Assessment of Communication Technologies for a Home Energy Management System

1

Abstract— Design of an effective home energy management
(HEM) system requires selection of an appropriate
communication technology. The objective of this paper is to
compare commonly used communication technologies for HEM
implementation in a premises area network, in terms of their
latency, throughput, reliability, power consumption and
implementation costs. Communication technologies of interest
include ZigBee, Wi-Fi and Ethernet. These technologies are
simulated in OPNET. This paper compares the performance of
selected communication technologies using two communication
schemes, i.e., Always-on and Turn-on-in-loop. It also analyzes the
impact of the number of devices being controlled by the HEM on
the technology performance.
Index Terms- Smart grid, premises area network, home energy
management system, OPNET.
I. INTRODUCTION
OWADAYS, the electric power grid is undergoing a
significant transition into an intelligent grid which is
called the smart grid [1]. In the smart grid, many intelligent
features and functions, such as automated interval meter reads,
adaptive demand response, integration of distributed energy
sources, and substation automation can be achieved by
incorporation of two-way communications into the power
system. The key to realize smart grid features is to
appropriately choose communication technologies and
associated communication networks that provide bidirectional
end-to-end data communications in the smart grid [2].
Communication networks in the smart grid, according to their
coverage, can be divided into three types: wide area network
(WAN), neighborhood area network (NAN) and the premises
area network.
The WAN is the network architecture at the utility side,
while NAN is the bridge between WAN and premises area
networks. The premises network is at the end-use customer
premises. It can be categorized as a home area network
(HAN), a building area network (BAN) and an industrial area
network (IAN), depending on the environment, i.e., residential,
business, and industrial. The premises network is the
fundamental element in the smart grid communication
network. It enables automated demand response at customer
promises and provides communication access to appliances
This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation
under Grant ECCS-1232076.
B. Desong, M. Kuzlu, M. Pipattanasomporn and S. Rahman are with Virginia
Tech – Advanced Research Institute, Arlington, VA 22203 USA (e-mail:
desong85@vt.edu, mkuzlu@vt.edu, mpipatta@vt.edu and srahman@vt.edu).
such as air conditioners (AC), water heaters and electric
vehicles (EV).
Many smart grid applications, e.g., HEM, metering, demand
response, etc., are discussed in [3, 4, 5]. In [6], the authors
compare different communication technologies (i.e., fiber-
optic, digital subscriber line (DSL), coaxial cable, power line
carrier (PLC), ZigBee, Wi-Fi, Ethernet, and etc.) and assess
their suitability for deployment to serve various smart grid
applications. In [7], the authors provide a contemporary look
at the current state of the art in smart grid communications as
well as to discuss the still-open research issues in this area. In
[8], the authors provide an overview of the issues related to the
smart grid architecture from the perspective of potential
applications and the communications requirements needed to
ensure performance, flexible operation, reliability and
economics. In [9], the authors present a ZigBee wireless sensor
network simulation in OPNET, while, in [10], the authors
propose energy efficient cluster tree architecture for home area
network using ZigBee.
In the literature, the performance comparison of
communication technologies for an HEM implementation in
the premises area network is limited. And, to realize the full
potential of the smart grid at the customer side, the premises
network must be carefully designed. The most important
requirements for the premises network are low power
consumption and low implementation costs. In this paper,
popular communication technologies for a premises network,
i.e., ZigBee, Wi-Fi and Ethernet, are discussed and simulated
in OPNET using two communication schemes, i.e., Always-on
and Turn-on-in-loop. Performances of these technologies are
compared in term of their latency, reliability, throughput,
power consumption and implementation costs.
II. OVERVIEW OF AN HEM SYSTEM AND ITS ARCHITECTURE
A premises network can be further classified into HAN,
BAN and IAN. This section provides an overview of a home
energy management (HEM) in HAN. An HEM is generally
introduced to enable automated demand response (autoDR)
applications at the customer premise. An HEM can provide a
homeowner the ability to automatically perform smart load
controls based on utility signals, as well as customer’s
preference and load priority.
Design and implementation of an HEM system are
discussed in [11, 12, 13]. In [14], the authors show the
hardware demonstration of an equivalent system in a
laboratory environment, while the authors in [15] present a set
of algorithms for an HEM system.
