Public Meeting: Physical Characterization of Grid-Connected 

Commercial and Residential Buildings End-Use Equipment and Appliances

July 11, 2014

Washington, DC

Summary of Public Comment in the Discussion Periods Following Presentations

Scope “Reminders” from DOE: 

This DOE activity is not a regulatory activity. It is completely voluntary. Herein, the discussion centers 

on a draft, generalized framework for characterization, not the specifics of how any piece of 

equipment may be characterized, and characterization protocols, not test procedures.

DOE fully appreciates that how connected equipment communicates with other devices, with other 

buildings, with third party service providers, and with electricity providers, may be important for 

realizing benefits to building owners and others. However, how connected equipment communicates 

is not within the scope of this framework. DOE assumes that barriers associated with standards 

harmonization, communication protocols, interoperability, and signal definition may be addressed 

solely by industry or possibly through a collaborative effort between DOE and industry. 

Per the Federal Register Notice, “Grid connected water heaters are subject to an ongoing rulemaking 

proceeding and will not be discussed at the meeting.” 

Presentation: Welcome, Roland Risser, Director, DOE Building Technologies Office (BTO)

Public Comment

Comment (C): There are challenges missing from the presentation. They include cybersecurity and the 

privacy issue. If something happens with these, there can be a huge downside, as per the recent 

example from the retail sector.

Response (R): The DOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) has taken the lead on 

cybersecurity and privacy issues for DOE. The Building Technologies Office (BTO) is not going to try and 

duplicate any of that work here in BTO. BTO will use the solutions developed by OE.

C: The OE work and standards in cybersecurity is focused on utilities, not commercial buildings.

C: Solutions need to be flexible by region of the country and by public utilities commission jurisdictions. 

There are different operative utility models in different parts of the country.

C: “Credits” for smart appliances with lower efficiencies would be well received by industry. There are 

opportunities to optimize at the level of a chilled water system versus at the level of individual chillers.

C: The use of the term “test procedures” raises the question of whether this is regulatory in nature.

1
R: This is a completely voluntary activity. DOE is trying to engage industry in a voluntary process for 

harmonizing procedures and existing protocols. This physical characterization work is not part of the 

appliance rulemaking process.

Question (Q): What is the schedule for this body of work?

A: That is coming up under “Next Steps” on the agenda.

Q: What is the scope of this endeavor? Does it include natural gas, fuel oil and propane fueled 

equipment? Does it include water? Does it include all energy systems, or just electricity?

A: DOE is interested in these topics and exploring further and appreciates this feedback and input. 

Presentation: Scope and Intent, Joe Hagerman, Senior Advisor, DOE/BTO

No comments or questions.

Presentation: Terminology and Grid-Connected Equipment/Appliance Elements, Scott Whalen, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)

Public Comment

C: The vision presented (“DOE envisions a future where Connected Equipment provides valuable 

Services to consumers, building owners, third party providers, or electricity providers...”) is limited to 

electricity. It could encompass equipment that uses other energy forms, and water as well. The same 

observation applies to the “Equipment” slide.

C: Add lighting and municipal loads to the examples on the “equipment” slide.

C: Expand definition of “equipment” beyond consuming electricity to include energy storage and energy 

generation. The definition might read: “Equipment are appliances and equipment that consume, store 

and generate energy, and control systems and ancillary equipment used to monitor energy use within 

residential, commercial or industrial buildings.”

C: Recommend referring to “nodes” rather than pieces of “equipment” or buildings.

C: On the “services” slide, the terms “consumable and perishable” are problematic. They connote food 

products more than energy services. Perhaps a more useful distinction is between time-based services 

and service contracting work.

C: The term “connected” can be many things. Connected to what? It’s important that the term be 

sufficiently accommodating to make a “home” for the many different flavors of connectedness in the 

country today. Recommend including connection to controls within the definition.

C: The definition of services is very broad. More specifics are needed.

C: On the “characterization” slide, the use of the word “performance” should be changed to “response” 

to be consistent.

