GSM Lessons for Smart Meters Standardization

8/12/2019 GSM Lessons for Smart Meters Standardization

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gsm-lessons-for-smart-meters-standardization 1/23

1

GSM Lessons for Smart Meters

Standardization

Yannick Perez1 and Guanlan GUO

2

Abstract:

Smart meters are key factors for the deployment of a smart grid as well as the whole smart

system. Smart meters should have standardized functionalities that need to be exploited in

coordination of grid system, and to ensure the interoperability between different technologies to

achieve the maximum benefits from smart devices. As the Smart Grid and Smart Metering

market grows, the need of standardization is no longer a national issue. This paper outlines the

similarities and divergences between the creation courses of these two standards GSM and

Smart Meters, from the motivations to the relevant political incentives, with the aim to judge in

which step the EU smart meters standardization is and should follow. In retrospect, the

successful GSM standardization process twenty years ago in Europe has provided so many

experiences which could be applied to the Standardization agenda of Smart Meters currently in

face of EU electricity industry.

Keywords : Smart Meters, GSM : EU Standard Policy

1 Associate Professor of Economics, ADIS université Paris-Sud 11 and Loyola de Palacio chair, EUI. 27 avenue

Lombart 92260 Fontenay aux Roses France. [email protected] 2

: Research assistant, university Paris-Sud.

mailto:[email protected]






2

Introduction

Smart meters are links between transmission and distribution networks, the distribution network

and house appliances. They are combined with modern communication technologies thus

enabling cost-effective smart metering, which is view as a crucial factor for an efficient

functioning of electricity market and a successful implementation of policies related to the

energy efficiency, renewable energy and security of supply. Smart meters are key factors for the

deployment of a smart grid as well as the whole smart system. Smart meters should have

standardized functionalities that need to be exploited in coordination of grid system, and to

ensure the interoperability between different technologies to achieve the maximum benefits

from smart devices. As the Smart Grid and Smart Metering market grows, the need of

standardization is no longer a national issue.

In the USA, policy makers have driven the smart grid agenda through several key pieces of

legislation. The Energy Policy Act (EPA) of 2005 established a policy framework for the

deployment of demand response and advanced transmission technologies, and it directed the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to encourage the use of advanced technologies,

including those that emphasize demand response, distributed generation and energy storage. In

2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) directed the Department of Energy (DOE)

to accelerate the development and deployment of smart grid technologies throughout the

United States. EISA also directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to

coordinate the development of protocols and model standards to achieve interoperability of

smart grid devices and systems across the national grid. NIST is now engaged in a public program

to develop a framework of interoperability standards on an accelerated schedule. As part of the

more recent national economic stimulus efforts, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

(ARRA) of 2009 decided to allocate 4.5 billion US Dollars of federal funds for smart grid

investments and to install 40 million smart meter devices in household in national wide. In

September 2009, the U-SNAP Alliance3, made up of an initial group of 19 companies, has been

formed to work on standards for connecting smart meters and home appliances. Its aims is to

create a low cost connector standard to enable consumer products to communicate with any

vendor’s smart meter.

3 Founding members leading the Alliance at the Promoter level and as members of the Board of Directors are

Radio Thermostat Company of America and Sensus. Contributor Member include: Comverge, eRadio, GainSpan,

GE, Intwine Connect, NURI Telecom, Trilliant and ZeroG Wireless. Influencer Members, consisting of

non-manufacturers, namely utilities, includes 4Home, Alliant Energy, Benton PUD, Celestica International, CLECO,

LS Research, Niagara-on-the-Lake Hydro, Portland General Electric and Our Home Spaces.



3

In China, the State Grid Company of China (SGCC) also carried out the national technical

standards of Smart meter devices in September 2009, in which it is the first time that a clear

definition for smart meters is specified, and minimum functionalities are required. In the same

year, the State Grid Company of East China initiated the feasibility study of Smart Grid

deployment in China, and later carried out a long term plan for the following 20 years.

The large scale adoption of smart metering is today hampered by the lack of widely accepted

open standards capable of guaranteeing interoperability of systems and devices produced by

different manufacturers. And the booming development smart electric system in worldwide has

made the EU on the race to set up the standards, not partially on metering devices, but the

whole metering system; correspondingly, the adoption of these standards will open up the

metering market while at the same time enabling EU industries to take the world leadership.

In retrospect, the successful GSM standardization process twenty years ago in Europe has

provided so many experiences which could be applied to the Standardization agenda of Smart

Meters currently in face of EU electricity industry. Though the aim of standardization of Smart

Meters could be different from that of GSM, since the latter are newly created one without the

constraint of cost-benefits problems, while for the former, there are already many available

international standardization bodies such as IEC and ISO, which should be the basis for

standardization to unify technical confusions between market players with generic international

(or EU level) technical requirement, there are still many comparable experiences for the

benchmarking in Smart Meter Standardization pathway.

