ADVICE TO COAG ENERGY COUNCIL · • Opportunities to leverage the shared market protocol to...

SHARED MARKET PROTOCOL

ADVICE TO COAG ENERGY COUNCIL

11 March 2015


IMPORTANT NOTICE

Purpose The purpose of this advice is to provide information about advanced meter functionality and shared market protocols. This version of the advice is being circulated for industry information.

This publication is based on information available to AEMO as at 13 March 2015.

Disclaimer AEMO has made every effort to ensure the quality of the information in this publication but cannot guarantee that information is accurate or complete. Any views expressed in this report are those of AEMO unless otherwise stated, and may be based on information given to AEMO by other persons.

Accordingly, to the maximum extent permitted by law, AEMO and its officers, employees and consultants involved in the preparation of this publication:

• make no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the currency, accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information in this publication; and

• are not liable (whether by reason of negligence or otherwise) for any statements, opinions, information or other matters contained in or derived from this publication, or any omissions from it, or in respect of a person’s use of the information in this publication.

Acknowledgement AEMO acknowledges the support, co-operation and contribution of all members of the stakeholder reference group, established to assist the development of the advice.

© 2015. The material in this publication may be used in accordance with the copyright permissions on AEMO’s website.

Australian Energy Market Operator Ltd ABN 94 072 010 327 www.aemo.com.au [email protected]

NEW SOUTH WALES QUEENSLAND SOUTH AUSTRALIA VICTORIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TASMANIA

http://www.aemo.com.au/en/About-AEMO/Copyright-Permissions

http://www.aemo.com.au/

mailto:[email protected]


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and purpose On 25 June 2014, the Council of Australian Governments Energy Council (COAG EC) requested two pieces of advice from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) on requirements to inform a competitive framework for metering and related services. These requirements were for:

• A minimum functionality specification for advanced meters (complete and submitted to COAG EC in November 2014).

• A shared market protocol for advanced meter communications (due to be submitted to COAG EC in February 2015).

On 30 January 2015 the COAG EC accepted a proposal by AEMO to stage the delivery of shared market protocol (SMP) advice. AEMO was seeking a later delivery date but the AEMC required the first advice to support its consideration of governance of the SMP.

By 13 March 2015, AEMO is to provide advice on:

• A proposed shared market protocol for communications between providers of smart meters and providers of smart meter based services, including the initial scope and form of service levels and related performance requirements.

• The likely information technology requirements, costs and timeframes to enhance the existing B2B arrangements in order to implement and maintain a proposed shared market protocol.

This advice sought from AEMO will identify the extent to which an SMP would build on or diverge from existing systems such as the B2B Hub and will allow the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) to identify the changes in the Rules needed for implementation and governance of the shared market protocol.

By 15 May 2015, AEMO is to provide advice on:

• How new services could be incorporated into a shared market protocol over time.

• Opportunities to leverage the shared market protocol to provide additional services in the energy market, such as streamlined access to energy data and usage profiles.

The combined advice sought from AEMO will support the development of a competitive, market-led roll-out of metering and related services within the National Electricity Market (NEM), which is the subject of a Rule change currently being considered by the AEMC. The draft determination on that Rule change is expected to be released on 26 March 2015.

The services and business outcomes to initially be provided by the SMP were the subject of AEMO’s advice to the COAG EC in November 2014. This paper provides AEMO’s advice on the 13 March, 2015 deliverable and sets out, in more detail, the components of the SMP for delivering these services and provides details of the likely information technology (IT) and the likely cost and timeframe required to implement systems to support the protocol. The level of detail is limited for governance arrangements as these are the subject of a separate AEMC consultation. Similarly, the detail of the procedural and technical aspects of the shared market protocol is yet to be developed, being dependent on the recommendations of the COAG EC. The process for adding and deleting services to the SMP will be addressed in the 15 May, 2015 deliverable.

© AEMO 2015 1


Competition in metering services and arrangements for the SMP form part of the package of reforms to implement the recommendations of the Power of Choice review; enabling customers to more actively engage in the electricity market.

Key finding AEMO advises the COAG EC that the initial capabilities of the SMP should support a set of requests for services, the details of which are presented in this advice. Each service will have one or more service category types indicating the time frame in which the service is required. To ensure timely completion of services the information technology solution must support a 1 to 5 second timeframe for requests to be passed between parties. Subject to system maintenance, the capability to submit requests will generally be available from 8.00am to 9.00pm though a limited number of services will be available at all hours.

The emergence of new technologies and innovative service offerings to customers (e.g. advanced metering, electric vehicles, distributed generation and demand side participation) is fast outstripping the framework applied to the retail market. To meet the demands of a rapidly evolving market, the design of AEMO systems, including the SMP, must consider known requirements whilst being sufficiently agile and flexible to enable, rather than hinder ongoing market development and service innovation.

AEMO advises that the COAG EC consider implementing the SMP within an SMP Platform which replaces the current B2B Hub. The ultimate form of such a system could allow the SMP Platform to become a broader platform for market interactions beyond just advanced metering services. This is referred to as the Advanced SMP Platform option. However, we propose that only a partial step initially be taken towards such a system in order to keep costs and implementation timeframes reasonable and aligned with the immediate needs of the SMP. Given the potential scale for ongoing change and development in the retail market framework, staging changes over time allows systems to evolve with the requirements of the market. The proposed Intermediate SMP Platform would:

• Support existing B2B functionality. • Provide new B2B functionality with the speed to support the minimum performance

requirements of the SMP. • Provide a transaction delivery option that incorporates web services. This will add a

higher level of sophistication of SMP requests, provide wider service capabilities, and facilitate future expansion. A web-service capability will enable users to more easily integrate their customer management systems with the SMP Platform.

• Provide a secure Peer-to-Peer capability within the market systems. This will support SMP-compatible transactions while helping users to quickly get new services to market. It will also facilitate compatibility with existing Victorian advanced metering processes.

This SMP Platform would give users a range of interfacing options, ranging from methods used today to more sophisticated capabilities. This gives users a capability to match their own information technology investments with the level of capability they actually require for the services they use/offer. This platform provides significant scope for future evolution of the services and increased sophistication of service requests, while facilitating a later move to a more advanced platform with much broader capabilities and NEM applications.

It is estimated that this option could be in place for a cost of between $8 million and $13 million and within twelve to eighteen months of having a detailed design for the SMP. These estimates make no allowance for procedure development, support of industry consultations, or the effort required to conduct a market trial of new systems.

© AEMO 2015 2


The proposed SMP and SMP Platform provide an opportunity for the market to deliver services in a consistent fashion, whilst removing barriers to bringing new services to the market. The SMP Platform should allow for governance considerations to be focused on new services that can be offered through that platform, rather than considering changes to the platform itself. The governance arrangements should not be so onerous as to limit access to commercially useful services that can easily be offered and accommodated or to drive the SMP Platform development in a direction inconsistent with maintaining such flexibility. This is a particular issue for Peer-to-Peer transactions as these may require relaxed governance arrangements to allow new services to be brought to market quickly. The proposed SMP Platform includes capabilities to enrich transactions as they pass through the SMP Platform. For example, new transactions could be automatically generated on-completion of a service. This transaction enrichment capability needs to be considered in the governance arrangements as AEMO will be required to have a role in expanding or changing such services.

