PSWG-MDMA Meeting Notes 3-30-98

The MDMA Group of the PSWG met on March 30, 1998. The meeting was
facilitated by Chris King. 

Attendees:
Paul Abuin, Nertec
Dan Barber, PG&E
Dave Bernardo, SCE
Afarah Board, SCE
Bill Buckley, Itron
Cathy Chang, SCG
Pymm Chartrand, GE
Gary Ciardella, PG&E
Carolyn Clark, PG&E
Ken Gill, E-mon
Dave Jackson, SPP
Tim Jannott, Audit Pro
Mike Jaske, CEC
Chris King, CellNet
Lorenzo Kristov, CEC
Jerry Larson, SCE
Roger Levy, Levy Associates
David Malane, SCG
Anthony Mazy, ORA
Ed McCann, SDG&E
Ulrike Mengelberg, Alta Vista Systems
Paul Nelson, SCE
Augie Nevolo, EPRI
Jamie Patterson, CEC
Cliff Pelchat, Enron
Jim Price, ORA
Ed Quiroz, ORA
Jim Richardson, Schlumberger
George Roberts, Schlumberger
Bill Rush, IGT
Sherman Severin, FirstPoint
Greg Sheran, SCE
Rick Silva, Tecom
Kevin Simonsen, EMS for QST
Kathy Smith, ABB
Kirsten Stacey, PG&E
David Sweeney, LADWP
Amos Tsikayi, FirstPoint

Agenda Items:

1. Current MDMA Requirements - Dan Barber distributed a summary of interim
MDMA Requirements, including a matrix of the requirements and where those
requirements are documented in the MDCS Decision (97-12-048) or the UDC
MDMA approval process. Dan's handout included as attachments 1) Interim VEE
rules, 2) Interim Training Requirements, 3) Disaster Recovery Outline, and
4) checklist of documents required for MDMA approval.

ACTION: the group agreed to review the document and provide any comments to
Dan Barber or Chris King. Note that the document does not propose any
changes. It only summarizes what is currently in place.

2. Definitions - Lorenzo Kristov distributed draft definitions prepared by
Anthony Mazy and himself. The group discussed and agreed, for now, to use
the following key terms: 1) "standards" are those developed and promulgated
by official standards bodies such as ANSI and IEEE; 2) "requirements" are
those items imposed by the CPUC or other regulatory bodies; thus, the
"Interim Standards" should be referred to as the "Interim Requirements;" 3)
"accepted practices" are those items agreed to by industry participants but
not required by regulation.

ACTION: provide comments to Lorenzo Kristov or Anthony Mazy; also, the
definitions will be discussed at the PSWG plenary meeting.

3. MDM Requirements - Mike Jaske proposed that the group be willing to
entertain proposals for "accepted practices" for MDMAs and not limit its
scope to meter data management related to billing and settlement, as was
agreed in the last meeting. The group agreed to entertain proposals.

ACTION: Mike Jaske will prepare one or more proposals (others are free to
do so as well).

4. Meter Reading Functions Proposal - Sherman Severin presented Conrad
Eustis's proposal. The proposal included nine areas, with the group's
action, as follows: a) MR functions and business requirements: addressed
below; b) recommendation that the MDM store special meter reads even if
collected by an MSP: the group agreed this is part of the MDMA function
already; c) proposed format for special reads: deferred to future meeting;
d) proposal to allow customer reading of meters: deferred; e) proposal to
allow for no backup system for remote systems serving small customers:
deferred; f) proposals for record retention: deferred; g) proposal for site
access: deferred; h) proposal for enforcement: decision that this is beyond
the scope of the PSWG; and i) proposal to adopt the October 15 RSIF Meter
Specific Information Flows Report: the parties will review the report and
come prepared to discuss it at the next meeting, including proposed changes.

ACTION: see item 4.i) above. The proposals for requirements and standards
will be reviewed following agreement on the MR business requirements.
Sherman will contact Conrad about revising the business requirements based
on the adopted MR functions (see next item).

5. MR Business Functions - The group adopted the following list of MR
business functions where standards or requirements might be recommended in
the PSWG:
a. Collect data at the meter, including routine meter reads, special reads,
and date and time of reads
b. Transport data to the MDM
c. Perform any Validation that is required to be performed either on-site
or at the time of reading
d. Check for and report suspected energy theft
e. Check for and report hazardous conditions (if meter reading is performed
locally)
As exemplified by item 5.e), the MR function may vary depending on whether
reading is performed by on-site personnel or remotely.

ACTION: provide specific Validation tests to Kathy Smith to complete list
for item 5.c) above.

6. Proposal for Data Exchange - Jim Price reviewed his proposal to replace
use of CMEP for data exchange with EDI. Specifically, the UIG
recommendations would be adopted for 1999, with exact timing to be
discussed. Jim noted that other states using this approach are MA and PA,
with NJ and AZ planning or discussing its use. Jim proposes using UIG
Transaction Set 867 with three changes: 1) allow use of a unique ID, to
accommodate the UNISWG, and make the address field(s) optional; 2) have
fewer "must use" fields, following CMEP practice; and 3) make the meter ID
a "must use" field, as well as, possibly, customer ID. Jim suggested UIG
810 as a possible option for monthly data, and that the group continue to
look at UCA and ANSI C12.19 for future refinements.

The group noted the following: 1) UIG 867 doesn't allow the estimation
method to be identified for estimated data, nor does it have rules for
opening and closing meter reads; 2) 867 is still evolving; 3) there is a
tradeoff of cost of converting CMEP to EDI vs. benefit of using national
standard; 4) UIG 867 can also be used for natural gas; and 5) how does EDI
affect the use of data compression?

ACTION: the parties will review the proposal in detail and report back any
implementation issues at the next meeting. Jim Price and Chris King will
provide more details to the group on the use of EDI for exchanging metering
data in other states, including the context (i.e., is the state's metering
unbundled, etc.).

6. VEE - Kathy Smith discussed the following: 1) a subgroup is working on
monthly VEE, with a conference call on 4-7-98 and possible meeting on
4-27-98; 2) Ed Quiroz will review the ISO's VEE rules and compare them with
the CPUC-adopted rules; he will report back to the group at the next
meeting; Dave Sweeney will assist; 3) Kathy noted that there is no "home"
for a national VEE standard; Bill Rush offered IEEE/SCC31; Kathy's subgroup
will discuss and recommend back to the group.

ACTIONS: see above.

7. Next Steps. The group agreed to the following:
a. Actions as noted above.
b. Members are encourage to provide proposals on the areas where
requirements or standards potentially apply but have not already been
addressed by proposals. 
c. The group will meet again on Tuesday, April 14, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at
SoCal Gas.


Thank you.

Chris S. King
Vice President, CellNet Data Systems, Inc.




.