Introduction
The IntelliGrid Project will
ultimately impact anyone who builds, maintains and manages energy systems, as
well as those that regulate, manufacture products for, utilize, or otherwise
consume energy from the future energy system. A closer examination of this list
reveals that it appears to encompass nearly everyone on planet Earth. This
should not be a surprise given the dependence of society on electric power and
the pervasive nature of electric energy. Indeed, the breadth of the project
spans the universe of energy and information technologies, while the classes of
stakeholders are quite large and diverse with respect to areas of interest,
depth and domains of expertise, and desire for involvement with IntelliGrid
Architecture project.
The definition of a Stakeholder:
“An
enterprise, organization, or individual having an interest or a stake in the
outcome of the engineering of a system.” (EIA-632, Annex A)
Stakeholder engagement is critical
to the overall success of IntelliGrid Architecture. The team must actively
engage the stakeholder community. Not only is it vital to speak with the
stakeholders to obtain qualitative input, but also it is equally crucial to
communicate the progress, understanding and acceptance of the resulting
architecture. This communication need entails on-going stakeholder interactions
throughout the duration of IntelliGrid Architecture project.
In order to educate and extract
the key information from this large and diverse stakeholder community, it is
necessary to coordinate and organize multiple stakeholder engagement processes
that are tailored to each group to elicit their specific requirements.
Stakeholder engagement is part of
the systems engineering process for eliciting system requirements. Requirements
are statements of functionality or capability that captures what the future
system is required to perform. Requirements are a crucial element in the design
of any information system or advanced automation system. Requirements are also
one of the most challenging aspects of systems engineering since it requires
input spanning a variety of stakeholder groups ranging from business policy
makers and governance bodies to a variety of technical communities. The future
architecture of the power system must simultaneously meet the needs of a wide
variety of end-users. As such, the scope of IntelliGrid Architecture poses
significant challenges due to its enterprise-wide and industry-wide reach. In
order to manage the complexity of these requirements, it is necessary to
subdivide the space into different slices. Just as an architecture needs
multiple views to completely specify the “system” under construction, so too a
complete engagement plan must consider stakeholders grouped in different ways to
assess how complete the feedback will be.
The process encompasses ten
categories of stakeholder communities (not necessarily orthogonal). Each of
these communities will be addressed as part of an effort to be comprehensive in
“breadth” over stakeholder groups.
Utilities: An electric utility is defined as any
entity that generates, transmits, or distributes electric energy. Generally, we
want to: illuminate all utility employees on the vision and value of IntelliGrid
Architecture; create buy-in of the concept with utility executives; and engage
key employees (managers and technical leaders) in the process of developing
present and future requirements of IntelliGrid Architecture. Subsequently,
utilities will need to commit small amounts of occasional manpower (phone calls,
technical review, or occasional workshops) in order to (a) contribute to the
technical content of IntelliGrid Architecture, (b) provide oral or written input
into the project, (c) review and comment on or edit various drafts, and (d)
review and accept the technical requirements, or comment on changes required to
make IntelliGrid Architecture product acceptable to them. Some issues that
utilities can expand upon for the team include:
- Forecasts for scaling and
deployment of advanced levels of automation
- Drivers coming from increased
reliability including performance based ratemaking
- Complexities arising from
increased distributed computing security
- Drivers and complexities
arising from greater system integration across the enterprise
- Drivers and complexities seen
for connecting consumers to markets
- Drivers and complexities seen
for integrating legacy systems with migration to advanced automation systems
- Pressures seen from scaling up
automation systems but limiting human resources necessary to maintain them
Regulators and Auditors: Regulators and auditors have
an interest in ensuring that power systems meet their reliability, performance,
market, and financial obligations. They will need to ensure that IntelliGrid
Architecture supports their requirements for oversight and audit trails. This
group has specialization in overall administration of the applications. The
purpose of this engagement is to assist regulatory commissions in understanding
the nature and need for a project that develops an industry-wide architecture
and the problems that arise from lack thereof. An additional purpose is also to
gain acceptance of the technical and business concepts that open architectures
offer. Commissioners and regulators can have a significant impact on the
adoption of the overall architecture by industry. The current lack of
infrastructure for restructuring is traceable to a lack of attention given to
the technology necessary to advance the industry. Some issues that
regulators and auditors can expand upon for the team include:
- Visions of future energy
industry business models
- Trends or prospective policies
on power system operations (i.e., security, etc.)
- Status of economic drivers for
industry change in regulation (i.e., RTP, PBR, Reliability indices SAIDI,
CAIDI etc.)
- Strategies for technology
deployment, procurement or operation that are foreseeable for the industry
- Functional requirements for
future regulation and oversight of the industry that requires IntelliGrid
Architecture to implement
Vendors and Suppliers: Vendor stakeholders are
interested in designing, building, integrating, and servicing products that
would effectively become a part of the implementation of IntelliGrid
Architecture. These individuals would be adopters of the architecture
specifications and associated standards. As such, vendors provide a different
view of IntelliGrid Architecture requirements – one clearly focused on the
implementation and long term use of the architecture. The purpose of engagement
with vendors is to gain acceptance of the project concepts from vendors and
suppliers directly designing, building, and supplying equipment. Many vendors
already participate in standards bodies and this project must be presented in
the context of building upon existing standards development work. Such
manufacturers are likely to have substantial technical input that must be sought
as the technical requirements are being established. Some issues that vendors
and suppliers can expand upon for the team include:
- Advanced Automation
- Communications, Networking, and
Distributed Computing
RTOs / ISOs: Regional Transmission Organizations and
Independent System Operators are responsible for the real-time dynamic operation
of the electric power grid. The purpose of engagements with ISOs/RTOs is to gain
acceptance of the concepts of IntelliGrid Architecture project. ISOs are system
operators similar to utilities and they are using equipment that will be similar
to utility operations. RTOs currently face many of the system integration issues
that are at the heart of IntelliGrid Architecture project. ISOs and RTOs
availability to have substantial technical input regarding functionalities is
critical, and must be integrated into the technical requirements that are being
established.
Industry Groups: Industry groups include utility
associations and organizations, customer representative groups, users groups,
standards organizations, technology development associations, and other groups
involved with energy and technologies. Meetings with industry group executives
should occur early in the Stakeholder Engagement process to be effective. The
purpose is to gain acceptance of the concepts from industry groups such as the
Edison Electric Institute, NEMA, UCA Users Group, DNP Users Group, ModBUS Users
Group, Solar Electric Power Association, Utility Wind Interest Group, Nuclear
Energy Institute, NERC, GRI, APPA, ASHRAE, SEMI, 24/7 Group, etc. who represent
important sectors of the energy, electric power, related and supporting
industries. Such groups are likely to have substantial technical input, which
must be sought before or as the technical requirements are being established.
These groups also will play a large part in generating a favorable reception to
IntelliGrid Architecture project concept by facilitating industry sector
“buy-in”.
