SRSM Local Communications Development 0 2

SRSM and Beyond
Local Communications Development
Author(s) Simon Harrison

Document Draft
Status
Document Ref. SRSM LCD
No.
Document 0_2
Version
Date Issued 10 March 2008
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 0_2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................. 2
Figures ............................................................................................................. 3
Document Control ............................................................................................ 4
1.1 Version History .................................................................................. 4
1.2 Review Group .................................................................................... 5
1.3 Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright ......................................... 5
1.4 Disclaimer .......................................................................................... 5
2 Executive Summary and Introduction ....................................................... 6
2.1 Executive Summary ........................................................................... 6
2.2 Purpose ............................................................................................. 6
2.3 Scope ................................................................................................ 6
2.4 Objective............................................................................................ 6
2.5 Structure of this Document ................................................................ 6
3 Glossary & Conventions ........................................................................... 8
3.1 Document Conventions ..................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Meter Location ............................................................................ 8
3.1.2 Meter and Metering System........................................................ 8
3.2 Glossary .......................................................................................... 10
4 Local Communications Context .............................................................. 12
4.1 General Context .............................................................................. 12
4.2 Smart Utility Context for Local Communications .............................. 13
4.3 Smarter Display Options Using Local Communications ................... 14
4.4 Smart Home Context ....................................................................... 16
4.5 One Interoperability Size Fits All? .................................................... 17
4.6 A National Standard......................................................................... 19
4.7 Delivering the Last Mile ................................................................... 19
4.8 Local Device Classification .............................................................. 20
4.9 Existing Standards ........................................................................... 21
5 Energy Supplier Requirements ............................................................... 22
5.1 Other Factors ................................................................................... 24
5.2 Potential Additional Requirements ................................................... 27
5.3 Other Requirements ........................................................................ 27
5.4 Processes/Activities Required ......................................................... 27
5.5 Security............................................................................................ 28
5.6 Independent Local Networks ........................................................... 29
5.7 Wireless to Wired............................................................................. 33
5.8 Addressing Protocol......................................................................... 34
5.9 Local Communications Principles .................................................... 34
6 Solution Options ..................................................................................... 36
7 Network Protocol Options ....................................................................... 43
8 Frequency Considerations ...................................................................... 44
8.1 Frequency Information ..................................................................... 44
8.2 Spread Spectrum ............................................................................. 45
9 Data Exchange Format Options .............................................................. 46
10 Evaluation Options .............................................................................. 47
10.1 Data Traffic Models.......................................................................... 47
10.1.1 Data Traffic Activities ................................................................ 47
10.1.2 Data Traffic Usage Profiles ....................................................... 48
10.2 Solution Evaluation Matrix ............................................................... 48
Page 2 of 52 11-Mar-08
10.2.1 Evaluation Matrix Notes ............................................................ 49

11 Issues .................................................................................................. 50
12 References .......................................................................................... 51
Appendix: Schedule [X] of Operational Framework ....................................... 52
Figures
Figure 1: Smart Meter Locations ...................................................................... 8
Figure 2: Smart Metering Systems, Illustration of Flexible Approaches ........... 9
Figure 3: SRSM Operational Framework Scope ............................................ 12
Figure 4: Smart Utility Context ....................................................................... 14
Figure 5: Smart Display Context .................................................................... 15
Figure 6: Smart Home Context ...................................................................... 16
Figure 7: Smart Home Context & Clusters ..................................................... 17
Figure 8: End to End Interoperability .............................................................. 17
Figure 9: Distinct Local and WAN Interoperability .......................................... 18
Figure 10: Making Interoperability Work......................................................... 18
Figure 11: Interoperability Illustration Using Water ........................................ 19
Figure 12: Local Communications for the Last Mile ....................................... 20
Figure 13: Simple Collection of Smart Meters and Local Devices .................. 29
Figure 14: Independent Networks .................................................................. 30
Figure 15: Local Communication Signal Range ............................................. 30
Figure 16: Overlapping Wireless Ranges....................................................... 31
Figure 17: Required Local Comms Range Example ...................................... 32
Figure 18: Mesh Network to Concentrator ..................................................... 32
Figure 19: Interoperability via Web Services Interfaces ................................. 34
Document Control
1.1 Version History
Version Date Author Description Online
Version
0_1 7 February Simon Initial draft Download
2008 Harrison
View
Online
0_2 10 March Simon Updated following initial Download
2008 Harrison meeting of development
group: View
- restructuring of Online
content
- format of document to
assist with comment
and development
- corrections and
additions throughout
Please note that due to

the scale and scope of the
change from 0_1 to 0_2,
the updates are not
change marked.
Change marking will be

standard practice for all
subsequent versions.
v0_2 also includes

changes made to the
online version of the
document by John
Cowburn of PRI, and
materials provided off line
by Dave Baker of
Microsoft and Brian Back
of LPRA
This document is a development of Schedule H of the Smart Metering

Operational Framework Proposals and Options v1 document – the
development history of which is shown below.
Version Date Author Description
0.1 17th July 2007 Simon Harrison Initial draft based upon original consolidated
SRSM Communications Solution Options
document.
0.2 25th July 2007 Alastair Minor update following review
Manson
0.3 6th August 2007 Simon Harrison Update for Operational Framework publication
0.4 December 2007 Simon Harrison Updated following consultation exercise.
Updated following project workshop

Updated following receipt of related papers from
stakeholders
1.2 Review Group

This document has been developed with the assistance of a group of
interested parties, including energy suppliers, meter manufacturers,
communications experts, interoperability experts and other stakeholders.
Details of the participants can be viewed online at: http://tinyurl.com/2cvr3g
1.3 Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright

All rights including copyright in this document or the information contained in it
are owned by the Energy Retail Association and its members. These materials
are made available for you to review and to copy for the purposes of
participating in Smart Meter Operational Framework discussions only. All
copyright and other notices contained in the original material must be retained
on any copy that you make. All other use is prohibited.
Unless you are a person participating in the Smart Meter Operational

Framework discussions you are not permitted to view or use this document or
any information contained in this document in any way whatsoever.
All other rights of the Energy Retail Association and its members are reserved.
1.4 Disclaimer
This document presents proposals and options for the operation of smart
metering in Great Britain. It does not present a complete and final framework
for the operation of smart metering in Great Britain and the proposals or
options presented do not represent all possible solutions. We have used
reasonable endeavours to ensure the accuracy of the contents of the
document but offer no warranties (express or implied) in respect of its
accuracy or that the proposals or options will work. To the extent permitted by
law, the Energy Retail Association and its members do not accept liability for
any loss which may arise from reliance upon information contained in this
document. This document is presented for information purposes only and
none of the information, proposals and options presented herein constitutes
an offer.
2 Executive Summary and Introduction

2.1 Executive Summary
[Overview and Explanation of the exercise and the scale of the document to
be added when appropriate.]
2.2 Purpose
This document presents the context, requirements, issues and solutions
options for two-way Local Communication for smart Metering Systems.
It also includes a specimen view of a final schedule proposal for inclusion in

the Smart Metering Operational Framework.
Any statement of preference for particular communications solution options

does not constitute a firm or binding decision by the Suppliers participating in
the SRSM project.
Further information on the SRSM project is available from:

www.energy-retail.org/smartmeters.
2.3 Scope
The scope of this document is limited to the requirement for two way
communications between smart gas and electricity meters and local devices.
For ease of understanding and application to a familiar domestic context, this

document refers mainly to the ‘Home’ and uses illustrations of houses to
represent locations for meter points. However, the communications solution
options listed here could apply equally to non-domestic premises – i.e. Local
Communications within an office or factory.
This document references, but does not define, the opportunity to use the
Local Communications capability of a smart meter to provide a ‘Last Mile’
option to deliver WAN Communications.
This document does not address the commercial issues arising from
communications requirements.
2.4 Objective
The objective of the Local Communications Development exercise is to fully
document and evaluate the options relating to Local Communications for
smart metering, and if possible to produce a solution recommendation (or
recommendations) and draft schedule to the ERA SRSM Steering Group.
2.5 Structure of this Document