2
Presentation: Physical Characterization Protocol Framework, Scott Whalen, PNNL

Public Comment

C: Regarding the “approved equipment list”, there could be multiple levels of classification - perhaps 

gold, silver, and bronze. Characteristics data may include information about system peak and 

forecasted use. Understanding performance requires judging against some baseline – which needs to 

be determined. How about automating M&V?

C: Start with the question of the scope of this work. Keep in mind equipment that senses its immediate 

ambient environment and reacts without receiving a signal to do so. Data connection, information 

connection, physical service may signal to the blower fan to automatically reduce capacity, and some 

forms of storage (e.g., ice) may be offsetting other forms of energy, and the recovery process. There 

are also options here for “signal-less” response.

C: Suggest that prediction of equipment peak load and baseline consumption be added to the list of 

characterization data.

C: Load management and diagnostics can be done independently of each other.

C: Ice storage is not electrical storage. Need to characterize loads that could be offset with ice storage

as well as its declining availability over time.

C: There are really two initiatives in the draft framework that could be separated. The first is load, and 

the second is diagnostics which would go to a service contractor. What is needed is “high level” 

guidance to which equipment can then respond. And performance metrics should be kept high level as 

well (e.g., MPG). May need a model of the building to define equipment performance, a starting point.

C: The trouble with equipment such as HVAC is that the building envelope becomes part of the 

characterization.

C: With variable speed equipment, it does not need to be told how to respond. It is smart enough to 

determine what to do, given a particular signal.

C: Consuming more load can be as important as consuming less via demand response, with renewables

as part of the generating mix.

C: One-way communication can be very valuable to the grid, and smart. Do not necessarily need twoway communication to the grid so try not to exclude on-way communication at this early phase.

C: For characterization data, the question is “Is it getting a signal?” Here Confirmation of Signal Receipt 

is a useful data/metric to include.

Q: On the “characterization data” slide, what does lock out refer to? The controls or to the equipment 

itself?

A: The equipment.

C: To Question 9, “Does the characterization sequence depend on equipment type?”, the answer is yes.

3
C: Re the “characterization sequence” slide, need to consider generic protocols that can accommodate 

all types of equipment. Want to limit variations in the sequence for different kinds of equipment.

Q: How do you think about how to evaluate the performance of systems integration opportunities, say, 

a built-up HVAC system versus a rooftop packaged unit?

C: AHRI has a systems level steering committee working on “chiller systems”, those with common 

elements. Most buildings that have chillers have two of them, for example, that can run as a system. 

We can share this work with DOE. 

C: System controller could be characterized in lieu of equipment.

Q: Who is the end-user of these data?

A: Revealing the data would be up to the manufacturers. These are data developed via the 

characterization framework.

C: Make sure not to exclude DC powered equipment in the framework. This is a rising factor in the 

marketplace. Exercising equipment to provide services should not void existing equipment warranties. 

Power factor correction is a service to be provided, especially for battery storage.

Presentation: Illustrative Example: Room Air-Conditioners

Public Comment

Q: How quickly will the draft framework document be released for public review?

A: In two to three weeks from today.

Q: When do you envision the concepts discussed here making it to the marketplace? Is this a 2-year or 

5- year effort?

A: A 2-year effort.

C: This work is a superset of work undertaken by SGIP, and that was a 4-year effort to get to this point. 

It was a significant effort. That suggests DOE needs to look at the scope of this activity.

C: The RAC example is one that I like. An example of a system having equipment combined with an 

energy management system would also be helpful for the framework to illustrate. Also need to consider 

multiple levels within this “Cadillac” approach. M&V not part and parcel of it - would be a value-added 

service option. Might be push back from the HVAC industry.

C: The utility meter as the sole arbiter of performance for services is problematic. May need to diverge 

from that to characterize other services. And we need to capture “systems of loads” as opposed to just 

single loads.

C: California’s Title 24 is getting into routines for economizer diagnostics and those services. ASHRAE 

Standard Project Committee 207P is looking at standards for diagnostics as well.

