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: RE: [energyinterop] Proposal for replacement for EI Fig. 1-1


For discussion:

 

My problem is that Service Provider can be anyone, except that in the NIST cloud diagram it is specifically serving the customer, and market operations includes all of the utility service providers that aren’t otherwise included in the other clouds. But I like Ed’s thoughts.

 

David

 

From: Ed Cazalet [mailto:ed@cazalet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 4:21 PM
To: Holmberg, David; 'Phil Davis'
Cc: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Proposal for replacement for EI Fig. 1-1

 

The NIST Diagram has Gen, T, D and Customer on the bottom level and Markets and Service Provider on the top level.

 

If the goal is to simplify then I suggest the following:

 

Gen, T&D and Customer on the bottom level ( 3 clouds) and Markets/Service Providers/Utilities on the top level (one cloud) .

 

This has the advantage of combining Retail and wholesale DR, TeMIX, ISO markets, vertically integrated utilities, and microgrid operators all in one bubble on the top level all working together.

 

Perhaps the message of the diagram is that EI is focused on the interactions between the top cloud and the bottom three by defining information models and interactions between the grid, T&D, and customers and the various entities that mange and run the markets for power.

 

 

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

 

From: Holmberg, David [mailto:david.holmberg@nist.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 12:57 PM
To: Ed Cazalet; 'Phil Davis'
Cc: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Proposal for replacement for EI Fig. 1-1

 

I’m starting to think that our original figure was fine. Can’t we say that T&D is a service provider, serving utilities? In the text we can explain what each cloud includes:

1.       Market operators--ISO, utility, microgrid, etc

2.       Service providers--energy service, DR, aggregation, facility energy management, T&D, etc

3.       Generation—this is large generation as well as DER on the grid side and in the facility: curtailable load, generation, and storage

4.       Customer—this is strictly the load, while a customer may also provide DER/generation services.

 

If we add a T&D cloud, that can be fine too—just looks more like the NIST cloud diagram.

 

David

 

From: Ed Cazalet [mailto:ed@cazalet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 5:32 PM
To: 'Phil Davis'; Holmberg, David
Cc: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Proposal for replacement for EI Fig. 1-1

 

The text  from the draft that puts this Figure into context follows:

 

2 Energy Interoperation defines information exchanges and services to coordinate energy supply and use,

3 including power and ancillary services, between any two parties such as energy suppliers and customers,

4 markets and service providers indicated below. Energy Interoperation makes no assumptions about

5 which entities will enter those markets, or as to what those market roles will be called in the future. Energy

6 Interoperation supports each of the arrows that represent communications, but is not limited to those

7 interactions.

8

9 Figure 2-1: Representative Communications for Energy Interoperation

10 Energy Interoperation defines messages to communicate price, reliability, and emergency conditions.

11 These communications can concern real time interactions, forward projections, or historical reporting.

12 Energy Interoperation is intended to support market-based balancing of energy supply and demand while

13 increasing fluidity of contracts. Increasing deployment of distributed and intermittent energy sources will

14 require greater fluidity in both wholesale and retail markets. In retail markets, Energy Interoperation is

15 meant to support greater consumer choice as to energy source.

 

The public comment suggested only that we add a cloud representing T&D.  We should also at a reference to T&D in the text above.

 

The issue of what roles the parties play ( buyer/seller or VTN/VEN or DR or DER provider) are addressed later in the document.

 

I vote for adding the T&D cloud to the original diagram.  The points raised by David and Phil are valid but they can delt with later in the document.

 

 

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

 

From: pddcoo@gmail.com [mailto:pddcoo@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Phil Davis
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:12 PM
To: Holmberg, David
Cc: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [energyinterop] Proposal for replacement for EI Fig. 1-1

 

With Dave;s comments, I like the three node model (no consumer) better for purposes of this discussion.  Also, would the NERC idea of Balancing Authority work to replace the Market Operator term with all its components?  It conveys a sense of responsibility regardless of the title of the entity.

 

 

Phil Davis | Senior Manager - Solutions | Schneider Electric Demand Response Resource Center | 3103 Medlock Bridge Road, Suite 100 | Norcross, GA  30071 | 404..567.6090 | phil.davis@us.schneider-electric.com | www.schneider-electric.com | Skype: pddcoo

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Holmberg, David <david.holmberg@nist.gov> wrote:

Good question. Is not Energy Interop serving the ideal of more efficient markets and use of resources? So, the “Resouce Provider” can be the customer, or the generator, or the storage—but then maybe they are also just a service provider to the utility? That is, OpenADR is not serving a customer, but rather the “customer” is providing DR service to the utility. Maybe EI is only about VEN and VTNs? And the market operator is a “market service provider”? If by customer we mean the end load buildings that consume most of the power and the industrial plants that eat the rest, then they are the only ones who are not a service provider, just a consumer (although they can act in other roles). So, maybe we need a cloud just for “consumer”? I was trying to show that the consumer can also be DER. Maybe this?

 

 

From: Ed Cazalet [mailto:ed@cazalet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 4:47 PM
To: Holmberg, David; energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Proposal for replacement for EI Fig. 1-1

 

Sorry, but where is the customer in the new diagram?  Are they not who Energy Interop is to serve?

 

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

 

From: Holmberg, David [mailto:david.holmberg@nist.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:42 PM
To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [energyinterop] Proposal for replacement for EI Fig. 1-1

 

This addresses Jira issue 306.

 

The current Fig 1-1:

 

My proposed update for discussion:

 

 

I’m trying to get down to the fundamental view of who is using EI, and away from the NIST cloud diagram. Does this work? Or is it getting closer?

 

David Holmberg

NIST Engineering Laboratory

301-975-6450

 

“God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.”
C.S. Lewis

 


________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for SPAM content and Viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
________________________________________________________________________

 

oledata.mso



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]