Key Scenario Alternatives Need to be Specified Now
Two variables, which characterize alternative scenarios for implementing direct access, need to be specified as soon as possible. We must either reach consensus on these variables, or defer the decisions to the CPUC. If we cannot agree, we should make all feasible alternatives explicit and develop their implementation details. All four DAWG Subgroups should address these issues in their July 1-2 meetings and then have the Coordinating Committee facilitate a uniform position.
Variable 1. Phasing of Direct Access
1A - 1/1/98 will begin a limited, initial phase of direct access, with 1/1/99 beginning a second phase that may feature either universal direct access or further phasing.
or
1B - 1/1/98 will begin universal direct access.
Recommendation. The CPUC Roadmap states clearly that 1998 is to be an initial phase, and that the phasing decision to be addressed by the Working Groups concerns 1999 et seq. The DAWG should explicitly confirm position 1A. Any parties wishing to argue for 1B are free to do so, but they will have to develop that argument outside of the DAWG process. (See Roadmap Decision D. 96-03-022 and memorandum from SCE to DAWG-A dated June 12, 1996.)
Variable 2. Universal Real-Time Meters
2A - All customers should have real-time or interval meters, as quickly as is practical. (See Mac McCay's 6-9-96 memo, "Universal Deployment of Real Time Meters.")
or
2B - Customers should be able to choose not to have real-time meters.
Recommendation. DAWG should try to reach consensus on one of these, but if consensus is not possible, we should explicitly develop both scenarios in our present work and see if our learning process leads to a consensus between now and August 30.
Scenario 2A appears to be preferable for a number of reasons:
Real-time meters allow aggregation of geographically dispersed customers. Thus load profiling for these customers will be needed as a temporary measure only.
Real-time metering is the only way to ensure that all customers can be charged the true cost of their consumption and cannot game the system. Would anyone argue that customers have the right not to have their hourly usage measured?
100 percent saturation of meters reduces per-customer costs of information systems.
Meter costs are falling rapidly, so the cost burden on individual customers should be very small by the time we approach universal deployment. Also, low-income programs may be extended to cover individual meters for those customers.
Accepting 2A does not imply any particular allocation of costs for meters and systems, or a choice of technologies or providers, or anything else. All the details remain for us to specify in the most fair and cost-effective manner.