Meter Technical Details for Smart Meters (CP1388) Education - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Meter Technical Details for Smart Meters (CP1388) Education Session

Adam Lattimore 20 June 2013

1

• Smart Metering Journey
• CP1388 Solution
• CP1388 Progression & Next Steps
• Open Discussion
• Are there any new points of view you want the Panel to consider?
• Are there any likely alternatives to be raised?

Agenda

Smart Metering Journey

Steve Francis 20 June 2013

3

• Legacy System Changes (Enduring) paper produced by DECC
• Set out scope for potential changes to legacy systems to support

Smart Metering

• Established principles and high level requirements for registration,

meter technical details, installation requests, meter readings and communications with DCC

• Changes to be progressed under Smart Metering Regulation Group

(SMRG), Working Group 4 (WG4)

November 2011

4

• SMRG WG4 acts as a steering group for development of

consequential legacy system changes

• Chaired by DECC
• Includes representatives from Parties, Party Agents, Code

Administrators and Ofgem

• Identifies requirements to be assessed and progressed under

existing industry change processes

• Intention to avoid use of Secretary of State powers where at all

possible

SMRG WG4

5

• MOAs retain ownership of physical meter details
• Suppliers take on ownership of configuration details (SSCs, register

info)

• Suppliers take on responsibility for sending MTDs to relevant

participants, in place of their MOA, using existing D0149/D0150 data flows

• Security and communication details to be handled separately by

DCC

Principles for Meter Technical Details

6

• BSC-MRA Working Group established by ELEXON to consider

details and provide a response to SMRG WG4

• Group members were put forward by interested parties following

an invitation to the BSC and MRA change co-ordinator mailing lists.

February 2012

7

Workgroup Membership “Big Six” Suppliers 6 small – medium Suppliers (@1-2 per meeting) 1 - 3 LDSOs + ELEXON, Gemserv, Ofgem (1 meeting) Included 2 SVG Alternates & 1 SVG member Included a number of SMIP BPDG members 1 - 3 independent Supplier Agents per meeting

8

• Key points identified by the Group:
• More analysis required on handling of comms hub failures
• Noted benefits in re-using D0149/D0150 but didn’t want to rule
• ut using new flows as they may be less risky
• A potential minimal change option may exist where MOA

distributes, but not necessarily generates, complete MTDs

February 2012

9

• Initial assessments discussed by SMRG WG4
• Recognition that MTDs have less of an impact on DCC than

registration

• No requirement from SMIP to deliver changes in a particular way
• No particular preference on solution other than that it supports the

SMIP efficiently and effectively

• MTD solution to be driven by industry preferences
• March 2012

10

• Working Group continued development of potential solution
• Analysis of scenarios to cover major business processes:
• New connection
• Meter replacement (dumb-smart, smart-smart)
• Handling of comms issues
• Change of Agent (NHHDC and MOA)
• Change of Supplier
• Two key issues to be considered:
• Distribution of MTDs by MOA or Supplier
• Use of current flows versus modified/new flows

Further development

11

• Initial approach involves distribution of MTDs by Suppliers
• Group applied alternative MOA distribution approach to business

scenarios to identify benefits and issues

• Approach found to minimise process and system impacts on

participants

• However, analysis reveals more complex distribution chain, with

more dependencies and potential points of failure

• Group’s preference was for distribution of MTDs by Suppliers

Distribution of MTDs

12

• Group considered whether current flows should be re-used or

whether modified/new flows would be more appropriate

• Arguments were set out on either side and are summarised in the

next section of the presentation

• Group’s preference was for new flows so as to minimise enduring

process risk over immediate implementation risk

Current flows v modified/new flows

13

• Further development of potential changes based on principles

agreed so far

• Detailed discussion on data items and low level process steps
• Strawman solution drawn up involving changes to BSCP504,

BSCP514 and the DTC

• Solution issued for consultation prior to raising a formal Change

Proposal

May 2012 – September 2012

14

Consultation Respondents (19) “Big Six” Suppliers 5 small Suppliers 3 LDSOs 1 system solutions provider 4 independent Supplier Agents