Assessment of Communication Technologies for a
Home Energy Management System
D. Bian, Student, IEEE, M. Kuzlu, Member, IEEE, M. Pipattanasomporn, Senior Member,
IEEE, and S. Rahman, Fellow, IEEE
Virginia Tech – Advanced Research Institute, Arlington, VA 22203
Virginia Tech – Advanced Research Institute, Arlington, VA 22203
N

2
In general, the overall HEM system comprises: (i) an HEM
unit, which provides monitoring and control functionalities for
a homeowner; (ii) load controllers that gather electrical
consumption of each appliance, such as AC, water heaters,
EV, etc.; and (iii) a home gateway, i.e., a smart meter, which
receives a command signal from a utility used as an input for
the HEM system. An HEM unit can send an ON/OFF
command to load controllers to change appliance status.
To enable an HEM implementation, communications among
three elements of the HEM system must be enabled.
Communication technologies that are typically used to support
HEM operation include both wired, e.g., Ethernet and PLC,
and wireless, e.g., ZigBee, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and Z-Wave,
communication technologies. In this paper, performance of
most commonly used wireless (ZigBee and Wi-Fi) and wired
technologies (Ethernet) are discussed and compared.
III. VARIOUS COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES AND SCHEMES
FOR AN HEM SYSTEM
In this section, ZigBee, Wi-Fi, and Ethernet are discussed,
as well as two possible communication schemes.
A. ZigBee
ZigBee is one of the communication protocols, which is
used to create personal area networks built from small, low-
power digital radios. It is based on an IEEE 802.15.4 standard,
and used in the network that requires low data rate and long
battery life. ZigBee has a defined data rate of 250 kbps which
is suitable for periodic or intermittent data transmission.
Applications of ZigBee include wireless switches, meters for a
HAN and other equipment which requires short-range wireless
data transfer at relatively low rates. The technology defined by
the ZigBee specification is intended to be simpler and less
expensive than other wireless premises area networks, such as
Wi-Fi. ZigBee networks are secured by 128-bit symmetric
encryption keys. A typical ZigBee transmission range can be
up to 100 meters depending on power output and
environmental characteristics. This distance can be extended
up to 1,600 meters with ZigBee-Pro.
Advantages of ZigBee include low power consumption, low
implementation cost and provision of sufficient security.
However, the low data processing capability, small memory
size and easily being interrupted by other devices using same
frequency bands are major drawbacks of ZigBee.
B. Wi-Fi
Wi-Fi is a high-speed wireless Internet and network
communication technology. Its standard is based on the IEEE
802.11; and it can operate in 2.4 GHz, 3.5GHz and 5 GHz.
Generally, Wi-Fi coverage is up to 100 meters with data rates
from 2 Mbps to 600 Mbps. Wi-Fi provides reliable, secure and
high-speed communications. The cost and power consumption
of Wi-Fi products are also higher than other short-range
wireless technologies such as ZigBee.
C. Ethernet
Ethernet is a most popular wired communication technology
which is commonly used in the short-range network such as
local area networks (LANs). Ethernet standard is based on
IEEE 802.3. Ethernet implementation requires cables, which
can be coaxial, twisted-pair or fiber optic, as well as a hub or a
network switch. Ethernet can provide data rates ranging from
10 Mbps to 100 Gbps. Since Ethernet is a wired network, it is
noise immune. However, once the network is placed, it is
difficult to make changes.
D. Communication schemes for HEM system
Communication schemes are designed for implementation of
communication technologies in an HEM system. It is used to
design the communication traffic, which can affect network
latency, throughput and reliability. This Section discussed two
different schemes: Always-on and Turn-on-in-loop.
1) Always-on communication scheme
In the Always-on scheme, an HEM unit and load controllers
are turn on all the time. All load controllers send messages
containing their electrical measurements to the HEM unit at
the same time and continuously. That is, electrical
measurements from each load controller are sent every one
second. At every certain duration, e.g., one minute, the HEM
unit broadcasts a confirmation message back to all load
controllers. As needed, the HEM unit also sends ON/OFF
control signals to selected load controller.
2) Turn- on-in-loop communication scheme
In the Turn-on-in-loop scheme, each load controller sends its
electrical measurements to the HEM once every specified time
intervals, e.g., 3, 5, 10 seconds. All load controllers must send
their information sequentially in a loop fashion to the HEM.