Government Institutions: Government institutions are
looking to the utility industry to develop its own solutions to the new demands
of deregulation, security, and enabling technologies. The technologies should be
founded upon existing standards and industry-at-large solutions where possible,
but also through the development of architectures and roadmaps that address the
unique requirements of energy systems. The governmental institutions need to
feel comfortable that IntelliGrid Architecture will meet the societal
obligations of a reliable and safe power infrastructure, the financial
obligations of a fair and strictly managed electricity market, and the security
obligations for a robust and flexible information infrastructure able to meet
future challenges. Meetings with federal regulatory commissioners, directors,
and managers should occur early in the Stakeholder Engagement. The goal of
higher-level contacts is to educate people about the needs and issues of the
national power grid as well as to gain acceptance of the concepts from
influential Commissioners or agencies. With technical contacts, requirements for
national security and safety are expected. Government organizations are likely
to become a driving force for change and thus, once convinced of the need for an
architecture, will push for national acceptance of the architecture. Some issues
that government institutions can expand upon for the team include:
- Visions for integrating systems
on large scales
- Requirements for securing
critical infrastructures
- Policies and requirements for
integrating communications between energy systems and federal buildings
- Procurement policies and
Federal architectures that will need to integrate with IntelliGrid
Architecture
- Visions of synergies between
public infrastructures and government systems
End User Groups / Organizations: Direct end users of
implementations of IntelliGrid Architecture include those whose jobs would be
directly improved through implementation of the architecture including utilities
operations, customers, energy services providers, and other users. These people
are a source of functional requirements for end use applications. These
individuals would include those benefiting indirectly from IntelliGrid
Architecture infrastructure. Many energy consumers would fall into this category
as well as building owners and consumers whose lives may be changed by rate
structures and other concepts enabled by IntelliGrid Architecture. The purpose
is to inform industry representatives of key groups of energy users of
IntelliGrid Architecture concepts and identify ways to solicit input to the
requirements process from the end-users that they represent. These groups
include: Energy Services Providers (ESPs), Large Commercial Customers, Large
Industrial Customers, Small Industrial and Commercial Customers, and
Urban/Suburban Residential Customers. Specific organizations that represent
these generic groups must be identified. Such groups are likely to have
useful input on how they would like to interact with a future electric power
infrastructure from technical, business, and personal interaction points of
view. Interest generated by end-users in IntelliGrid Architecture project
is crucial to initiating demand for the advanced end-user services that
IntelliGrid Architecture can facilitate. This in turn results in vendors
creating products to satisfy that demand.
Standards Bodies: The purpose of engagement with these
groups is to gain acceptance and future standardization of the concepts.
Engagement with standards groups such as the IEEE, IEC, ASHRAE, NIST, and others
is planned. Such groups are likely to have substantial technical input that must
be sought before or as the technical requirements are being established.
These groups also will play a large part in generating a favorable reception to
IntelliGrid Architecture project concept by facilitating industry sector
“buy-in”. Since an ultimate goal is to standardize IntelliGrid
Architecture work through one or more of these organizations, buy-in from these
groups from the beginning is critical to the success of the project. Some issues
that standards bodies and industry consortia can expand upon for the team
include:
- Drivers to harmonize standards
in progress
- Needs to address standards
integration on enterprise and industry levels
- Integration of standards
initiatives and past work
- Drivers and needs to establish
interworkability testing and other formal methods of integration
- Integration of architecture
methods with standards development activities
Market Participants: Market participants, as part of
the User Community, have unique communication requirements, reflecting their
market-driven needs for timeliness, availability, and security of many different
types of information. These requirements are not always met, particularly as the
market environment, policies, and capabilities change over time. Some
issues that market participants can expand upon for the team include:
- Real-time data reporting requirements for system
aggregators
- Advanced automation and communication requirements
International Representation: The US accounts for only
25% of the world market in utility spending. As such, in order to obtain
world-class manufacturer buy-in, IntelliGrid Architecture need to appeal to the
larger world market. Learning from the lessons of UCA, we can draw the
conclusion that overall acceptance of IntelliGrid Architecture will come only
after international acceptance. This will require that international concerns
are addressed within the architecture – these concerns can often be quite
different than US concerns. To that end it is important to engage
international stakeholders from all categories earlier rather than later in the
engagement process
The Stakeholder Engagement process
encompasses at least four different levels of interest and participation from
stakeholders. The strategy for dealing with diversity of interest is to have a
balanced portfolio of engagement opportunities and venues. Some of the generic
approaches in the assortment of stakeholder engagement strategies are outlined
below, however the interactions will be tailored to each stakeholder as needed:
Strategic Stakeholders (individuals, typically
executives, management, and decision makers, who will be making strategic
decisions for a business or industry): One-on-one interviews of one to a few
hours with key strategic stakeholders, in person or via teleconference/web cast
meetings. These meetings will be designed to elicit future visions and strategic
requirements that IntelliGrid Architecture project will need to address.
Active Technical Contributors (those who will have
direct interaction with IntelliGrid Architecture processes): Workshops or
discussion groups of 10-30 stakeholders. These stakeholders will represent
different interest groups with different areas of expertise. Individuals will be
invited to discuss their requirements with other workshop members, possibly in
breakout sessions. These workshops will address domain-specific issues (e.g.
market operations, transmission operations, etc.), cross-domain issues (e.g.
security), future visions of the energy and technology industries, and on-going
participation of these stakeholders in IntelliGrid Architecture process.
Stakeholders in this category may be contacted outside of the workshop forums
wherever possible to maintain the active relationship and to generate follow-up
feedback.
Passive Technical Contributors (those stakeholders who
may not be able participate as active attendees but have information to
contribute): Where possible, this group will be converted to “Active Technical
Contributors” by engaging in one-on-one interviews of one to a few hours with
key technical personnel, in person or via teleconference/web cast meetings.
These meetings will be designed to flesh out details of future power system
operations. Also possible are web cast meetings of one to two hours each with
small groups of stakeholders (1-5) with similar levels and areas of interest, to
address specific domain issues or technologies.
Interested Reviewers – those stakeholders who need to
have IntelliGrid Project “awareness”, but do not need to have on-going direct
interaction during the project itself. The primary needs of Interested
Stakeholders are based on education and eventual consensus on the IntelliGrid
Architecture. It is envisioned that the engagement opportunity will consist of
one-on-many presentations at different meetings, conferences, and groups. The
purpose will be primarily to educate the stakeholders about IntelliGrid
Architecture project, capture issues of interest to these stakeholders, and to
elicit follow-on interactions with individuals expressing interest in more
detailed participation, such as workshops and Web Casts.
Within each of the ten categories
there will be individuals with differing levels of interest. To the extent
possible, IntelliGrid Architecture team wants to incorporate all of these
combinations. However, limited resources (time, budget, team members, etc.) will
necessarily force us to impose reasonable limitations on the selection.
Therefore, it is important to realize that there must be a prioritization
process that takes place when evaluating which individuals to incorporate into
the process and to what extent they are engaged.
The IntelliGrid Architecture team
worked to outline the scope of the architecture and available technologies in
Task 1 and Task 2. A methodology was put forth to evaluate and prioritize the
potential future power system applications (enterprise activities) based on the
architectural significance and constraints imposed by the functions.
It is critical to recognize that
the primary goal of Task 3 is to elicit functional requirements for present and
future power systems operations. The team recognizes that the prioritization of
the enterprise activities must therefore drive the prioritization of the
stakeholder engagement opportunities.
