Standards for energy engagement and autonomous response (3b of 3)

The fourth of three planned posts on revisiting the smart grid priority action plans ran over long. The first post discussed semantic issues. The next addressed the conflict between the business models for Managed and Collaborative Energy. In this one, I discuss the architecturally significant interfaces of the smart grid, updating my earlier musing on SGIX. The third (3A) discussed the 4 key standards for coordinating energy use and supply. This one discusses standards for feedback and planning on the customer side.

SG Energy Usage

Energy use has traditionally been summed over a month and then received by the client weeks later, far too late to affect behavior. Recent high profile efforts by Google Energy and Microsoft Hohm have demonstrated the power of granting consumers access to near real time dynamic data about energy usage. Makers of building automation systems (BAS), particularly makers of heating and cooling systems, have long wanted direct access to current meter information. Two quite different standards efforts from two quite different trade associations are taking one standards for sharing energy usage information.

OpenADE

The UCA International user’s group (UCAIug) is developing OpenADE (Automated Data Exchange) to more readily share information through existing utility infrastructure. It begins with sharing day old interval data with customers and third parties, and will then strive to become more current. OpenADE leverages the standards of Managed Energy (described in my previous post). Although the long term plan is cloudy, surely the utilities are well poised to include demand response (DR) and other grid and market events with usage information.

EISA

The Energy Information Standards Alliance (EISA) is a new consortium considering energy usage from the perspective of the end node. EISA foresees much more frequent and timely information not only from the meter, but also from each intelligent system and appliance throughout the building. Each system will provide a type of energy metadata on systems that consume power. Think of the Google Energy demonstrations, think again of certain contributors to the energy profile able to report and to identify their own use.

One part of the EISA vision that appeals to me is the idea that autonomous building systems would compare energy profiles and smooth the overall load profiles; no two systems would produce energy spikes at the same time. Autonomous load shaping is important not only for the short term grid, but is also an important enabler of site-based energy, and even net zero strategies. Some members of EISA see it as a suite of standard oBIX contracts.

Standards Ancillary to Energy but useful to Smart Grids

Many of the benefits of smart grids come from improved situation awareness. The standards used within the grid itself, which I do not concern myself with, are largely to improve awareness of grid operations. Where I do concern myself, with the end nodes of the grid, those situations and that awareness reach beyond the grid itself.

UnitsML and SensorML

There are many things to be measured and sensed in industrial facilities and commercial buildings. Sensors may be part of systems or isolated. (I have some use cases that demand incorporating ancillary sensors into central energy management.) It would be good to use standards that describe the measurements unambiguously in ways that can be shared by multiple systems.

UnitsML offers an unambiguous way to describe all physical measurements, and an unambiguous ability for a computer to look up the translation of any units of measure to any other units. UnitsML is an existing OASIS technical committee with NIST backing which will need wider participation to complete.

SensorML is a standard from the Open Geospatial Consortium that can describe the geometric, dynamic, and observational characteristics of sensors and sensor systems. There are many different sensor types, from simple visual thermometers to complex electron microscopes and earth observing satellites. SensorML can describe them all.

Digital Weather Markup Language (DWML)

Knowledge of the future is important to all markets; knowledge of future weather is important to energy markets. All weather is local. Local weather awareness includes not only weather predictions, but also knowledge about the actual weather at my location following previous predictions.

DWML is an existing specification developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA offers access to their National Digital Forecast Database (NDFD) using DWML. DWML is a little quirky, and a little hard to use. Smart energy would benefit from its further development. We need to define a DWML profile for reporting as well as forecasting, to enable the exchange of actual conditions as well as forecasts. Such a profile would be used when querying local weather stations and even personal weather systems.

WS-DD and WS-DP

Device discovery and device profiles have been used in computer networking for some time. These specifications for the web services implementation are going to a standards vote in May. A major manufacturer of electrical equipment has already announced that they will include WS-DD and WS DP for all the equipment it sells. There are open source implementations for small devices (https://forge.soa4d.org/). I think they will have a big role in the future world of distributed generation and Net Zero Energy facilities.

SG CyberSecurity

Cyber security is drawing more attention and concern every day. Today’s grid cybersecurity is concerned primarily with defending the isolated system with relatively static interactions. Tomorrow’s cybersecurity will apply to systems interacting with others owned by many different people, of uncertain skill and diligence in securing their own systems. Security issues need to be integrated within every smart grid standard from the beginning. We need a separate security toolkit/framework, perhaps a profile from current fine-grained security standards, key management, and related areas. Broader integration of physical security, fine-grained networking and commercial security, and situation awareness technologies need to be part of the mix.

