[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [energyinterop] FW: TeMIX & OPNADR common terminology.
Gale -- Good point. I'm also copying the TC list I've had two concerns with REC/VEN: (1) the REC part suggests more than (say) price distribution "top nodes" do (2) The VEN part is ok but needs binding for a particular kind of interaction. That said we need to move forward with both generic and specifix terminology. Can you and I talk soon (again) on this and the generic-specific terms to apply to different areas. I'd like to leverage the REC/VEN currency for the DR parts of the spec. Thanks! Bill Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T From: "Horst, Gale" <ghorst@epri.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:13:10 -0400 To: Ed Cazalet<ed@cazalet.com>; <energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: RE: [energyinterop] FW: TeMIX & OPNADR common terminology. Keep in mind that the REC and the VEN are
a logical architectural concept and could appear (or re-appear) at various
levels of the hierarchy. A VEN can take on the role of offering demand
response (DR) as well as offering actual power. Likewise the REC may offer
either of these resources to the grid entity (or what we may call a Party). This
duality must exist to appropriately accommodate technology such as battery/elect
storage and electric vehicles which can (or must) play the role of DR and Power
Provider in addition to power consumer. Think of the VEN as being the one that controls
the hardware and can actually throw the switch. The VEN can inform a REC
what is available and the actions it can take. The business motivators
reside upstream and make their point of entry via a Resource Energy Coordinator
(REC) who lets the VEN know when it needs to call on the services offered. Both
the REC and the VEN, in their position in the logical construct, could be a
buyer or seller of both power and DR. It is easier to think of the
transactions as taking place at the REC, although there are cases that may
extend this to a VEN. I state this in case there is any
confusion or anyone thinking that we could equate either of these roles,
REC/VEN, exclusively with buyer or seller, or with DR or Power. As was
stated in the discussion below: “A Party can take on the role of a Buyer or Seller. ” These are separate concepts that co-exist. Gale R.
Horst Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) From: Ed Cazalet [mailto: Attached is an email exchange with Bill
from last week with a start on common terminology. Bill has put a
discussion of a common terminology on the agenda for the Energy Interop meeting
on 7/28/10. Edward G. Cazalet, Ph.D. 650-949-5274 cell: 408-621-2772 From: William Cox [mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com] Ed -- William Cox
Just thinking out loud for tomorrow. In TeMIX the actors are all Parties. A Party is
essentially any of the NAESB actors. A Party can take on the role of a Buyer or
Seller. Offers can lead to Transactions. Transactions are either power transactions (energy
obligation contracts at fixed delivery rates) or option transactions. In an option transaction, one of the Parties is the
Option Exercise Party and the other is the counterparty to the Exercise Party Financial Markers use the terms Option Holder and
Option Writer for the two parties In OPNADR there was a suggestion yesterday in the
call, that Party rather than Entity be the generic actor which aligns with
TeMIX In OPNADR there are no buyers and sellers, except
perhaps demand bidding customers in some kind of a program. Using Horst's
terminology, Parties take on the roles of REC or VEN. Demand
bidding. Pre-executed "emergency signals" In Horst's paper the REC (resource energy controller)
plays the role of the Option Holder with the right to exercise the
option. Parties enter into a program by registering ( accepting the terms
offered by the Utility, ISO or Aggregator Party. This is
the terminology that I meant. The Virtual End Node (VEN) (I would use the term
Demand Resource ) because it is symmetric to the role of a resource controller.
OPNADR Events seem to describe the actual exercise of
an option. However this term seem somewhat limiting as some OPNADR or TeMIX
options could be exercised for any reason such as a financial reason and not a
curtailment event for reliability. With respect to the OPNADR interaction diagrams
Bill has developed for EI, they typically show an chain of events from ISO
(REC) to Aggregator(VEN) and then Aggregator (REC) to Demand Resource (VEN) for
example, this is only one interaction pattern. It could be that an
Aggregator exercises an option and then sells the power reduced to another
customer or to the ISO without any event being called. Likewise the sequence of transactions in TeMIX can
take many different sequences. A retail energy provider (REP) may
make an offer to a retail customer and once accepted the REP may offer to buy
from a power marketer or generator. if the retail customer uses less than
contracted, the Retailer may sell the power in the ISO real-time market. Alternatively a power marker could offer forward
priced transactions to the REP, the REP then makes forward offer (with a markup
on the power marketer price) to the retail customer. If the customer
accepts the REP then accepts the offer from the Power Marketer. To summarize I think we can get a common terminology
and interaction patterns for OPNADR and TeMIX. Edward G. Cazalet, Ph.D. 650-949-5274 cell: 408-621-2772 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]