A Framework for Characterizing Connected Buildings Equipment

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Office

March 201 5ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1

1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 2

2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

................................ ................................ ................................ 3

2.1 Ob jectives

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3

2.2 Scope

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 3

3 TERMINOLOGY AND ELEM ENTS OF CONNECTED EQ UIPMENT

...................... 4

3.1 Terminology

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4

3.2 Elements of Connected Equipment

................................ ................................ .................. 5

4 CHARACTERIZATION PRO TOCOL FRAMEWORK

................................ ................. 6

4.1 Linking Characterization to Services

................................ ................................ ............... 6

4.2 Connected Equipment Characterization

................................ ................................ ........... 7

4.3 Experimental Setup

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8

4.4 Characterization Protocol

................................ ................................ ................................ . 8

4.4.1 Determination of Eligibility

................................ ................................ ................ 10

4.4.2 Responses to be Characterized

................................ ................................ ............ 10

4.4.3 Approved Response List

................................ ................................ ..................... 11

4.4.4 Characterization Sequence

................................ ................................ .................. 11

4.4.5 Characterization Data

................................ ................................ .......................... 11

4.4.6 Performance Metrics

................................ ................................ ........................... 12

5 PROCESS FOR DEVELOPI NG CHARACTERIZATION PROTOCOLS

................. 12

APPENDIX A

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 14

NOTIONAL AND ILLUSTR ATIVE EXAMPLE: ROOM AIR CONDITIONER

............. 14

A.1 Intent

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 14

A.2 Illustrative Example

– Characterizing a Room Air Conditioner

................................ .... 14

A. 3 Examples of Eligibility and Response Types to be Characterized

................................ . 14

APPENDIX B RESPONSE TO PUBLIC C OMMENTS

................................ ....................... 2 3

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1. Example Responses

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 12 0

Table 4. 2 . Illustrative Physical and Informational Data to be Collected

................................ .... 12 2

Table 4. 3 . Illustrative Physical and Informational Metrics to be Computed

................................ 12

Table A .1. Application for Characte rization of Connected Equipment

................................ ........ 15

Table B .1. Public Comment Themes

................................ ................................ ............................ 23

Table B

. 2

. Public Comment Responses

................................ ................................ ........................ 24

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3 .1. Illustrative Elements of Connected Equipment.............................................. 5 Figure 4.1. Link Between Services, Metrics, Data, and Protocol

................................. ...... 6 Figure 4.2. Characterization Protocol Framework

........................................................ 7 Figure 4.3. Illustrative Approved Response List...................................................... 1 1 Figure A

. 1. Results from Electrical Characterization Protocol

................................ .................... 17 Figure A .2. Power vs. Voltage

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 17iii

Figure A

. 3

. Power vs. Frequency

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1 8 Figure A

. 4

. Output/Input Ratio vs. Voltage and Frequency

................................ ......................... 18 Figure A .5. Load Curtailment Characterization

................................ ................................ ........... 19 Figure A .6. Load Curtailment Characterization (cont.)

................................ ................................ 20 Figure A .7. Load Following Protocol

................................ ................................ ........................... 211

Executive Summary

This charact erization framework document propose s a draft plan for how to develop characterization protocols for connected buildings equipment. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) p lans to work with and convene industry and other stakeholders to develop characterization protocols that are uniformly developed, do not place undue burden on industry, and measure the responses that connected equipment can provide. The main objectives of developing this framework are the following:

 Promote innovation in industry.

 Protect consumer value by ensuring quality of service and amenities are within known

limits , and by minimizing life

- cycle cost.

 Protect manufacturers against damage to equipment , violation of warranty, and consumer

dissatisfaction.

 Help establish a scalable market for connected equipment through developing data and information to inform consumers/building owners, manufacturers, electric utilities and service providers of the end

- user, societal, grid, and energy market services that connected equipment can deliver

.

 Create an opportunity for new services and value streams for the different stakeholders.

At an initial public meeting held on April 30, 2014 in Golden, Colorado 1

, participants expressed general support for DOE’s vision for characterization of connected equipment and DOE’s role as convener of industry stakeholders to develop the characterization protocols in an open and transparent process

. DOE is also seen as the r ight entity to develop these resources for the nation. This support was affirmed at a second public meeting held on July 11, 2014 in Washington, DC 2 , at which the structure and content for this framework document was presented. Both public meetings invit ed real

- time discussion and were followed by a public comment period to give stakeholders the opportunity to provide feedback. Comments from both meetings were considered during the writing of this framework document . DOE responses to

comments received t hrough the Federal Register on a draft framework document are also incorporated and given in Appendix B. This framework document covers the scope, terminology, and definitions for characterization of connected equipment, the details of the

characterizatio n protocol framework, and the process for developing the characterization protocols. An example is provided in Appendix A t o illustrate the essential components of this framework document with hypothetical data for a connected room air conditioner.

The primary objective of this framework document is to describe a structure for characterization protocols that stakeholders may use to evaluate t he types of responses that connected equipment can deliver. This framework applies to connect ed equipment within residential and light commercial buildings, as well as energy storage and distributed generation. This document also describes a process for collaborating with industry stakeholders to develop characterization protocols for connected equipment. Although vitally important for connected equipment, communications and interoperability challenges such as cybersecurity, privacy,

1 79 Fed. Reg. 19322 (April 8, 2014).

2 79 Fed. Reg. 32542 (June 5, 2014).2

message syntax, or s ignal transmission are not within the scope of this framework document. In addition, DOE is aware of several activities ongoing within the industry related to connected equipment, such as the activities involving the Association of Home Appliance Manufact urers ( AHAM )

, Air

- Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ( AHRI )

, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air

- Conditioning Engineers ( ASHRAE )

, Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA )

, Consortium for Energy Efficiency ( CEE )

, Electric Power R esearch Institute ( EPRI ) , Australian Department of Industry, National Institute of Standards and Technology ( NIST ), Smart Grid Interoperability Panel ( SGIP ) , and other professional societies and trade associations. DOE acknowledges the changing landscape of the industry and is performing due diligence to understand ongoing complementary activ ities underway by stakeholders. Throughout this document, DOE has provided annotations listing important feedback and some of the most frequently raised comments duri ng the two previous public meetings. These notes

are marked in bold italics

.

1 Introduction

The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) recognizes that the market is developing portfolios of clean energy technol ogies that may require new innovative solutions and implementation techniques to achieve large scale deployment. One set of solutions, given the direction and pace of technological innovation in industry, may include the dynamic management of residential and commercial buildings equipment brought about by the connectivity installed within or external to the equipment. Innovative technologies from industry which dynamically engage buildings’ equipment can enable integration of intermittent renewable resour ces at scale and enhance grid reliability and resiliency, while unlocking potential new value streams for homeowners and building owners and operators. In support of EERE’s objectives, the Building Technologies Office (BTO) is beginning to study how the use of connected appliances and equipment (hereafter “connected equipment”) in residential, commercial, or industrial buildings (hereafter “buildings”) may provide multiple service benefits for building owners, including cost savings, while enabling the

sc ale integration of variable renewable resources and other potential national

- scale benefits such

as the reduction of environmentally harmful emissions . Therefore, connected equipment may directly benefit consumers as well as provide benefits to the electr ic power grid and the nation.