Coordinating Energy Use and Supply (3a of 3)

This is the third of three posts on the late September conference revisiting the smart grid priority action plans. The first post discussed semantic issues. The next addressed the conflict between the business models for Managed and Collaborative Energy. In this one, I discuss the architecturally significant interfaces of the smart grid, updating my earlier musing on SGIX. There is too much new information to fit into a single standards post...Next live energy usage and ancilary standards planned or required.

Within smart grids, the interfaces at economic boundaries, that is where energy and energy services are bought and sold are the most significant. These interfaces enable negotiations over how and when and why energy is used. The legacy grid is monolithic, without well developed markets and little room for competitive intermediation services. Informational market enabling standards that expand situation awareness between participants, that enable values-based decisions, and that provide an economic basis for technology adoption are the ones that matter.

The smart grid will be transactional, with each decision to buy or sell power a separate transaction at a separate price. The price of these transactions will vary dynamically, as a live energy market determines the clearing price at each moment for each sale or purchase. The smart grid will be open and transparent, wherein consumers can choose what kind of power to buy, and providers can prove that they are selling the kind of power they promise.

What follows is a updated snapshot of Smart Grid Information Exchange (SGIX). SGIX, the suite of informational and economic protocols that will charge markets and unleash innovation. These interfaces will use Common Information Models (CIMs) of the domains they connect, especially but not exclusively the IEC TC57 CIM for Power Management. The interfaces will apply the e-commerce disciplines of symmetry, transparency, and composition.

I call this approach collaborative energy, as it uses economic signals to induce the end nodes of the grid, homes, commercial buildings, and industrial sites, to participate in energy use management, storage, and production. There is a parallel effort to support Managed Energy. Managed energy uses direct control signals to interact with some very small, very inexpensive systems without minimal integration. While there is some blurring in the middle, managed energy and collaborative energy are quite different approaches and use different technologies.

SG-Energy Interoperation

OpenADR, the tested specification for automated demand response, was contributed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the California Energy Commission to the OASIS Energy Interoperation Technical Committee (TC). This committee is well underway. Collaborative energy embraces enterprise interactions as well as building systems. By ceding control to the building inhabitant, in commercial building, factory, or home, we anticipate being able to induce a larger response and wider participation. The committee will also draw upon European work in transmission, distribution, and cooperative energy use, and will include discussion of security and privacy requirements.

Utilities and other energy market participants are working within the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) to define the business use cases and requirement for Demand Response (DR) and Distributed Energy Resources (DER). This work, due next month will be contributed to the Energy Interoperation TC as well as to parallel efforts developing managed energy.

SG-Market Information

The Energy Market Information Exchange (EMIX) TC has begun meeting. EMIX is defining an XML vocabulary for exchanging price and energy characteristics (hydro, hard coal, nuclear, wind, etc, with a place for carbon information). EMIX will facilitate energy markets and device understanding to enable dynamic pricing of energy.

EMIX is being designed to interact easily with financial and commodity market mechanisms. It will adopt market definitions and interactions from financial transaction standards such as ISO20022 and FIX. EMIX also anticipates the development of new energy products that allow energy choice based on environmental issues as well as price.

WS-Calendar

Coordination of energy supply and use is critical to smart grid markets. Time of day market clearing is essential to managing parallel energy markets on the same wires. Just as IEC TC57 defines the Power Management CIM, so the calsify workgroup in the IETFdefines the semantics of schedule, interval, and coordination. CalConnect, the Calendar and Scheduling Consortium, has already updated two of the three calendar IETF standards (ICalendar and TIP). By year end, they will produce a standard XML dictionary for calendaring.

WS-Calendar will build on this work to define light loose schedule components for use in web services and other e-commerce transactions. These components will be used in collaborative energy, and their semantics will be re-used in managed energy. Because the work of the Consortium is used enterprise and personal scheduling, and will soon be adopted by building systems and perhaps finance, WS-Calendar will provide a common understanding of schedule and interval across many domains and for more purposes than energy.

SG Managed Energy

I use this term to encompass the entire range of direct load management and control technologies used to manage very small footprint devices without requiring a premises-based system for customer input. Managed Energy includes ZigBee Energy, SEP, OpenHAN, et al.

A full peer to collaborative energy, Managed Energy will adopt the vocabulary of the Power Management CIM and the business models defined by the NAESB processes mentioned above.

Two Paths to Smart Energy in DC (2 of 3)

This is the second of three planned posts on the outcome of the conference last week in Virginia. The first post dealt with semantic issues. This one addresses business model issues. The third will be my perspective on critical standards, updating my earlier musing on SGIX.

