The present invention relates generally to the field of utility metering (including gas, electric, water and energy metering). More particularly, the present invention relates to the integration of network systems and utility meters.
The above-cited U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/022,718 discloses a system generally involving electronic meters and automatic meter reading, and more particularly TCP/IP-enabled electronic utility meters for remote two-way access over local and wide area networks. The present invention is related in that it involves the use of TCP/IP-enabled, extensible utility meters in a new business model and system. Further background information about the business model aspect of the present invention is provided below.
Business Models
Currently, meter manufacturers sell meters to make money. Some revenue is generated from metering system sales, but these systems are generally viewed as just another mechanism for selling additional meters. Meter manufacturers compete by providing better metering capabilities and functionality at a lower price.
Any given type of meter, whether it is water, electric, energy, or gas, measures a bounded set of quantities. These quantities represent the raw data collected by the device. Meter manufacturers cannot use this raw metered data as a way to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Therefore, at the factory, they load their meter's firmware with embedded capabilities, improved accuracy, or other applications (e.g., time of use (TOU), power quality (PQ) and/or alarm monitoring). These firmware applications use the meter's core set of data to compute the information that their meter data users (MDUs) need. To hedge against the uncertainty of deregulation, meter data users (such as utility distribution companies (UDC), energy service providers (ESP), or meter data management agencies (MDMA), etc.) often purchase, at a low price, fully capable meters with all or some of their capabilities disabled (i.e., “turned off”). When additional functionality is needed, the MDU must purchase a license (or “key”) that gives it the ability to enable (“turn on”) the desired function in a meter. This method of selectively turning on meter functions allows the meter manufacturer to create new license-based pricing models to make its product more cost competitive. Thus, in reality, the meter must still be manufactured with all of the necessary hardware and applications in order to support the fullest possible range of functionality in an effort to more efficiently address possible future metering needs.
This business model has several drawbacks:
3) to upgrade or re-program a meter requires that a meter technician drive to the location, physically remove the meter (or switch it out with a replacement meter) and then return it to the “meter shop” where the upgrade can occur; after the upgrade is complete, the meter must be returned and re-installed;
With the advent of improved communication technology, manufacturers are now able to add modem, network, and radio-frequency (RF) connectivity to their meters, thus permitting remote communications between meters and various meter data retrieval systems (e.g., automated meter reading (AMR) systems). However, there are limitations associated with these methods of remote communications:
Existing AMR systems are also limited in that they require several layers of applications and interfaces in order to communicate with connected meters. These layers implement the various communications protocols used by the numerous meter manufacturers and the various communications technologies that can be used to communicate with a meter (e.g., RF communication, satellite-based communication, etc.). As these meters are constantly revised, so are their communications protocols, requiring similar modifications to the AMR system. Industry standards intended to unify the communication and device protocols typically fall short by setting minimum requirements for compliance and/or providing manufacturer-specific mechanisms to allow variability and customizations. Therefore, AMR systems still often require meter-specific knowledge (e.g., communications and device protocols) to read the required data from meters offered by different manufacturers. Even with the current metering standards, the addition of a new or different meter would typically require additions and/or modifications to an AMR system. The increasing variety of meters presents an almost insurmountable challenge to the automated meter reading industry.
Deregulation of the electricity metering industry has created even more challenges. Prior to deregulation, a utility was responsible for generating, distributing, and transmitting electricity as well as purchasing, storing and installing metering devices, collecting metered data and processing customer billing. Now, with deregulation slowly being implemented throughout the United States, those duties and responsibilities that were the exclusive responsibility of the utility can now be divided among several service companies and providers who all need access to the meter and the meter data. All of these companies require access to either the data collected from the metering devices (e.g., power quality, outage, etc.) or to the calculated/processed data (e.g., quadrant data; validated, estimated, and edited (VEE) data, etc.) for their internal use (load management and monitoring, forecasting, etc.).
Today there are two prevailing AMR System business models. We refer to these as: 1) the exclusive ownership model (depicted in
In the exclusive owner business model (
Some of the non-measurable benefits include:
Taken alone, the measurable benefits listed above typically do not justify the expense incurred by purchasing an AMR system. Consequently, the number of large AMR System deployments has not reached expectations.
In the service bureau business model (
In both business models, the AMR supplier's business case is to develop and sell AMR Systems and maintenance agreements. This business case assumes that the development investment for an AMR System can be recouped through many AMR System sells. In the exclusive owner business model, the AMR System supplier is typically confronted with a customer who wants an AMR System customized to handle his/her specific business processes. These types of AMR System sales usually require the AMR supplier to perform customer specific development. AMR System sells of this type, made by an AMR supplier, increase the AMR supplier's overall development costs, deployment costs, long-term maintenance costs, and upgrade costs. In the service bureau business model, the AMR supplier is confronted with a customer who requires an AMR System that has a different set of requirements from the AMR System of the exclusive ownership model. The AMR System sold to operate as a service bureau must accommodate many different MDUs and their business processes, and must also control access to the metered data. E.g., “ESP A” cannot read the metered information for a customer of “ESP B.” The service bureau AMR System is more complex because this system must accommodate all of the MDU's needs while controlling or limiting access in a secure manner. The AMR System suppliers have a problem in creating a workable business case because they make a significant development investment and cannot afford financially or from a risk management point of view to limit their systems to one business model or the other. In today's uncertain environment, it is not clear if both business models will survive the deregulation evolution. The AMR System suppliers, therefore, must identify a way to develop a system that covers all requirements for both business models, is customizable, flexible, easily adaptable, etc.
In either of the above business models, the MDUs and the service bureau operators are dependent upon the sole AMR System supplier to react quickly to solve system problems, and address new requirements that may evolve from the evolving deregulation process. Since the AMR Systems developed today are proprietary and closed, this dependency upon a sole provider is a weak link in terms of risk management for the MDUs and service bureau operators. Competition within the volatile deregulated environment hinges upon AMR System providers' ability to respond rapidly to customer needs.
To allow meter data users to have access to needed information and at the same time address the rapidly shifting requirements of the deregulated marketplace, there is a need for a new business model, and a new apparatus and system for implementing such a business model. The present invention meets this need by providing a common metering device that measures raw data and a system composed of independent services or applications that can collect and process raw metered data and then make that data available to interested parties. This new model is intended to remove the dependence upon an AMR System provider, as the sole provider, by creating a system concept to enable a competitive environment where services (applications, information, networking, etc.) rather than systems are selected and paid for on a leased or pay-per-use basis.
A networked-based, extensible metering system in accordance with the present invention comprises a network server, a wide area network coupled to the network server, and a plurality of network-enabled meters coupled to the network. The meters collect data and the network server provides at least one metering application to the meters. In addition, the meters may be programmed to communicate via a predefined protocol and to deliver a protocol interface to a storage medium on the network, which enables the network to provide the protocol interface to users or applications requiring information from the meters and the users/applications to communicate with the meters to access the required information.
Other aspects of the present invention are described below.
The present invention introduces a new method for generating metering revenue using new, faster and improved communication and device technologies. In this system and business model, a new meter apparatus for collecting and storing metered data and information is part of a virtual machine as is the network application system of which it is a part. By residing on the network, the meter information becomes readily accessible to other devices, applications, and users on the network. Using new object-oriented, embedded networking technologies (e.g., Sun Microsystems' Java®/Jini®, Microsoft's Universal Plug and Play®, etc.), service discovery protocols, and security mechanisms, devices (i.e., meters) and services (i.e., data collection, storage, validation, TOU, etc.) are accessible to MDUs (such as, ESP, UDC, and MDMA) that need access to raw or metered information.
An exemplary embodiment of the present invention will now be described from the perspectives of the business model and the system.
Business Model
Thus, the present invention may be implemented in a system that comprises network-based applications and network-enabled meters (electrical, gas, energy and water) that can provide full or part-time, secure connectivity between the meters and layered business applications using the Internet. Moreover, by employing object-oriented inter-networking technologies for embedded devices technology, this system provides a suite of products including meters, core services and networked applications that make meter information available to interested parties. The inter-network services are expected to provide common communications protocols, discovery protocols, namespace management (i.e., Directory or Lookup Service), leasing/pay-per-use services, and security (especially secure access to network-enabled meters).