DOE envisions a future where connected equipment may enable new value streams through delivery of services to consumers, building owners, third

- party service providers, or electricity providers. To realize this future, chara cterization protocols and associated metrics may be needed to adequately describe the potential of connected equipment to deliver services that can scale reliably. Understanding the performance envelope and capabilities of connected equipment through char acterization is an important step toward evaluating the range of services that may be delivered. DOE proposes that the first step is to work with industry to develop a framework for characterizing connected equipment. With respect to this framework, DOE i s committed to the core principles of working with and convening industry, minimizing the burden of characterization on stakeholders, separating characterization of connected equipment responses from communications and interoperability, and driving charact erization via use cases3

and known (or potential) services. DOE emphasize s that an important aspect of this characterization framework is to engage industry on a voluntary basis

. 3

Comments from industry at the April 30 , 2014 public meeting encourage d BTO to implement a process for developing a characterization framework that will proceed in an open, transparent, and ite rative manner.

To address these comments, DOE convened a second public meeting on the July 11,

2014

, in Washington, DC to present and give the public an opportunity to review and comment on a draft characterization protocol framework for establishing a process for the protocol content. An opportunity for comment was given during the meeting and those comments were considered during the writing of the draft framework document. On August 14, 2014 DOE announced the availability of a draft f

ramework d ocument in the Federal Register

. 4 Significant public comments were received and this framework document has subsequently been revised in respo nse (see Appendix B)

.

2 Objectives and Scope

2.1 Objectives

The two primary objectives of this framework are to develop with industry:

1. A structure for characterization protocols that industry may use to evaluate the services that connected equipment within buildings can deliver.

2. A process for collaborating with industry and other stakeholders to develop characterization protocols for connected equipment.

2.2 Scope

DOE appreciates that how connected equipment communicates with other devices, buildings, third

- party service providers, or electricity providers, may be important for realizing benefits to building owners and others. However, ho w connected equipment communicates is not within the scope of this framework document

. DOE assumes that barriers associated with standards harmonization, communication protocols, interoperability, security, privacy, and signal definition may be addressed by industry or possibly through a separate collaborative effort

between DOE and industry.

This framework covers only the characterization of physical and informational responses that connected equipment can render assuming that signals have been properly received and decided upon. DOE seeks to encourage innovation in communications and interoperability and assumes that the marketplace, with possible facilitation by DOE, will adopt/develop information technologies suitable for connected equipment.

3 See the Summary Notes from the April 30 meeting, available from DOE at http://www.re gulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE

- 2014

- BT

- NOA

- 0016

- 0006

4 79 Fed. Reg. 47633 (August 14, 2014).4

As sta ted by DOE during the April 30, 2014 public meeting and reiterated at the July 11, 2014 public meeting, DOE does not have the authority to promulgate these protocols within the current rulemaking process and no mandatory standard will be issued. The proce ss DOE uses for equipment and appli ance standards development does however, provide a useful model (i.e.

, open and transparent with public involvement) that can be used for the development of characterization protocols for connected equipment. The volunta ry process envisioned for this

framework and subsequent characterization protocols is intended to be more iterative with stakeholders and more flexible than a rulemaking procedure. Underlying this objective is a desire by DOE to promote industry innovatio n while minimizing burden, help establish a scalable market for connected equipment, protect consumer value, protect manufacturers

, and

inform consumers, service providers and manufacturers of new value opportunities.

3 Terminology and Elements of Connected Equipment

Participants at the April 30, 2014 public meeting commented that the terms and definitions presented were unclear and needed improvement. Participants commented that the terms “grid

- connected” and “smart” were nearly redundant, that grid

- connect ed should embody smart (i.e., decision logic and intelligence), and that smart should be altogether dropped from the vocabulary. Addi tional feedback from the July 11 , 2014 public meeting has also been incorporated. This section clarifies a few of the ke y definitions based on a synthesis of the public comments.

3.1 Terminology

Equipment : Building nodes and systems that consume, store, or generate electricity while providing services and amenities within buildings or on a building site. Examples of equipment include: refrigerators, computers, lighting, HVAC, heat pumps, room air conditioners, electric vehicle chargers, PV inverters, or energy storage to name a few. Because equipment varies widely in size and complexity, a reference architecture defining wha t is, and is not considered part of equipment should be clearly constructed and may occur during the characterization protocol development process described in Section 5.

Connected : The capability of equipment to receive and transmit digital signals (e.g

., to/from equipment, buildings, utilities, or third

- party providers), make decisions, and respond accordingly with physical action or informational content. Connected equipment also includes features that enable, for example, the projection of future sta tes, measurement and verification (M&V), or maintenance needs. This definition of connected goes beyond merely the ability to communicate and includes the notion of intelligent functionality whether co

- located with the equipment or dissociated from the eq uipment. The sending and receiving of signals must eventually become standardized to enable interoperability.

Service : In the context of this framework document, services are energy or power related functions enabled by equipment that benefit cons umers, building owners, third

- party providers,

or utilities 5 . For example, equipment may automatically notify a third

- party provider who

5 Somasundaram S, RG Pratt, BA Akyol et a l . 2014. Transaction

- Based Building Controls Framework, Volume 1:

Reference Guide. PNNL

- 23302. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA

, http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL

- 23302.pdf

.5

provides a service to monitor energy consumption of equipment and to report when consumption

rises above a given thres hold. Other services may involve adjusting consumption up or down for given periods of time. Services may be a one

- time offering, periodic, or regular in frequency depending on the terms of the service contract

.

Response : Physical or informational acti ons taken by equipment in reaction to external signals or internally generated information. Examples of physical responses include load reduction or increase, adjustment of set points, or short cycle prevention. Examples of informational responses inclu de forecasting future conditions, logging data, scheduling events, reporting maintenance issues, or alerting consumers. Two examples of connected responses are as follows: (1) HVAC equipment detects a compressor failure and transmits its condition to a

th ird

- party maintenance provider; (2) a refrigerator receives a load curtailment request, leading to load adjustment, and then forecasts and transmits future availability.

Characterization : The measurement or evaluation of physical or informational respo nses that are possible for connected equipment. Examples of physical measurements may include temperature, voltage, current, frequency, phase angle, or time. Informational response evaluations may include validation of data file formats, status alerts, o r sensor values. Characterization may include the evaluation of information oriented functions (e.g., forecasting, status, or diagnostics). An example of characterization is an accounting of the presence of equipment features, such as the ability to sche dule future events or alert the owner of excessive energy consumption.

