5. Customer Access to Energy Information
5.1. Should the Commission Require Utilities to Provide Customers with Access to the Information Referenced in 16 U.S.C. § 1621(d)(19)(B) of PURPA in Written and Electronic Form?
As the legal analysis above makes clear, PURPA, as amended by EISA, requires that, for each electric utility subject to the Commission's ratemaking authority, the Commission must make findings as to whether to require the utility to provide access to information pertaining to a customer's electricity usage. The statute proposes that the information to be provided by the utility must include prices, both wholesale time-based electricity prices and time-based retail electricity prices, and usage. Furthermore, PURPA proposes that such information must be updated "on not less than a daily basis,"105 including hourly prices and use information, and must include a day-ahead projection of prices.
Additionally, PURPA proposes that the utility would provide information concerning the sources of power by generation type, "including greenhouse gas emissions associated with each type of generation, for intervals during which such information is available."106
Finally, we note that PURPA, as amended by EISA, makes unnecessary further consideration of information disclosure where there has been "prior state action."
SCE supports providing electricity information to customers, but believes that the information should not be limited to the information that is listed in the statute. SCE notes that it is working to provide additional information to customers beyond what is listed in EISA § 1307(a), such as peak versus off-peak usage summaries, and information showing a customer's electricity usage in relation to a tiered rate structure. SCE also specifies how it is or is not meeting the standards of EISA § 1307(a). Notably, SCE believes that it is already compliant with or will be compliant with most of the standards in the near future, excluding providing time-based wholesale market prices, regarding which SCE replies that it "currently does not provide time-based wholesale prices to its customers."107
SDG&E states that it is already in compliance with the standards outlined in EISA § 1307(a).108
PG&E submits that any proposed information standards should be "evaluated as part of the Commission's broader initiatives" regarding demand response and dynamic pricing and not implemented in this rulemaking.109 PG&E also notes that it believes that it is already in compliance with this standard as part of prior Commission action.110
DRA suggests that previous Commission actions111 have already satisfied the requirements of this standard. Nevertheless, DRA argues that the Commission should affirm and adopt the standards as consistent with existing Commission policy to show compliance with the statute.112
TURN states that the Commission should not adopt the standard as it relates to providing hourly wholesale spot market prices, but does not oppose adopting the standard regarding the sources of generation supplied to the customer. TURN argues that California's IOUs are already required to submit similar information to their customers via a bill insert, and, as such, requiring the IOUs to include data regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with each type of generation in a bill insert "would not be overly burdensome."113
CFC supports adopting the standard, but cautions "only if access to the information is secure."114 CFC states that additional work is needed before implementing this standard in order to create a verification system to ensure security. CFC also supports providing prices and GHG emission information as it is useful to customers to make more efficient use of their consumption and to reduce GHG, but is unsure if the IOUs have the needed technology to provide customers with this information.
PacifiCorp supports adoption of the standard, with one change (see next section). PacifiCorp notes that it has not installed advanced meters, so it is currently not in compliance with this standard.115
CLECA notes that the type of information listed in this standard is not readily available to California consumers and "should be the goal of AMI and other system improvements."116 CPower echoes CLECA's position.117 Enspiria notes that information "contributes to ... the energy value chain."118
CEERT notes that a "not less than daily basis" may not be granular enough to allow for a real-time integration of customer resources into the market, and suggests that the Commission modify the EISA language to allow for more frequent and more timely updates on pricing and usage.119
The proposed EISA requirements would require the utilities to provide customers access in electronic and written form to time-based electricity prices in wholesale and retail markets, to usage information, to daily updates on hourly price and use information and to information on the sources and characteristics of the energy supply. The Joint Ruling tentatively concluded that the Commission should decline to adopt the proposed requirement for California utilities. For the small utilities of Sierra Pacific, Mountain Utilities, PacifiCorp and Bear Valley Electric, the Joint Ruling tentatively concluded that the small size of these utilities and the nature of their operations make it inappropriate to impose such a requirement. For SCE, PG&E and SDG&E, the Joint Ruling tentatively concluded that the Commission should find that prior Commission actions on implementing information disclosure policies in the context of the utilities' advanced metering initiatives constitute a "prior state action" pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1621(d), and make further action unnecessary to fulfill EISA requirements.
