This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

NIST Special Publication 1108r3

NIST Framework and Roadmap for

Smart Grid Interoperability 

Standards, Release 3.0

Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office 

and Energy and Environment Division, 

Engineering Laboratory

in collaboration with

Quantum Measurement Division, 

Semiconductor and Dimensional Metrology Division, 

and Electromagnetics Division, 

Physical Measurement Laboratory

and

Advanced Network Technologies Division

and Computer Security Division, 

Information Technology Laboratory

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

NIST Special Publication 1108r3

NIST Framework and Roadmap for 

Smart Grid Interoperability 

Standards, Release 3.0

Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office 

and Energy and Environment Division, 

Engineering Laboratory

in collaboration with

Quantum Measurement Division, 

Semiconductor and Dimensional Metrology Division, 

and Electromagnetics Division, 

Physical Measurement Laboratory

and

Advanced Network Technologies Division

and Computer Security Division 

Information Technology Laboratory

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

September 2014

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Acting Director 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this

document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately.

Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the

entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 1108r3

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 1108r3, 239 pages (September 2014) 

CODEN: NSPUE2

This publication is available free of charge from: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1

Accomplishments since NIST Framework Release 2.0.................................................................. 8

What’s Included in Release 3.0 ...................................................................................................... 9

What’s New in Release 3.0........................................................................................................... 11

1. Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................... 14

Overview and Background............................................................................................. 14

Use of this Framework ................................................................................................... 18

Key Concepts ................................................................................................................. 19

1.3.1. Definitions................................................................................................................... 20

1.3.2. Applications and Requirements: Nine Priority Areas................................................. 22

Framework Content Overview....................................................................................... 24

2. Smart Grid Visions .............................................................................................................. 25

Overview of Smart Grid: Definitions, Costs, Benefits, and Standards.......................... 25

Importance to National Energy Policy Goals................................................................. 30

International Smart Grid Standards................................................................................ 33

International Efforts to Align Smart Grid Architectures................................................ 35

Smart Grid Key Attributes--Standards and Conformance ............................................. 36

3. Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP............................................................................. 40

Overview ........................................................................................................................ 40

Pre-SGIP: 2008 and 2009............................................................................................... 40

SGIP, the Public-Private Partnership: 2010 - 2012........................................................ 42

SGIP, the Industry-Led Non-Profit Organization: 2013 - Ongoing............................... 46

SGIP Catalog of Standards............................................................................................. 48

4. Standards Identified for Implementation ............................................................................. 51

Guiding Principles and Process Used for Identifying Interoperability Standards ......... 51

Overview of the Standards Identification Process ......................................................... 56

Current List of Standards Identified by NIST................................................................ 58

Process for Future Smart Grid Standards Identification .............................................. 122

5. Architectural Framework................................................................................................... 123

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 123

Architectural Goals for the Smart Grid........................................................................ 124

Smart Grid Architecture Model.................................................................................... 125

iii
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

5.3.1. Overview – Conceptual Domain Model ................................................................... 125

5.3.2. Description of Smart Grid Architecture Model (SGAM)......................................... 128

5.3.3. Architecture Process - Evolution of the Conceptual Architecture to SGAM ........... 129

5.3.4. Description of Legacy Logical Application Types within the Context of the 

Conceptual Domains........................................................................................................... 138

Use Cases ..................................................................................................................... 140

Ongoing Work of the Smart Grid Architecture Committee (SGAC)........................... 142

5.5.1. Conceptual Business Services................................................................................... 142

5.5.2. Architecture Development Working Party ............................................................... 143

5.5.3. The SGAC Smart Grid Semantic Framework .......................................................... 144

5.5.4. Standards Review by the SGAC............................................................................... 145

6. Cybersecurity Strategy....................................................................................................... 147

Cybersecurity in the Smart Grid................................................................................... 147

NIST’s Role in Smart Grid Cybersecurity................................................................... 149

Progress to Date ........................................................................................................... 151

6.3.1. Release of National Institute of Standards and Technology Interagency Report 

(NISTIR) 7628 and Companion Documents ...................................................................... 151

6.3.2. Standards Reviews.................................................................................................... 153

6.3.3. Risk Management Framework.................................................................................. 154

6.3.4. Cyber-Physical System Research ............................................................................. 154

6.3.5. Advanced Meter Upgradeability Test Guidance....................................................... 155

Future Activities........................................................................................................... 156

7. Smart Grid Testing and Certification Framework ............................................................. 157

NIST Role in Smart Grid Testing and Certification .................................................... 157

NIST-Initiated Efforts Supporting the Framework Development................................ 157

7.2.1. Testing and Certification Framework Development Guide...................................... 158

7.2.2. Assessment of Existing Smart Grid Standards Testing Programs............................ 159

SGTCC Framework Development Activities .............................................................. 160

7.3.1. Interoperability Process Reference Manual (IPRM)................................................. 161

SGTCC Progress since Framework 2.0........................................................................ 164

7.4.1. IPRM Version 2 ........................................................................................................ 164

7.4.2. Engagement with ITCAs, Labs, Certifiers, and Accreditors.................................... 165

7.4.3. SGTCC Input for SGIP CoS Review........................................................................ 166

Current Smart Grid Testing Initiatives......................................................................... 167

7.5.1. Prioritization of Test Programs – Gaps/Opportunities.............................................. 167

iv
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

7.5.2. Outreach.................................................................................................................... 168

Future Directions.......................................................................................................... 169

7.6.1. Incubation of New Testing Initiatives via Priority Action Plans.............................. 170

7.6.2. Catalog of Test Programs.......................................................................................... 170

7.6.3. IPRM Version 3 ........................................................................................................ 170

7.6.4. International Engagement ......................................................................................... 171

8. Cross-Cutting and Future Issues........................................................................................ 172

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 172

Electromagnetic Disturbances and Interference........................................................... 174

Implementability, Safety, Reliability and Resiliency................................................... 179

8.3.1. Implementability and Safety..................................................................................... 179

8.3.2. Reliability and Resiliency......................................................................................... 180

8.3.3. SGIP action ............................................................................................................... 182

The Smart Grid Community Effort to Further Define R&D Needs............................. 183

Framework Updates ..................................................................................................... 184

Appendix A: List of Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................... 185

Appendix B: Specific Domain Diagrams ................................................................................... 189

Appendix C: Smart Grid Service Orientation and Ontology..................................................... 206

Appendix D: SGIP Committees, DEWGs, and PAPs ................................................................ 218

v
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

DISCLAIMER

This document has been prepared by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

and describes standards research coordination activities in support of its mandate under the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and its smart grid standards and 

technology research program.

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order 

to describe a concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or 

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply 

that these entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

vi
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

Executive Summary

Framework Release 3.0 Background

Since the release of the last edition of the NIST Smart Grid Framework and Roadmap for 

Interoperability Standards (Release 2.0),

1 in February 2012, significant technological advances 

in smart grid infrastructure have been implemented, supported by standards development across 

the entire smart grid arena. Examples include widespread deployment of wirelesscommunication power meters, availability of customer energy usage data through the Green 

Button initiative, remote sensing for determining real-time transmission and distribution status, 

and protocols for electric vehicle charging. The first release of the NIST Framework and 

Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards (Release 1.0)2 was published in January 

2010. Release 3.0 updates NIST’s ongoing efforts to facilitate and coordinate smart grid 

interoperability standards development and smart grid-related measurement science and 

technology, including the evolving and continuing NIST relationship with the Smart Grid 

Interoperability Panel (SGIP) public-private partnership. 

Over the last decade, Congress and the Administration have outlined a vision for the smart grid 

and have laid the policy foundation upon which it is being built. The Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA) codified the policy of the United States to modernize the nation’s 

electricity transmission and distribution system to create a smart electric grid.3 The American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) accelerated the development of smart grid 

technologies, investing $4.5 billion for electricity delivery and energy reliability activities to 

modernize the electric grid and implement demonstration and deployment programs (as 

authorized under Title XIII of EISA).4 5 The president, in his 2011 and 2012 State of the Union 

Addresses, reiterated his vision for a clean energy economy,6 and he underscored the 

Administration’s commitment in the “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future.”7 In June 2011 and 

February 2013, the White House released reports by the Cabinet-level National Science and 

1 See http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/upload/NIST_Framework_Release_2-0_corr.pdf

2 See http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/upload/smartgrid_interoperability_final.pdf

3 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [Public Law No: 110-140]. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW110publ140/pdf/PLAW-110publ140.pdf

4 The White House, “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Moving America Toward a Clean Energy Future.” 

Feb. 17, 2009. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Recovery_Act_Energy_2-17.pdf

5 “Economic Impact of Recovery Act Investments in the Smart Grid”, April 2013. See 

http://www.smartgrid.gov/sites/default/files/doc/files/Smart%20Grid%20Economic%20Impact%20Report.pdf

6 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address.” 

January 25, 2011 and January 24, 2012. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarkspresident-state-union-address and http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/24/remarks-president-stateunion-address

7 The White House, “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future.” March 30, 2011. See 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_secure_energy_future.pdf

1

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

Technology Council (NSTC) entitled “A Policy Framework for the 21st Century Grid: Enabling 

Our Secure Energy Future” and “A Policy Framework for the 21st Century Grid: A Progress 

Report.”8

Several reports from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) further document the progress, with specific mention of the positive role 

played by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Smart Grid Interoperability 

Panel. DOE released reports in May 2013 (“Economic Impact of Recovery Act Investments in 

Smart Grid”9) and October 2013 (“Smart Grid Investment Grant, Progress Report II”10). A report 

from FERC, “Assessment of Demand Response & Advanced Metering, Staff Report,” was also 

released in October 2013.11 

The advanced power grid relates to a number of key scientific and technological areas. These 

include power quality, reliability, and resilience; widespread integration of grid-tied renewables 

along with attendant large-scale storage; widespread deployment of grid sensors; and secure 

cyber-based communication within the grid. The smart grid also has the potential to ameliorate 

climate change through the reduction of energy waste in homes, businesses, and factories, and 

the accommodation of millions of electric vehicles (EVs) through innovative approaches to 

battery charging.12 13

The federal government promotes development and deployment of a secure cyber-physical 

electric power grid.14 In his 2013 State of the Union address, the president noted the critical issue 

of cybersecurity as it pertains to the present and future national power grid.15 Two documents 

relating to critical infrastructure protection, Executive Order 13636 (Improving Critical 

Infrastructure Cybersecurity) and Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-21(Critical Infrastructure 

Security and Resilience), articulate the federal government’s commitment toward improving

8 See NSTC reports at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/nstc-smart-grid-june2011.pdf . and 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2013_nstc_grid.pdf

9 See report at http://www.smartgrid.gov/document/economic_impact_recovery_act_investments_smart_grid

10 See report at http://www.smartgrid.gov/sites/default/files/doc/files/SGIG_progress_report_2013.pdf

11 See report at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/2013/oct-demand-response.pdf

12 “The President’s Climate Action Plan”, June 2013. See 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf

13http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Presentation%20to%20the%20EAC%20-

%20Impact%20of%20Smart%20Grid%20Projects%20Funded%20by%20ARRA%20-%20Joe%20Paladino.pdf

14 See http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Presentation%20to%20the%20EAC%20-

%20Impact%20of%20Smart%20Grid%20Projects%20Funded%20by%20ARRA%20-%20Joe%20Paladino.pdf

15 See full text at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/us/politics/obamas-2013-state-of-the-unionaddress.html?pagewanted=all

2

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

cyber-based infrastructure security and the ability to recover from all potential disasters and 

damage to grid infrastructure.

16 17 

As noted, EISA articulates the critical role of standards for the smart grid. The June 2011 and 

February 2013 NSTC reports also advocate the development and adoption of standards to ensure 

that today’s investments in the smart grid remain valuable in the future; to catalyze innovations; 

to support consumer choice; to create economies of scale to reduce costs; to highlight best 

practices; and to open global markets for smart grid devices and systems.

Ongoing Response of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

EISA assigns to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) the “primary 

responsibility to coordinate development of a framework that includes protocols and model 

standards for information management to achieve interoperability18 of smart grid devices and 

systems....”19

In response to the urgent need to establish interoperability standards and protocols for the smart 

grid, NIST developed an initial (now completed) three-phase plan: 

1) To accelerate the identification and consensus on smart grid standards 

2) To establish a robust Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP) that sustains the 

development of the many additional standards that will be needed 

3) To create a conformity testing and certification infrastructure 

Beginning in 2008 and continuing throughout 2009, NIST convened workshops and meetings 

that brought together experts and a diverse group of stakeholders to begin the implementation of 

the three-phase plan (a detailed timeline is provided in Figure 1-1). By the end of 2009, 

significant progress and consensus had been achieved in developing a roadmap and identifying 

an initial set of standards (Phase I of the NIST plan). The publication in January 2010 of the 

NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 1.020

represented an important milestone and documented the progress made up to that time. This 

publication was updated in February 2012 by the NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid 

Interoperability Standards, Release 2.0.21

16 See full text at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-19/pdf/2013-03915.pdf 

17 For extended press release, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policydirective-critical-infrastructure-security-and-resil

18 “Interoperability” refers to the capability of two or more networks, systems, devices, applications, or components 

to exchange and readily use information—securely, effectively, and with little or no inconvenience to the user. 

19 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [Public Law No: 110-140], Sec. 1305

20 http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/upload/smartgrid_interoperability_final.pdf

21 See http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/upload/NIST_Framework_Release_2-0_corr.pdf

3

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

Release 1.0 of the NIST Framework described a high-level conceptual reference model for the 

Smart Grid, identified 75 existing standards that are applicable (or likely to be applicable) to the 

ongoing development of the Smart Grid, specified 15 high-priority gaps and harmonization 

issues for which new or revised standards and requirements are needed, documented action plans 

with aggressive timelines by which designated standards development organizations (SDOs) and 

standards-setting organizations (SSOs) will address these gaps, and described the strategy to 

establish requirements and standards to help ensure Smart Grid cybersecurity.

Release 2.0 of the NIST Framework updated and expanded the lists of standards and described 

advanced-stage progress made since the establishment of the SGIP in November 2009, in Phases 

2 and 3 of NIST’s three-phase plan. 

The SGIP was established to further the development of consensus-based smart grid 

interoperability standards. NIST staff hold key technical positions in the SGIP. These include 

Chair or NIST Lead of two committees, Smart Grid Cybersecurity Committee (SGCC), and the 

Testing and Certification Committee (TCC), and several domain expert working groups 

(DEWGs), including the Building-to-Grid (B2G), Industrial-to-Grid (I2G), Home-to-Grid 

(H2G), Transmission and Distribution (TnD), Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G), Business and Policy 

(BnP), and Distributed Renewables, Generation, and Storage (DRGS) groups. NIST personnel 

also serve on almost all of the 25 Priority Action Plans (PAPs). NIST leadership on these 

committees and working groups provides strong support for the acceleration of the standards 

necessary for the safe, secure, and reliable smart grid. 

In January 2013, the SGIP transitioned to an industry-led incorporated non-profit organization 

(sometimes referred to as SGIP 2.0), in which NIST continues to serve in a technical leadership 

role. NIST also continues to provide financial support for the SGIP through a cooperative 

agreement. The new SGIP public-private partnership also raises funding through membership 

dues. As of June 2014, SGIP 2.0 had 194 members. As of August 2014, there have been 59

standards accepted into the SGIP Catalog of Standards (CoS). See Chapter 3 for a detailed 

discussion of the evolution of the SGIP.

Under EISA, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is charged with instituting 

rulemaking proceedings to adopt the standards and protocols as may be necessary to ensure 

smart grid functionality and interoperability once, in FERC’s judgment, the NIST-coordinated 

process has led to sufficient consensus.22 FERC obtained public input through two Technical 

Conferences on Smart Grid Interoperability Standards in November 201023 and January 2011,24

and through a supplemental notice requesting comments in February 2011.25 As a result, FERC 

issued an order in July 2011 stating that while there was insufficient consensus for it to institute a 

rulemaking at that time, FERC “encourages stakeholders to actively participate in the NIST 

22 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [Public Law No: 110-140], Sec. 1305. 

23http://ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?ID=5505&CalType=&CalendarID=116&Date=11/14/2010&Vie

w=Listview 

24http://ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?ID=5571&CalType=%20&CalendarID=116&Date=01/31/2011

&View=Listview

25 http://ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20110228084004-supplemental-notice.pdf

4

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

interoperability framework process to work on the development of interoperability standards and 

to refer to that process for guidance on smart grid standards.”26

Content of Framework Release 3.0 

This document, Release 3.0 of the NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid 

Interoperability Standards, updates progress made during 2012 and 2013, and reviews the

achievements and direction of the SGIP during a period of transition to an industry-led 

organization. In Release 3.0, smart grids are viewed from the perspective of cyber-physical 

systems (CPS)—hybridized systems that combine computer-based communication, control, and 

command with physical equipment to yield improved performance, reliability, resiliency, and 

user and producer awareness.

Major advancements in smart grid architecture, cybersecurity, and testing and certification are 

covered in Release 3.0. The list of standards, Table 4-1, has been updated and expanded. 

Additional smart grid standards from the SGIP Priority Action Plans (PAPs) fill gaps identified 

in Release 2.0 and have been added to the list of identified smart grid standards. Listed standards 

have undergone an extensive vetting process to serve over time as useful building blocks for 

companies producing devices and software for the smart grid, as well as for utilities, regulators, 

academia, and other smart grid stakeholders. The sections below entitled “What’s Included in 

Release 3.0” and “What’s New in Release 3.0” provide additional summary information about 

the contents of this document.

The reference model, standards, gaps, and action plans described in this document offer a solid 

foundation for a secure, interoperable smart grid. They are consistent with the president’s 

executive order on improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity.27 However, the smart grid will 

continually evolve as new requirements and technologies emerge. Engaging the diverse 

community of smart grid stakeholders, the SGIP public-private partnership establishes a robust 

ongoing mechanism to develop requirements to guide the standardization efforts now spanning 

more than 25 standards-development organizations (SDOs) and standards-setting organizations 

(SSOs).28 

The smart grid stakeholder groups who may find this Release 3.0 document most useful include:

• Utilities and suppliers concerned with how best to understand and implement the smart 

grid (especially Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7) 

• Testing laboratories and certification organizations (especially Chapter 7) 

26 http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20110719143912-RM11-2-000.pdf

27 Executive Order: “Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity”, February 12, 2013. See 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executive-order-improving-critical-infrastructurecybersecurity

28 http://www.sgiclearinghouse.org/standards?page=1

5

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

• Academia (especially Section 5.1 and Chapter 8)

• Regulators (especially Chapters 1, 4, and 6, and also Section 3.5)

Cross-Cutting and Future Issues 

Execution of current and future Priority Action Plans (PAPs) continue until identified gaps in the 

standards portfolio have been accomplished. As new gaps and requirements are identified, the 

SGIP will initiate PAPs to address them. Many of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Smart 

Grid Investment Grant projects, funded by ARRA, are reaching their conclusions. In their 

proposals, awardees were required to describe how the projects would support the NIST 

Framework. As experience with new smart grid technologies is gained from these projects, NIST 

and the SGIP will use these “lessons learned” to further identify gaps and shortcomings of 

standards upon which these technologies are based.29 NIST and the SGIP will continue to work 

with SDOs, SSOs, and other stakeholders to fill the gaps and improve the standards that form the 

foundation of the smart grid. 

Work on the SGIP Catalog of Standards will continue to fully populate the Catalog and ensure 

robust architectural and cybersecurity reviews of the standards. New cybersecurity guidelines 

will address emerging new threats. NIST will continue to explore partnership opportunities with 

the private sector for the creation of testing and certification programs consistent with the SGIP 

testing and certification framework. NIST will continue to ensure coordination with related 

international smart grid standards efforts, maintaining U.S. leadership going forward. 

NIST will support the needs of regulators in standardization matters in the regulatory arena. State 

and local regulators play important roles in establishing the regulatory framework for the 

electrical industry. Broad engagement of smart grid stakeholders at the state and local levels is 

essential to ensure the consistent voluntary application of the standards being developed, and 

both NIST and SGIP leaders have met frequently with this stakeholder group. The National 

Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) has indicated its support for the 

SGIP process, stating that “When evaluating smart grid investments, State commissions should 

consider how certified smart grid interoperability standards may reduce the cost and improve the 

performance of smart grid projects and encourage participation in the Smart Grid Interoperability 

Panel, a public-private partnership that is coordinating and accelerating the development of 

interoperability standards for the smart grid.”30

A key objective of NIST’s effort is to create a self-sustaining, ongoing standards process that 

supports continuous innovation as grid modernization continues in the decades to come.31 Grid 

modernization should ensure backward compatibility with existing technology to the greatest 

29 “Economic Impact of Recovery Act Investments in the Smart Grid”, April 2013, p.9. See 

http://www.smartgrid.gov/sites/default/files/doc/files/Smart%20Grid%20Economic%20Impact%20Report.pdf

30 http://www.naruc.org/Resolutions/Resolution%20on%20Smart%20Grid%20Principles.pdf 

31 As part of this process, the SGIP will help to prioritize and coordinate smart grid-related standards. See Chapter 5 

for further discussion.

6

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

extent practical. NIST envisions that the standards development processes put in place by the 

SGIP will provide the mechanism to evolve the smart grid standards framework as new 

requirements and technologies emerge. In addition to its leadership role in the SGIP, NIST is 

increasing its measurement research program in areas related to smart grid interoperability. This 

research facilitates the development of smart grid interoperability standards including 

measurement advancements in the areas of cybersecurity, power conditioning, synchrophasors, 

power metering accuracy, precision timing, communications on the smart grid, sensor interfaces, 

and energy storage. To this end, NIST is developing an integrated smart grid testbed facility for 

full measurement, characterization, and validation of smart grid technology and interoperability 

standards, with particular emphasis on smart microgrids. 

Mitigation of diverse natural and man-made events such as electromagnetic interference (EMI), 

geomagnetic storms, high-altitude nuclear detonations, and severe weather all pose a potential 

threat to grid reliability and resiliency. Electromagnetic interference can degrade or disable 

effective two-way communication and control on the grid; geomagnetic storms can damage large 

transformers and other equipment through induced currents,

32 and a high-altitude nuclear 

detonation would produce an electromagnetic pulse that can damage unprotected integrated 

circuits as well as large electrical equipment. Severe storms such as Hurricane Sandy in October 

2012 produce long-term outages resulting in billions of dollars in infrastructure damages and lost 

business revenue. The future incorporation of microgrids offers the possibility of improved 

resiliency (i.e., the ability to recover from an outage event) to the effect of severe wind storms.

After Hurricane Sandy, the Gridwise Alliance issued a report of lessons learned that 

recommended microgrids be considered for enhancing the resiliency of electric infrastructure 

serving critical loads.33 The incorporation of microgrids to boost resiliency to the effects of 

storms is consistent with the President’s Climate Action Plan.34

32 See “Comment: Astrophysics: Prepare for the coming space weather storm” at 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7394/index.html

33 http://www.gridwise.org/documents/ImprovingElectricGridReliabilityandResilience_6_6_13webFINAL.pdf

34 “The President’s Climate Action Plan”, June 2013, p. 13, see 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.

7

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

Accomplishments since NIST Framework Release 2.0

The major accomplishments in the NIST Smart Grid Program since Release 2.0 of the 

framework in February 2012 include the following:

Smart Grid Interoperability Panel

• The NIST-established SGIP has transitioned to an industry-led non-profit organization.

• SGIP has grown to 194 members as of June 2014, providing > 50% of funding through 

member dues. 

• SGIP CoS has grown to 59 consensus entries.

• The number of PAPs has grown to 25 (including PAP00).

• The total number of completed PAPs is now up to 13

Regulatory Engagement and International Leadership

• FERC and NARUC point to the NIST framework and SGIP process for guidance in the 

coordination, development, and implementation of interoperability standards.

• Numerous liaison/working relationships have been established with international 

organizations.

Outcomes with Major Contributions from NIST

• Multiple new or revised standards, including Open ADR 2.0, SEP2, IEEE 1547, NAESB 

REQ18, and UL 1741 standards

• SGIP EMIIWG report on electromagnetic compatibility issues

• Two documents—“Technology, Measurement, and Standards Challenges for the Smart 

Grid” and “Strategic R&D Opportunities for the Smart Grid”—resulting from an August 

2012 workshop hosted by NIST and the Renewable and Solar Energy Institute (RASEI)

• NISTIR 7823 (AMI Smart Meter Upgradeability Test Framework)

• Precision Time Protocol (IEEE 1588) Testbed, Dashboard, and Conformance Test Plan

• Revision 1 of NISTIR-7628 (“Guidelines for Smart Grid Cybersecurity”), published in 

September 2014.

8
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

What’s Included in Release 3.0

Chapter 1

“Purpose and Scope” outlines the role of NIST with respect to the smart grid, including NIST’s 

relationship with the newly independent Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP), defines key 

concepts and priorities discussed in the document, identifies potential uses of the document, and 

describes the basic content of the document. (A list of acronyms and abbreviations appears in 

Appendix A.)

Chapter 2

“Smart Grid Visions” provides a high-level description of the envisioned smart grid and 

describes major organizational drivers, opportunities, challenges, and anticipated benefits.

Chapter 3

“Smart Grid Interoperability Panel” presents the mission and structure of the SGIP. Following a 

transition period in late 2012 and early 2013, the SGIP is now a membership-based duessupported and incorporated non-profit organization established to support NIST and to identify, 

prioritize, and address new and emerging requirements for smart grid standards. Working as an 

incorporated non-profit organization, the SGIP provides a process for stakeholders to interact in 

the ongoing coordination, acceleration, and harmonization of standards development for the 

smart grid. NIST maintains a prominent leadership role in the activities of the SGIP, and 

provides funding through a cooperative agreement program. (Additional details are provided in 

Appendix D.)

Chapter 4

“Standards Identified for Implementation” presents and describes an updated list of existing 

standards and emerging specifications applicable to the smart grid. It includes descriptions of 

selection criteria and methodology, a general overview of the standards identified by 

stakeholders in the NIST-coordinated process, and a discussion of their relevance to smart grid 

interoperability requirements. 

Chapter 5

“Architectural Framework” presents an architectural process that includes views (diagrams) and 

descriptions that facilitate the discovery of appropriate characteristics, uses, behavior, interfaces, 

requirements, and standards of the smart grid. Because the smart grid is an evolving networked 

system of systems, the high-level model provides guidance for standards-setting organizations 

(SSOs) developing more detailed views of smart grid architecture. (Additional details are 

provided in Appendices B and C.)

9
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

Chapter 6

“Cybersecurity Strategy” discusses NIST’s role in the SGIP Smart Grid Cybersecurity 

Committee’s six current subgroups. These subgroups include cloud computing and the NISTIR 

7628 User’s Guide for the updated NISTIR 7628 document that deals with cyber protection of 

utilities and other entities implementing smart grid technology. 

Chapter 7

“Testing and Certification Framework” reviews the key components and deliverables from the 

testing and certification framework development activities. The emerging implementation phase 

projects and activities are discussed, as well as views on the longer term implementation needs 

and challenges in maintaining a robust testing and certification ecosystem for interoperable smart 

grid systems and devices.

Chapter 8

“Cross-Cutting and Future Issues” contains a high-level overview of some of the currently 

foreseen areas of interest to the smart grid community, including reliability and resiliency of the 

grid through the implementation of standards.

10
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

What’s New in Release 3.0

This document, Release 3.0, builds on the work reported in Release 2.0. Throughout the 

document, facts, figures, and tables have been updated. In addition to the subjects highlighted 

below, a number of chapters include forward-looking sections that outline current and future 

activities. 

Chapter 1

New subjects in this chapter include:

• The history of NIST and the smart grid has been updated to include activities from 2012 

and 2013, and the key events are highlighted in a timeline. (Figure 1-1.)

• New key concepts have been added to the “Definitions” section. (Section 1.3.1.)

Chapter 2 

Section 2.2 (“Importance to National Energy Policy Goals”) has been updated to include 

information from the 2013 State of the Union address and the 2013 National Science and 

Technology Council report. The broadening of the smart grid vision beyond the borders of the 

United States is reflected in two new sections that have been added to this chapter: “International 

Smart Grid Standards” and “International Efforts to Harmonize Architectures” (Sections 2.3 and 

2.4, respectively).

Chapter 3

Major new topics described in this chapter include:

• SGIP transition from a federally-funded membership organization to a non-profit 

organization, known as SGIP 2.0, in December 2012, and the associated Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) and Cooperative Agreement with NIST. 

• Organization of staff and activity within the new SGIP. 

• Explanation of the SGIP Standing Committees and Permanent Working Groups. (See 

also Appendix D.)

• A discussion of criteria for inclusion of a proposed standard in the SGIP Catalog of 

Standards (CoS). 

• A description of the Domain Expert Working Groups (DEWGs) and Priority Action 

Plans (PAPs). (See also Appendix D.) 

Chapter 4

With the establishment of the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, the process for identifying 

standards has evolved, and the standards listed in this chapter reflect that evolving process. 

(Section 4.2) 

11
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

A new section, “Process of Future Smart Grid Standards Identification,” details the process that 

will be used in the future (Section 4.4). 

The heart of Chapter 4, in both Release 2.0 and Release 3.0, is found in the lists of standards:

• Table 4-1 (“Identified Standards”) is discussed in Section 4.3 (“Current List of Standards 

Identified by NIST”). In Release 3.0, the number of entries in Table 4-1 has increased 

from 34 to 71, as compared to the list in Release 2.0.

In addition to the new standards added to the list in Release 3.0, the list includes a number of 

updates to those presented in Release 2.0. Links to relevant SGIP-related Web pages have been 

added. A list corresponding to Table 4.2 in Release 2.0 is not included in Release 3.0.

Chapter 5 

The architectural framework described in this chapter in Release 3.0 provides a significant 

expansion to the conceptual reference model, which had been the primary architecture-related

topic discussed in Release 1.0’s Chapter 3. A description of the architectural framework, now 

under development, includes the following:

• Architectural goals for the smart grid (Section 5.2)

• Architecture methodology, which comprises the original NIST conceptual domain 

architecture, EU-M490 Reference Architecture, IEC 62357 and the combined reference 

model (Section 5.3)

• An extensive discussion of smart grid architecture methodology appears in Section 5.3.

• Recent work by the Smart Grid Architecture Committee (SGAC) is discussed in Section 

5.5.

• Appendices B and C contain additional architecture-related details.

Chapter 6 

New material documents the many developments related to smart grid cybersecurity since the 

topic was discussed in Chapter 6 of Release 2.0. Major new topics described in this chapter 

include the following.

• The transformation of the SGIP Cybersecurity Working Group (CSWG) into the Smart 

Grid Cybersecurity Committee (SGCC), and a description (Table 6.1) of the SGCC’s six 

subgroups and their recent activities. 

• Recently released Guide for Assessing the High-Level Security Requirements in NISTIR 

7628, Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security (Assessment Guide) and the NISTIR 

7628 User’s Guide, which facilitate use of the previously published National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Interagency Report (NISTIR) 7628, Guidelines for Smart 

12
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

Grid Cyber Security; and the SGCC’s work with the U.S. Department of Energy in 

developing the document, Electricity Subsector Cybersecurity Risk Management Process. 

• Release of the document NISTIR 7823, Advanced Metering Infrastructure Smart Meter 

Upgradeability Test Framework. 

• The NIST cybersecurity team’s future plans as it maintains a leadership role within the 

SGIP SGCC. 

Chapter 7

New material reviews the key components and deliverables from the testing and certification 

framework development activities. The emerging implementation phase projects and activities 

since Release 2.0 are then discussed, as well as views on the longer term implementation needs 

and challenges in maintaining a robust testing and certification approach for interoperable smart 

grid systems and devices. New topics discussed include

• Update of Smart Grid Test Program Landscape

• Discussion of Smart Grid Testing and Certification Committee (SGTCC) progress since 

Framework 2.0 

• Discussion of the Interoperability Process Reference Manual (IPRM) version 2

• SGTCC 2012 working group analysis of standards proposed for inclusion in the SGIP 

Catalog of Standards (CoS)

• Engagement with interoperability testing and certification authorities (ITCAs), labs, 

certifiers, and accreditors 

• Current and future smart grid testing initiatives

Chapter 8

• Discussion of electromagnetic compatibility

• Discussion of reliability, resiliency, implementability, and safety

• IEC and IEEE standards relating to electromagnetic compatibility that are under 

consideration for smart grid applications

• Discussion of R&D needs for the smart grid, including results of the August 2013 

NIST/RASEI Smart Grid Workshop in Boulder, CO

13
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

1. Purpose and Scope

Overview and Background

Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) was assigned “primary responsibility to coordinate 

development of a framework that includes protocols and model standards for information 

management to achieve interoperability of Smart Grid devices and systems...” [EISA Section 

1305].

35 This responsibility comes at a time when the electric power grid and electric power 

industry are undergoing the most dramatic transformation in many decades. Very significant 

investments are being made by industry and the federal government to modernize the power grid. 

To realize the full benefits of these investments—and the continued investments forecast for the 

coming decades—there is a continued need to establish effective smart grid36 standards and 

protocols for interoperability.

A major impetus behind the increased investments has been the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which provided the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with 

$4.5 billion to modernize the electric power grid and to implement Title XIII of EISA. Two of 

the programs established by DOE, the Smart Grid Investment Grants (SGIG) and the Smart Grid 

Demonstration Program (SGDP), have generated a significant impact on the U.S. economy and 

have resulted in substantial deployment of smart grid technologies. 

An April 2013 report from DOE found that, as of March 2012, the total invested value of these 

two programs—$2.96 billion, including $1.48 billion of ARRA funds and $1.48 billion of 

private sector matching funds—generated at least $6.8 billion in total economic output.37 The 

report estimates that, by the conclusion of these two programs, $9.56 billion will have been spent 

by the federal government and the private sector.

Recent investments in smart meters and synchrophasors are examples of the increasing 

investments in technology seen across the smart grid ecosystem as a result of these two programs

35 The Department of Energy (DOE) is the lead federal agency with responsibility for the smart grid. Under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), DOE has sponsored cost-shared smart grid investment grants, 

demonstration projects, and other R&D efforts. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is tasked with 

initiating rulemakings for adoption of smart grid standards as necessary to ensure functionality and interoperability 

when it determines that the standards identified in the NIST Framework development efforts have sufficient 

consensus. See Section 1305 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. See 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/content-detail.html 

36 While recognizing that the different names used for the future grid have meaningful distinctions to some 

stakeholders, this report generally uses the term “smart grid.” The decision to use “smart grid” is not intended to 

discount or supersede other terms used to describe a modernized grid that enables bidirectional flows of energy and 

uses two-way communication and control capabilities that will lead to an array of new functionalities and 

applications. Both capitalized and lower-case versions of the term are used in the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007. In this document, the lower-case version is used unless referring to a specific program, office, or title. 

37 “Economic Impact of Recovery Act Investments in Smart Grid,” Department of Energy, April 2013. 

http://www.smartgrid.gov/document/economic_impact_recovery_act_investments_smart_grid

14

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

• Smart meters are being widely deployed. In 2011, there were more than 37.3 million 

smart meters installed by 492 U.S. electric utilities.38 It is estimated that 61.8 million 

smart meters will have been deployed in the U.S. by the end of 2013.39 On a global basis, 

the International Energy Agency projects that cumulative installations of smart meters 

will increase to almost one billion before the end of 2018.40

• Installation of synchrophasors (or phasor measurement units, PMUs), sensors that 

provide real-time assessments of power system health to provide system operators with 

better information for averting disastrous outages, has accelerated rapidly. The Western 

Interconnection Synchrophasor Program (WISP), which includes participants in ten 

western states, had installed more than 465 Phasor Measurement Units (PMUs) PMUs 

throughout the west as of June 2013.41 DOE anticipates that once all of the ARRA 

synchrophasor projects have been completed, there will be at least 1,043 networked 

PMUs in place (compared to 166 in 2010), providing significantly greater coverage of the 

U.S. bulk power system.42

These recent U.S. investments in smart grid technology are just the beginning of a decades-long, 

global effort to modernize the electric power grid. Internationally, many other countries are also 

making significant smart grid investments. A recent forecast projects that the global market for 

smart grid-related products and services will exceed $400 billion cumulatively by 2020.

43

To ensure that the mounting investments made in smart grid technologies will be cost-effective, 

the smart grid community needs to establish standards and protocols for interoperability. In the 

absence of standards, there is a risk that the diverse smart grid technologies will become 

prematurely obsolete or, worse, be implemented without adequate security measures. Lack of 

standards may also impede future innovation and the realization of promising applications, such 

as smart appliances responsive to price and demand response signals. Standards adopted or 

38 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=108&t=1 [Most recent annual data available as of January 10, 2013.]

39 http://smartgridresearch.org/standard/u-s-smart-meter-trends/

40 “Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013,” International Energy Agency, 

http://www.iea.org/publications/TCEP_web.pdf (see page 106 and 109).

41 See 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3

A%2F%2Fwww.wecc.biz%2Fcommittees%2FBOD%2F20130625%2FLists%2FPresentations%2F1%2FMark%252

0Maher%2520CEO%2520Update%25206-26-

2013.pdf&ei=D5AgU_jIHuqp2QWu34HYCw&usg=AFQjCNEjXn12qDVToOH4Rc5lLwNx9my6w&bvm=bv.62788935,d.eW0

42 “Synchrophasor Technologies and their Deployment in the Recovery Act Smart Grid Programs,” Department of 

Energy, August 2013. See 

http://www.smartgrid.gov/sites/default/files/doc/files/Synchrophasor%20Report%2008%2009%202013%20DOE%2

0(2)%20version_0.pdf

43 “Global Smart Grid Technologies and Growth Markets 2013 – 2020,” GTM Research, July 2013. 

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/smart-grid-market-to-surpass-400-billion-worldwide-by2020?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=Picture&utm_campaign=GTMDaily

15

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

developed in support of this transition must also fully account for backward compatibility with 

deployed technologies.

Moreover, standards enable economies of scale and scope that help to create competitive markets 

in which vendors compete on the basis of a combination of price and quality. Market competition 

promotes faster diffusion of smart grid technologies and realization of customer benefits. As 

summarized in “A Policy Framework for the 21st Century Grid: A Progress Report,” a February 

2013 report from the White House’s National Science and Technology Council, 

“interoperability standards make markets more efficient, help open new international markets to 

U.S. manufacturers, and reduce the costs of providing reliable, safe power to U.S. households 

and businesses.”44

The importance of interoperability standards was highlighted in EISA as a key element of U.S. 

energy policy. This document, Framework 3.0, provides a summary of NIST’s efforts to fulfill 

its EISA role—to coordinate development of a framework that includes protocols and model 

standards for information management to achieve interoperability of smart grid devices and 

systems.

Since 2009, NIST has worked cooperatively with industry to develop and refine this framework. 

The process has resulted in a solid foundation and platform. Key standards have been identified, 

and critical standards gaps have been filled. Guidance and tools have been provided to advance 

smart grid architectures, cybersecurity, and testing and certification. A robust consensus-building 

stakeholder engagement process and organization—the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel—has 

been established, and it is expected to provide for continued development and implementation of 

standards to meet the needs of industry and consumers and to keep pace with the rapid advance 

of technology. 

However, NIST’s job—as well as the job of the broader national and global smart grid 

community—is far from complete. Development of a standard is not a one-time project. Initially 

developed standards are reviewed and revised periodically in a continual process of maturation. 

Similarly, the NIST Framework has undergone reviews and revisions as technology matures.

This document is the third installment in an ongoing standards coordination and harmonization 

process. Ultimately, this process will deliver the hundreds of communication protocols, standard 

interfaces, and other widely accepted and adopted technical specifications necessary to build an 

advanced, secure electric power grid with two-way communication and control capabilities. 

The NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 3.0, 

builds upon the work in Releases 1.0 (January 2010) and 2.0 (February 2012). Releases 1.0 and 

2.0 of the NIST Framework document contained information obtained through an open public

process that engaged both the broad spectrum of smart grid stakeholder communities and the 

general public. NIST also consulted with stakeholders through extensive outreach efforts. The 

timeline for the development of the Release 1.0, Release 2.0, and Release 3.0 Framework 

documents is displayed in Fig. 1-1, which shows the history of NIST activities in smart grid. 

44 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2013_nstc_grid.pdf

16

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

Fig. 1-1. A History of NIST and the Smart Grid

Release 1.0 described a high-level conceptual reference model for the smart grid that identified 

75 existing standards that are applicable (or likely to be applicable) to the ongoing development 

of the smart grid; specified 15 high-priority gaps and harmonization issues (in addition to 

cybersecurity) for which new or revised standards and requirements are needed; documented 

action plans with aggressive timelines by which designated standards-setting organizations 

(SSOs) will address these gaps; and described the strategy to establish requirements and 

standards to help ensure better smart grid cybersecurity. This document served as guidance for 

the national and international smart grid community.

Release 2.0 built on the work reported in Release 1.0. Throughout the document, facts and 

figures were updated. Two new chapters—one on the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP) 

and one on the framework for smart grid interoperability testing and certification—were added. 

Existing chapters on architecture and cybersecurity were significantly expanded to reflect 

17
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108r3

accomplishments and ongoing work. The number of standards identified as applicable or likely 

to be applicable to the ongoing development of the smart grid was increased to 96. 

The NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 3.0, 

further builds upon the work in Releases 1.0 and 2.0, and is based on updated information and 

input from relevant stakeholders. Release 3.0 includes a description of the Smart Grid 

Interoperability Panel (SGIP) now that it has become an independent entity (Chapter 3); an 

update to the progress of the Priority Action Plans (PAPs) in closing the previously identified 

high-priority gaps (Appendix D); a description of the smart grid conceptual reference model and 

conceptual architectural framework that was developed by the SGIP’s Smart Grid Architecture 

Committee (SGAC) (Chapter 5); an expanded cybersecurity section (Chapter 6); updates to the 

testing and certification section (Chapter 7); and a summary of cross-cutting and future issues, 

including discussions of reliability and electromagnetic interference topics (Chapter 8).

While the SGIP is now an incorporated private entity, NIST maintains an active leadership role 

in many of the SGIP’s working groups and committees. 

Use of this Framework

The results of NIST’s ongoing technical work reflected in this framework document should 

assist industry utilities, vendors, academia, regulators, system integrators and developers, and 

other smart grid stakeholders in future decision making. This document includes a compendium 

of interoperability standards that, in NIST’s engineering judgment, are foundational to the smart 

grid. Standards identified in Table 4-1, below, have gone through a full vetting process, and are 

expected to stand the “test of time” as useful building blocks for firms producing devices and 

software for the smart grid, as well as for utilities, regulators, academia, and other smart grid 

stakeholders. It is important to note that these standards are not static as they mature. Standards 

undergo continuing revisions to add new functionalities, integrate with legacy standards, 

harmonize/align with overlapping standards, and remedy shortcomings that are discovered as 

their implementations undergo interoperability testing. 

The following stakeholder groups will find specific information in this framework document 

most useful:

• For utilities and suppliers concerned with how best to understand and implement the 

smart grid, the document provides a compendium of reference standards (Chapter 4), an 

architectural framework that provides guidance and core services to identify fundamental 

interactions, applications, requirements and organizational change to establish new or 

integrate legacy implementations (Chapter 5), an introduction to the extensive body of 

work available from NIST concerning smart grid privacy and security (Chapter 6), and a 

taxonomy of the various smart grid domains (Appendix B).

• For testing laboratories and certification organizations, the testing and certification

chapter (Chapter 7) provides updates on efforts now under way to enable vendors and 

other smart grid stakeholders to certify the interoperability of devices being considered 

for a specific smart grid deployment.

18
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• For those in academia, this document provides a benchmark of considerable progress 

made in advancing the hundreds of standards required for the smart grid. In addition, 

Chapter 8 and summaries of various PAP subgroup efforts in Appendix D point to 

additional research and innovation needed to fill gaps in our collective understanding of 

the tools, systems, and policies needed to deploy and manage what will be the largest 

single network yet deployed in the United States.

• For regulators, the framework serves as a general introduction to both the challenge and 

promise of the Smart Grid (Executive Summary, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2), a guide to 

workable standards useful to delivering the best value for consumers by ensuring that 

technical investments by energy providers utilize standards wisely (Chapter 4), and an 

introduction to extensive work now under way considering smart grid privacy and 

security matters (Chapter 6).

Key Concepts

The expedited development and evolution of an interoperability framework and a roadmap for 

underpinning standards, such as those outlined in this document, is a fundamental aspect of the 

overall transformation to a smart grid infrastructure. Although electric utilities are ultimately 

responsible for the safe and reliable operation of the grid, many other participants are involved in 

the evolution of the existing electric power infrastructure. Technical contributions from 

numerous stakeholder communities are required to realize an interoperable, secure smart grid. 

Because of the diversity of technical and industrial perspectives involved, most participants in 

the roadmapping effort are familiar with only subsets of smart grid-related standards. Few have 

detailed knowledge of all pertinent standards, even in their own industrial and technical area. 

To facilitate broad and balanced input from all smart grid stakeholders, the SGIP45 was 

established:

• To create a forum with balanced stakeholder governance that would bring together 

stakeholders with expertise in the many various areas necessary for the smart grid, 

including areas such as power engineering, information communication technologies, 

architecture, systems engineering, and life-cycle management 

• To support development of consensus for smart grid interoperability standards 

• To provide a source of expert input for the interoperability standards framework and 

roadmap 

This report contributes to an increased understanding of the key elements critical to realization of 

the smart grid, including standards-related priorities, strengths and weaknesses of individual 

standards, the level of effective interoperability among different smart grid domains, and 

cybersecurity requirements.

45 A more detailed description of the SGIP can be found in Chapter 3.

19

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

1.3.1. Definitions

Different stakeholders may hold a variety of definitions for the important terms that appear 

throughout the roadmap. To facilitate clear stakeholder discourse, NIST used the following 

definitions for the key terms below: 

Architecture: The structure and overall organization of the smart grid from the point of view of 

its use or design. This includes technical and business designs, demonstrations, implementations, 

and standards that together convey a common understanding of the smart grid. The architecture

embodies high-level principles and requirements that designs of smart grid applications and 

systems must satisfy.46

Architecture Process: A process that identifies in a phased fashion the necessary businessthrough-product requirements to implement a desired functionality with insight into the effects 

new capability may impose on existing business units’ manual and automated processes. It 

includes a set of views (diagrams) and descriptions that provides the basis for discussing the 

characteristics, uses, behavior/processes, interfaces, requirements, and standards of the smart 

grid. This architecture process does not represent the final architecture of the smart grid; rather, it 

is a tool for describing, discussing, and developing a sustainable architecture.

Energy Services Interface (ESI): The device or application that functions as the gateway 

between the energy providers and consumers. Located on the consumer side of the exchange, this 

can have many forms. Its purpose is to facilitate communications between the consumer and the 

energy provider. 

Functional Requirement: A requirement that specifies a function that a system or system 

component must be able to perform.47

Harmonization: The process of achieving technical equivalency and enabling interchangeability 

between different standards with overlapping functionality. Harmonization requires an 

architecture that documents key points of interoperability and associated interfaces.

Interchangeability: The ability of two or more devices or components to be interchanged 

without making changes to the other components or devices and without degradation in system 

performance.

Interoperability: The capability of two or more networks, systems, devices, applications, or 

components to work together, and to exchange and readily use information—securely, 

effectively, and with little or no inconvenience to the user. The smart grid will be a system of 

interoperable systems; that is, different systems will be able to exchange meaningful, actionable 

46 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. GridwiseTM Architecture Tenets and 

Illustrations, PNNL-SA-39480 October 2003. 

47 IEEE 610.12-1990–IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology. See 

http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/610.12-1990.html

20

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

information in support of the safe, secure, efficient, and reliable operations of electric systems. 

The systems will share a common meaning of the exchanged information, and this information 

will elicit agreed-upon types of response. The reliability, fidelity, and security of information 

exchanges between and among smart grid systems must achieve requisite performance levels.48

Mature Standard: A mature standard is a standard that has been in use for a sufficient time that 

most of its initial faults and inherent problems have been identified and removed or reduced by 

further development. 

Non-Functional Requirement: A non-functional requirement is a statement that specifies a 

constraint about how a system must behave to meet functional requirements.

Reliability: The ability of a system or component to perform its required functions under stated 

conditions for a specified period of time. It is often measured as a probability of failure or a 

measure of availability. However, maintainability is also an important part of reliability 

engineering. In addition to reliability of information technology, it covers power system 

equipment and reliability requirements of electric utilities.