3.2 Elements of Connected Equipment

Figure 3

. 1 illustrates an example of connected equipment functioning within a commercial building. Each piece of connected equipment may have the ability to receive and transmit signals, make decisions

, and respond accordingly. An illustrative example is given to highlight these important elements of connected equipment. In this example, transactions are being negotiated between a local utility and building energy management system (BEMS). The

BEMS i n turn engages in two

- way communication with a roof

- top air conditioning unit (RTU)

Figure 3

. 1

. Illustrative Elements of Connected Equipment6

that is capable of receiving and transmitting signals. The RTU then processes the signals and utilizes embedded intelligence and self

- awareness to make decisions and determine a response or suite of responses based on the preferences of the building owner or operator . The RTU responds by adjusting electrical load or sending data. Although this example illustrates a case where decision making is performed exclusively by the equipment, information processing, intelligent functions

, or decision making may occur external to the equipment (e.g., by a BEMS

or third

- party service provider ) where the equipment is part of a larger control system.

This framework covers only the physical and informational responses that connected equipment can render assuming that sign als have been properly received and decided upon. DOE seeks to encourage innovation in communications and interoperability

, and assumes that the marketplace, with possible facilitation by DOE, will adopt/develop information technologies suitable for connected equipment.

4 Characterization Protocol Framework

Characterization is the evaluation of physical and informational responses that are possible for connected equipment. Characterization is not annual efficiency testing

, test procedure development for mandatory standards , or ENERGY STAR labeling . Characterization is a first step toward quantifying equipment responses so that industry can evaluate the value and benefit to stakeholders. It is also important that this frame work and resultant protocols are neutral with respect to business models so as not favor one way of doing business over another.

Public comment received during the April 3 0 , 2014 public meeting expressed the view that characterization data and perf ormance metrics should be linked to services. This approach was also suggested in comments from the July 11, 2014 public meeting.

4.1 Linking Characterization to Services

One of the two primary objectives of this framework is to develop with industry a

chara cterization protocol structure that industry may use to evaluate services that connected equipment can deliver. DOE and industry agree that it is imperative that the results from characterization of connected equipment link closely with services of intere st to consumers,

Figure 4

. 1 . Link Between Services, Metrics, Data, and Sequence7

building owners, third

- party service providers, and electricity providers. To establish this link

between characterization and services (see Figure 4

. 1 ) , it is important that performance metrics are adequately defined for each service. With the performance metrics defined, characterization data can then be specified for use in the computati on of metrics. With the characterization data defined, the characterization sequence can also be d escribed. Following this logic, the performance metrics, characterization data, and characterization sequence would be directly linked to services. It is p ossible that some metrics and data may be applicable to evaluating several different types of services.

4.2 Connected Equipment Characterization

To promote consistency with existing test method s and to leverage industry familiarity, DOE proposes that the cha racterization protocol framework contain s , where possible, elements

similar to those found in existing test method s. L everaging existing test method s
, when applicable to connected equipment , will minimize the burden on industry.

Figure 4

. 2 shows the proposed framework for characterizing connected equipment. In this framework, the protocol elements are divided into two primary categories: the experim ental setup and the characterization protocol which is consistent with existing test methods. These categories allow for the grouping of elements where considerable content from existing test methods (i.e. experimental setup) can be re

- used and where cont ent is most likely to vary for connected equipment (i.e. characterization protocol). Note that the performance metrics, characterization data, and characterization sequence elements shown in Figure 4

. 1 map directly into the characterization protocol category in Figure 4

. 2

.

A review of the structure used for many existing test methods shows, in general, that seven common elements encompass the bulk of the information found in experimental setup and

characteri zation protocol. The seven elements are: Global Definitions, Boundary Conditions, Equipment Installation, Instrumentation, Characterization Sequence, Characterization Data and Performance Metrics. For consistency and leveraging purposes, these seven ele ments have been incorporated into a characterization protocol for connected equipment as shown in Figure 4

. 2

.

Figure 4

. 2 . Characterization Protocol Framework8

The seven elements being leveraged from existing test methods are shown fully or partially colored in blue. At this stage, DOE anticipate s that elements marked in solid blue may not differ substantially for connected equipment compared to their non

- connected counterparts. For example, the mechanical installation of a refrigerator into a characterization facility may not
differ between connected and non

- connected products. H owever, elements in Figure 4

. 2 marked partially in red may differ for connected equipment. For example, characterization sequencing

for a room air co nditioner undergoing short term cycling may differ from traditional test methods. As such, only partial leveraging may be possible for blue/red elements. Elements marked in green are not found in existing test methods and are specific to connected equipm ent. These elements are necessary to determine the types of evaluations to be conducted on connected equipment and are based on manufacturer statements of performance features

.

4.3 Experimental Set up

Although very important to the overall characterization pr otocol framework, DOE does not anticipate that the experimental setup will be substantially different for connected equipment compared to non

- connected equipment in terms of measuring the physical responses. The exceptions here would be instrumentation an d boundary conditions, where some differences may occur due to the importance of power quality (i.e., boundary conditions) and nature of characterizing informational responses (i.e., instrumentation). These areas are indicated with a small red highlight. Because only minor differences are anticipated, the structure of the experimental setup is captured in this framework but further elaboration is not given other than a brief description of each element.

Global Definitions: Contains definitions of terms and data variables that are used globally throughout the characterization protocol.

Boundary Conditions: Prescribes the external environmental and power conditions required to ensure control and repeatability of the characterization. Example boundary

conditions include power quality, voltage, frequency, ambient temperature, pressure, humidity,

or air flow rate.

Installation: Contains instructions for the mechanical and ele ctrical set up of the equipment within a characterization facility. Examples include mechanical attachments, ducting, plumbing, electrical hook

- up, assembly hardware, or supporting equipment such as pumps or

fans.

Instrumentation: Specifies the type, lo cation, calibration

, or accuracy of measurement sensors, such as thermocouples, voltage and current transducers, or flow meters. Also may include equipment such as power supplies, data acquisition, meters

, or computing resources.

4.4 Characterization Protocol

Although a structured framework is described for characterizing connected equipment,

the technical content for characterization protocols may vary depending on the specific type connected equipment and which responses from an approved list (see section 4. 4.3) are being characterized. For example, the characterization sequence for an RTU may be substantially

different from that of a clothes dryer. Likewise, the characterization sequence for peak load9

shifting of a refrigerator may be very different from a forecasting application. This framework allows for characterization protocols to be developed for both physical and informational responses and does not favor one technology implementation over another.

An additional layer of complexity arises when c onnected equipment has characteristics that introduce differences in their potential operating modes (i.e., more than simple on/off). For example, equipment may have either multi

- speed or more advanced variable speed drive compressors and fans. In additi on, multiple load consuming functions may also be present, such as in a refrigerator/freezer where chilled air, defrost, and ice making are possible. As a result of the differences described above, it may be necessary, as part of the characterization prot ocol development process, to populate the red and green elements in Figure 4.2 with content appropriate for the specific connected equipment being characterized. This framework can accommodate other complexities, through the process described in Section 5 , that have yet to be

envisioned.