The duration of one loop, i.e., HEM receiving information
from all load controllers, can be for example 60 seconds or
more, depending on specifications of the HEM system. Once
the load information is sent, the load controller listens to the
HEM unit until the completion of one loop. After the HEM
unit receives load information messages from all load
controllers in the system, it broadcasts a confirmation
message. At the end of one loop, the HEM unit sends ON/OFF
control messages to selected load controllers as needed. In the
Turn-on-in-loop scheme, the confirmation message is also
used as the synchronous signal, which marks the beginning of
the next loop.
IV. PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF THE SELECTED
COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES
Communication technologies for HAN may be evaluated
using latency, throughput, and reliability, as described below
for ZigBee, Wi-Fi and Ethernet.
A. HEM Architecture Developed in OPNET
To enable performance comparison of ZigBee, Wi-Fi and
Ethernet, the HEM architecture is developed in OPNET. This
architecture is based on a premises area network inside a
residential house. In this paper, a typical single story house in
the U.S., 1,600-square feet, is taken as a case study. The HEM
architecture includes an HEM unit and several load controllers
for measuring and control of end-use appliances. It collects
electrical data from load controllers, including voltage,
current, real power, apparent power and power factor, and
sends out control ON/OFF signals. A load controller can be
connected to any kinds of electrical appliances, such as a water
heater, an air conditioner, a clothes dryer, etc.
As shown in Fig. 1(a), (b) and (c), the proposed HEM
architecture consists of one HEM unit and ten load controllers

3
utilizing ZigBee, Wi-Fi and Ethernet respectively. These
architectures are built in OPNET. It can be seen that the
ZigBee model is the simplest one among these three. There are
only ten load controllers (APP1 to APP 10) and one HEM unit
without a network switch or cables. The Wi-Fi model is the
same as the ZigBee model except that it requires an access
point. In the Ethernet model, there are ten load controllers, one
HEM unit and one network switch. Red lines represent
physical links between devices.
Two kinds of information messages in the HEM architecture
are considered: control message and electrical data message. It
is assumed that the size of each control/data message is 100
bytes, i.e., 800 bits. The maximum data rate of this network
occurs when the HEM unit broadcasts in the Always-on
scheme. This is 8,000 bps, considering the HEM’s
broadcasting data rate of 800 bits every one second to 10
devices. On the other hand, the total data rate (considering
two-way traffic) of this architecture with the Always-on
scheme is 16,000 bps. This is derived from the sum of the
HEM’s broadcasting data rate (i.e., 8,000 bps) and its
information receiving data rate. The HEM’s information
receiving data rate is 800 bits/second from 10 devices.
Considering these HEM architectures as shown in Fig. (1),
performance comparison of ZigBee, Wi-Fi and Ethernet for
HEM implementation in terms of their latency, throughput and
reliability are discussed below.
B. Latency
Latency, also known as the End-to-End delay, refers to the
time it takes for a message to be transmitted across a network
from a source to a destination. Generally, it covers three kinds
of delay: transmission delay, propagation delay and processing
delay. The transmission delay is the amount of time required to
push all packets into the channel. The propagation delay is the
amount of time it takes for the signal to travel from a sender to
a receiver. The processing delay is the amount of time it takes
for a destination to receive all packets and store them in its
storage/memory.
Simulation results are illustrated in Fig. 2 showing the
latency of ZigBee, Wi-Fi and Ethernet in seconds using two
communication schemes (i.e., Always-on and Turn-on-in-
loop). These are summarized in Table I. It can be seen that the
Turn-on-in-loop scheme always has less latency than the
Always-on scheme for all technologies. Using the same
communication scheme, Ethernet has the least latency; while
ZigBee has the highest latency. According to requirements
specified in [6], latency of the three communication
technologies using either of the two communication schemes
is acceptable for the HEM application, which requires latency
of less than a minute.
ZigBee Always-on; ZigBee Turn-on-in-loop;
Wi-Fi Always-on; Wi-Fi Turn-on-in-loop;
Ethernet Always-on; Ethernet Turn-on-in-loop;
Fig. 2. Latency (seconds) of ZigBee, Wi-Fi and Ethernet using Always-on and
Turn-on-in-loop schemes.
