In Part 1 of this series, our EnerNex experts defined the terms of the make-or-break issue of Smart Grid standards. In this part, they examine the role played by various organizations in the creation and validation of standards.

 

by Aaron F. Snyder, Grant Gilchrist, and Erich Gunther

 

Standards are a vital piece to the puzzle of interoperability and product success. In part 1 of this article, we identified the distinctions among the concepts of proprietary specifications, de facto requirements, and de jure standards. As suggested there, such requirements and standards don’t simply emerge from a single entity. The development and viability of standards depends on a variety of organizations to develop, test, and promote them. This part of our standards primer identifies those organizations, explains their roles and interactions.

 

Alliances

Alliances are a group of entities and individuals that recognize the value of a particular technology, and form a formal interest group to promote (for example) the codification of design and marketing of that technology. The difference between an alliance and a formal standards group lies within both the rules and the work products. Since any number of interested parties can form an alliance, the rules under which they operate vary widely. The ZigBee Alliance, for example, has a fifteen-member board (titled Promoters) made up uniquely of technology vendors with other membership categories known as Participants and Adopters. The work products of this alliance are known as profiles, or agreed-upon specifications.

 

Since an alliance is not required to have a balanced membership, or in some cases to follow certain antitrust regulations, the work products must be submitted to a standards development organization (SDO) in order to become true de jure standards. Often, the alliance may actually promote specifications as “standards,” before they are officially codified in a manner similar to a formal SDO. Also, one of the primary goals of most alliance efforts is demonstrable product interoperability within the framework of a defined certification program. Extension of the interoperability and certification efforts may even include joint work with other alliances to meet market needs. As an example, in August of 2008 the ZigBee and HomePlug alliances announced a joint effort on harmonization.

 

The following are well-known alliances related to the utility industry in the Home Area Network (HAN) market space:

·       HomePlug Powerline Alliance (www.homeplug.org)

·       Wi-Fi Alliance (www.wi-fi.org)

·       Z-Wave Alliance (www.z-wavealliance.org)

·       ZigBee Alliance (www.zigbee.org)

 

User Groups

Another type of organization relevant to this discussion is a user group. A differentiator between users groups, alliances, and formal standardization organizations is that user group rules often permit more free discussion between those actually using standards and specifications than those of the developing organizations. An example of the relationship is illustrated by the IEC 61850 standards developing committee (Technical Committee 57, Working Group 10) and the UCA International User’s Group (UCAIug) IEC 61850 committee. The IEC technical committee is made up of national experts, nominated and accepted by the IEC. Each committee follows a prescriptive process for producing IEC standards, in this case the IEC 61850 suite of standards. Part 10 of that suite is interoperability tests.

 

The UCAIug IEC 61850 committee is composed of experts that meet semiannually to discuss how the compliance of products to IEC 61850 is demonstrated. To do that, the committee validates that the standard tests are applied in a consistent, transparent, and fair manner, thereby ensuring that conforming products meet the goals of the standard.

 

Also within the UCAIug are task forces such as OpenHAN (Open Home Area Network) and AMI-SEC (Advanced Metering Infrastructure Security), which have published system requirements specifications. These specifications allow the customer and vendor communities to communicate with each other through a common document and to understand the complexities of what is needed to meet business objectives. These de facto specifications and requirements are also written in a manner that facilitates work by formal standards groups to develop de jure standards.

 

Standards Development Organizations

Standards development organizations (SDOs) operate under similar rules worldwide. In general terms, the members of the committees doing the actual development work are limited by antitrust rules or laws from engaging in anticompetitive behavior such as market division, pricing discussions, and the like. Also, intellectual property is treated as a potential source for standards language, and requires disclosure by the holder.

 

Unlike an alliance or users group, an SDO maintains strict control of the candidate voter pool for balloting to ensure a measure of fairness and balance. As an example, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has three categories: producer, user, and general interest. For balloting purposes, no single category can exceed 40% of eligible voters.

 

Formal standards (and many specifications) may actually begin as de facto standards; i.e., enough commonality among enough producers to call the product / approach / protocol “standard.” Beyond this, SDOs actually author de jure standards — those that are codified in a manner similar to laws. Given the careful attention to balloting balance, open rules, and open participation, standards may be adopted in place of laws in certain jurisdictions.

 

To move beyond standards that are regional in scope, there are pacts in place to allow copublication of standards between the IEC and IEEE, ANSI and IEEE, and others. This is the first step toward true harmonization, whereby a standard is in place for a broader market.

