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