In addition, the Joint Ruling proposed to require that the three large IOUs provide retail prices on a real-time basis in a machine-readable form. The Joint Ruling proposed that this requirement go into effect at the completion of each utility's respective AMI deployment or the implementation of real-time pricing rates, whichever comes first. A utility would need to seek recovery of the costs to meet this requirement, if any, in a general rate case or relevant application.
These proposals triggered extensive comments.
SCE stated that it "agrees with the Ruling's view that the EISA amendments to PURPA do not need to be adopted in California as additional requirements, because California already has perhaps the most robust set of customer information mandates in the country."120 Concerning the proposed real-time access to price information, SCE argues:
A standard that sets requirements in excess of the existing minimum AMI criteria requires further examination related to cost-effectiveness. While in concept this requirement seems simple, in reality this is a rather complex issue.121
To deal with the complexities of this issue, SCE "suggests that the Commission adopt a policy of requiring that IOUs comply with Smart Grid standards that are recommended by NIST as part of its Roadmap effort."122
SDG&E takes a similar approach, agreeing that "prior Commission actions on implementing policies related to a customer's access to information have been satisfied by the minimum functionality requirements established in each utility's Advanced Metering Initiative proceedings."123
Concerning the proposed requirement that would go into effect upon completion of the AMI deployment, SDG&E argues that the "proposed policy requirement needs to be clarified."124 Specifically, SDG&E sees the requirement for "real-time pricing rates" as potentially in conflict with the timing provisions of SB 695. SDG&E recommends that the "Ruling be modified to defer the adoption of the proposed requirement" and that the Commission "identifies rate design and tariff proceedings as the appropriate forum to address when the utilities are to provide real-time pricing rates in machine readable form."125
PG&E similarly supports the finding that prior Commission action fulfills EISA requirements and that "new or additional customer information requirements are unnecessary."126 However, PG&E does "not believe that the Smart Grid OIR is the fair or efficient forum for adoption of the new tariff policies for real-time pricing."127 PG&E argues that acting in this proceeding "would needless confuse and duplicate the consideration" undertaken in other proceedings.128
DRA argues:
Given substantial prior Commission actions and absent significant changes in California's general energy policies, the Commission should simply find that prior Commission actions constitute a "prior state action" pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1621(d), find that imposition of new requirements is not required by PURPA, and refrain from creating redundant alternative standards.129
DRA specifically takes issue with the proposal to require the provision of real-time or near real-time information on prices. DRA states that "[t]his issue has already been decided, and the alternative standard is unnecessary because the Commission's advanced metering initiative since 2002 has been premised upon providing customers with timely access to retail pricing and usage information."130 DRA argues further "[t]he Commission has already authorized AMI meter technology that enables customers to obtain real-time basis in a machine readable form."131
In response, however, SCE points out that the AMI decisions do not require "the real-time presentment of retail prices to customers."132 SCE clarifies that "AMI functionality criteria required the IOUs to provide customers with access to interval usage data," not pricing information.133
TURN states that it "supports the notion that utilities should make individual customer usage information available to the individual customer."134 On the other hand, TURN:
... objects to the notion that resident customers must be informed about wholesale and retail time-based prices for the essential electricity service ... the notion that each utility must be prepared and provide daily information and hourly usage and pricing information relating to wholesale and retail prices would be burdensome and costly.135
TURN further objects to a requirement of providing access to information on real-time and in a machine readable form, arguing "[i]t is not clear what the cost and expense implications of such a requirement would impose on ratepayers."136 Instead, TURN proposes that the "Commission require utilities to submit their intended plans for communicating time-based price information to those customer who have selected time-based pricing options and indicate the costs associated with their proposed manner of communications so that the public can review and comment on these proposals."137 TURN summarizes its views as "[t]here is no need for further requirements in this area."138
CEERT states that the Commission's current information standard, which it characterizes as "hourly interval data with a one-day lag" is "inadequate for customers who intend to take a more active role in their energy management either directly or through third party energy managers."139 CEERT argues that unless the Commission provides access to data on a more timely basis, "the result will be underutilization of the newly deployed metering technologies and failure to realize the full potential of the smart grid."140
CLECA states that:
... customers should receive continuously-updated information on their usage with the additional detail being considered by Southern California Edison, i.e. usage by time-of-use period and information on movement into a higher tier for customers with tiered rates. For rate schedules with hourly prices, such as possible real time pricing tariffs, customers should have access to hourly prices on which they will be charged, whether these are day-ahead or real-time prices.141
CLECA, however, states that it "is less concerned about approval of the EISA requirement."142 It states that "[u]nless future retail rates are based on wholesale prices, we do not see a reason to provide customers with wholesale price information."143
Google cites a Commission filing to the Federal Communications Commission that notes that "the utilities have not yet activated the HAN signal on these meters as some of the key standards and security protocols ... are yet to be completed."144 Google argues that "consumers should not wait an indeterminate amount of time before they start seeing the benefits of their investments in the smart grid."145 Google recommends "that the Commission set a deadline - the end of 2010 at the latest - to ensure that consumers will be able to access their meter data directly ..."146
Tendril147 argues that "providing information tools to the consumer is consistent with national policy."148 Tendril supports the Commission's efforts to adopt new standards regarding information and states that "policies adopted at the federal level support the provision of consumers with real-time information that enables the implementation of automated energy management strategies and real-time transactions based on rates and other criteria."149
The Commission declines to adopt the proposed EISA requirement that a utility provide certain information to customers regarding prices, usage, intervals and projections and sources.