System and Apparatus
In the inventive system, the network-enabled meter ceases to be the sole revenue-generating commodity for manufacturers. Instead, the meter and the software systems that access and process its data become a continuous source of revenue. The meter becomes a simple device that requires no programming and fewer upgrades. The meter's functionality is no longer limited by the volume “under the glass” but becomes virtually unlimited by having the functionality residing on the network and accessed on an as-needed basis by the networked applications. Networked applications use the same service infrastructure as the networked meter. E.g., the networked applications use the network discovery, join and lookup services to find other application services just as applications use network infrastructure to find meter services. Networked applications register the services they offer with the Lookup services, just as the meter does. This allows both networked meters and networked applications to work in a transparent federation of services. In order for applications and meters to cooperate in a federation of services, the service interfaces must be predefined into a set of Open APIs. These applications can include storage of metered information, load profiling, data aggregation, power quality monitoring, tariff calculations, outage notifications, etc. Meter data users may decide which applications they need and either choose the application provider or develop the needed application in-house. If an application provider were selected, then the application would be paid for on either a per-use basis or leased for a set period of time. New or expanded functions and features could be easily added to the system and just as easily implemented by the meter data users. An additional benefit of having the applications residing on the network rather than in the meter is that feature upgrades or meter updates or maintenance occurs at the network level rather that in the meter at the customer's site. Thus, by decreasing the complexity of the meter, the probability for errors at the meter level is decreased, making maintenance and upgrades easier and more efficient.
Using the virtually unlimited processing power and capacity of a network, the capabilities of a meter also become virtually unlimited. When a meter requires an upgrade or patch, a Meter Service Provider could “push” the new code to all affected meters with a single command instead of physically removing each and every affected meter and transporting them to the meter shop for firmware/software upgrades. The upgrades would take effect immediately, making the new functionality instantaneously available to meter data users.
In addition to allowing meter data users to directly access and process meter data, the system allows meter data users to provide certain end user processes (e.g., service disconnect, on-site usage display, etc.), as shown in
With this invention, the meter data user, or MDU, that decides upon an exclusive ownership business model will be capable of assembling services provided by many suppliers to create the AMR System that best suits their business case. In addition, the MDU can elect to develop certain services to add value or lease to other MDUs. This increases a MDU's flexibility to generate revenue, reduces their dependence upon a sole AMR System provider, and reduces their overall risk. This invention also strengthens the service bureau business model by allowing a service bureau operator to assemble and/or develop different services for different MDU subscribers. These MDU subscribers can in turn develop value-added services of their own in order to gain competitive advantage. Finally, this invention helps the AMR Suppliers by creating well-defined services that makeup an AMR System. The AMR Suppliers can decide which services they can best develop to generate an ongoing revenue stream, not a series of one time, customized AMR System sales.
In sum, the present invention provides a novel system based on a network-enabled, extensible meter. It is understood, however, that the invention is susceptible to various modifications and alternative constructions. There is no intention to limit the invention to the specific constructions described herein. E.g., the various techniques described herein may be implemented in a variety of hardware or software, or a combination of both. Preferably, the techniques are implemented in utility metering components having programmable processors, a storage medium readable by the processor (including volatile and non-volatile memory and/or disk storage elements), and various application programs. Each program may be implemented in assembly or machine language. However, the programs can be implemented in a high level procedural or object oriented programming language to communicate with a computer system. In any case, the language may be a compiled or interpreted language. Each such computer program is preferably stored on a storage medium or device (e.g., ROM or magnetic disk) that is readable by a general or special purpose programmable computer for configuring and operating the computer when the storage medium or device is read by the computer to perform the procedures described above. The system may also be implemented as a computer-readable storage medium, configured with a computer program, where the storage medium so configured causes a computer to operate in a specific and predefined manner.
Although exemplary embodiments of the invention have been described in detail above, those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that many additional modifications are possible in the exemplary embodiments without materially departing from the novel teachings and advantages of the invention. Accordingly, these and all such modifications are intended to be included within the scope of this invention as defined in the following claims.
