JOURNAL OF LA Service-Orientation and the Smart Grid State ...aiellom/publications/SOCA SG.pdf ·...

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 6, NO. 1, JANUARY 2007 1

Service-Orientation and the Smart GridState and Trends

Giuliano Andrea Pagani, Student, IEEE, and Marco Aiello, Member, IEEE

Abstract—The Energy market is undergoing major changes, the most notable of which is the transition from a hierarchical closedsystem towards a more open one highly based on a ‘smart’ information rich infrastructure. This transition calls for new Information andCommunication Technologies infrastructures and standards to support it. In this paper, we review the current state of affairs and theactual technologies with respect to such transition. Additionally we highlight the contact points between the needs of the future Gridand the advantages brought by Service-Oriented Architectures.

Index Terms—Smart Grid, Electricity Distribution, Service-Oriented Architectures, Web services

F

1 INTRODUCTION

S ERVICE-ORIENTED ARCHITECTURES are a modernway to build large scale interoperable dynamic sys-

tems which have shown their effectiveness in address-ing the integration problem for enterprises and evenenabling the creation of virtual enterprises, e.g., [1].While energy infrastructures have evolved into largegeographically pervasive complex system forming thebackbone of any country. Lately, the evolution is gainingmomentum and there are significant signs of a paradigmshift. The communication between components in theelectrical domain is getting bidirectional replacing theold model of reading data and using it centrally. Super-visory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systemsare getting ‘smarter’ and more information is availableabout Grid’s operation. In addition, the old mechanismof estimate and bill customer consumption is decliningwhile making space for the Advanced Metering Infras-tructure concept.

The change underway is driven, on the one hand,by technological innovation with, e.g., the introductionof renewable-based generation facilities (both at a largeand micro-scale level) [2] and distributed power sources[3]; on the other hand, by the political push to breakthe monopolies and unbundle the market (e.g., [4], [5]).Recently another trend is receiving growing attention,that is the concepts falling under the name of the SmartGrid. The challenges of the Smart Grid are addressedby various EU directives which emphasize its strategicimportance [6], [7], [8], [9], while other governments, likethe US one, promote active research in the field withmajor research programs: cf. the US 4 billions dollars

• G.A. Pagani is with the Computer Science Department of University ofGroningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.E-mail: [email protected]

• M. Aiello is with the Computer Science Department of University ofGroningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.E-mail: [email protected]

in Smart Grid Technologies and Electric TransmissionInfrastructure.1 In the framework of the Smart Grid anessential element is information that the actors of thisnew approach to the electricity Grid need to exchangewith each other to successfully enable the new Gridfunctionalities.

In this paper, we study the current situation of thePower Grid from an information exchange perspectivewith particular attention to service-orientation. We seewhat are the current contact points between the actualGrid and the Smart Grid approach including overview-ing existing standards and underway standardizationprocesses. We focus in our survey on the aspects relatedto the information exchange between the players ofthis new energy paradigm, what type of informationis exchanged and we provide how gaps in informa-tion exchange can be overcome with a service-orientedapproach. We also provide a discussion of the trendstoward the Smart Grid and how SOAs will play an evenmore important role in supporting that vision.

The paper is based on our preliminary work on theenergy markets and service technologies [10], our ex-perience in agent based interactions with Smart Meterfor energy trading [11] and the study of the currentdistribution layer of the Power Grid [12]. The paperis organized as follows, Section 2 introduces and givesa general overview of the Energy sector. Section 3 intro-duces the concept of Smart Grid. The role of SOA in theparadigm of the new Grid with the challenges arisingare described in Section 4. Existing and forthcomingstandards are presented in Section 5. Section 6 describesthe related work on energy and information exchange.Section 7 concludes the paper.

2 THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR

The Electricity Sector forms the critical infrastructureof any nation. It must be reliable, highly available and

1. http://www.energy.gov/news/7503.htm


pervasive. Let’s look at how it is currently organized. Inthe past, and in some countries still, the electricity sectorwas dominated by one player that had a highly verti-cally integrated business with all the operations frompower generation to electricity distribution, to customermanagement under a single big institution. The currenttrend is for the unbundling of the sector: the variousoperations of the energy company are split into severalindependent companies that deal specifically with onefunction of the electricity business. Of course, in thissituation the communication and information exchangebetween the companies becomes extremely important.

Figure 1 provides a simplified schema of the PowerGrid. One notices an organization in Transmission (Ex-tra High and High Voltage) and Distribution Grid(Medium/Low Voltage). Energy is mainly produced inlarge power plant facilities at the High Voltage level byfew authorized actors, while end-users exist mostly atthe Medium and Low Voltage. The structure is highlyhierarchical. The new directives which promote the un-bundling of the electricity sector aim at placing moreactors at the higher levels of this figure to improveefficiency, reduce costs, while keeping the same level ofservice and reliability.

Fig. 1. The physical organization of the Power Grid(Source: adapted from Wikipedia)

The Energy sector does not only include the physicalinfrastructure where energy is produced and distributed,but it also includes the data exchanges that have to takeplace in order to manage energy billing and trading,and, in addition, the business involved in the creationof added value around delivering of energy, cf. Figure 2.

Fig. 2. Information exchange across layers

• The physical layer is the lowest in the stack andit interacts directly with the electrical apparatus(e.g., transformers, switchgear, relays) that belongto a distribution substation and power plant controlequipment. The physical layer deals directly withthe energy that is produced and transferred to theend-user. The fundamental element of the physicallayer is the Power Grid that enables bringing theenergy from the source (i.e., power generator) to thesink (i.e., end-user).

• The data layer spans from the control data usedto supervise and actuate the physical equipment,to all the interactions necessary to properly gov-ern the different systems involved in production,transmission and distribution of energy. To enableremote operations on the physical equipment andinteractions between the various components of theGrid (e.g., sensors and actuators) and also to easethe management between different substations, In-ternational Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) hasdefined some standard intercommunication proto-cols (i.e., IEC-61850, IEC-61968, IEC-61970, thesestandards are illustrated in more detail in Section 5).In order to get the benefit from this data, the result-ing information has to be shared not only insidethe company, but with all the stakeholders thatneed it, thus creating a flow of information insideand outside the company; to achieve this objective,standardization techniques in a multi-player envi-ronment are required.

• The Business layer is formed by information, op-portunely aggregated or transformed, coming from


the data layer. Therefore, it is a key element forrunning the business of electricity. It can be used tomeasure company performances through key per-formance indicators, to create new business mod-els to make important forecasts for future energytrading opportunities and needs. This informationis critical to allow the proper operation life-cycleof the company and is frequently managed throughEnterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. In ad-dition, for risk management and market monitoringpurposes, Energy Trading and Risk Management(ETRM) systems are essential. Moreover, data com-ing from the metering operations is necessary toprovide billing services to customers, these dataare often used to populate Customer RelationshipManagement (CRM) systems.

2.1 Stakeholders and Flows

In the energy sector, one can recognize the followingmain functions: power generation, Grid management,energy supply, metering and billing. In the past all thesefunctions were bundled into one monopolistic companyusually state owned. Today, the functions are separateand, in the most advanced case, there is competitionamong more companies providing the same function-ality.

