1
Ontario Smart Grid Forum Notes of Meeting
Date: Monday, September 16th, 2013
Time: 09:00 to 3:00
Location: IESO Minto Plaza Office, Main Boardroom 655 Bay Street, Suite 410
Toronto, ON
Forum members attending:
Paul Murphy Forum Chair
Keith Major Bentall Kennedy
David Collie Electrical Safety Authority Raymond Tracey Essex Power (phone) David McFadden Gowlings
Wayne Smith Hydro One
Terry Young IESO
Jonathan Dogterom MaRS Discovery District Roy Hrab Ontario Energy Board
(phone)
Tom Chapman Ontario Ministry of Energy Julia McNally OPA
Ivano Labricosa Toronto Hydro
Jatin Nathwani University of Waterloo (phone)
Corporate Partners Committee members attending:
Ron Dizy CPC Chair
Ed Seaward CPC Vice-Chair
Invited Guest Speakers:
Michelle Chibba Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario
Working Group members attending:
Jerry Chwang Ontario Ministry of Energy David Curtis Hydro One
Edward Arlitt IESO
See Appendix ‘A’ for a cumulative list of open Forum action Items.
09:15 – call to order
Agenda Item # 1: Previous SGF Minutes 1
DRAFT Minutes of the June 3rd, 2013 meeting of the Smart Grid Forum:
The draft minutes of the June 3rd, 2013 meeting were tabled with a comment deadline
of September 20th. No amendments were tabled at today’s meeting.
1 NEW MINUTES POLICY: Since February 28th 2013, the Forum adopted a new policy for reviewing and approving meeting minutes, whereby any draft minutes will be published after the stipulated comment deadline if no material comments are received. It will no longer be necessary to bring unchanged minutes back to the next meeting to reconfirm as “final.”
2
Agenda Item # 2: Guest Speaker Michelle Chibba, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario
{see also: i) “Looking Forward: De-identification Developments – New Tools, New Challenges” Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D. Information & Privacy Commissioner, May 2013 ii. “Privacy by Design: Fundamentals for Smart Grid App Developers”, Quinzee and Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D. Information & Privacy Commissioner, August 2013}
The Chair welcomed Michelle Chibba, Director of Policy and Special Projects with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario, who expressed regrets on behalf of the Commissioner for being unable to attend today’s meeting.
Ms. Chibba began by providing members with an overview to several recent smart grid-related
initiatives being conducted by IPC Office, including guidance for app developers that was consistent with the existing Privacy by Design (PbD) principles. This guidance is intended to help app developers apply techniques of “de-identification” 2 whereby limits are placed on the degree to which data can be linked to individual customers unless express consent is given by the customers. In addition, the customer has the ability to revoke and delete their accounts at their option. Some of the questions fielded from various Forum members in regards to this topic were as follows:
Q.: Does the PbD framework for app developers have any compliance requirements?
A.: Such requirements are not formalized per se, but developers are strongly encouraged to start early
and not to wait until the testing phase to discover privacy-related deficiencies in their apps.
Q.: What governs LDC data sharing with other agencies?
A.: This largely falls within the scope of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA – R.S.O. 1990, Chapter M56). MFIPPA allows certain exemptions to privacy restrictions, such as customer consent, and law enforcement matters for example.
Q. “Could these guidelines apply to apps developed for the telecoms industry”
A. ”Yes, these guidelines are intended to be generic in nature and quite applicable to many different
types of industries.”
The group then discussed the Forum’s previous recommendation to the IPC regarding the tracking of smart grid-related privacy complaints.3 Ms. Chibba explained that the IPC investigates privacy matters on a best efforts basis and considers the efforts made by an organization to follow best practices as part of their assessment. Few complaints specific to the “smart grid” have been registered with the IPC. When such complaints do come up, there is a process in place by which the LDC is notified and a
mediation process ensues. A member asked if the IPC envisioned the creation of a “PbD seal” that could be applied to the products and services of various electricity sector organizations that met a minimum level of trust/certification. To this, Ms. Chibba noted that there are no such plans at the moment, and this would likely have to become a matter of public policy before such a regime could be implemented.
OUTCOME: The Chair then proposed, and it was accepted, that the Forum should deem its recommendation ‘N2’ to be closed in light of the IPC having a process in place to deal with such
complaints.
2 See also: IPC Deidentification tool http://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resources/pbd-de-identifcation%20developments.pdf 3
3
The next topic discussed, was the Forum’s previous recommendation related to the transfer of electric vehicle registration information from the Ministry of Transportation to Local Distribution Companies.4 There was some discussion around the IPC’s previous rulings regarding the acceptability of breaking down aggregated data to the postal code level. Various IPC rulings indicated that in some cases the context made such practice acceptable, while in other cases it was unacceptable. This touched off a lengthy discussion regarding alternative avenues that LDC’s might pursue in order to better anticipate the impact of electric vehicle deployment on their distribution systems. The pros and cons of various options, including the Ministry of Transportation, auto dealers and the customers themselves were discussed.
