[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
Rish, you are correct! Let's talk about it in our call next week. Talk to you then. 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: Girish Ghatikar [mailto:GGhatikar@lbl.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:01 PM To: michel@universal-devices.com Cc: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded Michel, I think our thoughts are getting lost in the transition and may need a conversation during TC call. As I mentioned in earlier emails, this requirement goes beyond "small footprint of hardware/software." I don't think we should just narrow down on one thing. Thanks, -Rish Michel Kohanim wrote: > > Hi Rish, > > This is precisely what we are not saying: "super computer may solve > all our computing problems". > > What we are saying is that almost any small footprint > hardware/firmware solution can address OpenADR specs including WS > Calendar. > > 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:* Girish Ghatikar [mailto:GGhatikar@lbl.gov] > *Sent:* Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:23 PM > *To:* michel@universal-devices.com > *Cc:* energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* Re: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs > (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded > > Michel, > > I agree that RTP would simplify many problems that are barrier to DR > participation. However, implementation of systems and other related > actions (e.g., programming costs) for this requires understanding > buildings, strategies, and the systems that exist currently (with or > without retrofits) and those that may come in future. It also requires > customer adoption and migration, which takes time. We can say a super > computer may solve all our computing problems, however, the key > question here is -- can everyone afford it and if they can, what would > it cost to operate and maintain it? > > Thank you, > -Rish > > Michel Kohanim wrote: > > Hi Rish, > > No, you are not missing something. What I was trying to say was: > If simplicity is the result of all the research in DR, then - in all > likelihood - those results would be a little antithetical to RTP simply > because RTP is anything but simple (with multiple actors and 10s of > intertwined use cases). > > 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: Girish Ghatikar [mailto:GGhatikar@lbl.gov] > Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:44 AM > To: michel@universal-devices.com <mailto:michel@universal-devices.com> > Cc: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org> > Subject: Re: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 > SK edits.doc) uploaded > > Michel, > > It is my understanding that the scope issues to addressed by EI TC for > DR is beyond RTP. I am missing something? > > Some sentences from the original EI TC charter purpose that might be > relevant and to revisit: > > 1. "The Technical Committee will define the interaction of Smart Grids > with their end nodes: Smart Buildings and Facilities, Enterprises, > Industry, Homes, and Vehicles. Dynamic pricing, reliability, and > emergency signals must be communicated through interoperability > mechanisms that meet business needs, scale, use a variety of > communication technologies, maintain security and privacy, and are > reliable." > > 2. "These specifications will define service interfaces and the data on > which they operate to allow interoperation without requiring deep > knowledge of the systems as they are implemented." > > Thanks, > -Rish > > Michel Kohanim wrote: > > > Hi Rish, welcome back! > > > > 1. I think we have to be a little careful with usage of words such as > > "extensible and flexible" to define "simple". In other words, we better > > > > come > > > up with concrete requirements to "define" what "simple" means. As of right > > now - and based on what I've read so far - to me simple means "the usage > > > > of > > > flags for devices that cannot compute anything above and beyond base 3" > > > > 2. If in the future OpenADR is going to define the communications > > > > standards > > > for devices with an embedded ESI, then isn't WS Scheduling part of the > > > > stack > > > of operations they must be able to support? If so, then where does that > > leave "simple"? > > > > Please do not get me wrong for I truly believe in simplicity. I would also > > be very interested in all the research and any results thereof. My guess > > > > is > > > that most of those results are a little antithetical to real-time pricing > > goals and aspirations. > > > > > > 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: Girish Ghatikar [mailto:GGhatikar@lbl.gov] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:13 PM > > To: michel@universal-devices.com <mailto:michel@universal-devices.com> > > Cc: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Subject: Re: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs > > > > (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 > > > SK edits.doc) uploaded > > > > Michel, > > > > Yes, it's been a long time - I was on travel for last few weeks. > > > > 1. You're right that there will always be devices with low processing > > power or capabilities to interpret the rich logic and also from cost > > point of view this seem plausible. I am not saying that that these > > devices do exist for certain in future, however, our standards should be > > extensible and flexible enough to handle such requirements. Again, this > > is not the only reason why the simple information makes sense. > > > > 2. What you understand is correct and it's outside of this scope (and > > always has been for OpenADR development) of the communication between > > BAS/EMS/ESI/Meter/Gateway and end devices. However, we can foresee that > > in future, that the OpenADR can directly communicate with the devices > > (where ESI is integral part of the device itself. > > > > Another thing I didn't include in my earlier note was an example of > > recently conducted PLP pilot where the existing CPP DR program customers > > were switched without any reprogramming to their controls or strategies > > although the original CPP was sending price multipliers and the PLP sent > > the go to dispatch levels. The use of simple levels from simple > > information made this possible. > > > > Thanks, > > -Rish > > > > > > > > Michel Kohanim wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rish, long time no see! > > > > 1. You are saying that: there are and shall be devices/systems with > > low processing power and therefore we should support simple messages. > > > > Yes? > > > 2. Are HAN/Building communications within the jurisdiction of this > > taskforce? i.e. are we going to discuss how > > BAS/EMS/ESI/Meter/Gateway/? communicate with end devices? As far as I > > know, this is not the case unless the mandate has changed. If no, then > > we have to decide what constitutes the minimum level of "smartness" > > for a BAS/ESI/EMS > > > > 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:* Girish Ghatikar [mailto:GGhatikar@lbl.gov] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2009 5:06 PM > > *To:* energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs > > (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded > > > > 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: > > > > 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 <mailto:energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org> > > <mailto: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 <mailto:energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org> > > <mailto: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 <mailto:energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org> > > <mailto: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 <mailto:energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org> > > <mailto: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 <http://www.NewDaedalus.com> <http://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 <mailto:energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org> > > <mailto: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 <mailto:GGhatikar@lbl.gov> <mailto: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 <mailto: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]. > -- 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].
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]