The sections of this document are:
- Section 1 – Document Control
- Section 2 – Introduction
- Section 3 – Glossary and Document Conventions
- Section 4 – Local Communications Context – a plain English explanation of
the context for smart metering and local communications
- Section 5 – Requirements & Considerations – details of energy Supplier
requirements, and other relevant requirements affecting Local
Communications
- Section 6 – Solution Options – presentation of options using a standard pro
forma
- Section 7 – Network Protocol Options – information relating to specific
addressing requirements
- Section 8 – Frequency Options – presentation of information relating to
wireless frequencies
- Section 9 – Data Exchange Format Options – information relating to data
formatting options
- Section 10 – Evaluation Options – including a scoring matrix comparing
solution options against set criteria. Also includes usage profiles to assist
with evaluation.
- Section 11 – Issues – as identified during the development of this report
- Section 12 – References – to relevant materials and resources
- Appendix – Draft specification
3 Glossary & Conventions

3.1 Document Conventions
3.1.1 Meter Location
Throughout, this document refers mainly to the ‘Home’ and uses illustrations
of houses to represent locations for meter points. However, smart meters and
the communications solution options listed here could apply equally to other
domestic and non-domestic premises types.
Figure 1: Smart Meter Locations
The Operational Framework specifies ‘domestic-sized’ metering, and such

meters could be installed in any type of property where energy consumption is
within the load/capacity capability of such meters.
The Operational Framework includes a number of Meter Variants, usually to

accommodate specific energy supply requirements of a metering point – e.g.
polyphase electricity supply or a semi concealed gas meter location (see
definition of Meter Variant below). Local Communications, unless specifically
excluded by the Meter Variant definition in the Operational Framework, is
required in all Meter Variants.
It is also the case that the placement and location of meters as shown in
diagrams is illustrative.
3.1.2 Meter and Metering System

Throughout this document, references to a smart meter, particularly within
diagrams, should not be interpreted as referring only to smart meters where all
of the functionality is contained within one ‘box’. There is regular use of a
picture of an electricity smart meter to represent smart Metering Systems.
Smart Metering Systems – Illustration of Flexible Approaches
Software
Smart Metering Metering System Illustration of how fuels could share

Metering System
Systems, with all using a separate (with suitable commercial
using a separate
the functionality, ‘black box’ and arrangements) a single set of black
‘black box’ (or
including external antenna box(es) to deliver functionality
boxes) to deliver
communications to deliver
functionality
“under the glass” functionality
In all cases, the metrology functions must be delivered by a regulated measuring instrument.
The required functionality could be delivered by components:

- within the meter casing;
- through the use of one or more new hardware components (in conjunction with new meters
or retrofitted to existing); or
- external hardware components shared between fuels.
Generally, no component of the smart Metering System will be reliant upon equipment
owned by the customer (e.g. broadband router), or services under the control of the
customer (e.g. telephony provider). There may be individual circumstances where use of the
customers equipment is unavoidable (customer chooses to own the meter, or particularly
within a non-domestic context where additional energy supply contractual terms can be
applied).
Figure 2: Smart Metering Systems, Illustration of Flexible Approaches
As defined below, a smart metering system could comprise a number of

physical devices (external modems, antennas etc.) to deliver the smart
functionality requirements.
The potential variety of physical locations and conditions of metering points

could result in smart metering systems where components are not located
together in the same metering cupboard, or on the same metering board. It
would not be practical to illustrate or explain these potential variations within
this document.
Therefore all general references to smart meters and uses of icons to

represent smart meters in this document should be inferred as meaning the
defined Metering System.
3.2 Glossary
A number of these definitions are necessarily drawn directly from the Smart
Metering Operational Framework, as they apply across the scope of that
document and not just to Local Communications.
Term Meaning
Access Control The method by which the Operational Framework controls
access to smart Metering Systems, smart metering data and
associated devices.
Authorised Party Means the Supplier or another person authorised by
configuration of the Access Control security policies in the
Metering System to interrogate or configure the Metering
System.
Authorised Parties could include a communications service
provider, a meter operator, a network operator etc.
Data Exchange Electronic interactions including the transmission of data
between Metering Systems and Authorised Parties or
Metering Systems and Local Devices
ERA Energy Retail Association
Hand Held Unit A mobile device, usually used by a Meter Worker, capable
of interaction with a Metering System using Local (or WAN)
Communications.
Could also include devices that interact with a Metering
System using a dedicated optical port.
Interoperability To allow a smart Metering System to be used within market
rules by the registered Supplier, its nominated agents and
parties selected by the customer without necessitating a
change of Metering System.
Security of the smart Metering System infrastructure, with
structured Access Control, is a key interoperability
requirement.
Local Communications between a Metering System and Local
Communications Devices within the premises in which the Metering System is
installed.
Local Device A Local Device can be any piece of equipment within
premises that communicates directly with the Metering
System using Local Communications.
Metering System A single device or meter, or a combination of devices used
to deliver the Lowest Common Denominator as defined in
the Operational Framework Schedule L ‘Smart Meter
Functional Specification’.
Meter Variant Classification of meter type under the Operational
Framework. A ‘Standard’ variant is suitable for installation at
the majority of meter points in Great Britain. Other variants
exist to cover specific supply, circuit or customer issues at a
site.
Examples include Polyphase, Semi-Concealed or 5
Terminal variants.
The full table of Meter Variants can be found in Schedule L
‘Smart Meter Functional Specification’.
Meter Worker A generic Operational Framework term referring to any
person attending a metering point for the purposes of
Page 10 of 52 11-Mar-08
Term Meaning
installation, maintenance, investigation, replacement or
removal of the Metering System.
Includes existing energy industry defined roles of Meter
Operator, Meter Asset Maintainer, Meter Reader, Data
Retriever etc.
Open Standard The European Union definition of an open standard (taken
from “European Interoperability Framework for pan-
European eGovernment Services”) is:
• The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a
not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development
occurs on the basis of an open decision-making
procedure available to all interested parties (consensus
or majority decision etc.).
• The standard has been published and the standard
specification document is available either freely or at a
nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy,
distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
• The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present -
of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available
on a royalty-free basis.
There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.
Operational Smart Metering Operational Framework Proposals and
Framework Options
SRSM Project Supplier Requirements of Smart Metering project.
Exercise in 2006-08 undertaken by ERA to develop the
Operational Framework.
Ongoing at the time of developing this document

Supplier Means an energy retail business
WAN (Wide Area Communications between a Metering System and a remote
Network) Authorised Party
Communications
Page 11 of 52 11-Mar-08
4 Local Communications Context

This section of the document presents an overview of the Local
Communications Development work and a number of topics and issues for
consideration.
4.1 General Context

It is a clear requirement of the Operational Framework to implement Local
Communications capability for smart Metering Systems.
Interoperable Local Communications capability will enable customers and

Suppliers to make choices in relation to how energy consumption information
is displayed. It also supports flexibility in the options for delivering smart
Metering Systems solutions and potential ‘smart home’ applications.
Throughout this document applications involving water meters, TV displays

and other ‘non-energy’ applications are used to illustrate the potential of smart
metering to support a range of known and as yet unknown applications.
However the Local Communications solution must, first and foremost, meet
the energy requirements. Smart meters are not intended to be a fully
functional alternative to other residential gateway or home hub products –
these products tend to be capable of handling voice and multimedia
applications that would add significantly to the cost of utility meters.
The diagram below shows the SRSM project representation of the operational
architecture for smart metering and therefore the scope of the Operational
Framework – this document specifically relates to the ‘Local Comms’ section
on the left hand side of the diagram.
Industry Interfaces
Data Transport
(internet)
Figure 3: SRSM Operational Framework Scope
Page 12 of 52 11-Mar-08
Please note that ‘clip on’ or similar devices where information is captured via a
pulse counter, optical port, or by use of a sensor around an electricity cable
are not considered smart under the definitions of the Operational Framework
and are not included in this context. However, through the development of a
standard for smart metering local communications, any future ‘standalone’
devices could utilize the frequencies and protocols defined by the Operational
Framework.
4.2 Smart Utility Context for Local

