RE: [energyinterop] What should be enrolled

In the IRC entity relationship diagram that was part of the NAESB materials, we “digested” all of the relevant NERC actors to a set of agreed-upon terms that were used for both the wholesale and retail teams. I recommend using that set of terms going forward. Attached again for your convenience. (See “Defined Terms” document for definitions and see entity relationship diagram in Appendix A of the PAP 09 document – redline changes indicate updates from Phase 1 of NAESB effort.)

Finally, the “Actor Mapping” tab of the attached worksheet may provide some insight into other names for the entities shown in the entity relationship diagram in Appendix A of the PAP 09 document. This “Actor Mapping” tab was used early in Phase 2 to gain consensus on the actors list that was used for the Phase 2 work. The “Actor Mapping” tab was an effective way to show the translation for various terms into a more generic term.

If you really want to go beyond what’s here, you might want to take a look at the NERC Functional Model.

Regards,

Donna

Donna K. Pratt

Manager, Demand Response Products

New York Independent System Operator

10 Krey Boulevard

Rensselaer, NY 12144

Tel: 518-356-8758

From: Ed Cazalet [mailto:ed@cazalet.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 12:05 PM
To: Toby.Considine@gmail.com; energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] What should be enrolled

I assume you are talking about enrollment of a Party in an Enabling Agreement (Market Context, Program, Tariff, Bilateral Trading Agreement)

In this case the Parties cannot be devices or resources.

For example a distributed energy resource is not a Party. A distributed energy resource operator could be a Party to an Enabling Agreement.

Likewise meterAuthority is not likely to be a Party to an Enabling Agreement – it is an information provider just like the weather forecaster.

I think we should stay away from creating enumerated types but just set rules for the type of entity that can be enrolled as Party in an Enabling Agreement and give examples.

If a jurisdiction wants to standardize such names then they can do it, EI should not in my opinion. For example, many of the enrollment type names may be very different in Europe or Asia.

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: Toby Considine [mailto:tobyconsidine@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Toby Considine
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:10 AM
To: energyinterop@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [energyinterop] What should be enrolled

I think the list of enrollment types (an enumerated type for EI) is similar to the following

designatedDispatchEntity (VTN)

distributedEnergyResource

loadServingEntity

meterAuthority

schedulingEntity

serviceProvider

transportServiceProvider

utilityDistributionOperator

marketParticipant

These second tier entities could be added to the list above, but I think they are redundant.

distributionProvider

hostBalancingAuthority

balancingAuthority

independentPowerProducer

interchangeAuthority

intermediateBalancingAuthority

purchasingSellingEntity

receivingBalancingAuthority

sendingBalancingAuthority

transmissionOperator

transmissionServiceProvider

Changes or suggestions to the list…

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”
– George Bernard Shaw.

Toby Considine
TC9, Inc

TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar

TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop

U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee

Email: Toby.Considine@gmail.com
Phone: (919)619-2104

http://www.tcnine.com/
blog: www.NewDaedalus.com

energyinterop message