The CP1388 Solution

Jon Spence 20 June 2013

16

• Currently Meter Technical Details are sent on –
• Non Half-hourly Meter Technical Detail (D0150)
• Notification of Mapping Details (D0149)
• Auxiliary Meter Technical Details (D0313) – Advanced Meters only
• MRA-owned data flows
• Contain non-Settlement data – e.g. Meter Asset Provider, re-cert

dates, non-Settlement registers

• Register mappings, multiplier, no of register digits are needed by

the NHHDC (and to a some extent the Supplier and LDSO) to interpret the readings from the Meter (e.g. correctly allocate day & night usage)

Meter Technical Details

17

The big change . . . MAN AND A VAN WAN AND A HAN

18

traditional metering MTD NHHMOA MTD MTD Supplier NHHDC LDSO

19

smart metering (configuration details) NHHMOA Config details Config details Supplier NHHDC LDSO DCC

WAN command / response DCC User Gateway Request / response

Config details

20

D0149

SSC TPR MSNSFC Register Mapping Coefficient

D0150

Meter Id Manufacturers Make & Type MAP Id Date of Meter Installation Certification Date SSC MSNSFC Register Id Meter Register Type Number of Register Digits Meter Register Multiplier

Supplier / config details Meter Operator / device details DCC Comms Details Security details

21

smart metering (configuration details) NHHMOA Config details Config details Supplier NHHDC LDSO DCC

WAN command / response DCC User Gateway Request / response

Config details

22

smart metering (configuration details) NHHMOA Supplier NHHDC LDSO DCC

WAN command / response DCC User Gateway Request / response

Config details

23

Smart metering (device details) Device details NHHMOA Device details Device details Supplier NHHDC LDSO

24

Smart metering (device details) Device details NHHMOA Supplier NHHDC LDSO

25

• NHHDC needs configuration data to correctly interpret readings
• The current source of this data, the NHHMOA will no longer be

responsible for configuring meters under the DCC model, so will not know the configuration details

• Whilst the Supplier could provide configuration details to the

NHHMOA for onward transmission to the NHHDC, this would add an additional step to a process that already doesn’t work well

• The NHHMOA would just be performing a ‘pass through’ function,

which is unlikely to be as efficient as sending the data directly between the participant that carries out the configuration (the Supplier) to the participant that needs the configuration (the NHHDC).

What Settlement risk does CP1388 seek to address?

26

• OPTION 1 – Supplier logical owner, but discharges responsibility

for configuration via the NHHMOA

• OPTION 2 – NHHMOA sends a D0150 as a single rate, Supplier

updates with actual config and sends revised D0150 and D0149 to NHHDC and LDSO

• OPTION 3 – NHHMOA sent copies of DCC request/responses by

Supplier and populates D0150/D0149 as at present

• OPTION 4 – as option 2 but with changes to existing D0150/D0149

(e.g. Using optional fields, rather than defaulting to single rate)

• OPTION 5 – as option 2 but using new flows

SMIP BPDG LEGACY SYSTEM CHANGES PAPER

27

NHHMO remains responsible (options 1 and 3) » Least change (in terms of introducing new flows and processes) » Use existing flows and distribution method » Responsibility for distributing config. data doesn’t rest with the originator of the data » Adds an additional step into a process (MTD distribution) that already doesn’t work well (“Top 10” Settlement risk under PAF) » The NHHMOA provides a “post-box” function and adds no value

 

28

Supplier responsible for distributing

• config. Details (Options 2 and 4)

METER OPERATOR SUPPLIER NHHDC & LDSO Skeleton D0150 full D0150 D0149

29

D0149

SSC TPR MSNSFC Register Mapping Coefficient

D0150

Meter Id Manufacturers Make & Type MAP Id Certification Date SSC MSNSFC Register Id Meter Register Type Number of Register Digits Meter Register Multiplier

Supplier / config details Meter Operator / device details DCC Comms Details Security details

30

Supplier responsible for distributing

• config. details (Option 5)

METER OPERATOR SUPPLIER NHHDC & LDSO Device details Device details Config details Config details

31

Using new flows (option 5)

• Cleaner distinction between the data items for which the

Supplier and Meter Operator are responsible

• Cleaner distinction between smart and non-smart
• processes. Using current flows in significantly different ways

can create risk.

