Re: EDI 867 Implementation

Cathy:

Keep in mind that although ITRON did not support, that the PSWG early on
paased a resolution that the Sub-Groups will adhere to the same rules as
the plenary.   From a practical stand point this is not possible as they do
not maintain attendance logs to validate who is eleigble to vote.  In
reality the Sub-Groups  are "free wheeling." I look at the plenary as the
only place where the vote really counts in passing on recommendations to
the CPUC.  The Sub-Groups are not deligent or consistent, but it is a moot
issue as the same  entities participate in the plenary and the styles of
the different Sub-Groups is defacto...different, but they are all open and
attempt to be fair, and to date, no one has had their toes stepped on.  I
would support reopening the discussion on EDI at the MDM meeting,in order
to be sure we are being fair to a minority.   I feel that this issue will
be resolved (not to everyone's liking) before the weeks out.

Regards

Bill B


At 12:55 PM -0700 6/19/98, Chang, Cathy - TPCKC wrote:
>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"?


Willam J. Buckley
Director of Technical Standards
ITRON
PO BOX 15288
SPOKANE, WA 99215
509-891-3744
FAX:509 891-3590
EMAIL: mailto:bill.buckley@itron.com
Home email:  mailto:Wjbuckley@aol.com
Home Phone: 509-922-1676
For More Information on ITRON see our WEB page http://www.itron.com
 


.
References: