ICHIS and DSP Interface Consultation Summaries

Report
ICHIS consultation process at a glance
Consultation process
Timeline:
• Initial draft published online
[23rd Dec 2013]
• DCC Design Forum sessions with SEC
Parties, Metering Equipment
Manufacturers and DECC [Jan/Feb 2014]
• Liaised with SECAS to ensure that SEC
Parties were informed.
• DCC requested feedback on ICHIS draft
(6th–20th
Jan 2014)
• 15 entities submitted feedback:
Feedback received
a) Responses to specific consultation questions
Question:
• SEC Parties and Metering Responses
to questions
Equipment Manufacturers
(39)
(MEMs) submitted 215
comments in response to
the ICHIS draft sent out for
consultation.
Queries
(25)
Issues
(151)
Who contributed the responses?
• 13 of 15 respondents provided responses for the
three specific questions.
• Energy suppliers had the most queries about ICHIS.
Metering
equipment
manufacturers *
(6)
DNOs
(2)
Other
SEC Party†
(1)
• Metering equipment manufacturers raised the most
issues about the ICHIS draft.
Consultation
Questions
Response:
Q1: Do you agree that the Specification is Almost all parties consulted
achievable?
agreed that ICHIS is achievable
Q2: Do you agree with the wording
concerning cradles, adaptors and
flying leads?
Almost all parties consulted
agreed with the wording.
Q3: Is there a market requirement or
desire to mount a Comms Hub on any
other devices apart from than a ESME,
Cradle or Hot Shoe as defined in ICHIS?
Almost all parties consulted
responded there was no market
requirement for additional
scenarios other than as proposed
in ICHIS.
• ICHIS achievability
(Q1) was rated as
the most important
matter for parties
consulted.
Q1
Q3
0%
Queries
* Metering equipment manufacturers include
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Contribution by party
Larger Energy Suppliers
Meter Manufacturers
Other SEC Parties
the UK Meter Forum
† Other SEC Party is a natural person
Observations:
• Participation by SEC Parties and
Metering Equipment Manufacturers
(MEMs) deemed satisfactory.
• DNO concerns were mostly around
power outage/restore alerts and the
power supply via the ICHI.
• Service user concerns regarding size
of the Comms Hub addressed
through Comms Hub Data Sheets to
be released end March 2014 (some
data already provided to TBDG in
Feb).
40%
60%
80%
100%
b) Queries and issues raised
0%
DNOs
20%
Priority for parties consulted
Issues
Larger Energy
Suppliers
(6)
High
Medium
Low
Q2
How did DCC act on the responses?
• Detailed replies provided for all queries and issues.
• ICHIS consultation feedback log published online at
http://www.smartdcc.co.uk/media/5857/dcc_
consolidated_consultation_feedback_log190214f.xlsm
• Of the 25 queries raised, 8 led to changes in ICHIS.
• Of the 151 issues raised, 68 led to changes in ICHIS.
Led to changes
• Five key areas were identified from the issues and queries raised
by SEC Parties and MEMs: i) Scope of ICHIS; ii) Size of the Comms
Hubs; iii) Damage on installation; iv) Tamper detection over the
flying lead; and v) Definition of RF emission limits.
• The number of changes made to ICHIS in these areas were as
follows:
60
Noted but no changes
Queries
7
Issues
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Contribution towards changes to ICHIS
1
2
Damage on
installation
Tamper detection
over the flying lead
6
100%
Scope of ICHIS
Size of the Comms
Hub
Definition of RF
emission limits
DSP Interface consultation process at a glance
Engagement with SEC Parties
Timeline:
• DCC Design Forum sessions with SEC
Parties to discuss aspects of the DCC
User Gateway Interface, Self-Service
Interface and Registration Data
Interface and to review working drafts
of the Interface Specifications and
Codes of Connection [Nov 2013–Feb 2014]
• Interface Specifications and Codes of
Connection drafts for consultation
made available to Service Users online
[8th Jan 2014]
• DCC requested feedback on drafts
Feedback received
a) Feedback on the DCC User Gateway Interface
• SEC Parties submitted 1011 responses:
4 general comments, 621 concerning Interface
Specifications, 386 on Codes of Connection (CoCos)
Codes of Connection
Interface Specifications
250
200
Issues
150
Queries
100
50
User
Gateway
Self Service Registration
Self Service Registration
Who contributed the responses?
Larger Energy
Suppliers
(6)
User
Gateway
Smaller Energy
Suppliers
(1)
Self Service
Registration
Data Providers
(3)
Gas
Transporters
(2)
* Other SEC Party is a natural person
Observations:
• Participation by SEC Parties deemed
satisfactory.
• Many queries and issues raised
related to GBCS not to DUGIS.
• Concern over completion of
GBCS/DUGIS now being addressed
through DECC GBCS Release Strategy
50
Medium
40
Low
- A number of queries and issues depend on
GBCS developments for resolution.
10
30
20
0
No. of changes made
- No formal change request received yet for
the SSI to provide a M2M interface.
Registration
DNOs
(5)
High
• A total of 139 changes were made to
these documents as a result of
consultation feedback. 64 were rated as
high importance by parties consulted.
• A total of 53 changes were made to
the Interface Specification, 19 of which
were rated as high importance.
General
Other
SEC Party*
(1)
60
b) Feedback on the Self-Service Interface (SSI)
(8th–22nd Jan 2014)
• 18 entities provided responses:
No. of changes made
70
• A total of 77 changes were made to the
CoCo, with 18 rated as high importance.
0
User
Gateway
• Interface Specifications comprised of:
Main Document, Service Request
Definitions (SRD), and an XML Schema.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Contribution by SEC Parties
Larger Energy Suppliers
DNOs
Registration Data Providers
Smaller Energy Suppliers
Gas Transporters
Other User
• Interface Specs and CoCos split for
Electricity and Gas Registration Data.
• Detailed replies provided for all queries and issues.
• Of the 444 queries raised, 175 led to changes.
• Of the 567 issues raised, 281 led to changes.
Self Service
Registration
General
100
200
300
• A total of 54 changes were made to the
Interface Specifications (Gas & Elec.),
23 of which were rated as high
importance by parties consulted.
• A total of 62 changes were made to the
Codes of Connection (Gas & Elec.),
with 14 rated as high importance.
No changes
User Gateway
0
400
No. of queries and issues raised
High
Medium
Low
Interface
Spec
CoCo
c) Feedback on the Registration Data Interface
How did DCC act on the responses?
Led to changes
• A total of 70 changes were made to the
Code of Connection, with 12 rated as high
importance by parties consulted.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
500
- A number of queries and issues will be
addressed in the DCC Registration Data
Provider Incident Management Policy, to
be published for consultation in May 2014.
No. of changes made
45
40
High
35
Medium
30
Low
25
20
15
10
5
0
GAS
ELEC
Interface Spec
GAS
ELEC
CoCo

similar documents