rate wireless networks
IP Internet Protocol
IP-TLS IP Transport Layer Security
IPv4 The version of the Internet Protocol most widely used
IPv6 The most recent version of the Internet Protocols, which
accommodates a greatly increased network address space
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
structured Access Control, is a key interoperability
requirement.
ISM Industrial, Scientific, Medical – term describing unlicensed
international radio frequency bands
‘Last Mile’ Means, in a smart metering context, the communications
connection to the Metering System itself. This could be via
cellular telephony from a mobile mast, or via electricity
cables for power line carrier.
Generally, the Last Mile has a meter at one end and a
connection to the backhaul/data transport at the other, which
could be in the form of a concentrator or other equipment.
Local Communications between a Metering System and Local
Communications Devices within the premises in which the Metering System is
Term Meaning
installed.
Local Device A Local Device can be any piece of equipment within
premises that communicates directly with the Metering
System using Local Communications.
LOS Line of Sight
MAC Media Address Control layer of OSI model (also known as
the data link layer)
MBus Or Wireless MBus;
A wireless communication standard using low power radio
See detail in section 8.
MCU Or µC;
Micro Controller Unit
Mesh network Is a networking topology where nodes are configured to act
together to provide a greater coverage and increased
redundancy
Meter Asset Provider A role within the energy industry, the exact meaning of
which may differ slightly by fuel and governance context,
generally meaning the organisation which owns and is
responsible for the ongoing provision of the meter and holds
a contract with the energy Supplier for that service
Metering System A single device or meter, or a combination of devices used
to deliver the Lowest Common Denominator as defined in
the Smart Metering Operational Framework Schedule L
‘Smart Meter Functional Specification’.
Meter Variant Classification of meter type under the Smart Metering
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 the SRSM
document ‘Smart Meter Functional Specification’.
Meter Worker A generic Smart Metering 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.
MUC Multi Utility Controller – part of the German Open Metering
System for smart metering
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
US measurement standards laboratory
NWK Network Layer of the OSI Model
OBIS Also OBIS-Code
An interface class within the DLSM/COSEM object model
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
Term Meaning
OMS Open Metering System
The German smart metering initiative that includes the
definition of the MUC
OQPSK Offset Quadrature Phase Shift Keying
A form of phase shift keying
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.
OSI Model Open Systems Interconnection – refers to the OSI Reference
Model, an abstract description for layered communications
and computer network protocol design.
OTP One Time Programmable
PCB Printed circuit board
PDA Personal digital assistant – a handheld computer
PHY Physical Layer of the OSI model
POR Power-On Reset, a technique used to ensure that devices
are in a known state when power is applied
PRI A meter manufacturer based in the UK
PSDU Physical Service Data Unit, a term used in TCP/IP
networking
PSK Phase Shift Keying
A digital modulation scheme with a number of different types
PWM Pulse Width Modulation
RAND Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory
RF Radio Frequency
RSA An algorithm for public key cryptography
RSSI Received signal strength indication – a measurement of the
power present in received radio signal
RX In radio terms means receiving
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition, generally an
industrial control system managed by a computer.
SoC System on Chip
SPI Serial Peripheral Interface Bus – a component in computing
Term Meaning
systems that provides data links
SRD Short Range Device
SRSM Project Supplier Requirements of Smart Metering project.
Exercise in 2006-08 undertaken by ERA to develop the
Smart Metering 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.
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.
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.
Figure 7 below presents the smart home context for the smart metering Local
Communications solution(s).
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.
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
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 and
software 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 28 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
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.
Within the Smart Metering Operational Framework, the SRSM project listed a
number of processes/activities that could be expected from a local device
(bearing in mind that all smart meters are themselves local devices):
- establish pairing/join network
- remove pairing/leave network
- receive data from smart meter (passive local device)
- access data from smart meter (active local device)
- update data on smart meter
- operate smart meter functionality
- send data to remote party via smart meter
- receive data from remote party via smart meter
- send data to local device via smart meter
- receive data from local device via smart meter
- send data to local device directly
- receive data from local device directly
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.
