EBT STANDARDS WORKING GROUP
DISCUSSION PAPER
DOCUMENT TYPE: / Working Group Global IssueGLOBAL ITEM # / 803
ISSUE / SSS Amendment – Seamless Provincial Moves
DRAFT / 6.3
1 Disclaimer Notice
This contribution has been prepared by Direct Energy (DE) for the purposes of discussion in the OEB EBT Working Group meetings and is not to be construed as a binding proposal on DE.
DE reserves the right to amend or withdraw statements made in this contribution without prejudice.
DRAFT
2 Document Version Control
Ver / Dated / Author / Changes1.0 / June 21, 06 / K. Innes / Initial Draft and suggestions from June 23, 06 working group meeting
2.0 / June 22, 06 / J. Lee / Added GI 800 from Kevin McNabb of Universal Energy. The outcome of this discussion paper will address the issue identified in this GI.
GI 800** Seamless Transfer – Date Extension
3.0 / June 29, 06 / K. Innes / Update with comments from June 23, 06 working group meeting
4.0 / July 8, 06 / K. Innes / Updated with scenarios
5.0 / July 13, 06 / K. Innes / Updated with comments from July 13, 06 sub committee meeting
5.1 / July 20, 06 / K. Innes / Updated with comments from July 19, 06 sub committee meeting
5.2 / July 25, 06 / K. Innes / Updated with comments from July 24, 06 sub committee meeting
5.3 / Aug 18, 06 / K. Innes / Updated with comments from Aug 16, 06 sub committee meeting
5.4 / Aug 31, 06 / K. Innes / Updated with comments from Aug 31, 06 sub committee meeting
5.5 / Sept 13, 06 / K. Innes / Comments from working group – no issues raised
5.6 / October 5, 06 / K. Innes / Updated with comments from Oct 6, 06 sub committee meeting
5.7 / April 20, 2007 / K. Innes / Separated this GI into 2. One for the RPP FSVA and this one strictly for Seamless Provincial Moves
6.0 / March 2, 2008 / K. Innes / Updated GI and included comments from working group meeting Feb 29, 2008
6.1 / April 4, 2008 / K. Innes / Update with April 2, 2008 comments
6.2 / April 14, 2008 / K. Innes / Update with April 10, 2008 comments
6.3 / April 21, 2008 / K. Innes / Update with April 21, 2008 comments
3 Issues/Activity Log
/ ISSUE / STATUS /1. / LDC to LDC transactions – would Service Agreements need to be signed between LDC’s? / Closed – Alternate solution being considered which does not involve LDC-LDC flow. Resolution not required at this time.
2. / As there are no charges for SA’s, if the SA-CCL is put into practice (or other transactions) the fee schedule may need to be updated (the SA-CCL takes place of the enrolment) / Closed – Alternate solution being considered which does not involve SA-CCL Transactions. Resolution not required at this time.
3. / LDC – LDC – are their any privacy issues, how do we uniquely identify a customer? / Closed – Alternate solution being considered which does not involve LDC-LDC flow. Resolution not required at this time.
4. / Placeholder – need overlap and gap scenarios defined. / Closed – as processes is date driven, transaction flow not affected. See Section 6.
5. / How will LDC’s or retailers determine which new LDC a customer is moving to, service territories not fully or clearly defined?
Suggestion: Addresses would need to be housed i.e.: IESO / Closed – Alternate solution involves customer notification
6. / For LDC – Retailer flow should the transactions be a CCL or SA-CCL / Closed – Alternate solution being considered which does not involve SA-CCL Transactions. Resolution not required at this time.
7 / If move notification comes from other source i.e.: lawyers letter, web (new service address, postal code, old address etc. not provided). How is this information obtained? / Closed – if contact is via letter or web, retailer will need to be proactive in contacting the customer to inform them of the process
8 / What if a customer calls the retailer to inform them of the move? / Closed – the retailer should advise the customer to contact their existing LDC to initiate the process.
9 / If a customer moves, does the retailer require the ability to reject the move notification? / Closed – yes, in the case where retailers do not have a service agreement with that LDC
10 / What happens when a customer moves into an LDC territory and the retailer does not have an SA with that LDC? / Closed – retailer would reject the transaction
11 / Is postal code a mandatory validator according to the RSC? / Closed – confirmed yes
12 / Do SA-CCL’s without CCI’s received need to be followed up on? / Closed – Alternate solution being considered which does not involve SA-CCL Transactions. Resolution not required at this time.
4 TABLE of CONTENTS
1 Disclaimer Notice 1
2 Document Version Control 2
3 Issues/Activity Log 3
4 TABLE of CONTENTS 5
5 Background 6
6 Provincial moves 6
6.1 LDC to Retailer Flow 8
6.1.1 LDC to Retailer Flow - Customer contacts existing LDC first 8
6.1.2 LDC to Retailer Flow – Customer contacts new LDC first 10
6.1.3 LDC to Retailer Flow – Customer contacts new LDC first (Version 2) 11
6.2 LDC to LDC Flow 13
6.2.1 Existing LDC to New LDC Flow with Retailer Notification – existing contacted 13
6.2.2 New LDC to Existing LDC Flow with Retailer Notification – new LDC contacted 14
6.3 Retailer to LDC flow 16
6.4 Alternate Option – Enrolment with ‘Last Actual Read’ 18
7 Rejected Options 19
7.1 Create a new transaction 19
7.2 Request changes to the RPP Regulation 20
8 Recommendation 21
GI 803 Seamless Moves – Long Term Solution 19
5 Background
On March 24, 2006 the Board issued a Notice of Proposal to Amend the SSS code relating to the application of the final RPP variance settlement amount (‘RPP Settlement amount’). The proposed amendment would require a distributor to refund the RPP Settlement amount to customers when it is confirmed that the customer had an existing contract with a retailer prior to the move and is simply staying on that contract.
