The wonderful thing about [smartgrid] standards is that there
are so many of them…
I think Glenn’s comments are well important in this
effort. The most important and rarest addressed are the issues surrounding what
Glenn calls the problem of bi-directional power and the problems of rapidly
increasing diversity in the grid, diversity of technology, of owner, or
connection…
These requirement to solve these issues are why we have a focus
on symmetry, transparency, and composition.
Symmetry assumes that each action can be run both ways. Symmetry
might refer to buying or selling of power. Symmetry might refer to the end node
making inquiries about capacity and reliability up the energy delivery chain
just as the grid operator might make the inquiry down. Symmetry suggests that
end nodes have as much capability to make inquiries up about fulfillment, whether
it be of carbon strategies or of reliability as the ISO has the right to make a
fulfillment request down following a DR event.
Transparency is critical as more payers enter every market.
Transactional energy demands that there be verifiable transactions about the sources
and uses of energy so market can clear. Want to buy a certain class of power as
part of a carbon strategy? There had better be an auditable chain of
transactions showing that the markets actually cleared in each class of power. Transparency
of operations also comes across as part of the issues in symmetry as above.
Composition is a key component of supporting diversity. Corporate
Development of software in the 90’s was crippled by a misapplication of theories
demanding universal database models be in place, agreed to by all, before work
could proceed. How is this different then the focus on the CIM that is still
embraced in power. Composition offers a simpler way to assemble functionality,
focusing on the key requirements for each aspect and no more. Th4e killer apps
of the internet, used by billions of people to interoperate with using diverse
software, work because they are composed of simpler protocols, and when one
party does not understand one of them, communication and functionality is
diminished but not destroyed.
Transactional markets for energy in a building? Perhaps no security.
Transactional markets for energy in the neighborhood distribution loop? Perhaps
simple token or address based security. Transactional markets for energy on the
big grid? Full blown federated identity management with mutual authentication is
required. Does the CIM even need to know? No.
Similarly, interactions between symmetrical nodes can be
composed of smaller standards, each less specific than is a full blown data
model, each applicable in more areas, and each optional for the node in
question. Small standards for metering power use can be separate from the
bidding and negotiations to come up with the power prices. The bidding and
negotiations, including DR, for, say, electricity and natural gas can be the
same. Status and capability information can be exchanged irrespective of the
flows, and used to manage system capabilities. Status and capability do not
demand the purchaser (this moment) know the technology used to generate the
power. This information can be composed with other standards including the more
intimate ones required of the energy asset in a end node is managed as a
forward asset of the supplier
So let’s look at the other standards, and learn from them.
But my first question for each is does it support symmetry, transparency,
and composition…
"A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in
the wrong, which is but saying ... that he is wiser today than yesterday."
-- Jonathan Swift
Toby Considine
Chair, OASIS oBIX TC
Facilities Technology Office
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
|
|
Email: Toby.Considine@
unc.edu
Phone: (919)962-9073
http://www.oasis-open.org
blog: www.NewDaedalus.com
|
From: Glenn Skutt
[mailto:gskutt@vpt-es.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 1:02 PM
To: smartgrid-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [smartgrid-discuss] Draft charter for proposed OASIS Energy
Interoperation Technical Committee
Bill,
Thanks for posting this draft; I will read through it to see if I can find the
answers to my questions and concerns and/or throw in suggestions for things I
think need addressing.
But, since I've had these questions and issues for a while I'll take a couple
minutes to throw them out to the group as well:
1.) I am working on bidirectional power management for the grid and this seems
to be something that gets very little mention in this standards work.
Specifically, I am interested in vehicle-to-grid connection that allows for
distributed energy storage solutions. The use of grig-connected vehicles
and other distributed storage mechanisms to allow grid support, spinning
reserve, peak shaving, power quality support, etc. represents a major
opportunity for smart-grid operation, but it also seems to be low priority or
"someday, maybe" in terms of standards.
2.) The mass of different standards and organizations related to energy
control, demand response, home area networks, etc. is dizzying and hard to
handle for a new vendor eying the development of actual hardware. I
understand that the likelihood that any one standard can satisfy the many
different requirements of different players, but it is extremely confusing to
come to this field and find so many different organizations proclaiming
themselves as the "standard". So, I have a concern/question re:
whether we should put a lot of effort into this work or just go work to make
sure that one of the many other standards starts to gain momentum or expands
enough to include issues that drive us to want to have another new one.
As I said, I am interested in reading through this and seeing if I can
contribute anything useful, and hopefully all will become clear.
Thanks and regards,
-Glenn Skutt
---------------------------------------------------
Glenn Skutt
VPT Energy Systems
2200 Kraft Dr. Suite 1200C
Blacksburg, VA 24060
540-443-9214 x4271
gskutt@vpt-es.com
www.vpt-es.com
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:51 PM, William Cox <wtcox@coxsoftwarearchitects.com>
wrote:
Please find attached the draft charter for the proposed
OASIS Energy Interoperation Technical Committee. I've attached a PDF,
OpenDocument, and Word versions, all with line numbers for ease of discussion
and review.
We invite you to comment on this list and to determine your interest in joining
this work - please contact me directly if you would like to be listed as a
supporter.
This proposal is being posted to smartgrid-discuss for (guess what!) discussion
and review. The intent of the drafting group is to revise this draft after a
comment period, and then submit the revised charter to the OASIS' Technical
Committee process,.
The core work of the TC is defining XML and Web services interactions for
so-called Automated Demand Response, growing out of work at the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory Demand Response Research Center led by Mary Ann
Piette, who is the convener of the proposed TC. This specific proposal comes
from the context of many discussions in and related to the OpenADR Technical Advisory
Group, GridWise Architecture Council, Grid-Interop, the NIST Smart Grid
project, GridEcon (a conference in March on the economics of the Smart Grid - http://www.gridecon.com/ )
and many other places.
The LBNL OpenADR body of work is being extended through two
organizations/entities being created: this proposed OASIS Technical Committee
and a proposed UCAIug OpenADR Task Force. In this innovative collaboration, the
UCAIug, whose members are largely utilities and their suppliers, we will focus
requirements, goals, data models and comments through UCAIug, involving their
membership.
If you're not familiar with OASIS Technical Committee Charters, the statement
of purpose is section (1)(b), the scope is section (1)(c), and identification
of similar or applicable work is section (2)(a).
As usual as charters evolve, the list of supporters is empty in this public
discussion draft, and the list of deliverables and timeline is not included --
the next version will have those sections completed. Again, if you would like
to join this work as a supporter and member of the technical committee, let us
know.
Collaboration with other groups of stakeholders is actively being sought;
please contact me for how to get involved. Other stakeholders include energy
market makers, Independent System Operators (such as those in California,
Texas, New England, the Midwest, etc), and policy and regulatory groups.
For more details, see the draft charter -- and step forward so we can make this
interoperation effort both broad and effective.
Thanks!
bill cox
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: smartgrid-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: smartgrid-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org
--