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.
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.
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 customer’s metering not to be visible on their
neighbour’s 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.
Meter
Worker
WA TER
‘ Ne t w o r k ’
W
AN
Pr
o
xy
Cu s t o m e r HA N
Customer
All of these distinct ‘Logical’ networks may have different conditions for
security, key management and for joining.
This approach would not comply with the GB requirements for 2 way Local
Communications, in that the public broadcast channel is one way only.
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.
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 (IEEE 802.15.4 radio) physical layer for the ZigBee smart energy
profile.
Metal meter cabinets 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
Page 39 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
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
Table 3 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
Table 4 Type of Dwelling - Scottish House Condition Survey 2004/5
Welsh Data:
Dwelling Type 000’s %
Detached 264 23
Semi-Detached 387 33
Terrace 405 35
Flats 101 9
Total 1,157 100
Table 5 1998 Welsh House Condition Survey
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 40 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
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.
Devices for these services could be designed to form part of the network
supported by smart meters, using the same communications technologies and
protocols. Water metering is an obvious consideration, potentially offering a
fixed network using the ubiquity of electricity metering as a gateway – it is seen
by some as cheaper and greener than building a new fixed network for water
metering, or continuing to invest in ‘walk-by’ and ‘drive-by’ AMR solutions.
Equally, principle P.1 applies – the focus for energy smart metering remains
the successful implementation of gas and electricity smart metering. It is
obvious that the smart metering communications infrastructure could be
attractive to other parties, and the technologies discussed in this report would
support their requirements. Commercial arrangements relating to fair usage
and payment for bandwidth could be negotiated on a bilateral or multilateral
basis, or form part of a defined additional service required by an energy
Supplier’s licence – this could be considered by any detailed work on smart
metering by the Government.
At the same time, other communications gateway options for homes are being
considered – e.g. Active Line Access – that may be more suitable or attractive
to third party solutions.
No Principle
P.1 Utility focus – the key requirement remains the communication between
smart meters and energy information display/control devices. Support
for other services and applications will be as a result of developing a
practical solution to the utility requirement.
P.2 The utility focus should necessarily result in a low bandwidth platform –
energy consumption and tariff data and control commands do not
require high data throughput rates.
P.3 The smart Metering Systems themselves will be responsibility of the
energy Supplier. The Home Area Network may be owned by the
customer. This allows them to add or remove any Local Devices.
P.4 The Local Communications solution will be interoperable – supporting a
range of metering products and local device applications.
P.5 The Local Communications solution will make use, wherever practical,
of open standards and architecture.
P.6 The intention is to adopt (and potentially develop) an existing solution
for Local Communications rather than develop a new one. This includes
the protocol and data definition.
P.7 The Local Communications baseline solution will be the same in all
energy smart meters – establishing a national specification.
P.8 The Local Communications solution will be energy efficient.
P.9 The Local Communications solution will be secure, as described in the
requirements below. Additional security measures may be implemented
by the Metering System and the application software. The Local
Communications solution will be secure in the context of providing
networked communications using low power radio (or similar) and
ongoing technological developments in security.
P.10 The Local Communications solution shall, as far as possible, be future
flexible – supporting innovation at the same time as supporting legacy
systems.
Table 7 Local Communications Principles
No Assumption
A.1 The Local Communications Solution will be compliant with relevant
legislation and regulations
No Assumption
A.2 Smart meter functionality is broadly equivalent to the SRSM Smart
Meter Specification.4
A.3 SRSM Smart Meters are expected to have an asset life of 10-15 years
or better.
A.4 Smart metering 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.
Table 8 Local Communications Assumptions
4
This should be consistent with the latest agreed version of the SRSM specification, at the
time of concluding this report this is v1.1 of the Smart Meter Specification.
Page 44 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
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 is
must provide for data exchange for intermittent communication
between smart meters and local devices between a 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.