This paper outlines the similarities and divergences between the creation courses of these two

standards, from the motivations to the relevant political incentives, with the aim to judge in

which step the EU smart meters standardization is. Section 1 introduces the relationship

between the definition of Smart Meter, Smart Metering, and Smart Grid, and their benefits for

players in the electricity market. Section 2 summarizes the current situations in EU countries with

respect to smart meters deployment and the importance for standardization. And at last, the

Section 3 focuses on the success of GSM standards, and those points that could be benchmarked

in Smart Metering Standardization process.

1. Smart Meter and Its Benefits

1.1 Definition of Smart Meter and Smart Metering

The Smart Meter, often refers to an electrical meter, identifies the consumption data in more

detail than a conventional meter; and generally, it communicates that information via some

network back to the local utility for monitoring and billing purposes. It usually involves a different

technology mix, such as real-time or near real-time sensors, power outage notification, and



4

power quality monitoring. These additional features can improve consumers’ awareness of

actual consumption, and allow them the timely adaptation to their demand. In this case, the

term “Smart Meters” is extended to “Smart Metering”, which is not restricted to the meter

device alone, but also includes the whole system behind it, such as the communication and IT

infrastructure connecting the meter and customer and also the meter and the meter control

centre, where the meter data is administrated and meters are remotely operated. Smart

metering in the context of this definition therefore refers to the entire meter data infrastructure,

including as ERGEG (2009) point out:

• Interval meter data (load profile measurement)

• Remote meter reading, data processing to market players

• Remote meter management (power reduction, disconnection, demand management, etc)

• Measurement of consumption and generation by distributed units

• Remote meter parameters such as tariff structures, contractual power, meter interval, etc

• Remote message transfer from market players to the customer, e.g. price signals

• Information display on the meter and/or communication port for external display

• Main communication port (GPRS, GSM, PLC, etc.)

• Power quality measurement (incl. continuity of supply and voltage quality) 4

Sometimes it may be confused; however, smart metering does not provide a Smart Grid, as the

latter refers to a broader set of technologies, which is “an electricity network that can

intelligently integrate the actions of all users connected to it –generators, consumers and those

that do both –in order to efficiently deliver sustainable, economic and secure electricity

supplies5.”

1.2 Benefits of Smart Meters

According to ERGEG (2009) Energy efficiency is one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing

greenhouse gas emissions. Smart metering is such kinds of technologies that can help to achieve

this goal.

Basically, with smart meters, consumers can be more accurately informed by their consumption

mode, hence they will actively adjust their behavior to reduce their energy cost, for example,

they can shift from suppliers to suppliers, from peak loads to off-peak, thereby improving grid

operation and future grid planning. Or at a broader picture, the reduction in peak load demand,

which is satisfied mostly by fossil fuel technologies, will possibly result in reduced CO2 emission.

4 ERGEG: Status Review on Regulatory Aspects of Smart Metering, 19

th October, 2009

5

Smart Grid platform of EU, http://www.smartgrids.eu/

http://www.smartgrids.eu/






5

A more active participation by consumers is not only a goal in itself, but also a possible means to

integrate renewable and other more energy-efficient sources of energy in the electrical network.

Enabling a demand response makes retail and wholesale markets more efficient as well as

helping to meet the EU’s sustainability goals.

For the DSOs, smart metering systems allow interval metering for both active and reactive

energy, consumed and injected into the network, thereby contributing to more accurate

balancing, losses and cost calculation, in order to promote peak/off-peak prices and to

discourage bad practices in the use of the network. This means smart metering will provide DSOs

with a tool to detect fraud faster and to predict electricity flows more accurately. Moreover, new

smart metering technologies will permit remote connections and disconnection by reducing the

costs associated with technicians visiting customer premises; and will provide information on

quality of supply at each connection point, contributing to more effective investments and grid

renovation plans, thus increasing security of supply.

For the suppliers’ side ERGEG (2007) point outs that since they should compete by “offering

customers different electricity prices which apply at different times of the day, with smart

metering they can target certain groups of customers with particular tariffs that would be most

economical ” .

2. Initiatives for Standardization of Smart Meters

2.1 Definition of Standards

A standard might simply be defined as “a set of rules for ensuring quality”. The ISO/IEC Guide

2/1996, definition 3.2 defines a standard as4:

“ A document established by consensus and approved by a recognized body that provides

for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their

results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.”

From the perspective of European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)6, Standard

is defined as:

“ A technical specification approved by a recognized standardization body for repeated or

continuous application, with which compliance is not compulsory and which is one of the

following:

international standard which is adopted by an international standardization organization

European standard which is adopted by a European standardization body

6

ETSI Website: http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/Standards/WhatIsAStandard.aspx

http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/Standards/WhatIsAStandard.aspx






6

National standard which is adopted by a national standardization body and made

available to the public.”