For Sierra Pacific, Mountain Utilities, PacifiCorp and Bear Valley Electric, the small size of these utilities and the nature of their operations make it inappropriate and unreasonable to impose such a requirement. None of these companies have installed advanced meters in California, and the additional cost of installing new advanced meters to meet this standard could be overly burdensome on their small ratepayer base. Thus, imposing this requirement on these companies is inconsistent with the purposes of the act, which seek to promote an efficient electric distribution system and equitable pricing of power. It is clear that for these companies, the requirements would produce costly and burdensome requirements.
For SCE, PG&E and SDG&E, we find that prior Commission actions on implementing information disclosure policies in the context of the utilities' advanced metering initiatives constitute a "prior state action" pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1621(d), and make further action unnecessary to fulfill EISA requirements.
The Commission has already adopted certain functional standards in its AMI proceedings that set requirements for the provision of information to customers.150 Our understanding is that once a customer of PG&E, SDG&E or SCE has received an advanced meter, the customer will have access to his or her energy usage information via the internet with a one day lag. The energy usage information will be broken down into one hour intervals for residential customers and into fifteen minute intervals for commercial and industrial customers. The utilities also generally provide retail price information via their websites, but currently there is no requirement to do that, nor is there a requirement to provide price information on the cost of electricity in wholesale markets.
The advanced metering projects approved by the Commission also include Home Area Network (HAN) devices that link to the new meters. A HAN device can enable price signals, load control and near real time data for electric customers.151 As SCE made clear, at this time there are no requirements or plans to provide any pricing data over the HAN.
Although our "prior state action" is sufficient to meet the EISA standards, we believe it is appropriate to reaffirm our expectations that PG&E, SDG&E and SCE provide their customers and other interested persons with real-time or near real-time retail and wholesale price information and provide their customers with usage information. Providing prices to customers conveys the information necessary for the customers to make more efficient use of their electricity consumption, and, potentially, to reduce their electricity costs. Specifically, as several parties have pointed out, access to information on wholesale prices and costs can prove critical for empowering customers to provide Demand Response services.
Also, ensuring that price and consumption information are easily accessible to customers will be important to support the Commission's dynamic pricing policies. Customers will need to understand what price they are paying for electricity so that they can choose how much energy to consume. As the participation of Google and Tendril in this proceeding makes clear, customers will likely have opportunities to invest in enabling devices that "listen" to prices and automatically increase or decrease their consumption of energy based on instructions that have been pre-programmed by the customer. These automatic agents will help customers to manage their energy consumption.
Currently, retail prices are available to customers in the form of the utilities' published tariffs and are typically printed on customers' monthly bills. However, it is unclear at this time when or how PG&E, SCE and SDG&E anticipate providing retail price information to customers on a real-time basis and in a machine-readable form, e.g., sending a signal or internet message that communicates what the time-of-use price is at the time the price is in effect or what is the "tier rate" in effect during a period of consumption.152
To overcome this current limitation and lay a foundation for future pricing policies that are sensitive to the cost of electricity at a particular time, there is more work that we should do in this proceeding. In the next part of this proceeding, we will consider how to require that the three large IOUs provide retail prices and wholesale costs on a real-time or near real-time basis in a machine-readable form consistent with any Smart Grid EISA standards recommended by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Through additional workshops and/or comments, the Commission will develop a record that determines the best way to require utilities to provide retail and wholesale prices to customers (and to authorized third parties) on a real-time or near real-time basis in a machine readable form.
