12-1-2012

1

Energy & Telco synergies EU Brussels 3th Workshop 11 jan.2012 Peter Hermans.peter.hermans@stedin.net

“Food for Thought”

2

Agenda

1. Questions

2. View on the 7 questions

Annex

3

The Questions for the 3th workshop

1. DSOs and Telco's should actively contribute to M490 to ensure the use case for critical control is properly addressed.

2. DSOs should clarify to which extent the solution for cooperation around core critical services could be to deploy dedicated services, rather than entirely new infrastructure.

3. Telco's should clarify their capabilities to provide generic services, in particular issues related to access to customer information, system reliability, long term availability and vendor lock-in.

4. DSO should clarify the benefits of moving to business models beyond asset management.

5. DSOs should examine the potential implication for the regulatory framework of sharing their ICT infrastructure with Telco's.

6. DSOs and Telco's should indicate the scale, design, scope and financing instruments required in order to collaborate within the framework of the CEF and identify all other stakeholders that may need to be involved in projects (such as energy solution providers, ICT solution providers, retailers, aggregators, generators, prosumers).

7. DSOs and Telco's should analyze ongoing approaches to align ICT systems to the current market structure and business models and propose how developments around smart grids could be accommodated.

4

1.DSOs and Telco's should actively contribute to M490 to ensure the use case for critical control is properly addressed.

• Agree

• Current, direct contribution from DSO’s is still low, this should be improved.

• CENCENELEC/ETSI should steer to improve direct DSO engagement, (also on national level).

• Work in M490 follows IEC and NIST; this alignment should be maintained.

• Addressing the use case for critical control equals getting requirements from a DSO perspective clear. DSO should focus on “What”, Telco on “How”.

Companies ParticipantsStandards 20 17,9% 77 22,5%

DSO 17 15,2% 75 21,9%

IT solutions 15 13,4% 54 15,8%

Telco 9 8,0% 26 7,6%

Metering 8 7,1% 16 4,7%

Industry solutions 6 5,4% 8 2,3%

Energy companies 5 4,5% 10 2,9%

Communication systems 4 3,6% 4 1,2%

Associations 4 3,6% 16 4,7%

Research 4 3,6% 8 2,3%

Security 4 3,6% 6 1,8%

System Integrator 4 3,6% 10 2,9%

Consumer electronics 3 2,7% 5 1,5%

E consultancy 3 2,7% 9 2,6%

ICT solutions 3 2,7% 15 4,4%

Government 3 2,7% 3 0,9%

112 100,0% 342 100,0%

M490 Participation

5

2. DSO’s should clarify to which extent the solution for cooperation around core critical services could be to deploy dedicated services, rather than entirely new infrastructure.

Questions:• To what extend do dedicated services require dedicated

infrastructure ?• Communication services are dependent on the operational

behavior of the underlying infrastructure. (see next slide) How do we manage that ?

• Who is actual delivering communication services ?• What will be the lifecycle of the Telco offered services ?

View (see also position paper 5 okt.2011):• Communication infrastructure required for critical core services

should be part of the smart grid infrastructure (public control & ownership):

A Telco should be selected to build and operate this infrastructure and services delivered from it

• Realistic direct cooperation is foreseen on the physical layer (cable laying, use of spectrum and/or fiber)

• Cooperation on other layers is outcome of sourcing strategy and tendering process (level playing field)

Approach:• Requirements should come from M490• Telco should then be able to answer the question

Physical layer(fiber, spectrum)

ManagedTransport services

(eg VPN’s)

Housing & HostingServices

ApplicationServices

BPO

DSO sourcing strategy:

1. In house2. Outsourced to ICT provider

(Telco and/or SI)

1. Telco managed2. 3th party managed3. Self managed

1. Telco owned2. Self owned

6

Roll out – Major challenges• Communication issues/coverage unpredictable - risk of re visits• Escalation to clean up – how long shall we wait for communication?

Roll out - mitigations• Communication “Green light” is a must – no ambiguity re communication working before leaving the site• Roaming sim, (MVNO,use of all available networks) is essential

Operations – the major challenges• The constant network changes in the mobile networks will affect coverage• Expect that you will have to do field visits to about 0,5-1,5% of all meters per year mainly due to communication issues• As communication moves up the frequency bands the connectivity will more and more become seasonal (damp

weather, leafs, snow/ice)

• Life time of communication – how long will GPRS live?

• What if the number of GPRS channels are decreased and channel planning changed to make room for 4G – 5G etc.

