[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Two Paths to DR
|
I would say: both paths. See
comments below. Best, B.O. December 1, 2009 Robert Old Siemens Industry, Inc. Building Technologies 1000 Deerfield Pkwy. Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-4513 Tel.: +1 (847) 941-5623 Skype: bobold2 bob.old@siemens.com www.siemens.com 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. [Old, Bob] I long ago gave up the attempt to not appear
incoherent. I’m an engineer and my wife understands little of what
I discuss about by work. I believe our customers will want to take
advantage of any DR programs offered by the Utility/Aggregator, as long they play
nice with the customers’ applications and meet his needs. He doesn’t
care whether the program is classified as managed or collaborative energy. 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. [Old, Bob] It’s clear that if we can’t see it, or see it
soon, we can’t support it. I leave the IPR stuff to the lawyers.
This issue is not unique to ZigBee. I worry much less about the
availability of SEP than I do about the availability of CIM. It seems
everything must map to The CIM. How do we make sure EI supports CIM if we
can’t see what CIM requires? 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. [Old, Bob] I thought that by definition the ESI was associated with
a building owner, the one who pays the power bills. The slides I see show
the meter owned by the Utility and the ESI in the building and owned by the
customer. See < http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007_energypolicy/documents/2007-06-05_workshop/presentations/07.06.05%20IEPR%20load%20management%20workshop%20-%20RH%20final.pdf
> slide 9 for C&I (note Interval Meter) and slide 11 for
Residential. I believe this arrangement is desired by the customer and a
third party aggregator because they might be uncomfortable with a competitor
getting between them. I believe this also makes mutual authentication
cleaner, e.g. via Public Key Infrastructure. 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? [Old, Bob] I agree about the disconnect between process and service
integration, but my understanding is that we are being asked to support both
types of applications. It’s irrelevant to me how the text is divided
up among documents and what the document titles are. 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? [Old, Bob] It’s debatable whether this is an important enough
distinction for the amount of time, electrons and angst we’ve spent worrying
about and discussing it. I think long before the first direct load
control command grinds all the gears in a $1,000,000 chiller or collapses a few
hundred thousand dollars of ductwork, DR Program designers will realize this is
a bad idea in the retail C&I market. But as you mention scope, let me
note that I originally had a parochial view of the scope of the EI
TC. I thought only of Demand Response in the retail market, mainly in
what my systems have to accept in the way of commands to reduce electricity demand.
In the NAESB Framework doc and elsewhere I see DR includes the wholesale market,
as well as what I would call a generation/transmission/distribution control system.
This is a much larger undertaking for the EI TC. 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)? [Old, Bob] I follow Bill Cox’s advice to not worry about the
transport. But I keep in the back of my mind that the current infrastructure
must be supported and is typically a slow connection. And not all
ESI’s are likely to be PC-sized boxes, but embedded computers. But
I don’t think this restricts us much. 7) Have
we sufficiently met commitments if we define DLC, and say we are not doing it? [Old, Bob] Bottom line, let’s quit agonizing about it, just do
it, and move on. We’ve got a big boulder to push and a big mountain
ahead of us. 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]