[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded
I second some of Rish’s comments and
would like to add another comment. I agree that we need to keep an option for
simple clients to broaden the availability to retrofit solutions in the field. My added point is that DR needs to include
a use case for building pre-cooling. In the residential segment, I think
customers accept raising the set point by a couple of degrees and letting the
house get “warm”. Commercial customers are less willing to
tolerate a “warm” environment. But there is a greater
opportunity to pre-cool and use thermal storage. The DR needs to expand
past the “turn the generator on” model where advance notification
is ~ 30 minutes to 2 – 12 hours notice. Use cases for that should
be supported in a simple way. I can see how a simple count down timer
would be of great help. Dave From: Girish Ghatikar [mailto:GGhatikar@lbl.gov] David, Toby, and Michel: 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, 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] 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]
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 Does this make sense? Thanks, -----Original Message----- 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 Email: Toby.Considine@ unc.edu Phone: (919)962-9073 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
--
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]