GridWise ® Architecture Council Cyber-Physical System Requirements for Transactive Energy Systems Shawn A. Chandler Maseeh College of Electrical and Computer Engineering Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA

2 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon Transactive energy systems A transactive system is a complex “system-of- systems”, or meta-system –Interoperability is required –Complex security models and communication spanning all systems Utility Systems Customer and ESP Systems Transactive Control

3 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon New Relationships For the last 100 years we’ve focused on the reliability of the electric infrastructure Transactive systems require highly reliable communications infrastructure Greatly deepens the complexity of the existing utility system! Communication System Physical System

4 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon Coordination across time: key to success of control and optimization Utility Operations Components (sub-seconds to hours) Distributed Utility, ESP and Customer Components (hours to months) Regional Transactive System Components (minutes) Graphics source: EPRI (2014) and (2014).

5 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon Practical Project Interoperability Exchange of meaningful, actionable information between two or more systems across boundaries A shared understanding of the exchanged information An agreed expectation for the response to the information exchange A requisite quality of service: reliability, fidelity, and security Source: DHS (2014).

6 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon Challenge: the IT / OT Gap Information Technology (IT) –the domain of common technology (general business operations) Networks may be weakly protected from internal tampering or access! Network traffic between disparate utility business systems may be mixed in the same physical system!

7 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon Operational Technologies (OT) –Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) –Programmable Automation Controllers (PACs) and Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) –Synchrophasor PMU & PDC –Advanced meter infrastructure (AMI) –Real-time operations and grid control Challenge: the IT / OT Gap Networks are strongly protected from all intrusion and physically separate from corporate systems!

8 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon Challenge: Decomposition Isolated (responsive) system projects –Demand response management systems (CS) –AMI systems (CS) –Customer responsive generation systems (?) –SCADA & EMS (ENG) –Substation enhanced (ENG ) –Power marketing –VPP systems? (?) system decomposition… a natural effect of capital spending cycles, aversion to risk and other utility behavior

9 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon Challenge: O&M Spending U.S. utilities will spend a cumulative $7.25 billion in security from now until 2020 Utilities are investing an average of $3 million annually on cyber security –Increasing IEDs –implies fast rising Cyber Security Costs » Smart Grid Adoption in the U.S. over time –Executive Order on Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Source: J. John, “US Smart Grid Cybersecurity Spending to Reach $7.25B by 2020”, Greentechmedia, % ??? % Adoption

10 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon Support Example Case 1 –Current smart meter practices call for X.509 certificates for communication sessions –1 IT support staff = 1000 certificates* –5 million devices = 500 support staff !! Example Case 2 –PNWSGD Cyber Security Requirements –200+ pages *Source: Vang, J. “Impacts of Smart Grid Cyber Security on O&M Practices,” Portland State University, 2014.

11 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon Solutions Establish Security Architecture goals… –Principles of governance and design critical to transactive system success and threat protection –Provide an understanding of the system as technology, processes and people –Security solution or security controls paired with planned infrastructure requirements –Provide a Maturity Goal: Repeatable, Predictable, Documented, Optimized (when faced with decomposition)

12 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon Solutions Link Security Controls to TES Infrastructure Context – time, location, identity, device Security Posture – Adapt, Prevent, Detect, React

13 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon Solutions Sponsor a project cycle to maintain a communications and control layer Use service oriented architecture –IEC Common Information Model Security from the meta-system perspective, prioritize security risk by function, process and TES asset Security relationships that are monitored for every responsive device –High level control to manage transactive feedback (TFS) when devices enter or leave the system Source: GWAC Stack, The GWAC Stack

14 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon Lessons Learned from PNWSGD Treat communications and security between systems as a single system, not as a requirement across multiple projects –OT and IT synchronous planning –Operations and maintenance sharing –Sunset, asset cycling and new capital investment Benefit: This will reduce chances for re-design and “spaghetti control” Make sure you have executive support or an influential technical champion –Maintain system integrity among many departments!!

15 December 10-11, 2014, Portland, Oregon Thank you. Q&A: Special Thanks to: