OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

energyinterop message

[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]