GEN.3 The Local Communications Solution
shall not critically affect the power
consumption/battery life of a smart
Metering System
GEN.4 The Local Communications Solution
shall operate throughout the life of the
installed smart Metering System – it will
be capable of remote upgrade and
those upgrades shall be backwards
compatible
Communication
COM.1 The Local Communications Solution Note that domestic sized smart
must be able to operate effectively in the meters could be used in non-
majority of British domestic premises domestic premises.
without the need for additional
equipment Note that there may be
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
Page 47 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
Ref Factor
potential explosive atmospheres (ATEX).
Ref Factor
- waking up more frequently when credit levels (in debit mode) are
below a configurable threshold, to ensure that credit purchase
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)
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.
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.
5
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 52 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
7
In-Stat Market Research “ZigBee 2007: What it Iz and What it Iz not”
Page 57 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
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
telephony and PC markets.
Operates at 2.4GHz, with average power consumption of 5000μA
Website www.bluetooth.com
Reason for not Although there are a number of standards for Bluetooth, some of
including in which may include greater signal propagation and more efficient
evaluation power management, Bluetooth is viewed as too power-hungry and
not capable of sufficient range to meet the SRSM requirements.
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 Control 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
Page 62 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
Solution ISA100.11a
Description Provides a wireless industrial process automation network to
address control, alerting, and monitoring applications plant wide. It
focuses on battery-powered field devices with the ability to scale to
large installations and addresses wireless infrastructure, interfaces
to legacy host applications plus security, and network management
requirements in a functionally scalable manner.
Website http://snipurl.com/isa100
Reason for not Still under development
including in
evaluation
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
• Targeted at battery powered devices
• Supports secure encrypted Communications
• Star and peer to peer topology
• 38 to 230 kbit/s
• 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
Page 63 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
Solution PhyNet
Description IEEE 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 advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and
wireless sensor networks (WSN). 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
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.
There are many other emerging technologies in this area that have not been
included in this section. Examples include EnOcean, Ozmo, Cliffside from Intel
etc.
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
For: Could deliver end to end protocol solution for Suppliers and
Authorised Parties
Against: Protocol is still under development
Notes:
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.
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 69 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
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
8
Technical Architecture for UK Domestic Smart Meter Systems, Alistair Morfey, Cambridge
Consultants 2007
Page 70 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
Used by/for: Most major meter manufacturers supply ANSI C12 compliant
meters to the American market
For: Mature, metering specific standards. Have an existing XML
Schema
Against: Levels of support for gas metering?
Notes:
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.
XML can be compressed substantially, particularly if a known
schema is available.
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.
Throughout the process, it has been noted that the technology receiving the
highest rating 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.
Following discussions within the Development Group, it was concluded that
any data modelling undertaken would be based almost entirely on
assumptions about the types of activities and the file formats, and was
therefore not practical to undertake at this time.
The weighting, which assists the group with prioritising any gap analysis, is
shown in Table 18 below.
A number of criteria have been assessed as Yellow where the claims of the
solution options remain based on ‘desktop’ evidence only, where the group felt
that evidence from testing would result in a clearer view of performance.
10
It was acknowledged during group discussions that an excellent design would represent a
poor substitute for commercial momentum
Page 75 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
11
AES encryption is optional in Wavenis, but it is assumed that it would be enabled by default
for all GB smart metering use
Page 79 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
12
It was noted by the group that any technologies operating as fabless providers may present
a higher risk than Bluetooth or ZigBee @2.4
Page 80 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
Bluetooth low energy: throughout the assessment of the Bluetooth low energy
solution option, it should be noted that at the time of preparing the
assessment, this technology was not available for review. Therefore all ratings
for Bluetooth low energy have been recorded as ‘Unknown’. The evaluation
notes assume the exclusive use of Bluetooth Low Energy for the solution.
Standard Bluetooth may be used to provide additional functionality for some of
the applications that move beyond the immediate requirements, but is not
included in these notes.
Wireless M-Bus: the comments and views relating to Wireless M-Bus were not
available for the group evaluation discussion on the 2nd October and were
provided subsequently for inclusion in this report. Concerns have been
expressed by members of the group about the interoperability of M-Bus,
where some metering implementations are utilising the S2 or T2 as required
by the individual markets. There are also concerns relating to the capability of
M-Bus to provide coverage for all GB homes, given that there is no current
provision in the standard for repeaters.