• Cost saving using existing flows, could be outweighed by

impact of receiving current flows from different participants,

• r in creating smart-specific population rules
• Avoids having two versions of D0150 – the ‘skeleton’ and

‘full’ versions – in circulation for the same MPAN

» higher cost

 

32

• BPDG Legacy System Changes paper – requirement LFR039
• “DTC Definition Change – The D0142 ‘Request for Installation or

Change to a Metering System Functionality or the Removal of All Meters’ data flows shall be revised in order to enable Suppliers to identify to MOPs the direct requirement to install SMS devices at the customers premise and pass any additional information relating to the SMS installation including which SMS device to install as part

• f the SMS set”.
• However, the Legacy System Changes paper is silent on the

method of confirmation by the NHHMOA back to the Supplier.

Installation Requests

33

• New request flow incorporating comms hubs, IHDs etc with other

devices added to the ‘device details’ flow

• Leave D0142 and D0150 as is and leave information flows between

Supplier and NHHMOA to bilateral agreements

• Leave D0142 and D0150 as is, but progress other smart device

flows through separate request/confirmation flows (potentially as a subsequent CP)

• Not a Settlement requirement, but joint BSC/MRA workgroup

looked at wider impacts (& D0150 sets a precedent by already including non-Settlement items)

• Bilateral agreements likely to be easier for ‘in-house’ NHHMO

arrangements than for small Suppliers and independent NHHMOs

Options for Installation Requests / confirmations

34

Using new flows (option 5)

• Cleaner distinction between the data items for which the

Supplier and Meter Operator are responsible

• Cleaner distinction between smart and non-smart
• processes. Using current flows in significantly different ways

can create risk.

• Cost saving using existing flows, could be outweighed by

impact of receiving current flows from different participants,

• r in creating smart-specific population rules
• Avoids having two versions of D0150 – the ‘skeleton’ and

‘full’ versions – in circulation for the same MPAN

• Supports confirmation of other smart metering equipment

installation without the need for a separate flow

» higher cost

 

35

• Difficulties of smaller Suppliers providing config.

details (expectations of a ‘thicker’ DCC role)

• MOA experience of distributing MTD
• Complication of two processes during roll-out
• Risk of change co-incident with start of roll-out
• Counter argument that changes aren’t significant
• Smart technology provides the Supplier more direct

control of the meter and industry processes need to reflect this

• Agreement with Supplier distribution of config.

Details, but prefer existing flows, NHHMOA to distribute device details, NHHMOA to receive

• config. Details.

Do you agree with the high-level proposal? 3

October consultation responses

12 4

36

• One proponent of waiting until the end of the

roll-out

• Change driven by DCC so should be coincident
• Some support for pre-roll-out, some for no

earlier than start of roll-out

Are changes required for the start of mass roll-out? 2

October consultation responses

15 2

37

• CP1388 includes ‘Smart Equipment Work

Management Request’

• Changes to the D0142 add complexity and could

delay implementation

• Complexity and possible variations favour bi-laterals
• Standard flows better for small Suppliers and

independent NHHMOs

• Standard flows avoid costs of managing multiple bi-

lateral agreements

• Standard flows create a level playing field

Standard Installation request (rather than bi-laterals)? 2

October consultation responses

14 2

38

• Some support for keeping other equipment in a

separate flow

• Precedent of separate flows (e.g. auxilliary MTD

D0313), but argument for single flows by design

• Multiple flows create uncertainty, because lack
• f a flow could mean no device installed or that

a flow is missing

Include other smart devices in device details flow? 2

October consultation responses

9 4

39

• Less change in terms of new flows

(counterbalanced by the need for conditional formatting & processing)

• Risk of sending the wrong flows
• A clear differentiator between smart & legacy
• Leaves legacy process unchanged
• Avoids the same flow being sent for the same

MPAN with different content

• Restructured config and device flows provide a

clearer differentiation between Supplier and NHHMO sourced items

• Avoid the need for functional dependencies on the

data within flows

New flows (rather than D0150/D0149)? 1

October consultation responses

11 6

40

• Responsibility on data ownership lines – Supplier

sends Config. Details & NHHMOA sends device details

• MOA should send both
• Supplier should send both
• Supplier should send device details on change of

agent, NHHMOA following a metering change

• Supplier should also be the custodian of device

details (NHHMOA becomes an installer)

Supplier to distribute device details to DC/LDSO? 2

October consultation responses

7 9

41

• Different processes which should be considered

separately

• Lack of clarity at this stage about how elective Half

Hourly would be supported by the DCC

• Avoids another level of complexity at this early stage
• HH will need to be considered at some point.

