COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Cost-benefit analyses & state of play of smart metering deployment in the EU-27 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission Benchmarking smart metering deployment in the EU-27 with a focus on electricity
Date: 2014-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU statistics, electrical energy, electricity supply, electronic device, energy consumption, energy saving, natural gas













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0189 - EN











|



52014SC0189

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Cost-benefit analyses & state of play of smart metering deployment in the EU-27 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission Benchmarking smart metering deployment in the EU-27 with a focus on electricity /* SWD/2014/0189 final */









TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.                 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1.        Scope.............................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2.        Links
with other Commission initiatives on smart grids........................................................................ 4
2.                 State-of-play of smart metering roll-out in Member States........................... 7
2.1.        Legal
framework on the provisions of Annex I.2 of Electricity Directive 2009/72/EC.................... 7
2.2.        State of
play in smart metering roll-out- electricity............................................................................. 9
2.3.        Common
minimum functionalities- electricity...................................................................................... 14
2.4.        Set-up
of smart metering deployment — electricity............................................................................. 21
2.5.        Legal
framework on the provisions of Annex I.2 of Gas Directive 2009/73/EC.............................. 26
2.6         State
of play in smart metering roll-out– gas...................................................................................... 27
2.7.        Set-up of smart metering
deployment — gas......................................................................................... 31
3.                 MEMBER STATES’ COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES FOR ELECTRICITY SMART METERING 33
3.1.        CBA
boundary conditions and scenarios............................................................................................... 33
3.1.1.     Overview of the benchmarking
results.................................................................................................. 34
3.1.2.     Communication architecture................................................................................................................... 46
3.2.        Costs
and benefits considered in the CBA.............................................................................................. 48
3.3.        Overall
alignment of the Member States’ CBAs with EC Recommendation 2012/148/EU............. 54
3.4.        Data
handling — security and privacy................................................................................................... 55
3.5.        Benefits
for the consumer — experience to date.................................................................................. 58
4.                 MEMBER STATES’ COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES FOR GAS SMART METERING................... 63
4.1.        Roll-out strategy....................................................................................................................................... 63
4.2.        CBA insights and lessons learned........................................................................................................... 63
5.                 summary......................................................................................................................................................... 68
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................................................... 71
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................................................ 72
COUNTRY CODES............................................................................................................................................................... 72
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................................................ 74
TABLE OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................................... 74

1.       INTRODUCTION
1.1.      Scope 

This
Staff Working Document accompanies the Commission Report ‘Benchmarking
smart metering deployment in the EU-27’ and gives
an overview of progress on the roll-out of intelligent metering in EU Member
States (EU-27[1])
to date. Detailed country-specific information is available in
the respective fiches’ Staff Working Document
also linked to the main Report.
The data
presented and discussed here are coming from Member States’ cost-benefit
analyses (CBAs) and roll-out plans for electricity and gas smart metering in
accordance with Annex I.2 to the Third Energy Package[2]. The latter promotes the use of
intelligent metering systems in electricity and gas to the benefit of the
consumer while taking into account the high level of consumer protection. These
provisions are complemented by the Energy Efficiency Directive[3] mainly to support the development of energy
services based on data from intelligent meters. It is also noted that, as
measuring devices, smart meters must comply with the Measuring
Instruments Directive (Directive 2004/22/EC) in order to be used in the
European Union.
The Third Energy
Package provides (Annex I.2) that implementation of smart metering may be
subject to an economic assessment of long-term costs
and benefits to the market and individual consumers. In that case, the CBAs
should be performed by 3 September 2012. For electricity, Member States
must: 
-      proceed
with the smart metering roll-out to at least 80% of positively assessed cases
on their territory by 2020; and 
-      prepare an implementation timetable over a period of up to ten
years.

The present
analysis was carried out in line with the key
issues set out in Recommendation 2012/148/EU[4] to
support Member States in their preparations for the roll-out of smart metering.
The Recommendation was drafted based on lessons
learned and good practices accumulated from experience[5]
in about half of the Member States over the past ten years. It provides
Member States[6] with
guidelines for conducting a cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the respective
assessments are comparable, relevant and based on comprehensive and realistic
deployment plans. The Recommendation also specifies ten
key common minimum functionalities that smart metering systems should have to
yield benefits also for consumers[7]. Special attention is given
throughout this document when discussing related data to the implementation of
those recommended functionalities intended to promote active consumer
participation in the electricity supply market. The
Recommendation also includes provisions to guarantee the protection of personal data and the proper
management of vulnerabilities and threats[8].
This is in line with the fundamental right to protection of personal data
according to Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union (the Charter). 
Besides
highlighting specific roll-out programmes and
expected benefits in individual Member States, this document presents key
issues and factual information as regards programme governance and management,
and reflects on principal indicators (e.g. starting conditions, volumes,
phases, timelines, system functionalities, costs, cost recovery and
incentives), best practices and lessons learned about consumer experience and
evolving costs and benefits. 
The Commission collected this information in close contact with
Member States, national regulatory authorities and the Council of European
Energy Regulators. It held two dedicated workshops (in March and June 2013)
with Member States’ representatives to discuss the main indicators and
preliminary observations from the CBAs and roll-out plans, along with key
points for the way forward. 

1.2.      Links with other
Commission initiatives on smart grids

The analysis
takes stock of the work of the expert groups (EG) of the Smart Grids Task Force[9] set up by the Commission, standardisation work[10],
and lessons learned from smart metering roll-outs and pilot projects in the EU.

The Smart Grids
Reference Group (EG1) is in charge of ensuring the timely adoption of smart
grid‑related standardisation work under Commission mandates M/490[11] (smart grids), M/468[12] (electric vehicles) and M/441[13] (smart metering — on the development of an
open communication architecture for utility meters). The first set of European
smart meter and smart grid standards was released at the end of 2012. Under the
agreed iteration of mandate M/490 (for 2013-14), work will focus on developing a
second set of standards, system interoperability testing methods and
conformance testing map.
Expert
Group 2 (EG2) is working to develop a data protection impact assessment
template for use with smart metering and grids. The Article 29 Data Protection
Working Party has provided two opinions on this template[14]. Pending the taking on board,
as appropriate, of comments from the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party,
the Commission could envisage issuing a Recommendation to ensure take-up the
template. 
The
Commission is also monitoring the work to develop a cyber-security assessment
framework, including best available techniques (BATs) with reference to the
smart metering common minimum functionalities in its 2012 Recommendation. This
work will involve identifying optimal controls and ‘privacy enhancing
technologies’ to mitigate potential inherent risks. The proposed
BATs will be updated and amended as appropriate as new information and
technologies become available. 
Consultations
are ongoing with national cyber-security authorities and the energy and ICT
industries with a view to creating a minimum framework for resilience
throughout the EU. This work is based on an ENISA[15] report which identifies minimal measures
for smart grid security and resilience, thus complementing the BATs (which
focus only on ‘end-of-the-line’ issues). 
EG3 has drawn up
and analysed three different smart metering data-handling models for
guaranteeing the active management and reliable operation of the grid and its
connection points while keeping the customer at the centre of attention. This
feeds into the ongoing debate on a possible future retail market design in a
smart grid environment and work to identify potential regulatory and
legislative implications. The adoption of one model or another in a Member State will clearly affect how smart metering is rolled out.
As
part of EG4's work on smart grid-related infrastructure issues, the Joint
Research Centre and the Directorate-General for Energy have released an update
of the comprehensive inventory of smart grid investments in Europe.[16], [17]
The resulting analysis is available online[18].
This work serves as the basis for an exchange among Member States of lessons learned
and best practice in smart grid–related implementation.
Finally, the remit
of the recently launched EG5 is to develop an industrial
policy for smart grids, and draw up an action plan to speed up the uptake of
smart grid-related technology and innovation.
The European
Electricity Grid Initiative (EEGI) which was set up under the Strategic Energy
Technology Plan in 2009, compiled in 2010 an innovation roadmap describing
smart grids innovation needs, including smart metering aspects, to achieve the
2020 objectives. This roadmap along with the correlated implementation plan prioritising
the support to smart grids research and development at European and national level
was updated in 2013. EEGI also fosters the exchange of technical
knowledge and cross-replications as well as in the area of smart metering.[19]

2.       State-of-play of smart
metering roll-out in Member States

As
stated earlier, intelligent metering is covered in the provisions under the
Annex I.2 of the Electricity Directive 2009/72/EC and the Gas Directive
2009/73/EC. The European Commission has been officially notified by the
responsible Member States authorities on the legal measures taken to transpose
the Third Energy Package and the specific provisions of Directive 2009/72/EC
and Directive 2009/73/EC, including Annex I.2. The Commission services are
currently studying the officially notified implementing measures in order to
assess compliance of the national transposition measures with EU law. 

2.1.      Legal framework on the
provisions of Annex I.2 of Electricity Directive 2009/72/EC

The Table below
summarises the main legal provisions taken per Member State with respect to
intelligent metering deployment as stated in Annex I.2 of the Electricity
Directive 2009/72/EC, and other related issues such as
technical specifications of metering systems to be rolled-out, or timeline for
the deployment. 
Table 1 Status of relevant national legislation with respect to smart metering
as stated in the Electricity Directive 2009/72/EC (Annex I.2) (status — July
2013)
 Relevant Legislation for electricity smart metering 
 Country || Electricity 
 AUSTRIA || Ministerial Decree — Intelligente Messgeräte-Einführungsverordnung 2012 
 BELGIUM || No legal framework in place for rolling out smart metering; Regional CBAs approved by relevant authorities[20] 
 BULGARIA || Not yet available; National Regulatory Authority decision is pending 
 CYPRUS || Not yet available – expected in 2014 
 CZECH REPUBLIC || Energy Act § 16 Act No 458/2000, Coll. on Business Conditions and Public Administration in the Energy Sectors and on Amendment Other Laws (Energy Act) 
 DENMARK || Law no. 642 of 12 June 2013 mandating a full smart metering roll out; Ministerial Order on respective framework for roll-out — in the process of notification according to Directive 98/34/EC)[21] 
 ESTONIA || Development Plan of the Estonian Electricity Sector until 2018;[22] Grid Code § 39 and chapter 7; Electricity Market Act § 42;[23] Grid Code § 39 § 42 
 FINLAND || Finish Electricity Market Act No. 66/2009 
 FRANCE || Governmental decision 
 GERMANY || Energy Industry Act (‘EnWG’), Draft of the Metering System Ordination (‘MSysV’ notified according to Directive 98/34/EC) 
 GREECE || Provisions in Law 4001/2011 transposing Directive 2009/72/EC; Ministerial Decree of 04/02/2013[24] 
 HUNGARY || Not yet available[25] 
 IRELAND || Issued by the National Regulatory Authority i. Smart metering Decision paper CER/12/008, 04/07/2012; ii. Smart metering Information Paper & appended reports, 17/12/2012 
 ITALY || Decision of the Regulatory Authority 292/06 
 LATVIA || Not yet available 
 LITHUANIA || Not yet available Strategy draft document: ‘Implementation plan of National Energy Independency Strategy for 2012-2016’[26] 
 LUXEMBOURG || Law of 07.08.2012 modifying the Law of 01.08.2007 related to the electricity market organisation; Technical specifications to be set in 2014 
 MALTA || Electricity Supply Regulations (SL 423.01)[27] 
 NETHERLANDS || Decision pending Parliamentary approval 
 POLAND || Respective new Energy law pending Parliamentary approval 
 PORTUGAL || Dispatch defining rules for CBA periodic update; minimum technical specifications for smart meters and guidelines for the information to be provided to consumers (Portaria 213/2013) 
 ROMANIA || Act of electricity and natural gas No 123/2012;[28] MECMA Order 2081/11.11.2010 
 SLOVAKIA || Ministerial Decree not yet available (pending approval); Act No. 251/2012 Coll. on Energy; Related technical requirements in the process of notification according to Directive 98/34/EC) 
 SLOVENIA || Art. 70 of Energy Act — pending adoption 
 SPAIN || Royal Decree 809/2006; Royal Decree 1634/2006; Royal Decree 1110/2007; Order ITC/3022/2007; Order ITC/3860/2007; Order IET/290/2012 
 SWEDEN || Roll-out not mandated by Law; Hourly readings mandated 
 UNITED KINGDOM — GB[29] || Amendment of the Standard Electricity Supply Licence[30] and the Standard Gas Supply Licence[31] 30/11/2012; Smart Metering Equipment Technical Specifications — SMETS (2012); Electricity and Gas (Smart Meters Licensable Activity) Order 2012;[32] Electricity and Gas (Competitive Tenders for Smart Meter Communication Licences) ;[33] and Designation of the Smart Energy Code, September 2013, and the Electricity and Gas (Designation and Exclusion)[34] 

2.2.      State of play in smart
metering roll-out- electricity

Table
2
and Figure
1
present an overview of the situation in July 2013 concerning the outcome of
CBAs (whether positive or negative) and of the smart metering general roll-out
plans in the Member States, targeting at least 80% of all consumers by 2020. For
some Member States (e.g. Germany, Latvia and Slovakia) the CBA conducted
yielded positive results only for a specific group of consumers translating in
smaller overall penetration rate by 2020 with reference to the total number of
available metering points, thus favouring a selective roll-out. 
·        
16 Member States (Austria, Denmark,[35]
 Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Malta,[36] the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the UK) have decided in favour of large-scale roll-out of smart electricity metering by 2020 or
earlier. Some
countries like Italy or Spain have decided to go ahead with the smart metering
roll-out without conducting an elaborated or official CBA; in the case of Italy a CBA was undertaken by the DSO ENEL before the start of its own large-scale roll-out
plan.
·        
According to our estimates (Table
5) this represents the installation of about 195 million of smart
meters by 2020 for electricity (ca. 72% of European consumers considering the
EU-27) and an accumulated investment of €35 billion. 
·        
2 Member States — Poland and Romania have presented a positive CBA but an official decision for large-scale roll-out
of smart meters is still pending.
·        
7 Member States (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, and Slovakia) conducted CBAs with negative or inconclusive
outcomes for large-scale roll-out (at least 80% by 2020). Belgium, Lithuania and the Czech Republic have decided for the time being not to proceed with a wide
roll-out of smart meters. Portugal[37]
has reported their CBA as inconclusive and to be annually re-evaluated; for Germany, Latvia and Slovakia, the CBA outcome is reported negative for a full scale roll-out but
economically justified for a specific group of customers. 
·        
The outcome of the CBAs for the remaining 4 Member States (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary[38]
and Slovenia[39])
is not yet available neither are their intentions with respect to the
implementation of large-scale smart metering roll-out. 
Table 2 Status of electricity smart metering large-scale roll-out in Member
States
(as of July 2013)[40]
Table 3 Number of electricity smart metering systems to be deployed per
country in Member States that are proceeding with large-scale roll-out (covering
at least 80% of consumers by 2020)[41]
 Large-scale roll-out (at least 80% of consumers by 2020) || Metering points in the Country by 2020 || Expected Diffusion rate by 2020 (%) || Total Number of Smart Metering Points to be installed up to 2020 
 Austria || 5700000 || 95% || 5415000 
 Denmark || 3280000 || 100% || 3280000 
 Estonia || 709000 || 100% || 709000 
 Finland || 3300000 || 100% || 3300000 
 France || 35000000 || 95% || 33250000 
 Greece || 7000000 || 80% || 5600000 
 Ireland || 2200000 || 100% || 2200000 
 Italy || 36700000 || 99% || 36333000 
 Luxembourg || 260000 || 95% || 247000 
 Malta || 260000 || 100% || 260000 
 Netherlands || 7600000 || 100% || 7600000 
 Poland || 16500000 || 80% || 13200000 
 Romania || 9000000 || 80% || 7200000 
 Spain || 27768258 || 100% || 27768258 
 Sweden || 5200000 || 100% || 5200000 
 United Kingdom — GB || 31992000 || 99.5% || 31832040 
 Total || 192469258 || 95.3% || 183394298 
Table 4 Number of electricity smart metering systems considered per country in
Member States that have not decided in favour of large-scale roll-out by 2020[42] [43] [44]
 No large-scale roll-out (at least 80% of consumers by 2020) || Electricity Metering points in the Country by 2020 || Expected Diffusion rate by 2020 (%) || Total Number of Smart Metering Points to be installed up to 2020 
 Belgium || 5975000 || NA || NA 
 Czech Republic || 5700000 || 1.0% || 57000 
 Germany || 47900000 || 23.0% || 11017000 
 Latvia || 1089109 || 23.0% || 250495 
 Lithuania || 1600000 || NA || NA 
 Portugal || 6500000 || NA || NA 
 Slovak Republic || 2625000 || 23.0% || 603750 
 Total || 71389109 || 16.7% || 11928245 
Table 5 Estimate of total number of electricity smart metering systems to be
deployed in the EU by 2020
 Member States || Metering points in the Country by 2020 || Expected Diffusion rate by 2020 (%) || Total Number of Smart Metering Points to be installed up to 2020 
 EU-23 (for which data are available) || 263858367 || 74.0% (~72% for EU-27) || 195322543 
Table 6 Status of electricity CBAs and roll-out plans in the EU-27
 STATUS OF ELECTRICITY CBAs and ROLL-OUT PLANS ||   
 Countries that have conducted a CBA || 20 
 Positive result of CBA || 13 
 Countries for which no CBA is available || 5 (2 not applicable + 3 in progress) 
 Countries with large-scale (>80% of consumers) roll-out plans || 16 (for 2 official decision pending) 
 Countries with positive result in national CBA for a selective roll-out by 2020 || 3 
 Countries having decided not to proceed with a large-scale roll-out under present conditions || 4   
 Countries where there is neither an official CBA nor a decision yet for a roll-out || 4 
Figure 1 Overview of CBA outcomes and intentions for electricity smart metering
large-scale roll-out (for more than 80% of consumers) in Member States, by 2020
(status — July 2013)
Figure 2 Roll-out plans: Implementation speed and penetration rate of at least
80% of all consumers by 2020 (status — July 2013)[45]