Robust messaging
• ZigBee messaging is highly robust, with clear
channel assessment before sending a packet;
• Retries at a MAC level and
• Further retries if necessary at an APS (Application
Support) level, resulting in 12 attempts to send a
message in a ~5 second period before a message
actually fails.
Customer Intervention:
• No customer intervention is required typically to
maintain communications.
• Of course, if a device (e.g. In-Home-Display) is
broken and has to be replaced, then some re-
commissioning is required, and this might be done
by the energy customer (depending on procedures)
• As with any other radio technology, if the user
changes the environment to directly block the radio
signal between two devices and there is no other
path, then some user intervention would be
required to clear the blockage, move one of the
devices (e.g. in-home-display) or introduce a
routing device to allow the message to route around
the blockage.
14
ZigBee @ 868MHz should, in theory, have the same security foundations as 2.4GHz.
However, it was felt by the group that these were as yet untested, hence the lower rating for
6.1 & 6.2
Page 105 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
7.3 Bluetooth Bluetooth devices shipped today still work with devices
low shipped 8 years ago. Backwards compatibility is a key
energy15 requirement that is tested before any specification can
be released. The same philosophy is being applied to
low energy.
7.3 Wavenis The most recent Wavenis devices with enhanced
features (synchronized network) are backward
compatible with the 1st generation Wavenis with non-
synchronized network shipped in 2000.
7.3 Wireless M-Bus is carried since 1997. There are active Working
M-Bus16 groups continuing work on this standard. RF-Solution
was released in 2005. The Open Metering Working
Group selected S-Mode and T-Mode only (S1m are
excluded). The long preamble sequence of S-Mode
allows alternating scanning of both channels in time.
For a reception unit, both Modes should be supported.
15
Whilst the proven principles of the Bluetooth SIG support backwards compatibility, the
introduction of low energy will break this – i.e. existing devices will not interoperate with ‘low
energy only’ devices
16
The group expressed concerns that there are compatibility issues within the M-Bus
standard – ‘S’ and ‘T’ types do not interoperate
Page 109 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
8.1 Bluetooth Bluetooth low energy is designed for mass market, cost
low sensitive applications. Silicon costs for 100k volumes
energy are expected to be at the following levels for 2010,
falling in future years
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
Page 116 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
The solution ‘providers’ within the group certainly understand more about the
particular requirements of potential customers in energy metering and related
devices, and those customers are equally more aware of the options and
opportunities these solutions present.
The process has moved all participants forward to a point where the
requirements and solutions are converging. It is clear from the work of the
group that it is possible for the requirements for Local Communications for
smart metering to be met by technologies available today.
11.2 Recommendations
The group recommends that its’ work be continued in a timely manner, under
whatever framework is determined to deliver smart metering, in order to make
use of the wealth of information contained within this report.
It has been evident that more work is required to understand and document
detailed user requirements for Local Communications for smart metering. This
will be a challenging activity, as this is a new area for energy retailers and
meter manufacturers, particularly within an ‘interoperable’ environment as
required for smart metering. This does not need to be a very detailed piece of
work, but clarifying some of the potentially ambiguous areas would be
beneficial:
• Detailed assessment of how energy retailers anticipate utilising the Local
Communications solutions to support new energy services propositions,
and how these might differ from the accepted and understood paradigms
of consumption information display and tariff signals
• Local Communications operating as a proxy/link for WAN Communications
activities – for the Last Mile or for a Meter Operator HHU
• Distinguishing between utility or energy usage of Local Communications
and the HAN, particularly how this would relate to control and security
within these networks
• Duty cycles for gas meters for display information. Understanding how
often a battery based device is required to transmit data will assist with
understanding the potential battery costs
When commencing this exercise in January 2008, it was envisaged that some
guidance on the market model for smart metering in GB would have been
forthcoming, which could have clarified the possibility of low power radios
being utilised as part of the WAN Communications infrastructure for smart
metering. Throughout, this ‘Last Mile’ potential has therefore been kept slightly
separated from the Local Communications Group activity looking at supporting
interactions within a home, as it could have been rendered redundant under
particular market models.
The longer this report sits on the shelf, the greater risk that things could have
moved forwards significantly. The solutions themselves, or the evaluation
criteria could change materially, for example the potential to use Local
Communications solutions for Last Mile.
Following the evaluation discussion within the group it was felt that additional
evaluation criteria should be added to the set for any subsequent activity.
These are highlighted in the table below.
As can be seen from the issues with the small test conducted by members of
the group (appendix C), any field test needs to be meticulously planned and is
an exercise not to be underestimated.
It was noted by the group that several smart metering initiatives have
conducted similar evaluative and comparative testing of low power radio
technologies, and where possible their findings should be included and/or
referenced in any GB specific report.
Wherever relevant, additional information from the group has been added as
footnotes to this table.
Ref Criteria Field Lab Test Panel Not
Test Review tested
1.1 Low level of energy customer Y
intervention/support required to
17
Will need to understand the power consumption in sleep mode for lab
testing, or, alternatively - milliwatt for range achieved
18
Notes on testing 4.1:
- faster isn’t necessarily better, throughput/”speed” depends on
usage/range
Page 121 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
However, it has appeared that Bluetooth low energy is still some way from
being available to test – Q1 2009 has yet to be confirmed. Further doubts have
been raised by a number of participants in the group as to the actual
performance characteristics and power consumption, and therefore suitability
for consideration for smart metering. These doubts can only be addressed by
testing actual products. Given this status the current assessment of Bluetooth
low energy has been generically classified as “No Information Available”.
11.4.2 Wavenis
Wavenis is a successful solution for metering already, particularly for the Last
Mile, with a strong evidence base of installed European utility meters. From
the desktop exercise and the group meetings, it looks to be a very technically
accomplished radio solution, offering range and security at low power.
The newly established Wavenis OSA is also a positive move towards open
standards and interoperability, but this is quite a recent development. It is also
the case that Wavenis does not currently have a smart meter specific ‘profile’
similar to ZigBee Smart Energy, preferring to let customers develop specific
applications using the Wavenis radio. This is not a ‘good fit’ with the principles
for GB smart metering, where adoption of an end-to-end solution is preferred
to development.
Each of these points can, and should be addressed in order to ensure that
MBus is considered equitably with the other solutions.
However, getting representation for this option has been challenging, and
there does not appear to be support across a number of semi conductor
manufacturers. Whilst products are now starting to appear, these are not
generally tied directly to smart metering, and do not currently offer the ZigBee
Smart Energy profile, which is of key interest to the group.
11.4.6 Z Wave
The progress by the Z Wave Alliance towards a realistic smart
metering/energy offering, even during the group activities to produce this
report, has been impressive.
Further, the development of the Advanced Energy Control profiles, the work
on Z/IP and the solid foundation in home automation are all very positive.
13 References
Shown below are references to relevant materials and resources.
Of the evaluation criteria ‘8.1 – Cost’ and ‘9.4 – Capacity of Silicon Vendors’ do
not have matching references in the Principles, Assumptions and
Requirements, as these are purely commercial considerations.
Of the Principles ‘P.3 – Ownership of the Network’ is not evaluated as this will
not be something the Local Communications Solution can affect. Similarly ‘P.7
– National Standard’ is a product of the process rather than anything an
individual solution can establish.
Of the Assumptions ‘A.1 – Legal’ does not need to be evaluated, ‘A.2 – SRSM
Functionality’ is implied in the requirements and ‘A.4 – Utility Robust’ is
addressed by the requirements and evaluation criteria, but not explicitly.
It has also been suggested that any Last Mile evaluation be included in any
field and laboratory testing for the Local Communications solution, but only
Page 132 of 140 5-Nov-08
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_5
where practical for cost and time concerns. A particular example raised would
be to test the ‘house to house’ performance to give an indication of the
appropriateness of the solution for different types of neighbourhood.
