TSG Thoughts...

This could be the start of something...

You may have already seen the press release, or the analysis by my compadre Coop, but I thought it would be interesting (to me at least) to talk a bit about what a consortium on SEP 2.0 certification means, and what it doesn't.

First off, the press release notes that the consortium is specifically aimed at SEP 2.0 over IP (Internet Protocol.)  Any other flavor of SEP, particularly ZigBee Smart Energy (ZSE) is still a "walled garden," with most of the world on the outside.  That being said, it is at least a glimmer of hope for devices that use IP in one of its many forms.  But it may only be a glimmer...

The press release talks about a "joint certification and test program," but not a unified certification.  In, fact it specifically states that the consortium's work will "enable organizations ... to certify SEP 2 according to a consistent test plan."  Note the plural there.  Multiple organizations providing SEP 2.0 over IP certification.  A vendor may still have to chase down certifications from multiple certification houses in order to carry the proper imprimatur(s), unless this consortium can agree on a common and mutually recognized outcome of certification.

So, what good is it?

First, members of the various Alliances in the consortium may be able to be "SEP over IP" certified by their "home" alliance, without having to subject their designs and devices to the scrutiny of people beholden to a "foreign" alliance.

Second, a consistent test plan may mean that a manufacturer will presumably be able to develop a system that meets that test suite and be confident that it will pass regardless of which organization is doing the testing.

It may do a lot for the use of IP in Smart Grid, which may do a lot for making consumer-side devices available, since so many consumer-side devices already "do" IP in some form.

It could even lead to some genuine interoperability, and/or advance the development of "gateway" devices that speak IP over different physical layer protocols. 

What might this mean for regulators?  It may mean that there will be fewer different protocols, standards, and variations on a theme to keep track of when companies start making proposals, or consumers start trying to figure out what devices they need to get something useful from a "smarter grid."

Will it mean any or all of these things?  That remains to be seen.

Just because these guys are all standing in the same room doesn't mean it isn't for a pissing contest.

--Chris Kotting

Progress on SEP 2.0--Interoperability Consortium Announced

Moments ago at the Wi-Fi Alliance Smart Energy Forum, four key networking alliances announced a consortium to test and certify the interoperability of Smart Energy Profile 2.0 applications and devices.

This is big.  Important.  Vital to the success of the Smart Grid, even.

Why?  Well, until now, the ZigBee Alliance had a stranglehold on the certification and interoperability (C&I) of the forthcoming SEP 2.0 specification.  Organizations developing and certifying their own specifications is nothing new.  However, the development of Smart Energy Profile 2.0 has become so important to the Smart Grid industry in North America and beyond that a single alliance--even one with as broad a membership base as the ZigBee Alliance--maintaining the C&I program for devices running SEP 2.0 would be simply untenable.  Too many competing agendas from multiple competing alliances leads not just to a confused market, but to a non-interoperable market.

The Wi-Fi Alliance will ship a billion chipsets this year--they get interoperability.  ZigBee, HomePlug, and HomeGrid combined ship a fraction of that number; while each has a C&I program, the fact that Wi-Fi has certified more than 10,000 products over the last decade means they understand both the technical challenges and implementation nuances required to deliver successful products to industrial, commercial, and consumer markets.  I expect that the best ingredients from each of the four alliances' C&I programs will combine to deliver a compelling recipe, one which satiates stakeholders' hunger in their respective markets.

Do I expect to see all the alliances together on a stage at GridWeek singing Kumbaya?  Uh, no.  Never confuse selling with installing.  I'm thrilled that the four alliances have agreed to bury the hatchet in an attempt to collaborate on C&I.  But I'm entirely realistic that in burying the hatchet, each alliance will still bring to the table guns, knives, phasors (synchro?), shanks, and shivs.  Ultimately, SEP 2.0 customers will compel the participating alliances to behave, to cooperate, to deliver to market truly interoperable products. 