Requirement: 1) A condition or capability needed by a user to solve a problem or achieve an 

objective. 2) A condition or capability that must be met or possessed by a system or system 

component to satisfy a contract, standard, specification, or other formally imposed document.49

Resiliency: The attribute that allows a grid to better sustain and more quickly recover from 

adverse events such as attacks or natural disasters. Grid resiliency includes hardening, advanced 

capabilities, and recovery/reconstitution. Although most attention is placed on best practices for 

hardening, resiliency strategies must also consider options to improve grid flexibility and control. 

Resiliency also includes reconstitution and general readiness, outage management, use of mobile 

transformers and substations, and participation in mutual assistance groups.50

Standards: Specifications that establish the fitness of a product for a particular use or that define 

the function and performance of a device or system. Standards are key facilitators of 

compatibility and interoperability. They define specifications for languages, communication 

protocols, data formats, linkages within and across systems, interfaces between software 

applications and between hardware devices, and much more. Standards must be robust so that 

they can be extended to accommodate future applications and technologies. An assortment of 

organizations develops voluntary standards and specifications, which are the results of processes 

that vary on the basis of the type of organization and its purpose. These organizations include, 

but are not limited to, standards development organizations (SDOs), standards-setting 

organizations (SSOs), and user groups. 

48 GridWise Architecture Council, Interoperability Path Forward Whitepaper, November 30, 2005 (v1.0)

49 IEEE Std 610.12.

50 “Economic Benefits of Increasing Electric Grid Resilience to Weather Outages,” Executive Office of the 

President, August 2013. See http://energy.gov/downloads/economic-benefits-increasing-electric-grid-resilienceweather-outages 

21

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Additional terms pertinent to cybersecurity and to other important security-related considerations 

relevant to the safety, reliability, and overall performance of the smart grid and its components 

are defined in the Guidelines to Smart Grid Cyber Security (NISTIR 762851).

1.3.2. Applications and Requirements: Nine Priority Areas

The smart grid will ultimately require hundreds of standards. Some are more urgently needed 

than others. To prioritize its work, NIST chose to focus on seven key functionalities plus 

cybersecurity and network communications. These functionalities are especially critical to 

ongoing and near-term deployments of smart grid technologies and services, and they include the 

priorities recommended by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in its policy 

statement:52

• Demand response and consumer energy efficiency: Provide mechanisms and 

incentives for utilities, business, industrial, and residential customers to modify energy 

use during times of peak demand or when power reliability is at risk. Demand response is 

necessary for optimizing the balance of power supply and demand. With increased access 

to detailed energy consumption information, consumers can also save energy with 

efficiency behavior and investments that achieve measurable results. In addition, they can

learn where they may benefit with additional energy efficiency investments.

• Wide-area situational awareness: Utilizes monitoring and display of power-system 

components and performance across interconnections and over large geographic areas in 

near real time. The goals of situational awareness are to understand and ultimately 

optimize the management of power-network components, behavior, and performance, as 

well as to anticipate, prevent, or respond to problems before disruptions arise. 

• Distributed Energy Resources (DER): Covers generation and/or electric storage 

systems that are interconnected with distribution systems, including devices that reside on 

a customer premise, “behind the meter.” DER systems utilize a wide range of generation 

and storage technologies such as renewable energy, combined heat and power generators 

(CHP), fixed battery storage, and electric vehicles with bi-directional chargers. DER 

systems can be used for local generation/storage, can participate in capacity and ancillary 

service markets, and/or can be aggregated as virtual power plants. Advanced gridinteractive DER functionalities, enabled by smart inverter interconnection equipment, are 

becoming increasingly available (and required in some jurisdictions) to ensure power 

quality and grid stability while simultaneously meeting the safety requirements of the 

distribution system. Advanced DER functionalities also enable new grid architectures 

incorporating “microgrids” that can separate from the grid when power is disrupted and 

can interact in cooperation with grid operations to form a more adaptive resilient power 

system. 

51 http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsNISTIRs.html#NIST-IR-7628

52 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Smart Grid Policy, 128 FERC ¶ 61,060 [Docket No. PL09-4-000] 

July 16, 2009, http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2009/071609/E-3.pdf

22

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• Energy Storage: Means of storing energy, directly or indirectly. The most common bulk 

energy storage technology used today is pumped hydroelectric storage technology. New 

storage capabilities—especially for distributed storage—would benefit the entire grid, 

from generation to end use.

• Electric transportation: Refers primarily to enabling large-scale integration of plug-in 

electric vehicles (PEVs). Electric transportation could significantly reduce U.S. 

dependence on foreign oil, increase use of renewable sources of energy, provide electric 

energy storage to ameliorate peak-load demands, and dramatically reduce the nation’s 

carbon footprint. 

• Network communications: Refers to a variety of public and private communication 

networks, both wired and wireless, that will be used for smart grid domains and 

subdomains. Given this variety of networking environments, the identification of 

performance metrics and core operational requirements of different applications, actors, 

and domains—in addition to the development, implementation, and maintenance of 

appropriate security and access controls—is critical to the smart grid. In addition, as

FERC notes, a “... cross-cutting issue is the need for a common semantic framework 

(i.e., agreement as to meaning) and software models for enabling effective 

communication and coordination across inter-system interfaces. An interface is a point 

where two systems need to exchange data with each other. Effective communication and 

coordination occurs when each of the systems understands and can respond to the data 

provided by the other system, even if the internal workings of the system are quite 

different.”53

• Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI): Provides near real-time monitoring of 

power usage. These advanced metering networks are of many different designs and could 

also be used to implement residential demand response including dynamic pricing. AMI 

consists of the communications hardware and software, and the associated system and 

data management software, that together create a two-way network between advanced 

meters and utility business systems, enabling collection and distribution of information to 

customers and other parties, such as the competitive retail supplier or the utility itself. 

• Distribution grid management: Focuses on maximizing performance of feeders, 

transformers, and other components of networked distribution systems and integrating 

them with transmission systems and customer operations. As smart grid capabilities, such 

as AMI and demand response are developed, and as large numbers of distributed energy 

resources and PEVs are deployed, the automation of distribution systems becomes 

increasingly more important to the efficient and reliable operation of the overall power 

system. The anticipated benefits of distribution grid management include increased 

reliability, reductions in peak loads, increased efficiency of the distribution system, and 

improved capabilities for managing distributed sources of renewable energy.

• Cybersecurity: Encompasses measures to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and 

availability of the electronic information communication systems and the control systems 

53 Smart Grid Policy; Final Rule Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Rules and 

Regulations, FERC. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-07-27/html/E9-17624.htm

23

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

necessary for the management, operation, and protection of the smart grid’s energy, 

information technology, and telecommunications infrastructures.

54

Framework Content Overview

Chapter 2, “Smart Grid Visions,” provides a high-level description of the envisioned smart grid 

and describes major organizational drivers, opportunities, challenges, and anticipated benefits.

Chapter 3, “Smart Grid Interoperability Panel,” presents the mission and structure of the SGIP. 

The SGIP is an incorporated private/public non-profit partnership funded by industry 

stakeholders in cooperation with the federal government. It is a membership-based organization 

established to support NIST and to identify, prioritize, and address new and emerging 

requirements for smart grid standards. The SGIP provides a venue for stakeholders to interact 

with NIST in the ongoing coordination, acceleration, and harmonization of standards 

development for the smart grid. (Additional details are provided in Appendix D.)

Chapter 4, “Standards Identified for Implementation,” presents and describes existing standards 

and emerging specifications applicable to the smart grid. It includes descriptions of selection 

criteria and methodology, a general overview of the standards identified by stakeholders in the 

NIST-coordinated process, and a discussion of their relevance to smart grid interoperability 

requirements.

Chapter 5, “Architectural Framework,” presents an evolution from static reference architectures 

to a disciplined process identifying requirements and impacts of smart grid requirements. This 

process includes views (diagrams) and descriptions that are the basis for discussing the 

characteristics, uses, behavior, processes, interfaces, requirements, and standards of the smart 

grid. Because the smart grid is an evolving networked system of systems, this methodology 

provides guidance for SSOs, end-users, and solution providers with detailed views of smart grid 

architecture. (Additional details are provided in Appendices B and C.)

Chapter 6, “Cybersecurity Strategy,” provides an overview of the content of NISTIR 7628 and 

the go-forward strategy of the Smart Grid Cybersecurity Committee (SGCC). Cybersecurity is 

now being expanded to address the following: combined power systems; IT and communication 

systems required to maintain the reliability of the smart grid; physical security of all components; 

reduced impact of coordinated cyber-physical attacks; and privacy of consumers.

Chapter 7, “Testing and Certification Framework,” provides details on an assessment of existing 

smart grid standards testing programs and high-level guidance for the development of a testing 

and certification framework. This chapter includes a comprehensive roadmap and operational 

framework for how testing and certification of smart grid devices will be conducted.

Chapter 8, “Cross-cutting Issues and Future Issues,” contains a high-level overview of some of 

the anticipated areas of interest to the smart grid community, including electromagnetic 

disturbance and interference, the implementability of standards, and R&D needs.

54 Ibid.

24

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

2. Smart Grid Visions

Overview of Smart Grid: Definitions, Costs, Benefits, and Standards 

In the United States and internationally, modernization of the electric power grid is central to 

national efforts to increase reliability, resiliency, sustainability, and energy efficiency; transition 

to renewable sources of energy; reduce greenhouse gas emissions; implement secure smart grid 

technologies and address cybersecurity and privacy issues; support a growing fleet of electric 

vehicles; and build a sustainable economy that ensures prosperity for future generations. 

For the United States, one report from the Electric Power Research Institute55 estimates that the 

investment costs,56 over 20 years, to achieve a fully functioning smart grid may approach $500 

billion. Globally, several trillion dollars will be spent in the coming decades to build elements of 

what ultimately will be “smart” electric power grids. A 2013 report from the International 

Energy Agency57 found that 2012 global public and private investment in smart grid 

technologies and applications was nearly $14 billion, a four-fold increase from 2008. It is 

expected to increase to more than $25 billion in 2018. 

Definitions and terminology vary somewhat, but all notions of an advanced power grid for the 

21st century include the addition and integration of many varieties of digital computing and 

communication technologies and services with the power-delivery infrastructure. Bidirectional 

flows of energy and two-way communication and control capabilities will enable an array of new 

functionalities and applications that go well beyond “smart” meters for homes and businesses. 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which directed the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to coordinate development of this framework and 

roadmap, states that national policy supports the creation of a smart grid. Distinguishing 

characteristics of the smart grid cited in EISA include:58

• Increased use of digital information and controls technology to improve reliability, 

security, and efficiency of the electric grid

• Dynamic optimization of grid operations and resources, with full cybersecurity

• Deployment and integration of distributed resources and generation, including renewable 

resources

55 Estimating the Costs and Benefits of the Smart Grid: A Preliminary Estimate of the Investment Requirements and 

the Resultant Benefits of a Fully Functioning Smart Grid” EPRI March 2011. See 

http://www.smartgrid.gov/sites/default/files/doc/files/Estimating_Costs_Benefits_Smart_Grid_Preliminary_Estimat

e_In_201103.pdf

56 “estimated net investment needed to realize the envisioned power delivery system (PDS) of the future”

57 “Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013,” International Energy Agency. 

http://www.iea.org/publications/TCEP_web.pdf (see page 110). Costs include “advanced metering infrastructure,

distribution automation, and advanced smart grid applications”

58 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [Public Law No: 110-140] Title XIII, Sec. 1301. 

25

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• Development and incorporation of demand response, demand-side resources, and energyefficiency resources

• Deployment of ‘‘smart’’ technologies for metering, communications concerning grid 

operations and status, and distribution automation

• Integration of ‘‘smart’’ appliances and consumer devices

• Deployment and integration of advanced electricity storage and peak-shaving 

technologies, including plug-in electric and hybrid electric vehicles, and thermal-storage 

air conditioning

• Provision to consumers of timely information and control options

• Development of standards for communication and interoperability of appliances and 

equipment connected to the electric grid, including the infrastructure serving the grid

• Identification and lowering of unreasonable or unnecessary barriers to adoption of smart 

grid technologies, practices, and services

The smart grid will bring a wide variety of benefits. A list of anticipated benefits is found in 

Figure 2-1. 

26
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Fig. 2-1. Anticipated Smart Grid Benefits

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which leads the overall federal smart grid effort, has 

developed a series of metrics to monitor the progress of smart grid deployments in the United 

Anticipated Smart Grid Benefits

A modernized national electrical grid:

• Improves power reliability and quality

• Optimizes facility utilization and averts construction 

of backup (peak load) power plants

• Enhances capacity and efficiency of existing electric 

power networks

• Improves resilience to disruption by natural disasters 

and attacks

• Enables predictive maintenance and “self-healing” 

responses to system disturbances 

• Facilitates expanded deployment of renewable energy 

sources

• Accommodates distributed power sources

• Automates maintenance and operation

• Reduces greenhouse gas emissions by enabling electric 

vehicles and new power sources

• Reduces fossil fuel consumption by reducing the need 

for gas turbine generation during peak usage periods

• Presents opportunities to improve grid security

• Enables transition to plug-in electric vehicles and new 

energy storage options

• Provides consumers with actionable and timely 

information about their energy usage

• Increases consumer choice, and enables new products, 

services, and markets 

27
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

States and assess the benefits achieved to date. In its Report to Congress, DOE tracks activities 

grouped under six chief benefits/characteristics of the envisioned smart grid:59

• Enables informed participation by customers

• Accommodates all generation and storage options

• Enables new products, services, and markets

• Provides power quality for the range of needs

• Optimizes asset utilization and operating efficiency

• Operates resiliently to disturbances, attacks, and natural disasters

In a 2011 report, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) estimated the costs and benefits of 

a fully functioning smart grid in the United States (see Table 2.1) and found that the benefits 

outweigh the costs by a ratio of 2.8 to 6.0.60 (The report is entitled “preliminary,” but no further 

report is available as of August 2014.)

20-Year Total

($billion)

Net Investment Required 338 – 476

Net Benefit 1,294 – 2,028

Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 2.8 – 6.0

Table 2-1. Summary of Estimated Cost and Benefits of the Smart Grid61

An October 2013 report from the Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative provided a review and 

synthesis of research on smart grid benefits and costs.62 The report concluded that “smart grid 

investment is likely to offer economic benefits in excess of costs” and “smart grid investment 

offers significant reductions in environmental impact.” The report’s detailed analyses include 

estimates of direct and indirect economic benefits per customer per year, as well as estimates of 

“carbon dioxide equivalent reduction” per customer per year. Based on assumptions outlined in 

59 U.S. Department of Energy, 2010 Smart Grid System Report, Biennial Report to Congress, February 2012. See 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2010%20Smart%20Grid%20System%20Report.pdf

60 Estimating the Costs and Benefits of the Smart Grid: A Preliminary Estimate of the Investment Requirements and 

the Resultant Benefits of a Fully Functioning Smart Grid” EPRI March 2011 

http://www.smartgrid.gov/sites/default/files/doc/files/Estimating_Costs_Benefits_Smart_Grid_Preliminary_Estimat

e_In_201103.pdf

61 Estimating the Costs and Benefits of the Smart Grid: A Preliminary Estimate of the Investment Requirements and 

the Resultant Benefits of a Fully Functioning Smart Grid” EPRI March 2011. See 

http://www.smartgrid.gov/sites/default/files/doc/files/Estimating_Costs_Benefits_Smart_Grid_Preliminary_Estimat

e_In_201103.pdf 

62 http://smartgridcc.org/sgccs-smart-grid-environmental-and-economic-benefits-report

28

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

the report, the ratio of benefits to costs for the smart grid ranged from 1.5 (“reference case”) to 

2.6 (“ideal case”).

Role of Standards and Interoperability in Achieving the Smart Grid Vision

Within the context of the significant costs and benefits associated with the smart grid (see Table

2.1), interoperability and cybersecurity standards are key to achieving benefits as well as 

managing overall costs. Therefore, NIST’s EISA-identified role—to coordinate the development 

of a framework of protocols and model standards—represents a critical element of the overall 

smart grid vision. 

DOE explicitly recognizes that underpinning standards infrastructure will realize benefits:

The applications of advanced digital technologies (i.e., microprocessor-based 

measurement and control, communications, computing, and information systems) are 

expected to greatly improve the reliability, security, interoperability, and efficiency of the 

electric grid, while reducing environmental impacts and promoting economic growth. 

Achieving enhanced connectivity and interoperability will require innovation, ingenuity, 

and different applications, systems, and devices to operate seamlessly with one another, 

involving the combined use of open system architecture, as an integration platform, and 

commonly-shared technical standards and protocols for communications and information 

systems. To realize smart grid capabilities, deployments must integrate a vast number of 

smart devices and systems.

63

Similarly, the International Energy Agency, in its 2013 report, highlights the following two key 

points in the section titled “Technology Developments”:

64

• Integration of the many individual smart grid technologies is the largest challenge in 

development and deployment of smart grids.

• Interoperability, put into practice through technical standards and grid codes, is a key 

element of technology development.

In undertaking its important assignment and developing a framework of protocols and model 

standards, NIST has followed the guidance of EISA, which stipulates that the framework 

embody the following characteristics:65

63 U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Recovery Act Financial 

Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement, Smart Grid Investment Grant Program, DE-FOA-0000058, 

June 25, 2009. 

64 “Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013,” International Energy Agency. 

http://www.iea.org/publications/TCEP_web.pdf (see page 110 and 111)

65 Quotes in the bulleted list are from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [Public Law No: 110-140] 

Title XIII, Sec. 1305.

29

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• That the framework be “flexible, uniform and technology neutral, including but not 

limited to technologies for managing Smart Grid information”

• That it “be designed to accommodate traditional, centralized generation and transmission 

resources and consumer distributed resources”

• That it be “designed to be flexible to incorporate regional and organizational differences; 

and technological innovations”

That it be “designed to consider the use of voluntary uniform standards for certain classes of 

mass-produced electric appliances and equipment for homes and businesses that enable 

customers, at their election and consistent with applicable State and Federal laws, and are 

manufactured with the ability to respond to electric grid emergencies and demand response 

signals”; and that “such voluntary standards should incorporate appropriate manufacturer lead 

time.” 

Importance to National Energy Policy Goals

The smart grid is a vital component of the Administration’s comprehensive energy plan, which 

aims to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, to create jobs, and to help U.S. industry compete 

successfully in global markets for clean energy technology. Throughout the duration of his 

administration, the president has repeatedly set ambitious long- and short-term goals, 

necessitating sustained progress in implementing the components, systems, and networks that 

will make up the smart grid. 

In his 2013 “State of the Union” address, the president called once again for infrastructure 

investment that would include “self-healing power grids,” and he set a long-term goal in energy 

efficiency: to “cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 

years.”66 In a major energy policy speech in July 2013, the president also set a shorter-term goal: 

“Your federal government will consume 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources 

within the next seven years.”67

The smart grid will play an important role in helping the nation achieve these goals. The Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) studied nine mechanisms by which the smart grid can 

reduce energy use and carbon impacts associated with electricity generation and delivery, and 

has estimated that, by 2030, smart grid-enabled (or facilitated) applications could reduce the 

nation’s carbon-dioxide emissions by 18% annually.68

Although national policy to create a smart grid was first stated explicitly in EISA 2007, the 

policy’s implementation received its biggest push two years later, with the enactment of the 

66 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address.” 

February 12, 2013. See: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-unionaddress

67 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change

68 The Smart Grid: An Estimation of the Energy and CO2 Benefits, Revision 1 (January 2010) PNNL. See 

http://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/news/pdf/PNNL-19112_Revision_1_Final.pdf

30

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. Referred to often as the Recovery 

Act, this legislation included $11 billion for smart grid technologies, transmission system 

expansion and upgrades, and other investments to modernize and enhance the electric 

transmission infrastructure to improve energy efficiency and reliability.69 The lead role in smart 

grid was assigned to the Department of Energy (DOE). DOE’s Smart Grid Investment Grants 

(SGIG) and Smart Grid Demonstration Projects (SGDP) have yielded significant results in key 

areas, such as improving electric distribution system reliability; implementing advanced 

metering, customer systems, and time-based rates; adding advanced voltage and volt-ampere 

reactive (VAR) optimization (VVO) technologies; and installing advanced metering 

infrastructure (AMI).70 All of the SGIG and SGDP recipients are required to address both 

interoperability and cybersecurity in their smart grid projects.

71 Figure 2-2 shows the location of 

the projects funded by Smart Grid Investment Grants (SGIG) program.

Fig. 2-2. The SGIG Program: 99 Projects Involving 228 Electric Utilities and Other 

Organizations72 73

69 The White House, “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Moving America Toward a Clean Energy 

Future.” Feb. 17, 2009. See: http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Recovery_Act_Energy_2-17.pdf

70 See http://energy.gov/oe/downloads/reports-initial-results-smart-grid-investment-grant-projects-december-2012

71 See http://www.smartgrid.gov/recovery_act/overview/standards_interoperability_and_cyber_security

72 A breakdown of projects and funding by recipients appears on p. 7 of 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Smart%20Grid%20Investment%20Grant%20Program%20-

%20Progress%20Report%20July%202012.pdf

73 Smart Grid Investment Grant Program—Progress Report II, October 2013. See 

http://www.smartgrid.gov/sites/default/files/doc/files/SGIG_progress_report_2013.pdf 

31

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

As part of the Recovery Act’s overall investment in smart grid, $10 million via DOE was 

allocated for the interoperability standards effort assigned to NIST, augmented by an additional 

$2 million from DOE and an additional $5 million from NIST, for a total ARRA-funded 

investment of $17 million.

Another key policy-related milestone in the smart grid timeline occurred in June 2011, when the 

White House released a report by the Cabinet-level National Science and Technology Council 

(NSTC) entitled “A Policy Framework for the 21st Century Grid: Enabling Our Secure Energy 

Future.”74 This report outlined four overarching goals the Administration would pursue in order 

to ensure that all Americans benefit from investments in the nation’s electric infrastructure: 

• Enabling cost-effective smart grid investments

• Unlocking the potential of innovation in the electricity sector 

• Empowering consumers and enabling informed decision making 

• Securing the grid

The report called for continued federal effort to catalyze the development and adoption of open 

standards to ensure that the following benefits are realized:

• Today’s investments in the smart grid remain valuable in the future. Standards can 

ensure that smart grid investments made today will be compatible with advancing 

technology. Similarly, standards can ensure that smart grid devices are installed with 

proper consideration of the necessary security to enable and protect the grid of tomorrow.

• Innovation is catalyzed. Shared standards and protocols help reduce investment 

uncertainty by ensuring that new technologies can be used throughout the grid, lowering 

transaction costs and increasing compatibility. Standards also encourage entrepreneurs by 

enabling a significant market for their work.

• Consumer choice is supported. In the absence of smart grid interoperability standards, 

open standards developed in a consensus-based, collaborative, and balanced process can 

alleviate concerns that companies may attempt to “lock-in” consumers by using 

proprietary technologies that make their products (and, therefore, their consumers’ assets) 

incompatible with other suppliers’ products or services.

• Costs are reduced. Standards can reduce market fragmentation and help create 

economies of scale, providing consumers greater choice and lower costs.

• Best practices are highlighted as utilities face new and difficult choices. Standards 

can provide guidance to utilities as they face novel cybersecurity, interoperability, and 

privacy concerns.

74 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/nstc-smart-grid-june2011.pdf

32

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• Global markets are opened. Development of international smart grid interoperability 

standards can help to open global markets, create export opportunities for U.S. 

companies, and achieve greater economies of scale and vendor competition that will 

result in lower costs for utilities and ultimately consumers. 

The NSTC has updated its 2011 report with a progress report in February 2013.75 This report 

highlights the progress of NIST and the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel in “establishing new 

interoperability standards to spur private-sector innovation.” Reiterating the important role of 

standards, the report concludes, “Interoperability standards make markets more efficient, help 

open new international markets to U.S. manufacturers, and reduce the costs of providing reliable, 

safe power to U.S. households and businesses.” 

Another important national policy goal for the current administration has been to open up the 

availability of data to spur innovation, enable consumer choice, and create value. In the energy 

sector, the success of the Green Button Initiative76 provides an excellent example of how the 

work of NIST and the SGIP to coordinate and accelerate interoperable standards is helping to 

achieve those goals.77 “Green Button” is the common-sense idea that electricity customers 

should be able to securely download their own easy-to-understand household energy usage 

information from their utility or electricity supplier website. As of May 2013, the White House 

reported that 35 utilities and energy providers had committed to provide 36 million homes and 

businesses with their own energy usage information in the consensus, industry-standard Green 

Button format.78 

International Smart Grid Standards 

The United States is not alone in its initiative to modernize the electric grid. Many other 

countries—across six continents—have launched significant efforts to encourage the 

development of the smart grid in their own countries and regions. 

As countries move forward with individual initiatives, internationally coordinated and 

harmonized smart grid efforts will be essential.

International coordination will provide a double benefit:

• As the United States and other nations construct their smart grids, use of international 

standards ensures the broadest possible market for smart grid suppliers based in the 

United States. By helping these American companies export their smart grid products, 

technologies, and services overseas, we will be encouraging innovation and job growth in 

a high-tech market of growing importance.

75 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2013_nstc_grid.pdf

76 See http://www.greenbuttondata.org

77 See http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/SGIPMemberNews/SGIPnews_032212.pdf

78 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/05/02/green-button-enabling-energy-innovation

33

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• The use of international standards results in efficiency for manufacturers and encourages 

supplier competition. As a result, costs will be lower, and those savings will benefit 

utilities and consumers.

NIST has devoted considerable resources to and cooperation in bilateral and multilateral 

engagement with other countries in the development of international standards for the smart grid. 

The NIST Framework and the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel have received widespread 

international attention. Examples of recent NIST activities in the international arena include the 

following:

• In September 2011, NIST and the European Union’s Smart Grid Coordination Group 

(SG-CG) published a white paper outlining the two organizations’ plans for 

collaboration.79 In December 2011, the SGIP signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) with SGCG. The cooperative efforts between Americans and Europeans have continued with a 

number of virtual and face-to-face meetings. The work being undertaken to harmonize 

architectures has been especially productive. (See Section 2.4 for further details.)

• Under DOE’s leadership, NIST and the International Trade Administration (ITA) have 

helped establish the International Smart Grid Action Network (ISGAN),

80 a multinational 

collaboration of 24 countries and the European Union. ISGAN complements the Global 

Smart Grid Federation,

81 a global stakeholder organization which serves as an 

"association of associations" to bring together leaders from smart grid stakeholder 

organizations around the world.

• NIST has played a key role in smart grid-related meetings held by the Asia-Pacific 

Economic Cooperation (APEC). With 21 members—referred to as “member 

economies”—APEC is the premier Asia-Pacific economic forum, representing 

approximately 40 percent of the world's population, 54 percent of world GDP, and 44 

percent of world trade. APEC’s primary goal is to support sustainable economic growth 

and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. The United States, on behalf of the Asia Pacific 

Economic Cooperation (APEC) Subcommittee on Standards and Conformance, 

organized a Workshop on Regulatory Approaches to Smart Grid Investment and 

Deployment, held May 2012 in Quebec City, Canada.

• In July 2011, the SGIP held its first international face-to-face meeting in Montreal, 

Canada. At that meeting, the SGIP signed an LOI with the Korea Smart Grid 

Standardization Forum (KSGSF). One outcome from the agreement was a joint workshop 

held by the two organizations in Irving, Texas in December 2012.

• In 2012, the SGIP also signed LOIs with three other national organizations representing 

several different countries:

o The Japan Smart Community Alliance (March 2012)

79 See http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/grid-091311.cfm

80 See http://www.iea-isgan.org/

81 See http://www.globalsmartgridfederation.org/

34

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

o Ecuador’s Centro Nacional de Control de Energía (July 2012) 

o Colombia’s ICONTEC, the country’s national standards organization (December 

2012)

• In 2013, the SGIP signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Brazil’s Inmetro, the 

National Institute of Metrology, Quality, and Technology (November 2013).

• On issues related to testing and certification, NIST has held an introductory collaboration 

meeting including testing with a Korean smart grid delegation, as well as coordination 

with European Union testing participants within the SG-CG. (See Section 7.5.3 for more 

details.)

International Efforts to Align Smart Grid Architectures

NIST and the SGIP are coordinating with several smart grid stakeholder groups developing 

different architectures. The coordination with these groups will help align or harmonize evolving 

architectures existing within the smart grid architectural framework, evaluating how well they 

support the architectural goals listed in Section 5.2. In the broadest perspective, the architectural 

framework developed by the Smart Grid Architecture Committee (SGAC) of the SGIP will 

provide an overarching perspective with respect to other architectural efforts. These architectures 

will be evaluated against the architecture artifacts, Smart Grid Architecture Model (SGAM), 

semantic framework, standards and architecture evaluation criteria, and service-oriented 

principles. 

Architecture alignment efforts are under way with (but are not limited to) the following groups:

• The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) P2030 developed a logicallevel view of the smart grid organized into three major areas: physical, communications, 

and information. This logical architecture conforms to the NIST Conceptual Reference 

Model and provides a set of defined interfaces for the smart grid. A SGAC/P2030 

harmonization activity completed in late 2011 provided the IEEE P2030 team with 

several recommendations that were incorporated into their work.

• The European Commission’s Mandate 490 (EU-M490) for Smart Grid with the European 

Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), European Committee for 

Standardization (Comité Européen Normalisation - CEN), and the European Committee 

for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), completed their first version of the 

Smart Grid Reference Architecture in November 2012.82 The document incorporated 

comments and suggestions from the SGAC. This group is now working on the second 

release with an aligned architecture approach (SGAM) sharing work developed by both 

groups. Both groups’ goals are to provide the basis for an architectural process leveraging 

The Open Group Architecture Framework and Service Oriented Ontology. The goal is to 

provide stakeholders with the tools necessary to quickly identify and define their 

requirements that include interoperability and application specifications. The work is

focused on the requirements of European Union (EU) and NIST/SGIP stakeholders. 

82 See http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/doc/xpert_group1_reference_architecture.pdf

35

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

ETSI/CEN/CENELEC, NIST, and the SGIP are working on a collaborated architecture. 

• The SGAC has also initiated efforts to collaborate on architecture harmonization with:

o The Chinese Electrical Power Research Institute (CEPRI). (The initial 

roadmap resembles much of the work done in the EU and the United States, 

with some very specific changes that support differences in the Chinese 

market.)

o The Korea Smart Grid Association (KSGA). (The KSGA has not published an 

architecture document yet, but pieces of the architecture have been released, 

including IT, physical field devices, and interfaces.) 

o The EU’s SG-CG, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

62357 (Common Information Model Reference Architecture) and TC8 WG 5 

and 6 (Use Cases) teams are working with NIST and the SGAC to define an 

aligned architectural process consistent with the SGAM including their 

perspective, recommendations, and artifacts as necessary. 

Smart Grid Key Attributes--Standards and Conformance

The smart grid, unprecedented in its scope and breadth, will demand significant levels of 

cooperation to fully achieve the ultimate vision described in Section 2.1. Efforts directed toward 

enabling interoperability among the many diverse components of the evolving smart grid should 

address the following issues and considerations:

• Standards are critical to enabling interoperable systems and components. 

• Mature, robust standards are the foundation of mass markets for the millions of 

components that will have a role in the future smart grid.

• Standards enable innovation where thousands of companies may construct individual 

components. 

Standards also enable consistency in systems management and maintenance over the life cycles 

of components. Criteria for smart grid interoperability standards are discussed further in 

Chapter 4.

Sound interoperability standards will ensure that sizable public and private sector technology 

investments are not stranded. Such standards enable diverse systems and their components to 

work together and to securely exchange meaningful, actionable information.

Clearly, there is a need for concerted action and accelerated efforts to speed the development of 

high-priority standards. But the standards development, prioritization, and harmonization process 

must be systematic, not ad hoc.

Moreover, while standards are necessary to achieve interoperability, they are not sufficient. A 

conformance testing and certification framework for smart grid equipment is also essential. The 

36
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

SGIP has developed an overall framework for conformance testing and certification, and steps 

have been taken toward implementation. This topic is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7.

Different Layers of Interoperability

Large, integrated, complex systems require different layers of interoperability, from a plug or 

wireless connection to compatible processes and procedures for participating in distributed 

business transactions. In developing the SGAM described in Chapter 5, the high-level 

categorization approach developed by the GridWise Architecture Council (GWAC) was 

considered.83

Referred to as the “GWAC stack,” the eight layers shown in Figure 2-3 comprise a vertical 

cross-section of the degrees of interoperation necessary to enable various interactions and 

transactions on the Smart Grid. Very simple functionality, such as the physical equipment layer 

and software for encoding and transmitting data, is confined to the lowest layers.

Communication protocols and applications reside on higher levels, with the top levels reserved 

for business functionality. As functions and capabilities increase in complexity and 

sophistication, more layers of the GWAC stack are required to interoperate to achieve the desired 

results. Each layer typically depends upon—and is enabled by—the layers below it.

 

83 GridWise Architecture Council, GridWise Interoperability Context-Setting Framework. March 2008.

37

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Fig. 2-3. The GridWise Architecture Council’s eight-layer stack provides a context for 

determining smart grid interoperability requirements and defining exchanges of 

information.84

The most important feature of the GWAC stack is that the layers define well-known interfaces 

which are loosely-coupled: establishing interoperability at one layer enables flexibility at other 

84 See http://www.gridwiseac.org/about/imm.aspx

Driver Layer Description

38

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

layers. The most obvious example of this is seen in the Internet: with a common Network 

Interoperability layer, the Basic Connectivity Layer can vary from Ethernet to WiFi to optical 

and microwave links, but the different networks can exchange information in the same common 

way. The GWAC stack is further discussed in the NIST Framework 1.0.85

As discussed in Section 2.4, work is being pursued by the SGAC, EU M490, and IEC62357 to 

align the “GAWC Stack” layers with the SGAM use of The Open Group Architecture 

Framework (TOGAF).

85 See http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/upload/smartgrid_interoperability_final.pdf

39

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

3. Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP) 

Overview

This chapter summarizes how NIST has worked—and will continue to work—with the smart 

grid community to coordinate and accelerate the development of standards and protocols that 

will ensure the interoperability of the smart grid. Section 3.2 reviews the process used during 

2008 and 2009, prior to the formal establishment of the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel 

(SGIP). Section 3.3 reviews the process used during 2010-2012, when SGIP was operating as a 

public-private partnership under the administration of NIST and the contracted SGIP 

Administrator. Section 3.4 reviews the process used after January 2013, when SGIP began 

operating as an industry-led non-profit organization. Section 3.5 discusses the Catalog of 

Standards, a product of the SGIP. 

While the organizational mechanisms and processes that NIST has used to interact with the smart 

grid community have evolved over the past five years, the underlying purpose and principles 

guiding this interaction remain the same.

Ideally, NIST’s coordination with the smart grid community accelerates the development of 

interoperable standards and protocols for the smart grid.

The principles that NIST uses to guide its interactions are the following:

1. Openness – NIST-sponsored meetings are open to the public. Documents are posted 

in a public collaboration environment. Membership is not required to attend meetings 

or to access the collaborative web site. 

2. Balance – NIST seeks input and feedback from across the smart grid community. 

The SGIP’s governance configuration was structured to balance representation across 

22 electric industry segments.

3. Consensus – NIST encourages consensus-driven processes. “Consensus” means the 

general agreement of those involved. For example, chairs of working groups consider 

all views, proposals, and objections, and endeavor to reconcile them.

4. Harmonization – NIST encourages standards harmonization across multiple 

Standards-Setting Organizations (SSOs). The SGIP was established to identify and 

help to coordinate harmonization when overlaps or “identified points of 

interoperability” require it. 

Pre-SGIP: 2008 and 2009

This period covers the time between the enactment of “The Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007” (EISA) and the establishment of the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP). 

EISA was signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 19, 2007, and the SGIP 

was formally launched on November 19, 2009.

40
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Building on initial planning and stakeholder engagement begun in 2008, NIST articulated and 

began to implement—in early 2009—a three-phase plan to carry out its EISA-assigned 

responsibilities. The plan was designed to rapidly identify an initial set of standards, while 

providing a robust process for continued development and implementation of standards as needs 

and opportunities arise and as technology advances. The three phases were:

• Engage stakeholders in a participatory public process to identify applicable standards and 

requirements, and gaps in currently available standards, and priorities for additional 

standardization activities. With the support of outside technical experts working under 

contract, NIST compiled and incorporated stakeholder inputs from three public 

workshops into the NIST-coordinated standards-roadmapping effort. Key technical 

contributions during this time period were provided by a cybersecurity coordination task

group and six Domain Expert Working Groups (DEWGs) established by NIST, with the 

assistance of DOE and GWAC.

• Establish a Smart Grid Interoperability Panel forum to drive longer-term progress. The 

SGIP was designed to serve as a representative, reliable, and responsive organizational 

forum which would sustain continued development of interoperability standards. 

• Develop and implement a framework for conformity testing and certification. Testing and 

certification of how standards are implemented in smart grid devices, systems, and 

processes are essential to ensure interoperability and security under realistic operating 

conditions. NIST, in consultation with stakeholders, began to develop an overall 

framework for testing and certification. 

NIST was successful in completing the first phase in late 2009, and it laid the foundation for 

phases two and three.

Release 1.0 of the NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards86

documents the interaction of NIST and the smart grid community during 2008-2009. Section 1.2 

of that publication described the steps that NIST undertook to engage diverse stakeholders in the 

identification of the first set of applicable smart grid standards. It also described the initial 

priorities for developing new standards that address gaps identified in public workshops and 

through NIST outreach to stakeholders and formal public reviews of draft versions of the 

document. The document distilled insights, analyses, and recommendations from members of the 

general public, proffered during stakeholder-engagement workshops that involved over 1,500 

people and four rounds of public review formally announced in Federal Register notices.

Key deliverables that were developed during the 2008-2009 time period are described in Release 

1.0, including the following:

86 The draft of Release 1.0 of the Framework was made available for public review on September 24, 2009 (see 

http://nist.gov/smartgrid/smartgrid_092409.cfm), and the final version of the document was released on January 19, 

2010 (see http://nist.gov/smartgrid/smartgrid_011910.cfm). The full document is available online (see 

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/upload/smartgrid_interoperability_final.pdf ).

41

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• A conceptual reference model to facilitate design of an architecture for the smart grid 

overall and for its networked domains

• An initial set of 75 standards identified as applicable to the smart grid

• Priorities for additional standards—revised or new—to resolve important gaps

• Action plans under which designated standards-setting organizations will address these 

priorities

• An initial smart grid cybersecurity strategy and associated requirements

SGIP, the Public-Private Partnership: 2010 - 2012

This period covers the time from the formal establishment of SGIP as a government-funded 

public-private partnership in November 2009 until SGIP transitioned to an industry-led nonprofit organization in December 2012.87

A description of how the SGIP was organized, governed, and operated during this period can be 

found in Chapter 5 (“Smart Grid Interoperability Panel”) of Release 2.0 of NIST Framework and 

Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards.

88

The government-funded SGIP, which consisted of organizations spread among 22 categories of 

smart grid stakeholders, had three primary functions:

• To oversee activities intended to expedite the development of interoperability and 

cybersecurity specifications by standards-setting organizations (SSOs) 

• To provide technical guidance to facilitate the development of standards for a secure, 

interoperable smart grid 

• To specify testing and certification requirements necessary to assess the interoperability 

of smart grid-related equipment 

Overall direction and guidance for the organization was provided by a combination of NIST; 

EnerNex, which served as the contracted SGIP Administrator; and the Governing Board and its 

committees.

87 The transition of SGIP from the government-funded to the industry-led organization occurred over a period of 

several months, with the two organizations operating in parallel for a period in late 2012 and early 2013.

88 The draft of Release 2.0 of the Framework was made available for public review on October 25, 2011 (see 

http://nist.gov/smartgrid/grid-102511.cfm), and the final version of the document was released on February 28, 

2012. (see http://nist.gov/smartgrid/framework-022812.cfm). The full document is available online (see 

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910824).

42

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

The SGIP’s working groups included the following:

• Priority Action Plans (PAPs) – For more information about the 22 PAPs operating during 

this time period, see Appendix D. 

• Domain Expert Working Groups (DEWGs) – The seven DEWGs operating during this 

time period were:

o Building-to-Grid (B2G)

o Business and Policy (BnP)

o Distributed Renewables, Generators, and Storage (DRGS)

o Home-to-Grid (H2G) 

o Industry-to-Grid (I2G) 

o Transmission and Distribution (T&D) 

o Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G)

• Standing Committees and Permanent Working Groups – The four groups operating 

during this time period were:

o Cybersecurity Working Group (CSWG) 

o Implementation Methods Committee (IMC)

o Smart Grid Architecture Committee (SGAC) 

o Smart Grid Testing and Certification Committee (SGTCC) 

• Other Working Groups – The two groups operating during this time period were:

o Electromagnetic Interoperability Issues (EMII)

o Gas Infrastructure Working Group

The work products and deliverables from these groups were made available to the public (and 

are currently archived) on the NIST Smart Grid Collaboration Wiki.89 The Smart Grid Wiki was

an open collaboration site for the entire smart grid community to work with NIST on a technical 

level to develop a framework for smart grid interoperability standards. In addition, the Smart 

Grid Wiki was a public portal to emerging technical documents written by working groups and 

committees helping to develop the framework. This site was used by the SGIP during the 2009-

2012 period, when SGIP was organized as a public-private partnership. The documents included 

on this site reflect the work done during that period.

89 http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/WebHome

43

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

As part of its Charter objectives during this time period, the SGIP produced and maintained a 

Catalog of Standards (CoS). The CoS is a compendium of standards and practices considered to 

be relevant for the development and deployment of a robust and interoperable smart grid. The 

CoS provides a key—but not exclusive—source of input to the NIST process for coordinating 

the development of a framework of protocols and model standards for an interoperable smart 

grid. The extensive information included for each entry will also be a useful resource for utilities, 

manufacturers, regulators, consumers, and other smart grid stakeholders. The SGIP assembled 

this set of documents as a reference to the smart grid community, and it is not anticipated that the 

standards will be made mandatory. (For more information on the Catalog of Standards, see 

Section 3.5.)

During this highly productive three-year period, 2010-2012, the SGIP energized the smart grid 

stakeholder community to complete 11 Priority Action Plans, establish the Catalog of Standards 

(CoS), and approve 58 standards into the CoS. Two key publications released during this time 

period were NISTIR 7628: Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security (released in August 

2010)90 and the Interoperability Process Reference Manual (IPRM) (released in January 2012).91

Release 2.0 of the NIST Framework included detailed information on the wide range of work 

products and deliverables in key technical areas such as architecture (Chapter 3), cybersecurity 

(Chapter 6), and testing and certification (Chapter 7).

By the end of 2012, NIST had substantially completed Phases 2 and 3 of its three-phase plan (see 

Section 3.2).

In addition to the useful technical work products—such as the NISTIR 7628, the IPRM, and the 

Catalog of Standards—the SGIP provided one other important product—the stakeholderengagement process itself. This process has been recognized within the federal government as an 

effective method by which the government can convene and engage key stakeholders to address 

important technical issues facing the nation. For example, the Cybersecurity Framework process 

that NIST is using to carry out Executive Order 13636, “Improving Critical Infrastructure 

Cybersecurity,”92 draws heavily on the successful SGIP experience.93

Successful methodology implemented during the SGIP stakeholder-engagement process included 

the use of appropriate governance methods, a large stakeholder base, differing group structures 

ranging from tiger teams to the Governing Board, the use of technical champions, and the use of 

several collaborative tools, as described in the following list: 

1. Successful Governance Model. The governance model was a key factor in the overall 

project success. NIST provided guidance and “behind-the-scenes” assistance that resulted 

90 See http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/upload/nistir-7628_total.pdf

91 See https://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/SmartGridTestingAndCertificationCommittee/IPRM_final_-_011612.pdf

92 See http://www.nist.gov/itl/cyberframework.cfm

93 See http://www.sgip.org/nist-to-play-major-role-in-administrations-executive-order-on-improving-criticalinfrastructure-cybersecurity/#sthash.Q1Vv97Gy.dpbs

44

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

in tasks being accomplished in a prioritized way using NIST staff and funded contractors. 

Governance was provided by the Project Management Office (PMO), the Governing 

Board, and the Plenary Officers. The PMO was established and managed by the SGIP 

Administrator, and it functioned as a collaboration between NIST and the SGIP 

leadership, with inputs from the volunteer committee leads. The PMO ensured that 

priorities were addressed, that common processes were developed and used across the 

organization, and that regular status reporting occurred. The Governing Board was 

elected and attracted key leaders in the industry. The Plenary Officers helped to provide 

the day-to-day operational leadership and gave the volunteer members a voice in the 

organization.

2. Stakeholder Engagement. The SGIP featured many stakeholder categories, and despite 

concerns about managing such a large number of stakeholders, the large stakeholder 

group was effective. The SGIP had 22 stakeholder communities, with each community 

having one elected representative on the Governing Board. In addition, SGIP members 

elected three “At Large” Governing Board positions not tied to a particular stakeholder 

community but which were seen as cross-cutting. The large number of stakeholders gave 

many people the opportunity to run for the Governing Board and become active 

participants and proponents of the process.

3. Engaged Active Leadership. Strong and engaged leadership on committees/working 

groups encouraged volunteer participants to contribute. It was even more important that 

leadership was open, unbiased, and willing to listen to all views to facilitate consensus 

solutions. Committee leadership and program administrators who were very active 

communicators helped to maintain a strong engagement with volunteer participants. 

4. Standardized Methodology. The development of standard documentation and processes 

was a key advantage. PMO guidance and diligence worked well to ensure consistent 

processes were used. Consistent processes allowed momentum to build throughout the 

SGIP. 

5. The NIST Smart Grid Collaboration Wiki and the Information Knowledge Base (IKB). 

This Wiki served as the web-based repository for all SGIP-related information and was 

an important element in the overall success of the SGIP process. A key part of the Wiki 

was IKB, which served as a comprehensive library and repository for smart grid technical 

knowledge. 

6. Priority Action Plans (PAPs). The PAPs were projects run under a common PMOdirected process that addressed standards gaps or harmonization needs. PAP working 

groups developed rich standards requirements across multiple stakeholder communities, 

which were then passed to the applicable SSOs. The PAPs then verified the SSO 

standards/guidelines output to ensure the requirements were met. Because the SSOs were 

involved in the PAPs, they made the PAP requirements priorities for their standards 

development activities within the SSO organizations.

7. Tiger Teams. Tiger Team meetings were an important tool for successfully resolving 

issues that arose. The Tiger Teams did not bypass the regular process but did allow key 

stakeholders to produce useful, publicly reviewable results.

45
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

8. Collaborative Tool Set. The NIST Smart Grid Collaboration Wiki, webinars, and mail 

lists supported the dispersed SGIP members by allowing all members quick access to the 

completed results as well as material under development. The online meeting tools 

helped participants collaborate during both virtual and Face-to-Face meetings.

9. Technical Champions. “Technical Champions” describe experts funded through a NIST 

contract to address a specific technical need. Technical champions contributed to the 

various SGIP committees, working groups, and PAP project efforts. They were 

instrumental in accelerating the work of the SGIP and were assigned based on priorities 

and budgeting realities. Technical champions not only advanced the technical work, but 

also served as group leaders and administrators. 

10. Virtual and In-Person Meetings. Conference calls and Face-to-Face (F2F) meetings were 

both essential formats for exchanging information and reaching consensus. Conference 

calls succeeded in moving tasks forward between regular F2F meetings. Regularly 

scheduled meetings and ad-hoc meetings based upon known targets allowed teams to 

accomplish most tasks. F2F meetings provided a venue for working out agreements on 

topics not resolved or even addressed during conference calls. 

11. Building Membership. During this period, the SGIP grew to be a forum with over 790 

organizational members and over 1900 individual members. Because the SGIP was 

government-sponsored during this time period, there were no membership dues.

SGIP, the Industry-Led Non-Profit Organization: 2013 - Ongoing

In December 2012, the SGIP transitioned its functions from a government-funded public-private 

partnership to an industry-led non-profit organization. The organization, organized as a 501(c)(3) 

non-profit, is legally known as “Smart Grid Interoperability Panel 2.0, Inc.” 

