Universal Meter Identifier Status?

From:  Jim Price, ORA

A 10/15/97 supplement to the RSIF workshop report, addressing universal
identifiers, discribed the concept of a meter identifier, in addition to
a universal node identifier.  (See
http://dra1.cpuc.ca.gov/wk-group/dai/dai4/msg00075.htm.)  D.97-12-048
and D.97-12-090 directed PSWG to recommend what should be done about
developing a statewide standard for the numbering of meters, and
D.97-12-090 (p. 11) summarized the merits of such a standard:  "The
Universal Identifiers Supplement provides several reasons why such
standards are needed.  Such a system will support system transactions
because there will be a standardized system of identifying the meters,
which will allow market participants to store standardized meter
identification numbers in their systems.  A standardized meter
identification number will also allow for easier tracking of the meter,
and prevent confusion over meter numbers."

The proposal (by CellNet) discussed in the 10/15/97 RSIF supplement (pp.
16-20) is based on the ANSI C12.10 standard, which was endorsed by the
PSWG/ Meter Equipment committee at its last meeting.  More specifically,
CellNet proposed using the AEP standard for filling a leading
3-character block that C12.10 leaves as "user specified", and proposes a
standardized content for a trailing 5-character block that the AEP
standard leaves as "user specified".  CellNet's proposal also included a
transition plan in which meter numbers would not need to be brought up
to the standard until they come "out of the field", e.g., as part of
direct access transactions, although a MSP could relabel a meter to
conform to the standard before that.  (ORA supported CellNet's proposal
in comments on the RSIF supplement, and still supports using standards
like C12.10 and AEP to ensure outcomes including smooth transactions in
the restructured energy market.)

I only plan to attend the first day of next week's meetings, although
others from ORA will attend both days.  However, since we've endorsed
C12.10, it seems to me that this would be a good time to determine
whether there is any controversy over CellNet's previous proposal to
adopt a meter numbering standard based on C12.10, with the understanding
that a transition to implementation of the standard is likely to be
needed.  If participants in next week's Meter Equipment committee
meeting can identify any areas of controversy, it will allow proposals
to be presented for discussion at the following meeting.

.