If I'm a utility like PG&E, Southern California Edison, Duke, BC Hydro, or Consumers Energy, I count today as a huge win; each of these utilities (and numerous others I don't have space to name) are contributing to and leading Smart Grid standards development efforts, in an effort to ensure that the products which go into commercial, industrial, and residential spaces deliver the reliability and security required by regulators and consumers alike.

If I'm a retailer like Best Buy, Amazon, Currys, or Media Markt, I also count today as a huge win; while utilities will be the key delivery channel for most SEP 2.0 products at inception, expect that many retailers will stock SEP 2.0 certified products soon after (or perhaps upon) shipment of the first SEP 2.0 products.  Retailers had a heck of a time with Wi-Fi routers in the early days, with no defect found (NDF) returns exceeding 33%.  These issues were not related to the interoperability of the products at a wireless level, but due to configuration complexity, particularly around security.  Retailers have made clear to vendors and alliances that they will no longer put up with products that are so immature as to cause high levels of NDF returns; while certain products still slip through before they're ready (GoogleTV, for instance), retailers simply can't and won't deal with a reverse supply chain pumped full of functional-yet-unusable products.  Today's announcement should give hope to all retailers that once an SEP 2.0 product is sold, it stays sold. 

If I'm a consumer, I count today as a huge win.  Utilities and vendors have been espousing the benefits of Smart Grid for years; today's announcement may've shortened the timeframe to successful rollouts, leading to better control and hopefully lower overall bills for consumers.

And, if I'm a regulator, I count today as a huge win, since the multi-alliance consortium should theoretically enable a market which is easier for regulators and their constituents to understand.

Is today the signing of an armistice?  Hardly.  Putting together under a single C&I umbrella four alliances with powerful, multinational conglomerates as members may simply lead to yet another venue for the alliances to gripe and snipe at each other.

For the sake of every Smart Grid customer, I hope not.  Somebody needs to be the general, with colonels, light birds, and other officers and enlisted below him or her.  We don't need another forum for thrash.  We need a forum for progress.

Years from now, with the right kind of eyes, hopefully we'll look back on this day as the high water mark--that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.

--Mike Coop

A Week for Connectivity, Smart Grid Style

The multi-headed being that is Connectivity Week returns to Silicon Valley this week for its annual confab.  I'm looking forward to participating again, contributing to panels focused on electric vehicles (Tuesday) and demand response (Thursday).  I've been at the forefront of some pretty cool technology advances (10Base-T in the early 90's, interactive television in the late 90's, secure Wi-Fi for the military in the early 2000's), but I don't think I've ever been as excited about the growth and potential of a market as I am about the Smart Grid.  Connectivity Week has five tracks and five co-located conferences over the course of four days, so the biggest challenge is typically figuring out which most excellent session to attend. 

California is an interesting location to host Connectivity Week; Grid-Interop and GridWeek (Clasma's other two conferences) move around, but Connectivity Week is firmly rooted in Santa Clara.  Though Santa Clara itself is served by Silicon Valley Power, Northern California is PG&E service territory.  PG&E is one of the Smart Grid's early innovators, but has run into widely-publicized problems (particularly around smart meter rollouts) because they seem to have little concept of how to market programs to their customers, or how to make compelling market-driven rate cases to regulators.  PG&E's not alone in this regard; this also isn't the first time we've seen monolithic monopolies--those which fulfill a fundamental need whose ubiquity, reliability, and necessity are typically taken for granted by customers--struggle with customer service and messaging.  This rodeo has played out before in other markets, particularly in the telecommunications and pay television sectors.  

(Note to PG&E…we can help.  We've been there.)

PG&E is spending an enormous amount of money on Smart Grid technology development, not just in metering but in Home Area Networking (HANs), Home Energy Management Systems (HEMS), and Demand Response (DR), among other areas.  Anyone who lived through the rolling brownouts California had a decade-plus ago (as I did) well remembers the uncertainty that customers of all types had to endure.  Residential consumers had to worry whether or not their air conditioners would stay on, or whether they'd be forced to swelter in triple-digit summer heat.  Commercial and industrial consumers fretted whether they'd have clean enough power to run their fabs, or any power at all to run their offices.