C. Throughput
The network throughput is the average rate of successful
message delivery over a communication channel. Fig. 3(a) and
(b) show the throughputs of the HEM system using ZigBee,
Wi-Fi and Ethernet in the Turn-on-in-loop scheme and the
Always-on scheme, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 3(a) for the Turn-on-in-loop scheme,
there is only one device sending information during one time-
slot. This can be either the load controller sends electrical
measurement information (800bps) or the HEM unit
broadcasts confirmation signals (10*800bps = 8,000bps). As
shown, system throughputs are same regardless of the
communication technology selected.
In Fig. 3(b), in the Always-on scheme, all load controllers
send one message to the HEM unit every second. In this case,
the HEM unit constantly receives 10*800 bps = 8,000bps. A
spike occurs, i.e., 16,000 bps, when the HEM unit broadcasts
control signals to all load controllers. As shown in Fig. 3(b),
throughputs are the same for Wi-Fi and Ethernet technologies
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 1. HEM architectures: (a) ZigBee; (b) Wi-Fi; (c) Ethernet.

4
(red and blue lines, respectively). However, the figure
indicates some data drops when ZigBee is used (green line).
D. Reliability
Reliability is the characteristic showing how reliable a
communication system is when performing a data transfer.
Reliability can simply be calculated as a ratio of bits of data
received correctly to bits of data sent. The most reliable
network is the one with 100% reliability. Radio Frequency
Interference (RFI) – the electronic noise produced by electrical
and electronic devices, e.g., motors and personal computers –
may affect the reliability of wireless communications. Since
frequency ranges of these noises are between 10 kHz and 1
GHz [16], RFI on WiFi and ZigBee operated at 2.4 GHz can
thus be ignored.
Overall simulation results indicate that the Always-on
scheme has lower reliability than the Turn-on-in-loop scheme.
The reliability of all communication technologies is 100% in
the Turn-on-in-loop scheme in our simulation environment.
Additionally, the reliability of Ethernet and Wi-Fi technologies
are also 100% in the Always-on scheme as well with ten load
controllers being considered. However, data drops occur when
ZigBee is used in the Always-on scheme. See Fig. 4.
V. IMPACT OF NUMBER OF LOAD CONTROLLERS ON
COMMUNICATION PERFORMANCE
To analyze the impact of the number of devices on
communication performance, HEM architectures with 5, 10
and 15 load controllers are simulated in OPNET for 30
minutes. Simulation results are summarized in Table I, which
compare latency, throughput and reliability of three
communication technologies of interest (i.e., ZigBee, Wi-Fi
and Ethernet) using two communication schemes (i.e.,
Always-on and Turn-on-in-loop). According to Table I, it can
be concluded that the latency and reliability delivered by the
Turn-on-in-loop scheme are better than those offered by the
Always-on scheme. All selected communication technologies
can meet the latency requirement of the HEM application in
the premises area network. Moreover, these three technologies
can provide 100% reliability in the Turn-on-in-loop scheme.
Throughput ranges for three communication technologies
are summarized in Table I. In the Turn-on-in-loop scheme, the
minimum throughput is 800 bps for all cases as one load
controller sends electrical measurement information to the
HEM at a time. The maximum throughput is 800 bps * number
of load control devices, as the HEM unit broadcasts
confirmation signals to all load controllers. No data drop in the
Turn-on-in-loop scheme. However, in the Always-on scheme,
the minimum theoretical throughput is 800 bps * number of
load control devices as all load controllers send their electrical
data to the HEM unit at the same time. The maximum
theoretical throughput is twice the minimum theoretical
throughput as broadcasting confirmation messages from the
HEM unit are also taken into account. As shown in Table I,
with 10 or 15 load control devices with ZigBee
communication, the actual minimum throughput appears lower
than theoretical numbers due to data drops. With Wi-Fi, the
simulation shows the data drop happens only once when the
HEM unit broadcasts to 15 load control devices. However,
since there is no other data drop during other times that the
HEM unit broadcasts, the maximum throughput equals the
theoretical maximum throughput.
Table I also summarizes power consumption of ZigBee, Wi-
Fi and Ethernet, which are two important factors in selecting
an appropriate communication technology in the premises area
network. Apparently, ZigBee is the lowest power consumption
device.
