-
Type:
Bug
-
Status: Closed
-
Priority:
Major
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
Affects Version/s: CTSPR01
-
Fix Version/s: None
-
Component/s: cts
-
Labels:None
-
Environment:
Edward G. Cazalet, TEMIX Inc https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/energyinterop-comment/202111/msg00001/Cazalet_Comments_on_CTS.pdf
-
Resolution:
Any changes from the TeMix profile [TEMIX] of Energy Interop (EI) and Energy Market Information Exchange (EMIX) must require clear justification because the changes may be incompatible with TEMIX, published a decade ago, that existing implementations have, may have, or will rely on otherwise the claimed interoperability of the Proposal will fail.
| Field | Original Value | New Value |
|---|---|---|
| Description |
Any changes from the TeMix profile [TEMIX]
2 of Energy Interop (EI) and Energy Market Information Exchange (EMIX) must require clear justification because the changes may be incompatible with TEMIX, published a decade ago, that existing implementations have, may have, or will rely on otherwise the claimed interoperability of the Proposal will fail. 1. The Proposal introduces Actor as a synonym with Party. There is no apparent advantage to the change. 2. There is no formal role in the Proposal for Location as in TEMIX. 3. There is no formal role in the Proposal for Transport Products as in TEMIX. 4. The definition of a Transaction in the Proposal is different from TEMIX for no apparent reason. 5. The addition of Instrument as a Product for a Duration in the Proposal is unnecessary, and any market engine that requires Instruments can apply the instrument concept in its interface with TEMIX. 6. In conflict with the Proposal, there are valid use cases for a tender that expires after the start time of the associated interval. 7. The Proposal’s definition of a Resource is inconsistent with the definition of a Resource in EMIX and is not used in TEMIX. 8. The Cancel Tender operation cannot be required in any TEMIX implementation because a Party executing more than one transaction cannot rely on both transactions being executed. Moreover, tender cancelation can be an invitation to market manipulation. 9. The omission in the Proposal of EiQuote is not an improvement as this service should never have been in TEMIX. Likewise, the Proposal’s omission of the EiDelivery service makes no sense, especially as the Proposal has a significant discussion of Delivery. 10. The Proposal’s discussion of a Position Service is incomplete and likely unworkable because of design flaws in the Proposal. 11. While the Proposal includes bilateral transactions, the Proposal’s favored alternative of independent, local clearing markets (market engines) is unworkable in a grid where fine locational and time granularity is essential, and liquidity of tenders is minimal. 12. End Party participation in local clearing markets offered in the Proposal will typically see low participation and low liquidity, so such markets will be inefficient and unworkable except perhaps in exceptional circumstances. 13. The Proposal’s option to have markets with offset Start Times is unworkable and unnecessary. 14. The Proposal for Common Transactive Services (CTS) offers no more interoperability (likely less because of flaws) than TEMIX. As a result, CTS is oversold in this Proposal. In addition, the Proposal does not fully implement and is incompatible with the CTS in CTS2016 for reasons described above. 15. The Proposal does not simplify TEMIX as claimed. Most, if not all, of the claimed benefits of the Proposal, are provided by TEMIX. The Proposal’s messages are not simpler than TEMIX messages and are likely incompatible (the messages are not yet published). TEMIX, as it stands, is fully capable of providing transactive services in any market, although its documentation in EMIX and EI could be “cleaned up” in a new standalone TEMIX profile of these standards. Hence the Proposal only adds confusion to the detriment of Transactive Energy progres |
Any changes from the TeMix profile [TEMIX] of Energy Interop (EI) and Energy Market Information Exchange (EMIX) must require clear justification because the changes may be incompatible with TEMIX, published a decade ago, that existing implementations have, may have, or will rely on otherwise the claimed interoperability of the Proposal will fail.
|
| Environment | Edward G. Cazalet, TEMIX | [https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/energyinterop-comment/202111/msg00001/Cazalet_Comments_on_CTS.pdf] Edward G. Cazalet, TEMIX |
| Summary | Ed Cazalet Comments on PR01 | Incompatibility with existing TEMIX |
| Resolution |
Agree with the spirit of the comment, but it is not actionable.
CTS also adds additional services / facets to support additional scenarios. Not all services must be implemented in all markets/deployments. |
|
| Status | New [ 10000 ] | Open [ 1 ] |
| Resolution | Fixed [ 1 ] | |
| Status | Open [ 1 ] | Resolved [ 5 ] |
| Environment | [https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/energyinterop-comment/202111/msg00001/Cazalet_Comments_on_CTS.pdf] Edward G. Cazalet, TEMIX | Edward G. Cazalet, TEMIX Inc [https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/energyinterop-comment/202111/msg00001/Cazalet_Comments_on_CTS.pdf] |
| Status | Resolved [ 5 ] | Applied [ 10002 ] |
| Status | Applied [ 10002 ] | Closed [ 6 ] |
Transition all APPLIED to CLOSED per Energy Interoperation TC Motion April 28, 2022.