Public comment received during the April 30 and July 11 , 2014 public meeting s expressed the view that data and performance metrics collected and computed during characterization should contain information that is useful to electricity providers and original equipment manufacturers and should align with services. Comments at the Ju ly 11, 2014 public meeting requested that characterization be high level so that equipment can determine an optimal response.

The characterization data and performance metrics are intended to provide consumers, manufacturers, building owners, third

- party service providers, utilities, and the nation as a whole, with information needed to ensure appropriate responses from connected equipment and evaluate the ability of connected equipment to deliver services. For example, consumers and building

owners may be concerned with impacts on energy consumption and maintaining comfort. Utilities may be interested in load response magnitude and duration, availability, and recovery

time. Third

- party service providers may be interested in maintenance and diagnostic c apability. Manufacturers may be interested in consumer impacts (e.g., clothes take longer to dry than usual) and number of cycles that the equipment may encounter over time.

Elements within the characterization protocol, shown in Figure 4

. 2

, are important for the characterization of connected equipment. DOE anticipates that the performance metrics, characterization data, and characterization sequence elements will likely be different for connected equipment compared to non

- connected equipment. Elements for determination of eligibility, responses to be characterized, and an approved response list may be altogether new. As a result, new and innovative approaches may need to be developed in order to characterize connected equipment. A description of each element within “C haracterization Protocol” is given in the following subsections

. In addition, a notional and illustrative example using a connected room air conditioner (RAC) is provided in Appendix A , describing how the framework might be implemented , as well as how connected equipment may be characterized

.10

4.4.1 Determination of Eligibility

Public comment

s received during and after the July 11 , 2014 public meeting generally expressed the view that equipmen t s hould be capable of some minimum functionality to be eligible for characterization as connected equipment. However, industry requests that minimum eligibility features in no way limit innovation.

In this initial step, the manufacturer submits an application asserting that the equipment has minimum features in order to be eligible for characterization as conn ected equipment. Eligibility may be granted by validating claimed capabilities against a checklist or by experimental methods. Example minimum features may include a standard interface, or as well as the ability to perform two

- way digital communication, offer load management functions, execute diagnostic functions, communicate status, or alert consumers to performance deviations. The intent of eligibility criteria is to ensure that connected equipment has minimum functionality that industry finds useful without being so prescriptive as to limit innovation. Industry engagement will be critical in defining minimum eligibility features.

4.4.2 Responses to B e Characterized

Once eligibility has been determined, the equipment would qualify for characterization as connected equipment. As part of a characterization application process, a manufacturer would identify equipment responses, from a list of approved types of responses (described next), for which the physical and informational responses of the equipment are to be characterized. The physical and informational response categories could be further specified as shown in Table 4.1

.

Table 4

. 1

. Example Responses

Load Adjust e lectrical load

- up/down, schedule events

Consumer Avoid exceeding t hresholds and limits Equipment Prevent short cycling

Example informational responses include:

Reporting Alert to undesirable performance

, share stored history, mode, status, or availability , data values from sensors Applications Forecasting future states , diagnostics, M&V11

4.4.3 Approved Response List

Public comment

s received during and after the July 11 , 2014 public meeting expressed

the view that there should be an approved list of responses to be characterized which can

evolve over time so as not to limit innovation.

DOE proposes the use of an approved response list to assure stakeholders that connected equipment responses measured during characterization reflect useful functionality. Figure 4

. 3 shows an

illustrative approved list which contains the physical and informational responses that can be characterized for connected equipment (i.e., if it is not on the list, then there is no characterization protocol avail able). Responsibility for developing and maintaining the approved list may reside with an entity as described in Section 5 . Marketplace innovatio n would lead to updating the list to include responses with value to industry. This list should not limit opportunities; rather, DOE envisions multiple lists that maintaining groups will regularly update in response to industry

innovation. It is critical that the approved list be used in a manner that promotes innovation and does not limit or stifle progress. For example, an “other” category may satisfy this concern.

4.4.4 Characterization Sequence

This is a s tep

- by

- step sequence of instructions describi ng how to conduct the

characterization . The sequence may include control parameters (e.g., resource draws, temperature ramps or changes in electrical load), timing of data collection (e.g. sampling intervals or timing of modes), switching of operating mod es (e.g., slow/fast or high/low) or activation of informational responses (e.g., low refrigerant alert or query of stored data). It is within this element where knowledge of the service to be provided is translated into a relevant characterization sequenc e such that subsequent characterization data and performance metrics can be directly linked to services. DOE acknowledges that characterization sequencing for informational responses such as forecasting, M&V, diagnostics, or historical data are challengin g and may require new approaches. While the characterization sequence may depend on equipment type, it is desirable to generalize the characterization sequence as much as possible to minimize the burden on industry.

4.4.5 Characterization Data

This category defines the data to be measured for a given response from the approved list. Physical data may include parameters such as voltage, frequency, current, time, temperature, or pressure. Informational data may include set points, lock out delay , disallowed state transitions, or data files. DOE acknowledges that characterization data related to informational responses can vary widely

. Table 4

. 2 gives illustrative examples of physical and informational data that

can be collected.

Public comment

s received after the July 11 , 2014 public meeting expressed the view

that metrics and data should not be so overly inclusive that the ability of indus try to innovate is

limited. Figure 4

. 3

. Illustrative Approved Response List12

Table 4

. 2 . Illustrative Physical and Informational Data to be Collected

4.4.6 Performance Metrics

This category defines the metrics calculated using the characterization data as inputs.

DOE envisions that these metrics could be used by industry to evaluate the ability of connected equipment to deliver services. Example metrics include percent of baseline energy consumption, response time, or pass/fail as shown in Figure 4.3. The example metrics and data descri bed in sections 4.4.5 and 4.4.6 are strictly for illustrative purposes only. Care should be taken when developing a characterization protocol to ensure that the amount of data and metrics are

minimized so that industry can innovate and deliver value to cu stomers without complex

characterization burdens.

Table 4

. 3 . Illustrative Physical and Informational Metrics to B e Computed

5 Process for Developing Characterization Protocols

Comments received during and after the April 30 and July 11

, 2014 public meeting s expressed a strong desire for DOE to proceed with development of characterization protocols for connected equipment in an open and transparent manner. More frequent industry engagement was requested in contrast to that allowed in the formal rulemaking process. Public comments suggested that a consensus process, with industry participating on committees, would be the best approach moving forward.13

DOE is committed to developing these characterization protocols via a process that is

pu blic, transparent, and iterative with stakeholders. As a convener of industry and other stakeholders, DOE intends to work with interested parties by hosting public meetings such as those held on April 30 and July 11 of 2014. As part of the open process, DOE will post presentations and documents for public review and will solicit oral and written public comments

on these materials.

