[OASIS Issue Tracker] (ENERGYINTEROP-665) Ed Cazalet Comments on PR01

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

Toby Considine created ENERGYINTEROP-665:
--------------------------------------------

             Summary: Ed Cazalet Comments on PR01
                 Key: ENERGYINTEROP-665
                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/ENERGYINTEROP-665
             Project: OASIS Energy Interoperation TC
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: cts
    Affects Versions: CTSPR01
         Environment: Edward G. Cazalet, TEMIX
            Reporter: Toby Considine
            Assignee: Toby Considine


Any changes from the TeMix profile [TEMIX]
2 of Energy Interop (EI) and Energy Market Information Exchange (EMIX)
must require clear justification because the changes may be incompatible with TEMIX, published a decade ago, that 
existing implementations have, may have, or will rely on otherwise the claimed interoperability of the Proposal will 
fail.
1. The Proposal introduces Actor as a synonym with Party. There is no apparent advantage to the change.
2. There is no formal role in the Proposal for Location as in TEMIX.
3. There is no formal role in the Proposal for Transport Products as in TEMIX.
4. The definition of a Transaction in the Proposal is different from TEMIX for no apparent reason.
5. The addition of Instrument as a Product for a Duration in the Proposal is unnecessary, and any market engine 
that requires Instruments can apply the instrument concept in its interface with TEMIX.
6. In conflict with the Proposal, there are valid use cases for a tender that expires after the start time of the 
associated interval.
7. The Proposalâs definition of a Resource is inconsistent with the definition of a Resource in EMIX and is not 
used in TEMIX.
8. The Cancel Tender operation cannot be required in any TEMIX implementation because a Party executing 
more than one transaction cannot rely on both transactions being executed. Moreover, tender cancelation 
can be an invitation to market manipulation. 
9. The omission in the Proposal of EiQuote is not an improvement as this service should never have been in 
TEMIX. Likewise, the Proposalâs omission of the EiDelivery service makes no sense, especially as the Proposal
has a significant discussion of Delivery.
10. The Proposalâs discussion of a Position Service is incomplete and likely unworkable because of design flaws in 
the Proposal.
11. While the Proposal includes bilateral transactions, the Proposalâs favored alternative of independent, local
clearing markets (market engines) is unworkable in a grid where fine locational and time granularity is 
essential, and liquidity of tenders is minimal.
12. End Party participation in local clearing markets offered in the Proposal will typically see low participation 
and low liquidity, so such markets will be inefficient and unworkable except perhaps in exceptional 
circumstances.
13. The Proposalâs option to have markets with offset Start Times is unworkable and unnecessary.
14. The Proposal for Common Transactive Services (CTS) offers no more interoperability (likely less because of 
flaws) than TEMIX. As a result, CTS is oversold in this Proposal. In addition, the Proposal does not fully 
implement and is incompatible with the CTS in CTS2016 for reasons described above.
15. The Proposal does not simplify TEMIX as claimed. Most, if not all, of the claimed benefits of the Proposal, are 
provided by TEMIX. The Proposalâs messages are not simpler than TEMIX messages and are likely 
incompatible (the messages are not yet published). TEMIX, as it stands, is fully capable of providing 
transactive services in any market, although its documentation in EMIX and EI could be âcleaned upâ in a new 
standalone TEMIX profile of these standards. Hence the Proposal only adds confusion to the detriment of 
Transactive Energy progres



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.3#803004)