2.3.      Common minimum
functionalities- electricity

The Commission
has included in Recommendation 2012/148/EU ten common minimum functional
requirements for electricity smart metering systems.[46]
These functionalities capture the essential elements that a smart metering
set-up should have to benefit all stakeholders — the consumer, the metering and
system operator — while enabling, in a secured and safe environment, commercial
aspects of supply/demand and the integration of distributed generation. The
Recommendation proposes that all electricity smart metering systems are at
least equipped with the functionalities summarised in Figure
3.
Figure 3: List of the recommended ten common minimum functional requirements
that every smart metering system for electricity should fulfil (2012/148/EU
Recommendation)
These
functionalities are the outcome of the Commission consultation[47]
with Member States who had already advanced, before the publication of the
Recommendation, with the deployment of smart metering. The ten common minimum
functionalities recommended are consistent with the European Energy Regulators
respective guidelines[48]
regarding smart metering functionalities, in particular those which benefit
consumers. They are based on, and remain consistent with, those tabled under
the standardisation mandate M/441[49].
Table
7
illustrates the correspondence of the ten common minimum functionalities with
those proposed by the M/441 working group. The only difference noted is the case
of pre-payment which is not covered by the EC recommended functionalities as it
is specific to certain energy markets and could not therefore be considered as
'common'. 
Table 7 Correspondence of the smart metering systems functionalities
identified by M/441 with the recommended common minimum functional requirements
in 2012/148/EU, for electricity
 SMART METERING FUNCTIONALITIES for ELECTRICITY 
 M/441 additional functionalities   identified in CEN-CLC-ETSI TR 50572:2011 ‘Functional reference architecture for communications in smart metering systems" || 2012/148/EU common minimum functionalities   identified in EC Recommendation of 9 March 2012 ‘on preparation for the roll-out of smart metering systems", OJ L 73 p.9 
 F1 || Remote reading of metrological register(s) and provision to designated market organisations || For the customer: a) Provide readings directly to the customer and to any third party designated by the consumer  b)Update the readings referred to in point (a) frequently enough to allow the information to be used to achieve energy savings …The rate has to be adapted to the response time of the energy-consuming or energy-producing products. The general consensus is that an update rate of every 15 minutes is needed at least. 
 F2 || Two-way communication between the metering system and designated market organisation(s) || For the metering operator:  c ) Allow remote reading of meters by the operator d) Provide two-way communication between the smart metering system and external networks for maintenance and control of the metering system e)Allow readings to be taken frequently enough for the information to be used for network planning 
 F3 || To support advanced tariffing and payment systems || For commercial aspects of energy supply: f) Support advanced tariff systems   
 F4 || To allow remote disablement and enablement of supply and flow power limitation || g) Allow remote on/off control of the supply and/or flow or power limitation 
 F5 || To provide secure communication enabling the smart meter to export metrological data for display and potential analysis to the end consumer or a third party designated by the end consumer || For security and data protection: h) Provide secure data communication i) Fraud prevention and detection 
 F6 || To provide information via web portal/gateway to an in-home/building display or auxiliary equipment || a) (…) readings provided directly from the interface of customer’s choice to the customer and any third party designated by the consumer … equipped with a standardised interface which provides visualised individual consumption data to the consumer. 
 Note: The smart metering system may be used for a further important functionality: To enable communication of AMI components with devices or gateways within the home / building used in the provision of energy efficiency and demand-side management services. || For distributed generation: j) Provide import/export and reactive metering 
Each one of
these functional specifications contributes to one or more benefits which arise
from smart metering systems. It is of particular importance to have in place
functionalities which are related to the customers (see functionality (a) and
(b)) in order to make their consumption data available to them (at a rate of at
least 15 minutes) and to energy service providers, if they choose so. This kind
of information update is absolutely necessary for the consumer to efficiently
manage his consumption, and also for the network as a whole. 
Functionalities
(a) and (b) in conjunction with functionality (f) support advanced pricing
structures and are key for both consumer and network operators to
achieve energy efficiencies and save costs by reducing the peaks in energy
demand. It is therefore strongly recommended that the smart metering systems to
be rolled-out are equipped with such functionalities that allow the automatic
transfer of information about consumption data and advanced tariffs’ options to
the final customers, e.g. via standardised interface. They foster the
development and running of service platforms that enable demand response
services, ultimately yielding benefits for both the network operators and
consumers. 
Therefore, it is
important to carefully consider the functionalities that smart metering systems
should have, and map those into benefits when conducting the Cost Benefit
Analysis,[50]
since different functionalities result in significant variation of the final
outcome of the assessment, and in the decision for, or against, large-scale
deployment. 
In designing
their smart metering systems, the relevant authorities in Member States must
also anticipate future energy services, operational needs of the energy system
and the deployment of smart grids. Accordingly, it is important to focus on
screening of any relevant technological developments which would allow Member
States to deploy the most advanced smart metering systems in order to boost the
competitiveness of the devices’ producers in line with the cost-benefit
analysis. In this context, setting a complete set of functionalities is key for
facilitating the roll-out process itself, but also securing benefits for
different stakeholders (DSOs, Consumers, Suppliers, etc.), creating the
necessary cost-efficiencies and ensuring lasting value.
The
functionalities currently being considered by the Member States — or they are
at the moment activated and in operation as is the case of FI, IT, SE — are
summarised in the Tables below.
Table 8 Smart metering functionalities: Member States rolling out by 2020
Compliance check against common minimum functionalities (Reference: EC
Recommendation 2012/148/EU, art. 42) 
Table 9 Smart metering functionalities: Member States NOT rolling out smart
metering by 2020
Compliance check against
common minimum functionalities (Reference: EC Recommendation 2012/148/EU, art.
42)[51]
According to
information available to date, the majority of Member States have carefully
considered the majority of the common minimum functional requirements described
in the Recommendation 2012/148/EU. However, there are cases where some of the
functionalities are not included or are only partially covered.[52]
Given the benefits that these functionalities can bring also to the consumer
and the value they represent, it is strongly recommended to reconsider
fulfilling them. 
For instance,
and as discussed earlier, functionality (b) representing the frequency at which
consumption data are updated and made available to the consumers — and
not only to the system operator — is essential.
However, only in few cases the data refresh rate / update to be offered with
the smart metering systems comply with the recommended 15 minutes, as
demonstrated in Table
10.
It is appreciated that in some cases 30 min or 60 min data refresh intervals
are to be used and these may be still frequent enough to support advanced
tariffs for demand response programmes and consequent account settling.
However, systems that do not support direct, (near) real time information of
consumption data and of available tariffs to the consumer, and are limited in
purpose (supplying data only every 24 hours or even less frequently) cannot be
considered fit-for-purpose. On the contrary smart meters which are equipped
with the appropriate functionalities can become an economically attractive
proposition for consumers, and contribute to lower energy bills and increased
comfort. Through new technologies, consumers will be able to not only
efficiently manage their consumption but get actively engaged in the energy
market. But they can only do this meaningfully by having frequent access to
their consumption patterns and when offered incentives to respond and make a
change via their participation – themselves directly or through an aggregator
or service provider — to innovative, ICT-enabled, added-value
energy management products, like home energy management and demand response,
smart appliances, micro-generation and (re-) charging of electric vehicles. 
Table
10 Frequency of
consumption data readings available to consumer; compliance check to
functionalities (a) and (b) from the list of recommended common minimum
functionalities (2012/148/EU).
 Member States rolling out smart metering || Functionality – (a) || Functionality    – (b) || Minutes 
 AT || YES || YES || 15’ (decision) 
 DK || YES || Partly || 15’ readings (decision — some meters installed before 2011 provide hourly readings) 
 EE || Yes || Partly || hourly (measurement) 
 FI || Yes || Partly || Obligation to report data in one hour intervals; real time readings to customer (optional) 
 FR || YES || YES || 10’ - 30’ (charging) 
 GR || YES || YES || Not specified 
 IE || Yes || Yes || real time to consumer (via HAN), 30’ measurements 
 IT || Yes || Partly ||  10’ updates to consumers — Interfaces currently provided to customers in pilots only; expected to be shortly available in the market 
 LU || NA || NA || Not specified 
 MT || Partly || Yes || Not specified 
 NL || YES || YES || Not specified 
 PL || Yes || Yes || Not specified 
 RO || YES || YES || Not specified 
 ES || Yes || No || N/A 
 SE || Yes || Partly || 1 hour for measurements 
 UK — GB || YES || YES || 10 seconds updates to consumers via HAN, 30’ measurements via WAN 
 Member States not rolling out smart metering || Functionality     — (a) || Functionality — (b) || Minutes 
 BE || YES || see Country Fiche51 || see Country Fiche51 
 BG || Yes || No || N/A 
 CY || YES || YES || Not specified 
 CZ || YES || YES || Not specified 
 DE || YES || YES || 15’ (draft of metering ordinance) 
 HU || Partly || Yes || Not specified 
 LT || YES || YES || Not specified 
 LV || YES || YES || Not specified 
 PT || YES || YES || Consumption registration at least every 60 seconds. Communication of data to Centre is expected to be in 15’ intervals. 
 SK || YES || YES || 15’ readings to consumer or third party 
 SI || Yes || Partly || Not specified 
Based on available information, very few Member States
have set (Figure 4) prior to the smart
metering roll-out, in a clear and descriptive manner the functional
requirements (e.g. in Austria by law) for the systems to be installed. Most of
them lag behind, leaving the analysis, options and protocols with the
responsible parties for rolling-out —
in most cases the DSOs — neither formalise nor set legal guidelines on
functionalities. Furthermore, in most cases the functionalities, not only they
are not set as obligatory specifications of the systems to be rolled-out but
are considered only at the level of the CBA or are tried in pilots or not even
addressed. 
Figure 4 Status of smart metering functionalities setting in EU Member States — considered or not in CBA; tried in pilots; being implemented even
though not yet regulated; set in a ministerial decision; regulated; or in full
operation for completed roll-outs

 || 

2.4.      Set-up of smart metering
deployment — electricity

Decisions taken
concerning policy options for smart metering deployment are crucial in order to
allow consumers to reap the full benefits, encouraging their active
participation in the electricity supply market.[53]

Based on
information provided by Member States after consultation, Table
11
and Table
12,
sum up the choices made by each EU Member States with reference to each of the
key issues considered: metering deployment strategy and respective arrangements,
responsibility for the installation and ownership of smart meters,
responsibility to make the data measured through the smart meter accessible to
consumers and energy suppliers, and financing options.
The smart metering
deployment arrangements play an important role in establishing responsibilities
and ownership rights of the market participants. Furthermore, it is also
relevant in determining the possibility of combining the metering systems of
other utility service providers (gas, water and heating).
Competitive versus regulated
metering market
All Member
States with large-scale roll-out plans have opted for regulated metering market[54]. Member States not rolling-out smart meters
yet intend to also consider adopting a regulated metering market. Two
exceptions are noted: the United Kingdom — Great Britain and Germany, where the metering market is competitive.
The idea behind
this is that competition between metering service providers could drive down
metering costs. This choice is also coupled with the provision that suppliers,
or companies like ‘metering operators’, will be responsible for the roll-out
installing the meters at their customers' premises. In the UK-GB DSOs do not
own and do not install smart meters, while in Germany they only do so if the
consumer does not choose a third party as meter operator. 
No data about
the deployment arrangements have been communicated by Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovenia.
Which party is responsible for
granting access to metering data?
Voluntary versus mandatory smart
metering deployment strategy
Sixteen Member
States (including Romania and Poland, where the official approval for a large-scale
roll-out of smart metering systems is still pending) will proceed with a
national smart metering roll-out for electricity. Twelve of them opted for
mandatory smart metering deployment (Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Spain and United Kingdom — Great Britain[55]), while the Netherlands decided in favour
of a mandatory approach with opt-out possibility (see further below).
Examples of Voluntary approaches
Two Member
States (Malta and Sweden) adopted a voluntary deployment strategy, whereas
Italy, Finland and Denmark have started with a voluntary approach (driven by
the DSO initiative) then turned into mandatory roll-out through a decision of
the National Regulatory Authority (Italy) and by law (in Denmark).
In Italy, Automated Meter Reading (AMR) infrastructure was completed following the initiative
of the Italian DSO (ENEL), with an implementation plan that resulted in about
36.7 million meters installed from 2001 to 2011, well before the regulatory
framework for mandatory roll-out of electricity smart metering was put in
place.
Similarly, in Malta no formal legislation for smart metering roll-out has been adopted, but the ongoing
implementation is led by the DSO.
In Sweden, the main driver towards the implementation of smart metering was the adoption of a
national legislation imposing mandatory monthly meter reading for small
customers with a fuse description less than 63 A. To this end, in 2003, Sweden became the first EU country to indirectly mandate automatic meter reading, due to
the adoption of a law requiring, from July 1st 2009, a monthly
billing based on actual electricity consumption.
The smart
metering roll-out in Finland was originally initiated by the industry already
in the early 2000’s as many of the DSOs saw the benefits of remote reading and
better control of the network being greater than the costs incurred. In 2007
the industry gave out recommendations for the DSOs to install smart meters for
80% of the customers by 2014. This development was later fortified with a
government degree in 2009 under the same objectives. By the end of the year
2013 almost all customers will have a smart meter installed as the DSOs are finalising
their roll-out. Already from the beginning of the roll-out back in the early
2000’s hourly meter readings were chosen as a basis for data storage.
A unique
situation can be found in the Netherlands, where, following a public debate on
data privacy and security, it was decided to grant consumers the possibility of
refusing the smart meter: the DSO is committed to offer smart meters to all
consumers; however the consumer can refuse the smart meter or turn it ‘administratively
off’[56].
Therefore, in the Netherlands, the DSO has the obligation to install the smart
meter, but any consumer can refuse to be provided with it.
Who owns the smart metering
assets? Who is responsible for the installation of the smart metering services?
The most
prevalent model adopted for smart metering in those EU Member States that will
proceed with (or already completed) a roll-out is the definition of a regulated
market for smart metering. In fact, most countries have chosen to bestow to
DSOs the responsibility of installing, and consequently retaining ownership, of
smart meters (15 out of 16 Member States proceeding with the roll-out). In the
case of FI, the DSO has the responsibility to install smart metering, but can outsource
the actual service. In most countries the metering sector is in fact considered
part of the distribution business, with the DSO, the regulated entity
responsible for the low voltage network, being both the owner and the
responsible party for smart meters roll-out and granting access to metering
data. 
The choice of
DSOs as responsible party has also been the favourite route for many of the
Member States who have not decided yet for a large-scale roll-out plan: Belgium, Cyprus, the  Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom — Northern Ireland already considered this as the most viable option. In Germany the DSOs are the responsible party for the roll-out, as long as the respective
consumer does not choose a third party as meter operator. 
Slight
deviations concerning meter ownership can be found when analysing the French
roll-out plan: DSOs will be responsible for the roll-out, but the meter
ownership will pertain to the each City Council. In addition, in the UK and Germany the meter ownership is (potentially) attributed to third parties (see above ‘competitive
versus regulated metering market’). In the UK, the energy suppliers are
responsible in regulation for the provision of metering.  There are a number of
different firms offering metering services to suppliers. Some suppliers will
choose to provide their metering requirements, in line with regulatory
obligations, in house, while others will choose to subcontract to others to
provide metering services.
Granting access to smart metering
data
Notwithstanding
the leading role of DSOs in ownership and implementation, few Member States
(Denmark, Estonia, Poland, the UK-GB and, among those not rolling out yet Slovakia)
exercise
the possibility of having a separate entity (central communication hub)
responsible for providing access of metering data to third parties,
decoupling de facto the treatment of data from the physical meter. In
the Czech Republic there is an existing Market Operator (central hub) authority
as the entity described above. 
In such a deployment
set-up, consumers' data are stored on the smart meter installed at their
premises (either the electricity meter or the communication hub for gas). The ‘Central
Hub’ entity is then responsible for routing (but does not store) data,
gathering them from the equipment in consumer's premises and delivering them to
energy suppliers, DSOs and other third parties with appropriate access
permissions according with privacy legislation. One of the key reasons
behind this choice is that centralised communications, particularly in
competitive electricity retail market, could lead to improved supplier
competition as a result of enabling easier switching between suppliers. 
Concerning the
Member States not opting for a nation-wide roll-out, there is a balanced
tendency between using the DSO and the central hub as responsible party for
granting access to metering data.
No data have
been communicated on this regard by Bulgaria and Hungary.
Financing of the smart metering
roll-out
The financing of
smart metering is mostly secured through an adequate remuneration of the
Regulatory Asset Base via network tariffs. Some countries like Austria or Spain have provided for an explicit metering tariff or for a rental price for the smart
meter. Only in Italy, Denmark and Sweden, has a significant part of the
implementation been initiated by the DSO on their own funds, with remuneration
through network tariffs introduced only at a later stage. In Italy, a full recovery of the investment was allowed through the metering tariff
(introduced in 2004). In the case of Denmark and Sweden a partial recovery of
the investment has also been allowed through the network tariff, whereas in Malta the roll-out has been financed by network tariffs with no direct charge to the
consumer. In the United Kingdom — Great Britain the roll-out is to be financed
through private investment.
From the Member
States currently not opting for a national smart metering roll-out, Lithuania and Latvia would finance the deployment through network tariffs. In the case of Portugal and Slovakia, the roll-out would be financed through both DSO funds and network tariffs. In
  Germany, the financing mechanism is still to be discussed. No data have been
communicated of the remaining countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia).
Table 11 Summary of deployment arrangements for electricity smart metering in
EU Member States that decided to roll out 80% or more of the metering points[57]    
Table 12 Summary of deployment arrangements for electricity smart metering in
EU Member States decided NOT to proceed with a (large-scale) roll-out under
present conditions 

