Re: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914SK edits.doc) uploaded

[Girish Ghatikar <GGhatikar@lbl.gov>]

David, Toby, and Michel:

The purpose of using the terms simple and smart client extends beyond the purposes of its use within legacy systems or messages such as "FAR, NEAR, etc." This could be up to local utility to define the precise interpretation for the customers. I think this should be looked from the perspective of the DR information (e.g., reliability/emergency or price) that is sent to the devices, which could come in many forms. This concept of simple vs. smart information (client names are indicative of what information is eventually used at end uses) is very important and the need has originated from years of research, field tests, and commercial programs. For me, it doesn't matter if it's called by some other name, the information is the key.

The idea here is not just to be supportive of legacy or less sophisticated systems. It's also to make OpenADR extensible and scalable to smaller devices and sectors such as small commercial and residential, allow innovation and let systems interoperate and offer scalable solutions such as the concept of "bridge client" that we used within FM/RDS technology demonstration recently (translating OpenADR smart information of hourly prices into simple information of tiers and modes that PCTs could easily understand). In particular, I would like to emphasize:

1. Legacy Systems: While I partially agree to Toby's comment, "Our work should be informed by legacy systems, but not limited or dictated by them...," there is also a need to understand to what end-use devices are we sending this information? The topic of contention in most of the Smart Grid workshops has been -- how do we address interoperability and standards with existing installed base? I think it's obvious that we should not ignore it.

2. Less sophisticated clients: We should make sure that the existing or future devices have the ability to participate in DR programs with lesser processing power (over logical translation of smart information locally), which by themselves are not cost prohibitive (more processing and logic = higher device costs). This is also true of even sophisticated  EMCS (with processing power) that would like to make use of simple information to eliminate programming and maintenance costs as they're tied to end-use strategies. This it's apparent that the end-use strategies and those need simple mode information (e.g., NORMAL/MODERATE/HIGH). Of course any processing and mapping of smart information could be derived by a middleware (e.g., DRAS in our case, which could be something else such as bridge client)

3. Extensibility and scalability to low processing devices - Understandably our current focus is on Commercial and Industrial (CnI). However, in future we may also see the results of the data models from this TC work getting extended to end-use devises itself (e.g., lighting ballasts, appliances, etc.) and also become part of other standards (e.g., SEP 2.0) and extend to other sectors (e.g, residential and small commercial).

4. Allowing innovation and technology interoperability and information standardization  - Simple information allows us to cross boundaries and innovate that traditional communication and/or technologies don't let us to. How will the end-use devices interpret messages if we don't standardize these messages? An example was bridge client that although used smart information (e.g., day-ahead hourly prices), the ability of standardization of simple information allowed them to translate and transmit the same message in simple form (the protocol translation from TCP/IP to FM/RDS messages was a specific implementation for this bridge client) to PCTs due to bandwidth and payload issues. In future, these same PCTs could also directly listen to OpenADR simple information directly or through third-party and interoperate with communication protocols and technologies without any change in programming or strategies.

This is a long way of saying that the concept of simple and smart information is very important if we're designing the smart grid for DR that is useful for not just the current systems, however, also for likely future changes.

If needed, I or someone here at LBNL can send more information on field tests reports that cover the topics of smart vs. simple clients.

Thanks!
-Rish


Michel Kohanim wrote:

053c01ca738f$5b4ef820$11ece860$@com" type="cite">

Hi Ed,

 

I would like to agree with you but having been involved in many legacy integration projects makes me a little wary of leaving constructs/vocabulary/nouns (or however you refer to them) open for interpretation. You could obviously talk about user preferences, criteria by which they are constrained, and where they should be stored/exectuted (DRAS, Portal, EMS, end device, etc.). This said, however – and in my view – system-to-system messages should not be open to interpretation especially if they are subjective like Far and Near.

 

With kind regards,

 

********************************

Michel Kohanim, C.E.O

Universal Devices, Inc.

 

(p) 818.631.0333

(f)  818.436.0702

http://www.universal-devices.com

********************************

 

From: Edward Koch [mailto:ed@akuacom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:51 AM
To: Holmberg, David; energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded

 

David,

 

What you are saying makes perfect sense, although I would not classify the simple signal representations of OpenADR as DLC. It really is nothing more than a more simplified representation of the DR information that is sent in conjunction with (NOT instead of) any other DR related information such as prices.