Communications
The general perception of Local Communications for smart metering is
between a smart electricity meter and a display device.
This has been the typical approach in other smart metering initiatives, usually
on a proprietary basis, where the meter manufacturer provides the display
device alongside the meter for electricity only. The manufacturer decides upon
the communications medium, the protocols and data formats used.
This ‘one size fits all’ solution means that all customers get the same solution
that works straight out of the box, usually an LCD device that is portable or
fixed in a more accessible location than the meter itself.
However, having such a ‘closed loop’ offering for the display of consumption
information raises a number of issues:
• Restricting the opportunities for Suppliers to differentiate display
products in a competitive retail market.
• Variances in the quality and functionality of offerings from meter
manufacturers.
• Customers cannot choose how energy consumption information is
displayed to them.
• Innovation in display device technology would be controlled by meter
manufacturers or Meter Asset Providers.
• There could be limited support for future demand management and
demand response requirements. Access to the information from the
smart meter is under the control of the proprietary solution from the
meter manufacturer.
• In order to provide a ‘total utility’ solution, the display device must
communicate successfully with the gas and water meters – further
compounding the potential single source/proprietary solution issue.
These issues could be addressed through specification, i.e. requiring that

protocols are open, or available, introducing flexibility and innovation for
display devices.
Shown below is a representation of the basic utility requirements for Local

Communications for smart metering:
Page 13 of 52 11-Mar-08
Figure 4: Smart Utility Context
In this example, a water meter is included to illustrate the potential for an

extended network, however water metering does not form part of the Smart
Metering Operational Framework at present and is included purely to illustrate
how a utility context could operate.
As shown, the gas, electricity and water meters can communicate with a
display device. Further, the gas and water meters may use the same
communications medium to interact with the electricity meter, which could act
as a ‘hub’ for WAN communications for all utilities.
4.3 Smarter Display Options Using Local

Communications
Building upon the illustration above, it is a requirement of the Operational
Framework to support customer and supplier choice in the display of energy
(and potentially water) consumption information from smart meters.
Smart meters should allow customers to access information using a number of

different display devices, as shown in the illustration below. The original ‘LCD
device in Kitchen’ solution remains, but is supplemented or replaced by
options using personal computers, white goods, cellular telephones etc.
The success of smart metering in raising awareness of energy consumption,

and actually changing customer behaviour, will depend upon making the
information available in a way that is most relevant to individual customers.
Page 14 of 52 11-Mar-08
Figure 5: Smart Display Context
The step from the illustration of a smart utility context to a smarter display
context is one of interoperability. As long as the energy smart meters all
communicate using the same technology, protocols and a standard data
format, it will be possible for display functionality to be added to a number of
differing delivery devices.
An example could be the use of a USB dongle (and software) for a PC

allowing a customer to access sophisticated energy management information
from their utility meters. Currently this type of solution is being offered to
commercial customers through a wide range of proprietary offerings.
A number of display applications may rely upon a service provider external to

the home – e.g. an energy management website that a customer logs on to, or
a specific TV channel. In these types of application, data from smart meters is
processed and formatted by an external party before being presented back to
the customer. As these types of display services include a remote service
provider, they are not within the scope of the Local Communications work.
If smart meters operated on an interoperable open standard for Local

Communications then this level of energy management could be available to a
much wider range of customers. In this environment, Local Devices can
interoperate independent of the Metering System. For example, the water
meter could prompt the customer to call the water utility using a display
device.
Page 15 of 52 11-Mar-08
4.4 Smart Home Context

Establishing an interoperable solution for Local Communications, as required
to support customer choice for the display of consumption information, opens
up a range of opportunities for energy related Local Communications.
As shown below, a number of ‘green’ and other applications could be

supported by ‘or interact with’ smart meters. These types of automated home
technologies are now being installed, and could become more prevalent if
they were capable of responding to utility price triggers from smart meters, or
could utilise the WAN communications functionality that smart meters will
introduce to every home.
Figure 6: Smart Home Context
The final context illustration below presents the smart home context for the
smart metering local communications solution(s).
Page 16 of 52 11-Mar-08
Microgeneration ‘Cluster’
Sensor ‘Cluster’
Display Device ‘Cluster’ Utility Meters
White Goods/Demand Response ‘Cluster’
Figure 7: Smart Home Context & Clusters

It is not a requirement of the Smart Metering Operational Framework for smart
meters to act as a (or ‘the’) gateway for all of the devices shown in the
clusters. More detail on gateways is shown in section 5 below.
The opportunity to offer services that utilise the WAN communications link
within a smart meter is a product of establishing an interoperable platform for
Local Communications for smart metering.
4.5 One Interoperability Size Fits All?

The initial ambition of the SRSM project was to establish an end to end
proposal for interoperable smart metering. Under this approach, the same
network protocol and data exchange format would be used to communicate
between the metering system and a local device as would be used between a
metering system and an authorized party. This is shown in the diagram below
for a proposed use where the electricity smart meter acts as a WAN
Communications host for the gas smart meter.
Figure 8: End to End Interoperability
Following feedback as a result of consulting on the Operational Framework, it

has been suggested that this ‘One Size Fits All’ approach for interoperability
may not be appropriate. A number of potential local devices would not be
Page 17 of 52 11-Mar-08
capable of handling an XML file or supporting an IP address, or that the

requirements of these standards would increase the cost of the hardware to
be used. Similarly, the transfer of information between a meter and a
thermostat may not be required to support the same level of data security as
would apply to the transmission of energy credit from a supplier to a meter.
The diagram below illustrates distinct solutions for Local Communications and
WAN Communications in an example where:
- an energy supplier (or other party) can receive diagnostic information
from heating devices within a property via the electricity meter
- an energy supplier could use the smart metering link to send pricing
signals or demand management information to heating devices
Figure 9: Distinct Local and WAN Interoperability
However, where the approach is not common from one end of the
infrastructure to the other, there may be additional requirements for the smart
meter, or the Local Communications hardware, to support the following types
of transactions.
???
Figure 10: Making Interoperability Work

For completeness, the following diagram shows an interaction between a local
device, in this case a water meter with Local Communications compatible
hardware, and an Authorised Party who is not an energy supplier.
Page 18 of 52 11-Mar-08
Local Access Control Access Control Security
Local Protocol IP Protocol
Local Data Format XML Data Format
Local Comms WAN Comms
Water
Supplier
Figure 11: Interoperability Illustration Using Water
4.6 A National Standard

Whilst ‘same solution’ interoperability across the scope of smart metering
might not be appropriate due to the onerous processing and protocol
requirements this could place on simple local devices, in order to ensure that
smart metering creates an effective platform for the types of applications
presented above, it is believed that a national standard for local
communications is required.
This would mean that all smart meters would include hardware capable of
meeting the local communications standard. This does not necessarily mean
the same chip/hardware in every meter, but would mean conformity in their
capability.
4.7 Delivering the Last Mile

For certain topographies it may be possible for the Local Communications
hardware within smart meters to provide the ‘Last Mile’ physical media for
WAN Communications.
This would typically be for high density and metropolitan areas where the
signal propagation and power consumption restrictions of low power radio
solutions are less of an issue.
The SRSM project has considered the potential to use low power radio to
deliver the last mile, as shown in the diagram below. This also demonstrates a
number of options for backhaul for WAN Communications, which is out of
scope for the Local Communications Development work.
Page 19 of 52 11-Mar-08
Metering System Options

Substation
Low Power
Radio
PLC High Speed Link
Infrastructure (Copper/Fibre)
Low Power Data Trans-
RF to Elec Low Concentrator former
Power
RF
Type Supplier
Cellular A
Infrastructure
A number of RF
Data Transport
solutions include
the capability to
(internet)
create ‘Mesh’
networks, where a Data
large number of
Concentrator
nodes can be
crossed to reach
the concentrator. Low Power
RF Type
Existing telephony Supplier

network
X
Data
Concentrator
Data concentrators could be installed and managed by a
service provider making use of the existing telephony
network.
The equipment could be housed in telephony street furniture,
or any appropriate location, including potentially within
customer premises in the form of ‘Concentrator Meters’.
Data concentrators could be provided as part of the
infrastructure service, or as a separate contracted function.
Figure 12: Local Communications for the Last Mile
There is no assumption that there is necessarily the same hardware within a

meter for Local Communications and WAN Communications – theoretically two
low power radio chips could be used, possibly at different frequencies. An
example would be a meter that uses a ZigBee chip at 868MHz for Local
Communications and a WiFi chip at 2.4GHz for WAN Communications.
4.8 Local Device Classification

