Practical Guide to International Standardization for Electrical Engineers E-Book

Hermann J. Koch

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 476

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017

Beschreibung

Practical Guide to International Standardization for Electrical Engineering provides a comprehensive guide to the purpose of standards organizations, their relationship to product development and how to use the standardization process for cost-effective new product launch. It covers major standardization organizations in the field of Electrical Engineering offering a general overview of the varying structures of national standardization organizations, their goals and targets.

Key questions for standardization are answered giving the reader guidance on how to use national and international standards in the electrical business. When shall the company start to enter standardization? How to evaluate the standardization in relationship to the market success? What are the interactions of innovations and market access? What is the cost of standardization? What are the gains for our experts in standardization?

Key features:

• Provides guidance on how to use national and international standards in the electrical business.
• Global active standardization bodies featured include IEEE, IEC and CIGRE as well as regional organizations like CENELEC for Europe, SAC for China, DKE for Germany, and ANSI for USA.
• Case studies demonstrate how standardization affects the business and how it may block or open markets.
• Explains the multiple connections and influences between the different standardization organizations on international, regional or national levels and regulatory impact to the standardization processes.
• Two detailed focused case studies, one on Smart Grid and one on Electro-Mobility, show the influence and the work of international standardization. The case studies explain how innovative technical developments are promoted by standards and what are the roles of standardization organizations are.

A valuable reference for electrical engineers, designers, developers, test engineers, sales engineers, marketing engineers and users of electrical equipment as well as authorities and business planners to use and work with standards.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Title Page

Foreword by Mark Waldron

Foreword by Bernhard Thies

Foreword by Markus Reigl

Foreword by Damir Novosel

Preface

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Glossary

1 Why Standards?

1.1 General Introduction

1.2 War on Standards

1.3 Main Players

1.4 The Public View of Standardization

1.5 Right Timing

1.6 Benefits of Standards

2 Framework for Standards

2.1 General

2.2 World Trade Organization

2.3 European Union

2.4 Regional

3 Standardization Processes

3.1 General

3.2 Principles

3.3 Legal Relevance

3.4 Benefits of Standardization

4 Development of Standards

4.1 General

4.2 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)

4.3 International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

4.4 International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

4.5 CENELEC

4.6 CEN

4.7 ETSI

4.8 IEEE

4.9 International Coordination

5 National Organizations

5.1 General

5.2 Germany

5.3 France – AFNOR

5.4 Spain – AENOR

5.5 Italy – CEI/UNI

5.6 United Kingdom – BSI

5.7 USA – ANSI

5.8 Japan – JSA

6 Standardization Support Organizations

6.1 General

6.2 CIGRE

6.3 CIRED

7 Case Studies

7.1 General

7.2 Smart Grid

7.3 E‐Mobility

7.4 Conclusion

7.5 Publicity in Japan

8 Conformity and Certification

8.1 General

8.2 Processes

8.3 IEC Process

8.4 European Process

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 01

Table 1.1 European standardization organizations.

Table 1.2 American members in IEC technical committees (TC). The numbers show how many experts have been nominated to the organizations.

Table 1.3 American members on ISO technical committees.

Table 1.4 An overview of American organizations involved in standardization at a national level.

Table 1.5 A comparison of US and EU standardization.

Table 1.6 Members of Mercosur Association of Standardization (AMN).

Table 1.7 Sectors of CSM technical committees.

Table 1.8 Accredited product certifiers.

Table 1.9 Mirror committees of the IEC in Argentina.

Table 1.10 Technical activities in the electrotechnical field.

Table 1.11 Chinese legal structure.

Chapter 02

Table 2.1 Weighted voting in the European Union.

Table 2.2 EU directives in the electrical field.

Chapter 04

Table 4.1 Major national committees of the IEC and ISO.

Table 4.2 System evaluation groups.

Table 4.3 Working groups of SEG 1 Smart Cities.

Table 4.4 Low voltage direct current WGs.

Table 4.5 System committees.

Table 4.6 Working Groups of SyC AAL.

Table 4.7 Working groups of SyC smart energy.

Table 4.8 Overview of TCs.

Table 4.9 Types of IEC documents.

Table 4.10 Additional standard documents.

Table 4.11 Steps in standards.

Table 4.12 Timeframe of documents in the standardization process.

Table 4.13 Subcommittees of JCT 1.

Table 4.14 ITU sectors.

Table 4.15 Products of CENELEC standards.

Table 4.16 Numbering of standards in Europe.

Table 4.17 European and non‐European partners.

Table 4.18 Overview of IEEE.

Table 4.19 IEEE global membership.

Chapter 05

Table 5.1 Overview of international standardization cooperation of Germany.

Table 5.2 Development of international, European and German standardization.

Table 5.3 Seats of national organizations in DKE.

Table 5.4 VDE professional journals.

Table 5.5 Sequences of standardization process in Germany.

Table 5.6 Number and title of CENELEC documents in German DIN/VDE.

Table 5.7 Types of VDE documents.

Table 5.8 Standardization process in France.

Table 5.9 Active sectors.

Table 5.10 Landmarks in the history of AENOR.

Table 5.11 International relationships – basic electrical standards.

Table 5.12 International relationships – low‐voltage switchgear, controlgear and accessories.

Table 5.13 International relationships – electrical installations.

Table 5.14 International relationships – electric equipment and automatic systems for industry.

Table 5.15 International relationships – electrical safety.

Table 5.16 International relationships – lamps and related equipment.

Table 5.17 International relationships – electrical energy production.

Table 5.18 International relationships – transmission and distribution of electrical energy.

Table 5.19 International relationships – electromagnetic compatibility.

Table 5.20 International relationships – electronic equipment.

Table 5.21 International relationships – electrotechnical aspects of telecommunication equipment.

Table 5.22 International relationships – electric energy cables.

Table 5.23 International relationships – telecommunication cables and optical fibre.

Table 5.24 International relationships – household electrical appliances.

Table 5.25 International relationships – electrical installations for lighting and beaconing of aerodromes.

Table 5.26 International relationships – equipment and methods for the assessment of electromagnetic fields associated with human exposure.

Table 5.27 International relationships – renewable energies, climate change and energy efficiency.

Table 5.28 International relationships – electrical energy supply systems.

Table 5.29 International relationships – electrical energy storage systems.

