emix — archive

Source and Content

From: Toby Considine <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:09:00 -0000

In the CIM, a controllability warrant must be submitted with a resource that can be directly controlled. It is imagined that this warrant is useful for resource communications only. It is entirely possible that the name warrant mislead us into including controllability warrants on the list of EMIX warrants. tc " It is the theory that decides what can be observed ." - Albert Einstein Toby Considine Chair, OASIS oBIX Technical Committee U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee 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: Anne Hendry [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 10:14 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Edward Cazalet; Toby Considine; Aaron Snyder; [email protected] Subject: Re: [emix] Source and Content The 'Content' aspect was originally intended to hold the proportion of the energy that was from the specified 'Source' (how much of the content was green vs. non-green, etc). For various reasons it was probably never implementable that way but nevertheless. ... I imagine through subsequent edits things have moved here and there so that may no longer be the case, but the spec (csprd03 June 2011) still defines 'ContentWarrant' that way: "The proportion of the product defined that is from non-fossil fuel sources, including but not limited to hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, and wind." But the corresponding csprd03 schema documentation for 'ContentWarrant' has changed to: "A content warrant consists of assertions about where energy originated." Probably adding the word 'Warrant' to the end of the word 'Content' didn't helped clarify the element's purpose. Changing the definition has exacerbated the problem. When I hear talk about 'green' energy, as I often do in this neck of the woods, it is almost always in terms of what percentage of the energy can be said to be from green sources (is it '100% green' or is it '80% green') and pricing is based on that percentage. So if keeping any notion of being able to communicate information about 'greenness' I believe it would be important to be able to state how much 'greenness' can be expected in an energy transaction so that characteristic can be, as we've discussed', peeled off and sold separately, or simply incorporated into the price as is. When asking about 'amount of greenness' most pricing I hear doesn't clarify the exact source other than to say it is 'renewable' or 'non-fossil fuel', so 'Content' (as described in the spec, not schema) might be even more important than Source in some transacations. Perhaps this is captured elsewhere in the schema? Perhaps there could be a better term? Perhaps it should be integrated into the 'Source' warrant? Is 'ControllabilityWarrant' up for discussion? -Anne [email protected] wrote, On 9/4/2011 6:38 PM: Happy to keep only source. I assume this is part of Aaron & Toby's warrant rework. Thanks! Bill Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T From: "Ed Cazalet" <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:48:04 -0700 To: 'William Cox' <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> ; 'Aaron Snyder' <[email protected]> ; <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [emix] Source and Content Source of electricity is generally not specific plants but categories such as wind, solar, coal, nuclear, hydro, natural gas sources of electricity. Source certification can take the form of “green certificates” which would be an example of a source warrant. A buyer of electricity would want to know if ownership such certificates are conveyed by a product or are stripped off. A source warrant can make this clear. Otherwise a source warrant may be provided by operators of generators for example. I cannot find any use of “electricity content” but there may be a use. Edward G. Cazalet, Ph.D. 101 First Street, Suite 552 Los Altos, CA 94022 650-949-5274 cell: 408-621-2772 [email protected] www.cazalet.com From: William Cox [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 2:34 PM To: Ed Cazalet Cc: [email protected] ; 'Aaron Snyder'; [email protected] Subject: Re: [emix] Source and Content Hmm. I was going to say drop the source warrant... My reasoning: what's delivered to the customer has contents; tracing to actual source is as we've seen usually disconnected by way of markets for "green certification". So the assertions about the product delivered seem to me to be more clearly the contents, rather than source. The alternate argument is that the source for your product reflects the contents, so they're related. That said, I agree that one needs to go, and I don't care very strongly which. Thanks! bill -- William Cox Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile +1 908 277 3460 fax On 9/4/11 11:52 AM, Ed Cazalet wrote: I recommend we can drop the Content Warrant. Edward G. Cazalet, Ph.D. 101 First Street, Suite 552 Los Altos, CA 94022 650-949-5274 cell: 408-621-2772 [email protected] www.cazalet.com From: Toby Considine [ mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of Toby Considine Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 8:23 AM To: Aaron Snyder; 'Edward G. Cazalet'; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [emix] Source and Content The current specification has both Source and Content Warrants. I have been unable to find any definition that distinguishes between these two, and on the CPUC site, they appear to be identical. Any suggestions? The choices are Find a distinguishing definition Delete one or the other. “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” – George Bernard Shaw. Toby Considine TC9, Inc TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee Email: [email protected] Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.tcnine.com/ blog: www.NewDaedalus.com