RE: Meter Usage Data Task Group 7/23 Meeting Announcement

I've managed to realize that I omitted an issue from the Meter Usage Data
Task Group issues list.  A subject of email discussion within the task group
has been whether to add an optional code regarding the meter read date for
monthly reads, and the result has been to defer this modification until
after the initial implementation.  My initial description of this issue was
as follows, and I will add this issue to the issues list.

-----Original Message-----
From: Price, James E. 
Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 7:57 PM
Subject: Input Requested re Optional Changes to TS 867 for Meter Usage Data

Southern California Edison has identified an issue in implementation of the
EDI transaction set 867 whose interpretation under the report filed on April
2 is ambiguous, and for which a feasible solution has been identified,
through the optional use of an additional code.

The issue raised by Edison concerns reporting the date and time of monthly
cumulative meter reads.  It is common when a meter reader finishes his/her
route to have a set of meter reads but not accurate knowledge of the time of
day when each meter was read.  Our convention has been to report the time of
the meter read as midnight, but this raises complications when the data are
processed by EDI translators, since another convention is to report times in
GMT.  Stating the time as 0000 (i.e., midnight) is easy to understand as "I
don't know" what time it was, but when expressed as midnight local time and
converted to GMT as 0700, it starts to imply that one is reporting an actual
time.  If the time is reported as 0000 GMT, the translator may convert it to
1700 of the previous day, which incorrectly reports the date.  Under our
existing 867 guideline, there seems to be no good solution since we have
only used the code "DT" in data element DTM05, which requires both the date
and time, e.g., 199907020000.

Edison's proposed solution is to add the code "D8" in data element DTM05,
which requires only the date to be stated and which could be used at the
option of the MDMA.  Using "D8" would not be required to replace "DT", which
would remain an option in this situation.  No sender would be required to
use D8, although receivers would need to be able to accept both D8 and DT.

Jim Price, jep@cpuc.ca.gov

.