Re: [emix] Definition of a "Price Interval"

[Girish Ghatikar <GGhatikar@lbl.gov>]

David,

As I understand your question -- I think the transaction and data models 
that we develop should account for "scheduled" and "unscheduled" DR 
events. In a general scenario, one may not call the unscheduled event as 
a DR event as it typically associates with the load serving entity 
(e.g., utility/ISO) issuing a DR event for reliability or price 
responsive DR. Hence for RTP, I see that this unscheduled event as a 
"streaming" prices (could be day ahead hourly, 15-minute etc., or day of 
hourly, 15-minute, etc) that has a fixed time and duration (or open) and 
can be issued continuously. The actual DR programs (e.g., dynamic 
pricing) could use the same data models to communicate DR events as 
needed. This is the challenge to understand various markets and programs 
and structure our transaction and data models.

Having a framework for structure helps in automation for systems to read 
and respond as hard coding the time intervals would mean re-programming 
every time the structure changes. E.g., (in Auto-DR programs, few 
customers hard-coded their strategies start time based on when a 
pre-determined time the event pending signal was received -- it now 
requires change as the event start time for new program is different.). 
End time is very useful, especially for larger industrial facilities to 
decide how much duration they can actually participate without impacting 
their business operations (there are other reasons as well).

Yes, there should be a program identifier and that follows the message 
type.

I think we're all taking similar language and these discussion are very 
helpful!

