Rule 021: Settlement System Code and Rule 028: Natural Gas Settlement System Code

Consultation has concluded

The Commission approved changes to Rule 021: Settlement System Code and Rule 028: Natural Gas System Settlement Code on December 16, 2020. The documents related to the release of the current versions of Rule 021 and Rule 028 can be found under Consultation documents on the right-hand side of the page.

Detailed information on revised Rule 021 and Rule 028 including stakeholder comments matrix has been posted on the AUC website under Consultation for Rule 021 – Settlement System Code and Rule 028 – Natural Gas Settlement System Code.


The Commission approved changes to Rule 021: Settlement System Code and Rule 028: Natural Gas System Settlement Code on December 16, 2020. The documents related to the release of the current versions of Rule 021 and Rule 028 can be found under Consultation documents on the right-hand side of the page.

Detailed information on revised Rule 021 and Rule 028 including stakeholder comments matrix has been posted on the AUC website under Consultation for Rule 021 – Settlement System Code and Rule 028 – Natural Gas Settlement System Code.


CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.
Discussions: All (24) Open (8)
  • You need to be signed in to add your comment.

    AUI has requested to post the following discussion:


    AUI would like to invite all Retailers to participate in a discussion forum on Engage, in regards to our new CIS implementation scheduled for August 3, 2021. This is an opportunity for AUI to share information about the project and for Retailers to ask questions. At any time, Retailers can also direct questions to engage@apexutilities.ca

  • CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

    You need to be signed in to add your comment.

    ENMAX has requested to post the following discussion:

    Populating the UCI for commercial customers as specified has resulted in:   

    • Agents (e.g. Account Payables (AP) service companies, Property Managers) (the financially responsible company) being contacted directly for energize, de-energize and/or site outage notice purposes, even though the site contact information is there for the field crews to use.  

    In such cases, it is the Agent name which appears in the UCI as the customer (Customer Company Name) vs the site owner company. This has led to issues, or accuracy questioning from distributors.   

    • UCI's being rejected for missing optional contact information for functional group contacts (e.g. Dispatch) vs the traditional person contacts with first and last names (i.e. failed because missing either first or last name).   How does the industry want the UCI populated in such cases for commercial customers?   


    Please submit your comments by Tuesday, April 13, 2021.

    Replies Closed
  • You need to be signed in to add your comment.

    ENMAX Energy has requested to post the following discussion: 

    ENMAX Energy has record of sites that have history of fraudulent activity and are seeking feedback from other retailers, both Regulated and Retail on their experience with this activity and how they mitigate this. ENMAX is seeing false names or names of others being provided either through on-line or telephone sign-ups.  When the account charges end up with a collection agency, ENMAX sometimes hear from the name given for the account that they never lived at the premise.


    ENMAX would like to discuss with other retailers will like to implement a mechanism to flag these sites during enrollment and de-enrollment?  In some cases, an impacted retailer may drop the site with a code 0002 (Retailer drops customer), whereby the default service provider could potentially enroll the same customer. In other cases, a retailer may have the site flagged as suspected or verified fraudulent activity and the site is lost to another retailer, potentially for the same customer. Some mechanism to alert retailers of suspected or verified fraud is the intent.  


    Please submit your comments by Monday, May 10, 2021.

  • CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

    You need to be signed in to add your comment.

    ENMAX has requested to post the following discussion:

    Current process for cancelling DIM transactions is via an email sent from the MDM to the retailer and/or LSA, requesting that the transaction be discarded. Although the occurrence of such cancel/discard requests is only one to a few per month, the process typically involves backing out transactions which have already been committed to systems, introducing risk and thus potentially impacting the data integrity.  

     

    Revisions to DIM reads do occur as part of normal business, with newer dated transactions replacing or overwriting earlier versions of the reads for the same time period. Leveraging such revisioning as a potential solution by zeroing the values for the cancel/discard period would eliminate such risk.  

     

    Please submit your comments by Tuesday, April 13, 2021.

    Replies Closed
  • You need to be signed in to add your comment.

    ENMAX has requested to post the following discussion: 


    UCI's are required to accompany SRR and DSR 0002 (retailer drops customer) transactions.  

    It is not uncommon for file transfers to be processed on a polling vs instantaneous basis, which can result in time delay between the SRR or DSR and the required accompanying UCI send and/or pickup. 

     

    Rule 21 and 28 are both silent on the timeout of such paired transactions, which has resulted in SRR or DSR failures as a result of the UCI transaction being sent 16 minutes later and in other cases them being accepted for approximately the same time delay.  


    Rule 4 specifies the "Number of business days following transmittal of a CSA transaction to transmit a UCI transaction" as one business day. Defining the same one business day timeout window for UCI's accompanying SRR and DSR would eliminate the inconsistent results currently experienced.


    Please submit your comments by Monday, May 10, 2021.

  • You need to be signed in to add your comment.

    FORTIS has requested to post the following discussion for Rule 021:  

    1.  Should DCMs be allowed to be estimated (“ES”) for retailer switches (transfer of ownership), if actual read not available?  Currently Rule 021 Section 10.3.2.2 (3) only allows estimation of meter reading data on DCMs to take place in certain circumstances:

    a. where a meter has failed and the meter reading cannot be obtained by any means

    b. where energy diversion or theft has occurred

    c. in the event that a meter read cannot be obtained at the time that the site is energized or de-energized

    d. where the breaker is off and the meter has no power and cannot be read

    In cases where no DCM is provided to the market today for a retailer switch, settlement estimated energy may differ from tariff billing estimated energy for both old and new retailer.