Table 5.30 ANSI.

Table 5.31 ANSI essential requirements.

Table 5.32 Criteria for vote and comments of consensus standards.

Table 5.33 ANSI member forums.

Chapter 06

Table 6.1 CIGRE study committees.

Table 6.2 Liaison types A and B between IEC and CIGRE.

Table 6.3 Liaisons between IEEE and CIGRE.

Chapter 07

Table 7.1 Smart Grid on an international level.

Table 7.2 Smart Grid in the United States.

Table 7.3 Smart grid in Europe.

Table 7.4 Smart grid in China.

Table 7.5 Smart grid in Germany.

Table 7.6 Overview Smart Grid international standards.

Table 7.7 Classes of electric vehicles.

Table 7.8 German standardization (https://www.dke.de/de/std/e‐mobility/Seiten/E‐Mobility.aspx, accessed 3 March 2016).

Table 7.9 European activities on electric vehicle standards (https://www.dke.de/de/std/e‐mobility/Seiten/E‐Mobility.aspx, accessed 3 March 2016).

Table 7.10 Integration of electric vehicles to the power supply grid.

Table 7.11 Electromobility system overview (https://www.dke.de/de/std/e‐mobility/Seiten/E‐Mobility.aspx, 3 March 2016).

Table 7.12 Overview of international standardization of electric vehicles.

Table 7.13 Types of plugs.

Table 7.14 Standards on safety of electromobility.

Table 7.15 Standards on electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), lighting and surge protection.

Table 7.16 Standards on functional safety.

Chapter 08

Table 8.1 Organizations behind the national members of IEC Q EE (some examples, status 2015).

List of Illustrations

Chapter 01

Figure 1.1 Legal framework of standardization in the United States.

Figure 1.2 The organizational structure of AMN.

Figure 1.3 Structure of standardization in Argentina.

Figure 1.4 Responsibility for standardization.

Figure 1.5 Types of national standards.

Figure 1.6 Standardized standard title page.

Chapter 02

Figure 2.1 UN ECE structure.

Figure 2.2 UN ECA structure.

Figure 2.3 UN ECLAC structure.

Figure 2.4 UN ESCAP structure.

Figure 2.5 Actors and processes in the United States.

Figure 2.6 US standardization system.

Figure 2.7 Standardization by State Council.

Figure 2.8 Simplified structure of Chinese standardization.

Figure 2.9 Types of standards in China.

Chapter 04

Figure 4.1 Common steps of standard development.

Figure 4.2 IEC organization in three levels.

Figure 4.3 Work structure in the IEC.

Figure 4.4 Process of the IEC‐CENELEC Dresden Agreement.

Figure 4.5 Structure of the ISO.

Figure 4.6 Structure of CENELEC.

Figure 4.7 Reduction of trade barriers in EU.

Figure 4.8 Removing trade barriers in Europe.

Figure 4.9 Visualization of the weighted voting of CENELEC members.

Figure 4.10 Organization of technical work in CENELEC.

Figure 4.11 European standardization process in CEN and CENELEC.

Figure 4.12 Vilamoura process.

Figure 4.13 Adoption of the IEC standards into EN standards outside the Dresden Agreement.

Figure 4.14 Transition periods for European EN standards of CEN and CENELEC.

Figure 4.15 Organization of CEN.

Figure 4.16 Organization of ETSI.

Figure 4.17 ‐4: IEEE organization.

Figure 4.18 Individual and entity standards development.

Figure 4.19 IEEE‐SA standards process.

Figure 4.20 Identifying IEEE standards development.

Figure 4.21 IEEE standards development process flow.

Figure 4.22 IEEE standards development approval process.

Figure 4.23 Overview of project approval process.

Figure 4.24 IEEE approval process for publication.

Figure 4.25 Sponsor balloting.

Figure 4.26 Revision committee (REVCOM) approval.

Figure 4.27 IEC‐CENELEC parallel voting (Dresden Agreement).

Figure 4.28 Transfer of IEC International Standard (IS) to CENELEC European Standard (EN) outside the Dresden Agreement.

Chapter 05

Figure 5.1 DKE for German standards.

Figure 5.2 Standardization contract DIN/DKE and German government.

Figure 5.3 Workflow of the DKE.

Figure 5.4 Structure of DKE in principle.

Figure 5.5 DKE activities.

Figure 5.6 Structure of DIN.

Figure 5.7 DIN in Europe and internationally.

Figure 5.8 Principal steps to write a standard in DIN.

Figure 5.9 DIN standardization process for Germany.

Figure 5.10 Structure of VDE in principle.

Figure 5.11 Founding of the DKE.

Figure 5.12 Principle of the relationship between standards and laws in Germany.

Figure 5.13 Standardization process in Germany.

Figure 5.14 Cooperation between IEC‐CENELEC‐DKE from a German view.

Figure 5.15 Process to initiate VDE Application Guide.

Figure 5.16 Organization of ANSI.

Figure 5.17 Organization of the JSA.

Figure 5.18 Seminars on standards and quality by the JSA.

Chapter 07

Figure 7.1 Overview of standardization activities.

Figure 7.2 Standardization areas (https://www.dke.de/de/std/e‐mobility/Seiten/E‐Mobility.aspx, accessed 3 March 2016).

Chapter 08

Figure 8.1 Conformity assessment process.

Figure 8.2 Modular structure of conformity evaluation.

Figure 8.3 IEC Conformity Assessment Board (CAB).

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Pages

iii

iv

xi

xii

xii

xiii

xv

xvi

xvii

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvi

xxvii

xxviii

xxix

xxx

xxxi

xxxii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

231

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

PRACTICAL GUIDE TO INTERNATIONAL STANDARDIZATION FOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS

IMPACT ON SMART GRID AND E‐MOBILITY MARKETS

Hermann J. Koch

Gerhardshofen, Germany

This edition first published 2016© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com.

The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication data applied for

ISBN: 9781119067412

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Foreword by Mark Waldron

At first glance, standards, and particularly international standards, appear to have a very clear and singular function: to define widely applicable technical performance requirements within their scope of application. Of course this is a key purpose of standards but the role and influence of standards and the standardization process are much broader than they might at first appear. Knowledge of, and engagement with, standards and the processes by which they are produced is invaluable for engineers and scientists throughout the life cycle of any product of service, from research and development, through production and service, to end of life and disposal.

