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
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
509-375-4556