[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Todays discussion on Managed/Collaborative discussion on working draft 05
|
Just a few thought (sorry about the length!) regarding the
discussion today on section 2.3 since the group seemed to struggle with the
definition of these two items. Below is some food for thought and
discussion. Cheers, Gale OASIS
Energy Interoperation Version 1.0 Working Draft 05 Comments
on 2.3 Managed and Collaborative Energy (lines 312 –
376) First a few general
comments to frame my perspective. Coming from a background in the
appliance industry (engineering lead and energy focus leader at Whirlpool Corp)
I tend to take a perspective that enables process-oriented systems and devices as
well as the more independent persistent devices. There is also a consumer
perspective retained in my thinking. Perhaps a realization that the
dynamic consumer choice will always be a consideration for certain types of
devices and systems in responding to energy directives. With persistent devices
the consumer may have minimal interactions with the end use load making them a
prime candidate for managed energy. Some of the process-oriented devices
have critical interactions with load times, temperatures, consumables, as well
as the customer. Although these loads cannot be managed directly, they
can be impacted by appropriately designed energy communication messaging. There still seems to be a
few key issues at play in our Managed vs Collaborative Energy definition that,
as was apparent on the call today. At first I was wondering if they keys
are related to the level of intelligence at the end nodes. For example:
Is the load able to respond “smartly” if given information about
conditions, duration of response needed, and price etc? If any
intelligence is needed or the load is variable, it would seem to push the
device into the collaborative energy category. But after a bit more
thought, I’m drawing closer to arriving at the conclusion that we still
have an underlying issue that boils down to required response vs optional response. Perhaps the reliability
of the response along with knowledge of the amount of response is the gist of
section 2.3 (lines 313-327) particularly 2.3.1 which includes the phrase:
“the energy provider directly manages the devices and systems in the end
nodes using direct control signals”. This single statement seems to
define direct load control (DLC) as in the traditional load control programs. However,
it would seem that the reliability or a required response is the motivation
as opposed to the ability to directly control an end load? If the energy is
“Managed”, then the decision to limit the energy utilized at the
end node is determined by a utility entity and not the end customer at the grid
end node. If a building, customer, automated client, or even an OpenADR
system pre-agrees (either contractually or in a real-time dynamic declaration)
on the ability to curtail, then the energy is called MANAGED since a external
decision by an up-stream utility entity manages that energy directly on command
even if there were a server in the middle managing the end use loads involved.
If it’s not
“managed” as in our definition above, then this basic distinction
would imply that we could change the name of the other category from
“Collaborative” to “Motivated”. This leave us
with the two categories titled MANAGED ENERGY
and MOTIVATED ENERGY. So,
how do we motivate energy consumption to change? (Alright, you may
already be ahead of me.) That would be where PRICE or contractual motivations come
into play. Perhaps the managed vs
motivated distinction can bring some finality to some common misconceptions
about PRICE vs DR and we could state that: 1. Managed Energy carries with it the
expectation (requirement / guarantee) of a response. We will NOT refer to
price communications as Managed Energy. (We probably should not refer to price
motivation as DR either.) 2. We
will NOT assume that Motivated Energy
(e.g. the transmission of price signals) can be expected to result in the same changes
in load compared with Managed Energy or DR. This is particularly
applicable to process-oriented devices / systems. These grid end nodes
can respond with a respectable amount of aggregated load motivated by price.
But these loads may never be considered as being able to deliver a required
response (e.g. managed response) since the final decision of whether to respond
is left at the grid end node. We may find that
communicating the right information will increase the response rate of these
devices and systems motivating them to respond as desired. But they would
not be classified as managed energy by our previous definition. If a demand
response automation server is able to aggregate enough price-motivated response
to guarantee some level of reliability, it would be fair game to identify the
aggregated energy server as “Managed Energy”. Thoughts …
on or off track …. fact or fiction? Gale R. Horst Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI)
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]