1

Netherlands

3-12-2011

Dear Mr Klerer,

On 22 November 2011 the working Group on M/490 Reference Architecture of the CEN/CENELEC/ETSI Joint Working Group on smart grids, met in Brussels and discussed smart grid conceptual models en the smart grid functional & information architecture.

The outcome of the discussion and the intention of the Working Group is to define for Europe a smart grid conceptual model and functional & information architecture, re-using as much as possible of the good work that has been carried out by NIST sofar.

However the market situation in Europe differs from US, and in the discussion whether and to what extend that impacts the current conceptual model of NIST, we had on some topics difficulty on how to interpret the NIST model.

In order to avoid as much as possible unnecessary changes to the NIST conceptual model for application in Europe, we agreed to request you for clarification (Emmanuel Darmois indicated you as the liaison person).

We have the following questions:

  1. Understanding of the NIST conceptual model

From the “Draft NIST Framework and Roadmap 4 for 5 Smart Grid Interoperability 6 Standards, 7 Release 2.0”, we understand:

-A domain is a high-level grouping of actors

-An actor is a device, computer system, software program, or the individual or organization that participates in the Smart Grid.

-A gateway actor is an actor in one domain that interfaces with actors in other domains or in other networks.

Question1: does an actor represent functionality, or does an actor require functionality?

  1. Unbundling in Europe

As you might know, in Europe the Energy market is unbundled. Defined are TSO, DSO suppliers, and in some cases independent Metering Companies. How do we map these roles on the conceptual model of NIST?

-TSO and DSO (regulated) looks clear in the mapping to the NIST model

-A supplier is a commercial role, supplying Electricity & gas to the consumer

Question 2: is the supplier a sub role in the service provider role in the NIST model?

-Metering in Europe can be envisaged as a sub role of the DSO (collecting metering data and distributing that to Suppliers and other commercial service providers in the market), or, in some countries, it is defined as an independent commercial role, delivering metering data to DSO’s, suppliers and other commercial service providers.

Question 3: How is the metering role allocated in the NIST Model? Is it a sub role, part of the Service provider, or part of the DSO, or both?

  1. DER in the picture

According to the definition of actors, Decentral Energy Resources (DER) can be regarded as an actor.

Question4: What considerations led to the decision of the 7 domains /actors, and why was DER not recognized as an actor on that level (the 7 domains)?

Question 5: from figure 3-2 in draft 2.0 we recognized that DER has been identified as part of the consumer domain. Should it not be better to rename this domain to the prosumer domain (covering consumer usage, decentralized production, both individual as in combination)?

  1. Role of an DSO and its product portfolio

Possible this question may not be relevant to the US due to unbundling in Europe.

However, what is the main focus of a DSO? Is it managing assets or is it also managing Energy flows in its networks? Should a DSO be regarded as an Asset Manager or as an Energy Transport Service Provider?

Question 6: How is a DSO seen by NIST?

At the EU a discussion has been initiated to identify synergies between Telco and Utilities, also comparing Smart Grid actors (DSO and Supplier) to Telco Network Operators and Service Providers.

From this discussion it was stated that when we want to manage energy flows in a Smart Grid in an intelligent way, the DSO should be regarded as an Energy Transport Services Provider (with a number of different defined Energy Transport Services, on which a DSO can differently act, and which form the transport layer capability of a Energy End User Services offered by a Supplier or other commercial parties to prosumers).

Question 7: Has a conceptual comparison with the Telecommunications and the Utility Industry been made and the option to define different Energy Transport Services ever been discussed by NIST, and what was the outcome of that?

(Note: in EU exists initial material on this topic which I can forward, if you are interested)

  1. Next steps in architectures

Question 8; Is NIST progressing or planning on next steps in functional and information architectures, taking the conceptual reference model as a starting point, including a Process Model and Product Modeling of the products/services offered by the actors in the Conceptual model (and realized as services in a service oriented information architecture) ?

The next meeting of the working group is planned for 14 December 2011.

It would be highly appreciable if you would be able to provide the working group with an (initial) response on these questions.

With kind regards,

Peter Hermans

Stedin

Participant of WG M/490 Reference Architectures