This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/798,084, filed Mar. 2, 2001, titled “Network-Enabled, Extensible Metering System,” now U.S. Pat. No. 7,046,682, which is hereby incorporated by reference, and which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/022,718, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,396,839, filed Feb. 12, 1998, titled “Remote Access to Electronic Meters Using a TCP/IP Protocol Suite,” which is hereby incorporated by reference and which claims priority to Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 60/039,716, filed Feb. 12, 1997.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3445815 | Saltzberg et al. | May 1969 | A |
3858212 | Tompkins et al. | Dec 1974 | A |
3878512 | Kobayashi et al. | Apr 1975 | A |
3973240 | Fong | Aug 1976 | A |
4031513 | Simciak | Jun 1977 | A |
4056107 | Todd et al. | Nov 1977 | A |
4132981 | White | Jan 1979 | A |
4190800 | Kelly, Jr. et al. | Feb 1980 | A |
4204195 | Bogacki | May 1980 | A |
4218737 | Buscher et al. | Aug 1980 | A |
4250489 | Dudash et al. | Feb 1981 | A |
4254472 | Juengel et al. | Mar 1981 | A |
4319359 | Sepp | Mar 1982 | A |
4321582 | Banghart | Mar 1982 | A |
4361890 | Green, Jr. et al. | Nov 1982 | A |
4405829 | Rivest et al. | Sep 1983 | A |
4415896 | Allgood | Nov 1983 | A |
4466001 | Moore et al. | Aug 1984 | A |
4504831 | Jahr et al. | Mar 1985 | A |
4506386 | Ichikawa et al. | Mar 1985 | A |
4525861 | Freeburg | Jun 1985 | A |
4600923 | Hicks et al. | Jul 1986 | A |
4608699 | Batlivala et al. | Aug 1986 | A |
4611333 | McCallister et al. | Sep 1986 | A |
4614945 | Brunius et al. | Sep 1986 | A |
4617566 | Diamond | Oct 1986 | A |
4628313 | Gombrich et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
4631538 | Carreno | Dec 1986 | A |
4638298 | Spiro | Jan 1987 | A |
4644321 | Kennon | Feb 1987 | A |
4653076 | Jerrim et al. | Mar 1987 | A |
4680704 | Konicek et al. | Jul 1987 | A |
4688038 | Giammarese | Aug 1987 | A |
4692761 | Robinton | Sep 1987 | A |
4707852 | Jahr et al. | Nov 1987 | A |
4713837 | Gordon | Dec 1987 | A |
4724435 | Moses et al. | Feb 1988 | A |
4728950 | Hendrickson et al. | Mar 1988 | A |
4734680 | Gehman et al. | Mar 1988 | A |
4749992 | Fitzmeyer et al. | Jun 1988 | A |
4757456 | Benghiat | Jul 1988 | A |
4769772 | Dwyer | Sep 1988 | A |
4783748 | Swarztrauber et al. | Nov 1988 | A |
4827514 | Ziolko et al. | May 1989 | A |
4839645 | Lill | Jun 1989 | A |
4841545 | Endo et al. | Jun 1989 | A |
4860379 | Schoeneberger et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
4862493 | Venkataraman et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
4868877 | Fischer | Sep 1989 | A |
4884021 | Hammond et al. | Nov 1989 | A |
4912722 | Carlin | Mar 1990 | A |
4940974 | Sojka | Jul 1990 | A |
4940976 | Gastouniotis et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
4958359 | Kato | Sep 1990 | A |
4964138 | Nease et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4965533 | Gilmore | Oct 1990 | A |
4972507 | Lusignan | Nov 1990 | A |
5022046 | Morrow, Jr. | Jun 1991 | A |
5032833 | Laporte | Jul 1991 | A |
5053766 | Ruiz-del-Portal et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5053774 | Schuermann et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5056107 | Johnson et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5067136 | Arthur et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
5079715 | Venkataraman et al. | Jan 1992 | A |
5086292 | Johnson et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5090024 | Vander Mey et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5111479 | Akazawa | May 1992 | A |
5115448 | Mori | May 1992 | A |
5132985 | Hashimoto et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5136614 | Hiramatsu et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5142694 | Jackson et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5151866 | Glaser et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5155481 | Brennan, Jr. et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5160926 | Schweitzer, III | Nov 1992 | A |
5166664 | Fish | Nov 1992 | A |
5177767 | Kato | Jan 1993 | A |
5179376 | Pomatto | Jan 1993 | A |
5189694 | Garland | Feb 1993 | A |
5194860 | Jones et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
5204877 | Endo et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5214587 | Green | May 1993 | A |
5225994 | Arinobu et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5228029 | Kotzin | Jul 1993 | A |
5229996 | Bäckström et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5239575 | White et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5239584 | Hershey et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5243338 | Brennan, Jr. et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5252967 | Brennan et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5260943 | Comroe et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5270704 | Sosa Quintana et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5280498 | Tymes et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5280499 | Suzuki | Jan 1994 | A |
5285469 | Vanderpool | Feb 1994 | A |
5287287 | Chamberlain et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5289497 | Jacobson et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5307349 | Shloss et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5315531 | Oravetz et al. | May 1994 | A |
5319679 | Bagby | Jun 1994 | A |
5329547 | Ling | Jul 1994 | A |
5345225 | Davis | Sep 1994 | A |
5359625 | Vander Mey et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5381462 | Larson et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5383134 | Wrzesinski | Jan 1995 | A |
5384712 | Oravetz et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5387873 | Muller et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5390360 | Scop et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5406495 | Hill | Apr 1995 | A |
