[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] RE: problem of sending signals to participants form multiple sources
|
This is in response to
the suggestion of Ed Koch that I elaborate on the issue of signals from multiple sources in Transactional Energy. The basic transactional model
is a sequence of transactions for specified time period. Each transaction has a buyer and a
seller. Subject to any regulatory
restrictions, a party can receive offers from multiple parties and transact
with multiple parties. The forward position
of a party in each delivery period determined by the sum of the forward transactions
for the period. Given the meter
reading for the period, the balancing transaction amount is determined by
subtracting the forward position. Some
communication of the forward position to the balancing party may be required. In the case of option
transactions in Transactional Energy ( like DR contracts) they can be with any
party and separate option contracts could be with different party. However, execution of each option, would
be by the party holding the option. Edward G. Cazalet, Ph.D. 101 First Street, Suite 552 Los Altos, CA 94022 650-949-5274 cell: 408-621-2772 From: Edward Koch [mailto:ed@akuacom.com] Gale, I’m going to kill two birds with one stone and also cc my
response to the EI list. Bear in mind that my response below is within the context of what
we discussed during the 1.0 drafting of the spec, although I suspect the EI
will come to similar conclusions. Just like as shown in figure 6, we did in fact identify scenarios
where someone may receive signals from multiple sources. The conclusion
we came to at the time was that how any conflicts between signals get resolved
was beyond the scope of our specification. What this means is that if
this is a potential conflict exists then it will need to be resolved either by
the receiver of the signals or the senders. The implications to the
specification we wrote were that the most we were willing to do to help resolve
conflicts was to add an attribute identifying the source of the signals.
Anything beyond that would require some sort of coordination between the
different entities sending the signals and we didn’t want to go down that
road. Of course the receiver can also resolve any conflict himself, and
while they might feed back some information concerning how they resolved the
conflict it probably does not affect the downstream DR signal itself. Note that I think that much of what is done today to help resolve
these issues is on a contractual basis. Customers often sign contracts
with either Aggregators or Utilities which preclude this situation from
occurring. Some aspect of this might be reflected in the transactional
energy model. Perhaps Ed C could elaborate more on this. Thanks, -ed koch From: Horst, Gale
[mailto:ghorst@epri.com] Ed
and Rish: Your
action items from the energyinteropTC call today: What
are the architectural implications? For exampe will each end node be
linked to receive from one entity above it in the hierarchy? Or is it
acceptable to be able to receive from multiple senders (REC or entity above)
concurrently. We
may want to reference the diagram in the proposed solution to this item. For
example Figure 6 in “energyinterop-1.0-spec-wd-12.pdf” line 672
would seem to have an implication. I can see where signals ORIGINATE from
several sources. But will the “Entity A” (REC) be responsible
to sort / prioritize and send the appropriate signal on? Perhaps other
developments or OpenADR has hashed their way through this issue and can bring
some clarity. We may want to check that we have described the background
text in the document to be sure it relays the proper understanding. THANKS, Gale Gale
R. Horst Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Mobile:
865-368-2603 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]