[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Scope statement format for consideration
Last week I was “volunteered” to reshape the
scope statement in EnergyInteropTC WD-9. Below and attached is a pass at
this. I have personally found that somewhere in the scope definition it is
helpful to take it down to specific IN-SCOPE and OUT-OF-SCOPE statements. I
offer this text for discussion and refinement by the group. The specifics of
the IN/OUT statements need additional discussion for clarity and are offered as
a starting point. - Gale [Working draft #8 line numbers] [Beginning with line 259
currently titled 2.1 Scope] 2.1 Goals & Guidelines 1. DR signals standardization must
support all four market types; i.e., a) no open wholesale and no retail
competition, b) open wholesale market only, c) open retail competition only, d)
open wholesale and open retail competition. It must also consider key
differences that exist and will continue to exist in all four market types. 2. Wholesale market DR and pricing
signals have different characteristics than retail market DR and pricing
signals, although commonality in format is feasible. 3. Most Customers, with a few exception
of Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Customers, will not interact directly
with wholesale market when it comes to DR and pricing signals. 4. Retail pricing models are complex,
due to the numerous tariff rate structures that exist in both regulated and
un-regulated markets. Attempts to standardize DR control and pricing signals
must not hinder regulatory changes or market innovations when it comes to
future tariff or pricing models. 5. New business entities such as Energy
Service Providers (ESP), Demand Response Providers (DRP), DR Aggregators, and
Energy Information Service Providers (ESIP), will play an increasing role in DR
implementation. 6. DER may play an increasingly
important role in DR, yet the development of tariff and/or pricing models that
support DER’s role in DR are still in early stages of development. 7. The Customer’s perspective and
ability to react to DR control and pricing signals must be a key driver during
the development of DR standards. In addition, Energy Interoperation TC asserts that: 8.
Where feasible, customer interfaces and the
presentation of energy information to the customer should be left in the hands
of the market, systems, and product developers enabled by these specifications. 2.2 Scope 2.2.1 General
Scope Definition Energy Interoperation intends to
support transactional energy as well as demand response in various forms
ranging from load control to overrideable customer suggestion. While
agreements and/or contractual obligations should be supported by this specification,
a reasonable amount of flexibility for any particular implementation detail
should be enabled relative to specific programs, regional requirements, and
target goal of the various participants including utility industry, suppliers,
and device manufactures. It is not the intent of the Energy
Interoperation Technical Committee to imply that any particular contractual
obligations appear as endorsed, proposed, or required to implement this
specification. In addition, the TC would like to note that energy market
operations are beyond the scope of this specification although the signals that
enable management of the actual delivery and acceptance are within scope.
Energy Interoperation defines interfaces that can be used throughout the
distribution chain of electricity as well as supporting today’s
intermediation services or those that may arise tomorrow. 2.2.2 Specific
scope statements In Scope: ·
Protocol to receive requests for energy. ·
Acknowledgement of successful transmission of listed
grid messages. ·
Protocol to transmit energy available from end nodes
up to the system. Out of Scope: ·
Reference or assumptions requiring any specific type
of contract, agreement, or tariff necessary to utilize the protocol. ·
Validation and verification. Although the method of
requesting DR, price, or energy request signals is specified, verification that
the appropriate changes in energy consumption or provision is not in the scope
of this TC. ·
Communication (e.g. transport method) to carry the
messages from one point to another. The message protocol should be able to be
transmitted via a variety of systems. NOTES for Discussion: WD-8 (pdf version) yellow
highlights starting on line number 598 need to be discussed and the in/out of
scope changed or extended to reflect Verification & Compliance GRH Comments: ·
If the protocol includes a messaged indicating
compliance, it seems that some other form of verification is needed to validate
results. ·
The “yellow” discussion in lines 598
– 632 seem to imply an interest in supporting various contractual
obligations. However, would I be correct to assume that to support a
contractual obligation, particularly involving settlement, that some sort of
revenue-grade measurement would be required? Is this TC going there? Or are
we enabling the protocols leading up to that point but leaving the V&C to
other mechanisms? ·
|
GRH Scope revision suggestions for WD-8.doc
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]