Sila:
Thanks for the response. I think you
illustrated another key point in your statement:
“We moved three
customers using simple clients from critical peak pricing tariff offered by the
utility to Participating Load program offered by the ISO with NO changes in the
communication and controls.” - Sila Kiliccote.
Out at the grid end nodes, scalability and
flexibility is a key to enabling a logical path of stepping stones. This flexibility
can both get us to the smart grid as well as growing it’s functionality
in the future. Once a node is on the smart grid, it will need to be
reconfigurable in a way that it can be focused to support programs as opposed
to technology. Your example described the ability to change to support
a different value stream without
ANY changes in the controls or the messaging scheme at the grid end node. From
the perspective of the customer or aggregator this appears to represent the
ability to bid into the ISO markets one day and a DR program the next day.
I’m finding several examples of systems
with this flexibility. Unfortunately, there still a few that are being
designed end-to-end for a single narrowly-focused purpose.
Thanks,
Gale
Gale R. Horst
Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI)
Office: 865-218-8078
ghorst@epri.com
From: Sila Kiliccote [mailto:skiliccote@lbl.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009
11:06 AM
To:
energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [energyinterop] RE:
Signal Types
All,
Current DR
evaluations for C&I customers are being done at the individual meter level.
There may be one to one correspondence between a building and a meter or in
many cases there is one meter to many buildings under the same customer
account. DR has value only if it is outside of the standard error of historical
load fluctuations. An example of this is many college/university campuses have
one meter for the entire campus. If some (not all) buildings are participating
in DR and it does not show up at the meter, they do not get paid. They can
submeter those buildings and try to convince the utility that they are
participating in DR, but utility settlements are done at the meter level and
utilities do not have a way of giving incentives for sub-metering information.
Their back office systems are too expensive to accommodate such changes. And I
don't think they should. By doing DR in a few buildings, a campus may be
deferring loads to other buildings and therefore not getting a net affect.
Overall, I agree with the approach - reducing all the price and reliability
issues to prices will simplify M&V. The reality is that it is not going to
happen in the near future because of the diversity of markets and wholesale and
retail DR products. There is a lot of dynamic rates discussions happening in CA
and while all the utilities are planning to offer dynamic
rates in 2010, in reality, we don't know how it will be received by the
consumers and how closely they reflect reliability issues. The renewable
integration opens up another debate in this price issue which I am not going to
get into at this time.
In short, I do think prices and reliability programs will operate together for
a while and (hate to go back to the same topic but) the simple and smart
discussion can also be considered from this point of view. Prices can be sent
as "raw" data to be interpreted by the smart clients and in the same
information model, attributes that represent DR program information and
simplified prices can be sent as "processed" data for the simple
clients. This enables the customers' transition between rates and programs with
no cost and provides customers the flexibility and mobility. Our Grid Interop
paper gave a very solid example. We moved three customers using simple clients
from critical peak pricing tariff offered by the utility to Participating Load
program offered by the ISO with NO changes in the communication and controls.
No cost to the customer if they have OpenADR to move from one program to
another.
Best wishes,
Sila
On 12/18/2009 6:40 AM, Horst, Gale wrote:
I think this quote I extracted from one of Ed's comment in
the chain is, perhaps, foundational.
"Having a
device communicate its response back between the domains is of little value
unless the trust in the response is equivalent to that of a sub meter in that
the response can be used for billing." Ed Cazalet
If you look at the costs involved to having a device
equal a revenue grade AMI meter in reliability, security, and be abile to
maintain the verification of the response, will it have a valid cost/benefit
for anything but very large loads?
The other buring question is, can it be spoofed for
financial gain? The ATTACHED IMAGE IS A SPOOF sent to me from a friend.
But it makes an obvious point. The position is that a DR should be
verifiable and impact standard energy measurment and billing methods.
Otherwise it’s success and verification may always be in question.
Enjoy!
Gale
-----Original Message-----
... long chain removed ...