How Industry Solutions is pushing the boundaries of public lighting

To be honest, I only got to know the VNS project recently—during filming at our site, and really through this collaboration in general. I think it’s a great initiative and an excellent platform for giving companies visibility—but in fact, it’s not only about the companies; it’s about what’s genuinely being done here. I watched some of the videos available as part of the project, and I was pleasantly surprised by the range of stories and content it includes. I’m glad we can be part of it and that it showcases things that are truly made and happening here.

It’s worth going a little into the history here—back to how the system was created, or rather how the idea first came about. In essence, this topic goes back about 16 years. I believe it was around 2009, when we at Siemens were looking at regional cooperation.

At the time in Žilina, alongside our division, there was also a public lighting management division—Siemens had a contract with the City of Žilina (or the city administration) to manage public lighting. At the same time, there was a group of colleagues from a so-called software house developing various applications. We simply sat down at one table and tried to identify an area where we could work together—not necessarily to build something immediately back then, but to find a solution where the know-how and experience of these different groups could be combined.

We were relatively well established in industry, meaning we understood the challenges of technologies and were involved in controlling various technological systems. Our developer colleagues, in turn, knew the world of software development. And the third group came with the idea: why not build a lighting control system, given their experience in that field?

Until then, the systems used were largely based on existing product portfolios. But one colleague came with a proposal: let’s develop a system designed specifically for lighting—one that would therefore be cost-effective and truly tailored to the needs of public lighting. It was an idea that surprised us at the time. I don’t really want to use the word, but I will—it was revolutionary, even visionary.

He suggested that the control concept should be based on controlling individual luminaires. In other words, every single lighting point would be controlled independently. Over time, this led to a technology that genuinely controls each luminaire. And because of the structure we built and use, it also became the foundation for a specifically managed infrastructure. In effect, city lighting—across the city area—becomes a new infrastructure that the city can use not only for lighting.

Because the idea was both new and forward-looking—and practically usable (which we fully realized only gradually)—that was one of the reasons we didn’t want to abandon it or walk away from it.

Then another major turning point came, which was very important for us. At the time this control approach was being created—when the development started and when we built the first version of the system—discharge lamps were still used, so-called discharge luminaires. Later, roughly after 2015, LED luminaires began to take hold and were then deployed at scale. That’s when the system’s advantages became fully visible. With LEDs, the system could be used to its full potential—smoothly across the entire range, effectively from 0 to 100, without limitations.

The system itself also became simpler, because it no longer needed certain components that were necessary for discharge luminaires. As a result, it became simpler and cheaper, and even more efficient. That was so motivating for us that we said: “We can’t just leave this.” So we continued—and I think it was the right decision not to drop it.

It comes down to the original idea—the technology of controlling each individual luminaire. The reality is that a certain group of luminaires in a specific area of the city will naturally be connected to its own distribution cabinet. That cabinet is the natural point from which those luminaires are powered. And that’s exactly where the “heart” of the control system sits: a controller in the cabinet that manages the luminaires supplied from that cabinet. We call that an area, or locality.

Each locality includes several dozen luminaires, naturally spread across the city—exactly the way public lighting works. And because every luminaire has its own control processor, it effectively becomes a communication gateway. You can picture it like a heart with branches extending out to cover different areas. So at each point—at every luminaire, on every public lighting pole—there is a communication gateway.

That means we don’t only control lighting. Of course, within lighting itself we adjust illumination levels—we increase and decrease them—and we provide diagnostics so we know whether luminaires are working and so we can respond when something fails. These are all functions directly tied to lighting, ensuring comfort and safety for citizens—what they truly need.

But beyond that, these communication gateways allow us to connect various additional devices. Today, for example, we can provide air-quality monitoring, monitor ambient natural light, and adjust public lighting intensity accordingly. When the entire network is fully controlled, we can bring it into a so-called permanent power mode—meaning it remains energized 24/7, unlike standard operation where it is powered only when the lights are on. And when the network is energized 24/7, any device we connect can be powered through that network.

This is why solutions like connecting camera systems come into play. We don’t necessarily need to carry the video stream through our own communication layer, but we create the conditions for an entire camera network to be powered from a single place, monitored, diagnosed, and so on.

