|
|
|
|
Duke Energy Remains Committed to Interoperability
By Will McNamara, Principal Consultant, KEMA
|
|
|
Much has been said about the need for open standards for AMI and/or Utility of the Future systems. However, the actual implementation of AMI, Smart Grid, and smart appliance communication still is largely based on proprietary protocols. The utility industry has not yet developed sufficient detail around open standards, although a movement toward that objective is underway among consultants, vendors and utilities. Many in the industry are optimistic that acceptable standards can be developed in the next six to twelve months. Others take a more pessimistic view and state that the work toward standards has resulted in only limited measurable success relative to the pace of technology deployments.
One utility is taking a proactive stance in its unwavering commitment to build its Smart Grid project on a foundation of interoperability concepts. Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy, which is now in the initial stages of deploying its Utility of the Future design, has consistently conveyed to the vendor community that the critical component of its project vision is open, non-proprietary communications. Further, the message that Duke has sent to vendors is that it wants to easily interchange components throughout its system as upgrade needs arise.
At the request of Duke Energy, KEMA recently hosted a roundtable discussion with a number of utilities in various stages of AMI / Smart Grid deployment. The focus of the discussion was interoperability, the need for standards, and the current responsiveness among the vendor community to requests for open, non-proprietary system solutions. The dialogue revealed a range of utility perspectives on the still-evolving path toward interoperability and the development of AMI standards.
|
|
|
The Importance of Interoperability
Some utilities may still question the value of interoperability, or are uncertain about what the concept should entail and what benefits may ensure from its use. Interoperability can generally be defined as the ability of a system or product to work with other systems or products without special effort on the part of the customer (utility). From a practical perspective, this would mean that any system could read any meter, any meter could be read by any system, and no special modification by a vendor would be required to integrate a new device. The ultimate goal of interoperability is a true sense of “plug and play” in that, as an AMI system requires new components, a new device would be able to register itself upon installation and immediately begin to communicate with neighboring systems.
Most utilities planning or deploying their AMI / Smart Grid systems find themselves in the process, to one extent or another, of developing a more sophisticated interface to existing operational applications. For instance, some utilities may begin the process of adding components to the traditional head-end systems that have managed the communications and end devices in the field for automated meter reading (AMR). The integration of these new systems with other applications—such as outage management, distribution management and planning, load forecasting, and substation automation systems—is a common component of the system planning.
The challenge of integrating communication to endpoint devices, specifically to meters, is the extensive change out of endpoint devices that might be necessary to upgrade the network communications. As communication technology advances, like the advance from analog to digital cellular, any integrated communication using the analog system would likely need to be changed to work on the upgraded system. In effect, any upgrade in communication technology would require a system-wide change out of meters, distribution devices, home area networks, etc., to take advantage of the technical innovation. Therefore, even communications systems that adopt open architectural standards, but are integrated into the device, present a challenge in upgrading communications technology.
Duke Energy strongly believes that when implemented correctly, interoperability can significantly reduce integration costs and support greater operational efficiency. Nevertheless, the effort toward achieving interoperability faces many challenges, including lengthy installation times of new applications, the realization that new applications may not map well to existing utility organizational structures, and the uncertainty of specifying the environment that the new system will be expected to support in the future.
|
|
|
Duke Energy’s Utility of the Future
Duke’s Utility of the Future effort is designed to enable operational and energy efficiency for the utility system, as well as beyond the meter applications in consumers’ premises. A key component of the project is smart metering and related communications infrastructure.
The envisioned communications network will not only enable two-way data transmission direct to the meter, but will also interface with other distribution system assets and enable communications beyond the meter. Duke Energy is specifying a network that is based on open, accepted standards so that devices can be networked with minimal effort from third parties. The company believes that protocols will provide a degree of protection from obsolescence and facilitate innovation at the endpoints due to the ease of connecting devices to the network. Further, Duke planners envision linking distribution automation and automated metering as an integrated system. They also plan to provide access to home premises for customers to monitor and control electric load, with the expectation that the market will develop “off-the-shelf” network devices for energy management and with compatibility to other potential utility network designs.
Duke also has specified separating the communications network from endpoints on the distribution system including meters. This represents a departure from the majority of the industry which is generally willing to purchase meters with integrated communication components. Peer companies in the industry are currently implementing AMI as the basis for their smart grid with integrated communication systems. Companies like Southern California Edison (SCE), American Electric Power (AEP), Florida Power & Light (FPL), and Con Edison are moving forward with implementations that have integrated communications within the meter, with varying degrees of open architecture. Integrated communications has the advantage of lowering manufacturing costs, but Duke Energy’s concern is that it would lock them into a system that cannot be easily upgraded, or used to network other assets without significant effort from third parties. Additionally, Duke
Duke Energy is specifying a network that is based on open, accepted standards so that devices can be networked with minimal effort from third parties. The company believes that protocols will provide a degree of protection from obsolescence and facilitate innovation at the endpoints due to the ease of connecting devices to the network. Further, Duke planners envision linking distribution automation and automated metering as an integrated system. They also plan to provide access to home premises for customers to monitor and control electric load, with the expectation that the market will develop “off-the-shelf” network devices for energy is concerned that advances in communication technology could not be adopted without changing out significant components of its Smart Grid infrastructure.