Inside such vertical markets, there are three majorflows: an energy, data and financial flows. The pecu-liarity of the energy flow is that there must always bea balance between energy supply and demand on thenetwork. This entails the need for a complex controlsystems that, based on physical properties of the Gridand distributed sensors, guide energy producers andGrid operators to keep the whole systems in balance(e.g., by having a power generation facility kicking inwhenever the frequency characterizing the power net-work goes below a certain value). This is based onspecial-purpose systems, known as Supervisory ControlAnd Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Energy Manage-ment System (EMS), that interface directly with sensorsand controllers of the power plants and Power Grid.

The data flow involves various actors: metering andbilling (suppliers and end-users), provisioning based ondemand and forecast (supplier), routing the appropriateenergy along the correct paths and control energy pro-duction according to forecast and need (producer andGrid operator).

The financial flow consists of the money flows that allthe actors described above move thanks to the added-value provided to the end-user. This economic side isclosely connected to the information flow since it isbased on the information the actors collect (e.g., meter-ing, energy orders received on the market), while is verypoorly related to the actual energy flow, that is, one doesnot necessarily pay for the electron that he is consuming,but simply for an electron that is produced somewhereto balance his need.

2.2 Short, Medium and Long term Markets

A key characteristic of the Power Grid is the inefficiencyin, and also economic disadvantage of, storing energyat any reasonably large scale. This, with the additionalrequirement of having an always in-balance Grid, callsthe need for real time control of the Grid and trustworthyprovisioning. Forecasting at different time granularitiesbecomes then crucial to drive a constant energy negoti-ation. Energy negotiation is dynamic and with differenttime-scales at the wholesale level [13] (on the otherhand end-users make contracts with fixed usage upper-bounds) and calls for having the following types ofmarkets.

• Long-term market: producers and suppliers hedgetheir energy needs for the long term (e.g., buy orsell energy in long term future contracts). Thesecontracts may be physical or purely financial. Thetime-frame granularity is the day.

• A day-by-day market (known as day-ahead market):producers and suppliers adapt their consumptionto operational needs (e.g., maintenance, shifts andpredictable fluctuations of workload/consumption),by buying/selling energy on a day to day basis. Thiscan be done in a spot market, through brokers orwithout middlemen with bilateral agreements. Themarket closes before the production and consump-tion take place, usually 24 hours in advance. At thattime, all buyers and sellers must report to the Gridoperator the quantities they have bought or sold.The time-frame granularity is the hour.

• A real-time market: producers and suppliers tradeenergy to balance their real consumption, since esti-mations done days before might be incorrect or be-cause of unexpected circumstances. If a transactionhelps to balance the Grid, the price of the energy atwholesale level can go even tenfold over the normalmarket price (balancing bonus), on the other handif it brings more imbalance, a negative price can beapplied and be very high (balancing fine). The time-frame granularity are the minutes.

3 THE SMART GRID

The Smart Grid is an overloaded term used to indicatethe evolution the Power Grid is undergoing. Accordingto Wikipedia2 the Smart Grid is such when two-waydigital communication is in place and consumer’s appli-ances can cooperate with the Grid. For the National In-stitute of Standards and Technology (NIST)3 it “deliverselectricity efficiently, reliably, and securely,” thanks to “atwo-way, digital, interoperable national network.” Manymore definitions exist and prove that the Smart Grid isnot one single shared concept but rather, as discussedin the report issued by the Department of Engineeringand Public Policy of Carnegie Mellon University [14], a

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart Grid3. http://www.nist.gov/smartGrid/faq.cfm


set of views depending on the the actor involved in theGrid. In particular the benefits for each actor include:

• The customer can benefit from real time tariffs thatreally reflect the price of electricity, react with hisloads based on the tariffs and receive informationdirectly from the meter about his consumption andcosts.

• The distribution companies can have a higher levelof automation to manage critical situations and amore selective way of shedding load (e.g., basedon the importance of the service provided: hospitalsor police stations might be the last to be removedfrom the network due to their social and safetyimportance). For distribution companies Smart Gridalso enables scenarios to manage easier integration(or enable islanding of subsets of the Grid duringemergencies) of a more distributed energy genera-tion facilities in the low level Grid.

• The generating and transmission companies can benefitfrom a more “computerized” Grid with more infor-mation and data about critical Grid measures (e.g.,network’s voltage phase). Having more informationenables more automatic and distributed decision-making even far from the control center, thus op-timizing the Grid operations.

The many actors and their domains involved in theSmart Grid landscape are presented in Figure 3 accord-ing to the view of NIST [15]. The main elements thatappear in the figure are the presence of several actors (inaccordance with the unbundling tendencies of the sector)and many communications flows, while the electricalflow follows mainly a top-down stream from the powerplants to the end-user. In particular, the role of each actor

Fig. 3. Smart Grid framework (Source: NIST)

can be synthesized as:• Bulk generation: Bulk generation represents the en-

ergy generation companies that have to control andactuate the power plants (therefore the interactionwith the operations actor). Naturally the amount ofenergy generated has to satisfy the contracts agreedon the market; therefore the information exchangewith the market actor.

• Transmission: Transmission represents the actorthat has to provide the energy generated from thepower plants to the whole Power Grid. The amountof energy transferred between certain points hasthen to be accounted on the market to complete theclearing of eventual unbalanced positions (e.g., dueto incorrect forecast and energy purchase by marketparticipants).

• Distribution: Distribution is the last part of theelectricity Grid that provides energy to the endcustomer. The interaction with the customer is morerich in the Smart Grid framework than the tradi-tional energy business since an energy and infor-mation flow might be received by the distributedgeneration facilities at customer level.

• Customer: The customer represents the new end-user of the Smart Grid. He has enhanced capabilitiesthan the traditional “passive” energy customer. Hisinteraction with the electricity Grid at distributionlevel is in fact bidirectional (i.e., he can also givehis own-produced electricity to the Grid). A keyelement at customer level is the presence of in-telligent home equipment (i.e., smart appliances)that need to interact with energy operation servicesin order to guarantee proper work of Demand-Response functionalities (i.e., tariff changes based onthe Grid balance conditions) of the Smart Grid.

• Service Provider: This is one of the roles of atraditional energy company or it can be a newbusiness opportunity provided by the Smart Grid.It essentially consists of traditional aspects such asmaintenance, billing and customer service interac-tions with the end-user. At the same time new op-portunities for home/building energy managementand optimization arise.

• Operations: This is the most critical role of theelectrical system since it guarantees its proper func-tioning: the balance between demand and supplyand quality of the delivered electricity. It is a rolealready key and essential in the traditional electric-ity system providing control and actuation on thevarious elements of the power system. Therefore itis not surprising that this function is connected withevery other actor and sub-domain.

• Markets: Markets represent the actor that organizesand manages the energy exchange at financial level.The market has to be aware of detailed informationabout the quantities of energy actually flowed fromcertain producing companies, transmission and dis-tribution (therefore the connection with all theseactors and operations too) lines. It also registersoffers and bids from the energy provider companies.In the future the end-user too, or a cooperative ofusers, might be able to interact with the market anddirectly buy/sell energy at this level.

An extended version of the NIST framework is shownin Figure 4 where the interactions between the different


networked subsystems are represented. The intricate pic-ture gives, first of all, an impression of the many differentnetworks, systems and complexity of the informationexchange.

