No abstract

Electric distribution systems around the world are seeing an increasing number of utility-owned and non-utility-owned (customer-owned) intelligent devices and systems being deployed. New deployments of utility-owned assets include self-healing systems, microgrids, and distribution automation. Non-utilityowned assets include solar photovoltaic generation, behind-the-meter energy storage systems, and electric vehicles. While these deployments provide potential data and control points, the existing centralized control architectures do not have the flexibility or the scalability to integrate the increasing number or variety of devices. The communication bandwidth, latency, and the scalability of a centralized control architecture limit the ability of these new devices and systems from being engaged as active resources. This paper presents a standards-based architecture for the distributed power system controls, which increases operational flexibility by coordinating centralized and distributed control systems. The system actively engages utility and non-utility assets using a distributed architecture to increase reliability during normal operations and resiliency during extreme events. Results from laboratory testing and preliminary field implementations, as well as the details of an ongoing full-scale implementation at Duke Energy, are presented. INDEX TERMS Distributed control, microgrids, power distribution, power system protection, smart grids.

Introduction The COVID‐19 Evidence Support Team (CEST) was a provincial initiative that combined the support of policymakers, researchers, and clinical practitioners to initiate a new learning health cycle (LHS) in response to the pandemic. The primary aim of CEST was to produce and sustain the best available COVID‐19 evidence to facilitate decision‐making in Saskatchewan, Canada. To achieve this objective, four provincial organizations partnered to establish a single, data‐driven system. Methods The CEST partnership was driven by COVID‐19 questions from Emergency Operational Committee (EOC) of the Saskatchewan Health Authority. CEST included three processes: (a) clarifying the nature and priority of COVID‐19 policy and clinical questions; (b) providing Rapid Reviews (RRR) and Evidence Search Reports (ESR); and (c) seeking the requestors' evaluation of the product. A web‐based repository, including a dashboard and database, was designed to house ESRs and RRRs and offered a common platform for clinicians, academics, leaders, and policymakers to find COVID‐19 evidence. Results In CEST's first year, 114 clinical and policy questions have been posed resulting in 135 ESRs and 108 RRRs. While most questions (41.3%) originated with the EOC, several other teams were assembled to address a myriad of questions related to areas such as long‐term care, public health and prevention, infectious diseases, personal protective equipment, vulnerable populations, and Indigenous health. Initial challenges were mobilization of diverse partners and teams, remote work, lack of public access, and quality of emerging COVID‐19 literature. Current challenges indicate the need for institutional commitment for CEST sustainability. Despite these challenges, the CEST provided the Saskatchewan LHS with a template for successful collaboration. Conclusions The urgency of COVID‐19 pandemic and the implementation of the CEST served to catalyze collaboration between different levels of a Saskatchewan LHS.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

No abstract