Showing posts with label vendors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vendors. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

IEC 61850: Is Interchangeability possible?

Yes – If you are seriously requiring it, it is likely that you will get it. Sure: You have to pay for it. You may need to spend some time to find the right vendor … system integrator, consultant to help you getting there. The key issue is education and training.

A very interesting question is currently discussed at LinkedIn:

“Dear all, How far are we from living the of plug & play age of SAS devices (real and full interoperability under IEC 61850 platform)?”

Click HERE for the complete (public) discussion.

One of my contributions is this:

“I guess it would be so easy to reach the goal of "exchangeability": IF (only IF !!) substation owners would specify which parts of their future SAS SHALL BE based on the standard and specify the SCD in sufficient details, in order to simplify, e.g., adding a new Bay Controller coming from a thirty part IED vendor.
That may work fine within one owner (utility) - but not between different owners.
I have seen such an SCD document (6+ MB) ... written by a big TSO ...
I am quite sure that this TSO will reach that goal in the near future - I am not sure if all vendors will like the approach.”

You could easily contribute to the discussion on LinkedIn … or comment on this blog post directly.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Security and IEC 61850: Is it about Bug Fixes or Systematic Issues?

These days experts discuss the future of more secure IEDs and systems in the world of Industrial Control Systems (ICS). Note: ICS is also used in power systems – no question.

There are people that focus on single bugs and how to solve them by patching et cetera. Other experts are more looking at the systematic security problems in control systems.

Eric Byres, CTO and vice president of Tofino Security, a division of Belden, says “It will take major players like Exxon, Duke Energy, for instance, and other corporations with the ICS purchasing power, he says, to force vendors to step up and fix the systemic security issues."

Read a comprehensive discussion about the two positions – quite crucial and interesting.

What do you think about translating this statement into the issues we have with IEC 61850 Interoperability?

It will take major players like AEP, SCE, E.ON, EDF, RWE, Duke Energy, for instance, and other corporations with the ICS purchasing power, to force vendors to step up and fix the systemic interoperability issues with regard to IEC 61850."

This would help to prevent a lot of frustrations during factory and site acceptance tests.

Why do we see just a few major players from the utility domain using their force to improve interoperability? There are several reasons I see:

  • Wall Street, Frankfurter Börse, …
  • Ignorance of issues
  • Not enough experts
  • Attitude: just fix what brakes

Recommendation from my side: Vendors and users should cooperate more in Teamwork and agree on writing documents like “How to profile IEC 61850, IEC 60870-5, …” to get specific profile specifications for a specific application that have (hopefully) not left options to ignore or to chose from.

A good example is the Vattenfall VHP Ready specification (Virtual Heat an Power). This spec defines the IOA for signals according to IEC 60870-5-104 and the Logical Device, Logical Node and Data Object Names.

Example 104:

image

Example IEC 61850:

image

image

If utilities do not specify what they want, they may experience a big surprise when they get the system delivered and installed. They may get much less or much more than what they expected.

And note this: When we get more standard conformant and interoperable IEDs installed, they are definitely linked to the Security issues discussed at the beginning!

What we are looking for is: Interoperable and Secure IEDs and Systems. We should not separate these two requirements! They are highly interrelated.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

IEC 61850 – As seen by The Very Large Power Grid Operators (VLPGO)

IEC 61850 defines several aspects on how devices interoperate and how the interoperation is engineered and guaranteed to run in multiple vendor projects. Earlier this year we have seen a public statement by ENTSO-E on the use of IEC 61850 compliant devices and tools.

Another huge organization has added to the ENTSO-E statement: The Very Large Power Grid Operators (VLPGO). The “association of the 16 largest Power Grid Operators serving more than 70% of the electricity demand in the world and providing electricity to 3 billion consumers”.

I guess this is true – then I would expect that these 16 power grid operators could easily “control” what vendors have to deliver – deliver IEC 61850 compliant solutions that meet the needs of these companies!! And they could have an appropriate influence on the standardization work.

Download the VLPGO statement on IEC 61850.

Instead of purchasing what they really want and need, they complain about the standardization groups: that the standardization organizations “should from the PGO perspective be more directive within the standard.

They should not allow different suppliers
to implement standards differently.

In particular, a strong standardization degree at the interfaces between tools (vendor specific or third-party) is required. Moreover, stability, or at least backward compatibility of the standard should be guaranteed. … Consequently, we would like to strongly suggest to all IEC61850 stakeholders to take the appropriate actions in order to ensure the success of IEC61850 and to make sure the standard – and the technologies developed around it – remain sustainable and provide significant benefits for all stakeholders and the community.”

I am wondering that (obviously) the few utilities that deliver 70% of the electric demand have an interesting view on what the IEC TC 57 (and other groups) could manage and gain.

IEC COULD NOT control what and how vendors implement
and what users use!!

This could (more or less) easily be controlled by the user communities: by just purchasing products that meet the users’ requirements only. Why did the many utilities purchase automation systems that did – to some degree – not meet their requirements? Were they not precisely specified or did they not understand how to write the specifications? Or? My experience is that in many cases the technical people of utilities had not been involved in purchasing IEC 61850 based systems! Several utilities hired me for a training of their engineers AFTER they the vendors commissioned the systems. Engineers told me that they were responsible for the service and maintenance of the systems – having NO CLUE what IEC 61850 is!!

Engineers of a well known group of large utilities in Europe told me some two years ago that they were not allowed to conduct lab tests or build pilot projects … in one case a utility expert told me that they had to stop their special group of experts on IEC 61850 to get prepared for the new technology – instead their management believed that the vendors do all things right.

There is a saying: “Pay now or pay later”. From the perspective of the years 2000-2002 utilities refused to “pay” for the standardization and for “controlling” the implementation into products. They have decided to “pay” later: 2012, 2013, … I look forward to see them paying.

Back to the standardization: IEC standardization work is a democratic process and: the work is done by people attending the meetings and contributing to the technical work. If the user communities would have been shown up more often and contributed to the technical to a higher degree, then we would not see these statements flying around today. The users (especially the 16 BIG ONES in the VLPGO) should GET INVOLVED (by letting their experts getting more deeply involved or by providing resources for people that are already involved …) instead of “strongly suggest to all IEC61850 stakeholders to take the appropriate actions in order to ensure the success of IEC61850 and to make sure …”.

I would have expected a statement like this: “VLPGO member companies offer increased and appropriate resources (many more experts getting involved and funding Millions of Dollar or Euro for common activities) in order to ensure the success of IEC61850 and to make sure …”. The VLPGO member companies – somehow – have to provide more resources than it was the case in the last 10 years or so.

It is time to educate more people from the many stakeholders to understand how IEC standards are defined and what it means to have a standard published. The standardization groups can lead the horse to the water – but they cannot make the horse drink the water!

Vendors, users, system integrators, and consultants should work more closely together to make sure that everybody gets a benefit from the standard. One possibility to support this goal could be to set-up a European Users Group for IEC 61850! This group could be a subsidiary of the UCAIUG – it would be easier (especially for utility experts) to travel within Europe than across the Atlantic. By the way, the UCAIUG is – from my point of view – more a Vendors Group!

Finally: The vendors have spent a lot of time and money in defining the standards and to implement them!!! Thanks a lot for their engagement! Keep going!