I’ve
always thought the scope of EITC was far too wide, but it’s not my
call. However, I understand the desire to have one high level mechanism
for communicating DR signals (whatever they might be) to all consumers,
C&I, as well as Residential.
Though
we talk about low power devices, the hardware guys have been helping us out in
the embedded processor industry. We’ve recently been using an ARM
32-bit Cortex M3 in our lowest level controllers. I would expect to use
one with 256k of Flash and 20k of SRAM for a residential ESI/Gateway (see
attachment, from the CEC doc here,)
if we got into the residential market for ESI’s. This class
of device has the right price point for a Residential product. It has
plenty of power for a minimal IP stack to the outside world, whatever in-home
network technology you want, and the Elliptic Curve Cryptography Public Key
Infrastructure the US utilities are currently demanding for Authentication,
Integrity and Confidentiality.
And
I believe the Atmel 8-bit ATmega128L with only 128k Flash, 4k EE, and 4k SRAM
are being used by the utilities for their current Residential ESI product
rollouts. These do not support IP but do support the PKI stuff.
This class of device is the previous generation.
So
I don’t see the minimum level of smartness of an ESI being so low as to
constrain our Energy Interop options in any way. And BMS/EMS/Meters are
PC class devices.
Best,
B.O.
December 3, 2009
Robert
Old
Siemens
Industry, Inc.
Building
Technologies
1000
Deerfield Pkwy.
Buffalo
Grove, IL 60089-4513
Tel.:
+1 (847) 941-5623
Skype:
bobold2
www.siemens.com
From:
Michel Kohanim [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:30 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs
(DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded
Hi Rish, long time no see!
1.
You are saying that: there are and shall be devices/systems with
low processing power and therefore we should support simple messages.
Yes?
2.
Are HAN/Building communications within the jurisdiction of this
taskforce? i.e. are we going to discuss how BAS/EMS/ESI/Meter/Gateway/?
communicate with end devices? As far as I know, this is not the case unless the
mandate has changed. If no, then we have to decide what constitutes the minimum
level of “smartness” for a BAS/ESI/EMS
With kind regards,
********************************
Michel Kohanim, C.E.O
Universal Devices, Inc.
(p) 818.631.0333
(f) 818.436.0702
http://www.universal-devices.com
********************************
From:
Girish Ghatikar [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 5:06 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs
(DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded
David,
Toby, and Michel:
The purpose of using the terms simple and smart client extends beyond the
purposes of its use within legacy systems or messages such as "FAR, NEAR,
etc." This could be up to local utility to define the precise
interpretation for the customers. I think this should be looked from the
perspective of the DR information (e.g., reliability/emergency or price) that
is sent to the devices, which could come in many forms. This concept of simple
vs. smart information (client names are indicative of what information is
eventually used at end uses) is very important and the need has originated from
years of research, field tests, and commercial programs. For me, it doesn't
matter if it's called by some other name, the information is the key.
The idea here is not just to be supportive of legacy or less sophisticated
systems. It's also to make OpenADR extensible and scalable to smaller devices
and sectors such as small commercial and residential, allow innovation and let
systems interoperate and offer scalable solutions such as the concept of
"bridge client" that we used within FM/RDS technology demonstration
recently (translating OpenADR smart information of hourly prices into simple
information of tiers and modes that PCTs could easily understand). In
particular, I would like to emphasize:
1. Legacy Systems: While I partially agree to Toby's comment, "Our
work should be informed by legacy systems, but not limited or dictated by
them...," there is also a need to understand to what end-use devices are
we sending this information? The topic of contention in most of the Smart Grid
workshops has been -- how do we address interoperability and standards with
existing installed base? I think it's obvious that we should not ignore it.
2. Less sophisticated clients: We should make sure that the existing or
future devices have the ability to participate in DR programs with lesser
processing power (over logical translation of smart information locally), which
by themselves are not cost prohibitive (more processing and logic = higher
device costs). This is also true of even sophisticated EMCS (with
processing power) that would like to make use of simple information to
eliminate programming and maintenance costs as they're tied to end-use
strategies. This it's apparent that the end-use strategies and those need
simple mode information (e.g., NORMAL/MODERATE/HIGH). Of course any processing
and mapping of smart information could be derived by a middleware (e.g., DRAS
in our case, which could be something else such as bridge client)
3. Extensibility and scalability to low processing devices -
Understandably our current focus is on Commercial and Industrial (CnI).
However, in future we may also see the results of the data models from this TC
work getting extended to end-use devises itself (e.g., lighting ballasts,
appliances, etc.) and also become part of other standards (e.g., SEP 2.0) and
extend to other sectors (e.g, residential and small commercial).
4. Allowing innovation and technology interoperability and information
standardization - Simple information allows us to cross boundaries
and innovate that traditional communication and/or technologies don't let us
to. How will the end-use devices interpret messages if we don't standardize
these messages? An example was bridge client that although used smart
information (e.g., day-ahead hourly prices), the ability of standardization of
simple information allowed them to translate and transmit the same message in
simple form (the protocol translation from TCP/IP to FM/RDS messages was a
specific implementation for this bridge client) to PCTs due to bandwidth and
payload issues. In future, these same PCTs could also directly listen to
OpenADR simple information directly or through third-party and interoperate
with communication protocols and technologies without any change in programming
or strategies.
This is a long way of saying that the concept of simple and smart information
is very important if we're designing the smart grid for DR that is useful for
not just the current systems, however, also for likely future changes.