Question 13 (from the slide deck): “Would it be useful to have illustrative examples like this in the 

Framework document?”

4
A1: Yes.

A2: Yes, the illustrative example is very helpful. However, taking a systems view, need to look at other 

end-uses (such as lighting) to determine how much energy was saved over time by the building. An 

illustrative example of a system may reveal the limits of lab-based testing.

C: All data does not need to be provided to all stakeholders. It would be data overload.

C: A useful metric may be the percent deviation from baseline.

C: Maybe systems like lighting, where load reduction is independent of the building envelope, would be 

a useful illustrative example. Energy over time is difficult when the building envelope is involved as is 

the case with HVAC.

C: Agree with an earlier comment that a higher-level systems example with equipment interacting with 

other equipment within a building environment would be useful to illustrate the framework.

Question 14 (from the slide deck): “After seeing this illustrative example, does the Framework need 

additional steps or further revision?”

A: Streamlining is recommended. If the information is not really needed, do not collect it. An example 

might be static voltage.

Q: In this room A/C example, are you saving energy?

A: Let us remind everyone that this is fictitious data and a notional example. However, EE savings is

probably a second order effect in this example.

C: Bigger equipment is smart today. It has the needed intelligence to know how to achieve energy 

savings.

C: Data servers offer another example of systems at work. With a server farm, let it decide at the

systems level how to respond to a signal, not at the individual server. For example, if individual servers 

receive a load curtailment signal, they get hotter and their efficiency declines. This in turn requires that 

more servers be run with the net effect being an increase in systems energy use. So overall you may

not save energy if done incorrectly.

C: Systems effects are real, we understand that, but the focus of the framework is not on systems, but 

individual devices. We have to start at the component level.

C: We are mixing and matching elements in this discussion.

Q: Regarding eligibility criteria in this RAC example, is two-way communication necessary for this test?

A: No. This is just a hypothesized example and two-way communication is a hypothetical requirement 

in the characterization procedure.

C: The characterization should consider occupancy and ambient conditions. It’s better to focus on insitu performance in buildings as opposed to some modeled performance. We should strive to keep the 

results simple and easier to use.

5
C: Agree with previous observation. The approach described here will be most useful to smaller 

buildings.

C: There are statistical models of large populations of devices to help determine what percent of those 

devices will actually respond to a signal or incentive.

C: The framework should look at an “envelope” of performance, as opposed to a Boolean approach. 

C: Consider standardizing the building envelope when it is tied to the characterization of equipment (e.g. 

room size, occupancy, incident solar).

Presentation: Process for Developing Physical Characterization Protocols, Sriram Somasundaram, 

PNNL

Public Comment

C: This process is ideal for a consensus-based approach.

C: Agree with previous comment on the consensus approach. AHRI has developed a committee on 

smart residential equipment. This would be a good place to start from. Mr. Robert Wilkins of Danfoss 

chairs that committee.

Q: What timeline are you looking at for this process?

A: The two-year timeline Mr. Hagerman alluded to earlier. BTO does need to give more thought to this 

timeline.

C: NEMA is taking a systems-level approach. Recommend taking the time to understand the total 

characterization landscape more fully so this work fully leverages existing efforts and fits within a larger 

context.

C: It will be detrimental to industry if the overall approach here is orthogonal to other work. If they are 

parallel activities, then industry has to invest personnel time in all of them. Harmonization of efforts is 

highly encouraged.

C: It is important to keep the international arena in mind, since building products are traded 

internationally.

C: Three international activities may be relevant: Econet, in Japan; Korean work in Demand Response; 

and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) TC 59, working group 15 (Connection of household 

appliances to smart grids and appliances interaction). 

C: ISO/WD 17800 Facility Smart Grid Information Model should be kept in mind.

C: The Gridwise Architecture Council’s Transactive Energy Framework document is relevant as well.

Presentation: Physical Characterization Capabilities at the Energy Systems Integration Facility, Kevin 

Lynn, Manager, Grid Integration Initiative, DOE/EERE

No questions or comments.

6