These prioritized lists will serve
as a resource allocation function to enable IntelliGrid Architecture and EPRI
team members to develop specific implementation plans for these engagements.
This approach provides some insurance for breadth of coverage while allowing
flexibility to plan within this overall framework. Team resources of time,
funding and coordination logistics will use this engagement framework as an
overall roadmap for specific engagement planning.
This analysis driven approach will
necessarily be a living process that evolves as the team learns more about the
system under design. However, the team has established a first pass selection of
the initial “cones” – which are broad areas of power system applications
containing many functions selected by IntelliGrid Architecture team as
representatively pushing the boundaries of the architecture. Therefore, these
three initial “cones” will also form the focus for the technical engagement
planning. If needed, additional cones will be identified and further
stakeholder engagement planning will evolve as well.
Over the universe of stakeholders,
a parallel course of engagement is planned that will be comprised consist of
executive/manager and technical engagement. Executive engagements are intended
to convey project relevance to their organization and open access to key
technical people and documents useful to the project. The executive group can be
prioritized into “critical” engagements and “general” engagements.
“Critical” engagements would be those where the buy-in by that executive was
deemed strategic to acceptance and eventual implementation of IntelliGrid
Architecture. These engagements would be handled by EPRI executives as
well as IntelliGrid Architecture team members EPRI executives as well as
IntelliGrid Architecture team members would handle these engagements. The
executive sessions will be developed with EPRI management and tailored to the
specific entity. The messages and approaches are presented in a series of
templates that follow this introduction. It is recognized, however,
that broad executive presentation of IntelliGrid Architecture concept is
desirable. To meet this goal, it is proposed that public information and
education activities be ramped up to boost discussion of IntelliGrid
Architecture at power industry events. “General” engagements are those
where the buy-in is not deemed strategic to acceptance of IntelliGrid
Architecture but whose input is nonetheless vitally important nonetheless.
Small Group Engagements
The key engagement process is one
that brings the team and participants to a small group engagement meeting,
either physically or via web cast. Ideally, this small group meeting will follow
analysis performed on stakeholder documents to be incorporated into the
engagement meetings. This is the most crucial aspect and is critical to
the overall success of the project. In general, getting time commitment
from participants will be the single most difficult item. Key upper level
contacts are crucial in this regard. It is important that the “Critical”
engagements go well, and that the executive has buy-in and commits resources to
the concept, but more importantly, stresses the need for active participation by
technical people in these small group engagements.
Specific
Strategies for Each Stakeholder Entity
A template will be developed that
outlines a specific strategy for those entities that are targeted for
engagement. Examples of these templates are generically outlined below. However,
each identified entity will have a specifically developed strategy. A generic
checklist for stakeholder engagements can be found in Appendix B.
In addition to a structured
approach to engage a cross section of key communities, IntelliGrid Architecture
team is planning to supplement these core activities with additional techniques.
The following are concepts for supplemental engagements.
The IntelliGrid Architecture team
will identify strategic stakeholders who wish to engage in one-on-one interviews
to discuss strategic issues regarding IntelliGrid Architecture project. These
strategic stakeholders will be identified from a draft list of stakeholders. In
particular, the team will work with the EPRI advisory group and EPRI management
to identify these individuals.
Small-scale, technical workshops
involving groups of key stakeholders hold significant promise in generating
feedback and input as well as boosting awareness of IntelliGrid Architecture
project. These workshops will require significant effort in terms of
finding a host company, determining a location, date, and duration for the
workshop, establishing a list of technical contributors to invite, and handling
workshop logistics. In addition, presentations need to be developed and tailored
to the workshop audience.
It is anticipated that at least 2
workshops will initially be held in geographically different regions in major
cities with convenient access (favorable air travel options). Tentatively, the
times for these workshops are February and early March. Additional workshops
would be planned for later stages of IntelliGrid Architecture project.
In particular, IntelliGrid
Architecture team will:
- Seek two host companies,
ideally from the EPRI advisory group, and work with them to plan the
workshops.
- Finalize any “theme” for each
workshop, for instance, focusing one workshop more on Market Operations,
Transmission Operations, and Generations domains and the other on
Distribution Operations, DER, and Consumer Services, or, alternatively,
focusing on regional issues based on the regional location of the workshop.
- Select precise times and
locations for workshops, possibly dove-tailing the workshops with other
meetings to limit the amount of travel required by some individuals.
- Identify and contact
prospective participants to determine their interest level and
availability to participate as Key Stakeholders in one of the workshops.
(If they are not able or interested in participating as a key stakeholder,
the team will determine if they are interested in being a Strategic,
Contributing, or Interested Stakeholder.)
- Prepare for Key Stakeholders
Workshops, providing at least one month’s notice to prospective
participants, preparing agendas, slides, and organization.
The IntelliGrid Architecture team
will develop on-line Web Cast teleconferences for Contributing Stakeholders
through the Presentations and the www.iecsa.org web site. We will describe the
on-going work and the needed inputs from stakeholders. We will then establish
additional means of collecting these inputs by soliciting documents, verbal
ideas, and future interactions to explore specific areas of interest.
In addition to the engagement
opportunities described above, IntelliGrid Architecture team members attending
industry meetings will take opportunistic advantage of any planned venues by
meeting with attendees online and/or offline at the pre-existing meetings and
events. The intention here is to get exposure, and potentially make new
acquaintances that may desire to become involved in more detailed engagements.
A key aspect of the stakeholder
engagement and requirements gathering process is to review and extract
requirements from existing documents that stakeholders may already possess. Such
documents include procurement specifications, internal standards and practices,
operational procedures, application notes, standards group working documents,
etc. Documents such as these often contain well defined system requirements and
supporting rationale that represent the work of many people in an organization
gathered over a substantial period of time. Using these documents makes
efficient use of a stakeholder’s precious time by leveraging the investment they
already made in producing these documents. In many cases, executive level
contacts may be needed to clear the path for these documents to be released to
the project team for review.
Another key aspect of the stakeholder engagement and
requirements gathering process is to assess the baseline of the industry.
Baselining captures the “as-built”
or “as-being-built” system “architectures” in use by stakeholders or end-user
communities. This process will provide a baseline of status quo industry
infrastructure applications. The hypothesis of the architecture project is that
while the utilities are resourceful in patching systems together, the industry
could benefit from more systematic and strategic approaches to advancing
automation systems and information technology. Systems that are patched together
in piecemeal fashion may address a short-term tactical need but these approaches
may not be part of a more prudent strategic pathway. Baselining should examine
existing practices to determine the extent that architecture related practices
including strategic planning and existing infrastructure/standards are being
applied.
Publicity is a critical component
to the stakeholder involvement process as well as to the overall success of
IntelliGrid Architecture project. Publicity, essentially getting the word out,
can educate, engage, and maintain the stakeholders and ensure participation and
support.
Critical to the success of the
Stakeholder Engagement Process as well as large-scale awareness and support of
the architecture, are integrated information, education, and technology transfer
activities. Providing accurate, timely information en mass to the various
stakeholder groups can facilitate effective engagement as well as reinforce the
perceived merits and benefits of the architecture process. This can aid in
the engagement of individuals who may not be expected to provide input, but
should be kept apprised of the goals, scope, and progress of the project.