Without question, the cornerstone of Duke’s Utility of the Future is interoperability. Its system will be based on the capability of connecting any device to the communications system with a standard connection (USB or Ethernet, for example). A challenge for the company is that, in Duke Energy’s experience thus far, it seems that most technology vendors are not looking at the entire network chain, end-to-end, from a holistic smart grid concept. Consequently, Duke anticipates that it will continue to work with multiple vendors that can interoperate in the near-term.
Another major concern for Duke Energy that supports its commitment to interoperability relates to obsolescence of products it might purchase in the near-term. Duke believes that open protocols provide a degree of protection from premature obsolescence and will facilitate innovation at the endpoints due to the ease of connecting additional devices to the network.
Of course, leading equipment vendors have been providing reliable endpoint devices using consistent protocols for many years, and one could argue that there are as many examples of products remaining the same over the years as products that are subject to obsolescence. However, Duke Energy believes that, based on the nature of technology used, the possibility of “time to technological obsolescence” is comparable to the cycle time taken to deploy the project. Furthermore, it is difficult to forecast how the pricing structure of current technologies will change in the future. Technologies that are cost prohibitive now (e.g., WiMax) may become more economically viable in the future. This viability could have a significant bearing on a utility’s business case and cost recovery strategy.
Duke has also recognized that AMI offerings in the industry today closely tie network management and device management. Several leading vendors provide a meter with an integrated communication device management. Several leading vendors provide a meter with an integrated communication device that is managed from one head-end IT system. Others offer similar configurations, but integrate proprietary protocols, IP-based protocols, and emerging industry standards. Duke’s position is that the primary drawback of an integrated network management and device management head-end system is the inability to change the network management IT system unless the device management can also be changed.
Moreover, Duke believes that achieving the Utility of the Future vision hopefully will result in a communication system supporting interoperability, or the capability of connecting any device to the communication system with a standard connection. Again, the challenge is finding manufacturers willing to make devices supporting interoperability, as outlined by the Duke vision.
|
|
|
Other Utilities
During the course of the roundtable discussion, a number of other utilities expressed a more measured approach toward interoperability. For instance, AEP is looking closely at the telecom network infrastructure and protocols such as IPV6, IEC 61850, DNP3, Modbus, and C12.19 tables. While AEP is interested in open architecture, as opposed to proprietary solutions, its vendor offerings reportedly have not been at the point of “open standards,” especially inside the home applications. AEP believes that in the next few years the industry can get to this point, but it will also require protocols such as ZigBee to address security issues.
AEP appears to believe that one way to limit the impacts of changing technologies is to install a scalable RF mesh and IP backbone. In other words, a robust communication infrastructure may be necessary to provide the flexibility to accommodate futuristic changes of devices and even software. AEP is also initiating future proofing through contracts with vendors to provide long-term support. However, there is an intrinsic risk in that vendors may exit the business, resulting in termination of vendor support.
FPL, according to Bryan Olnick, who is managing the utility’s intelligent grid project, likes the concept of IP-based protocols, but believes that the definition of interoperability needs further discussion and clarity. For instance, it remains somewhat unclear how utilities are defining interoperability as information exchange across the entire stream of generation, transmission, and distribution, including AMI. In other words, it has yet to be determined how data inside the home, or control panels inside the home, will be linked to generation and whether generation can trigger certain actions inside the home.
Regarding the obsolescence issue, one of the issues that FPL appears to be evaluating is the time span in which technology becomes obsolete and also to what extent technological obsolescence will result in financial and regulatory issues. One of the options that FPL is looking at is system design and redundancy, in an effort to insulate itself from technology changes.
Con Edison has stated that, in its experience, the challenge has not been related to non-standard products and technology but rather the performance of “actual” robustness, reliability, and conformance of devices that vendors have promised. In Con Edison’s view, some products that are supposedly standardized have not functioned as expected in the field, requiring subsequent modifications to meet the deployment requirements, which at times may require a non-standardized solution. Other utilities in the recent roundtable agreed that they have experienced similar situations.
|
|
|
The Road from Here
Clearly, there is not an overall resolution to the interoperability dialogue at the present time that will encompass the requirements of all utilities. While Duke Energy remains committed to the concept and continues to work with a number of vendors on various solutions that could potentially meet its vision, the utility also realizes that it will continue to face challenges and some resistance to achieving this vision. Within the dialogue among the utilities, several questions remained unanswered:
How well will current AMI system choices serve as the foundation or backbone communications infrastructure for a Smart Grid design, in the absence of accepted standards and full interoperability?
How well can current and emerging choices and standards activities create a potential communications path that could ultimately facilitate end-to-end networking, from generation to transmission and all the way into the consumer premise and personal networks?
To what extent will the industry focus on interoperability address all of the interface needs between different metering, communications, and data collections systems?
To what extent will other drivers and considerations influence interoperability, such as market variance and state/federal regulations?
Contact the author at will.mcnamara@kema.com.
|
|
|
Download the December 2007 Issue
Use the link below to download the PDF of the full issue of the December 2007 Automation Insight to view the complete print versions of the articles.
|
|
|
|
[download] Automation Insight Dec 2007 (.pdf 881 kb)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