When a retail customer moves from one LDC territory into the next, flow does not start with the existing retailer until an enrollment is processed. The result is that the customer is placed on standard supply service and billed RPP rates with the new LDC for a period of time until the enrollment is affected. Once the switch takes place and the customer leaves SSS and the RPP, the customer is charged the RPP Settlement Variance for leaving the RPP.
The Board received written submissions from both retailers and distributors in regard to the notice and proposed changes and has adopted the amendment effective June 9, 2006. The amendment requires LDC’s to refund the RPP Settlement in these instances.
The Board further identifies that long term solution may be desirable which could involved changes to the EBT standards and have asked the EBT Working group to investigate this approach, possible solutions and provide cost and timing estimates. The Board has also asked the EBT working group to provide a recommendation on this issue.
6 Provincial moves
For the long term Provincial moves section, 3 flows have been drafted and investigated, LDC to Retailer, LDC to LDC and Retailer to LDC. For each flow scenarios have been developed based on who the customer contacts i.e.: Customer contacts existing LDC first, new LDC first or retailer first.
At this point in discussions, no RCB impacts have been identified.
GAP scenarios – where there is a gap in service provided to the customer.
The subgroup has walked through the different scenarios and as the process is date driven, the transaction flow is not affected. The only issue raised was if the contract becomes invalid between the move out and move in dates (if this is an extended period of time). The resolution was for the retailer to send an SA-TTR to cancel the enrolment prior to the service being set up.
Overlap – where a customer maintains 2 services for a period of time.
The subgroup has walked through the overlap scenario and do not see any impact to the flow as the process is date driven.
As a placeholder, the following scenarios need to be considered:
1) customer provides new service address upfront
2) customer does not provide new service address
3) customer provides new service address at a later date
6.1 LDC to Retailer Flow
6.1.1 LDC to Retailer Flow - Customer contacts existing LDC first
Flow:
1. Customer contacts existing LDC and advises of the move and supplies forwarding and new service address information
2. Existing LDC issues a drop to the Retailer with new service address information and new LDC information if available.
3. Retailer sends an SA-CCL (notification) transaction to the new LDC advising of the move in address and to enrol the customer once move in is confirmed – 5BD
4. New LDC responds with AAA/AAR (acknowledging SA-CCL) - within 2BD
5. Customer communication takes place to confirm service request and required information is obtained (customer enrolled immediately, SA-CCL takes place of the enrol transaction)
6. New LDC sends a CCI to the retailer confirming service has been established with account details and enrol accept information – within 5 BD of confirmation
7. Retailer sends response to the CCI confirming to the LDC that the customer is retailer enrolled – within 5 BD
Assumptions:
- SA-CCL would be expanded to include old account information and new service address information for matching purposes (it would need to be expanded to mirror the CCL)
- SA-CCL is bi-directional
- CCI would contain both old and new account information, the effective move in date and Enrol Accept information (takes place of the Enrol Accept) – this transaction would require some modification but is workable (SA-CCL reference would be required as well as Enrol Accept information)
- Drop transaction would be updated to include new service address, move in date (optional) and new LDC (optional). Drop effective date would be the move out date.
- In a GAP scenario, if a contract becomes invalid during the time between the SA-CCL being sent and the CCI update establishing the service, a SA-TTR would be used to cancel the enrolment with the new LDC. When the customer does move in, they would be enrolled on SSS
Issues:
- Retailer needs new LDC information
- New account number not available to retailer to provide in the SA-CCL
- New LDC would need to hold the incoming SA-CCL and match the transaction once the customer calls in or is contacted (using service address, old address and customer name). LDC’s would need cross-referencing ability.
- Some LDC’s do not establish the account number until flow begins so cannot provide it in the CCI ahead of time
a) LDC’s assign account numbers upon customer call
b) Retailer cross reference CCI with OTRN
6.1.2 LDC to Retailer Flow – Customer contacts new LDC first
This scenario is the reverse of (a) above (customer contacting the existing LDC first) but would work with the same guiding principals and flow.
Flow:
1. Customer calls new LDC to advise of move in and advises they are a retail customer
2. New LDC sends an SA-CCL to the retailer with existing account information (account number, service address, name, effective date) advising of the move in
3. Retailer sends response to SA-CCL – within 2BD
4. Retailer sends an SA-Info to the existing LDC advising that the customer is moving
5. Existing LDC confirms move out (or customer calls) and issues a drop to the retailer. Scenario (a) is continued:
6. Retailer sends an SA-CCL (notification) transaction to the new LDC advising to enrol the customer – 5 BD
7. New LDC responds with AAA/AAR (acknowledging SA-CCL) – 2BD
8. New LDC sends a CCI to the retailer confirming service has been established with account details - 5BD
9. In the event the SA-CCL needs to be cancelled, an SA-TTR would be used.
Issues:
- Retailer needs new LDC information
6.1.3 LDC to Retailer Flow – Customer contacts new LDC first (Version 2)
Flow:
1. Customer calls new LDC to advise of move in and advises they are a retail customer
2. New LDC sends an SA-CCL to the retailer with existing account information (account number, service address, name, effective date) advising of the move in
3. Retailer sends SA-CCL response – within 2BD
4. Retailer contacts customer to confirm move details –why???
5. Retailer sends Enrolment to new LDC
6. Customer calls existing LDC with move out information
7. Existing LDC sends Drop
Further Assumptions:
- if old account information does not match, retailer will reject SA-CCL
- if old account information does match, retailer will accept the SA-CCL and send an enrolment
Issues:
- if Customer calls into existing LDC triggers option (a) above, which would create duplicate flows, but no real negative impact other than extra transactions flowing