AEMO recommends that a further step be taken to extend the SMP Platform to the Advanced SMP option, when there is a stronger case to support this. AEMO believes that to capture the full benefits of an advanced system it would be beneficial for the use of the system to be mandatory. Potential triggers for a move to an Advanced SMP Platform will be explored in the second advice paper due in May.

If adopted, AEMO consider that an SMP could be developed as a component of the procedures under the NER. The implementation of this advice would be subject to the providing the capability for the market to identify that a meter is an advanced meter and establishing minimum service standards and governance arrangements.

AEMO’s advice meets the COAG EC’s objectives of supporting policy decision-making, providing detail, to the extent reasonable at this stage, as to the initial service offering and shared market protocol features while providing advice and reasoning for a recommended SMP Platform. Indicative information on cost and implementation timing is provided. It also seeks to answer all questions asked in the terms of reference.

Next steps This advice provides a view of the initial SMP capabilities and the general options and trade-offs with respect to a central AEMO operated SMP platform. The SMP must be able to accommodate new services while the SMP Platform may facilitate a broader array of capabilities. These will be the subject of the second piece of advice to the COAG EC to be provided in May.

© AEMO 2015 3


CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Objectives 2 1.2 Background 2

2. METHODOLOGY 4

2.1 Stakeholder engagement 4 2.2 Assessment of Information Technology options 4

3. THE SHARED MARKET PROTOCOL 5

3.1 Introduction 5 3.2 Governance 5 3.3 Eligible Users 6 3.4 Services 6 3.5 Service Categories 7 3.6 Performance Requirements 8 3.7 Dependencies on other Power of Choice changes 9

4. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 10

4.1 Introduction 10 4.2 Assessment Criteria 10 4.3 An Advanced SMP Platform 11 4.4 An Intermediate SMP Platform 13 4.5 A Basic SMP Platform 14 4.6 Costs and Implementation Time 15 4.7 Overall Assessment and Recommendation 16

5. CONCLUSION 17

APPENDIX A. REFERENCE GROUP MEMBERS 20

APPENDIX B. SHARED MARKET PROTOCOL CONTEXT 21

APPENDIX C. INITIAL SMP SERVICES 23

APPENDIX D. SERVICE CATEGORIES BY SERVICE 26

© AEMO 2014 4


1. INTRODUCTION In December 2012, the Standing Council on Energy and Resources (now the Council of Australian Governments’ Energy Council, or COAG EC) agreed to establish a framework to support competition in the provision of metering and related services. The COAG EC submitted a rule change request to the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) to establish this framework. The rule change request included proposals relating to advanced meter capability.

The AEMC provided its final advice on March 2014, and the COEG EC published its response in May 2014. In its advice the AEMC recommended that a ‘shared market protocol’ be developed for communication between users and providers of advanced metering services. This would promote competition in services enabled by smart meters. The initial advice contemplated that the shared market protocol would be implemented via AEMO’s existing Business to Business (B2B) Hub.

On 25 June 2014, the COAG EC requested advice from AEMO on:

• The requirements for a minimum functionality specification for advanced meters. • Requirements for a shared market protocol for advanced meter communications.

The minimum functionality specification (MFS) advice was completed and submitted to COAG EC in November 2014. In that advice AEMO proposed a minimum service standard (MSS) be employed rather than a minimum functionality specification.1

On 18th December 2014 the AEMC commenced a separate consultation called ‘Implementation advice on the shared market protocol’ which has a strong focus on governance arrangements.

Based on feedback from AEMO stakeholder consultation, the AEMC and COAG EC have acknowledged that the existing B2B Hub may not be able to provide all the requirements of the shared market protocol (SMP).

On 30 January 2015 the COAG EC accepted a proposal by AEMO to stage the delivery of SMP advice. By 13 March 2015, AEMO is to provide advice on:

• A proposed shared market protocol for communications between providers of smart meters and providers of smart meter based services, including the initial scope and form of service levels and related performance requirements.

• The likely information technology requirements, costs and timeframes to enhance the existing B2B arrangements in order to implement and maintain a proposed shared market protocol.

This advice sought from AEMO will identify the extent to which an SMP would build on or diverge from existing systems such as the B2B Hub and will allow the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) to identify the changes in the Rules needed for implementation and governance of the shared market protocol.

By 15 May 2015, AEMO is to provide advice on:

• How new services could be incorporated into a shared market protocol over time. • Opportunities to leverage the shared market protocol to provide additional services in the

energy market, such as streamlined access to energy data and usage profiles.

1 Minimum service standard is used in this document in place of minimum functionality specification.

© AEMO 2015 1


AEMO’s advice will:

• Reduce the time needed to implement an SMP in the market, once roles and responsibilities are determined by the AEMC through the Rule change on competition in metering and related services;

• Support AEMO’s planning for any changes to procedure or information technology resulting from adoption of an SMP;

• Support development of a rule change request to implement a shared market protocol in the NEM; this includes the AEMC’s considerations of implementation and governance arrangements required for the SMP;

• Inform development of tools to improve demand side participation in the electricity market, for example by improving access to energy data and usage profiles.

This current advice relates to the March 13th deliverable.

1.1 Objectives The overarching purpose of the work on meter functionality and a market protocol, in conjunction with the proposed competitive metering framework, is to contribute to the achievement of the National Electricity Objective (NEO), by ensuring that metering and related functionality and market protocols in the NEM support competition in the provision of electricity and demand side services to consumers.

The NEO is set out in s.7 of the National Electricity Law as follows:

“The objective of this Law is to promote efficient investment in, and efficient operation and use of, electricity services for the long term interest of consumers of electricity with respect to:

a) price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply of electricity; and

b) the reliability, safety and security of the national electricity system.”

The advice sought from AEMO is expected to contribute to the achievement of the NEO by supporting the development of a competitive metering framework which will facilitate the uptake of efficient demand side participant and support the provision of a range of competitive electricity products and services to consumers. This will enhance the ability of consumers to manager their electricity consumption and costs, so that investment in and operation and use of electricity services are more efficient.

The COAG EC terms of reference specify that a shared market protocol would need to recognise that smart meter services are already offered in Victoria, and consider how to integrate the Victorian arrangements for smart meter communications.

1.2 Background In its December 2014 consultation paper the AEMC described the SMP as2

“an electronic platform that allows parties to communicate with each other regarding the services that will be offered by advanced metering infrastructure. It also defines the format of the associated messages sent between the parties to provide those services.”

2 AEMC consultation paper, Implementation advice on the shared market protocol, 18 December 2014, page 1.

© AEMO 2015 2


The AEMC considered that an SMP would promote competition through reducing the barrier to entry for new retailers and energy service providers while not inhibiting innovation. This would be achieved through simplifying communications between parties in the markets and the ‘gate keepers’3 of smart meters. It should promote competition in demand side participation and related services by reducing barriers to entry for new retailers and energy service providers and promote innovation. The SMP is a default method of communication and does not preclude the use of alternative methods of communication. The framework must have regard for consumer protection and must be proportional to the market’s and consumers requirements.

An overview of the role and use of the SMP, reflecting the expected metering competition changes, is provided in Appendix B.

