The kind of policies that make you wonder why we ever did it any other way.

Great read! Thanks for sharing. Have you looked much at flexible interconnection / service connections in the context of data centers?

Seems like that’d help limit the “firm” commitment by the utility without moving all of the MWh to BTM generation (and therefore losing revenue).

Sadly I’m day tripping on Thursday — so will be on a plane back home :(

Will be there! Would love to be added :)

True — I think this is something we must solve soon. Aggs need to know the safe operating bounds for the resources they’re managing. And regulators need to make the DSO <> Agg data exchange a requirement for both parties — with clear, easy to use data structure and exchange mechanism (CIM + 2030.5).

If you read this far, you're officially an #EnergySky member. Congratulations!

Hit me (or @astridatkinson.bsky.social) up with any questions. The sector is evolving (and our POV will evolve as well), so we love hearing others' perspectives.

✌️ (and capybaras)

Finally, we were asked to touch on standards for DSO<>ISO coordination.

Our view:
- Best data format: CIM
- Best messaging protocol: 2030.5 (with profile extensions)

Runner-up messaging protocol: OpenADR

More nuanced required, but that's the headline ⚡

We *don't* recommend price signals for communicating constraints.

Why?
1) Constraints are intended to bound what's possible, not spur specific action (which is where price signals excel)
2) The locational nature of constraints would require granular pricing (negating the "less complex" benefit)

What about the DSO <> aggregators? This discussion focused on how to communicate Dx grid constraints.

Some options are better than others.

We recommend operating envelopes, as demonstrated in Australia. An alternative is a dispatch agent model, though it provides less flexibility to operators.

So what data needs to be exchanged between DSO and ISO/RTO?

Lots! Registration, telemetry, market bids, constraints.

Typically this is where we hear pushback that it's "too much data". That's...not true. Other industries securely exchange 10x more data on these time scales.

That's not to say that we need a "Total TSO" model or that DSOs need to be structured the same. But an ISO/RTO needs the same data (telemetry, constraints) coming in a consistent fashion.

Consistency can come from clear participation rules and/or use of a common, decentralized technology platform.

A major point we make: The way the DSO interacts with the ISO must be consistent across the ISO.

For this to occur, MISO must be *opinionated* on the mechanism by which DSOs provide telemetry and interact with market dispatch of DERs (e.g. override mechanisms to protect the distribution grid).

We focused on 2 parties with whom the DSO will exchange data:
- The ISO / RTO (bucketing both the market and transmission operators here; in reality they can be two separate parties)
- The Aggregators (called "DERAs" in MISO)

Lots gets communicated, but a key = constraints for safe Dx operations

The slides have more detail on DSO responsibilities, so I won't get into it much here.

TLDR: DSO has lots of different models, but they all include a shift to more real-time, data-driven operations at the distribution level.

Check this blog for more detail: www.camus.energy/blog/what-is...

We focused on:
1) What is a Distribution System Operator (DSO)?*
2) How do we expect DSOs to interact with the Tx system and MISO market?
3) What do DSOs require in a FERC 2222 world related to DER registration & comms?

*Talking about the future operating model, not the existing operations job

"This is an opportunity for us to essentially offer capacity as it is available in a granular sense, based on the actual conditions and the actual amount of grid availability."

Thanks Tyler! Mind adding me to this one?