Thanks,
Rish


Holmberg, David wrote:
>
> Rish, Phil,
>
>  
>
> Based on your comments, here are my thoughts.
>
> ·         Some DR or price programs have "scheduled events" versus 
> "unscheduled events". By that I mean, I can know that every day at 4pm 
> I will get the next 48 hours of estimated hourly prices, and that 
> every hour I will get an update on the next 12 hours with the next two 
> hours fixed. So, if those are events, then they are scheduled events 
> like getting the mail delivery. Even DR programs may have fixed time 
> intervals (or patterns) when called. And DR programs are scheduled 
> (called) maybe day ahead. So, we have the case of everything fixed and 
> known ahead, as for RTP, and alternatively, unknown time intervals 
> (varying lengths) scheduled ahead of time by some notice (could be 
> very short notice). Does that leave out any DR program or RTP program?
>
> ·         Seems for DR events, we need a flexible time interval with 
> contained event parameters (per Rish's original email).  But do we 
> need this structure if we know the time intervals ahead of time? Do we 
> always need end time? We should have a format that allows reduction to 
> only giving start time, no end, and only giving the start time of the 
> first interval, and not of subsequent (maybe giving the constant time 
> interval length). But maybe the only advantage is conserving bits (and 
> this is not worth much)?
>
> ·         There should be a program identifier at the start of a 
> message so I can choose to pay attention or not. Or I guess you get 
> the message (pull/push) only if in that program.
>
> ·         Then a message type, since a program might have different 
> basic messages, i.e., the notice of event vs. the actual data, or the 
> 48 hour price data vs. the 12 hour data.  
>
> Sorry if these are things discussed before...
>
>
> David
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Girish Ghatikar [mailto:GGhatikar@lbl.gov]
> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 4:54 PM
> To: Phil Davis
> Cc: emix@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [emix] Definition of a "Price Interval"
>
>  
>
> Phil,
>
>  
>
> I agree that this would be a good way of moving forward (so are thoughts
>
> from Ed Cazalet).
>
>  
>
> On your question of sending a constant stream data for all events. I am
>
> not fully certain how the RTP programs will be structured within the
>
> service providers. WIthin CAISO there are many RTM prices. Hence, I
>
> think we should be independent of how the programs gets structured in
>
> future and the data models be flexible enough to allow that. I agree
>
> with your other part of the question that the receiving systems (e.g.,
>
> clients within facilities) should be able to select relevant information.
>
>  
>
> I'd be glad to have a separate discussion on current use of OpenADR
>
> within California and its potential within other areas you've discussed.
>
> In summary, we've initiated discussion within some of these areas and
>
> looking at that opportunity. The PLP was funded by PG&E and generally,
>
> our resources/funds are mostly for California programs. I'd be very
>
> interested to get other agencies engaged for wider applications.
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rish
>
>  
>
> Phil Davis wrote:
>
> > Girish,
>
> > 
>
> > I believe we are in violent agreement, but I was being unintentionally
>
> > obtuse.  When I read your example code, my initial impression was that
>
> > the price was unique to that DR product and to the time in which it
>
> > was called.  Based on your subsequent explanation, I believe we are in
>
> > agreement that the relevant interval here is time.  There are separate
>
> > streams of data, "event type" and "price", that are coincident with
>
> > the time interval but are not a specific function of it; i.e., all are
>
> > independent variables.
>
> > 
>
> > This implies that a control authority could send a constant stream of
>
> > data covering all events and times, and that the receiving system
>
> > could be configured to select only that data relevant to the local
>
> > facility.  True?
>
> > 
>
> > Your references to CAISO do inspire another question.  OpenADR
>
> > together with the studies cited are only California oriented. Our
>
> > OASIS  members in France (Laurent Guise and Francois Jammes) have
>
> > asked if the work being done has any non US centric input.  Are you
>
> > aware of any international applications?  Also, has there been any
>
> > affirmative activity to see if OpenADR specs would function within the
>
> > market rules of the other US ISO's?  ERCOT LaaR, PJM Regulation and
>
> > ISO-NE FCM all require automated response and either are in the field
>
> > or are close to implementation.  It will be difficult to promote
>
> > OpenADR as a national standard if it does not encompass the parameters
>
> > of these programs.  It probably does, but it's politically important
>
> > to be able to refer to specific studies.
>
> > 
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > 
>
> > Phil
>
> > 