The element that appears in virtually all definitions ofSmart Grid is having, in parallel with the energy flow, aninformation flow that enables advanced functionalitiesboth for the Grid operators and for the end-users. Asynthesis can be obtained from the U.S. Departmentof Energy ([16] and [17]) that provides the followingrequirements for the Grid that can be achieved with theappropriate information exchange:

• to diagnose itself and take appropriate action in caseof faults,

• to become more resistant to willing and unwillingattacks,

• to satisfy the users with an improved power qualitymeeting their needs and expectations,

• to be ready to integrate different source of powergeneration, and

• to give the end-users the possibility to interact andrespond to electricity price signals in a distributedenergy market.

4 OPEN GRIDS VIA SOAS

The vision of the future Smart Grid, however defined,will bring unbundling of energy markets, appearanceof renewable generating facilities at all scale levels, thestandardization of the control elements of the PowerGrid, the diffusion of digital/data prone Smart Meters,and especially two way communication among end-users and the Grid. This will be a reality only if thereare infrastructures that can support it.

4.1 Smart Grid challenges

A number of challenges need to be addressed for build-ing such a Grid. We identify the following ones as thekey issues to be solved at the software level.

• Interoperation. The number of actors populatingthe energy market is constantly increasing and theircapabilities as well. There is a strong need to havestandards for interoperation at all levels (not onlythe control layer of the Grid). Furthermore, stan-dards tend to cover the syntactic part of the in-teroperation, while the semantics of the messageexchange is scarcely addressed.

• Scalability. The increase of actors also involves scal-ability issues. If millions of micro energy producersstart trading micro-quantities of energy, there mustbe an appropriate infrastructure to manage this,possibly real-time, information exchange.

• Discovery. If the actors increase and more entitiescan take on the same role, one may think of dis-covering services on the fly. The idea of signing anyearly contract for a home, may be too limiting andone may want to switch energy supplier on a much

shorter time frame. Furthermore, if anybody can bea supplier, then one may want to find a provider inthe moment the energy is needed.

• Mobility. In the future Grid energy consumers, andalso producers, may be mobile on the Grid. Carswill be electric, but may also have energy producingand storing facilities (e.g., a solar cell roof, fuelcells powered engine). The mobile elements need tointeract with the Power Grid in a transparent way.

• Resilience to failure and trust. The electrical powerGrid is a critical infrastructure. A key performanceindicator of the current energy distributors is thedown time that should not exceed the few hoursper year. When moving to an open Smart Grid thedelivery of energy must not decrease in quality.This requires having a trust mechanism among thevarious players. It may also require having reliableforecasting of generation and use.

• Service Integration and composition. The physicallayer, the data layer and the business layer will haveto interact more closely. In fact, any node whichproduces energy needs to interact with control ac-tuation part of the Grid and get paid for the energyproduced; the generation might be a part of a largerbusiness process relying on the energy (e.g., onecould drive an electric car while lodging at a motel,plug it into the Grid and use the car generatedelectricity to pay part of the bill [18]).

• Topology. The current infrastructure is highly hi-erarchical, not only in the physical infrastructure,but also in the information systems that manage theelectricity system. Very few large energy producersand backbone owners exist, with few systems thatcontrol the plants and the transmission networkhighly centralized. But the new vision of the openGrid demands for a flat peer-to-peer network inwhich all actors are producers and consumers ofenergy, data and services.

• Smart Meters. The Smart Meter is likely to be-come the “energy gateway” of the house with moreand more functionalities and embedded intelligence.They might work as automatic bidder on the en-ergy market knowing family energy usage and pro-duction patterns together with estimation methodsbased on past usage and environmental forecasts(e.g., future weather conditions).

• Real-time. Energy related operation such as control,actuation, distribution and trading have very stricttime-dependent constraints to satisfy. All the playersin the next generation Grid must interact followingreal-time commitments to provide and receive anenergy service with the proper quality.

4.2 SOA supporting the Smart Grid

Interestingly, the just listed challenges have a naturalcounterpart in the Service-Oriented Architectures. Thesehave been traditionally built to address interoperability


Fig. 4. NIST conceptual reference diagram for Smart Grid information networks (Source: NIST)

Traditional SOA Vs. Energy SOASimilarities

• System integration• Interoperation

Differences• Supply Chain management • Interaction with non-Energy

systems (e.g., ERP, CRM)• Event-based applications • Real-time requirement• Business process management • High security (authentication,

encryption for market trading)• Asynchronous long-runningbusiness process and transac-tions

• Trust mechanism for servicesprovided

• Interaction with lowlevel electrical interfacestandards (IEC standardsfor SCADA/EMS)• Fault tolerance

TABLE 1Similarities and differences between Traditional SOA and

Energy-Oriented SOA

and scalability issues for the integration problem of en-terprise information systems (e.g., [19], [20], [21], [22]) orto support business process, especially across companiesborders. Here we take a different look and consider howSOAs are appropriate for the Smart Grid and look at thechallenges just introduced through the glasses of service-orientation.

• Interoperation. Web services are a technology tobuild Service-Oriented Architectures and addressthe problem of interoperation being standardizedXML protocols to describe messages, remote op-erations and coordination among loosely coupledentities, e.g., [23]. These are already entering theenergy sector as described in Section 6.1.

• Scalability. The basic SOA pattern: publish–find–bind allows to decouple service consumers fromproducers and to substitute, even at run-time, onecomponent for another one. The communication,most often asynchronous, provides all the ingredi-ents for a highly scalable infrastructure. Examplesof which have already appeared in the area ofeBusiness.

• Discovery. Discovery is one of the basic ingredientsof a SOA. It needs to support the publish and findoperations and is usually based on registries, butcan also be realized with flooding models.

• Mobility. An SOA supports actor loosely couplingand behavior based binding, therefore the mobilityof the elements is easily supported, e.g., [24].

• Resilience to failure and trust. Protocols exist toenable a Web service based SOA with trust, privacyand security support. This can provide the basicfor a secure infrastructure. Reliability will also haveto be pursued with appropriate energy technologywhich is beyond the SOA.

• Service Integration and composition. Service inte-gration and composition is the key added value ofan SOA and many examples exist on methodologiesto support this, e.g., [25], [26], [27], [28], [29].

• Topology. SOAs support any kind of topology. Thehierarchical client-server one is less common, butcan be realized. The P2P topology is most often theone realized.

• Smart Meters. In the SOA paradigm the SmartMeter is basically a service provider and a serviceconsumer at the same time. It invokes other servicesto interact on the market and also provides servicesboth to other market participants interested in en-ergy purchase and to interact with intelligent home


appliances that require energy at a certain time.• Real-time. Solutions are available to introduce en-

hancements to SOA paradigm in order to provide anappropriate quality of service and satisfy real-timeconstraints, e.g., [30], [31].

4.3 DiscussionThe Smart Grid is thus amenable to be supported bySOAs, though there are some differences with traditionalSOA approaches. Table 1 shows the main points ofcontact and dissimilarity between the traditional SOAsand those for the energy sector. A natural commonpoint is the use of SOA technologies for integrating het-erogeneous systems thus enabling their interoperability.Beyond this common feature several differences lay thatmust be taken into account when dealing with energysystems. Traditional SOA is mainly used in the businessprocess domain managing complex supply chain and in-teractions between a multiplicity of actors whose appli-cations are usually triggered by specific events. Usuallythe paradigm of these interactions is asynchronous. Onthe other hand, the SOA for energy applications musttackle some peculiarities of this type of business andsystems. First of all the requirements for real-time inter-actions between the various subsystems and componentsof the energy-related Information and CommunicationTechnology (ICT) involve SCADA and EMS systems andlow level electric applications embedded systems. Beingthese systems highly important and mission critical, real-time constraints together with fault tolerance, securityand trust mechanisms in the service provisioning areessential requirements that an SOA for electricity sectorneeds to satisfy. An interaction with non-strictly relatedenergy systems such as CRM and ERP is also requiredto have a complete interoperability picture.