2.5.      Legal framework on the
provisions of Annex I.2 of Gas Directive 2009/73/EC

Table
13
summarises the main legal provisions taken per Member State with respect to intelligent
metering deployment as stated in Annex I.2 of the Gas Directive 2009/73/EC, and
to address other related issues such as technical specifications of metering
systems, or timeline for the deployment.
Table 13 Status of relevant national legislation with respect to smart metering
as stated in the Gas Directive 2009/73/EC (Annex I.2) (status — July 2013)
 Relevant Legislation for gas smart metering 
 Country || Gas 
 AUSTRIA || Intelligente Gas-Messgeräte-Verordnung 2012 – for minimum standards 
 BELGIUM || No legal framework in place for rolling out smart metering; Regional CBAs approved by relevant authorities 
 BULGARIA || No information available 
 CYPRUS || No natural gas network 
 CZECH REPUBLIC || Energy Act § 16; Act No. 458/2000, Coll. on Business Conditions and Public Administration in the Energy Sectors and on Amendment Other Laws (Energy Act)[58] 
 DENMARK || No decision yet 
 ESTONIA || Not available 
 FINLAND || No decision yet 
 FRANCE || No decision yet 
 GERMANY || Energy Industry Act (‘EnWG’), Draft of the Metering System Ordination (‘MSysV’, notified according to Directive 98/34/EC) 
 GREECE || No decision yet 
 HUNGARY || Not available[59] 
 IRELAND || Issued by the National Regulatory Authority: i. Smart metering Decision paper CER/12/008, 04/07/2012; ii. Smart Metering Information Paper & appended reports, 17/12/2012 
 ITALY || Decision by the National Regulatory Authority n. 155/2008 
 LATVIA || Not available 
 LITHUANIA || National Law transposing gas Directive 2009/73/EC; Terms of Reference for a gas CBA are being drafted by the National Regulatory Authority 
 LUXEMBOURG || Law of 07.08.2012 modifying Law of 01.08.2007 related to electricity market organisation 
 MALTA || No natural gas network 
 NETHERLANDS || Respective law  pending Parliamentary approval 
 POLAND || Respective law pending Parliamentary approval 
 PORTUGAL || Decree 77/2011 mandated the CBA whose result was negative; Government decision not to proceed with roll-out 
 ROMANIA || Electricity and Natural Gas Law no. 123/2012;[60] MECMA Order 2081/11.11.2010 
 SLOVAKIA || Act No. 251/2012 Coll. on Energy 
 SLOVENIA || No information available 
 SPAIN || No legal framework in place for rolling out smart metering; CBA approved by the National Regulatory Authority 
 SWEDEN || No decision yet 
 UNITED KINGDOM  — GB || Amendment of the Standard Electricity Supply Licence[61] and the Standard Gas Supply Licence[62], 30/11/2012; Smart Metering Equipment Technical Specifications — SMETS (2012); Electricity and Gas (Smart Meters Licensable Activity) Order 2012;[63] Electricity and Gas (Competitive Tenders for Smart Meter Communication Licences) ;[64] and Designation of the Smart Energy Code, September 2013, and the Electricity and Gas (Designation and Exclusion)[65] 

2.6       State of play in smart
metering roll-out– gas

Table
14
and Figure
5
present an overview of the CBAs outcome (whether positive or negative) and of
the smart metering large-scale roll-out plans in Member States targeting at
least 80% of all consumers in their territories by 2020. It is remarked that Cyprus and Malta have no natural gas network.
·        
5 Member States (Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands and the UK-GB) have decided to roll-out smart gas metering by 2020 or earlier.
According to preliminary estimations, this represents the installation of about
45 million of smart meters by 2020 and an accumulated investment of €10 billion.[66] 
·        
2 Member States — Austria and France — have not yet taken an
official decision to proceed with large-scale gas smart metering. Austria has published the minimum standards for the meters but not yet the roll-out plan. France notified a positive CBA which is currently being revised, and an official decision
for large-scale roll-out is expected later in 2013. 
·        
12 Member States (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden) concluded CBAs with negative results and with the exception of Denmark, Finland, Greece, Latvia, and Sweden, have decided not to proceed with large-scale roll-out at least
under the current conditions. Latvia reports that the installation of smart
metering systems can be economically justified only
for a specific group of customers. Greece notified that an additional CBA by
the gas distribution system operators is foreseen by summer 2013 and will feed
in the final decision with respect to a smart gas metering roll-out. The legal framework in Germany foresees no separate smart metering
infrastructure for gas, Gas meters shall use the communication infrastructure
of the electricity meters, where they exist. 

 The outcome of the CBAs and
     respective information for the remaining 6 Member States (Bulgaria, Estonia,[67]
     Hungary,[68]
     Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia) was not yet available at the moment of
     data analysis for the current document nor were their intentions with
     respect to large-scale implementation of smart gas metering. 

Table 14 Status of gas smart
metering roll-out in Member States (July 2013)[69]
Table
15 Summary of CBAs
status and roll-out plans for gas metering in EU-27 (status — July 2013)
 STATUS OF GAS CBA & ROLL-OUT PLANS ||   
 Countries that have conducted a CBA || 19 
 Positive result of CBA for large-scale roll-out of at least 80% by 2020 || 7 
 Countries for which no CBA is available || 8 (6 + 2 cases where not applicable) 
 Countries with large-scale (>80% of consumers) roll-out plans || 7 (for 2 official decision still pending) 
 Countries with positive result in national CBA for a selective roll-out by 2020 || 1 
 Countries having decided not to proceed large-scale roll-out under present conditions || 7 
 Countries where there is no decision yet for a roll-out || 10   
Figure 5 Overview of CBA outcomes and intentions for gas smart metering large-scale
roll-out (for more than 80% of consumers) in Member States (status July 2013)

2.7. Set-up of smart metering
deployment — gas

The following
tables summarise the deployment strategy and respective arrangements in the EU
Member States. Table
16
includes Member States that have decided to proceed with a large-scale roll-out
of gas smart metering systems or have a positive CBA and the decision to
proceed is pending. In most of these Member States the responsible party for
the implementation of smart metering in the gas sector will be the DSOs.
Consequently the majority of the decided roll-outs will be financed through the
network tariffs. The DSOs are also responsible for metering and for handling of
the smart meters data. The only exception is this of the UK-GB where the
roll-out is led by the suppliers and a Central Data Hub will be the responsible
party for handling the data. 
Table 16 Summary of deployment arrangements for gas smart metering in EU Member
States that have decided to proceed with a (large-scale) roll-out or have a
positive CBA (status July 2013).
 Member States rolling out smart meters || CBA Outcome || Deployment Strategy || Metering Market || Responsible party — implementation and ownership || Responsible party — access to metering data || Financing of roll-out 
 Austria || positive || Mandatory (official decision pending) || Regulated || DSO || DSO || Network tariffs 
 France || positive || Mandatory (official decision pending) || Competitive || DSO || DSO || Network tariffs 
 Ireland || positive || Mandatory || Regulated || DSO || DSO || Network tariffs 
 Italy || positive || Mandatory  || Regulated ||  DSO || DSO  || Metering tariffs 
 Luxembourg || positive || Mandatory || Regulated || DSO || DSO || Network tariffs 
 Netherlands || Positive || Mandatory (opt-out option) || Regulated || DSO ||   || Network tariffs 
 United Kingdom - GB || positive || Mandatory || Competitive || Supply companies || Central Data Hub || Funded by suppliers 
Table
17
includes
Member States that have not yet decided a large-scale roll-out under the
current circumstances. All these Member States had a negative CBA or have not
performed a CBA. Austria and France were not included in this table as they had
a positive CBA and are therefore included in Table
16.
In the majority of Member States CBAs assumed that the DSOs will be the
responsible party for the implementation of the roll-out and handling of smart
meters data. 
Table 17 Summary of deployment
arrangements for gas smart metering in EU Member States that have decided NOT to proceed with a (large-scale)
roll-out under present conditions (status July 2013)
 Member States NOT rolling out smart meters yet || CBA Outcome || Deployment Strategy || Metering Market || Responsible party — implementation and ownership || Responsible party — access to metering data || Financing of roll-out 
 Belgium || negative ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Bulgaria ||   ||  No decision yet ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Cyprus || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A 
 Czech Republic || negative || No large-scale roll-out / Voluntary || Regulated || DSO || Central Hub — Market operator || No decision 
 Denmark || negative || No roll-out || Not Regulated[70] || DSO || DSO-TSO || Network tariffs 
 Estonia ||   ||  No decision yet ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Finland || negative || No roll-out || Competitive || DSO || DSO || Network tariffs 
 Germany || negative || Competitive || Competitive || Metering point operator or DSO || Metering point operator or DSO || No decision yet 
 Greece || negative || No roll-out || Regulated || DSO ||   ||   
 Hungary ||   ||  No decision yet ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Latvia || negative || No roll-out || Competitive || Customer || System Operator || Network tariffs 
 Lithuania ||   ||  No decision yet ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Malta || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A 
 Poland || No CBA || Voluntary (No official decision yet) ||   || DSO ||   || Network tariffs 
 Portugal || negative || No roll-out || Regulated || DSO || DSO || DSO resources + network tariffs 
 Romania || negative || No large-scale roll-out / Voluntary || Regulated || DSO || TSO-DSO || Network tariffs 
 Slovakia || negative || No large-scale roll-out / Voluntary || Regulated || DSO || DSO || No Decision 
 Slovenia ||   || No action ||   ||   || DSO || No Decision 
 Spain || negative || No roll-out || Regulated || DSO, but customer can own the meter || DSO || Meter rental or purchasing fees 
 Sweden || negative || No large-scale roll-out / Voluntary || DSO || DSO || DSO ||   

3.       MEMBER STATES’ COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES
FOR ELECTRICITY SMART METERING 

The present study
concentrated on the roll-out of smart metering in electricity for which a
specific target is identified in the Third Energy Package. In carrying out the
analysis of the respective long-term economic assessment of costs and benefits
performed by Member States, focus was placed on three different dimensions and
associated issues, namely:.

 CBA
     conditions and scenarios
  Definition
      of input data and model parameters
  Deployment
      speed and penetration ratios
  Smart
      metering communication architecture
 CBA
     outcome
  Main
      benefits
  Main
      costs
  Beneficiaries
  Critical
      variables (sensitivity analysis)
  Overall
      compliance with EC recommendations 
 Lessons
     learned and recommendations


3.1.      CBA boundary conditions
and scenarios

In order to
carefully assess the implementation of smart metering systems according to
Directive 2009/72/EC, Annex I.2, Member States may choose to undertake, by
September 3rd 2012, ‘an economic assessment of all the long-term
costs and benefits to the market and the individual consumer or which form of
intelligent metering is economically reasonable and cost-effective and which
timeframe is feasible for their distribution’. 
Although the
Third Package does not provide the methodology to be used for the
aforementioned economic assessment, this has been detailed[71] by the European Commission.[72] It is appreciated that a number of Member
States had already conducted their cost-benefit analysis for the smart metering
roll-out prior to the issuing of the Commission Recommendation. Nevertheless,
the proposed methodology is based on generally accepted principles which are
widely employed in economic assessments of long-term costs and benefits for
similar investments and to large extend has been applied by the Member States..
A number of key issues to be considered, and herein benchmarked against, are
identified such as: discount rate, number of metering points involved, roll-out
period, implementation speed, penetration rate, smart meter lifetime, CBA
horizon, total investment[73] and
benefits, consumer benefit, energy savings and peak load shifting. 

3.1.1. Overview of the
benchmarking results

Table
18,
Table
19,
Table
20
summarise both actual data for those who have completed the roll-out and main
assumptions used in elaborating the CBAs in the sixteen EU Member States that
decided to proceed with (or have already completed –see Table
18)
a large-scale smart metering roll-out and communicated these data to the Commission.[74] 
Table 18 CBA Scenarios — Member States having already completed the smart
metering roll-out[75] 
Table
19
shows data from the three Member States, IE, the UK-GB and the NL that are
proceeding with a large-scale joint roll-out for both gas and electricity. In
the case of the NL and UK-GB, the number of metering points represents the sum
of electricity and gas metering points,[76]
whereas the figure reported by Ireland represents the number of electricity
metering points only. 
Table 19 CBA Scenarios — Member States rolling-out smart metering in
electricity and gas jointly (targeting at least 80% of consumers)[77] 
Table 20 CBA Scenarios: Member States rolling out electricity-only smart
metering by 2020 [78] 
Table
21
presents the data of the Member States not rolling out smart metering systems
at a nation-wide level. It is important here to make the distinction for those
countries which have decided to proceed with a selective roll-out of smart
metering, such as Germany, the Slovak Republic and Latvia. 
Table 21 CBA Scenarios: Member States NOT rolling out smart metering in large-scale
by 2020[79] 
Regarding the data,
the first dimension considered in the tables above is the number of metering
points[80]
in each Member State. This number has been reported by the Member States, with
the only exception of Ireland, which only estimated the number of consumers to
be equipped with smart meters. In our analysis, the number of metering points
is assumed to remain constant throughout the roll-out. Some countries, e.g. the
UK-GB, explicitly took into account an increase in the number of metering
points during the appraisal period; this is driven by reasons beyond the scope
of this benchmarking exercise, e.g. expected increase in population, decrease
of the average number of persons per household, etc.
Most of
countries, namely 13 out of 16 (Austria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Ireland, Luxemburg,
Malta, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK-Great Britain, in addition to those who
have completed their roll-outs: Finland, Italy, Sweden), decided to proceed
with a roll-out well above the target of 80% of metering points by 2020, recognising
the importance of granting access to advanced metering infrastructure to the
widest consumer base. On the other hand, Greece, Poland and Romania are foreseeing an 80% roll-out by 2020.
Concerning the smart
metering lifetime[81]considered
in the CBAs, reported in Table
19,
Table
20,Table
21,
the landscape appears less homogeneous: the range of smart metering lifetime
varies from 8 years to 20 years, with 15 years being the median value of the
distribution. The direct implication for this is that, when elaborating CBAs, Member
States preferred a long amortisation period, which might be closer to the real
lifetime of a smart metering device. The second part of the aforementioned
tables report figures calculated by each Member State when assessing their
respective smart metering roll-out plans. These data are therefore estimated ex-ante,
and might turn out to be significantly different in an ex-post
assessment; for this reason a sensitivity analysis is recommended.[82] In the case of Member States who have
already completed the roll-out (Table
18),
namely Italy, Finland and Sweden, some of these actual data are provided but a
complete account has not yet become available. These Member States are
frontrunners in smart metering and their roll-outs were subject to different
drivers. The focus of the smart metering system in Italy was originally driven
by significant operational savings (€500 million per year over about 30 million
meters) while it is now moving towards customer engagement and energy savings.
In Sweden, the requirement for monthly meter reading for smaller customers with
a fuse description less than 63 A (since 1 July 2009) has led to a nation-wide
roll-out of smart metering systems, yielding a significant increase in accuracy
of billing and settlement. In Finland the initiator for the roll-out was the
energy industry. The main focus of the wide spread roll-out was to enable
demand side management, better network control and enhance the working of
retail markets. Looking at the specific parameters for each roll-out, for those
completed and scheduled, a number of observations can be made. Starting with
the absolute total investments and benefits, it can be seen from the data
provided that they clearly increase with the size of the Member State. On the basis of these figures provided by Member States, the Commission services have estimated
normalised values per metering point (Table
23),
in order to favour the comparability of data (Figure
6).

When the investment[83] data are consulted it
becomes apparent that the estimated total costs of installing and running smart
metering systems are included in a range of less than €100 (PT, MT, IT, RO) to
€590 (Austria) whereas the next value, and highest, is €766 from the not
rolling out countries (the Czech Republic). 
Figure 6 Normalised cost and benefit values per metering point estimated from
the Member State CBA data   
The investment
per metering point associated to the procurement of smart metering devices
might have been expected to be quite similar across Member States, given the
high level of competition in the smart metering vendors market.[84] Three main reasons are then seen as the
drivers for such differences among Member States when looking at the investment
normalised by number of metering points:

 Different local realities and
     boundary conditions in each Member States, namely labour costs,
     geographical configuration, etc. 
 Inclusion of additional features in
     the smart metering system, e.g.:
  Other functionalities (beyond or
      not all of) the 10 common minimum functionalities recommended;
  Add-ons for the smart metering
      device, e.g. in-home displays, which might bring significant additional
      benefits but also increase the initial investment;
  Investment in additional security
      measures for the ICT/TLC system supporting Automatic Metering Reading;
      and
  Share of tri-phase versus
      mono-phase meters over the total number of meters to be procured; design
      and manufacturing of tri-phase meters might increase the costs for smart
      meters procurement.
 Methodological differences in
     conducting the CBA:
  Differences in the appraisal
      period

The CBA horizon
— the period over which all costs and quantitative benefits are discounted is
an important metric for calculating the Net Present Value of the costs and
benefits. Some Member States use the smart metering life time (for instance Latvia) or the roll-out period as a CBA horizon; however most Member States consider a longer
CBA appraisal period to ensure that the entire lifecycle of the first
generation of smart equipment is captured. The appraisal period is an important
parameter and a big driver for costs and benefits differences between Member States and it should be borne in mind when comparisons of the data are attempted;

  Differences in the rate of social
      discounting that is applied;
  From the data collected, it can be
      seen that there is a range of discount rates used across Member
      States. Obviously the discount rate has a significant impact on the
      assessment of the smart metering scenarios, as costs are incurred predominantly
      at the beginning of the scenario, while the smart metering roll-out often
      provides benefits only in the long-term. The range of discount rate used
      across Member States deciding to roll-out electricity smart metering
      systems varies between 3.5% used in the UK-GB (social discount rate) to
      8.5% used for Luxembourg. Among countries not rolling-out, Portugal opted for a higher discount rate of 10%. in their CBA; 
  Differences in the counterfactual
      assumptions;[85]
      and
  Inclusion of financing costs or
      optimism bias or exclusion of operational costs or broader costs to
      society (as opposed to just private costs to the party responsible for
      the installation of the equipment).

