RE: EDI 867 Implementation, further comments

Bill:
	I appreciate your calling to mind the "same rules" rule, but I
think that your dismissal, nevertheless, of any subgroup effort to
follow those rules was just a bit off the mark.  
	While the subgroups may be "casual" or, as you like to put it,
"free-wheeling", they are hardly anarchic.  There is a sign-in sheet at
every meeting and people are pretty conscientious about getting signed
in.  So, first and foremost, we do know what parties are represented
and, whenever someone should ask, we can readily determine voting
membership.  This small blessing we have, in that there has been so few
parliamentary hassles at the subgroup level, should hardly serve to
eliminate the rules for when they are needed.
	Secondly, let me ask all concerned: Where was everyone, who now
think they have a better idea, when the EDI issue was being discussed
over the last 2-3 months?  What happened to our general understanding
that "silence is consent"?
	SoCal Gas' request to reconsider the EDI issue was certainly in
order, but I am having a lot of trouble with the presumptuousness with
which some participants are treating that request as a "done deal".  It
is most inappropriate for the plenary facilitators to take such
heavy-handed procedural postures, especially putting an "alternate"
proposal on the agenda that was not vetted through our subgroup system.
Jim's apparent patience with this treatment is to be admired, but I want
to make the observation that such playing fast-and-loose with the rules
is a great discourtesy to those who endeavor to work through the
established protocols.  When it comes time for the Commission to
consider the weight it gives to the products of this workgroup, it will
surely consider the actual methods sustained throughout the life of the
workgroup more than the stirring proclamations of fairness and due
process adopted at its onset.
	-- Anthony Mazy, ORA

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Bill Buckley [SMTP:bill.buckley@itron.com]
> Sent:	Monday, June 22, 1998 11:48 AM
> To:	Chang, Cathy - TPCKC
> Cc:	pswg; pswg3web
> Subject:	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
>  
> 
.