Standards meet the goal of creating a common basic understanding of a technology. Without

standards, products might not work as expected. They may be of inferior quality andincompatible with other equipment, and in extreme cases, non-standardized products may even

be dangerous. By contrast, technologies, products or services in compliance with the standards

are perceived as safe, healthy, secure, high quality, flexible, and widely accepted. The evidence

of GSM standard is such a good proof, since it facilitates mobile communication the world over,

and brings important benefits to relevant business actors for technology innovation.

While for Smart meter, its efficient innovation process should include a large set of different

technologies such as metering devices and communication gateways. Therefore in this context,

the interoperability and the interchangeability of components are in need of the definition for

open standards. Practically, standards should ensure that a meter will be open to integrate new

services, host innovations of manufacturers, and manageable during its whole lifecycle.

2.2 Current market situations in EU

The deployment of smart meters in EU wide is complex for many historical reasons. Since

metering service involves various tasks such as purchasing, installment and maintenance of the

meter, metering data collection, management and provision of metering data to other market

players, and each responsibility can belong to a different player. Under this situation, the

cost-benefit analyses for the deployment of smart meters are complicated by the fact that

different stakeholders may benefit from and bear the costs of the introduction of the smart

meter technology.

For example, for the responsibilities of devices provision, if it is consumers that offer the meters,

they may be less willing to escalate their metering devices. Or if it is the supplier retains the

ownership of the meter, when the consumer shifts to another supplier, the previous supplier

may face a potential stranded asset risk. Table 1 outlines the current meter provision status in EU

27 countries.

Another problems lies in the incompleteness of market opening which also resulted in confused

responsibility between each market players. For instance, in most EU countries, such as Austria,

Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, etc7, where metering services are

still regulated, the metering activities remain the exclusive responsibility of the network

7 Source: Jorge Vasconcelos, Survey of Regulatory and Technology Development Concerning Smart Metering In

the European Union Electricity Market , 2008



7

operators or meter service provider. Then metering is treated as part of the overall network

business and is remunerated as part of the network price control. Then as pointed out by ERGEG

(2007) “the increased costs of the metering assets have been included in the network operators’

regulatory asset base”.

In liberalized market, such as Germany, UK, and Netherlands, the metering service is open to

competition, the meter could be owned by the customer, the retailer or the DSO8; meter

installment could be carried out by the DSO, but meter data collection, management and

provision are serviced by the DSO or by a third party. In these cases, the cost-benefit analyses for

the deployment of smart meters are complicated by the fact that different stakeholders may

benefit from and bear the costs of the introduction of the smart meter technology. ERGEG (2007)

highlights that : “it is important to have a regulatory framework, with special attention to the

issue of cost recovery, together with a specification of the expected impact on different market

players” .

Table 1 Ownership of electricity meters in EU countries

Countries Consumer Distributor Metering Company Supplier Third Party

1 Austria

2 Belgium X X

3 Cyprus X

4 Czech Republic

5 Denmark X

6 Estonia X

7 Finland

8 France X

9 Germany X X

10 Greece X

11 Hungary

12 Iceland

13 Ireland X

14 Italy X

15 Luxembourg X

16 Netherlands X X

17 Poland X X

18 Portugal X

8

See Table 1



8

19 Romania X X X X

20 Spain X X X

21 Slovak X

22 Slovenia X

23 Sweden X

24 UK X X X X

Source: Jorge Vasconcelos, Survey of Regulatory and Technology Development Concerning Smart Metering In the

European Union Electricity Market , 2008

2.3 Co nf lic ts be tw ee n Mu lti -p ar ti es

Data availability

Smart meters offer the possibility to collect much more data (including personalized data) than

before. However, to realize all the benefits brought by smart meters, it is crucial to keep the

party who is responsible for making data accessible to all other authorized market players in a

non-discriminatory way in addition to keeping the data privacy. But due to historic reason, the

incomplete unbundling in most countries results in an availability of market data to third parties,

which make the basic principle of non-discriminatory data access less satisfactory. Almost all the

DSOs, who are still the principal meter devices provider, have the access to most types of data.

While in some countries, as Czech Republic, the metering company as well as the DSO, also has

the access to the customers’ data. For customers, generally they have access to their data

primarily through bills, such as the energy price, the energy charge per kWh, and the historical

load curve, while information on electricity quality is rarely provided.

Technical interoperability

In order to allow for economic optimal solution and technical innovation, the definition of

minimum requirements for functions, interfaces and standards, is a key element of a regulatory

framework for an efficient and working smart metering system. ERGEG (2007) recall that : “ AMM

systems should have functional and performance characteristics that offer the same minimum

options to all customers (household, non-household), whether they remain under a customer

protection scheme or opt to switch to a new retailer. Minimum requirements should apply at

system level rather than equipment level, to render them independent from the architectures

used by operators or recommended by AMM system vendors, thereby preventing the rejection of

solutions whose architectures or philosophies may be different ” .