Another issue that is central in enabling the SOAsolutions for the Smart Grid is of course an appropriatecommunication infrastructure. It is not the focus of thepresent work, but it worths to mention the adaptation re-quired by the telecommunication/telecontrol infrastruc-ture to support the enhanced amount of information dataand control signaling that the Smart Grid requires [32].The telecommunication aspects and its infrastructuremust not taken for granted, since they found the basisto build more complex service-oriented software layerson top.

5 STANDARDIZATION FOR SMART GRID SOAOne of the success factors of SOAs has been the avail-ability and wide adoption of standard languages forinteroperation. The XML based set of languages andstandards known as Web services have been paramountfor the movement of service-orientation [21]. Similarly,the Smart Grid needs common standards and frame-works. To see where information flows and where stan-dardization is mostly needed, let take again the NISTSmart Grid vision, Figure 4, and highlight the key points.

Figure 5 considers the actors and the subnetworks high-lighted by NIST’s framework and shows where thedifferent standards apply. The different actors communi-cate together through different networks (clouds in thefigure) and each line of communication has (or shouldhave) its set of rules to exchange information. Eachsymbol on top of the communication lines between theactors characterize the standards that are used in thespecific communication. From the figure we see thatthe IEC standards basically monopolize the informationexchange between the power systems and the informa-tion systems that control them and enable the operationsfor production, transmission and distribution. These IECstandards for interaction with power equipment areconsidered by NIST as the “foundational standards”4

for Smart Grid interoperability. On the other hand, thestandardization is not so clear in the interactions with themarket: here there is more heterogeneity and, althoughthe interaction happens through the Internet, there is notyet a unique way for energy producers, control centeroperators and traders on the market to speak a commonunified worldwide language. Closer to the end-user yousee a new energy-related network known as EnergyHome Area Network that is inside user’s premise andenables information exchange between smart appliancesand energy-aware home equipment; efforts are presentto define a common language for communication evenat this level. At the moment we see some empty lines ofcommunication or some attempts for technologies thatdo not have a complete agreed standard. In particular,the interaction between the customer and the energy ser-vice provider for energy metering or Demand-Responseenabled equipment control has no clear and completedefinition yet. A first effort is the OASIS Energy MarketInformation Exchange (eMIX) which can be applied forDemand-Response interactions only. The same appearsin general in the interaction between the energy serviceprovider and the operation control of the electrical sys-tem for which a generic interaction through an enterpriseservice bus is considered.

5.1 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) hasrealized an important standardization effort for dataand control protocols for the energy-generating assets,the transmission and distribution Grids. In particularthe IEC Technical Committee 57 has provided severalinputs to this interoperation challenge between energyoperation equipment. Here we want to highlight themain aspects of the standards and their use and notanalyze every single small detail of each one.

IEC has developed a standard called IEC-61850 thataims at obtaining a high level of automation at electricalsubstation level. It defines the protocols and data typesfor the communication between Intelligent ElectronicDevices (IED) usually inside a distribution substation.

4. http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/grid 20101013.cfm


Fig. 5. Information exchange standards in Smart Grid domain

Moreover, it details the data type to exchange withthe control station where the Distribution ManagementSystem (DMS) is located to properly interact with the de-vices. In order to manage several substations containingdifferent electrical apparatus, also coming from disparatevendors, IEC has developed IEC-61968 standard as ainter-application standard. The purpose is to let thedifferent applications that govern the substations, or partof the contained apparatus, interact with each other ata higher level (i.e., at the software level) and then pro-vide the appropriate control/actuation to the intendedsubstations on the field. Regarding this standard IECexplicitly states:

“IEC 61968 is intended to be implemented withmiddleware services that broker messages amongapplications, and will complement, but not replaceutility data warehouses, database gateways, andoperational stores.”

The IEC-61970 is another standard bridging the gapbetween the physical layer and the higher levels. Thisstandard is intended to deal with the operations of trans-mission systems (e.g., transmission Grid), the power gen-eration stations, the interaction with Supervisory ControlAnd Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Energy Manage-ment System (EMS). The two latter systems are the keyto operate energy production and transmission. The goalof IEC-61970 is to give guidelines for an Energy Man-agement Systems Application Programming Interface(EMS-API) to enable different applications inside boththe energy production control center and transmissioncontrol center to interact with each other. This standardis the most broad in its application and that is why itspans across several type of equipment and also differentsub-domains of the Smart Grid framework adopt it. IEC-

61970 has defined a set of packages containing all theobjects that are relevant in the electrical energy businessthrough the Common Information Model (CIM) andthe interfaces to be used for interaction through theComponent Interface Specifications (CIS).

5.2 Web Services

Web service technologies have been proposed as the gluefor connecting the physical layer and the upper businesslayer [33], [34], [35] though only as an XML protocolfor remote invocation and not taking full advantage ofthe Service-Oriented Architecture paradigm achievablethrough this kind of technology. In a similar direction,the current standardization effort IEC-61970 - Part 502-8: Web Services Profile for 61970 will standardize theoperations and interaction between the component sys-tems involved in IEC-61970 through Web services. Atthe moment there are no guidelines, therefore to buildan architecture based on this standard it is necessary tofollow the information given in other parts of IEC-61970(especially CIM and CIS specifications) to identify theservices needed and implement them. It is also worthmentioning the IEC-62325 standard aims at establish a“framework for energy market communications” to easethe interaction between the different entities involved inthe energy markets. This last standard is based on theuse of eXtensible Markup Language (XML) in particularthe e-business version of XML known as ebXML sincethe focus is entirely on e-business between the differentcompanies involved. Moreover, the IEC is consideringthe dedication of a specific part of the standard to webservices to be used for all energy interactions.

The majority of standards in this set can be consideredas the legacy heritage that the Smart Grid has to use


in order to benefit from traditional energy generationfacilities and Grid operations. In the spirit of the newGrid which envisions more distributed energy gener-ating plants, especially at the distribution level and atend-user level, IEEE has developed the 1547.3 standard.The main aim of this standard is to guide how tomonitor, exchange information and control data betweendistributed energy resource control equipment and dis-tribution companies. It is interesting to notice that theinformation exchange model approved by the standardrequires an “information exchange agreement” in whichthe communicating parties provide the services they areable to satisfy; in addition, the format of the messagesis agreed and a common knowledge base (i.e., ontology)for the messages is required.

Moving closer to the end-user domain in additionto the standard just described for the interaction withdistributed energy resources, the user has also smartequipment that interacts with the Smart Grid. In par-ticular appliances in the smart house must be able toreact to Demand-Response signals from the Grid andalso interact with each other or with a house energycoordinator. There are several protocols and standards inthis sub-domain (e.g., ClimateTalk, OpenHAN), howeverone of the most complete and up-to-date at the momentof writing is Zigbee Smart Energy V2.0. An interestingfeature of Zigbee Smart Energy V2.0 is the complianceand use of CIM models developed by IEC-61968, 61970and 61850.

