1 / 48

Smart Grid ad hoc Meeting Information - April 2010

Information on Smart Grid of interest to WG11 in April-May 2010. Includes committee rules, notices, affiliation FAQs, and more.

jthomsen
Download Presentation

Smart Grid ad hoc Meeting Information - April 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Smart Grid ad hoc Meeting Information - April 2010 Authors: Date: 2010-4-21 Name Company Address Phone email 5488 Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, 95054 +1 (321)427-4098 bkraemer@ marvell .com Bruce Kraemer Marvell Abstract: Information on Smart Grid of interest to WG11 – April-May 2010 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  2. Introduction • Ad Hoc Committee rules • No call foressential patents • AHC,  is a "committee of the whole" of the WG - i.e. any WG member can contribute; in practice, anybody who turns up can speak • During f2f meetings,  you can hold formal votes of only the voting members of 802.11; on a telecon you can take straw polls,  but not formal votes • Required notices • Affiliation FAQ - http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliationFAQ.html • Anti-Trust FAQ - http://standards.ieee.org/resources/antitrust-guidelines.pdf • Ethics - http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/about/CoE_poster.pdf • IEEE 802.11 Working Group Policies and Procedures - https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/public-file/07/11-07-0360-04-0000-802-11-policies-and-procedures.doc Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  3. Introduction • Request for recording secretary • Request for ad hoc chair Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  4. Agenda Topics – Tuesday April 21 Planned topics: • Update on NIST PAP#2 modeling & report • Questions on terms and calculations • Any other items? • Topics for next call (April 28) Report draft NIST report/model updates Propagation model options Question responses Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  5. NIST Models • March 31st models and write-ups still in process and have not yet been posted to the NIST Twiki site. • Bruce is looking into Propagation models to consider exponents to use in different scenarios e.g. urban canyon versus rural. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  6. 1st Draft review week of May 3 Report Outline • Table of Contents • Revision History ......................................................................................................................................... - 3 - • Preface ...................................................................................................................................................... - 4 - • Authors ...................................................................................................................................................... - 5 - • Acronyms................................................................................................................................................... - 6 - • Definitions .................................................................................................................................................. - 9 - • Overview of the "process" ......................................................................................................................... - 13 - • Reference Architecture ............................................................................................................................. - 14 - • Use Cases ............................................................................................................................................... - 16 - • Application requirements .......................................................................................................................... - 17 - • Wireless Technology................................................................................................................................ - 18 - • Evaluation approach / Modeling approach................................................................................................ - 19 - • Channel Models....................................................................................................................................... - 20 - • Modeling Tool .......................................................................................................................................... - 21 - • Findings / Results .................................................................................................................................... - 22 - • Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. - 23 - • References............................................................................................................................................... - 24 - Wireless Technology see wireless spreadsheet *Bruce will generate an example for everyone else to follow Create naritives for the content of the contents of the spreedsheet DSSS vs FHSS vs OFDM security Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  7. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  8. 