Full minutes are not yet out from all of the break-out groups, so this report is inherently from a single perspective.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) started by making a strong claim for ownership in this area, citing Title XIII, 1305 of EISA 2007. NIST set out an aggressive agenda including a preliminary report at GridWeek on 9/24 and a NIST workshop on developing standards at Grid Interop in Atlanta November 11-13.

NIST wants to have in place tight working relationships with the target SDO’s (Standards Development Organizations) in place before 2009. NIST and the GridWise Architectural Council are working together to direct the standards direction toward e-commerce and interactions with building operations and with the building occupants. The Council identified OASIS as the critical SDO for its e-commerce expertise, a view strongly seconded by the NIST secretary and by the domain leaders.

A secondary interest was noted in relationships with the NBIMS (National Building Information Model Standard) and BuildingSmart was identified. NBIMS provides standards for describing building operations and energy models. NIST would like to fast track standardization building services to lay alongside energy models. There was some interest in and discussion of reaching out to FIATECH to accelerate operations / energy use interactions.

B2G Breakout (Building to Grid)

The goal of the SmartGrid standardization efforts is to design the information exchange and informational interoperability to enable healthy markets to emerge around energy use in buildings. Success was defined as enabling buildings to trade their energy.

The group was in violent agreement that we needed to work on business to business interactions, and not on machine to machine interactions. Services inside the building would be coordinated by the business processes of the occupants. Grid messages would go to the business agent of the occupants. Interactions, including pricing and bidding, would be between the grid agents and the building agents.

Priority Issues

• RTP (Real Time Pricing)

• ADR (Automated Demand-Response)

• DG (Distributed Generation)

• Local Energy Storage

• Microgrids

• Pricing Models and Buying Models for Energy

Information Models

Considerable time was spent discussing the of information models need to be delivered in each direction at the interface. Some implementations may not be complete. Some may opt out. But if we developed the full models, the businesses should be able to develop…

How do we represent price, availability, and purchasing curves?

• Load Curves

• Demand Curves

• Price Curves

• Forward purchasing curves (time & price dependent)

• Contract for Curves

How do we define RTP

• NOW price

• Price Schedule

• Price Response

• Building Commitment:

• Tariff: Rules and Penalties need to be exchange unambiguously

• Contract Execution

Power Attributes

• Quality

• Renewability

• Carbon

• Source (Local or Far Away)

[an error occurred while processing this directive] Meter Data

There was strong agreement that full live real-time access to all AM information from *both* sides of the meter should be the standard. Parties could then collect the data in accord with the schedule that made sense to them.

Information served up to Provider

• Standard for Customer Comfort

• Building Profile Object

• Feedback Services

• BIM Server

• Levels of DR available

• Generation Capacity

Building Integration services

This conversation was generated by the “Levels of DR Available” item as well as the Building Profile. Is one part of the building profile a metric of how responsive a building can be? Is this a green measure that can be directly monetized by the owner?

There was general agreement on a model, that looks something like:

1. The Facility Master System Integrator (FMSI) is contracted to deliver multiple load-shed scenarios for a building, as well as an indication of what % shed each scenario represents

2. These named scenarios are invocable by the business processes of the inhabitants of the building.

3. When asked to shed, say 40% of its load, the building could easily ratchet up to the next load shed scenario that yields at least that much.

Comments (My own, not the sense of the group)

1. This scenario seems focused on old central command and control models more than it does on new markets and per kwh bids

2. It does, however, put the focus squarely on the FMSI to deliver predictable results and to warrant them

3. Such load shedding might need to be per section of the building, so that the 3rd floor could be turned off, due to a meeting, and the 4th floor put into loadShedLevel3.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[Click Banner To Learn More]

[Home Page]  [The Automator]  [About]  [Subscribe ]  [Contact Us]