A topic for potential consideration is the classification of Local Devices. As
smart meters are required to be capable of 2 way communication, and energy
suppliers expect display devices to be similarly capable of 2 way
communication, the Local Communications solution(s) need(s) to
accommodate fully functional ‘nodes’ on a network.
There will be, however, local devices that will only send or receive data.
Examples could include:
- a fridge magnet to display consumption cost information would only
receive data
- an IR motion sensor would only send data
These types of devices could be classified, for the purposes of smart metering
Local Communications, as distinct groups. The Local Communications
solution could recognise the classification of local devices in order to
determine the data exchange types, access control details and network
addressing/protocols.
Finally, there may be devices capable of sending and receiving data, but that
would not act as network repeaters in a number of topologies.
In v1 of the Operational Framework, the following categories of local device

are proposed:
Page 20 of 52 11-Mar-08
- Data Device: a device which requires access to smart meter data only
- Communicating Device: a device which requires access to remote party
only
- Fully Functional Device: a device requiring access to the smart meter
data, and remote parties, and that could also operate smart meter
functionality – an example of this could be a diagnostic or
commissioning device to be used by a meter worker
Investigation is needed to understand whether there is a requirement for

classification of local devices, and if so, what are the recommended
classifications and how they can be documented.
4.9 Existing Standards

Placeholder to include any candidate standards for consideration – e.g.
CECED, GridWise, MultiSpeak etc. These could be published or in
development.
The SRSM project maintains an online reference table of global

interoperability initiatives at: http://tinyurl.com/yta5m8
Page 21 of 52 11-Mar-08
5 Energy Supplier Requirements

Shown below are the requirements taken from the ERA’s Smart Metering
Operational Framework Proposals and Options, as developed since
publication of that document in August 2007.
These requirements are classified as Mandatory/Highly Desirable/Desirable.
Ref Requirement Mandatory/ Notes

Desirable
R.1 The local communications Mandatory
solution(s) will be compliant with
relevant legislation and
regulations
R.2 There is a requirement for 2 way Mandatory The maximum
communication of data between requirement is for
the Metering System and Local intermittent
Devices communication between
a Metering System and a
Local Device at a
configurable interval
(every 2 minutes, every
hour, on demand etc). A
gas meter using low
power radio for Local
Communications to an
electricity meter and
onward to a display
device on a half-hour
interval was still capable
of a 10 year battery life.
The Local
Communications link will
also be available as an
option to deliver WAN
communication
information during a site
visit from a Meter Worker
with a suitably secure
device.
In this instance, if the
WAN communications is
not available, it will be
possible to exchange
information (meter
readings, tariff settings
etc.) through the use of a
Meter Worker device.
This failsafe/fallback
facility could include the
exchange of information
with Metering Systems
using local
Page 22 of 52 11-Mar-08

Desirable
communications during a
site visit or also for a
‘drive by’ or ‘walk by’
activity.
R.3 The local communications Highly
solution(s) will require the Desirable
number of site visits to a Metering
System to address issues or
failures of the communications
solution(s) to be kept to a
minimum.
R.4 Communication to and from a Mandatory Inappropriate here,
Metering System will be resistant means inadvertent or
to inappropriate interference by deliberate actions that
any party including the customer. would compromise the
other requirements. A
balance will need to be
maintained between the
requirement for secure
communications with
Local Devices, as defined
in the access control
security policies, and the
ability for customers to
establish local
communications between
a Metering System and a
Local Device – e.g.
should a customer have
to call their Supplier to
inform them that they
have purchased a ‘smart’
Washing Machine and
want to be able to show
actual consumption costs
on their new Local
Device?
solution(s) shall be resistant to
viruses and other malicious
software.
R.6 The local communications Mandatory Transmission of data to
solution(s) will not incur any costs or from a remote party via
for transmission of data between WAN, to link to a local
a metering system and a local device, could incur
device communications costs.
solution(s) will not alter, corrupt
or permanently store any data it
transports.
R.8 The local communications Mandatory Quoted standard applies
solution(s) under reasonable to electricity metering, but
Page 23 of 52 11-Mar-08

Desirable
usage profiles, will not critically principles should also
affect the power consumption or apply to gas metering
battery life of a Metering System
and will comply with EN 62053-
61
R.9 Where a gas Metering System Highly In order to preserve
forms part of a mesh network for Desirable battery life
Local or WAN Communications, it
will not act as a primary relay
point.
R.10 The local communications Mandatory For example, beyond
solution(s) will place minimum confirming connection or
requirements on customers for removal of Local
day to day operation. Devices, the customer
will not be expected to
take action to re-establish
communications
following any failure.
R.11 The local communications Mandatory Data traffic requirements
solution(s) will be capable of remain subject to
meeting the data traffic ongoing developments.
requirements of the Operational However, sample models
Framework. and profiles could be built
into this document to
assist with evaluating the
solution options.
R.12 Metering System Local Mandatory Equipment owned or
Communication will not be reliant controlled by the
upon hardware or equipment customer could develop
under the control of the customer faults, be replaced or
simply switched off.
5.1 Other Factors

A number of factors relating to Local Communications solutions are not
explicit within the requirements shown above. These factors are contained
within, or derived from, the overall Smart Metering Operational Framework
and the principles detailed within that document.
These factors are relevant for the evaluation of solution options.

Ref Factor/Statement Notes
F.1 Asset life expectation for smart meters Not explicitly stated within the
Operational Framework.
Current energy Supplier
expectations, based upon
discussions with meter
manufacturers, are for an asset
life of 15 years as a minimum,
with equivalent battery life (for
average usage profiles)
Page 24 of 52 11-Mar-08

F.2 Power consumption (linked to R.8) The design of the protocol stack
In order to reduce the impact of the will have an influence on the
power consumption of smart meters power consumption of the
themselves, either direct consumption of meter – particularly if there are
electricity or as causing a requirement for no restrictions on the number of
larger, more expensive batteries within attempts to send messages.
gas meters, it is a requirement to ensure
that the Local Communications solution is
as energy efficient as possible.
F.3 Power within Gas Meters Whilst possible (see standard
There have been a number of questions below), gas meters that meet
about the possibility of avoiding battery the safety requirements to
issues within smart gas meters by using support electrical connections
wired power. This would allow for are viewed as too expensive for
consideration of a wider range of consideration for mass market
solutions for Local (and WAN) deployment.
communications.
A particular issue for GB gas
A number of gas appliances already metering is the extensive use of
include gas and electricity components. meter boxes, which would
require modification to meet
ATEX requirements.
Some European smart meter installations
use low power (30v) wired connections to
link gas, water, heat and electricity The Institute of Gas Engineers
meters for communications purposes. and Managers (IGEM), at the
time of preparing this
document, is consulting upon
There are key regulations and standards
the 3rd Edition of its’ standard
relating to gas meters and potential
entitled ‘Electrical connections
explosive atmospheres (ATEX).
and hazardous area
classification for gas metering
Products are available to introduce two equipment’.
way communications for gas meters that
do not compromise the safety of the
meters, or introduce battery life issues.
The fundamental design of a gas meter

as mechanical or electronic will also be a
factor in how much power it consumes.
F.4 Solution longevity Selection of a solution to be

The preferred local comms solution will used in smart metering could, in
be installed in metering systems with an effect, guarantee its’ longevity
asset life of at least 10 years, and is likely and relevance in the future.
to be required to operate for much longer.
Therefore the solution will need to be

capable of remaining viable for an
extended service period.
Some points to consider in relation to
this:
- availability of the frequency
Page 25 of 52 11-Mar-08

selected
- resilience of the encryption
standards as technology develops
- flexibility to support upgrades,
whilst retaining backwards
compatibility
F.5 Solution availability The ‘start date’ for smart
It is absolutely critical that the solution is metering remains unclear.
available for use in line with the
expectations for the installation of smart A number of the solutions
meters. today. presented below are new, or
are subject to ongoing
development.
Availability of silicon and

protocols today might not
necessarily mean that these are
appropriate for use in smart
metering.
Evaluation of this requirement

could be based on availability
vs. time to market vs. installed
units
F.6 Visiting Smart Meters (linked to R.3) A key benefit of smart meters
will be a reduction in the
number and therefore cost of
field visits to read and maintain
the meter.
However, there is no
requirement that smart meters
should result in an end to all
visits.
e.g. Customers who use debit
functionality extensively (daily
or more than daily) could
require replacement batteries
within the expected smart meter
asset life. This would apply to
above average usage of any
functionality that would reduce
battery life.
F.7 Single Universal Solution
See 4.6 above