The analysis of
the Member States CBAs elements indicates that a strict comparison as such of
the respective data is not possible. Differences in scope and methodology mean
that caution should be applied in the interpretation of the cost-benefit
comparisons herein presented. Nevertheless, useful indications and trends on
parameters of particular interest to all stakeholders can still be drawn with
the reservations expressed earlier. 
When the
respective data for the ‘cost per metering point’ are therefore grouped
into price bands (Figure
7)
a projected average cost range is revealed within which most of the data are
falling in, while the corresponding average price is €252 with a wide standard
deviation of €189. If we account only for those countries that have completed
or will be proceeding with the roll-out, then this is further reduced to €223 and
the respective spread is narrowed (€143). 
The case for the
associated benefits is also complicated. The estimation of benefits per
metering point seems to also return a scattered picture of smart metering roll-out
in Member States: the range of benefits varies significantly from as low as €18
(Latvia) to €654 (for Austria), as shown in Figure
8.
On average for those Member States rolling-out the expected benefit per metering
point is €309 (with a standard deviation of ±€170). 
Some caution is
needed in interpreting these figures given the different methodologies used to
estimate benefits[86] and the
different items included in the evaluation: in fact, several Member States only
accounted for the benefit associated with the DSO rolling out and not for the
consumers’ benefit or other benefits accruing to the society as a whole. The
benefit attributed to the DSO is in general easier to estimate, as smart
metering primarily implies savings in meter reading operations, switching,
non-technical losses etc. In addition, advanced metering infrastructure allows
for more accurate billing of electricity consumption, reducing complaints and
litigations, to which a monetary value for the DSO can be calculated.
Figure 7 Price bands for cost per smart metering point in the Member States 
Figure 8  Normalised benefit values per metering point in the Member States       
The benefit
associated with consumers, besides the part arising from more accurate billing
information, is instead more difficult to estimate, as it also depends on the
actual involvement of consumers themselves in for example demand response mechanisms,
time-of-use pricing, etc. This can be also confirmed by the low number of
countries from those proceeding with the electricity smart metering roll-out that
provide an estimate — as a percentage — for such a benefit.
Other types of
benefits are associated with energy savings[87]
and peak load shifting[88]
over total electricity consumption. Also, when analysing these two indicators,
a scattered picture of the expected positive effects of smart metering roll-out
emerges. Expected energy savings vary from 0% (considered in the CBA of the
Czech Republic) and 1% (Poland, Slovakia) to 5% (Greece, Malta), with an
average — for all data available — around 2.6% (±1.4%) or 3% (±1.3%)
considering only the data from those countries who have rolled out or are
proceeding with large-scale roll-out. The peak load shifting varies greatly from
0.75% (UK-GB) and 1% (Poland) to 9.9% in Ireland, and 1.2% (in CZ) to 4.5%
quoted for Lithuania from those Member States that are not presently proceeding
with large-scale roll-out. 
Figure 9  Potential for energy saving and peak load shifting over total
electricity consumption expected from smart metering roll-outs in the Member
States[89]  
It should be
noted that these significant differences may appear due to:
·        
Different experiences in pilot projects and/or hypotheses
adopted in building the scenarios, e.g. consumers' participation rate in demand
response programmes (time-of-use pricing, etc.), different consumer engagement
strategies (e.g. indirect vs. direct feedback); and
·        
Different patterns in electricity consumption, e.g. presence
of district heating, wide-spread use of gas, etc. 
To conclude the
overview of the current situation in EU, Table
22
lists Member States that had not communicated yet their CBA data at the time of
analysis and writing of this document.
Table 22 CBA Scenarios: missing CBAs from Member States[90]
Table 23 Costs and Benefits normalised by number of metering points 
 || 
 ||   
* Highlighted
cells present values directly supplied by the Member States and not calculated
by Commission services as the ratio of total costs or benefits over the number
of metering points. 
The following
chart represents the cost and benefit values per metering point reported in Table
23
for all four groups of Member States considered: Member States having already
completed their roll-out; Member States that decided to go ahead with a
roll-out whether jointly for electricity and gas, or separately; and Member
States that will not yet proceed, at least under the current conditions, with large-scale
roll-out.
As seen, all Member
States proceeding with a roll-out, either for electricity only or for both
electricity and gas, identified that smart metering benefits are higher than
costs. Exceptions are fictitious, as Malta, France and Finland did not have a quantitative evaluation of the benefits, and therefore their values
on the y axis are zero. Romania also provided an investment figure including
the total for the full roll-out up to 2022, while the benefits accumulate up to
2020. 
On the other
hand, the majority of Member States that will not yet proceed with a large-scale
roll-out assessed that the costs of smart metering are higher than its
benefits, with the exception of Portugal. Portugal has not taken yet a final
decision and it is currently re-assessing the results of its CBA. 
Figure 10 Normalised cost and benefit values per metering point[91]
In general, the
deviation of each of the rolling-out Member States from the blue reference
(1:1) line (Benefit = Cost per metering point) (Figure
10)
is contained in a relatively small range. On the other hand, the deviation for
Member States not rolling out yet varies significantly from country to country.
This implies that, while there is a fairly unanimous evaluation of the
percentage of benefits of smart metering roll-out among the Member States
rolling out, a comparable consensus on how much the costs surpass the benefits
cannot be found among Member States not rolling out. Therefore, at this stage
it is not possible to identify a threshold value for expected costs or benefits
which will make the business case for large-scale deployment. Nevertheless, an
observation can still be made: the respective benefit over cost values in the
majority of the positively assessed cases, where the Member States are
proceeding with large-scale roll-out, lie within certain boundaries of cost (about
€100-€300 plus) and benefit (€150 - €450) per metering point as illustrated in Figure
10.
This is a first indication for a threshold area within which costs and benefits
could range to result in a positive business case for smart metering
deployment.
Figure
11
and Figure
12
show how each Member State evaluated the main benefits arising from smart
metering roll-out in terms of energy savings and peak load shifting. The
respective values for the case of the UK-GB and the NL that are proceeding with
a combined roll-out of electricity and gas are not illustrated in this figure
as the energy saving potential in the figure refers only to electricity whereas
cost and benefits for these two Member States refer to both electricity and
gas. Estonia, France and Spain have not communicated nor evaluated the energy
savings, whereas Malta and Finland have not quantitatively estimated the total
benefit associated with the smart metering deployment.    
As in previous
charts, the blue line represents the series of points where the benefits equal
the costs. Most Member States, regardless of their decision for rolling out or
not, have given a quite consistent evaluation of the potential for energy
savings, included in the range 1% to 5%. The only outlier value is that for
the Czech Republic, which have estimated that no energy savings can be achieved
through smart metering. The others are providing a quite univocal estimation of
the potential benefit in terms of energy savings arising from smart metering.
This positive result underpins the fact that the ex-ante estimation of energy
savings achieved through smart metering in EU Member States rolling out is not
controversial, although further refinement might be achieved through the
observation of real energy savings once the massive roll-out start. It is
therefore important to accompany the roll-out plans with appropriate monitoring
schemes in order to quantify the effects of a large-scale smart metering deployment.
Figure 11 Benefit cost ratio over energy savings reported by Member States
Concerning benefits
coming from peak load transfer, the picture is on the other hand not
clear-cut, with estimations ranging from 0.8% to 9.9%.  This spread is rather
anticipated, as the benefit from peak shaving/load shifting depends on several
local variables, such as:
·      
consumption
patterns typical to each country (i.e. the percentage of shiftable energy
consumption over the total energy consumption might differ significantly across
countries);
·      
the
availability of demand response programmes; and 
·      
expected
consumer participation in such programmes.
Member States
may further carefully assess the peak load shifting potential in their
territory through appropriate monitoring mechanisms, while also taking into
consideration results from smart metering pilot projects. 
Figure 12 Benefit cost ratio over peak load shifting reported by Member States

3.1.2. Communication architecture

The
successful integration of advanced applications of intelligent electricity grid
involves the real-time generation, control, and analysis of extensive amount of
data. The communication system is therefore a key component of smart metering. Electricity
utilities are challenged to define communication requirements and architecture
to handle the output data and deliver reliable, secure and cost-effective
service throughout the whole power system.  
Most
Member States have adopted or intend to adopt a communication architecture (Table
24)
between the smart meter and the Data Management System (DMS) based on a middleware
(i.e. Data Concentrator). In this way, the Data Concentrator (DC),
located at Medium Voltage/Low Voltage substations works as a communication gateway
between the Data Management System (DMS) and the electricity smart meters. 
Power Line
Carrier (PLC) along with GPRS[92]
appears to be the most spread technology for communication between the smart
meter and the Data Concentrator, while in most cases the DC communicates with
the DMS through GPRS. 
Table 24 Summary of preferred communication infrastructure for smart metering
roll-out in Member States
 Country || Option 1 || Option 2 || Option 3 
 AUSTRIA || Smart meter (SM) — Data Concentrator (DC): 70% PLC and 30% GPRS DC — DMS: 100% Fibre Optics ||   ||   
 BELGIUM || see Country Fiches[93] ||   ||   
 BULGARIA || PLC,  GPRS ||   ||   
 CYPRUS || First phase implementation: PLC with GPRS ||   ||   
 CZECH REPUBLIC || SM — DC: PLC+GPRS (where not possible to use PLC) DC — DMS: GPRS +Fibre Optics ||   ||   
 DENMARK || PLC+GSM/GPRS and wireless radio frequency ||   ||   
 ESTONIA || 90% PLC and 10% GPRS ||   ||   
 FINLAND || PLC (~30%) + GPRS (~60%) + RF (~10%)[94] ||   ||   
 FRANCE || PLC ||   ||   
 GERMANY || Market-driven ||   ||   
 GREECE || SM — DC: PLC DC — DMS: PLC || ·       SM — DC: GPRS ·       DC — DMS: GPRS || ·       SM — DC: Fibre Optics (90%) and RF/GPRS (10%) ·       DC — DMS: Fibre Optics (90%) and RF/GPRS (10%) 
 HUNGARY || N/A ||   ||   
 IRELAND || All options to be considered; decision during design phase ||   ||   
 ITALY || SM—DC: PLC DC—DMS: GSM/GPRS ||   ||   
 LATVIA || PLC – tbc at official procurement stage ||   ||   
 LITHUANIA || SM — DC: PLC/GPRS DC — DMS: GPRS || Fibre optics network (FTTx) available ||   
 LUXEMBOURG || To be decided Considered & tested: Consumption data: PLC, GPRS and fibre optics; M-Bus between electricity and gas meters ||   ||   
 MALTA || PLC/GPRS ||   ||   
 NETHERLANDS || Not prescribed; DSOs to decide; GPRS chosen for small scale rollout; Reference scenario– 20% GPRS and 80% PLC ||   ||   
 POLAND || Most probably PLC – choice will be influenced by standardisation ||   ||   
 PORTUGAL || 85% PLC, 15% GPRS ||   ||   
 ROMANIA || SM — DC: PLC DC — DMS: GSM/GPRS, WiFi/WiMAX, Fibre Optics ||   ||   
 SLOVAKIA || More used: GPRS/ETHN PLC (testing PLC S-FSK, OFDM, BPL, eventually radio) ||   ||   
 SLOVENIA || PLC+GSM ||   ||   
 SPAIN || PLC ||   ||   
 SWEDEN || SM — DC: GPRS (1%); RF (17%); PLC (37%) and GPRS+PLC+RF (46%)  DC—DMS: GPRS (86%); IP (33%); RF (9%); PLC (8%) and other (17%) ||   ||   
 UNITED KINGDOM — GB || (subject to final technical design) Smart meter to Data and Communications Company (DCC): 65% cellular (GPRS and 3G) 33% long range radio remainder mesh radio  ||   ||   

3.2.      Costs and benefits
considered in the CBA

Table
25
presents the top 3 benefits and costs associated with the smart metering
roll-out across Member States. The benefits reported relate to the electricity
smart metering roll-out with the exception of the UK—GB and NL where the
benefits are due to both electricity and gas smart metering deployment.
Table 25 Most significant cost/benefits share from electricity smart metering
roll-out considered in Member States’ analyses
 Country || Main benefits || Main costs 
 AT || Energy savings — 55% || ·         Operational costs (30%) 
 Operational savings due to more efficient supplier switch procedure — 19% (indirect benefits to the consumers) || ·         Capital costs — smart meter, installation, communication infrastructure, IT system (26%) 
 Reduction of DSO associated meter reading cost – 9% || ·         Supplier associated network balancing costs due to consumer behaviour change (24%) 
 BE || see Country Fiches[95] || see Country Fiches95 
 BG || NA || NA 
 CY || NA || NA 
 CZ[96] || Reduced electricity theft (53%) || Meter procurement (24%) 
 Peak load transfer (42%) || Investments in ICT (10%) 
 Deferred generation capacity investments (5%) || Operation costs of ICT — meter reading (9%) 
 DE || Energy savings (33%)   Load shifting (15%)   Avoided distribution grid investments (13%) || Investments in smart metering systems (meter, gateway, communication infrastructure) 30% Communication costs (20%) IT costs (8%) 
 DK || Saved metering investment (29%) || Capital costs (smart meter, installation, communication infrastructure, IT system) — 67% 
 Increased competition (21%) || Tax distortions (8%) 
 Energy savings (16%) || Operational costs (data collection, validation and delivery to central data hub) — 4% 
 EE || Network losses reduction || Operating costs 
 Avoided investments || Maintenance cost of the central metering system 
 Avoided meter operating cost (repair and maintenance costs of metering systems) || Cost of tele-service 
 FI || Demand side management || Meters (40-55%) 
 DSO cost reduction (due to remote reading) || Accessories for the meters (relays, switching gears, etc.) 5-25% 
 Electricity trade and new services || Installation and maintenance (10-25%) 
   || Communications (5-40%) 
 FR || Avoided Investment in installing existing meters: 30% of total benefits for the DSO || Meter procurement and installation cost – 80 % 
 Avoided network losses: 25% for the DSO || Procurement and installation cost of data concentrators – 10 % 
 Avoided meter reading costs: 15% || IT systems – 10% 
 GR || Reduction in consumption — direct feedback (44%) || Procurement and installation of meters (55%) 
 Meter reading savings (14%) || Display costs (20%) 
 Carbon benefits (11%) || Communication Infrastructure — PLC (9%) 
 HU || NA || NA 
 IE || Energy savings — 2.9% of overall electricity consumption and 9.9% peak load reduction from total peak || DSO costs — cost of meters, installation, communication and project management 
 Deferred capacity investments and reduction of System Marginal Price || Supplier costs— Improved billing systems and customer education, running more complex set of bills and tariffs 
 Retailer savings — fewer complaints and queries, less costly management of bad debts and supplier switch savings ||   
 IT || Revenue protection (including reduction of non-technical losses) || 95% of CAPEX is associated with the production and installation of smart meters and concentrators. 
 Reduction of readings and operations costs || The remaining 5% of CAPEX corresponds to costs associated with IT system development, R&D costs and other expenses. 
 Purchasing and logistics ||   
Customer service (e.g. invoicing, bad debts management)||   
 LT || Consumption reduction (26%) || Cost of smart meters (38%) 
 Commercial loss reduction (22%) || Installation of the smart metering system (18%) 
 Consumption shifting (14%) || Procurement of data concentrators (8%) 
 LU || Reduced meter reading and operating cost || Meters cost 
 Reduced energy consumption || Meters installation cost 
 Non-replacement of old meters || Investment and operating cost of common IT infrastructure 
 LV || Decrease of energy consumption (57%) || Cost of smart meters (32%) 
 Decrease of personnel costs for the DSO (24%) || cost of communication infrastructure (16%) 
 CO2 reduction (11%) || Meter installation cost (8%) 
 MT || NA || NA 
 NL || Energy savings (15%) || Smart electricity meters and installation cost (25%) 
 savings on call centre costs (15%) || Smart meter data management system (16%)[97] 
 savings due to increased number of supplier switches (8%) || Communication infrastructure – PLC (14%)[98] 
 PL || Energy savings (27%) || Meter reading costs (24%) 
 Reduction of balance sheet differences in respect of both technical and commercial losses (25%) || Customer service costs (3%) 
 Reduced meter reading costs (24%) || Cost for extra infrastructure to increase the grid capacity (7%) 
 Postponement of generation plant and of extra grid capacity due to peak shaving (15%) ||   
 PT || Demand reduction (55.3%) || Supplier profit reduction —by consumer demand reduction — (47.4%) 
 Peak reduction (13.3%) || Acquisition and installation of smart meters (31%) 
 Commercial losses reduction (11.1%) || Communication infrastructure (14.6%) 
 RO || Reduced meter reading costs (36%) || Implementation and investments costs (mostly, but not exclusively, CAPEX) —57.53% 
 Reduced commercial losses (33.6%) || Costs for system operations and maintenance (37.78%) 
 Avoided distribution investments (12.9%) || Financing costs (4.69%) 
 Reduced distribution operation costs 7.7% ||   
 SK || Reduction of cost related to load shifting (26%) || Meters cost (69%) 
 Reduction of balancing cost (23%) || Meters installation cost (17%) 
 Reduction in electricity consumption (16%) || Procurement of IT (7%) 
 SI || NA || NA 
 ES || NA || NA 
 SE || NA || NA 
 UK — GB || Supplier cost savings: 54% (domestic); 15% (non-domestic) || Smart meter costs (CAPEX and OPEX): 43% (domestic); 49% (non-domestic) 
 Energy savings : 28% (domestic); 60% (non-domestic) || Communication costs (CAPEX and OPEX): 23% (domestic); 31% (non-domestic) 
 CO2 savings:  7% (domestic); 19% (non-domestic || Installation: 15% (domestic); 16% (non-domestic) 
When consulting
the data presented in Table
25,
a number of observations can be made regarding the long-term assessment of
costs and benefits considered by the Member States, as described below. 
Main benefits
Two of the most
wide spread benefits across the total benefits attributed to the smart metering
roll-out (see Table
25)
are supplier-related savings and energy savings,
reported as major benefits in a number of Member States. 
One of the main
factors in achieving energy savings (listed in the Table above as major benefit
in 10 Member States: AT, DE, GR, IE, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, SK)
is feedback provision on the electricity consumption data to the consumers
enabled by smart metering infrastructure. A general distinction is made on
indirect (via web sites, usage statements on the electricity bill, etc.) and
direct feedback (via in-house displays of current consumption). In most of the
CBA analyses across Member States, the same benefit appeared as determining
factor for turning out a positive business case for smart metering deployment. There
is a substantial variation in the value of the energy savings for the consumers
from the total benefits mix across Member States, mainly due to different
hypotheses adopted in building the scenarios in respect to:

 Provision of different feedback on
     consumption data, i.e. indirect vs. direct feedback; 
 Different consumer engagement
     strategies (time-of-use pricing, real time pricing, peak load pricing,
     etc.); 
 Expected consumer participation
     rate; 
 Different energy efficiency
     programmes (e.g. through more efficient use of the domestic appliances);
     and
 Different patterns in electricity
     consumption, e.g. presence of district heating, wide-spread use of gas,
     etc.