Given the issues raised, the Chair then questioned the group as to whether or not the Forum should continue to advocate recommendation N10, or if LDC’s should be encouraged to cultivate other avenues to obtaining electric vehicle and charging station data. It was agreed that the Ministry of
Transportation should be consulted once again before any action is taken to close this recommendation.
Agenda Item # 3: Recommendation Tracking Log:
{see also: i. Recommendation Tracking Log, Issue 10.3 and, ii. SGF meeting support presentation} The Forum considered the Working Group’s recommendation to move recommendation ‘N4’ (establishment of a provincial AMI testbed facility) from table 1 (active) to table 2 (watch list) in the Recommendation Tacking Log. This included an extensive discussion regarding the Ministry of Energy’s recent announcement regarding the establishment of a smart grid test lab at Ryerson University.5 It was indicated that members of the Corporate Partners Committee AMI Sandbox Sub-committee had some preliminary discussions with Ryerson, and were in the midst of conducting their own survey to better articulate the requirements for the facility. At this point , the Corporate Partners Committee has not yet been able to determine if the recently announced facility at Ryerson will meet these requirements.
OUTCOME: The Forum decided to leave recommendation N4 in its current position in Table 1 until a
more complete assessment of the Ministry/Ryerson announcement can be made.
OUTCOME: Ryerson University will be invited to speak to the Corporate Partners Committee and/or the
Forum directly, regarding their new smart grid test lab.
Agenda Item # 4 - Report Back from the Corporate Partners Committee (CPC)
{Today’s update was provided by, Ron Dizy (CPC Chair) and Ed Seaward, (Vice-Chair) }
Ron indicated that the Corporate Partners Committee (CPC) has met a couple of other times over the summer and its various sub-committees have been advancing their respective work tasks. Ron then provided updates for the following CPCs sub-committees:
Sandbox committee: As mentioned earlier (see agenda item # 3 above), the sandbox
sub-committee is in the midst of a comprehensive survey of approximately 1500 individuals to better understand how a provincial AMI testbed facility might be used. A member enquired if the sub-committee had been consulted in regards to the recent public announcement, and it was indicated that they hadn’t, though discussions with Ryerson University are now underway.
4 See also, SGF Recommendation Tracking Log, recommendation ‘N10’ 5
4
ACTION ITEM: The sandbox sub-committee will report back to the Forum in regards to its
dialogue with Ryerson University and the results of the survey into the AMI testbed facility requirements.
Privacy sub-committee: The sub-committee intends to review the Information and Privacy
Commissioner’s report on app development (as discussed earlier today, see above)
ILM Task Force: The Task Force has now finalized its Terms of Reference (note this item was
circulated with the supplemental meeting materials to all Forum members on Sept. 17th). A member enquired about what Task Force felt about the Ontario government’s recent paper white paper issued as part of the review of the province’s Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP). Ron indicated that the Task Force would like to see a little more emphasis on demand management in addition to conservation, and was preparing its own submission to the LTEP review currently underway.
Agenda Item # 5 - Report Back from the Working Group (Re.: Long term options for the Smart Grid Forum)
{see also: SGF meeting support presentation}
Today’s report centred around the Forum’s previous action item to the Working Group from the June 3rd meeting, to develop potential options regarding the Forum’s long-term future.6 Before calling on Edward Arlitt to summarize the Working Group’s discussions, the Chair reminded members that today’s report was not meant to put forward specific recommendations. Furthermore, it was expected that the CPC would provide further comment on this matter before the next Forum meeting. Edward then outlined the Working Group’s assessment of three general types of potential options (see support presentation for further details) spanning from potential dissolution of the Forum, to a broadening of its mandate into the realm of Smart Energy Networks. Following the presentation the following comments were made by various Forum members:
• “There is a growing challenge in monitoring and engaging all of the smart grid-related discussion venues that have sprung up in Ontario over the past five years.”
• Several members voiced their agreement to the notion raised by the Working Group, regarding the “uniqueness” of the Forum with respect to such factors as executive-level representation, relative independence, long-term outlook and ability to take a holistic look at various smart grid-related issues.
• A member noted that the Forum provides a useful role as the entity to which Corporate Partners Committee reports to and acts as a receiving point for its recommendations.
• A member suggested that the Forum may need to “refresh” its membership if it were to continue.
• A member noted that the Forum was instrumental in getting the notion of a “smart grid” enshrined in provincial legislation. We are now in the proverbial “trough of disillusionment”
6 Specifically, the June 3rd 2013 action item called for, “The Working Group will further explore a small number of potential options based on the feedback from the Forum and generally following the spectrum set out in today’s slide deck. This work should also encompass an analysis of the various groups and organizations already affecting Ontario’s smart grid development. The work should articulate pros and cons of options and some of the dimensions including; effectiveness in influencing policy/regulatory outcomes; collaboration and sharing information across the sector (or sectors); identifying and addressing barriers to implementation; and fostering innovation and export opportunity.”
5
which typically follows the euphoria of any new trend or technological development – which is all the more reason why the Forum should persist through this period.
• A member expressed his concern that the Corporate Partners Committee may not be able to endure if the Forum were to dissolve.
• Various members expressed their concerns about having the Forum sponsored by government, the regulator, or an academic institutions that is reliant upon public funding.
