RE: [smartgrid-discuss] Draft charter for proposed OASIS Energy Interoperation Technical Committee

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:] 

Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009
11:38 AM

To:


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

  
  
  
  

  
  
  
Email: Toby.Considine@ unc.edu

  Phone: (919)962-9073 

  
http://www.oasis-open.org
  

  
blog:
  www.NewDaedalus.com

  
 

 

 

From: Glenn Skutt
[mailto:] 

Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009
1:02 PM

To:


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



www.vpt-es.com

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:51 PM, William Cox <>
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

-- 

William Cox 

Email: 

Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com

+1 862 485 3696 mobile 

+1 908 277 3460 fax 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

For additional commands, e-mail: 

--