The AEMC recommended that the establishment, maintenance and governance of the SMP should be determined through an additional Rule change request once the Rule change on the competitive metering framework had been completed. The AEMC recommended that the COAG EC task AEMO to develop a proposed SMP, in consultation with interested parties, as the basis for this Rule change proposal. This would shorten the overall timeframe to develop the SMP and would be an important input to the development of the draft Rule change request for the SMP.

The COAG EC originally proposed that the SMP be delivered via AEMO’s existing B2B Hub. Stakeholder engagement as part of the development of the minimum service standards indicated a preference for a 1 to 5 second time for requests to cross the central SMP system. This time was viewed as aiding the minimisation of total time for submission, receipt and response to a service request. However, he B2B Hub simply moves files from one user’s mail box to another user’s mail box and is not expected to be able to reliably provide the 5 second transfer time. It is also a relative old technology that does not support most modern methods for interfacing between systems, and is therefore not considered suitable for use as the SMP

3 The ‘gate keeper’ is effectively the Metering Provider / Metering Data Provider that has the systems to communicate directly with the meter.

© AEMO 2015 3


2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Stakeholder engagement AEMO established a stakeholder reference group which met fortnightly from 25 July 2014 with the final meeting held on 21 November 2014. This group contributed to the development of both the MSS and to the SMP. The reference group comprised representatives from:

• Electricity retailers and distribution businesses. • Potential third party providers of energy services via advanced meters. • Potential metering coordinators. • Meter manufacturers. • Consumer representatives. • Representatives from Standards Australia and the National Measurement Institute. • Jurisdiction government officials. • Representatives from the AEMC and the Australian Energy Regulator.

A complete list of the reference group members and their respective organisations is attached at Appendix A.

Meetings took the form of round table discussions that were minuted in a working document, capturing all points of agreement, dispute, actions, and issues. AEMO and the AEMC also met regularly to make sure that progress aligned with the AEMC’s Metering Competition Rule change and broader Power of Choice initiatives.

AEMO has used all of this information to formulate its advice to the COAG EC. A draft of this document was provided to the reference group.

2.2 Assessment of Information Technology options The reference group focused on the initial services to be provided and the performance requirements of the SMP. It discussed the limitations of the B2B Hub and the potential relationships between the B2B Hub and the SMP, but did not debate the specifics of how the SMP would actually be delivered. As use of the SMP to access and deliver advanced metering services is not mandated, the reference group was unable to provide justification for considering the user costs of interfacing with the SMP, with the proviso that the costs should not be unreasonable.

AEMO has developed its advice on the form, cost and timing of the implementation of a new SMP Platform based on internal discussions within AEMO’s retail, metering and IT staff. The cost estimates are indicative, being based on experience with similar projects but have not been based on a detailed costing given an explicit requirement.

Consideration was given to solutions that would provide the minimum capabilities to support the SMP through to solutions that would provide capabilities to support significantly enhanced services beyond those contemplated today.

While AEMO is not required to provide advice to the COAG EC on enhanced options until May, some consideration of enhanced options are required to assess the potential capabilities of an SMP Platform. The assessment criteria used are described in Section 4.2.

© AEMO 2015 4


3. THE SHARED MARKET PROTOCOL

3.1 Introduction The SMP can be thought of as comprising a variety of components defining governance; the eligible users; the services that can be requested; the service categories; the service request capabilities; performance requirements; service change processes, and the technical communication formats and methods; procedures etc. This section touches briefly on governance, but mainly focuses on the users and the services, including their features and performance requirements. More technical and procedural details are not provided as these can only reasonably be developed upon finalisation of an approach to the SMP Platform and a commitment to proceed. The service change processes for adding and deleting services to the SMP will be addressed in the 15 May, 2015 deliverable so are not discussed here.

3.2 Governance The governance arrangements for the SMP are being considered in a parallel AEMC consultation. This advice will be used by the AEMC to help it form a view of the appropriate governance arrangements.

The reference group was of the view that any governance arrangements should provide for a less onerous and costly change management process. AEMO’s own considerations of options suggest a dependency between the nature of governance arrangements and the potential benefits of the information technology solution used to implement the SMP. This advice proposes a new SMP Platform that while replacing the B2B Hub would support B2B functionality. Flexibility and extendibility of the SMP platform can be achieved through a design that provides a quick path to implementing changed services which may have little or no impact on users of other SMP Platform services. Indeed, a sufficiently flexibility SMP Platform should allow governance considerations to be focused on new services that can be offered through that platform, rather than requiring changes to the platform. The governance arrangements should not be so onerous as to limit access to commercially useful services that can easily be offered and accommodated or to drive the SMP Platform development in a direction inconsistent with maintaining such flexibility.

To meet the demands of a rapidly evolving retail market, just as the design of the SMP should consider known requirements whilst enabling speed to market for new services, the governance arrangements should be equally agile. The approach for the development of policy, development of Rules and stakeholder engagement for development of procedures and protocols should be clear and consistent across the market.

The proposed SMP Platform contemplates the introduction of transaction enrichment capability within AEMO systems. This means that AEMO systems will provide functions like routing communications, facilitating business to market transactions, or triggering secondary communications. This transaction enrichment capability needs to be considered in the governance arrangements as AEMO will be required to have a role in expanding or changing services based on these capabilities.

The proposed SMP Platform also contemplates Peer-to-Peer communications between parties which are transacted within AEMO’s networks without passing through a central processing hub. If this proposal is adopted then governance arrangements should recognise that while such communications should align with the messaging and format standards of the SMP, the specific requests accommodated should not be restricted by all processes that would apply to common services available to all users. If a view were taken to not allow such

© AEMO 2015 5


Peer-to-Peer communications within the SMP then such transactions may simply by-pass the SMP entirely rather than becoming a common service.

3.3 Eligible Users In considering who can use the SMP it is important to consider that the SMP functionality has potential uses beyond the current services, and potentially beyond smart meter applications. Hence the potential future users could be a larger set than those currently required. The minimum set of users is:

• Metering Providers (requestors / providers)

• Metering Data Providers (requestors / providers)

• Distributors (requestors / providers)

• Retailers (requestors)

All current B2B users are included in this set and they would continue to be able to access B2B functionality via the SMP Platform.

The Metering Coordinator is not required to have access to the shared market protocol initially as it only assigns roles and role assignment is not a proposed initial function of the SMP.

More generally, the set of potential users should include:

• The capability for any user to be a requestor and a provider, though the capability to do so may depend on the service.

• Facilitation of new authorised users that do not yet exist but which could arise as a result of Power of Choice reforms or subsequent reforms.

• An SMP Platform with capability to allow users to interact with wider market systems could support functions that would allow access to a larger set of users, including Metering Coordinators – e.g. if role assignment could be done then the ability should exist to give any party access if allowed / capable.

The SMP Platform proposed has the capability to facilitate the first two of these capabilities and is extendible to provide the third capability.

3.4 Services As suggested in AEMO’s advice on the Minimum Functional Specifications the types of services that could be requested via the SMP included.

• Primary services: Services provided as part of a competitive rollout of advanced meters.

• Secondary services: Services provided as part of a non-competitive rollout.

• Value-added services: Other advanced metering services.

• Infrastructure services: Services related to the physical metering equipment and collection.

The initial set of services that could be requested via the SMP include primary, secondary and infrastructure services provided by Service Providers and infrastructure services provided the Network Service Providers. Consideration has also been given to how the SMP could support

© AEMO 2015 6


value added services. In its previous advice AEMO concluded that parties interested in acquiring non-mandated services could negotiate delivery on a case-by-case basis.