A most spread
benefit due to electricity smart metering deployment across Member States is
the savings of meter reading costs and network losses reduction (technical and
commercial). Both have served as main drivers in many smart metering pilot
projects, e.g. InovGrid in Portugal and ENEL in Italy before proceeding with a
nation-wide smart metering roll-out.  
Savings on meter
reading costs appear as a second major benefit in smart metering deployment in eight
Member States (AT, FI, FR, GR, IT, LU, PL and RO). The focus of smart metering
adoption in Italy was on the commercial electricity losses reduction, and this appears
to be also  the case for Romania. Furthermore, it was identified in the
national CBAs conducted as the largest external benefit for the Czech Republic, and the second largest benefit for LT. Both technical and commercial
electricity losses reduction emerge as a second largest benefit in Estonia, Poland and the Slovak Republic. 
Main
costs
On the cost
side, all Member States, with the exception of PT and PL reported the meter
costs (CAPEX and OPEX) as major cost (Table
25)
of the smart metering roll-out followed by the capital and operational cost due
to data communication. 
In most of the
countries (and relative to the electricity deployment arrangement of the country),
the smart metering investment and installation cost appears as an upfront cost
for the DSO in the initial stage of the deployment; however, later fully or
partly passed to the final consumer through network tariffs, with the exception
of the UK-GB where the cost is faced by the energy supplier. 
Main
beneficiaries
In Member
States, such as CZ, DK, EE, FR, IT, LU and RO, the DSO is the first/large direct
beneficiary of the electricity smart metering and the reasons behind this
reflect different countries realities and market mechanisms. Accordingly, in
countries such as EE and IT the main focus of smart metering systems is on
electricity losses reduction (technical and commercial), whereas in LU and RO
(along with the need for commercial losses reduction) is on avoided meter
reading costs. 
Furthermore, consumers'
energy saving potential is a strong driver in the decision for smart
metering deployment. A number of Member States (AT, DE, GR, IE, LT, LV, NL, PL,
PT, UK-NI) shed particular light on this potential in their economic analysis
of long-term benefits and costs associated with smart metering, indicating the
energy saving as the major benefit coming out from smart metering roll-out. The
smart metering infrastructure in itself does not save energy, but using it
correctly does. Therefore, the consumer has a central position in achieving
energy savings and whether he/she will accept and the way he/she will use it
would have a major influence in exploiting the energy saving potential. To this
end, some Member States, such as the Netherlands, dedicated particular focus in
their analysis on the consumer behaviour in smart metering acceptance and
efficient use.    
The energy
supplier appears as another beneficiary of smart metering roll-out. In
Member States, such as the UK-GB and the NL; the major benefit is attributed to
the suppliers in terms of increased suppliers’ switching (due to enhanced and
easier procedure), reduced call centre costs, etc. 
Finally, CO2
emissions reduction due to first energy savings and then more efficient
electricity network operation (reduced technical and commercial losses) results
in benefits accrued to the whole society.   
Critical
variables — sensitivity analysis
The economic
assessment of long-term costs and benefits of smart metering deployment across
Member States is sensitive to a number of parameters. Energy savings (CZ, DE,
GR, IR, LT, PT, NL, UK-GB),[99] smart
meter capital costs and data communication systems (CZ, FR, LT, LV) and
discount rate (CZ, GR, PT, RO) are the three top variables most discussed in
the respective CBAs performed by the Member States.
Qualitative analysis —
additional non-monetary impacts
The following
qualitative benefits have been addressed by most of the Member States in
evaluating costs and long-term benefit related to electricity smart metering
roll-outs. 

 Enabling smart grids — Some
     Member States, such as GR and IE addressed the importance of smart
     metering infrastructure in enabling smart electricity grids (through
     facilitation of decentralised electricity generation, integration of
     electric vehicles, etc.). Building smarter electricity a network is an
     incremental process of communication technology adoption to enable real
     time flows of network information and allow for closer interaction between
     suppliers/DSO and the consumers and facilitate integration of growing
     potential of renewable energy and electric vehicles. To this end, smart
     metering infrastructure is an essential component in building more complex
     electricity network than today, which would deliver more efficient,
     reliable and sustainable electric energy. Although, the benefits resulting
     from smarter electricity grids are likely to be significant in the long-term,
     their estimation at this stage is difficult. Nevertheless, certain benefits
     are expected to arise from the deployment of smart metering infrastructure
     (due to demand response and system optimisation, reduced need for network
     reinforcements, lower predictive maintenance, distributed generation,
     reduced technical losses and customer minutes lost). In addition, in the
     period of 2020-2050 greater use of demand side management (due to higher
     assumed level of heat pumps and electric vehicles) and more cost effective
     management of distributed energy sources would result in greater benefits
     due to smart grid deployment.     
 Increased market competition
     — smart metering infrastructure
     provides accurate and reliable data flows that will support easier and
     quicker switching between suppliers. In addition the information on energy
     consumption provided to consumers via displays will enable them to seek
     out better tariff deals, switch suppliers and therefore drive prices down.
 Future products and provision of
     new services —
     smart metering infrastructure is expected to enable strong growth in the
     home energy management sector. The availability of detailed consumption
     data will create significant new opportunities to these companies in
     offering services and products on appliance diagnostics, more refined
     automation of heating and hot water controls and the analysis of heating
     patterns. Furthermore, it will facilitate multi utility smart meters
     deployment (e.g. gas, water, etc.).


3.3.      Overall
alignment of the Member States’ CBAs with EC Recommendation 2012/148/EU

The EC
Recommendation 2012/148/EU focuses on three main aspects to be considered in
preparation of the smart metering systems roll-outs:
-        
Data
protection and security considerations;
-        
Methodology
for the economic assessment of the long-term costs and benefits for the
roll-out of smart metering systems; and
-        
Common
minimum functional requirements for smart metering systems for electricity.
The data
protection and security considerations imply protection of personal data by
considering ‘data protection by design’ and ‘data protection by default’
measures. Few Member States, such as the Netherlands and the UK refer to the Personal Data Protection Act put in place to ensure data privacy and
security. In the Netherlands, data security and privacy was one of the main
drivers for revision of the CBA from 2005, leading to an option for the
consumer to refuse the smart meter or turning it ‘administratively off’
ensuring no data exchange with the DSO or any third party. The UK-GB
acknowledged the importance of freedom given to the consumers to decide whether
they would like to share their data with third parties, (for instance, to seek
tailored advice on energy efficiency or decision on supplier or tariff that
best suit them). In the case they decide to share their energy consumption
data, these data will be treated as personal data for the purposes of the Data
Protection Act. In this aspect, the national smart metering roll-out plans are
committed to ‘privacy by design’; this is to ensure that privacy issues are
considered and embedded into the design of the system from the start.
Other countries,
such as Austria, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania and Greece have explicitly
mentioned the importance of this issue in their economic assessment of long-term
costs and benefits associated with the smart metering roll-out. However no
Protection Law/Act is yet present on this matter except for Germany, where the draft of the ‘Metering System Ordinance’ has passed the notification
process according to Directive 98/34/EC. The draft refers to Protection
Profiles and Technical Guidelines for Smart Metering Systems which have been
developed by the German Federal Office for Information Security. 
Most of the
Member States have addressed the main methodological features of the long-term
costs and benefits for the roll-out of smart metering systems, in
particular on the costs benefit analysis tailored to local conditions and
realities. However, countries such as CZ, FR, PL and SK lack insight into the
qualitative assessment of long-term benefits, including externalities and social
impact of smart metering systems. 
Regarding the common
minimum functionalities proposed by the Commission in its Recommendation,
there has been a particular divergence of compliance with functionality one and
two, i.e. on the provision of standardised interface for electricity data
readings to the consumer and the time frame of the update for the same
readings. Some Member States do not comply (ES) or partially consider (DK, EE,
IT, SE) functionality b). In the case of Denmark this is due to meters installed
before the first national Regulation in June 2011, while it is now being
assured that all new meters are capable to update the readings every 15
minutes. On the same note, Finland has carried out the roll-out with smart
meters capable of hourly measurements, and countries, such as Estonia and Sweden also consider hourly updates to the consumers. On the other hand, in Italy, while technological solutions for data provisions to the consumers at every 10
minutes are available and are already deployed in large scale projects, they are
not yet offered to all consumers.     
To conclude,
most Member States have clearly considered the common minimum functionalities
in their smart metering systems. However, very few Member States have formalised
a set of legal guidelines regarding functionalities to be deployed in the field
(for instance by law as in Austria). 
Reaching a
consensus towards adoption of common minimum functionalities has a multifold
relevance:  i) ensure technical and commercial interoperability in smart
metering; ii) guarantee data privacy and security; and iii) enable demand
response and home automation services that would ultimately support future
retail markets and deliver full benefits to the consumers and the energy
system.

3.4.      Data handling — security
and privacy 

Smart
grids and smart metering lead to an increase in IT communications and introduce
the processing of personal data on a massive scale. Smart metering systems can
bring numerous innovative ways of handling and processing (personal) data and
delivering services to consumers, thus making collection and use of data as
significant as business processes in the investments by energy utilities. This
potential to process increasing amounts of personal data is unprecedented in
this industry, but also implies challenges for data security. 
In
the internal energy market, data should flow freely, but the fundamental right
of protection of personal data as provided for in Article 8 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 16 of the TFEU and Directive
95/46/EC[100] on
protection of personal data and the national laws implementing it, must always
be guaranteed. To increase consumer confidence, consumption and also own
production data should be protected and only shared, with consumer consent, at
the appropriate level of detail between network operators and retail market
actors for running novel businesses, energy services and new choices for
consumers. 
Accordingly,
measures for ‘data protection by design’ and ‘data protection by default’ need
to be carefully considered when rolling-out smart metering. As stated earlier,
only few Member States, such as the Netherlands and the UK refer in their smart metering assessment and respective roll-out programme to the
Personal Data Protection Act put in place to ensure data privacy and security. In
the Netherlands, data security and privacy was one of the main drivers for the
CBA revision that led to introducing a consumer option to refuse the smart
meter or turn it ‘administratively off’ ensuring that there is no data exchange
with the DSO or any third party. The UK-GB acknowledged the importance of
freedom given to consumers to decide whether they would like to share their energy
consumption data with third parties; if this option is taken, the data will be treated
as personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. Here, the
national smart metering roll-out plans are committed to ‘privacy by design’ as
privacy issues are considered and embedded into the system design from the
start. Other countries (such as Austria, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania and Greece) have explicitly mentioned the importance of data privacy and security in their
smart metering assessments. However no Protection Law/Act is yet present on
this matter except for Germany, where the respective draft ‘Metering System
Ordinance’ refers to Protection Profiles and Technical Guidelines for Smart
Metering Systems which have been developed by the German Federal Office for
Information Security. 
The
Commission bearing in mind its obligation to respect and promote the
fundamental right of everyone to protection of his or her personal data has taken
a number of actions with respect to protection of personal data. It has
proposed a comprehensive reform of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of
personal data in order to strengthen trust and innovation in the digital
market. The proposal for a Regulation[101] setting out
a general EU framework for data protection is particularly interesting for both
the smart metering and smart grid environment. 
Moreover, the
Commission is monitoring the work of the Smart Grids Task Force with respect to
the following tasks. A Data Protection Impact Assessment template for smart
metering and smart grid environments is currently under development. The preparation of the Data Protection Impact Assessment
template is foreseen in COM Recommendation 2012/148 of March 2012 and is fully in line with the General Data Protection Regulation
currently undergoing co-decision. The Commission initiated its preparation in 2012 through a dedicated Expert Group
(EG2) under the Smart Grids Task Force. Stakeholders from the energy and ICT
sectors, consumer associations and regulators worked closely on the development
of the template, with guidance provided by the Article 29 Data Protection
Working Party (WP29). Energy regulators took a positive stance via CEER in
March 2013, while the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party has provided two
opinions on this template[102].
WP29 asked in its opinion of April 2013 to
provide more specific and practical guidance to data controllers allowing them
to better assess the privacy risks, more sector-specific content as well as
more focus on the risks to the data subject. A
revised template was subsequently submitted to WP29 in August 2013. WP29's
final opinion issued in December 2013 recognizes the considerable improvements
and paves the way, with some additional changes, for a successful deployment
and use of the template. After having taken into account these final comments
of the Article
29 Working Party, the Commission may issue a Recommendation to promote it. 
Work is also
being undertaken on cyber-security in response to concerns expressed by
industry and potential investors and to guarantee the appropriate management of
vulnerabilities and threats, based on the review of possible technological
solutions and on the collection of best practices. 
Accordingly, a
process is currently ongoing under the Smart Grids Task Force on the definition
of best available techniques[103]
looking at enabling a framework where high level of security and privacy
protection is preserved while fully exploiting the benefits offered by smart
metering equipped with the right set of functionalities — the
earlier described common minimum functionalities promoted in Commission
Recommendation 2012/148/EU. This is of interest to both consumers and system
operators, and the respective deliverable is scheduled by 2014.
The work
performed to date identified that data protection concerns are mainly related
for example to the risk of user profiling i.e. the possibility to gather
sensitive information on the end-user’s energy-based
footprint in his private environment, his behavioural habits and preferences by
analysing the information collected through the meters. Such a situation may
infringe the fundamental right of an individual’s
privacy and could make people more susceptible to criminal attacks. The
potentially sensitive issue is the so-called ‘frequency of readings’ and the
way in which these readings are remotely stored and processed. However, in most
of the smart metering use cases, high frequency reading appears to be relevant
not in the case of single meters but to clusters of meters and aggregated data.
Under these circumstances, it is the distributed and hierarchical architecture
of the smart grid itself which allows guaranteeing a minimum level of user
privacy from a data reading perspective. 
Other concerns
regarding consumer’s data protection might be related to the ‘access to stored
data’. However, the technology available is mature, and therefore the concerns
are not founded, as once stored in databases at the operator’s premises, these
data are treated as all the customer’s sensitive information, i.e. technically
protected with the most advanced cyber-solutions (e.g. access regulated through
RBAC[104]
on encrypted channels, etc.) and legally protected by related privacy and
confidentiality policies.
Cyber-security
of the smart-meters and of the communication channel used to perform remotely
monitoring and operational management may raise concerns. 
The critical
issue is that the smart-meter could potentially be seen as an additional door
to get a privileged access to the digital domain of a house (especially
considering the coming smart-home paradigm). Under this light, the
cyber-security of the smart-metering infrastructure assumes a relevant role.
However, both
the market and the relevant authorities in the Member States seem to begin to
pay the due attention to this particular aspect. Some Member States already
require the security assessment certification of the smart-meters (e.g.
Commercial Product Assurance for Smart metering components in the UK, Common Criteria Protection Profile for smart-meter gateways in Germany etc.). On the
operator’s side, the use of firewalls and cyber-security mechanisms to protect
the smart-metering infrastructure are a well consolidated practice. The
communication channel between the consumer and the remote web-site (for those
cases where remote reading service is offered to the end-user) is protected as
the usual login&password + https approach is adopted. On the other hand,
regarding the security of the communication channel between meters,
aggregators, home interfaces and remote operators/third parties, the landscape
appears more heterogeneous; some actors addressed the concern adopting
proprietary full-encryption approaches, while others applied existing
traditional cyber-security solutions and standards on critical portions of the
communication channels. It is good that, both industry and governmental bodies
have understood the relevance of the potential concerns related to the
cyber-security of smart metering and are working to provide this system with
appropriate solutions. However, the heterogeneity of both the solutions adopted
and the requirements to be fulfilled could be an obstacle to the wide
deployment and integration of these systems at EU level. A comprehensive
security approach is strongly encouraged to ensure that the individual
technical measures are used in a way that achieves the required level of
security.
Some
apprehension is also being expressed related to the common minimum
functionality (g) — the ‘remote on/off control and power
limitation’. The concern is on cyber-threats which might impact this
functionality. Appropriate cyber-security protection mechanisms and
coordination mechanisms should be put in place to seek to mitigate the risk
that someone could leverage this functionality to perform societal damages. The
benefits in emergency management would be substantial. Furthermore, there are
also ethical/policy concerns as this functionality might be used to reduce or
completely shut down the energy flow in selected smart-meters. These aspects
are currently being debated at national level in a number of Member States.

3.5.      Benefits for the
consumer — experience to date

Based on
experience to date with smart metering pilot projects and consumer engagement
programmes, it has become apparent that there are a number of ways that smart
meters can benefit consumers. Figure
13
depicts six possible ways to benefit the electricity consumer by means of the
smart metering deployment and his potential successful engagement.
While some of
the outcomes address potentially conflicting interests (e.g. increased
distributed generation would result in decreased suppliers’ revenue), others
exhibit cooperative interest, (e.g. both consumers and suppliers would benefit
from more efficient retail market mechanism that would allow the consumers to
easily switch among suppliers and lower their electricity cost). Another
example of cooperative interest (win-win situation) for the DSO and consumers
is the possibility to both profit from increased distribution network
efficiency that may lead to lower ‘use of network’ tariffs for the consumers
and less technical and commercial losses for the DSO, etc. 
Figure 13 Six possible ways
that smart metering could benefit the consumer
Ø Energy Savings: smart
meters demonstrably help consumers reduce their consumption and save energy
Smart metering
system in itself does not necessarily lead to energy savings, however correct
use of the infrastructure, does. The relevant focus is therefore whether the
consumer will: i) accept the smart metering infrastructure and ii) the way in
which this infrastructure will be used, and iii) how both these aspects can be
affected, and where the role of the government/policies is key role for the efficient
roll-out of smart metering infrastructure.
Generally
speaking, energy savings can be achieved in two ways: i) using domestic
appliances differently (more efficiently), e.g. shorter showers, thermostat one
degree lower, etc. (influenced by information stimuli by the DSO) and ii) purchasing
more energy-efficient appliances.
The level of
energy savings achieved and consumers’ behavioural change in general depend on:
(i)     The
type of feedback provided to the consumers, i.e. direct vs. indirect feedback. 
o    Illustration
of current electricity consumption (via direct feedback) allows the consumer to
associate the use of specific appliances to the level and profile of
electricity consumption, leading to a range of 5%-15%[105]
of energy savings in comparison to 0%-10%[106] energy
savings due to indirect feedback. Another study[107]
examines the results on experiments conducted on 219 households into energy
savings of 5.1% by ‘tailored recommendation’, where customers receive
information and feedback on a personal webpage.
(ii)   The
type of motivation.
o   A
clear understanding of motivation is important when addressing consumer’s
behavioural change. While environmental concerns appear to be a driving factor
in Denmark, the cost reduction came across as the strongest motivator for
energy savings in all the rest of countries from total of 10 Member States
covered in the survey performed by Logica[108].
(iii) Barriers
preventing energy savings.
o   Three
main barriers for exploiting the full potential of energy savings in EU are
reported in the Logica survey: i) insufficient government incentives, ii) high
investment costs and iii) lack of information on exact energy usage.   
Member States
such as the Netherlands, Ireland and the UK, have clearly addressed the
consumer aspect in deployment plans for smart metering systems through
different customer behaviour trials and underlined the importance of consumer
engagement in their economic assessment of long-term costs and benefits of
smart metering roll-outs. Some examples below reflect the potential of smart
metering and consumer engagement in achieving energy savings:   
(i)     The ‘Smart
Metering Customer Behaviour Trials’[109]
in Ireland demonstrated that smart meters (combined with time-of-use tariffs
and some demand side management stimuli) reduce overall electricity usage by 2.5%
and peak usage by 8.8%;
(ii)   The
UK Energy Demand Research Project (EDRP)[110] reported
consumer electricity savings of 2% to 4%. Furthermore, and more relevant to the
UK-GB roll-out, it was shown that in the case for gas, the provision of a smart
meter rather than the in-home display is most significant in delivering savings
(of around 3%). This is in keeping with theoretical considerations that real
time feedback is more relevant to electricity. 
(iii) Another example
is the Dutch Home Energy Management Systems (HEMS) which led to an overall
energy consumption reduction of 7.8%.[111]  
Ø Energy
Efficiency: smart meters help consumers master their consumption and therefore
increase their energy efficiency
Energy
efficiency is another relevant aspect of consumer engagement mainly related to:

-        
the
way electricity is used (i.e. more efficient use of electric energy); and 
-        
the
use of more energy efficient appliances.
Both aspects
imply consumers’ behavioural change. The former refers to different usage
behaviour, whereas the latter to different purchase behaviour. In both cases,
smart metering deployment allows the consumer to be more energy-aware, and enables
him to make decisions regarding purchase of more energy efficient appliances
and turning towards energy efficient buildings. In this respect, the ‘Smart
Metering Customer Behaviour Trials’ in Ireland demonstrated that smart meters
helped 82% of participants to make some change in the way they use electricity.

