Interoperability Strategic Vision

Technical Session on

Interoperability Measurement and Roadmaps

DOE GMLC 1.2.2 Interoperability Project

28 July 2017

SEPA Grid Evolution Summit

Washington, DC

Steve Widergren, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

PNNL-SA-127930

Session Agenda

27 July 2017 2

► Welcome & introductions

► Strategic vision for interoperability with the electric power system

◼ Steve Widergren

► Measuring interoperability

◼ Mark Knight

► A roadmap methodology for community/ecosystem action

◼ Dave Narang

► Interactive session

◼ Feedback on project approach

◼ Potential application of tools

• Trial roadmap candidates

• Model procurement language for smart grid investments

► How to become involved

Interoperability

Project Summary

27 July 2017

Expected Outcomes

Establish an interoperability strategic vision

Describe the state, challenges, and path forward to

advance interoperability

Offer tools to facilitate gap analysis, develop

roadmaps, and demonstrate vision concepts

Project DescriptionAlign stakeholders on a strategic vision for devices and systems integration and develop measures and tools to support interoperability

Value Proposition

Reduction of cost and effort for system integration

Improve grid performance, efficiency and security

Increase in customer choice and participation

Establishment of industry-wide best practices

Catalyst of innovation

The ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged. ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765

3

Strategic Vision Topics

27 July 2017

► Establishing a framework for improvement

◼ Concepts and models for interoperability

◼ Actors, stakeholders, and ecosystems

◼ Business drivers – grid services

► Observations on the state of interoperability

► Desired future integration experience

► DER integration path forward

► How does it apply to me?

4

Interop Context-Setting Framework (GWAC)

27 July 2017

Cross-cutting Issues

Interoperability Categories

S

ha

red

Me

an

ing

of C

on

ten

t

R

eso

urc

e Id

en

tifica

tio

n

D

isco

ve

ry &

Co

nfig

ura

tio

n

S

yste

m E

vo

lutio

n &

Sca

lab

ility

T

ime

Syn

ch

& S

eq

ue

ncin

g

T

ran

sa

ctio

n &

Sta

te M

an

ag

em

en

t

Q

ua

lity o

f S

erv

ice

S

ecu

rity

& P

riva

cy

L

og

gin

g &

Au

ditin

g

S

yste

m P

rese

rva

tio

n

Configuration & Evolution

Operation & Performance

Security & Safety

Organizational(Pragmatics)

8: Economic/Regulatory Policy

7: Business Objectives

6: Business Procedures

Informational(Semantics)

5: Business Context

4: Semantic Understanding

Technical(Syntax)

3: Syntactic Interoperability

2: Network Interoperability

1: Basic Connectivity

http://www.gridwiseac.org/pdfs/interopframework_v1_1.pdf5

Interoperability and Architecture

• Architecture describes system concepts, structure, and organizing principles

• Interoperability drives simplicity of system integration– Example: Architecture prescribes layered decomposition coordination framework, which

defines interface points for interoperability

Taft, JD. 2016. Architectural Basis for Highly Distributed Transactive Power Grids: Frameworks, Networks, and Grid Codes. PNNL-25480

27 July 2017 6

Components for DER and Grid Integration

27 July 2017 7

Purpose

◼ Preserve layered decomposition coordination framework pattern

◼ Separate concerns on networking, cybersecurity, and privacy

◼ Acknowledge separate “ecosystems” of business propositions internal and external

◼ Encourage common business processes to reduce the number of specialized interfaces

• E.g., eliminate/reduce dependence of external interface on equipment type

Energy Service

Interface

DER Facility

Facility Management

System

DER Equipment

Interacting Party

Places for focusing interoperability activities

External integration

Internalintegration

Vision of a General DER Facility

Conceptual Model

The sets of arrows and dotted lines represent areas of focus for discussing interoperability issues