Almost all elements of the purpose, structure, and processes of the government-funded 

organization were carried over to the industry-led organization. The PAPs, DEWGs, Standing 

Committees, Working Groups, and Catalog of Standards were all continued in the new 

organization. In a few cases, there were name changes (e.g., the Cybersecurity Working Group 

became the Smart Grid Cybersecurity Committee). The overall guidance of the organization is 

now provided by the Board of Directors, which assumed many functions of the Governing 

Board. For further details on SGIP’s current structure, governance, and ongoing activities, please 

consult the organization’s website (www.sgip.org).

94

NIST continues to be an active member of the organization, providing active technical 

participation and leadership in committees and working groups. SGIP’s relationship with NIST 

is expressed in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by both parties in December 

2012, in which NIST and the SGIP agree to work on “appropriate strategies for the success of the 

national goals for a smart grid interoperability standards framework.” The MOU describes how 

the SGIP will cooperate with NIST to continue to evolve the framework, promote the 

94 See http://sgip.org

46

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

development of interoperability standards, and provide specific leadership roles for NIST in the 

SGIP.95

In December 2012, NIST posted an Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity for a “Smart 

Grid Interoperability Standards Cooperative Agreement Program.”96 The announcement 

described the proposed program as follows:

The project process, in which NIST will have substantial participation, coordinates all 

stakeholders of the smart grid to accelerate standards development and harmonization 

and advance the interoperability and security of smart grid devices and systems. This 

activity involves developing use cases, identifying gaps and overlaps in smart grid 

standards, developing requirements that address these gaps, and developing plans to 

achieve coordination with standards development organizations (SDOs) and standards 

setting organizations (SSOs) to incorporate these requirements into existing or new 

standards and guidelines in a timely way. The process involves interaction with the smart 

grid community using principles of transparency, accountability, inclusiveness and 

consensus. 

Specifically, the awardee will work cooperatively with NIST to: 

1. Provide the technical guidance and coordination necessary to facilitate the 

development of secure and reliable standards for smart grid interoperability, 

including development of smart grid architectural principles and conceptual 

framework; 

2. Identify and specify the necessary testing and certification requirements, 

including providing the underlying rationale and implementation guidance 

where appropriate, to assess the achievement of interoperability using smart 

grid standards; 

3. Oversee the performance of these activities to achieve significant output and 

outcomes useful to the smart grid community, in order to maintain 

momentum and achievement; 

4. Proactively inform and educate smart grid industry stakeholders on the 

definition of, and the benefits attributable to, interoperability; and 

5. Conduct outreach to similar organizations in other countries to help establish 

global interoperability alignment.

Upon completion of a competitive solicitation and review process, SGIP (“Smart Grid 

Interoperability Panel 2.0, Inc.”) was awarded the cooperative agreement in April 2013. The 

agreement, with a budget and performance period through the end of 2015, provides SGIP with 

up to $ 2.75 million, based on continued progress and subject to the availability of funds.

95 http://members.sgip.org/apps/group_public/download.php/1162/Signed%20NIST%20-%20SGIP%20MOU.pdf

96 http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/upload/NIST-20121129-Smart-Grid-FFO.pdf 

47

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Throughout 2013, NIST and SGIP have worked together as outlined in the cooperative 

agreement. The substance of that ongoing work is described in the following chapters of this 

third release of the framework document (Release 3.0), which deal with the key technical areas 

involved with smart grid interoperability, including the following:

• Architecture (Chapter 5)

• Cybersecurity (Chapter 6)

• Testing and Certification (Chapter 7)

SGIP Catalog of Standards

As part of its Charter objectives, the SGIP produces and maintains a Catalog of Standards (CoS). 

More details on the CoS and on the standards currently listed in the CoS are available from the 

SGIP website.97

The CoS is a compendium of standards and practices considered to be relevant for the 

development and deployment of a robust and interoperable smart grid. The CoS provides a 

key—but not exclusive—source of input to the NIST process for coordinating the development 

of a framework of protocols and model standards for an interoperable smart grid. The extensive 

information included for each entry will also be a useful resource for utilities, manufacturers, 

regulators, consumers, and other smart grid stakeholders. The SGIP is assembling this set of 

documents as a reference to the smart grid community, and does not anticipate that the standards 

will be made mandatory.

The CoS review process evaluates smart grid interoperability standards against set criteria as 

determined by review teams from the architecture, cybersecurity, testing and certification 

working groups, and the Program Management Office. Individual SGIP members vote on 

whether to include the standard(s) in the CoS, with an affirmative vote from 75% of the voting 

pool needed for inclusion.

The CoS98 was not designed to select favorites or to eliminate competition within the standards 

arena. Therefore, it could contain multiple standards or guidelines that accomplish similar 

interoperability goals and that have equivalent functionality. Some CoS standards entries contain 

optional elements that are not required for all implementations. The CoS makes no guarantees, 

and it does not warrant that compliance with the CoS standards will achieve interoperability. 

Rather, voting for inclusion in the CoS is based on five criteria:

1. Relevancy: The standard facilitates interoperability related to the integration of smart grid 

devices or systems. As defined by EISA, relevant smart grid capabilities are:

97 http://www.sgip.org/catalog-of-standards/#sthash.grBvHQ9d.dpbs

98 http://www.sgip.org/catalog-of-standards/#sthash.6eKlWM4k.dpbs

48

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

o Improved reliability, security and efficiency of the smart grid;

o Dynamic optimization of grid operations and resources, with full cybersecurity;

o Deployment and integration of distributed resources and generation, including 

renewable resources;

o Development and incorporation of demand response, demand-side resources, and 

energy-efficiency resources;

o Deployment of ‘‘smart’’ technologies99; 

o Integration of ‘‘smart’’ appliances and consumer devices

o Deployment and integration of advanced electricity storage and peak-shaving 

technologies100;

o Provision to consumers of timely information and control;

o Development of standards for communication and interoperability of appliances 

and equipment101; and

o Lowering of unreasonable or unnecessary barriers to adoption of smart grid 

technologies, practices, and services.

2. Community Acceptance: The standard should be widely acknowledged as facilitating 

interoperability related to the integration of devices or systems that enable smart grid 

capabilities.

3. Deployment Suitability: The standard must demonstrate evidence of either having already 

been deployed or it must be expected to fulfill a smart grid deployment gap with 

demonstrated adequate performance capabilities in commercial (real-world) applications.

4. Interface Characterization: The relevant portions of the standard focus on requirements 

for integration and interaction through well-defined interfaces. The standard facilitates 

independence and flexibility in device or system design and implementation choices.

5. Document Maintenance: The standard is supported by a multi-member organization that 

will ensure that it can be unambiguously referenced, that it is regularly revised and 

improved to meet changing requirements, and that there is a strategy for ensuring its 

continued relevance. 

Compliance with a standard does not guarantee interoperability. Though standards facilitate 

interoperability, they rarely, if ever, cover all levels of agreement and configuration required in 

practice. As a part of its work program, the SGIP has defined a testing and certification 

framework for test programs that may be applied to the equipment, devices, and systems built to 

99 Real-time, automated, interactive technologies that optimize the physical operation of appliances and consumer 

devices for metering, communications concerning grid operations and status, and distribution automation.

100 Including plug-in electric and hybrid electric vehicles, and thermal-storage air conditioning.

101 Connected to the electric grid, including the infrastructure serving the grid

49

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

the standards listed in the CoS. If these test programs are applied, they will substantiate that 

implementations designed to the respective standards not only have compliance with the 

standards, but are also interoperable with one another. The CoS entry will indicate when test 

profiles have been defined and testing organizations identified for a particular standard.

The SGIP PMO is responsible for the process of standards inclusion in the Catalog of Standards. 

During the original SGIP tenure (2009-2012), 58 Smart Grid standards underwent full 

independent reviews by SGIP experts in the areas of cybersecurity and architecture. 

Additionally, the standards underwent a Governing Board review and the SGIP plenary voting 

processes before being approved for inclusion within the CoS. 

The CoS contains both standards and guidelines from smart grid areas including smart metering, 

substation automation, electric vehicle grid integration, internet and wireless protocol usage, 

precision time synchronization, synchrophasors, customer energy usage (e.g., Green Button), 

cybersecurity, calendaring/scheduling models, and pricing models.

Because of the large number of standards that might be considered for the CoS, it was necessary 

to streamline the review process by establishing a CoS review queue. As of September 2013, 

there are 82 standards and guidelines being actively tracked in the CoS review queue. These 

standards and guidelines are being reviewed by the SGIP team experts and will be voted on for 

inclusion in the CoS once the review process is completed. This process has been transferred to 

the industry-led SGIP essentially unchanged.

50
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

4. Standards Identified for Implementation

Guiding Principles and Process Used for Identifying Interoperability Standards

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) assigned the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) the responsibility to coordinate the development of an 

interoperability framework including model standards and protocols. 

Two lists of standards were presented in the original Framework Release 1.0 in January 2010: 

1) Table 4-1 in Section 4.3, was a list of smart grid standards and specifications identified 

as important for the smart grid. Requirements documents and guidelines were also 

included in this table; and 

2) Table 4-2 in Section 4.4, contained documents that have, or are likely to have, 

applicability to the smart grid, subject to further review and consensus development 

being carried out through plans identified in this roadmap. 

Both of these tables were based on the outcomes of several workshops, individual stakeholder 

inputs, Domain Expert Working Group (DEWG) discussions and work products, and public 

comments solicited on both the standards and the first release of the framework document. 

With the advent of the SGIP, changes were made in the list of identified standards as Priority 

Action Plan (PAP) tasks reached completion, and as cybersecurity, architecture, and other 

reviews were performed by SGIP committees. Standards were voted upon by the SGIP Plenary 

for inclusion in the Catalog of Standards (CoS). New smart grid standards were also identified 

for review through activities of the SGIP working groups. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 were updated in 

Framework Release 2.0, published in February 2012.

Release 3.0 of the NIST Framework includes additional standards in Table 4-1 that have also 

been added to the CoS through the SGIP process. NIST relies strongly upon the SGIP’s CoS 

process, and its PAP, Working Group, and Committee activities to help fulfill the EISA mission 

and to continue to evolve the NIST Framework. These groups identify standards gaps, develop 

plans in coordination with SSOs to address standards issues, work with the SSOs to execute 

those plans, and perform standards reviews. Finally, the standards under consideration undergo 

the SGIP voting process for final consensus approval for the CoS. Once a standard has entered

the SGIP CoS, a review by NIST and an opportunity for public comment will precede its 

addition to the list of identified standards in the NIST Framework.

The NIST list may differ from the SGIP CoS due to additional inputs used for the NIST 

Framework. There will also be additional gaps and standards that NIST identifies due to staff 

expertise and knowledge of the Smart Grid community and stakeholders. 

The list of standards for further review, Table 4-2, which appeared in previous releases of the 

NIST Framework, has been removed from this chapter in Release 3.0. The SGIP has stated that it 

51
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

will continue to consider new candidate standards for possible inclusion in the CoS. This change 

was made because this second list will change more rapidly than Table 4-1, and it will therefore 

be more difficult to keep this second list up-to-date between releases of the Framework. 

The lists of standards in this release of the NIST Framework document include a number of 

updates to those presented in Release 2.0. The changes are as follows:

• For Release 3.0, standards added to the list of NIST-identified standards, Table 4-1, have 

been reviewed and voted on according to the SGIP Catalog of Standards (CoS) process, 

recommended by the SGIP Governing Board (SGIP GB), and approved by the SGIP 

plenary. This process will continue as it is intended that all of the standards identified in 

Table 4-1 in Release 1.0 and Release 2.0 will be reviewed by the SGIP for the CoS. The 

CoS is further discussed in Section 3.5. 

• Several standards that did not exist at the time Release 2.0 were completed in February 

2012 have been added to the table. In some cases, the standards added to Table 4-1, 

which have been reviewed and approved for the CoS according to the SGIP process, are 

closely related to standards already included on the list.

Desirable and nonexclusive guiding principles used in the selection of standards for the 

framework are given in the inset frames in this section, entitled “Guiding Principles for 

Identifying Standards for Implementation” (at the end of section 4.1). NIST has used the criteria 

listed in these inset frames to evaluate standards, specifications, requirements, and guidelines for 

inclusion in all versions of the NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability 

Standards. This set of criteria is extensive, and the complete list does not apply to each standard, 

specification, or guideline listed in Table 4-1. Judgments as to whether each item merits 

inclusion is made on the basis of combinations of relevant criteria.

The items included in Table 4-1 are, in most cases, voluntary consensus standards developed and 

maintained by American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-accredited and other standards 

development organizations (SDOs). The phrases “standards- or specification-setting 

organizations (SSOs)” and “SDOs” are used loosely and interchangeably within the standardsrelated literature. However, for the purpose of this document, NIST is using the term “SSOs” to 

define the broader universe of organizations and groups—formal or informal—that develop 

standards, specifications, user requirements, guidelines, etc. The term “SDOs” is used to define 

standards development organizations that develop standards in processes marked by openness, 

balance, and transparency, and characterized by due process to address negative comments. 

NIST uses the two terms, SSOs and SDOs, to address the wide variations in types of 

organizations that are developing standards, specifications, user guidelines, and other input, 

which are then being identified and considered for use in the Smart Grid Framework. 

Also, in this document, NIST uses the definition of voluntary consensus standards from Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development and 

Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,102 where such 

102 OMB Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards 

and in Conformity Assessment Activities, February 10, 1998, see http://standards.gov/a119.cfm

52

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

standards are defined as developed and adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. For 

these voluntary consensus standards, OMB Circular A-119 outlines provisions that require that 

the relevant intellectual property owners have agreed to make that intellectual property available 

on a non-discriminatory, royalty-free, or reasonable-royalty basis to all interested parties. As 

defined in the OMB document, voluntary consensus standards bodies are “domestic or 

international organizations which plan, develop, establish, or coordinate voluntary consensus 

standards using agreed-upon procedures,”103 and have the following attributes: 1) openness, 2) 

balance of interest, 3) due process, 4) a process for appeals, and 5) consensus. 

Consensus is defined as general agreement, but not necessarily unanimity. Consensus includes a 

process for attempting to resolve objections by interested parties. The process includes the 

following attributes: 

• All comments are considered fairly.

• Each objector is advised of the disposition of his or her objection(s) and the reasons why.

• The consensus body members are given an opportunity to change their votes after 

reviewing the comments. 

As a general rule, it is NIST’s position that smart grid interoperability standards should be 

developed in processes that are open, transparent, balanced, and have due process, consistent 

with the decision of the World Trade Organization’s Technical Barriers to Trade Committee 

Principles for the Development of International Standards.104 That is, standards should be 

“developed and maintained through a collaborative, consensus-driven process that is open to 

participation by all relevant and materially affected parties and not dominated or under the 

control of a single organization or group of organizations, and readily and reasonably available 

to all for smart grid applications.”105 In addition, smart grid interoperability standards should be 

developed and implemented internationally, wherever practical. 

Because of the massive investment and accelerated timeline for deployment of smart grid 

devices and systems, along with the consequent accelerated timetable for standards development 

and harmonization, NIST did not originally limit the lists of both identified and candidate 

standards to SDO-developed voluntary consensus standards. Rather, Table 4-1 also includes 

specifications, requirements, and guidelines developed by other SSOs. This was done to ensure 

that the interoperability framework would reflect the current state and anticipate the future of the 

smart grid. The SSO documents were developed by user groups, industry alliances, consortia, 

and other organizations. However, it is envisioned that ultimately these specifications and other 

103 Ibid.

104 Annex 4, Second Triennial Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on Technical Barriers 

to Trade, WTO G/TBT/9, November 13, 2000.

105 ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for American National Standards, Edition: January, 

2009, see http://www.ansi.org/essentialrequirements/

53

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

documents will be used for development of standards by SDOs, and in several cases this has 

occurred. 

In making the selections of SSO documents listed in this section, NIST attempted to ensure that 

documents were consistent with the guiding principles, including that they be open and 

accessible. This does not mean that all of the standards and specifications are available for free, 

or that access can be gained to them without joining an organization (including those 

organizations requiring a fee). It does mean that they will be made available under fair, 

reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions, which may include monetary 

compensation. To facilitate the development of the smart grid and the interoperability 

framework, NIST has worked with SSOs to find ways to make the interoperability documents 

more accessible so that cost and other factors that may be a barrier to some stakeholders are 

made less burdensome. NIST, the SGIP, and ANSI have coordinated to make documentary 

standards available to SGIP working groups and other stakeholders for a limited time to support 

working group and PAP reviews and completion of the artifacts required for the CoS.

54
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Guiding Principles for Identifying Standards for Implementation

For the NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, List of 

Identified Standards, Table 4-1, a standard, specification, or guideline is evaluated on whether 

it: 

• Is well-established and widely acknowledged as important to the smart grid.

• Is an open, stable, and mature industry-level standard developed in a consensus process 

from a standards development organization (SDO).

• Enables the transition of the legacy power grid to the smart grid. 

• Has, or is expected to have, significant implementations, adoption, and use.

• Is supported by an SDO or standards- or specification-setting organization (SSO) such as a 

users group to ensure that it is regularly revised and improved to meet changing 

requirements and that there is a strategy for continued relevance. 

• Is developed and adopted internationally, wherever practical.

• Is integrated and harmonized, or there is a plan to integrate and harmonize it with 

complementing standards across the utility enterprise through the use of an industry 

architecture that documents key points of interoperability and interfaces. 

• Enables one or more of the framework characteristics as defined by EISA* or enables one 

or more of the six chief characteristics of the envisioned smart grid.

†

• Addresses, or is likely to address, anticipated smart grid applications.

• Is applicable to one of the priority areas identified by FERC‡ and NIST:

o Demand Response and Consumer Energy Efficiency;

o Wide Area Situational Awareness;

o Integration of Distributed Renewable Generation and Storage;

o Electric Transportation;

o Advanced Metering Infrastructure;

o Distribution Grid Management;

o Cybersecurity; and

o Network Communications.

*

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [Public Law No: 110-140] Title XIII, Sec. 1305.

† U.S. Department of Energy, Smart Grid System Report, July 2009.

‡ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Smart Grid Policy, 128 FERC ¶ 61,060 [Docket No. PL09-4-000] July 

16, 2009. See http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2009/071609/E-3.pdf

55
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Overview of the Standards Identification Process

The process used to establish the list presented in Table 4-1 is described below. 

During the first phase of the NIST three-phase plan for smart grid interoperability, NIST’s 

approach to accelerate the development of standards was to 1) identify existing standards that 

could be immediately applied to meet smart grid needs, or were expected to be available in the 

near future, and 2) identify gaps and establish priorities and action plans to develop additional 

needed standards to fill these gaps. 

After the publication of the NIST Framework, Release 1.0, and the establishment of the SGIP, 

NIST transitioned the standard identification process so that it now works through various SGIP 

venues and activities. These venues include the many SGIP committees, SGIP working groups, 

PAPs, and SGIP face-to-face meetings in conjunction with many industry conferences relevant 

to the smart grid, such as IEEE and IEC conferences and committee meetings. A summary 

description of the SGIP, the SGIP’s Board of Directors, various committees, working groups, 

Guiding Principles for Identifying Standards for Implementation (cont’d) 

• Focuses on the semantic understanding layer of the GWAC stack,

* which has been 

identified as most critical to smart grid interoperability.

• Is openly available under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. 

• Has associated conformance tests or a strategy for achieving them. 

• Accommodates legacy implementations.

• Allows for additional functionality and innovation through:

o Symmetry – facilitates bidirectional flows of energy and information.

o Transparency – supports a transparent and auditable chain of transactions. 

o Composition – facilitates building of complex interfaces from simpler ones.

o Extensibility – enables adding new functions or modifying existing ones.

o Loose coupling – helps to create a flexible platform that can support valid bilateral 

and multilateral transactions without elaborate prearrangement.**

o Layered systems – separates functions, with each layer providing services to the 

layer above and receiving services from the layer below. 

o Shallow integration – does not require detailed mutual information to interact with 

other managed or configured components.

* GridWise Architecture Council, GridWise Interoperability Context-Setting Framework, March 2008. **While loose coupling is desirable for general applications, tight coupling often will be required for critical 

infrastructure controls. 

56
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

and PAPs can be found in Chapter 3 and Appendix D, and detailed information about them and 

their activities is given on the SGIP website.106

Priority Action Plans (PAPs) are established by the SGIP when there is a need for 

interoperability coordination on resolving urgent standards issues. The PAPs are executed within 

the scope of the SSOs that assume responsibility for the tasks that implement the plans. The role 

of the SGIP is to facilitate this process, to ensure that all PAP materials are available to SGIP 

members, and to provide guidance as needed when significant differences among the participants 

in the PAP occur, or there is uncertainty about the PAP goals. Once the issues are resolved, the 

standard resulting from the PAP and actions of the participating SSOs continues through the 

SGIP review and approval process and ultimately is listed in the SGIP CoS. The CoS is 

discussed in greater detail in Section 3.5, where the purpose and scope, as well as the process and 

procedures for its management are described. As mentioned earlier, the SGIP CoS is anticipated 

to be a key but not an exclusive source of input to the NIST process for coordinating the 

development of a framework of protocols and model standards for the smart grid under its EISA 

responsibilities. 

The CoS is a compendium of standards and practices considered to be relevant for the 

development and deployment of a robust and interoperable smart grid. The CoS may contain 

multiple entries that may accomplish the same goals and are functionally equivalent; similarly, a 

single CoS entry may contain optional elements that need not be included in all implementations. 

In general, compliance with a standard does not guarantee interoperability because although 

standards facilitate interoperability, they rarely, if ever, cover all levels of agreement and 

configuration required in practice. As a part of its work program, the SGIP has defined a testing 

and certification framework for test programs that may be applied to the equipment, devices, and 

systems built to meet the requirements and specifications of the standards listed in the CoS. If 

these programs are applied, they will substantiate that implementations designed to the 

respective standards not only have compliance with the standards, but are also interoperable with 

one another. 

The SGIP uses the process for adding standards to the CoS described in Section 3.5. This process 

includes review by the Standards Subgroup of the SGCC to determine if the standards have 

adequately addressed cybersecurity requirements, which are defined in the NIST Interagency 

Report (NISTIR) 7628, Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security.107 The SGIP Smart Grid 

Architecture Committee (SGAC), Smart Grid Testing and Certification Committee (SGTCC), 

and Smart Grid Implementation and Methods Committee (SGIMC) also perform reviews of the 

standard with respect to their requirements, and the Board of Directors votes to recommend the 

standard to the SGIP membership, which then votes on whether to approve the standard for the 

CoS. 

Cybersecurity and architecture—and going forward, Testing and Certification reviews—will be 

applied to other standards identified in the table below, as well as those identified in future NIST 

106 http://sgip.org/

107 http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsNISTIRs.html#NIST-IR-7628

57

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

and SGIP activities.108 The SGCC, SGAC, and TCC have assigned liaisons to other SGIP 

working groups, PAPs, DEWGs, as well as to SDOs and SSOs to participate in and support the 

review of the standards when needed.

Current List of Standards Identified by NIST

Table 4-1 contains the standards identified by NIST at the conclusion of the process described in 

Release 1.0,109 which was a transparent and highly participatory public process, as well as those 

that were added following the establishment of the SGIP CoS and its subsequent expansion. 

These standards support interoperability of smart grid devices and systems. Table 4-1 groups the 

documents into families, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standards, and 

further identifies the families as standards and specifications, requirements, and guidelines. For 

Framework Release 3.0, these families of and individual standards are grouped according to the 

principal domain that they apply to. Cross-cutting standards, such as cybersecurity standards, are 

listed together as a group in the table. The table includes the names of the responsible standards 

bodies with links to the standard. Because all the standards in Table 4-1 were reviewed prior to 

when SGIP 2.0, Inc., became fully operational in April 2013, links are provided to the SGCC

assessment, the SGIP Catalog of Standards information forms, and other artifacts on the NISTmaintained collaboration website110. A column is also provided to indicate whether a standard in 

Table 4-1 has been included in the SGIP CoS as of the time of this report’s publication date. 

All of the standards listed in Table 4-1 are subject to review—or have already been reviewed—

by the SGIP SGCC Standards subgroup and the SGIP Smart Grid Architecture Committee 

(SGAC). Future standards reviewed by SGIP for the CoS will also be subject to review by the 

SGIP SGTCC) SGIMC. 

Table 4-1 now identifies 71 smart grid-relevant standards. Many of the standards in Table 4-1 are 

undergoing development and require modifications, some of which are being addressed through 

the SGIP PAPs. The SGIP SGAC and SGCC, whose ongoing efforts are described in more detail 

in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively, are also addressing some of these needed modifications. As 

discussed further in Chapter 7, experience gained with devices designed to meet the requirements 

of the standards from interoperability testing and certification activities managed by 

Interoperability Testing and Certification Authorities (ITCAs) will also influence the changes to 

these standards.

108 Results of these reviews will be available to SGIP members on the SGIP website: see http://sgip.org/

109 See http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/upload/smartgrid_interoperability_final.pdf, p. 48 

110 See http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/WebHome

58

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Table 4-1. Identified Standards 

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

Standards and Specifications

ANSI C12 Suite : Open, mostly mature standards 

developed and maintained by an SDO. 

1 ANSI C12.1

http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordD

etail.aspx?sku=ANSI+C12.1-

2008

CSWG Report :

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/SGIPCosS

IFANSIC1212008/CSWG_Stand

ards_ANSI_C12.1_Review.pdf

CoS : 

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFANSIC1212008

Establishes acceptable 

performance criteria for new 

types of ac watt hour meters, 

demand meters, demand 

registers, pulse devices and 

auxiliary devices. Describes 

acceptable in-service 

performance levels for meters 

and devices used in revenue 

metering.

C12.1, 2008 is currently being 

revised. The revision will eventually 

include updates and corrections to the 

electromagnetic interference and 

compatibility test methods in section 

4.7.3 as recommended by the SGIP 

EMII WG. 

` Customer, 

Service 

Providers

2 ANSI C12.18-2006: 

http://webstore.ansi.org/FindStan

dards.aspx?SearchString=c12.18

&SearchOption=0&PageNum=0

Revenue metering End Device 

Tables.

Y Customer, 

Service 

Providers

111 As of the draft publication date of this release of the NIST Framework, January, 2014

59

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

&SearchTermsArray=null|c12.18

|null

CSWG Report:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/CSCTGSt

andards/CSWG_Standards_ANS

I_C12.18_Review_final.docx

CoS :

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFANSIC12182006

3 ANSI C12.19-2008

http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordD

etail.aspx?sku=ANSI+C12.19-

2008

CSWG Report

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/CSCTGSt

andards/CSWG_Standards_ANS

I_C12.19_Review_final.docx

CoS :

Electricity Meters - 0.2 and 0.5 

Accuracy Classes

It is recognized that ANSI C12.19 

version 2, and correspondingly IEEE 

1377 version 2, are extremely flexible 

metering data and information models 

that provide a wide range of functions 

and capabilities for delivery of 

actionable information, such as energy 

usage in kilowatt hours from a meter, 

load profiles and control information, 

such as load control, programming 

and firmware management. These 

capabilities call complex 

programming to secure the control and 

Y Customer, 

Service 

Providers

60
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFANSIC12192008

the information. ANSI C12.19 

version 2 implements a 

comprehensive information class 

model by which the table and 

proc0dures classes and their class 

attributes are modeled using an 

extensible XML-based Table 

Definition Language (TDL). The 

instances of the data model (TDL 

classes) can be described in terms of 

the XML-based Exchange Data 

Language (EDL) that can be used to 

constrain oft-utilized information into 

a well-known form. The model and 

element instance information can be 

used by head end systems that 

implement ANSI C12.19 

interoperable to communicate and 

manage any end device produced by 

any vendor company. PAP05 has been 

set up to establish consistent sets of 

commonly used data tables, 

procedures and services for meter 

information communication that will 

greatly reduce the time for utilities 

61
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

and others requiring to implement 

smart grid functions, such as demand 

response and real-time usage 

information (PAP05: Standard Meter 

Data Profiles). The task was 

undertaken by the Association of 

Edison Illuminating Companies 

(AEIC). AEIC completed a new 

interoperability standard on November 

19, 2010, “Smart Grid/AEIC AMI 

Interoperability Standard Guidelines 

for ANSI C12.19 / IEEE 1377 / 

MC12.19 End Device 

Communications and Supporting 

Enterprise Devices, Networks and 

Related Accessories, Version 2.0.” 

The interoperability standard is also 

included in this table.

4 ANSI C12.20

http://webstore.ansi.org/FindStan

dards.aspx?SearchString=c12.20

&SearchOption=0&PageNum=0

&SearchTermsArray=null|c12.20

|null

CSWG :

Transport of measurement 

device data over telephone 

networks.

Establishes the physical aspects and 

acceptable performance criteria for 0.2 

and 0.5 accuracy class electricity 

meters meeting Blondel's Theorem.

Y Customer, 

Service 

Providers

62
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFANSIC12202010

CoS :

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFANSIC12202010

5 ANSI C12.21/IEEE 

P1702/MC1221

http://webstore.ansi.org/FindStan

dards.aspx?SearchString=c12.21

&SearchOption=0&PageNum=0

&SearchTermsArray=null|c12.21

|null

CSWG Report

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/CSCTGSt

andards/CSWG_Standards_ANS

I_C12.21_Review_final.docx

CoS :

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFANSIC12212006

Protocol and optical interface 

for measurement devices.

Details the criteria required for 

communications between a C12.21 

device and a C12.21 client via a 

modem connected to the switched 

telephone network. The C12.21 client 

could be a laptop or portable 

computer, a master station system or 

another electronic communications 

device.

Y Customer, 

Service 

Providers

6 ANSI/American Society of 

Heating, Refrigeration, and Air 

BACnet defines an 

information model and 

Open, mature standard with 

conformance testing developed and 

Y Customer

63
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

Conditioning Engineers 

(ASHRAE) 135-2012/ISO 

16484-5 BACnet

http://www.techstreet.com/produ

cts/1852610

A Data Communication Protocol 

for Building Automation and 

Control Networks

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFASHRAE1352010

messages for building system 

communications at a 

customer’s site. BACnet 

incorporates a range of 

networking technologies, using 

IP protocols, to provide 

scalability from very small 

systems to multi-building 

operations that span wide 

geographic areas.

maintained by an SDO. BACnet is 

adopted internationally as EN ISO 

16484-5 and used in more than 80 

countries.

BACnet serves as a customer domain 

communication protocol and is 

relevant to the Price, DR/DER, 

Energy Usage, and Facility Smart 

Grid Information Model 

PAPs (PAP03: Develop Common 

Specification for Price and Product 

Definition -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP03Pric

eProduct, PAP09: Standard DR and 

DER Signals -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP09DR

DER, PAP10: Standard Energy 

Usage Information -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP10Ene

rgyUsagetoEMS, and PAP17 Facility 

Smart Grid Information Standard -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki64
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP17Fac

ilitySmartGridInformationStandard ). 

Widely used in commercial, industrial 

and institutional buildings.

7 ANSI/CEA 709 and Consumer 

Electronics Association (CEA) 

852.1 LON Protocol Suite:

http://www.lonmark.org/technica

l_resources/standards

http://www.ce.org/Standards/Sta

ndard-Listings/R7-HomeNetwork-Committee

This is a general purpose local 

area networking protocol in 

use for various applications 

including electric meters, 

street lighting, home 

automation, and building 

automation.

Widely used, mature standards, 

supported by the LonMark 

International users group. 

These standards are also adopted 

internationally as ISO/IEC 14908, 

Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4.

These standards serve on the customer 

side of the facility interface and are 

relevant to the Price, Demand 

Response (DR)/Distributed Energy 

Resource (DER), and Energy Usage 

PAPs (PAP03: Develop Common 

Specification for Price and Product 

Definition -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP03Pric

eProduct, PAP09: Standard DR and 

DER Signals -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP09DR

DER, and PAP10: Standard Energy 

N Customer, 

Service 

Providers

65
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

Usage Information -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP10Ene

rgyUsagetoEMS)

8 IEC 60870-6 -503 Telecontrol 

Application Service Element 2 

(TASE.2)

http://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/

webstore.nsf/artnum/034806

CSWG Report

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/CSCTGSt

andards/StandardsReviewPhase1Report.pdf

Narrative

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/NISTStan

dardsSummaries/IEC_60870_Na

rrative_10-6-2010.doc

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC608706503

This standard defines the 

messages sent between control 

centers of different utilities.

Open, mature standard developed and 

maintained by an SDO. It is widely 

implemented with compliance testing. 

This is part of the IEC 60870 Suite of 

standards. It is used in almost every 

utility for inter-control center 

communications between SCADA 

and/or Energy Management System 

(EMS) systems. It is supported by 

most vendors of SCADA and EMS 

systems. 

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

66
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

9 IEC 60870-6-702

Telecontrol Equipment and 

SystmsSystems - Part 6: 

Telecontrol protocols compatible 

with ISO standards and ITU-T 

recommendations - Section 702: 

Functional profile for providing 

the TASE.2 application service 

in end systems

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC608706702

This section of the standard, 

IEC 60870-6-702, defines a 

standard profile, or set of 

options for implementing the 

application, presentation, and 

session layers. This is known 

as an A-profile. For a complete 

protocol implementation of 

TASE.2, this A-profile must 

interface to a connectionoriented transport profile, or Tprofile that specifies the 

transport, network and 

possibly data link layers. A Tprofile that is commonly used 

with this standard includes 

RFC1006, TCP, IP, and 

Ethernet. 

This section of the standard 

defines the Protocol 

Implementation Conformance 

Statements (PICS) for 

TASE.2, including tables 

specifying which services and 

objects are mandatory and 

Y Transmission

67
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

optional for compliance with 

the standard. 

10 IEC 60870-6-802

Telecontrol Equipment and 

Systms - Part 6: Telecontrol 

protocols compatible with ISO 

standards and ITU-T 

recommendations - Section 802: 

TASE.2 Object Models

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC608706802

Standard for Communications 

between electric power control 

centers. Formerly known as 

Inter Control Center Protocol 

(ICCP), the standard is used 

for communication of electric 

power system status and 

control messages between 

power control centers.

This part of the standard defines the 

object models used at the application 

layer of the protocol. It includes data 

objects for basic Supervisory Control 

and Data Acquisition (SCADA) as 

well as specific objects for control 

center concepts such as Transfer 

Accounts, Device Outages, and Power 

Plants.

Y Transmission

IEC 61850 Suite: Communication 

networks and systems in substations

(Only individual parts are being 

numbered)

http://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/websto

re.nsf/artnum/033549!opendocument

CSWG Report

This standard defines 

communications within 

transmission and distribution 

substations for automation and 

protection. It is being extended 

to cover communications 

beyond the substation to 

integration of distributed 

resources and between 

substations. 

Open standard with conformance 

testing that is developed and 

maintained by an SDO. It has been 

widely adopted world-wide and is 

starting to be adopted in North 

America. Developed initially for field 

device communications within 

substations, this set of standards is 

now being extended to 

communications between substations, 

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

68
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/CSCTGStandar

ds/StandardsReviewPhase-1Report.pdf

Narrative

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/NISTStandards

Summaries/IEC_61850_Narrative_10-

6-2010.doc

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCoSS

tandardsInformationLibrary

between substations and control 

centers, and including hydroelectric 

plants, DER, and synchrophasors. It is 

also adapted for use in wind turbines 

(IEC 61400-25) and switchgears (IEC 

62271-3). Several PAPs (PAP07, 

PAP08, PAP12, and PAP13) are 

dedicated to further development 

work in various areas. 

PAP07 has developed requirements to 

update IEC 61850-7-420 Distributed 

Energy Resource (DER) Information 

Models to include storage devices and 

Smart Grid functionality necessary to 

support high penetration of DER. 

PAP07 is also mapping the 

information models to application 

protocols including Smart Energy 

Profile (SEP2) and DNP3. The new 

information models requirements are 

included in the IEC Technical Report, 

IEC 61850-90-7 published in 

February 2013 and will also be 

69
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

included in the modified normative 

standard that will follow.

(PAP07: Energy Storage 

Interconnection Guidelines -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP07Sto

rage)

PAP12 has been working on the 

mapping of IEEE 1815 (DNP3) to 

IEC 61850 objects, and it has resulted 

in a draft IEEE standard P1815.1 

being completed in early 2011 for 

adoption by IEEE around mid-2011. 

(PAP12: Mapping IEEE 1815 (DNP3) 

to IEC 61850 Objects -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP12DN

P361850)

PAP13 was established to assist and 

accelerate the integration of standards 

(IEEE C37.118 and IEC 61850) that 

impact phasor measurement systems 

and applications that use 

synchrophasor data, as well as 

implementation profiles for IEEE Std 

70
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

1588 for precision time 

synchronization.

(PAP13: Harmonization of IEEE 

C37.118 with IEC 61850 and 

Precision Time Synchronization -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP13618

50C27118HarmSynch) 

IEEE will split current IEEE C37.118-

2005 into two parts in its new revision 

to facilitate the harmonization with 

IEC standards: C37.118.1 Standard 

for synchrophasor measurements for 

power systems aimed to become an 

IEEE/IEC dual-logo standard, and 

C37.118.2, Standard for 

synchrophasor data transfer for power 

systems to be harmonized with / 

transitioned to IEC 61850-90-5, which 

was published in May 2012.

PAP8 is working on harmonizing this 

family of standards, the IEC 61970 

family of standards (Common 

Information Model or CIM), and 

71
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

MultiSpeak for distribution grid 

management (PAP08: CIM/61850 for 

Distribution Grid Management -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP08Dis

trObjMultispeak).

11 IEC 61850-1

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIECTR618501

This document, Part 1 of the standard, 

provides an overview of the other 

parts of the standard and an 

introduction to key concepts used in 

the rest of the standard, such as logical 

nodes.

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

12 IEC61850-2

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIECTS618502

This document, Part 2 of the standard, 

is the glossary.

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

13 IEC61850-3

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC618503

This document, Part 3 of IEC 61850 

applies to substation automation 

systems (SAS). It describes the 

communication between intelligent 

electronic devices (IEDs) in the 

substation and the related system 

requirements. The specifications of 

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

72
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

this part pertain to the general 

requirements of the communication 

network, with emphasis on the quality 

requirements. It also deals with 

guidelines for environmental 

conditions and auxiliary services, with 

recommendations on the relevance of 

specific requirements from other 

standards and specifications.

14 IEC61850-4

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC618504

The specifications of this part pertain 

to the system and project management 

with respect to:

• the engineering process and its 

supporting tools;

• the life cycle of the overall system 

and its IEDs;

• the quality assurance beginning with 

the development stage and ending 

with discontinuation and 

decommissioning of the SAS and its 

IEDs.

The requirements of the system and 

project management process and of 

special supporting tools for 

engineering and testing are described.

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

73
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

The IEC 61850-4 covers system and 

project management requirements for 

Utility Automation Systems, which 

implies a broader scope than the 

substation automation communication 

equipment only. However, the 

language in the document is heavily 

based on Substation Automation.

15 IEC61850-5

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC618505

This part of IEC 61850 applies to 

Substation Automation Systems 

(SAS). It standardizes the 

communication between intelligent 

electronic devices (IEDs) and the 

related system requirements. The 

specifications of this part refer to the 

communication requirements of the 

functions being performed in the 

substation automation system and to 

device models. All known functions 

and their communication requirements 

are identified.

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

16 IEC61850-6

CoS:

This part of IEC 61850 specifies a file 

format for describing communicationY Transmission, Distribution

74
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC618506

related IED (Intelligent Electronic 

Device) configurations and IED 

parameters, communication system

configurations, switch yard (function) 

structures, and the relations between 

them. The main purpose of this format 

is to exchange IED capability 

descriptions, and SA system 

descriptions between IED engineering 

tools and the system engineering 

tool(s) of different manufacturers in a 

compatible way. The defined language 

is called System Configuration 

description Language (SCL). The IED 

and communication system model in 

SCL is according to IEC 61850-5 and 

IEC 1850-7-x. SCSM specific 

extensions or usage rules may be 

required in the appropriate parts. The 

configuration language is based on the 

Extensible Markup Language (XML) 

version 1.0 (see XML references in 

Clause 2).

This standard does not specify 

individual implementations or 

75
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

products using the language, nor does 

it constrain the implementation of 

entities and interfaces within a 

computer system. This part of the 

standard does not specify the 

download format of configuration data 

to an IED, although it could be used 

for part of the configuration data.

17 IEC61850-7-1

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC6185071

The purpose of this part of the IEC 

61850 series is to provide – from a 

conceptual point of view – assistance 

to understand the basic modelling 

concepts and description methods for:

• substation-specific information 

models for power utility automation 

systems, 

• device functions used for power 

utility automation purposes, and 

• communication systems to provide 

interoperability within power utility 

facilities

Furthermore, this part of the IEC 

61850 series provides explanations 

and provides detailed requirements 

relating to the relation between IEC 

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

76
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

61850-7-4, IEC 61850-7-3, IEC 

61850-7-2 and IEC 61850-5. This part 

explains how the abstract services and 

models of the IEC 61850-7-x series 

are mapped to concrete 

communication protocols as defined 

in IEC 61850-8-1.

18 IEC61850-7-2

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC6185072

This part of IEC 61850 applies to the 

ACSI communication for utility 

automation. The ACSI provides the 

following abstract communication 

service interfaces.

a) Abstract interface describing 

communications between a client and 

a remote server for

– real-time data access and retrieval,

– device control,

– event reporting and logging,

– setting group control,

– self-description of devices (device 

data dictionary),

– data typing and discovery of data 

types, and

– file transfer.

b) Abstract interface for fast and 

reliable system-wide event 

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

77
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

distribution between an application in 

one device and many remote 

applications in different devices 

(publisher/sub-scribersubscriber) and 

for transmission of sampled measured 

values (publisher/subscriber).

19 IEC61850-7-3

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC6185073

This part of IEC 61850 specifies 

constructed attribute classes and 

common data classes related to 

substation applications. In particular, 

it specifies:

· common data classes for status 

information,

· common data classes for measured 

information,

· common data classes for control,

· common data classes for status 

settings,

· common data classes for analogue 

settings and 

· attribute types used in these common 

data classes. 

This International Standard is 

applicable to the description of device 

models and functions of substations 

and feeder equipment.

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

78
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

20 IEC 61850-7-4

CoS:

http://members.sgip.org/apps/gro

up_public/document.php?docum

ent_id=2586&wg_abbrev=cosd

This part specifies the abstract 

information model of devices and 

functions, consisting of data objects 

contained in Logical Nodes (LNs). 

This part was initially just for 

substation automation, but has been 

expanded to include the common 

Logical Nodes used in many different 

domains, including: • Intra-substation 

information exchanges • Substationto-substation information exchanges • 

Substation-to-control center 

information exchanges • Power plantto-control center information 

exchanges • Information exchange for 

distributed generations • Information 

exchange for distributed automations • 

Information exchange for metering. 

This part also specifies normative 

naming rules for multiple instances 

and private, compatible extensions of 

logical node (LN) classes and data 

object (DO) names.

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

21 IEC61850-7-410

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC618507410

IEC 61850-7-410 is part of the IEC 

61850 series. This part of IEC 61850 

specifies the additional common data 

classes, logical nodes and data objects 

required for the use of IEC 61850 in a 

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

79
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

hydropower plant. The Logical Nodes 

and Data Objects defined in this part 

of IEC 61850 belong to the following 

fields of use:

• Electrical functions. This group 

includes LN and DO used for various 

control functions, essentially related to 

the excitation of the generator. New 

LN and DO defined within this group 

are not specific to hydropower plants; 

they are more or less general for all 

types of larger power plants.

• Mechanical functions. This group 

includes functions related to the 

turbine and associated equipment. The 

specifications of this document are 

intended for hydropower plants, 

modifications might be required for 

application to other types of 

generating plants. Some more generic 

functions are defined under Logical 

Node group K.

• Hydrological functions. This group 

of functions includes objects related to 

water flow, control and management 

of reservoirs and dams. Although 

specific for hydropower plants, the 

LN and DO defined here can also be 

80
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

used for other types of utility water 

management systems.

• Sensors. A power plant will need 

sensors providing measurements of 

other than electrical data. With a few 

exceptions, such sensors are of 

general nature and not specific for 

hydropower plants.

22 IEC61850-7-420

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC618507420

This International Standard defines 

the IEC 61850 information models to 

be used in the exchange of 

information with distributed energy 

resources (DER), which comprise 

dispersed generation devices and 

dispersed storage devices, including 

reciprocating engines, fuel cells, 

microturbines, photovoltaics, 

combined heat and power, and energy 

storage. The IEC 61850 DER 

information model standard utilizes 

existing IEC 61850-7-4 logical nodes 

where possible, but also defines DERspecific logical nodes where needed.

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

23 IEC61850-8-1

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC6185081

IEC 61850-8-1 maps the:

• Abstract service models defined in 

IEC 61850-7-2 as “Abstract 

Communication Services Interface 

(ACSI)”, including the Generic 

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

81
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

Object-Oriented Substation Event 

(GOOSE) and Sampled Values (SV) 

messages

• Common data classes (CDCs) 

defined in IEC 61850-7-3

• Data objects in Logical Nodes (LNs) 

defined in the IEC 61850-7-4, 7-410, 

and 7-420 to the “bits and bytes” 

protocols of the Manufacturing 

Message Specification (MMS) at the 

ISO/OSI Application Layer, that runs 

over IEC 8802-3 (commonly referred 

to as Ethernet) at the ISO/OSI Data 

Link Layer. 

• Time synchronization uses the 

Simple Network Time Protocols 

(SNTP) protocol.

• Different profiles are established for 

different types of messages, ranging 

from the very fast GOOSE event 

messages and rapid continuous 

sampled values messages running 

directly over Ethernet, to special time 

synchronization interactions over 

UDP, to the normal information 

exchange messages running over 

TCP/IP.

82
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

• The standard also addresses 

additional mapping issues, including 

file transfers, the system configuration 

language, conformance, multicast, and 

timing issues.

24 IEC61850-9-2

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC6185092

IEC 61850 supports “sampled values” 

which are continuously streaming raw 

measurements from sensors, e.g. 

voltage measurements from Potential 

Transformers (PTs) or water flow

measurements in hydro plants. This 

standard maps the abstract services 

defined in IEC 61850-7-2 for 

retrieving these sampled values to the 

(A-Profile) Manufacturing Message 

Specification (MMS) as standardized 

in IEC 61850-8-1 and to (T-Profile) 

TCP/IP over (essentially) Ethernet 

over fiber optic media. Other media 

may also be used, but are not specified 

in this document.

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

25 IEC61850-10

CoS:

IEC 61850 was originally focused on 

substation automation. This part 

defines the conformance testing 

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

83
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEC6185010

requirements and measurement 

techniques for ensuring optimal 

performance for implementations of 

substation automation using IEC 

61850. The testing covers:

• General testing plan and procedure 

requirements 

• Quality assurance requirements

• Use of SCL files

• Documentation and test reports

• Positive and negative test cases for 

the services defined in IEC 61850-7-2

• Accuracy of time synchronization

• Performance tests

26 IEC61850-90-5

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIECTR61850905

IEC 61850-90-5:

This technical report is a part of the 

IEC 61850 series of standards that 

adds a method for exchanging 

synchrophasor data between PMUs, 

PDCs, WAMPAC (Wide Area 

Monitoring, Protection, and Control) 

systems, and between control center 

applications. The data, to the extent 

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

84
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

covered in IEEE C37.118.2 - 2011, is 

transported in a way that is compliant 

to the concepts of IEC 61850. 

This document also provides routable 

profiles for IEC 61850-8-1 GOOSE 

and IEC 61850-9-2 SV packets. These 

routable packets can be utilized to 

transport general IEC 61850 data as 

well as synchrophasor data.

27 IEC 61968/61970 Suites

http://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/

webstore.nsf/mysearchajax?Open

form&key=61968&sorting=&sta

rt=1&onglet=1

CSWG Report

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/CSCTGSt

andards/StandardsReviewPhase1Report.pdf

Narrative IEC 61968 

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/NISTStan

dardsSummaries/IEC_61968_Na

rrative_10-6-2010.doc

These families of standards 

define information exchanged 

among control center systems 

using common information 

models. They define 

application-level energy 

management system interfaces 

and messaging for distribution 

grid management in the utility 

space. 

Open standards that are starting to 

become more widely implemented, 

developed and maintained by an SDO 

with support from a users group. They 

are part of PAP08 activities relating to 

integration with IEC 61850 and 

MultiSpeak (PAP08: CIM/61850 for 

Distribution Grid Management -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP08Dis

trObjMultispeak). Work is continuing 

to add extensions to the CIM for new 

Smart Grid functionality, and it is 

expected have more complete 

N Operations

85
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

Narrative IEC 61970

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/NISTStan

dardsSummaries/IEC_61970_Na

rrative_10-6-2010.doc

coverage of distribution automation 

devices and systems in the future. 