All current B2B functionality, including non-metrology services, will be supported by the SMP Platform.

The SMP protocol is a living protocol and can be evolved over time. The initial design includes the capability to offer infrastructure services which are not limited to advanced metered services. This highlights the capability of the SMP Platform to be extended. The potential to leverage the SMP Platform in other ways will be discussed in a future piece of advice to COAG.

Figure 1 – Summary of the Initial SMP Services

Figure 1 summarises the initial services to be offered. A full definition of these services are provided in Appendix C. Mandated services to be offered through the shared market protocol by MPs/MDPs who offer advanced metering services are identified, to align with the previous advice to the COAG EC on Minimum Functionality of Advanced Meters.

3.5 Service Categories The SMP offers a number of ‘service categories’ which control the scheduling of a service and the time frame for the performance of the service. Based on the characteristics of the

De-energisation

On Demand

Advanced Meter Services

Re-energisation (arming of the meter)

Re-energisation

Meter Read

Load Limiting

Load Management

Meter Re-configuration

Metering Installation Enquiry

Scheduled Read

Provide Local Access to Metering System via Registered Device

Scheduled

New Connection

Change Meter

Test Meter Equipment

Meter Fault Resolution

Resolve Communication Failure

Meter Investigation

Revenue Assurance Investigation

De-Energisation

Re-Energisation

Supply Failure

Supply Restoration

Infrastructure

Meter Notifications

Supply Abolishment

© AEMO 2015 7


services, AEMO have proposed that each service can be assigned to one or more of the following service categories:

In the future

Set and forget

A transaction that requests that a service is performed, either tomorrow or in the future, and reoccurs per a schedule. For example, a scheduled meter read.

Set & expect

A one off transaction that requests that a service is performed, either tomorrow or in the future, and a single response is received to advise completion of the service for the requested date and time. For example, a change of meter.

Same day

Instant response

A one off transaction that requests that a service is performed immediately and a single response is received to advise completion of the service. For example the energisation of a meter.

Within a specified timeframe, but by the end of the business day.

This transaction is defined as a one off transaction, with a single response, that requests a service that is to be performed within a specified timeframe on that business day. The response being received to advise completion could be received on that business day or at the start of the next business day.

Non-requested notifications

Transactions that have no specific initiating request, however once the service is activated the service is pushed to the authorised party. The service provided need not have been specifically requested by the authorised party, but the authorised party requires the service outcome to ensure customer service. For example if a meter is reconfigured – e.g. to recognise solar PV generation – then a Meter Re-Configuration notification is required by both the retailer and the distribution network service provider for billing.

The service categories offered are matched with services in Appendix D. The required availability of each service category is also provided in Appendix D.

3.6 Performance Requirements The following system processing requirements are proposed for the SMP:

1. End to end processing time of 1-5 seconds per transaction. This processing time is primarily to support instant response service requests.

2. The SMP Platform should be available 24 hours, 7 days a week. This requirement recognises that there will be an expected down period provision for system maintenance and thus the 24 x 7 is not specifically prescribed, but a general business goal.

Figure 2 illustrates the requirement for the SMP Platform to provide an ‘end to end’ processing time of 1-5 seconds per transaction in relation the service execution and thus the Service Levels & Performance Standards agreed between the two parties for that services.

© AEMO 2015 8


1. Each transaction sent via the SMP Platform must be received and delivered to the recipient within 1-5 seconds.

2. The recipient is then required to execute the service request on behalf of the requestor.

3. The Service Levels and Performance Standards measure the timing requirements of executing the service from the point of request of the transaction by the submitter to the completion of the service.

Figure 2 – Illustration of End to End Processing Times for the SMP

3.7 Dependencies on other Power of Choice changes This SMP advice has been developed in the context of an on-going Power of Choice program of change. The Power of Choice program is expected to introduce new roles and requirements on the operation of NEM systems and this advice is dependent on assumptions about these changes. The key dependencies are:

• The SMP functionality requires knowledge of whether a meter supports advanced meter capability. Information on roles and capabilities of a meter can currently be identified in the market systems given the meters National Meter Identifier (NMI), however there is currently no field in the market systems to specifically identify that a meter is an advanced meter. At minimum, this information should be associated in the market systems with a NMI as part of other changes (such as introducing the Metering Coordinator role) in introducing metering competition.

• Compatible governance arrangements need to be in place. • The minimum service standards for advanced metering service providers are in place.

PARTICIPANT A

PARTICPANT B

SERVICE

SERVICE EXECUTION

Service REQUEST Message (1-5 Seconds)

Service RESPONSE Message (1-5 Seconds)

© AEMO 2015 9


4. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

4.1 Introduction The reference group considered the IT options in a general sense. The reference group considered variations of implementing the SMP via the existing B2B Hub, via a new platform, or by running both platforms in parallel. A key consideration of the reference group was to minimise impact on users of the B2B Hub who were not required to use SMP functionality. In considering how to actually implement the functionality AEMO has not been constrained by these views, instead focusing on the most appropriate means of delivering both SMP and B2B functionality.

4.2 Assessment Criteria Considering the requirements of the NEO and intent of the Power of Choice reforms, AEMO has identified the following dimensions for assessing alternative information technology options for an SMP Platform.

Flexibility

Metering competition will give rise to new services and provides impetus for service providers to compete to get new services to market. The solution must provide flexibility to make use of the SMP attractive to users. Equally, users should have the flexibility to match their level of investment in systems to align with the services they actually use.

Performance

The reference group proposed that a sub-set of the initial services support an ‘instant’ response. As an example, this would facilitate an advanced meter being energised based on a request issued by a retailer to the service provider while the retailer is in telephone contact with the customer. The solution should allow a 1 to 5 second time for a request to pass across the SMP Platform.

Common Services

The solution should provide a range of common services which are available to those who want those services. The solution should maintain compatibility with current B2B functionality as well as current Victorian advanced meter processes.

Extendibility

The SMP services will evolve. An ability to easily extend the capabilities of the SMP Platform will facilitate more diverse options for evolution.

Data Consistency

With faster transactions the error rates in transaction will be dependent on the accuracy and consistency of roles and other data and any minimum performance standard requirements. .

Cost

The capabilities of the central SMP Platform need to be weighed up against its cost to industry. The reference group considered the cost to users of interfacing with the SMP Platform to only be of relevance to the extent that the costs were reasonable, this being on the grounds that it is not mandatory to use the SMP Platform.

© AEMO 2015 10


Implementation Time

Advanced metering services are being offered today. Longer development times for the SMP Platform will increase the degree to which service providers develop offerings independent of the SMP.

4.3 An Advanced SMP Platform It is useful to consider and assess the potential features of an Advanced SMP Platform that offers an ideal mix of capabilities.

An Advanced SMP Platform could provide a true market hub for NEM exchanges. It would facilitate communications and data exchanges between businesses (B2B) and between businesses and AEMO, the latter being called business to market (B2M) communications. It would facilitate complex transactions, and the SMP Platform itself could be able to generate transactions, including to service providers and to AEMO systems. It would include a repository of data maintained as a shared industry service; this repository would be linked to other AEMO market systems giving the platform the capability to update data in those systems, such as meter registry data.

