Energy & Telco synergies EU Brussels 3th Workshop 11 jan.2012

Transcription

1 Food for Thought Energy & Telco synergies EU Brussels 3th Workshop 11 jan.2012 Peter Hermans

2 Agenda 1. Questions 2. View on the 7 questions Annex 2

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. 3

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 Participants Standards 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% ,0% ,0% M490 Participation 4

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) BPO Application Services Housing & Hosting Services Managed Transport services (eg VPN s) Physical layer (fiber, spectrum) DSO sourcing strategy: 1. In house 2. Outsourced to ICT provider (Telco and/or SI) 1. Telco managed 2. 3th party managed 3. Self managed 1. Telco owned 2. Self owned Approach: Requirements should come from M490 Telco should then be able to answer the question 5

6 Outcome of communication case study on smart metering (Sweden) 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 6

7 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. 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 7

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 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). 8

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 BPO Consistency with EU public tendering procedures (Level playing field) Remembering the rationale of unbundling (public/private) Application Services Housing & Hosting Services DSO sourcing strategy: 1. In house 2. Outsourced to ICT provider (Telco and/or SI) 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% Managed Transport services (eg VPN s) Physical layer (fiber, spectrum) 1. Telco managed 2. 3th party managed 3. Self managed 1. Telco owned 2. Self owned JV 9

10 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). 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? 10

11 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. 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 11

12 annex 12

13 Comply or Explain (source M490 WG) Output International Reference Architectures & standards Requirements, Usecases&Feedback Regional Comply or Explain Regional Amendment Requirements, Usecases&Feedback National Comply or Explain National Amendment Input Requirements, Usecases&Feedback International parties Requirements, Usecases&Feedback Regional parties Requirements, Usecases&Feedback National parties 1. based upon the internationally accepted standards ISO,IEC,ITU (Comply) 2. European standards are necessary 1. where international standards are not available or 2. where they do not adequately serve legitimate regulatory and policy objectives 3. Where European standards deviate from existing international standards, an outline of the reasons for the deviation should be provided. (Explain) Source: Strategic Vision for European Standards 13

14 From Asset management to Energy Transport service provider Energy Supplier Transport Usage Metering data Energy Usage Customer Contract Bill Customer Contract Wholesale Bill Contract Bill Asset management Connection Metering data Energy Transport Service Provider Connection Customer Energy Supplier 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 14

15 Themes. on Communication Smart Metering Architecture Utilities View Telco s View Supplier DSO (Liberalized market) (Regulated market) M2M Applications M2M Centralized Billing & Settlement Forecasting, Trading & Production control MDR P4 CTS M2MCore M2M Service Capabilities Managem. Functions CRM P3 Core Network Network Managem. Production Public IP network network Transport Network Access Network Functions Decentral (Customer location) Usage Storage Consumer Energy Management P1 P1 Smart meter (E) P3 P2 (G) M2M Appl. M2M ServCap M2M Gateway M2M Appl. M2M ServCap M2M Device M2M HAN Grid M2M Device 15

16 Introduction Peter Hermans Stedin & Eneco 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 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