9

2.4 National Status for Smart Meters deployment

National roll-out policies is one of the decisive factors for Smart Meter deployment, while

currently only few member states have carried out public policies. Figure 1 indicates the

situation of electricity smart metering public policies in EU27 Member States

9

from fullyimplementation of roll-out policies to no relevant policies

10.

Source: (1) ERGEG: Status Review on Regulatory Aspects of Smart Metering, 19th October, 2009

(2) Jorge Vasconcelos: Survey of Regulatory and Technology Development Concerning Smart

Metering In the European Union Electricity Market , 2008

There are many pioneer countries among which are: Italy, Sweden, Finland, Spain, and Greece.

For example, Italian regulatory authority has mandated full introduction of smart meters

according to established minimum functional requirements in 2006 after its voluntary meterreplacement program launched by the incumbent utility ENEL in 1990s. Currently, Italy has

already achieved 86% of smart meters, and it is planning to substitute 100% of the meters with

“smart meters” by the end of 2011.

9 The results exclude Bulgaria.

10 The column “No policies or Pilot projects” refers to countries currently don’t have any roll out plans, but most

of them have pilot projects to decide on a roll out smart meters, including Belgium ,Cyprus, Czech Republic, and

Luxembourg.

Figure 1 Roll-out policies Situations regarding Smart Meters in EU Member States

Figure 1 Mapping the Status of EU Smart Meters Roll-out Policies



10

3. Experience from European GSM Standards

3.1 GSM Standards

The original intention for GSM standardization came from the technological aspects. In 1980s,

more than half a dozen different radiotelephone systems were (and some of them still are) used

in Western Europe. Even up to the early 1990s the cross-border use of a mobile telephone was

hardly possible in Europe. The consequence of this large number of different technologies was a

highly fragmented market and relatively small national markets. The high R&D costs for the

infrastructure resulted in extremely high prices for end-users. Therefore, mobile telephony was a

service only offered in niche-markets to very well-off and mostly commercial users.

Since the network of GSM is based on cellular network, and both its signaling and speech

channels are digital (GSM is considered a 2G mobile phone system), the mobile phones can

connect to it by searching for cells in the immediate vicinity through wireless link. Therefore,

consumers may benefit from the ability to roam and switch carriers without replacing phones,

and also to network operators, who can choose equipment from many GSM equipment vendors.

GSM also pioneered low-cost implementation of text messaging, which has since been supported

on other mobile phone standards as well.

GSM (French: Groupe Spécial Mobile; English: Global System for Mobile Communication Group)

is the name of a standardization group that was established in 1982 in an effort to create a

common European mobile telephone standard that would formulate specifications for a

pan-European mobile cellular radio system operating at 900 MHz. The idea behind this decision

was to create, for the first time, a system that would end the traditional European fragmentation

and incompatibility in the mobile field.

3.2 Similarities of standardization area between GSM and Smart Metering

From technological sides, interoperability is at best an aspiration of the community that

developed the standard both for GSM and for Smart Meters. Figure 2 and Figure 3 indicates the

configuration similarities between GSM Standards and Smart Metering Standards, where the

importance of interoperability can be easily found in their communication interfaces.

In Telecom industry, the cellular networks interconnected to fixed networks offered a

perspective of personal communications services (PCS) for a virtually unlimited community of

mobile users, each linked to the fixed network infrastructure by a wireless link, granted to active

subscribers only for the duration of their call.



11

While for a Smart Meter, generally, the “intelligence” is incorporated with the possible

communication infrastructures, among which are Power Line Carrier (PLC, using the existingelectricity grid), a wireless modem (GSM of GPRS) or an existing permanent internet connection

(ADSL). Hence as an interface between customer and other market participants, communication

interfaces play a key role on the overall functioning of electricity market.

However, depending on the technical functionality, those various communication interfaces

should order to ensure interoperability between different players and different applications. For

this case, the use of standards for technical level is important. To render the devices of different

Figure 3 Smart Metering Standardization Area, according to Mandate M/441 issued in March 2009

Figure 2 GSM Network Standardization Areas



12

manufacturers which are compatible from the communication point of view, they must adopt

the same standards for:

1) Physical layer for data transmission such as GSM, ADSL, PLC

2) Data link layer for addressing and reporting mechanism, and error control3) Application layer such as network management and detection of new stations

For example, the communication protocols between meters and control centers would be in

uniform standard, since suppliers and customers with smart meters should not face technical

barriers to interaction.

3.3 Similarities from the perception of business size

One of the key successes for GSM standardization was its strong perspective of a fast-expanding

market which was guided by customer needs, the increasing demand for a high innovation rate

and product diversification. As a result, the question of human acceptance of new technology

had become a factor of increased importance. In this connection, it was pointed out that the

response to high-technology had been the evolution of a highly personal value system to

compensate for the impersonal nature of technology.

Smart meters are such kind of customer friendly meters, which represent the future tendency.

For instance, the smart meter systems provide the possibility of a two-way data communication

and remote management of customer demand/supply, such as communication between

authorized market actors and the meters for tariff changing, demand reducing, the

communication between consumers and meters for sending price signals.