This solution would facilitate a number of metering competition and reference group goals:4

• It would reduce barriers to entry for service providers, retailers and other authorised parties by reducing the complexity and capability required of their systems. This would be achieved through moving functionality within the central systems – such as identifying which service provider a request should be delivered too. (Common Services, Flexibility)

• It would support a streamlined path for customer access to data. This would be the result of establishing a repository of data as a shared industry service. (Flexibility)

• It would have a high degree of configurability, allowing new services to be established quickly with minimal impact on users. (Extendibility)

• It would have the capability to bring new service offerings to the market quickly (Flexibility) • It would provide compatibility with B2B functionality and Victorian advanced metering

processes. (Common Services) • It would support the ‘instant’ response service requests (Performance)

In addition, the repository of data would provide a single ‘source of truth’ of data, avoiding data conflicts. Using this data for validation of transactions, or even for routing transactions, would minimise errors in requests. (Data Consistency)

This solution would provide flexibility, performance, common services, extendibility and would provide data consistency.

What might the architecture of this system look like?

4 The bracketed terms relate the goals with the assessment criteria presented above.

© AEMO 2015 11


Figure 3 – A General Approach to the SMP

As shown Figure 3 the components of this system are:

• Market Net. This is the network used in the NEM for communicating with AEMO systems. • Message Delivery supported by an Infrastructure Bus. The current B2B Hub is a

message delivery system. Users employ the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) interface method to put messages in a ‘mail box’ with details of the recipient and the B2B Hub simply moves that message to the recipient ‘mail box’. This system cannot guarantee near real-time delivery. This system is analogous to the delivery of a box of requests to a mail box where the recipient must collect that box to access the request, and the requests contained in the box could be anything. Further the requests are not subject to any validation so may not be valid requests, requiring the recipient to return them without completing the service. The introduction of an Infrastructure Bus allows software to move messages more quickly, achieving a near instant transfer. This structure also allows more modern technologies to be used for interfacing though would still support FTP. The system would be backward compatible with B2B Hub functionality and could be used without the user noticing any difference as all changes would be in the central system.

• Transaction Delivery. This facilitates a more sophisticated and more direct system-to-system connection between the users of the SMP Platform. This system is analogous to a direct transfer of a single request directly from sender to the recipient, where only valid request are transferred and where there is no requirement for anyone to collect the request. Transaction delivery can include authorisation of users and routing communications to the correct party based on role in the market. Not only would this allow B2B transactions it would facilitate users sending requests and information to AEMO systems – these being business-to-market (B2M) transactions. At minimum, this option assumes basic web-services to support the instant response services. These web-services would allow user systems to link to the SMP Platform via the web (an advance over messaging).

• Data Store. The data store would link the SMP platform with other AEMO systems. It would store the repository of data maintained as a shared industry service. This would enhance transaction delivery to allow validation of data, including of the market roles, and would provide the information required to allow the hub to generate transactions. Thus a submitting party would not need to know who is in a given role to communication with them. The hub could generate multiple messages on behalf of the users and interface

Infrastructure Bus(middleware)

Message Delivery

Message Delivery

Party A Party B

Range of Interfaces(including FTP)

Range of Interfaces(including FTP)

Market Net

Shared Market Protocol

Peer to Peer (outside SMP)

Message

Transaction

Message

Transaction

Data Store

Hub Solution

Transaction Delivery

Peer to Peer (via SMP)

© AEMO 2015 12


with other AEMO systems. In effect, this option provides a single channel for B2B and B2M communications.

• Peer-to-Peer: This option allows users to transact directly without information passing through the hub. This provides an option for quickly bringing new services to market and allows more exclusive offerings of services. Two versions of this are shown: − Peer-to-Peer exchanges could be via the SMP and performed through secure AEMO

channels. AEMO would have visibility on the volumes and types of transactions. If compliant with the SMP then if a service provider offers a Peer-to-Peer service then in the future that service could also be offered through the hub.

− Peer-to-Peer exchanges could be outside the SMP as there is no obligation to transact via the SMP.

Peer-to-Peer transactions are shown for generality and because use of the SMP is not mandatory. However, the ideal implementation would have all transactions passing through the hub so as to maximise the advantages of the repository of data. The ideal SMP Platform would have to offer sufficient flexibility and options to match the potential benefits to service providers of the Peer-to-Peer option.

The Message Delivery, Transaction Delivery and Peer-to-Peer options all facilitate a diverse array of file types and message structures to be passed between users. The SMP only needs to limit these to the extent that a service provider or, in the case of a B2M request, AEMO, requires a specific structure of information.

Achieving this advanced capability is not straightforward. Issues to be considered include:

• A significant upgrade to AEMO retail systems would be required. The level of change would be far beyond that required to support the initial SMP services, though such change would have broader benefits with respect to flexibility, extendibility and data consistency.

• The introduction of a data store needs commensurate security. It is likely that significant costs would be incurred in insuring an appropriate level of security. On-the-other-hand, this may provide a greater level of assurance of security than may be the case with many different entities holding data.

• The use of the SMP is not mandatory; however the value of the data store is enhanced by having all services based on it. This would be more consistent with a mandatory arrangement – which might preclude many forms of Peer-to-Peer communication - and one which is broader than just smart meters.

• There is a big gap between what functionality the reference group sought and what an Advanced SMP Platform would provide.

• There would be a significant cost to industry in aligning their systems to an Advanced SMP Platform within a short time window. However, changes are likely to require significantly implementation time. A longer term strategy would allow industry to factor in such change as part of their normal system renewal processes.

• Governance arrangements need to facilitate the flexibility for a fast rate of change. Cost and implementation time, and the inverse relationship between them, tend to count against this option in the short term.

4.4 An Intermediate SMP Platform An Advanced SMP Platform may be overly ambitious in the short term. However it would be logical to move in a direction that could eventually allow that advanced capability to be delivered.

© AEMO 2015 13


An Intermediate SMP Platform might drop the data store from its features. The transaction delivery capability would continue to allow B2B and B2M transactions. However it would not be possible for this intermediate system to perform complex transactions or to fully validate data in submissions.5 An Intermediate SMP Platform would be extendable in that it would allow a data store capability to be introduced at a later stage.

Relative to the Advanced SMP Platform:

• Less functionality could be centralised in the hub, reducing the range of services that could be supported.

• Data would remain decentralised, preventing significant improvements in data consistency.

• Customer access to data would still be supported though an authorised party, though would be more prone to data conflicts.

• Configurability for new services is reduced. This solution would still provide a high, though reduced, level of flexibility, performance and common services. Its extendibility and the degree of data consistency would be limited by the lack of a data store.

However this option avoids some of the complexities encountered with the advanced option.

• The upgrades to AEMO systems are more localised as there is no real-time link to other data repositories.

• The lack of a data store negates the need for commensurate security standards and Peer-to-Peer transactions can be supported without concern about the data store failing to capture that information.

• The level of change for industry and the system capabilities are more in line with the reference group expectations of the initial SMP services.

It would still be desirable to ensure that governance arrangements were flexibility enough to facilitate rapid change.

4.5 A Basic SMP Platform The Basic SMP Platform would aim to provide a minimum SMP capability only. Both the transaction delivery feature and the data store capability would be dropped. This would leave a messaging capability, though one faster than the current B2B Hub and with more interfacing options, and a Peer-to-Peer capability within the SMP.