Development of new standards should always take place to address a market need. This need may derive directly from a customer desire to implement new technology, services or facilities; it may be driven by developments in technology within the suppliers of products and services but more typically it is a combination of these factors. In any case, prestandardization activities will typically be undertaken among international experts to establish the maturity of the intended field of standardization and to establish a common language, definitions and mutual understanding within the field. Whether done internally by standardization bodies or externally by organizations such as CIGRE this process of establishing a common language and understanding is key to effective standardization. Prestandardization activity also commonly highlights areas where critical knowledge is lacking and thereby provides feedback for further research and development required prior to the establishment of a standard or standards. Finally prestandardization can also identify aspects that should not be Standardized, for example because there is no common approach possible or because they are subject to specific local requirements.

Once initiated, a key strength of the standardization process itself is that it brings together a wide range of stakeholders with a need to establish clear, unambiguous requirements that are deliverable (at reasonable cost) and are mutually acceptable to all. Since standards address aspects such as technical performance, operation and operational facilities, safety, environmental impact, testing and interoperability, it is common for researchers, designers, manufacturers, testing facilities, users, regulators and consultants to be engaged in their development. As well as resulting in an effective standard, this process provides every participant with a valuable insight into the perspectives of other stakeholders in the field, which is difficult to gain effectively by other means. It is also a great training ground in the arts of negotiation and compromise!

Finally, even the best standard will have scope for improvement once it has been applied and used by a wide range of stakeholders. Feedback into the standard‐making process from the widest possible stakeholder base is vital to ensure the best possible standard and to ensure that developments within the scope of application are addressed.

So, in summary, standards and the processes by which they are prepared have a considerable influence on the activities of engineers working in the field of electrical engineering and a knowledge of, and ideally participation in, this activity is undoubtedly advantageous and may even be considered essential.

Mark WaldronCIGRE TC Chairman

Foreword by Bernhard Thies

Modern societies would not work properly without standards. From basic commodities like bulbs or a sheet of paper to highly complex machineries and power plants: Nothing runs without technical rules. Norms and standards as commonly recognized state of the art lay down not only interfaces as precondition for exchangeability, comparability and interoperability. The user independent of being a consumer or an integrator also obtains assurance regarding the required level of safety and quality.

In this manner the term safety means to comprehensively protect humans, animals and objects against any harm regardless of the threat scenario. The key is to already take the necessary precautions at the design phase of a new product to reduce any risk to a minimum. A standard represents the extensive experience of many experts – engineers, scientists, safety experts, environmentalists as well as consumer advocates. If a product fulfills the requirements of such a consensus‐driven standard a high level of safety is automatically classified. Designers and developers benefit from the standard in the way that their work becomes more efficient and reliable. Thereby, the standard only provides basic requirements so that there is still enough space for innovation and creativity. Hence, standards by no means impede innovation but lay down a level playing field on which competitors can build different solutions with unique selling propositions.

However, standardization requires the input of many experts that provide their knowledge for the common property. Moreover, companies delegating experts into standardization bear the costs of travelling and personnel. But, companies also benefit from direct participation within standard committees by shaping the standard to their advantage or gaining knowledge prior to the publication of a standard. To sum up, not only the individual standard setters, but also the whole society benefits from standardization since standards promote technological acceptance and open‐mindedness. Standardization can achieve a highly operational and economical benefit which is estimated around 16 billion Euros per year for Germany.

Bernhard ThiesChairman of the Board of DirectorsDKE Technical StandardizationElectric, Electronic and Information TechnologyFrankfurt, Germany

Foreword by Markus Reigl

Many assertions are made about standardization and standards – and the most of them are true! Now let us take a look at them from various perspectives.

Firstly, from a governmental perspective, standards support regulatory requirements and help to achieve societal goals such as safety in operation, user and environmental friendliness, energy efficiency and sustainability. Further, standards set the scene by stipulating the commonly accepted basic requirements that various vendors have agreed on. These same vendors compete in markets based on product features, performance, quality and price. Through this mechanism standards help to intensify competition.

If true international standards are widely adopted in global target markets the major advantage for vendors using the standards is to capitalize on their broad market acceptance so reducing country specific re‐design or re‐engineering.

Finally product users benefit from the extensive variety of products made by different vendors and at the same time they can be confident with the conformity to legal regulations. In addition they benefit from interoperability in heterogeneous multi‐vendor solutions. Furthermore these standards provide investment security from simple machinery to complex large scale industrial plants.

After extolling all the merits of using standards we should not however forget to honor those who make them – the innumerable technical experts in the committees and working groups of standards developing organizations. Any such committee can consider itself more than fortunate if it has highly skilled, knowledgeable and experienced industry experts contributing to its standardization work. Experts such as Dr. Hermann J. Koch.

I can thoroughly recommend Hermann J. Koch’s practical guide which provides “hands on” expert knowledge. The international standardization community would benefit greatly if there were more key experts like Hermann J. Koch. Enjoy the guide.

Markus Reigl, Dipl‐Ing, MAHead of the Corporate Department forTechnical Regulation and StandardizationSiemens AGBerlin and Munich, Germany

Foreword by Damir Novosel

Major technological innovations in the areas such as renewable energy resources, storage, electric vehicles, automation, measurement devices, protection and control, materials, DC technology and robotics resulted in a paradigm shift of how we use electricity. The electric power and energy industry is in a crucial transition phase as initiatives we take today will affect how the grid is operated for years to come. In this fast‐pace environment, standards are even more critical for both users and vendors to streamline deployment of both existing and new technologies and support interoperability among devices and systems as well as the use of best industry practices.

Active participation in development of Standards has been helping our membership to enhance and protect current and future investments, shape industry practices, and influence new developments. IEEE members need to be even more engaged and with support and leadership from the IEEE Standards Association continue working diligently to better serve our industry in releasing standards in timely fashion.

As we emphasize importance of IEEE standards and technical reports, it is important to remember that they have been providing fundamental value to our industry since the dawn of electricity. Figure below shows first AIEE (IEEE predecessor) standard published in 1893.

Presently, a lot of countries in the world have industry regulations/codes based on IEEE related standards. The goal of IEEE, including IEEE Power and Energy Society (PES) which publishes over 40% of IEEE standards, is to continue developing required standards and focus on promoting them globally.