DOE plans to follow a consensus

- like process where DOE and stakeholder representatives meet as committees to compile the te xt of characterization protocols for a given equipment type. This would be similar in approach, but not outcome, to the consensus process used by DOE’s Equipment and Appliance Standards Program. A model for how this could be accomplished is through a “Co nnected Equipment Characterization” working group similar to those used for the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ASRAC) consensus process. The goal of the consensus would be for the committee to reach agreement on the draft text, whi ch DOE could then publish in the Federal Register and invite public comments. More frequent recurring meetings could also be held to facilitate stakeholder engagement. The joint committee or working group may consider, for example, the following actions during development of characterization protocols:

Core operating principles:

 Promote technology innovation among industry.

 Minimize additional burden of characterization on industry.

 Conform to related characterization efforts when possible.

 Protect consumer value by maintaining quality of service and amenities within limits

 Protect manufacturers by avoiding damage and misuse of equipment.

 Understand impacts on efficiency.

Issues for the committee to be aware of and to consider:

 Cyber security and pr ivacy.

 Scope and status of ongoing related work (i.e., Energy Star, AUS DI, FSGIM, Title 24,

AHRI ad

- hoc, SGIP H2G and B2G working groups, etc

. )

 Reference architectures and their importance in bounding characterization.

 Impact o n voluntary utility programs and “owners” of services.

 Differing opinions on the need for eligibility requirements and an approved response list.

 Options for scoring/grading metrics and their implications.

 Distinction between interoperability and characterization.

Other possible com mittee considerations :

 Identify services for which characterization protocols are applied.

 Determine how to inform stakeholders of services that connected equipment can deliver.

 Discuss and help DOE understand implications of interoperability on characterization.14

APPENDIX A

NOTIONAL AND ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: ROOM AIR CONDITIONER

A.1 Intent

This section provides an illustrative example of how the framework might be implemented and connected equipment characterized. This example involves a connected room air conditioner (RAC)

.

[This example is entirely fictitious and is not intended as the basis for characterization. Rather, this illustrative example is provided to clarify the proposed framework and the general nature of what is meant by characterizatio n of connected equipment. The intent is to spur a deeper understanding on the part of the reader, for the purpose of discussion and comment on the process, and to provide a glimpse of some of the issues involved in developing a characterization protocol t hat will ultimately need to be addressed. A thermostatically controlled RAC was chosen for this illustration because it is a relatively simple piece of equipment to characterize compared to, for example, a dishwasher with its many operating modes and cycl es. Yet it also brings forth some of the complexity of characterizing many types of equipment where the

“balance

- of

- system”

– in this case the cooling load of the space being conditioned

– is an important determinant of its performance in some respects. It lies intermediate between equipment such as a refrigerator, which is essentially self

- contained with its own controls, and equipment such as a chiller or air handling unit that only performs its function as part of a larger system controlled by a buildi ng management system].

A.2 Illustrative Example

– Characterizing a Room Air Conditioner

Scenario : In this hypothetical example , ACME Equipment, Inc., a n RAC manufacturer, approaches Wiley Electric Company (an electric utility) with a proposition to supply connected

RACs to its customers to perform certain grid services in one of Wiley Electric’s demand

response programs . W iley Electric signals its interest to ACME and informs them that it requires characterization of such equipment’s ability to respond to demand response signals before they are eligible to participate in their program. In response, ACME submits its RAC to Connected Certification Labs (CCL

– a third

- party certification laboratory) so it can be characterized using a protocol developed joint ly by DOE and industry stakeholders, and its performance as “connected equipment” independently certified

.

Determination of Eligibility and Responses to be Characterized: To initiate the characterization process for its connected RAC, ACME fills out a f orm indicating the basis for its eligibility and the connected features it wants certified, and provides the form to CCL along with a sample of the product to be characterized. The form as completed by ACME is shown in

Table A

. 1

.15

Table A

. 1 . Application for Characterization of Connected Equipment.

ACME indicates that the RAC is controlled by an integral thermostat. By checking boxes in the leftmost column, ACME specifies that the RAC meets the minimum eligibility features (for example, two

- way communications and some form of automated response) . I t checks boxes to provide details on the transport media and information protocol the RAC uses to receive and send information from among standards supported by the characterization rig. In this example, ACME indicates the RAC communicates via WiFi and th e SEP 2.0 protocol. [Note the characterization framework does not currently address the communication system itself as to its interoperability but this information is required for the characterization rig to operate the RAC through its various modes. In addition, the examples of WiFi and SEP 2.0 are purely fo r illustrative purposes only].

As a final step, ACME checks boxes indicating the automated responses it wants characterized from among those supported by the characterization protocol approved list of

responses . In this example, ACME indicates the RAC can respond to load commands by adjusting the thermostat up 5 o F when a specified load

- down command is received, and returns the thermostat to its original position when another specified load

- up comman d is received.

ACME indicates the RAC has a consumer protection threshold (a button on the user interface16

enabling/disabling the load management features described above), and a 5 hour time limit on

the load

- down mode (after which the original thermostat set point is restored). The RAC also has an equipment protection feature that prevents it from short cycling, in that it will not automatically change its operating mode within a 2 minute interval from the previous mode change.

ACME further indicates the RAC responds to several requests for information . It can report its current operating mode

, as well a list of operating modes. It can provide a forecast of the remaining off

- time when in the load

- down mode, or the remaining on

- time when in the load

u p mode. It also provides a diagnostic service, indicating a warning for low refrigerant charge. All of these informational responses are activated by a specified SEP 2.0 command. 6

Characterization Sequence

. The certification laboratory (CCL) takes th e information provided by ACME and proceeds to characterize its connected functionality using a protocol established by a collaboration between industry and DOE. In this illustrative example, physical responses of connected equipment are characterized by a sequence of thr ee characterization protocols.

The first is a basic characterization of the electrical response of the RAC to variations in the voltage and frequency of electric power. The RAC is placed in an environmental chamber and operated in the “ on” mode until steady state is achieved under each combination of voltage and frequency, which are individually varied between 110V and 120V and 59 Hz to 61 Hz from

the base case of 115V and 60 Hz

. Real and reactive power input and thermal output are

meas ured as shown in Figure A

. 1

. This provides information about the RACs effect on the electric power grid when operating under a broad range of conditions. This is sho wn in the form of plots of real power input and power factor as a function of voltage and frequency

, as shown in Figure A

. 2 and Figure A

. 3

. Characterization using this protocol also provides the RAC’s steady

state thermal performance in the form of its energy output/input ratio as a function of voltage and frequency ( Figure A.4 )

.