This Basic Option would provide

• Near instant delivery of requests. • Compatibility with B2B functionality and Victorian advanced metering processes. • A capability to bring new service offerings to the market quickly via Peer-to-Peer

transactions. While more services could be offered through the messaging system they would essentially just be B2B transactions. Users would still have options as to how to interface but with no transaction delivery capability the options for users to interface their own software solutions

5 The metering competition reforms are expected to require that advanced metering service providers owned by distributors be ring fenced from distribution activates. If these parties were to share the same gateway for communicating with AEMO then this option would be able to differentiate them based on their roles to ensure confidentiality of their exchanges. This capability is not easily achievable with the basic platform described below and the ring fenced entities may therefore have to use separate gateways, increasing the cost of complying with the ring fencing requirement.

© AEMO 2015 14


with the SMP Platform would be greatly reduced. There would be no capability to implement more advanced message forms or to implement validation, placing higher requirements on user systems.

This solution would still provide a reasonable level of Flexibility, Performance and Common Services in the context of the initial SMP services. This option is compatible with how the retail market has operated in recent times, but unlike the Intermediate SMP Platform does not support more innovative options in the future. The Basic SMP Platform option does not provide extendibility and would provide no benefits with respect to data consistency.

4.6 Costs and Implementation Time The estimates presented in this section are not based on detailed analysis that would be employed to assess a detailed design. Rather they have been developed through internal AEMO discussions with retail, metering and IT staff and reflect experience with other projects. The estimates have been reviewed and have found to be reasonable by AEMO’s IT staff.

The following assumptions were employed in forming these estimates:

• While the SMP Platform will be backward compatible with existing B2B functionality, no change is assumed in the number or type of such B2B transactions.

• Peer to peer capability is assumed not to be offered with the Advanced SMP Platform so as to maximise the value of the data store.

• No links are required to other AEMO systems for solutions without a data store. • The data store would only provide a link to Consumer Administration and Transfer System

(CATS) functionality (standing data). • Web-services would only support services and service category combinations with an

instant response requirement. • Estimates are based on project costs and times for implementing new systems. No

allowance has been made for: − Changes in system security arrangements. Increasing security to protect a data store

could add significant additional cost. − The development of procedures associated with the SMP Platform. − The effort required to conduct a market trial of a new system. − Time required to support industry consultation.

Based on gas hub experience it is anticipated that the project costs to AEMO of establishing a hub comprising a Messaging System supported by an Infrastructure Bus would be $5 to $8 million.

The increase project cost to AEMO in offering transaction delivery with the basic web-services to support instant response service requests is estimated to be in the $2 to $3 million range.

An expansion of Market Net capacity to support more users and to allow Peer-to-Peer exchange might increase project costs to AEMO by $1 to $2 million.

The Data Store is estimated to increase project costs by between $5 million and $15 million, with $10 million being a best estimate.6

The reference group were unable to identify any justification for assessing the cost of the SMP for users as its use is not mandatory. However, the impact on users of the SMP Platform

6 The addition of a more general web-service solution provided by AEMO could add tens of millions to these estimates, though could be offered by third parties.

© AEMO 2015 15


options proposed here may vary. The Basic SMP Platform leaves a lot of complexities to be managed by users so is viewed as having a high impact for new users, albeit similar to what users manage today with B2B functionality. The Intermediate SMP Platform should have a more moderate impact as it facilitates more flexible options for users for whom the investment is justified. The Advanced SMP Platform requires a significant effort to establish, at least for current participants, as it would change the whole philosophy of their systems. However it should reduce operational complexity.

Table 1 presents the resultant estimate of the AEMO project costs.

Option Detail Estimated AEMO Project Costs

1 Basic SMP Platform $6M - $10M

2 Intermediate SMP Platform $8M - $13M

3 Advanced SMP Platform $12M - 26M

Table 1 – Comparison of Costs of IT Options and Indicative Impact on Users. The information technology changes required to establish a Basic or Intermediate SMP Platform could take 12 to 18 months, though overall project time would be longer – e.g. 2 to 3 years - if industry consultation were to be included. Implementation of the Advanced SMP Platform would require many more years of effort and the scale of change makes this difficult to estimate.

4.7 Overall Assessment and Recommendation It is concluded that the Intermediate SMP Platform is the most appropriate option for initial implementation of the SMP.

• The Advanced SMP Platform has many advantageous features but it is a not considered a desirable initial step as its capabilities go far beyond what is initially required for the SMP, there are many issues which would need to be resolved and the implementation time is expected to be too long.

• The Basic SMP Platform delivers the immediate requirements but lacks the capability to robustly support the potential future development of the SMP.

The Intermediate SMP Profile provides many advantages of the Advanced SMP Platform, facilitates a later move towards the Advanced SMP Platform, while having implementation costs and timeframes not dissimilar to those for the Basic SMP Platform.

© AEMO 2015 16


5. CONCLUSION This advice builds off advice provided to COAG in regard to the Minimum Functionality Specifications, expanding the details of services and service capability to define the initial core features of the SMP. A second future piece of advice will explore the process for changing services and the potential to leverage additional capabilities from the SMP Platform.

The SMP will support the exchange of requests for service from authorised parties in the NEM to Service Providers and, in relation to connections, Network Service Providers. The scope of the SMP is limited to the exchange of requests for service, not the performance of service. However, the proposed SMP Platform would also facilitate the exchange of data where this is the service.

This advice identifies an initial set of service orders and related requests that can be processed under the SMP. Each service will have one or more service categories types indicating the time frame in which the service is required. To ensure timely completion of services the information technology solution must support a 1 to 5 second timeframe for requests to be passed between parties. Subject to system maintenance, the capability to submit requests will generally be available from 8.00am to 9.00pm though a limited number of services will be available at all hours.

AEMO does not support the basic SMP Platform owing to its limited capabilities. AEMO advises that the COAG Energy Council consider implementing an SMP which is built around an information technology solution that has the capability for significant expansions in the future. The ultimate form of such a system could allow the SMP to become a broader platform for market interactions beyond just advanced metering services. However, we propose that only a partial step initially be taken towards such a system to keep costs and implementation timeframes reasonable and aligned with the immediate need for a SMP.

The proposed SMP Platform is an intermediate option which:

• Supports existing B2B functionality. • Provides new B2B functionality with the speed to support the minimum performance

requirements of the SMP. • Provides a transaction delivery option that incorporates web services. This will add a

higher level of sophistication of SMP requests, provide wider service capabilities, and facilitate future expansion. A web-service capability will enable users to more easily integrate their customer management systems with the SMP Platform.

• Provides a secure Peer-to-Peer capability within the market systems. This will support SMP-compatible transactions while helping users to quickly get new services to market. It will also facilitate compatibility with existing Victorian advanced metering processes.

It is estimated that this system could be in place for a cost of between $8 million and $13 million and within twelve to eighteen months of having a detailed design of the shared market protocol. These estimates make no allowance for procedure development, support of industry consultations, or the effort required to conduct a market trial.

The proposed SMP Platform provides a high level of flexibility, performance and common services. It provides the capability to add new features to give the SMP extended capabilities, including greater data validation and a shared market service to maintain a repository of data.

