RE: Your "Future Directions" Posting on MDM PSWG site

Thanks for the comments, Ed.  I note, however, that some of your
arguments would actually support moving quickly to EDI.

I'm not suggesting that any of the start-up data problems have been due
to the transport mechanism, and in fact my proposed text states that the
current transport mechanism appears adequate for the initial market
needs.  One point, though, is that consistent use of EDI can help to
avoid problems that are created by having disjointed systems, e.g.,
DASRs in one format and meter reads in a different format, and ending up
with disjointed data -- if there are problems with data being
misapplied, the problems can be fixed easier if there are fewer types of
systems to fix.  If having a standard electronic form for communication
is an issue (and I agree that it is), that's an argument for migrating
the meter reads to the same format that's used for DASRs and for
billing, as quickly as possible, i.e., EDI.  Another point in my
proposed text is that national (and international) bodies are developing
standards for the Internet transport mechanism, and that we will have an
easier time implementing new transport mechanism standards once they're
adopted if we have first implemented permanent standards for the data
format.

Maintaining consistency between states is a goal that has been raised by
many parties, including the utilities at times.  Perhaps we've had the
misfortune of having to create interim standards because of going first,
but by January 1999 other states will have caught up with us and will be
using permanent standards that are just as easy for us to adopt as it
has been for the other states -- they've had their legacy systems to
deal with too.  Failing to be consistent with standards that are in use
by multiple other states would erect a barrier to market entry in
California as the national market develops.

---
Jim Price, ORA, jep@cpuc.ca.gov

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	McCann, Ed [SMTP:EMccann@SDGE.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, June 18, 1998 11:42 PM
> To:	'Price, James E.'
> Cc:	'Chang, Cathy'; 'Stacey, Kirsten'; Barber, Dan; Board,, Afarah;
> Budka, Mark; Cano, Duncan; Ciardella, Gary; Colwell, Larry; Grady,
> Steve; Reed, Keith; Schaefer, Ron
> Subject:	Your "Future Directions" Posting on MDM PSWG site
> 
> Jim,
> NONE of the data problems surrounding the start up have been due to
> the
> transport mechanism of the MDMA servers.  On the contrary,
> substantially all
> of those problems result from either (1) misapplying data that was
> transmitted by EDI over VANs as part of the DASR process, or (2) not
> having
> available a standard electronic form for communicating the
> information, the
> issue I tried to point out should be of the highest priority to the
> California market at this time.  
> 
> I feel very strongly that we should not abdicate all of our technical
> issues
> to groups which we have either already had no chance to participate in
> or
> are to far removed from our state.  California must account for about
> half
> (even more if you consider only those where metering was unbundled and
> data
> must be exchanged) of all of the deregulated electric customers.  We
> should
> not be being dragged along by states that are not as far along as we
> are.  
> Ed McCann
.