This book by one of the industry leaders in developing standards, Dr. Herman Koch, is very important to raise the awareness and communicate importance of standards, including recent developments.

Figure 1 First IEEE (AIEE) Standard

Damir NovoselIEEE PES President

Preface

Standardization today is a complex business. With influences at international, regional and national level it is like an ever‐moving target and it is hard to follow, with its own processes. At the same time standardization is becoming increasingly important for the management of successful technical innovation and new products and services. In modern business strategies, Having the right standards in place when a new product or service is offered to the market is a key factor in the success of modern business strategies. Innovation may be the basis for success but the standard related to the innovation will open the market for the new product or service internationally, in a region, or in one country. As Werner von Siemens said in the late 1800s: ‘He who owns the standards owns the market!’ This is still valid today.

Standardization is changing fast and continuously adapting to market situations following market trends. One big goal of recent decades in international standardization was to reduce the time it takes to finish a standard. Standardization organizations developed new standard products like the publicly available specification (PAS). Another topic in recent years has been the trend towards globalization in industry. Standardization needs to keep up with this. Many national or regional organizations became international and opened new offices all over the world. The German DIN was used in Asia and South America; the British BSI was rolled out to all continents and the American‐based IEEE opened offices in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. All these activities influence the availability and acceptance of standards by users in the region. New types of standardization organizations based on industrial consortia create new standards in a fast‐changing market of new technical products such as smart phones and software services. Most recently, the Internet of things has led to standards organized on the Internet, Linux software being an impressive example. All of this influences the impact of technical standards on new products and services.

The author is an active participant for more than 25 years for Siemens high voltage division. He is participating in standardization at the international, regional and national level in the field of electrical technology. Based on his experiences with IEC, IEEE, DKE and CIGRE and personal contact with other standardization organizations in France, Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Russia, China, Japan, the United States, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Egypt, India and other countries, this book has been written to provide guidance and an overview of the subject. It also helps the reader to evaluate standardization activities.

The book gives a quick understanding of how standardization organizations work, how they are structured and how participation in standardization work is possible. It also provides useful information on general aspects of standardization.

Because of the nature of standardization, standardization activities and plans must be set up directly with the related standardization organization. The author cannot accept liability in relation to information given by this book.

Hermann J. KochGerhardshofen

Acknowledgements

This book reflects my experience of international, regional and national standardization gained over 25 years. Contributions to this book came from many experts in the field.

I would first like to acknowledge my secretary Angela Dietrich, for her writing work, and Ulrich Ballas for creating all the graphics in the book. Without their support I would not have been able to finish the book on schedule.

Much of the material in the book has been taken from my university lecture at the Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft (HTW) Berlin – a compilation of information mainly provided by the Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN), the Verband der Elektrotechnik, Elektronik und Informationstechnik (VDE) and the Deutsche Kommission Elektrotechnik Elektronik Informationstechnik im DIN und VDE (DKE) in Germany, the British Standards Institute (BSI), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in the United States, the Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR) in France, the Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut (NEN) in the Netherlands, the Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR) in Spain, the Italian Comitato Elettrotecnico Italiano (CEI) and the Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione (UNI) in Italy, the Russian Federal Agency on Technical Regulation and Metrology (GOST), the Standardization Association of the People's Republic of China (SAC), the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), the Japanese Standard Association (JAS) and the Standards Council of Canada (SCC).

The material has been collected using information from many Internet sites. Not everyone who has contributed to this book can be mentioned here but I would like to acknowledge the following in alphabetical order:

Luc Barranger, France AFNOR; Jean‐Marc Biasse, France; Anne Bosma, Sweden; Wolfgang Brodt, Austria; Sivaji Chakravorti, India; Enrico Colombo, Italy; Terry Decourcelle, IEEE, USA; Denis Dufournet, France; Edgar Dullni, DKE, Germany; Jens Erdmann, Belgium; John Finn, United Kingdom; Kenneth Gettman, United States; Judith Gorman, IEEE, United States; Jodi Haasz, IEEE, United States; Tony Headley, United Kingdom; Guido Heit, DKE, Germany; Hisatoshi Ikeda, Japan; Gerhard Imgrund, DKE, Germany; Chris Jones, United Kingdom; Motofumi Matsumura, Japan; Enrique Otegui, Spain; Wan Ki Park, Korea; Patrick Ryan, IEEE, United States; Gerard Schoonenberg, Netherlands; Bernhard Thies, DKE, Germany; Kyoichi Uehara, Japan and Willem Wolf, NEN Netherlands.

My colleagues in Siemens were Sven Achenbach, Heiko Englert, Peter Glaubitz, Matthias Gommel, Thomas Hammer, Friedrich Harless, Dirk Helbig, Claus Kern, Hartmut Knobloch, Edelhard Kynast, Peter Menke, Ansgar Müller, Markus Reigl, Heinz‐Helmut Schramm, Ralph Sporer and Norbert Trapp.

Support from my family helped me to write the book and motivated me to bring it to a successful end. Thanks to my wife Edith, my son Christian and friend Britta, my daughter Katrin and friend Christopher for their support and the design of the front cover of the book.

Abbreviations

AA

DIN Arbeitsausschuss (committee)

AAL

Ambient Assisted Living

ABNT

Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas

AC

alternating current

AC

IEC Advisory Committee

AC ART

IEC Advisory Committee on Applications of Robot Technology

AC EA

IEC Advisory Committee on Environmental Aspects

AC EC

IEC Advisory Committee on Electromagnetic Compatibility

AC EE

IEC Advisory Committee on Energy Efficiency

AC OS

IEC Advisory Committee on Safety

AC SEC

IEC Advisory Committee on Security

AC TAD

IEC Advisory Committee on Electricity Transmission and Distribution

ADETEF

Cross‐Ministry of Finance, Economy and Sustainable Development (France)

AEA

National Electrotechnical Association of Argentina

AENOR

Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (Spanish Association for Standardization and Certification)

AFNOR

Association Française de Normalisation (French Association for Standardization)

AG

CENELEC/CEN – Assemblage General (General Assembly)

AHG

ad hoc group

AK

DIN Arbeitskreis (task force)

AMD

amendment

AMN

American Mercosur Nations

ANAB

American National Standards Institute – American Society for Quality National Accreditation Board (United States)

