[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Is silence consent?
Sorry the reference to PAP 03 should be to PAP 09 which is the PAP energy interop is addressing. Edward G. Cazalet, Ph.D. 101 First Street, Suite 552 Los Altos, CA 94022 650-949-5274 cell: 408-621-2772 ed@cazalet.com www.cazalet.com -----Original Message----- From: Ed Cazalet [mailto:ed@cazalet.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:42 PM To: Toby.Considine@gmail.com; energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Is silence consent? All, I think we need more focus in energy interop. From the NIST Twiki the purpose of PAP 03 is to Define a framework and common terminology for: 1.Price communication, 2.Grid safety or integrity signals, 3.DER support, and 4.Other signals and/or an extensibility mechanism. I have several questions and some answers. Happy to listen to other answers and questions. First question: Shall we focus our effort on the smart grid with interval metering or the dumb grid with cumulative monthly metering? My answer, assume interval metering or we are taking on too much complexity in our document with little added value. Second question: Do we begin with price communication for the electricity (or gas) commodity or do we ignore price communication for the commodity and go to directly to specify signals to reduce load from an undefined base? My answer, clearly we have to begin with price communication for the commodity. That is, we need to communicate the price from a regulated or competitive retail supplier to the end customer. The price should be : (1) real-time price for any amount of energy, or (2) forward prices for forward commitments of energy for specified intervals that can be added up to meet the desired forward purchases of the customer with any residual purchase or sale at real-time prices, or (3) any amount of energy at forward contracted prices that is independent of real-time price or any further transactions (this is actually an option to purchase energy). Third question: Shall we facilitate bidding into wholesale markets by retail customers for load reductions from the base in (2) above? My answer is yes since this is no different from the buying and selling in forward transactions referenced above for the Second question. ( pricing communication (2) ) Fourth question: Shall we facilitate peak load pricing and rebates? My answer is yes, as this is just another forward purchase or sale and is included just like the answer to the third question. Fifth question: Shall we facilitate offers by customers to reduce or increase forward purchases. Yes, as this is included just like the answers to the third and fourth questions. Sixth question: Shall we facilitate options for the retailer or ISO to buy back at prescribed (high) prices (a call option by the retailer? And shall we facilitate options for the retailer or ISO to put back at prescribed (low) prices (a put option by the retailer? Similar options can be described for the customers? My answer is yes, but this is not high priority. Seventh question: What are grid safety and integrity signals? My answer: These have nothing to do with price and should be restricted to signals to the capable meters to 1. disconnect from the grid 2. prevent backflow to the grid 3. limit power consumed from the grid or provided to the grid under emergency only conditions to protect the grid equipment. A separate category could be notifications for voluntary actions by groups of customers. Sixth question: How should we provide for DER support? My answer is that we use the structure described above. No other changes are needed. Seventh question: What are other signals? My answer is that I don't know and the above seems adequate. Regards, Ed Edward G. Cazalet, Ph.D. 101 First Street, Suite 552 Los Altos, CA 94022 650-949-5274 cell: 408-621-2772 ed@cazalet.com www.cazalet.com -----Original Message----- From: Toby Considine [mailto:tobyconsidine@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Toby Considine Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:08 AM To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Is silence consent? Again It starts with the comments on Section 4 of WD06 that I requested for response before I extended them into the document. tc "If something is not worth doing, it`s not worth doing well" - Peter Drucker Toby Considine TC9, Inc OASIS Technical Advisory Board TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com -----Original Message----- From: Evan Wallace [mailto:ewallace@cme.nist.gov] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:36 PM To: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) Cc: Toby.Considine@gmail.com; energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [energyinterop] Is silence consent? Toby, I think that many of us could use more elaboration on what you have written in your email. Like Rish, I am unsure to what FIX and CAP refer. Also unclear if bidding/contracts are going to be the only mechanism for DR signal exchange. This seems ill suited to smaller consumers or to handling grid emergencies. -Evan Evan K. Wallace Manufacturing Systems Integration Division NIST --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]