Full detail of the responses from group members to the published test are
presented below the extract from the report.
Test Report
The test used the following equipment:
- Four printed circuit boards (two transmitters and two receivers)
powered by battery. Two boards were prepared with 868MHz radio,
and two with 2.4GHz radio. In order to make the test as objective as
possible the transmitter output power on all four boards was set to the
prescribed 0dBm, and the radio chips were sourced from the same
company, where the chips were manufactured using the same
processes.
- Within the time and cost constraints of the project, the boards were as
closely matched as was possible.
- Each board had an LCD display to indicate a numerical interpretation of
the received signal strength.
The test that was performed:
- One board of each pair was set to transmit an encoded data word to its
counterpart. The receiving board would display a quality/signal strength
number if and only if the signal was detected and the word decoded
correctly.
- A perfect signal would display a quality number 255, and the poorest
decoded signal would display 1. Although automatic gain controls
(AGC’s) were employed in both chips, the number was a linear
representation of the size of signal reaching the receiver board.
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.
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 Table 27. A figure of 255 denotes full
reception, whilst 0 denotes no reception. There is no reference to the
distances or barriers to hinder the signal, as this test aimed to measure
relative performance for the two frequencies.
6 Operation of the video sender did severely disrupt the Wi-Fi Router, in
two locations.
7 In locations where both frequencies were working satisfactorily, the
signals did not affect other I.S.M. appliances such as Wi-Fi or video
senders.
8 It is possible to add a power amp to the 2.4GHz radio and increase its
output power to 10mW. This would increase the range of 2.4GHz radio
to about the same as the 868MHz radio, but would use more energy,
affect battery life, and may cause interference.
“I welcome the sort of testing carried out by Eric and Kevin, however I have
serious concerns about the assumptions made for these tests, the actual tests
carried out, some of the observations and the conclusions with regard to the
suitability of 2.4GHz ZigBee.
In particular, it could be argued that the choice of transmit power and possibly
the choice of silicon (or at least the lack of variety of silicon tested) was
flawed.
It could also be argued that the assumptions about the effect of increased
transmit power on battery life for 2.4GHz devices was flawed.
sensitivity is roughly equivalent to double the range in free space when two
devices talk to one another.
• Even when using a good performing ZigBee radio, the implementation of
the PCB design is important, and small flaws can cause huge loss of
range.
• Be sure that you are testing the receipt of messages and not just radio
performance. ZigBee has a number of layers in the stack, each one trying
to get a message through, and a typical ZigBee message is actually retried
12 times at various layers before the application is told that a message has
failed. A better test of performance is to send X messages with Y inter-
packet delay and count how many were received.
• Finally, while it is understood that point to point RF performance is
important because the smart metering system cannot make any
assumptions about available routing or relaying devices in the home, it
should be considered that ultimately ZigBee is designed for robust mesh
networking and any blind spots in a home can be covered by the use of
routers, which could come in the form of plug through energy
meters/controllers or powered in-home displays even in the short term.”
Online Reference
The full text of the report and responses from group members can be viewed
online at:
http://snipurl.com/lcdfieldtest
Unlike some alternative options available for Local Communications in the UK,
ZigBee 2.4GHz offers a lot of flexibility in the final solution. Some
technologies are defined only at a radio (MAC & PHY) level, which means that
they require someone to do a lot of work to get effective, robust, secure and
interoperable communications working well. Some technologies are more
than that, but do not go as far as to define the application level messages and
protocols, network formation mechanisms, key establishment protocols etc.
The choice of ZigBee at 2.4GHz would in fact offer the whole spectrum of
options for UK Smart metering and ensure that any requirements could be
implemented successfully;
ZSE is an application profile that defines the entire application including all
messaging, secure transport of network keys and link keys, network formation
and discovery etc. If the UK, like many US utilities and Victoria in Australia,
was to specify ZSE, in its entirety, as a requirement for their smart metering
Local Communications, this could be easily communicated and understood as
a requirement to manufacturers as there is already a certification process in
place to ensure that products conform to the standard and are interoperable.