Annex 7

EU European annexes on normative references to international publications

ANS

American National Standard (United States)

ANSI

American National Standards Institute

ASA

American Standards Association (United States)

ASD

ANSI Accredited Standards Developer (United States)

ASIL

Automotive Safety Integrity Level of ISO 26262

ASME

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASTM

American Society for Testing and Materials

BDI

Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (German Association of Industry)

BIS

Bureau of Indian Standards

BNQ

Bureau de Normalisation du Québec (Canada)

BS

British Standard

BSI

British Standards Institution

BSR

ANSI Board of Standards Reviewer (United States)

BT

CENELEC Technical Office (Bureau Technique)

BTTF

CENELEC Technical Board Task Force

BTWG

CENELEC Technical Board Working Group

CA

CENELEC/CEN – Committee Administrative (Administration)

CAB

IEC – Conformity Assessment Board

CACC

CEN – Committee Administrative Consulting Committee

CAE

Audit and Evaluation Committee (France, AFNOR)

CANENA

Council of Harmonization of Electrical Standardization of the Nations of America

CAS

China Association for Standardization (China)

CB‐Scheme

IEC – B219Certification Bodies Scheme

CC

IEC – Compilation of Comments of Committee Draft

CCC

China Compulsory Certification (China)

CCMC

CEN‐CENELEC Management Center

CCPN

Standardization Coordination and Steering Committee (France, AFNOR)

CD

IEC Committee Draft

CDV

IEC Committee Draft for Vote

CE

European Conformity

CEA

(Electrical Committee of Argentina) Comite Electrotecnico Argentino

CEI

Italian Electrotechnical Committee

CEM

Mexican Electrotechnical Committee

CEN

European Committee for Standardization (English); Comité Européen de Normalisation (French); Europäisches Komitee für Normung (German)

CEN/BT

CEN Technical Board

CENELEC

European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

CIF

ANSI Consumer Interest Forum (United States)

CIGRE

International Council on Large Electric Systems

CIM

Common Information Model

CIRED

International Conference on Electricity Distribution

CMC

CENELEC/CEN – Management Centre

CMF

ANSI Company Member Forum (United States)

CNAS

China National Accreditation for Conformity Assessment

CNE

National Commission of Energy (Chile)

CNIS

China National Institute of Standardization (China)

CO

IEC Central Office

COBEI

Brazilian Committee for Standardization in Electricity, Electronic, Illumination and Telecommunication

COPANT

PanAmerican Standards Commission

COR

corrigendum

CQC

China Quality Certification Centre (China)

CSA

Canadian Standardization Association

CSEE

Chinese Society of Electrical Engineering

CSIC

China Standards Information Centre (China)

CSP

China Standards Press (China)

CWA

CEN‐CENELEC Working Group Agreement

DAR

Deutscher Akkreditierungsrat (Germany)

DC

direct current

DER

distributed energy resources

DGBMT

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Biomedizinische Technik im VDE

DIN

Deutsches Institut for Normung e. V.

DKE

Deutsche Kommission Elektrotechnik Elektronik Informationstechnik im DIN und VDE

DLMS

Device Language Messaging Specification

doc

CENELEC date of conformity

DoC

Department of Commerce (United States)

DoE

Department of Energy (United States)

dop

CENELEC date of publication

dor

CENELEC date of recognition

dow

CENELEC date of withdrawal

Draft prEN

CENELEC draft preliminary European norm

ECISS

European Committee for Iron and Steel Standardization

EEG

Germany – Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz (Renewable Energy Law)

EFTA

European Free Trade Association

EISA

Energy Independence and Security Act (United States)

EMC

electromagnetic compatibility

EMI

electromagnetic interferences

EN

EN:B82 European standard

FR

European normative

ENEC

European Mark for Electric Product Quality and Safety

ENTSO‐E

European Network of Transmission System Operators (Europe)

EPO

European Patent Offices

EPRI

Electric Power Research Institute (United States)

ESO

European Standards Organization

ESS

European Standardization System

Essential Requirement

EU Requirement of European Union Directive on matters of safety, health or other matters covered by the New Approach Directive

ETG

Die Energietechnische Gesellschaft im VDE

ETSI

European Telecommunications Standards Institute

ETSI TC IST

Intelligent Transport Systems and Car to Car Communication

Euro NCAP

Test Procedures for Safe Cars (Europe)

FCC

Federal Communication Commission (United States)

FDA

Federal Food and Drug Administration (United States)

FDIS

IEC Final Draft International Standard

FDN

National Standardization Body (Venezuela)

FNN

Forum Netztechnik / Netzbetrieb im VDE

FprEN

CENELEC Final Draft Project European Norm

GATT

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GB

National Standard (China)

GMA

Die VDI/VDE‐Gesellschaft Mess‐ und Automatisierungstechnik

GMF

ANSI Governmental Member Forum (United States)

GMM

Die VDE/VDI‐Fachgesellschaft Mikroelektronik, Mikrosystem‐ und Feinwerktechnik

GOST

Federal Agency on Technical Regulation and Metrology

GWAC

Gridwise Architecture Council (United States)

HBES

Home and Building Electronic Systems

HD

CENELEC – harmonized document

HV

high voltage (>1 kV)

HVDC

high‐voltage direct current

IAF

International Accreditation Form

IBNORCA

Instituto Boliviano de Normalización y Calidad

ICAP

IEEE – Conformity Assessment Program

ICONTEC

Instituto Colombiano de Normas Técnicas (Colombia)

ICONTEC

Institute of Technical Standardization in Columbia

ICT

Information and Communication Technology

IEC

International Electrotechnical Commission

IEC APC

IEC Activities Promotion Committee (Japan)

IEC EE

IEC System of Conformity Assessment Schemes for Electrotechnical Equipment and Components

IEC EX

IEC System for Certification to Standards Relating to Equipment for Use in Explosive Atmospheres

IEC Q

IEC Quality Assessment System for Electronic Components

IEEE

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

IEEE‐SA

IEEE – Standards Assocation

IEEJ

Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan

IMF

International Monetary Fund

INDECOPI

National Normalization Institute of Peru

INTN

Instituto National de Tecnologia y Normalización Paraguay

IPR

International Property Rights

IRAM

Instituto Argentina de Normalización

IS

IEC International Standard

ISGT

IEEE – Integrated Smart Grid Technology

ISMS

Information Security Management System

ISO

International Organization for Standardization

ISO/CASCO

ISO – Committee on Conformity Assessment

ISO/TMB

ISO – Technical Management Board

ITA

IEC – Industry Technical Agreement

ITG

Die Informationstechnische Gesellschaft im VDE

ITU

International Telecommunication Union

JAB

Japan Accreditation Board for Conformity Assessment

JAP

Japan Accreditation Board

JAS

Japanese Standard Association (Japan)

JICA

International Cooperation Agency (Japan)

JIPDEC

Japan Institute for Promotion of Digital Economy and Community (Japan)

JIS

Japanese Industry Standards (Japan)

JISC

Japanese Industrial Standards Committee

JRCA

Japanese Registration for Certificated Auditors (Japan)

JSA MSE Dept.

