Minutes of the Maine EBT teleconference Meeting held on October 24, 2014

The meeting opened at 10:02 am EST by Michael Eaton – chairperson

Routine Business

  • Started with Roll Call and identified attendees listed below (apologies for misspellings)

Emera Maine / Michael Eaton
Nola Amero
Lori Omlor
David Blethen
Vicki Nelson
MPUC / Angela Monroe
CMP / Bobbi Bailey
Ann Goucher
Sue Clary
Kim Kendrick
Electricity Maine / Muriel LeClerc
Dan Kuehl
MEGA Energy / Linda
Constellation / Christine Hughey
Crius Energy / Joe Lindsay
Provider Power / Kristen Joseph
EC Info Systems / Barbara Goubeaud
Deborah Croce
Nirav Shah
Mint Energy / Stephanie Passley-Lee
Steven Pitcher
CN Brown Electricity / Vicki Merrill
ESG / ????
  • Reviewed the purpose of the meeting
  • Reviewed the Anti-Trust Statement
  • Reviewed the current Maine EBT/EDI webpage
  • Reviewed the Change Request process

New Business

The discussion began outlining the overall process and that the meeting was intended to be more of a data gathering session to hear what was being proposed versus trying to respond to requests. To the extent that there werespecific concerns between one supplier and a utility, best practice was for the parties work to resolve. However, if the issue is a structural problem with the current transaction design then this group would use defined processes to work to resolve.

There were some documents/emails provided prior to the meeting that werereviewed. Electricity Maine and EC Info Systems their EDI provider presented a number of items.

Item # 1

CMP sends 814-6 files with 021 codes in ASI102 for all 814-1, 814-2, and 814-8 transactions. There is no way to determine by the file if it was an enrollment, change, or drop that was being rejected. The ASI segment ASI02 should use 001 for change and 024 for drop in addition to ASI101 ‘U’ for rejection. See page C.3.35 of 814-3_draft.doc.

There is an existing change request for this from 2003. The change request is # 2003-001.

Item # 2

Request - It would be helpful to indicate Net Metering customers on the 814-4, either by a Utility Rate Code or a Billing Status code. See pages C.3.9 of 814_3_draft.doc

The business reason for the request is to aid in load scheduling and forecasting. Other states currently provide this data.

Some concern from the group as to whether or not this involves a customer privacy issue. The providers may not know this when dealing with their customers especially if the customer they are dealing with is not aware and they could have multiple locations and some add this after the fact. They would like to see this on the successful enrollment response.

This request pertains to the true Net Energy eligible customers and not the situation of pure behind the meter generation.

A different mechanism other than the rate code should be considered since for some utilities this is not indicative of Net Metering.

There was a suggestion that the Capacity Tags and Historical Usage should be what the customer nets and may meet theproviders need. However, it may not be as simple as that. Depends on whether the customer has telemetering or not. If the process is not supported by the utilities it would go to the MPUC. The purpose of this group is to resolve things through consensus and avoid regulatory proceedings.

Action Items

  • MPUC to determine if there are some privacy issues with this and get back to the group via the list serve.
  • Utilities will need to do some research on how we can communicate this back in the EDI method. Possibly go to other markets and see how they are indicating it.
  • Electricity Maine will provide documentation from other markets.

Item #3

Request - 814-7 transactions need a Drop Reason. See pages C.3.19, C.3.44 and C.3.72 of 814_3_draft.doc

Providers would like to know if the customer has moved, dropped to SOP, or enrolled with another Provider. This is important to the providers and they may have to call the customer to determine the situation. This information is not currently provided in Maine but is in other states. Currently in Maine if the customer drops to SOP then an 814-7 is generated and if they move they get the final usage (FB) and this should be the indictor they are looking for.

Action Items

  • MPUC will follow up but believes there may be a privacy concern here.

Item #4

Request - Re-open an issue discussed in the 8/9/01 EBT meeting on using 248 transactions instead of 820s to communicate Bad Debt Write Off. See page 2 of 080901.doc.

A lot of time has elapsed for this item, it would be helpful to have some examples/information about the 248 to include what other markets use and the source (ie., UIG or Mass) . Several Providers indicated that it is used more in Ohio and NJ and the EDI Providers agree that the 248 is a good way to distinguish between payments and write offs.

Utilities concerned from an implementation perspective this would not be an easy implementation even if it is a good idea. Utilities have designed their systems around the current method and it could be problematic to change.

Action Items

  • Electricity Maine will create the change request and craft up what the EDI Document would look like.

Item # 5

CMP has a daily transaction limit – this makes sending bulk requests difficult. They do not limit transactions sent from CMP to CEP. Would like to discuss having this limit lifted

Agreed to be taken off the agenda and will be discussed between the parties .

Action Items

  • Emera Maine will communicate to CMP if there are any limits on the number of transactions received in a day from one file transfer.

Item #6

In some cases, CMP sends a final bill for when a customer drop the CEP, but no 814-7. We would like to have an 814-7 for all customers that drop CEP for any reason. See pages C.3.19, C.3.44 and C.3.72 of 814_3_draft.doc

This was covered in the discussion for Item # 3 and no further discussion needed

Item #7

CMP - Duplicate or incomplete 997–

When a request is sent to CMP, CMP sends back a response using our Reference Number from the original request. We have received multiple of these transactions resulting from the same request seemingly due to possible multiple meters on this account or unmetered services existing on the account. No standards document to reference for this.

This will be discussed off line between the 2 parties.

Action Items

  • Meeting to be scheduled for the two parties to discuss Items 5 and 7

Item # 8

Emera does not send 814-7 transactions when a customer drops through the utility. We request that this standard is followed. See pages C.3.19, C.3.44 and C.3.72 of 814_3_draft.doc

Action Items

  • This will be corrected when Emera Maine’s new CIS system goes live.

Item #9

Request for consideration of a “Bill Ready” billing option.

The provider is sent a transaction with the consumption and they in turn send a transaction that lists the charges they would want applied on the customer bill. This allows flexibility and methodically for the providers and is readily used and accepted in a lot of marketers such and NY and PGM.

Concern of the utilities is the delay in the getting the bills out. This process in other markets typically takes 3 days due to systems and EDI cut off times. The bill will only reflect a total charge and does not include the components.

Action Items

  • Constellation will put together the change request to help the group understand this process.

Next Meeting

Meetings will be scheduled for 10:00am EST on the 3rd Thursday of the following months:

Feb 19th

May 21st– On Site location at CMP’s Augusta office

Aug 20th

Nov 19th