ExternalActors

DER Types

Market Service

Providers

DER Service Providers

Distribution System

Operations

DER FacilityDER Communities

Responsive Loads

Distributed Storage

Distributed Generation

Energy Service

Interface

Facility Management

System

Meter

27 July 2017 8

Need to address these classes of

interfaces differently

Actors, Stakeholders, and Ecosystems

27 July 2017 9

► DER Operations

◼ Responsible for DER

operation

► DER Communities

◼ Collection of DER that work

together

► DER Service Provider

◼ Equipment monitoring,

diagnostics, and

troubleshooting

► Market Service Provider

◼ Aggregator of DER

► Distribution System Operations

◼ Responsible for the reliable

operation of the distribution

system

Actors► DER operators (managers,

owners, and users)

► DER communities

► DER service providers

► Market service providers

► Distribution system operators

► DER equipment suppliers

(hardware manufacturers)

► DER energy management

system suppliers (s/w

automation suppliers)

► Communications infrastructure

and service providers

► Regulators and government

agencies

► Trade associations, industry

consortia, and standards

development organizations

► Testing and certification

organizations

Stakeholders► Communities of organizations

with business alignment to

drive standards, testing,

branding, policy in one or more

“technology integration areas”

► Example technology

integration areas

◼ Electric vehicles

◼ Photovoltaics, smart inverters

◼ Commercial building loads

◼ Residential loads

◼ Metering

► Need help to identify and

describe these integration

ecosystems

► More on this later…

Integration Ecosystems

Grid Services:

Business Drivers for DER Integration

27 July 2017 10

► Peak capacity management

► Energy market price response

► Capacity market dispatch

► Frequency regulation

► Spinning reserve

► Ramping (a new type of service)

► Artificial inertia (a new type of service)

► Distribution voltage management (a new type of service)

* Preliminary from GMLC 1.4.2 input to GMLC 1.2.1 common grid services list

A service-oriented interface allows qualifying DER of different types to participate using the same interface standard

State of Interoperability Observations

27 July 2017

Using the GWAC Interop Context-Setting Framework categories…

► Technical state

◼ Mature set of communications networking standards and protocols

• Many to choose from, wired and wireless

◼ Integration ecosystems pick their own set of standards-based profiles

◼ Cybersecurity is getting attention, but legacy standard vulnerabilities an issue

► Informational state

◼ Informational models generic, SCADA-oriented, but richer standards emerging

◼ Modeling approaches tend to support read/write, direct control approaches

rather than service-oriented techniques

◼ Modeling methods and tools differ in technology integration areas

◼ Harmonization of information models hampered by legacy modeling

approaches that challenge transformation

11

State of Interoperability Observations (cont)

27 July 2017

► Organizational state

◼ Grid service programs for using grid-edge resources

• Many different programs offered by utilities depending on facility size

• Grid services defined differently for each utility

load-shedding, peak capacity management, spinning reserve, time of use, critical peak

pricing

• The concept of an ESI is not embraced and often equipment-type dependent and

not coordinated at the facility level

• Usually direct control-oriented design

• Where markets exist, aggregators use proprietary system interfaces to DER

◼ Regulatory and legislative policy

• Regulatory compact encourages regulated return on capital investments, not least

cost supplier

• Policies encourage technology-specific investments such as PV or wind with no

communications for operations coordination (e.g., net metering)

• Where communications are used, policies tend to be technology-specific

12

Desired Future Integration Experience

27 July 2017

DER Equip MetaData

Catalog

DER FacilityPlatform w/ Intelligent Energy Apps

NOTES:1. Platforms provide hosting

services for apps 2. System Integrators: Install

and configure system hardware and software

3. DER Operator: Download, monitor and support DER apps

4. DER Operator may assume role of System Integrator

Query equipment metadata incl. specs & energy characteristics

HVACPlatform

PV Platform

EV Platform

ProcessPlatform

Misc. Platform

CloudServices

DistributionSystemOperationsPlatform

DERCommunitiesPlatform

DERService ProvidersPlatform

MarketService ProvidersPlatform

System Integrators

Optimize distribution system, Send grid-

aware signals to DER

Monitor & diagnose DER, provide

guidance, optimize control

External Device Interfaces

External Cloud

Services

DER to DERCollaboration

Energy Market Services

System Integrators

ESI

13

Measuring Interoperability - Mark

27 July 2017

► Challenge: How can we measure interoperability characteristics to simplify integration?