28 IEEE 1815 (DNP3)

IEEE Xplore - IEEE Std 1815-

2012 

http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/

standard/1815-2012.html

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEEE181

This standard is used for 

substation and feeder device 

automation, as well as for 

communications between 

control centers and 

substations.

An open, mature, widely implemented 

specification initially developed and 

supported by a group of vendors, 

utilities, and other users, and now 

maintained by an SDO. 

IEEE has adopted it as an IEEE 

standard, IEEE Std 1815-2010, 

excluding the cybersecurity part 

which is being updated by IEEE 

Substation Committee Working Group 

(WG) C12. A Priority Action Plan 

(PAP12) was established to support 

transport of smart grid data and 

management functions between 

networks implementing IEEE 1815 

and IEC 61850. 

PAP12 has coordinated actions on the 

development of mapping between IEC 

61850 and IEEE 1815 (DNP3) objects 

Y Generation, 

Transmission, 

Distribution, 

Operations, 

Service 

Provider

86
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

that will allow presently 

communicated supervisory control 

and data acquisition (SCADA) 

information to be used in new ways, 

while also providing the ability to 

create new applications using the 

existing DNP3 infrastructure. A draft 

IEEE 1815.1 mapping standard has 

been developed, and a new working 

group C14 under IEEE substation 

committee has been established to 

adopt it as a formal IEEE standard. It 

is also anticipated to be adopted later 

by IEC as a dual-logo IEEE/IEC 

standard. (PAP12: Mapping IEEE 

1815 (DNP3) to IEC 61850 Objects -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP12DN

P361850).

29 IEEE C37.118.1-2011

IEEE Standard for 

Synchrophasor Measurements 

for Power Systems

http://standards.ieee.org/develop/

wg/C37.118.1_WG.html

This standard defines phasor 

measurement unit (PMU) 

performance specifications 

Open standard, widely implemented, 

developed and maintained by an SDO. 

Standard is overseen by the IEEE 

Power System Relaying Committee 

(PSRC) Relaying Communications 

Subcommittee Working Groups H11 

N Transmission, 

Distribution

87
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

and H19. This standard is intended to 

become an IEEE/IEC dual-logo 

standard.

30 IEEE C37.118.2

Standard for synchrophasor data 

transfer for power systems

http://standards.ieee.org/develop/

wg/C37.118.2_WG.html

This standard defines 

communications for phasor 

measurement units (PMUs). 

Some items not covered in C37.118-

2005 include communication service 

modes, remote device configuration, 

dynamic measurement performance, 

and security

IEEE PSRC WG C5 has developed a 

“Guide for Synchronization, 

Calibration, Testing, and Installation 

of Phasor Measurement Units (PMU) 

applied in Power System Protection 

and Control” based on the C37.118 

standards and previous publications 

by North American Synchro-Phasor 

Initiative (NASPI) in these areas.

They are part of PAP13 relating to 

harmonization of IEC 61850 and 

IEEE C37.118 standards (PAP13: 

Harmonization of IEEE C37.118 with 

IEC 61850 and Precision Time 

Synchronization -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikiN Transmission, 

Distribution

88
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP13618

50C27118HarmSynch).

31 IEEE C37.238 -2011

IEEE Standard Profile for Use of 

IEEE 1588 Precision Time 

Protocol in Power System 

Applications

http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/

standard/C37.238-2011.html

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEEEC372382011

Ethernet communications for 

power systems

This standard specifies a common 

profile for use of IEEE 1588-2008 

Precision Time Protocol (PTP) in 

power system protection, control, 

automation and data communication 

applications utilizing an Ethernet 

communications architecture. 

The profile specifies a well-defined 

subset of IEEE 1588-2008 

mechanisms and settings aimed at 

enabling device interoperability, 

robust response to network failures, 

and deterministic control of delivered 

time quality. It specifies the preferred 

physical layer (Ethernet), higher level 

protocol used for PTP message 

exchange and the PTP protocol 

configuration parameters. Special 

attention is given to ensuring 

consistent and reliable time 

distribution within substations, 

between substations, and across wide 

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

89
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

geographic areas. (Source: IEEE 

PC37.238 D4.0 – Scope Statement)

32 IEEE C37.239-2010

Standard for Common Format 

for Event Data Exchange 

(COMFEDE) for Power Systems

http://www.pes-psrc.org/h/

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/logi

n.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5638582&

url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.

ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp

%3Farnumber%3D5638582

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIEEEC372392010

Interchange of power system 

event data

A common format for data files used 

for the interchange of various types of 

event data collected from electrical 

power systems or power system 

models is defined. Extensibility, 

extension mechanisms, and 

compatibility of future versions of the 

format are discussed. An XML 

schema is defined. A sample file is 

given. It doesn’t define what is 

transferred via communications. It is 

only a file format for offline analysis 

and data exchange.

Y Transmission, 

Distribution

33 IEEE 1547 Suite: Standard for 

Interconnecting Distributed 

Resources with Electric Power 

Systems

https://sbwsweb.ieee.org/ecusto

mercme_enu/start.swe?SWECmd

=GotoView&SWEView=Catalog

+View+(eSales)_Standards_IEE

E&mem_type=Customer&SWE

This family of standards 

defines physical and electrical 

interconnections between the 

grid and distributed generation 

(DG) and storage.

Open standards developed and 

maintained by an SDO with 

significant implementation for the 

parts covering physical/electrical 

connections. The parts of this suite of 

standards that describe messages are 

not as widely deployed as the parts 

that specify the physical 

interconnections. Many utilities and 

N Transmission, 

Distribution, 

Customer

90
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

Ho=sbwsweb.ieee.org&SWETS

=1192713657

http://www.sgiclearinghouse.org/

?q=node/1116&lb=1

regulators require their use in systems. 

Revising and extending the IEEE 

1547 family is a focus of PAP07, 

covering energy storage 

interconnections (PAP07: Energy 

Storage Interconnection Guidelines -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP07Sto

rage).).

When applied to utility-interactive 

equipment, Underwriters Laboratories 

(UL) 1741, “Standard for Safety 

Inverters, Converters, Controllers and 

Interconnection System Equipment for 

Use With Distributed Energy 

Resources,” should be used in 

conjunction with 1547 and 1547.1 

standards which supplement them. 

The products covered by these 

requirements are intended to be 

installed in accordance with the 

National Electrical Code, National 

Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 

70. 

91
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

34 IEEE 1588: The Precise 

Networked Clock 

Synchronization

http://www.nist.gov/el/isd/ieee/in

tro1588.cfm

Standard for time management 

and clock synchronization 

across the Smart Grid for 

equipment needing consistent 

time management.

Profile of IEEE 1588 for 

electric power systems.

Open standard. Version 2 is not 

widely implemented for power 

applications. Developed and 

maintained by an SDO.

IEEE PSRC Subcommittee Working 

Group H7 is developing a new 

standard C37.238 (IEEE Standard 

Profile for use of IEEE Std. 1588 

Precision Time Protocol in Power 

System Applications).

See #31 in this table, IEEE C37.238 -

2011 - IEEE Standard Profile for Use 

of IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol 

in Power System Applications. This 

standard was part of PAP13, which 

covered incorporating precision time 

synchronization with harmonization of 

IEEE and IEC standards for 

communications of phasor data 

(http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP13618

50C27118HarmSynch).

N Transmission, 

Distribution

Transmission, 

Distribution

92
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

35 Inter-System Protocol(ISP)-

based Broadband-Power Line 

Carrier (PLC) coexistence 

mechanism: (Portion of) IEEE 

1901-2010 (ISP)

and 

International 

Telecommunications Union 

Telecommunication 

Standardization Sector (ITU-T) 

G.9972 (06/2010)

IEEE 1901-2010

http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/

standard/1901-2010.html

ITU-T G.9972

http://www.itu.int/rec/T-RECG.9972-201006-P/en

Both IEEE 1901-2010, “IEEE 

Standard for Broadband over 

Power Line Networks: 

Medium Access Control and 

Physical Layer 

Specifications,” and ITU-T 

G.9972 (06/2010), 

“Coexistence mechanism for 

wireline home networking 

transceivers,” specify InterSystem Protocol (ISP) based 

Broadband (> 1.8 MHz) PLC 

(BB-PLC) coexistence

mechanisms to enable the 

coexistence of different BBPLC protocols for home 

networking.

Open standards developed and 

maintained by SDOs. Both IEEE 1901 

and ITU-T G.9972 are developed and 

maintained by SDOs. Through 

coordination by PAP15 (PAP15: 

Harmonize Power Line Carrier 

Standards for Appliance 

Communications in the Home -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP15PL

CForLowBitRates), the divergence 

between the two standards has been 

successfully eliminated before 

ratification. IEEE 1901-compliant 

devices implementing either one of 

the two IEEE 1901 Physical (PHY)/

Media Access Control (MAC) Layers 

can coexist with each other. Likewise,

ITU-T G.9960/9961 devices that 

implement ITU-T G.9972 can coexist 

Y112 Customer

112 IEEE 1901-2010 and the ITU-T G.99xx series of standards appear on the CoS in their entirety. Only the coexistence portion of IEEE 1901-2010 and ITU-T 

G.9972 are included in this table because of incompatibilities with the other parts of the standard and series. See the PAP 15 document, NISTIR 7862 “Guideline 

for the Implementation of Coexistence for Broadband Power Line Communication Standards“ for further guidance 

(http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2012/NIST.IR.7862.pdf).

93

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

with IEEE 1901-compliant devices 

implementing either one of the two 

IEEE P1901 PHY/MACs, and vice 

versa.

36 MultiSpeak

http://www.nreca.coop/what-wedo/multispeak/aboutmultispeak/

A specification for application 

software integration within the 

utility operations domain; a 

candidate for use in an 

Enterprise Service Bus.

An open, mature specification 

developed and maintained by a 

consortium of electric utilities and 

industry vendors, with an 

interoperability testing program. It is 

part of PAP08’s task for 

harmonization of IEC 61850/CIM and 

MultiSpeak (PAP08: CIM/61850 for 

Distribution Grid Management -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP08Dis

trObjMultispeak).

N Distribution

37 NAESB REQ18, WEQ19 Energy 

Usage Information

http://www.naesb.org/member_l

ogin_check.asp?doc=weq_rat102

910_weq_2010_ap_6d_rec.doc, 

 

http://www.naesb.org/member_l

ogin_check.asp?doc=req_rat1029

10_req_2010_ap_9d_rec.doc

The standards specify two‐way 

flows of energy usage 

information based on a 

standardized information 

model.

Open standards, developed and 

maintained by an SDO. These are new 

standards to be adopted and deployed. 

It will be a basis for additional 

standards and recommendations 

including those from PAP17; also 

used as input for Energy 

Interoperation.

Y Customer, 

Service 

Provider

94
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

 

CoS Web page:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFNAESBREQ18WEQ19

The standards have been reviewed by 

PAP10 (PAP10: Standard Energy 

Usage Information -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP10Ene

rgyUsagetoEMS) and SGAC. It has 

been recommended by the SGIP 

Governing Board and approved by the 

SGIP Plenary for inclusion in the 

Catalog of Standards.

In related work, the NAESB Energy 

Services Provider Interface (ESPI) 

Task Force is developing a Req.21, 

ESPI. See 

http://www.naesb.org/espi_task_force.

asp for further information.

Customers will benefit from energy 

usage information that enables them to 

make better decisions and take other 

actions consistent with the goals of 

Sections 1301 and 1305 of EISA. An 

understanding of energy usage 

informs better decisions about energy 

95
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

use and conservation, and is the basis 

for performance feedback on the 

operation of customer‐owned energy 

management systems and 

understanding device energy usage 

and management.

This standard defines an information 

model of semantics for the definition 

and exchange of customer energy 

usage information. The actual 

exchange standards are anticipated to 

be derivative from this seed standard.

A revision of this standard has been 

approved through the NAESB process 

but has not yet been re-evaluated by 

SGIP for the CoS.

38 NAESB REQ-21 

Energy Services Provider 

Interface (ESPI)

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFNAESBREQ21

ESPI builds on the NAESB 

Energy Usage Information 

(EUI) Model and, subject to 

the governing documents and 

any requirements of the 

applicable regulatory 

authority, will help enable 

retail customers to share 

ESPI applies to customer interaction 

systems of utilities, third party service 

providers, and customers and their 

devices such as handheld and desktop 

computers, thermostats, electricity 

meters, etc.

Y Customer, 

Service 

Provider

96
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

energy usage information with 

third parties who have 

acquired the right to act in this 

role. ESPI will provide a 

consistent method for retail 

customers to authorize a third 

party to gain access to energy 

usage information. Doing so 

will help enable retail 

customers to choose third 

party products to assist them to 

better understand their energy 

usage and to make more 

economical decisions about 

their usage. ESPI will 

contribute to the development 

of an open and interoperable 

method for third party 

authorization and machine-tomachine exchange of retail 

customer energy usage 

information.

39 NAESB REQ-22 The NAESB REQ.22 

document “establishes 

voluntary Model Business 

REQ.22 provides guidelines for the 

privacy business practices for 

Distribution Companies and Third 

Y Customer, 

Service 

Provider 

97
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

Third Party Access to Smart 

Meter-based Information 

Business Model Practices

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFNAESBREQ22

Practices for Third Party 

access to Smart Meter-based 

information.” These business 

practices are intended only to 

serve as flexible guidelines 

rather than requirements, with 

the onus on regulatory 

authorities or similar bodies to 

establish the actual 

requirements. They are also 

not intended for any billing or 

collection activities.

Parties when managing private 

customer Smart Meter information. 

ESPI applies to customer interaction 

systems of utilities, third party service 

providers, and customers and their 

devices such as handheld and desktop 

computers, thermostats, electricity 

meters, etc.

SGIP PAP 20, Green Button EPSI 

Evolution, is building on this work. 

Additionally, open source 

implementations for ESPI and related 

testing tools are being developed.

40 NEMA Smart Grid Standards 

Publication SG-AMI 1-2009 –

Requirements for Smart Meter 

Upgradeability

http://www.nema.org/Standards/

Pages/Requirements-for-SmartMeter-Upgradeability.aspx

CoS Web page:

This standard will be used by 

smart meter suppliers, utility 

customers, and key 

constituents, such as 

regulators, to guide both 

development and decision 

making as related to smart 

meter upgradeability.

This standard serves as a key set of 

requirements for smart meter 

upgradeability. These requirements 

should be used by smart meter 

suppliers, utility customers, and key 

constituents, such as regulators, to 

guide both development and decision 

making as related to smart meter 

upgradeability. 

The purpose of this document is to 

define requirements for smart meter 

firmware upgradeability in the context 

Y Customer, 

Distribution

98
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFNEMASGAMI1

of an AMI system for industry 

stakeholders such as regulators, 

utilities, and vendors.

This standard was coordinated by 

PAP00 Meter Upgradeability Standard 

- http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP00Met

erUpgradability and has been 

recommended by the SGIP Governing 

Board and approved by the SGIP 

Plenary for the CoS.

41 OPC-UA Industrial

http://www.opcfoundation.org/D

ownloads.aspx?CM=1&CN=KE

Y&CI=283

A platform-independent 

specification for a secure, 

reliable, high-speed data 

exchange based on a 

publish/subscribe mechanism. 

Modern service-oriented 

architecture (SOA) designed to 

expose complex data and 

metadata defined by other 

information model 

specifications (e.g. IEC 61850, 

BACnet, OpenADR). Works 

with existing binary and 

Widely supported open standard, with 

compliance testing program.

N Customer

99
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

eXtensible Markup Language 

(XML) schema defined data.

42 Open Automated Demand 2.0 

Response (OpenADR)

http://www.openadr.org/specifica

tion

Cos:

OpenADR Profile A

http://members.sgip.org/apps/org

/workgroup/chairs/download.php

/2224

OpenADR Profile B

http://members.sgip.org/apps/org

/workgroup/chairs/download.php

/2224

The specification defines 

messages exchanged between 

the Demand Response (DR) 

Service Providers (e.g., 

utilities, independent system 

operators (ISOs) and 

customers for price-responsive 

and reliability-based DR.

Developed by Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory and California 

Energy Commission and is currently 

supported by the OpenADR Alliance. 

Demand response signals are currently 

being standardized in OASIS Energy 

Interoperation. The Organization for 

the Advancement of Structured 

Information Standard (OASIS) is the 

SDO that created and published the 

OpenADR 2.0 Profile as a subset of 

the Energy Interoperation (EI) 

standard. The OpenADR Alliance 

maintains the standard and is 

recognized as the ITCA by SGIP. 

(PAP09: Standard DR and DER 

Signals -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP09DR

DER).http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP09DR

DER). OpenADR 2.0 profile is a 

Y Operations, 

Service 

Providers

100
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

profile (subset) of the Energy 

Interoperation standard.

43 Open Geospatial Consortium 

Geography Markup Language 

(GML)

http://www.opengeospatial.org/st

andards/gml

A standard for exchange of 

location-based information 

addressing geographic data 

requirements for many Smart 

Grid applications.

An open standard, GML encoding is 

in compliance with International 

Organization for Standardization 

(ISO) 19118 for the transport and 

storage of geographic information 

modeled according to the conceptual 

modeling framework used in the ISO 

19100 series of International 

Standards and is in wide use with 

supporting open source software. Also 

used in Emergency Management, 

building, facility, and equipment 

location information bases 

(http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/

catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csn

umber=32554).

Various profiles of GML are in 

common use in emergency 

management, EMIX, Energy 

Interoperation/OpenADR 2, and other 

specifications.

N Transmission, 

Distribution

101
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

44 Organization for the 

Advancement of Structured 

Information Standard (OASIS) 

Energy Interoperation (EI)

http://docs.oasisopen.org/energyinterop/ei/v1.0/e

nergyinterop-v1.0.html

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFOASISEnergyInterop

Energy interoperation 

describes an information 

model and a communication 

model to enable demand 

response and energy 

transactions. XML 

vocabularies provide for the 

interoperable and standard 

exchange of: DR and price 

signals, bids, transactions and 

options, and customer 

feedback on load predictability 

and generation information.

This standard uses the EMIX 

information model for price and 

product as payload information. The 

DR specification is built on a unified 

model of retail (OpenADR) and 

wholesale (input from the ISO/RTO 

Council) DR. OpenADR 2.0 is a 

profile on EI. 

Energy Interop was developed as part 

of PAP09 (PAP09: Standard DR and 

DER Signals -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP09DR

DER).

Y Markets

45 Organization for the 

Advancement of Structured 

Information Standard (OASIS) 

EMIX (Energy Market 

Information eXchange)

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFOASISEMIX

EMIX provides an information 

model to enable the exchange 

of energy price, characteristics, 

time, and related information 

for wholesale energy markets, 

including market makers, 

market participants, quote 

streams, premises automation, 

and devices.

EMIX has been developed as part of 

PAP03. (PAP03: Develop Common 

Specification for Price and Product 

Definition -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP03Pric

eProduct

This standard has been approved by 

the SGIP for the Catalog of Standards 

(see http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikiY Markets

102
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCosS

IFOASISEMIX )

46 Smart Energy Profile 2.0

http://www.zigbee.org/Standards

/ZigBeeSmartEnergy/SmartEner

gyProfile2.aspx

CSWG Report on Draft 

Technical Requirements 

Document 0.7

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/CSCTGSt

andards/CSWG_Standards_SEP_

2.0_Tech_Requirements_TRD_R

eview_v10.pdf

Home Area Network (HAN) 

Device Communications and 

Information Model.

A profile has been developed to be 

technology-independent and useful for 

many Smart Grid applications. PAP 

18 focused on developing specific 

requirements to allow the coexistence 

of SEP 1.x and 2.0 and to support the 

migration of 1.x implementations to 

2.0. The PAP has produced a white 

paper summarizing the key issues with 

migration and making specific 

recommendations and a requirements 

document to be submitted to the 

ZigBee Alliance for consideration in 

developing the technology-specific 

recommendations, solutions, and any 

required changes to the SEP 2.0 

specifications themselves. PAP18: 

SEP 1.x to SEP 2 Transition and 

Coexistence -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP18SE

P1To2TransitionAndCoexistence). 

N Customer

103
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

Cross-cutting Standards

47 Internet Protocol Suite, Request 

for Comments (RFC) 6272, 

Internet Protocols for the Smart 

Grid.

CoS Web page:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIETFRFC6272

Internet Protocols for IP-based 

Smart Grid Networks

IPv4/IPv6 are the foundation 

protocol for delivery of 

packets in the Internet 

network. Internet Protocol 

version 6 (IPv6) is a new 

version of the Internet Protocol 

that provides enhancements to 

Internet Protocol version 4 

(IPv4) and allows a larger 

address space.

A set of open, mature standards 

produced by IETF for Internet 

technologies. As part of the tasks for 

PAP01 (PAP01: Role of IP in the 

Smart Grid -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP01Inte

rnetProfile), a core set of IP protocols 

has been identified for smart grid. 

After review by PAP01, CSWG, and 

SGAC, it has been recommended by 

the SGIP Governing Board (SGIPGB) 

and approved by the SGIP Plenary for 

inclusion in the SGIP Catalog of 

Standards. The list has been published 

by the IETF as RFC6272, which 

identifies the key protocols of the 

Internet Protocol Suite for use in the 

smart grid. The target audience is 

those people seeking guidance on how 

to construct an appropriate Internet 

Protocol Suite profile for the smart 

grid. 

Y Cross-cutting

104
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

48 OASIS WS-Calendar

http://docs.oasis-open.org/wscalendar/ws-calendarspec/v1.0/csprd03/ws-calendarspec-v1.0-csprd03.html

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFOASISWSCalendar

XML serialization of IETF 

iCalendar for use in calendars, 

buildings, pricing, markets, 

and other environments. A 

communication specification 

used to specify schedule and 

interval between domains.

WS-Calendar describes a limited set 

of message components and 

interactions providing a common basis 

for specifying schedules and intervals 

to coordinate activities between 

services. The specification includes 

service definitions consistent with the 

OASIS SOA Reference Model and 

XML vocabularies for the 

interoperable and standard exchange 

of: 

• Schedules, including 

sequences of schedules 

• Intervals, including sequences 

of intervals 

This standard is the primary 

deliverable of the common schedules 

PAP04. (see PAP04: Develop 

Common Schedule Communication 

Mechanism for Energy Transactions -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP04Sch

edules)

This standard has been approved by 

the SGIP for the Catalog of Standards 

(see http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikiY Cross-cutting

105
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCosS

IFOASISWSCalendar )

This specification is used by EMIX 

(see PAP03: Develop Common 

Specification for Price and Product 

Definition -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP03Pric

eProduct) and Energy Interoperation 

(see PAP09: Standard DR and DER 

Signals -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP09DR

DER)

Requirements and Guidelines

49 NISTIR 7761v1, NIST 

Guidelines for Assessing 

Wireless Standards for Smart 

Grid Applications 

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Obj

ective3/NIST_PAP2_Guidelines

_for_Assessing_Wireless_Standa

This report is a draft of key 

tools and methods to assist 

smart grid system designers in 

making informed decisions 

about existing and emerging 

wireless technologies. An 

initial set of quantified 

requirements have been 

The wireless technologies presented 

here encompass different technologies 

that range in capabilities, cost, and 

ability to meet different requirements 

for advanced power systems 

applications. System designers are 

further assisted by the presentation of 

a set of wireless functionality and 

characteristics captured in a matrix for 

existing and emerging standards-based 

Y Guideline

106
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

rds_for_Smart_Grid_Application

s_1.0.pdf

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFNISTIR7761

brought together for advanced 

metering infrastructure (AMI) 

and initial Distribution 

Automation (DA) 

communications. These two 

areas present technological 

challenges due to their scope 

and scale. These systems will 

span widely diverse 

geographic areas and operating 

environments and population 

densities ranging from urban 

to rural.

wireless technologies. Details of the 

capabilities are presented in this report 

as a way for designers to initially sort 

through the available wireless 

technology options. To further assist 

decision making, the document 

presents a set of tools in the form of 

models that can be used for parametric 

analyses of the various wireless 

technologies.

50 NISTIR 7862 – Guideline for the 

Implementation of Coexistence 

for Broadband Power Line 

Communication Standards

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.I

R.7862

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFNISTIR7862 

This guideline provides an overview 

of broadband Power line 

communication (BB PLC) standards 

and their coexistence mechanism; the 

main purpose was to give a clear view 

of BB PLC standards and their 

relationships. The document also 

contains the most important result of 

SGIP Priority Action Plan 15, an 

industry agreement that all devices 

implementing any BB PLC standards 

must also implement the coexistence 

Y Guideline

107
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

mechanism so that they will not 

interfere with each other.

51 OpenHAN

http://osgug.ucaiug.org/sgsystem

s/openhan/HAN%20Requiremen

ts/Forms/AllItems.aspx

A specification for home area 

network (HAN) to connect to 

the utility advanced metering 

system including device 

communication, measurement, 

and control.

A specification developed by a users 

group, Utility Communications 

Architecture International Users 

Group (UCAIug), that contains a 

“checklist” of requirements that 

enables utilities to compare the many 

available HANs. 

N Requirements

52 SAE J1772: SAE Electric 

Vehicle and Plug in Hybrid 

Electric Vehicle Conductive 

Charge Coupler

SAE J1772: SAE Electric Vehicle 

and Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle 

Conductive Charge Coupler

CoS Web page:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCo

sSIFSAEJ1772

A recommended practice 

covering the general physical, 

electrical, functional, and 

performance requirements to 

facilitate conductive charging 

of Electric Vehicle (EV)/Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle 

(PHEV) vehicles in North 

America.

This recommended practice responds 

to a need for a coupling device 

identified very early on in the EV 

industry and meets new 

interoperability and communications 

requirements.

After review by PAP11 (PAP11: 

Common Object Models for Electric 

Transportation -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP11PEV),

CSWG, and SGAC, it has been 

recommended by the SGIPGB and 

approved by the SGIP Plenary for 

inclusion in the SGIP Catalog of 

Standards.

Y Requirements

108
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

53 SAE J2836/1: Use Cases for 

Communication Between Plug-in 

Vehicles and the Utility Grid

http://standards.sae.org/j2836/1_201

004

CoS Web page:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFSAEJ283613

This document establishes use 

cases for communication 

between plug-in electric 

vehicles and the electric power 

grid, for energy transfer and 

other applications.

This document responds to a need by 

system designers for documentation of 

use cases as inputs to creation of endto-end system solutions between EVs 

and utilities. 

After review by PAP11 (PAP11: 

Common Object Models for Electric 

Transportation -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP11PEV), 

CSWG and SGAC, it has been 

recommended to and approved by the 

SGIPGB for inclusion in the SGIP 

Catalog of Standards.

Y Requirements

54 SAE J2847/1: Communication 

between Plug-in Vehicles and the 

Utility Grid.

http://standards.sae.org/j2847/1_

201006

After review by PAP11 (PAP11: 

Common Object Models for Electric 

Transportation -

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP11PEV), 

CSWG and SGAC, it has been 

recommended to and approved by the 

SGIPGB for inclusion in the SGIP 

Catalog of Standards 

(http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikiY Requirements

109
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCosSIFS

AEJ28471). 

55 SGTCC Interoperability Process 

Reference Manual (IPRM) 

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/SGTCCIP

RM/SGTCC_IPRM_Version_1.0

_Updated.pdf

The Interoperability Process 

Reference Manual (IPRM) 

developed by SGIP’s Smart 

Grid Testing and Certification 

Committee (SGTCC) outlines 

the conformance, 

interoperability, and 

cybersecurity testing and 

certification requirements for 

SGIP-recommended Smart 

Grid standards. 

A guide developed and maintained by 

the SGIP’s SGTCC. The IPRM has 

been designed to capture testing and 

certification processes and best 

practices needed to verify product 

interoperability amongst two or more 

products using the same standardsbased communications technology. 

These processes and best practices are 

intended for use by an Interoperability 

Testing and Certification Authority 

(ITCA) in the design and management 

of a testing and certification program.

N Guideline

56 SGIP 2011-0008-1 PAP 18 

Transition from SEP 1 to SEP 

2.0

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/SEPTransi

tionAndCoexistenceWP/PAP_18

_SEP_Migration_Guidelines_an

d_Best_Practices_ver_1_03.docx

The SGIP Priority Action Plan 18: 

SEP 1.x to SEP 2.0 Transition and 

Coexistence was created to 

specifically address SEP 1.x to SEP 

2.0 migration and coexistence. SEP 

1.0 provides a set of functionality for 

HANs designed to meet the 

requirements established in the 

OpenHAN System Requirements 

Y Guideline

110
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFSGIP20110008_1

Specification v1.0 (produced by the 

Utility Communications Architecture 

International Users Group (UCAIug)). 

SEP 1.0 provides pricing support and 

consumption for multiple 

commodities (electric, gas, water), 

text messaging, direct load control, 

and demand response capability.

SEP 2.0 is IP based; as such it will 

more easily integrate with existing IPbased systems and protocols and 

operate over alternative MAC/PHY 

layers to provide more system 

flexibility.

As a result of significant architectural 

changes and feature upgrades, SEP 2.0 

is not backwards compatible with SEP 

1.x neither at the network and 

application layers nor in the security 

architecture. Therefore, use cases 

covering multiple SEP 1.x to SEP 2.0 

migration scenarios were constructed 

and analyzed to determine 

requirements and best practices to 

111
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

enable successful migrations and/or 

network coexistence.

Cybersecurity

57 Security Profile for Advanced 

Metering Infrastructure, v 1.0, 

Advanced Security Acceleration 

Project – Smart Grid, December 

10, 2009

http://osgug.ucaiug.org/utilisec/a

misec/Shared%20Documents/A

MI%20Security%20Profile%20(

ASAPSG)/AMI%20Security%20Profil

e%20-%20v1_0.pdf

This document provides 

guidance and security controls 

to organizations developing or 

implementing AMI solutions. 

This includes the meter data 

management system (MDMS) 

up to and including the HAN 

interface of the smart meter.

The Advanced Metering Infrastructure 

Security (AMI-SEC) Task Force was 

established under the Utility 

Communications Architecture 

International Users Group (UCAIug) 

to develop consistent security 

guidelines for AMI. 

N Cybersecurity

58 Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), National Cyber 

Security Division. 2009, 

September. Catalog of Control 

Systems Security:

Recommendations for Standards 

Developers.

The catalog presents a 

compilation of practices that 

various industry bodies have 

recommended to increase the 

security of control systems 

from both physical and cyber 

attacks.

This is a source document for the 

NIST Interagency Report NISTIR 

7628, Guidelines for Smart Grid 

Cyber Security

(http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir

/ir7628/introduction-to-nistir-7628.pdf

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/i

r7628/nistir-7628_vol1.pdf

N Cybersecurity

112
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

https://www.smartgrid.gov/docu

ment/dhs_national_cyber_securit

y_division_catalog_control_syste

ms_security_recommendations_s

tand 

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/i

r7628/nistir-7628_vol2.pdf

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/i

r7628/nistir-7628_vol3.pdf).

59 DHS Cyber Security 

Procurement Language for 

Control Systems

https://www.smartgrid.gov/sites/

default/files/doc/files/DHS_Nati

onal_Cyber_Security_Division_

Cyber_Security_Procurem.pdf

The National Cyber Security 

Division of the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) 

developed this document to 

provide guidance to procuring 

cybersecurity technologies for 

control systems products and 

services. It is not intended as 

policy or standard. Because it 

speaks to control systems, its 

methodology can be used with 

those aspects of Smart Grid 

systems. 

This is a source document for the 

NIST Interagency Report NISTIR 

7628, Guidelines for Smart Grid 

Cyber Security

(http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir

/ir7628/introduction-to-nistir-7628.pdf

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/i

r7628/nistir-7628_vol1.pdf

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/i

r7628/nistir-7628_vol2.pdf

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/i

r7628/nistir-7628_vol3.pdf).

N Cybersecurity

60 IEC 61851: Electric vehicle 

conductive charging system -

Part 1: General requirements

http://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/

webstore.nsf/Artnum_PK/44636

Applies to equipment for 

charging electric road vehicles 

at standard alternating current 

(ac) supply voltages (as per 

IEC 60038) up to 690 V and at 

direct current (dc) voltages up 

to 1 000 V, and for providing 

N Requirement

113
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

electrical power for any 

additional services on the 

vehicle if required when 

connected to the supply 

network.

IEC 62351 Family: Power systems 

management and associated 

information exchange - Data and 

communications security (Only 

individual parts are being numbered)

http://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/websto

re.nsf/artnum/037996!opendocument

CSWG Report

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/CSCTGStandar

ds/StandardsReviewPhase-1Report.pdf

Narrative

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/NISTStandards

Summaries/IEC_62351_Narrative_10-

6-2010.doc

CoS :

Open standard, developed and 

maintained by an SDO. 

Defines security requirements 

for power system management 

and information exchange, 

including communications 

network and system security 

issues, Transmission Control 

Protocol (TCP) and 

Manufacturing Messaging 

Specification (MMS) profiles, 

and security for Inter-Control 

Center Protocol (ICCP) and 

substation automation and 

protection. It is for use in 

conjunction with related IEC 

standards, but has not been 

widely adopted yet.

Y Cybersecurity

114
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCoSS

tandardsInformationLibrary

61 IEC 62351-1

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIECTS623511

Provides an introduction to the 

remaining parts of the IEC 62351 

series, primarily to introduce the 

reader to various aspects of 

information security as applied to 

power system operations. The scope 

of the IEC 62351 series is information 

security for power system control 

operations.

Y Cybersecurity

62 IEC 62351-2

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIECTS623512

Part 2 of the IEC 62351 series covers 

the key terms used in the series, 

including references to original 

definitions of cyber security terms and 

communications terms. The glossary 

can be found on the IEC website at: 

http://std.iec.ch/terms/terms.nsf/ByPu

b?OpenView&Count=1&RestrictToC

ategory=IEC%2062351-2

Y Cybersecurity

63 IEC 62351-3

CoS:

Part 3 of the IEC 62351 series 

provides technical specifications on 

ensuring the confidentiality, tamper 

Y Cybersecurity

115
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIECTS623513

detection, and message level 

authentication for SCADA and other 

telecontrol protocols which use 

TCP/IP as a message transport layer 

between communicating entities. 

TCP/IP-based protocols are secured 

through specification of the messages, 

procedures, and algorithms of 

Transport Layer Security (TLS).

64 IEC 62351-4

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIECTS623514

Part 4 of the IEC 62351 series 

provides specifications to secure 

information transferred when using 

ISO 9506, Manufacturing Message 

Specification (MMS)-based 

applications; specifying which 

procedures, protocol extensions, and 

algorithms to use in MMS to provide 

security.

Y Cybersecurity

65 IEC 62351-5

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIECTS623515

Part 5 of the IEC 62351 series 

specifies messages, procedures, and 

algorithms that apply to the operation 

of all protocols based on/derived from 

IEC 60870-5, Telecontrol equipment 

and systems-Part 5: Transmission 

protocols. The focus of this 62351-5 is 

Y Cybersecurity

116
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

on the application layer authentication 

and security-issues that are a result of 

application layer authentication. 

While authentication of sources and 

receivers is considered the most 

important requirement and 

confidentiality is not considered 

important, encryption can be included 

by combining this standard with other 

security standards, such as IEC 

62351-3, TLS.

66 IEC 62351-6

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIECTS623516

Part 6 of the IEC 62351 series 

addresses security for IEC 61850 

profiles through specification of 

messages, procedures, and algorithms. 

IEC 61850 specifies a number of 

different profiles which have different 

constraints, performance 

requirements, and security needs, but 

the primary requirement is for 

authentication of sources of data, 

receivers of data, and data integrity. 

Therefore, different security options 

are specified.

Y Cybersecurity

117
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

67 IEC 62351-7

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIECTS623517

Part 7 of the IEC 62351 series 

provides an abstract model of network 

and system data elements that should 

be monitored and controlled. Its focus 

is network and system management, 

one area among many possible areas 

of end-to-end information security. 

The primary focus is the enhancement 

of overall management of the 

communications networks supporting 

power system operations, by 

specifying monitoring and control of 

communication networks and systems. 

Intrusion detection and intrusion 

prevention are addressed.

Y Cybersecurity

68 IEC 62351-8

CoS:

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFIECTS623518

Part 8 of the IEC 62351 series

specifies role-based access control 

(RBAC) requirements. RBAC is an 

alternative to the all-or-nothing superuser model. RBAC is in keeping with 

the security principle of least 

privilege, which states that no subject 

should be given more rights than 

necessary for performing that 

subject’s job. RBAC enables an 

Y Cybersecurity

118
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

organization to separate super-user 

capabilities and package them into 

special user accounts termed roles for 

assignment to specific individuals 

according to their job needs.

69 IEEE 1686-2007

http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/

standard/1686-2007.html

The IEEE 1686-2007 is a 

standard that defines functions 

and features to be provided in 

substation intelligent 

electronic devices (IEDs) for 

critical infrastructure 

protection programs. The 

standard covers IED security 

capabilities including the 

access, operation, 

configuration, firmware 

revision, and data retrieval.

Open standard, developed and 

maintained by an SDO. Not widely 

implemented yet. 

N Cybersecurity

70 NERC Critical Infrastructure 

Protection (CIP) 002-009

http://www.nerc.com/page.php?c

id=2|20

These standards cover 

organizational, processes, 

physical, and cybersecurity 

standards for the bulk power 

system.

Mandatory standards for the bulk 

electric system. Currently being 

revised by the North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation 

(NERC).

N Cybersecurity

71 NIST Special Publication (SP) 

800-53

These standards cover 

cybersecurity standards and 

Open standards developed by NIST. 

SP 800-53 defines security measures 

N Cybersecurity

119
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.S

P.800-53r4 , 

NIST SP 800-82

guidelines for federal 

information systems, including 

those for the bulk power 

system.

required for all U.S. government 

computers. SP800-82 defines security 

specifically for industrial control 

systems, including the power grid. 

72 NISTIR 7628

Introduction to NISTIR 7628 

Guidelines for 

Smart Grid Cyber Security 

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/n

istir/ir7628/introduction-to-nistir7628.pdf

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIP

CosSIFNISTIR7628

Vol 1

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/n

istir/ir7628/nistir-7628_vol1.pdf 

Vol 2

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/n

istir/ir7628/nistir-7628_vol2.pdf

Vol 3

A guideline that is the 

following:

• An overview of the 

cybersecurity strategy used 

by the CSWG to develop 

the high-level 

cybersecurity smart grid 

requirements;

• A tool for organizations 

that are researching, 

designing, developing, 

implementing, and 

integrating smart grid 

technologies—established 

and emerging;

• An evaluative framework 

for assessing risks to smart 

grid components and 

systems during design, 

implementation, operation, 

and maintenance; and

A guideline published by NIST in 

2010. It was developed through a 

participatory public process that, 

starting in March 2009, included 

several workshops as well as weekly 

teleconferences, all of which were 

open to all interested parties. There 

were two public reviews of drafts of 

the report, both announced through 

notices in the Federal Register.

The guidelines are not prescriptive, 

nor mandatory. Rather they are 

advisory, intended to facilitate each 

organization’s efforts to develop a 

cybersecurity strategy effectively 

focused on prevention, detection, 

response, and recovery.

Y Cybersecurity

120
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Standard Application Comments Included in 

SGIP Catalog 

of 

Standards?111

SG Conceptual 

Architecture 

Domains

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/n

istir/ir7628/nistir-7628_vol3.pdf 

This is the reference document 

for the CSWG reviews

• A guide to assist 

organizations as they craft 

a smart grid cybersecurity 

strategy that includes 

requirements to mitigate 

risks and privacy issues 

pertaining to smart grid 

customers and uses of their 

data.

121
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Process for Future Smart Grid Standards Identification

In all, hundreds of standards, including the many parts in the families of standards, will likely be 

required to build a safe and secure smart grid that is interoperable, end to end. Useful, widely 

accepted criteria and guidelines will aid identification and selection of standards. Clearly, any set 

of guidelines and processes for evaluating candidate standards will have to evolve as the smart 

grid is developed, new needs and priorities are identified, and new technologies emerge. 

The future NIST smart grid standard identification process will be carried out through work with

various SGIP committees, working groups, and PAPs, as well as with Interoperability Testing 

and Certification Authorities. The SGIP will serve as the forum to further develop and improve 

the standard identification process for smart grid standards. From its inception, the SGIP has 

incorporated the cybersecurity and architectural reviews into the standard-assessment and PAPactivity-assessment processes. Moving forward, standard conformance and interoperability 

testing results will also provide feedback to the standard identification process.

All existing and new standards identified as supporting smart grid interoperability are required to 

undergo a thorough cybersecurity review as part of the current and future standard identification 

process. Results of future reviews will be available to SGIP members on their SGCC website. 

As described in Section 3.5, the SGIP has established the process for adopting and adding 

standards to the SGIP CoS. As standards are reviewed and added to the CoS, NIST will consider 

adding these standards to Table 4-1. New candidate standards that emerge through the ongoing 

work of the SGIP and its various working groups, and others, will be considered for addition to 

this Table after NIST has applied an additional analysis based on the guiding principles given in 

Section 4.1.

122
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

5. Architectural Framework

Introduction

The smart grid is a complex system of systems, serving the diverse needs of many stakeholders. 

It must support:

• Devices and systems developed independently by many different solution providers 

• Many different utilities

• Millions of industrial, business, and residential customers

• Different regulatory environments 

Moreover, these systems that must work together are not just across smart grid’s technical 

domains but across stakeholder communities in enterprises not part of the existing utility 

industry. Achieving interoperability in such a massively scaled, distributed system requires 

architectural guidance, which is provided by the smart grid architectural model (SGAM) 

described in this chapter. 

The power industry, like other industries that increasingly depend on automation to function, 

developed different architectural and system engineering approaches to translate stakeholders’ 

business goals into implementations that performed as desired, mitigating risk and minimizing 

cost overruns. These efforts lead to a consensus that an architectural process employing the 

concept of discrete levels of abstraction layers and stakeholder viewpoints provides the 

flexibility needed to address smart grid’s new demands while keeping the existing infrastructure 

running undisturbed.

The SGAM is a template for architects to follow while building aspects of a smart grid

architecture, regardless of an architect’s specialty (such as in areas of transmission, distribution, 

IT, back office, communications, asset management, and grid planning). 

The SGAM utilizes an enterprise-wide, service-oriented approach to describe a smart grid 

architecture. This enterprise architecture approach mitigates stranded costs typically experienced 

in “one-off” siloed solutions. Those siloed solutions are usually developed and implemented 

without regard to cross-business unit impact or enterprise-wide long-term goals. A serviceoriented approach, on the other hand, minimizes the expense, configuration, and management 

complexity that built-to-purpose applications often experience.

The architectural framework provided by SGAM will be used for several important purposes:

• To provide stakeholders a common understanding of the elements that make up the smart 

grid and their relationships 

• To provide key stakeholder communities traceability between the functions and the goals 

of the smart grid

123
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• To provide a series of high-level and strategic views of the envisioned business and 

technical services, supporting systems, and procedures

• To provide a technical pathway to the integration of systems across domains, companies, 

and businesses

• To guide the various implementation architectures, systems, organizational structures and 

supporting standards that make up the smart grid 

The architectural framework described in this chapter includes the following:

• Architectural goals for the smart grid (Section 5.2)

• Conceptual Architecture, which comprises the conceptual domain models used to define 

smart grid viewpoints (Section 5.3.1)

• Smart grid architecture methodology (Section 5.3.2)

• Legacy system logical model, which illustrates where existing utility systems fit in the 

smart grid conceptual domain model (Section 5.3.2)

• Smart grid information networks (Section 5.3.3)

• Conceptual Business Services (Section 5.5.1)

Other important, architecture-related topics discussed in this chapter include the following:

• Use cases (Section 5.4)

• Standards review by the Smart Grid Architecture Committee (SGAC) (Section 5.5.3)

• Legacy integration and legacy migration (Section 5.3.3)

• Common understanding of information (Section 5.5.3)

Architectural Goals for the Smart Grid

Fundamental architectural goals for the smart grid include:

• Options – Architectures should support a broad range of technology options—both 

legacy and new. Architectures should be flexible enough to incorporate evolving 

technologies as well as to work with legacy applications and devices in a standard way, 

avoiding as much additional capital investment and/or customization as possible. 

• Interoperability – Architectures should support standard interfaces with other systems 

and manual processes if a standard exists. This includes interoperability among thirdparty products and management and cybersecurity infrastructures.

• Maintainability – Architectures should support the ability of systems to be safely, 

securely, and reliably maintained throughout their life cycle.

124
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• Upgradeability – Architectures should support the ability of systems to be enhanced 

without difficulty and to remain operational during periods of partial system upgrades.

• Innovation – Architectures should enable and foster innovation. This includes the ability 

to accommodate innovation in regulations and policies; business processes and 

procedures; information processing; technical communications; and integration of new 

and innovative energy systems.

• Scalability – Architectures should include architectural elements that are appropriate for 

the applications that reside within them. The architectures must support development of 

massively scaled, well-managed, and secure systems with life spans appropriate for the 

type of system, which range from 5 to 30 years.

• Legacy – Architectures should support legacy system integration and migration. 

• Security – Architectures should support the capability to resist un-vetted/unauthorized 

intrusion, access, or use of physical and cyber assets. This support must satisfy all 

security requirements of the system components. (This is covered in more detail in 

Chapter 6.)

• Flexibility – Architectures should allow an implementer to choose the type and order of 

implementation. Flexibility also allows parts of an implementation to deviate from the 

original plan without incurring a penalty.

• Governance – Architectures should promote a well-managed system of systems that will 

be enabled through consistent policies over its continuing design and operation for its 

entire life cycle.

• Affordability – Architectures should fundamentally enable capital savings as well as life 

cycle savings through standards-based operations and maintenance. They must enable 

multi-vendor procurement of interoperable smart grid equipment through the 

development of mature national and international markets. 

Smart Grid Architecture Model

5.3.1. Overview – Conceptual Domain Model

The conceptual domain model presented in this chapter supports planning, requirements 

development, documentation, and organization of the diverse, expanding collection of 

interconnected networks and equipment that will compose the smart grid. For this purpose, NIST 

adopted the approach of dividing the smart grid into seven domains, as described in Table 5-1 

and shown graphically in Figure 5-1.

Each domain—and its sub-domains—encompass smart grid conceptual roles and services. They 

include types of services, interactions, and stakeholders that make decisions and exchange 

information necessary for performing identified goals, such as: customer management, 

distributed generation aggregation, and outage management. Services are performed by one or 

more roles within a domain. For example, corresponding services may include home automation, 

distributed energy resource (DER) and customer demand response, load control and near realtime wide-area situation awareness (WASA).

125
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

The roles, services, and requirements that enable the functionality of the smart grid are described 

in various architectural artifacts and at lower levels of architecture by standardized business and 

use cases, which detail specific envisioned smart grid requirements. 

Appendix B (Specific Domain Diagrams) describes the seven smart grid domains in more detail.

It contains domain-specific diagrams intended to illustrate the type and scope of interactions 

within and across domains. 

Table 5-1. Domains and Roles/Services in the Smart Grid Conceptual Model

Domain Roles/Services in the Domain 

1 Customer The end users of electricity. May also generate, store, and manage the 

use of energy. Traditionally, three customer types are discussed, each 

with its own domain: residential, commercial, and industrial. 

2 Markets The operators and participants in electricity markets. 

3 Service 

Provider 

The organizations providing services to electrical customers and to 

utilities. 

4 Operations The managers of the movement of electricity. 

5 Generation The generators of electricity. May also store energy for later

distribution. This domain includes traditional generation sources 

(traditionally referred to as generation) and distributed energy 

resources (DER). At a logical level, “generation” includes coal, 

nuclear, and large-scale hydro generation usually attached to 

transmission. DER (at a logical level) is associated with customerand distribution-domain-provided generation and storage, and with 

service-provider-aggregated energy resources.

6 Transmission The carriers of bulk electricity over long distances. May also store 

and generate electricity. 

7 Distribution The distributors of electricity to and from customers. May also store 

and generate electricity. 

In general, roles in the same domain have similar objectives. However, communications within 

the same domain may have different characteristics and may have to meet different requirements 

to achieve interoperability.