At this point, we believe that this requirement should apply no matter what type of rate a customer is on. For example, a customer on a time-of-use rate should have access to the retail price that a customer is paying at the time the customer seeks access to the data. Similarly, a residential customer on the basic inverted tier rate plan should have access to his/her tiered energy rate, along with a forecast or projection of what tier he or she is in. We note that the current "basic plan" is far from basic - it consists of a number of tiers, surcharges, and discounts that apply under complex circumstances. Therefore, providing retail prices is intertwined with provision of cumulative energy usage during a billing period.
To guide the workshops and comments that follow, the Commission hereby sets the following requirements to be met through the workshops/comments in the next part of this proceeding:
Policy Objective 1: Identify low cost or no cost methods to meet the requirement of providing retail and wholesale prices to customers (and to authorized third parties) on a real-time or near real-time basis in a uniform manner to customers and authorized third parties in a machine readable form.
Policy Objective 2: Implement the regulatory requirement of Policy Objective 1 by the end of 2010, and if possible sooner - particularly if there are standards recommended for adoption by NIST - for all customers that have smart meters.153
Policy Objective 3: Estimate the costs, if any, of providing access to the information identified in Policy Objective 1 and designate a method through which the utility can recover the costs, if any, of providing customers and authorized third parties with access to price information.
Policy Objective 4: Ensure all information is secure and that a customer's privacy is protected.
With the availability of new meters and internet communications, the three large IOUs should provide retail and wholesale price and generation source information in a uniform manner consistent with widely accepted national standards or formats where available. The EISA amendments to PURPA make it clear that this is the direction of national policy, and California ratepayers should be empowered with the same information available in other states.
To empower consumers to make more informed choices on electricity consumption and to enable them to use automatic energy management systems, consistency in the provision of this price data is critical. As a result, we will be looking for a uniform approach in the workshops and comments on this proposed policy. The comments of Google and Tendril indicate that the availability of information on usage and prices in a consistent format can lead to energy management solutions that at this time we can only begin to imagine. In addition, Google's comments make clear that it is inappropriate to wait indefinitely for the development of standards. Although we hope that standards that NIST will recommend will be soon available, we plan to act by the end of 2010 even if NIST standards are not available.
Finally, we agree with DRA154 in that we expect that new technologies, products and third party entrants may provide additional information beyond the information contemplated in the EISA standard or our proposed requirements. Our intention today is not to limit the type of information that may be provided to customers in the future, nor are we limiting who may provide this data to customers.
5.2. Should the Commission Require Utilities to Provide Purchasers of Electricity With Access to Their Own Information at Any Time Through the Internet and on Other Means of Communications Elected by the Utility? Should the Commission Require Utilities to Provide Other Interested Persons Access to Information not Specific to Any Purchaser Through the Internet?
As detailed in the legal discussion above, EISA requires that the Commission must make findings for each utility that it regulates as to whether or not to require the utility to facilitate the ability of its customers to have access to their usage information at any time through the Internet, or through any other means selected by the utility for Smart Grid applications. Additionally, PURPA, as amended by EISA, asks the Commission to determine whether to require rules that would allow "other interested persons" to access information "not specific to any" customer through the Internet, provided that any information specific to any customer only be provided to that customer.
SCE notes that it already provides customers an opportunity to access their own information at any time via the internet, via Internet Voice Response or via their smart meter-enabled home area network interface. Additionally, SCE states that it also provides non-customer specific data to other entities and would like to work on developing an industry standard for exchanging data with "interested persons" other than the customer. It pledges to not provide customer-specific data to any third party without the permission of the customer.155
PG&E and SDG&E both state that they are already in compliance with this standard. On the other hand, CLECA156 and CPower157 both state that information and access to this information is not available today.
PacifiCorp supports adoption of this standard with one revision. PacifiCorp requests that if the Commission adopts this standard then the Commission should change the "and" in the first sentence to an "or."158 Thus, under its proposal, an IOU would need to provide access to information either through the internet or via some other means.