Limit shorter-term change to Non Half Hourly? 4

October consultation responses

15

42

Scope of new process

Scope Respondents SMETS + remotely configurable AMR 9 SMETS only 5 DCC serviced only 2 DCC serviced SMETS only 1 All NHH 1

43

CP1388 features

Feature Supplier takes initial/final readings remotely 9 1 8 Device details flow used for removal of legacy Meter 10 6 Sending Config data to NHHMOA optional on Supplier 3 1 13 Timescales for provision of device (and config.) data by NHHMOA subject to Supplier contract 13 3 1 MOA’s D0303 (MAP flow) obligation unchanged 15 2

44

CP1388 features (continued)

Feature MOA’s D0312 (ECOES flow) obligation unchanged 14 1 2 Energisation /de-energisation processes to remain unchanged 14 2 1 No standard industry flow for other SMETS configurable items (e.g. pre-payment rates and thresholds, block pricing rules and thresholds for configurable alerts) 12 2 3 Inclusion of Configuration Sequence No. on

• Config. Details flow

10 2 5 PARMS changes likely to be required 15 1

45

• Risks of gaps/overlaps in CoS readings
• Counter argument that midnight read(s) available

to both old and new Suppliers

• Improved reliance on readings from the smart

Meter

• New Supplier doesn’t need to support old

Supplier’s configuration solely for the purpose of processing closing readings

• Simplified process with fewer hand-offs
• Counter view that it would be more complicated
• Less reliance on transfer of MTD and reading

histories between old and new agents (transfers which currently cause problems)

Merit in separating old/new Supplier responsibilities for closing/opening reads? 1

October consultation responses

8 6

46

• Prefer to wait for Ofgem Smarter Markets, and

centralisation of registration, DP/DA

• Risk to roll-out of co-incident developments of CoS

processes

• Consistent smart and legacy CoS processes
• Removes Foundation problems where the new

Supplier isn’t able to support the configuration set up by the old Supplier and the collection of the readings

• Linking benefits in CoS process to the installation of

the smart Meter will improve customer perception and not delay the benefits in DECC’s impact assessment.

Should CoS changes be implemented for ‘Day One’ of mass roll-out? 8

October consultation responses

4 4

47

• Change applies to SMETS compliant NHH meters
• D0150/D0149 restructured as Smart Device Details and Meter

Configuration details

• MOA sources and maintains device details, but distributed by

Supplier

• Supplier responsible for sourcing, maintaining and distributing

config details to NHHDC and LDSO

• MOA can still provide config. details to the Supplier, if configured

locally

• Notification of config. details by Supplier to MOA will be optional
• Notification of device details to NHHDC will be optional
• Energisation Status included in config details so that DC does not

need the device details

CP1388 features

48

• Initial and final Meter readings taken remotely by Supplier (MOA

readings optional as required by Supplier)

• Device details flow (rather than D0150) used to notify removal of

legacy meter on smart installation

• Timescales placed on Suppliers with MOA activity subject to

contract

• Notification of appointment to a smart meter by D0155 or as
• therwise agreed
• D303 (MAP), D0313 (ECOES) and change of Energisation Status

processes remain unchanged

• D0142 to be replaced by Smart Equipment Work Management

Request with response on device details flow.