Standards can seem dry and uninteresting, but they find vital expression in the business models they support or prevent. One of the underlying issues in the initially contentious smart grid meeting last week was the conflict of business models. This can be resolved, but only by talking clearly about the purposes and motivations behind each model. A good first start would be to give them good names.

Regular readers know that I favor something looking like pure market interactions. I believe that we all use a standard abstract presentation for scarcity and value, for risk and for reliability. We call this abstraction money. As Stephanie Hamilton opined when she still worked at Southern California Edison (SCE), every brown-out is a pricing failure.

Because I come from the perspective of building integrators, I have great faith in the ability of building automation systems to manage change, They are usually poorly maintained, and poorly understood by their owners, but they keep running. They adjust naturally to the conditions around them, and to their own operations, and are getting better at autonomous action and tuning. I want to give them clear price signals, not only now, but for the future. UI want to give them clearer information about weather and environment. And then I want to leave them alone.

But such systems can cost thousands of dollars to install. In part this is because without standards, they are all custom work. Still, there must be a less expensive solution.

Early smart grid deployments are aimed at the smallest, cheapest systems that can fit easily into appliances and home thermostats. They must not change the price of appliances materially, especially as social equity concerns mandate that low income consumer have access to the benefits of smart energy. Consumers want reliable systems; it is hard to convince them to pay more for systems that can be turned off by someone else.

Utilities often refer to this group as the Residential option, When pressed, they may call it ZigBee, because that trade association is the primary technology used to install these low end systems. They may call it the OpenHAN (Home Area Network) approach, although the information and interactions are indistinguishable from those of ZigBee. Sometimes this approach is used I small commercial buildings as well.

Rather than call them the OASIS or C&I (Commercial & Industrial) approach and the ZigBee or Residential approach, I think we should name them according to their business models. I propose that we call them Collaborative Energy and Managed Energy.

There, without out of the way, I can summarize succinctly the business model agreement from the customer-oriented standards development meeting.

We agreed that we would apply the semantic models coming out of NAESB to parallel processes for Collaborative and Managed energy, and that we would keep the semantics aligned when we could.

Smart Grid Blood on the Floor in DC (1 of 3)

This is the first of three planned posts on the outcome of the conference last week in Virginia. This one deals with semantic issues. The next one deals with business model issues. The third will be my perspective on critical standards, updating my earlier musing on SGIX.

Thirty ornery smart grid partisans gathered outside DC last week for a hastily convened review of the customer oriented standards development plans. To one side, the plans developed at the August Standards Development Organization (SDO) was putting critical ongoing deployments of billions of dollars infrastructure upgrades at risk, and throwing long term plans into disarray (Team A). The other side saw keeping the August plans intact necessary to enable new investment and new participation in distributed energy, and to break the iron grip of dinosaur twentieth century processes and organizations that impede new energy (Team B). There was little common ground.

The NIST smart grid process identified a number of Priority Action Plans (PAPs). Four of these defined the border between energy supplier and buyer in the smart grid. These communications occur between utility and end node, whether that node is house, or commercial building or industry. These standards are for Price and Product communication (PAP03), Calendar and Schedule communication (PAP04), Energy Usage information (PAP10), and communications for Demand Response and Distributed Energy Resources (PAP09).

The first morning passed with quiet platitudes, until Dr. David Wolman, technical lead for NIST on its smart grid project, called for "blood on the floor" during the afternoon session. The participants complied with enthusiasm, and the conversations became more interesting and more revealing.

Power system engineering standards are developed in the IEC TC 57, the overarching technical committee (TC) defining standards for power management. TC 57 has defined a common information model (CIM); and utilities are striving to rationalize their world by using only elements defined in “The CIM.” Some of the suspicion with which building systems technologists regard the CIM is due to a historic tendency to fit all building operations into the TC 57 CIM

Representatives from the end nodes, particularly commercial buildings and the business enterprise, do not see their world as an extension of the power grid. These areas have their own information models and find the phrase “The CIM” mysterious and unhelpful. Financial services use a CIM defined by ISO 20022. Building systems have information models defined within the divers building control system communities. Enterprise operations beginning to define their interactions using information models from defined by EBXML (electronic business XML) or UBL (Universal Business Language).

The first key agreement of the two days of meetings was to respect the multiple information models on these inter-domain interfaces. For elements and communications that are purely power management related, everyone agreed to use to use the TC 57 CIM. When the communication element involved business transactions, or schedules, or some other area, the communication would use the informational models from that domain.

A common understanding on semantic models, including when to use such models from outside the domain of power management, was important to bringing the divers interests together.