Ø Innovative
services for consumers: smart meters open the door to smart home solutions and
innovative home automation services 
Information
retrieved from smart meters can help suppliers, ESCOs or other market players
create innovative services, like home energy management and demand response,
which can be tailored to consumers’ needs and offer them more profound energy
savings and higher efficiency. In this respect, consumers could choose among a
wider range of providers (energy retailers, aggregators etc.) and power options
(e.g. green electricity and power quality premiums).
Additionally,
thanks to innovative services enabled by smart meters like home energy
management and demand response, smart appliances, micro-generation and electric
vehicles can become an economically attractive proposition for consumers, and
contribute to lower energy bills and increased comfort.
Member States,
such as the UK, Ireland, Greece and the Netherlands, perceived this benefit as
part of the smart grid and in this sense, recognised the importance of smart
metering (and detailed consumption data) in enabling future products and services,
such as appliance diagnostics and more refined home automation services. 
Ø Consumers’
empowerment: smart meters will improve competition in retail markets
The introduction
of smart meters will have an impact on the competitive pressure within energy supply
markets. Provision of accurate and reliable data flows due to smart metering
infrastructure would enable easier and quicker switch between suppliers for
both consumers and suppliers. To this end, the consumers will be able to choose
from different offers that better adapt to their consumption patterns. 
While greater
level of competition may result in lower electricity prices, this benefit at
the current stage of smart metering roll-out across Member States is difficult
to quantify, and it has therefore been identified only qualitatively in Member
States, such as the UK and the Netherlands.
Some examples
below give an indication of the value of this benefit for the consumers: 
(i)     In
the AMR project (SE), lead time for exporting meter readings to suppliers was
shortened from 30 days to 5 days;
(ii)   In
the ‘Storstad smart metering project’, the period for settlement of balance of power
was reduced from 13 to 2 months. Over a two year period, the number of calls
for both meter reading and invoice-related issues dropped by 56%' and
(iii) In the ‘First
Utility smart meters’ programme, consumers were informed of their consumption via
emailed reports, sms and a web portal. High bill alerts were designed to help
consumers avoid excessive bills.
Ø Environment
protection: less energy consumption and higher energy efficiency help
protecting the environment 
The
reduction of CO2 emissions, as a benefit affecting the consumers and
the society in general, results from: 
-       Energy
savings and higher energy efficiency in the way electricity is used; and 
-       Higher
electricity network operational efficiency.
Moreover, smart
meters help foster the diffusion of micro-generation at consumers’ premises
(e.g. photovoltaics on roofs) and make the consumers aware of the CO2
associated to the electricity they consume, giving them the option to choose producing
it by renewable sources.
Ø Distribution
system efficiency: management of distribution systems becomes cheaper and more
effective, leading to lower distribution costs
Advanced
monitoring and control due to smart metering infrastructure deployment allow
for more efficient network operation (reduced technical and commercial losses)
and more effective management of the system, particularly in the presence of
growing renewable energy potential.  Furthermore, increased distribution
network efficiency and enhanced network management could ultimately lead to
lower distribution network costs and better service for the consumers[112]
and increased revenue for the DSOs due to: (i) reduced technical and commercial
losses, and (ii) improved reliability and power quality, particularly in the
presence of growing renewable energy potential,. In both cases, adequate
regulatory mechanisms should be put in place. 

4.       MEMBER STATES’ COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES FOR GAS SMART METERING
4.1.      Roll-out strategy 

The Third Energy
Package gives no specific target for the implementation of gas smart metering
systems, nevertheless a reasonable period of time should be considered for such
a deployment, as also argued in the respective Commission interpretative note. However
for gas, it appears to be more difficult to demonstrate a positive business
case. This is shown by the CBAs conducted to date in the EU yielding results
that do not justify the roll-out of gas smart metering in a significant number
of Member States also reflecting local conditions. 
As discussed
earlier, in 6 Member States (AT, FR, IE, LU, NL, UK-GB) the results of the CBA
were positive, and in 4 of these Member States a decision has been made to
proceed with large-scale roll-out of gas smart metering systems (in AT and FR
the decision is pending). Also, In IT a CBA was conducted in 2008 and the
regulator (AEEG) has decided a roll-out of smart meters with different
implementation level for each customer category. 
In 6 Member
States (AT, BE, DE, GR, NL, RO, UK) the CBA was performed jointly for
electricity and gas. From these 6 Member States, 2 have already decided to
proceed with a joint roll-out of gas and electricity smart meters (NL, UK-GB),
while in Austria the CBA was positive and minimum standards for gas smart
meters have been published. There is no Member State where a roll-out only for
gas has been decided or where only the gas CBA was positive.

4.2.      CBA
insights and lessons learned 

The number of Member
States that have assessed positively the gas smart metering roll-out is
significantly lower than the respective number in electricity. One of the main
reasons for this is that the expected benefits from the implementation of gas
smart metering systems are lower than those expected in the electricity sector.
Some of the benefits which are justifiable in the case of electricity cannot be
taken into account or they yield lower values in the case of gas. These
benefits are either not included in gas CBAs or their inclusion leads to less
favourable results than in electricity CBAs. The fact that gas networks can
store large amounts of energy results in less need for flexibility on the
demand side — in comparison to electricity where real time response to changes
in demand is required — may limit the benefits that can be realised for example
from demand side participation programmes. 
Local market
conditions can also affect the level of potential benefits. In some Member
States (SE, FI) the limited use of gas at household level (e.g. only for
cooking) reduces the benefits and leads to negative CBA results.[113] Different
market conditions may also lead to different assumptions for the CBA
parameters. For instance, the potential energy savings considered in the different
CBAs vary from 0% (CZ) to 7% (AT). Furthermore, technical attributes of gas
smart meters such as the use of batteries as an energy source, can limit the
transmission intervals of consumption data and thus the benefits for the
consumer. In addition, technical requirements in some Member States, such as
the presence of technical staff in the case of reactivation of gas supply, can
significantly reduce the potential benefits from smart metering functionalities
(e.g. remote on/off of gas supply). 
On the other
hand, in the case of joint gas and electricity roll-out there are cost elements
where economies of scale can be exploited (communication, data management,
customer information campaigns, installation etc.) For instance the UK-GB
assessment estimates higher installation costs for gas meters than for
electricity meters, but in the case of a joint roll-out the assessment also
accounts for cost savings from installing two meters with a single visit to a
customer’s premise, for example because travelling costs are reduced or
connectivity testing only has to be carried out once for the whole equipment.. Moreover,
in a joint roll-out synergies between electricity and gas smart metering
systems may arise in the telecommunication infrastructure or in data handling
where for instance a central data hub can serve both systems. 
The
following tables summarise some of the key data considered by Member States in
the assessment of gas smart meters roll-out. The tables do not include CY and
MT as gas is not available there, as well as BG, EE, GR, HU, LT, PL, PT and SI
for which detailed data were not available during the elaboration of the
current analysis. 
Table
26 presents data from the gas roll-out in Member
States with positive CBA whereas Table
27 presents the respective data considered in CBAs
with a negative outcome. In 2012 Italy has updated its targets to 60%
penetration in households by end 2018, instead of 80% by 2017. In all Member
States that intend to roll-out smart meters or have positive CBAs, the roll-out
period does not exceed 2020, even if there is no clear obligation set by the
Gas Directive. 
Table 26 Key data of gas smart metering CBAs in EU Member States that have a
positive CBA for large-scale roll-out.[114] [115]
 Member State || Metering points in the Country || Roll-out period  || Penetration rate (%) || Smart Meter lifetime (years) 
 Austria || 1470000 || 2011-2017 || 95% || 12 
 France || 11000000 || 2014-2020 || 100% || 20 
 Ireland || 600000 || 2014-2019 || 100% || 17 
 Italy || 22200000 || 2010-2018  || 60% || 15 
 Luxembourg || 80000 || 2015-2020 || 95% ||  NA 
 Netherlands || 7600000 || 2014-2020 || 80% ||  NA 
 United Kingdom — GB || 25663000 || 2012-2020 || 99.5% || 15 
Table 27 Key data of gas smart metering CBAs in EU Member States which have a
negative CBA for large-scale roll-out.[116], [117]
 Member State || Metering points in the Country || Roll-out period  || Penetration rate (%) || Smart Meter lifetime (years) 
 Belgium || NA || NA || NA || NA 
 Czech Republic || 2870000 || 2020-2029 || 100% || 10 
 Denmark || 410000 || NA  ||  NA || 15 
 Finland || 37000 || NA || 14% || 15 
 Germany ||  14000000 ||  No roll-out ||  NA ||  15 
 Latvia || 2200 || 2013-2020 ||  NA || 15 
 Romania || 2800000 || 2014-2025 || 100% || 20 
 Slovakia || 805000 || 2013-2023 ||  NA || 10 
 Spain || 7500000 || 2013-2026 || 100% || 20 
 Sweden || 37000 ||  NA || NA  ||  NA 
Table
28
presents some key parameters of the positive CBAs, while Table
29
includes the respective parameters considered in country CBAs with a negative
result. The energy savings percentage range between 0% and 7%, in positive CBAs;
only in the case of France the assumed percentage is lower than 2% (0.2%). In
the case of negative CBAs the energy savings percentage is below 2%, except in
the case of Romania (2.2%). The investment cost (TOTEX) per meter, for Member
States where data are available, range between 100 to 268 €/metering point.
Table 28 Key parameters of gas smart metering CBAs in EU Member States that
have a positive CBA for large-scale roll-out [118].
 Member State || Investment (TOTEX) (€ mn) || Total Benefit (€ mn) || Energy savings (% of total consumption) 
 Austria || 352 || 1400 || 7.0% 
 France || 1100 || NA || 0.2% 
 Ireland || 140 (incremental cost to electricity roll-out) || NA || 2.90% 
 Italy || Net present value 6 – 7 euro/customer (for large – medium size gas distribution companies) || NA 
 Luxembourg || 12 || 14.5 || 2.0% 
 Netherlands || Joint electricity and gas roll-out; no separate calculation available || Joint electricity and gas roll-out; no separate calculation available || NA 
 United Kingdom — GB || Joint electricity and gas roll-out; no separate calculation available || Joint electricity and gas roll-out; no separate calculation available || 2% (0.5% for pre-payment) 
Table 29 Key parameters of gas smart metering CBAs in EU Member States that
have a negative CBA for a large-scale roll-out[119] [120]
 Member State || Investment (TOTEX) (€ mn) || Total Benefit (€ mn) || Energy savings (% of total consumption) 
 Belgium || NA || NA || NA 
 Czech Republic[121] || 2370.1 ||  944.3 || 0.0% 
 Denmark || 110 ||  NA  ||   NA 
 Finland ||   NA ||  NA  || 0.0% 
 Germany ||  No separate calculation available ||  No separate calculation available ||   NA 
 Latvia || 4.65 ||  NA ||  NA 
 Romania || 407 || 422 || 2.20% 
 Slovakia || 129 || 148 || 0.50% 
 Spain || 1173 || 1050 || 0.50% 
 Sweden || NA  ||  NA || 1% (0.5% for businesses) 
Finally, Table
30
summarises the top three costs and benefits which were considered in the CBAs. As
in the case of electricity, avoided meter reading costs and energy savings are
two of the most wide spread benefits. The fact that the gas bill may account
for up to 70%, of the total household energy costs,[122]
makes energy savings an important benefit to be considered in the economic
assessment of gas smart metering systems. Regarding cost, infrastructure costs
and operation costs are among the most wide spread costs considered in the CBAs
for which data were available. 
Table 30 Top 3 benefits and top 3 costs for a selected EU Member States in
considered in CBAs[123].
 Member State || Top 3 benefits || Top 3 costs 
 Austria || Reduced energy consumption (88%), efficient administration (12%) || Installation costs 
 Belgium || NA || NA 
 Czech Republic || Reduced commercial losses (100%) || Procurement of AMM (31%), ICT investments (11%), ICT operational costs (7%) 
 Denmark || NA  || NA  
 Finland || Meter reading costs avoided (30%), lower customer service costs (17%), Billing (15%) || Installation & Infrastructure costs (65%), reading services (21%), Maintenance (14%) 
 France || Actual billing index (50%), possible energy saving (30%), possible development of smart pipes (10%) || Meters (31.5%), Installation (48.2%), ICT system (6.7%), pilot project (8.3%) 
 Germany ||  No separate calculation available ||  No separate calculation available 
 Ireland ||  NA ||  NA 
 Italy ||   reduced meter reading costs; remote accessibility to meters for services (e.g.: reading/activation/deactivation/bad payers management); less unaccounted gas ||  smart meter costs installation costs ICT infrastructure 
 Latvia || Decrease energy consumption, decrease DSO personnel costs, decrease CO2 || Costs of SM, installation costs, ICT infrastructure 
 Luxembourg || Reduced energy consumption, reduced meter reading operating costs, non-replacement of old meters || Meters investment costs, additional operating costs, additional costs for energy supplier 
 Netherlands || Energy savings (21%), Savings on call centre costs (8%), Savings from increase number of supplier switches (9%) || Smart gas meters and installation (30%), smart meter data management system (16%), communication infrastructure based on PLC (14%)[124] 
 Romania || Reduced meter reading costs (57.3%), avoided distribution investments (30.1%), reduced gas theft (6.1%), reduced distribution operation costs (6.1%) || Implementation and investment costs (67.17%), Costs for system operation & maintenance (29.35%), Financing costs (3.48%) 
 Slovakia || Reduction in gas consumption (44%), Reduction in gas losses (41%), Savings from reduced complaints (8%) || Operational costs (62%), Investment costs (38%) 
 Spain || Investments avoided (59%), meter reading costs avoided (30%), energy savings (9%) || Smart meter investment (42%), Installation costs (27%), maintenance & operation (19%) 
 Sweden || More efficient use of energy, lower costs for manual reading, bill based on actual consumption (not standardised bill) || Costs of the meter and the remote reading system, Installation — Managing costs 
 United Kingdom — GB || Joint electricity and gas roll-out, no separate data available  ||  Joint electricity and gas roll-out, no separate data available 