JSA Management System Enhancement Department (Japan)

JTC1

ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee

LV

low voltage (<1 kV)

MB

member body

METI

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan)

MoU

memorandum of understanding

MRA

Mutual Recognition Agreement (United States)

MSB

IEC Market Strategy Board

MT

IEC Maintenance Team

MultiSpeak

MultiSpeak Software Interoperability

NA Automobil

DIN Standardization of Road Vehicle Engineering (Germany)

NAFTA

North American Free Trade Agreement

NC

IEC National Committee

NCB

IEC National Certification Bodies

NEMA

National Electric Manufacturer Association (United States)

NESCOM

new standards approval committee of IEEE‐SA Board

NF

Normalisation France

NIST

National Institute of Standards and Technology (United States)

NLF

EU New Legislative Framework (Europe)

NM

Norm Mercosur (South America)

NP

IEC new work item proposal

NPE

National Platform for Electromobility (Germany)

NREL

National Renewable Energy Lab (United States)

NSB

National Standards Body

NSS

National Standards Strategy for the United States

NWIP

IEC New Work Item Proposal

OAA

Organization for Argentinean Accreditation

OAS

Organization of American States

O‐Member

IEC Observer member of IEC Technical Committee without voting rights

OMF

ANSI Organizational Member Forum (United States)

ONP

Oficina de Normalización Previsional (Peru)

PAR

project authorization request for new standards project or revisions

PAS

IEC – publicly available specification

PCISSC

Payment Cards Industry Security Standards Council

PES

IEEE – Power and Energy Society

PINS

Project Identification Notification (United States)

P Member

permanent member of an IEC technical committee

PNE

Présentation de Norm Européennes – rules for the structure and drafting of European Standards (PNE Rule)

PQ

CENELEC primary questionnaire to NCs

prEN

CENELEC Project European Norm

RCD

residual current device

RES

renewable energy sources

RESS

rechargeable energy storage system

REVCOM

review standards approval committee of IEEE‐SA Board

RNF

Réseau Normalisation et Francophonie (France / Canada)

RR

IEC – Review Report

RvA

Raad voor Accreditatie Service (Netherlands)

RVC

IEC – Result of Voting on CDV

RVD

IEC – Report of Voting on FDIS

RVN

IEC – Result of Voting on New Work Item Proposal (NP)

SAC

Standardization Association of the People's Republic of China

SAE

International Consulting on Software and Interoperability

SAE

SAE International Engineering (United States)

SB

IEC Sector Board

SC

IEC and CENELEC – Subcommittee, CIGRE – Study Committee

SCC

Standards Council of Canada

SDO

Standard Development Organization

SEC

National Governmental Supervisory Body (Chile)

SEG

IEC – System Evaluation Group

SG

IEC – Strategic Advisory Group

SGIP

smart grid interoperability panel

SI

international system of units

SMB

IEC – Standards Management Board

SR

CENELEC – Secretary Report

Standstill obligation

CENELEC member states of EU and EFTA have to stop all standardization activities in a particular technical field until the CENELEC standardization process is concluded with an EN or with the cancellation of the work in CENELEC

StGB

Strafgesetzbuch (Germany, criminal law)

STS

Science to Standards (DKE)

SyC

system committee (IEC)

SysCom

IEC System Committee for System Orientated Standardization covering several TCs and SCs

T&D Europe

European Association of Electricity Transmission and Distribution Equipment and Service Industry

T&D

transmission and distribution

TBT

technical barriers to trade

TC

IEC, ISO and CENELEC – technical committee

TEM

transverse electromagnetic mode

TMB

ISO – Technical Management Board

TMC

Technical Management Committee (United States national committee)

TR

IEC – technical report

TS

IEC – technical specification

TTA

IEC – technology trend assessment

UA

DIN Unterausschuss (subcommittee)

UAP

CENELEC unique acceptance procedure

UAP

unique acceptance procedure for rapid approval of European standards

UCA

International User Group (United States)

UHV

Ultra High Voltage (>800 kV)

UKAS

United Kingdom Accreditation Service

UL

Underwriter Laboratories (United States)

UN

United Nations

UN ECA

United Nations Economic Commission for Africa

UN ECE

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UN ECLAC

United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

UN ESCAP

United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Pacific

UN ESCWA

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia

UNI

Ente Italiano di Normazione (Italian Organization for Standardization)

UNIT

Instituto Uruguayo de Normas Técnicas

UQ

CENELEC – Updating Questionnaire to NCs

US NCAP

United States – New Car Assessment Programs

USASI

United States of America Standards Institute

USNC

United States National Committee to IEC

USNC Council

United States National Committee Council for IEC

USSS

United States Standards Strategy

USTAGs

United States – US Technical Advisory Groups

VDA

Automotive Industry Association (Germany)

VDE

Verband der Elektrotechnik Elektronik Informationstechnik e. V. (Germany)

Vilamoura process

CEN‐CENELEC allows the preparation of a draft standard within one National Committee

W3C

World Wide Web Consortium on standards like XLM protocols

WG

IEC working group

WI

work item

WTO

World Trade Organization

WTP

Wireless Power Transfer

ZigBee

The ZigBee Alliance for Wireless Communication and Internet of  Things.

Glossary

Charging modus

Process to charge the battery of an electric vehicle (IEC 61851).

Consensus

General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by progress that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Note that consensus need not imply unanimity.

Consensus (ANSI)

Substantial agreement has been reached directly by materially affected parties. This signifies the concurrence of more than a simple majority but not necessarily unanimity. Consensus requires that all views and objections be considered and that an effort be made toward their resolution [1].