According to a new report from Pike Research11

, more than 250 million smart meters will be

installed worldwide by 2015, representing a penetration rate of 18% of all electrical meters and a

3.9 billion US Dollars global market by that time, up from 46 million in 2008, and 76 million in

2009. Moreover, many statistic studies have shown that in the electricity sector, there are a

number of frontrunner countries where the percentage of smart meters is already significant, for

example, in addition to Italy mentioned before, Denmark, Spain and Finland are planning to

reach significant percentages of installations of 13%, 65%, and 60% in year 2010, 2015, and 2015

respectively.

3.4 Timely maturity of relevant technology

11 Pike Research is a consulting firm that provides in-depth analysis of global clean technology markets.

Information is available on www.pikeresearch.com

http://www.pikeresearch.com/






13

For any standards setting, the practical feasibility of intended specifications had to be tested

before they could be fixed. The maturity of pertinent technology is such premise that enables the

standardization and facilitates the market development.

In cellular technologies of GSM network, the access cost can be dynamically shared by all users ina cell, thus it is no longer required for dominant investment in static transmission plant. And

accordingly, the monopoly profits and subsidization for fixed local loops12

within the public

telephone network are invalid in cellular networks. Cellular technologies reverse the costs

structure of providing user access, thus they can be developed and sustained under competition.

While establishing the proper collective radio culture maximizes the public utility of mobile

systems, notably in terms of system capacity, cost reduction and unhindered user roaming across

the borders between different operators and countries, and a suitable choice of spectrum policy

increases the market size for candidate network technologies (later on the 3G network

implementation).

In Smart Metering area, it is composed of three main parts: the historical and necessary part as

the metrology, the communication path from the meter to the front end, and the management

system. In fact, with the smart meter, the communication network and the automated

management system become more important when adding functionalities13

.

ERGEG (2007) assume that the functions performed by smart metering are technologically

feasible and mature, at least for the electricity sector. Many manufacturers can supply

competitive solutions, based on different functionalities, architecture and telecommunication

systems. If you look at the planned U.S. utility smart meter contracts, there are about 5 big

companies fighting for market share in the U.S. right now, including Itron, Landis+Gyr,

Sensus, Elster, and GE14

. The Italian case (roll out of approximately 30 million smart meters at

residential customers) and numerous demonstration projects in other countries show that the

technology (smart meter, infrastructure, and data processing) is mature and can be implemented

on a large scale.

3.5 Political framework

12 See the orange rectangular in Figure1

13 ERGEG (2007) recalls that : “the communication port PLC requires the installation of data concentrators in

MV/LV substations of the electricity distribution networks, which communicates with smart meters by using the

low-voltage distribution grid as a means of communication and with the control centre through public

telecommunications systems”

14

Institute for Electric Efficiency: Utility-Scale Deployment of Smart Meters, February 2009



14

The most extensive point of interest on GSM’s success was related to ongoing institutional

change within telecommunications. On June 25, 1987, two acts related to the GSM system were

ratified. Council Recommendation 87/371 emphasized stimulating the process for the creation of

technical standards for the infrastructure and terminals, obtained fully coordinated approval for

the implementation of the GSM system and promoted the usage of hand-held terminals.

As for smart metering, political attention more than ever has been paid to it. At European level,

there are already several legislative acts referring to smart meters.

Directive 2004/22/EC on Measuring Instruments (MID) concerns the full harmonization of utility

meters. It allows all functionalities that do not interfere with the metrological characteristics of

the instruments. Most of these functionalities are not subject to any other limitations, i.e. MID

allows any specification to be put into use.

By means of Standardization Mandate M/374 on 20th of October 2005, CEN and CENELEC were

invited to develop standards for utility meters.

Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services (Article 13) mentions the

use of advanced metering systems to improve energy efficiency awareness and to better inform

customers about their own consumption.

On 12th

of March 2009, the Standardization Mandate M/441 on development of an open

architecture for utility meters was accepted by ESO in July 2009. This Mandate aims to ensure

European standards that would enable interoperability of utility meters, which improve

customers’ awareness of actual consumption to allow timely adaptation to their demands. More

precisely, the objective is to permit fully integrated solutions, modular and multi-part solutions,

and architecture must be scalable and adaptable to future communications media. But

standardization in this context does not mean imposing identical solutions on all projects in the

Member States, but to ensure that what a Member States may want to do in smart metering is

covered by suitable standards. Therefore, Member States can have their own priorities to take

solution out.

In addition, the recently adopted Directives 2009/72/EC & 2009/73/EC of the 3rd Package will

also have an impact on the deployment of new metering systems, by requiring Member States to

“ensure the implementation of intelligent metering systems that shall assist the active

participation of customers in the electricity supply market ”, subject to a positive cost-benefit

analysis. ERGEG (2009) precise that customers shall also be informed of their actual consumption

and costs “frequently enough” to enable them to control their own electricity consumption.

