RE: Vote items and EDI

Issues like Kathy raises are valid issues to reemerge in the
subcommittee as text is reviewed as being a draft, even though it's
similar to proposals that have been on the table for a while.  On a
specific issue, though, starting with a "narrow" implementation, e.g., a
unique mapping of CMEP data into EDI format, does not preclude or
complicate moving later to a more complete implementation.  The initial
implementation is to be a subset of the full implementation, so the
later migration does not require any change in usage in order for
transmitted data to be in compliance.  Instead, migrating to the full
implementation just requires being able to receive additional codes that
were not in the subset.

There are a couple of places where my original proposal (which was for
full implementation at the outset) recommended proposing revisions to
UIG's implementation guideline in order to keep the file size
manageable.  Feedback from Enron (the only party to have commented on
implementation details prior to the last PSWG/ MDMA meeting) suggested
ways to manage the file size (if that's desirable) in a better way, and
I incorporated these suggestions.  They involve proposing revisions to
UIG, but UIG is currently geared up to receive such changes, and the
changes would then become part of the full UIG guideline.  The changes
are within the ANSI X12 standard.  So again, our subset would be in
compliance with UIG, for purposes of sending data.  (I could go either
way as to whether we propose changes to reduce the file size, but I just
wouldn't want the group to choose not to make the changes and later
complain about the file size.)

The concept of using subsets of the UIG guidelines is not unique to
meter data, and these subsets do not need to be short-lived.  Common
California EDI guidelines are currently in development for billing and
DASRs, and are subsets of the UIG guidelines that would remain in place
for the foreseeable future as descriptions of how we do business in
California.  Other states have different market models, and would have
their own subsets of the UIG guidelines.

Thanks for the encouragement regarding funding -- we're working on that.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	kathy.smith@USTRA.mail.abb.com
> [SMTP:kathy.smith@USTRA.mail.abb.com]
> Sent:	Friday, June 19, 1998 8:01 AM
> To:	        -         (052)pswg(a)dradmin.cpuc.ca.gov;         -
> (052)pswgweb(a)dradmin.cpuc.ca.gov
> Cc:	        -         (052)Shelley, Nicole;         -
> (052)KSM8(a)pge.com
> Subject:	re: Vote items and EDI
> 
> There is a precedent in the MDMA subgroup for revisiting items even
> after they
> have been voted through and put on the plenary agenda - we've done
> this before
> on a couple issues.  Given the emails floating back and forth, I
> propose that
> EDI at least be revisited at the MDMA subgroup meeting on Tuesday.
> 
> I'm not an EDI person by any means, but as I learn more about it I
> have more
> concerns about implementing a "narrow" version of EDI initially, and
> then
> migrating to the national standard.  I think it is more important to
> make sure
> CA is in synch with the national standard in the long run than to
> implement
> some form of EDI as soon as possible.   I'm concerned that by
> implementing a
> narrow version in the short term, everyone has to change formats twice
> instead
> of once.
> 
> Jim has done a great job of relating CA requirements to the EDI
> transactions.
> I also think that if he is to remain one of the primary coordinators
> for this
> in CA, the CPUC should fund his travel to the UIG meetings.
> 
> Kathy Smith, ABB
> 919-250-5429
> kathy.smith@ustra.mail.abb.com
.