F.8 Linking/Pairing existing and new local
devices to a smart metering system to be
quick, easy and secure
F.9 Number of Linked Devices Unlimited/Limit
[to be discussed and agreed,
alongside the implications of
Page 26 of 52 11-Mar-08

creating parameters here]
F.10 Must not cause interference Or be interfered with
F.11 Meter Operator/Worker Interface See notes for R.2 and issue I.7
F.12 Ability to provide ‘Last Mile’ coverage for
WAN Communications.
5.2 Potential Additional Requirements

Requirements could also be derived to support the use of Local
Communications hardware to deliver the ‘Last Mile’ link for WAN
Communications.
Specific requirements for the smart metering system may also arise from the
Local Communications solution where a meter may be required to store data
for onward periodic transmission. Examples could include services configured
to transmit gas meter data on a daily basis via the electricity meter, or an
annual boiler diagnostic report.
5.3 Other Requirements

Placeholder for requirements other than those from ERA members within
Smart Metering Operational Framework. Examples could include
requirements from network operators, water companies or device
manufacturers.

Desirable
O.1
5.4 Processes/Activities Required

In order to document and evaluate the potential Local Communication
solutions, understanding how those solutions will be used is important. This
will also assist with understanding the controls and commands that will be
required within the metering system to authorize/manage which local devices
can undertake which activities.
Within the Operational Framework, the SRSM project listed a number of

processes/activities that could be expected from a local device (bearing in
mind that all smart meters are themselves local devices):
- establish pairing/join network
- remove pairing/leave network
- receive data from smart meter (passive local device)
- access data from smart meter (active local device)
- update data on smart meter
- operate smart meter functionality
Page 27 of 52 11-Mar-08
- send data to remote party via smart meter

- receive data from remote party via smart meter
- send data to local device via smart meter
- receive data from local device via smart meter
- send data to local device directly
- receive data from local device directly
5.5 Security
Requirements R.4 and R.5 above relate to the security capabilities of Local
Communications solutions. This section of the document illustrates and
expands on the requirements for secure Local Communications.
Due to the nature of data and functionality that will be accessible via Local
Communications, security is a paramount concern.
Consumption and other data from a smart meter may not initially be
considered as confidential – energy tariffs are publicly available, meter
readings on their own are not personal data or at risk of increasing identity
theft. 1
However, debit balances sent from a meter to a display device could be

considered by many customers to be personal and private. Further,
consumption patterns based on interval data could allow third parties to
establish patterns of occupancy, which would very much be viewed as
personal data.
Added to this the ability to operate metering functionality using Local

Communications, e.g. a meter worker configuring a meter at installation,
increases the risk of misuse or fraud by customers or third parties.
Requirement R.4 is not explicit in requiring the use of encryption to protect

data, but it is an obvious solution to the requirement. The strength of
encryption is also not specified as this tends to be a feature that varies by
solution option2.
It is accepted that no solution can be completely secure and resist all attempts
to intercept or interfere.
The Smart Metering Operational Framework v1 requires the following security

measures for WAN Communications:
• Cryptosecurity – e.g. at least 128 bit encryption using Advanced

Encryption Standard (AES).
1
The SRSM project is considering the issues surrounding ownership of smart metering data
within a separate workstream, therefore they will not be covered within this document.
2
Access Control is part of the overall smart metering architecture. It covers how access to the
meter functionality and data is controlled, and is defined in more detail in the main Operational
Framework document. Requirements (and potentially constraints) arising from the selection of
a Local Communications solution will be considered as part of the development of proposals
for Access Control by the SRSM project.
Page 28 of 52 11-Mar-08
• Emission security – protecting information emanating from the Metering

System from intercept and analysis
• Physical security – safeguarding communications equipment and
materials from access to or observation of by unauthorised persons
• Traffic flow security – concealing the presence and properties of valid
messages on the communications network
• Transmission security – measures to protect information from
interception and exploitation by means other than decryption – e.g.
jamming, frequency hopping etc.
Not all of the solution options for Local Communications will support all of
these measures. However, they will be evaluated against each other on the
basis of these measures.
5.6 Independent Local Networks

Shown below is a simple illustration of typical utility applications for local
communications in two neighbouring properties.
Figure 13: Simple Collection of Smart Meters and Local Devices
The house on the left has a gas meter in an external meter cupboard, a water
meter fitted at the boundary point, and has a TV capable of displaying smart
metering information.
The house on the right differs in that there is no water meter, the gas meter is
located at the rear of the house and the preferred display solution is a portable
LCD display, usually kept in the kitchen.
The illustration below shows the required links between devices.
Page 29 of 52 11-Mar-08
Figure 14: Independent Networks
The topology of the network within premises does not need to be specified, as
these could vary significantly by property type.
However, in order to deliver the necessary signal propagation to link the

electricity meter to the gas meter in the blue house, the range of Local
Communications of the electricity meter could be as shown below.
Figure 15: Local Communication Signal Range
Page 30 of 52 11-Mar-08
This simple illustration, without allowing for signal drop off as it passes through
walls, shows how all of the devices in the left hand house are within reach of
the electricity meter in the right hand house. It is a requirement for the
information from one customers’ metering not to be visible on their
neighbours’ display.
The illustration below shows how much overlap there will be between signals
for this simple configuration of smart meters and devices. The TV display in
the left hand house is in range of all four energy smart meters.
In reality, the range of the wireless signals is likely to be much greater than
shown.
Figure 16: Overlapping Wireless Ranges
The requirement is for the Local Communications solution to deliver a network

of Local Devices for each property. It is not practical (or possible) to restrict a
wireless signal from each meter to the boundaries of each premises.
Page 31 of 52 11-Mar-08
Figure 17: Required Local Comms Range Example
Finally, there are circumstances where the wireless signal could be required to
transfer data between properties.
The illustration below shows where communication between meters in

different properties would be a desirable feature for Local Communications. It
is a very simple depiction of meters forming a mesh network to reach a data
concentrator in a substation. Whilst this is effectively the WAN
Communications network, it utilises the Local Communications hardware in
smart meters.
Figure 18: Mesh Network to Concentrator
Page 32 of 52 11-Mar-08
5.7 Wireless to Wired

[Placeholder to consider opportunity to define a standard covering wired and
wireless local communications and any issues that could arise from such a
determination:
- cost added to metering system
- relevance for gas meters
- interference from other utilisation of wires]
A standard/solution that includes a wired option for local communications as

well as a wireless option could be beneficial to link to existing and new wired
devices and networks.
A number of appliances and networks will already exist in premises where

smart meters are installed. Each of these systems will be operating using their
own protocols and data formats, and not necessarily interoperating. There
may also be network capable appliances that are not yet part of any network.
Examples could include white goods with capable of communicating using
CECED standards, but no wireless hardware.
It is not an ambition for smart meters to directly interact with all of these
systems, as this would introduce complexity and cost into the meters
themselves.
Other ‘smart metering’ implementations do include wired local

communications, typically in Northern Europe. Typically these use the M Bus
protocol over a low voltage (less than 30v) wire within meter rooms for multi-
unit buildings where the location of the gas, electricity, water and heat meters
makes wired solutions far simpler to implement. As detailed in F.3 above,
there are localised regulations within the UK that appear to rule out this option
for gas metering.
However, it would be beneficial for a number of ‘non-utility’ systems to interact

with smart meters:
• to receive pricing and tariff information
• to respond to load control/demand management instructions
• to display energy related information
• to utilise the WAN connection of the meters to send or receive
information to and from remote parties
Some customers may already own and use equipment theoretically capable of
providing a bridge between wireless and wired communications media, and
which could include the necessary software to make data and services
interoperable between distinct networks and systems. The obvious example is
a home PC, but broadband routers, set top boxes and games consoles
already include most of the technology to provide a link between smart meters
and existing wired and wireless networks.
The illustration below is taken from a Microsoft presentation on web services

and the development of a connected ‘internet of things’, and shows a smart
meter as part of the local network, but not necessarily communicating with all
of the devices within that network as there is a ‘WSDL/IP’ bridge.
Page 33 of 52 11-Mar-08
Figure 19: Interoperability via Web Services Interfaces