2.1 Group 2: Data/Media Type Supported, b: Data; • 2.1 Group 2: Data/Media Type Supported, b: Data; • What is the meaing of Data? It is in measurement units of Maximum user data rate per user in Mb/s. • Since 802.15.4 gives 0.25 Mb/s one might assume that it is the physical medium rate. However with that • assumption, it does not apply to the value for 802.11 of 0.70 Mb/s. • Therefore one must assume another meaning. For example data rate minus protocol (and/or framing) • overhead results in 0.70 Mb/s (i.e., maximum user data rate (i.e., MAC Service Data Unit)), if so then the • 802.15.4 value must be changed to comply with that assumption. • Agreement on a consistent meaning of Data is needed. • Is it the maximum user data rate seen at the interface to/from the MAC sublayer? • Is it an instantaneous data rate? • Since it states Maximum user data rate per user, perhaps the number of users that was assumed for the • calculation needs to be stated as well, especially when the medium is shared as in 802.11 and 802.15.4. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  9. 2.2 Group 5: Data Rates, items a and b (Peak over the air UL/DL data rate) • 2.2 Group 5: Data Rates, items a and b (Peak over the air UL/DL data rate) • Values entered appear to be the physical layer date rate. • Is this correct? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  10. 2.3 Group 5: Data Rates items c and d (Peak goodput over the air UL/DL data rate) • How is the goodput calculated? • Is goodput strictly calculated on a single MAC sublayer frame’s payload divided by the resulting physical layer packet? • Is the goodput calculated including any CSMA overhead and the entire message exchange (e.g., data frame and acknowledgement frame)? • Both 802.11 and 802.15.4 can act as either peer to peer (p2p) or AP to/from STA for 802.11 or coordinator to/from device for 802.15.4. So for the peer case UL and DL would be the same. However for the non-P2P case UL and DL might be different. Both 802.11 and 802.15 use the same channel in this case, but the protocol overhead might be different (e.g., polling a PAN coordinator to retreive data vs device sending to PAN coordinator for 802.15.4). Clarification (i.e., note) on the type of mode that is being used to achieve the values for the data rates is needed. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  11. 2.3.2 Sample peak goodput for 802.11 baseline • Was not able to obtain 0.7 Mb/s, assuming only data transmission overhead for one data frame transmission and its associated acknoledgement. What other additional overhead assumptions were assumed? Beacon transmission? RTS/CTS? Association and authentication procedures? • 2.3.2.1 (A) • Assuming one message exchange of one 50us DIFS + zero backoff + long preamble (144) + PLCP (48) + 28 bytes MAC overhead + 2312 bytes user data (maximum) + 10 us SIFS + ACKnowledgement packet under DCF; a peak throughput of 0.959 Mb/s. • 2.3.2.2 (B) • Assuming one message exchange of one 50us DIFS + 15.5 backoff slots (average first attempt successful)+ long preamble (144) + PLCP (48) + 28 bytes MAC overhead + 2312 bytes user data (maximum) + 10 us SIFS + ACKnowledgement packet under DCF and DS; a peak throughput of 0.944 Mb/s. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  12. 2.4 Group 7, Data frames and packets, item a frame duration and item b Maximum packet size What is meant by frame? What is meant by packet? Are they the same or different? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  13. 2.4 Group 7, Data frames and packets, item a frame duration and item b Maximum packet size Sample response What is meant by frame? There are three primary Frame group types identified in 802.11 Management, Control & Data. Payload data is transported inside a data frame. The Data Frame is composed of a number of sub fields: control field, duration field, address fields, sequence field, data, frame check sequence. This collection of fields is referred to as a MAC Protocol Data Unit (MPDU). The source payload data may fit into one frame or if larger than 2312 bytes requires fragmentation and transmission using multiple data frames. When the MPDU is prepared to send out over the air there are additional fields added for preamble, start of frame delimiter and header. These fields then comprise the Physical Layer Packet Data Unit (PPDU). What is meant by packet? “Packet” is a general term that refers to the combination of fields described above that includes the payload data of interest . Are they the same or different? When the terms Packet and Frame are used without further qualifiers they can be considered to be equivalent. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  14. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  15. March 31 update Meeting held at NIST Gaithersburg MD campus Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  16. Reference Links • Entry point to NIST Twiki • http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP • Priority Action Plans • http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PriorityActionPlans • Priority Action Plan #2 - Wireless • http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  17. Meeting Structure Part 1: Deriving model input parameters User application requirements Protocol considerations Traffic aggregation Part 2: New models and extensions Range extension with multi-hop Physical layer model extensions Results MAC model extensions Results March 31 NIST Meeting http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/March31NISTPresentation.ppt Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  18. March 31st material • PAP 2 meeting, NIST Gaithersburg, March 31, 2010: • A face to face meeting for PAP 2 was held on March 31, 2010 at NIST Gaithersburg. • Meeting documents: • PAP2March.ppt: Meeting Agenda • March31NISTPresentation.ppt: NIST presentation Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  19. Updated NIST Models • Tools provided by NIST and used in presentation PAP2modeling.ppt • nist_80211_mac.m: Matlab