[ Note that these and all subsequent “results” are purely fictitious and for illustrative purposes only. ]

6 Note this is for illustrative purposes only, SEP 2.0 may or may not support any such requests or commands.17

Figure A

. 1 . Results from Electrical Characterization Protocol

Figure A

. 2 . Power vs. Voltage

Illustrative Only

Illustrative Only18

Figure A

. 3 . Power vs. Frequency

Figure A

. 4 . Output/Input Ratio vs. Voltage and Frequency

Illustrative Only

Illustrative Only19

A second protocol is then used to characterize the RAC’s load curtailment responses. The results might be as illustrated in Figure A

. 5 and Figure A

. 6

. Figure A

. 5 shows the first

1.5 hours of the sequence. A 50% duty cycle with a 15 minute periodicity is established by manipulating the temperature of the environmental chamber, mimicking the room air temperature f

luctuating within the dead band of the thermostat, to represent the initial steady

state thermal load placed on the RAC by the space to be conditioned, the relative size of the RAC output to the load, and the thermal mass of the space. A simple first orde r thermal model was used to create the “data” used in this example. A load

- down curtailment request is issued to the RAC during an “on” cycle, and the RAC responds two minutes later by turning off 100% of its steady

- sta te power consumption (1.8 kW).

Figure A

. 5 . Load Curtailment Characterization

A third protocol is then used to characterize the RAC as shown in Figure A

. 6 (note the

x

- axis scale has changed to accommodate the full 5 hour time span). For illustrative purposes, the room temperature (i.e., that of the environmental chamber) is gradually increased over a period of time until the RAC comes back on. The room temperature at which this occurs is

noted to be 5 o F higher than the upper end of the thermostat dead band, as specified by ACME. The room temperature is then reduced at the same rate until a 50 % duty cycle has been reestablished, restoring the RAC to steady

- state operation. I llustrative Only20

Figure A

. 6 . Load Curtailment Characterization (cont.)

Examples of metrics that may result from these characterization protocols could include:

 absolute power reduction (kW)

,

 relative power reduction (% of steady

- state “on”)

,

 time lag from request to curtailment

,

 92% of deferred energy supplied during recovery (hypothetically, in this example less

t han 100% because the room air temperature rose slightly, and the long steady run during recovery provides a higher part

- load ratio during that period)

,

 5 o F temp. rise limit (verified) , and

 5 h ou r mode time limit (verified, but not shown).

An additional hypothetical characterization indicative of the RAC’s ability to operate in a load following mode is illustrated in Figure A

. 7

. It verifies the ability of connected equipment to increase and decrease load in fairly rapid succession, which could be used to supply certain grid services important to the integration of renewable generation resources into grid operations. Again

, a 50 % duty cycle is established to initialize the protocol. Then the thermostat is raised to

the mid

- point of the 5 o F range of the RAC’s load curtailment thermostat change ( i.e.

, 2.5 o F higher than the original set

- point ) . Then, a sequence of increasingly fre quent load

- up and load

down requests are sent to the RAC and its response is measured. The RAC successfully responds to the first pair of requests that are 8 minutes apart. The time interval is halved to

4 minutes in the next pair of events, again halved to 2 minutes in the next pair of events, and so

forth until the RAC fails to follow the command. In this illustrative example, this occurs when

one

- minute intervals are tried (as expected in this case, since ACME restricts mode changes less

than two minu tes apart). Illustrative Only21

Figure A

. 7 . Load Following Protocol

Metrics for the load following protocol could include:

 104% recovery energy (not shown)

,

 100% load following ability , down to 2 minute intervals , and

 s hort cycle limit (2 min ute minimum )

.

Finally, this example does not illustrate the informational responses indicated in ACME’s request for characterizing its RAC. While reporting of its operating mode might be straightforward, and useful for the characterization itself, DOE has not attempted to portray what characterizing such equipment might look like for informational responses such as forecasting or diagnostics. It is not even clear if such responses can be independently charac terized at a reasonable cost

, or if doing so would provide meaningful information beyond manufacturer’s advertised capability. These are topics for future discussion with manufacturers and industry.

DOE assumes that barriers associated with standards har monization, communication protocols, interoperability, and signal definition may be addressed by industry

, or possibly through a

collaborative ef

fort between DOE and industry.

Connected Equipment is Already on the Way! The reality of such a scenario is not too far away. Just recently, an article in the press from June 24

, 2014 says “ConEd will help NY city residents connect their air conditioner to their iPhone for free,” where the New York utility ConEd is offering customers a free outlet adapter that turns a standard window

- mounted air

conditioner into a WiFi

- connected unit that can be controlled from an iPhone 7 . As part of the program, customers can sign up to receive up to five free kits, normally retailing for $120 each, that plug in between the wal l outlet and window unit

, thus connecting the unit to the cloud and enabling remote control using a companion app.

7 Tiffany Nesbit, Smart Kit Helps New Yorkers Control Old ACs with Their Phones , PSFK Labs, June 27, 2014, http://www.psfk.com/2014/06/con

- ed

- coolnyc

- air

- conditioners.html#!bp763x

. Illustrative Only22

A.3 Examples of Eligibility and Response Types to Be Characterized

EXAMPLE: PV INVERTER

EXAMPLE: EV CHARGER23

APPENDIX B

The Department of Energy (DOE) Building Technologies Office (BTO) is actively engaging industry and other stakeholders in public meetings on the topic of Physical Characterization of Connected Buildings Equipment. DOE

- BTO has hosted two public meetings 8

, 9 where

stakehol ders have provided verbal comments during the meetings and written comments post

meeting through the Federal Register. All comments were considered by DOE

- BTO while drafting “A Framework for Characterizing Connected Buildings Equipment 10 “. At the time of publication on 8

- 14

- 14, the public was invited to submit comments on the draft framework document with the open comment period ending on 9

- 29

- 14. These comments were considered by DOE

- BTO and incorporated, at the discretion of DOE

- BTO, into the final vers ion of the document. The majority of the public comments on the draft framework can be organized into the themes shown in Table 1. Other substantive comments that do not directly align with these

themes are also addresse d . Table 2 gives a detailed list o f specific comments with DOE

- BTO’s

response.

Table 1. Public comment themes

.


### Topic Description

A DOE involvement

B DOE outreach to related efforts

C Open stakeholder engagement

D Voluntary participation

E Consensus approach

F Other energy sources

G Eligibility and approved responses

H Systems view

I Use cases and illustrative examples

J Two

- way communication

K Interoperability

L Other

8 Fed. Reg. 19322 (April 8, 2014).

9 Fed. Reg. 32542 (June 5, 2014).

10 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE

- 2014

- BT

- NOA

- 0016

- 002624

Table 2 . Public comment responses

.



### Ref

# Topics Comment DOE Response

1 A “We appreciate and support DOE’s

overarching goals of modernizing our nation’s grid, and improving its efficiency and resiliency ... This proposed framework provides a potential path to achieving these goals.” DOE is continuing to move forward with physical

characterizati on of connected buildings equipment. See Executive Summary pg. 1.

