Doug, David and all;
I agree that Dougs description is
appropriate. It also fits into the diagram in the EPRI whitepaper that
describes the REC/VEN . It seems that the only difference is that the “Grid”
is called a “Party”, the REC (Resource Energy Coordinator) is
called an “Aggregator” and the VEN (Virtual End Node) is the “Participant”.
I think the “Party”
designation is desireable as “Party” implies a more flexible
definition which is needed. But as noted in Bills drawings in the OASIS
draft, Dougs document, as well as the drawing I attached from the whitepaper,
the “Aggregator” is not required to aggregate anything. It
could be a single “VEN/Participant” which may or may not be summing
up (aggregating) anything. So there are concerns with using the term “Aggregator”.
There was a question or comment from someone (I think it may have been David) in
the on-line chat during the call today about why we don’t just use the
terms REC and VEN. But we didn’t discuss on the call. My
comment / suggestion is:
. Use the term “Party”
as suggested (e.g. in place of “Grid” in the attached diagram) in
Dougs document.
. Redefine REC to be Resource
Energy Coordinator (“Coordinator” in place of “Controller”
which, as someone noted earlier, gives the wrong impression).
With these changes some of the work in the
EPRI document may provide value as a contribution / reference to clarify some
of this work. Note that I’m not trying to “sell” my
work as there is nothing I could gain from that. But it offers a further
detailed resource reference explaination for the concept that Doug described in
this document. The whitepaper has been noted by other groups in a similar
way and this also gives some continuity between groups.
Gale R.
Horst
Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI)
From: Holmberg, David
[mailto:david.holmberg@nist.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:08
PM
To:
Subject: [energyinterop] RE:
Section Four proposal
Doug,
I like this. I think it captures the DR
service roles well. What other roles do we have? Do we need to talk about ISOs
and utilities and CSP? What about for generic transactional energy, or specific
transaction types?
David
From: Walker, Doug
[mailto:DWalker@caiso.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:57
PM
To:
Subject: [energyinterop] Section
Four proposal
Here
is a quick draft to give some ideas of a rework of section 4. I tried to
make it in line with discussions today regarding ‘Party’. I
did not have the original graphics, so I had to create new ones, but the main
point was to put forth the idea that Actor is a role that a particular entity
can play. This will potentially change for each atomic service
interaction.
Also,
are we using the NAESB work for context of individual services? If so,
that should be added to the NAESB section (currently placeholder) and we can
concentrate on the individual services.
As
this is a radical change, I wanted to get it out early to see if this was along
the lines of the group’s thoughts.
Thank you,
Douglas Walker
916.351.2371