5.3 Market StandardizationIf we move one step higher and look at the marketfor negotiating energy, the situation is less systematized.In Appendix A we provide an overview of the currentsituation of energy markets in G6 countries. Here, weconsider the five most common situations, it is then upto the energy market participant and the markets heinteracts with to use one of these or a combination ofthem.

With market defined energy trading mechanisms, the mar-ket operator specifies the rules and mechanisms to in-teract with the market. These mechanisms might not befully automated and might require manual operations(e.g., filling forms, clicking buttons or uploading files).

With commercial Energy Trading and Resource Manage-ment to interact with different markets, solutions avail-able from commercial software companies are used torealize energy trading on several markets from a uniqueplatform. The software is a customized application thatis able to interact with some markets at the same time(energy trading features) and also with the back-endoperations of an energy company (resource managementfeatures).

With a customized application it is possible to interfacethe specific services (if any) the market provides fortrading participants. Of course each market, at leastthose analyzed in Appendix A, has its specific formatfor information exchange.

The IEC-62325 standard is still underway at the timeof writing. Its aim is to fill the gap that a global energytrading market faces at the moment. Although recog-nizing the differences and peculiarities of each energymarket, the standard wants to set an energy marketspecific messaging profile based on the ISO 15000 se-ries which specifies the electronic business eXtensibleMarkup Language (ebXML). The standard in additionto XML-based technologies envisions also Web servicetechnologies (IEC-62325-6xx standard series).

The OASIS Energy Market Information Exchange (eMIX)is a standardization effort to have a common way toexchange market information data. This effort, guidedby the Organization for the Advancement of Struc-tured Information Standards (OASIS), aims at giving theguidelines for information exchange related to prices antariffs to be used for energy negotiation on the market.The standard can be applied both in the customer/retailmarket and the wholesale market. In fact, it is generalenough and at the same time provides enough infor-mation to manage complex forward contracts betweenenergy producers, for example. In addition the work ofeMIX technical committee merges into the effort NIST isputting in developing a common specification for energypricing and product definition information exchange.

5.4 Discussion

Analyzing Figure 5 one notices that not every informa-tion exchange is specified by a standard. The technicaland energy operation oriented aspects are well standard-ized through the several IEC protocols. On the otherhand some gaps and limits are present in other partsof the Smart Grid landscape.

The interaction with the energy trading markets is notyet fully standardized. This is in part due to the differentregulations that are present in different countries andalso to the general limited number of participants thatare allowed to participate in the energy trading market.This might be considered a heritage from the past wherethe players were a very limited number and the needfor interoperability was limited as well. Currently, theissue is addressed by IEC with the IEC-62325 standard-ization process. At the same time another effort in givinga common mechanism to exchange energy prices andcontracts information is underway by the OASIS eMIXspecifications. This lack of unique common method ofaccess has been exploited by commercial companies thathave developed different products to enable their usersto trade energy on some energy markets.

Another evident limit is in the interaction with theend-user. At the moment there are no complete stan-dards to enable the full interaction with the end-user andits equipment both with his energy generating resourcesand with smart appliances (e.g., meter reading, Demand-Response functionalities or assessing energy productionat house level). Closer to the end-user, in the Home AreaNetwork the interoperation of devices is achieved by


generic standards such as Zigbee; while to enable in-formation interaction with distributed renewable sourcesthe IEEE 1547.3 standard addresses this issue. For pricingmatters in the Demand-Response paradigm OASIS eMIXcan be applied in the tariff exchange between the end-user and the energy provider or energy market.

Finally, the interaction between the actors that needto share business level information such as energy con-sumed by users, maintenance completion at customerside, changes in the Grid properties performed on thefield by maintenance personnel appear to have no spe-cific support. The reason appears to be in the “localagreement” for company-by-company integration. Theenterprise service bus [20] idea is applicable using pro-tocols and techniques known from other domains, butperhaps there is space for a specific standardizationeffort.

6 RELATED WORK

The literature on the Energy sector is broad and touchesmany disciplines. Here we provide a survey of the mostrelevant research efforts with respect to the vision of anopen Grid and its relation with SOAs.

6.1 Energy Architectures

The need for integration of the various actors and thecorresponding information systems is something that isnot new and that has been under consideration since thefirst signals and attempts to unbundle the energy sector.Back in 1995 Dahlfords et al. [36], exposed the necessityof having a dynamic and flexible information system.They foresaw the need of companies to be able to interactwith many more players than they were traditionallyworking with. The suggestion that appeared more than15 years ago to have a two-way communication inter-action with the metering apparatus along the Grid isstill very current, since it is one of the key aspects ofthe modern concept of the Smart Grid. Noticeable is thevision stated in the paper: “The energy market changesfrom a Producer push-market to a Customer pull-market”,which today we could update with what we could calla Prosumer5 pull-push-market.

The same integration theme is highlighted by Becker etal. [37]. They stress the need for flexible and sharedinformation systems to let the utilities operate moreefficiently in the new deregulated energy landscape.The integration is not something new according to theauthors, but previous attempts in the energy sector werenot at all handy. In fact, sometimes the integration weremade manually, or made in a time consuming way suchas point-to-point techniques that require great efforts.The solution they mention, that has also become partof standards such as IEC-61970, is to use the Common

5. The term prosumer refers to an end-user that has the ability toproduce his own energy and also to consume energy produced byothers.

Information Model (CIM) representation for devices andobjects in the energy domain and use a Generic Inter-face Definition (GID) to expose the APIs that can beaccessed. The solution proposed for the integration ofloosely-coupled applications (e.g., ERP, SCADA, CRM,EMS, Energy Trading) is based on a message orientedmiddleware and a message broker that together enablethe creation of a message bus in which the applicationssend and receive data; this can be seen as a predecessorof modern SOAs. An added value is given by selfdescribing messages for instance those encoded usingXML language.

The data integration issue between the various actorsand the benefit obtained by the adoption of SOA areaddressed in [38]. An implementation of a Web serviceSOA for the EMS/SCADA systems based on top ofIEC standards gives several advantages combining thepower system oriented aspects (IEC defined) and theflexibility and the spread of Web services that provideeasier integration with other companies, reuse of exist-ing infrastructure and smooth development of the Webservice environment [33], [34], [35]. Another use of Webservice technology is to work as the communication layerto enable the interaction between all the real-time agentsthat at different levels are present in the componentsof a modular and scalable architecture [39]. This designis suitable for the vision of a Smart Grid composed ofa huge quantity of devices communicating electricity-related data through the Internet.

Although all these works are interesting and point outspecific aspects of the interaction between energy sys-tems, they tend to miss the vision and the evolution thatmight arise with a Smart Grid infrastructure. In fact SOAin these works tend to focus on data integration insidea company or enable interoperability between differentcompanies in the energy business value chain, but noone points out SOA characteristics for the incoming nextgeneration Grid.