5.       summary

The Third
Legislative Energy Package has paved the way for the roll-out of smart metering
systems also for the benefit of consumers. It provides that implementation may
be subject to a positive economic assessment (to be conducted by 3 September
2012) of long-term costs and benefits, and for the deployment of smart metering
systems in 80% of positively assessed cases by 2020. For electricity, Member
States are required to prepare an implementation timetable for a period of up
to ten years[125]. 
This Staff
Working Document accompanies the Commission Report ‘Benchmarking smart
metering deployment in the EU-27’ and records progress in the EU-27 to date
as regards Member States’ cost-benefit analyses and subsequent implementation
of smart metering. Given the explicit target in Directive 2009/72/EC, our
analysis has naturally focused on electricity. 
The findings
show that the majority of Member States decided to carry out a cost-benefit
analysis before reflecting on the way forward and deciding next steps. 
Making the
business case for gas smart metering is more of
a challenge,
given that the expected benefits are either less significant than for
electricity or do not apply. Among the particularities of gas networks are that
they can store large amounts of energy and are not as dynamically responsive as
electricity systems. This means that there is less of a need for flexibility
and demand response and rather limits the opportunities for extra savings and
benefits supporting a business case. As a result, only a few countries are
currently proceeding with a roll-out in the gas sector – such an approach is
taken particularly on the basis that a joint electricity and gas deployment will
bring benefits from synergies and economies of scale. 
As regards
electricity, about two thirds of Member States have decided in favour of a large-scale roll-out of smart
metering by 2020 or earlier. Some, such as Italy and Spain, have decided to go ahead without conducting a detailed CBA. According
to our estimates, the planned roll-outs will involve the installation of 240 million
smart meters (for both electricity and gas) by 2020 and total investment of €45
billion. On the basis of their CBAs, some countries (e.g. Germany, Latvia and Slovakia) are opting for a selective roll-out with an overall lower penetration
rate (in relation to the total number of available metering points) by 2020. Nevertheless,
these roll-outs add to the numbers of electricity smart meters scheduled for installation,
and associated investment levels, and bring the EU-27 average penetration rate,
as forecast for 2020, close to 72% of consumers. 
On the
preparation for the roll-out, Member States have carefully reflected on a
number of issues also raised in the Commission Recommendation 2012/248/EU.
The Recommendation draws particular attention to key functionalities for
fit-for-purpose and pro-consumer arrangements, data protection and security issues,
and a CBA methodology that takes account of all costs and benefits of the
roll-out of smart metering systems.
Among Member
States’ CBAs, there is a striking divergence of data on costs and benefits.
Smart metering systems for electricity are costed at anything from €77 to €766
per customer, also reflecting differences in communication infrastructure costs;
the average estimate is €223. The cost per metering point for gas is put at around
€ 200 on average (ranging from €100 to €268). Based on available data, these metering
systems could deliver energy savings, in terms of consumption, of the order of
3 %, offer potential for load shifting and overall benefits in the order of
€160 per metering point for gas (ranging from €140 to €1000) or €309 (ranging
from €18 to €654) for electricity.
The range of values
placed on costs and benefits may stem from different
starting conditions in Member States, local realities and CBA scope and
methodology. However, the divergence poses significant comparability
challenges and complicates the exercise of calculating key parameters such
as ‘cost per metering point’ and ‘savings’ consistently. It should also be noted
that the currently available figures are in most cases only a forecast and do
not represent actual costs or benefits. Only as the roll-outs unfold will the consolidated
figures become clear – what is shown is in most cases a projection. 
Furthermore, economic
assessment of the long-term costs and benefits of smart metering across the
EU is sensitive to a number of parameters. Energy savings, smart meter
capital costs, data communication systems and the discount rate are the
critical variables raised most frequently in Member States’ CBAs. In addition,
total smart metering investment itself appears to be influenced by local conditions (including local labour costs, geographical
configurations, etc.).
Regarding smart
metering functionalities, available data show that currently at least,
the
systems being contemplated by Member States do not fully
deliver the common minimum functionalities proposed in the Recommendation and
also endorsed by standardisation (under M/441). The most critical of these – and
the one that is found least – relates to the frequency at which
consumption data can be updated and made available to consumers (and third
parties on their behalf), which in turn will facilitate
the spread of tariff differentiation and advanced pricing systems. Even though (as
seen in discussions with Member States) there is consensus on the importance of
these factors for future-proofing the systems and their functioning in a
consumer-centric retail market, not all have addressed the challenge of
equipping the systems accordingly. 
Available data do not indicate a direct link between the range of
common minimum functionalities considered for the smart metering systems and
their overall cost. As we have noted, total investment appears to be influenced
far more by other parameters such as local conditions, additional features
beyond the minimum set of functionalities, and the discount rates and appraisal periods considered in the
CBAs. 
To date, very
few Member
States, like Austria, UK, Ireland and the Netherlands, have issued guidelines on
functionalities. Most countries leave the analysis, options and protocols to
those responsible for the roll-out (in most cases the DSOs) rather than laying
down formal or legal guidelines. Also, specifications are in most cases not
only not obligatory, but are mentioned only in the CBA, are still being piloted
or not even referred to. Discussions with Member States indicated
that, when setting up technical specifications for the systems to be rolled
out, it is important to consider common standards,
ensure
interoperability and create a market environment conducive to newcomers
offering innovative services. 
Under the smart
metering mandate (M/441) as noted earlier, 50 standards have been available for
use since end of 2012. Work is currently ongoing to standardise the core
interfaces between the meter and the communication network, and between networks,
so as to allow true ‘any-to-any’ connectivity. At the same time, under the smart
grid mandate (M/490), further standards will be developed in the course of
2013-14 on key issues such as demand response, conformance testing and
interoperability; this is also of crucial importance for the metering/grid
interface. 
A large number
of European pilot projects have shown that home interfaces play a key role in
helping consumers to realise the benefits offered by the installation of
smart meters and their participation in demand response programmes. They also
showed that, it is important to gain the consumers trust and
confidence in smart metering. This can happen when consumers understand the
functionalities and know what data will be collected, how they will be protected
and what these data will be used for. 
Ensuring a high
level of personal data protection during this process, as
guaranteed in Article 8 of the Charter, remains a central concern in the development
of standards. Furthermore, the Smart Grids Task Force is currently working to
develop a data protection impact assessment template for smart metering
and smart grid environments, and a cyber-security assessment framework responding
to concerns expressed by industry and potential investors, and to guarantee the
appropriate management of vulnerabilities and threats in the light of possible
technical solutions and best practice. The respective deliverables due in 2014
will be of interest both to consumers and system operators.
Finally, according
to available data, in 15 out of the 16 Member States that have decided to
proceed with a large-scale roll-out of electricity smart meters, the
distribution system operators (DSOs) are responsible for the implementation of
smart metering and ownership of the meters. On top of that, the DSOs may also
be responsible for data handling in 12 Member States. Therefore, the roll-out
in a large number of Member States will have implications in the market,
data handling requirements and options for specific transactions. 

REFERENCES

[1]  
JRC
— Joint Research Centre (March 2012). Guidelines for
Cost Benefit Analysis of Smart Metering Deployment, Luxembourg, European Commission Publication Office; http://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/ses/files/documents/guidelines_for_conducting_a_cost-benefit_analysis_of_smart_grid_projects.pdf
[2]   AEA —
Austrian Energy Agency (October 2012), European Smart
Metering Landscape Report, SmartRegions
Deliverable 2.1, February 2011, AEA, Vienna; http://www.smartregions.net/default.asp?sivuID=26927. 
[3]  
CEER
— Council of European Energy Regulators (September 2013). Status
Review of Regulatory Aspects of Smart Metering, including an assessment of
roll-out as of 1 January 2013, Ref. C13-RMF-54-05, Council of
European Energy Regulators, Bruxelles; http://www.ceer.eu/portal/page/portal/EER_HOME/EER_PUBLICATIONS/CEER_PAPERS/Customers/2013/7-1_C13-RMF-54-05-Status_Review_of_Regulatory_Aspects_of_Smart_Metering_FOR_PUBLICATION.pdf.

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AEEG             Autorità per l’Energia
Elettrica e il Gas (IT)
AMI                Advanced Metering
Infrastructure 
AMR               Automated Meter Reading
BPL                 Broadband over Power
Lines
CAPEX           Capital Expenditures
CBA                Cost-Benefit Analysis
CHP                Combined Heat and
Power
CO2                 Carbon
Dioxide
DC                  Data Concentrator      
DMS               Distribution
Management System
DSO                Distribution System
Operator
EC                   European Commission
EU                   European Union
GPRS              General Packet Radio Service

GSM               Global System for Mobile Communications
ICT                  Information and
Communication Technologies
IP                    Internet Protocol
IEM                 Internal Energy
Market
kWh                kilowatt-hour
NA                  Not Available
NPV                Net Present Value
PLC                 Power-Line Carrier;
Power Line Communications
R&D               Research and
Development
SM                  Smart Meter
TSO                 Transmission System
Operator

COUNTRY CODES

AT                   Austria
BE                   Belgium
BG                  Bulgaria
CY                  Cyprus
CZ                   The Czech Republic
DE                   Germany
DK                  Denmark
EE                   Estonia
EL                   Greece
ES                   Spain
FI                    Finland, Suomi
FR                   France
HR                  Croatia
HU                  Hungary
IE                    Ireland
IT                    Italy
LT                   Lithuania
LU                   Luxemburg
LV                   Latvia
MT                  Malta
NL                   Netherlands, The
PL                   Poland
PT                    Portugal
RO                  Romania
SE                   Sweden
SI                    Slovenia
SK                   Slovakia
UK                  United
  Kingdom

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Status of relevant national legislation with
respect to smart metering as stated in the Electricity Directive 2009/72/EC
(Annex I.2) (status — July 2013) 7
Table 2 Status of electricity smart metering large-scale
roll-out in Member States. 10
Table 3 Number of electricity smart metering systems to
be deployed per country in Member States that are proceeding with large-scale
roll-out (covering at least 80% of consumers by 2020) 11
Table 4 Number of electricity smart metering systems
considered per country in Member States that have not decided in favour of
large-scale roll-out by 2020   11
Table 5 Estimate of total number of electricity smart
metering systems to be deployed in the EU by 2020  12
Table 6 Status of electricity CBAs and roll-out plans in
the EU-27. 12
Table 7 Correspondence of the smart metering systems
functionalities identified by M/441 with the recommended common minimum
functional requirements in 2012/148/EU, for electricity. 16
Table 8 Smart metering functionalities: Member States
rolling out by 2020 Compliance check against common minimum functionalities
(Reference: EC Recommendation 2012/148/EU, art. 42) 17
Table 9 Smart metering functionalities: Member States NOT
rolling out smart metering by 2020. 18
Table 10 Frequency of consumption data readings available
to consumer; compliance check to functionalities (a) and (b) from the list of
recommended common minimum functionalities (2012/148/EU). 19
Table 11 Summary of deployment arrangements for
electricity smart metering in EU Member States that decided to roll out 80% or
more of the metering points. 24
Table 12 Summary of deployment arrangements for
electricity smart metering in EU Member States decided NOT to proceed with a
(large-scale) roll-out under present conditions. 25
Table 13 Status of relevant national
legislation with respect to smart metering as stated in the Gas Directive
2009/73/EC (Annex I.2) (status — July 2013) 26
Table 14 Status of gas smart metering roll-out in Member
States (July 2013) 28
Table 15 Summary of CBAs status and roll-out plans for
gas metering in EU-27 (status — July 2013) 29
Table 16 Summary of deployment arrangements for gas smart
metering in EU Member States that have decided to proceed with a (large-scale)
roll-out or have a positive CBA (status July 2013). 31
Table 17 Summary of deployment arrangements for gas smart
metering in EU Member States that have decided NOT to proceed with a
(large-scale) roll-out under present conditions (status July 2013) 32
Table 18 CBA Scenarios — Member States having already
completed the smart metering roll-out 34
Table 19 CBA Scenarios — Member States rolling-out smart
metering in electricity and gas jointly (targeting at least 80% of consumers) 35
Table 20 CBA Scenarios: Member States rolling out
electricity-only smart metering by 2020  36
Table 21 CBA Scenarios: Member States NOT rolling out
smart metering in large-scale by 2020. 37
Table 22 CBA Scenarios: missing CBAs from Member States. 43
Table 23 Costs and Benefits normalised by number of
metering points. 44
Table 24 Summary of preferred communication infrastructure
for smart metering roll-out in Member States  46
Table 25 Most significant cost/benefits share from
electricity smart metering roll-out considered in Member States’ analyses. 48
Table 26 Key data of gas smart metering CBAs in EU Member
States that have a positive CBA for large-scale roll-out.  64
Table 27 Key data of gas smart metering CBAs in EU Member
States which have a negative CBA for large-scale roll-out.,  65
Table 28 Key parameters of gas smart metering CBAs in EU
Member States that have a positive CBA for large-scale roll-out . 65
Table 29 Key parameters of gas smart metering CBAs in EU
Member States that have a negative CBA for a large-scale roll-out  66
Table 30 Top 3 benefits and top 3 costs for a selected EU
Member States in considered in CBAs. 67

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Overview of CBA outcomes and intentions for
electricity smart metering large-scale roll-out (for more than 80% of
consumers) in Member States, by 2020 (status — July 2013) 13
Figure 2 Roll-out plans: Implementation speed and
penetration rate of at least 80% of all consumers by 2020 (status — July 2013) 14
Figure 3: List of the recommended ten common minimum
functional requirements that every smart metering system for electricity should
fulfil (2012/148/EU Recommendation) 15
Figure 4 Status of smart metering functionalities setting
in EU Member States — considered or not in CBA; tried
in pilots; being implemented even though not yet regulated; set in a
ministerial decision; regulated; or in full operation for completed roll-outs. 20
Figure 5 Overview of CBA outcomes and intentions for gas
smart metering large-scale roll-out (for more than 80% of consumers) in Member
States (status July 2013) 30
Figure 6 Normalised cost and benefit values per metering point
estimated from the Member State CBA data  39
Figure 7 Price bands for cost per smart metering point in
the Member States. 40
Figure 8  Normalised benefit values per metering point in
the Member States. 41
Figure 9  Potential for energy saving and peak load
shifting over total electricity consumption expected from smart metering
roll-outs in the Member States. 41
Figure 10 Normalised cost and benefit values per metering
point 45
Figure 11 Benefit cost ratio over energy savings reported
by Member States. 45
Figure 12 Benefit cost ratio over peak load shifting
reported by Member States. 46
Figure 13 Six possible ways that smart metering could
benefit the consumer 59
[1]        Information
on Croatia is not included as data were collected before its accession to the
EU.
[2]        Annex
I.2 to both the Electricity Directive 2009/72/EC and Gas Directive 2009/73/EC. 
[3]        Energy
Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency, amending Directives
2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC,
OJ L315, 14.11.2012, p.1. 
[4]        Commission
Recommendation 2012/148/EU, OJ L 73, 13.3.2012, p.9; 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32012H0148:EN:NOT. 

[5]            Based
on a review of 219 projects, accounting for a
total investment of about €5.5 billion; Smart
Grid projects in Europe: lessons learned and current
developments (a
joint ENER/JRC reference
report) was
issued in 2011 and  a
2013 update is available online: 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/doc/ld-na-25815-en-n_final_online_version_april_15_smart_grid_projects_in_europe_-_lessons_learned_and_current_developments_-2012_update.pdf.
[6]            Particularly
those Member States that had not yet performed their CBAs when the
Recommendation was issued or were/are considering a revision of
previous national assessments.
[7]            Particularly
important for residential consumers are: a reading update rate of 15 minutes
and a standardised interface to transfer
and visualise individual consumption data in combination with information on
market conditions and service or price options.
[8]            Recommendation
2012/148/EU provides guidance on data
protection
by design
and by default,
data minimisation, the development of a data
protection
impact
assessment
template, best available
techniques
for smart metering, the use
of privacy certification seals, the use
of data security standards, personal data breach notifications and information
policies.
[9]        The
mission of the European Task Force for the Implementation of Smart Grids into
the European Internal Market (Smart Grids Task Force – SGTF) is to advise the
Commission on policy and regulatory frameworks at European level to coordinate
policies towards the implementation of smart grids under the Third Energy
Package and to assist the Commission in identifying projects of common interest
in the field of smart grids, in the context of the Regulations of the European
Parliament and of the Council on guidelines for trans-European energy
(COM(2011) 658) and telecommunications networks (COM(2011) 657) infrastructure.
The SGTF was set up by the Directorate‑General for Energy (DG ENER) in 2009;
for more information:      
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/taskforce_en.htm.

[10]       CEN/CENELEC/ETSI
related smart grid work: 
http://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/Sectors/SmartGrids/Pages/default.aspx.

[11]       http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/doc/2011_03_01_mandate_m490_en.pdf.

[12]       http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/doc/2010_06_04_mandate_m468_en.pdf.

[13]       http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/doc/2009_03_12_mandate_m441_en.pdf.

[14]       Opinions
04/2013 and 07/2013 on the Data Protection Impact Assessment Template for Smart
Grid and Smart Metering Systems (‘DPIA Template’) prepared by Expert Group 2 of
the Commission’s Smart Grid Task Force; 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/index_en.htm#h2-1. 
[15]       ENISA
– European Union Agency for Network and Information Security.
[16]       Smart
Grid projects in Europe: Lessons learned and current developments — 2012
update, European Commission, 2013; 
http://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/files/documents/ld-na-25815-en-n_final_online_version_april_15_smart_grid_projects_in_europe_-_lessons_learned_and_current_developments_-2012_update.pdf.
[17]       Inventory
of smart grids projects and related analysis; available
on the JRC’s website: http://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/jrc-scientific-and-policy-report.

[18]       Inventory of EU Smart Grid
projects — 2012 update; also
available on JRC’s website.
[19]       www.smartgrids.eu/projects.

[20]       Data
from the regional CBAs are available in the respective Country Fiches document.

