USNC IEC TA for TC57 has tunnel vision
Dennis Holstein, Publisher
February, 2001
The US IEC technical advisor (TA) for Technical Committee (TC) 57 has a new
policy, which he has published on his web. You can read it and decide for
yourself, and then send an Email response to the TA with your opinion. This is
the message distributed:
"I have posted the official US TAG [Technical
Advisory Group] position that was adopted regarding
IEEE P1525 on the web site at http://support.ces.com/iec/p1525.html.
This reaffirms that the USNC of IEC TC57 is still strongly interested in
pursuing the direction set at the 1998 Tampa meeting, and that efforts
within TC57 should be directed accordingly."
I extracted his position from the web:
The following is the official position of the US TAG for working groups 10,
11 and 12 of IEC TC57 regarding the IEEE P1525 specification:
"The goal of the USNC TAG of IEC TC57 is to develop a single
standard for communications within the substation within the IEC 61850
specification. To that end, the current direction has been to harmonize
IEC61850 with EPRI UCA2, and for IEC 61850 to become the living document on
UCA2 for substation automation. The TAG reaffirms that direction. Of primary
concern to the industry are the object model, services, configuration language
and abstract communication model of IEC 61850. The TAG recognizes the
potential need to support mapping the communication model to more than one
transport, as industry requirements may dictate, and feel that this is
appropriate within IEC 61850. The TAG also recognizes the necessity to
harmonize the IEC 61850 specification with other IEC TC57 specifications, one
key example being IEC 61970. The development of parallel standards to IEC
61850 is viewed as being detrimental to the industry, a problem which is
compounded when issues such as IEC 61970 harmonization are considered.
IEEE P1525 as initially balloted is viewed as a competing standard to IEC
61850, which, if adopted, would be detrimental to the industry. This is viewed
as being counter-productive to the IEC 61850 effort and stated goals of the
USNC TAG of IEC TC57."
Contact: Scott Neumann, san@ces.com
Last Modified: February 10, 2001
Publisher's opinion
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have learned over the years that
when someone is so opinionated, regardless of their position, if you give that
person enough rope (or shovel) he will make statements that are ridiculous on
their face value. Congratulations Scott, you and those that support you, have now reached that position!
Think about it, folks. What Scott is proposing is that the IEEE, or any other
standards making body, or any user group developing defacto standards for
substation automation, should immediately stop work, and turn over their
technology to the IEC TC57 for incorporation in IEC 61850. He is simply using
IEEE P1525 to vent his wrath at this time. In the future the same logic could
be applied to any work related to substation automation.
Let me highlight a few key words to illustrate my point, the highlights and
emphasis are mine.
".. develop a single standard
for communications within the substation within the IEC
61850 specification .."
I'll assume that you are an educated engineer or scientist with some
practical experience. When did you last see a single standard for any complex
system that was adopted as the "mother of all standards?" Considering
that IEC 61850 scope of work excludes the interface between the substation and
control center, and excludes teleprotection requirements, how can it be the
single standard?
Don't be fooled by the qualifying words "within the substation."
Several parts of 61850 address the communication between a remote user and the
substation IEDs. In fact the motivation behind the self-description features in
61850 is the ability to develop very user friendly browsers. And guess what
folks, I don't know who you have browsing the IEDs, but the power system
engineers I know prefer to do that from a location "outside of the
substation."
".. if adopted, would be detrimental
to the industry."
Wow, that's some prediction! What is so scary about 1525? It's based on a well
understood suite of Internet Protocol specifications. Most utility
executives find this appealing because they get buy in from their IT department,
and can use the Utility WAN for communication to the substation.
Does P1525 threaten the object models in 61850. Get over it! P1525 is an
incomplete specification, which refers users to other specifications for
details. GOMSFE (UCA™ 2.0's specification of Generic Object Models for
Substation and Feeder Equipment) is perfectly acceptable to P1525. CASM and the ACSI are also
acceptable to P1525.
The configuration language specified in 61850 sucks! It does not meet the
needs of utility engineers. If you don't believe me,
read it! When published for review, Wise Owls will comment on its particular
problems.
".. harmonize the IEC 61850
specification with other IEC TC57 specifications .."
I love the word "harmonize." Its meaning is so subjective that
those who use it can try to divert attention from the real issues. If you follow
the work of Working Groups 13 (IEC 61970) and 14 (IEC 61968, which Scott forgot
to mention), you will soon develop an appreciation for the fact that these
working groups are using a model that encapsulates information objects of 61850,
and treats them like any other legacy system protocol. Really! Don't take my
word for it, read their specifications for interfacing the enterprise to the
substation defined in 61850.
Now you might be getting the idea that IEC 61850 is developing an
"island of automation." Will its automation scheme work? Of course,
engineers can make anything work. Will it integrate seamlessly into the utility
enterprise? Probably not. But in fairness, let's wait a little longer to see how
harmonization develops. So far we have waited 5 years with little to show, but
give it some more time.
We report - you decide!
There are at least two sides to the story. Your opinion is important. Send me an
Email, or better yet send me a contributing author article, and if fair and
balanced, we will publish it. The address is holsteindk@aol.com.
Where do you want to go now?
WiseOwl™