5416917 | Adair et al. | May 1995 | A |
5420799 | Peterson et al. | May 1995 | A |
5432507 | Mussino et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5432815 | Kang et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5438329 | Gastouniotis et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5448570 | Toda et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5450088 | Meier et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5452465 | Geller et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5455533 | Köllner | Oct 1995 | A |
5455544 | Kechkaylo | Oct 1995 | A |
5455822 | Dixon et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5457713 | Sanderford, Jr. et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5461558 | Patsiokas et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5463657 | Rice | Oct 1995 | A |
5473322 | Carney | Dec 1995 | A |
5475742 | Gilbert | Dec 1995 | A |
5475867 | Blum | Dec 1995 | A |
5479442 | Yamamoto | Dec 1995 | A |
5481259 | Bane | Jan 1996 | A |
5491473 | Gilbert | Feb 1996 | A |
5493287 | Bane | Feb 1996 | A |
5495239 | Ouellette | Feb 1996 | A |
5497424 | Vanderpool | Mar 1996 | A |
5499243 | Hall | Mar 1996 | A |
5500871 | Kato et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5511188 | Pascucci et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5519388 | Adair, Jr. | May 1996 | A |
5522044 | Pascucci et al. | May 1996 | A |
5526389 | Buell et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5528507 | McNamara et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5528597 | Gerszberg et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5539775 | Tuttle et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5541589 | Delaney | Jul 1996 | A |
5544036 | Brown, Jr. et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5546424 | Miyake | Aug 1996 | A |
5548527 | Hemminger et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5548633 | Kujawa et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5553094 | Johnson et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5555508 | Munday et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5559870 | Patton et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5566332 | Adair et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5572438 | Ehlers et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5590179 | Shincovich et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5592470 | Rudrapatna et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5594740 | LaDue | Jan 1997 | A |
5602744 | Meek et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5619685 | Schiavone | Apr 1997 | A |
5621629 | Hemminger et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5627759 | Bearden et al. | May 1997 | A |
5631636 | Bane | May 1997 | A |
5640679 | Lundqvist et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5659300 | Dresselhuys et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5684472 | Bane | Nov 1997 | A |
5684799 | Bigham et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5691715 | Ouellette | Nov 1997 | A |
5692180 | Lee | Nov 1997 | A |
5696501 | Ouellette et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5696765 | Safadi | Dec 1997 | A |
5699276 | Roos | Dec 1997 | A |
5715390 | Hoffman et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5717604 | Wiggins | Feb 1998 | A |
5745901 | Entner et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5748104 | Argyroudis et al. | May 1998 | A |
5751914 | Coley et al. | May 1998 | A |
5751961 | Smyk | May 1998 | A |
5754772 | Leaf | May 1998 | A |
5754830 | Butts et al. | May 1998 | A |
5778368 | Hogan et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5787437 | Potterveld et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5790789 | Suarez | Aug 1998 | A |
5790809 | Holmes | Aug 1998 | A |
5805712 | Davis | Sep 1998 | A |
5808558 | Meek et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5822521 | Gartner et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5862391 | Salas et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5872774 | Wheatley, III et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5874903 | Shuey et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5875183 | Nitadori | Feb 1999 | A |
5875402 | Yamawaki | Feb 1999 | A |
5897607 | Jenney et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5898387 | Davis et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5943375 | Veintimilla | Aug 1999 | A |
5963146 | Johnson et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
6000034 | Lightbody et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6041056 | Bigham et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6067029 | Durston | May 2000 | A |
6073169 | Shuey et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6073174 | Montgomerie et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6078251 | Landt et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6078909 | Knutson | Jun 2000 | A |
6088659 | Kelley et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6100817 | Mason, Jr. et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6112192 | Capek | Aug 2000 | A |
6150955 | Tracy et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6160993 | Wilson | Dec 2000 | A |
6172616 | Johnson et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6199068 | Carpenter | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6836737 | Petite et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
7043457 | Hansen | May 2006 | B1 |
7057525 | Giles et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7065457 | Germer et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20060209844 A1 | Sep 2006 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60039716 | Feb 1997 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09798084 | Mar 2001 | US |
Child | 11432959 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09022718 | Feb 1998 | US |
Child | 09798084 | US |