Operations - mitigations• Secure that the responsibility for the cost of “systematic communication failures” is clear• Make sure you have redundancy in the communication protocols and standards

• Have realistic expectations about the lifetime of communication standards

• Make sure that the processes, software and hardware can handle dynamic frequency / channel and sites changes

Outcome of communication case study on smart metering (Sweden)

7

• Agree

• Since there is competition between Telco’s, this should be an open and transparent process (EU standard public tendering procedure)

• Telco’s should accept to work with Utilities based MVNO’s

• Telco’s should answer the question on how to manage the dependency of communication services on the underlying operational behavior of networks

• Telco’s should publish their communications roadmap from which becomes clear what the life time of offered communication services will be (e.g. GPRS)

• The National Regulator should allow for Utility based MVNO’s and Utility allocated spectrum to avoid Telco lock-in

• Adoption of M490 standards should not lead to a Telco lock-in

3.Telcos should clarify their capabilities to provide generic services, in particular issues related to access to customer information, system reliability, long term availability and vendor lock-in.

8

4.DSO should clarify the benefits of moving to business models beyond asset management.

• “Benefits of moving to business models beyond asset management”: This is not an (optional) benefit, this is the essence of a smart grid: Shifting focus from management of assets to management of energy flows.

• Benefits go beyond DSO’s, covering the whole market:• DSO (load management, congestion management, avoided or deferred investments, better information providing to the market)• Energy Suppliers: Enabling competition, enabling new roles/ new entrants• Telco’s: To offer attractive synergetic solutions since product orientation aligns with their “line of thinking” , portfolio, ICT solutions• Government/ regulator: additional instrument for: 1) steering on realization 202020 objectives, 2) market regulation and 3) taxation (EV’s)

• A Business case for the whole Energy public sector (DSO’s) in the Netherlands has been drafted for the ministry EL&I for smart grid investments in the public sector for 3 energy transition scenario’s. Outcome:• Business case is positive. • Investments cost fall in the public sector• Financial benefits are foreseen also in the public sector (DSO’s), through avoided or deferred network investments and better utilization of central

power plants• Essential pre-requisite for realizing these financial benefits is changing customer behavior• A different transport and energy tariff system (currently flat rated in Netherlands) is required to incentivize changing customer behavior, also to

accommodate “time of day” and “location based” billing (Research in pilots has to make clear what tariff system does change customer behavior.

• Definition and Implementation of different transport products with different tariff schemes in DSO billing systems enables an evolutionary implementation (no big bang), acceleration of smart grid deployments and business case realization.

• Next steps: to be worked out under the (to be extended) M490 mandate. Next to a conceptual framework (NIST alike), and a functional information architecture, the M490 JWG should also produce DSO product architecture and DSO process architecture (E-tom alike).

9

5.DSOs should examine the potential implication for the regulatory framework of sharing their ICT infrastructure with Telco's.

• Agree, but critical services > 50% ownership DSO

• Not only DSO’s also Telco’s, EU and regulators

• Making use of the layered model

• Consistency with EU public tendering procedures(Level playing field)

• Remembering the rationale of unbundling(public/private)

A possible solution:• Creation of one National Utility Communication Service

Provider • Driven by DSO’s (together)• Selection of one or more Telco’s through a EU public

tendering process• Creation of a joint venture (JV) between the DSO’s and

the selected Telco (s)• Ownership JV by DSO > 51%

Physical layer(fiber, spectrum)

ManagedTransport services

(eg VPN’s)

Housing & HostingServices

ApplicationServices

BPO

DSO sourcing strategy:

1. In house2. Outsourced to ICT provider

(Telco and/or SI)

1. Telco managed2. 3th party managed3. Self managed

1. Telco owned2. Self owned

JV

10

• Agree

• Not completely clear how the CEF would work

• What are the exact criteria for granting from the CEF ?(participation from different member states, research community, various Telco's?, number of participants?, type of funding, etc?)

• Projects should not be research focused, but collaboration focused (end results count)

• How could the CEF help in incentivizing the creation of JV’s between Telco's and DSO’s ?

6.DSOs and Telco's should indicate the scale, design, scope and financing instruments required in order to collaborate within the framework of the CEF and identify all other stakeholders that may need to be involved in projects (such as energy solution providers, ICT solution providers, retailers,aggregators, generators, prosumers).

11

• Agree (see also position paper 5 October)

• Not only DSO’s and Telco’s , also EU and National regulatory bodies

• ICT systems are aligned to accommodate market structures and business models

• Market structures are defined by EU and national regulatory bodies

• There exists a real risk that the way in which unbundling is implemented in ICT systems in EU today, there is a misalignment with the smart grids objectives. Correction will be costly and will cause delay of the deployment of smart grids in Europe ( see position paper 5 October).