Consensus body (ANSI)

The group that approves the content of a standard and whose vote demonstrates evidence of consensus [1].

Continuous maintenance (ANSI)

Maintenance of a standard by consideration of recommended changes to any part of it [1].

Electromobility

The use of electric vehicles for various transportation / traffic needs.

High voltage

For electric vehicles the following definitions are used: Voltage class B, greater than 30 V AC up to 1000 V AC, or greater than 60 V DC up to 1500 V DC (ISO 6469‐3). For electric power systems high voltage is defined as any voltage greater than 1 kV for alternative currents (a.c.) and 1.5 kV for direct currents (d.c.).

Periodic maintenance (ANSI)

This is defined as the maintenance of a standard by review of the entire document and action to revise or reaffirm it on a schedule not to exceed 5 years from the date of its approval [1].

Proxy (ANSI)

A written and signed document by which a voting member of a consensus body authorizes another person to vote in the member’s stead, if allowed by the standard developer’s procedures [1].

Resolved (ANSI)

A negative vote cast by a member of the consensus body or a comment submitted as a result of public review where the negative voter agrees to change his / her vote or the negative commenter accepts the proposed resolution of his / her comment [1].

Stabilized maintenance (ANSI)

A standard that is maintained under the stabilized maintenance option must satisfy the following eligibility criteria [1]: (i) the standard addresses mature technology or practices and, as a result, is not likely to require revision; (ii) the standard is not safety or health related; (iii) the standard has the status of an American National Standard and has been reaffirmed at least once; (iv) at least 10 years have passed since the last revision or affirmation; (v) it is used in connection with existing standards or for reference purposes.

Substantive change (ANSI)

A change that directly and materially affects the use of the standard. Examples of substantive changes: ‘shall’ to ‘should’ or ‘should’ to ‘shall’; addition, deletion or revision of requirements; addition of mandatory compliance with referenced standards [1].

Unresolved (ANSI)

A negative vote submitted by a consensus body member or a written comment submitted by a person during public review expressing disagreement with some or all of the proposed standard, which has not been resolved satisfactorily and/or withdrawn after having been addressed according to the developer’s approved procedures [1].

1Why Standards?

1.1 General Introduction

The history of standards goes back a long way. As early as 1750 BC. the Codex Hammurabi stated : ‘The master of the building will receive a death penalty if he has constructed a house which breaks down and kills the people inside’ (§229). The Third Book of Moses (19: 35–36) says: ‘You shall not use incorrect length, weight and volume in front of the justice. Right weight, right balance and right volumes shall be used before Jahveh, your God, who has guided you out of Egypt to meet all rules and follow the rights.’ This was written around 1000 BC.

In China, in 2200 BC, the Emperor Qin Shihuangdi produced common technical standards for the wheels of transport waggons, the width of the city gates, the dimensions of the streets, for measures of length and weight and for water pipes, weapons and armour.

Standards leave room for creativity when the government of a country sets up rules for traffic or for the format of film material, or when standards define test procedures for Bacillus cereus on worldwide basis.

Standards leave more room for creativity where each village sets up rules for traffic or if each camera manufacturer uses his own format for the film material or if each ice‐cream manufacturer defines his own test procedure for Bacillus cereus.

Standards leave even more room for creativity when each car driver sets up his own rules for traffic, or if each photograph uses his own film material, or each ice‐cream seller tests his ice cream by watching if people feel bad after eating it, or if each computer manufacturer uses his own hardware.

Standards are everywhere but we usually do not recognize them.

Credit cards are an example of standardization. Each bank could have developed its own credit‐card design. Round, square, thick, thin, one or two chips and so on. Would they have gained worldwide acceptance? Which would be best for withdrawing money from machines? Even the purse has adapted to the size of the credit card.

Paper sizes (such as B4 in the United States or DIN A4 in Europe) are another example of standardization. Paper sizes are used by printers, for envelopes, publications and so on.

Nobody is obliged to use standards – the only requirement is that products are safe. Manufacturers who do not use standards may find that their products are hard to sell and that it is difficult for them to gain acceptance. Not making the use of standards mandatory opens the door for research and new developments. If all manufacturers always had to use the same manufacturing process and use the same principles, the development of new products would be hindered.

If a new credit‐card design appears that is better and safer, users will accept it and a new ‘standard’ credit card would develop and penetrate the market. All other services using credit cards would adapt to this new standard. This is only possible if the market is flexible and standards are not mandatory.

Standards are a way to create order and give a basis for cooperation. They offer state‐of‐the‐art solutions for continuously repeated tasks.

Standardization is a regularly planned process of writing standards according to rules. It is not carried out for the benefit of any single interested party.

Waldemar Hellmich, the first chairman of the standardization organization for general mechanical engineering, Normenausschuss der deutschen Industrie, stated in 1917: ‘Writing standards is crucial work. Those involved often fight with nontechnical arguments for economic reasons.’

1.2 War on Standards

A ‘war on standards’ can happen when someone has an interest in avoiding standards in certain technical fields. There are various reasons why they happen. In most cases they ended up with more disadvantages than advantages for the industry and also for society. Today’s leading standardization organizations follow the recommendations of the WTO, which include rules to avoid such wars on standards.

Here are some examples. The width of railroad tracks varies for different reasons – for instance competition, military reasons or strategic reasons to protect markets. In the United States the railroad track width is different in the north and south. Spain and Russia are different from the rest of Europe.

Sometimes incompatibility may exist by chance or because nobody really recognized that it would be a problem at the beginning. Once it is there, it stays for a long time. In Europe this happened with the power supply, which is different in different European countries. The so‐called ‘Europe plug’ came much too late. Now Europe is trying to avoid making the same mistake with charging plugs for electric vehicles.

Network markets are usually dominated by one strong player. Standardization interests need to be coordinated long before technical solutions have been marketed. The goal is to produce technical solutions with compatible designs so that users are able to choose from different manufacturers.

Technologies that do not comply with standards will not develop a strong market position. They will be locked into market niches. They will either have to adapt to the mainstream or they will stop business after a while.

In more recent history a war on standards involved the digital control of factories. The so‐called ‘Profi Bus discussion’ in the 1970s concerned a standardized bus system to control machinery in factories. Two large groups of companies fought about the definition of the design of the bus system – about how many data lines and control lines there should be and their function.