[Placeholder to explain the interoperable software – including web services]
As previously stated, it is an absolute requirement for smart metering that it

will not be subject to customer equipment and decisions in order to deliver the
utility requirements of intra meter and energy information display processes.
It would not be reasonable to assume that every home would be equipped

with a BT Home Hub, Sky box, Xbox 360 or similar ‘bridge’ capable
equipment, but for those that do then smart meters could form part of the
overall connected home. Energy suppliers could choose to provide ‘bridge’
equipment to customers as part of an overall energy services package.
5.8 Addressing Protocol

[Placeholder to consider the potential requirement for an overarching network
addressing protocol, e.g. use of 6LoPan to implement IP addressing within
Local Communications networks.]
5.9 Local Communications Principles

From the detail presented above, it is possible to infer a number of key
principles that apply to Local Communications for smart metering:
• Interoperable – supporting a range of metering products and local
device applications
• Utility focus – the key requirement remains the communication between
smart meters and energy information display devices. Support for other
services and applications will be as a result of developing a practical
solution to the utility requirement.
• Use, wherever possible, of open standards and architecture
• Same ‘solution’ in all smart meters – establishing a national
solution/standard
Page 34 of 52 11-Mar-08
• Energy efficient
• Secure
• Future Proof/Future Flexible – supporting innovation at the same time
as supporting legacy systems
• etc
Page 35 of 52 11-Mar-08
6 Solution Options
This section of the document presents a number of solution options for the
hardware to be included as part of a smart metering system.
It uses a standard template to capture detail relating to each of the options.

This template is presented below with a description of the type of information
to be captured.
Sections 7, 8 and 9 cover aspects of the overall solution that are relevant to
Local Communications, and which are not necessarily options or solutions.
A number of solution options support more than one network protocol, or are
offered by vendors at different frequencies. Therefore there is not always a
one to one relationship between the silicon, the frequency, the protocol and
the data set supported.
In order to ensure that all potential considerations and aspects of a solution

are included in this document, details are recorded.
Solution Name
Description: A description of the solution
Hardware: A description of the physical hardware used by the solution –
microcontroller, antenna etc.
Cost: Where available, a general view of the cost of the solution on a per
meter basis
Data: Speed of data transfer, any limits on packet sizes
Power: Points relevant to the power usage of the solution when it is
operating or dormant, and how this may effect the power
consumption of the meter or local devices.
Frequencies: Which of the frequencies (if applicable) does the solution support
Protocols: Does the solution support a variety of protocols? Does it use a
proprietary protocol, or place requirements/restrictions on the
protocol?
Data Does the solution support a variety of data formats? Does it use a
Exchange proprietary format, or place requirements/restrictions on the data
Format: format?
Use in other Is the solution used for other purposes, i.e. not for smart metering,
applications: but for building controls, telecare, entertainment etc.
Use in other Has the solution been used in a smart metering context in other
markets: markets? Can include where the solution is being considered by
other smart metering initiatives.
Maturity: Is the solution available today? If not, when will it be available?
Support for Capability of the solution to provide ‘last mile’ coverage for WAN
‘Last Mile’: Communications
For: Points supporting the solution in a smart metering context
Against: Issues associated with the solution in a smart metering context
Notes: Any other notes, weblinks to relevant materials etc.
Page 36 of 52 11-Mar-08
Solutions are presented in alphabetical order.
Solution Bluetooth www.bluetooth.com

Description: Low power radio for personal area networks with up to seven
nodes
Hardware: Single chip radios available from a wide variety of suppliers.
Cost: Circa $5 per end
Data: 1 MBit/sec
Power: High power consumption - 5000μA
Frequencies: 2.4GHz
Protocols:
Data
Exchange
Format:
Use in other Mobile telephony
applications:
Use in other
markets:
Maturity: Several years old
Support for
‘Last Mile’:
For:
Against: Poor range and propagation
Only supports 8 nodes
Notes:
Solution HomePlug www.homeplug.org

Description: An open standard for powerline communications developed by a
consortium of companies
Hardware: Command and Control is available from Renesas, or Ytran chipset
plus line coupling devices
Cost: Circa $8 per end
Data: Three standards exist depending upon the application:
- AV High speed
- Home Plug V1 for ethernet over mains applications
- Command and Contol running at speeds of 1-10 kBit/sec
depending on conditions.
The Command and Control standard is probably most suited to
metering due to its low cost.
Power:
Frequencies: Wired Solution
Protocols: Open standard
Data
Exchange
Format:
Page 37 of 52 11-Mar-08
Use in other Use in homes to network Ethernet devices

applications:
Use in other
markets:
Maturity: Homeplug standard is reasonably mature. Command and Control
is a recent development
Support for
‘Last Mile’:
For: Reliable communications unaffected by the building fabric.
Against: Integration with gas meters not readily available. May be affected
by electrical noise on the mains.
Notes:
Solution KNX www.knx.org

Description: Solution developed in Germany, primarily for building automation
purposes.
Supports wired (twisted pair and power line) and wireless
Standard available as EN 50090, EN 13321-1, ISO/IEC 14543

Hardware:
Cost:
Data:
Power:
Frequencies: 868MHz
Protocols:
Data
Exchange
Format:
Use in other Significant deployment in building management and automation –
applications: is the standard used at Heathrow’s terminal 5 building.
Use in other
markets:
Maturity:
Support for
‘Last Mile’:
For:
Against:
Notes:
Solution M Bus www.m-bus.com

Description: Solution developed in Germany to support domestic utility
metering.
Supports twisted pair and wireless.
Page 38 of 52 11-Mar-08
Standard available as EN 13757

Hardware:
Cost:
Data: Wired M-Bus data transmission speed is very low
Power:
Frequencies: 868MHz
Protocols:
Data
Exchange
Format:
Use in other
applications:
Use in other Wireless M-Bus used for German heat cost allocators.
markets:
Proposed usage of wireless M-Bus in Germany, Austria and the
Netherlands.
Maturity:
Support for
‘Last Mile’:
For:
Against: Issues relating to the interoperability of the standard and elements
from the overall architecture are not yet resolved.
Notes: http://www.m-bus.com/
Pending EN 13757-5 supports the use of repeaters/relays.
Solution WiFi www.wi-fi.org

Description:
Hardware:
Cost:
Data: Up to and beyond 54mb/s
Power: Power consumption is very high compared to other options.
Frequencies: 2.4GHz
Protocols:
Data
Exchange
Format:
Use in other Many existing solutions – already used in homes for internet
applications: connections.
Use in other
markets:
Maturity:
Support for
‘Last Mile’:
For:
Page 39 of 52 11-Mar-08
Against: Complex network configuration.

