We were discussing standards upon which to build standards today. Before systems can communicate, there is a lot of work building the platform they communicate from. So much of the small work that will be needed for the internet of things is based upon constrained communications between resource-constrained devices. I found myself spitting out acronyms right and left - a veritable techno-glossolalia
Read MoreStandards for energy engagement and autonomous response (3b of 3)
The fourth of three planned posts on revisiting the smart grid priority action plans ran over long. The first post discussed semantic issues. The next addressed the conflict between the business models for Managed and Collaborative Energy. In this one, I discuss the architecturally significant interfaces of the smart grid, updating my earlier musing on SGIX.
Read MoreCoordinating Energy Use and Supply (3a of 3)
in Smart Grid, Standards
Within smart grids, the interfaces at economic boundaries, that is where energy and energy services are bought and sold are the most significant. These interfaces enable negotiations over how and when and why energy is used. The legacy grid is monolithic, without well developed markets and little room for competitive intermediation services. Informational market enabling standards that expand situation awareness between participants, that enable values-based decisions, and that provide an economic basis for technology adoption are the ones that matter.
Two Paths to Smart Energy in DC (2 of 3)
Standards can seem dry and uninteresting, but they find vital expression in the business models they support or prevent. One of the underlying issues in the initially contentious smart grid meeting last week was the conflict of business models. This can be resolved, but only by talking clearly about the purposes and motivations behind each model. A good first start would be to give them good names.