To enable smart grid functionality, the roles in a particular domain often interact with roles in 

other domains, as shown in Figure 5.1. Moreover, particular domains may also contain 

components of other domains. For example, the Independent System Operators (ISOs) and 

Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) in North America have roles in both the markets 

and operations domains. Similarly, a distribution utility is not entirely contained within the 

distribution domain—it is likely to contain roles in the operations domain, such as a distribution 

management, and in the customer domain, such as monitoring. On the other hand, a vertically 

integrated utility may have roles in many domains.

126
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Underlying the Conceptual Model is a legal and regulatory framework that enables the 

implementation and management of consistent policies and requirements that apply to various 

actors and applications and to their interactions. Regulations, adopted by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) at the federal level and by public utility commissions at the 

state and local levels, govern many aspects, including policy implementations of the smart grid. 

Such regulations are intended to ensure that electric rates are fair and reasonable and that 

security, reliability, safety, privacy, and other public policy requirements are met.113

The transition to the smart grid introduces new regulatory considerations, which may transcend 

jurisdictional boundaries and require increased coordination among federal, state, and local 

lawmakers and regulators. The conceptual model is intended to be a useful tool for regulators at 

all levels to assess how best to achieve public policy goals that, along with business objectives, 

motivate investments in modernizing the nation’s electric power infrastructure and building a 

clean energy economy. Therefore, the conceptual model must be consistent with the legal and 

regulatory framework and support its evolution over time. Similarly, the standards and protocols 

identified in the framework must align with existing and emerging regulatory objectives and 

responsibilities. 

113 See, for example, the mission statements of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

(NARUC, http://www.naruc.org/about.cfm) and FERC (http://www.ferc.gov/about/about.asp)

127

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Conceptual Model

Secure Communication Flows

Electrical Flows

Domain

Source: Updated NIST Smart Grid Framework 3.0 

Feb 2014

Distribution Customer

Service 

Provider Markets

Transmission

 

Operations

Generation

Figure 5-1. Interaction of Roles in Different Smart Grid Domains

through Secure Communication

5.3.2. Description of Smart Grid Architecture Model (SGAM)

The SGAM utilizes several information and communications technology (ICT) architecture 

standards. Any mention of commercial products within this NIST document is for information 

only; it does not imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST. References to specific 

standards are given to provide additional documentation.

The SGAM is an evolving framework, and NIST is working through the SGIP’s Smart Grid 

Architecture Committee (SGAC) to align this effort with the European Union Smart GridCoordination Group (SG-CG), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) TC57 

WG19 (IEC 62357), and IEC TC8 WG5 and 6 (Use cases).

128
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

5.3.3. Architecture Process - Evolution of the Conceptual Architecture to SGAM

SGAM iterations

Architecture is an iterative endeavor. How these iterations are accomplished, however, is 

generally determined from the viewpoint of the architect. As a result, many smart grid 

architectures describe only the technical architectural perspective without mapping them back to 

the stakeholder and business unit requirements. To assist in mapping technical architectures to 

those business requirements, the SGIP described a conceptual architecture without a crisp 

definition of conceptualization including its relationship to more detailed layers of architecture. 

NIST and the SGAC recognized that these iterations needed more definition and elected to 

leverage Zachman terminology.114

Briefly, these levels are:

• Conceptual -- models the actual business as the stakeholder conceptually thinks the 

business is, or may want the business to be. What are the roles/services that are required 

to satisfy the future needs? 

• Logical -- models of the “services” of the business uses, logical representations of the 

business that define the logical implementation of the business. How is the architecture 

(ideally) structured?

• Physical -- where systems specialize. They are the specifications for the applications and 

personnel necessary to accomplish the task. What software and processes are necessary?

• Implementation -- software product, personnel, and discrete procedures selected to 

perform the actual work.

As of this publication, TC57 WG19’s IEC 62357 and EU SC-CG methodology groups’ smart 

grid architectures are aligning on the use of this approach. 

SGAM Layers

The SGAC decomposed the conceptual domain model in Figure 5-1 into layers of increasing 

technical focus to understand how various smart grid requirements are satisfied within each 

interaction of architecture. Originally, the concept of layers as defined by the GridWise 

Architecture Council (GWAC) interoperability stack (see Figure 2-2) was cited and used by the 

EU M490 reference architecture. As part of the SGAC’s alignment activities, The Open Group’s 

Architecture Framework (TOGAF)115 was adopted for guidance to re-align these layers to a 

broader architecture standard. This doesn’t mean that the original GWAC stack or EU M490 

114 Zachman International: Conceptual Logical Physical: It is Simple

(see http://www.zachman.com/ea-articles-reference/58-conceptual-logical-physical-it-is-simple-by-john-a-zachman)

115 The Open Group Architecture Framework – Architecture Development Methodology: 

http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/

129

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

layers aren’t addressed, but rather they are redefined as sub-layers that are already part of the 

broader architecture framework shown in Figure 5-2. 

GWAC & SGAM Alignment with TOGAF

F.

Migration

Planning

H.

Change 

management

G.

Governance

Preliminary

(Context)

A.

Architecture

Vision

B.

Business

Architecture

Requirements

Management

(Repository)

Implementation 

Implementation 

SGAM

(EU M490 RA)

Functional

Information

Communications

Components

Business

TOGAF/ADM*

8. Economic/Regulatory

7. Business Objectives

6. Business Procedures

5. Business Context

4. Semantics

3. Syntactic 

Interoperability

2. Network 

Interoperability

1. Basic Connectivity

GWAC

Stack

E.

Implementation

Architecture

(Opportunities &

Solutions)

C.

Information

Architecture

D.

Technology

Architecture

* The Open Group Architecture Framework – Architecture Development Methodology (TOGAF/ADM)

Figure 5-2. SGAC and SGAM Alignment with TOGAF ADM

Alignment of the GWAC stack and EU M490 RA (reference architecture) efforts with more 

mainstream enterprise architecture standards (TOGAF) helps to connect different work efforts 

and to embed smart grid requirements within existing frameworks.

Architecture matrix

Combining the practice of iterations and architectural focus, an architect can understand the 

relationship and impact of a decision in one segment upon another. The matrix in Figure 5-3 

describes what decisions are made each step of the way and illustrates where decisions at one 

step may impact an adjacent decision. This process is started by defining the stakeholders’ 

requirements and goals; this is the context from which all subsequent architecture decisions are 

made. Context is not set by technology, although technology may have an influence on 

stakeholders’ goals. Context identifies those organizations most affected and which receive the 

most value from the work. Context also allows other organizations to see where change may 

130
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

affect their capacity and work. Each block in the architecture matrix briefly describes the goals 

of that block and its subsequent step, and it suggests interaction and iteration across layers and 

levels based upon decisions that were made at a higher level.

Conceptual Logical Physical Implementation

Abstract

Operational

Business Information Automation Technical

Vision / 

Contextual 

Why?

What is the 

business

What are the 

info processing 

requirements

What type of 

applications are 

required

What technical 

ICT services are 

required

How is the 

business 

structured

How is 

information 

structured

How are these 

systems 

structured

How are the 

“boxes” 

structured

Which parts of 

the business 

change

What manual & 

automated 

processes need 

to be linked

What type of 

packages & 

custom 

software

Who is 

performing the 

action

What data 

structures and 

processes are 

used

Who’s specific 

packages & 

custom 

software

Input from 

strategy & 

context

Business

Technical

Architecture layers and iteration levels 

Who’s hardware, network, components &

what configuration

What type of

hardware, network components &

configuration

Fig 5-3. Architecture Layers and Iteration Levels

SGAM Plane 

Each level of architecture (conceptual, logical, physical, and implementation) can be represented 

as a plane (Figure 5-4) in which the original smart grid domain model is decomposed into 

domains and zones. “Zones” is a new concept introduced in this document; zones illustrate the 

physical and management aspects of the grid. The notion of zones is derived from IEC62264116

manufacturing process interfaces. Zones describe the process hierarchy from the power system 

through the various entities that participate in the production, transmission, and consumption of 

electricity. The domains roughly correspond to NIST Conceptual Domains. The details for 

domains and zones for each component layer depend on the level of architecture. 

116 Enterprise control system integration “Purdue Reference Architecture CIM for manufacturing”: 

https://webstore.iec.ch/webstore/webstore.nsf/mysearchajax?Openform&key=iec%2062264&sorting=&start=1&on

glet=1

131

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

132 

electricity. The domains roughly correspond to NIST Conceptual Domains. The details for 

domains and zones for each component layer depend on the level of architecture. 

Details for each plane are still under discussion and development. However, Figure 5-4 depicts 

the proposed detail for each plane. In this diagram, for each plane, “domains” is the horizontal 

axis and “zones” is the vertical axis. 

Figure 5-4. Architecture Layers and Iteration Levels 

Conceptual Plane 

The conceptual plane aligns with the seven domains in the NIST conceptual domain model. At 

this level of abstraction, emphasis is focused on broad issues, and these broad issues are 

addressed with organizational entities, roles, and services performed. Additionally, while blocks 

within a plane can be decomposed further into the power industry’s traditional business units, it 

does not prescribe that domains or zones adjacent to each other are directly related. The 

conceptual plane’s electrical grid domain processes are grouped as follows: 

 Produce, which today decomposes into bulk generation and distributed energy resources 

(DER) 

 Transport, which today decomposes into NIST conceptual transmission and distribution 

domains 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

The conceptual plane is also grouped by a hierarchy called zones. Each zone describes the 

increased specialization of purpose. These zones are as follows:

• Process is an abstraction of physical grid, which includes the physical, chemical, or 

spatial transformation of energy. This zone is a new entity in order to represent the 

physical domain of the power infrastructure through its entire chain.

• Operate, which corresponds to the NIST operations domain

• Enterprise, which corresponds to the NIST market and service provider domains. These 

include the commercial and organizational services and roles needed to manage any 

support service necessary for the smart grid environment. 

Logical Plane

The logical plane adds incremental detail that defines the logical services and actors necessary to 

support the conceptual layer’s abstraction. This includes considerations for business processes, 

organizational structure, physical constraints, and monitoring/control. At this layer, roles and 

services begin their transformation to actors. This encompasses the 2012 EU M.490 SGAM117

layers for information and communications detail, which are considered sub-layers of the logical 

plane. As with the conceptual plane, the logical plane’s zones and domains may be further 

decomposed to describe legacy or emerging requirements. The logical plane also does not 

prescribe that domains or zones adjacent to each other are directly related. The logical plane’s 

domain processes are grouped as follows: 

• Generation, which translates into the physical generation requirements unique to 

transmission-grid-attached generation. They are closely related to generation facilities 

that create power in bulk quantities.

• Transmission, which represents the physical and locational attributes involved in highvoltage transmission. They are closely related to transporting electricity at high voltages 

over long distances. 

• Distribution, which represents the local grid that directly servers customers. Currently, 

this is directly related to the low-voltage distribution. 

• DER, which is an emerging domain (i.e., the types, use, and deployment of distributed 

energy resources are evolving). These DER may be directly controlled by the customer 

(e.g., in situations where they elect to participate or opt-out of DER signals); by 

operations for safety and contracted dispatch; or by service providers (via the market). 

This domain is also necessary to understand microgrids.

• Customer, which is the end user of the electrical process. End users may consume and 

produce electricity for premise use or resale. As an electricity producer, they are also 

117 EU Commission Mandate M.490: 

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/doc/xpert_group1_reference_architecture.pdf

133

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

members of the DER domain when the electricity produced is sold. Customers include 

residential, commercial, and industrial facilities.

The logical management zones decompose into logical abstractions of the conceptual roles and 

services. These are not product-level descriptions but rather logical representations of the 

services, roles, and actors necessary to support the conceptual stakeholder view of roles and 

services. These are categorized into the following:

• Process is a logical abstraction of physical grid. This includes the physical, chemical or 

spatial transformation of energy. 

• Monitor and control entities are generic logical descriptions of the type of devices needed 

to monitor and control the electrical process.

• Operations are the logical representations of the conceptual processes and services 

necessary to coordinate the electrical process from generation through customer.

• Enterprise provides logical abstractions of the conceptual support services (nonoperations).

• Market is the market necessary to purchase and sell adequate energy-related services to 

support cost-effective, necessary operations of the grid

Physical Plane

The physical plane completes the transition from services to actors. This plane describes specific 

descriptions of human, automated (i.e., devices, systems, communications networks, ICT), and 

locational attributes necessary to perform the desired requirements inherited from the logical 

plane level. The physical plane provides sufficient detail to select solution-provider products or 

custom development and to organize a specific business unit’s resources. 

The physical plane repeats most of the logical plane, but it further decomposes two operations 

and monitor & control actors into three more detailed locational zones: operations, field 

equipment, and concentration points. (“Concentration points” roughly corresponds to 

“substation” in the EU M490 RA, but “substation” was determined to be too prescriptive and did 

not allow for future options.)

134
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Implementation Plane

The implementation plane documents the applications and equipment purchased, the topography 

employed, and the personnel assigned to the tasks. In short, it is the physical instantiation of the 

goals originally described by the business and regulatory stakeholders.

Because the implementation plane is unique to each enterprise, the SGAM does not delve into its 

details. At this point, other industry practices take over; they include the subsequent phases 

covering the rest of the architecture’s lifecycle. Combining iterations and planes, the entire cycle 

flows are shown in Figure 5-5.

Figure 5-5. SGAM Iterations, Layers, and Planes

135
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

NIST Conceptual Architecture

The intent of the NIST conceptual architecture is to provide grid participants with sufficient 

foundational architecture building blocks to accelerate and support development of their own 

internal architectures.

Generally, a conceptual architecture defines abstract roles and services necessary to support 

smart grid requirements without delving into application details or interface specifications. It 

identifies key constructs, their relationships, and architectural mechanisms. Architectural 

mechanisms are designed to address cross-cutting concerns, such as those not localized within a 

single role. The resulting conceptual architecture can be used as a vehicle to communicate to 

technical and non-technical audiences a role’s decomposition in terms of its domain-level 

responsibilities. The required inputs necessary to define a conceptual architecture are the 

organization’s goals and requirements.

This NIST conceptual architecture further decomposed the conceptual domain model in to the 

architecture matrix. It was developed through a process of face-to-face and webinar workshops 

attended by industry experts and conducted by the SGAC starting in spring 2010. The final 

artifact was completed in fall 2012.118 This work is continuing in the Architecture Development 

Working Party (ADWP), which is incorporating and refining the definition of these artifacts into 

the SGAM process.

The process used to define the conceptual architecture was based on five key tasks:

• Develop a list of smart grid architecture goals from national energy goals and national 

policy documents

• Develop a formalized list of requirements relating and mapping to each of the accepted 

grid architecture goals

• Develop a list of business services based on the list of accepted requirements

• Develop a list of corresponding automation services required to support the business 

services

• Develop archetypical interaction diagrams defining the type of messages and 

roles/services required for the automation services to function

Additionally, a list of use-case actors was built using input from numerous standards 

organizations. The SGAC expanded this actors list to include actors from the EU SG-CG 

Methodology effort. This list was then refined using the SGAM and service-oriented ontology. 

The resulting list identifies if the contributed actor is an actor, role, or service. Additionally, it 

identifies the SGAC-identified architecture block for which this entity exists (i.e., conceptual, 

118 The NIST conceptual architecture is now documented in the continuing work of the Architecture Development 

Working Party (ADWP): http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPConceptualArchitectureDevelopmentSGAC

136

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

logical, physical) and for which plane. Using the architecture matrix, Figure 5-6 depicts the areas 

of the smart grid for which the conceptual architecture artifacts were created.

 

Conceptual Logical Physical Implementation

Business Information Automation Technical

Input from 

strategy & 

context

Vision / 

Contextual 

Why?

How is 

information 

structured

What data 

structures and 

processes are 

used

What is the 

business

Who is 

performing the 

action

How is the 

business 

structured

What manual & 

automated 

processes need 

to be linked

What are the 

info processing 

requirements

What type of 

applications are 

required

What technical 

ICT services are 

required

Which parts of 

the business 

change

What type of 

packages & 

custom 

software

How are these 

systems 

structured

How are the 

“boxes” 

structured

Who’s specific 

packages & 

custom 

software

NIST Conceptual Architecture 

mapping to Matrix

Who’s hardware, network, components &

what configuration

hardware,network

components &

configuration

What type of

NIST

Conceptual

Architecture

SGiP 1.0

Figure 5-6. NIST Conceptual Architecture Mapped onto the Architecture Matrix

Service Orientation and Ontology

One of the largest challenges in architecture is to clarify terminology and constructs used to 

describe the smart grid. There exist vast and numerous repositories of knowledge, defining siloed 

perspectives, but unfortunately none of them have been submitted to the exercise of ontological 

definition as regards architectural and industry alignment.

One of the core tenants of contemporary architecture design is service orientation. Service 

orientation is specifically intended to modularize work into atomic services that model the 

interoperation of different parts of a business. By applying this approach, it is possible to limit 

the impact of changes as they occur and to understand in advance the likely chain of impacts a 

change brings to the organization. 

To a limited extent, this service-oriented approach is embraced in current use-case practice and 

documented in IEC PAS 62559 IntelliGrid Methodology, in which actors are described as black 

137
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

boxes. In early 2013, the SGAC’s Semantic Development Working Party (SDWP) agreed to 

defer work until these core issues are identified. It was agreed that bridging or even accurately 

mapping canonical domain models proved to be a difficult task, because the underlying 

ontological models were not defined.

To solve this problem, the SGAC’s Architecture Development Working Party (ADWP) elected 

to embrace a service-oriented ontology119 as defined by The Open Group.120 Thus far, the SGAC 

has examined ontology itself, and a few areas were found to be misleading. The group has 

strived to minimize changes from the standard’s specification while also embracing a few terms 

missing from the reference standard. The ADWP work started with the conceptual architecture 

actors list gleaned from several sources. It has grown to include lists from other standard bodies, 

as well as the architecture concepts discussed earlier in this document. The full ontology can be 

found in Appendix C.

5.3.4. Description of Legacy Logical Application Types within the Context of the 

Conceptual Domains

The viewpoint described here provides a high-level, overarching logical architecture 

representation of a few major relationships that existing applications have to smart grid domains. 

This diagram is also a useful tool in identifying which existing applications may be a good 

candidate for a smart grid role, it also suggests what their possible communications paths could 

be in a smart grid. It is also a useful way to identify potential intra- and inter-domain interactions 

between existing and new applications, along with capabilities enabled by these interactions. The 

model represented in Figure 5-7 is intended to aid in analysis by providing a view of the types of 

interactions that existing applications may play while providing core smart grid services; it is not 

a design diagram or recommended reference architecture that defines a solution and its 

implementation. Architecture documentation goes much deeper than what is illustrated here and 

is covered by the SGAM. It does not specify application selection or implementation detail. In 

other words, this model is descriptive and not prescriptive. It is meant to foster understanding of 

smart grid operational intricacies within the context of existing applications commonly used in 

the power industry today.

119 The Open Group service-oriented architecture ontology: http://www.opengroup.org/soa/source-book/ontology/

120 Any mention of commercial products within NIST documents is for information only; it does not imply recommendation or 

endorsement by NIST. The use of a specific standard is only to provide referenceability and consistency within this 

document.

138

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Service Providers

Third-Party

Provider

Utility

Provider

Operations

RTO/ISO

Ops

Transmission

Ops

Distribution Ops

Distribution 

Transmission

Customer

Generation

Markets

Demand

Response

CIS

Energy

Services

Interface

Meter

Customer

Equipment

Appliances

Customer

EMS

Aggregator

Billing

ISO/RTO 

Participant

Energy

Market

Clearinghouse

Others

Thermostat

Plant Control 

System

Substation

Device Electric

Storage

Substation 

Controller

Retailer / 

Wholesaler

Home / Building

Manager

Premises 

Networks

Data

Collector

DMS

Generators

EMS

Internet /

e-Business

Service 

Integration

Wide Area

Networks Field Area

Networks

Substation

Integration Field

Device

Market

Services

Interface

Roles and Actors

Domain

Gateway Role

Network

Comms Path

Comms Path Changes Owner / Domain

Aggregator

Distribution

SCADA

Metering 

System

WAMS

Asset

Mgmt

MDMS

EMS

Internet /

e-Business

Transmission

SCADA

Retail 

Energy 

Provider

CIS

Billing

Service 

Integration

Service 

Integration

RTO

SCADA

Distributed Energy Resources

Electric

Storage

Distributed 

Generation

Electric

Storage

Electric

Vehicle

Distributed 

Generation

 

Figure 5-7. Logical Model of Legacy Systems Mapped onto Conceptual Domains for 

Smart Grid Information Networks

Domain: Each of the seven smart grid conceptual domains (Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1) is a highlevel grouping of physical organizations, buildings, individuals, systems, devices, or other actors 

that have similar objectives and that rely on—or participate in—similar types of services. 

Communications among roles and services in the same domain may have similar characteristics 

and requirements. Domains contain sub-domains. Moreover, domains have many overlapping 

functionalities, as in the case of the Transmission and Distribution domains. Because 

transmission and distribution often share networks, they are represented as overlapping domains.

Actor: Actors exist primarily in the physical and implementation architectures. They include 

devices, computer systems, software applications, or the individuals within an organization that 

participates in the smart grid. Actors perform roles to make decisions and to exchange 

information with other roles. Organizations may have roles and use services and ultimately 

actors in more than one domain. The actors illustrated here are representative examples of 

existing logical services, application, and device types but are by no means an inclusive smart 

grid list. 

Information Network: An information network is a collection, or aggregation, of 

interconnected computers, communication devices, and other information and communication 

technologies that exchange information and share resources. The smart grid consists of many 

139
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

different types of networks, not all of which are shown in the diagram. The networks include: a 

Service Integration capability that connects applications within a domain and to other domains 

with which it shares information; Wide Area Networks that connect geographically distant sites; 

Field Area Networks that connect devices, such as intelligent electronic devices (IEDs) that 

control circuit breakers and transformers; and Premises Networks that include customer 

networks, as well as utility networks within the customer domain. These networks may be 

implemented using a combination of public (e.g., the Internet) and nonpublic networks. Both 

public and nonpublic networks will require implementation and maintenance of appropriate 

security and access control to support the smart grid. Examples of where communications may 

go through the public networks include: customers to third-party providers; generation to grid 

operators; markets to grid operators; and third-party providers to utilities. 

Communications Path: The communications path shows the logical exchange of data between 

actors, services, and roles or between them and networks. Secure communications are not 

explicitly shown in the figure and are addressed in more detail in Chapter 6.

Use Cases

Use cases are an accepted methodology that can be used to understand how new capabilities may 

be delivered and are an important part of the architectural process. Many of them are proprietary 

to a commercial enterprise or limited to members of standards organizations. The largest 

collection of publicly available use cases are found in the Smart Grid Information Center’s 

(SGIC) National Repository.121

Smart grid use cases are typically developed for two audiences—engineering/ICT stakeholders 

or business stakeholders. 

• Although use cases exist at all levels of architecture in the power industry, most use cases 

that have an engineering perspective are often “fine toothed,” because they were 

developed to understand—at a physical or implementation layer—how a narrowly 

defined requirement can be accomplished. 

• Use cases that represent the business perspective are usually referred to as business cases. 

Business cases have a similar structure, but the viewpoint deals with broader issues 

regarding organizational structure, economic impact, stakeholder goals, and regulatory 

requirements. 

There are far fewer publicly available business cases, compared to the number of 

engineering/ICT use cases, because most business cases are specific to the core mission of a 

commercial entity. 

In both engineering/ICT use cases and business cases, current practice does not include the 

concept of architectural levels of abstraction. As a result, terms quite often take on different 

meanings depending on the perspective of the use-case developer. This can lead to 

121 Smart Grid Information Clearinghouse: see http://www.sgiclearinghouse.org/

140

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

misinterpretation when another group reuses a specific term without understanding the original 

intent of the term. Architecturally, from a conceptual and logical layer perspective, use cases 

describe the interaction between a smart grid role or service where the role uses one or more 

services to accomplish a specified goal. At the logical, physical, and implementation layers, 

services map increasingly to actors that perform the tasks requested. This is a shift from an actorcentric approach that applies the concept of levels of architecture and uses service orientation to 

maximize architecture flexibility.

A use case describes the interactions between entities. Use cases are usually classified as “black 

box” or “white box.” In a service-oriented model, black-box services describe the functional 

requirements, including services interaction, process, and the quality attributes (also commonly 

referred to as non-functional) requirements to achieve the goal, but they leave the details of the 

inner workings of the system to the implementer. Black-box services are “descriptive.” The 

conceptual reference model provides a useful tool for constructing these sorts of use cases. 

In contrast, white-box use-case services exist at the physical and implementation level of 

architecture. They describe the internal details of a process, application, or component, in 

addition to the interaction and associated requirements. White-box services are “prescriptive,” 

because they do not allow the implementer to change the internal system design. They are useful 

in specifying solution specifications.

For this interoperability standards framework and roadmap, the focus is on the black-box 

services and their associated use cases that describe how abstracted systems within the smart grid 

interact. Because white-box component specifications, which describe the individual components 

of a particular solution, are prescriptive, they are not covered by the framework. The focus on 

black-box service descriptions allows maximum innovation and flexibility in specific smart grid 

use cases, ensuring their ready deployment and interoperability within the smart grid as it 

evolves. 

Individually and collectively, use cases are helpful for scoping out interoperability requirements 

at lower levels of architectural focus for specific areas of functionality—such as on-premises 

energy management or predictive maintenance for grid equipment. When viewed from a variety 

of stakeholder perspectives and application domains, combining the roles and interactions from 

multiple use cases using existing roles permits the smart grid to be rendered as a collection of 

transactional relationships that allow possible re-use of legacy applications, within and across 

domains, as illustrated in Figure 5-2. 

Many requirement-specific smart grid intra- and inter-domain use cases exist, and the number is 

growing substantially. The scope of the body of existing use cases also includes cross-cutting 

requirements, including cybersecurity, network management, data management, and application 

integration, as described in the GridWise Architecture Council Interoperability Context-Setting 

Framework (GWAC Stack).122 See Section 2.5 for further discussion of the layers of 

interoperability and “GWAC stack” discussed in this document. See Section 5.3 above for 

discussion of the integration of the GWAC Stack into the SGAM.

122 The GridWise Architecture Council. (2008, March). GridWiseTM Interoperability Context-Setting Framework

http://www.gridwiseac.org/pdfs/interopframework_v1_1.pdf 

141

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Workshops have begun by the IEC Task Group 8 Working Parties 5 and 6123 to formalize the use 

case methodology using the IntelliGrid framework and SGAM as a basis. The goal is to provide 

stakeholders with a normalized use case repository of architecturally significant use cases and 

assist in the development of evolving standards’ requirements. 

Detailed use cases can be found on the NIST Smart Grid Collaboration Site.124 The use cases 

include the SGCC’s use cases in priority and supplemental areas.

Ongoing Work of the Smart Grid Architecture Committee (SGAC)

The preceding sections of this chapter, Sections 5.2 – 5.4, provide updated versions of 

architecture-related material included in Framework 1.0 and Framework 2.0. Since the 

publication of those earlier documents, the SGAC has identified additional issues requiring 

attention. For the newly identified issues, SGAC subgroups, called Working Parties, have been 

established; some deliverables have been published; and much work is in process. The 

subsections below—and the collaborative web pages listed here as references—provide a 

snapshot of the current status of SGAC activities as of October 2013.

5.5.1. Conceptual Business Services

The SGAC created a set of conceptual business services for the smart grid. The Open Group, an 

organization that promotes the development of open, vendor-neutral standards and 

certification,125 defines a “business service” as a unit of business capability supported by a 

combination of people, process, and technology.126 The SGAC used The Open Group’s 

Architecture Framework (TOGAF) as a methodology for its work. 

The output of the activity includes: 

• An analysis of U.S. legislation and regulations pertaining to improving the grid

• An analysis of goals, called goal decomposition, relating the high-level goals into lower 

business-level goals

• A review of the use cases and requirements created by the smart grid community 

• A set of conceptual services, or building blocks, that support these requirements.

123 IEC TC8 Working Group 6, system aspects for electric energy supply: 

http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:14:0::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:9555,25

124 NIST Smart Grid Collaboration Site. IKB Use Cases http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/IKBUseCases

125 See http://www3.opengroup.org/

126 See http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/chap22.html

142

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

The following bullets describe the building blocks that will be used by the SGIP:

• Map SDOs’ standards efforts to the overall smart grid “ecosystem.” This mapping will 

help determine the location of gaps in the standards under development and also help 

determine where there are gaps in existing standards.

• Use the business services within the DEWGs to create prototype models by combining 

several business services. The Business and Policy Group is using them, for example, to 

develop a “prices to devices” white paper that will allow prices to be directly sent from 

wholesale markets to end devices.

• Compare the coverage of one smart grid architecture to the SGIP architecture framework 

and to the coverage of other smart grid architectures.

The Conceptual Architecture Development Working Party has been established to lead the 

SGAC’s work in this area, and the outputs are published on its collaborative web page.127

5.5.2. Architecture Development Working Party

This sub-group’s current work efforts are focused on clearly defining the architecture process by

defining the types of architecture and their relationship to one another; providing ontological 

clarity to terms used to define new smart grid requirements; mapping these terms to the 

appropriate use in the SGAM; identifying the mapping between layers of architecture; and 

working with the EU SC-CG, IE TC 57 WG19, and TC8 WG 5 and 6 for as much alignment and 

mapping of concepts as possible. 

To accomplish this, the sub-group is focused first on the definition of architecture. The portions 

of that work for which there is a consensus are discussed earlier in this chapter. The portions that 

are still under discussion are in this section.

The sub-group’s second focus has been to work on the ontology to be used for the NIST 

conceptual architecture actor list. This list is critical because it contains the terms and concepts 

used to define smart grid functionality. The group defined only as much of the ontology as was 

necessary to clearly identify the actor. The ontology defined, and traceability to the reference 

ontology, are described in more detail in Appendix C.

The sub-group’s third focus is to begin applying the ontology to the actors list. The actor list is 

changing as new insights and needs are identified by the ADWP team and by the EU SC-CG 

team. The original list was composed basically of the actor name, domain in which it resides, 

description, and information source. The working party changed “actor” to “entity” to reflect the 

ontological definitions that applied to each actor. By applying its ontological definitions, the 

team discovered that many of the actors were not only actors but also services, service 

collections and zones. The actors list may expand as the group continues its work. Additional 

attributes added at this time are the following:

127 See http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPConceptualArchitectureDevelopmentSGAC

143

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• The level of architecture of each entity, specifically, conceptual, logical, physical or 

implementation 

• The domain of each entity (“cross-cutting” was added because several names were 

required across all domains) 

• The zone to identify the hierarchy within the physical domain 

• The related role/service/actor, providing mapping across architecture boundaries. 

Since the ADWP began this work, the team added the conceptual architectures service 

definitions and the EU SC-CG team contributed its actors lists. Additionally, discussions have 

been started with the IEC TC8 WG 5 and 6 to align their charters and to standardize use cases 

and artifacts necessary to support them. The ADWP plans to incorporate security quality entities 

and service contract constraints to this list once the entity list review is completed, along with a 

further analysis of service contract artifacts requirements.

It is expected that when the team begins defining the necessary logical architecture artifacts, that 

the semantic development working party will re-start their efforts using the ontology to 

incorporate their canonical domain model efforts.

5.5.3. The SGAC Smart Grid Semantic Framework

When the ADWP’s efforts begin identifying what artifacts and process are required for a logical 

architecture, the need to identify how to integrate semantics to more abstract interaction 

messages becomes a critical part of the architecture. The previous efforts of the semantic 

development working party (SDWP) identified the need to define canonical data models but had 

not addressed the necessary framework or tools to enable it. 

There is substantial benefit to promoting coordination and consistency of relevant semantic 

models within and across domains. The SDWP was established to provide guidance, and to 

undertake the initial engagement of relevant stakeholders and SDOs in this effort. Planned 

deliverables, including the following, will be posted to the working party’s collaborative web 

page128 as they are produced:

• Definitions of semantic concepts and methodologies to support SGAM processes

• Requirements to guide SDOs in the development and coordination of canonical data 

models (CDMs)

• A “map” showing the overall relationships among domain industry-standard CDMs, and 

showing which standard exchanges belong to which domains

• Documentation describing where exchanges go across domain boundaries and how 

harmonization between the domains is established

128 See http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPSemanticModelSGAC

144

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• Identification of semantic methodologies, procedures, and design principles, along with 

identified toolsets 

• A library of common semantic building blocks

• Semantic alignment scenarios for use by smart grid standards development groups. These 

scenarios will spell out how the framework can be used to integrate (in the general sense) 

two or more standards. The group began exploring the use of select standards to further a 

CDM in Figure 5.8; this activity was tabled until the entity list and SGAM details are 

defined.

Figure 5-8. Proposal to Use Select Models for Canonical Data Model

5.5.4. Standards Review by the SGAC

As part of the overall NIST effort to identify standards and protocols that ensure smart grid 

interoperability, it is important to evaluate and review the architectural elements of each 

proposed standard. The SGIP’s formal process for evaluating standards and adding them to the 

Catalog of Standards (see Section 4.2 for more details) includes a review by the SGAC. 

The SGAC continues to review standards based upon the priority assigned by the CoS review 

queue and tracking tool. To improve the evaluation process, the SGAC developed a standards 

145
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

review checklist.129 Where needed, the SGAC review teams supplement their reviews with 

outside subject-matter experts to ensure a standard’s architectural nuances are adequately 

understood and addressed.

129 See http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/SGIPDocumentsAndReferencesSGAC/SGAC_PAP_Closeout_Check_list_0v1.doc

146

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

6. Cybersecurity Strategy

Cybersecurity in the Smart Grid

Major elements of the smart grid, in addition to the infrastructure that produces and carries 

electric power, are the Information Technology (IT), the Industrial Control Systems (ICS), and 

the communications infrastructure used to send command information across the grid. These 

elements are also used to exchange usage and billing information between utilities and their 

customers. It is critical that cybersecurity is designed into the new systems that support the smart 

grid, and if possible, added into existing systems without impacting operations. The electric grid 

is fundamental to the economic and physical well-being of the nation, and emerging cyber 

threats targeting electricity systems highlight the need to integrate advanced security to protect 

critical assets.

Traditionally, cybersecurity for IT focuses on the protection of information and information 

systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in 

order to provide confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Cybersecurity for the smart grid 

requires an expansion of this focus to address the combined IT, ICS, and communication 

systems, and their integration with physical equipment and resources in order to maintain the 

reliability and the security of the smart grid and to protect the privacy of consumers. Smart grid 

cybersecurity must include a balance of both electricity- and cyber-system technologies and 

processes in IT and in ICS operations and governance. When practices from one sector, such as 

the IT or communications sector, are applied directly to the electricity sector, care must be taken 

because such practices may degrade reliability and increase risk. This is because the 

requirements for the electricity sector, for timing of communications, for example, may be 

different from the IT and communications sectors. In the electricity sector, the historical focus 

has been on implementation of equipment that could improve electricity system reliability. 

Communications and IT equipment were formerly viewed as just supporting electricity system 

reliability. However, both the communications and IT sectors are becoming more critical to the 

reliability of the electricity system.

Each of these sectors have existing cybersecurity standards to address vulnerabilities and 

assessment programs to identify known vulnerabilities in their systems, but these vulnerabilities 

also need to be assessed in the context of the smart grid infrastructure. Additionally, the smart 

grid will have additional vulnerabilities not only because of its complexity, but also because of 

its large number of stakeholders and highly time-sensitive operational requirements. These 

standards are often developed over a time period of many months, with review cycles averaging 

every five years to determine if any updates are necessary. As a result, there are many standards 

that do not include cybersecurity, nor have up-to-date normative references to cybersecurity 

standards. Through the ongoing efforts of the SGIP Smart Grid Cybersecurity Committee 

(SGCC), smart grid-relevant standards are being reviewed for cybersecurity, and 

recommendations are made for how to include cybersecurity in future revisions and how to 

include cybersecurity in implementations of the standards. 

A collaborative effort across all smart grid stakeholders in this space has resulted in tailored 

guidance, analysis, and tools to advance cybersecurity. Such efforts include collaboration with 

147
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

the Department of Energy to develop the Electricity Subsector Cybersecurity Capability Maturity 

Model (ES-C2M2) and the Electricity Subsector Cybersecurity Risk Management Process 

(RMP). Additionally, analysis of existing cybersecurity regulations relevant to electricity 

subsector stakeholders and NIST security guidance was completed by the SGCC in response to 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Public Rulemaking (NOPR) for the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation’s Version 5 of the Critical Infrastructure Protection 

Reliability Standards (CIP v5).130 The analysis intends to identify the relationship, similarities, 

and differences between requirements and controls in NISTIR 7628, NIST Special Publication 

(SP) 800-53 and NERC CIP v5, with the understanding that each document has a unique scope 

and purpose. The work accomplished within the NIST smart grid program can be used as an 

example of a successful public-private partnership collaborating on facilitating the development 

and revision of secure, interoperable standards that encompass IT, ICS, and the communications 

infrastructure.

In addition to the efforts focused on smart grid and electricity subsector cybersecurity, there has 

also been additional attention to the cybersecurity of all the critical infrastructure sectors. 

Recognizing that the national and economic security of the United States depends on the reliable 

functioning of critical infrastructure, the president under the Executive Order “Improving Critical 

Infrastructure Cybersecurity”131 has directed NIST to work with stakeholders to develop a 

voluntary framework for reducing cyber risks to critical infrastructure. The Cybersecurity 

Framework (CSF)132, created through collaboration between government and the private sector, 

uses a common language to address and manage cybersecurity risk in a cost-effective way based 

on business needs without placing additional regulatory requirements on businesses. The CSF

focuses on using business drivers to guide cybersecurity activities and considering cybersecurity 

risks as part of the organization’s risk management processes. The CSF enables organizations –

regardless of size, degree of cybersecurity risk, or cybersecurity sophistication – to apply the 

principles and best practices of risk management to improving the security and resilience of 

critical infrastructure. Ultimately, it provides organization and structure to today’s multiple 

approaches to cybersecurity by assembling standards, guidelines, and practices that are working 

effectively in industry today. The prioritized, flexible, repeatable, and cost-effective approach of 

the CSF can help owners and operators of critical infrastructure to manage cybersecurity-related 

risk while protecting business confidentiality, individual privacy, and civil liberties. The CSF, 

published in February 2014, serves as a national-level framework that is flexible enough to apply 

across multiple sectors. Because the CSF was developed based on stakeholder input, it is 

intended to help ensure that existing work within the sectors, including the energy sector, can be 

utilized within the Framework. The existing voluntary smart grid cybersecurity standards, 

guidelines, and practices can be leveraged to address the CSF functions in the context of an 

organization’s risk management program. 

130 See http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/CSCTGHighLevelRequirements/NERC_CIPv5_Mapping_v2.xlsx

131 See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-19/pdf/2013-03915.pdf

132 See http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/upload/cybersecurity-framework-021214.pdf

148

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

NIST’s Role in Smart Grid Cybersecurity

To address the cross-cutting issue of cybersecurity, NIST established the Cybersecurity 

Coordination Task Group (CSCTG) in early 2009. This group was integrated into the Smart Grid 

Interoperability Panel (SGIP) as a standing working group and was renamed the SGIP 

Cybersecurity Working Group (CSWG). In January 2013, the SGIP became a membershipsupported non-profit organization and the CSWG was renamed the Smart Grid Cybersecurity 

Committee (SGCC).

The SGCC has designated liaisons within the SGIP Smart Grid Architecture Committee 

(SGAC), the Smart Grid Testing and Certification Committee (SGTCC), and the Priority Action 

Plans (PAPs). Some members of the SGCC are also active participants in the SGAC, the 

SGTCC, the PAPs, and the DEWGs in the SGIP. Currently, a NIST representative chairs the 

SGCC. The SGCC management team also includes three vice chairs and a secretariat, volunteers 

from the membership who are able to commit a portion of their time to participate in SGCC

activities. 

The SGCC creates and disbands subgroups as needed to meet present demands. Since NISTIR 

7628, Guidelines for Smart Grid Cybersecurity was published in 2010, some of the SGCC 

subgroups were merged, while others regrouped as new tasks emerged. Since its inception in 

2009, the SGCC has had 13 different subgroups; Table 6-1 provides a description of the 

subgroups and their activities. Subgroups that are currently active at the time of publication are 

noted with an *, while subgroups that are not marked have been disbanded upon completion of 

their deliverables.

The SGCC has national and international members from smart grid stakeholder categories 

including utilities, vendors, service providers, academia, regulatory organizations, state and local 

government, and federal agencies. Members of the SGCC assist in defining the activities and 

tasks of the SGCC, and participate in the development and review of the SGCC subgroups’ 

projects and deliverables. A biweekly conference call is held by the SGCC chair to update the 

membership on the subgroups’ activities, SGIP activities, and other related information. 

Subgroups hold regular conference calls while actively working on a project. Information on the 

SGCC, subgroups, and associated documents can be found on the SGIP web site at: 

www.sgip.org. Historical information can be found on the NIST Smart Grid Collaboration 

Site.133

Table 6-1. SGCC Subgroups

SGCC Subgroup Subgroup Description

Architecture Subgroup* The Architecture subgroup has initiated the 

development of a conceptual smart grid

cybersecurity architecture based on the high-level 

requirements, standards analysis, overall smart grid

architecture, and other cybersecurity information 

133 See http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/CyberSecurityCTG. 

149

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

SGCC Subgroup Subgroup Description

from NISTIR 7628. The subgroup continues to 

refine the conceptual architecture as new smart grid 

architectures emerge.

Bottom-Up Analysis 

Subgroup

The Bottom-Up Analysis subgroup identified a 

number of specific cybersecurity problems in the 

smart grid for further work by the smart grid 

community.

Cloud Computing Subgroup The Cloud Computing subgroup is researching the 

unique issues of using the cloud in smart grid 

applications. The subgroup will develop a white 

paper that provides a short introduction to cloud 

computing, introduces considerations and risks, and 

then offers a framework for use in evaluating and 

implementing specific cloud computing 

applications in the smart grid. 

Cryptography Subgroup The Cryptography subgroup was founded on the 

basis of identifying technical cryptographic and 

key management issues across the scope of systems 

and devices found in the smart grid along with 

possible solutions. The identified solutions may be 

existing standards, methods, or technologies, and 

their optimal adaptations for the smart grid.

Design Principles Subgroup The Design Principles subgroup was founded to 

continue the work of bottom-up problems and 

design considerations developed by the Bottom-Up 

and Cryptography subgroups.

High-Level Security 

Requirements Subgroup*

The High-Level Requirements subgroup developed 

an initial set of security requirements applicable to 

the smart grid, published in NISTIR 7628. The 

subgroup continues to review security requirement 

documents to ensure harmonization with other 

organizations’ smart grid requirements.

NISTIR 7628 User’s Guide

Subgroup

The NISTIR 7628 User’s Guide subgroup 

developed an easy-to-understand guide that utilities 

and other entities involved in implementing smart 

grid-based systems can use to navigate NISTIR 

7628 to identify and select the security 

requirements needed to help protect those 

systems.134

Privacy Subgroup* The Privacy subgroup identifies and describes 

privacy risks and concerns within developed or 

134 Available for download at: http://sgip.org/NISTIR-7628-User-s-Guide---Smart-Grid-Cyber-SecurityImplementation-Guidelines

150

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

SGCC Subgroup Subgroup Description

emerging interoperability standards for the smart 

grid. 

Research and Development 

(R&D) Subgroup

The R&D subgroup was founded on the basis of 

identifying advanced research and development 

themes for cybersecurity across the scope of 

systems and devices found in the smart grid.

Risk Management Process 

(RMP) Case Study Subgroup

The RMP Case Study subgroup refined narrative 

story that documents a hypothetical “real world” 

implementation of the RMP. The goal of the group 

is to help readers understand the opportunities and 

challenges of transitioning theoretical ideas of the 

RMP into a factious utility using casual, 

conversational storytelling. This case study will 

cover the major activities of the RMP, reference 

existing, related bodies of work, provide example 

inputs and outputs, and leverage the subgroup’s 

own lessons learned. 

Standards Subgroup* The Standards subgroup assesses standards and 

other documents with respect to the cybersecurity 

and privacy requirements from NISTIR 7628. 

These assessments are performed on the standards 

contained in the Framework or when PAPs are 

finalizing their recommendations. 

Testing and Certification The purpose of the Testing & Certification 

subgroup was to establish guidance and 

methodologies for cybersecurity testing of smart 

grid systems, subsystems, and components. 

Vulnerabilities Subgroup The Vulnerabilities subgroup identified classes of 

potential vulnerabilities for the smart grid and 

provided example vulnerabilities relevant to the 

smart grid, identified by category. 

Progress to Date

Since early 2009, NIST has been actively addressing the cybersecurity needs of the smart grid 

whether through the work of the SGCC or through collaborative activities with other 

organizations. This section describes major work efforts that NIST has completed.

6.3.1. Release of National Institute of Standards and Technology Interagency Report 

(NISTIR) 7628 and Companion Documents

NISTIR 7628, Revision 1 is to be released in September 2014 and includes updates to the 

document for such areas as security architecture and privacy.135 The draft of Revision 1 was 

135 See http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsNISTIRs.html#NIST-IR-7628r1

151

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

released for public comment in October 2013.136 The intent of the revision is to keep the 

majority of the document unchanged, while only modifying those areas that have moved forward 

technologically since its initial publication in August 2010. 

An introduction to NISTIR 7628,137 released in September 2010, provides a high-level summary 

of the three-volume report, and serves as an introduction and background to the technical report. 

This document was written for an audience that is not familiar with cybersecurity.

The initial version of NISTIR 7628138 addressed documented comments submitted on the second 

draft and included chapter updates, detailed below. The new content contained basic information 

on security architecture and a section on cryptography and key management. The responses to 

the comments received on the second draft of the NISTIR were also posted on the NIST SGIP 

Collaboration web site.139

Prior to the initial release, a second draft of NISTIR 7628 was released in February 2010 and 

contained sections on the overall security strategy for the smart grid, updated logical interface 

diagrams, privacy, bottom-up analysis, and vulnerability class analysis sections. New chapters on 

research and development themes, the standards assessment process, and a functional logical 

smart grid architecture were also included. The first draft of NISTIR 7628 was released in 

September 2009. The preliminary report distilled use cases collected to date, requirements and 

vulnerability classes identified in other relevant cybersecurity assessments and scoping 

documents, as well as other information necessary for specifying and tailoring security 

requirements to provide adequate protection for the smart grid.

Additionally, two companion documents to the NISTIR have also been developed. The SGIP 

document, “Guide for Assessing the High-Level Security Requirements in NISTIR 7628, 

Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security” (Assessment Guide) provides a set of guidelines for 

building effective security assessment plans and a baseline set of procedures for assessing the 

effectiveness of security requirements employed in smart grid information systems.140 The 

Assessment Guide is written to provide a foundation to facilitate a security assessment of the 

high-level security requirements. It includes descriptions of the basic concepts needed when 

assessing the high-level security requirements in smart grid information systems, the Security 

Assessment process (including specific activities carried out in each phase of the assessment), 

the assessment method definitions, the Assessment Procedures Catalog, and a Sample Security 

Assessment Report outline. Additionally, the Assessment Procedures Catalog has been placed in 

a companion spreadsheet tool for assessors that can be used to record the findings of an 

assessment and used as the basis for the development of a final assessment report.

136 See http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsDrafts.html#NIST-IR-7628r1 

137 See http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/ir7628/introduction-to-nistir-7628.pdf

138 See http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsNISTIRs.html#NIST-IR-7628

139 See http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/NISTIR7628Feb2010

140 See https://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/CSCTGTesting/NISTIR_7628_Assessment_Guidev1p0-24Aug2012.pdf

152

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

The other companion document is the draft SGIP document, “NISTIR 7628 User’s Guide”141

which is intended to provide an easy-to-understand approach to navigate the NISTIR 7628. 

While NISTIR 7628 covers many significant cybersecurity topics, this User’s Guide is primarily 

focused on the application of NISTIR 7628 Volume 1 (Smart Grid Cybersecurity Strategy, 

Architecture, and High-Level Requirements) in the context of an organization’s risk management 

practices. Although NISTIR 7628 Volume 1 references NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-39, 

“Managing Information Security Risk: Organization, Mission, and Information System View,”142

the electricity subsector has tailored SP 800-39 to meet its unique attributes. This tailored 

approach is now presented in the Department of Energy’s “Electricity Subsector Cybersecurity 

Risk Management Process” (RMP)143; which provides the risk management framework and 

organizational structure needed before system-specific controls identified in NISTIR 7628 can be 

applied. 

