A Framework for

Characterizing Connected Buildings Equipment

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Building Technologies Office

March 2015
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 2

2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Objectives......................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Scope ................................................................................................................................ 3

3 TERMINOLOGY AND ELEMENTS OF CONNECTED EQUIPMENT...................... 4

3.1 Terminology..................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Elements of Connected Equipment.................................................................................. 5

4 CHARACTERIZATION PROTOCOL 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 DEVELOPING CHARACTERIZATION PROTOCOLS ................. 12

APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................................. 14

NOTIONAL AND ILLUSTRATIVE 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 COMMENTS ....................................................... 23

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1. Example Responses ................................................................................................... 120

Table 4.2. Illustrative Physical and Informational Data to be Collected .................................... 122

Table 4.3. Illustrative Physical and Informational Metrics to be Computed ................................ 12

Table A.1. Application for Characterization 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...................................................... 11

Figure A.1. Results from Electrical Characterization Protocol .................................................... 17

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

Figure A.3. Power vs. Frequency.................................................................................................. 18

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........................................................................................... 21
1

Executive Summary

This characterization framework document proposes a draft plan for how to develop 

characterization protocols for connected buildings equipment. The U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) plans 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, Colorado1, 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 right entity to develop these resources for 

the nation. This support was affirmed at a second public meeting held on July 11, 2014 in 

Washington, DC2, at which the structure and content for this framework document was 

presented. Both public meetings invited 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 through 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 

characterization protocol framework, and the process for developing the characterization 

protocols. An example is provided in Appendix A to 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 the types of responses that 

connected equipment can deliver. This framework applies to connected 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 signal 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 Manufacturers 

(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 Research 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 activities underway by stakeholders. 

Throughout this document, DOE has provided annotations listing important feedback and some 

of the most frequently raised comments during 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 technologies 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 resources 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 

scale 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 electric 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, characterization 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 characterization 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 is 

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 characterization via use cases 
3

and known (or potential) services. DOE emphasizes 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 encouraged BTO to 

implement a process for developing a characterization framework that will proceed in an open, 

transparent, and iterative 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 framework document in the Federal Register.

4

Significant public comments 

were received and this framework document has subsequently been revised in response (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, how 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.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-NOA-0016-0006 

4

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

As stated 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 process DOE uses 

for equipment and appliance 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 voluntary 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 innovation 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-connected should 

embody smart (i.e., decision logic and intelligence), and that smart should be altogether 

dropped from the vocabulary. Additional feedback from the July 11, 2014 public meeting has 

also been incorporated. This section clarifies a few of the key 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 what 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 states, 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 equipment. 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 consumers, building owners, third-party providers, 

or utilities5. For example, equipment may automatically notify a third-party provider who 

 

5

Somasundaram S, RG Pratt, BA Akyol et al. 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 threshold. 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 actions 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 include 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 

third-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 responses 

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, or 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 schedule 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 in turn engages in two-way communication with a roof-top air conditioning unit (RTU) 

Figure 3.1. Illustrative Elements of Connected Equipment
6

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 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. 

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 framework 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 30, 2014 public meeting expressed the view 

that characterization data and performance 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 

characterization 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 interest to consumers, 

Figure 4.1. Link Between Services, Metrics, Data, and Sequence
7

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 computation of metrics. With the characterization data 

defined, the characterization sequence can also be described. Following this logic, the 

performance metrics, characterization data, and characterization sequence would be directly 

linked to services. It is possible 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 methods and to leverage industry familiarity, 

DOE proposes that the characterization protocol framework contains, where possible, elements 

similar to those found in existing test methods. Leveraging existing test methods, 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 experimental 

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 content 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 

characterization 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 elements have been 

incorporated into a characterization protocol for connected equipment as shown in Figure 4.2. 

Figure 4.2. Characterization Protocol Framework
8

The seven elements being leveraged from existing test methods are shown fully or 

partially colored in blue. At this stage, DOE anticipates 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. However, elements in Figure 4.2 marked 

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

for a room air conditioner 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 equipment. 

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 Setup

Although very important to the overall characterization protocol 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 and 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 electrical setup 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, location, 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 load 
9

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 connected 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 addition, 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 protocol 

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 meetings

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 July 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 capability. 

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 “Characterization 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 comments received during and after the July 11, 2014 public meeting generally 

expressed the view that equipment should 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 connected 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 Be 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 electrical load-up/down, schedule events

Consumer Avoid exceeding thresholds 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&V
11

4.4.3 Approved Response List 

Public comments 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 available). 