Suggested approach:

• Initiate an asap an impact analysis on this issue on EU and National level• Give guidance to National level on this

7.DSOs and Telco's should analyze ongoing approaches to align ICT systems to the current market structure and business models and propose how developments around smart grids could be accommodated.

12

annex

13

Comply or Explain (source M490 WG)

InternationalInternational

RegionalRegionalComplyComply

oror

ExplainExplain

NationalNationalComplyComply

oror

ExplainExplain

ReferenceReference ArchitecturesArchitectures& & standardsstandards

RequirementsRequirements, , UsecasesUsecases&Feedback&Feedback

RegionalRegionalAmendmentAmendment

NationalNationalAmendmentAmendment

RequirementsRequirements, , UsecasesUsecases&Feedback&Feedback

SourceSource: : StrategicStrategic VisionVision forfor EuropeanEuropean StandardsStandards

InputInput

OutputOutput

1.1. based upon the internationally accepted standards ISO,IEC,ITU based upon the internationally accepted standards ISO,IEC,ITU ((ComplyComply))

2.2. European standards are necessary European standards are necessary 1.1. where international standards are not available or where international standards are not available or 2.2. where they do not adequately serve legitimate regulatory and polwhere they do not adequately serve legitimate regulatory and policy objectivesicy objectives

3.3. Where European standards deviate from existing international staWhere European standards deviate from existing international standards, an outline of the reasons for the ndards, an outline of the reasons for the deviation should be provided.deviation should be provided.”” ((ExplainExplain) )

RequirementsRequirements, , UsecasesUsecases&Feedback &Feedback

National National partiesparties

RequirementsRequirements, , UsecasesUsecases&Feedback &Feedback

RegionalRegional partiesparties

RequirementsRequirements, , UsecasesUsecases&Feedback&FeedbackInternational International partiesparties

14

ContractCustomer WholesaleBill

Energy TransportService Provider

EnergySupplier

Contract

Connection

TransportUsage

EnergyUsage

Customer

Bill

Meteringdata

Connection

ContractCustomer Bill

Assetmanagement

Energy Supplier

Meteringdata

• DSO unaware of the customer(how to compensate)

• DSO tariff system at supplier• How will DSO validate supplier

settlement• Transport services dependent

on connection

• DSO is customer aware(and can compensate)

• Customer bill from supplier• DSO can validate supplier settlement• Different tariff systems for different

Energy Transport services possible

From Asset management to Energy Transport service provider

15

.Themes on Communication

Smart Metering Architecture

Supplier DSO

Centralized

Decentral(Customerlocation) Smart meter

(E)

P1P3

P3

CTS

P1

Production

Usage

StorageConsumerEnergyManagement

Billing & Settlement

Forecasting, Trading & Production control

CRM

MDR P4

Grid

Public IP network

(Regulated market)(Liberalized market)

P2(G)

network

Utilities View

M2M Applications

M2MCore

M2M Service Capabilities

Core Network

Access NetworkTransport Network

M2M Appl.

M2M ServCap

M2M Gateway

M2M Appl.

M2M ServCap

M2M Device

M2M HAN

M2M Device

Network

Managem.

Functions

M2M

Managem.

Functions

Telco’s View

16

Peter Hermans

Peter Hermans:

Started in 1983 in the Telecom sector in the Netherlands.

Worked on IT strategy & systems development for Network Management of Digital Networks, CRM & Billing, Internet Services Delivery, Enterprise Architecture and Integration (SOA).Joined the Eneco group in 2007, where since then, he initiated company change programme’ s on several business- IT strategic issues, related to unbundling, smart metering, smart grids & regulatory requirements, including the set up of Eneco’s Enterprise Architecture, Application Portfolio, and Roadmaps.

MSc degree on Telecommunications, a CMC degree on change management, (ICMCI); 55 years old

Introduction

Stedin & Eneco

Stedin’s (DSO) Ambition: Total Grid Operator

• Distribution System Operator• E and G• > 2 Mio Customers• Contribution to sustainable

energy supply• Providing extra value for our

clients • Participation, financing,

management and exploitation of transport infrastructure, for the benefit of independent transport of energy and energy related products

Eneco’s (Supplier) Vision/Strategy

• Sustainable, Decentral, With customers

• Consumer becomes Energy Producer

• 100% Energy Supply from renewable sources in 2030