From Ray, Judy W - North American Energy Standard：从射线，朱迪W -北美能源标准

From Ray, Judy W - North American Energy Standard：从射线，朱迪W -北美能源标准 From: Ray, Judy W. - Southern Company Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:13 PM To: Alston, Rick Subject: RE: Southern Company Comments for the 10/1/04 CPS Webconference PLEASE POST TO THE NAESB CPS WEBSITE AS COMMENTS FOR THE OCTOBER 1, 2004 WEBCONFERENCE ________________________ From: Yvette Camp and Judy Ray - Southern Company To: Rick Alston Re: Southern Company Comments for the 10/1/04 CPS Webconference Rick, First of all, we wanted to thank you for all of your efforts in leading the CPS over the last couple of years with the goal of creating viable CPS work products. We are aware of all of the time and effort you have put into the CPS and we really appreciate your leadership in getting this group off the ground and running. We reviewed the documents that have been created for discussion at the October 1 CPS webconference and would like to offer Southern Company's comments on them. We think there is quite a bit of confusion regarding the TIBP and the MBP, and it is our hope that the confusion regarding these documents can be cleared up on Friday's webconference. Southern Company's comments are summarized below. We hope to discuss our comments, along with Ms. Alexander's comments (presented in her 9/28/04 e-mail), and all other comments on Friday's webconference and bring resolution to the confusion surrounding the TIBP and MBP. 1. Southern Company agrees with and supports the comments made in Barbara Alexander’s 9/28/04 e-mail regarding the MBP and TIBP. We feel that the work paper for the October 1 meeting should reflect ONLY the document that was agreed to in the August 17 meeting, with the changes that were agreed to in that meeting (as reflected in the detailed August 17 CPS meeting minutes). Any additional comments made by parties other than the CPS should be posted as comments from individuals or companies. Our starting point of discussion in the October 1 call should be the official document from the August 17 meeting. 2. We feel that there is also confusion regarding the EC's role, direction, guidance and approval of the TIBP and the MBP. At the Atlanta CPS meeting (see minutes below), the CPS agreed to defer the decision of whether a TIBP should be developed to the EC at their 8/25/04 meeting. The August 25, 2004 EC meeting minutes (see below), as posted on the EC website, only reflect the fact that the MBP issues were presented to the EC, not that they were approved by the EC. These same EC meeting minutes don't refer to the TIBP at all.The EC minutes also address only the potential changes associated with the data dictionary and related text, not the other changes that are proposed in the potential working document to be discussed at the October 1 meeting (e.g. changes in the overview section). We don't see a need to revisit the parts of the document (like the overview section) that have already been agreed to. 3. Southern Company questions the purpose and focus of the TIBP, as well as its potential uses. Originally, the CPS was told that the TIBP was needed to help the technical folks with the technical implementation of the MBP. At the Atlanta meeting it was decided that the TIBP was not really necessary, and though the TEIS wanted it, the CPS did not feel it warranted development. Despite the fact that we had time on the agenda to work on the TIBP in Atlanta, the CPS chose not to do so and instead to ask the EC for direction concerning the value of the TIBP. At the EC meeting, it does not appear that there was direction given (per the EC minutes). In addition, your 9/28/04 e-mail said you told the EC that the TIBP needed to be more of a "business process document" and "…, the TIBP was reconfigured to be a support document for the data dictionaries instead of whatever it was!". We don't recall the CPS deciding that the TIBP should be a business process document or that we needed to create a support document for a data dictionary. We agree with Ms. Alexander that, in its present form, the TIBP appears to be redundant with the Business Processes Document. 4. We disagree with your assertion that "The TIBP is a document that CPS has seen before. We did not get far with it because we got so involved with TEIS and our work on the data dictionary that the TIBP took a back seat and most people forgot about it." This is the first time the current version of the TIBP has been seen. In addition, the existence of a TIBP was not "forgotten" about, but rather, by design, was tabled awaiting further direction from the EC. The minutes from the 8/25/04 EC meeting concerning the CPS are presented below. These are the only comments about the CPS in the 8/25/04 EC Meeting minutes. We look forward to Friday's discussion of these issues surrounding the TIBP and the MBP. In the meantime, if you have questions, please call either of us. Sincerely, Yvette Camp Judy Ray __________ The Minutes of the August 25, 2004 EC meeting state: "Customer Processes Subcommittee (CPS) Mr. Alston reported the CPS continues to develop sample paper transactions and data dictionaries for Billing and Payments model business practices (MBPs). This work requires developing synergies between four separate EDI transactions: usage, invoicing, payment and write off. At their June meeting, CPS decided to develop a single combination data dictionary and to further document practices in other jurisdictions. However, at their July meeting it was concluded that developing four separate data dictionaries would be a better approach. Companies will remain free to combine the dictionaries themselves. Each one would have a section with a comprehensive discussion of the billing and payment process that is similar to the WGQ’s technical implementation section. Mr. Novak concurred that CPS must recognize significant practice variances. Mr. Alston concluded that the discussion section would identify the common or duplicative data elements that can lead to development of a combination data dictionary. Ms. Alexander supported this approach and stated the research was vital to developing a useful product. She said that there were a possible 50 variances and