Speaking of less-than-stellar memories, baseball fans also remember the Enron sign in the bottom left of the scoreboard at Pac Bell, er, SBC, er, AT&T Park.  The Smartest Guys in the Room even had enough foresight to do a multi-year deal with the Giants, ensuring that their name and logo would remain front and center, right in the faces of denizens of The Phone Booth, long after their shell game had collapsed.

Speaking of collapses, we're at a crucial point in the Smart Grid's development, one which over the next 12 to 24 months will prove whether this market has legs, or is another fad like, uh, Enron Broadband.  The next year or two will determine whether business models surrounding the Smart Grid are as legitimate as the stories startups tell their Sand Hill Road investors, or whether government aid is a panacea and the sole profitable path to a smarter grid.  Naysayers believe that the Smart Grid is a house of cards, one which will collapse just like Spain's and Italy's solar markets did over the past few years once their respective governments pulled incentives.  Supporters (yeasayers?) see the Smart Grid as a collection of technologies and capabilities that, in toto, lead to not only a more efficient utility network, but one that spews fewer noxious emissions into the atmosphere.

The next four days at Connectivity Week, Smart Grid braintrust from North America and beyond will converge to discuss a myriad of issues--many which are important to some, some which are vital to all.  Hopefully I'll see you here, where we can discuss electric vehicles, demand response, or any of the wide variety of topics covered over the course of the week...

--Mike Coop

Smart Grid Security East, Day 2

(This post originally appeared on Chris Kotting's SmartGrid Realities blog)

Still getting caught up on e-mails after Smart Grid Security East.  I was hoping to update things from the conference site, but with moderating two panels and networking, I got behind the curve.

So not as much from the second day, but I'll update this as I get a chance to review the conference session videos.

Panel of Security Solutions Vendors

Interesting comments: Most threats are insiders. 

(I'm not sure about that, but clearly most successful attacks are insider.  One defence against both insider and outsider threats:  Before executing a command, the system needs to ask "Does the command make sense?")

Interesting to hear security vendors name the meter manufacturers they're working with.

Who's not on the “we're secure” list?

You may have an interoperability standard, but without the ability to enforce interoperability, you don't have anything. It becomes interoperability in theory only.

At one point, commenting on how long the standards process takes (and it is admittedly a long painful process), Mike Ahmadi compared the standards process to the food service industry, noting that food service is all about “there are people here, make food now.”

Based on that comparison, I'd say that the Smart Grid standards process is the Iron Chef of standards processes;

• There's not enough time,
• You don't know what you'll have to work with, and
• When you're done, people who weren't involved in the process will judge the result.

A great comment from Annabelle Lee's keynote: "If you're not failing, you aren't doing R&D."

From the DOE, FERC, NERC Panel on the Energy Grid Risk Management Process

William J.Hunteman of DOE commented that the goal is the development of a risk management process, not a risk management “howto.”  He also commented on the need for a greater utility representation.

As I said, more later after I've had a chance to catch up on the video from parts I missed.

All in all, this was an outstanding conference, with the top people in the field discussing how they see the world of Smart Grid Security. We need more conferences like this.

 --Chris Kotting

Thoughts from Smart Grid Security East

(This post originally appeared on Chris Kotting's SmartGrid Realities blog)

Note: I'm not naming names here, because (a) some of these honest comments could get people in trouble back in the office, (b) I recognize that these comments are out-of context and paraphrased, and the speaker might not have meant exactly what I heard.  

(My opinions are in italics.)

An interesting observation from a meter vendor:
Security is starting to come from meter vendors because their customers (the utilities) are insisting on it.  It is a market-driven commercial need.

His advice to consumers who are concerned about security and privacy:

• Ignore the 'tinfoil hat brigade' in Marin County. Do your own research.
• Ask the tough questions of your utility, and / or your PUC:
  • What data is the company gathering?
  • How long will they retain it?
  • How will they protect it?
  • Who else gets it, why and under what conditions?

