A. ArzuagaCIGRE D2 Colloquium - Mysore November 2013 D2-01_37 WAN Network Communications Architectures for Smartgrids: Case Study comparison Authors: Arzuaga, A. Alvarez, M.A, Martinez, S. Arzuaga, T. Zamalloa, M. Rao, J. Hampesh, T. SC D Colloquium in Mysore, Karnataka, India

A. ArzuagaCIGRE D2 Colloquium - Mysore November 2013 Case Study A (Europe) DMVPN architecture with NHRP and IPSec

A. ArzuagaCIGRE D2 Colloquium - Mysore November 2013 Case Study B (Europe) Cellular core network services architecture

A. ArzuagaCIGRE D2 Colloquium - Mysore November 2013 Case Study C (India) Cellular based VPN

A. ArzuagaCIGRE D2 Colloquium - Mysore November 2013 Case Study Comparison (I) European case AEuropean case BIndian case C Field device deployment complexity Low (plug and play architecture) All routers have the same conf. Medium – each router is configured independently – provisioning required. Medium – each router is configured independently for interconnecting field devices to control centres. Scalability MediumHighMedium Performance (Application layer throughput for the same physical links) MediumHighMedium Communication reliability High (redundancy provided by the Utility) High (redundancy provided by the operator) High for interconnecting Control Centres (MPLS) Flexibility High (any WAN technology) Low (Just GPRS/UMTS) High (any WAN technology)

A. ArzuagaCIGRE D2 Colloquium - Mysore November 2013 Case Study Comparison (II) European case AEuropean case BIndian case C Dependence on 3rd party Low High (GPRS / UMTS operator) Low System Complexity HighLowMedium Cybersecurity High Medium (not end to end) High Logistical complexity High (highly customized field configurations) Low (standardized field configurations) Medium (customized field configurations) Equipment complexity Medium (VPN support is a must) Low (simpler routers) Medium (VPN support is a must) Operational costs Low

A. ArzuagaCIGRE D2 Colloquium - Mysore November 2013 Special Report Questions  Q1-45. What are the reasons for implementing three different WAN communication architectures used in large scale Smartgrid projects presented in the paper, using cellular networks only?  Q1-46. Are those Utility Companies foreseeing cellular networks as the best option for implementing smart grids?  Q1-47. Which are the standards of cellular networks that have been selected?

A. ArzuagaCIGRE D2 Colloquium - Mysore November 2013 S.R. Q1-45  Q1-45. What are the reasons for implementing three different WAN communication architectures used in large scale Smartgrid projects presented in the paper, using cellular networks only?  A: Case study B only implements WAN links with Cellular networks as it is making use of the core network services provided by the cellular operator. However case studies A and C can use other technologies besides Cellular. However due to its advantages, cellular consist on 50% (Case A) to 90+% (case C) of the WAN links.

A. ArzuagaCIGRE D2 Colloquium - Mysore November 2013 S.R. Q1-46  Q1-46. Are those Utility Companies foreseeing cellular networks as the best option for implementing smart grids?  A: It is a simple and convenient option to deploy a smartgrids communication network able to connect with thousands of field points with no infrastructure CAPEX and low operational costs. However, it does not fulfill all the desired requirements in terms of performance, availability and dependability.

A. ArzuagaCIGRE D2 Colloquium - Mysore November 2013 S.R. Q1-47  Q1-47. Which are the standards of cellular networks that have been selected?  A: Currently in Europe and India GPRS/EDGE (2G) and UMTS/HSPA (3G) services are being used by utilities to deploy smartgrid networks. WCDMA networks are also being used in India. TETRA based trunking solutions are also being used in EMEA. WIMAX also being used in selected areas/markets depending on frequency availability.

A. ArzuagaCIGRE D2 Colloquium - Mysore November 2013 THANK YOU