6.2 System Interactions in the Energy Market

The financial aspects of an unbundled energy marketand their relation to technology has also attracted re-search attention, e.g., [40]. Other studies have focused onthe proposal, test and evaluation of business strategiesto apply to this new kind of market to satisfy equilib-rium [41], [42]. From a software standpoint these worksare usually based on software agents with differentgoals interacting with each other, since many of themodels are based on the concept of an agent tradingon the market [43]. Sometimes interoperability require-ments in unbundled markets are addresses, but then theimplementation follows agent specific communicationlanguages (e.g., Knowledge Query and ManipulationLanguage) [44]. To the best of our knowledge, the actualstudy of where the agents reside, how they interact, howthese architectures would scale are not addressed in anysignificant detail.


In [45] an Energy Market Operation System is pro-posed. The architecture described, although based onWeb services, does not completely clarify what are theservices available for the market participants to interactwith. Other solutions have been realized [46] to simulatedifferent types of commodity markets (e.g., cotton, corn,electricity), where general services and interoperabilityrequirements for a SOA representation are described.

There are other less technological, but more business-oriented approaches that consider the interaction be-tween the players acting in the energy market. For ex-ample the e3value methodology has been applied to theenergy sector as one of its case studies, in particular theliberalized energy business is considered as a networkedeconomy [47]. Although the model provides informationon how and where value is added in different energyscenarios, the approach does not deal with the aspectsof software architectures.

6.3 SOA and Smart Grid

The Smart Grid is also referred to as the “Energy In-ternet”. In various works, SOAs are indicated as centralto the Smart Grid, especially at the household level, toenable easy interaction between heterogeneous devices.Warmer et al. [48] stress how a service based architecturecan be beneficial in a Smart House in the new paradigmof Smart Grid. They see the Internet and Web services asthe key to enable the interaction between the house withits smart devices and the supply companies and electric-ity Distribution Systems Operators to exchange supplybids and Demand-Response related functionalities. Theauthors call for an ontology for the Smart Grid domainso that the different actors can seamlessly interact witha common language. The issue related to ontology isaddressed by Considine [49] who remarks the necessityof an ontology for the Smart Grid , actually referred toas “Service Oriented Grid”.

Collaboration between future Smart Grid objects, ap-pliances and devices in order to achieve better energymanagement and efficiency is the idea in [50]. The authorenvisions this collaboration between different entitiessuch as energy resources, energy marketplaces, enter-prises and energy providers through web services, sincethey enable flexible integration without the problemsdue to implementation details. Each device of the SmartGrid will be “SOA-ready” exposing in a standard waythe services it can provide and at the same time it willbe able to dynamically discover services of other devicesthrough Web Service Dynamic Discovery specifications.One of this devices is the Smart Meter which acts asservice provider for an enhanced business process inwhich the meter can not only provide real-time infor-mation, but also take decisions related to energy usageand consumption interacting with other services on theInternet [51].

Cox et al. [52] stress how collaboration is the essence ofSmart Grid and only through an interaction between the

many actors involved an effective implementation of theSmart Grid may be realized. Among the requirementsthe authors identify as fundamental (that also appearin the NIST and Grid Wise Architecture Council stack)some aspects such as transparency, composition, exten-sibility and loose coupling are presented which are alsobasics for SOAs. The authors also identify which are thestandards for information exchange to be used in theSmart Grid for some aspects such as scheduling andtime functions, weather information, device discoveryand market interactions. All these elements fit in an SOAframework.

SOA is seen as the glue for new Smart Grid that canenable both intra-enterprise interactions and can be evenand more present in the inter-enterprise interactions thatcharacterize even more the Smart Grid domain. This isthe idea and the approach presented in [53] where theinter-enterprise information exchange interactions mod-eled in the Enterprise Architecture framework are linkedwith the inter-enterprise data exchange (which are basedon the IEC standards) by the definition of an ontologythat can map inter and intra-enterprise domains.

7 CONCLUSION

The energy sector is undergoing major changes whichheavily involve information technology. Given the mainfeatures and peculiarities of this sector, the paradigmof service-orientation appears to be a perfect fit. Inthis paper, we highlighted the contact points betweenSOA and the Smart Grid, we have looked at relevantstandards, Web services initiatives, but also at how theenergy markets work from the information exchangepoint of view.

We claim, together with many others, that SOA is “theapproach” to be used for the next generation Grid. Inparticular, services are so flexible and easy to provideand contact that SOA can span among all the actorsof the Smart Grid. The generating companies and en-ergy suppliers can manage their information interactionsthrough services, services are provided and requested bya Smart Meter and the same occurs for Smart Appliancesinside the Home Area Network.

APPENDIXTECHNOLOGIES IN G6 ENERGY MARKETS

To better understand the current state of the softwareinfrastructures for energy trading we overview the avail-able systems in G6 countries. All the markets analyzedhave an operational structure very similar to each other,providing the possibility to trade energy with differenttime granularity (e.g., from hours to minutes) and withdifferent time horizon (e.g., from real-time markets toyear away forward contracts). In general, the energymarket is similar to those for other commodities, themain characterizing difference being the constraints toalways have a real-time balance between offer and de-mand. More differences emerge when considering the


IT infrastructure. The common aspect is the use of theInternet and the possibility to interact in the marketwith Web-based applications. However for more com-plex and automatic interactions each market has itsown implementation. There is not any standardizationbetween different markets (even in geographically closemarkets such as France, Italy and Germany); therefore,companies that want to participate in several marketsat the same time must, in order to make the interactionmore automatic than employees filling web-based forms,develop their own set of specific applications to interfacethe particular reality of the market when available.

The main details of each of the G6 markets are summa-rized in a comparison chart in Table 2. The dimensionstaken into account are:

• Number of Entitled Participants: the members thatare legally entitled to operate in the market. Thisinformation can give a perception about the com-plexity and actual scalability requirements of themarket.

• Web Interface: the presence between the mecha-nisms of interaction in the market of a web-basedplatform (i.e., a browser or a browser like applica-tion specifically developed) that can be used by theuser to enter data about the quantities of energy thatare bidden.

• Manual Files Upload/Download: this features rep-resents the ability of the web interface to up-load/download files, in a specific-defined format,containing informations about bids. This procedurecan speed-up the work of the market participantsthat can prepare those files in advance avoidingforms filling.

• Web Service: this feature refers to the possibilityof interaction with the trading platform throughinterfaces based on Web service technologies. Theseinterfaces are provided by the market manageras another way of interaction in addition to thebrowser based interface.

• SOA: this feature is present only if the marketenables a Service-Oriented Architecture as a resultof the provided interaction functionalities.

• Proprietary/Open Solution: this item refers to thetype of platform required for trading, either it isa proprietary solution that does not enable muchinteraction or it is characterized by accessible openstandards.

• Additional Features: other interesting aspects spe-cific for that market manager.

By a careful look at Table 2 we notice a number ofinteresting facts. First, the number of participants differsconsiderably: Japan has only 48 participants while in theUSA PJM Interconnect alone has more than twelve timesthat number of participants. The information about thenumber of participants gives an idea of the complexityof the information system.

The web interface is the real constant between all the

markets: every market enables the interaction through aweb browser or some sort of web application. In orderto ease and speed-up the operations of the trader almostevery market operator provides the upload functional-ities to submit the bids, and download functionalitiesto retrieve the list of transactions cleared on the mar-ket. The type of these files is usually in some kind ofrepresentation, usually CSV or XML, that is also man-ageable easily by non-programmers. In some cases themarket operator provides solutions (e.g., FTP server) orsample applications (that can be modified or integratedin market participant software suite) to automate eventhis upload/download interaction.