 In my opinion, this will only increase as PUCs get up to speed on security and start demanding it of utilities.  PUCs, ask your utilities these questions. 

The utilities need a financial reason to spend the money on security and privacy.  There is a need to educate the business professionals about the need for security. From a business standpoint, by itself, security is a negative ROI item.  You can spend money on it, and have no ROI.  In fact, if you do it right, you'll never have any ROI on it, because the ROI impact of security is a negative ROI for not doing it.

Other interesting comments overheard:

One software company rep claimed to have achieved "absolute development security." Move over IBM and Watson.  Heck with artificial intelligence, these guys have developed artificial omniscience.

If you're interested in a good analysis of insider threats, Google the Verizon insider threat study.  (This from a former Secret Service agent.)

(From an equipment supplier) We do security testing on our competitor's products, but we don't keep our findings secret.  We call or e-mail them if we find anything.  It does me no good to hide the results of my testing on my competitor's equipment from my competitor. If I try to screw him, I screw myself.

(From another supplier on the same panel)  In other industries (finance, for example) there is a common association for sharing vulnerabilities and certification processes. That needs to be done for Smart Grid. It is happening to some extent organically, but it needs to happen intentionally.

Equipment vendors are doing what they can, but the buyers need to be held accountable for secure implementations. True in part, but the buyers are dependent on the vendors to tell them how to secure the implementations.  The components have to be secure, but so do the combinations of components, and the operations and systems they interact with.

The problem of long lifespans of security-related equipment.  The ability to upgrade field equipment remotely is critical.  For example, in residential meters, a truck roll to upgrade a meter may cost more than the device.

The appliance vendors still may not have come completely to terms with the need for a software upgrade path.   How do you upgrade a refrigerator's firmware?  Appliance upgrades are not likely to be allowed to come through the Utility AMI network. 

Meter vendors have to treat whatever is on the customer side as inherently hostile. They do not know whether the equipment is currently patched, so they must limit what data can come from the customer side of the meter to that which is absolutely necessary.

From a security standpoint, passing “content” (consumer information, appliance firmware or consumer instructions) either way over a “control” network is a bad idea, particularly if equipment on the customer side of the meter is passing commands to (or through) the meter.  It creates too much opportunity for an attack vector.
This makes “prices to devices” a far more viable option from a security standpoint.  For example, if;

• the utility broadcasts pricing information to the customer and/or the customer's equipment (via the AMI network, or through another channel), 
• equipment on the customer side responds to that pricing information without discrete commands from the utility and
• the utility simply reads the meter as needed,

the result is an "air gapped" communications system.  Far more secure for the utility and the customer.

All in all, a very interesting conference, and I was only there for half the day today (the morning was spent in travel mode.)

More to come tomorrow...

--Chris Kotting 

Smart Grid Security East...Late-Breaking Discount!

Smart Grid Security East takes place next week in Knoxville.  With workshops on Monday and conference sessions Tuesday and Wednesday, the key movers and shakers in North American Smart Grid security will converge for three days of hardcore discussion, education, and debate.  Keynotes from Bill Hunteman of DoE and Annabelle Lee of EPRI highlight an all-star cast, including speakers from leading vendors like GE, IBM, and AT&T, and utilities on the cutting edge of Smart Grid deployments, including PG&E, Southern Company, and Duke Energy.

We're humbled and honored that two members of the ThinkSmartGrid team have been asked to participate.  On Tuesday morning, Mike Coop will moderate a panel discussion focusing on NIST's Interoperability Report 7628.  Version 1.0 of the NISTIR establishes a framework which organizations can use to develop their own specific Smart Grid security policies; if you haven't read it, grab a copy from NIST's site here.  Wednesday morning, Chris Kotting is participating in a panel discussion on customer data, with a specific focus on privacy impacts and considerations.  Both Kotting and Coop are active in multiple Smart Grid standards efforts, and have been active participants in the development of the NISTIR since 2009.

Kotting and Coop hope to see you in Knoxville--and if you haven't signed up yet, click here to save $300 off of your registration!