It was not possible to agree a standard bus design but technical development continues. Millions of dollars have been invested in parallel developments of two different bus systems. There was no winner. The manufacturers had large additional development and design costs and the users could not gain from the technical development, increased functionality and reduction in price that standardization might have brought. The lessons from this antistandardization fight was that none of the main players will win.

In the 1990s, when digital communication had to be standardized, the global industrial community came together to design a common standard protocol. Counterparts on both sides of the Atlantic worked smoothly together in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) working groups.

1.3 Main Players

1.3.1 Europe

The framework for standardization in Europe is given by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its rules for trade without technical barriers. In the European Union, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) produces general standards, the IEC electrical standards, and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) telecommunication standards. Europe follows exactly the same structure, with the Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) for general standards, the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) for electrical standards and ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) for telecommunication standards – see Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 European standardization organizations.

Europe

International

General

CEN

ISO

Electrical

CENELEC

IEC

Telecommunication

ETSI

ITU

This structure makes the European Union a very homogeneous region with regard to standards. The main goal of the member states was to create free market access for all member countries. The 28 member countries following EN standards make it the largest single market place in the world with more than 500 million people from Norway to Sicily and from Portugal to the Baltic countries.

Before harmonization, in the electrical field in different countries of the European Union, a total of close to 30 000 standards were used. Today the number is down to about 6000, including standards for new technologies that did not exist before.

The basis for this harmonization was organized by new European institutions – CEN, CENELEC and ETSI – with the technical support of experts financed by the industry. No government was involved directly and this remains the case today. These so‐called ‘self‐regulating’ bodies are purely focused on technical questions and not on political issues. The European standardization organizations are, in principle, financially independent from politics and industry because their main finances come from membership fees of national standardization organizations, which generate their main income by selling standards.

In real life nothing is independent of political issues or social trends but CEN, CENELEC and ETSI can determine their own direction. European nations sometimes set up rules that are in conflict with EN standards. In such cases, so‐called deviations are used for particular countries. Deviations from EN standards are possible but have to be harmonized as soon as possible.

For example, pressure‐vessel applications have to follow national regulations or laws because politicians want to protect their people from exploding vessels. That is clear and understandable. On the other hand, different test methods and calculation rules require expensive development processes and testing. If each country has its own set of rules, the result in the end in each European country is the same: pressure vessels are safe – but the way in which this has been achieved is different in each country.

Gas‐insulated substations contain devices to switch high‐voltage power lines; the enclosures are pressure vessels and have to follow national rules. Before European harmonization the rules were different in almost any country. If a manufacturer placed an offer he had to calculate the additional cost for testing and certification. As all manufacturers must do so there is no competition and additional costs go directly to the customer and then to the electricity consumer. Before harmonization in Europe took place there were more than 20 different requirements for such pressure vessel tests and certification.

Today only one requirement for pressure vessels by a related EN standard is in place and only one deviation is left in the EN standards for high‐voltage switchgear assemblies, which is for Italy. All other national legislatures have changed and adapted their regulations or laws for pressure vessels to the EN standards. For sure Italy will follow soon to adapt their national regulations. The advantage is clear. Today the manufacturer needs to follow only one procedure for testing and certification of pressure vessels for high voltage switchgear assemblies and he can serve all the EU member countries, only Italy requires special design rules.

Today the same EN standards are widely accepted outside Europe – in America, Africa, Asia, and Australia.

The European Union is often seen as overregulating daily life. Examples of this are requirements concerning the size of bananas, the radius of cucumbers, or the size of steps on ladders. This might be true and such requirements might be unnecessary but in the technical field of electrical equipment, services and systems, standardization in Europe has provided large benefits for users. In many cases European standardization is relevant globally because of active European participation in global standardization organizations like the IEC, ISO and ITU.

Standardization in Europe is often driven by industry. This does not only involve large industrial players; in many cases small and medium‐size companies bring their knowledge and look for a global market. Small and medium‐size companies use international standardization to make their products available on a global basis without needing sales and technical offices in any country.

International standardization promotes innovation and new technical solutions in a global market, gives new opportunities and helps to spread products in the world market.

1.3.2 America

Standardization in America differs from Europe on one key point: there are many standardization organizations providing standards at a local or regional level or in technical branch. In the electrical field the main organizations are the IEEE and the IEC; in some cases EN standards are also applied. Many sector‐related organizations offer their standards in the market.

The Pan‐American Standards Commission (COPANT) is a civil, nonprofit association. It is financed by its membership fees and by grants from the Organization of American States (OAS). The key objectives are the promotion of the development of technical standardization in its member countries to evaluate existing standards and to resist attempts to develop national standards if international or regional standards meet COPANT’s national requirements.

The Forum of IEC National Committees of the Americas (FINCA) is a coordination body founded 2007 in Ottawa, Canada. The member countries coordinate their standardization interests every year at an IEC General Meeting. The members are Canada, the United States, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. The activities of American nations in the IEC and ISO are shown in Tables 1.2 and 1.3.

Table 1.2 American members in IEC technical committees (TC). The numbers show how many experts have been nominated to the organizations.

Nation

Organization

P member of TC

O member of TC

Argentina

CEA

4

11

Brazil

COBEI

31

51

Canada

SCC

93

26

Mexico

CEM

46

57

USA

ANSI

154

–

Colombia (associated)

ICONTEC

4

–

Cuba (associated)

ICONTEC

4

–

Chile (in preparation)

–

Notes: P – member has full voting rights; O – Member can comment.

Table 1.3 American members on ISO technical committees.

Nation

Organization

Nation

Organization

Argentina

IRAM

Jamaica

BSJ

Barbados

BNSI

Mexico

DGN

Bolivia

IBNORCA

Nicaragua

SON

Brazil

ABNT

Panama

COPANIT

Canada

SCC

Paraguay

INTN

Chile

INN

Peru

INDECOPT

Colombia

ICONTEC

Saint Lucia

SCBS

Costa Rica

INTECO

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

SVGBS

Cuba

NC

Suriname

SSB

Ecuador

INEN

Togo

CSN

El Salvador

CONACYT

Trinidad and Tobago

TTBS

Guatemala

COGUANOR

United States

ANSI

Guyana

GNBS

Uruguay

UNIT

Honduras

COHCIT