E-Business*Standards*Today Special Report 
2002-02
7 October 2002
 
 DISA logo Published by: 
Data Interchange Standards Association 
333 John Carlyle Street, Suite 600 
Alexandria, VA 22314 USA 
+1 703-548-7005 
+1 703-548-5738 Fax 
http://www.disa.org/

 

Data standards plan for wholesale electric power industry advances at FERC meeting

By Alan Kotok, Editor,  E*Business*Standards*Today

Washington, 7 October 2002 -- A meeting at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on 3 October 2002 hammered out overall goals for data and software standards setting in the wholesale electric power industry, agreeing on bigger-picture roles and functions of the major players. Participants representing industry trade and standards organizations, however, could not agree on a plan with precise responsibilities of the groups for standards development and maintenance, and asked FERC to help resolve the impasse.

FERC called the meeting as a follow-up to a similar session on 18 July (see http://www.disa.org/pdfs/report01.pdf) where industry participants endorsed the need for open software and data standards to support FERC’s proposed standard market design for wholesale electric power. The standard market design or SMD would provide new rules for transactions covering generation and transmission of electric power to local utilities. FERC, which issued its proposed SMD rules for public review on 31 July, has asked the industry to establish standards for the electronic exchange of data supporting SMD, and had hoped the 3 October meeting would develop a plan for making it happen.

Electric utilities are no strangers to standards, and the industry has developed a reputation for reliability based on common industry standards for electric power generation and transmission. For data and software standards, however, different industry trade and standards organizations have developed protocols covering specific functions. While these specifications have succeeded in providing immediate business benefits, all parties agreed that SMD needs a higher degree of interaction and interoperability, thus a higher degree of commonality than before.
[top]
 

Sorting out the parties

The first panel of expert speakers reflected the diverse data standards in the industry, including representatives of the industry’s Electronic Scheduling Collaborative, North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), North American Reliability Council (NERC), Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the regional power grid operators. Participants agreed that SMD creates a more demanding environment for industry systems and new standards are needed to meet those demands.

John Canavan, chair of the ESC, talked about his group’s contributions to the communications standards for the industry’s Open Access Same-Time Information System or OASIS, currently being updated to handle new requirements imposed by SMD. Canavan said the original OASIS design would not handle the bi-directional data flow required by a market-based system.

Robert Cummings of NERC discussed his group’s data standards for reliability, known as E-Tags, now in version 1.7. Cummings noted that new SMD requirements would exceed the capabilities of current tagging specifications.

Peter Hirsch of EPRI described that group’s Common Information Model or CIM, a standard for representing the objects in an energy management system model that includes a version in XML. While CIM was designed seven years ago, Hirsch said EPRI is extending CIM to handle the more dynamic requirements of SMD.

NAESB, represented by Jim Buccigross, the organization’s chairman, is a relative newcomer to the industry, and Buccigross talked more about his group’s processes than products. NAESB evolved last year out of the Gas Industry Standards Board, and has established standards-development processes that it is now extending to wholesale and retail electric power. NAESB is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and FERC has in the past incorporated NAESB’s wholesale gas standards by reference into its rules. Buccigross said NAESB’s processes are open to members and non-members even at early development stages. NAESB relies on consensus at multiple levels, and requires all segments of a particular market to approve draft documents before they can become standards.
[top]
 

Critical success factors

Another panel with participants from inside and outside the industry gave examples standards activities with potential lessons for wholesale electric power. Jim Buccigross of NAESB and Brian Hewson of the Ontario Energy Board, recommended concentrating policy functions with jurisdictional authorities, in this case FERC. Hewson also discussed the Ontario experience with retail electric power standards, noting that it needed to get its first standards completed in six months. Nonetheless, it still used consensus-based methods with large numbers of stakeholders. Hewson said his group looked to models from other industries for guidance that helped reduce some of the time and work. The Ontario system now serves 94 distributors and 10 retailers.

Tim Cochran of Data Interchange Standards Association (DISA), one of the non-industry panelists, described the processes used for development of retail bar codes, known as the Universal Product Code (UPC) in North America. The UPC, developed in the early 1970s, had few precedents to follow at the time, but achieved industry-wide acceptance. Cochran said the UPC provided benefits throughout the supply chain, from manufacturers through retailers, and also offered benefits to the customers, such as fewer stock-outs and less spoilage. The standards also had the vocal support of top executives, not just the IT directors.

Cochran noted that five different organizations were involved in the UPC’s development, which required an independent, neutral, and trusted organization -- in this case, the Uniform Code Council -- for governance. Cochran said DISA provides this function for the industry groups it manages today.