2 A “We believe the direction of the

Department, as described in its Framework document, is very positive.” DOE is continuing to move forward with physical

characterization of connected buildings equipment. See Executive Summary pg. 1.

3 A “[Commenter] strongly supports the

Department’s efforts to develop physical characterization procedures for

smart/utilit y ready appliances.” DOE is continuing to move forward with physical

characterization of connected buildings equipment. See Executive Summary pg. 1.

4 A “[C ommenter] supports the timely and

important objectives of this docket... Physical characterization is an important early step... in the effort to deliver on the potential benefits of grid

connected equipment.” DOE is continuing to move forward with physical

characterization of connected buildings equipment. See Executive Summary pg. 1.

5 B “The collaboration between [entities]

and the electric utilities has been significant. [Commenter] continues to urge DOE to participate in this collaboration, not attempt to replace

this collaboration.” DOE is in the process of reviewing

and evaluat ing ongoing related efforts. DOE will incorporate, compliment, or collaborate with, ongoing related efforts as necessary. See Executive Summary pg. 2.

6 B “... DOE’s framework activities will

have the greatest potential value if they bridge gaps and are complimentary to

and coordinated with ... efforts to establish metrics and benchmarking for connected equipment.” DOE is in the process of reviewing

and evalua ting ongoing related efforts. DOE will incorporate, compliment, or collaborate with, ongoing related efforts as necessary. See Executive Summary pg. 2.

7 B “First, industry standard and

certification bodies are beginning to address many of the issues ra ised in the Framework and we encourage DOE to engage collaboratively with such bodies moving forward.” DOE is in the process of reviewing and evaluating ongoing related efforts. DOE will incorporate, compliment, or collaborate with, ongoing related effo rts as necessary. See Executive25 Summary pg. 2.

8 B “It is also essential that DOE

coordinate with and be complimentary to efforts by other program offices and agencies engaged in efforts to

c haracterize connected equipment .” DOE is in the process of reviewing and evaluating ongoing related efforts. DOE will incorporate, compliment, or collaborate with, ongoing related efforts as necessary. See Executive Summary pg. 2.

9 C “In conclusion, we appreciate DOE’s

efforts to provide a transparent process and encourage stakeholder

involvement. We recommend that DOE reach out to key stakeholders...” DOE will proceed in an open, transparent, public manner. See Executive Summary pg. 1 and section 5 pg. 13

.

11 C “[Commenter] believes that DOE

should continue to engage with key

stakeholders such as manufacturers...” DOE will proceed in an open, transparent, public manner. See Executive Summary pg. 1 and section 5 pg. 13

. 12 C “We support the approach of engaging

industry stakeholders from the beginning to draft the text of each protocol before publication in the Federal Register for additional public

comment.” DOE will proceed in an open, transparent, public manner. See

Execut ive Summary pg. 1 and section 5 pg. 13

.

13 D “[Commenter] supports the voluntary

process envisioned for this framework and DOE’s desire to promote industry innovation while minimizing burden.” DOE has clearly stated the participation in the development of connected equipment characterization protocols is a voluntary, not regulatory, process. See Executive Summary pg. 2, section 2 pg. 4 , and section 5 pg.

13.

14 D “While DOE has stated that the intent

of this effort is to be voluntary, not regulatory, DOE should consider clarifying this position as it is following

all the steps in the regulatory process .” DOE has clearly stated the participation in the development o f connected equipment characterization protocols is a voluntary, not regulatory, process. See Executive Summary pg. 2, section 2 pg. 4 , and section 5 pg.

13.

15 D “Even voluntary approaches can

become de facto market expectations,

and DOE should be caref ul not to encourage such excessive data

collection that... customers are discouraged from purchasing equipment.” DOE has chosen to follow a voluntary path. See Executive Summary pg. 2, section 2 pg. 4

, and section 5 pg. 13.26

16 D “Unless compliance is mandated, the

level of voluntary adoption of the standard is likely to stay low to justify

cost

- effective rollout...” DOE has chosen to follow a voluntary path. See Executive Summary pg. 2, section 2 pg. 4

, and section 5 pg. 13.

17 E A Consensus

- based proc ess is the best

option moving forward, in which stakeholders participate on a committee with DOE to develop definitions, criteria, test methods, and a reporting process.” DOE believes that a consensus approach is an effective process for developing characterization protocols. See section 5 pg. 12

- 13.

18 E “As a general rule, [commenter]

supports consensus

- based development of industry standards and protocols, and

this instance is no different.” DOE believes that a consensus approach is an effective process for developing characterization protocols. See section 5 pg. 12

- 13.

19 E “[Commenter] ... believes that such an

[consensus] approach is appropriate here at this juncture.” DOE believes that a consensus approach is an effective process for developing characterization protocols. See section 5 pg. 12

- 13.

20 E “[Commenter] supports DOE’s

suggested approach to develop a

strawman characterization that the group can adjust rather than develop the characterization through a

consensus process... mor e likely to yield success in timely fashion.” DOE believes that a consensus approach is an effective process for developing characterization protocols. As straw

- man and comment approach was considered. See section 5 pg. 12

- 13.

21 F “Natural gas appliances and equipment

may have similar potential to unlock new value streams for homeowners, building owners and natural gas distribution companies.” DOE has determined that natural gas connected equipment is currently beyond the scope of this

work and is not included in the

framework document.

22 F “Engage in a separate natural gas

specific framework process...” DOE has determined that natural gas connected equipment is currently beyond the scope of this

work and is not included in the

framework docume nt.

23 F “We also recommend that DOE add

natural gas fired equipment to the definition of equipment.” DOE has determined that natural gas connected equipment is currently beyond the scope of this

work and is not included in the

framework document.

24 F “DOE should take a more fuel neutral

and market neutral view of “grids” to include all forms of energy, not just electricity.” DOE has determined that natural gas connected equipment is currently beyond the scope of this

work and is not included in the

framework document.

25 F “[Commenter] urges DOE to reject DOE has determined that natural27 suggestions, such as those from EEI,

that seek to include non

- electric appliances into DOE’s “smart grid”

initiatives.” gas connected equipment is currently beyond the scope of this

work and is not included in the

framework document.