• It would support near instant delivery of requests • It would provide compatibility with B2B functionality and Victorian advanced metering

processes.

© AEMO 2015 17


• It would have a high degree of configurability • It would have the capability to bring new service offerings to the market quickly

Overall it provides the opportunity for the market to deliver services in a consistent fashion, whilst removing barriers to innovation in product design that could bring new technologies to the market.

AEMO recommends that a further step be taken to implement the Advanced SMP Platform at some point in the future when there is a stronger case to support this. It is currently not proposed that use of the SMP Platform be mandatory for industry. If users can by-pass the SMP Platform then this would make it very difficult to capture the key benefits of an Advanced SMP Platform. If the SMP Platform became a mandatory platform for broader market interactions then there would be stronger case for a more advanced platform. Potential triggers for a moved to an Advanced SMP Platform will be explored in the second advice paper due in May. Other reasons for not immediately adopting the Advanced SMP Platform include:

• A significant upgrade to AEMO retail systems, beyond those immediately required for SMP, would be required.

• The full benefits of such a system would only be achieved with broader rule / governance changes.

• The introduction of a store of market data as a shared industry service requires commensurate security which will impose additional costs.

• There is a significant gap between what functionality the reference group sought and what such and advanced platform would provide.

• There would be a significant transitional cost to industry in aligning their systems to benefit from a more advanced platform, although on-going costs may be reduced.

The SMP Platform should allow governance considerations to be focused on new services that can be offered through that platform, rather than considering changes to the platform. The governance arrangements should not limit access to commercially useful services that can easily be offered and accommodated or to drive the SMP Platform development in a direction inconsistent with maintaining such flexibility. This is a particular issue for Peer-to-Peer transactions which may need relaxed governance arrangements to allow new services to be brought to market quickly. The proposed SMP Platform includes capabilities to enrich transactions as they pass through the SMP Platform. This transaction enrichment capability needs to be considered in the governance arrangements as AEMO will be required to have a role in expanding or changing such services.

As a result of the pending competition in metering Rule change, the broader initiatives resulting from the Power of Choice recommendations and innovation in technology and service offerings to customers, the scope of the changes to the retail market will require clear governance arrangements for the development of policy, the Rules and stakeholder engagement for development of procedures and protocols.

The potential efficiency gains for industry in implementing the SMP include:

• A standardised framework for information requests which avoids the need to develop different interfaces with different service providers;

• A move to more modern and flexible technology arrangements than are provided by the current B2B Hub;

• A capability to add new services more easily, without requiring additional market system and user system changes;

© AEMO 2015 18


• More capable shared market systems will reduce the need for complexity in the users systems;

• Facilitation of different methods for interacting with the SMP allowing users to tailor how they interface with the SMP to the requirements of their business.

If adopted, AEMO consider that a shared market protocol could be developed as a component of the procedures under the NER. The implementation of this advice would be subject to the providing the capability for the market to identify that a meter is an advanced meter and establishing governance arrangements and minimum service standard.

© AEMO 2015 19


APPENDIX A. REFERENCE GROUP MEMBERS

Government and regulatory bodies Member

Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) Julian Eggleston and Jenessa Rabbone

Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) Tanya McIntyre (Chair) Lee Brown Kristen Clarke Roy Kaplan

Australian Energy Regulator (AER) Sarah McDowell

Commonwealth – Department of Industry Michael Whitfield

New South Wales – Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services

Andrew Burnard

Victoria – Department of State Development, Business and Innovation

David Cornelius

Distribution businesses and retailers Member

Energy Networks Association (ENA) Michael McFarlane (Jemena) Tom Cole (Energex Limited) Dr Bryn Williams (SA Power Networks) Sam Chen (Endeavour Energy on behalf of Networks NSW) Chantal Hopwood (Tasmania Networks Pty Ltd)

Energy Retailers Association Australia (ERAA) Stephanie Bashir (AGL) Inger Wills (EnergyAustralia) Stefanie Macri (Lumo) Jenna Polson (ERM Power) James Barton (Simply Energy)

Metering manufacturers, third party and consumer representatives

Member

Acumen Metering Shaun Cupitt

Alternative Technology Association (ATA) Craig Memery

EDMI Simon Mouat

ENA Greg Flynn

ERAA Sallie Proctor

Landis+Gyr David Mclean

Metropolis Charles Coulson

National Measurement Institute (NMI) Dr Phillip Mitchell

PIAC Gabrielle Kuiper

Secure Australasia Peter Taylor, Michael Guy

Standards Australia Varant Meguerditchian

Vector Dean van Gerrevink, Doug Ross

© AEMO 2015 20


APPENDIX B. SHARED MARKET PROTOCOL CONTEXT The following bullets provide background on the purpose and workings of the SMP.7 These points are illustrated in Figure 4 which follows the bullets.

• The SMP allows retailers and other authorised parties to request services offered by service providers. The ‘services’ supported by the shared market protocol are effectively the services that can be requested via the protocol. The actual delivery of the service will be performed by the service provider and may involve activities as diverse as changing a meters configuration, making a site visit, or passing data to the requestor.

• An advanced metering installation sits within a metering system operated by a Metering Provider (MP) with an associated Metering Data Provider (MDP). Only this MP/MDP will have a data connection to the metering installation. All requests for service for this metering installation must be submitted to this MP/MDP. The SMP provides a platform for such requests.

• The Metering Coordinator (MC) appoints an MP and an MDP. The appointed parties can differ from those associated with the metering system for the meter installation. In such cases they are providing a managed service. They can gain access to services, including metering data, by entering into a contractual arrangement with the operator of the metering system.

• The performance of services by MDPs and MPs is governed by the Minimum Service Standards (MSS). AEMO has provided separate advice on the MSS in its COAG advice on the Minimum Functional Specification. Hence the SMP does not extend to prescribing performance of services by the advance metering service providers. Service providers are free to offer higher standards of services beyond these minimum requirements.

• MDPs and MPs are mandated by the MFS to offer some services via the SMP with minimum performance requirements. However retailers and other authorised parties are not required to use the SMP as a means to access these services. Thus there may be requests occurring outside the SMP.

• The Network Service Provider (NSP) is associated with the connection and may make site visits (e.g. for a new connection). Consequently it needs to receive requests via the SMP. The MP from the metering installation may also be requested to make site visits to the meter. If an NSP wishes to provide advanced metering services then it must set up a MP/MDP as a business unit ring fenced from its NSP business unit. This is to avoid cross subsidisation.

• The customer appoints the Retailer who assigns a party to be a Metering Coordinator. The customer may also appoint other authorised parties. The nature of these other authorised parties could evolve in the future.

• Retailers and other authorised parties only issue requests. Only MPs, MDPs and NSPs receive requests. They may also issue requests. In the case of managed services there may be requests between service providers. For example if a party has the role of MDP but is not the MDP with access to the metering system the party with the role of MDP will need to send requests to the MDP with access to the metering system. On the other hand, the MDP with the role will hold the processed meter data so may receive requests from service providers with access to the metering system.

7 The design described is AEMO’s understanding based on the AEMC’s “Framework for Open Access and Common Communication Standards”, 14 March 2014. The AEMC’s draft determination due on 26 March 2015 could differ from AEMO’s current understanding.