Additionally, this information/education component can constitute the bulk of
the engagement of those stakeholders who will not be easy to engage in one on
one or group settings. These include electricity consumers, equipment
manufacturers not actively engaged, and various other groups who, due to the
prioritization process, may not be contacted in the initial stages.
Key goals for the information,
education, and technology transfer program include
- Educate audiences on what an
architecture is and why it is needed
- Provide timely, accurate
information on the development process and progress of the architecture to
stakeholders and other interested parties
- Facilitate awareness of what the
architecture is (and what it isn’t)
- Facilitate stakeholder
awareness, understanding, and buy in of the architecture
- Lay the groundwork for
implementation of the architecture
- Bring to the table and discuss
concerns and issues that audiences may have about the architecture
- Establish dialogue and
facilitate public involvement in the development of the architecture on an
(inter)national level and within the stakeholders
- Provide a consistent baseline
message to all the stakeholders and the public
Key to the understanding of the
information, education, and technology transfer program is the fact that it lays
the basis for the stakeholder engagement process along with the development of
the architecture itself. This is particularly important not just to build
general awareness of the architecture, but also to provide a consistent message
that all audiences – including the architecture development team itself – need
to have in mind. Ongoing dissemination of information and education/tech
transfer will also reinforce the stakeholder engagement process and maintain
support for the process and end results.
There are a variety of mechanisms
and components for an effective information, education, and technology transfer
program. These include
IntelliGrid Architecture Web
site – already in existence, this site is a depository of press releases,
white papers, background materials, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and other
content available outside the TWIKI collaboration mechanism. These
materials are placed in a publicly accessible area (requires no user
identification or password). The web site should be considered a central
destination where all parties should be sent for more information. Getting
the site listed with the major search engines is a key priority.
Brochure – Development of a
short (two to four page) brochure explaining what IntelliGrid Architecture is,
how it works, its benefits, and how it will be implemented. This brochure
will be distributed either in hard copy or electronically at conferences,
meetings, workshops, presentations, and in person-to-person and group
interactions.
Briefing Materials – These
currently exist in the form of presentations. Hard or soft copies of these
should be available for distribution to the media and to interested audiences.
White Papers – These can
consist of “big think” and/or technical documents cleared for general release
that can be included in press kits, posted up on the web site, and available at
workshops, meetings, and presentations. The scope of these will change as
the stakeholder engagement process progresses.
Specialized Fact Sheets –
these could be developed and targeted towards the various stakeholder groups and
explain how the architecture relates to them.
Press Releases – these will
be developed in consultation with the EPRI media relations office and
distributed through EPRI out to trade and general press.
Press Kits – these will
consist of press releases, white papers, briefing materials, and any appropriate
clippings/press mentions. This is material that can be used as background
for reporters. These will be available for use by trade and general press.
Speakers Bureau –
consisting of EPRI leadership and members of IntelliGrid Architecture team, this
group is available to speak at trade shows, conferences, workshops, and society
meetings. This can also include specialized events such as congressional
testimony and NERC/FERC meetings/hearings.
Conference Presentations
–presentations ranging from “big think” talks to technical papers would be given
at industry conferences, organization meetings and other events. This not
only addresses informational and education needs, but also facilitates
technology transfer. This can include events specific to IntelliGrid
Architecture and certainly any EPRI conference or meeting. The IntelliGrid
Architecture team will work with EPRI to develop a list of targeted events.
Articles – as with
conference presentations, these will be written either as “big think” pieces
targeted towards high-level and general audiences and technical pieces oriented
towards many of the stakeholders to be engaged. Targeted publications
range from utility and communication industry trade press to “op-ed” pieces with
bylines for senior EPRI management that could go into the Wall Street Journal or
the New York Times. Initially, these would be pitched to the media by
EPRI/IntelliGrid Architecture team. Eventually, it is anticipated that the
media would invite these articles.
Workshops – covered in
another part of this plan, workshops can not only aid in the identification of
architecture requirements, but also facilitate the implementation of the
architecture by the various stakeholder groups. A set of workshops
oriented towards educating audiences about the completed architecture and
implementation scenarios should be considered.
Although not a strategy for
information or educational purposes, EPRI and IntelliGrid Architecture team
should undertake monitoring of press mentions and related stories. This
will facilitate determining the effectiveness of information/education
activities and help to understand whether the media is conveying the appropriate
message.
Editors and writers with utility
and communications industry trade publications (including web sites and
information services) as well as general press (particularly business or
technology oriented newspapers, magazines, and broad/web cast outlets) actually
represent a group of stakeholders. While they will not provide much input
to the architecture, they should be engaged on a similar level as the other key
stakeholders. Effective, positive coverage of the architecture and its
benefits and progress can aid in the overall stakeholder engagement process and
maintain a flow of information that keeps the stakeholders and general audiences
interested in its progress and facilitate implementation. This is
particularly important given the demographic and geographic diversity of the
stakeholders. Also, media coverage can aid in reaching international
stakeholders.
EPRI and IntelliGrid Architecture
team should make working with the press a key facet of the stakeholder
engagement program.
The information, publicity and
technology transfer program is central to the stakeholder engagement process as
well as the overall success of IntelliGrid Architecture project. Informing
audiences about the goals, scope, and progress of the architecture development
can educate, engage, and maintain the stakeholders and ensure their continuing
participation and support. Additionally, there is a need to inform the
public as a whole about the project to foster adoption and implementation of the
architecture.
The Implementation Plan is a
living document that identifies the individuals, the activities, and the time
frames for the actual engagement of the stakeholders. This Implementation Plan
will be updated over time as more details are determined and as new
opportunities arise.
The following sections cover the
implementation plan for engaging stakeholders in three key Areas of Interest
(AOI). These three AOIs cover many of the critical functions that have
significant impact on a communications architecture, and therefore are
considered the most important to address immediately. Some additional AOIs will
most likely be identified as these key AOIs get underway:
1. Wide Area
Measurement and Control Systems (WAMACS)
2. Distributed
Energy Resources (DER) combined with Advanced Distribution Automation (ADA)
3. Consumer
Market Activities and Real-Time Pricing (RTP)
The lists of potential stakeholders for each AOI are drawn
from the master list of stakeholders. The “Type” column indicates whether the
individual should be viewed as an Executive (E) or a Technical (T) stakeholder
in the context of the specific AOI. In reality, some stakeholders may flexibly
play both roles. For instance, some Executive stakeholders may actually be very
competent technically as well, but for the initial set of engagements, we are
particularly interested in their visionary outlook. Subsequently, we may also
engage them for their technical information.
A Wide Area Measurement And Control System (WAMACS) is an
aggregation of synchronized measurements captured over a geographically large
area or region of a power system. These measurements are typically
presented in phasor format that are synchronized to absolute time via a clock.
Accurate timing, typically to the nearest microsecond, then provides time stamps
for the captured data. Synchronized measurements typically include
Positive Sequence Voltage and Current, Power, and Vars. The WAMACS system
is the responsible for transmitting the resultant value to one or more
calculation centers.