► Approach: an interoperability maturity model (IMM)

◼ Identify criteria whose existence contributes to achieving interoperability

• E.g., unambiguous resource identification, information models, security policy defined

◼ Define levels of maturity

◼ Create a maturity model with testable statements for each criteria

◼ Propose a scoring system

► Application: describe state of interoperability and identify gaps in an integration area

15

Roadmap Methodology - Dave

27 July 2017

► Emphasizes stakeholder engagement

► Incorporates interoperability maturity

model (IMM) for state and gaps

► Desired outcome

◼ Identify gaps and barriers

◼ Resolve benefits and priorities

◼ Milestones, precedence, and timelines

Phase 1:

Qualification

& scoping

Phase 6:

Application

to other

domains

Phase 2:

Planning and

preparation

Phase 3:

Visioning

Phase 4:

Roadmap

development

Phase 5:

Roadmap

implementation

and adjustment

16

Path Forward (abridged)

27 July 2017

► Vision: socialize definitions, concepts, architecture of the strategic vision

► Ecosystems: identify an ecosystem to trial roadmap methodology and

interoperability measurement tools. Support roadmap execution

► Culture change: develop pro-forma interoperability performance language with,

by, and for industry, applicable to technology procurement contracts

► Measure characteristics: develop plans to advance interoperability criteria

across grid modernization related ecosystems (e.g., resource identification,

registration and discovery, scalability, error handling, synchronization)

► Security & privacy: develop best practices for policy statements to incorporate

into interface specifications

► Interface contract model: establish/adapt a framework to capture technical,

informational, and organizational interface agreements in machine-readable form

► Education: develop introductory material on interoperability, its benefits, and how

to advance it

17

Interactive Session

27 July 2017 18

How does this apply to me?

13 Jul 2017 19

► Do my objectives include technology deployment?

► Does that technology operate with other assets?

► Does my technology use information and communications technology?

► Does integration of the technology involve agreements with others?

► Does this integration occur easily – approaching seamlessly?

► Concepts, discipline, tools, and strategic approaches to addressing these

questions can be offered by the GMLC interoperability project

◼ Assessments – can we apply the IMM and roadmap methodology to your

community of interest?

◼ Model procurement language – what can you put into a funding opportunity

announcement to advance interoperability?

◼ Challenges to demonstrate better (simpler) ways to integrate technology

◼ Interoperability community test events

Feedback on Project Approach

27 July 2017 20

► Interoperability strategic vision

◼ How can the vision > measurement > roadmap approach be improved?

◼ How can we better engage participants in the work?

► Measuring Interoperability and the IMM

◼ Is a maturity model a reasonable approach for measuring interoperability and

articulating gaps/challenges?

◼ How can the IMM approach be improved?

► Interoperability roadmap methodology

◼ Does the roadmap methodology offer an effective process to engage

stakeholders to advance interoperability?

◼ How can it be improved?

Applying the Tools

27 July 2017 21

► Interoperability roadmap trial candidates

◼ What integration ecosystems are potential candidates?

◼ Who are the major organizations?

◼ Who are the leaders?

► Model procurement language for smart grid investments

◼ SEPA Implementations & Methods committee interest

◼ Government procurement interest

◼ Who should be involved: Organizations? Individuals?

► Additional concepts to encourage interoperability

◼ What else can industry and government do to encourage interoperability?