Grid-Interop Day 4 Notes

(This post originally appeared on Chris Kotting's SmartGrid Realities blog)

Blogging from my phone this morning, so forgive any typos...
(As always, comments will be in italics, if I can figure out how to do italics from my phone.)

• Sitting in a session on CyberSecurity for Information Assurance.  
  • Tanya Brewer from NIST is giving an overview of the NISTIR 7628.  (Scrolldown to find 7628 on the list.  Read the introduction volume first to identify what matters to you, since the whole thing is >550 pages.)
  • Interesting discussion on the need to integrate security throughout a system design.
  • How little can you spend to have an acceptable level of risk vs. how much do you need to spend to have an acceptable level of risk.
    • Zero level of risk isn't possible. What level of risk is acceptable?
  • An integrated architecture is critical.  This means that security is part of the people and processes, not just the hardware.  People, Processes and Technology.  Have to define and monitor metrics and indicators (we haven't been hacked yet isn't a metric.) 
• Business and Policy Domain Expert Working Group meeting
  • Interaction between BnP DEWG and FERC/NARUC Smart Response Collaborative - Robin Lunt, NARUC
    •  NARUC is starting a Smart Grid Working Group to discuss Smart Grid, coordinate information sharing, education and development.
  • UCC Concept - Rik Drummond
    •  Developing the equivalent of the Universal Commercial Code for Smart Grid, to help States establish equivalent and compatible (though not necessarily identical) regulation.
    • One person suggested a pro-forma tariff.  In my opinion, that's a mistaken idea.  A pro-forma tariff is both too limited (the needed scope goes way beyond tariffs) and too restrictive (we don't yet know enough about what retail structures will actually work.)  In addition, having a pro-forma tariff in place may well restrict needed change over time.
  • Update on Language to Regulators - Ward Camp
    • Goal is to have a "library" of rules language to deal with policy issues state-to-state.
      • Privacy
      • Data Security
      • Data Ownership
      • Other Consumer Issues
      • Proposal goes far beyond that to identifying:
        • model tariffs (as I indicated earlier, I think this is premature, and possibly a bad idea in general.)
        • a "safe harbour" of acceptable technologies.  While many of these areas would be helpful, creating a safe harbour of acceptable technologies violates the technology neutrality of the SGIP.
      • The trick will be defining it at a high enough level that it can be implemented in the different jurisdictions.
      • There is a strong push for absolute national lock-in.  The better way to proceed at this point is to develop a consistent way of communicating and understanding tariffs.  It may also be a quicker solution to the problem.
  • HAN Task Force handoff - Ron Melton & Dave Wollman
    • Possible Role for BnP DEWG may be to drive the dialog between vendors, regulators, utilities.
      • Find solutions to state-to-state variations.
      • Find optimization of efficiency improvements.
  • Feedback & Discussion from Oregon meeting - James Mater
    • Oregon has first State-level Smart Grid trade association.  Didn't have much time to discuss, but it's an interesting effort.

I'm out of here and heading home. Safe travels, all!

--Chris Kotting

Grid-Interop Day 2 Notes

(This post originally appeared on Chris Kotting's SmartGrid Realities blog)

Once again, for my regulatory compadres, a summary of the events at Grid-Interop for Day 2 (As always, my commentary is in italics.):

• Tom Evslin opened in the morning, comparing the future of the grid to the history of the Internet. 
  • Interesting 30,000 foot view, but at that height, many complicated and critical details get missed.
  • Most interesting and important points of Tom's presentation:
    • Eventually, grid neutrality will be as important as net neutrality is now. 
      • We need to establish early on a "Smart Grid Carterfone" decision.  Otherwise, instead of the "internet of energy", we'll have the Ma Bell PSTN of energy.
    • Smart Grid has to enable consumers to improve their lives, not just save them a few dollars, and that ability needs to be communicated to consumers now.
• Foundational session:
  Panel discussion on why interoperability matters, and the need for consumer understanding of SG.
• Unfortunately, I got pulled into a discussion of AMI security and privacy, and missed the session on Regulatory Policies and Rate Structures for a Demand Responsive Grid.  I will try to locate a link to the webinar, or at least the slides and notes.
  