Does not support mesh networks.
Notes:
Solution ZigBee www.zigbee.org

Description: Silicon based protocol operating on the IEEE 802.15.4 standard for
physical layer and medium access control.
Networks can contain 65536 nodes.
Supports two types of devices:

- Full Function Device (FFD), which can co-ordinate or
participate in a network
- Reduced Function Device (RFD), which can only participate
in a network
Supports 128-bit encryption

Hardware: Radio chips available from Ember, ST, TI, Freescale, Renesas,
Jennic
Cost: Circa $5 per end (total BoM)
Data: Between 20 and 40 kbit/s at 868MHz (improved by 2006 revision
of 802.15.4 to 100 to 250 kbit/s?)
250 kbit/s at 2.4GHz
Power: Varies by individual chip – typical average is μ1A.
Examples:
- Ember EM250 operates at between 35 and 41 milliAmps without
a power amplifier. With a power amplifier it will operate at 100
milliAmps when transmitting. When ‘awake’ but not transmitting
power consumption is 7 milliAmps. When ‘asleep’ power
consumption is less than μ1A.
ZigBee devices come in two flavours for power consumption –

routers and end devices.
Routers are expected to operate continuously to support and drive
the mesh network and therefore require a constant source of
power.
End Devices are battery powered radios that only come to life
when required to transmit or receive information. Usage profiles –
frequency of transmission and the size of those transmissions - will
determine the eventual battery requirements.
Frequencies: 868MHz or 2.4GHz
Protocols: ZigBee with Smart Energy Profile
Data Specified in the ZigBee Smart Energy Profile which can be added
Exchange to if required.
Format:
Page 40 of 52 11-Mar-08
Use in other Total ZigBee node and chipset units – 5 million in 2006, 120 million
applications: in 20113
Home automation, telecoms (local)
Use in other
markets:
Maturity: Smart Energy Profile due for release March 2008, ZigBee Pro
Stack available January 2008
Support for With relevant power amplification, ZigBee at 2.4 GHz can operate
‘Last Mile’: at a range of 1km line of sight in open air, which is reduced
markedly when there are things in the way.
For: Already in use for Home Automation applications, adopted by
North American, Swedish and Australian utilities for smart
metering applications and all the major meter manufacturers will
have products available by Q2 2008
Against:
Notes:
Solution Z Wave www.z-wave.com

Description: Standard developed and supplied exclusively by Zensys.
Supports a maximum of 237 nodes.

Hardware:
Cost:
Data:
Power: Approximate range of 60 feet indoors.
Frequencies: 868MHz
Protocols:
Data
Exchange
Format:
Use in other
applications:
Use in other
markets:
Maturity:
Support for
‘Last Mile’:
For:
Against: Is a proprietary standard.
Questions relating to support for security requirements.
Notes:
[please add any additional tables as required]
[should we include:
3
In-Stat Market Research “ZigBee 2007: What it Iz and What it Iz not”
Page 41 of 52 11-Mar-08
- ANT – 2.4GHz, very low power (10 years on a watch battery), 1 million
nodes in operation – but proprietary, www.thisisant.com
- SimpliciTI - TI Website
- EkaNet - www.ekasystems.com
- Coronis - www.coronis.com
- Wibree - www.wibree.com
- Wireless HART – 2.4GHz, Open Standard, MAC addressing
www.hartcomm2.org
- etc ?]
Page 42 of 52 11-Mar-08
7 Network Protocol Options

Placeholder to document the potential protocols that could be used for Local
Communications networks. A number of these may be specifically linked to
the physical media solution.
Protocol IPv6
Description:
Used by/for:
For: IPv6 is likely to be the preferred protocol for WAN
Communications.
Potential to use a simple version of IP – STM.

Against: Headers and Footers for IP add significantly to the data packet
size. It would take in excess of 50 ZigBee packets to transmit one
IP packet (and this would result in 50 acks)
Notes:
Protocol IPv4
Description:
Used by/for:
For:
Against:
Notes:
Protocol 6lopan
Description:
Used by/for:
For:
Against:
Notes:
Page 43 of 52 11-Mar-08
8 Frequency Considerations
Placeholder to capture and discuss the available licensed and unlicensed
wireless frequency options for local communications.
In general, propagation degrades as frequency increases, but specific

examples/tests should be included where possible.
8.1 Frequency Information

Frequency 169MHz
Description: Licensed band
Used by/for: Paging band, delegated to AMR
Signal [need to add range claims and real world results]
Propagation:
Power Efficient power per distance
requirements:
Longevity of
frequency
allocation:
Notes: No chipsets currently available for 2-way communications – it is
used for 1-way communication only
Frequency 184MHz
Description: Licensed band
Used by/for:
Signal [need to add range claims and real world results]
Propagation:
Power Efficient power per distance
requirements:
Longevity of
frequency
allocation:
Notes: Can purchase bandwidth from Ofcom.
Currently only using this band for 1-way push communications
(e.g. water AMR), therefore would not meet 2-way communications
requirements with existing products (new chip sets would need to
be developed)
Frequency 433-434MHz
Description: Unlicensed band
Used by/for: Well used frequency, typically used for car key fobs.
Has been used for heat metering in Europe
Signal Good
Propagation: [need to add range claims and real world results]
Power More battery efficient than higher frequency options
Page 44 of 52 11-Mar-08
requirements:
Longevity of
frequency
allocation:
Notes: Support (by existing chips) for open standards is not evident
Security may be an issue (e.g. for financial transactions)
Frequency 868-870MHz
Description: Unlicensed European band
Used by/for: Z-Wave, M Bus, ZigBee.
Minimal usage in other applications
Signal Good
Power
requirements:
Longevity of
frequency
allocation:
Notes: Supports 3 channels.
Regulations prevent use of frequency for communications outside
of a property – i.e. could not form a mesh of smart meters in a
street to connect to a data concentrator.
Transmit duty cycle limited to 1%, or works on ‘listen before
transmit’ basis.
Less attractive to higher bandwidth applications.
Frequency 2.45GHz
Description: Unlicensed worldwide band
Used by/for: ZigBee, WiFi, Bluetooth, Microwave Ovens, Home Video repeaters
Signal Compromised by building construction
Longevity of
frequency
allocation:
Notes: Use of spread spectrum to manage 16 available channels
No limits on transmit duty cycle
[please add any additional tables or information as required]
8.2 Spread Spectrum

Placeholder to discuss properties of spread spectrum and channel usage as
done, for example, by 2.4GHz devices.
Page 45 of 52 11-Mar-08
9 Data Exchange Format Options

Placeholder to document the potential data exchange format options that
could be used for Local Communications. A number of these may be
specifically linked to the physical media solution.
Data Obis/Cosem
Exchange
Format
Description: Definition of standardised metering objects (Electricity, Water,
Heat, and Gas Metering covered)
Used by/for: Commonly used in Electricity metering in Europe, gaining adoption
elsewhere in metering
For: Standardised, EN13757-1 (Communication Systems for meters
and remote reading of meters -Part 1:Data Exchange)
Against:
Notes: Parts of the standard are used in MBUS implementations.
Data Obix
Exchange
Format
Description:
Used by/for:
For:
Against:
Notes:
Data XML
Exchange
Format
Description:
Used by/for: Global standard for data exchanges, used in an increasing number
of areas
For:
Against: Use of XML for local communications could place an unacceptably
high overhead on the microcontroller itself. XML support could
easily require more space than is typically available on low power
radio microcontrollers. Implementation is feasible, but at the cost of
adding memory and co-processors and decreasing battery life.
Notes:
Page 46 of 52 11-Mar-08
10 Evaluation Options
Placeholder for consideration of solution options – includes proposed method
for a desktop exercise in 10.2.
Could also include real world testing opportunities such as plug fests and
results from field trials.
Completion of the information within this section will be an iterative process to

establish and refine requirements and evaluation criteria concurrently in the
context of the available solutions.
10.1 Data Traffic Models

To support the evaluation of combinations of options, some basic modelling of
data exchanges will be required.
A number of scenarios and profiles should be considered to support a range of

Local Communications applications. These could include:
- transmission of consumption and tariff information from meter to display
device
- transmission of 24 hours of interval data from gas/water meter to
electricity meter
- etc
It is not envisaged that large data files will be transmitted, or streamed, using
the Local Communications solution. However, the solution should not place an
upper limit on the size of data transmissions, other solutions exist for such
applications and should be the obvious choice.
The development exercise should create a recommendation that provides a

platform suitable for the majority of Local Devices and uses, but which does
not constrain innovation.
10.1.1 Data Traffic Activities

This section of the document presents a series of sample data traffic activities
to assist with assessing the solution options.
Activity Ref DA1 Activity Name Meter Reading (simple)

Element Size (bits) Instances
Register ID 10B 1
Register Reading 10B 1
Notes: Typical expectation for a gas meter reading Total Size 20B
[Some help to ensure we’re capturing the right information here would be
appreciated]
Activity Ref DA2 Activity Name Meter Reading (complex)
Page 47 of 52 11-Mar-08
Activity Ref DA2 Activity Name Meter Reading (complex)