nuances in retail to accommodate differences in each state, unlike the uniformity of the wholesale markets. Ms. Alexander described the resulting data dictionaries as generic like the MBPs they support." __________ The Final Minutes of the July 27-28, 2004 CPS meeting (as approved at the August 17 conference call) state: "4. TIBP (Technical Implementation of the Billing and Payment Process) – Continued discussion Mr. Alston informed the group that the wholesale quadrants would like to see the TIBP completed and submitted by the retail quadrants, in order to remain consistent throughout the quadrants. Mr. Alston told the group the CPS needed to decide whether to proceed with editing and submitting the TIBP document. Mr. Alston explained that the Retail Gas/Retail Electric Executive Committee (EC) would be reviewing issues that involve retail quadrants remaining consistent with the wholesale quadrants. The group discussed whether it would be the best use of their time to work on a document that might not be used or posted. Mr. Alston told the group he would submit their comments to the EC, and that the group would begin action on the TIBP document depending on the decision of the EC." -----Original Message----- From: Barbara R. Alexander [ Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 9:58 AM To: Alston, Rick; Laura Kennedy (E-mail) Subject: Re: October 1 CPS meeting and documents Please post this message for the Oct. 1 CPS meeting: Rick and CPS members: I have several concerns about the documents posted for the Oct. 1 meeting. As a preliminary matter, I think you should post the work product from the August 17 meeting as the official workpaper for the Oct. 1 meeting. All the other documents are Rick's proposals to the Subcommittee and have not yet been seen by or considered in a Subcommittee meeting. While I deeply appreciate the personal time and effort Rick has given to this group and this effort, we need to keep clear the distinctions between the Subcommittee's work product to date and any suggestions Rick makes to the Subcommittee as an individual member. Billing and Payment Business Practices. First, the redline version of req_cps092004w1.doc are proposed changes by Rick Alston for the group to consider at the Oct. 1 meeting. They should not bear any inference of approval from or direction from the EC as a result of the August 25 meeting. We will need to review these proposed changes and consider them as a group at the Oct. 1 meeting. In general, I do not propose any significant changes to this document except the addition of the new sections (Datasets) to reflect our recent work. Some other clarifications to the existing Business Practices were discussed and I agreed with them at the July and August meetings because it was necessary to identify issues or business practices to make our datasets more complete. I do not agree with the need for any changes to the Overview as proposed in Rick's suggestions. the Overview language was carefully crafted prior to its approval by the EC and adoption by the REQ and RGQ. These proposed changes are not required in my opinion and open up the door to further debate about the presentation of "retail competition" and these business practices that we should not reopen. I note the rewrite of the first sentence in the Datasets section and wonder why that is necessary? We debated the wording of this first sentence in prior meetings and I would prefer to leave it as is. I presume the group will consider the othe redline changes in the Datasets themselves that have been proposed in Rick's redline and discuss them. I have no comments on those changes. Implementing The Billing and Payment Process. Rick has drafted this document because he understood that we needed to develop a document that would provide "technical" implementation guidance to the billing and payment process and the datasets that we are developing. I did not understand that we needed to develop this type of document based on our decision to focus on the "generic" datasets approach. I went back to the document developed for the July 27-28 meetings in Atlanta and it is a pretty straightforward 6 1/2 page document that just says in plain English what the datasets tell you and describes in a bit more detail the contents of the transaction. However, the document that Rick has prepared is now 22 paqges (and that George Behr has extensively edited) goes far beyond a simple statement of the transactions and their contents. It now appears (to me) to be a rewrite of the Model B and P business practices and contain references to alternative approaches and transactions. We would need to spend lots of time to develop and approve such a document because it would require, in my opinion, another set of discussions that in effect "redo" our business practices document. I do not see the purpose of this document. What exactly do we say in this Implementation document that is not already said or laid out in the Business Practices and the datasets that we have developed? If there are incremental tasks that need to be accomplished in this document, someone needs to clearly identify those tasks and needs. I do not think it is necessary to explore alternative approaches or lay out the universe of options in effect in the various states. We will take out a rather large task if we pursue this approach and we will inevitably leave some model or option out and the resulting dismay would not be worth it in my opinion. I apologize in advance, but I cannot participate in most of the call on Oct. 1. Until I saw these documents I had assumed (based on the minutes of the last meeting) that we would polish off the redlines developed on the datasets and "be done with it." I will attempt to call in for portions of the meeting. Good luck. Barbara Alexander Agent, Maine Office of Public Advocate REQ ----- Original Message ----- From: Alston, Rick To: Laura Kennedy (E-mail) Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 8:30 AM Subject: October 1 meeting comments by RCA Laura Please post the attached document for the RxQ CPS meeting on October 1, 2004. Rick Alston Manager, Member Retail Services Old Dominion Electric Cooperative 4201 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060