The intent of the User’s Guide is to provide an end-to-end implementation guide for smart grid 

cybersecurity activities. This approach begins with the RMP and walks through an approach for 

identifying an organization’s most important smart grid organizational business functions, 

processes, and the systems (and the associated assets) that support them. Then it helps the user 

identify and select the security requirements needed to protect those smart grid systems as part of 

a repeatable risk management process. 

Additional white papers addressing cybersecurity areas such as defense-in-depth-and-breadth, 

cloud computing and the smart grid, and a case study on risk management, have been developed 

by the SGCC subgroups and are pending publication through the SGIP.144 

6.3.2. Standards Reviews

Cybersecurity must be viewed as a stack of different security technologies, solutions, and 

procedures, woven together to meet the requirements of policy, procedural, and technical 

standards. The cybersecurity of each component of the stack is important, but must also be 

considered in the context of an organization’s implementation. The SGCC Standards subgroup 

assesses standards and related documents with respect to the high-level security requirements 

and privacy recommendations from NISTIR 7628. These assessments are performed on the 

standards contained in the Framework or on PAP documents. During these assessments, the 

subgroup determines if the standard or PAP document does or should contain privacy or 

cybersecurity requirements, correlates those requirements with the cybersecurity requirements 

found in NISTIR 7628, and identifies any gaps. Finally, recommendations are made to the PAPs 

or the standards bodies on further work needed to mitigate any gaps. 

141 See http://www.sgip.org/NISTIR-7628-User-s-Guide---Smart-Grid-Cyber-Security-Implementation-Guidelines

142 See http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-39/SP800-39-final.pdf

143 See http://energy.gov/oe/downloads/cybersecurity-risk-management-process-rmp-guideline-final-may-2012

144 See http://www.sgip.org/Publications

153

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

As stated earlier, the SGCC review and SGAC review are required for inclusion into the SGIP 

Catalog of Standards. While gaps identified during the review do not prevent it from being added 

to the Catalog of Standards, SGCC recommendations for mitigating the cybersecurity gaps 

should be considered when an organization implements the standard. The SGCC cybersecurity 

review reports conducted prior to January 2013 are available on the NIST smart grid 

collaboration wiki web site.145 Reviews conducted after January 2013 are available on the SGIP 

site.146

In the past three years, the SGCC has conducted over 70 cybersecurity reviews. Most of the 

reviews have resulted in cybersecurity recommendations. In many cases, the standards bodies or 

the PAPs have taken the results of the reviews and modified the standards or PAP documents to 

address our recommendations. The Standards subgroup has worked closely with some of the 

standards bodies or PAPs to ensure that the recommendations are interpreted correctly and the 

mitigation strategies selected meet the intent of the high-level security requirements. The result is 

that cybersecurity is getting “baked-in” to the standards as they are developed rather than 

“bolted-on” after being implemented. 

6.3.3. Risk Management Framework

The SGCC and NIST partnered with DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability and NERC to develop a harmonized energy sector enterprise-wide risk management 

process, based on organization missions, investments, and stakeholder priorities. The DOE 

Guide, “Electricity Subsector Cybersecurity Risk Management Process”147 (RMP) provides 

guidance for an integrated organization-wide approach to managing cybersecurity risks for 

operations, assets, data, personnel, and organizations across the United States electric grid and 

the interconnections with Canada and Mexico. 

The primary goal of this guideline is to describe a risk management process that is tuned to the 

specific needs of electricity sector organizations. The NIST SP 800-39, “Managing Information 

Security Risk,”148 provides the foundational methodology for this document. NISTIR 7628 and 

NERC critical infrastructure cybersecurity standards further refine the definition and application 

of effective cybersecurity for all organizations in the electricity sector. This guideline is being 

used as a positive example of how a public-private partnership can tailor a Government 

publication to fit the needs of a critical infrastructure sector.

6.3.4. Cyber-Physical System Research

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) are hybrid networked cyber and engineered physical elements codesigned to create adaptive and predictive systems for enhanced performance. These smart 

145 See http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/CSCTGStandards

146 See http://www.sgip.org/Member-Dashboard

147 See http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Cybersecurity%20Risk%20Management%20Process%20Guideline%20-

%20Final%20-%20May%202012.pdf

148 See http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-39/SP800-39-final.pdf

154

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

systems present a key opportunity to create a competitive advantage for U.S. industrial 

innovation and to improve the performance and reliability of new and existing systems. From 

smart manufacturing and smart grid to smart structures and smart transportation systems, CPS 

will pervasively impact the economy and society.

Cybersecurity is a critical cross-cutting discipline that provides confidence that cyber-physical 

systems, their information, and supporting communications and information infrastructures are 

adequately safeguarded. CPS are increasingly being utilized in critical infrastructures and other 

settings. However, CPS have many unique characteristics, including the need for real-time 

response and extremely high availability, predictability, and reliability, which impact cybersecurity decisions, including in the distributed energy resource (DER) environment.

149

As described in NISTIR 7628 and in the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report,150

the smart grid is vulnerable to coordinated cyber-physical attacks. NIST hosted a workshop in 

April 2012 and a follow up workshop in April 2013 to explore CPS cybersecurity needs, with a 

focus on research results and real-world deployment experiences. The workshops concluded that 

assessing the impact of coordinated cyber-physical attacks to the smart grid requires expertise in 

cybersecurity, physical security, and the electric infrastructure. NIST recognizes that 

collaboration is critical to the effective identification of cyber and physical vulnerabilities and 

threats. The NIST Cyber-Physical Systems Program is a collaborative effort of NIST’s 

Engineering Laboratory (EL), Information Technology Laboratory (ITL), Physical Measurement 

Laboratory (PML), and others.

6.3.5. Advanced Meter Upgradeability Test Guidance

As electric utilities turn to Advanced Metering Infrastructures (AMIs) to promote the 

development and deployment of the smart grid, one aspect that can benefit from standardization 

is the upgradeability of smart meters. While many elements of smart grid installations are found 

on the utility side of the smart grid system, the deployment of smart meters is often what 

customers associate with smart grid. With the expected lifetime for a smart meter to span 10-15 

years, it is critical that these devices, which will one day replace all electric meters, have the 

ability to upgrade the firmware and software that allows critical services and data to be 

exchanged between the utility and customer. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

(NEMA) standard SG-AMI 1-2009, “Requirements for Smart Meter Upgradeability,” describes 

functional and security requirements for the secure upgrade—both local and remote—of smart 

meters. 

In July 2012, NIST developed the draft NISTIR 7823, “Advanced Metering Infrastructure Smart 

Meter Upgradeability Test Framework,”151 which describes conformance test requirements that 

149 Cybersecurity for DER Systems, Ver. 1.0, Electric Power Research Institute, July 2013. 

150 GAO Report 11-117, “Electricity Grid Modernization: Progress Being Made on Cybersecurity Guidelines, but 

Key Challenges Remain to Be Addressed” defines cyber-physical attack as using both cyber and physical means to 

attack a target. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-117

151 See http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/nistir-7823/draft_nistir-7823.pdf

155

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

may be used voluntarily by testers and/or test laboratories to determine whether smart meters and 

upgrade management systems conform to the requirements of NEMA SG-AMI 1-2009. For each 

relevant requirement in NEMA SG-AMI 1-2009, the document identifies the information to be 

provided by the vendor to facilitate testing, and the high-level test procedures to be conducted by 

the tester/laboratory to determine conformance. 

In August 2012, NIST, DOE, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) collaborated to 

provide a government-controlled test environment to validate the test criteria contained in 

NISTIR 7823. The test environment at ORNL contains the key components of an AMI 

network—meters, an aggregator, and back-end network management system. The results of the 

comprehensive tests will be used to update draft NISTIR 7823 and to provide input into the 

revision of the NEMA SG-AMI standard. 

Future Activities 

NIST will continue to provide a technical leadership role in the SGCC while pursuing related 

research that will enable the development of industry standards and guidance in order to 

successfully implement secure smart grid technologies. Below is a list of planned future 

activities:

• Technical leadership of the SGCC: Providing cybersecurity expertise, technical 

leadership, and oversight required to manage the SGCC.

• Review identified standards and smart grid interoperability requirements against the highlevel security requirements in NISTIR 7628 Revision 1, “Guidelines for Smart Grid 

Cyber Security” to identify any cybersecurity gaps and provide recommendations for 

further work to mitigate gaps.

• Cybersecurity Smart Grid Test Lab: Develop a Cybersecurity Smart Grid Test Lab as part 

of the NIST Smart Grid Testbed Facility now under construction. Conduct cybersecurity 

analyses in relation to the IEEE 1588, Precision Time Protocol, standard on time 

synchronization.

• Participate in the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Energy Sector use 

cases.

152

152 See http://nccoe.nist.gov/?q=content/energy

156

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

7. Smart Grid Testing and Certification Framework

NIST Role in Smart Grid Testing and Certification

The National Institute of Standards and Technology recognizes the importance of ensuring the 

development and implementation of an interoperability testing and certification framework for 

smart grid standards. In order to support interoperability of smart grid systems and products, 

smart grid products should undergo a rigorous testing process.

Within NIST’s plan to expedite the acceleration of interoperable smart grid standards an 

important component is developing and implementing a framework for smart grid 

interoperability testing and certification. While standards do promote interoperability, test 

programs are needed to ensure products are developed with compliant implementation of 

standards to further promote interoperability. Because of this, when NIST created the SGIP in 

November 2009, it included the establishment of a permanent Smart Grid Testing and 

Certification Committee (SGTCC) within the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel. The SGTCC 

continues to support NIST in its EISA 2007 responsibilities. 

As part of the SGIP’s relationship with NIST, the SGTCC has assumed the responsibility for 

constructing an operational framework, as well as developing documentation and associated 

artifacts supporting testing and certification programs that enables smart grid interoperability.

Recognizing that some efforts exist today to test products and services based on certain smart 

grid standards, and others are under way, NIST is working with stakeholders through the SGIP to 

develop and implement an operational framework for interoperability testing and certification 

that supports, augments, and leverages existing programs wherever practical.

The SGIP/SGTCC has made significant progress in developing its testing and certification 

framework during the past several years, since inception of the SGIP. During 2012, NIST and the 

SGTCC began transitioning their focus to implementation of the framework and acceleration of 

new test program creation.

This section reviews the key components and deliverables from the testing and certification 

framework development activities. The emerging implementation phase projects and activities 

are then discussed, as well as views on the longer term implementation needs and challenges in 

maintaining a robust testing and certification ecosystem for interoperable smart grid systems and 

devices.

NIST-Initiated Efforts Supporting the Framework Development

NIST launched its support for the accelerated development of an operational framework for 

smart grid testing and certification in 2010, initiating and completing the following two major 

efforts: 1) delivering a high-level guidance document for the development of a testing and 

certification framework, and 2) performing an assessment of existing smart grid standards testing 

programs (this assessment was also updated in late 2012 as described below in Section 7.2.2 

detailing this work). Utilizing input from NIST, the SGTCC developed a roadmap for developing 

157
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

and implementing an operational framework and related action plans, and has launched a number 

of focused efforts to develop various documents, tools, and components for the framework. 

Further development and implementation of the operational framework by the SGTCC is an 

ongoing process. 

An important aspect of the testing and certification framework is the feedback loop between 

standards-setting organizations (SSOs) and the testing and certification programs supporting 

those standards. This information exchange facilitates continuous improvement over the lifecycle 

of both standards and test programs. Errors, clarifications, and enhancements to existing 

standards are typically identified throughout the normal interoperability testing and certification 

process. In order to improve the interoperability of the smart grid, an overall process is critical to 

ensure that changes and enhancements are incorporated continuously, and this process has been 

included as a part of the framework. 

NIST will continue to work closely with the SGTCC in its efforts. The SGTCC provides a forum 

for continuing visibility for smart grid interoperability testing and certification efforts and 

programs. The SGTCC engages all stakeholders to recommend improvements and means to fill 

gaps, and will work with current standards bodies and user groups to develop and implement 

new test programs to fill voids in smart grid interoperability testing and certification. 

7.2.1. Testing and Certification Framework Development Guide

A development guide153 was produced by NIST to accelerate the development of a 

comprehensive operational framework. The guide defined and discussed the scope, the rationale, 

and the need for developing a comprehensive framework and action plan for smart grid 

interoperability testing and certification. The document also described various entities that have a 

primary role in ensuring that interoperability is achieved, and it presented high-level workflow 

and framework artifacts for guiding the framework development.

Goals of the Framework

As stated in the guide, “the primary goal of creating a testing and certification framework is to 

have a comprehensive approach to close the gaps uncovered in the NIST-initiated study and to 

accelerate the development and implementation of industry programs that enable smart grid 

interoperability.” The development guide defines goals of the framework, which are to:

• Help ensure a consistent level of testing for products based on the same smart grid 

standards, as well as ensure consistency in the implementation of test programs among 

different standards

153See https://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/SGIPDocumentsAndReferencesSGTCC/TandCFrameworkDevelopmentGuide__FINAL083010.pdf

.

158

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• Address test implementation and execution issues, including qualification criteria for test 

laboratories and accrediting organizations, and recommend best practices to ensure that 

test results achieve their desired intent and are used in an appropriate and consistent 

manner

• Take into consideration the evolutionary progression of the smart grid, and be structured 

to allow maturation of existing technologies and introduction of emerging technologies

In order for smart grid testing and certification programs to be successful and broadly adopted, 

these programs must be financially viable. Two key factors for successful new testing and 

certification programs are: 

• The cost of testing must be reasonable relative to other product costs and volume of 

deployment.

• The cost of testing must be reasonable relative to the risk of product failure in the field. 

Product failures in the field create cost because they may require technical remedies to be 

performed in the field, equipment to be replaced, service interruptions, and reduced 

customer satisfaction. Testing may identify these problems before the product is 

deployed. However, testing costs should be justified by the risk of the potential costs 

associated with the failed product after deployment to ensure that overall cost is 

minimized.

7.2.2. Assessment of Existing Smart Grid Standards Testing Programs

NIST initiated and completed an in-depth study in early 2010 to assess the existing testing and 

certification programs associated with the priority smart grid standards identified by NIST. That 

study was updated and released in late 2012 to align with revisions to the smart grid standards 

cited in NIST’s 2012 version of its Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability 

Standards, Release 2.0, as well as to update progress made by testing organizations over that 

time. The results of the study are summarized in a report titled “Existing Conformity Assessment 

Program Landscape.”154 In this report, the testing and conformity assessment programs relevant 

to the smart grid standards identified in the NIST Framework were evaluated in detail. 

The results of these reports provided NIST and the SGIP’s SGTCC with the current status of 

existing testing programs for ensuring interoperability, cybersecurity, and other relevant 

characteristics. The assessment included all elements of a conformity assessment system, 

including accreditation bodies, certification bodies, testing and calibration laboratories, 

inspection bodies, personnel certification programs, and quality registrars. The reports also 

helped to uncover present gaps and deficiencies in the evaluated programs.

154 “Existing Conformity Assessment Program Landscape” by EnerNex for NIST, http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPDocumentsAndReferencesSGTCC. (See https://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/SGIPDocumentsAndReferencesSGTCC/Smart_Grid_TC_Landscape_2012_-_Final.doc)

159

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Assessment Results

The initial 2010 report resulted in several findings of major gaps in existing test programs. This 

report was updated in 2012 and key findings are summarized below:

• There are currently 13 test programs that have been developed or are in the process of 

being developed. This remains a low percentage of the overall identified smart grid 

standards in Chapter 4. 

• Of these test programs, nearly half of them have begun to implement the SGTCC 

Interoperability Reference Manual (IPRM) recommendations. (See Section 7.3.1 for 

details about the IPRM.)

• Standards supported by users groups are more likely to have successful test programs.

• Most test programs are based on conformance but there are growing trends to put 

increased efforts into interoperability aspects as their programs evolve. 

• More programs are introducing cybersecurity aspects as part of their testing regiments.

The gaps uncovered in this study show the urgent and important need for developing and 

implementing an interoperability testing and certification framework to provide a comprehensive 

approach to close these gaps and to accelerate the development and implementation of industry 

programs that enable smart grid interoperability. NIST and the SGTCC have used the insights 

resulting from the study to direct subsequent interoperability testing and certification framework 

development efforts. In particular, a key 2013 deliverable on prioritizing the development of 

needed testing programs uses these testing landscape reports as a key source to support decision 

making. The prioritization deliverable and follow-on activities are described below in Section 

7.5. 

As implementation of the testing and certification framework moves forward, NIST and the 

SGTCC will review and revise the program landscape document to assess industry progress in 

program development and use those findings to further guide priority issues for the SGTCC to 

address.

SGTCC Framework Development Activities

The SGTCC was launched in February 2010 with an inaugural meeting hosted by NIST. It is 

composed of a diverse set of technical experts specializing in testing and certification activities. 

The SGTCC has representation from utilities, manufacturers, test laboratories, test program 

operators, standards specifying organizations, accreditors, and certifiers. The SGTCC is charged 

with the development of the operational framework and action plan for smart grid

interoperability testing and certification. Since its establishment, SGTCC has undertaken a 

number of activities in the framework development process. The action plan of the SGTCC is 

included in a “Testing & Certification Roadmap”155 document, which describes the plans and 

155 See http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGTCCRoadMap

160

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

deliverables to be developed through the SGTCC. It is a living document that evolves through 

close collaboration with NIST and other industry stakeholders to ensure that identified issues and 

needs in framework development and implementation are addressed.

The SGTCC’s mission is “to coordinate creation of documentation and organizational 

frameworks relating to compliance testing and certification to smart grid interoperability and 

cybersecurity standards.”156 Its objectives include “the development of an action plan, with the 

support of relevant parties, to establish a standardized framework (e.g., tools, materials, 

components, and examples) that can be used by those performing testing for and certification of 

compliance with interoperability and cybersecurity standards.”157

Using the NIST-contributed reports cited earlier (i.e., the framework development guide and the 

existing program assessment report), the SGTCC initial deliverables focused on two foundational 

projects. The first was an analysis of industry best practices related to testing that led to the 

creation of the Interoperability Process Reference Manual (IPRM).158 The second was an 

Interoperability Maturity Assessment Model159 that built upon the program assessment report to 

assess the maturity of standards-setting activities relative to the achievement of interoperable 

products. Each of these deliverables is described in greater detail below.

7.3.1. Interoperability Process Reference Manual (IPRM)

The interoperability testing and certification framework centers on the concept of an 

Interoperability Testing and Certification Authority (ITCA) that supports one or more key smart 

grid standards. An ITCA will be “the organization whose function is to promote and facilitate the 

introduction of interoperable products based on standards into the marketplace.”160 NIST had 

observed that “standards [that] moved from release to market adoptions very frequently had this 

type of organization defined. Those that moved slowly from standards release to market did 

not.”161 SGTCC believes that “the formation and maintenance of these organizations, ad hoc or 

formal, is key to increasing the velocity of the adoptions of interoperable standards in the 

marketplace.”162

Recognizing this, the Interoperability Process Reference Manual (IPRM) was developed for use 

by ITCAs. The IPRM can be used as a “how to” guide to set up an ITCA. The IPRM outlines the 

156 Ibid.

157 Ibid.

158 See https://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/SmartGridTestingAndCertificationCommittee/IPRM_final_-_011612.pdf

159 SGTCC Working Group 3 internal documents: “SGIP TCC Interoperability Maturity Assessment, V0.92” and 

“SGIP TCC Interop Assessment Questionnaire, V0.52”

160 Ibid.

161 Ibid.

162 Ibid.

161

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

roles and requirements of an ITCA and specifies the mandatory testing and certification 

processes associated with achieving interoperability for a specific standard. The IPRM also 

includes the recommended best practices for interoperability test constructs.

The IPRM is intended to be used by any ITCA that is responsible for coordinating testing and 

certification based on a smart grid technology standard and driving adoption of the technology 

within the industry. The SGTCC has concluded that those organizations that incorporate the 

IPRM guidelines into their testing programs will have a greater opportunity to ensure the 

products’ interoperability. As stated in the IPRM, once an ITCA is in place, “The ITCA shall 

provide governance and coordination for the maintenance and administration of Interoperability 

Testing Laboratories and Certification Bodies in cooperation with the relevant SSOs and user 

groups.”163 The roles and requirements of an ITCA, and the best practices described in the 

IPRM, are summarized below.

During the second half of 2011, the SGTCC assessed lessons learned in early efforts by 

Interoperability Testing and Certification Authorities (ITCAs) in implementation of the IPRM 

version 1.0 and used those findings to update the IPRM version 2.0, releasing the new version in 

January 2012. The new issue of the IPRM transitioned the first version of the document from an 

informational focus to an operational focus, providing greater clarity to ITCAs to guide their 

implementation of the IPRM recommendations. It incorporates internationally recognized quality 

and performance standards for certification bodies and test laboratories to provide confidence to 

end purchasers (e.g., utilities) and requirements for testing procedures to assure that testing is 

comprehensive and rigorous as required to meet deployment expectations.

Summary of Roles and Requirements of an ITCA

The role of an ITCA is to provide governance and coordination for the maintenance and 

administration of Interoperability Testing Laboratories and Certification Bodies in cooperation 

with the relevant SSOs and user groups. It manages the end-to-end processes associated with 

interoperability testing and certification with appropriate infrastructure in place to support this 

function. 

The requirements for an ITCA as specified in the IPRM are divided into the following five 

categories:

• Governance defines the structures, policies, rules, and regulations associated with the 

ITCA certification program. For example, a governance process would require the ITCA 

to establish and maintain an independent and vendor-neutral testing and certification 

oversight authority.

• Lab Qualification defines the requirements that shall be applied by ITCAs when 

recognizing testing laboratories. It should be noted that additional requirements are 

further detailed in International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17025.

163 Ibid.

162

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• Technical Design for Interoperability and Conformance Program defines the 

requirements needed to effectively manage the procedures and processes associated with 

interoperability and conformance testing.

• Improvements cover the continuing improvement controls that are required to support 

the interoperability testing processes.

• Cybersecurity covers the requirements that shall be used by the ITCA to validate the 

security-related components of the interoperability testing program.

Adoption of these requirements by an ITCA is essential for implementing a successful 

interoperability testing and certification program.

Leveraging of Industry Best Practices

In addition to meeting the governance, lab qualification, technical design, improvements, and 

cybersecurity requirements, ITCAs should also leverage industry’s best practices in their 

implementations. The IPRM has included a list of recommended best practices and guidelines for 

ITCAs in their development and operation of interoperability and conformance testing programs. 

The recommendations provided in the IPRM were generated based on input from experienced 

testing organizations that have evolved interoperability and conformance programs through 

lessons learned in executing tests for both software and hardware applications.

The recommendations may not apply directly to all testing applications; however, NIST and the 

SGTCC recommend that ITCAs consider them for interoperability and conformance test 

programs, as these practices have proven to be valuable in executing a broad cross-section of 

program types. Each ITCA should evaluate how these recommendations, observations, and 

practices apply to their specific programs and should incorporate the recommendations into their 

programs where applicable.

The recommended best practices in interoperability test constructs in the IPRM address three 

main areas:

• General test policies—includes policies related to information that product vendors need 

to know relative to a specific testing and certification program 

• Test suite specification (TSS) — includes the need to establish a common TSS for use by 

multiple test labs; a TSS that is test-tool agnostic; and revision control of TSS 

• Attributes of a test profile in lieu of complete test suite specification

7.3.2 Interoperability Maturity Assessment Model

The SGTCC developed and refined the assessment metrics used in the “landscape” document 

into a more rigorous Interoperability Maturity Assessment Model (IMAM).164 The IMAM 

164 SGTCC Working Group 3 internal documents: “SGIP TCC Interoperability Maturity Assessment, V0.92” and 

“SGIP TCC Interop Assessment Questionnaire, V0.52”

163

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

provides a unique set of tools for assessing the maturity of a smart grid testing and certification 

program for products conforming to a standard. The IMAM includes associated metrics and tools 

for quick and high-level maturity assessment of a standard’s testing and certification program. 

The IMAM is an extension and refinement of the process used in the NIST study report. It 

includes “filtering” metrics for evaluating critical characteristics of a successful test program, 

and “assessment” metrics for deeper evaluation of specific strengths and weaknesses of a test 

program. These metrics can be evaluated through a spreadsheet questionnaire developed by the 

SGTCC, which includes more detailed questions for each metric. 

The IMAM was originally envisioned for use by the SGIP, standards bodies, and ITCAs in their 

analyses of standards and associated test programs. Over time, the SGTCC recognized that the 

content developed for the IMAM could be put to good use in two of its initiatives: Catalog of 

Standards reviews and ITCA Assessments of IPRM implementation. These initiatives, which 

launched in 2012, are described more fully later in Section 7.4. 

SGTCC Progress since Framework 2.0

7.4.1. IPRM Version 2

The IPRM was updated to version 2 to enhance the utility of the document to support 

implementation of the criteria and recommendations by an ITCA and to structure it in a way to 

better facilitate assessments of ITCA implementation for both internal assessments within the 

ITCA and for external independent assessments. The changes in structure and clarity are major. 

The changes in content are minor.

Fundamentally, version 2 has an operational focus, while version 1 provided an informational 

focus. Most of the key informative material from version 1 has been retained in version 2. The 

main body of the IPRM emphasizes the operational aspects, while the informational material is 

provided in a series of separate informational annexes to the document.

Significant changes in IPRM version 2 as compared to the prior version include:

• Greater emphasis on the importance of independent accreditation and adherence to 

internationally recognized standards for testing labs and certification bodies

• Restructuring the document sections to align with the interests of key stakeholder 

groups—ITCAs, cybersecurity testing organizations, certification bodies, and test 

laboratories (i.e., the revised sections are targeted at the interests and responsibilities of 

specific stakeholders)

• An expanded section on cybersecurity providing much more detailed coverage in this 

new release, and the ITCA role in cybersecurity testing and certification is clarified 

further

• The requirements tables were condensed to eliminate redundancy and non-measurable 

criteria. The tables were also relocated in the document to align with the applicable 

sections (removes the need to jump back and forth between sections of interest). The 

requirements in IPRM version 2 are intended to be more easily implementable for thirdparty accreditation and other assessment operations.

164
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

7.4.2. Engagement with ITCAs, Labs, Certifiers, and Accreditors

Among the key enablers of testing programs for smart grid standards are the emergence of new 

Interoperability Testing and Certification Authorities (ITCAs) and the engagement of 

laboratories and certification bodies that will support these ITCAs. Further, industry 

accreditation organizations must also be engaged as there is the need to establish services that 

provide for the independent assessment and accreditation of labs and certifiers as recommended 

in the IPRM. Engagement with these organizations will be an ongoing activity, and the SGTCC 

has placed a strong focus on establishing these relationships within its work program.

Engagement with ITCAs, labs, and certifiers has been through the SGTCC’s Working Group for 

IPRM Implementation. This working group has several key responsibilities:

• Development and management of processes for use by industry third-party assessment 

organizations to help them evaluate ITCAs for IPRM implementation

• Maintenance of an informational tool that identifies available smart grid test programs, 

including links to their industry third-party accreditations and certifications that meet 

IPRM recommendations

• Liaison relationships with ITCAs initially to monitor their IPRM implementation status 

and long term to capture lessons learned that may be used for future revisions of SGTCC 

documents and processes

The SGTCC has successfully collaborated with ITCAs and third-party industry assessment and 

accreditation providers to implement the IPRM recommendations. To date, seven ITCAs 

announced plans to implement the IPRM recommendations within their programs (NEMA, 

UCAIug 61850, UCAIug Green Button, OpenADR, MultiSpeak, SEP2 Consortia, and USnap 

Alliance). OpenADR and USnap were the first to provide SGTCC with information on their 

IPRM implementation for inclusion in its informational tool.

In January 2012, five organizations that provide independent accreditation of test labs and 

certification bodies announced their intent to begin offering services in 2012 in support of the 

SGIP testing recommendations. These included the American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI), American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), Laboratory Accreditation 

Bureau (L-A-B), ACLASS, and Perry Johnson Lab Accreditation. A first joint meeting between 

ITCAs and accreditors, which took place at the SGIP spring meeting in 2012, facilitated 

accreditors plans for the necessary services to assess an ITCA’s labs and certification bodies for 

operation of their testing and certification programs. 

Accrediting bodies are a key enabler of IPRM implementation as the IPRM specifies that labs 

and certifiers be accredited in accordance with ISO standards. The SGTCC success in gaining 

commitments by these accreditors to develop and provide these services will help to accelerate 

the availability of IPRM-conforming test and certification programs.

165
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Emerging ITCA Support

The SGTCC has been engaging directly with newly emerging ITCAs by providing guidance as 

those organizations form and develop their processes with an aim towards IPRM 

implementation. The Green Button ITCA initiative has progressed farthest thus far with the 

support of the SGTCC. SGTCC volunteers have participated in planning activities and meetings 

hosted by UCAIug (the program operator) providing input on necessary steps in the process and 

review of documents soliciting the engagement of labs, certifiers, and accreditors. Lessons 

learned from this support have also been fed back to the SGTCC working groups to clarify 

processes and other materials to better help future ITCA developers.

In addition to the Green Button activity, SGTCC volunteers have participated in a task force 

hosted by NASPI investigating opportunities for ITCA programs for synchrophasors. The work 

of UCAIug on their Green Button program has the added benefit of being leveraged to also 

support IPRM implementation in their IEC 61850 test programs. Additionally, other 

organizations, such as DNP3, have requested presentations and dialogue with the SGTCC to 

evaluate how they may integrate the SGTCC recommendations into existing or emerging 

programs.

IPRM - ITCA Development Guide

It is envisioned that, over time, many of the standards included in the SGIP Catalog of Standards 

(CoS) will have associated testing and/or certification services overseen by an ITCA. New 

ITCAs are just beginning to emerge, and during 2012, it became apparent that there was a need 

to provide guidance to these organizations to help them develop and implement programs that 

align with the expectations cited in the IPRM.

In setting up and operating an ITCA, there are a series of activities and responsibilities that are 

addressed specifically or implied in the IPRM, most of them enumerated in a separate section. A 

guidance document165 has been developed and released to support these emergent ITCAs. It is 

intended to organize the IPRM’s explicit and implicit requirements and suggested best practices 

for an ITCA into a roadmap to follow in launching its program.

7.4.3. SGTCC Input for SGIP CoS Review

The SGTCC launched a working group in 2012 to perform analyses of standards proposed for 

inclusion in the SGIP CoS. Previously, standards reviews had been performed by the SGIP 

Architecture and Cybersecurity committees relative to a standard’s alignment with SGIP 

recommendations in those topic areas. The addition of reviews from a testing perspective 

provides an additional viewpoint that will be valuable to users of the standards listed in the CoS.

SGTCC standards reviews provide product purchasers with the information they need to 

understand the state of a standard with respect to test readiness and help industry accelerate the 

165 See https://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/SGIPDocumentsAndReferencesSGTCC/ITCA_Development_Guide_-_Version_1.0_-

_FINAL.pdf

166

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

development of programs to address identified gaps in test program availability. Initially, the 

SGTCC prepared a review process and set of filtering metrics by which to evaluate standards as 

a part of the overall CoS review process. Actual reviews of a number of standards already cited 

in the CoS began in late 2012, with the first ten completed by spring of 2013. 

The filtering metrics measure the testing-related attributes of a standard with respect to the 

following five areas:

• A series of considerations to assess whether the standard is implementable in products

• Status of ITCA availability and maturity to support testing and certification for the 

standard

• The quality of the standard itself relative to clear definition for assessing conformance;

• Considerations that explore whether the standard addresses interoperability as well as 

conformance

• Customer expectations relative to test programs for the standard and whether those 

expectations are being satisfied

The SGTCC CoS reviews are documented and submitted to the SGIP for inclusion in the CoS 

documentation. The SGTCC reviews are intended as an informational resource. They are not 

intended as a required approval or rejection for inclusion in the CoS. The intent of the reviews is 

to complement the perspectives submitted from other SGIP groups to provide users of standards 

with as comprehensive a perspective as possible to support their understanding of the standard.

Current Smart Grid Testing Initiatives

This section discusses testing and certification initiatives that have launched since the beginning 

of 2013.

7.5.1. Prioritization of Test Programs – Gaps/Opportunities

NIST developed and issued a white paper166 in early 2013 discussing the need for accelerated 

availability of testing programs, and a proposed process for industry to identify those programs 

that should be prioritized to best focus available resources on these needs. Currently, only a 

small percentage of smart grid standards are supported by associated test programs. The NIST 

Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 2.0, in its Tables 

4-1 and 4-2, cites over one hundred key smart grid standards. Ideally, Interoperability Testing 

and Certification Authorities (ITCAs) and test programs should be in place to address each of 

these standards, with programs adopting the recommendations and best practices developed by 

the SGTCC in its Interoperability Process Reference Manual (IPRM) to assure rigorous and high 

quality programs.

166 See https://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/pub/SmartGrid/SmartGridTestingAndCertificationCommittee/Testing_Prioritization_White_Paper_-

_Final.pdf

167

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

As noted earlier, the availability of test programs in support of smart grid standards is in its early 

stages. A challenge in addressing the availability of test programs across the many standards 

cited in this Framework is the sheer level of effort required relative to available resources. A 

methodology for prioritization across these standards is essential to solving the problem. Without 

a prioritization, efforts will lack focus, and resources will be diluted across multiple efforts, some 

lacking industry demand.

Effective implementation of a prioritization requires a well-thought-out methodology that 

considers a broad range of issues, both technical and business driven. The NIST white paper on 

prioritization was provided as a contribution to the SGIP. The white paper is intended to provide 

a roadmap and guidance to assist the SGIP in developing strategies to effectively identify critical 

testing needs for the smart grid, and help in the future to develop strategies to effectively focus 

the resources necessary to incubate and accelerate new test programs that address the gaps in test 

program availability. Accelerating the availability of test programs in support of smart grid 

standards is a significant objective for NIST and the SGIP.

Prioritization Initiative

The SGTCC has launched a working group, based upon the NIST white paper recommendations, 

to implement the proposed process for identifying and acting upon industry priority testing 

needs. While the SGTCC, in collaboration with NIST, is driving this initiative, it is engaging 

with other groups within the SGIP that are stakeholders within this effort, notably the 

Implementation Methods Committee. An initial output of this working group has been the 

development of an information-gathering effort intended to gather industry input on testing needs 

and priorities. The initial phase of this information gathering focused on utility stakeholders to 

better understand the testing programs that would provide benefit in their product evaluation and 

selection process. The initial phase has a goal of developing a list of 10 to 20 priority testing 

needs that will then be socialized with a broader stakeholder community. The priority list will be 

augmented as necessary based upon this additional stakeholder input. The “action” phase will 

follow the socialization phase. 

The NIST white paper proposes the eventual creation of an SGIP PAP proposal for each of the 

top testing priorities identified for recommendation to the SGIP Board for approval. These action 

plans will be used to define the requirements to work with industry to develop a smart grid test 

program. This action will drive additional industry attention to the need and buy in for new smart 

grid test program development. Collaboration will take place with defined industry groups to 

establish test programs based on the vetted smart grid test program priorities as agreed to by 

industry. 

7.5.2. Outreach

Several issues have been identified that have driven the need to develop a proactive outreach 

initiative for smart grid testing and certification.

• The need to engage key stakeholders and product decision makers in advocating the 

value of smart grid test programs

168
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• The need to better align end-user technology priorities with the areas where SGTCC can 

focus its efforts in accelerating the creation of new test programs

• The need to build broader awareness of testing programs, processes, and resources across 

the smart grid community

• Testing and certification programs require demand drivers for their success. Demand 

drivers lead to widespread adoption of testing programs. Demand may be market driven 

or via regulatory mandate (e.g., product safety, FCC radio frequency). Market-driven 

programs are those where end users (e.g., utilities) require suppliers to provide testing 

data, certification, etc. as a condition within their product evaluation and selection 

process. Another market-driven example is one where suppliers voluntarily complete 

selected test programs as a de facto part of their product verification processes (i.e., a 

peer-pressure-driven activity where suppliers execute the testing to remain on equal 

competitive footing) but most often this occurs as a result of end-customer demand.

Demand drivers are a result of key stakeholders identifying specific issues where product testing 

provides a clear value and benefit—public safety, critical infrastructure concerns, resiliency, and 

reliability are example issues that drive testing to assess product characteristics and attributes 

relevant to the subject issue. The most successful testing and certification programs in any 

industry are those that are perceived as contributing high value to assure they satisfy end user 

and end customer concerns.

The SGTCC plans to launch an Education and Outreach effort to drive industry demand for test 

programs and to build awareness of the value of testing and certification programs, as well as 

awareness of the SGIP and NIST efforts and accomplishments in advancing smart grid 

interoperability via support for testing and certification programs. The SGIP, with support from 

NIST, will work to drive further industry interest and demand for existing programs, and 

accelerate the development and adoption of new testing programs and activities. Activities in this 

area may include such approaches as white papers highlighting key issues on smart grid test 

programs, as well as targeted direct engagements with individual stakeholders and at industry 

venues with broader audiences. A focus will be driving demand for test programs and building 

towards a critical mass of adoption that result in broad-based implementation of test programs.

Future Directions

Developing and implementing a framework for testing and certification of smart grid 

interoperability standards is a long-term process. NIST plans to continue working with SGIP and 

its Board of Directors, the SGTCC, and industry stakeholders in accelerating the launch and 

availability of testing and certification programs in support of smart grid standards. In addition, 

NIST will continue to engage with these stakeholders in refining the testing and certification 

framework and providing necessary support for its implementation. This section describes 

anticipated and proposed future initiatives to facilitate the proliferation of smart grid testing 

programs and achieve their widespread adoption.

169
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

7.6.1. Incubation of New Testing Initiatives via Priority Action Plans

The migration of the testing prioritization initiative towards priority action plans to address 

identified needs will be an ongoing and long-term activity. Currently, launch of an initial testing 

related PAP is in its early stages. With many needs anticipated for potential PAPs, and limited 

SGIP volunteer resources available, there is a need to develop a long-range plan for PAP 

development and execution that aligns with the priority needs. NIST will continue to interact 

with utilities and other stakeholders within the smart grid ecosystem to assure congruence with 

evolving needs and priorities. 

7.6.2. Catalog of Test Programs

NIST plans to engage with the SGIP on a proposed concept being referred to as a Catalog of Test 

Programs (CoTP). The concept is similar to the SGIP Catalog of Standards (CoS) approach. The 

parallel is that, where the CoS provides a directory of standards that help to enable smart grid 

interoperability, the CoTP will provide a directory of industry test programs that support 

assessments against those standards. 

As noted previously, the SGTCC has already embarked on an informational tool initiative that 

provides information on ITCA programs including references and links to help users of the tool 

to easily locate accreditation, certifications and other information associated with IPRM 

implementation via public third-party accreditor records. While full implementation of the IPRM 

recommendations might be considered the highest level of achievement that a test program can 

strive for, it will take time for programs to complete their implementations. There are a number 

of industry test programs that are beneficial to smart grid systems and devices. These additional 

programs have varying levels of industry adoption and some may in the future expand their 

scopes, necessitating IPRM implementation. The CoTP is anticipated to build upon the 

informational tool initiative and provide a resource to industry to better understand the test 

programs that can help in achieving smart grid interoperability. The intention is to raise industry 

awareness of test programs to the same level of visibility as smart grid standards in the CoS.

A comprehensive directory of available test programs such as that provided by the CoTP, will 

provide value to smart grid stakeholders for several reasons. The first is to provide a one-stop 

source to support utilities and vendors to identify resources available to them for system and 

device testing. An added advantage is that this initiative would foster collaboration between 

many test programs and labs, with NIST and the SGIP, thereby expanding engagement across the 

testing and certification community. The directory may also serve as a platform to distinguish 

progress on IPRM implementation, and may encourage new entrant test programs to aspire 

towards more comprehensive implementation of the IPRM recommendations.

7.6.3. IPRM Version 3

Activity initiated in mid-2014 to revisit the IPRM with respect to the successes and challenges 

that ITCAs have experienced in building their programs using the recommendations. A third 

version of the IPRM is anticipated to address these lessons learned with refinements made to the 

document to better align with ITCA experiences. Additionally, several complementary efforts to 

170
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

the IPRM have taken place since its last issue. These include the IPRM implementation guidance 

document developed by the SGTCC, a NEMA-sponsored document167 that addresses roles and 

responsibilities for each of the main participants in the interoperability testing scheme in order to 

create the necessary level of checks and balances for the overall testing process, and a 

policies/procedures document prepared by the Green Button ITCA development team with 

support from SGTCC members that provides further insights on certification marks and their 

management. Ideally, all of this newly developed information should be incorporated into a 

single source, and as each of these new efforts were designed as extensions to the IPRM, 

inclusion in an IPRM Version 3 would be beneficial to the smart grid ecosystem to provide a 

definitive collection of pertinent information that supports ITCA development and operations.

7.6.4. International Engagement

NIST is actively engaged with international smart grid organizations that provide similar 

technical and coordination initiatives that mirror the SGIP. Testing and certification activities by 

those international organizations are in an early, but growing phase. Examples include an 

introductory collaboration meeting including testing with a Korean smart grid delegation, as well 

as coordination with European Union testing participants within the Smart Grid Coordination

Group. The SGIP, along with the SGTCC, has become a model for other international 

organizations supporting smart grid implementation. As these worldwide organizations progress 

their own initiatives, there will be a mutual benefit to aligning activities. Active collaboration on 

testing and certification issues and initiatives are anticipated going forward to assure smart grid 

interoperability is not impeded by geographic boundaries.

167 See http://www.nema.org/News/Pages/NEMA-Smart-Grid-Interoperability-Standard-Receives-ANSIApproval.aspx

171

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

8. Cross-Cutting and Future Issues

Introduction

NIST continues to engage with smart grid interoperability in a number of ways. The execution of 

the Priority Action Plans (PAPs) presently under way will continue until their objectives to fill 

identified gaps in the standards portfolio have been accomplished. As new gaps and requirements 

are identified, the SGIP will continue to initiate PAPs to address them. NIST and the SGIP will 

work with SSOs and other stakeholders to fill the gaps and improve the standards that form the 

foundation of the smart grid.

Work on the SGIP CoS will continue to fully populate the Catalog and ensure robust 

architectural and cybersecurity reviews of the standards. Efforts will continue to partner with the 

private sector as it establishes testing and certification programs consistent with the SGIP testing 

and certification framework. Work will continue to coordinate with related international smart 

grid standards efforts to promote alignment and harmonization and to support U.S. manufacturer 

access to international markets.

 

Many of the Department of Energy (DOE) Smart Grid Investment Grants are coming to fruition. 

Principal investigators were required to include in their proposals a description of how the 

projects would support the NIST Framework. As the experiences with new smart grid 

technologies are gained from these projects, NIST will use these “lessons learned” to further 

identify the gaps and shortcomings of applicable standards.

NIST will continue to support the needs of regulators as they address standardization matters in 

the regulatory arena. Under EISA, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is 

charged with instituting rulemaking proceedings to adopt the standards and protocols as may be

necessary to ensure smart grid functionality and interoperability once, in FERC’s judgment, the 

NIST-coordinated process has led to sufficient consensus.168 FERC obtained public input 

through two Technical Conferences on Smart Grid Interoperability Standards in November 2010 

and January 2011,169 and through a supplemental notice requesting comments in February 

2011.170 As a result, FERC issued an order in July 2011171 stating that while there was 

insufficient consensus for it to institute a rulemaking at that time, FERC “encourages 

stakeholders to actively participate in the NIST interoperability framework process to work on 

the development of interoperability standards and to refer to that process for guidance on smart 

grid standards.” The Commission's order further stated that the NIST Framework is 

comprehensive and represents the best vehicle for developing standards for the smart grid.

168 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [Public Law No: 110-140], Sec. 1305. 

169 See 

http://ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?ID=5571&CalType=%20&CalendarID=116&Date=01/31/2011&

View=Listview

170 See http://ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20110228084004-supplemental-notice.pdf

171 See http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20110719143912-RM11-2-000.pdf

172

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

NIST supported the Commission's order, which notes that “In its comments, NIST suggests that 

the Commission could send appropriate signals to the marketplace by recommending use of the 

NIST Framework without mandating compliance with particular standards. NIST adds that it 

would be impractical and unnecessary for the Commission to adopt individual interoperability 

standards.”172

State and local regulators play important roles in establishing the regulatory framework for the 

electrical industry. Broad engagement of smart grid stakeholders at the state and local levels is 

essential to ensure the consistent voluntary application of the standards being developed, and 

both NIST and SGIP leaders have met frequently with this stakeholder group. The National 

Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) has indicated its support for the 

SGIP process, stating that “When evaluating smart grid investments, State commissions should 

consider how certified smart grid interoperability standards may reduce the cost and improve the 

performance of smart grid projects and encourage participation in the Smart Grid Interoperability 

Panel, a public-private partnership that is coordinating and accelerating the development of 

interoperability standards for the smart grid.”173

Currently, many states and their utility commissions are pursuing smart grid-related projects. 

Ultimately, state and local projects will converge into fully functioning elements of the smart 

grid “system of systems.” Therefore, the interoperability and cybersecurity standards developed 

under the NIST framework and roadmap must support the role of the states in modernizing the 

nation’s electric grid. The NIST framework can provide a valuable input to regulators as they 

consider the prudency of investments proposed by utilities. 

A key objective of the NIST work is to create a self-sustaining, ongoing standards process that 

supports continuous innovation as grid modernization continues in the decades to come.174 NIST 

envisions that the processes being put in place by the SGIP, as they mature, will provide the 

mechanism to evolve the smart grid standards framework as new requirements and technologies 

emerge. The SGIP processes will also evolve and improve as experience is gained. Additionally, 

NIST has and will continue to provide technical contributions aligned with NIST's core 

measurements and standards missions that advance development of the smart grid. NIST 

leadership on these committees and working groups, as well as its technical contributions, 

provide strong support for the acceleration of the standards necessary for the safe, secure, and 

reliable smart grid.

The following sections review several key cross-cutting issues that are receiving NIST attention 

now and in the near future. 

172 See http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20110719143912-RM11-2-000.pdf, p. 6

173 See http://www.naruc.org/Resolutions/Resolution%20on%20Smart%20Grid%20Principles.pdf 

174 As part of this process, the SGIP will help to prioritize and coordinate smart grid-related standards. See Chapter 5 

for further discussion.

173

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Electromagnetic Disturbances and Interference 

The foundation for the new smart grid is built on increasingly sophisticated electronic sensing, 

control, and communications systems. The expected rise in the use of distributed renewable 

energy sources, plug-in electric vehicles and smart appliances in the home, wired and wireless 

communications, and other “smart” systems throughout the grid, along with the increasing 

electromagnetic sources in the general environment, will result in unprecedented exposure to 

possible electromagnetic disturbances and interference. These “smart” systems are being 

deployed throughout the power grid in locations ranging from single-family homes to complex 

industrial facilities and will require a broad array of measures to protect the grid and other 

electronic systems from interference and possible failures. Because the smart grid components 

are so diverse, there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Therefore, a range of standards or 

recommendations specific to particular environments or devices is anticipated. The criteria for 

smart appliances in the home will be quite different from systems located in substations or 

industrial facilities. Fortunately, many of the applicable electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) 

specifications and requirements already exist in various standards. 

The term “electromagnetic compatibility” describes the ability to function properly in a given 

environment without causing or suffering from electromagnetic interference. EMC within the 

smart grid systems and in the external environment, along with immunity to serious natural and 

man-made threats, should be systematically and holistically addressed for reliable operation of 

the smart grid. This means that EMC includes controlling emissions and disturbances, designing 

for an adequate level of immunity and/or protection, and following appropriate installation 

guidelines. Also, EMC, coexistence with other devices, and fault tolerance should be considered 

early in the design of smart grid systems to avoid costly remedies and redesigns after the systems 

are widely deployed. 

