[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Two Paths to DR
Toby, I think you make some valid points. I’m
not sure I would classify what they are doing with SEP as purely DLC though.
They intend to support DR interactions that include instruments such as prices and
other such collaborative mechanisms. I think the main driving force behind SEP
is to insure that whatever the interaction, it can be conducted over a highly
constrained AMI network. On the other hand if SEP is doing both DLC and
collaborative then the questions you raise concerning doing both within one
standard is pertinent. -ed koch From: Toby Considine
[mailto:tobyconsidine@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Toby Considine So
how much of the two paths are we responsible for in EITC? The
two paths, of course, are managed and collaborative energy. If we chain them
too closely together, we remove all benefits from having two paths. If they
diverge too much, then we may appear incoherent. Here are my thoughts, broken
into items each of which may be an area for a consensus decision. 1)
We cannot be responsible for the
ZigBee/SEP process, an occult effort occurring within a trade association and
encumbered by IP. 2)
I do not even see a path clear to
receiving/accepting a donation of the ZigBee/SEP material, although I may be
surprised. 3)
It is unclear to me how we would
define an ESI interface to the outside of a direct control process if it had to
exist inside the existing substation infrastructure. Perhaps that is my
ignorance of how powerful that infrastructure is. 4)
There is a fundamental disconnect
between process integration (do something when we say so) and a serviced integration
(achieve results when we say so). Can we actually achieve both in one standard? 5)
Is there any way to effectively
talk to the outside of an ESI as if it were SEP/Direct control system within a
direct control model and get autonomous response within. Is that within scope
even if the direct control is not? What would that mean? 6)
Does this mean that our model is
essentially that of “With or without a separate internet
connection”? Is this a bug (social equity) or a feature (dumber AMI has a
smaller attack surface)? 7)
Have we sufficiently met
commitments if we define DLC, and say we are not doing it? I
am afraid that until we agree on these issues, the work will be neither fish,
nor flesh, nor good red herring… Or,
more strongly, that the long term reaction to a standard not clear in these
matters is “But
because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit
thee out of my mouth.” tc "Energy and persistence conquer all things." --
Benjamin Franklin
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]