• There was a specific discussion regarding the hypothetical possibility of the MaRS Energy Institute taking over responsibility for the Forum. It was pointed out MaRS is independent, not-for-profit and has an agenda to pursue innovation. A member pointed out that if the Forum were to be placed under the administration/chairmanship of MaRS, this is where the future emphasis of the organization would likely be. At least two members voiced their concerns over going this route, particularly if it created the perception that the Forum was more dependent on the provincial funding network. Some members also voiced their opinion that only the IESO or the OPA could viably serve the role as Forum Chair and Facilitator.
• A member noted that the Corporate Partners Committee sees the Forum as “key” to its own role – bringing a level of methodology and discipline to its own undertakings. From the CPC perspective, there is much more smart grid-related work which lies just ahead compared to what has been done already. A decision regarding the Forum’s future should not be based upon the incorrect assumption that Ontario’s smart grid work is largely complete. Another Forum member countered this view however, by stating that the need for the Forum to provide advice to regulators has largely been supplanted by the OEB’s new Smart Grid Advisory Committee.7
• A member commented that would be sad to lose the long-term view of where Ontario’s electricity sector was headed. The Forum should also consider an expansion of its mandate. In addition, the Forum should expand on its ability to provide relatively neutral advice on
controversial topics as they arise from time to time.
OUTCOME In summarizing the discussions, the Chair noted that there seemed to be a fairly significant
consensus that something is still needed to fill the Forum’s role, but finding a willing host is crucial. The Chair then offered to hold a number of individual discussions to see if a specific proposal with
organizational backing/sponsorship can be drawn out for the next meeting. {12:50 – brief lunch break}
Agenda Item # 7 - U.S. Smart Grid Update
{See also, support presentation for today’s meeting.}
Edward Arlitt provided an update on three recent U.S. developments with respect to smart grid as follows:
· FERC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: NAESB Standards, including wholesale demand response (RM05-5-022)
· Proposed Congressional Bill H.R. 2962 - “SMART Grid Study Act of 2013” · Proposed Congressional Bill H.R. 2685 – “Smart Grid Advancement Act of 2013”
7
With reference to OEB Smart Grid Advisory Committee (EB-2013-0294)
http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/OEB/Industry/Regulatory%20Proceedings/Policy%20Initiatives%20and%20Consultations/Energy%20Issues %20Relating%20to%20Smart%20Grid/Smart%20Grid%20Advisory%20Committee
6
Following the presentation, a member commented that the U.S. military is hugely interested in microgrids and they are funding a lot of research and development work in this area. The member elaborated that it’s also a big area of interest for U.S. distribution companies and the Forum should also look into this area. Another member suggested that cyber-security is another area the Forum should more closely examine and perhaps have someone from the Department of Public Safety come in to speak.
Agenda Item # 6 - Literature Review
{DEFERRED from June 3rd meeting : see also: i. support presentation; and, ii. International Energy Agency “Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013” Apr. 2013 }
Edward Arlitt provided a synopsis of the International Energy Agency report, “Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013” (see also, support presentation for further details)
Agenda Item # 8: Upcoming smart grid events
{See also, support presentation for today’s meeting.} {No further events were added at today’s meeting.}
Agenda Item # 9: Roundtable update:
{no further discussion}
14:20 – Adjournment
Next Forum Meeting:
7
APPENDIX ‘A’
S.G.F. OPEN Action Items as of September 16th, 2013
See also: Smart Grid Forum Recommendation Tracking Log
Action Item Date
Assigned
Assigned To Target Completion
Status
The sandbox sub-committee will report back to the Forum in regards to its dialogue with Ryerson University and the results of the survey into the AMI testbed facility requirements.
Sept. 16, 2013 CPC Nov. 12, 2013 OPEN
Corporate Partners Committee will further investigate the “diffused benefits” problem in the context of both energy storage and DSM activities.
Nov. 1, 2012 CPC Q2, 2013
OPEN
Progress report provided on Feb
28, 2013
Forum members specifically identified in the CPC energy storage sub-group recommendations are asked to designate a contact point at each organization to carry forward these discussions, give due consideration to the recommendations and update the Forum on progress in their respective organizations at a future meeting.
Sept. 12, 2012 Forum Dec. 3rd, 2012 OPEN
The Forum Chair will coordinate with Forum members, and the CPC Interoperability Sandbox sub-committee to find a suitable home and institutional champion(s) to develop and operate the interoperability sandbox environment.
Dec. 6th 2011 Forum and CPC Q3 2013
OPEN
Next update requested for Nov. 12 2013
Examine the IESO Market Rules form the standpoint of whether or not they present any barriers to
participation of load aggregators, and scheduling service providers in the wholesale market or otherwise conflict with the smart grid interoperability framework.
Feb. 9, 2010 IESO Staff TBD
OPEN
(currently part of IESO Business
Plan proposal )
CLOSED Action Items: As of October 12th, 2010 closed action items are no longer listed in the minutes as per the agreement reached at the September 7th, 2010 Forum meeting. The removal of an open action item from the above list constitutes the completion of that item.
