EDI 867 Implementation

It is a request to the members of the MDMA subcommittee to reopen the
subject of EDI 867 implementation.  Please do not confuse this with the
adoption of EDI 867.  The decision on the adoption of EDI 867 was made
in the May 12 MDMA subcommittee meeting.  The following is the language
that the members agreed to accept for making such a decision (Vote:
15-0):

"For meter usage data transaction currently handled in CMEP, we agree
that we should move to EDI following adoption of an implementation plan
to be developed by a subgroup for the July 29th PSWG report answering
issues raised by UDCs and others."

The decision made in the June 9 MDMA subcommittee meeting - "The group
voted to adopt Jim's proposal that EDI for meter data be implemented by
January 1, 1999."

Jim Price has done a lot of technical work to answer many UDCs' issues.
However, it is not clear how the May 12 decision drives the June 9
decision.  Several critical elements are missing in this process.  Let
us review this process by answering the following questions:

1.  Had the MDMA subcommittee established a formal subgroup to develop
the implementation plan before the June 9 decision was reached?  If so,
does the subgroup consist of all of MDMAs, UDCs and the representative
of ORA and other stakeholders (e.g., SCG)?

2.  If answers to (1.) is yes, has the subgroup laid out all major
milestones for adopting EDI 867, such as reaching the consensus on a
implementation guide, establishing operational policies and rules based
on the current experience with CMEP, planning a migration plan from CMEP
to the full EDI 867, etc.?  If so, have the target dates for these
milestones been agreed upon and decided by the subgroup?  If so, are
these dates formulated into the decision of the implementation date,
1/1/1999?

3.  If answers to (2.) is yes, had all of the above activities and the
development plan been formally documented, reviewed, commented and voted
on before the June 9 decision was made?

If the answer to any of the above is "no" or "not sure", the MDMA
subcommittee should be empowered to revisit the June 9 decision on the
EDI implementation date.

The voting rule of not counting abstentions is officially adopted by the
Plenary.  The subcommittees should have the flexibility to revisit the
decisions.  In addition, as mentioned in Kathy Smith's earlier e-mail
message, this has been done in this subcommittee before.

Further for the subcommittee: if other state can develop a Consensus
Plan for EDI implementation, can the MDMA subcommittee also develop a
proud "Consensus Plan for electronic Data Exchange Standards for
Electric Restructuring in The State of California"?
.
Follow-Ups: