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

Jim,
Perhaps I misread it, but your third paragraph certainly intimates that that
is the case.

	Existing EDI standards provide mechanisms for improving data flows
between market participants, even before new standards are developed.  Among
the problems that have been experienced at the opening of California's
competitive market have been failure of data being received by the intended
party, misalignments between data that has been received and other data
concerning the customers who are being served, and the need for manual
intervention to research and solve these problems.  Acknowledgement and
verification processes are integral to EDI as it is used in other business
situations in order to avoid these problems, and can be integrated into
California's use of EDI with no change in the Internet transport mechanism
or other technology.

If you think my arguments would support moving to EDI more quickly, then I
did not make myself sufficiently clear.   As I stated in my email, this
electronic account data you refer to, such as it is, is currently being sent
using EDI with the verification that VANs provide.  The problem is in people
applying it within their own systems.  I have seen these problems first hand
and they don't have anything to do with not having confirmed transmissions
nor EDI coexisting with CMEP.  They have to do with not getting the account
information, which is largely sent and received via EDI, into their systems
so that the information exchanged on the MDMA server has the right account
information or if it does have the correct information, being able to
recognize it and take into their billing systems instead of looking for
meter data with the wrong account information.   Unless of course you're
suggesting that with EDI we could be sending/receiving the data with the
same wrong account information that results from the current EDI
transmissions.  

I'm not suggesting that the current problems are the result of using EDI
either.  We all agree that EDI is where we should go, it just an issue of
the timing.  I happen to think we would all be better served by
organizations concentrating on filling in the missing pieces of standards
for electronic account information and getting the existing account
information exchanges properly integrated into their systems, than to worry
about moving away from one of the exchanges that, from my perspective, seems
to be working better than most.  .  

The real reason for my first note was that I believe I can see the
groundwork being laid to abdicate all of our control of these standards to
"National Bodies" whether or not they make sense for California.  Just as
the majority of the ESP's do not have the time nor money to attend all of
the PSWG meetings and participate in the decisions, e.g., when to adopt EDI,
even fewer ESP's and not many UDC's will have the resources to chase these
issues at committees across the country.  I feel much better knowing that,
even though we may disagree on some issues, the participants in the decision
making process represent local ESP's, NEV, Commonwealth, etc., than I would
knowing it is being left completely in the hands of so called "standards"
bodies who may or may not have a clue as to the business objectives of the
process.  

One final thing, you mention that the Pennsylvania EDI working group plans
to chose between two methods, one of which is clearly not from a "standards
organization" but from a collaboration of software vendors.  Does this seem
consistent to you?  

See you tomorrow.  
Ed McCann


> ----------
> From: 	Price, James E.[SMTP:jep@cpuc.ca.gov]
> Sent: 	Friday, June 19, 1998 9:39 AM
> To: 	McCann, Ed; pswg@dra1.cpuc.ca.gov; pswg3web@dra1.cpuc.ca.gov
> Cc: 	'Chang, Cathy'; 'Stacey, Kirsten'; Barber, Dan; Board,, Afarah;
> Budka, Mark; Cano, Duncan; Ciardella, Gary; Colwell, Larry; Grady, Steve;
> Reed, Keith; Schaefer, Ron
> Subject: 	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
> 
.