Market operators tend to provide solutions that areopen to enable interaction with participant custom soft-ware. The main exception are the German and Frenchmarkets that use proprietary solution. This is due to theinfluence the official trading platform of the Germanstock exchange (Xetra platform) might have on thoseparticipants that are interested in the pure financial trad-ing of energy commodities: they can use the platformand the knowledge they already own.

The only two clear software solutions that are imple-menting a SOA system come from GME and PJM Inter-connect. These two market operators provide extensivedocumentation about the interfaces that are exposed toparticipants through Web Service Description Language(WSDL) and specifications about the XML conventionsused, by providing Schemas in XML Schema Definition(XSD) files. The other markets do not have at the momentsolutions that follow this paradigm.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Pagani is supported by the University of Groningenwith the Ubbo Emmius Fellowship 2009. The presentedresearch is partially financed via the EU FP7 ProjectGreenerBuildings, contract no. 258888 and the DutchNational Research Council NWO Smart Energy Systemsprogramme, contract no. 647.000.004.

REFERENCES[1] N. Mehandjiev and P. Grefen, Dynamic Business Process Formation

for Instant Virtual Enterprises. Springer, 2010.[2] L. Freris and D. Infield, Renewable Energy in Power Systems. Wiley,

2008.[3] A. B. Lovins, E. K. Datta, T. Feiler, K. R. Rabago, J. N. Swisher,

A. Lehmann, and K. Wicker, Small is profitable: the hidden economicbenefits of making electrical resources the right size. Rocky MountainInstitute, 2002.

[4] R. Cossent, T. Gomez, and P. Frıas, “Towards a future with largepenetration of distributed generation: Is the current regulation ofelectricity distribution ready? regulatory recommendations undera european perspective,” Energy Policy, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 1145–1155, March 2009.

[5] P. L. Joskow, “Lessons learned from electricity market liberaliza-tion,” The Energy Journal, vol. 29, no. Special I, pp. 9–42, 2008.

[6] EU, “Vision and Strategy for Europe’s Electricity Networks of theFuture, European Technology Platform SmartGrids,” EU, Tech.Rep. EUR 22040, 2006.

[7] ——, “Towards smart power networks, lessons learned fromeuropean research fp5 projects,” European Commission, Tech.Rep. EUR 21970, 2007.


Mar

ket

Cou

ntry

#of

Enti

tled

Web

Inte

rfac

eM

anua

lFi

les

Web

Serv

ice

SOA

Prop

riet

ary/

Ope

nA

ddit

iona

lM

anag

erN

ame

Part

icip

ants

Upl

oad/

Dow

nloa

dSo

luti

onFe

atur

esG

ME

Ital

y19

04

4X

ML

form

at4

4O

pen

ISO

New

Engl

and

USA

422

44

CSV

and

XM

Lfo

rmat

88

N/A

-Pos

sibi

lity

tous

eeM

ktap

plic

atio

n-D

ownl

oada

ble

utili

ties

for

auto

mat

icup

load

/dow

nloa

dPJ

MIn

terc

onne

ctio

nU

SA61

24

4X

ML

form

at4

4So

ftw

ares

tool

s-M

any

soft

war

ear

epr

opri

etar

y,to

ols

avai

labl

ebu

tin

terf

aces

-One

ofth

em

ost

adva

nced

are

open

mar

ket

oper

ator

sEl

exon

UK

226

44

form

atac

cord

ing

IDD

rule

s8

8O

pen

-Low

-end

and

high

-end

toso

me

exte

ntse

rvic

eav

aila

ble

-Aut

omat

icfil

etr

ansf

erth

roug

hFT

Ppr

otoc

olEu

rope

anEn

ergy

Ger

man

y16

0ac

tive

44

88

Prop

riet

ary

-VA

LUES

API

Exch

ange

mem

bers

CSV

form

atX

etra

base

dar

epr

ovid

edto

duri

ngla

stye

ar(f

orC

omTr

ader

plat

form

)so

ftw

are

inte

ract

wit

hX

etra

plat

form

(API

sw

ritt

enin

C)

-Fax

base

ddo

cum

ents

tosu

bmit

offe

rsis

also

avai

labl

eEu

rope

anPo

wer

Fran

ce80

4N

/A8

8Pr

opri

etar

y-T

osu

bmit

data

Exch

ange

Spot

soft

war

e(S

APR

I,to

Fren

chEn

ergy

Reg

ulat

ory

Glo

bal

Vis

ion)

Com

mis

sion

,spe

cific

Exce

lba

sed

form

atha

sto

beus

edJa

pan

Pow

erJa

pan

484

N/A

N/A

N/A

Ope

nas

far

-Sm

all

amou

ntof

Exch

ange

Spot

asth

esm

all

info

rmat

ion

inEn

glis

ham

ount

of-A

PIs

for

inte

ract

ion

wit

hin

form

atio

nsu

gges

tus

ercu

stom

appl

icat

ion

are

avai

labl

e(n

oot

her

info

rmat

ion)

TAB

LE2

G6

Info

rmat

ion

Sys

tem

sE

nerg

yM

arke

tsIn

tera

ctio

nS

umm

ary


[8] ——, “Strategic research agenda for europe’s electricity networksof the future, european technology platform smartgrids,” EU,Tech. Rep. EUR 22580, 2007.

[9] ESMA, “European smart metering application guide 2008, smartmetering, energy efficiency and the customer,,” ESMA, Tech. Rep.,2004.

[10] G. A. Pagani and M. Aiello, “Towards a service-oriented energymarket: current state and trend,” in Proceedings of the 2010 in-ternational conference on Service-oriented computing, ser. ICSOC’10.Springer, 2011, pp. 203–209.

[11] N. Capodieci, G. A. Pagani, G. Cabri, and M. Aiello, “Smart meteraware domestic energy trading agents,” in First International E-Energy Market Challenge Workshop, ser. ICAC’11, 2011.

[12] G. A. Pagani and M. Aiello, “Towards Decentralization: ATopological Investigation of the Medium and Low Volt-age Grids,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, To appear,doi:10.1109/TSG.2011.2147810.

[13] P. Cramton, “Electricity Market Design: The Good, the Bad, andthe Ugly,” Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 2,pp. 54b+, 2003.

[14] M. G. Morgan, J. Apt, L. B. Lave, M. D. Ilic, M. Sirbu, and J. M.Peha, “The many meanings of “smart grid”,” Carniege MellonUniversity, Tech. Rep., 2009.

[15] Office of the National Coordinator for Smart Grid Interoperability,“Nist framework and roadmap for smart grid interoperabilitystandards, release 1.0,” National Institute of Standards and Tech-nology, Tech. Rep. NIST Special Publication 1108, 2010.

[16] National Energy Technology Laboratory, “A system view of themodern grid,” U.S. Department of Energy - Office of ElectricityDelivery and Energy Reliability, Tech. Rep., 2007.

[17] ——, “A vision for the modern grid,” U.S. Department of Energy- Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Tech. Rep.,2007.

