Meter Technical Details for Smart Meters (CP1388) Education Session. Adam Lattimore 20 June 2013

Transcription

1 Meter Technical Details for Smart Meters (CP1388) Education Session Adam Lattimore 20 June 2013

2 Agenda 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? 1

3 Smart Metering Journey Steve Francis 20 June 2013

4 November 2011 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) 3

5 SMRG WG4 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 4

6 Principles for Meter Technical Details 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 5

7 February 2012 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. 6

8 Workgroup Membership Big Six Suppliers 6 small medium Suppliers (@1-2 per meeting) 1-3 LDSOs 1-3 independent Supplier Agents per meeting + ELEXON, Gemserv, Ofgem (1 meeting) Included 2 SVG Alternates & 1 SVG member Included a number of SMIP BPDG members 7

9 February 2012 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 out 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 8

10 March 2012 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 9

11 Further development 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 10

12 Distribution of MTDs 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 11

13 Current flows v modified/new flows 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 12

14 May 2012 September 2012 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 13

15 Consultation Respondents (19) Big Six Suppliers 5 small Suppliers 3 LDSOs 4 independent Supplier Agents 1 system solutions provider 14

16 The CP1388 Solution Jon Spence 20 June 2013

17 Meter Technical Details 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) 16

18 The big change... MAN AND A VAN WAN AND A HAN 17

19 traditional metering Supplier NHHDC MTD MTD NHHMOA LDSO MTD 18

20 smart metering (configuration details) DCC WAN command / response DCC User Gateway Request / response Supplier Config details NHHDC Config details NHHMOA LDSO Config details 19

21 D0150 SSC MSNSFC Register Id Meter Register Type Number of Register Digits Meter Register Multiplier Meter Id Manufacturers Make & Type MAP Id Date of Meter Installation Certification Date D0149 SSC TPR MSNSFC Register Mapping Coefficient Supplier / config details Meter Operator / device details DCC Comms Details Security details 20

22 smart metering (configuration details) DCC WAN command / response DCC User Gateway Request / response Supplier Config details NHHDC Config details NHHMOA LDSO Config details 21

23 smart metering (configuration details) DCC WAN command / response DCC User Gateway Request / response Supplier Config details NHHDC NHHMOA LDSO 22

24 Smart metering (device details) Supplier NHHDC Device details Device details NHHMOA LDSO Device details 23

25 Smart metering (device details) Supplier NHHDC Device details NHHMOA LDSO 24

26 What Settlement risk does CP1388 seek to address? 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). 25

27 SMIP BPDG LEGACY SYSTEM CHANGES PAPER 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 26

28 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 27

29 Supplier responsible for distributing config. Details (Options 2 and 4) Skeleton D0150 full D0150 METER OPERATOR SUPPLIER D0149 NHHDC & LDSO 28

30 D0150 SSC MSNSFC Register Id Meter Register Type Number of Register Digits Meter Register Multiplier Meter Id Manufacturers Make & Type MAP Id Certification Date D0149 SSC TPR MSNSFC Register Mapping Coefficient Supplier / config details Meter Operator / device details DCC Comms Details Security details 29

31 Supplier responsible for distributing config. details (Option 5) Device details Device details METER OPERATOR Config details SUPPLIER Config details NHHDC & LDSO 30

32 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, or 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 31

33 Installation Requests 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 of the SMS set. However, the Legacy System Changes paper is silent on the method of confirmation by the NHHMOA back to the Supplier. 32

34 Options for Installation Requests / confirmations 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 33

35 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, or 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 34

36 Do you agree with the high-level proposal? 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. October consultation responses

37 Are changes required for the start of mass roll-out? 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 October consultation responses

38 Standard Installation request (rather than bi-laterals)? 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 bilateral agreements Standard flows create a level playing field October consultation responses

39 Include other smart devices in device details flow? 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 of a flow could mean no device installed or that a flow is missing October consultation responses

40 New flows (rather than D0150/D0149)? 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 October consultation responses

41 Supplier to distribute device details to DC/LDSO? 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) October consultation responses

42 Limit shorter-term change to Non Half Hourly? 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. October consultation responses

43 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 42

44 CP1388 features Feature Supplier takes initial/final readings remotely Device details flow used for removal of legacy Meter Sending Config data to NHHMOA optional on Supplier Timescales for provision of device (and config.) data by NHHMOA subject to Supplier contract MOA s D0303 (MAP flow) obligation unchanged

45 CP1388 features (continued) Feature MOA s D0312 (ECOES flow) obligation unchanged Energisation /de-energisation processes to remain unchanged No standard industry flow for other SMETS configurable items (e.g. pre-payment rates and thresholds, block pricing rules and thresholds for configurable alerts) Inclusion of Configuration Sequence No. on Config. Details flow PARMS changes likely to be required

46 Merit in separating old/new Supplier responsibilities for closing/opening reads? 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) October consultation responses

47 Should CoS changes be implemented for Day One of mass roll-out? 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. October consultation responses

48 CP1388 features 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 47

49 CP1388 features (continued) 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 otherwise 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. 48

50 Further changes 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 49

51 CP1388 Progression & Next Steps Simon Fox 20 June 2013

52 CP1388 Raised 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 51

53 CP1388 Impact Assessment (1) Big 6 LDSOs Agents 52

54 CP1388 Impact Assessment (2) 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 53

55 BSC-MRA Workgroup Discussion on CP1388 IA Responses 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 54

56 SVG Recommendation 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 55

57 SVG s views on CP1388 (1 of 3) Oct-12 consulta tion & Alternati ve CPs CP1388 consulta tion Against It did not set out costs and associated risks of each option Respondents may not have fully understood the implications of each option Disappointed no alternatives raised Wanted second consultation due to number of IA comments and subsequent amendments to the redlining Supportive 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 IA comments previously raised and redline changes, although numerous weren t significant and noted the BSC-MRA workgroup supported this view 56

58 Complexity & Risk Against 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 SVG s views on CP1388 (2 of 3) Supportive 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 57

59 SVG s views on CP1388 (3 of 3) Solution Long Term Solution Against Costly and would be interim Potentially better longer-term solutions in future Supportive 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 Not possible to have certainty on longer-term developments in the timescale 58

60 Where we are now and Next Steps 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 59

61 Open Discussion Adam Lattimore 20 June 2013

62 Discussion Are there any new points of view you want the Panel to consider? Are there any likely alternatives to be raised? 61

63