© AEMO 2015 21


Figure 4: Context of the Shared Market Protocol

Metering Installation

IT SystemsData Repository

Asset Management System

Coms

Metering System (Advanced)

Shared Market

Protocol

Network Service

Provider

Service Providers

(MDP /MP)Managed Services

Other Authorised

Parities

Connection

Site Visits

Metering Coordinator

Service Providers

(MP, MDP)

Site Visits

Retailer

Contracted ServiceRoll Assignment

Request

Request

Request

RequestRequest

Customer

Appoints

Appoints

Roll Assignment

© AEMO 2015 22


APPENDIX C. INITIAL SMP SERVICES Service Definitions and Mandated Services

Service Mandated Description On Demand De-energisation The ability to completely de-energise electricity supply from the meter

by remote action, immediately or on a future date. This service turns off the electricity supply for reasons such as:

• When a customer has vacated the premises

• When a customer requests that the supply be disconnected

• Work safety, such as when electrical work is being done at the customers’ premises

• Non-payment of energy bills.


This service provides the ability to remotely establish conditions for reconnecting the supply of electricity to the customer’s premises. Once completed, the meter is ready for the customer, or their agent to perform an action, typically pressing a designated button or switch on the meter to reconnect their supply.

Re-energisation The ability to completely re-energise supply to the meter by remote action, immediately or on a future date. This service turns on the electricity supply for reasons such as:

• When a new customer is moving into the premises

• A customer requests re-energisation following a disconnection

• Reconnection of supply after the resolution of bill payment issues.

Meter Read The ability to provide metering data outside the normal collection cycle any time it is requested. This service provides on-demand meter reads for:

• Retailers to bill their customers (including Final Bills)

• A final meter read before a customer transfers to another retailer, and a ‘start’ reading for the new retailer

• A customer billing enquiry

• To provide information that supports demand-side participation products

Load Limiting

This service provides the ability to establish or remove a limit that restricts the amount of energy able to be consumed whenever an agreed limit has been reached, or at a future date. Typically this service can be used as alternative to existing processes for credit management, limiting load at vacant premises and restricting supply during times of supply shortage.

© AEMO 2015 23


Service Mandated Description Load Management Traditional forms of load management include load control devices

such as time switches or ripple relays that are either set up or operated by the distributor to facilitate access to controlled network tariffs, typically for the control of loads such as storage heaters or immersion water heaters. These traditional forms of load management are not proposed to be altered through the adoption of advanced metering systems. However, there may be more efficient ways to control loads within a customers’ premises that can be enabled through advanced metering systems and other existing and emerging technologies whether offered as an alternative to traditional network control solutions, or to facilitate customer energy management systems and demand side participation product offerings. For example, there are commercially available products on the market today that facilitate customer in-home load management.

Meter Re-configuration To remotely enable access to new tariffs and new arrangements, such as solar connections, energy demand pricing, controlled loads and new network or retail tariffs.

Provide Local Access to Metering System via Registered Device

The ability to register devices that can access the metering system.


The ability to provide up-to-date information on the status of the metering installation, including metering data, meter status, meter alarms, and quality of supply, to determine:

• Energisation status of the meter

• Warning alarms requiring investigation, such as metering tamper, detection of reverse energy flows, and metering device temperature

• Information relating to the quality and reliability of the electricity supply such as voltage (volts), current (amperes) and frequency (hertz).

Scheduled Scheduled Read

The ability to provide scheduled meter readings for:

• AEMO and market participants to perform energy settlement, billing and reconciliation processes

• Monitoring vacant premises to determine whether electricity is being used, or a new customer is at the premises

• Use profiles for load management and planning functions.

Meter Notifications Supply Failure

The advanced metering system provides a message every time the supply of energy is disrupted. This could be used by the receiving party as an input to existing energy supply outage detection processes.

Supply Restoration The advanced metering system provides a message every time the supply of energy is restored. This could be used as an input to existing processes to validate that supply of energy has been restored.

© AEMO 2015 24


Service Mandated Description Infrastructure (Physical/Onsite) New Connection Arrange a new supply connection to a specified address. The

preferred timeframe and relevant installation requirements are specified.

Change Meter Change or alter the configuration of the metering equipment associated with a metering installation.

Test Meter Equipment A test of metering equipment.

Meter Fault Resolution Resolution of a known or suspected issue with metering equipment.


Resolution of a known or suspected communication failure.

Meter Investigation Investigate the metering equipment at a given metering installation.


Inspection of the metering installation due to suspected interference with the metering installation security or accuracy (e.g. meter tampering).

De-Energisation Arrange for a Connection Point to be de-energised.

Methods include:

• Remove Fuse

• Turn off main switch and sticker

• Turn off main switch

• Meter Disconnection (meter wire disconnection or turn meter)

• Disconnection at pole top, pillar box or pit

Re-Energisation Arrange for a Connection Point to be re-energised. Methods include:

• Insert Fuse

• Main switch

• Meter connection

• Connection at pole or pillar or pit

• Remove sticker

Supply Abolishment Abolish supply at a given Connection Point. This involves decommissioning of a NMI and all associated metering (e.g. demolition of Customer’s Site).

B2B Functionality The proposed SMP Platform will also support existing B2B functionality. It is expected that B2B Hub users will be able to continue to interface with the SMP Platform as if it were the B2B Hub, effectively transferring a file to or from a mail box. The internal AEMO systems will be entirely replaced though this should be invisible to the users.

© AEMO 2015 25


APPENDIX D. SERVICE CATEGORIES BY SERVICE The following table provides a review of the services and how they align with the service categories:

In The Future Same Day Non-Requested Notification Set &

Forget Set & Expect

Instant response

Within a specified timeframe, but before end of ‘Day’

On Demand De-energisation


Re-energisation

Meter Read Loading Limit

Load Management

Meter Re-configuration Provide Local Access to Metering System via Registered Device **


Scheduled Scheduled Read

Meter Notifications Supply Failure Supply Restoration Infrastructure (Physical/Onsite) New Connection

Change Meter

Test Meter Equipment

Meter Fault Resolution


Meter Investigation


© AEMO 2015 26


In The Future Same Day Non-Requested Notification Set &

Forget Set & Expect

Instant response


De-Energisation

Re-Energisation

Supply Abolishment

* Note Timeframes & Categories are based upon on a ‘Request-Execute-Respond’ basis. ** Provide Local Access to Metering System via Registered Device has been moved to an On Demand service as it was considered more appropriate for this service.

Service Availability Timeframes The following Service Availabilities have been recommended as the minimum service offerings. I.e. The Service must be available as a minimum during the ‘Availability’ times. Items noted as an exception are required to be available as a minimum at all times. I.e. 24 hours, 7 days a week.

Category Availability (Eastern Standard Time)

Exception

Set and Forget 8.00am – 6.00pm None

Set & Expect 8.00am – 9.00pm Re-Energisation, Re-energisation (arming of the meter) & Metering Installation Enquiry

Instant Response 8.00am – 9.00pm Re-Energisation, Re-energisation (arming of the meter) & Metering Installation Enquiry


8.00am – 9.00pm None

Non-Requested Notification 24 x 7 None

© AEMO 2015 27

ADVICE TO COAG ENERGY COUNCIL · • Opportunities to leverage the shared market protocol to...

Documents

Transcript of ADVICE TO COAG ENERGY COUNCIL · • Opportunities to leverage the shared market protocol to...