James,
I can shed some light on this. A few
months ago that was a meeting to discuss how best to move OpenADR into a formal
SDO. There were representatives at the meeting from a number of different
standards organizations including representatives from IEC. In fact there
were representatives from both TC-8 and TC-57 at that meeting. The
general the consensus was that IEC was probably the best SDO to move this work
into, but that the right path to do that was to first develop it in both UCAIug
and OASIS and then move it into IEC. Both UCAIug and OASIS have strong
ties to IEC and everyone felt that taking this path would make things much smoother
and faster.
A number of people on this mailing list
were on that conference call so I’ll let them chime in on this topic.
I thought there was some mention in the
charter about IEC, but perhaps nothing that reflects what I stated above. Maybe
there should be.
-ed koch
From: Mater, James [mailto:JMater@qualitylogic.com]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009
12:08 PM
To: William Cox;
smartgrid-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Mary Ann Piette
Subject: RE: [smartgrid-discuss]
Draft charter for proposed OASIS Energy Interoperation Technical Committee
Bill et al,
I’m puzzled by the lack of any
mention of the work of the IEC on Smart Grid standards. The mention of
the CIMug sort of addresses this (IEC 61968) but the IEC seems to have a major
effort to develop a number of standards that are applicable to the SmartGrid
and they have significant international influence.
How does the OASIS OpenADR relate to the
work of the IEC on the issue of demand-response?
My perspective is from the standpoint of
a company that may be providing validation and certification tools and services
for Smart Grid interoperability. The fewer competing standards or
implementations of standards the better from my point-of-view.
Regards,
James Mater
Co-Founder and Director
QualityLogic, Inc
503-780-9796
From: William Cox [mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009
8:52 PM
To:
smartgrid-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Mary Ann Piette
Subject: [smartgrid-discuss] Draft
charter for proposed OASIS Energy Interoperation Technical Committee
Please find attached the draft charter for the
proposed OASIS Energy Interoperation Technical Committee. I've attached a PDF,
OpenDocument, and Word versions, all with line numbers for ease of discussion
and review.
We invite you to comment on this list and to determine your interest in joining
this work - please contact me directly if you would like to be listed as a
supporter.
This proposal is being posted to smartgrid-discuss for (guess what!) discussion
and review. The intent of the drafting group is to revise this draft after a
comment period, and then submit the revised charter to the OASIS' Technical
Committee process,.
The core work of the TC is defining XML and Web services interactions for
so-called Automated Demand Response, growing out of work at the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory Demand
Response Research
Center led by Mary Ann
Piette, who is the convener of the proposed TC. This specific proposal comes
from the context of many discussions in and related to the OpenADR Technical
Advisory Group, GridWise Architecture Council, Grid-Interop, the NIST Smart
Grid project, GridEcon (a conference in March on the economics of the Smart
Grid - http://www.gridecon.com/ ) and
many other places.
The LBNL OpenADR body of work is being extended through two
organizations/entities being created: this proposed OASIS Technical Committee
and a proposed UCAIug OpenADR Task Force. In this innovative collaboration, the
UCAIug, whose members are largely utilities and their suppliers, we will focus
requirements, goals, data models and comments through UCAIug, involving their
membership.
If you're not familiar with OASIS Technical Committee Charters, the statement
of purpose is section (1)(b), the scope is section (1)(c), and identification
of similar or applicable work is section (2)(a).
As usual as charters evolve, the list of supporters is empty in this public
discussion draft, and the list of deliverables and timeline is not included --
the next version will have those sections completed. Again, if you would like
to join this work as a supporter and member of the technical committee, let us
know.
Collaboration with other groups of stakeholders is actively being sought;
please contact me for how to get involved. Other stakeholders include energy
market makers, Independent System Operators (such as those in California,
Texas, New England, the Midwest,
etc), and policy and regulatory groups. For more details, see the draft
charter -- and step forward so we can make this interoperation effort both
broad and effective.
Thanks!
bill cox