Inevitably, ZSE has not been developed with the UK market specifically in
mind and the majority of manufacturers, utilities etc. involved in defining the
spec were focussed on requirements for California and Texas, so it is likely
that there are some modifications that the UK would want to the standard. For
example, UK smart metering might decide that the Certicom ECC key
exchange mechanisms are not required and may want an alternative
mechanism included in the spec for use in the UK. The mechanism for
proposing and completing modifications to the standard within the ZigBee
Alliance are well defined and tested, and it should be quite easy once
requirements are known, to make modifications, which might be generic or
specific to the UK market.
It would be an unusual and unlikely move, but UK smart metering could decide
to define an entirely new application profile which is unique to the UK and
either totally proprietary or proposed as a new public application profile.
Standard ZigBee networking offers all of the discovery, network formation,
routing, message clusters etc. in any case, and any new profile could take
advantage of that. More likely, some proprietary operation could be
implemented in individual products alongside and as well as the ZSE
application profile (on a different endpoint within the device), to provide
innovation and differentiation as well as standardisation and interoperability in
a single product.
Summary
One of the requirements asks about the ease of adapting or reusing existing
profiles or specifications. It’s easy to answer this question from a purely
academic viewpoint of the amount of hours of work needed to make the
change, but that misses the point that profiles are intimately tied in with
certification programs and ultimately with the level of interoperability. It’s
useful to explain this dependence as it is not clear in the majority of responses
and may affect some of the decisions that are made.
Profiles first made a major appearance as part of the DECT standard to try
and solve the problem that although every vendor used the same specification
for their DECT handsets none of them were interoperable. The reason is that
DECT, like most other wireless specifications, defines the physical hardware
of the radio and the protocol stack that sits on top of it, but does not define the
application that determines how devices connect to each other. That is
typically left to the manufacturer, who put pressure on standards bodies to
omit this level of detail, as the manufacturers often believe that the user
interface is where they differentiate themselves from competing products. To
take an analogy, you can think of the specification as defining the human
body. However, without a defined language, which might be vocal or signing,
two different humans are only capable of limited communication.
Bluetooth took the concept further, with multiple application oriented profiles,
each of which dictated how a specific application would operate using the
Bluetooth wireless link. They also encouraged different application
developers to produce a range of profiles, such that Bluetooth vendors can
ship interoperable products as diverse as stereo headsets, blood pressure
meters and GPS receivers, confident that they will work with a device certified
for the matching half of the profile. ZigBee has in turn adopted the same
approach.
As a result we have the concept of public or standards led profiles, which are
part of the published standard and enforced by the standards group, as well
as private profiles which are developed by groups of manufacturers for their
own use, where they manage the testing and certification process.
For a major usage case, the public profile is the preferable route. However,
because standards bodies are open, any profile development working group
will be open to all interested parties. This means that the profile may end up
more complex than some members would wish. As its adoption also relies on
all members coming to consensus, the process can become extremely
extended. Public profiles are rarely completed in less than nine months and
can take years. But as they are “owned” by the standard, the full resources
and experience of the standards group will be used in developing the test
regime, certification and enforcement programs, which are likely to be very
robust.
The alternative is the private profile, which can be defined and built on existing
profiles in a relatively short timescale. However, companies developing
private profiles must be aware of the overhead of writing test regimes and
setting up certification processes. These are a major task, the scale of which
is frequently underestimated. Standards groups have specialists who have
years of experience in doing this. Private profile developers rarely do. But
without them in place, the profile only delivers a limited part of its promise.
Bluetooth low energy has tried to learn from its experience. Current Bluetooth
profiles include a lot of complexity about the control of the application, largely
because this is not elegantly handled lower down in the stack. With low
energy, more granularity of control and data transfer has been added to the
underlying protocols, meaning that the higher layer profiles or data dictionaries
that define device interaction are much simpler. As a result it is hoped that
many of these can be written in a few months, with certification processes in
place within six months. Having said which, the differences between public
and private profiles still apply.