• CSWG Updates (Note: slides for Tuesday's and Wednesday's CSWG briefings are available at:
  http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/CSWGBriefings
• FERC Update - Annabelle Lee
  • Important point regarding FERC's process regarding standards.  FERC is "adopting"standards.  The "adoption" of standards does not equal rulemaking, it is still voluntary.  This is a critical distinction from other FERC rulemaking actions.  I intend to follow up on this with Annabelle and elaborate later.
  • NIST forwarded IEC 62851 to FERC.  IEC 62851 uses a weak encryption standard, how will FERC address this?  No clear answer from Annabelle, but Frances Cleveland pointed out that the 62851 is being reworked by IEC to resolve the encryption question. 
• The CSWG has "liasons" to each of the active Priority Action Plans (PAPs).  Each PAP Liason present provided an update of status.
  • PAP 05 - Meter Data Profiles - Darren Highfill
    Subgroup produced a report on PAP 5 CyberSecurity.  Several issues did come up, and were addressed through AMI Security subgroup.  PAP 05 is on its way to completion.
  • PAP 11 - Plugin Electric Vehicles - Sandy Bacik
    2 of 3 standards were OKed by CSWG.  Modifications of the last have been propsed to the PAP and updates are in process
  • PAP 15 - Harmonize PLC coexistance - Mike Coop
    Does not appear to have security implications on broadband, since it only deals with how devices avoid crippling each other.  (Could defeating that ability create a security risk?)
  • Narrowband will be a complete spec, which will have security implications
  • PAP 17 - Intrafacility data - Your humble author
    PAP 17 does not appear at this time to have security implications, as it is addressing strictly identifying what data expressions are needed for energy management.
  • Status Report on other PAPs from Frances Cleveland
    • PAP 3 pricing model is progressing
    • PAP 7 storage is likely to have security issues to address, since it is a complete physical and communications spec,
    • PAP 14 Synchrophasors
      Unlikely at this point that the PAP has yet addressed, or will address without CSCTG prompting, needed security issues.
    • PAP 16 Wind Plant
      In effect IEC 61850 (distribution substation management) for wind.  Security aspects identical to regular 61850.
• Evening session Discussion of Smart Energy Profile 2.0 and how it relates to PAPs 3 & 4
  • SEP 2.0 is a collection of architectures and standards at the application layer.  It approaches the issues using a series of "Function Sets" such as Pricing, PEV, firmware, etc..
  • Uses TLS security, plus whatever link layer security (same as https:// addresses)
  • Certificates based on Elliptical Curve Cypher required, with RSA cypher as an option for interoperability
  • Uses HTTP as application layer in a RESTful manner
    •  (GET, PUT,POST, DELETE)  Using well-known protocol.
    • Essentially, the techniques that makes web pages like this one work.
  • Uses mDNS - multicast DNS  No DNS server needed.
  • Incorporates DMS discovery via DNS-SD
  • EXI - Tokenized XML
  • Uses CIM as its semantic model.
  • Boil it all down, SEP 2.0 is  a repackaging of existing internet tools into a hierarchy that tries to address the needs of Smart Grid communication.  While it may be fine for interaction with the consumer (i.e. web pages displaying energy usage and pricing), it seems to me that the use of TLS (which has been broken) as a security platform for more critical needs creates a security risk that ECC and RSA are not strong enough to overcome.

That's it for today.  My brain is full...