The original SGIP Governing Board recognized this situation and chartered a DEWG (which has 

continued under the new, industry-led SGIP) to investigate enhancing the immunity of smart grid 

devices and systems to the detrimental effects of natural and man-made electromagnetic 

interference, both radiated and conducted. The focus is to address these EMC issues and to 

review the application of standards and testing criteria to help ensure EMC for the smart grid, 

with a particular focus on issues directly related to interoperability of smart grid devices and 

systems, including impacts, avoidance, generation, and mitigation of and immunity to 

electromagnetic interference (original Electromagnetic Interoperability Issues Working Group 

(EMII WG) Charter). This working group has enjoyed the input of experts from a variety of 

stakeholder categories including electric utilities, manufacturers, trade associations, EMC 

consultants, utility commissions, and government.

The December 2012 EMII WG white paper 175 presents a compilation of important smart grid 

EMC issues, identified gaps in standards, and recommendations for specifying appropriate EMC 

tests and standards for smart grid devices. The working group identified specific electromagnetic 

environments at strategic locations throughout the power grid where new smart grid devices are 

likely to play an important role. Then the EMII WG examined possible electromagnetic 

175 Electromagnetic Compatibility and Smart Grid Interoperability Issues, SGIP 2012-005, December 2012

174

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

disturbances (i.e., sources of interference) and appropriate EMC test standards to address these 

disturbances for each of the specific locations. These disturbances originate from a range of 

narrowband and broadband sources and generate both conducted and radiated interference. This 

exercise identified existing IEEE-, IEC-, and ANSI-sponsored EMC standards such that, if 

devices are designed and tested to these standards, it could reduce potential equipment failures 

resulting from these interference sources.

The electromagnetic disturbances that impact the reliability of the smart grid include typical 

events such as switching transients and other power line disturbances, electrostatic discharge, 

lightning bursts, and radio frequency interference, as well as infrequent, but potentially 

catastrophic, high-power electromagnetic (HPEM) events such as severe geomagnetic storms, 

intentional electromagnetic interference (IEMI), and high-altitude electromagnetic pulse 

(HEMP).

The Congressional Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Commission has documented some of the more 

severe electromagnetic-disturbance-based risks and threats to critical U.S. national 

infrastructures, including the electric power grid upon which other infrastructures depend.176

These threats and their potential impacts provide impetus to evaluate, prioritize, and 

protect/harden the new smart grid. The EMII WG white paper also has a summary of the HPEM

events (Appendix B) and the various standards and SDOs that address these disturbances. An 

important observation in the white paper is that “the first level of protection against HPEM

disturbances is a solid EMC program and robust smart grid immunity to the typical 

electromagnetic interference events. The application of protective measures for high power 

events then builds on the immunity at the equipment level.” 

The standards for immunity to electromagnetic disturbances that have been reviewed and found 

relevant by the EMII WG for Smart Grid devices are listed in the following table:

Table 8.1. Standards for Immunity to Electromagnetic Interference

Standard Title

IEC 61000-2-5 Ed. 2.0 (2011-05) Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 2-5: 

Environment – Description and classification of 

electromagnetic environments

Note: This document gives guidance to product 

committees to determine which basic EMC tests to 

perform and how to select the test levels.

176 http://www.empcommission.org 

175

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Standard Title

IEC 61000-4-2 Ed. 2.0 (2008-12) Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-2: Testing 

and measurement techniques - Electrostatic discharge 

immunity test

IEC 61000-4-3 Ed. 3.2 (2010-04) Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-3: Testing 

and measurement techniques - Radiated, radio-frequency, 

electromagnetic field immunity test

IEC 61000-4-4 Ed. 3.0 (2012-04) Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-4: Testing 

and measurement techniques - Electrical fast 

transient/burst immunity test

IEC 61000-4-5 Ed. 3.0 (2014-05) Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-5: Testing 

and measurement techniques - Surge immunity test

IEC 61000-4-6 Ed. 4.0 (2013-10) Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-6: Testing 

and measurement techniques - Immunity to conducted 

disturbances, induced by radio-frequency fields

IEC 61000-4-8 Ed. 2.0 (2009-09) Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-8: Testing 

and measurement techniques - Power frequency magnetic 

field immunity test

IEC 61000-4-11 Ed. 2.0 (2004-

03)

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-11: Testing 

and measurement techniques - Voltage dips, short 

interruptions and voltage variations immunity tests

IEC 61000-4-12 Ed. 2.0 (2006-

09)

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-12: Testing 

and measurement techniques – Ring wave immunity test

IEC 61000-4-16 Ed. 1.0 (2001-

07)

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-16: Testing 

and measurement techniques – Test for immunity to 

conducted, common mode disturbances in the frequency 

range 0 Hz to 150 kHz

IEC 61000-4-18 Ed. 1.1 (2011-

03)

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-18: Testing

and measurement techniques - Damped oscillatory wave 

immunity test

IEC 61000-4-19 Approved FDIS Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-19: Testing 

and measurement techniques - Test for immunity to 

176
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Standard Title

conducted, differential mode disturbances and signaling in 

the frequency range from 2 kHz to 150 kHz, at a.c. power 

ports

Note: The standard will be published in several months

IEC 61000-4-23 Ed. 1 (2000-10) Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-23: Testing 

and measurement techniques - Test methods for protective 

devices for HEMP and other radiated disturbances

IEC 61000-4-24 Ed. 1.0 (1997-

02)

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-24: Testing 

and measurement techniques - Test methods for protective 

devices for HEMP conducted disturbances

IEC 61000-4-25 Ed. 1.1 (2012-

05)

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-25: Testing 

and measurement techniques – HEMP immunity test 

methods for equipment and systems

IEC 61000-4-33 Ed. 1.0 (2005-

09)

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-33: Testing 

and measurement techniques – Measurement methods for 

high-power transient parameters

IEC/TS 61000-6-5 Ed. 1.0 (2001-

07)

Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 6-5: Generic 

standards – Immunity for power station and substation 

environments

IEC 61000-6-6 Ed. 1.0 (2003-04) Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 6-6: Generic 

standards – HEMP immunity for indoor equipment

IEC 60255-26 Ed. 3.0 (2013-05) Measuring relays and protection equipment - Part 26: 

Electromagnetic compatibility requirements

IEC 60870-2-1 Ed. 2.0 (1995-12) Telecontrol equipment and systems - Part 2: Operating 

conditions - Section 1: Power supply and electromagnetic 

compatibility

IEC 61850-3 Ed. 2.0 (2013-12) Communication networks and systems for power utility 

automation - Part 3: General requirements

Note: EMC aspects are found in clause 6.7

177
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Standard Title

IEEE P1642 IEEE Draft Recommended Practice for Protecting Public 

Accessible Computer Systems from Intentional EMI

Note: To be published in 2014

IEEE Std 1613.1-2013 Standard Environmental and Testing Requirements for 

Communications Networking Devices Installed in 

Transmission and Distribution Facilities

IEEE Std C37.90.3-2001 IEEE Standard Electrostatic Discharge Tests for 

Protective Relays

IEEE Std C37.90.2-2004 IEEE Standard for Withstand Capability of Relay Systems 

to Radiated Electromagnetic Interference from 

Transceivers

IEEE Std C37.90.1-2012 IEEE Standard for Surge Withstand Capability (SWC) 

Tests for Relays and Relay Systems Associated with 

Electric Power Apparatus

IEEE Std C37.90-2005 IEEE Standard for Relays and Relay Systems Associated 

with Electric Power Apparatus

The EMC standards in the above table include basic immunity test methods (e.g., IEC 61000-4 

series) along with a number of product or device specific standards that typically refer to the 

basic test methods. EMC for smart grid devices also includes test standards related to control of 

electromagnetic emissions that may interfere with other devices or adversely affect licensed 

radio services. These emissions tests and standards are not included here because the emissions 

from most devices are limited by rules from various regulatory agencies. (These regulations 

typically rely on standard test methods.) However, there is ongoing activity within the EMC 

standards bodies (IEC, CISPR, and IEEE in particular) related to both the immunity and 

emissions test methods and standards directed toward specific product families. This reflects the 

need for EMC requirements to keep pace with evolving technology and product development. 

Thus, the above list of EMC standards will also need to be revised, expanded, and updated as 

more standards are identified or developed for the smart grid.

178
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Implementability, Safety, Reliability and Resiliency

8.3.1. Implementability and Safety

Implementability covers a number of key issues, such as the following:

• Whether each proposed interoperability standard would enhance functionality of the 

development of smart grid technologies

• What the impacts on consumers are

• What the potential impacts on the electric industry are

• Whether the standard/protocol pertains to interoperability and functionality of the 

implementations of these standards and protocols 

• Whether the standard is ready to be implemented by utilities

In addition, implementability addresses impacts on consumers, as well as potential impacts upon 

the electric industry associated with implementing smart grid standards and protocols.

At a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Technical Conference on Smart Grid 

Interoperability Standards held in January 2011177 and in subsequent filings, concerns were 

expressed by presenters at the meeting and in comments submitted to FERC regarding how new 

standards and technologies will impact the reliability and security of the national power grid.

Additionally, concerns about the maturity of implementations and maturity of the underlying 

technologies used in a particular standard were also raised, including legacy issues. The 

standards information forms and posted narratives described in Chapter 4 contain some of the 

information regarding maturity of the standards and implementations, as well as the FERCapproved North American Energy Reliability Corporation (NERC) reliability standards that may 

be impacted by adoption of the standards, but formal reviews related to the reliability and 

implementability issues were not part of the original NIST or SGIP CoS processes. During the 

evolution of the legacy grid to the smart grid, the introduction of new standards and technologies 

may pose implementation and transition challenges and may affect the reliability, resiliency, and 

safety of the grid. 

Safety should be a key attribute of smart grid technology as it is integrated into the electrical 

infrastructure. Electric utility and communications installations have used the National Electrical 

Safety Code® (ANSI C2) as the rules for the practical safeguarding of persons for utility and 

communications installation since 1913. The code was originally sponsored by the National 

Bureau of Standards (the name by which NIST was known from 1905 to 1988178). Since 1973, 

177 See 

http://ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?ID=5571&CalType=%20&CalendarID=116&Date=01/31/2011&

View=Listview

178 See http://www.100.nist.gov/directors.htm

179

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has been the administrative 

secretariat. New editions are published every five years.

In the customer domain, electrical installations are governed by the National Electrical Code® 

(NEC®) (ANSI/NFPA70). First published in 1897, the National Electrical Code® is adopted at 

the state or local level in all 50 states and in many other countries. The code is intended to 

protect persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity. The installation 

requirements of the code are enforced by government or private electrical inspectors or building 

officials. A companion standard, Electrical Safety in the Workplace (ANSI/NFPA70E), provides 

requirements for workers who may be exposed to electrical hazards. Both the NEC and NFPA 

70E have three-year revision cycles.

Because the NEC is an important element in the safe implementation of smart grid technology in 

new as well as existing installations, NIST funded a research project through the Fire Protection 

Research Foundation to study the impact of smart grid on the electrical infrastructure in the 

customer domain. Researchers from California Polytechnic State University studied customer 

domain requirements along with the impacts of energy management and emerging alternative 

energy technologies. Their findings are covered by a report of the research entitled “Smart Grid 

and NFPA Electrical Safety Codes and Standards”179. This report is being used as a basis for 

smart grid-related changes for the 2014 edition of the NEC.

8.3.2. Reliability and Resiliency

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has used definitions for reliability and resiliency in some 

of its publications. One publication defines “reliability” as the ability of power system 

components to deliver electricity to all points of consumption, in the quantity and with the 

quality demanded by the customer.180 Another DOE publication defines “resiliency” as the 

ability of an energy facility to recover quickly from damage to any of its components or to any of 

the external systems on which it depends.181 Resiliency measures do not prevent damage; rather 

they enable energy systems to continue operating despite damage and/or promote a rapid return 

to normal operations when damage/outages do occur. Other definitions are also available. The 

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) defines “operating reliability”182 as the 

ability of the electric system to withstand sudden disturbances such as electric short circuits or 

unanticipated loss of system components. The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) 

179 See

http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=1878&itemID=35445&URL=Research/Fire%20Protection%20Res

earch%20Foundation/Reports%20and%20proceedings/Electrical%20safety

180 See Reliability of the U.S. Electricity System: Recent Trends and Current Issues, p. 2, Aug 2001, at 

http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/REPORT%20lbnl%20-%2047043.pdf

181 See Hardening and Resiliency—U.S. Energy Industry Response to Recent Hurricane Seasons, p. 9, Aug 2010, at 

http://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/docs/HR-Report-final-081710.pdf 

182 NERC document, Definition of “Adequate Reliability”, December 2007. See 

http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/Definition-of-ALR-approved-at-Dec-07-OC-PC-mtgs.pdf

180

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

defines “infrastructure resilience”183 as the ability to reduce the magnitude or duration of 

disruptive events. 

Recent events such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and the Southwest Blackout of September 2011 

have raised the public visibility and concern about reliability and resiliency. A DOE report, “U.S. 

Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate Change and Extreme Weather (July 2013)”184 found 

that “the pace, scale, and scope of combined public and private efforts to improve the climate 

preparedness and resilience of the energy sector will need to increase, given the challenges 

identified. Greater resilience will require improved technologies, polices, information, and 

stakeholder engagement.”

A White House report, “Economic Benefits of Increasing Electric Grid Resilience to Weather 

Outages (August 2013),”185 found that weather-related outages in the period from 2003 to 2012 

are estimated to have cost the U.S. economy an inflation-adjusted annual average of $18 billion 

to $33 billion. The report concluded, “Continued investment in grid modernization and resilience 

will mitigate these costs over time—saving the economy billions of dollars and reducing the 

hardship experienced by millions of Americans when extreme weather strikes.”

There is an increased awareness of the impact of power grid disruptions from weather related 

events as a consequence of Hurricane Sandy. Reliability and resilience of the power delivery

system has become a top priority for utilities, regulators, and the DOE. Potential threats to the

grid from cyber- and/or physical-attacks compound the importance of considering solutions to 

strengthen the power system in light of these threats and low probability, high impact events (e.g. 

geo-magnetic storms). Smart grid technologies in different configurations in the distribution 

system offer answers to these threats and the disruption that they bring to the normal functioning 

of the social and economic environment. 

Microgrids offer an ideal solution for such disruptions by bringing smart grid technologies and 

communications together to maintain the supply of power to critical loads and non-critical loads 

alike to assure continuity of power delivery to critical systems and facilities, while also providing 

a more adaptive and reliable power system during normal operating conditions. The SGIP has 

recently added a group focused on information exchange and standards for microgrids, and the 

NIST smart grid laboratory programs include a focus on advanced technologies and 

interoperability for microgrid scenarios.

183 NIAC document, A Framework for Establishing Critical Infrastructure Resilience Goals—Final Report and 

Recommendations by the Council, October 19, 2010. See http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/niac/niac-aframework-for-establishing-critical-infrastructure-resilience-goals-2010-10-19.pdf

184 See http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/07/f2/20130716-Energy%20Sector%20Vulnerabilities%20Report.pdf

185 See http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/08/f2/Grid%20Resiliency%20Report_FINAL.pdf

181

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

8.3.3. SGIP action

The SGIP is now considering the addition of reviews for implementability, safety, reliability, and 

resilience considerations to the CoS process described in Sections 3.6 and 4.5. New working 

groups that would conduct these reviews would analyze candidate standards for:

• Potential for unintended consequences for existing protection and control schemes, and 

other market or grid operational systems 

• Potential impacts of complexities introduced into the electric system and market 

management complexities 

• Possible reliability and resiliency enhancements by utilizing the capabilities of the 

candidate standard 

• Impacts of the candidate standard on the safety of the electrical grid 

In addition, depending on the existing legacy technologies and processes, there are various 

implementation and migration challenges present in adopting new standards and integrating their 

implementations with legacy technologies. Regulatory commissions, utilities, and others will 

consider implementation factors, such as sufficient maturity of a standard as demonstrated in 

standards-compliant commercially available products, effective technology transition plans to 

maintain reliable operations, and cost-effective deployment. 

To address some of these issues, the SGIP created the Implementation Methods Committee 

(IMC), whose mission is to identify, develop, and support mechanisms and tools for objective 

standards impact assessment, transition management, and technology transfer in order to assist in 

deployment of standards-based smart grid devices, systems and infrastructure.

Presently the SGIP provides a means of addressing such issues, upon identification by an 

industry participant, by assigning resolution to an existing working group or forming a new PAP 

to scope out the resolution. An example of this is PAP18, which was formed to address the issue 

of Smart Energy Profile (SEP) 1.x migration to SEP 2.0. 

The SGIP is now considering alternatives to this approach, such as creating a new review process 

within the CoS process to assess implementation considerations and prepare guidance for each 

new standard proposed or included in the CoS. This review would analyze the issues involved in 

implementation of new standards, potentially including:

• Technology transition risks and any potential stranded equipment implications

• Business process changes required

• Relative implementation maturity of the standard and related implementation 

consideration 

• Cost drivers that facilitate evaluation of relative cost-effectiveness of alternate solutions 

• Applicable federal and state policy considerations related to standards implementation.

182
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

This additional implementation review would be included in the SGIP CoS process.

The Smart Grid Community Effort to Further Define R&D Needs

Although the focus of this Framework document is on standards and protocols to ensure 

interoperability, it is important to note that standards and protocols are not enough. There is also 

a clear need for R&D—to take advantage of new data, innovations, technologies, and 

functionalities. R&D will lead to new and innovative methods for advancing the grid. There is 

also a clear need for R&D to address new problems, constraints, and challenges as they arise.

 

To help identify the major technical and societal issues impeding advanced development of the 

smart grid, and determine a set of recommended actions to address these issues, the NIST Smart 

Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, in collaboration with the Renewable and 

Sustainable Energy Institute (RASEI), hosted an invitational workshop at the University of 

Colorado in Boulder, Colorado, on August 13-14, 2012. The workshop was attended by 

approximately 95 topical experts from industry, academia, and government laboratories, and 

sought consensus in four main areas of smart grid technology and measurement science that had 

been initially discussed during preparatory teleconferences during the previous several months.

The workshop was oriented toward the industrial community, and was consensus-driven, as 

opposed to tutorial in nature. The primary output of the workshop was a high-level Strategic 

R&D Opportunities document, now in the public domain.186 This document outlines a set of 

strategic R&D opportunities that must be addressed to enable the smart grid to reach its potential 

and deliver broad societal and economic benefits to the nation. The document indicates 

opportunities in: 

• Optimizing smart grid capabilities for system planning and operations

• Developing smart tools and technologies to optimize demand-response, load control, and 

energy efficiency

• Expanding and upgrading infrastructure to improve communications and 

interconnectivity

• Developing infrastructure to assure security and resilience

• Creating models to foster smart grid investment and inform regulatory frameworks

It is particularly useful for technology managers and industrial decision makers as they develop 

new programs in the smart grid arena. In addition, it will be useful to senior managers at NIST as 

they guide the development of the NIST smart grid measurement science effort. 

186 Strategic R&D Opportunities for the Smart Grid, Report of the Steering Committee for Innovation in Smart Grid 

Measurement Science and Standards, March 2013; see http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/upload/Final-Version-22-

Mar-2013-Strategic-R-D-Opportunities-for-the-Smart-Grid.pdf 

183

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Framework Updates

As the SGIP progresses in its work to identify and address additional standards gaps and provide 

ongoing coordination to accelerate the development of smart grid standards, NIST will continue 

to publish Interoperability Framework updates as needed. There are continued opportunities for 

participation by new smart grid community members in the overall NIST process, including 

within the SGIP and its committees and working groups. Details about future meetings, 

workshops, and public comment opportunities will appear on the NIST smart grid web site187

and smart grid collaboration site.

188

187 See http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/

188 NIST Smart Grid Collaboration Site. See http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/WebHome

184

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Appendix A: List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADWP SGAC’s Architecture Development Working Party

AEIC Association of Edison Illuminating Companies

AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure 

AMI-SEC Advanced Metering Infrastructure Security

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

AS Australian Standard

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers

BAS Building Automation System 

CEA Consumer Electronics Association 

CIM Common Information Model 

CIP Critical Infrastructure Protection 

CISPR International Special Committee on Radio Interference

CoS Catalog of Standards

COSEM Companion Specific for Energy Metering

CSCTG Smart Grid Cyber Security Coordination Task Group 

CSRC Computer Security Resource Center 

CSWG Cybersecurity Working Group

DA Distribution Automation 

DER Distributed Energy Resources 

DEWG Domain Expert Working Group 

DG Distributed Generation

DGM Distribution Grid Management 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DMS Distribution Management System 

DNP Distributed Network Protocol

DOE Department of Energy 

DR Demand Response 

DRGS Distributed Renewable Generation and Storage

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

EMIX Energy Market Information Exchange 

185
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

EMS Energy Management System 

ENTSO-E European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

ESI Energy Services Interface 

ESP Energy Service Provider 

EU SG-CG European Commission Smart Grid Coordination Group

EV Electric Vehicle 

EVSE Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment 

F2F Face to Face

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

GML Geography Markup Language

GOOSE Generic Object-Oriented Substation Event 

GWAC GridWise Architecture Council 

HAN Home Area Network 

HEMP High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse 

HPEM High Power Electromagnetic

HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol 

ICCP Inter-Control Centre Communications Protocol

ICS Industrial Control Systems 

ICT Information and Communications Technology

IEC International Electrotechnical Commission 

IED Intelligent Electronic Device 

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers 

IETF Internet Engineering Task Force 

IKB Interoperability Knowledge Base 

IMAM Interoperability Maturity Assessment Model

IP Internet Protocol 

IPRM Interoperability Process Reference Manual 

ISO International Organization for Standardization

ISO Independent Systems Operator 

IT Information Technology

ITCA Interoperability Testing and Certification Authority

186
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

ITU International Telecommunication Union 

LAN Local Area Network 

MAC Medium Access Control

MDMS Meter Data Management System 

MMS Manufacturing Messaging Specification 

NAESB North American Energy Standards Board 

NARUC National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

NASPI North American Synchrophasor Initiative

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NISTIR NIST Interagency Report

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

OASIS Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards

OGC Open Geospatial Consortium 

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OMG Object Management Group 

OSI Open Systems Interconnection 

PAP Priority Action Plan 

PEV Plug-in Electric Vehicles 

PDC Phasor Data Concentrator

PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle

PHY Physical Layer 

PLC Power Line Carrier

PMO Program Management Office

PMU Phasor Measurement Unit 

PSRC Power System Relaying Committee 

PUC Public Utility Commission 

QOS Quality of Service 

RFC Request for Comments, Remote Feedback Controller 

RTO Regional Transmission Operator 

RTU Remote Terminal Unit 

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

187
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

SDO Standards Development Organization, Standards Developing Organization 

SGAC Smart Grid Architecture Committee

SGIP Smart Grid Interoperability Panel

SGIP-CSWG Smart Grid Interoperability Panel - Cybersecurity Working Group

SGIPGB Smart Grid Interoperability Panel Governing Board

SGTCC Smart Grid Testing and Certification Committee

SOA Service-Oriented Architecture 

SSO Standards-Setting Organization 

TASE Telecontrol Application Service Element

TCP Transport Control Protocol 

TDL Table Definition Language

TOGAF The Open Group Architecture Framework 

UCAIug UCA International Users Group 

UDP User Datagram Protocol 

UML Unified Modeling Language 

VAR Volt-Ampere Reactive 

WASA Wide-Area Situational Awareness 

WG Working Group

XML eXtensible Markup Language

188
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Appendix B: Specific Domain Diagrams

Introduction

The conceptual model consists of several domains, each of which contains many applications

and roles that are connected by associations, through interfaces.

• Actor is considered to be a person, organization, or system that has at least one role that 

initiates or interacts with activities. Actors may be internal or external to an organization 

Actors may be devices, computer systems, or software programs and/or the organizations 

that own them. Actors have the capability to make decisions and exchange information 

with other actors through interfaces. 

• Role is the usual or expected function, capability of, or service played by an actor, or the 

part somebody or something plays in a particular action or event. An actor may play a 

number of roles.

• Applications are automated processes that perform services at the request of or by roles 

within the domains. Some applications are performed by a single role, others by several 

actors /roles working together. 

• Domains group roles together to discover the commonalities that define the interfaces. In 

general, roles in the same domain have similar objectives. Communications within the 

same domain may have similar characteristics and requirements. Domains may contain 

other domains or sub-domains. 

• Associations are logical connections between roles that establish bilateral relationships.

Roles interact with associated roles through interfaces. In Fig. 5-1, the electrical 

associations between domains are shown as dashed lines, and the communications 

associations are shown as solid lines. 

• Interfaces represent the point of access between domains. Communication interfaces are 

at each end of the communication associations and represent the access point for 

information to enter and exit a domain (interfaces are logical). Communication interfaces

define roles that connect actors to enable applications. Interfaces show either electrical 

connections or communications connections. Each of these interfaces may be 

bidirectional. Communications interfaces represent an information exchange between two 

domains and the actors within; they do not represent physical connections. They 

represent logical connections in the smart grid information network interconnecting 

various domains (as shown in Figure 5-3). 

There are seven domains represented within the smart grid system, as shown in Table B-1 and in 

Figure B-1. These diagrams represent logical domains based on the present and near-term view 

of the grid. In the future, some of the domains may combine, such as Transmission and 

Distribution. Some of the domain names may evolve, such as Bulk Generation now becoming 

simply Generation as distributed energy resources (DER) and renewable resources play an 

increasingly important role.

NOTE TO READER: The tables, figures, and discussion in this chapter are essentially the same 

as the tables, figures, and discussion in Release 1.0, Chapter 9. A few grammatical and other 

189
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

editorial changes have been made, but the basic content has not been changed, except for the 

addition of “Storage” to the customer domain application categories in (Table B-2), and of 

“DER” to the distribution domain application categories (Table B-8). 

Table B-1. Domains in the Smart Grid Conceptual Model

Domain Description

Customer

The end users of electricity. May also generate, store, and 

manage the use of energy. Traditionally, three customer 

types are discussed, each with its own sub-domain: home, 

commercial/building, and industrial.

Markets The operators and participants in electricity markets.

Service Provider The organizations providing services to electrical 

customers and to utilities.

Operations The managers of the movement of electricity.

Generation The generators of electricity. May also store energy for 

later distribution.

Transmission The carriers of bulk electricity over long distances. May 

also store and generate electricity.

Distribution The distributors of electricity to and from customers. May 

also store and generate electricity.

It is important to note that domains are not organizations. For instance, an Independent Systems 

Operator (ISO) or Regional Transmission Operator (RTO) may have actors in both the Markets 

and Operations domains. Similarly, a distribution utility is not entirely contained within the 

Distribution domain—it is likely to also contain actors in the Operations domain, such as a 

distribution management system (DMS), and in the Customer domain, such as meters. 

190
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Figure B-1. Examining the Domains in Detail

The purpose of the domain diagram is to provide a framework for discussing both the existing 

power system and the evolving smart grid. While Chapter 5 shows domain interactions and 

overall scope, the following sections describe the details of the specific domains. Note that the 

domain diagrams, as presented, are not intended to be comprehensive in identifying all actors 

and all paths possible in the smart grid. This achievement will only be possible after additional 

elaboration and consolidation of use cases are achieved by stakeholder activities that are 

ongoing. 

It is important to note that the domain diagram (or the conceptual model) of the smart grid is not 

limited to a single domain, single application, or single use case. For example, the use of “smart 

grid” in some discussions has been applied to only distribution automation or in other 

discussions to only advanced metering or demand response. The conceptual model assumes that 

smart grid includes a wide variety of use cases and applications, especially (but not limited to) 

functional priorities and cross-cutting requirements identified by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC). The scope also includes other cross-cutting requirements including data 

management and application integration, as described in the GridWise Architecture Council 

Interoperability Context-Setting Framework.

189

189 See http://www.gridwiseac.org/pdfs/interopframework_v1_1.pdf

191

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Customer Domain

The customer is ultimately the stakeholder that the entire grid was created to support. This is the 

domain where electricity is consumed (see Fig. B-2). Actors in the Customer Domain enable 

customers to manage their energy usage and generation. Some actors also provide control and 

information flow between the Customer domain and the other domains. The boundaries of the 

Customer domain are typically considered to be the utility meter and the energy services 

interface (ESI). The ESI provides a secure interface for utility-to-customer interactions. The ESI 

in turn can act as a bridge to facility-based systems, such as a building automation system (BAS) 

or a customer’s premise management system. (For further discussion of the utility meter and the 

ESI, see Section 3.6 in Framework 2.0.190)

Figure B-2. Overview of the Customer Domain

The Customer domain is usually segmented into sub-domains for home, commercial/building, 

and industrial. The energy needs of these sub-domains are typically set at less than 20 kW of 

demand for a residence, 20-200 kW for commercial buildings, and over 200kW for industrial. 

Each sub-domain has multiple actors and applications, which may also be present in the other 

sub-domains. Each sub-domain has a meter actor and an ESI, which may reside in the meter, in a 

premise-management system, or outside the premises, or at an end-device. The ESI is the 

primary service interface to the Customer domain. The ESI may communicate with other 

190 See http://nist.gov/smartgrid/upload/NIST_Framework_Release_2-0_corr.pdf

192

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

domains via the advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) or another means, such as the internet. 

The ESI provides the interface to devices and systems within the customer premises, either 

directly or via a home area network (HAN), other local area network (LAN) or some other 

mechanism in the future.

There may be more than one communications path per customer. Entry points may support 

applications such as remote load control, monitoring and control of distributed generation, inhome display of customer usage, reading of non-energy meters, and integration with building 

management systems and the enterprise. They may provide auditing/logging for cybersecurity 

purposes. The Customer domain is electrically connected to the Distribution domain. It 

communicates with the Distribution, Operations, Market, and Service Provider domains. 

Table B-2. Typical Application Categories in the Customer Domain

Example 

Application 

Category

Description

Building or Home 

Automation

A system that is capable of controlling various functions within a 

building, such as lighting and temperature control. 

Industrial 

Automation

A system that controls industrial processes such as manufacturing 

or warehousing. These systems have very different requirements 

compared to home and building systems.

Micro-generation

Includes all types of distributed generation including: solar, wind, 

and hydroelectric generators. Generation harnesses energy for 

electricity at a customer location. May be monitored, dispatched, or 

controlled via communications. 

Storage

Means to store energy that may be converted directly or through a 

process to electricity. Examples include thermal storage units, and 

batteries (both stationary and electric vehicles)

Markets Domain

The markets are where grid assets are bought and sold. Markets yet to be created may be 

instrumental in defining the smart grid of the future. Roles in the markets domain exchange price 

and balance supply and demand within the power system (see Fig. B-3). The boundaries of the 

Markets domain include the edge of the Operations domain where control happens, the domains 

supplying assets (e.g., Generation, Transmission, etc.), and the Customer domain. 

193
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Figure B-3. Overview of the Markets Domain

Communication flows between the Markets domain and the domains supplying energy are 

critical because efficient matching of production with consumption is dependent on markets. 

Energy supply domains include the Generation domain. The North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC) Critical Infrastructure Protections (CIP) standards consider suppliers of 

more than 300 megawatts to be bulk generation; most DER is smaller and is typically served 

through aggregators. DER participates in markets to some extent today, and will participate to a 

greater extent as the smart grid becomes more interactive. 

Communications for Markets domain interactions must be reliable, traceable, and auditable. 

Also, these communications must support e-commerce standards for integrity and nonrepudiation. As the percentage of energy supplied by small DER increases, the allowed latency 

in communications with these resources must be reduced. 

The high-priority challenges in the Markets domain are: extending price and DER signals to each 

of the Customer sub-domains; simplifying market rules; expanding the capabilities of 

aggregators; ensuring interoperability across all providers and consumers of market information; 

managing the growth (and regulation) of retailing and wholesaling of energy; and evolving 

communication mechanisms for prices and energy characteristics between and throughout the 

Markets and Customer domains. 

194
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Table B-3. Typical Applications in the Markets Domain

Example 

Application Description

Market 

Management

Market managers include ISOs for wholesale markets or New York 

Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)/ Chicago Mercantile Exchange 

(CME) for forward markets in many ISO/RTO regions. There are 

transmission, services, and demand response markets as well. Some 

DER Curtailment resources are treated today as dispatchable 

generation. 

Retailing

Retailers sell power to end-customers and may in the future 

aggregate or broker DER between customers or into the market. 

Most are connected to a trading organization to allow participation 

in the wholesale market.

DER Aggregation

Aggregators combine smaller participants (as providers, customers, 

or curtailment) to enable distributed resources to play in the larger 

markets.

Trading

Traders are participants in markets, which include aggregators for 

provision, consumption, curtailment, and other qualified entities. 

There are a number of companies whose primary business is the 

buying and selling of energy. 

Market 

Operations

Market operations make a particular market function smoothly. 

Functions include financial and goods-sold clearing, price quotation 

streams, audit, balancing, and more. 

Ancillary 

Operations

Ancillary operations provide a market to provide frequency support, 

voltage support, spinning reserve, and other ancillary services as 

defined by FERC, NERC, and the various ISOs. These markets 

normally function on a regional or ISO basis.

Service Provider Domain

Actors in the Service Provider domain perform services to support the business processes of 

power system producers, distributors, and customers (see Fig. B-4). These business processes 

range from traditional utility services, such as billing and customer account management, to 

enhanced customer services, such as management of energy use and home energy generation. 

195
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Figure B-4. Overview of the Service Provider Domain

The Service Provider domain shares interfaces with the Markets, Operations, and Customer 

domains. Communications with the Operations domain are critical for system control and 

situational awareness; communications with the Markets and Customer domains are critical for 

enabling economic growth through the development of “smart” services. For example, the 

Service Provider domain may provide the interface enabling the customer to interact with the 

market. 

Service providers create new and innovative services and products to meet the requirements and 

opportunities presented by the evolving smart grid. Services may be performed by the electric 

service provider, by existing third parties, or by new participants drawn by new business models. 

Emerging services represent an area of significant new economic growth. 

The priority challenge in the Service Provider domain is to develop key interfaces and standards 

that will enable a dynamic market-driven ecosystem while protecting the critical power 

infrastructure. These interfaces must be able to operate over a variety of networking technologies 

while maintaining consistent messaging semantics. The service provider must not compromise 

the cybersecurity, reliability, stability, integrity, or safety of the electrical power network when 

delivering existing or emerging services. 

Some benefits to the service provider domain from the deployment of the smart grid include: 

196
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• The development of a growing market for non-utility providers to provide value-added 

services and products to customers, utilities, and other stakeholders at competitive costs;

• The decrease in cost of business services for other smart grid domains; and

• A decrease in power consumption and an increase in power generation as customers 

become active participants in the power supply chain.

Table B-4. Typical Applications in the Service Provider Domain

Example 

Application Description

Customer 

Management

Managing customer relationships by providing point-of-contact and 

resolution for customer issues and problems. 

Installation & 

Maintenance

Installing and maintaining premises equipment that interacts with 

the smart grid. 

Building 

Management

Monitoring and controlling building energy and responding to 

smart grid signals while minimizing impact on building occupants.

Home 

Management

Monitoring and controlling home energy and responding to smart 

grid signals while minimizing impact on home occupants. 

Billing Managing customer billing information, including providing billing 

statements and payment processing.

Account 

Management Managing the supplier and customer business accounts.

Operations Domain

Actors in the Operations domain are responsible for the smooth operation of the power system. 

Today, the majority of these functions are the responsibility of a regulated utility (see Fig. B-5). 

The smart grid will enable more of these functions to be provided by service providers. No 

matter how the Service Provider and Markets domains evolve, there will still be functions 

needed for planning and operating the service delivery points of a regulated “wires” company. 

197
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Figure B-5. Overview of the Operations Domain

Currently, at the physical level, various energy management systems are used to analyze and 

operate the power system reliably and efficiently.

Representative applications within the Operations domain are described in Table B-5. These 

applications are derived from the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61968-1 

Interface Reference Model (IRM) for this domain.

Table B-5. Typical Applications in the Operations Domain

Example 

Application Description

Monitoring

Network operation monitoring roles supervise network topology, 

connectivity, and loading conditions, including breaker and switch 

states, as well as control equipment status. They locate customer 

telephone complaints and field crews. 

Control

Network control is coordinated by roles in this domain. They may 

only supervise wide area, substation, and local automatic or manual 

control.

Fault 

Management

Fault management roles enhance the speed at which faults can be 

located, identified, and sectionalized, and the speed at which 

198
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Example 

Application Description

service can be restored. They provide information for customers, 

coordinate workforce dispatch, and compile information statistics.

Analysis

Operation feedback analysis roles compare records taken from realtime operation related with information on network incidents, 

connectivity, and loading to optimize periodic maintenance.

Reporting and 

Statistics

Operational statistics and reporting roles archive online data and 

perform feedback analysis about system efficiency and reliability. 

Network 

Calculations

Real-time network calculations roles (not shown) provide system 

operators with the ability to assess the reliability and security of the 

power system.

Training Dispatcher training roles (not shown) provide facilities for 

dispatchers that simulate the actual system they will be using.

Records and 

Assets

Records and asset management roles track and report on the 

substation and network equipment inventory, provide geospatial 

data and geographic displays, maintain records on non-electrical 

assets, and perform asset-investment planning.

Operation 

Planning

Operational planning and optimization roles perform simulation of 

network operations, schedule switching actions, dispatch repair 

crews, inform affected customers, and schedule the importing of 

power. They keep the cost of imported power low through peak 

generation, switching, load shedding, DER or demand response.

Maintenance and 

Construction

Maintenance and construction roles coordinate inspection, cleaning, 

and adjustment of equipment; organize construction and design; 

dispatch and schedule maintenance and construction work; and 

capture records gathered by field technicians to view necessary 

information to perform their tasks.

Extension 

Planning

Network extension planning roles develop long-term plans for 

power system reliability; monitor the cost, performance, and 

schedule of construction; and define projects to extend the network, 

such as new lines, feeders, or switchgear.

Customer 

Support

Customer support roles help customers to purchase, provision, 

install, and troubleshoot power system services. They also relay and 

record customer trouble reports.

Generation Domain

Applications in the Generation domain are the first processes in the delivery of electricity to 

customers (see Fig. B-6). Electricity generation is the process of creating electricity from other 

forms of energy, which may include a wide variety of sources, using chemical combustion, 

nuclear fission, flowing water, wind, solar radiation, and geothermal heat. The boundary of the 

Generation domain is either the Transmission or Distribution or Customer domain. The 

Generation domain is electrically connected to the Transmission or Distribution or Customer 

domain and shares interfaces with the Operations, Markets, Transmission and Distribution 

domains. 

199
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Generation

Transmission

 

Operations Markets

Wind

Hydro Coal

Solar

Nuclear

Gas

Geothermal Pumped

Storage

Biomass

Control Measure Protect Record

Source: NIST Smart Grid Framework 1.0 Sept 2009

Updated

Internal Communication Flows

Electrical Flows

Domain

External Communication Flows

Storage

Figure B-6. Overview of the Generation Domain

Communications with the Transmission and Distribution domains are critical, because without a 

delivery mechanism, customers cannot be served. The Generation domain should communicate 

key performance and quality of service issues such as scarcity (especially for wind and solar, 

which are variable sources) and generator failure. These communications may cause the routing 

of electricity from other sources. A lack of sufficient supply is addressed directly (via operations) 

or indirectly (via markets). 

New requirements for the Generation domain may include controls for greenhouse gas 

emissions, increases in renewable energy sources, and provision of storage to manage the 

variability of renewable generation. Roles in the Generation domain may include various 

physical actors, such as protection relays, remote terminal units, equipment monitors, fault 

recorders, user interfaces, and programmable logic controllers. 

200
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Table B-6. Typical Applications in the Generation Domain

Example 

Application Description

Control

Performed by roles that permit the Operations domain to manage 

the flow of power and the reliability of the system. Currently a 

physical example is the use of phase-angle regulators within a 

substation to control power flow between two adjacent power 

systems.

Measure

Performed by roles that provide visibility into the flow of power 

and the condition of the systems in the field. In the future, 

measurement might be built into increasingly more discrete field 

devices in the grid. 

Currently, an example is the digital and analog measurements 

collected through the supervisory control and data acquisition 

(SCADA) system from a remote terminal unit and provided to a 

grid control center in the Operations domain. 

Protect

Performed by roles that react rapidly to faults and other events in 

the system that might cause power outages, brownouts, or the 

destruction of equipment. 

Performed to maintain high levels of reliability and power quality. 

May work locally or on a wide scale. 

Record

Performed by roles that permit other domains to review what 

happened on the grid for financial, engineering, operational, and 

forecasting purposes.

Asset 

Management

Performed by roles that work together to determine when 

equipment should have maintenance, calculate the life expectancy 

of the device, and record its history of operations and maintenance 

so it can be reviewed in the future for operational and engineering

decisions. 

Transmission Domain

Transmission is the bulk transfer of electrical power from generation sources to distribution 

through multiple substations (see Fig. B-7). A transmission network is typically operated by a 

transmission-owning utility, Regional Transmission Operator or Independent System Operator 

(RTO, ISO respectfully), whose primary responsibility is to maintain stability on the electric grid 

by balancing generation (supply) with load (demand) across the transmission network. Examples 

of physical actors in the Transmission domain include remote terminal units, substation meters, 

protection relays, power quality monitors, phasor measurement units, sag monitors, fault 

recorders, and substation user interfaces. 

201
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Storage

Substation Sag

Transmission

 Substation Generation

Distribution

Control Measure Protect Record Stabilize Optimize

Operations Markets

Internal Communication Flows

Electrical Flows

Domain

External Communication Flows

Source: NIST Smart Grid Framework 1.0 Sept 2009

Updated

Figure B-7. Overview of the Transmission Domain

Roles in the Transmission domain typically perform the applications shown in the diagram (Fig. 

B-7) and described in the table (Table B-7). The Transmission domain may contain DER, such as 

electrical storage or peaking generation units. 

Energy and supporting ancillary services (capacity that can be dispatched when needed) are 

procured through the Markets domain; scheduled and operated from the Operations domain; and 

finally delivered through the Transmission domain to the Distribution domain and ultimately to 

the Customer domain.

A transmission electrical substation uses transformers to step up or step down voltage across the 

electric supply chain. Substations also contain switching, protection, and control equipment. 

Figure B-7 depicts both step-up and step down substations connecting generation (including 

peaking units) and storage with distribution. Substations may also connect two or more 

transmission lines. 

Transmission towers, power lines, and field telemetry (such as the line sag detector shown) make 

up the balance of the transmission network infrastructure. The transmission network is typically 

202
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

monitored and controlled through a SCADA system that uses a communication network, field 

monitoring devices, and control devices.

Table B-7. Typical Applications in the Transmission Domain

Example 

Application Description

Substation The control and monitoring systems within a substation.

Storage A system that controls the charging and discharging of an energy 

storage unit.

Measurement & 

Control

Includes all types of measurement and control systems to measure, 

record, and control, with the intent of protecting and optimizing 

grid operation.

Distribution Domain

The Distribution domain is the electrical interconnection between the Transmission domain, the 

customer domain, and the metering points for consumption, distributed storage, and distributed 

generation (see Fig. B-8). The Distribution domain may contain DER, such as electrical storage 

or peaking generation units. 

The electrical distribution system may be arranged in a variety of structures, including radial, 

looped, or meshed. The reliability of the distribution system varies depending on its structure, the 

types of actors that are implemented, and the degree to which they communicate with each other 

and with roles in other domains. 

203
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Figure B-8. Overview of the Distribution Domain

Historically, distribution systems have been radial configurations, with little telemetry, and 

almost all communications within the domain was performed by humans. The primary installed 

sensor base in this domain is the customer with a telephone, whose call initiates the dispatch of a 

field crew to restore power. Many communications interfaces within this domain have been 

hierarchical and unidirectional, although they now generally can be considered to work in both 

directions, even as the electrical connections are just beginning to support bidirectional flow. 

Distribution actors may have local inter-device (peer-to-peer) communication or a more 

centralized communication methodology. 

In the smart grid, the Distribution domain will communicate in a more granular fashion with the 

Operations domain in real-time to manage the power flows associated with a more dynamic 

Markets domain and other environmental and security-based factors. The Markets domain will 

communicate with the Distribution domain in ways that will affect localized consumption and 

generation. In turn, these behavioral changes due to market forces may have electrical and 

structural impacts on the Distribution domain and the larger grid. Under some models, service 

providers may communicate with the Customer domain using the infrastructure of the 

Distribution domain, which would change the communications infrastructure selected for use 

within the domain. 

204
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Table B-8. Typical Applications within the Distribution Domain

Example 

Application Description

Substation The control and monitoring systems within a substation.

Storage A system that controls the charging and discharging of an energy 

storage unit.

Distributed 

Generation A power source located on the distribution side of the grid.

DER Energy resources that are typically located at a customer or owned 

by the distribution grid operator

Measurement & 

Control

Includes all types of measurement and control systems to measure, 

record, and control, with the intent of protecting and optimizing 

grid operation.

205
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Appendix C: Smart Grid Service Orientation and Ontology

C.1 Overview

Like all other industries the utility / smart grid sector has a rich legacy of terms which often have 

contradictory understanding descriptions. Too often, there is no reference standard for them. 

Recognizing this, the SGIP’s SGAC elected to expand on the previous conceptual architecture 

work and in conjunction with the EU M490 and IEC 6257 decided to apply The Open Group’s 

service-oriented architecture and service-oriented ontology to existing and evolving smart grid 

terms.

C.2 Service Orientation

Service-oriented architecture (SOA) is an often-misunderstood term, so this document simply 

refers to it as service orientation. By definition:

“Service orientation” is a way of thinking in terms of services and service-based development 

and the outcomes of services.

A “service”191:

• Is a logical representation of a repeatable business activity that has a specified outcome 

(e.g., check customer credit, provide weather data, and consolidate drilling reports)

• Is self-contained

• May be composed of other services

• Is a “black box” to consumers of the service

Services are independent of any underlying technical implementation. The genesis of service 

orientation began with loosely-coupled design efforts in the 1970s to support distributed 

computing followed quickly with the client-server models. However, SOA is usually 

misunderstood to mean a specific sort of ICT technology such as XML, web services, or HTTP. 

These are all technologies that lend themselves to service orientation, but they do not guarantee 

service-oriented architectures. This misinformation is widely communicated through ICT 

vendors’ sales and marketing efforts to sell their products. It is not consistent with the original 

architectural philosophy of the modularity, openness, flexibility, scalability, and lower ongoing 

operations cost.

C.3 Service-Oriented Ontology

“Ontology” is simply the definition of concepts within a domain and their relationships to each 

other. The word’s background came from philosophy, where “ontology” is the study of being. It 

was adopted by information scientists to assist in artificial intelligence definitions and became 

part of object-oriented architecture in the late 1990s. 

191 The Open Group SOA ontology: see http://www.opengroup.org/soa/source-book/soa/soa.htm#soa_definition

206

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

As part of the conceptual architecture work, an actors list was created including every actor name 

and definition that a standard body was willing to contribute. During the exercise to identify 

where the actor participated in architecture, the two following questions were asked: Is it a 

conceptual-, logical-, physical-, or implementation-level thing? Is it used to describe business, 

information, automation or technical things? It was discovered that many of the actors were also 

referred to as roles or services. It was decided to apply an ontology to crisply define these things. 

The Open Group’s service-oriented ontology was used for alignment. The SGAC’s Architecture 

Development Working Party discovered that there is a one to one relationship between roles and 

service collections. The ADWP team then began creating an ontology that aligned with, but was 

not identical to, the SOA ontology. To date, the ADWP has worked through only enough of the 

ontology to identify the proper description of things in the actors list. At this time, the ADWP 

decided that a better name for the actors are entities. Therefore, for convenience, the group 

agreed to continue using the original list in order to allow traceability to its origin.

The Open Group’s ontology is described in English and with World Wide Web Consortium 

(W3C) Web Ontological Language (OWL) definitions. Figure C.3.1 shows the ontology with 

circles around the terms that the team agreed made sense in light of this industry’s requirements. 

Corrections were made in the case of a few areas where technology was not crisp enough or 

overly prescriptive.

Figure C.3.1. SOA Ontology Mapping

207
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

The subsequent descriptions outline the ontology of each of these terms:

Core classes and Properties

 Service collections are a re-usable collection of business, IT, or architectural services that can 

be combined with other service collections to deliver architectures and solutions. Service 

collections exist at various levels of architecture, depending on what stage of architecture 

development has been reached. 

Only service collections exist in conceptual architecture.

Service collections begin their migration to actors in logical architecture.

Physical architecture is under discussion and possibly out of scope.

Only actors exist in implementation level of architecture and are discussed only to provide 

definitional clarity.

 Services represent a particular pattern of behaviour.

See also Architecture Working Party e.g., “haircut.”

A given service may also correspond to a message type.