TURN cautions that this standard warrants further consideration due to the privacy implications of sharing customer data with a third party.159
SCE states that "existing state mandates meet or exceed the EISA requirements."160 SCE further states that:
SCE and the other California IOUs already provide all customers with access to their own usage information through the internet or other means. Moreover, in approving each IOU's AMI application, the Commission already required the IOUs to provide near real-time usage data.... In SCE's case, the SCE/DRA Settlement Agreement on the Edison Smart ConnectTM Phase III Application, adopted in Decision (D.) 08-09-039 requires that SCE provide customers with access to usage data provided through the AMI system.161
SCE further states that it already provides large commercial and industrial customers with access to usage data on 15 minute intervals and that its HAN "will provide customers with near real-time access to their usage data ... in 2012."162 Concerning third-party access, SCE states that "[o]nce the NIST automated data exchange standards are developed and approved, the Commission should adopt these standards as part of this proceeding."163
SDG&E cautions that "[i]f the Commission should specify recommendations on how to facilitate real-time access to energy usage information, the recommendations should clearly define the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of all parties involved in this data exchange: the utilities, the customers, and any third-parties."164 SDG&E advises caution.
PG&E states that it "agrees that the Commission's information disclosure requirements to date, particularly in the utilities' AMI proceedings, are sufficient to avoid the need for new policies or requirements on access to customer usage information."165 Concerning customer access to their usage data, PG&E states that "PG&E and the other utilities will remain obligated to provide every customer with access to their usage information, and to ensure that such customers fully and knowledgably consent to the disclosure of such information to third-parties ..."166 Concerning the issue of procedures and protocols for access by third parties to customer data, "PG&E strongly recommends that the Commission open a separate phase of this Smart Grid OIR proceeding to request comments and recommendations from all interested parties."167
DRA supports the Joint Ruling's finding that "prior Commission action" makes further action not necessary at this time.168 DRA urges that the Commission "consider how to accommodate a third party's continual access to customers' metering information and to ensure that the utilities do not erect anticompetitive financial barriers against third parties seeking to obtain that access on behalf of the utilities' customers.'169 DRA also recommends that the Commission "adopt rules which protect consumer information disseminated to a third-party provider ..."170 DRA notes that under current rules "[a]ccess to information, whether by the utility customer or to a third party, is limited to the most recent twelve months of customer usage data, for up to two times per year per service account at no cost to the requesting party, after which the utility than has the ability to assess a processing charge ..."171
TURN and CFC, filing jointly, recommend:
... three critical principles: 1) customers own their usage information and should be empowered to use it, and 2) any deliberate disclosure by the customer to a third party should be accompanied by strong consumer protection requirements for adequate notice and disclosure, and written consent, and 3) regulatory policies should ensure maximum protection against inadvertent disclosure of private information by the utilities and as a condition to allowing third parties to have access to the information.172
TURN and CFC recommend that the Commission "initiate a new phase in this rulemaking (or open a new proceeding) that will specifically consider issues related to customer and third part access to customer-specific usage information in a post-AMI world."173
CARE states that it supports adoption of the EISA standard.174
CEERT supports "instantaneous access to usage data at the meter"175 for both customers and their agents. CEERT notes that under current consumer protection rules, "the customer must provide a written release to the utility" and suggests that the Commission "consider electronic signatures."176
NAPP177 calls for third party access to "the pulse information from the utility Smart Metering devices directly in real time (or near real time) and not just the hourly updates that are currently under consideration."178 In addition, NAPP criticizes the current authorization forms as "complex" with "legal language that may intimidate and dissuade the customer from participating."179 NAPP also suggests that the Commission "consider electronic signatures."180 Moreover, NAPP also notes that under current rules, access to information is limited to three years from the date of execution.181
On the issue of electronic signatures, SCE responds that "California law allows for the use of electronic signatures."182
CLECA concurs "that the Commission need not adopt the EISA requirement" but that "all customers should have access to their own usage information by time period ..."183 CLECA, however, states that it does "not have sufficient time in our response to this Ruling to recommend rules ..."184
Google recommends that the Commission "maximize the opportunities for third party participation" in order to "drive innovation and customer choice."185 Google describes the actions of the State of Texas, stating that Texas "employed a facilitated, stakeholder process to address issues around development of a centralized web portal, third party access to data, and privacy and security."186
Tendril also cites the actions of the State of Texas to develop meters that can communicate with devices on the premises and the actions of the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, which directed electric distribution companies to provide "[n]on-discriminatory access for retail electric suppliers and third parties" to smart meters.187
Wal-Mart states that "customers should have access to their own information, without cost, through the Internet" but "other parties should not be able to access another customer's information unless the utility is give permission by that customer to release the information."188
We decline to adopt the EISA standard that requires an IOU to provide customers with access to usage information and to provide other interested persons with access to certain information not specific to any one customer via the internet. For PacifiCorp, Sierra Pacific, Mountain Utilities, and Bear Valley, we find that their operations and customer base are too small to support the significant infrastructure investments that would be needed to support the implementation of this standard, and these utilities have not installed advanced meters for their customers. Thus, we conclude that adopting such a standard would be inconsistent with the purposes of PURPA, which seeks to promote efficiency while assuring the equitability of rates to consumers.
