Hugh D. Baker, Jr. AMI Open Standards

AMI Value Propositions  Operational efficiencies  Do more with less  Improving reliability  Outage detection  Cost reductions  Eliminate meter readers  Improved customer service  Accurate billing  “Advanced Energy Services”

Typical Deployment Challenges  Diverse service area  Customer density  Topography  Diverse internal “customer” base  Multiple uses of meter data  Evolving utility business model  Additional services to customers

Utility AMI Requirements  Interoperability of systems  Multiple AMI technologies  Other technologies (e.g., demand response)  Multiple communications pathways  Manageable technology risk  Long term technology sustainability  Stable vendors; multiple vendors  Affordability

Proprietary AMI  Duplicative hardware  Single purpose software  Expensive  Single point of failure  May require specialized expertise to operate  Training costs  Inefficient use of scarce labor resources  Integration issues  MDM platform  May not scale with growth

Adding Other Applications  No hardware interoperability  Comms channels not leveraged  Additional specialized expertise to operate  More training costs  Additional labor scarcity issues  Integration issues

Challenges for Proprietary Vendors  Must own the total user experience  Hardware, communications, software  Must support many possible utility applications  Limited production runs  Supply risk to customers  Design flaws may be fatal  Vendor must do a lot of things well

Proprietary AMI Case Study  Small distribution utility  Competitive market; regulated T&D services only  Compact, homogenous service area  100% AMI deployment in  Wireless mesh system  Proprietary hardware  Proprietary software  Business case  Automated meter reading  Customer access to interval data via website

Lessons Learned  Anticipate vendor supply issues  Delivery of initial meter stock was delayed  Negotiate airtight vendor warranties  System problems were encountered  Legal remedies were non-existent  Alternatives not available (proprietary)  Relied on vendor goodwill to resolve  Plan for technological advances  New technologies now available  Not compatible with system deployed

Lessons Learned (continued)  Anticipate future business requirements  No ability to add additional functionality  Multiple value propositions required  Breakeven feasibility in this case

Utility Perspective: Proprietary  Proprietary = Risk  Limited leverage with vendor after sale  Vendor stability must be considered  Proprietary = Higher cost  Proprietary = Reduced flexibility

Open AMI Principles 1  Shareability  Minimize duplication  Ubiquity  Maximize available infrastructure  Integrity  High performance  Ease of use  Logical, intuitive  Cost effectiveness  Capital cost, O&M  Standards  Defined, published, stable  Openness  Available to all qualified users  Security  Protected from unauthorized access 1. Source: OpenAMI Task Force. “Advanced Metering Infrastructure with Demand Response Design Principles.”

Open Architecture

Progress on Open Standards  ANSI C  Each end-point is addressed  Information moved in data packets  Data packets independent of communications network  Standardized addressability and security  Vendors are embracing open standards  (e.g., Itron’s OpenWay TM, Tantalus’ TUNet ®, Echelon ®, MeterSmart’s Encentra TM, etc.)

Conclusions  Utilities win with open systems  Lower risk  Lower costs  Greater flexibility  Vendors with open systems win  Opens larger markets  Reduces risk for vendors  Open protocols enable an “intelligent grid”  Utility / customer interface