CIM Issues » WG16 Issues

As wonderful as it would be to standardize terminology here, that may be asking too much especially with major differences in terminology between North America and Europe. When we get to distribution/retail products, the challenge is effectively impossible. Increasingly the Market Package will be used for Non-Market implementations and even the term is misleading. I would propose that we gradually move towards the term "Grid Service".

We we add a new attribute of "gridService" to any class that needs to identify what commodity is being delivered to or consumed from the grid this could work. If we jettison the utopian dream of a universal enumeration and make it a string with comments, we recommend the string utilize common service in the documentation. I would propose that list be large and offer some regional variations:

Grid Service Recommendations:
- Energy
- Capacity
- PrimaryReserve
- SecondaryReserve
- TertiaryReserve
- Ramping
- SynchronousReserve
- NonSynchronousReserve
- VoltageSupport
- Restoration

Alternately, we could enshrine these in an enumeration and have an string option to include in the profile if one would like to deviate from the standard. If that were the case, I would expand the list slightly, e.g. add SpinningReserve and NonSpinningReserve even though these are the same as Synchronous and NonSynchronous Reserve, to help minimize the times a local extension is required.

Additionally, I recommend we add a direction to the Grid Service as a separate field. Many resources can provide one one "side" of the delivery, for example a load may be able to provide energy reduction (demand response), but not energy increase. Rather than separate out each grid service, and enumeration called gridServiceDirection could be used with the following:

- BiDirectional
- Injection
- Withdrawal
- Increase
- Decrease

I suggest the two "flavors" because some products naturally make sense with one and not the other. For example, Voltage Increase makes sense but not really Voltage Injection. Energy, on the other hand, makes sense ash Energy Injection and less so (although not entirely with Energy Increase) - I think worth a debate. I do recommend against anything which can be viewed differently from the grid and customer perspective, like "import" and "export" or "in" and "out". A battery might export to the grid, but the grid operator is importing power from the customer. These "which side of the meter am I sitting" issues can lead to confusion and errors in exchanges.

If this idea is not popular, we can always revert back to triplicating each service, e.g. RampingUp, RampingDown, and Ramping (for the case where the service requires both directions and does not differentiate pricing based on direction).

We also need to consider similar constructs already established, of which there are more than I expected:

- flowDirection (string)
- FlowDirectionType (enumeration 'forward' and 'reverse')
- FlowDirectionKind (large enumeration focused on real/reactive power quadrants)
- RelativeDirectionKind (enumeration 'up','down','upAndDown' and 'none')
- BidDirectionKind (enumeration 'up', 'down', 'upAndDown' and 'stable')
- ScheduleKind (enumeration 'generation', 'load', 'loadIncrease', 'loadDecrease', and soon 'genrationIncrease' and 'generationDecrease')
- ComDirectionKind (enumeration 'fromDevice', 'toDevice', and 'biDirectional')

This last one is close to what I propose, but is awkward to use with the "Com" in front. But it does sorta make sense with the service coming from the device and/or going to the device, so I could see us using that with service; although the natural use would rather be 'fromResource' and 'toResource'.

Hopefully something I propose here will resonante and spark some ideas from the group for something perhaps better than I am proposing...