 A Service is not an instance. 

e.g., not “the haircut that I had yesterday.”

 Different patterns of behaviour can be different services or the same service, at the 

discretion of whomever is populating the ontology.

e.g., “haircut” could include both “normal” and “bald barber” behaviour patterns, or

“normal haircut” and “barber special” could be separate instances of Service – perhaps of 

a “Haircut” subclass of Service

 Task is defined as disjoint with the service, and is considered an atomic action within each 

level of architecture.

An atomic task is an action which accomplishes a defined result. Tasks are done by people or 

organizations, specifically by instances of Actor (at the Implementation level).

At the Implementation Level Tasks are done by actors, furthermore tasks can use services 

that are performed by technology components. 

Task is defined as disjoint with the Actor/Role.

 Actors are people organizations or systems that perform a task at the bequest of a service.

208
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Only actors exist at the implementation layer of architecture

The SOA ontology document is silent regarding the ontology of a role. The ADWP team elected 

to create a definition leveraging several use case intent, and the definition of a building block 

from the SOA ontology and the Open Group’s Architecture Framework documents. The team is 

also working with the EU SG-CG team on merging definitions and possible ontology to include 

important relevant parts of the ENTSO-E role model192. Figure C.3.2 shows the ADWP mapping 

of the relationship between actors and roles to a service.

For the work at hand, the ADWP elected to use “provides” and “consumes” because at all times 

a service contract is required for interaction. However, below is the reasoning of the SOA 

ontology document:

Terminology used in an SOA environment often includes the notion of service providers and 

service consumers. There are two challenges with this terminology:

• It does not distinguish between the contractual obligation aspect of consume/provide and 

the interaction aspect of consume/provide. A contractual obligation does not necessarily 

translate to an interaction dependency, if for no other reason than because the realization 

of the contractual obligation may have been sourced to a third party.

• Consuming or providing a service is a statement that only makes sense in context – either 

a contractual context or an interaction context. These terms are consequently not well 

suited for making statements about elements and services in isolation.

The above are the reasons why the ontology has chosen not to adopt “consume” and “provide” as 

core concepts, rather instead allows “consume” or “provide” terms to be used with contractual 

obligations and/or interaction rules described by service contracts (see the definition of 

the Service Contract class). In its simplest form, outside the context of a formal service contract, 

the interaction aspect of consuming and providing services may even be expressed simply by 

saying that some element uses (consumes) a service or that some element performs (provides) a 

service; see the implementation level examples below.

Figure C.3.2. Actor to Service Map

192 European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity, "The Harmonized Electricity Market Role 

Model,” version 2014-01, May 2014, https://www.entsoe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/edi/library/role/harmonisedrole-model-2014-01_approved.pdf

209

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

 Provider/Consumer are intersection of actor and service.*

 As in all service-oriented approaches, a provider/consumer may use multiple services to 

support its role.

 Provider is domain of provides.

 Consumer is domain of consumes.

 Provides and Consumes are not transient relations.

Provides includes Provides at this instant, has Provided, and may in future Provide.

Consumes is similar.

* Note, the team discovered these rules, which helped classify the actors:

 An actor fulfills a business service by invoking an automated service in the context of a 

role.

 Only roles exist in conceptual architecture.

 Roles begin their migration to actors in logical architecture.

 Only actors exist in implementation architecture.

A set of services may be a collection of services organized in a building block. Thus far, the 

ADWP team has not identified any building blocks other than there may be a relationship 

between building blocks and super-set service definitions.

210
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

*

Figure C.3.3. Role to Service Map

C.4 Architecture Matrix

The Open Group Architecture Methodology (TOGAF) Architecture Development Methodology 

(TOGAF ADM) development cycle193 defined the entire lifecycle of the architecture process 

from vision to maintenance. The intent of defining a reference architecture for smart grid is that 

only the development phases of the cycle are relevant. Each organization that deploys an 

architecture must travel a unique path migrating legacy organizational structures, manual and 

automated processes, applications, networks and various automations to participate in new 

fashions while ensuring they continue to provide the legacy service for which they were 

originally intended.

TOGAF and other architecture frameworks have a concept of iterations where requirements are 

clarified with increasing detail for each level of architecture. The diagram below (see Fig. C.4.1) 

represents the combination of TOGAF and Zachman architecture principles194 that is applied to 

each level of architecture. 

193 See http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/chap05.html

194 Note the use of TOGAF and Zachman does not infer endorsement or preference, as described previously. 

211

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Figure C.4.1. Architecture Layer & Levels

Each cell within this matrix is defined by the intersection of business-to-technical orientation 

levels and abstract-to- discrete layers. The following sections define these layers and levels.

C.4.1 Business Architecture

Business architecture describes the product and/or service strategy, and the organizational, 

functional, process, information, and geographic aspects of the business environment. It also 

identifies what personnel actually perform a task.

C.4.2 Information Architecture

Information architecture defines the structure, organization, flow of information, and protocols. 

It is a superset of the ICT concept of data architecture.

C.4.3 Automation Architecture

Automation architecture defines what types of automation (applications, sensors, etc.) are 

required to support the information management requirements of the enterprise.

212
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

C.4.4 Technology Architecture

Technology architecture describes the types of ICT needed to support the automation 

requirements. This includes computer and communications topologies and configurations.

C.5 Layers of Abstraction Definitions

These definitions were developed to assist the ADWP team in identifying a level of architecture 

for an item in the conceptual architecture’s actor list. 

C.5.1 Contextual/Vision Definition

What is the objective of the architecture? Which questions need to be answered for the 

stakeholder’s perspective (no technology)?

Context includes identifying:

• Core business units, external communities, governmental bodies, and stakeholders most 

affected and deriving most value from the work

• Aspirational vision of the capabilities and business value delivered

• The business principles, business goals, and strategic drivers

 Example: Why this study? Which objectives, what scope, and which constraints?

C.5.2 Conceptual Definition

Conceptual architecture models the actual business as the owner conceptually thinks the business 

is, or maybe, wants the business to be. What are the services that are required to satisfy the future 

needs?

• Conceptual services represent the goals of the stakeholder.

o What I want to do, which is driven by my mission?

o What I need to do, which is often driven by my mission?

• Conceptual services have a lot of attributes.

o Service levels and other quality attributes (historically called non-functional 

requirements in engineering).

o Specifications of functionality.

• Simplest questions to find them:

o What are the essential elements within the scope?

213
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

o Which services do I need to provide to the outside world to fulfill my mission?

o Which services from the outside do I need to do that?

C.5.3 Logical Definition

Logical architecture models of the “systems” of the business, logical representations of the 

business that define the logical implementation of the business. How is the architecture (ideally) 

structured?

How are basic elements related, according to the specific objectives and constraints of the 

architecture? (logical structure)

Are descriptions of the ideal building blocks needed to run the business as defined in the 

conceptual architecture?

Building blocks are technology-independent services.

For the construction, criteria are needed to cluster the services into these building blocks.

C.5.4 Physical Definition

Physical architecture is the technology-constrained, physical-implementation design of the 

systems of the business. How is the architecture (ideally) structured?

What software and processes are necessary?

Which elements of structure will be realized, according to strategies and implications? And with 

what can this be achieved?

Describes components necessary to implement. 

Is a representation of components of real building blocks an architect will use, such as:

• A person

• A process

• A piece of software and/or

• A piece of infrastructure

Provides implementation technical specifications, i.e., the details needed for white box 

development process (e.g., Rational Unified Process), vendor solution, and manual processes 

(Phase E).

214
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

C.5.5 Implementation Definition

This is where the systems specialize.

What software and processes are used to execute? 

For ICT, these are the vendor offerings or custom-built applications.

For organizations, these are the personnel and workflow execution.

C.6 Actor List Evolution

The collected actors represent the largest collection of actors available. The sources of this list 

include use cases, standards organizations, and other reference architecture activities. Currently, 

the contributing organizations include:

• NIST Framework Document (this document)

• NISTIR 7628 Guidelines for Smart Grid Cybersecurity

• Smart Grid Cybersecurity Committee

• IEC 61968/ 61970 Common Information Model

• IEEE 2030 Draft Guide for Smart Grid Interoperability of Energy Technology and 

Information Technology Operation with the Electric Power System (EPS), and End-Use 

Applications and Loads

• Energy Information Standards Alliance (from PAP10 & 17)

• EU Commission Task Force for Smart Grids, Expert Group 3: Roles and Responsibilities 

of Actors involved in the Smart Grids Deployment (EU EG3) (2011/Aug/08)

• EU Smart Grid Mandate Reference Architecture Working Group (EU M.490 RAWG)

• EU M.490 SP (Sustainable Process WG) and initial IEC TC8 AHG4 Smart Grid 

Requirements

• EU SG-CG SG Information Security Working Party 1: Second set of SGIS standards (EU 

SG-CG SGIS WP1)

• European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) Market 

model

• North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB)

• National use case repository extracts

• E-Mobility Coordination Group Ad hoc group for Smart Charging under 

CEN/CENELEC M468 and M490 (EM-AhG-SmartCharge)

215
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• IEC System Committee Smart Energy (formerly SG3)

• EU SG-CG Generic Use Cases 

• DKE Use Case Management Repository (UCMR)

• EU M.441 Smart Meter Coordination Group (SMCG)

• Various national use case repository extracts

This list covers a wide range of applications, and the actor lists are found to have varying degrees 

of consistency. As a result, an increasing number of actors are created to suit the need at a given

time rather than discovering whether a suitable entity is already defined or one exists that may be 

a better choice than one constructed for a silo-oriented need.

After the ontology was defined to a sufficient degree to identify the terms crisply, the team began 

working through this list. As mentioned in the ongoing efforts of the SGAC, this effort is still 

ongoing, with teams in North America and the EU contributing to the effort. The results are not 

yet ready for peer review. However, the process of identification is described below:

• Semantics should be explicitly documented to reduce ambiguity – this is the foundation 

of the ontology effort.

• An actor is considered to be a person, organization, or system that has at least one role 

that initiates or interacts with activities. Actors may be internal or external to an 

organization.

• A role is the usual or expected function or context in which an actor consumes/provides a 

service. An actor may play a number of roles. 

• At the highest level, a conceptual role represents the goals of the stakeholder (e.g., energy 

provider). A conceptual role will have many characteristics.

• A logical role or service decomposes/partitions a conceptual role into supporting services 

or actors. At the logical level, mapping from roles to actors begins; there may not be an 

actor for every role or service at the logical level.

• There are no physical level roles or conceptual actors.

• A logical actor decomposes/partitions conceptual roles into structural entities.

• A physical actor is an instantiation of a logical actor. A physical actor performs a set of 

actions which is a physical instantiation of a logical role.

216
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

C.7 Relationships Between Layers of Architecture

Here is a conceptual role, “Clearing and Settling Agent,” that shows an automation example:

Entity Type Entity’s Architectural 

Level

Clearing and Settling Agent Role Conceptual Level

Market Clearing Service Logical Level

Energy Market Clearinghouse Service Logical Level

SG Clearing App Actor Physical Level

SG Clearing App – V1.31 Actor Implementation Level

Here is a conceptual role, “Clearing and Settling Agent,” that shows a personnel example:

Entity Type Entity’s Architectural 

Level

Clearing and Settling Agent Role Conceptual Level

Market Clearing Service Logical Level

Energy Market Clearinghouse Service Logical Level

Accounting Department Actor Physical Level

Joe from Accounting Actor Implementation Level

217
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Appendix D: SGIP Committees, DEWGs, and PAPs

This appendix provides descriptions of various entities within the SGIP.

D.1 Committees

SGIP committees include:

• Smart Grid Architecture Committee (SGAC) -- The SGAC is responsible for 

creating and refining a conceptual reference model and developing a conceptual 

architectural framework supporting the standards and profiles necessary to 

implement the vision of the smart grid. Further details on the activities and plans 

are found in Chapter 5. 

• Smart Grid Cybersecurity Committee (SGCC) – The primary objective of the 

SGCC is to assess standards for applicability and interoperability across the 

domains of the smart grid, rather than to develop a single set of cybersecurity 

requirements that are applicable to all elements of the smart grid. These standards 

will be assessed within an overall risk management framework that focuses on 

cybersecurity within the smart grid. Further details on the SGCC activities and 

plans can be found in Chapter 6.

• Smart Grid Testing and Certification Committee (SGTCC) -- The SGTCC creates 

and maintains the necessary documentation and organizational framework for 

compliance, interoperability, and cybersecurity testing and certification for smart 

grid standards recommended by SGIP. Further details on the activities and plans 

are found in Chapter 7.

• Implementation Methods Committee (IMC) -- The IMC identifies, develops, and 

supports mechanisms and tools for objective standards impact assessment, 

transition management, and technology transfer in order to assist in deployment of 

standards-based smart grid devices, systems, and infrastructure. The committee 

writes reports and guidelines that address these implementation issues.

D.2 Domain Expert Working Groups (DEWGs)

DEWGs provide expertise in specific application areas, as well as a rich understanding of 

the current and future requirements for smart grid applications. Due to their broad 

membership and collaborative process, DEWGs integrate a wide array of stakeholder 

expertise and interests. Through their understanding of smart grid applications, DEWGs 

expose and model the applications in use cases, cataloged in the IKB. The applications 

are analyzed against functional and nonfunctional requirements, and against the potential 

standards that fulfill them. Through their analyses, DEWGs can allocate functionality to 

actors, standards, and technologies, and thus support the fulfillment of smart grid 

applications. By this means, the DEWGs can discover the gaps and overlaps of standards 

for the smart grid, as well as identify which technologies best fit the requirements 

necessary for carrying out the applications. 

218
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

The results of these analyses are the identification of the following:

• Smart grid standards and the nature of their fit to the applications

• Additional PAPs that are needed to address the gaps and overlaps

• High-priority use cases that merit detailed analysis and development

The DEWGs as of October 2013 include:

• Transmission and Distribution (T&D) – This DEWG works to enhance reliability 

and improve resilience to grid instabilities and disturbances. It also works to 

improve power quality to meet customer needs and efficiency, and to enable 

ready access for distributed generators to the grid. Activities in the past several 

years include creating a list of phasor data concentrator requirements; conducting 

the initial discussions to determine if efforts related to electromagnetic 

interference should be a PAP or a Working Group, and recommending to the 

Governing Board that an Electromagnetic Interoperability Issues (EMII) Working 

Group be established; creating a white paper on weather-related standards; and 

providing technical comments to NIST on the Guiding Principles for Identifying 

Standards for Implementation from Release 1.0.

• Home-to-Grid (H2G) – This DEWG is investigating communications between 

utilities and home devices to facilitate demand response programs that implement 

energy management. The DEWG has agreed on a set of goals and has written 

white papers for the four target segments: government, electric industry, 

consumers, and residential product manufacturers. The DEWG has produced six 

white papers: “Requirements”; “The Key Starting Point for a Business-Level 

Roadmap to Achieve Interoperable Networks, Systems, Devices in the Smart 

Grid”; "Privacy of Consumer Information in the Electric Power Industry”; “Free 

Market Choice for Appliance Physical Layer Communications”; “Appliance 

Socket Interface”; and "Electromagnetic Compatibility Issues for Home-to-Grid 

Devices101.”

• Building-to-Grid (B2G) – This DEWG represents the interests and needs of 

building consumers. It envisions conditions that enable commercial buildings to 

participate in energy markets and perform effective energy conservation and 

management. The DEWG is responsible for identifying interoperability issues 

relevant to the building customer and providing direction on how to address those 

issues. The B2G DEWG has examined use cases for weather data exchange and 

proposed an approach for standard weather data exchange, and it has participated 

in the formation and further development of the concept of the Energy Services 

Interface (ESI) and definition of the customer interface. The DEWG has also 

explored energy management beyond electricity (e.g., combined heat and power 

[CHP], district energy, thermal storage, etc.).

219
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• Distributed Renewables, Generators, and Storage (DRGS) – This DEWG 

provides a forum to identify standards and interoperability issues and gaps related 

to smart grid integration of distributed renewable/clean energy generators and 

electric storage, and to initiate PAPs and task groups to address identified issues 

and gaps. Significant technical challenges exist in this area, and resolution of 

these issues and gaps is essential to enable high penetrations of distributed 

renewable/clean generator and storage devices while also enhancing rather than 

degrading grid stability, resiliency, power quality, and safety.

• Industry-to-Grid (I2G) – This DEWG identifies business and policy objectives 

and requisite interactions for industrial customers of the electric grid, and it also 

identifies standard services and interfaces needed for interoperability (e.g., syntax 

and semantics of information transfer, service interface protocols) for these 

customers. This DEWG is preparing a transition strategy for future energy 

transfers between industrial facilities and the electric grid, in various 

manifestations, to meet fluctuating demand at predictable quality and price. This 

should be accomplished while acknowledging variable supplier delivery 

capability and regulatory requirements, and while optimizing energy 

conservation. This DEWG developed a presentation on the Organization for the 

Advancement of Structured Information Systems (OASIS) Energy Interoperation 

Technical Committee (EITC), which defines the interaction between the smart 

grid and smart facilities.

• Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) – This DEWG identifies the service interfaces and 

standards needed (e.g., syntax and semantics of information transfer, service 

interface protocols, cross-cutting issues, business- and policy-level issues) to 

create the infrastructure to make plug-in electric vehicles (PEV) a reality. This 

DEWG defines business objectives and prioritizes corresponding PEV-grid 

interactions (discharging as well as charging) that can occur at different locations 

under one billing account. The goal for this DEWG is to ensure that the basic 

infrastructure will be implemented in time to support one million PEVs by 2015. 

• Business and Policy (BnP) – This DEWG assists business decision makers and 

legislative/regulatory policymakers in implementing smart grid policies relevant 

to interoperability by providing a structured approach that may be used by state 

and federal policymakers and by trade organizations to implement smart grid 

policies, and helps to clearly define the interoperability implications and benefits 

of smart grid policy. This DEWG serves as an educational resource and develops 

tools and supporting materials. BnP DEWG meetings include discussions with 

federal and state regulators, including members of the National Association of 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).

220
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

D.3 Additional SGIP Working Groups

In addition to the DEWGs, there are other working groups established to examine issues 

in particular areas and, if appropriate, recommend the creation of new PAPs. These 

working groups are described below.

Electromagnetic Interoperability Issues (EMII) – This working group investigates 

strategies for enhancing the immunity of smart grid devices and systems to the 

detrimental effects of natural and man-made electromagnetic interference, both radiated 

and conducted. It addresses these electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) issues and 

develops recommendations for the application of standards and testing criteria to ensure 

EMC for the smart grid. In particular, the group focuses on issues directly related to 

interoperability of smart grid devices and systems, including impacts, avoidance, and 

generation of electromagnetic interference, as well as mitigation of and immunity to 

electromagnetic interference. With its focus on interoperability, this effort is not a general 

review of electromagnetic- and electric power-related issues, such as power quality. 

These issues are addressed by different groups outside the SGIP.

Gas Technologies Working Group – The Gas Workgroup investigates the interaction 

between the gas delivery and electric power delivery grids with respect to interoperability 

standards, common technological paradigms, and associated system implementations. A 

major emphasis is the investigation of the advantages available to both industries with the 

development of interoperability standards that will foster the integration of gas systems

into the electric-centric smart grid, e.g., distributed gas pressure metering within AMI, 

and multiple meter integration with Home Area Network (HAN) devices. The 

recommendations of the Gas Technologies Working Group can be considered by the 

SGIP for follow-on activity, viz., Priority Action Plan (PAP) creation, and Smart Grid 

Testing & Certification Committee (SGTCC) action. Because of its focus on 

interoperability issues pertinent to both the gas and electric power industries, the scope 

does not include a review of either gas- or electric- power-specific technology systems or 

issues. 

D.4 Priority Action Plans (PAPs) 

PAPs are a key activity of the SGIP. They arise from the analysis of the applicability of 

standards to smart grid use cases and are targeted to resolve specific critical issues. PAPs 

are created only when the SGIP determines there is a need for interoperability 

coordination on some urgent issue.

Specifically, a PAP addresses one of the following situations:

• A gap exists, where a standard or standard extension is needed. An example of 

such a needed standard is the need for meter image-download requirements. 

• An overlap exists, where two complementary standards address some 

information that is in common but different for the same scope of an 

application. An example of this is metering information, where the Common 

221
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Information Model (CIM), 61850, the American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) C12.19, Smart Energy Profile (SEP) 1.0, and SEP 2.0 all have nonequivalent methods of representing revenue meter readings.

PAP activities include coordinating with the relevant SDOs and SSOs to get standards 

developed, revised, or harmonized. Once the standards are completed and reviewed 

through the SGIP Catalog of Standards (CoS) process, the output of the PAP is a 

recommendation to the SGIP for consideration for the CoS along with the associated CoS 

review documentation.

PAPs are created when the SGIP BOD receives proposals (through the SGIP Technical 

Committee) from SGIP members, working groups, committees, or other interested parties 

who have identified issues with interoperability standards, such as a gap or overlap 

among standards. The SGIP BOD approves the PAP proposal, and experts in relevant 

SDOs and SSOs are brought together to create the PAP working group management 

team. The PAPs themselves are executed within the scopes of participating SDOs, SSOs, 

and users groups that sign up for tasks that implement the plans. 

The SGIP also offers guidance to the PAP team to move difficult discussions toward 

resolution. Although PAPs and SDOs work together closely, there may be times when the 

SDOs and PAPs disagree based on their constituent viewpoints. Specific PAP tasks may 

diverge from the original intent of the PAP due to the SDOs’ natural, and correct, 

orientation towards their own specific goals and needs. The PAPs, on the other hand, 

arise from the broader stakeholder involvement in the smart grid problem space, and the 

goals identified for a PAP reflect this broader scope. In these cases, the parties are 

brought together for further discussion and mutual understanding. 

To date, there have been 25 PAPs195 established. Of the 25 PAPs that have been 

established, 14 PAPs are active, and 11 PAPs have completed their work:

Active Priority Action Plans:

• PAP 02 Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid 

• PAP 07 Electric Storage Interconnection Guidelines 

• PAP 08 CIM for Distribution Grid Management 

• PAP 09 Standard DR and DER Signals 

• PAP 12 Mapping IEEE 1815 (DNP3) to IEC 61850 Objects 

• PAP 15 Harmonize Power Line Carrier Standards for Appliance 

Communications in the Home 

• PAP 16 Wind Plant Communications 

195 Because one of the PAPs was designated as PAP 0, the most recently established PAP is the 25th PAP, 

but its designation is PAP 24.

222

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

• PAP 17 Facility Smart Grid Information Standard 

• PAP 19 Wholesale Demand Response (DR) Communication Protocol 

• PAP 20 Green Button ESPI Evolution 

• PAP 21 Weather Information 

• PAP 22 Electric Vehicle Sub-Metering

• PAP 23 Testing Profile for IEC 61850, Communication Networks and Systems in 

Substations

• PAP 24 Microgrid Operational Interfaces

Completed Priority Action Plans (see Table D-1):

• PAP 00 Meter Upgradeability Standard 

• PAP 01 Role of IP in the Smart Grid 

• PAP 03 Common Price Communication Model 

• PAP 04 Common Schedule Communication Mechanism 

• PAP 05 Standard Meter Data Profiles 

• PAP 06 Common Semantic Model for Meter Data Tables 

• PAP 10 Standard Energy Usage Information 

• PAP 11 Common Object Models for Electric Transportation 

• PAP 13 Harmonization of IEEE C37.118 with IEC 61850 and Precision Time 

Synchronization 

• PAP 14 Transmission and Distribution Power Systems Model Mapping 

• PAP 18 SEP 1.x to SEP 2 Transition and Coexistence 

Table D-1 Completed Priority Action Plans (PAPs) as of August 2014.

PAP Project Standards Products

Meter Upgradeability Standard •NEMA SG-AMI 1-2009: Requirements for Smart Meter 

Upgradeability

Role of IP in Smart Grid •IETF RFC6272: Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid

Common Specification for 

Price and Product Definition

•OASIS EMIX: Energy Market Information eXchange

Common Schedule 

Communication Mechanism for 

Energy Transactions

•OASIS WS-Calendar: Web Services Calendar

Standard Meter Data Profiles •AEIC Metering Guidelines V2.1

223
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

PAP Project Standards Products

Translate ANSI C12.19 to and 

from a Common Semantic 

Model

•White Paper: Mapping of ANSI C12.19 End Device Tables to UML 

model

Standard DR and DER Signals •OpenADR 2.0 Profile A

•SEP 2.0

Standard Energy Usage 

Information

•NAESB REQ 18/WEQ 19: PAP10 Energy Usage Information

Common Object Models for 

Electric Transportation

•SAE J1772: Electrical Connector between PEV and EVSE

•SAE J2836/1-3: Use Cases for PEV Interactions

•SAE J2847/1-3: Communications for PEV Interactions

Harmonization of IEEE 

C37.118 with IEC 61850 and 

Precision Time Synchronization

•IEEE C37.238-2011: IEEE Standard Profile for Use of IEEE 1588 

Precision Time Protocol

•IEC 61850-90-5: Use of IEC 61850 to Transmit Synchrophasor 

Information per IEEE C37.118

Transmission & Distribution 

Power Systems Model Mapping

•IEEE C37.239 COMFEDE

•Relay Settings Guideline

Harmonize Power Line Carrier 

Standards for Appliance 

Communications in the Home

•NISTIR 7862

•IEEE 1901-2010

•ITU-T G.9960

•ITU-T G.9972

•ITU-T G.9961

•ITU-T G.9955

•ITU-T G.9956

SEP 1.x to SEP 2 Transition 

and Coexistence

•SGIP 2011-0008_1: SEP 1.x to SEP 2.0 Transition and Coexistence 

White Paper

Wholesale Demand Response 

Communication Protocol

•OpenADR 2.0 Profile B

•Proposed Wholesale Demand Response Communication Protocol 

(WDRCP) extensions for the IEC Common Information Model

The scope, output, and status of each of the 25 PAPs—as of August 2014—are 

summarized below in Table D-2.

224
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

Table D-2. There are 25 PAPs as of August 2014196 (including PAP 0).

# Priority Action Plan Comments

0 Meter Upgradeability Standard

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP00MeterUpg

radability

Scope: PAP00 defined requirements 

including secure local and remote upgrades 

of smart meters.

Output: National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) Meter Upgradeability 

Standard SG-Advanced Metering 

Infrastructure (AMI) 1-2009.

Date: Completed 2009.

1 Role of IP in the Smart Grid

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP01InternetPr

ofile

Scope: For interoperable networks it is 

important to study the suitability of 

Internet networking technologies for Smart 

Grid applications. PAP01’s work area 

investigates the capabilities of protocols 

and technologies in the Internet Protocol 

Suite by working with key SSO 

committees to determine the characteristics 

of each protocol for Smart Grid application 

areas and types.

Output: This PAP’s work culminated in 

publication of a Request for Comment 

(RFC) cataloguing a core Internet Protocol 

Suite for IP-based Smart Grid and its 

acceptance by the SGIPGB in December 

2010 as a Smart Grid standard.

Date: Completed 2010.

2 Wireless Communications for the Smart 

Grid

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless

Scope: This PAP’s work area investigates 

and evaluates existing and emerging 

standards-based physical media for 

wireless communications. The approach is 

to work with the appropriate SDOs to 

determine the communication requirements 

of Smart Grid applications and how well

they can be supported by wireless 

technologies. Results are used to assess the 

appropriateness of wireless 

196 Due to the dynamic nature of the PAP process, a snapshot in time (such as that provided here as 

of August 2014) will quickly be out of date. The most up-to-date information about the status of 

each PAP can be found on the NIST Smart Grid Collaboration Site 

(http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PriorityActionPlans) and the SGIP 

site (http://sgip.org) 

225

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

communications technologies for meeting 

Smart Grid applications.

Output: PAP02 compiled Smart Grid 

communication requirements and a catalog 

for wireless standards and their 

characterizations. The PAP developed an 

evaluation methodology published in 

“Guidelines for Assessing Wireless 

Communications for Smart Grid 

Applications, Version 1.0” in July 2011. A 

second version of the document has been 

approved by the PAP and was published in 

June 2014.

197 The document is out for a 

membership vote for inclusion in the CoS.

Date: Active.

3 Common Price Communication Model

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP03PriceProd

uct

Scope: Coordination of energy supply and 

demand requires a common understanding 

of supply and demand. A simple quotation 

of price, quantity, and characteristics in a 

consistent way across markets enables new 

markets and integration of distributed 

energy resources. Price and product 

definition are key to transparent market 

accounting. Better communication of 

actionable energy prices facilitates 

effective dynamic pricing and is necessary 

for net-zero-energy buildings, supplydemand integration, and other efficiency 

and sustainability initiatives. Common, upto-the-moment pricing information is also 

an enabler of local generation and storage 

of energy, such as electric-charging and 

thermal-storage technologies for homes 

and buildings. PAP03 builds on existing 

work in financial energy markets and 

existing demand response programs to 

integrate with schedule and interval 

specifications under development. This 

PAP overlaps with others that include price 

and product information (4, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 

11).

Outputs: OASIS Energy Market 

Information Exchange (EMIX) standard 

197 See http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=914731

226

 
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

was added to the SGIP Catalog of 

Standards in 2011 (See 

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCosSIFO

ASISEMIX ). ZigBee Smart Energy 2.0 

was completed in April 2013. 

Date: Completed 2012.

4 Common Schedule Communication 

Mechanism

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP04Schedules

. 

Scope: Under this plan, NIST and 

collaborators will develop a standard for 

how schedule and event information is 

passed between and within services. The 

output will be a specification that can then 

be incorporated into price, demandresponse, and other specifications.

This Project Plan was developed in 

conjunction with PAP03 (Develop 

Common Specification for Price and 

Product Definition). Participants include, 

but are not limited to, International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), North 

American Energy Standards Board 

(NAESB), other OASIS Technical 

Committees, and ZigBee Smart Energy 

Profile.

Outputs: A common standard for 

transmitting calendaring information will 

enable the coordination necessary to 

improve energy efficiency and overall 

performance. The Calendar Consortium 

completed its current work in 2011 on 

eXtensible Markup Language (XML) 

serialization of iCalendar into a Webservice component (OASIS Web Services-

(WS)-Calendar). WS-Calendar added to 

the SGIP Catalog of Standards (see 

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCosSIFO

ASISWSCalendar )

Date: Completed 2011. 

5 Standard Meter Data Profiles

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP05MeterProf

iles

Scope: The Smart Grid recognizes that 

several clients may require local access to 

meter data, and these data may be on the 

same order of complexity as the meter 

itself. Such potential clients might range 

from thermostats to building automation 

227
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

systems. Other potential clients will exist 

inside and outside of the customers’ 

premises. Meter interface will reach across 

various domains including Operations 

(e.g., Metering System), Customer (e.g., 

Customer Energy Management System 

(EMS) and Submeter), and Distribution 

(e.g., Workforce Tool and Field Devices).

The ANSI C12.19 standard contains an 

extensive set of end device (e.g., meter) 

data tables. This large set of tables makes it 

time-consuming for utilities (and other 

service providers) to understand the 

standard and specify the proper tables for 

specific applications. The objective of this 

Priority Action Plan is to develop a smaller 

set of data tables that will meet the needs 

of most utilities and simplify the meter 

procurement process.

Outputs: Minimize variation and maximize 

interoperability of application services and 

behaviors within ANSI C12.18-2006, 

ANSI C12.19-2008, ANSI C12.21-2006, 

and ANSI C12.22-2008.

Date: Completed 2012.

6 Common Semantic Model for Meter Data 

Tables

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP06Meter

Scope: There are currently several "meter 

models" in standard existence. These 

include ANSI C12.19, Device Language 

Message Specification (DLMS)/ 

Companion Specification for Energy 

Metering (COSEM)/IEC 62056, IEC 

61968 CIM, and IEC 61850. As the smart 

grid requires interoperation between meters 

and many other applications and services, 

the existence of unique forms of data 

representation pertinent to a single actor is 

problematic, requiring complex gateways 

to translate this representation into 

alternate formats for information sharing. 

PAP06 works with industry stakeholders to 

translate the ANSI C12.19 End Device 

(meter) data model to and from a common 

form that will allow the semantics of this 

and End Device models in other standards 

to be more readily harmonized. The 

228
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

objective is to allow the lossless translation 

from the common form to the various 

syntactic representations prevalent in each 

domain. Details will include the 

representation of the 

Decade/Table/Element model. PAP06 

develops an exact and reusable 

representation of the ANSI C12.19 data 

model in the presentation form of Unified 

Markup Language (UML).

Outputs: A side-by-side comparison of the 

ANSI C12.19 UML model and the IEC 

61968-9 UML model to illustrate gaps and 

overlaps. White paper published, “PAP06 

UML Meta Model and EDL White Paper.”

Date: Completed 2012.

7 Energy Storage Interconnection Guidelines

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP07Storage

Scope: Energy storage is expected to play 

an increasingly important role in the 

evolution of the power grid, particularly to 

accommodate increasing penetration of 

intermittent renewable energy resources 

and to improve electrical power system 

(EPS) performance. Coordinated, 

consistent, electrical interconnection 

standards; communication standards; and 

implementation guidelines are required for 

energy storage devices (ES), powerelectronics-connected distributed energy 

resources (DER), hybrid generationstorage systems (ES-DER), and the ESDER aspects of plug-in electric vehicles 

(PEV). 

A broad set of stakeholders and SDOs are 

needed to address this coordination and 

evolution in order to update or augment the 

IEEE 1547 electrical interconnection 

standards series as appropriate to 

accommodate Smart Grid requirements and 

to extend the ES-DER object models in 

IEC 61850-7-420 as needed. Coordination 

with Underwriters Laboratories (UL), 

Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE), 

National Electrical Code-(NEC-) National 

Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70, 

and Canadian Standards Association 

229
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

(CSA) will be required to ensure safe and 

reliable implementation. This effort will 

need to address residential, commercial, 

and industrial applications at the grid 

distribution level and utility/Regional 

Transmission Operator (RTO) applications 

at the grid transmission level.

Expected Outputs: updated IEEE 1547.8, 

IEC 61850-7-420.

Date: Active.

8 CIM for Distribution Grid Management

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP08DistrObj

Multispeak

Scope: Standards are urgently needed to 

enable the rapid integration of wind, solar, 

and other renewable resources, and to 

achieve greater reliability and immunity to 

grid instabilities resulting from their widescale deployment, which is radically 

changing how the power system must 

operate. The use of standardized object 

models, such as the CIM and 61850, will 

support the interoperability of information 

exchanges that is critically needed to 

ensure a more reliable and efficient grid.

PAP08 will coordinate with: PAPs 3, 4, 9, 

or 10 on any use cases involving Demand 

Response (DR), pricing signals, and other 

customer interactions; PAP07 on any use 

cases involving energy storage and 

Distributed Energy Resources (DER); 

PAP11 on any use cases involving PEVs; 

PAP14 on any use cases involving "CIM 

wires models" or transmission-related 

interactions; and CSWG on security 

efforts.

Expected Outputs: updated IEC 61968, 

IEC 61970, and IEC 61850, and 

Multispeak implementation profile.

Date: Active.

9 Standard DR and DER Signals

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP09DRDER

Scope: Demand Response communications 

cover interactions between wholesale 

markets and retail utilities and aggregators, 

as well as between these entities and the 

end-load customers who reduce demand in 

response to grid reliability or price signals. 

While the value of DR is generally well 

understood, the interaction patterns, 

230
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

semantics, and information conveyed vary. 

Defining consistent signal semantics for 

DR will make the information conveyed 

more consistent across Smart Grid 

domains.

Outputs: OASIS Energy Interoperation 

standard version 1.0, ZigBee Smart Energy 

2.0.

Date: Completed 2013.

10 Standard Energy Usage Information

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP10EnergyUs

agetoEMS

Scope: This action plan led to data 

standards to exchange detailed information 

about energy usage in a timely manner. 

The first goal was agreement on the core 

information set to enable integration of 

usage information throughout facility 

decision processes. Customers and 

customer-authorized third-party service 

providers will use these standards to access 

energy usage information from the Smart 

Grid and meter, enabling them to make 

better decisions about energy use and 

conservation. Consumers and premisesbased systems will use these standards to 

provide real-time feedback on present and 

projected performance. Using the Smart 

Grid infrastructure, this information will be 

shared with the facility: a home, building, 

or industrial installation. Two-way flows of 

usage information will improve 

collaboration and energy efficiency.

Outputs: Implementation of a plan to 

expedite harmonized standards 

development and adoption: OASIS, 

IEC61970/61968, IEC61850, ANSI 

C12.19/22, PAP17/ American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air 

Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

SPC201, and ZigBee Smart Energy Profile 

(SEP) 2.0. NAESB REQ18/WEQ19: 

Energy Usage Information was added to 

the Catalog of Standards, 

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCosSIFN

AESBREQ18WEQ19.

Date: Completed 2012.

231
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

11 Common Object Models for Electric 

Transportation

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP11PEV

Scope: PAP11 ensures that the grid can 

support the massive charging of cars and 

help to popularize the adoption of PEVs. 

Standards will optimize charging 

capabilities and vendor innovation, 

allowing for more creative engineering and 

automobile amenities. This PAP also 

supports energy storage integration with 

the distribution grid as addressed by 

PAP07.

Outputs: SAE J1772, SAE J2836/1, and 

SAE J2847/1. All have now been 

completed and approved (See 

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCosSIFS

AEJ1772 (SAE J1772),

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCosSIFS

AEJ283613 (SAE J2836/1), and 

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCosSIFS

AEJ284713 (SAE 2847-1). 

Date: Completed 2011.

12 Mapping IEEE 1815 (DNP3) to IEC 61850 

Objects

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP12DNP3618

50

Scope: This action plan focuses on 

developing the means to enable transport 

of select Smart Grid data and related 

services over legacy Distributed Network 

Protocol (DNP) 3 networks. This will be 

accomplished, in part, by defining a 

method to map the exchange of certain data 

types and services between DNP3 and the 

newer IEC 61850 Standard for 

Communication Networks and Systems in 

Substations. This is to be published as IEC 

61850-80-2, Standard for Exchanging 

Information between Networks 

Implementing IEC 61850 and IEEE 

Standard 1815 (DNP3).

DNP3 was adopted by IEEE as Standard 

1815 in 2010. IEEE is now developing 

Standard 1815.1 which includes upgraded 

security. 

Expected Outputs: IEEE 1815 was 

approved and placed on the Catalog of 

Standards in 2011 (See

232
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCosSIFIE

EE18152010). IEC 61850-80-2, IEEE 

1815.1 will follow.

Date: Active.

13 Harmonization of IEEE C37.118 with IEC 

61850 and Precision Time Synchronization

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP1361850C27

118HarmSynch

Scope: The current primary standard for 

the communication of phasor measurement 

unit (PMU) and phasor data concentrator 

(PDC) data and information is the IEEE 

Standard C37.118, which was published in 

2005. This standard also includes 

requirements for the measurement and 

determination of phasor values. IEC 61850 

is seen as a key standard for all substation 

and field equipment operating under both 

real-time and non-real time applications. 

The use of IEC 61850 for wide-area 

communication is already discussed in IEC 

61850-90-1 (Draft Technical Report) in the 

context of communication between 

substations. It appears possible to use a 

similar approach for the transmission of 

PMU and PDC data, but the capability 

needs to be formally defined in IEC 61850.

This action plan seeks to assist and 

accelerate the integration of standards that 

can impact phasor measurement and 

applications depending on PMU- and PDCbased data and information. 

Outputs: IEEE C37.118.1, IEEE C37.118.2 

(updated version), IEC 61850-90-5, and 

IEEE C37.238. IEEE C37.238 approved 

and placed on the Catalog of Standards in 

2011 (see http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCosSIFIE

EEC372382011). IEC 61850-90-5 

approved and placed on the Catalog of 

Standards in 2012 (see 

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCosSIFIE

CTR61850905) IEEE C37118.1 and IEEE 

C27.118.2 will follow.

Date: Completed 2012.

14 Transmission and Distribution Power 

Systems Model Mapping

Scope: PAP14’s work defines strategies for 

integrating standards across different 

233
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP14TDModel

s

environments to support different real-time 

and back-office applications. Strategies call 

for defining key applications and 

evaluating the available standards for 

meeting the requirements of such 

applications. Modeling of the electric 

power system, multifunctional Intelligent 

Electronic Devices (IEDs), and definition 

of standard methods for reporting events 

and exchanging relay settings will meet the 

requirements for improvements of the 

efficiency of many protection, control, 

engineering, commissioning, and analysis 

tasks. Field equipment can supply the raw 

data for objects and measured parameters 

used across the enterprise based on the 

standard models and file formats defined.

Outputs: updates to IEC 61850, IEC 

61970, IEC 61968, IEEE C37.239, IEEE 

C37.237, and MultiSpeak v1-v4. The IEEE 

C37.239 (COMFEDE) Standard has been 

approved for the SGIP Catalog of 

Standards (see 

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/SGIPCosSIFIE

EEC372392010).

Date: Completed 2013.

15 Harmonize Power Line Carrier Standards for 

Appliance Communications in the Home

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP15PLCForL

owBitRates

Scope: The goal of this PAP is to enable 

the development of an interoperable profile 

containing common features for home 

appliance applications where the resulting 

implementation of this profile leads to 

interoperable products.

Expected Outputs: Updates to relevant 

standards including ITU G.Hn (G.9960, 

G.9961, G.9972), IEEE P1901 (HomePlug 

TM, High Definition Power Line 

Communication (HD-PLCTM), and InterSystem Protocol (ISP)), and ANSI/ 

Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) 

709.2 (LonworksTM).

Date: Active.

16 Wind Plant Communications Scope: The goal of PAP16 is development 

of a wind power plant communications 

standard.

234
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP16WindPlan

tCommunications

Expected Output: IEC 61400-25, Wind 

Plant Communications, based on 

IEC 61850.

Date: Active.

17 Facility Smart Grid Information Standard

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP17FacilityS

martGridInformationStandard

Scope: This priority action plan will lead to 

development of a data model standard to 

enable energy-consuming devices and 

control systems in the customer premises 

to manage electrical loads and generation 

sources in response to communication with 

the Smart Grid. 

It will be possible to communicate 

information about those electrical loads to 

utilities, other electrical service providers, 

and market operators.

This PAP will leverage the parallel PAP10 

effort and other related activities and 

models, such as IEC CIM, SEP 2.0, IEC 

61850.7-420, and PAPs 3, 4, and 9.

Expected Output: Development of an 

ANSI-approved Facility Smart Grid 

Information Standard that is independent of 

the communication protocol used to 

implement it.

Date: Active.

18 SEP 1.x to SEP 2 Transition and 

Coexistence

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP18SEP1To2

TransitionAndCoexistence

Scope: This action plan focuses on 

developing specific requirements to allow 

the coexistence of SEP 1.x and 2.0 and to 

support the migration of 1.x 

implementations to 2.0. Because it is a 

deployment-specific issue, the PAP will 

not address whether new deployments 

should be 1.x or 2.0. The effort assumes 

1.x in the field as the starting point and 

assumes that the meters themselves are 

capable of running SEP 1.x or 2.0 via 

remote firmware upgrade.

Output: The PAP produced a white paper 

summarizing the key issues with migration 

and making specific recommendations, and 

a requirements document thatthat was

submitted to the ZigBee Alliance for 

consideration in developing the 

technology-specific recommendations, 

solutions, and any required changes to the 

235
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

SEP 2.0 specifications themselves. (See 

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP18SEP1To

2TransitionAndCoexistence).

Date: Completed 2011. 

19 Wholesale Demand Response (DR) 

Communication Protocol

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP19Wholesale

DR

Scope: The purpose of this work is to build 

an information model for wholesale 

demand response communications based 

on the International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) Common Information 

Model (CIM), profiles from which may be 

mapped to other relevant profiles such as 

OpenADR 2.0b and MultiSpeak. 

Output: This PAP will establish a common 

wholesale market (ISO/RTO) to market 

participant Demand Response interface 

profile(s) (based on standards such as 

CIM) to support pricing or grid condition 

communications with minimal translation 

of semantics as information flows from 

market participants to consumers in 

cascade.

Date: Active.

20 Green Button ESPI Evolution 

http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/GreenButtonESP

IEvolution

Scope: Green Button Challenge is one step 

towards realizing the common-sense idea 

that consumers should have access to their 

own energy usage information in a 

downloadable, easy-to-use electronic 

format, offered by their utility or retail 

energy service provider. 

Green Button is based on the SGIP 

shepherded standards for Energy Usage 

Information (EUI) that was part of PAP10 

including NAESB REQ18/WEQ19 and 

later NAESB REQ21 (Energy Service 

Provider Interface (ESPI). This Priority 

Action Plan follows the evolution of the 

Green Button and ESPI fostering the 

requirements for and establishment of 

standards evolution, testing and 

certification specifications, and sample or 

reference implementations and test 

harnesses. Collectively, these actions will 

support a robust and rapid penetration of 

236
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

interoperable goods and services in support 

of exchange of EUI.

Expected output: The PAP will produce a 

set of deliverables to support the growing 

support for a critical standard of the smart 

grid - the ubiquitous availability of Energy 

Usage Information, and, a marketplace of 

sources and uses of that data.

Date: Active.

21 Weather Information Scope: This PAP will coordinate 

development of Use Cases with inputs 

from a wide range of industries including 

Renewable/DER, distribution utilities, 

ISO/RTO markets, and forecasters. It will 

produce a set of information requirements 

designed to facilitate the harmonization of 

information models and exchange models 

to be used in smart grid applications. 

Expected output: Harmonized standards for 

bi-directional exchange of weather 

information that are produced in WMO, 

IEC, & ASHRAE and other identified 

SSOs. This will enable a robust ecosystem 

for weather exchange between government, 

energy industry, and building management 

industry.

Date: Active.

22 EV Fueling Submetering Requirements

http://www.sgip.org/pap-22-ev-fuelingsubmeteringrequirements/#sthash.NVaqy1jW.dpbs

Scope: This PAP will compile the core 

requirements for sub metering as they 

apply to form factor, accuracy, 

performance, security, data format, and 

certification for embedded, portable and 

stationary applications. These requirements 

will be coordinated with the SDOs to 

develop appropriate standards and 

specifications for the development of nextgeneration sub meters. Any new standards 

developed based on these requirements will 

be vetted for suitability by the PAP 

Working Group through a comprehensive 

requirements compliance analysis. The 

PAP will establish and administer a 

coordinated collaborative teaming of the 

cognizant SDOs, and industry stakeholder 

representatives and organizations. The 

237
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

primary focus of this effort is to define the 

requirements, identify gaps and coordinate 

with the SDOs to develop standards for sub 

metering of EV electricity fuel 

consumption. Though submetering 

requirements are common to many enduses, there is an immediate need to address 

EV specific requirements. 

Date: Active.

23 Testing Profile for IEC 61850, 

Communication Networks and Systems in 

Substations

http://www.sgip.org/PAP-23-TestingProfile-for-IEC-61850-CommunicationNetworks-and-Systems-in-Substations

Scope: This PAP will select one Business 

Application Profile (BAP) and develop 

technical requirements to support it. The 

PAP team will focus on IEC 61850 devices 

connected to the grid that measure basic 

electrical characteristics (voltage, current, 

real power, apparent power, etc.). Focusing 

on a simple application profile related to 

the minimum expected measurement 

elements for the MMXU (Measurement 

Unit) and MMTR (Metering) logical nodes 

would be useful because a significant 

percentage of IEC 61850 devices are 

capable of measuring a set of basic 

electrical quantities. This input will then be 

fed back to the UCAIug for use in their test 

program and collaboration with other 

partners.

Date: Active.

24 Microgrid Operational Interfaces

http://www.sgip.org/PAP-24---MicrogridOperational-Interfaces

Scope: Coordinated and consistent 

electrical interconnection standards, 

communication standards, and 

implementation guidelines are required for 

microgrids and their interaction with the 

macrogrid. Although there are standards 

that define the basic microgrid connection 

and disconnection process, there are no 

standards that define the grid interactive 

functions and operations of microgrids 

with the macrogrid. Because standards 

already exist for managing loads and DER 

devices themselves within the various 

physical domains of the microgrid, the 

priority action plan (PAP) will focus on the 

grid facing functionalities and 

communications (e.g., microgrid to/from 

238
This publication is available free of charge from http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1108R3

# Priority Action Plan Comments

macrogrid). The PAP will address 

consistency and interoperability of the 

information models and signals used by 

microgrid controllers.

Date: Active

239