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