I also mentioned air-quality monitoring. We have our own elements for that—sensor modules—distributed across the city. They can be deployed at different densities, and we can even move them; they don’t have to be permanently installed in one spot. We measure air quality, and through these sensors we also capture various physical parameters—such as temperature, pressure, noise, particulate matter (which directly relates to air quality), humidity, and more. These are many variables we can measure, and cities are increasingly interested in them both from an operational perspective and to understand what is happening on-site in real time.

We’re also seeing initial impulses and solutions in the area of transport. Again, through these communication points we can connect devices such as traffic counters, speed measurement systems, weather stations, or specialized traffic-focused cameras. And there are more possibilities. If a city has the interest and the capacity to implement smart city solutions, this infrastructure gives it a real platform. It’s not the only one—but it does provide that platform.

Very importantly, communication also happens at the level of distribution cabinets—not at the level of individual lighting points, but the cabinets themselves. For example, Žilina has around 150 of them, which is not a small number. These cabinets communicate via GPRS using SIM cards, but they can also communicate through a local municipal network. In Žilina, something like a metropolitan network is being built—either in parts or as a fully built network—based on fibre optics or other media. In that case, communication becomes faster and more consolidated. Various providers can also be used, meaning that even without building a complete fibre network, a city or municipality can still leverage partial networks in the areas where they already exist.

So there are many options—and we ourselves are surprised by how new ones keep opening up. Most recently, we finalized a pilot project in a parking area in the Hájik housing estate, where these technologies are integrated. For example, EV charging technology is already integrated there. Everything is tested within the pilot, so these are solutions that will still be verified and assessed to determine what is truly usable in the future. But these are the possibilities we have—and through us, in a technical sense, the city or another operator has them as well. We can use them. Whether it will fully take off in the future is an open question, but at least some elements are being tested today, and some are already running in standard operation.

The advantage of the public lighting network is that we don’t build any additional networks. We use the power lines that already feed individual luminaires—meaning the entire power network of public lighting. By deploying our system, that network effectively becomes a communication network as well.

Of course, it has its limitations—but it is still a communication network, and that creates room to use it in the applications we’ve already mentioned.

The truth is that we have our own in-house development department. It was built up gradually over the years—partly by absorbing people from the original team that still operated within Siemens, and then expanding it step by step. On top of that, we have very strong cooperation with the university. Many colleagues who work with us today are graduates of our alma mater—in fact, I’m a graduate myself—and we collaborate with students continuously. We have a regular working relationship that brings multiple benefits. Beyond the natural aspect of finding new colleagues and talent, it’s also a structured partnership with the university based on specific professional concepts.

When I mentioned air-quality sensing, for instance, we cooperate with one of the departments—honestly, I can’t recall the exact name right now—at the Faculty of Civil Engineering. They continuously assess and laboratory-test the sensors we use, and they approve and validate our methods and the components themselves. This helps us raise the quality level of our solutions and ensure they actually make sense. Because using just any sensor does not automatically mean the results will be reliable—whether in terms of quality or measurement accuracy. And this is one area where the university’s support is extremely valuable.

Because we have our own development centre, we naturally have the motivation and the appetite to keep moving forward—not only in smart city, although predominantly there. At the moment, we’re working on transport monitoring for municipal needs—so not direct traffic control, which isn’t really our core domain, but monitoring traffic flows using our technology and our infrastructure.

Another area is energy. We’ve developed a module that again uses our elements—each element is not only a small computer, but also a small electricity meter. Each lighting point is therefore effectively a small meter measuring all the basic electrical parameters. That can be used to assess the entire network, and any connected devices, from an energy perspective—consumption, potential regulation, and so on.

We’ve developed an energy management and control system for energy sources and loads. It’s a system that controls sources such as photovoltaic power plants or other small-scale sources a municipality or city may have. We can also include battery storage. On the other side are different types of consumption—not only lighting, but other loads as well. For this area, we have an energy management solution that helps customers—primarily municipalities—manage energy consumption and production.

Legislation in this field is evolving rapidly. Today it’s no longer just talk—shared energy systems and similar solutions are being implemented in practice. These are things that are happening here—some with greater success, some with less—but they’re being worked on. And we are clearly motivated to keep going. As I said, this is mainly the development and innovation side of what we do.