Post on 13-Dec-2015
Hugh D. Baker, Jr.
AMI Open Standards
AMI Value Propositions
Operational efficiencies Do more with less
Improving reliability Outage detection
Cost reductions Eliminate meter readers
Improved customer service Accurate billing “Advanced Energy Services”
Typical Deployment Challenges
Diverse service area Customer density Topography
Diverse internal “customer” base Multiple uses of meter data
Evolving utility business model Additional services to customers
Utility AMI Requirements
Interoperability of systems Multiple AMI technologies Other technologies (e.g., demand
response) Multiple communications pathways Manageable technology risk
Long term technology sustainability Stable vendors; multiple vendors
Affordability
Proprietary AMI
Duplicative hardware Single purpose software
Expensive Single point of failure
May require specialized expertise to operate
Training costs Inefficient use of scarce
labor resources Integration issues
MDM platform May not scale with
growth
Adding Other Applications
No hardware interoperability
Comms channels not leveraged
Additional specialized expertise to operate
More training costs Additional labor
scarcity issues Integration issues
Challenges for Proprietary Vendors
Must own the total user experience Hardware, communications, software
Must support many possible utility applications
Limited production runs Supply risk to customers
Design flaws may be fatal Vendor must do a lot of things well
Proprietary AMI Case Study
Small distribution utility Competitive market; regulated T&D services
only Compact, homogenous service area
100% AMI deployment in 2003-2004 Wireless mesh system Proprietary hardware Proprietary software
Business case Automated meter reading Customer access to interval data via website
Lessons Learned
Anticipate vendor supply issues Delivery of initial meter stock was delayed
Negotiate airtight vendor warranties System problems were encountered Legal remedies were non-existent Alternatives not available (proprietary) Relied on vendor goodwill to resolve
Plan for technological advances New technologies now available Not compatible with system deployed
Lessons Learned (continued)
Anticipate future business requirements No ability to add additional
functionality Multiple value propositions
required Breakeven feasibility in this case
Utility Perspective: Proprietary
Proprietary = Risk Limited leverage with vendor after
sale Vendor stability must be considered
Proprietary = Higher cost Proprietary = Reduced flexibility
Open AMI Principles1
Shareability Minimize
duplication Ubiquity
Maximize available infrastructure
Integrity High performance
Ease of use Logical, intuitive
Cost effectiveness Capital cost, O&M
Standards Defined, published,
stable Openness
Available to all qualified users
Security Protected from
unauthorized access
1. Source: OpenAMI Task Force. “Advanced Metering Infrastructure with Demand Response Design Principles.” www.openami.org.
Open Architecture
Progress on Open Standards
ANSI C.12.22 Each end-point is addressed Information moved in data packets Data packets independent of
communications network Standardized addressability and security
Vendors are embracing open standards (e.g., Itron’s OpenWayTM, Tantalus’
TUNet®, Echelon®, MeterSmart’s EncentraTM, etc.)
Conclusions
Utilities win with open systems Lower risk Lower costs Greater flexibility
Vendors with open systems win Opens larger markets Reduces risk for vendors
Open protocols enable an “intelligent grid”
Utility / customer interface