3.6 Creation of regulatory body



15

The existence of a group of international champions of the GSM concepts is also a decisive

reason for its success. The meeting held in June of 1982 in Vienna by CEPT (French: Conférence

Européen de Postes et Télécommunication, English: European Conference of Postal and

Telecommunication Administrations) was with the aim of creating a system that would end the

traditional European fragmentation and incompatibility in the mobile field. During this

conference, a study group called GSM was set up to work out specifications for a pan-European

cellular communication system for the 900 MHz frequency band which had recently been

allocated to land mobile use. Figure 4 demonstrates the structure of GSM regulatory body, under

which eight working parties were clearly defined with different responsibilities.

Figure 4 Structure of GSM Plenary (May 1988)

While for the smart meters deployment, the competitiveness Council on 25 September 2008

underlined that the need for standardizing bodies to act in a coordinated manner to promote

European Standards, to take better account of convergence of technologies and to involve all

parties concerned in a transparent manner. The Competitiveness Council invited industry and

other stakeholders to accelerate their cooperation in the development, implementation and use

of standards supporting innovation in relation to the sustainable industrial policy and other areas

particularly relevant for innovation. In order to address these challenges, the European

Commission and EFTA (European Free trade Association) addressed Mandate M/441 to CEN

GSM Plenary

WP1

WP2 WP3 PNWP4 SEGPP SCEG

Serviceaspects

NetworkAspects

NetworkAspectsofData&Telemetricservices

Perma

nentNucleus(Coordination)

PatentPanel

SecurityExpertsGroup

Spe

echCodingExpertsGroup

PhysicalLayerontheRadioPath

Sub-groups



16

(European Committee for Standardization), CENELEC (CENELEC, The European Committee for

Electrotechnical Standardization) and ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute). A

Smart Meters Coordination Group (SM-CG) was set up to answer this request. Following a first

meeting of the SM-CG in May 2009, the members of the group agreed to establish two advisory

groups to address Mandate M/441:

1） Ad Hoc Group “Communication” which will look into a European Standard comprising a

software and hardware open architecture for utility meters that support secure

bidirectional communication upstream and downstream through standardized interfaces

and data exchange formats and allows advanced information and management and control

system for consumers and services supplier.

2） Ad Hoc Group “Additional Functionalities” which will look into defining standards that

contains harmonized solutions for additional functionalities within an interoperable

framework using where needed the above-mentioned open architecture for

communication protocols. These solutions must be standardized to achieve full

interoperability identified as: Remote reading of metrological registers and provision to

designated market organizations; two-way communication between the metering system

and designated market organizations; supporting advanced tariffing and payment systems;

allowing remote disablement and enablement of supply; communicating with individual

devices within the home / building; and providing information via web portal/gateway to

an in-home / building display or auxiliary equipment.

The SM-CG held its second meeting on 28 September 2009. Both AD Hoc groups on

“Communication” and “Additional functionalities” presented the results of their respective work.

The first SM-CG report was issued in December of 2009. It constitutes an extensive survey of the

current standardization landscape as regards smart metering, proposes specific

recommendations for the organization of the standardization work (responsibility allocation),

and suggests a list of common additional functionalities.

3.7 Defining the main actors

A driving force behind GSM development should be given to the ability of a relatively small group

of actors, which consisted of: National Telephone Operators, the GSM Group, National

Governments, international cooperation bodies (European community, CEPT and ETSI),

manufacturing industries, and users. Each player had a specific area of responsibility. More

precisely, the key success point should be dedicated to those actors from main countries. They

make the crucial decisions for the take-off of the system, by committing themselves and creating

a critical mass of consensus towards its implementation. For example, these countries were

http://www.cenelec.eu/Cenelec/CENELEC+in+action/Horizontal+areas/ICT/default.htm






17

willing to invest in the GSM system. However, the potential market was in fact far bigger if one

takes into account the number of less active countries. It was quite obvious that existing and

planned cellular systems gave positive feedback on the activities of the participating countries,

because both groups were nearly equal. As the concept of Personal Communication was

assimilated with the GSM system, this group was bigger than in earlier cellular projects, and it

was able to provide a large enough base for a new standard for the “globalization" of the GSM

system, which included many non-European companies such as Bell Communications

Research(Bellcore).

In Smart meters standardization process, the advisory body is composed on representative

organizations of consumers’ interests (ANEC), environmental protection (ECOS), workers

(ETUI-REHS), Small & Medium enterprises (NORMAPME), authorities of member states

(WELMEC), and the OPEN (Open Public Extended Network) Metering Project, to take part in the

standardization work. The OPEN Project is the European social partners for Smart meter

Standardization. And its main objective is to specify a comprehensive set of open and

non-proprietary public solutions for AMI based on the agreement of all the relevant

stakeholders, and to take into account the real conditions of the utility networks so as to allow

for full implementation. The result of the project will be a set of draft standards, based on

already existing and accepted standards wherever possible. Figure 5 indicates the seven working

packages which are aligned with M/441 Mandate, with great comparability to GSM Plenary.

