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

I'm afraid I don't see how this third paragraph intimates that data
problems have resulted from the transport mechanism, when it says
"acknowledgement and verification processes are integral to EDI ... in
order to avoid these problems, and can be integrated ... with no change
in transport mechanism."  Acknowledgement and verification processes,
which can be provided by EDI but are not part of CMEP, would allow
automated notifications of mismatched data and could reveal when there
are patterns underlying the problematic data, without the first steps in
identifying the problems being to get on the phone and spend manual
labor to diagnose the mismatch.  This functionality may not happen on
the first day of using EDI, but the longer we postpone that first day,
the longer we've postponed the advanced functionality.

I certainly don't advocate abdicating our control over what standards we
use to external bodies.  But I do advocate coordinating our standards
processes with theirs, monitoring what standards result from their
processes (as well as being involved in the national standards efforts),
and anticipating implementation of externally-established standards once
they're adopted.  As for CommerceNet's role as an industry
collaboration, although this probably wouldn't be recognized itself as a
standards body by our definitions, the products of these collaborations
often do eventually become recognized as official standards.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	McCann, Ed [SMTP:EMccann@SDGE.com]
> Sent:	Monday, June 22, 1998 6:22 PM
> To:	'Price, James E.'; '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
> 
> 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
> > 
.