 

The discussion started around the state variables in the OpenADR message and then transformed into whether we should support legacy systems.  It's important that we not conflate those two issues too much because while the vocabulary used to define the simple state variables in the OpenADR message is driven by a desire to support legacy systems the requirement to have an alternative vocabulary whose semantics can be defined by the user for expressing DR event information is actually a bigger question and is in fact anything but legacy in its applicability and power. Having the option of an alternative representation, especially if it can be defined and controlled by the end user, does not dictate that it be used by the end user.  If they want to buy a new intelligent gateway in which to embed all the intelligence there then so be it. I think that is a fine way of automating DR, but it should not be the only one. The key is in having options the end user can choose from that allow for easier integration and consumption of DR signals in a fashion that makes the most sense for the end user. The current mechanism in OpenADR provides great flexibility in distributing intelligence and has proven its worth in the currently deployed systems.  Having alternative representations of the DR information allows for the end user to decide between those different representations AND allows for the translation between those different representations to occur at different points in the architecture.  Could occur in the head end or it could occur in the facility, or there may not be any translation at all. I can tell you that current OpenADR implementations take advantage of all three of those scenarios depending upon the needs of the end user.  The alternative is to restrict end user's options and force them to consume information in a particular way which if the decision is to explicitly NOT support legacy systems will result in a standard that requires huge investments in new infrastructure instead of the clean migration path via the options that OpenADR was designed to provide.

 

 

-ed koch

 

 

---

From: Holmberg, David [mailto:david.holmberg@nist.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:31 AM
To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded

 

OpenADR defines an architecture with a DRAS server in the cloud. The DRAS server can send rich info to the smart DRAS client, or more DLC-like info (I may be off base here, please correct) to the simple clients. The simple client can't think so well, so the server does more thinking and directing. It seems there is a full spectrum of communications that span the collaborative pure price approach to the "shut off the water heater" DLC approach.

 

We are defining the information and messages for energy interoperation at the facility interface (no?). We have said that we would include the CA DR program messages that form the meat of OpenADR--that is, "go to level 2, start time, duration". We are not specifying how to talk to a specific device to make it act in a certain way, as is the case for SEP--we are not defining messages for raising the set-point temp, shutting off the water heater, etc. That is, such commands are DLC, and the EMS handles that (even if, as in the case of AMI, the EMS is in the utility backend system). So, EIX (Energy Info eXchange protocol) will not compete with SEP for DLC, although SEP has price communications. A utility can keep the current “SEP from the back-end” approach, or stick an ESI on the building that understands EIX messages and then translates that to SEP commands (assuming that is in use on the HAN).

 

Does this make sense?

 

Thanks,
David

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michel Kohanim [mailto:michel@universal-devices.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:04 PM
To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded

 

Thanks Toby. I totally agree.

 

With kind regards,

 

********************************

Michel Kohanim, C.E.O

Universal Devices, Inc.

 

(p) 818.631.0333

(f)  818.436.0702

http://www.universal-devices.com

********************************

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) [mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu]

Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:59 AM

To: 'energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org'

Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded

 

I think the simple answer is no. Legacy systems work with legacy communications. Some people will have a temporary business of putting shims on old systems, whether they worked with OpenADR, or with SEP 1.0, or even with a 3rd party such as ENERNOC.

 

Our work should be informed by legacy systems, but not limited or dictated by them...

 

tc

 

"A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying ... that he is wiser today than yesterday." -- Jonathan Swift

 

Toby Considine

Chair, OASIS oBIX TC

Facilities Technology Office

University of North Carolina

Chapel Hill, NC

 

Email: Toby.Considine@ unc.edu

Phone: (919)962-9073

http://www.oasis-open.org

blog: www.NewDaedalus.com

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Michel Kohanim [mailto:michel@universal-devices.com]

Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:36 PM

To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org

Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded

 

Hi Sila, thanks. That makes perfect sense.

 

The next question is the scope of our efforts: do we foresee supporting vintage systems?

 

With kind regards,

 

********************************

Michel Kohanim, C.E.O

Universal Devices, Inc.

 

(p) 818.631.0333

(f)  818.436.0702

http://www.universal-devices.com

********************************

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

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].