As for the main participating countries for this standardization process, since there are already

many available relevant EU and international standards which could be applied for smart meters

(in opposite to GSM standard which was a newly created one at that time), there is no need for

them to make the crucial decisions for the take-off of the system, such as the debate in defining

the frequency in GSM standards, but instead, many pioneering countries like Italy and Sweden,

can provide their experiences as positive feedback for other participating countries.



18

Figure 5 Sub Working Packages carried out by OPEN Project 15

3.8 Defining the requirement and priorities

The standardization of GSM network is a set of technical specifications based on negotiation

method, and central players of NTAs and NTOs are from multinationals with regulatory rules and

knowledge of uses. The requirements for the standardization were categorized into five classes:

services, quality of service and security, radio frequency utilization, network aspects, and cost

aspects, in a manner of implementation as no single international network, but nationally

compatible systems. And technical specifications priorities were given to the most common

services at the beginning of January 1991 at the launch of the GSM system, while only

afterwards, the supplementary services were prioritized, such as micro-cell, extension bands,

standards optimization , SIM functionalities, local routing, and roaming between GSM 900 and

GSM 1800.

15 Nicolas Arcauz: Open Public Extended Network metering Second Workshop: Project Update, 4

th February

2010, Brussels

Smart Meter Plenary for Pre-Standardization

WP1 WP2 WP3 WP5WP4 WP7WP6

FunctionalRequ

irementandRegulatoryissues

Pre-Norm

ativeResearchactivities

Testing

Specification

andProposalofstandards

Dissemination

Coordination

Identificationof

Knowledge&TechnologyGaps

Sub-Working Packages



19

While for Smart meters, services are classified as “communication part” and “additional function

parts”. Standards for communications are not a best practice solution or recommendations but

an interoperability and quality statement for technical solutions. And additional functionalities

are expressed in broad terms, so they can be related to electricity, gas, heating/cooling and

water. But not all functionalities will necessarily feature in all applications and in all Member

States

Moreover, these two kinds of services differ from country to country, since each country’s

regulator should single out their objectives with particular focus on relevant benefits. For

instance, if peak shaving is the main driver for smart meter deployment, the expected cost

savings derived from generation and network investments deferral should be quantified first.

Thus international regulation becomes national standards.

3.9 The agenda setting

GSM’s success has been explained based on correct timing, with key decisions close enough to

provide positive feedback and expectation of success. The general time frame of this process

could be divided into three phases, each with strict timing limit for multi-parties to fulfill. Phase 1

was from 1982 to 1985, during which the GSM Committee was formed, and it defined the

feasibility to attain adequate certainty to the standard-setting phase. In this phase, the GSM

Group was defined as being a coordinator, and its most urgent task was to chart the work and

studies carried out or planned by all possible organizations in order to launch studies in missing

areas. Phase 2 covered a period from early 1985 to late 1991, with main task to define technical

specifications. The GSM organization in this phase was transformed into an active central player.

It also created a body for cooperating with manufacturers, whose specific competence became

valuable during the shaping of the recommendations. To carry on all these tasks, a Permanent

Nucleus (PN) was established in the fall of 1985. The task of the GSM Committee then was only

restricted to technical issues, while the commercial aspects had not become infiltrated. And after

being approved by the supreme standardization body, the implementation and commercial

deployment of the GSM system began, which was Phase 3, in 1991.

From a national perspective, if counting from the date of the Directive 2004/22/EC on measuring

instruments (MID), till the M441 mandate in March 2009, there were many leading countries

already actively moved forward than the feasibility study phase, since they already carried out a

national roll-out policy regarding smart meters. The policy includes a national political driver,

time frame and cost-benefits analysis with demand expansion studies.

For example, Finland, Greece, Italy, Spain and Sweden are proceeding to a roll-out of electricity

smart meters and they have some type of legal framework on the implementation of smart



20

metering. As show in ERGEG (2009) in four of these countries, an explicit roll-out-plan has been

officially decided, while in Sweden the roll-out is implied by the meter reading frequency

obligations. The roll-out policies are under discussion of 12 countries including France, Germany,

Portugal, Austria, etc.

While for the EU level standardization, the formal acceptance of M441 by ESO in July 2009, can

be considered as the standardization path has moved to the Phase 1 in EU wide, with the main

aim to define the feasibility study such as: the formation of Smart Meter Coordination Group;

setting up two ad hoc groups for ICT and supplementary services respectively; and proposition of

the first SM-CG report composed of current standardization landscape, specific

recommendations and list of additional functionalities.

The next step will be carried out after the next SM-CG meeting in June 2010 in Brussels. By then,

the SM-CG Report aforementioned will be submitted to EC, and a Chairman Advisory Group for

coordinating two Ad Hoc Conveners and TCs Chairs will also be set up to ensure the follow up of

the recommendations indentified in the SM-CG Draft Report and the smooth coordination and

cooperation between relevant technical bodies.