The WAMACS is also the real-time control
structure that takes a system wide view of the electric power system, determines
the dynamic state of the system, determines variance from desired states, and
calculates optimal controls to bring the power system back to a stable, albeit
curtailed, operating state.
1. Potential
Stakeholders to be Engaged for WAMACS
From the list of stakeholders in
Appendix A, the following are considered the key technical stakeholders to
engage in the development of requirements for the WAMACS portion of IntelliGrid
Architecture. Most of these stakeholders are already actively involved in
activities or projects related to WAMACS and some have proposed implementations
to “close the loop” between measurement and control. Two of the stakeholders
have been contacted and have expressed interest in participating at different
levels in the WAMACS requirements gathering process.
Segment
|
Area
|
Type
|
Company
|
Government
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
|
Industry Groups
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
VPI
|
Industry Groups
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
Cornell
|
Industry Groups
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
GE GRD
|
Industry Groups
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
Georgia Tech
|
Industry Groups
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
VPI
|
Regulator
|
WAMACS
|
E
|
North American Electric Reliability Council
|
Utility
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
American Electric Power
|
Utility
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
American Electric Power
|
Utility
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
Bonneville Power Authority
|
Utility
|
WAMACS
|
E
|
Electricite de France
|
Utility
|
WAMACS
|
E
|
New York Power Authority
|
Utility
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
Bonneville Power Authority
|
Vendor
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
ABB
|
Vendor
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
Arbiter
|
Vendor
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
GE GRD
|
Vendor
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
GE Multilin
|
Vendor
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
Macrodyne
|
Vendor
|
WAMACS
|
T
|
Schweitzer Engineering Laboratory
|
2.
Implementation Plan for WAMACS
As there exists a diversified body
of knowledge in the WAMACS area (i.e. – papers, standards, specification), the
engagement plan for this group is focused on gathering this information through
several methodologies as listed below:
Telephone Contact
with Focus on:
·
General debrief of project
·
Request for existing customer requirement documents
·
Interview for additional requirements
·
Request for additional interested parties in the technical area of interest
Follow-up on-site
meeting - Group brainstorming sessions
Personal experience has shown that
putting a group of people together that are excited about a topic will typically
result in new ideas and concepts in a technology area. To this end, an
initial batch of three small, focused groups is proposed to flesh-out WAMACS
requirements. Note that experience also dictates that contact with one
group often times results in the identification of additional stakeholders.
The team will evaluate the need for additional engagements based on the results
of the earlier contacts.
Stakeholder
Engagement Conference
During stakeholder engagement conferences, breakout groups
will be created with a focus on WAMACS. The format of the engagement will
be to present general information on the WAMACS concept (in particular, what has
been gathered to date, and then solicit input, based on the Domain template, for
additional features and functions.
DER/ADA
Stakeholder Engagement Plan
The combination of Distributed
Energy Resources (DER) and Advanced Distribution Automation (ADA) is one of the
key areas that will impact future power system design and operation, and will
have a significant influence on the development of IntelliGrid Architecture
communication architecture. Therefore, engagement of the stakeholders in DER/ADA
is critical to ensuring that not only current communication issues are taken
into account, but that future communication needs are addressed as much as
possible.
1.
Potential Stakeholders to be Engaged for
the DER/ADA Area of Interest
From the list of stakeholders in
Appendix A, the following are considered the most important stakeholders to
engage in the development of requirements for the energy and communications
architecture. Most of these stakeholders are already actively involved in
activities or projects related to distributed energy resources and/or advanced
distribution automation. Many have already expressed interest in participating
at different levels in IntelliGrid Architecture project. Within each
stakeholder community, individual entries are listed in order of priority.
Segment
|
Area
|
Type
|
Company
|
End User
|
DER/ADA
|
E
|
DTE Energy Technologies
|
End User
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Connected Energy Corp
|
End User
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
DTE Energy Technologies
|
End User
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Encorp
|
End User
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
InfoUtility
|
Government
|
DER/ADA
|
E
|
National Renewable Energy
Laboratory
|
Government
|
DER/ADA
|
E
|
U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Electric T&D
|
Government
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
California Energy
Commission
|
Government
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory
|
Government
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
National Renewable Energy
Laboratory
|
Government
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
National Renewable Energy
Laboratory
|
Government
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory
|
Government
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Resource Dynamics
|
Government
|
DER/ADA
|
E
|
U.S. Department of Energy,
Concurrent Technologies
|
Industry Groups
|
DER/ADA
|
E
|
American Wind Energy
Association
|
Industry Groups
|
DER/ADA
|
E
|
CADER
|
Industry Groups
|
DER/ADA
|
E
|
Interstate Renewable Energy
Council
|
Industry Groups
|
DER/ADA
|
E
|
American Gas Association
|
Industry Groups
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
CITRIS
|
Industry Groups
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Electricity Storage
Association
|
Industry Groups
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Gas Technology Institute
|
Industry Groups
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Georgia Tech
|
Industry Groups
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Georgia Tech
|
Industry Groups
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Massachusetts Technology
Collaborative/Renewable Trust
|
Regulator
|
DER/ADA
|
E
|
CPUC
|
Standards
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
IEC TC57 WG NWIP for DER
|
Standards/ International
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
IEC TC57 WG3
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
|
CPS San Antonio
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
1
|
New York Power Authority
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
E
|
Electricite de France
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
E
|
Long Island Power Authority
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
E
|
WE Energies
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Bonneville Power Authority
|
Utility/ International
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Electricite de France
|
Utility/ International
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Electricite de France
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Exelon
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Jacksonville
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Long Island Power Authority
|
Utility/ International
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Polish Power Grid Company
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Portland General
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Salt River Project
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
TXU
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
TXU/Oncor
|
Utility
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Xcel Energy
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Capstone Microturbines
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Caterpillar Power
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Cooper Power
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Cummins
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Echelon
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Echelon
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
EPRI-PEAC
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
H&L Instruments
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Honeywell
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
KCAssociates
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
LiveData
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Lockheed Martin
|
Vendor/ International
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
NettedAutomation
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Omicron
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Plug Power
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Schneider Electric
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
SISCO
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
Tamarack
|
Vendor
|
DER/ADA
|
T
|
UTC Fuel Cells
|
2.
Implementation Plan for DER/ADA Area
of Interest
As mentioned above, most of these
stakeholders have already been actively involved in different projects or
activities, including the following:
1. EPRI DER/ADA
project to define DER object models based on DER and ADA requirements.
2. IEEE SCC21
development of a standard for interconnecting DER systems to the Area Electric
Power System.
3. DOE-sponsored
workshops on DER, covering technologies, policies, education, and other aspects
of DER.
4. End user
business activities as “Aggregators” or market traders of DER, which is a very
new type of business model.
5. Utility
response and upgrade of distribution facilities to meet the increased demands
for installed DER systems.
6. Utility
implementation of distribution automation as well as some aspects of advanced
distribution automation (ADA).
Therefore, the proposed
implementation plan for the DER/ADA area of interest will use those other
activities as a springboard to engage these stakeholders. This implies that the
engagement process will not start with a “blank piece of paper”, but will start
with prior work and drafts of the Domain Use Case scenarios, based on our prior
work and on-going participation in these activities.