Gary Biermann of Lockheed Martin discussed the need for clear direction and objectives, achieved by consensus, at the beginning of a complex project that helps resolve more detailed and technical questions later in the game. Buccigross said NAESB follows a comparable process, using an overall annual plan to set priorities (often reflecting FERC policies), that NAESB committees use for direction.
[top]
 

Roles of grid operators, vendors, and market participants

While participants endorsed the idea of open processes, defining the roles of stakeholders generated much of the discussion. The regional grid operators, known as regional transmission organizations (RTOs), independent system operators (ISOs), or independent transmission providers (ITPs), are the one part of the industry without established data standards, yet would have much of the responsibility for implementing the standards. Gordon van Welie, president of the New England ISO sketched out an overall framework showing the roles of the various bodies and how the regional grids fit into the larger picture. Van Welie said in this framework FERC provides the overall policy and market design, NAESB provides leadership on business practices, and NERC offers standards for reliability. ISOs and RTOs, however, still need to write the operating rules and procedures, software architectures, market interfaces, and security specifications.

A presentation by Don Watkins of Bonneville Power Authority and the Common Systems Interface Coordination Group (CSIC), representing Western grid operators, noted that ISOs, RTOs, and ITPs would need to implement any standards developed for wholesale electric power and bear the consequences for those implementations. As a result, Watkins proposed establishing a separate consortium of grid operators to write these standards. Watkins said the standards developed by this consortium would cover market rules and processes, data protocols, software functions, and specifications for operational systems. Watkins noted that the consortium would submit its documents to NAESB for overall industry consensus and approval.

While RTOs, ISOs, and ITPs may implement the standards, the actual building of systems that comply with the standards would fall to the solutions vendors. Several vendors on panels and from the floor noted the importance of involving all stakeholders, including vendors, in the development process as well as voting privileges on the draft documents. Dick Brooks of Systrends, speaking from the floor, also pointed out the need to involve the retail merchants in the process. Brooks, who chairs one of NAESB’s retail electric working groups, said the merchants wanted one solution for communicating with suppliers that would cut across the various stovepipes.
[top]
 

Getting the job done right

Several solutions vendors and industry participants gave their ideas on the goals for the electric power industry to achieve the desired outcomes. Gary Michor of the SPI Group that worked on the Ontario retail electric systems, stressed the need for a shared understanding of business processes, so all parties know how they interact. Michor also recommended the use of human-readable content, to help ease auditability, noting that many transaction systems in the industry today are not easy to audit. In addition, Michor advocated setting low barriers to entry as a goal, which allows smaller vendors to implement the standards and helps fill niche markets.

Jay Britton of Alstom stressed the use of models as part of the standards. He recommended first building models representing the business processes. Otherwise, said Britton, it would be like "trying to build a skyscraper on swampy ground." Britton also recommended testing the fidelity of standards against the models. Petar Ristanovic of Siemens likewise encouraged the use of models, particularly a common data model. Ristanovic also suggested tight coordination among the various standards groups, otherwise the industry faces costly solutions mapping among the different standards.

Panelists and floor participants debated the need for a centralized organization to serve as the program manager. While acknowledging the advantages of tight coordination and speed that a central organization would provide, some participants also cited the need for flexibility to accommodate local conditions and the desirability to phase in solutions over time.
[top]
 

FERC asked to help fill in details

Participants at the meeting generally agreed on an overall framework for standards to support SMD, based largely on the proposals from Gordon van Welie and Don Watkins. The group endorsed the ideas of consensus-based solutions based processes open to a wide array of stakeholders. Participants concurred with taking advantage of NAESB’s work on business practices and processes, as well as its accreditation with ANSI. Likewise, participants seemed to agree with NERC continuing to take the lead on standards related to reliability, as well as making use of the work on CIM done by EPRI.  And the group endorsed FERC's role in defining overall policy and direction.

Alison Silverstein, technology advisor to FERC Chairman Patrick Wood III and chair of the meeting, posed several questions to the meeting participants, particularly the grid operators, on the need for and workings of a separate organization for regional grid standards. Silverstein pointed out the overall consensus on proposed roles for established groups like EPRI, NAESB, and NERC, but also noted how there appeared to be no agreement yet on overall management or accountability. Nor did there appear to be consensus on how to precisely divide the work among the different groups.

Silverstein proposed, and participants agreed, that FERC staff would draft a memorandum with recommendations and send it to the participants for comments, and then to the FERC commissioners for approval.
[top]
 

Additional resources


© 2002  Data Interchange Standards Association
[top]