[18] V. Vaitheeswaran, Power to the People. Earthscan, 2005.[19] M. P. Papazoglou and D. Georgakopoulos, “Service-oriented com-

puting,” Commun. ACM, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 24–28, 2003.[20] D. Chappell, Enterprise Service Bus. O’Reilly, 2004.[21] M. Papazoglou, Web Services: Principles and Technology. Pearson,

2007.[22] M. P. Papazoglou and W. jan Van Den, “Service oriented archi-

tectures : approaches , technologies and researc h issues,” VldbJournal, pp. 389–415, 2007.

[23] F. Leymann, D. Roller, and M.-T. Schmidt, “Web services andbusiness process management,” IBM Systems Journal, vol. 41, no. 2,pp. 198–211, 2002.

[24] M. Aiello and S. Dustdar, “A domotic infrastructure based on theweb service stack,” Pervasive and Mobile Computing, vol. 4, no. 4,pp. 506–525, 2008.

[25] S. Dustdar and W. Schreiner, “A survey on web services compo-sition,” Int. J. Web Grid Serv., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–30, 2005.

[26] M. Aiello, M. Papazoglou, J. Yang, M. Carman, M.Pistore, L. Ser-afini, and P. Traverso, “A request language for web-services basedon planning and constraint satisfaction,” in VLDB Ws on Tech. forE-Services (TES02). Springer, 2002, pp. 76–85.

[27] A. Lazovik, M. Aiello, and M. Papazoglou, “Planning and mon-itoring the execution of web service requests,” Journal on DigitalLibraries, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 235–246, 2006.

[28] D. Berardi, D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, and M. Mecella, “Rea-soning about Actions for e-Service Composition,” in ICAPS’03 Wson Planning for Web Services, 2003.

[29] F. Casati, M. Sayal, and M.-C. Shan, “Developing e-services forcomposing e-services,” in Conf. on Advanced Inf. Sys. Engineering(CAiSE). Springer, 2001, pp. 171–186.

[30] W. Tsai, Y.-h. Lee, Z. Cao, Y. Chen, and B. Xia o, “RTSOA: Real-Time Service-Oriented Architecture,” 2006 Second IEEE Int. Sym.Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE’06), pp. 49–56, October2006.

[31] M. Panahi, W. Nie, and K.-J. Lin, “A Framework for Real-TimeService-Oriented Architecture,” IEEE Conf. on Commerce and En-terprise Computing, pp. 460–67, 2009.

[32] Q. Yang, J. Barria, and T. Green, “Communication infrastructuresfor distributed control of power distribution networks,” IndustrialInformatics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 316 –327, may2011.

[33] A. Mercurio, A. Di Giorgio, and P. Cioci, “Open-SourceImplementation of Monitoring and Controlling Services for

EMS/SCADA Systems by Means of Web Services,” IEEE Transac-tions on Power Delivery, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1148–1153, 2009.

[34] R. Mackiewicz, “The Benefits of Standardized Web Services Basedon the IEC 61970 Generic Interface Definition,” in IEEE PowerSystems Conf. and Expo., vol. pp, 2006, pp. 491–494.

[35] H. Ghenniwa, “Web-services infrastructure for information in-tegration in power systems,” in IEEE Power Engineering Society.IEEE, 2006, p. 8 pp.

[36] F. Dahlfors and J. Pilling, “Integrated information systems in aprivatized and deregulated electri city market,” in 1995 Int. Conf.on Energy Management and Power Delivery EMPD ’95. IEEE, 1995,pp. 249–254.

[37] D. Becker, H. Falk, J. Gillerman, S. Mauser, R. Podmore, andL. Schneberger, “Standards-based approach integrates utility ap-plications,” IEEE Computer Applications in Power, vol. 13, no. 4, pp.13–20, 2000.

[38] W. Kehe, S. Qianhui, D. Cheng, and Y. Haiyani, “The research ofpower grid data integration and sharing platform based on soa,”Computer Science and Engineering, 2009. WCSE ’09. Second Int. Wson, vol. 1, pp. 106 –109, 28-30 2009.

[39] K. Moslehi, A. Kumar, E. Dehdashti, P. Hirsch, and W. Wu,“Distributed autonomous real-time system for power systemoperations - a conceptual overview,” in IEEE PES Power SystemsConf. and Expo, vol. 1pp. IEEE, 2004, pp. 1705–1712.

[40] P. Stephenson, “Electricity market trading,” Power Engineering J.,vol. 15, no. 6, p. 277, 2001.

[41] H. Takamori, K. Nagasaka, and E. Go, “Toward Designing ValueSupportive Infrastructure for Electricity Trading,” The 9th IEEEInt. Conf. on E-Commerce Technology (CEC-EEE 2007), pp. 167–174,July 2007.

[42] K. Fekete, S. Nikolovski, D. Puzak, G. Slipac, and H. Keko,“Agent-based modelling application possibilities for Croatianelectricity market simulation,” 2008 5th Int. Conf. on the EuropeanElectricity Market, pp. 1–6, May 2008.

[43] Y. Jia-hai, Y. Shun-kun, and H. Zhao-guang, “A multi-agenttrading platform for electricity contract market,” 2005 InternationalPower Engineering Conf., vol. 102206, pp. 1024–1029 Vol. 2, 2005.

[44] L. Lai, “Feasibility study with agents on energy trading,” AP-SCOM 2000 - 5th Int. Conf. on Advances in Power System Control,Operation and Management, pp. 505–510, 2000.

[45] Y. Song, G. Tang, Z. Yang, and J. Hu, “The Technical Imple-mentation of the Electricity Market Operation Syste m,” in 2005IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conf. and Exhibition: Asiaand Pacific. IEEE, 2005, pp. 1–6.

[46] K. Atkins, C. Barrett, and A. Marathe, “A web services basedartificial market,” 2009 Winter Simulation Conf. (WSC), pp. 3047–3054, December 2009.

[47] J. Gordijn and H. Akkermans, “Business models for distributedgeneration in a liberalized market env ironment,” Electric PowerSystems Res., vol. 77, no. 9, pp. 1178–1188, 2007.

[48] C. Warmer, K. Kok, S. Karnouskos, A. Weidlich, and D. Nestle,“Web services for integration of smart houses in the smart grid,”in Grid-Interop 2009, 2009, pp. 1–5.

[49] T. Considine, “Ontological requirements of the service orientedgrid,” in Grid-Interop - The road to an interoperable grid, Atlanta,Georgia, USA, November 2008.

[50] S. Karnouskos, “The cooperative internet of things enabled smartgrid,” in Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Symposium onConsumer Electronics (ISCE2010), June 07-10, Braunschweig, Ger-many, June 2010.

[51] S. Karnouskos, O. Terzidis, and P. Karnouskos, “An advanced me-tering infrastructure for future energy networks,” in IFIP/IEEE 1stInternational Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security(NTMS 2007), Paris, France, 2-4 May 2007, pp. 597–606.

[52] W. T. Cox and T. Considine, “Architecturally significant interfacesfor the smart grid,” in Grid-Interop - The road to an interoperable grid,Denver, Colorado, USA, 17-19 November 2009.

[53] M. Postina, S. Rohjans, U. Steffens, and M. Uslar, “Views onservice oriented architectures in the context of smart grids,”in Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm), 2010 First IEEEInternational Conference on, oct. 2010, pp. 25 –30.

JOURNAL OF LA Service-Orientation and the Smart Grid State ...aiellom/publications/SOCA SG.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of JOURNAL OF LA Service-Orientation and the Smart Grid State ...aiellom/publications/SOCA SG.pdf ·...