Utility Week - authoritative, impartial and essential reading for senior people within utilities, regulators and government
Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/255052
utILIty WeeK | 7th - 13th February 2014 | 25 Operations & Assets tery, and are most commonly sited in under- ground boxes beneath pavements or drives. This provides relatively easy access for main- tenance or replacement purposes, while the location (at the boundary of the property) enables firms to monitor both customer-side and network leaks and faults. But the fact that meters are buried makes mobile net- work use, for instance, problematic. Moreover, despite early optimism that smart water metering might be able to plug into the mandated rollout of energy smart meters, Decc's choice of home area network communications has le water out in the cold: underground boundary meters are sim- ply too remote to connect. Some see this as a missed opportunity. Anglian's Glass says he "looks with regret" at what's happening in energy. "A smart rollout in water hasn't been taken into account," he says. "That would have been a smart thing for UK plc." Be that as it may, there are two main types of remaining network option that can fulfil the industry's needs. Artesia's Marshallsay describes these needs thus: "Water compa- nies will want a network that will work on day one, that will pick up all of its meters, that will be reliable, secure and will deliver a certain level of service on data provision." The first type are mesh-style technologies, which rely on a large number of street-level data collectors and repeaters – for instance, mounted on lampposts and other street fur- niture. This type of network has been rolled out in parts of the US, where access to prop- erties is relatively easy. While it has a rela- tively low capital cost, deployment can be slow, given the need to seek permission from multiple landlords and local authorities. Moreover, maintenance costs can be high, and unbudgeted costs resulting from delays and so on can easily creep up. The short- range nature of the communication can also lead to connectivity issues – for instance, if a meter is just out of range of the nearest col- lector or relay. The second network option is long-range radio, where meters talk directly to a small number of communications towers. Sen- sus, a provider of one such licensed offering called FlexNet, says through UK trials with its partner Arqiva and large-scale deploy- ment overseas, "we've shown how this single technology can communicate with meters in all locations, including water meters in underground pits". Arqiva's Green argues long-range radio is reliable and yields greater net benefit than mesh technologies. "Long-range radio facili- tates the transition to evolution of a smart water network because it can handle addi- tional monitoring and control devices as they are added to the infrastructure over time." In fact, he says: "a main driver to selecting a communications network is coverage of the water network as a whole, not just the end- point meters at customers' properties, par- ticularly where the network transverses open areas". Less interested parties also have good things to say on the subject. Marshallsay calls long-range radio "a good solution", while Woods agrees it has "a strong case". Southern Water's Bentham comments: "I see [licensed long-range spectrum use] being the evolution for water metering where meter density is high and pavement collections are prevalent." Anglian's Glass speculates: "There could be a standard carrier for the country, perhaps – there are private wave- bands that are reliable and have the right technical capability." Arqiva has already been selected to pro- vide long-range radio in northern England and Scotland for the energy smart meter programme and could use this network to connect water meters. Smart water meter- ing trials in central and southern England by Arqiva and Sensus show that the network could work for water companies nationwide. Where next? The water industry – initially led by those in resource-stressed areas – seems to be gradually ramping up its metering activi- ties and laying the groundwork for future smart deployments. Progress is slow and steady, and in the absence of any kind of mandate, company-led. While WRc's Godley is "frustrated by the rate of development", he concedes, "I think it will happen", citing a number of industry clusters pushing for it. These include the SBWWI forum, Water UK's revenue metering group and WRc's own smart meter user group. According to Marshallsay, individual pro- gress such as that being made by Thames Water will also have knock-on effects. He explains: "Once the benefits can start to be quantified, once the data analytics can really be quantified, I'm sure it will snowball from there. Companies are already actively dis- cussing it with each other; they are moving forward in the next AMP [6]. I expect lots of activity, trials and the sharing of benefits. I expect a much greater focus on smart meter- ing in AMP7." While some are happy for water com- panies to be le with overall responsibil- ity for developing metering in their areas, many feel some kind of cooperation would be helpful in at least developing a common agenda among like-minded stakeholders. This should include water companies out- side water-stressed areas that want to take advantage of the operational and customer relationship benefits a smart water network can bring. The SBWWI group calls for a National Smart Metering Forum, led by government and regulator, to include Defra, Ofwat, the Environment Agency, water companies, the supply chain and customers. It says this group could discuss policy to help the indus- try to plan ahead; agree common specifica- tions; and improve cost benefit evidence to support the smart meter business case. Marshallsay concludes: "All water com- panies are having to look at this on their own. There is no central leadership, unlike in energy. There is a danger that fragmented will not equal most efficient." He calls on Ofwat to fill the leadership vacuum, picking up its earlier good work on the now disbanded Smart Metering Advisory Group. This succeeded in getting stakehold- ers around the table to discuss the challenges and made useful contributions on the cost benefit case and data privacy/security issues. "That work really needs to continue," Marshallsay says, "especially as the cost benefit case evolves and more data starts to come back." "All water companies are having to look at this on their own. There is no central leadership, unlike in energy." Dene marshaLLsay, artesIa brought to you in association with