For SCE, SDG&E and PG&E, as discussed above, we find that prior Commission actions implementing information disclosure policies in AMI, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1621(d), constitute a "prior state action" and therefore make further action unnecessary to fulfill PURPA requirements. AMI disclosure requirements, with the notable exception of the lack of requirements concerning electricity prices, are generally consistent with the information disclosure requirements proposed in 16 U.S.C. § 2621(d)(19).
The Commission, however, is interested in determining which further disclosure requirements will further California's policy objectives for the Smart Grid in particular, and for broader energy policies. Even though we decline to adopt this EISA standard, we share the opinion that customer access to usage information is a goal of this Commission, and should be a goal of IOUs in implementing a Smart Grid. Indeed, SDG&E and Google have already entered into a partnership to provide customers with just this type of access to their consumption data.
There are significant concerns, however, that the Commission must address as it relates to access, particularly by third parties, such as confidentiality, the security of the customer's information, and processes to allow for third parties to obtain access to the data with a customer's permission. We therefore plan to hold additional workshops and to take additional comments so that the Commission can develop rules and policies concerning how a utility should provide a customer and third parties designated by a customer with secure access to the customer's energy usage information, both on a day after basis and on a near real-time basis. The new rules will address privacy and consumer protection considerations. In particular, the rules will address the frequency with which a customer or customer-designated third party can access the customer's data, as well as the scope and duration of a customer's consent whereby an IOU provides his or her energy usage information to a third party. We will be investigating to what extent it is possible to let the customer determine both the frequency and duration of access. Consistent with evolving state law, we will also investigate what is necessary to implement an electronic signature system.
Furthermore, the Commission will consider and, if appropriate, require that the three major IOUs fully comply with Smart Grid standards recommended by NIST for adoption.189 Specifically, the Commission will consider whether to require that IOUs comply with NIST standards related to providing customers with access to energy usage information, including any automated data exchange standards.190
Given the importance of ensuring customer access to usage information we will set a deadline by which utilities must provide access to authorized third parties. We will require that by the end of 2010, the utilities will have put into place operations that allow customers to access their information easily through an agreement with a third party, provided sufficient privacy and security measures are in place to mitigate the potential for fraud and hacking. We intend to develop and adopt necessary rules and policies related to authorized third party access to usage data during the next phase of this proceeding. Thus, the access to usage data must be provided consistent with the rules we adopt to ensure that access is provided consistent with EISA, the general public interest, and state privacy rules.
Additionally, to ensure that real-time or near-real time access to this data and to the benefits offered by AMI are realized, we will explicitly require that each IOU be capable of providing a customer with an AMI meter with access to the customer's usage information on a near real-time basis by the end of 2011 should the customer desire that information. Once again, this access to usage data must be provided consistent with the rules we adopt to ensure that access is provided consistent with EISA, the general public interest, and state privacy rules.
105 16 U.S.C. § 1621(d)(19)(B)(iii).
106 16 U.S.C. § 1621(d)(19)(B)(iv).
107 SCE Comments at 23.
108 SDG&E Comments at 7. In a response to Question 7, SDG&E inadvertently refers to the wrong PURPA standard in its response. As such, it does not answer the question regarding whether or not the Commission should implement this particular Smart Grid standard.