26 G “There should be an approved list of

responses to be characterized.” DOE is recommending the concept of an approved response list. However, the topic will continue to be discussed at future public meetings. If/how/what is still open

for discussion. See section 4.4.3 pg. 1 1

. 27 G “Two

- way communication... should be

cons idered as a minimum feature for eligibility...” DOE is recommending the concept of minimum eligibility criteria. However, the topic will continue to

be discu ssed at future public meetings. If/how/what is still open

for discussion. See section 4.4.1

pg. 10

. 28 G “[Commenter] proposes the following

eligibility requirements for connected equipment...connected equipment:

MUST have 2

- way communication...” DOE is recommending the concept of minimum eligibility criteria. However, the topic will continue to

be discu ssed at future public meetings. If/how/what is still open

for discussion. See section 4.4.1

pg. 10

. 29 G “...an ad hoc, case

- study

- driven

approach to defining minimum features may be most useful... a reasonable

definition of minimum features should

evolve over time as DOE and stakeholder gain experience...” DOE is recommending the concept of minimum eligibility criteria. However, the topic will continue to be discussed at future public meetings. If/how/what is still open

for discussion. See section 4.4.1

pg. 10

. 30 G “In order to encourage innovation...

there should be no minimum eligibility criteria for submission of a product to

be characterized. The characterization application should include a generic option for “other responses”. DOE is recommending the concept of minimum eligibility criteria. However, the topic will continue to be discussed at future public meetings. If/how/what is still open

for discussion. See section 4.4.1

pg. 10

. 31 G “... it is imperative for DOE to ensu re

that it avoid creating eligibility requirements that would in any way limit technology innovation or adoption.” DOE is recommending the concept of minimum eligibility criteria. However, the topic will continue to be discussed at future public meetings. If/how/what is still open

for discussion. See section 4.4.1

pg. 10

.28

32 H “We recommend ceasing to refer to

“ devices” [or equipment] and instead refer to the system in each type of building as a “node”. This would allow for the independent review of each category of buildings and not assume a “one size fits all” approach.” DOE is now referring to “connected equi pment”. See section 3.1 pg. 4.

33 H “[Commenter] recommends that

[characterization] does not limit the scope of equipment to just that with internal processing power, but also include equipment that can be dynamic based on signals received from an external processor.” DOE is considering reference

architectures to address this concern. See section 3.1 pg. 4.

34 H “... a systems level view is needed

given the continual issue we encounter, whereby reductions in peak demand are typically viewed only wit h a lens of a single load, but what about the cases where a control system governing a

collection of HVAC units...” DOE does not envision characterizing collections of connected equipment as part of

characterization.

35 I “...we believe “use cases”, or

illustrative examples, will be important and helpful. While use case creation

will follow the framework’s completion, it is critically important.” DOE will continue to provide use case where appropriate.

36 I “[Commenter] believes that further

refining h ow characterization protocols could apply to specific equipment types through specific “illustrative example”

makes sense.” DOE will continue to provide use case where appropriate.

37 I “...illustrative examples would be

useful...” DOE will continue to provide use case where appropriate.

38 I “...rather than viewing the equipment

specific examples as “illustrative” of a

pre

- defined set of features, it may be more productive to treat them as case

studies that enable better understanding...” DOE will continue to provide use case where appropriate. Case studies may also be used.

39 J “First, the [commenter] believe that

two

- way communication capability in devices and building systems is integral and fully enabling a host of energy management control services and

features...” DOE will continue to seek and consider industry perspective on the utility of two

- way communication for connected equipment.

40 J “investigate... inter

- appliance DOE will continue to seek and29 communication systems...” consider industry perspective on the utility of two

- way communication for connected equipment.

41 J “Products can... provide tremendous

value to the grid via one

- way and

communication as well as two

- way communication.” DOE will continue to seek and consider industry perspect ive on the utility of one and two

- way communication for connected equipment.

42 J “... one

- way communication would not

allow many types of energy management control features... and

thus should not be considered

“connected”.” DOE will continue to seek and consider industry perspective on the utility of one and two

- way communication for connected equipment.

43 J “... the capability to send signals [is]

not essential

– one

- way communication is adequate for many application.” DOE will continue to seek and

consi der industry perspective on the utility of one and two

- way communication for connected equipment.

44 K “At present all suppliers are free to

define [connected and intelligent or perhaps internet ready] as they wish, and to either permit or prevent interconnection and interoperability with products or services from others. This fragments the market and discourages consumers.” DOE has stated that interoperability is beyond the scope of this work. Interoperability of connected equipment is being cons idered in a separate effort. See Executive Summary pg. 1 and section 2.2 pg.

3.

45 K “... a smart system should encourage

interoperability between equipment and

the utilities....” DOE has stated that interoperability is beyond the scope of this work. Interoperability of connected equipment is being considered in a separate effort. See Executive Summary pg. 1 and section 2.2 pg.

3.

46 K “...we also recommend that DOE adopt

ENERGY STAR principles of interoperability and open

communication standards...” DOE has stated that interoperability is beyond the scope of this work. Interoperability of connected equipment is being considered in a separate effort. See Executive Summary pg. 1 and section 2.2 pg.

3.

47 K “...ensure customer installations are

free of undesirable interoperability problems...” DOE has stated that interoperability is beyond the scope of this work. Interoperability of connected equipment is being considered in a separate effort. See Executive30 Summary pg. 1 and section 2.2 pg.

3.

48 K “...It is important that any

communications protocol be non

specific about the communications medium, the speed, and latency...” DOE has stated that interoperability is beyond the scope of this work. Interoperability of connected equipment is being considered in a separate effort. See Executive Summary pg. 1 and section 2.2 pg.

3.

49 L Connected equipment should not

compromise customer comfort, utility or durability of equipment, or impinge on proprietary data or technology. The objectives of characterization support these suggestions. See Executive Summary pg. 1.

50 L Support for DOE linking performance

metrics to services that equipment can provide. Incorporated. See section 4.1 pg. 6.

51 L Protocols should be as neutral as

possible with regard to busine ss arrangements or services. Incorporated. See section 4.1 pg. 6 and section 4.4 pg. 8.

52 L Future work on this docket would

benefit from considering environmental

emissions. Incorporated. See section 1 pg. 2.

53 L Specific recommendations for

terminology and definitions. Incorporated. See section 3.1 pg.4.

54 L Concern that DOE is being overly

inclusive for data and metrics which

could undercut customer value. See section s 4.4.5 and 4.4.6 pg. 11

- 12. Data and metrics shown in

Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 are “Illustrative” only and do not

indicated actual inclusion or

exclusion of data or metrics.

55 L Utilize existing test methods when

possible to minimize burden. Incorporated. See section 4 .2 pg. 7.

56 L Physical characterization will vary by

product and may even vary due to interactions with other products in the building. DOE does not envision that

characterization will include

interactions between connect equipment. However, it is

envisioned that characterization may vary by equipment type. See section 4 beginning on pg. 6

57 L Protocols must be well defined around

a core set of interconnectivity goals to allow manufacturers the ability to

innovate and deliver value without overly complex burdens. DOE has stated that promoting innovation and minimizing burden are objectives of characterization. See Executive Summary pg. 1.

58 L Framework should allow for

characterization of equipment with Incorporated. See section 4.4 pg. 8.31 variable speed technology.

59 L “Building end

- use loads” does not

include power generation and storage technologies, which are still considered equipment. Incorporated. See Executive Summary pg.1 and section 3.1 pg.

4.