Commercial Use of Live Energy Models

This is one of a series of posts on how the semantic expression in WS-Calender is beginning to affect buildings and smart energy. WS-Calendar recently completed its third public review and will soon be published as Committee Specification 1.0.

In a previous blog, I discussed new directions in commissioning; including commissioning that incorporates BIM, schedules, and continuous energy models.

Performance Contracting and the new Commissioning

Many building owners are suspicious of energy performance contractors because the performance contractor is both a player and a score keeper. Because a significant effort is required to understand the information in building systems, there are significant start-up costs. These costs, both in money and time, require that each contract include a significant minimum contract lengths over which to amortize the up-front costs. These up-front costs make it uneconomical for energy contracting to use a third party auditor to verify results.If the owner selects a new a new performance contractor, the up-front costs will be incurred again.

Standard semantic tags and ready access to a light-weight BIM can change this.

Imagine a market wherein a cloud-based energy performance contractor could offer same-day initial reports. That same market also supports a number of 3^rd party auditors, cloud-based, each able to independently assess the results of the performance contractor. Each of these parties can hook up to the BSI, read the BIM, read the tags, and begin analyzing right away. A potential energy performance contractor could offer the building owner a selection of third party auditors to report the success of the contract.

This competition between cloud-based services would drive rapid innovation. On one side driving costs down, on the other driving richer models. These models are likely to build upon two significant efforts currently underway. ASHRAE SPC201 would inform the models, and through the linkage of systems and space, become more nuanced. Schedule-based business assertions, as we are beginning to see in the links of WS-Calendar and the IFCs would make these models more business aware.

Continuous commissioning based on such a foundation would support an ecosystem of cloud-based service suppliers, each able to grow to scale.

Retail use of Live Energy Models

As we move in this direction, we move from information models that are tuned to reflect changed operating hours to models that can tied increased energy use to short term activities, including, say those associated with a sale in one portion of a store. That portion of a store with an ongoing sale may have increased HVAC driven by increased traffic or brighter lights to attract shoppers and display the merchandise, and other enhanced amenities. A side effect of the brighter lights may be increased heat load, thus causing still more HVAC requirements than at first expected.

The most respected retailers with superior operations are already using these sorts of models to fine-tune their special Sales.

Non-Energy adaptive re-use of new Energy Components

Because the approaches described above rely on the composition of multiple standards, they create components that building integrators can re-assemble to meet other purposes.

Emergency responders have long wished for a variety of interactive means to acquire situational awareness of the facilities they are entering. The standard light-weight building model described above is a natural basis for situation awareness sharing. During an emergency response, the goal may be closer to raw sensor readings than to energy use. Those sensor readings, like the performance information, cannot be interpreted without a framework that indicates the spaces and the business purposes where those sensors are located.

Common abstractions, business purposes, and frameworks are the foundations for policy-based interactions with any system. The business-purpose-based analysis of space and system and schedule, is a likely target for adaptive reuse for emergency-response based policy. In the simplest (and direst) case, the facility is on fire, every asset is at risk, and so every bit of information about a building might be shared. In a simpler case, if the Spill Response Team is responding to a minor spill in the warehouse, it is inappropriate to share with them acess to, say, a webcam in the executive suite.

Podcasting Open Source Smart Energy

The week before Christmas, I was interviewed by Phil Windley of itconversations.org. The conversation started out about schedules for the internet of things, but was published under the title Open Source Smart Energy. I was coming off a cold, and sounded like a frog croaking, but I enjoyed it, especially because the interview also let me meet Udell, whose work I have long admired. The conversation covered many of the high points of smart energy, including enterprise interaction, demand response, microgrids, and transactive energy.

Jon is a noted blogger and podcaster himself; known for both his own Interviews with Innovators Friday Podcasts as well as his own work with IT Conversations. Jon is known for his work with Calendars, especially the Elm City Project. Elm City look to turn computers calendars on their heads, from the collections of specially formatted emails most of us use now, to shared resources that one subscribes to. Jon advocates that the calendars published on the web, for community organizations, businesses, schools, clubs, museums, et al., be machine readable. Once they are machine readable, other web sites can aggregate and publish then in combined formats.

Elm City calendars are always up-to-date and do not rely on local copies of schedules published long ago. Elm City sources take control of their own public presence and schedules. These schedules can be aggregated, re-published, and re-purposed. Jon’s vision of the social use of calendars influenced my own views on schedules for the internet of things and smart energy.

For the impatient, here is a quick guide to the podcast:

• First 40 minutes, WS-Calendar and VCards and developing notions in the open source world about directories for services.
• 32 minutes: VCards for Services and Directories.
• 45 Minutes: On-Line appliance communication models.
• 48 Minutes: ASHRAE SPC201 and Minimal Knowledge for smart energy
• 49:50 to 1 hour: Demand Response, Consumer Choice, Decomposition or Energy, and the Open ADR Alliance
• 60 to 65 minutes: Microgrids
• 64 Minutes: Transactive Energy

For me, the most interesting focus was on building a community of open source using the interactions based on minimal knowledge that are at the heart of smart energy.