CP1388 features (continued)

49

• CP1388 is not a ‘fix-all’ change
• Smart Change of Measurement Class process needs to be designed

(domestic to HH CoMC is not anticipated from ‘Day One’)

• Further consideration needs to be given to exception management

(allowing Suppliers to chase Suppliers for missing flows)

• Merging the Meter Configuration Details flow and ‘Affirmation of

Metering System Settlement Details’ (D0052) flow would simplify industry processes

• Further consideration needs to be given to change of Supplier

process

• Other changes for smart need in relation to data retrieval

responsibilities, remote disablement, reading frequency & validation, relationship between SMETS and NHH CoPs etc

Further changes

CP1388 Progression & Next Steps

Simon Fox 20 June 2013

51

• ELEXON raised on the 28 Dec-12 to implement the BSC-MRA

Workgroup’s agreed way forward

• Also MRA DTC CP3380
• Changes to:
• BSCP504 ‘Non-Half Hourly Data Collection for SVA Metering Systems

Registered in SMRS’

• BSCP514 ‘SVA Meter Operations for Metering Systems Registered in

SMRS’

• BSCP515 ‘Licensed Distribution’
• SVA Data Catalogue Volume 1: Data Interfaces
• SVA Data Catalogue Volume 2: Data Items
• Proposed BSC Release: Feb-14 or Jun-14

CP1388 Raised

52

‘Big 6’ LDSOs Agents

CP1388 Impact Assessment (1)

53

• In general, consistent views reflecting positions throughout the

development of CP1388

• Only new view
• Widening the scope of the change to include smart Meters not

compliant with the SMETS

• However, this is outside of the scope of the CP and P292
• Comments on redlined changes
• Majority in support of Jun-14 Release

CP1388 Impact Assessment (2)

54

• BSC-MRA workgroup meeting 12 Feb-13
• Noted
• No new arguments and redlined changes weren’t material
• subject to some clarification changes, the solution in the CP was fit

for purpose

• Agreed that the Release date should be Jun-14

BSC-MRA Workgroup Discussion on CP1388 IA Responses

55

• Could not make a unanimous endorsement of CP1388
• All agreed – ‘no change’ is not an option
• Recommended by majority that the Panel reject CP1388
• Supported Jun-14 BSC Release, if approved

SVG Recommendation

56

SVG’s views on CP1388 (1 of 3)

Against Supportive Oct-12 consulta tion & Alternati ve CPs It did not set out costs and associated risks of each

• ption

Respondents may not have fully understood the implications of each option Disappointed no alternatives raised BSC-MRA workgroup ruled out DCPs as there would be too many, so compromised on a single solution consisting of those elements with majority support from Oct-12 consultation CP1388 consulta tion Wanted second consultation due to number of IA comments and subsequent amendments to the redlining IA comments previously raised and redline changes, although numerous weren’t significant and noted the BSC-MRA workgroup supported this view

57

SVG’s views on CP1388 (2 of 3)

Against Supportive Complexity & Risk New data flows introducing unnecessary complexity/risk, thereby reducing efficiency and would not be competitive due to any material error caused by the realisation of the risk being shared amongst participants Issue of competition can equally be argued successfully from either side Options considered by the group aimed at avoiding the Settlement Risk of incorrect MTDs Solution clearly separates flows by responsibility and Meter type – therefore ‘cleaner’ as less risky and easier to identify PAF Impact on SRR and need for new PARMS Serials CP1388 may require changes to SRR & PARMS, but this is for the PAB to consider

58

SVG’s views on CP1388 (3 of 3)

Against Supportive Solution Costly and would be interim Only solution to achieve majority support Essential to have a solution in place in time for the 2014 mass roll-out Consistency of views with both large and small Suppliers are split in their views and no option that ‘works best’ for everybody Long Term Solution Potentially better longer-term solutions in future Not possible to have certainty on longer-term developments in the timescale

59

• Recap
• Where we are now
• Authority Approved P292 yesterday (19 July)
• SVG recent views – request that ELEXON present its views on the

Settlement Risk of each element

• Next Steps
• Verbal update to next SVG on today’s session (2 July)
• Present CP1388 to the July Panel (11 July)
• Timetable for any alternative CPs

Where we are now and Next Steps

Open Discussion

Adam Lattimore 20 June 2013

61

• Are there any new points of view you want the Panel to

consider?

• Are there any likely alternatives to be raised?

Discussion