Typical implementation costs of ZigBee, Wi-Fi and
Ethernet are also summarized in Table I, including chip,
network switch/access point and cable costs. Since Ethernet is
a wired communication technology, it needs extra cables and a
network switch to connect to end-devices. Wi-Fi and ZigBee
are wireless communication technologies. An extra network
access point is required for Wi-Fi to set up a network.
(a)
(b)
ZigBee Always-on Wi-Fi Always-on; Ethernet Always-on;
Fig. 3. Throughputs (bps) of ZigBee, Wi-Fi and Ethernet using: (a) the Turn-
on-in-loop scheme; (b) the Always-on scheme.
Fig. 4. Data dropped (bits) using ZigBee (Always-on).
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper compares commonly used wired and wireless
communication technologies for an HEM implementation in a

5
premises area network. Simulation results from OPNET show
the Turn-on-in-loop scheme always provides 100% reliability
and provides better latency than the Always-on scheme.
ZigBee has the highest latency while Ethernet has the lowest
one using the same communication scheme. However, the
latency of all three communication technologies is sufficient to
support HEM system requirements. Ethernet always provides
100% reliability, while ZigBee and Wi-Fi have 100%
reliability when the Turn-on-in-loop scheme is used; and both
have data drops in the Always-on scheme. However, their
reliability is still higher than 99%, which is sufficient to meet
HEM system’s reliability requirements.
Additional requirements of HEM applications in a premise
area network are low power consumption and low
implementation costs. ZigBee has the lowest power
consumption and implementation costs, and can meet
reliability and latency requirements for HEM applications.
Therefore, ZigBee with the Turn-on-in-loop scheme is
recommended as a potential solution for an HEM system.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Lars, Berger and I. Krzysztof, “Smart grid, applications,
communications, and security”, published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken, New Jersey, 2011.
[2] L. Wenpeng, D. Sharp and S. Lancashire, "Smart grid communication
network capacity planning for power utilities," In Proc. 2010 IEEE PES
T&D Conference and Exposition, April 2010, New Orleans, LA.
[3] B. Asare-Bediako, P.F. Ribeiro and W.L. Kling, "Integrated energy
optimization with smart home energy management systems," In Proc.
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies, Oct, 2012, Berlin, Germany.
[4] V. Aravinthan, V. Namboodiri, S. Sunku and W. Jewell,"Wireless AMI
application and security for controlled home area networks," In Proc.
2011 PES General Meeting, July 2011, San Diego, CA.
[5] M.Z. Huq and S. Islam,"Home area network technology assessment for
demand response in smart grid environment," In Proc. Universities
Power Engineering Conference, Dec 2010, Christchurch, New Zealand.
[6] M. Kuzlu and M. Pipattanasomporn,"Assessment of communication
technologies and network requirements for different smart grid
applications," In Proc. Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT), Feb
2013, Washington, DC.
[7] V.C. Gungor, D. Sahin, T Kocak, S. Ergut, C. Buccella, C. Cecati and
G.P. Hancke, "Smart grid technologies: communication technologies and
standards," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol.7, no.4,
pp.529-539, Nov. 2011.
[8] V.C. Gungor, D. Sahin, T. Kocak, S. Ergut, C. Buccella, C. Cecati and
GP. Hancke, "A survey on smart grid potential applications and
communication requirements," IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Informatics, on , vol.9, no.1, pp.28,42, Feb. 2013.
[9] I. S. Hammoodi, B.G. Stewart, A. Kocian and S.G. McMeekin,"A
comprehensive performance study of opnet modeler for ZigBee wireless
sensor networks," In Proc. Next Generation Mobile Applications,
Services and Technologies, Sept. 2009, Wales, UK.
[10] S.A. Khan, F.A. Khan, A. Shahid and Z.A. Khan, "ZigBee based
reconfigurable clustered home area network," In Proc. Sensor
Technologies and Applications, June 2009, Athens, Greek.
[11] D.M. Han and J.H. Lim, "Design and implementation of smart home
energy management systems based on ZigBee," IEEE Transactions on
Consumer Electronics, vol.56, no.3, pp.1417-1425, Aug. 2010.