Operational BIM Schedules and Pre-Design Programming

As Chair of WS-Calendar, I receive a number of inquiries about the incorporation of time and schedule into other specifications. In particular, the wider visibility of VAVAILABILITY is attracting some interest. Occasionally these include fragments of xml, and inquiries as to how to apply this information.

WS-Calendar recently completed its third public review and will soon be published as Committee Specification 1.0.

Facility Programming is an important early step in step in the Integrated Design Process. Programming is defined in the Whole Building Design Guidelines (WBDG) as “the research and decision-making process that identifies the scope of work to be designed.” Programming is the first part of the design cycle, during which systems and space requirements are identified by the activities they will support. If the design process is compliant with the formal BIM process (BuildingSmart, NBIMS, etc.), then these systems and spaces are identified as described in the IFCs.

BIM is a collection of information sets and models with identified interfaces / information exchanges between them. A model that is of growing interest is the building’s energy model, which is today derived from a combination of structural and purpose models and [normally] a side questionnaire about the building’s use.

I have recently received early sketches (XML Fragments) of programming documents from Dr. Chris Bogen (Engineering Research and Development Center) in which building services and systems, as expressed in open buildingSMART model format, are included in vavailability to express, for example, the operating schedules of systems supporting dining facilities (and their energy requirements). The ERDC project is aiming toward the development of a format that can be used to compare the expected resource use of a facility during design and express the actual resource use identified through analysis of building sensor systems. With the additional pattern detection algorithms under development at the lab, ERDC expects to have a tool that will compare building use to identify when the use of a building doesn’t match it’s design prediction. The ultimate goal of this work is to create building simulators directly from data provided during traditional design and construction processes.

Over time, many buildings are found to have different energy use profiles then their models predict. Often this is due to changes in operating schedules from that which was predicted. We are beginning to see mandates to update these energy models to match actual results, particularly in government owned or funded facilities.

Lifetime maintenance and updating of these programming documents, including changing the operations schedules, establishes a baseline to compare predicted vs. actual use, and to thereby sooner to detect anomalies due to system degradation or misconfiguration.

An advantage of potential automated modeling within incorporated vavailability, is that schedules can easily be understood and manipulated by building operators/occupants. Once an energy model is in-place, it would be straight-forward to iteratively try out different systems schedules and examine different energy profiles. As we move to dynamic markets, the capability to project different times of use and compare those to projected energy prices might become a new source of value to building operators.

Converging with the Internet of Things

Service integration is coming to the world of Calendars. Calendars are coming to the Internet of Things. These two trends have the potential to open up whole new classes of easy integration in buildings and in personal devices. This integration got its initial acceleration from the needs of smart energy. The long term reach, though, is much farther.

Traditional e-calendars are store, copy, and forward messages. There are five copies of a meeting for five people. Changing a meeting time requires finding and updating those five messages. This is easy if the messages are on a small office LAN on one server. It poses some daunting problems if those messages are spread over two corporate servers, Gmail, a stand-alone PC, and a cell phones. If 50 are attending that meeting, things can get complex. If it is a community schedule, with 5,000 subscribers, it is almost impossible to support the diversity of clients.

Jon Udell (http://blog.jonudell.net/) has long advocated distributed calendars for communities, encouraging people and organizations to be the authoritative sources for their schedules instead of sending a flurry of messages that may soon be out of date. (If you are interested, read all you can on the ElmCity Project.) Jon’s blog introduced me to Mark Surman and the phrase “cities that think like the web” (http://commonspace.wordpress.com/). When we apply these approaches to Smart Energy, we may get “grids that think like the web.”

The way that WS-Calendar has developed since Thanksgiving makes this all easier. Standard REST and SOAP services for calendar communications reduce the barriers to distributed community calendaring. Mike Douglas is testing his SOAP concepts to synchronize dissimilar calendar servers (Exchange and BedeWorks). Community Calendars are about to get much easier to implement.

WS-Calendar, though, was created to support smart energy. Schedules and events for energy shortage and surplus, communicated along with volatile prices.

There is a long history of simple calendar communications for small devices. Older cell phones interacted with iCalendar communications despite extreme resource constraints. Open source and silicon already exists for simple calendar processing. When these services get reduced chips that we can afford to put everywhere some interesting things happen.

Consider a Calendar Service on your smart thermostat. Add a community calendar server to your house. Maybe it’s on the magnetized thin film computer stuck to the front of the refrigerator. Maybe it’s on your wireless router. The home community calendar shares schedule services with the Dad’s Android, with Mom’s Blackberry, and with the Kids iPhones. Maybe, following the Elm City model, the house calendar subscribes to the high school community server, and that of the church as well. The electric car will need this kind of information, and can create charging schedules that are themselves shared. Messages about schedule electricity shortage and abundance come through the Energy Services Interface (ESI).

Then we would have a smart thermostat that thinks like the web, in a house that thinks like the web.