If needed, I or someone here at LBNL can send more information on field tests
reports that cover the topics of smart vs. simple clients.
Thanks!
-Rish
Michel Kohanim wrote:
Hi Ed,
I would like to agree with you but having been involved in many
legacy integration projects makes me a little wary of leaving
constructs/vocabulary/nouns (or however you refer to them) open for
interpretation. You could obviously talk about user preferences, criteria by
which they are constrained, and where they should be stored/exectuted (DRAS,
Portal, EMS, end device, etc.). This said, however – and in my view
– system-to-system messages should not be open to interpretation
especially if they are subjective like Far and Near.
With kind regards,
********************************
Michel Kohanim, C.E.O
Universal Devices, Inc.
(p) 818.631.0333
(f) 818.436.0702
http://www.universal-devices.com
********************************
From: Edward Koch [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:51 AM
To: Holmberg, David;
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs
(DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded
David,
What you are saying makes
perfect sense, although I would not classify the simple signal representations
of OpenADR as DLC. It really is nothing more than a more simplified representation
of the DR information that is sent in conjunction with (NOT instead of) any
other DR related information such as prices.
The discussion started around
the state variables in the OpenADR message and then transformed into whether we
should support legacy systems. It's important that we not conflate those
two issues too much because while the vocabulary used to define the simple
state variables in the OpenADR message is driven by a desire to support legacy
systems the requirement to have an alternative vocabulary whose semantics can
be defined by the user for expressing DR event information is actually a bigger
question and is in fact anything but legacy in its applicability and power.
Having the option of an alternative representation, especially if it can be
defined and controlled by the end user, does not dictate that it be used by the
end user. If they want to buy a new intelligent gateway in which to embed
all the intelligence there then so be it. I think that is a fine way of
automating DR, but it should not be the only one. The key is in having options
the end user can choose from that allow for easier integration and consumption
of DR signals in a fashion that makes the most sense for the end user. The
current mechanism in OpenADR provides great flexibility in distributing
intelligence and has proven its worth in the currently deployed systems.
Having alternative representations of the DR information allows for the
end user to decide between those different representations AND allows for the
translation between those different representations to occur at different
points in the architecture. Could occur in the head end or it could occur
in the facility, or there may not be any translation at all. I can tell you
that current OpenADR implementations take advantage of all three of those
scenarios depending upon the needs of the end user. The alternative is to
restrict end user's options and force them to consume information in a
particular way which if the decision is to explicitly NOT support legacy
systems will result in a standard that requires huge investments in new
infrastructure instead of the clean migration path via the options that OpenADR
was designed to provide.
-ed koch
From: Holmberg, David [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:31 AM
To:
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs
(DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded
OpenADR defines an architecture
with a DRAS server in the cloud. The DRAS server can send rich info to the
smart DRAS client, or more DLC-like info (I may be off base here, please
correct) to the simple clients. The simple client can't think so well, so the
server does more thinking and directing. It seems there is a full spectrum of
communications that span the collaborative pure price approach to the
"shut off the water heater" DLC approach.
We are defining the information
and messages for energy interoperation at the facility interface (no?). We have
said that we would include the CA DR program messages that form the meat of
OpenADR--that is, "go to level 2, start time, duration". We are not
specifying how to talk to a specific device to make it act in a certain way, as
is the case for SEP--we are not defining messages for raising the set-point
temp, shutting off the water heater, etc. That is, such commands are DLC, and
the EMS handles that (even if, as in the case of AMI, the EMS is in the utility
backend system). So, EIX (Energy Info eXchange protocol) will not compete with
SEP for DLC, although SEP has price communications. A utility can keep the
current “SEP from the back-end” approach, or stick an ESI on the
building that understands EIX messages and then translates that to SEP commands
(assuming that is in use on the HAN).
Does this make sense?
Thanks,
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Michel Kohanim [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:04 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [energyinterop] Groups - DR Programs (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK
edits.doc) uploaded
Thanks Toby. I totally agree.
With kind regards,
********************************
Michel Kohanim, C.E.O
Universal Devices, Inc.
(p) 818.631.0333
(f) 818.436.0702
http://www.universal-devices.com
********************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Considine, Toby (Campus
Services IT) [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02,
2009 10:59 AM
To: ''
Subject: RE: [energyinterop]
Groups - DR Programs (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded
I think the simple answer is no.
Legacy systems work with legacy communications. Some people will have a
temporary business of putting shims on old systems, whether they worked with
OpenADR, or with SEP 1.0, or even with a 3rd party such as ENERNOC.
Our work should be informed by
legacy systems, but not limited or dictated by them...
tc
"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
-----Original Message-----
From: Michel Kohanim [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02,
2009 1:36 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [energyinterop]
Groups - DR Programs (DR-Program-DRRC_20090914 SK edits.doc) uploaded
Hi Sila, thanks. That makes
perfect sense.
The next question is the scope
of our efforts: do we foresee supporting vintage systems?
With kind regards,
********************************
Michel Kohanim, C.E.O
Universal Devices, Inc.
(p) 818.631.0333
(f) 818.436.0702
http://www.universal-devices.com
********************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail
list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.
Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--
Rish
Ghatikar
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1 Cyclotron Road, MS: 90-3111, Berkeley, CA 94720
| +1 510.486.6768 |
+1 510.486.4089 [fax]
This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain confidential
information and should not be copied without permission. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible and delete the email
from computer[s].
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates
this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
07.06.05 IEPR load management workshop - RH final 11.pdf
