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?
2. 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?
2
-
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?
3. DER in the picture
According to the definition of actors, Decentral Energy Resources (DER) can be regarded as
an actor.
Question 4: 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)?
4. 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)
3
5. 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