[12] C.C. Sic, L. Jeong and L. Woo, "Complex home energy management
system architecture and implementation for green home with Built-in
Photovoltaic and motorized blinders," In Proc. ICT Convergence
(ICTC), Oct. 2012, Jeju Island, South Korea.
[13] A.R Busquet, J. Soler and L. Dittmann, "A novel home energy
management system architecture," In Proc. Computer Modelling and
Simulation (UKSim), April, 2011, Cambridge, UK.
[14] M. Kuzlu, M. Pipattanasomporn and S. Rahman, "Hardware
demonstration of a home energy management system for demand
response applications," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol.3, no.4,
pp.1704,1711, Dec. 2012.
[15] M. Pipattanasomporn, M. Kuzlu and S. Rahman, "An algorithm for
intelligent home energy management and demand response analysis,"
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol.3, no.4, pp.2166,2173, Dec. 2012.
[16] RFI Information from Digikey [Online]. Available:
http://www.digikey.com/Web%20Export/Supplier%20Content/CurtisInd
_364/PDF/Curtis_FAQ.pdf?redirected=1. Retrieved: November 2013.
[17] P. Smith, “Comparisons between low power wireless technologies”
[Online]. Available: www.csr.com/sites/default/files/ white-
papers/comparisons_between_low_power_wireless_technologies. pdf.
Retrieved: August 2013.
[18] Intel, “The Intel® 82541PI gigabit ethernet controller” [Online].
Available:www.intel.com/design/network/products/lan/controllers/82541
pi.htm Retrieved: August 2013.
[19] “A true system-on-chip solution for 2.4-GHz IEEE 802.15.4” [Online],
Available: http://www.ti.com/product/cc2533. Retrieved: August 2013.
[20] “CC3000 IEEE 802.11b/g solution module” [Online], Available:
http://www.ti.com/product/cc3000. Retrieved: August 2013.
[21] “Industrial Ethernet PHY reference guide” [Online], Available:
http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/interface/ethernet-products.page. Retrieved:
August 2013.
TABLE I.
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
Number
of
Devices
Communication
Schemes
Typical Latency
(second)
Throughput
(bit/second)
Reliability
Power
consum
ption
[17, 18]
Implementation cost [19, 20, 21]
Chip
cost
Cable
cost
Network
Switch
ZigBee
5
Always-on 0.0093 - 0.1042 4000 - 8000 100%
~ 0.036
W
~ $2.75 -
$3.5
/unit
$0 $0
Turn-on-in-loop 0.0043 - 0.0062 800 - 4000 100%
10
Always-on 0.0164 - 0.1092 2400 - 16000 99.9518%
Turn-on-in-loop 0.0043 - 0.0062 800 - 8000 100%
15
Always-on 0.0249 - 0.1146 5600 - 24000 99.0747%
Turn-on-in-loop 0.0043 - 0.0062 800 - 12000 100%
Wi-Fi
5
Always-on 0.0046 - 0.0108 4000 - 8000 100%
~ 0.210
W
~ $3 -
$20 /unit
$0
$20 -
$50
Turn-on-in-loop 0.0008 - 0.0016 800 - 4000 100%
10
Always-on 0.0078 - 0.0166 8000 - 16000 100%
Turn-on-in-loop 0.0009 - 0.0016 800 - 8000 100%
15
Always-on 0.0107 - 0.0250 12000 - 24000 99.9451%
Turn-on-in-loop 0.0009 - 0.0016 800 - 12000 100%
Ethernet
5
Always-on 0.0005 - 0.0007 4000 - 8000 100%
~ 0.300
W
~ $1 -
$13.1
/unit
~
$1/meter
$20 -
$50
Turn-on-in-loop 0.0002 - 0.0002 800 - 4000 100%
10
Always-on 0.0005 - 0.0007 8000 - 16000 100%
Turn-on-in-loop 0.0002 - 0.0002 800 - 8000 100%
15
Always-on 0.0005 - 0.0009 12000 - 24000 100%
Turn-on-in-loop 0.0002 - 0.0002 800 - 12000 100%

Assessment of Communication Technologies for a Home Energy Management System

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Assessment of Communication Technologies for a Home Energy Management System (20)

Assessment of Communication Technologies for a Home Energy Management System