Onboard meter storage of meter data that complies with nationally recognized nonproprietary standards such as ANSI C12.19 and C12.22 tables Open standards and protocols that comply with nationally recognized nonproprietary standards, such as IEEE 802.15.4 Ability to upgrade these minimum capabilities as technology advances and becomes economically feasible Ability to monitor voltage at each meter and report data in a manner that allows an EDC to react to the information Ability to remotely reprogram the meter Ability to communicate outages and restorations Ability to support net metering of customergenerators SMP Implementation Order at 30. However, to the extent that an EDC or another party demonstrates that a particular Commission-imposed requirement is not costeffective, the Commission will have the option of waiving a particular requirement for that EDC or all EDCs. This waiver authority does not extend to the minimum requirements delineated in 66 Pa.C.S. § 2807(g). SMP Implementation Order at 17, 31. Finally, before addressing the Exceptions, we note that any issue or Exception that we do not specifically delineate shall be deemed to have been duly considered and denied without further discussion. It is well settled that the Commission is not required to consider expressly or at length each contention or argument raised by the parties. also see, generally,
PPL responded that the OSBA overstated the meter cost discrepancy between the GS-1 and GS-3 meters. According to PPL, 95% of the GS-3 meters are within the cost range of the GS-1 meters, and only 1,491 of the 27,363 GS-3 meters cost $399. In addition, PPL asserted that if the $399 meter cost for the largest customers was removed from the cost analysis, the remaining Small C&I customers would pay only $2 less than they would pay if all meter costs are combined into one charge for all Small C&I customers. According to PPL, this $2 difference would produce a de minimis rate impact over the fifteen-year depreciable life of the meter. PPL also noted that splitting its Small C&I rate class into separate rate schedules for SMR purposes would be inconsistent with the Company’s treatment of its other Section 1307 automatic adjustment clauses. PPL M.B. at 35-36; PPL R.B. at 31. b. ALJ’s Recommendation The ALJ found the OSBA’s proposal to separately charge GS-1 and GS-3 customers due to differences in meter costs between the two rate schedules to be “based on a solid assumption.” I.D. at 47. The ALJ further found PPL’s “dismissive approach towards this common sense proposal” to be inappropriate. Id. Nevertheless, the ALJ determined that there was insufficient evidence in this proceeding to support a deviation from PPL’s standard practice of calculating separate charges for only three rate classes in its Section 1307 automatic adjustment clauses, without splitting these classes into smaller segments based on rate schedule. Id. at 47-48. c. Exceptions and Replies No Exceptions were filed on this issue.
acquire data within 48 hours of daily meter reads. Commission review of this document will occur at a public meeting. The outcome of this proceeding will likely determine the direction of this issue. Id. at 62. The ALJ asserted that ideally, the Commission’s scrutiny of this matter will result in regulations, “which are the appropriate way to implement a statute.” Id. In the meantime, the ALJ stated, PPL will be expected to comply with whatever outcome the Commission approves in the WPWG Proceeding. Thus, the ALJ recommended that parties that wish to be involved in the development of a solution regarding access to customer data via the supplier portal should look to that proceeding, and PPL should develop a plan in accordance with the resulting Commission guidelines. Id. 3. Exceptions and Replies In its Exception No. 1, PPLICA asserts that the ALJ erred in her finding that the privacy issues it raised regarding the supplier portal would be better addressed in the WPWG Proceeding than in the instant proceeding. PPLICA argues that while the WPWG Proceeding may address data privacy issues to a limited degree, its primary focus is on the adoption of technical standards for EDC web portals, and will not speak to the specific concerns raised by PPLICA in this proceeding. PPLICA avers that it will participate in the WPWG Proceeding and file comments to the Commission’s Tentative Order in that proceeding, but contends that the Commission must rule on PPL’s supplier portal in the instant proceeding, and should address PPLICA’s concerns. PPLICA Exc. at 2-5. In reply, PPL asserts that it is completely reasonable for the Commission to address data privacy issues in the generic WPWG Proceeding because such issues can