    2.Some MDMs read cumulative meters more frequently than the DCMs which they provide to market. Example some MDMs may read the meter daily, but only send a few DCMs to the market each month.

    Rule 021 does not stop the MDM from sending DCMs more frequently (daily reads), but I think this is not done due to volume of DCMs being sent/received.

    Would like to discuss if retailers would be ok with MDMs sending cumulative reads more frequently.

  • CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

    You need to be signed in to add your comment.

    Staff from the AESO and EPC have taken a closer look at all of the UCI transaction status codes pertaining to Discussion 22, 24 and 25 and given their assessment on which transaction status codes they feel could be removed or retained. Please click the link UCI Standard Codes review April 2019 to access the excel file.

    Status codes with no highlighting are codes EPC agrees with the AESO that should be retained and distributors validate.

    Status codes with a yellow highlight are status codes that EPC agrees with the AESO that should be removed from Rule 021.

    Status codes with a pink highlight are status codes EPC feels should be retained, and the AESO feels should be removed.

    Status codes with a teal highlight are status codes EPC feel should be removed, and the AESO feels should be retained.

    Status codes with a green highlight and bolded are status codes EPC feels should be added to the Rule.

    Status codes with no highlighting and in red font were the transaction status codes that were duplicated as described is discussion 24.



    Replies Closed
  • You need to be signed in to add your comment.

    Direct Energy has requested to add the following discussion to the agenda for Rule 021/028 meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 28, 2020. In preparation for the upcoming meeting, please respond to the discussion by Friday, January 24, 2020.


    Discussion :

    In addition to 1(a) of the agenda discussion, DE would like to discuss the process by which distributors reject UCIs with transaction status codes.  Currently, for UCI rejections, there are at least three different ways that the rejection is received:

    1. same exact transaction sent plus status code
    2. same transaction sent with a different transaction date time plus status code
    3. same data but all caps plus error code. 

    For a retailer, DE must manage these three different processes independently.  The correct way should be to send the same exact transaction plus status code to easily match the exact record that needs to be corrected.  Consistency is critical.

    Another discussion item:  Retailers should be notified by the distributors when the TCF is changed.


  • CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

    You need to be signed in to add your comment.

    The new implementation start time is Saturday June 22, 2019, 6 p.m. (Mountain time).

    Please see below, when distributors will resume operation after the system shut down. There are also some questions from the distributors.

    EDTI

    EDTI will have its system shut down when the retailers stop sending transactions which, to our understanding is at 6 p.m. on Saturday, June 22. We will resume operations midnight on Sunday, Jun 23.

    FortisAlberta

    FortisAlberta has no concerns with the 6 p.m. implementation start time.

    FortisAlberta will accept all transactions up to the implementation start time of 6 p.m. on June 22.

    After 6 p.m. all transactions received will need to abide by Rule 021 version 2.8.

    At this time, FortisAlberta plan will be to resume normal operations and the processing of transactions before midnight June 22.

    The new version of site ID file should be available on our website by around 7 a.m. on June 23.

    AUI

    AUI confirms our system will be shut down at 6 p.m. and will resume at 12:01a.m. on June 23rd.

    EPC

    EPC has not had an opportunity to perform a dry run of our implementation cut over activities. We estimate that it will take 8 hours to complete our implementation, EPC will be able to provide a more accurate implementation time frame once we have completed our first dry run, scheduled for the week of April 29.

    Cognera

    In response to the requested time frame for distributors to resume full operation post implementation, Cognera’s systems will be back online and in full operation by 5 a.m. MST on June 23rd.

    ATCO 

    Below is ATCO Distributors high level implementation summary. Please reach out next week if there are any questions.

    1. ATCO needs a moratorium period to process and respond to the SRR and UCI's that were sent by retailers on or before the cutoff period 6 p.m.
      We will do an enrollment run at 6 p.m. and will need a minimum of 2 hours to complete and respond.
    2. Any SRR/UCI received after the moratorium period will be processed in the first hourly run which will be on or before noon Sunday. UCIs must be in the new format.
    3. Moratorium Period Options:
    • moratorium goes until 1 a.m. (which means we are expecting retailers to not send any SRR/UCIs until after 1 a.m.) or
    • the moratorium can be just for 2 hours (6 p.m. to 8 p.m.) however this is not our preferred option as this requires additional IT efforts during the implementation window.
      In this scenario, any SRRs received in ATCO Distribution VL Trader after 8pm and before midnight are expected to be processed with an enrollment date of June 23. Any received after midnight will be processed with an enrollment date of June 24.)

    4.  For any SRR/UCI received during the moratorium period it is indeterminate as to what will happen.  (They may be processed and succeed if the UCI is in the old format.  If they are not processed, it will be processed in the first hourly run on Sunday and will be successful if the UCI is in the new format and will be unsuccessful if it is in old format.)

    Replies Closed
  • CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

    You need to be signed in to add your comment.

    EPCOR has identified that the ENR and DER transactions have a data type/size of Varchar (100) for the Contact Name field which does not align with the Site Contact Last Name and First Name in the UCI.  

    The UCI fields for both the Site Contact Last Name and Site Contact First Name each have a Varchar of 100.  If the Site Contact Name (first and last name) is longer than Varchar (100), EPCOR will truncate the Contact Name field to meet the data type/size of Varchar (100) for the ENR and DER transactions, as needed.

    Is everyone else thinking of following this action? Are they any other thoughts?

    Replies Closed