The implementation plan is as
follows (with the expectation that details of the plan will be updated over
time to take advantage of new developments and opportunities for interactions):
1. From
September through January, IntelliGrid Architecture team will prepare draft
functional requirements and Use Cases, using the Domain Template, to cover
multiple sub-areas within the DER/ADA area of interest. The list of these draft
functional requirements has already been reviewed by a broad mix of stakeholders
in the EPRI DER/ADA workshop of September 15-17, 2003.
2. By early
October, IntelliGrid Architecture team will develop a specific plan for interacting with each
of the stakeholders listed above, on a case-by-case basis.
a. For
the executive level of stakeholder, we will request EPRI executives, either on
their own or with an IntelliGrid Architecture team member, to contact the stakeholder, present IntelliGrid Architecture vision and plan, and request the executive stakeholder to provide his
vision and issues for DER/ADA.
b. For
technical stakeholders, we will first estimate their probable degree of
interest and their possible ability to provide technical direction and
information. Clearly this estimation may change as the engagement process
proceeds with any set of stakeholders. We will then use this degree of interest
measure to determine the next steps with them.
3. Starting
in October, for technical stakeholders with a high degree of interest, we will
contact them by phone and/or by email to determine who will be interested and
able to become involved. We will offer the following options:
a. Review,
comment on, and add to selected sets of DER/ADA Use Cases, using email, phone
conversations, Webex interactions, and some face-to-face interviews to provide
them with the background and requirements for such review. We expect some will
be more interested and able to develop and/or review the high-level narratives
(the English descriptions of the DER/ADA functions), while others may be more
interested and able to review the step-by-step procedures and the
communications details. They will also be asked to comment on and add to the
proposed list of Use Cases. We will explicitly target the following types of
stakeholders to participate at this level:
·
Active participants in the IEEE SCC21 P1547.3 effort. Some of the
work of this group is the development of Use Cases for DER.
·
Active participants in the EPRI DER/ADA project. There is a good
mix of stakeholders in this project already. In addition, this project also
needs to develop some Use Cases, and will be undertaking lab testing and field
testing of DER object models in the near future, which will help validate the
ADA requirements.
·
End User aggregators of DER who have new types of business models
that are still evolving, depending upon the directions taken by market rule
makers and regulators. Their visions of the future of the DER business are very
important in formulating the Use Cases.
·
Industry groups actively trying to develop new market rules and
paradigms, such as the California Energy Commission.
b. Participate
in a locally held workshop or breakout session at their company. For this
option, we expect to organize such sessions with some of the PAG members who
have expressed direct interest in holding mini workshops at their facilities.
We will expect some technology transfer efforts, plus some “roll up the
sleeves” efforts in these workshops, with additional interactions and efforts
after the workshops to complete the work.
c. Participate
in regional technical workshops that cover more areas of interest. In these
workshops, most of the interactions will be technology transfers and education,
with the expectation that additional interactions may occur afterwards with some
of the workshop participants.
4. In the
past and over the next few months, we have and will also interact with other DER/ADA
stakeholders in conferences, meetings, forums, and other activities where DER/ADA
may or may not be the focus, but where these stakeholders are present.
5. During
these stakeholder engagements, we will revise the draft Domain Use Cases until
they are finalized enough to be formalized in the RM-ODP Architecture Template
and UML diagrams. We expect iterations with stakeholders during this process as
well, primarily with the stakeholders who are experts in UML modeling. For this
stage, we will target the following types of stakeholders:
a. IEC
TC57 WG members
b. IEEE
SCC21 1547.3
c. Vendors
actively involved in information modeling
Consumer/RTP
Stakeholder Engagement Plan
Communications with consumer facilities and equipment opens
a wide variety of opportunities to enhance consumer energy services, provide a
variety of new value added services while enhancing the performance and
operation of the nation’s energy systems. Consumer end-use loads fundamentally
drive the operation of the world’s energy systems involving electric power and
natural gas and the instantaneous demands placed on the energy supply and
delivery infrastructures. For these reasons it is imperative that engagement
of stakeholders involved in the functions associated with consumer oriented
functions be taken into account.
Arguably one of the most important functions associated with
the consumer interface is the real time pricing activity. The objective of the
Real-Time Pricing Enterprise Activity is to permit customers to plan and modify
their load and generation in response to price signals in “real-time”
(operational timeframe which can range from seconds to days ahead), received from
an Energy Services Provider who acts as an intermediary to the Market
Operations. Customers can also provide their forecasted loads and generation
into the Market Operations (possibly through the ESP as an aggregator) as
energy schedules and ancillary bids/offers.
The real-time pricing activity
touches a large subset of the communication needs of the electric utility
industry. It requires a series of communications and complex interactions to
and from dozens of systems in various components of the power system.
1. Potential
Stakeholders to be Engaged for the Consumer/RTP Area of Interest
RTP alone involves a variety of
stakeholder types. Other consumer oriented functions such as power quality
service contracts and direct load control involve still more stakeholder
types. The following table lists those stakeholder roles involved in the RTP
function:
Role
|
Description
|
Market Operations for RTP
|
Forecasts loads, determines
optimal loads, and initiates process to determine tables of Base RTP values
for the next hours and days
|
Energy Services Provider
|
Receives to base RTP tables and
calculates customer-specific RTP tables
|
Customer BAS
|
Receives customer-specific RTP
values and optimizes load and DER generation. Also submits energy schedules,
ancillary services bids/offers, and implements load control in real time.
|
Transmission Operations
|
Provides power system
configuration and real-time data to market operations
|
Distribution Operations
|
Provides real-time data to
market operations and monitors (larger) DER devices
|
Distributed Energy Resources (DER)
|
Responds to scheduled
generation due to RTP (and other factors)
|
External Overseers
|
Regulates and audits the RTP
prices and procedures
|
From the list of stakeholders in
Appendix A, the following fill the roles shown in the table above and are
considered the most important stakeholders to engage in the development of
requirements for the energy and communications architecture.
Segment
|
Type
|
Company
|
|
|
|
End
User
|
T
|
Connected
Energy Corp
|
End
User
|
T
|
InfoUtility
|
End
User
|
E
|
WalMart
|
End
User
|
T
|
GE
Appliances
|
End
User
|
T
|
Alcoa
|
End
User
|
T
|
INTEL
|
Government
|
E
|
National
Renewable Energy Laboratory
|
Government
|
E
|
U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Electric T&D
|
Government
|
T
|
California
Energy Commission
|
Government
|
T
|
National
Renewable Energy Laboratory
|
Government
|
T
|
Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory
|
Government
|
E
|
CEC/PIER
|
Government
|
T
|
New
Hampshire PUC
|
Industry
Groups
|
T
|
CITRIS
|
Industry
Groups
|
T
|
CIEE
|
Market
Participants
|
|
Electrotek
Concepts
|
Market
Participants
|
T
|
Con
Edison Solutions
|
Utility
|
T
|
Florida
power and Light
|
Utility
|
T
|
AEP
|
Utility
|
T
|
Bonneville
Power Authority
|
Utility
|
T
|
Georgia
Power
|
Utility
|
T
|
Southern
California Edison
|
Utility
|
T
|
Con
Edison Solutions
|
Utility
|
T
|
Kansas
City Power and Light
|
RTO/ISO
|
T
|
CAL ISO
|
RTO/ISO
|
T
|
NY
ISO
|
RTO/ISO
|
T
|
PJM
Interconnection
|
Standards
|
T
|
ASHRAE
- BACNET
|
Vendor
|
T
|
Silicon
Energy / Itron
|
Vendor
|
T
|
RETX
|
Vendor
|
T
|
Clarus
Energy
|
Vendor
|
T
|
ComVerge
|
Vendor
|
T
|
LoadShed.COM
|
Vendor
|
T
|
MeterSmart
|
Vendor
|
T
|
Honeywell
|
2. Implementation
Plan for Consumer/RTP Area of Interest
The implementation plan is as
follows (with the expectation that details of the plan will be updated over
time to take advantage of new developments and opportunities for interactions):
1. From
September through January, IntelliGrid Architecture team will prepare draft functional
requirements and Use Cases, using the Domain Template, to cover multiple
sub-areas within the Consumer/RTP area of interest. Significant work has
already been done in the RTP area through the creation of an RTP Day-in-the-life
scenario document.