Register ID 10B 6
Register Reading 10B 6
Notes: Import and export registers for an electricity Total Size 120B
meter operating with a 3 rate tariff
10.1.2 Data Traffic Usage Profiles

Placeholder to combine activities into sample usage profiles – e.g. daily
messages of interval data, weekly use of debit functionality, regular refresh of
energy display. This will assist with assessing the suitability of solution options
to meet ‘typical’ requirements.
Profile Ref DP1 Profile Name Weekly Electricity Reading

Activity Frequency From To Total Size
DA2 Weekly Meter Supplier 120B
DA6 Etc.
[Some help to ensure we’re capturing the right information here would be
appreciated – the list of process types in 5.4 could be used as a foundation]
10.2 Solution Evaluation Matrix

[The proposal for evaluation shown below is an illustration of a process that
could be followed – the group should determine the most appropriate method
here, which could include the addition of weighting to criteria or the addressing
the concept that ‘highest score=best solution’ is not as straightforward as it
appears].
The table below assesses each of the solution options from section 6 against
criteria derived from the other sections of this document.
Each solution has been assessed by the Local Communications Development

Group against criteria agreed by the group. Where relevant, explanations of
scores are provided in the supplementary table.
Scoring is on a 0 to 5 basis, and scores assigned are objective or subjective

depending on the data available and the type of criteria being assessed:
0 No support/does not meet requirement

1 Very limited support/meets little of requirement
2 Limited support/meets part of requirement
3 Partial support/ meets most of requirement
4 Supports/meets requirement
5 Fully compliant/exceeds requirement
[Note: includes examples for illustration purposes only]
Page 48 of 52 11-Mar-08
Solution
Bluetooth
Z Wave
ZigBee
M Bus
KNX
WiFi
Criteria
C.1 Interoperable
C.2 Security features of solution
(see 5.5 for reference
measures)
C.3 Solution is available today 5
(see factor F.5)
Multiple Source Supply Chain
Cost of solution
Volumes deployed for smart
metering
Total Score 5 0 0 0 0 0
10.2.1 Evaluation Matrix Notes

In order to provide a complete record of the evaluation process, any notes and
explanatory text are shown in the table below.
Criteria Solution Score Notes/Explanation

C.3 Bluetooth 5 800 million devices sold in 2007
C.5 KNX
Page 49 of 52 11-Mar-08
11 Issues
The table below provides an ongoing record of issues for consideration and
potential actions to resolve.
No Issue Description Resolution Options

I.1 Data exchange from local device to
remote service provider – e.g. from Local
Data format to WAN Data format. Does
the format need to be consistent in order
for a boiler diagnostic alert to reach the
end recipient?
Discussed in 4.5 above
I.2 Issues with meter location/property type – Use of mesh network topology to
e.g. meters in meter rooms in multi- securely transmit data.
occupant premises. Use of wired/wireless repeaters.
I.3 Requirement R.9 needs refining to cover
the potential/commercial WAN comms
issues where the two fuels are supplied
by different companies
I.4 Future flexibility – how do we account for
ZigBee 2.0 or Z-Wave Extra? Smart
meter assets will have a useful life in
excess of 10 years, and those installed on
day one should still be compatible with as
many applications as possible throughout
their installed life.
I.5 Definition of a required network topology Potentially both – a meter should
for Local Communications – is the meter be the master of ‘utility’
expected to be a node in a network, or the processes and networks that are
master of a network? specifically related to smart
metering. At the same time,
smart meters should also be
capable of being part of a wider
‘connected home’ network.
Also need to consider what this
would mean in relation to the last
mile.
I.6 Added by Ian Graham of Landis+Gyr Added by Ian
As the UK market allows Customers to Assume that an external
change suppliers of Gas/Electricity, and independent agent (on the LAN)
there is confidentiality of data between is responsible for ensuring only
different suppliers, (and indeed historical permissible data is transferred
suppliers), what requirements are there in/out of the LAN/HAN
for data segregation/encryption within the
Local Network?
I.7 Relating to requirement R2 Understand the implications of the
The initial group workshop discussed the requirement by working through
ability of a meter to support the replication some practical examples.
of ‘WAN’ functionality locally, typically by
a meter operator when WAN
communications has failed.
Page 50 of 52 11-Mar-08
This may be challenging if Local

Communications supports a restricted set
of functionality with regard to data and
commands.
12 References
Shown below are references to relevant materials and resources.
Reference Description Link

Itron case studies As requested at first meeting View Online
on meter data of Local Comms Development
collection Group
WELMEC As stated at first meeting of [reference to materials
guidelines on Local Comms Development required]
power Group.
consumption Defines power consumption
for
metrology/communications.
EN 62053-61 Standard entitled – Link to IEC Page for
Electricity Metering Standard
Equipment – Particular
Requirements – Part 61 –
Power Consumption and
Voltage Requirements
Wireless Network Detailed report on wireless View Online
Report networks, including a
technical comparison of
ZigBee and ANT networks
ZigBee & WiFi Report by Schneider Electric View Online
Coexistence investigating the potential
Report interference issues where
ZigBee and WiFi networks co-
exist – used for the discussion
of spread spectrum in 8.2
[please add any additional resources as relevant]
Page 51 of 52 11-Mar-08
Appendix: Schedule [X] of Operational

Framework
Placeholder for insertion of final documented standard for local
communications, including specific protocols and data exchange formats.
This could/should just reference the standards for local communications and
potentially the data schema(s).
Page 52 of 52 11-Mar-08

SRSM Local Communications Development 0 2

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SRSM Local Communications Development 0 2

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SRSM and Beyond

Local Communications Development

Author(s) Simon Harrison

10.2.1 Evaluation Matrix Notes ............................................................ 49

Please note that due to

Change marking will be

v0_2 also includes

This document is a development of Schedule H of the Smart Metering

Updated following project workshop

1.2 Review Group

Details of the participants can be viewed online at: http://tinyurl.com/2cvr3g

1.3 Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright

Unless you are a person participating in the Smart Meter Operational

2 Executive Summary and Introduction

It also includes a specimen view of a final schedule proposal for inclusion in

Any statement of preference for particular communications solution options

Further information on the SRSM project is available from:

For ease of understanding and application to a familiar domestic context, this

2.5 Structure of this Document

3 Glossary & Conventions

Figure 1: Smart Meter Locations

The Operational Framework specifies ‘domestic-sized’ metering, and such

The Operational Framework includes a number of Meter Variants, usually to

3.1.2 Meter and Metering System

Smart Metering Systems – Illustration of Flexible Approaches

Smart Metering Metering System Illustration of how fuels could share

The required functionality could be delivered by components:

As defined below, a smart metering system could comprise a number of

The potential variety of physical locations and conditions of metering points

Therefore all general references to smart meters and uses of icons to

Ongoing at the time of developing this document

4 Local Communications Context

4.1 General Context

Interoperable Local Communications capability will enable customers and

Throughout this document applications involving water meters, TV displays

Figure 3: SRSM Operational Framework Scope

4.2 Smart Utility Context for Local

These issues could be addressed through specification, i.e. requiring that

Shown below is a representation of the basic utility requirements for Local

Figure 4: Smart Utility Context

In this example, a water meter is included to illustrate the potential for an

4.3 Smarter Display Options Using Local

Smart meters should allow customers to access information using a number of

The success of smart metering in raising awareness of energy consumption,

Figure 5: Smart Display Context

An example could be the use of a USB dongle (and software) for a PC

A number of display applications may rely upon a service provider external to

If smart meters operated on an interoperable open standard for Local

4.4 Smart Home Context

As shown below, a number of ‘green’ and other applications could be

Figure 6: Smart Home Context

Display Device ‘Cluster’ Utility Meters

White Goods/Demand Response ‘Cluster’

Figure 7: Smart Home Context & Clusters

4.5 One Interoperability Size Fits All?

Figure 8: End to End Interoperability

Following feedback as a result of consulting on the Operational Framework, it

capable of handling an XML file or supporting an IP address, or that the

Figure 9: Distinct Local and WAN Interoperability

Figure 10: Making Interoperability Work

Local Access Control Access Control Security

Local Protocol IP Protocol

Local Data Format XML Data Format

Local Comms WAN Comms