--Chris Kotting

Grid-Interop: Day 1 Notes

(This post originally appeared on Chris Kotting's SmartGrid Realities blog) 

For my regulatory friends, here's a capsule summary of Grid-Interop Day 1 (11/30/2010) (Commentary is in italics):

• Governing Board meeting.
  • Most surprising comment: It's too soon to start communicating to consumers about the advantages of Smart Grid.  Not enough is known about the devices yet.
    • I couldn't disagree more, it's not too soon.  It should have been happening months ago.  A quick look at the language flying around the interwebs (or some of the links in my earlier posts) demonstrates the coming problem.  People do not understand what is happening, and so they are viewing it as something being done to them, rather than for (or better yet by)them.  If the goal here is at all customer empowerment to control their energy usage, we have to get to this being something done by the customer.  If we wait for devices to be ready, it won't fly.  Customer interest has to exist for the devices to have a market.
  • Most interesting point: Business and Policy Working Group wants to "identify issues and find solutions related to state to state variations that impede HAN products."  "Impede" may be overstating the case, but it may help to have a standard, simple, way to express different tariffs and tariff structures.  Paul Centolella gave a solid push in this direction.  A new Priority Action Plan (PAP) perhaps?  If the retail service provider is able to communicate price for the coming period, then there may not be a problem, but that may constrain useful tariff structures. We may need to do a gap analysis on the work of PAPs 3, 4 and 9 to know for sure.  BnPWG is a logical place to do this, but it needs more state regulatory and utility tariff experts at the table.
  •  IP (Intellectual Property) policies are a growing issue.  Different SDOs have different IP rules and practices,and were trying to get a common set of standards under a consistent (open and interoperable)  IP policy.
  • PAP 1 - Internet Engineering Task Force has issued an informational RFC on a Smart Grid Internet Protocol Suite (IPS).  A set of IP tools specific to Smart Grid needs.
  • PAP 11 - Plugin Electric Vehicles Status.  3 Standards reported on:
    • SAE J1772-TM - Inductive charging coupler up for SGIP approval.
    • SAE J2836-TM - Use cases for PEV - Grid communication up for SGIP approval.
    • SAE J2847-TM - Communications Protocols for PEV to Grid Communications is NOT up for SGIP approval. 
      • Cyber Security Working Group does not recommend, as it does not sufficiently address cybersecurity and privacy.
        Smart Grid Architecture Council still reviewing.
    • Development of vision, mission & roadmap statements.

• Plenary Session:
  • George Arnold - Brief & encouraging comments noting growth & the beginnings of mature systems.
    
    • 650 SGIP members
    • Maturing processes starting to generate new standards, and more importantly critically reviewing those standards.
  • John McDonald (GB Chair) - Historical Review.
  • Paul Molitor - Events for the week & year
• CyberSecurity Working Group Meeting
  
  • Rhonda Dunfee DOE - NESCO National Energy Sector Cybersecurity Organization: Public-Private partnership to lay out SG CyberSec. Goal is for it to be fully private in 2 years.
  • Mission
    
    • Promote best practices
    • Analyse infrastucture threats.
  • Structure
    
    • Funded by EnergySec & EPRI
    • Information to be via a portal site.
    • Go to Energysec.org to register. Membership is vetted.
  • Goals
    
    • Coordinate "end user" testing
    • Create code repository
    • Provide a path for rapid information dissemination &
      situational awareness.
    • Provide on-demand resource for forensics.
• Marianne Swanson – NIST
  
  • Intro to NISTIR
  • 3 year plan for CSWG
  • Upcoming local outreaches.
• Subgroup updates:
  
  • Cite for all CGCTG Subgroup information:
    http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/WorkingGroupInfo
  • AMI Security - Darren Highfill (Newest Group, so Darren provided more background)
    
    • Meetings are Tuesdays @ 13:00 Eastern
      Call In # 866-793-6322 Access Code 3836162#
      Contact tanya.brewer (at) nist.gov to join mailing list (true for all groups)
    • Scope:
      Back office systems that accept AMI data
      Communication through Meter or other utility-owned/operated gateway
      Non-electric or customer owned equipment is out of scope
      Development of devices using AMI communications must meet capabilities in order to be allowed on net.
      May develop "classes" of devices.
      All layers of stack.
    • Goals
      Plan to propose a PAP for AMI security.
      Set of criteria and RFI to select an appropriate SDO to be issued.
  • Architecture – Sandy Bacik
    