Responsibility for developing and maintaining the approved list may 

reside with an entity as described in Section 5. Marketplace innovation 

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 step-by-step sequence of instructions describing 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 modes (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 sequence 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 challenging 

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 comments 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 industry to innovate is 

limited.

Figure 4.3. Illustrative 

Approved Response List
12

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 described 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 customers without complex 

characterization burdens.

Table 4.3. Illustrative Physical and Informational Metrics to Be Computed

5 Process for Developing Characterization Protocols

Comments received during and after the April 30 and July 11, 2014 public meetings

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 

public, 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 text 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 “Connected 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, which 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 privacy.

 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 on 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 committee 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 characterization 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 that 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 cycles. 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 building management system]. 

A.2 Illustrative Example – Characterizing a Room Air Conditioner

Scenario: In this hypothetical example, ACME Equipment, Inc., an 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. Wiley 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 jointly 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 form 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). It 

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 the 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 for 

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 command is received. 

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

Applicant: ACME Equipment, Inc.

Equipment Type: Room air conditioner with thermostat

Model: RAC-XYZ123

Explanation

X Transport Media

X WiFi

Ethernet

Bluetooth

Homeplug ...

Other (explain):

Information Protocol

X SEP 2.0 

Open ADR

...

Other (explain):

X Physical responses to be characterized

Load X Electrical load up Thermostat moves up 5°F when issued <SEP 2.0 command>

X Electrical load down returns thermostat to original setting when issued <SEP 2.0 command>

Schedule Event

Delay event

Consumer X Thresholds Load management mode must be enabled by user (button on interface)

X Limits 5-hour time limit on the load-down mode

Equipment X Prevent short cycling Operating mode persists for minimum of 2 minutes

Prevent overload

Informational responses to be characterized

Reporting Alert

History

X Mode Reports operating modes (on/off plus normal/load down) <SEP 2.0 command>

Status

Availability

Applications X Forecast Estimates remaining on/off-time after a load up/down command <SEP 2.0 command>

X Diagnostics Warning for low refrigerant charge <SEP 2.0 command>

M&V

Automated 

Response(s)

Details Provided

(check all that apply)

Application for Characterization of Connected Equipment

Eligibility 

Requirements

Two-way 

Communications
16

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 loadup 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 the 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 three 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 

measured 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 shown 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 steadystate 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 Only
18

 

Figure A.3. Power vs. Frequency

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

Illustrative Only

Illustrative Only
19

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 fluctuating within the dead band of the thermostat, to represent the initial steadystate 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 order 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-state 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. 

Illustrative Only
20

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 

than 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 hour 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 5oF range of the RAC’s load curtailment thermostat change (i.e., 2.5oF 

higher than the original set-point). Then, a sequence of increasingly frequent load-up and loaddown 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 minutes apart).

Illustrative Only
21

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

 short cycle limit (2 minute 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 characterized 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 harmonization, communication protocols, 

interoperability, and signal definition may be addressed by industry, or possibly through a 

collaborative effort 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 iPhone7. 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 wall 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 Only
22

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

EXAMPLE: PV INVERTER

EXAMPLE: EV CHARGER
23

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 meetings8,9 where 

stakeholders have provided verbal comments during the meetings and written comments postmeeting through the Federal Register. All comments were considered by DOE-BTO while 

drafting “A Framework for Characterizing Connected Buildings Equipment10“. 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 version 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 addressed. Table 2 gives a detailed list of 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-0016-0026
24

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 

characterization 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/utility ready appliances.”

DOE is continuing to move 

forward with physical 

characterization of connected 

buildings equipment. See 

Executive Summary pg. 1. 

4 A “[Commenter] 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 gridconnected 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 evaluating 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 evaluating 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 raised 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 efforts as 

necessary. See Executive 
25

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 

characterize 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 

Executive 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 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.

15 D “Even voluntary approaches can 

become de facto market expectations, 

and DOE should be careful not to 

encourage such excessive datacollection 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 process 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... more 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 document.

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 natural 
27

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. 11. 

27 G “Two-way communication... should be 

considered as a minimum feature for 

eligibility...”

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 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 discussed 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 ensure 

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 equipment”. 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 with 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 how 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 equipmentspecific 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 and 
29

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 perspective 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 

consider 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 considered 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 Executive 
30

Summary pg. 1 and section 2.2 pg. 

3.

48 K “...It is important that any 

communications protocol be nonspecific 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 business 

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 overlyinclusive for data and metrics which 

could undercut customer value.

See sections 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.