When defining the requirements for how the various interactions between energy providers and their customers are transacted, we will find that they will be specified at various levels of abstraction. One level of requirements that the UCAIug will be able to define (no doubt expressed as a collection of use cases) is to specify WHAT interactions are required for the Utility/ISO’s currently envisioned processes. Another level of requirements that I believe OASIS will play a major role in defining is the MANNER in which those interactions are transacted. The requirements of symmetry, composition, and transparency that Toby enumerates are examples of this. As an aside I think these are very good requirements and I agree with them.
The responsibility of OASIS should be to insure that not only can the currently envisioned set of use cases be fulfilled, but that some of the future uses cases that were not envisioned be made possible by imposing further requirements on the manner in which the transactions are conducted. Almost by definition these types of requirements are not easily expressed as use cases since if they could then they would have been envisioned.
The duality of the WHAT type of interactions that UCAIug can bring to the table coupled with the MANNER of transactions that OASIS can add is why I am so bullish on the collaboration between UCAIug and OASIS.
I don’t want to imply that OASIS will not contribute to defining WHAT interactions are supported. In fact I think that OASIS can play a major role in helping to represent the non-Utility/ISO side of the equation, but if there is not buy in from the Utility/ISO’s those requirements will likely become irrelevant. Furthermore as anyone that has done business with Utility/ISO’s can tell you, transformative change is problematic.
-ed koch
From: Considine, Toby (Campus Services IT) [mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu]
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:38 AM
To: smartgrid-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [smartgrid-discuss] Draft charter for proposed OASIS Energy Interoperation Technical Committee
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 |
|
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
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
--