IEC TC57 Smart Grid Task Force Ed Dobrowolski for Scott Neumann 16 June 2010

Introduction IEC TC57 WG19 has created a Smart Grid Task Force, with a focus to coordinate TC57 efforts as related to the Smart Grid Formed in July 2009 in reaction to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) efforts in the US with Scott Neumann and Jay Britton as co-leaders NIST is facilitating many Smart Grid efforts, which have had significant international involvement Purpose of this presentation is to: – Provide background – Identify key issues for IEC TC57

NIST Roadmap Efforts in the US are driven by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 NIST has “primary responsibility to coordinate development of a framework that includes protocols and model standards for information management to achieve interoperability of smart grid devices and systems…” In 2009, a roadmap was developed by NIST – Identification of the importance of CIM and standards – Recognition of service providers as important entities within the Smart Grid – Principles of Shallow Integration and Loose Coupling

NIST Priority Action Plans (PAPs) NIST initially identified 14 (now 17) areas where prioritized action is needed Each of these areas has many different stakeholders, including standards development organizations (SDOs) The IEC is seen as a key SDO

TC57 Involvement with NIST PAPs NIST PAPTitleTC57 WG Directly Involved TC57 WG Indirectly Affected Other IEC TCs Involved or Affected Examples of Others Involved or Affected PAP 0Meter Upgradeability Standard13 PAP 1IP15?IETF, IEEE, ZigBee PAP 2Wireless15?IETF, IEEE, ZigBee PAP 3Pricing16, 14OASIS, NAESB PAP 4Schedules16, 14OASIS, NAESB, CalConnect PAP 5Meter Data Profiles1413ANSI PAP 6Models for Meter Data Tables1413ANSI PAP 7Electric Storage Interconnection171069IEEE PAP 8CIM for Distribution Grid Mgmt13, 14, 17, 15IEEE, NRECA PAP 9DR Signals14, 16, 1513OASIS, NAESB, ZigBee, SAE, IRC PAP 10Energy Usage Info14, 1513OASIS, NAESB, ZigBee PAP 11Models for Electric Transportation14, 15, 1769SAE PAP /DNP3 Mapping1013, 14, 17DNP, IEEE PAP 13Time Sync, C37.118, IEEE PAP 14Power System Model Mapping13, 1410IEEE PAP 15PLCs for Home AppliancesJTC1IEEE, ITU-T, HomePlug PAP 16Wind Plant Communications10,

IEC TC57 Standards Universe 6

The IEC TC57 CIM is being targeted as ‘the’ IEC CIM It certainly is the only viable solution for NIST PAPs 8 and 14, and benefits many other areas Any notion of a ‘common semantic model’ for everything is flawed and unrealistic There is a danger that high expectations may be set that can not be met by CIM extension efforts in reasonable timeframes There is also a danger if we try to displace things that work well now for ‘futures’ that are dependent upon CIM extensions that don’t yet exist IEC CIM

What should IEC recommend regarding adoption of CIM by Smart Grid initiatives? A tempting simple line of reasoning… – Smart Grid will clearly benefit from canonical data modeling. Consistent semantics & Consistent methodology for encoding information exchange payloads. – CIM is the most advanced application of canonical data modeling in the industry. – Therefore, all Smart Grid standards use the CIM for semantic modeling. Such a recommendation would be a mistake… – It’s too idealistic - CIM is already wrestling to find pragmatic ways to cope with having a broad scope. – We are learning how to manage expansion of CIM to more and more profiles, but we have not fully mastered the problem ( other industries are having the same struggle) – There are limited numbers of experienced experts to help with CIM expansion. And many of these are currently volunteer labor, so that their availability is restricted and not predictable. We need a recommendation that takes reality into account

Possible CIM Recommendation Summary recommendations: 1.Find a way to increase the availability of CIM experts. 2.Where there is significant overlap with existing CIM content - ‘participate’ in the existing CIM 3.Where interfaces do not have significant overlap with existing CIM - independently develop models using CIM methodology 4.Where there is an existing non-CIM semantic, make a judgment call as to how (and if) to harmonize with CIM. 5.Do not allow any non-CIM models to expand unless it is very clear: a) exactly what their scope is, and b) exactly why that modeling approach works better in that scope. Assumptions: – CIM is the best available example of how to achieve consistent interface semantics. – The all-inclusive CIM UML will continue to evolve with annual updates with the prime directive of maintaining semantic quality.

Questions ? Scott Neumann at Jay Britton at Ed Dobrowolski at