2. By early
October, IntelliGrid Architecture team will develop a specific plan for interacting with each
of the stakeholders listed above, on a case-by-case basis.
a. For
the executive level of stakeholder, we will request EPRI executives, either on
their own or with an IntelliGrid Architecture team member, to contact the stakeholder, present IntelliGrid Architecture vision and plan, and request the executive stakeholder to provide his
vision and issues for real-time-pricing, other demand response related
programs, and power quality/reliability based contracts.
b. For
technical stakeholders, we will first estimate their probable degree of
interest and their possible ability to provide technical direction and
information. Clearly this estimation may change as the engagement process
proceeds with any set of stakeholders. We will then use this degree of interest
measure to determine the next steps with them.
3. Starting
in October, for technical stakeholders with a high degree of interest, we will
contact them by phone and/or by email to determine who will be interested and
able to become involved. We will offer the following options:
a. Review,
comment on, and add to selected sets of Consumer/RTP Use Cases, using email,
phone conversations, Webex interactions, and some face-to-face interviews to
provide them with the background and requirements for such review. We expect
some will be more interested and able to develop and/or review the high-level
narratives (the English descriptions of the Consumer/RTP), while others may be
more interested and able to review the step-by-step procedures and the
communications details. They will also be asked to comment on and add to the
proposed list of Use Cases. We will explicitly target the following types of
stakeholders to participate at this level:
·
RTOs, ISOs, and energy service providers that have specific
requirements and processes in place for delivering real-time pricing data to
customers. Specifically those entities that can provide or efficiently help
write relevant use cases.
·
Energy providers such as Con Edison Solutions who have new types
of business models that are still evolving, depending upon the directions taken
by market rule makers and regulators. Their visions of the future of the
real-time pricing and other demand response related business are very important
in formulating the Use Cases.
·
Industry groups actively trying to develop new market rules,
paradigms, and enabling systems, such as the CEC, PIER and CIEE in California.
b. Participate
in a locally held workshop or breakout session at their company. For this
option, we expect to organize such sessions with some of the PAG members who
have expressed direct interest in holding mini workshops at their facilities.
We will expect some technology transfer efforts, plus some “roll up the sleeves”
efforts in these workshops, with additional interactions and efforts after the
workshops to complete the work.
c. Participate
in regional, technical workshops that cover more areas of interest. In these
workshops, most of the interactions will be technology transfers and education,
with the expectation that additional interactions may occur afterwards with
some of the workshop participants.
4. In the
past and over the next few months, we have and will also interact with other
Consumer/RTP stakeholders in conferences, meetings, forums, and other
activities where this interest area may or may not be the focus, but where
these stakeholders are present.
5. During
these stakeholder engagements, we will revise the draft Domain Use Cases until
they are finalized enough to be formalized in the RM-ODP Architecture Template
and UML diagrams. We expect iterations with stakeholders during this process as
well, primarily with the stakeholders who are experts in UML modeling. For this
stage, we will target the following types of stakeholders:
a. Utilities
developing RTP delivery systems
b. Market
operations stakeholders developing RTP calculation and delivery systems
c. Vendors
actively involved in information modeling
As identified earlier, executive
engagement is critical to the ultimate success of IntelliGrid Architecture. The following
table is a first pass list of executive engagements.
EPRI executives should handle
the interviews with many of these executives, and therefore, it is requested
that EPRI executives review this list, augment it as appropriate, and
sign-up for particular engagements.
For some interviews with these
executive levels, it may be appropriate for EPRI executives to involve
IntelliGrid Project Team members to provide additional background on IntelliGrid Architecture
project and to identify the issues that need to be addressed during the interviews.
Members of IntelliGrid Architecture team could
handle the interviews with some of these executives.
up contact information.
It is expected that initially at
least 2 workshops will be held in geographically diverse regions in major
cities offering sufficient meeting facilities and convenient travel access.
The targeted time frame for these workshops is February to March. To carry
this out, IntelliGrid Architecture team will
1. Seek a
host company for each workshop, possibly from the EPRI advisory group and
definitely from the priority list for each Area of Interest, and work with them
in concert with EPRI to plan and carry out the workshop.
2. By
January, finalize the theme for each workshop; ideally focusing the workshops
on issues related to each interest cone or on issues relevant the regional
location of the workshop.
3. By mid
January, select precise times and locations for workshops, possibly
dove-tailing the workshops with other meetings to limit the amount of travel
required by participants.
4. By mid
January, identify and contact prospective participants to determine their
interest level and availability to participate in the workshops. If they
cannot attend, perhaps they can recommend someone else in their organization
that may be able to attend.
5. Book
conference space and any needed accommodations.
6. Firm up
details for any logistical concerns, i.e., catering.
7. Provide at
least one month’s notice to prospective participants, providing information on
date, times, venue, accommodations, any travel logistics and registration
procedures
8. Finalize
agenda and prepare presentations and workshop handouts.
9. Hold the
workshops
10. Conduct post-workshop
follow-ups, evaluations and interviews with participants.
To date, planning has begun for a
technical workshop for Electricite de France slated for February. Preliminary
discussions are under way for another workshop in the United States, location
to be determined.
Appendix B lists key meetings and
conferences attended by IntelliGrid Architecture team members where we presented and discussed IntelliGrid Architecture project.
To a large extent, the
infrastructure already exists to conduct information, education, and technology
transfer activities. There are additional components that must be put in place
or redirected to obtain the full benefit. These are already under way and will
continue to operate after the architecture is developed to aid in
implementation. Components and specific actions are outlined as follows. It
is understood that all material must be cleared by EPRI for external
release.
Web Site: The IntelliGrid Architecture.org
site had its front end redesigned to present both a public face to the project
and the gateway to the team (Twiki) portion of the site. The site now has an
area where the following can be posted:
·
Press releases,
·
Links or actual content of clippings and or press mentions
(subject to copyright)
·
Text of remarks made by EPRI leadership and IntelliGrid Architecture team
members
·
White papers
·
Appropriate background materials
·
Frequently Asked Questions page
·
Other content as deemed appropriate for posting
The site now functions as a
central depository for these items as well as the major destination for
stakeholders, media, and the general public to find more information on IntelliGrid Architecture.