    • Telecon Day & Time: Bi-weekly Thursdays, 2pm Eastern Time
      Call-in number: 218-862-1300 Participant code is: 283348
    • Scope:
      Overall information architecture scoping and design.
      Provides basis for many of the standards groups to define actors & relationships.
  • Daniel Thanos - Design Principles
    
    • Telecon Day & Time: Every Friday @ 3:30PM-4:30PM Eastern
      Call-in numbers: 1-800-728-9607 (Toll Free),
      1-913-904-9873 (Direct), Participant Passcode: 4570752
    • Develops core principles for security and privacy
  • Tanya Brewer – Privacy
    
    • Telecon Day & Time: Thursdays, 11am Eastern Time
      Call-in number: 866-802-3515 Participant passcode: 2817109
    • Reviews and makes recommendations regarding privacy issues
      within smart grid development

--Chris Kotting

Launch!

ThinkSmartGrid was formed to address and solve issues facing Smart Grid deployments worldwide. Billions of dollars of public and private investment are pouring into the Smart Grid, yet the ultimate value of Smart Grid remains unfulfilled--despite more than two decades of successful industrial demand response programs, and an ever-growing consumer awareness of energy efficiency programs, utilities and vendors have to date missed the mark on explaining and delivering the promise of the Smart Grid.

Enter ThinkSmartGrid.

ThinkSmartGrid works with stakeholders throughout the Smart Grid and green & clean technology sectors to not just identify and qualify the elusive messages and value surrounding the Smart Grid, but to deliver those messages and value to market by quantifying and explaining the benefits of a more intelligent electricity network.  Whether discussing time-of-use rates, efficiency of demand response programs, or minimizing range anxiety for plug-in electric vehicle owners, we promise you that ThinkSmartGrid will be among the industry's thought leaders.

Each of us prides ourselves on the unique perspective we bring to the market, so you can expect to see frequent, insightful blog posts.  But, we also have worldwide reach, to bring you ideas and viewpoints you might otherwise miss.  Part of that worldwide reach includes relationships with international, national, state, and municipal leaders throughout the Smart Grid, as well as vendors ranging in size from large multinational conglomerates down to two guys in a garage.  To share those thoughts with you, we invite you to regularly visit the Smart Grid Think Tank.  At The Tank, we'll supplement our steady diet of Smart Grid insight with perspectives from leading lights from around the globe.  Here, you'll have the opportunity to engage in dialog not just with the ThinkSmartGrid team, but with the worldwide Smart Grid community.

Look for the Smart Grid Think Tank when we launch in early 2011.  Don't worry...we'll let you know.

We've assembled a very talented and unique team, one which we expect to grow significantly over the coming years, just as the Smart Grid market as a whole grows.  Significant aspects of the Smart Grid market closely parallel the evolution of telecommunications and pay-TV markets over the past two decades, particularly in the areas of deregulation, competition, marketing, and customer service.  ThinkSmartGrid's team has lived these issues over the past five years, the past ten years, the past twenty years, and longer.  We look forward to working with you, to learning, to sharing, and to achieving success.

In addition to consulting and advisory services, we also serve as a force multiplier, supplementing and enhancing existing standards personnel by serving as an extension of in-house standards teams, enabling utilities, vendors, and regulators to more cost-effectively understand and contribute to the myriad of Smart Grid standards current in development.

We'll be bringing up new features on the site over the coming weeks and months, including The Smart Grid Think Tank, so please stay tuned.  Follow us on Twitter @tweetsmartgrid, and look for us on Facebook and LinkedIn at thinksmartgrid; to join our mailing list, where you'll receive insightful commentary and relevant news (and perhaps even occasional wit) on a regular basis, please drop us a note at signup (at) thinksmartgrid.com.

And, to learn more about what ThinkSmartGrid can do for you to address your pressing Smart Grid needs, drop us a note at info (at) thinksmartgrid.com, and we'll get right back to you.

Think Smart Grid.  Learn Smart Grid.  Know Smart Grid.  Live Smart Grid.

The ThinkSmartGrid Team