From:  Eric Woychik

Based on the outline faxed to me on Tuesday, 23 July 1996, UCAN
respectfully requests that the following alternative be included in the
1 August Report:

11.6.3.1.1  Alternative 1: Open Standard Required for Meter-Data   
Collection and Meter-Communication Interface

 An open standard is necessary for all meter vendors to be able to
interface with meter data-collections and meter data-communications
systems. Otherwise, the potential is great to be saddled with a single
system for metering and data collection.  This would allow for the
development of monopolies in metering and all the attendant problems of
monopoly behavior, such as the intentional slowing of new technology
adoption.
      
 In more specific terms, the data link between individual customer
(interval) meters and the point of data-collection or point of
communications interface, such as a pole-top receiver, must be governed by
the use of an open standard that any meter vendor who so chooses can employ
without the threat of patent infringement or incurring other legal
barriers.

 A number of the meter-data collection and meter-communications vendors   
would like to impose on the market the use of closed, proprietary   
standards for data transfer interface between the meter and the local   
data-collection point or communications point.  These closed, proprietary   
standards or protocols are typically used between the meter and the   
pole-top receiver of meter data.

 By adhering to proprietary standards and the failure to move toward a
common, open architecture, many of the current metering system vendors are
stalling the implementation of widespread use of interval meters.  With
adherence to closed, proprietary standards for interface between the meter
and the data-collection or communications point, there is greater risk of
choosing the wrong horse (technology) and being saddled with it for a long
time. Consequently, California will be delayed in gaining the competitive
and social advantages of widespread access to competitive power markets.
Moreover, the dispersion of benefits from direct access will be limited to
large customers, to the detriment of small and intermediate sized
customers.

.