code for 80211_MAC_Model • nist_80211_MAC_readme.pdf: Readme file for using the 802.11 model Matlab code • SNRcdf.m: Matlab code for computing SNR probability at wireless receiver • SNRcdfCell.m: Matlab code for coverage analysis • nist_phy_model_readme.pdf: Readme file for using Matlab code for SNRcdf and SNRcdfCell • nist_channel_propagation_models.pdf: Channel propagation models Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  20. Provided User Applications(OpenSG – SG Network System Requirements Specification v2.1.xls ) Meter Reading (MR) Bulk meter read Multiple interval meter read On-demand meter read Error messages Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Charging price rates Negotiate power charging rate Charging status PHEV VIN information Error messages Service Switch (SS) Cancel service switch operate Service switch operate Switch state Service switch operate acknowledge Metrology information Service switch state data Error messages Example run so far Who, When? Who, When? http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/March31NISTPresentation.ppt Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  21. An example selection Presentation Session Transport Network Data Link Physical None None TCP TLS 1.2 (RFC 5246) IPv6 IPsec (RFC 4303) IEEE 802.11 CCMP DSSS (1Mb/s) http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/March31NISTPresentation.ppt Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  22. Resulting Data Message sizes (for this selection) On-demand meter read 100 bytes TLS 25 bytes Transport TCP 20 bytes IP-SEC (Tunnel mode) 80 bytes IPv6 40 bytes IEEE 802.11 CCMP 16 bytes IEEE 802.11 28 bytes DSSS 24 bytes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS 333 bytes Similarly for Application Error on-demand meter read TOTALS 283 bytes Similarly for Multiple interval meter read TOTALS 1833 bytes - 2833 bytes* *Exceeds MTU of 802.11 must segment into two frames http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/March31NISTPresentation.ppt Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  23. http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/March31NISTPresentation.ppthttp://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/March31NISTPresentation.ppt Example link calculation: AMI Head End → DAP AMI Head End DAP MR-14: 25/1000 events/meter/day, 25 bytes MR-16: 25/1000 events/meter/day, 25 bytes PHEV-04: 4 events/meter/day, 255 bytes PHEV-11: 1/1000 events/meter/day, 50 bytes PHEV-15: 4*150/1000 events/meter/day, 100 bytes PHEV-19: 1 events/meter/day, 50 bytes SS-10: 2/1000 events/meter/day, 25 bytes SS-11: 50/1000 events/meter/day, 25 bytes SS-21: 50/1000 events/meter/day, 25 bytes Total: 5.753 events/meter/day = 6.7 × 10-5 events/meter/s Mean message size: Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  24. March 31 Evaluation Model Updates Multi-hop topologies Interference modeling Power-control and no-power-control options Half-duplex link model http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/March31NISTPresentation.ppt Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  25. Example: Outage Probability vs. Distance Device Parameters EIRP (dBm) Rx antenna gain, Gr (dBi) Data rate = 1 Mb/s Carrier freq = 2.4 GHz (Eb/N0)req = 10.4 dB Noise figure = 5 dB System loss = 1.5 dB Channel Parameters Shadowing std dev,  (dB) Nakagami parameter, m Path loss exponent n0= 2 Path loss exponent n1= 4 Breakpoint dist = 10 m Noise psd = -173.9 dBm/Hz 133 m 266 m 511 m http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/March31NISTPresentation.ppt Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  26. Expanded MAC model • MAC model has been expanded to include uplink (station to AP) and downlink (AP to station traffic). This concept was developed in the paper by Jin et al. • Links are half-duplex, e.g. when the AP is transmitting it is not able to receive any packets; any station that transmits will experience packet loss, even if there are no collisions with other stations. • Model now requires solving 4 coupled nonlinear equations instead of the 2 equations in standard Bianchi-based approaches. We use steepest descent to get the probabilities that the stations and AP are transmitting, tSTA and tAP, within an iterative loop that gets the probabilities that the stations and AP respectively do not have any packets to send, p0STA and p0AP. http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/March31NISTPresentation.ppt Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  27. Performance results Operations • Population of 1000 meters, groups of 25 communicate with each DAP. 40 DAPs communicate with the Head End. • Network loading was very light, reliability on every link, in both directions, was 1. • Diagram below shows mean delay in each direction for each link. Customer X 25 3.0 ms NMS 3.1 ms 3.6 ms 3.4 ms MDMS 2.8 ms IHD X 40 3.4 ms LMS 4.6 ms 9.4 ms 18.7 ms AMI HeadEnd DAP SM PHEV 4.2 ms 4.5 ms 3.4 ms CIS/Billing 2.8 ms Cust. EMS 3.0 ms DMS Assume that IHD, PHEV, and EMS contend for the same channel, so that their combined rate is 4.8×10-4 arrivals/s and the mean message size is 61.3 bytes. 