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > *From:* Girish Ghatikar [mailto:GGhatikar@lbl.gov]
>
> > *Sent:* Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:29 PM
>
> > *To:* emix@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> > *Subject:* Re: [emix] Definition of a "Price Interval"
>
> > 
>
> > Phil,
>
> > 
>
> > Thanks for bringing this up and I think this is the *issue with
>
> > terminologies and NOT the concept of use of time for intervals*.
>
> > 
>
> > Based on my interactions during technology integration of CAISO
>
> > real-time market (RTM) with OpenADR, we have seen that intervals could
>
> > be used in different contexts. What you have is a definition of "price
>
> > intervals" is one element. For example, for CAISO, under "prices" on
>
> > -- http://oasis.caiso.com/mrtu-oasis/ -- the intervals are used for
>
> > time, price, etc. as seen below by definitions.
>
> > 
>
> > *"Interval Locational Marginal Prices*: Five-minute Locational
>
> > Marginal Prices for all PNodes and all APNodes in $/MWh, for each
>
> > *five-minute interval RTM*. Posts the LMP, plus the Congestion, Loss
>
> > and Energy Components that makes up the LMP."
>
> > *"Interval AS Clearing Prices*: Ancillary Services Regional Shadow
>
> > Price for all Ancillary Service types for all binding AS Regions and
>
> > Sub-Regional Partitions. Posts 15-Minute price relevant to the next 15
>
> > minute *binding interval for RTM* on a fifteen minute basis."
>
> > 
>
> > *While I think the "monetary interval" you have is one important
>
> > element for DR*, other element is also the "time interval." For
>
> > example, the time interval will determine the end-uses that could be
>
> > part of DR strategies and for what duration (or not). The length
>
> > (time) and the breadth (kW) are equally important. The price will
>
> > determine their willingness to participate and time will determine if
>
> > they can and by how much. This was also one of the thing we looked at
>
> > the recently concluded participating load pilot (PLP) that we
>
> > conducted with CAISO (see below).
>
> > 
>
> > *Open Automated Demand Response Communications in Demand Response for
>
> > Wholesale Ancillary Services*
>
> > Kiliccote S., M.A. Piette, G. Ghatikar, Lawrence Berkeley National
>
> > Laboratory; E. Koch, D. Hennage, Akuacom; J. Hernandez, A. Chiu, O.
>
> > Sezgen, Pacific Gas and Electric Company; and J. Goodin, California
>
> > Independent Systems Operator. In the Proceedings of the Grid-Interop
>
> > Forum 2009, Denver, CO, November 17-19, 2009. LBNL-2945E. November 2009
>
> > http://drrc.lbl.gov/drrc-pubs-auto-dr.html
>
> > 
>
> > Moving forward, I think we should acknowledge this and be clear of
>
> > terminologies that are in use and have a certain meaning -- they
>
> > should retain their meaning as much as possible.
>
> > 
>
> > Thank you,
>
> > Rish
>
> > 
>
> > 
>
> > 
>
> > 
>
> > 
>
> > Phil Davis wrote:
>
> >> Keep in mind that when the ISO's refer to price interval in their
>
> >> reports and analysis documents, they are referring to a monetary
>
> >> interval rather than a time based interval.  In other words, there is
>
> >> a $15 price interval between an LMP of $45/mwh and $60/mwh.  Most
>
> >> usage in analysis is asks questions like "at what price interval do
>
> >> large facilities respond to DR signals".  These kinds of studies
>
> >> influence incentives and subsidies, and may inform rate making in
>
> >> regulated constructs.  However, in the markets, the actual prices
>
> >> themselves are known well in advance of Dr events since they are set
>
> >> at auctions.
>
> >> 
>
> >> When modeling/forecasting for grid operations, the ISO's will use
>
> >> this research to determine the likelihood of calling an event and the
>
> >> cost of that event, given weather predictions at various degrees of
>
> >> confidence (of the weather).  Because of the usage, I would reverse
>
> >> the wording somewhat; i.e., that for a given time interval, there
>
> >> should be a price associated with it.  Recipients would use this
>
> >> data, especially in automated systems either to auto respond or to
>
> >> signal managers if prices exceeded a pre-set level.
>
> >> 
>
> >> This happens to be a period of rapid rules change following a
>
> >> relative period of stability.  Predictions are troublesome at best,
>
> >> but there seems to be a national trend toward eliminating specific
>
> >> pricing for DR, and paying all parties the generation equivalent of
>
> >> the energy product produced.  this is not without controversy, so our
>
> >> wisest course might be to allow for showing prices for DR and for the
>
> >> underlying energy.  This would support a value calculation that
>
> >> encompasses both the overt value of DR plus the value of the avoided
>
> >> purchase of energy for the same time interval.
>
> >> 
>
> >> Phil Davis
>
> >> 
>
> >> 
> ________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> >> *Phil Davis** | Senior Manager *| Schneider Electric Demand Response
>
> >> Resource Center | 3103 Medlock Bridge Road, Ste 100 | Norcross, GA 
>
> >> 30071 | (: 404.567.6090 | 7: 678.672.2433 | Skype: pddcoo