109 PG&E Comments at 11.
110 Id. at 12.
111 Advanced Metering Infrastructure Minimum Functionality Criteria, ACR, R.02-06-001 (February 19, 2004).
112 DRA Comments at 6.
113 TURN Comments at 10.
114 CFC Comments at 26.
115 PacifiCorp Comments at 4.
116 CLECA Comments at 9.
117 CPower Comments at 4.
118 Enspiria Comments at 9.
119 CEERT Reply Comments at 12.
120 SCE Comments on Joint Ruling at 6.
121 Id. at 7.
122 Id. at 8.
123 SDG&E Comments on Joint Ruling at 2.
124 Id. at 3.
125 Id. at 3-4.
126 PG&E Comments on Joint Ruling at 4-5.
127 Id. at 5.
128 Id.
129 DRA Comments on Joint Ruling at 11.
130 Id. at 9.
131 Id. at 10.
132 SCE Reply Comments on Joint Ruling at 8.
133 Id.
134 TURN Comments on Joint Motion at 8.
135 Id.
136 Id. at 9.
137 Id. at 10.
138 Id.
139 CEERT Comments on Joint Ruling at 8.
140 Id. at 9.
141 CLECA Comments on Joint Ruling at 6.
142 Id.
143 Id. at 7.
144 Google Comments on Joint Ruling at 2, citing Comments of the California Public Utilities Commission and the People of the State of California to NBP Public Notice #2, Federal Communications Commission GN Docket Nos. 09-47, 09-51, 09-137 (October 2, 2009).
145 Id. at 3.
146 Id.
147 We note that Tendril filed a Motion for Party Status on November 4, 2009. Tendril is a developer of energy management systems with an interest in the results of this proceeding. We grant Tendril party status.
148 Tendril Comments on Joint Ruling at 3.
149 Id. at 4.
150 Specifically, the Commission found in D.07-07-042 that SCE's AMI application satisfactorily met the six functions. In D.06-07-027, the Commission found that PG&E's AMI application satisfactorily met the six functions. In D.07-04-043, the Commission found that SDG&E's AMI application satisfactorily met the six functions. See also, D.08-09-039, Finding of Fact 20 (September 18, 2008).
151 D.09-03-026, Finding of Fact 6 (March 13, 2009).
152 We note that providing customers access to the rate in effect at a given time, despite SDG&E's stated concerns, is not inconsistent with any timing requirements adopted by statutes. Indeed, rates currently vary considerably depending on the level of consumption during the month and other factors.
153 NIST has identified developing a common specification for energy prices as one of its Priority Action Plans. See NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards Release 1.0 (Draft), September 2009, pp. 49-51.
154 DRA Reply Comments at 11.
155 SCE Comments at 25-26.
156 CLECA Comments at 9.
157 CPower Comments at 4.
158 PacifiCorp Comments at 4.
159 TURN Comments at 11.
160 SCE Comments on Joint Ruling at 9.
161 Id.
162 Id. at 9-10.
163 Id. at 10.
164 SDG&E Comments on Joint Ruling at 4.
165 PG&E Comments on Joint Ruling at 6.
166 Id.
167 Id.
168 DRA Comments on Joint Ruling at 11-12.
169 Id. at 14.
170 Id. at 15.
171 Id. at 13.
172 TURN and CFC Comments Pertaining to the EISA Standard Regarding Customer and Third Party Access to Private Usage Information at 3.
173 Id. at 5.
174 CARE Comments on Joint Ruling at 5.
175 CEERT Comments on Joint Ruling at 10.
176 Id. at 11.
177 NAPP filed a Motion to Become a Party to this proceeding on November 2, citing a "direct interest" because it is a demand response aggregator. We grant this motion.
178 NAPP Reply Comments on Joint Ruling at 5.
179 Id. at 3.
180 Id. at 4.
181 Id. at 3.
182 SCE Reply Comments on Joint Ruling at 12.
183 CLECA Comments on Joint Ruling at 7.
184 Id. at 8.
185 Google Comments on Joint Ruling at 6.
186 Id.
187 Tendril Comments on Joint Ruling at 5-6.
188 Wal-Mart Comments on Joint Ruling at 4.
189 Although we will address the requirements of SB 17 in a separate ruling, we note SB 17 added § 8362 to the Pub. Util. Code, which asks the Commission "to adopt standards and protocols to ensure functionality and interoperability developed by public and private entities, including, but not limited to, the National Institute of Standards and Technology ... "
190 NIST has identified developing standards for energy usage information as one of its Priority Action Plans. See NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards Release 1.0 (Draft), September 2009, pp. 56-57.