 

The following are examples of relevant SDOs for the utility industry in North America:

·       ANSI – American National Standards Institute (www.ansi.org)

·       IEC – International Electrotechnical Commission (www.iec.ch)

·       IEEE – Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (www.ieee.org)

·       ISO – International Organisation for Standardisation (www.iso.org)

·       ITU – International Telecommunication Union (www.itu.int)

 

The following table summarizes the standards continuum with respect to the elements described above.

 

	Level	Defined by	Recognized	Example	Timeframe
de facto	Proprietary	One vendor or user Two vendors or users	Market dominance, Market acceptance	File formats, API	Months
	Consortia Industry Alliance	Group of vendors and/or users representing an industry or market segment	Members of the alliance, consortium	ASHRAE, DNP, EIA, IETF, ZigBee	Months / Years
de jure	National	National standards body	Within one country or group of countries	ABNT, ANSI, CEN, CSA, DIN, JSA	Years
	International	International standards body	Worldwide	IEC, IEEE, ISO, ITU

 

Going Beyond Standardization

Standards meet the goal of creating a common basic understanding of a technology. Unless the scope of a standard includes interoperability tests or guidelines, a technology could only be stated to be in compliance with that standard. In electronic and power technology, unlike physical technology (sizes), interoperability is at best an aspiration of the community that developed the standard, and users should be cautioned at accepting prima facie interoperability claims. This highlights the need for a dedicated users community tasked to identify interoperability requirements, perhaps even write tests to validate products, and certify the testing results.

 

The relationship between the principal actors is depicted in the figure below. Utilities and Vendors provide input into users groups and SDOs in the form of lessons learned, technical innovations, and application notes, as well as through direct participation. Users groups, with early access to SDO drafts, can review and debate errors and propose other changes in a manner that provides a quicker consensus result. This results in the utilities and vendors more quickly receiving developed standards that address oft-desired implementation guidelines and test procedures, providing a higher degree of technology confidence and less “buyer’s remorse.”

 

A group that can be identified as laying the foundation for true interoperability is the GridWise Architecture (GWAC). In a partnership with NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), the GWAC sponsors the Grid-Interop conference, which has the goals of achieving system-to-system interoperability, business process interoperation, preparing for a sustainable electricity system, developing policies for integrated smart energy and a holistic view of generation to consumption.

 

Another method to move beyond standards and technology driven by a single interest group is to use rules and regulations from governments and governmental agencies. The best of these are targets or guidelines with appropriate incentives and penalties without too much prescription. An example from another industry is the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for automobile manufacturers codified in the United States Code. This is a target for the entire production, without specifying which particular models. The market of vehicles then signals to the manufacturers which vehicle and what volumes are needed, allowing them to develop technologies (engines, combustion techniques, etc.) to meet the government standard measurement.

 

Aaron F. Snyder, Ph.D., obtained his education from Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, and the Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble (INPG) in Grenoble, France. He is currently a Consulting Engineer for EnerNex Corporation in Knoxville, Tennessee, and actively participates in smart grid and advanced metering infrastructure organizations. He serves on numerous metering standards development committees at national (ANSI) and international (IEC, IEEE, OIML) levels. He is a Senior Member of IEEE.

 

Grant Gilchrist, P.E., is a Consulting Engineer and Systems Architect on the Smart Grid Engineering Team at EnerNex Corporation. He is a member of several utility data communications standards bodies including the IEC working groups for SCADA, substation automation, protocol security, and interoperability. He is a founding member of the Technical Committee for the Distributed Network Protocol (DNP3). Most recently he has been helping several major utilities develop technical requirements for their Advanced Metering Infrastructures, and is editing the IEC 62351-5 standard for security of the IEC 60870-5 and DNP3 protocols.

 

Erich W. Gunther, P.E., is the Chairman, Chief Technology Officer, and a co-founder of EnerNex Corporation in Knoxville Tennessee - an electric power research, engineering, and consulting firm. Erich is actively involved in many activities directly related to architecting, designing, and building the Smart Grid. He has been a member of the DOE sponsored GridWise Architecture Council since its inception in 2004 and is on the DOE Modern Grid Initiative project team. He has been a member of the EPRI IntelliGrid project team from its earliest days and played a significant role in developing the IntelliGrid Architecture and Use Case Development process. Erich serves on the board of directors of the Utility Communication Architecture International users group, and he is the chairman of the UtilityAMi and OpenHAN organizations.

 

   Email the authors

   What’s in a Name? Standards Primer, Part1

   Standards for Dummies

   Utilities ZigBee and HomePlug join forces to create wired HAN Standard (PDF)

   2009 ANSI Essential Requirements

   Donald Purcell, “The Consequences of Silence”

   Grid-Interop conference info and proceedings