>
> >> *: phil.davis@us.schneider-electric.com
>
> >> <mailto:phil.davis@us.schneider-electric.com> | : Website: 
>
> >> _http://www.schneider-electric.com_
>
> >> 
>
> >> 
>
> >> 
>
> >> 
>
> >> 
>
> >> 
>
> >> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> *From:* Girish Ghatikar [mailto:GGhatikar@lbl.gov]
>
> >> *Sent:* Friday, April 02, 2010 8:06 PM
>
> >> *To:* emix@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> >> *Subject:* [emix] Definition of a "Price Interval"
>
> >> 
>
> >> This came up during last week's eMIX TC meeting -- *What is the
>
> >> definition of price interval? What elements/attributes are comprised
>
> >> in it?*
>
> >> 
>
> >> For any price, there should be a standard "Time" factor associated
>
> >> with it (unless the exception is there is "one" price for all periods).
>
> >> 
>
> >> 
>
> >> I think we should make a key distinction of price schedule versus the
>
> >> interval (if we ever can) and how the generic price intervals are
>
> >> different from their definition in DR signals (the notion of DR 
> events).
>
> >> 
>
> >> Let's say for example, a price-responsive DR event in OpenADR may
>
> >> look something like this (I am not saying this is how eMIX should
>
> >> address it as the goal of sending the information and subsequent
>
> >> response may differ) --
>
> >> 
>
> >>         <p:drEventData>
>
> >>           
>
> >> <p:notificationTime>2010-02-08T15:17:21.000-08:00</p:notificationTime>
>
> >>             <p:startTime>2010-02-09T00:00:00.000-08:00</p:startTime>
>
> >>             <p:endTime>2010-02-09T23:59:59.000-08:00</p:endTime>
>
> >>             <p:eventInfoInstances>
>
> >>                 <p:eventInfoTypeID>PRICE_ABSOLUTE</p:eventInfoTypeID>
>
> >>                 <p:eventInfoName>price</p:eventInfoName>
>
> >>                 <p:eventInfoValues>
>
> >>                     <p:value>0.03638841</p:value>
>
> >>                     <p:timeOffset>0</p:timeOffset>
>
> >>                 </p:eventInfoValues>
>
> >>         </p:eventInfoInstances>
>
> >>         </p:drEventData>
>
> >> 
>
> >> What you see above is a definition of time slot (start and end time)
>
> >> that has various attributes associated with it. Other attributes
>
> >> could be for example, load shed, % shed, etc. However, all of these
>
> >> attributes are associated with one time-slot notion, which is defined
>
> >> by the period of DR event.
>
> >> 
>
> >> Thank you,
>
> >> RIsh
>
> >> 
>
> >> --
>
> >> Rish Ghatikar
>
> >> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>
> >> 1 Cyclotron Road, MS: 90-3111, Berkeley, CA 94720
>
> >> GGhatikar@lbl.gov | +1 510.486.6768 | +1 510.486.4089 [fax]
>
> >> 
>
> >> This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain
>
> >> confidential information and should not be copied without permission.
>
> >> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as
>
> >> soon as possible and delete the email from computer[s].
>
> >> 
>
> >> 
>
> >> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> >> This email has been scanned for SPAM content and Viruses by the 
> MessageL
>
> >> abs Email Security System.
>
> >> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>
> >> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>
> >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
> > 
>
> > --
>
> > Rish Ghatikar
>
> > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>
> > 1 Cyclotron Road, MS: 90-3111, Berkeley, CA 94720
>
> > GGhatikar@lbl.gov | +1 510.486.6768 | +1 510.486.4089 [fax]
>
> > 
>
> > This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain
>
> > confidential information and should not be copied without permission.
>
> > If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as
>
> > soon as possible and delete the email from computer[s].
>
> > 
>
> > 
>
> > ________________________________________________________________________
>
> > This email has been scanned for SPAM content and Viruses by the MessageL
>
> > abs Email Security System.
>
> > ________________________________________________________________________
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>
> > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>  
>
> -- 
>
> Rish Ghatikar
>
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>
> 1 Cyclotron Road, MS: 90-3111, Berkeley, CA 94720
>
> GGhatikar@lbl.gov | +1 510.486.6768 | +1 510.486.4089 [fax]
>
>  
>
> This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain
>
> confidential information and should not be copied without permission. If
>
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as
>
> possible and delete the email from computer[s].
>
>  
>
>  
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>  
>

-- 
Rish Ghatikar
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1 Cyclotron Road, MS: 90-3111, Berkeley, CA 94720
GGhatikar@lbl.gov | +1 510.486.6768 | +1 510.486.4089 [fax]

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain 
confidential information and should not be copied without permission. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as 
possible and delete the email from computer[s].