Progress, Next Steps, and

Getting Involved

27 July 2017 22

Interoperability Strategic Vision

High level view of the state, challenges, and path forward

Tools to facilitate detailed gap identification, develop roadmaps, and demonstrate vision concepts

Project Approach

27 July 2017

► Strategic vision◼ State of interoperability and desired integration experience

◼ Document with stakeholder buy-in, socialization

► Gaps & roadmaps◼ Tools to measure interoperability/ease of integration

◼ A roadmap methodology for technology communities to set goals and a path to achieve them

► Industry engagement incentives◼ Tools to encourage interoperable product/service procurements

► Demonstrate visionary interop capability◼ Industry directed contest to exhibit advance interop

concepts

◼ Identify priority gaps and potential “leapfrog”

capabilities

◼ Conduct project/contest(s) and promote

results for follow-on efforts

23

Accomplishments to Date

27 July 2017 24

Drafted interoperability strategic vision,

measurement, and roadmap methodology

Declaration of Interoperability

Interoperability Strategic Vision

Interoperability Maturity Model (IMM)

Interoperability Roadmap Methodology

Public Utilities Fortnightly article, April 2017

Demonstrable public stakeholder involvement

Established partnership with 16 organizations and held 7

web meetings

Sep 2016 stakeholder technical meeting with diverse

industry representation, Chicago, IL

Consensus voiced through unanimous vote in favor of

the project’s objectives and plan

Interoperability goals/requirements statements tested

Significant feedback on integration vision stories

Nov 2016 outreach at SGIP annual meeting reviewed

Declaration, interop criteria, and roadmap methodology

plan

May 2017 stakeholder technical meeting, Columbus, OH

Next Steps and Future Plans

27 July 2017 25

► December 2017: socialize an interoperability strategic vision document with

vision scenarios and interoperability goals/requirements

Impact – align stakeholder community on vision for integration

► December 2017: complete an interoperability roadmap methodology with

an interoperability assessment tool and trial in a technology domain (e.g.,

electric vehicle or automated buildings domains)

Impact – demonstrate interop measurement and path forward

► March 2018: complete draft of interoperability procurement tools

with industry stakeholders participation

Impact – incentives for industry participation to advance interop

► March 2018: identify where commonality across technology

domains can reduce the uniqueness in the number of DER

interface agreements (standards) by 50%

Impact – set course for standards convergence

Team and Partners

Name Affiliation

Marina SofosChris Irwin

DOE-EEDOE-OE

Bruce NordmanAditya Khandekar

LBNL

Keith Hardy ANL

Dave NarangMaurice MartinAdarsh Nagarajan

NREL

Steve WidergrenRon MeltonMark Knight

PNNL

Name Affiliation

Joe BushWill White

ACE

Kevin PowellLariza Sepulveda

GSA

Avi Gopstein NIST

Ron Bernstein ASHRAE/CTA/LON

Don von DollenAnne Haas

EPRI, Grid 3.0

David Forfia GWAC (ERCOT)

Scott NeumannMargaret Goodrich

IEC TC57 (UISOL/GE)IEC TC57 (PNNL)

Ted Bohn SAE (ANL)

Sharon AllanDave Hardin

SGIP

Bill Ash IEEE

John Caskey NEMA

Doug FrazeePaul Skorochod

Energy Star (ICFI)

Ron Ambrosio IIC (Utopus Insights)

Austin Montgomery SEI-CMU

Name Affiliation

Jeff Taft PNNL–GMLC 1.2.1

Tom Rizy ORNL–GMLC 1.2.5

Ben Kroposki NREL–GMLC 1.4.1

Rob Pratt PNNL-GMLC 1.4.2

Ron Melton PNNL–GMLC 1.4.10

Liang Min LLNL–GMLC 1.4.11

Ron Melton PNNL-GMLC ADMS

Interop Team Members Partner Liaisons GMLC Liaisons

27 July 2017 26

How to Get Involved

27 July 2017 27

► Website: https://gridmod.labworks.org/projects/1.2.2

► Contact

Steve Widergren

steve.widergren@pnnl.gov

509-375-4556