[21]       DK – a ministerial order on the smart metering roll out framework was
signed the 03/12/2013, and issued with effect by the 10/12/2013.
[22]       http://www.mkm.ee/legislation-acts/.
[23]       
http://www.legaltext.ee/et/andmebaas/tekst.asp?loc=text&dok=XXXX010K1&keel=en&pg=1&ptyyp=RT&tyyp=X&query=grid.
[24]       Δ5/ΗΛ/Α/Φ33/2067/04-02-2013
MD.
[25]       HU – status December 2013: A resolution was passed stipulating that HU
won’t be proceeding with the roll-out of smart metering and until a further
assessment of related costs and benefits is
undertaken (scheduled by end 2016) based on results from ongoing pilots.
[26]       (http://www.lrs.lt/pls/proj/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=158290&p_org=&p_fix=n&p_gov=n ). 
[27]       No additional legislation introduced as existing legislation permits
the change of meters as and when required.
[28]       Published in the Official Gazette No. 485 of 16.07.2012.
[29]       Note – throughout the document the data on the United Kingdom-Great
Britain (UK-GB) are discussed as representative of the UK.  The region of
Northern Ireland (NI), in terms of overall  metering points, represent a
very small proportion of the overall UK figure – around 1.5% of the UK total —
and therefore it is not reflective of the Member State position as a whole.
Furthermore, it is rather difficult to generate data which are representative
of the whole UK due to the varying methodologies as well as differences in the
energy markets between NI and GB. The specific NI position is also captured as
it is incorporated in the respective Country Fiches document. 
[30]       http://epr.ofgem.gov.uk/index.php?pk=folder100997. 
[31]       http://epr.ofgem.gov.uk/index.php?pk=folder101001.
[32]       http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2400/contents/made.
[33]       http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2414/contents/made.
[34]       http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2429/contents/made.
[35]       The Danish Law no. 642 of 12 June 2013 mandates a full smart metering
roll-out. The framework for implementation is laid down in a ministerial order
(issued in December 2013). However, more than 50% of consumers in its territory
have already an intelligent meter installed by the distribution system
operators.
[36]       The Maltese DSO anticipates that the capital cost of the smart meters
will be partially offset from savings in lowering non-technical losses (billing
errors, theft/fraud, etc.) which currently lie at around 7%. In fact around 70%
of non-technical losses (5% of total consumption) may be recoverable through
improved metering & billing.
[37]       Portugal has an inconclusive CBA for electricity. The intention is to
conduct a re-evaluation of the CBA based on updated assumptions and taking into
consideration the current economic context and constraints.
[38]       The
Hungarian CBA for electricity and gas was notified to the Commission services
in December 2013.
[39]       Slovenia is currently working on an official CBA —  a DSO CBA is
already available; the outcome is not yet known.
[40]       HU- The cost-benefit
analysis for
the smart metering roll-out in Hungary was notified to the Commission services
in December 2013. The current document
refers to CBA data available by end of July 2013.
[41]       The diffusion rates quoted here are those expected by 2020. In the
case of the Netherlands the final diffusion rate depends on the level of
acceptance / opt-outs.
[42]       The diffusion rate figure for the case of the Czech Republic refers
to voluntary deployment of smart metering.
[43]       Slovak Republic: (i) the number of metering points reported are those
at Low Voltage level, as estimated for 2020; (ii) the penetration rate of 23%
refers to metering points (with annual consumption of over 4MWh) to be equipped
with smart meters from a total of 2,625,000 metering points at low voltage
level.
[44]       Germany —number
of metering points in the country quoted here correspond to number projected
for 2020.
[45]       The graph considers the start of mandated
large-scale roll-outs
and not pilot phase deployment. For
instance, in
the Netherlands
activity has started since 2012 but the indicated starting date is
2014; in Ireland Phase 2 of the roll-out programme (requirements, definition
and procurement) will start in 2014 followed by the build and test phase (Phase
3) in 2015-2016, and the large-scale roll-out is scheduled to start in 2016.  
[46]       See also Commission's report ‘A joint contribution of DG ENER and DG
INFSO towards the Digital Agenda, Action 73: Set of common functional
requirements of the Smart Meter’, October 2011; available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/doc/2011_10_smart_meter_funtionalities_report_full.pdf.
[47]       idem.
[48]       ERGEG- European Regulators’ Group for Electricity and Gas
Publication, “Final Guidelines of Good Practice on Regulatory Aspects of Smart
Metering for Electricity and Gas”, ERGEG, February 2011, Ref: E10-RMF-29-05: 
http://www.energy-regulators.eu/portal/page/portal/EER_HOME/EER_PUBLICATIONS/CEER_PAPERS/Customers/Tab2/E10-RMF-29-05_GGP_SM_8-Feb-2011.pdf.
[49]       Mandate M441 for smart meters (March 2009). 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/doc/2009_03_12_mandate_m441_en.pdf.
http://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/Sectors/SustainableEnergy/Management/SmartMeters/Pages/default.aspx.
[50]       See ‘Guidelines for Cost Benefit Analysis of Smart Metering
Deployment’, 2012 European Commission, JRC.
[51]       BE — specifics on functionality (b) can be
found in the also accompanying Country Fiches' Staff Working Document. 
Note
— in
the case of the Belgium data, given the individual, region-specific, and not
strictly comparable cost benefit analyses performed for the roll-out of smart
metering in the three regions of Belgium, it is rather difficult to determine a
single, country-representative value for the parameters herein considered. Data
from the regional CBAs are available in the respective Country Fiches document.
[52]       See for instance the case of Denmark. Partial compliance is due to
meters having been installed prior to the first national regulation of June
2011. All new meters will comply with the minimum functionalities, when the
first generation of meters has been replaced, after the expiry of their
technical lifetime.
[53]       Directive 2009/72/EC concerning common rules for the internal market
in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, ANNEX I "Measures on
consumer protection", point 2.
[54]       In Finland the DSOs are free to outsource the roll-out project and
metering function as they please, but the overall responsibility of the
measurement is still with the DSO. Currently many of the DSOs are buying the
measurement and related data connections as a service from a third party.
[55]       In UK-Great Britain there is an obligation on all gas and electricity
suppliers to take all reasonable steps to complete the roll-out of smart
metering by 31 December 2020. There is no legal obligation on individual
consumers to have a smart meter.
[56]       The ‘administrative
off’ option grants the consumers with guarantee that no information has been
exchanged with the DSO or any third party; however the consumer himself
can still have access to his
metering data (via the consumer port).
[57]       In France, meters ownership is retained by local municipalities,
while DSO will operate them under a multi-annual concession. Furthermore, the
‘mandatory’ of the deployment applies to the DSO and not to the consumers. 
[58]       Energy Act (§ 16 letter k); the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT),
as the central government authority for the energy industry, shall provide
analyses for implementing of smart metering systems in the power and gas
industry.
[59]       HU – status December 2013: A resolution was passed stipulating that
HU won’t be proceeding with the roll-out of smart metering and until a further
assessment of related costs and benefits is
undertaken (scheduled by end 2016) based on results from ongoing pilots.
[60]       Published in the Official Gazette No. 485 of 16.07.2012.
[61]       http://epr.ofgem.gov.uk/index.php?pk=folder100997. 
[62]       http://epr.ofgem.gov.uk/index.php?pk=folder101001.
[63]       http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2400/contents/made.
[64]       http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2414/contents/made.
[65]       http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2429/contents/made.
[66]       In cases
of joint electricity and gas smart metering rollouts,
it is difficult to sensibly separate the related costs and expected investments
between electricity and gas.
[67]       Estonia — an elaborated cost-benefit analysis for gas is expected to
be conducted by 2015.
[68]       Hungary —
the respective CBA for electricity and gas was notified to the Commission
services in December 2013.
[69]       HU— The cost-benefit analysis for
the smart metering roll-out in Hungary was notified to the Commission services
in December 2013. The current document
refers to CBA data available by end of July 2013.
[70]       In Denmark, the metering market is regulated in the sense that the
DSO follows technical and security regulations when installing meters and can
recover (under regulation) installation costs from the consumers. But the DSO
is free to purchase from any supplier of meters on competitive terms.
[71]       Commission Recommendation 2012/148/EU, OJ L 73, 13.3.2012, p.9.
[72]       "Guidelines for Cost Benefit Analysis of Smart Metering
Deployment", JRC Scientific and Technical Report, EUR25103
EN, :http://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/ses/files/documents/guidelines_for_cost_benefit_analysis_of_smart_metering_deployment.pdf.

[73]       It is noted
that in the case of Member States that are not part of the Eurozone the
exchange rate used is that of month June 2013 given in the official European
Commission webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/inforeuro/inforeuro_en.cfm.

[74]       With the exception of cost and benefit per metering point, which were
calculated by Commission services.
[75]

 Acronyms: ‘CAPEX’ is capital
     expenditures and ‘OPEX’ stands for operational expenditures.
 ‘Consumer benefit’ is calculated as
     percentage of ‘Total benefit’- data found in CBAs and also provided by
     Member States.
 Italy:
     investment and benefit figures are for DSO only. No estimation of other
     investment/benefit has been calculated. The figures reported are present
     values, discounted to the reference year of 2005. 
 Sweden- total
     investment includes CAPEX only.
 Finland: The
     quoted peak load shifting represents the share of peak load that smart
     meters for low consumption customers can actually shift from the peak load
     hour. Industrial customers which make for 50% of the Finnish consumption
     have hourly readings since 1998 and are actively participating in peak
     load shifting.

[76]       Furthermore, in the case of UK-GB the number of metering points
reported assumes population growth in line with Government projections.
[77]

 Ireland: The
     number of metering points quoted for Ireland is for electricity consumers
     only (gas metering points not included in the figure).
 The Netherlands: Metering points
     are counted as follows: one for electricity and one for gas, where dual
     fuel is present.
 United Kingdom
     — GB (all GB figures refer to domestic and non-domestic deployment): 
  Metering points –the total
      quoted splits into 32.94million electricity meters and 26.63million gas
      meters; since cost and benefit figures are reflective of an appraisal
      period up to 2030, the number of metering points provided is also by
      2030. Smart meters which would have been installed under the non-domestic
      counterfactual have been deducted from the actual meter number to ensure
      consistency with the reported cost and benefit information. Adding the
      counterfactual installations would result in a total metering point
      number of 63.8m (34.27 million electricity meters and 27.56 million gas
      meters).
  Roll-out period end date:
      2020 is the end date for the roll-out as per the updated timetable
      announced in May 2013 by DECC- UK Department of Energy and Climate
      Change.
  Penetration rate: for
      modelling purposes the CBA considers 97% is achieved by 2020, although by
      2030 full roll-out is assumed.
  Smart meter lifetime is 15
      years. The appraisal covers though the period 2013-30.
  The total investment figure
      has been derived from the April 2012 GB Impact Assessment. In order to
      aid comparability with investment figures from other member states,
      financing costs have not been included in the reported figures.
  The energy saving rate
      presented here is the weighted average energy saving across domestic and
      non-domestic sectors and different payment types. For the non-domestic
      sector, the energy savings assumed to be realised from deployments
      in the counterfactual scenario are also deducted. 
  Peak load shifting — as a
      percentage of total domestic and small and non-domestic consumption, peak
      load shifting is estimated at between 0.5% (in 2012) and 1% (in 2030). As
      a percentage of peak load, the shifting potential is estimated at between
      1.3% and 2.9%. 

[78]

 Roll-outs stretching to 2022
     consider 100% by that date.
 Estonia: Figure on
     total investment accrues to year 2017, whereas benefits are considered up
     to 2031. 
 France:
     Investment includes only DSO-related investment.
 Malta: The
     figure for investment includes CAPEX only. OPEX has not been calculated
     but is expected to be lower than the amount incurred for non-smart meters
     (due to reduced need for meter readers and inspections). 
 Poland: The
     figures provided for investment and benefits consider a period up to 2022.
 Romania: The figure
     for investment is calculated over a period up to 2022, whereas the
     benefits are calculated up to 2020.

[79]

 Belgium: In
     the case of the Belgium data, given the individual, region-specific, and
     not strictly comparable cost benefit analyses performed for the roll-out
     of smart metering in the three regions of Belgium, it is rather difficult
     to determine a single, country-representative value for the parameters
     herein considered. Data from the regional CBAs are available in the
     respective Country Fiches document. 
 Czech Republic:
  The investment (CAPEX+OPEX)
      represents total costs of Blanket scenario (€4 367 million). Total
      Benefit (€2735) represents CAPEX+OPEX of Basic scenario (represents
      investments saved due to discontinuation of Basic scenario) plus external
      benefits of Blanket scenario (€ 81 million). The cost per metering point
      (€766) represents a proportion of total costs of Blanket scenario. The
      benefit per metering point (€480) represents proportion of the total
      benefit (external benefits included).Consumer’s benefit (21
      %) represents share on external benefits (€16.7 million). Share of
      consumer’s benefit on total benefit is reported as 0.6%. All values are
      not discounted.
  The value reported for peak
      load shifting is only related to household consumption.
 Germany:
  Energy savings and peak
      load shifting values are for both smart metering systems and intelligent
      meters.
  Peak load shifting is
      estimated at 1.3% in average between 2014 and 2022, and at 2.9% in 2032.
 Lithuania:
  The value reported for peak
      load shifting is only related to households and commercial users under
      30kW per year.
 Slovak Republic:
  The number of metering
      points reported are those at Low Voltage level.
  The penetration rate of 23%
      refers to metering points (with annual consumption of over 4MWh) to be
      equipped with smart meters from a total of 2,625,000 metering points at
      low voltage level. 
  All cost and benefit values
      quoted are discounted.

[80]       This number reflects the number of measuring points for electricity
consumption in the country; a portion of this number represents the metering
points equipped with smart meters. In the case of multi-utility smart metering
roll-out, there are different metering points per each type of utility:
electricity, gas, heat, etc. . 
[81]       The smart metering lifetime in this analysis should reflect the
amortisation period of both smart meters and the ICT system installed to make
the automated meter reading work. It is not intended to represent the physical
lifetime of the equipment, but to estimate the period for the implementing
party to recover the investment for installation and setup of the system.
However, the data available point to the fact that a number of Member States
have intended this as expected physical lifetime of each single meter, e.g.
including in the CBA analysis the cost for two installations and appliances
when the CBA horizon is higher than the meter’s lifetime. 
[82]       Commission Recommendation
on preparation of the roll-out for smart metering systems (2012/148/EU).
[83]       Total investment considers both capital expenditure (CAPEX) and
operational costs (OPEX).
[84]       Smart Grid: 10 Trends to Watch in 2013 and Beyond, Navigant Research,
2013 Navigant Consulting, Inc. http://www.navigantresearch.com.
[85]       This can have a considerable effect on the overall analysis. For
example, the UK GB roll-out assumes for the non-domestic sector that 50% of
premises would even in the absence of Government intervention eventually have
received advanced metering. Costs and benefits of those installations are
consequently excluded from the roll-out consideration.  
[86]       There are no benefit values available for Finland, France, Malta and
Spain. France considers that the assumptions for the benefits calculation are
too uncertain to give a reliable value. 
[87]       This is calculated as a percentage with reference to the total
electricity consumption (MWh) in a given Member State.
[88]       The term ‘peak load transfer’ is defined in the Annex of
Recommendation 2012/148/EU as: the Value in EUR = wholesale margin difference
between peak non-peak generation margin (EUR/MWh) * % Peak Load transfer (%) *
total energy consumption at LV (MWh)."
[89]       UK-GB: the peak shaving/load shifting benefit
ranges from 1.3% to 2.9% (an average is herein used). These numbers represent
the percentage of peak consumption that is assumed to be shifted. Peak
consumption in turn is assumed to be 30% of overall consumption. The lower
number represents the shifting potential during the early years of the
roll-out, while the higher figure reflects load shifting by 2030.
[90]       The Hungarian CBA for electricity and gas was
notified to the Commission services in December 2013. The current document and
analysis discusses data available by July 2013.
[91]       For countries rolling out both electricity and
gas, costs per metering point will appear general higher given that the higher
cost of a gas meter versus an electricity meter is not taken into account in
the normalisation applied in the figure.
[92]       GPRS – General Packet Radio Service.
[93]       BE — Data from the regional CBAs are available
in the respective Country Fiches document.
[94]       Current situation estimations.
[95]       Data from the regional CBAs are available in
the respective Country Fiches' Staff Working Document.
[96]       Share of main benefits refers to external
benefits (benefits in the Blanket scenario). It is not share on total benefit.
[97]       For joint electricity and gas roll-out.
[98]       For joint electricity and gas roll-out.
[99]       Energy savings (12.5% savings of the
small-scale, low voltage electricity consumption) was identified in the case of
the CZ as the sole parameter that could potentially, and under different
conditions, turn the national smart metering business case positive.
[100]     Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such
data, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.
[101]     This is currently under discussion in the
European Parliament and Council and it is scheduled for adoption in 2014.
[102]     Opinions 04/2013 and 07/2013 on the Data
Protection Impact Assessment Template for Smart Grid and Smart Metering Systems
(‘DPIA Template’) prepared by Expert Group 2 of the Commission’s Smart Grid
Task Force; 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/index_en.htm#h2-1.

[103]     ‘Best available techniques’ refer to ‘ the most
effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods
of operation, which indicate the practical suitability of particular techniques
for providing in principle the basis for complying with the EU data protection
framework. They are designed to prevent or mitigate risks on privacy, personal
data and security’ [Commission Implementing Decision of 10 February 2012 laying
down rules concerning guidance on the collection of data and on the drawing up
of BAT reference documents and on their quality assurance referred to in
Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on
industrial emissions]. 
‘Available
techniques’ means those techniques developed on a scale which allows
implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and
technically viable conditions, taking into account the costs and advantages,
whether or not the techniques are used or produced inside Member States, as
long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator. 
‘Best’
means effective in achieving a high general level of protecting the customer
and his privacy. BAT‘s need to be periodically reviewed and if necessary
updated regularly as a result of the nature of science, technology and privacy
level considered as being protectable. The precise process as well as detail
steps to be done, amendments to be made, are continuously monitored within a
so-called BREF (best available techniques reference document). 
Such
a document needs to be drawn up for defined activities describing, in
particular, the installation, operation, and maintenance of smart metering
systems. 
[104]     RBAC stands for Role-Base Access Control. It is
a method of restricting or authorising system access for users based on user
roles and locales.
[105]     Reference Sarah Darby, Environmental Change
Institute, Oxford University Centre for the Environment.
[106]     Idem.
[107]     Reference Wokje Abrahamse. 
[108]     Logica survey.
[109]     Electricity Smart Metering Customer Behaviour
Trials Findings Report CER/11/080a, 2011.
[110]     Energy Demand Research Project — A suite of
large-scale trials across the UK-GB, co-funded by the Government, to provide
information on consumers’ responses to a range of forms of feedback, including
smart meter-based interventions. The final report provided new evidence on the
behavioural impact of improved energy information in the GB context. 
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/gas/retail-market/metering/transition-smart-meters/energy-demand-research-project. 
[111]     Empower Demand, VaasaETT, Global Energy Think
Tank, 2011.
[112]     Smart meters will increase reliability and
power quality ultimately resulting to better customer service: better reaction
to customer contacts, e.g. by checking the status of customer’s power quality.
Also outage verification and compensations can be automated and thus avoiding
time-consuming reclamation processes and manual labour. Especially these issues
have reportedly led to increased customer satisfaction to the meters &
roll-out process in Finland.
[113]     In this case for instance low consumption
limits the benefits from energy savings both in terms of monetary savings for
the consumers and environmental (CO2 reduction). Furthermore, longer billing
periods lead to marginal benefits from lower reading costs. 
[114]     UK-GB, NL: total investment & benefit
figures are covered in the CBA data aforementioned in this document (see earlier tables). 
[115]     UK-GB: the numbers quoted in this table refer
to 2020 and include metering points that are assumed to also receive smart
meters in the counterfactual. 
[116]     Data for Latvia refer to roll-out of smart
meters to industrial consumers only.
[117]     Belgium: In the case of the Belgium data, given
the individual, region-specific, and not strictly comparable cost benefit
analyses performed for the roll-out of smart metering in the three regions of
Belgium, it is rather difficult to determine a single, country-representative
value for the parameters herein considered. Related data from the regional CBAs
are available in the respective Country Fiches document. 
[118]     UK-GB,
NL: total investment and benefit figures are covered in the CBA data
illustrated earlier on in the document .
[119]     Data for Latvia refer to roll-out of smart
meters to industrial consumers only.
[120]     BE — Related data from the regional CBAs are
available in the respective Country Fiches document. 
[121]     Values are not discounted.
[122]     This depends on the mix of energy sources in
domestic and commercial sectors. In the UK for instance the average gas bill for a standard account is £811 and for electricity it is £531 based
on average annual consumption of 3300 kWh for electricity and 16500 kWh for gas
(Ofgem factsheet 98, February 2013). 
[123]     BE — Related data from the regional CBAs are
available in the respective Country Fiches document. 
[124]     For joint gas and electricity roll-out.
[125]     Related information is available in the country
fiches also accompanying the Report from the Commission Benchmarking Smart
Metering Deployment in the EU-27.