3.4 ms DSM http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/March31NISTPresentation.ppt Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  28. Update Summary • Initial model released as Matlab code (.m file) • Verified it can also run on Octave As of March 31st - Significant expansion to model • (posted on NIST Twiki site - http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless#Status_of_PAP02_Wireless_Communi ) • Need to review “channel model” • Need to continue running examples • Need to look for any other changes to model that would • Power group definition of “what we need to know” being prepared • Next week – further review of use cases Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  29. Future NIST Events • SGIP Upcoming Meetings & Events May 6, 2010 • PAP 2 session at OpenSG Users Group, McLean , VA, • A PAP 2 session will be held jointly with OpenSG SG-NET on May 6, 2010, starting at 8am until 3pm. • Meeting related information including registration, hotel information, and directions are found here: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/WDC2010/default.aspx May 24-27 • SGIP Face-to-Face Meeting in Santa Clara, CA. For details and registration, click here. • For the SGIP 2010 Calendar of meeting and event details, click here. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  30. Background on NIST PAP#2 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  31. NIST PAP#2 • NIST is going to use (require) a model to demonstrate performance when operating in typical Smart Grid domains • Details are to be found at the URL on Slide 2 • Goal today is to develop response and action plan for June Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  32. Background • The NIST interoperability process identifies a number of high priority issues including the role of IP and the use of wireless communications: • April 2009 workshop http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/_SmartGridInterimRoadmap/InterimRoadmapWorkshop1 • May 2009 workshop http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/_SmartGridInterimRoadmap/InterimRoadmapWorkshop2 • EPRI report to NIST, June 2009 http://nist.gov/smartgrid/InterimSmartGridRoadmapNISTRestructure.pdf • NIST convenes an SDO workshop in August 2009 in order to develop plans to address priority issues http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/_SmartGridInterimRoadmap/PriorityActionPlans Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  33. The Current Priority Action Plans 0 Meter Upgradeability Standard 1 Role of IP in the Smart Grid 2 Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid 3 Common Price Communication Model 4 Common Scheduling Mechanism 5 Standard Meter Data Profiles 6 Common Semantic Model for Meter Data Tables 7 Electric Storage Interconnection Guidelines 8 CIM for Distribution Grid Management 9 Standard DR and DER Signals 10 Standard Energy Usage Information 11 Common Object Models for Electric Transportation 12 IEC 61850 Objects/DNP3 Mapping 13 Time Synchronization, IEC 61850 Objects/IEEE C37.118 Harmonization 14 Transmission and Distribution Power Systems Model Mapping 15 Harmonize Power Line Carrier Standards for Appliance Communications in the Home 16 Wind Plant Communications Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  34. Issue: Use of Wireless Communications in the Smart Grid • There are a number of advantages for using wireless communications including: • Untethered access to information • Mobility • Interoperability • Reduced cost and complexity • Availability of technologies with different characteristics to choose from • A number of challenges remain to be addressed: • How to choose among technologies with different characteristics? • How do we know which technology to use for what Smart Grid application? • Are there any implications for using a certain wireless technology in a certain environment? • Are there any deployment? Interference issues? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  35. Review of PAP#2 tasks • Develop Smart Grid application communication requirements and devise a taxonomy for applications with similar network requirements • Draft under development and available for review http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/app_matrix_pap.xls • Develop terminology and definitions • Compile and communicate use cases and develop requirements • is part of Task 1 • Create an attribute list and performance metrics for wireless standards • Draft developed and available for review http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/NIST_PAP2-_Wireless_Characteristics-IEEE802-v_02.xls 5. Create an inventory of wireless technologies and standards that are identified by each SDO • Feedback is expected by December 6, 2009. • Conduct an evaluation of the wireless technologies based on the application requirements • Perform a gap analysis and developing guidelines for the use of wireless technologies. 35 35 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  36. Approach to PAP#2 Task #6 Task 6 is to perform the mapping and conduct an evaluation of the wireless technologies based on the application communication requirements developed in Task 1 and the inventory of wireless technologies and their associated characteristics collected in Task 5. • During the February 4, 2010 PAP2 meeting that was held in San Francisco in conjunction with the OpenSG meetings, it was agreed that an evaluation methodology similar to the one presented by NIST and discussed by the group be used to perform Task 6. The group has also decided to issue a call for contribution of modeling tools and resources to assist in conducting the evaluation: • Indication of interest by February 19, 2010 to assist in conducting the evaluation. • Contribution of wireless technologies modeling tools by February 19, 2010. The tools contributed must be made available on the NIST twiki and available for use by all parties. • Contribution of measurement and experimental data for validating the performance evaluation results. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  37. Homework NIST Modeling Presentation • Detailed description of the modeling approach can be found at: • http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/PAP2modeling.ppt Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  38. Homework OpenSG Information Input from Open SG SG-NET received on February 22, 2010: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium_Release_2/ The reference architecture models locations are: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium_Release_2/SG-NET-diagram-r0.4e-with-Xflows.pdf • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium_Release_2/SG-NET-diagram-r0.4e.pdf The SG-Network functional requirements spreadsheet location is: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium_Release_2/SG-Net_TF_%20funct-volumteric-reqs_v2.xls The SG-Network system requirements specification locations is: • http://osgug.ucaiug.org/UtiliComm/Shared%20Documents/Interium_Release_2/SG%20Network%20System%20Requirements%20Specification%20v2.doc Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  39. Homework NIST mailing list • General access portal http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PriorityActionPlans • PAP Email Lists • Email lists have been establish for each PAP. These lists support self registration using the links below. They will replace the current set. Where possible, the SGIP Administrator will autoregister those presently on the list. If you have any question, please self register and this will ensure that you are on the desired list. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  40. Homework NIST Modeling • Tools provided by NIST and used in presentation PAP2modeling.ppt • nist_80211_mac.m: Matlab code for 80211_MAC_Model • nist_80211_MAC_readme.pdf: Readme file for using the 802.11 model Matlab code • SNRcdf.m: Matlab code for computing SNR probability at wireless receiver • SNRcdfCell.m: Matlab code for coverage analysis • nist_phy_model_readme.pdf: Readme file for using Matlab code for SNRcdf and SNRcdfCell • nist_channel_propagation_models.pdf: Channel propagation models Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  41. Meter Reporting Application: Mean Delay versus Offered Load 41 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  42. Discussion Topics during March Plenary 2010 Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  43. Tough Questions • What are the consequences of not responding to the request? • How much effort, from whom, how quickly needs to be contributed to meet the request? • Could the June deadline for task completion be extended? • How will the data provided to NIST be used by other entities in influencing deployment decisions? • “Entities” range from FERC to consumer appliances • Can simulation models be useful enough without selecting and constructing channel models? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  44. Working Assumptions • The ongoing interchange of information between power engineering and communications industry is essential. • Computer modeling communications against PE supplied uses cases is far more useful than hand waving. • Although not fully understood or quantified, there will be business incentives to being recognized as a qualified Smart Grid technology. • Although not fully understood, industry would prefer to be “actively influencing” the technology selection process rather than have it dictated to them. Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  45. Status Checklist • Is there a public simulator available to run? • 802.16 –Yes, NS2 • 802.11 – Yes, NIST Matlab • Has the simulator been recently executed to demonstrate it can produce useful results? • Yes, NIST Matlab for 802.11. 3 attendees. • Have any of the OpenSG uses cases been modeled? • No • Has anyone volunteered to run the model and report results? • In time for the March 31 status meeting? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  46. Status Checklist • Has anyone volunteered to run the model on the use cases and report results? • In time for the March 31 NIST status meeting? • In time for May 802 Interim meeting? • In time for June NIST deadline? • Has any 802 participant validated the model results against other simulators or lab test? • No • Are there any known corrections or extensions to the models needed to model uses cases? • 802.11 model is missing mesh • 802.11 model has been run using only 1 Mbps, BPSK in 2.4 GHz • Automatic rate scaling Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  47. Status Checklist • Is there a better way to promote uptake of model execution? • through advertising/cooperation with universities? • through outreach/cooperation with support organizations such as Zigbee, Wi-Fi, WiMAX • Develop one page description/advertising of PAP#2 modeling task • Dorothy & Mark will help Bruce do this • Are there any known clarifications to the uses cases required to provide useful results? Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

  48. Future Smart Grid ad hoc calls • Schedule plan so far has been Wednesdays at 2pm EST • Future call plans will be to continue this pattern – 1 per week – to July • Next call March 24 • Call topic suggestions • Review of one page task promotion • Detailed walk thru of first three use cases to determine if we need further clarification from Open SG (on March 31) • Reports on model results (from anyone) • Or note any additional commitments to run models Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

More Related