Conclusion

Generally, the success of GSM lies in a progressive evolution path, with mature technologies and

step by step institutional adjustment to ensure the implementation of GSM standards. If applying

the pathway of GSM Standard to Smart meters, after analyzing the motivation of

standardization, the maturity of relevant technologies, potential market studies, corresponding

political policies, and many regulatory achievement (creation of regulatory bodies, agenda

setting, definition of priorities, etc), it appears that the current status of Smart meters is moving

to Phase 2, since standardization of Smart meters is no long a mere armchair strategy, but many

practical actions have been carried out both in EU and in national level.



21

Glossary

[1] AMM: Automated meter management

[2] ARRA: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

[3] CEN: European Committee for Standardization

[4] CENELEC: European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

[5] CEPT: Conférence Européen de Postes et Télécommunication /European Conference of Postal

and Telecommunication Administrations

[6] DOE: Department of Energy

[7] EFTA: European Free trade Association

[8] EISA: Energy Independence and Security Act

[9] EPA: Energy Policy Act

[10] ETSI: European Telecommunications Standards Institute

[11] FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[12] NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology

[13] NTA: National Telecommunication Administration

[14] NTO: National Telecommunication Operator

[15] OPEN: Open Public Extended Network Metering Project

[16] PLC: Power Line Carrier communication

[17] U-SNAP Alliance: Utility Smart Network Access Port

[18] SGCC: State Grid Company of China

[19] SM-CG: Smart Meters Coordination Group





22

Reference

[1] ERGEG: Status Review on Regulatory Aspects of Smart Metering, 19th

October, 2009

[2] ERGEG: Smart Metering with a Focus on Electricity Regulation, 31st

October, 2007

[3] Ignacio J. Pérez-Arriaga: Regulatory Instruments for Deployment of Clean Energy

Technologies, July 2009

[4] John F. Caskey, Smart Meters: The American Perspective, 24th

February, 2010

[5] Daniel Hec: Responding to the EU Mandate M/441 on smart metering standards in Europe ,

24th

February 2010, Workshop on Standards: Better regulations and innovation, Madrid

[6] Johannes Stein: Update on the European context in the field of smart grids and on ongoing

and/or future standardization activities, 24th

February, 2010, Madrid

[7] Arturo Lorenzoni : The importance of Demand Response and Real Time Pricing for electricity,

European Energy Institute, Block 5, week 2, 2007, University of Padua and Bocconi University,

Italy

[8] CEER&ERGEG: Smart Grids and smart energy regulation can help implement climate change

objectives

[9] Pol-Kumar Cuvelier and Philippe Sommereyns: Proof of Concept Smart Metering, 20th

International Conference on Electricity Distribution, Prague, 8-11 June 2009

[10] Rob van Gerwen, Saskia Jaarsma and Rob Wilhite, Smart Metering, July 2006, Netherlands

[11] Jorge Vasconcelos: Smart Metering: An Overview of Technological and Regulatory

Challenges, New Energy Solutions, Florence School of Regulation, February 6th

, 2009

[12] Jorge Vasconcelos: Survey of Regulatory and Technological Developments Concerning Smart

Metering in the European Union Electricity Market , 2008/01RSCAS Policy Papers, Florence School

of Regulation

[13] Ari.T.Manninen: Elaboration of NMT and GMS Standards from Idea to Market, University of

Jyväskylä, 2002

[14] Sangram Gayal: Comparative analysis of GSM and CDMA technologies: “A Security

Perspective” , Network Security Solutions Ltd. Pune

[15] Gerd Bender: Shaping Technology as a Means of Transforming Society: The Case of the GSM

Standard for Mobile Telecommunication, Science Studies, Vol. 12(1999) No. 2, 64 –82



23

[16] Jens C. Arnbak: Technology Trends and their Implications for Telecom Regulation

[17] Christopher Drane, Malcolm Macnaughtan, and Craig Scott: Positioning GSM Telephones,

University of Technology, Sydney, IEEE Communications Magazine, April 1998

[18] Rudi Bekkers, Geert Duysters and Bart Verspagen: Intellectual property rights, strategic

technology agreements and market structure: The case of GSM, Research Policy 31 (2002)

[19] Moe Rahnema: Overview of the GSM System and Protocol Architecture, IEEE

Communications Magazine, April 1993

[20] Joseph Fagan, Michael Hindus, and Michael Murphy: From Policy to Implementation: The

Race to Build a Smart Grid , May 7, 2009

[21] Institute for Electric Efficiency: Utility-Scale Deployment of Smart Meters, February 2009,

available on www.edisonfoundation.net/iee/issueBriefs/SmartMeter_Rollouts0209.pdf [22] Nicolas Arcauz: Open Public Extended Network metering Second Workshop: Project Update,

4th

February 2010, Brussels

Documents

GSM Lessons for Smart Meters Standardization