The site is being listed with the major search engines and now has tags
inserted to facilitate web searches.
Brochure: A three-page
document with the contents of IntelliGrid Architecture project press release and the scenario
found on IntelliGrid Architecture.org web site was put together and distributed at the
IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference. In October, a new, more
comprehensive brochure explaining in more detail the goals, scope, and process
for the development of the architecture was put together and made available in
both electronic and hard copy format for distribution at stakeholder engagement
activities, events, and via IntelliGrid Architecture web site.
Briefing Materials: –
Presentations on IntelliGrid Architecture and the project progress have already been developed. A
short form (nine slides) and long form (fifty slides) overview of IntelliGrid Architecture were
developed and made available in electronic format for members of IntelliGrid Architecture
team, EPRI members, stakeholders aiding in the engagement process, and
members of the media. Hard copies can be produced as needed. These
presentations are being continually revised to reflect project status.
White Papers: Work needs
to begin soon on identifying topics for these, with a mix of “big picture” and
specialized technical topics. Writing assignments will be made to members of
IntelliGrid Architecture team and/or EPRI. Once completed and approved, these will be
posted on the web site, included in press kits, and made available at
stakeholder engagement activities, conferences, and events.
Fact Sheets: Efforts
should begin soon to develop fact sheets describing how IntelliGrid Architecture relates to the
various stakeholder segments and also to the cones. These should be written by
IntelliGrid Architecture team members and once cleared for release, made available at stakeholder
engagement activities, conferences, and events.
Press Releases: Beginning
immediately, IntelliGrid Architecture team needs to work with EPRI, especially the EPRI
Media Relations Department, to specify the process for issuing press releases
and distributing them. EPRI utilizes PR NewsWire to distribute press
releases. In addition, releases could also be sent directly to targeted media
or contacts could be made to targeted media to pitch the press release.
Press Kits: Press kits
consisting of current and historical press releases, white papers,
presentations, and distributable clippings and press mentions will be assembled
and made available to reporters.
Articles: Working with the
EPRI Media Relations Department, IntelliGrid Architecture team will identify opportunities
to pitch and contribute pieces ranging from “big picture” articles (including
op-ed) and technical articles to publications including many of those listed
above. These can be written directly by IntelliGrid Architecture team members or under the byline
of senior EPRI leaders. Initially, EPRI and IntelliGrid Architecture team will need
to identify appropriate media contacts and pitch these. It is anticipated that
eventually the media will contact EPRI inviting them to contribute these.
Currently, three substantial contacts have been made with media:
- Sandy Smith spoke with Jim
Paterson, a freelance writer working with the American Public Power
Association and National Renewable Electric Cooperative Association
internal publications about IntelliGrid Architecture project. Paterson writes features
on industry web sites and is interested in profiling IntelliGrid Architecture web site.
- Sandy Smith pitched an article
to Mel Olken, editor of IEEE Power & Energy. The article, to be
written by Erich Gunther and Mark Adamiak, will focus on IntelliGrid Architecture’s scope,
goals, and development process. The article will be developed during the
summer of 2004.
- Erich Gunther and Sandy Smith
contributed an article on IntelliGrid Architecture to Power & Energy Continuity, a
publication focusing on power industry issues from an international
perspective. The article was published in March 2004.
- Erich Gunther and Sandy Smith
contributed an article on IntelliGrid Architecture to Electric Light & Power magazine.
The article appeared in the May-June 2004 issue.
Speakers Bureau: A
speakers bureau consisting of key EPRI leaders such as Kurt Yeager, Clark
Gellings, and TJ Glauthier; other EPRI management and technical personnel,
and members of IntelliGrid Architecture team will be assembled. The intent is to have these
personnel available to speak at trade shows, conferences, stakeholder
engagement events, and at hearings before regulatory and standards making
organizations. EPRI and IntelliGrid Architecture team personnel should actively identify speaking
opportunities for these individuals to participate in. In addition, this
predetermined group of individuals should also, as deemed appropriate, receive
media training should a decision be made to make them available to the press
for interviews. This particular activity should be coordinated by the EPRI
Media Relations Department.
Conference Presentations:
Utilizing the speakers’ bureau as described above, presentations ranging from
“big picture” talks to technical papers should be given at a variety of
industry conferences and meetings. In addition, there will be specific
stakeholder engagement events and EPRI meetings/conferences that would be
appropriate venues. The IntelliGrid Architecture team will work with EPRI to develop a
comprehensive list.
IntelliGrid Architecture Workshops: These
are addressed in other parts of the implementation plan. Inviting members of
the press to these events should be considered to facilitate the
information/education/technology transfer process.
Concurrently with all of these
activities, EPRI should conduct active monitoring of press mentions and
coverage of IntelliGrid Architecture. If it doesn’t already, EPRI should engage a clipping
service to monitor press and provide collection and summaries of press
coverage. This should be made available not only within EPRI but also to
IntelliGrid Architecture team.
Stakeholder Engagement Checklist-Summary
Each engagement with an
individual or group will address the following areas:
Introduction
1.
Describe purpose and background of IntelliGrid Architecture project
2.
Relate who is on the project team
3.
Describe what IntelliGrid Architecture is not
4.
Review of our terminology (domains, stakeholders, functions, federated
services, etc.)
5.
Description of the project domains
6.
Description of federated services concept
7.
Describe why we are contacting the specific individual we are talking to
8.
Describe what we expect to learn from that individual
Key top level questions to ask in each engagement
1.
What domain areas do you or your staff has expertise in, and is willing
and/or able to contribute?
2.
What specific functions in the attached list (provide list of task 1
functions) do you or your staff have expertise?
3.
Are there any key functions missing from the list that is important to
you?
4.
What is your long-term vision for how the power system will be operated?
5.
What fundamental problems in your present area of responsibility could a
comprehensive communications architecture help solve?
Function level questions to ask in each engagement
1.
Who/what are the key entities involved with this function (actors)?
2.
What are the bandwidth requirements today and what would you like to see
tomorrow?
3.
What are the reliability/up-time requirements for this function?
4.
What is the overall perceived level of complexity of this function?
5.
How relevant is communications technology to successfully implementing
this function?
6.
What are the key security issues associated with this function?
7.
How could distributed computing technology be applied to your problem /
this function?
8.
What are the database management requirements for this function?
9.
How important are the legacy support issues for this function?
10. How
many uniquely addressable devices are involved in supporting this function?
11. What
are the key economic drivers associated with this function?
12. What
are the key technical factors associated with the successful implementation of
this function?
13. Are
there any contracts or agreements associated with this function?
14. What
internal documents and/or external standards / guidelines are relevant to this
function?
Scenarios / Use Cases
Discuss function specific use
cases and scenarios with stakeholder
Conclusion
1.
What information we can/should we make available back to that individual
and through what mechanism after the engagement.
2.
Describe mechanism for follow up questions / input from either party.
3.
Who else should we contact in the industry or at your company about this
project / domain / function?
4.
Do you think that this project will be useful to the industry?
5.
If so, what is the primary benefit?
6.
If not, what is the primary barrier to success?
7.
What should we do to improve the stakeholder engagement process?
|