DIRECT ACCESS WORKING GROUP
Subgroup C - Metering & Communications
Notes for July 1, 1996
The meeting was facilitated by Michelle Wynne, industry consultant. It
was held in Los Angeles. It included the following items:
Report on Coordinating Committee Meeting (Mike Jaske)
* The Coordinating Committee discussed the July 9 DAWG checkpoint
meeting to be held with Commissioners Knight and Neeper in San Francisco.
The agenda will have the following items:
* Introduction/overview of DAWG structure and processes
* Committee reports for each team including update on
status of key issues and process by which each team is resolving the issue
* Wrap-up, including challenges associated with August 30
report
High-Level Issues (Lorenzo Kristov)
* Kristov introduced a brief position paper focused on two
questions
* First question is whether or not a phase-in is required for
Direct Access; as the CPUC decision explicitly calls for a phase-in, any
parties arguing in favor of no phase-in should develop appropriate position
papers
* Second question is whether there should be universal hourly
metering at some time; in the discussion that followed, the following
points emerged:
1. The question of whether universal metering is needed is a
Team B issue (Market Rules)
2. Team C's charter is to evaluate the following technical
issues:
a. Cost & availability of technology; this may or
may not entail looking at related operational savings to offset the cost of
hourly metering
b. Implementation issues, including timing (is it
possible to have universal metering by 1/1/98); if universal metering not
possible by then, how many hourly meters could be in place and how long
would it take to get to 100% implementation
c. Data requirements
d. Meter ownership issues, including providing
metering, access, installation, operation and maintenance; while the CPUC
has not officially chartered DAWG with addressing the issue, the team
feels this issue is of major import and should be addressed in the DAWG report
3. To address the cost question, the team will ask
technology suppliers on information about costs, including the following items:
a. Meters
b. Communications infrastructure
c. Installation
d. Testing, calibration & certification
e. Integration to information systems/interfaces
f. Cost of a local display to provide energy data to
customer
g. Separate costs for
industrial/commercial/residential
h. Ancillary benefits of the technology (e.g.
support for gas & water metering)
i. Discussion of open systems architecture
j. Supplier overview, qualifications, expertise
The task force that coordinated the metering and communications
workshop in Sacramento will develop a detailed list of questions for the
suppliers. Michelle Wynne volunteered to coordinate the task force.
Meter Ownership/Control
* The following position papers on meter ownership/control were
presented: competing providers (Nancy Day), UDC (Chris King), franchises
(Michelle Wynne), various, including a monopoly franchise - "Infoco"
(Mike Jaske), and other - banks (Mel Fuller).
* In the ensuing discussion, the options narrowed to three basic
positions: competing providers, UDC, and Infoco. No consensus was
reached.
Meter Operation & Maintenance (Mel Fuller)
* This position paper advocates use of competing meter operators
regulated by the Bureau of Standards and Measurement.
Next Agenda
The next meeting will be held at the PG&E auditorium at 245 Market
Street, San Francisco, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Wednesday, July 10, with the
following agenda items:
* Anthony Mazy will introduce position papers on proposed metering
standards and one addressing a variety of topics of interest.
* A continuation of the meter ownership discussion; team members
are urged to read the position papers presented on July 1.
* Report on the CPUC checkpoint meeting to be held on July 9.
* Report on supplier cost questionnaire (Michelle Wynne).
Minutes taken by:
Chris S. King, CellNet Data Systems 415/508-6017; e-mail
chrisk@cellnet.com
.