Testing Framework Work Stream

Transcription

1 Meeting Summary Workshop No: #6 Venue: PwC Offices, 2 Southbank Boulevard, Melbourne Date: 20 April 2010 Time: 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 1. Welcome & Introductions - Harry Koller welcomed TFWG members to the 6 th workshop 2. Previous Meeting - Acceptance of previous meeting summary o NSMP TFWG Meeting Summary 18 March 2010 v0.6.doc without amendment - Review Open Action items o Refer to NSMP TFWG - Actions Log v1.0.pdf - Feedback on Action Item : o The TFWG clarified the purpose of this action: This action has two parts: 1) TFWG will review Consultation packs and may provide feedback on potential ambiguity in the new NEM Procedures 2) During testing of NEM Procedures, there may be feedback that impacts on the feasibility of performance or service levels - Feedback on Action Item : TFWG members to provide feedback on the entry criteria to industry testing 1. Self accreditation + AEMO transaction + full external audit 2. Self accreditation + AEMO transaction + participant confirmation (limited) 3. Self accreditation + AEMO transaction + targeted audit 4. Self accreditation + AEMO transaction 5. Self accreditation 6. No criteria o AGL minimum requirement is Option #4. Cannot agree to anything until they see the details of the audits (open to audits based on the details). o TRUenergy preference for Option #4. Not opposed to audits; need more detail about who performs the audits, privacy issues and who will bear the costs. o Origin preference for Option #4. Do not believe that audits will have an effect as AEMO s powers are limited. Most credible threat available to AEMO is that AEMO will notify the AER about non-compliance. Page 1 of 7

2 o Integral Energy preference for Option #3. Require further detail of the targeted audit. o ENERGEX preference for Option #3. Two parts of the ENERGEX business are already audited; therefore they are familiar with audits. If there are audits conducted, they should be: common to all participants, performed by common auditor, cost spread to all participants through an industry fee. DM also noted that that new participants in the market should go through Option #1 (cost should be spread to industry as to not act as a barrier to entry to the market). o EnergyAustralia preference for Option #1, would want Option #3 as a minimum. Audits should be: common to all participants, performed by common auditor with a common set of audit criteria, cost spread to all participants through an industry fee. Update to Action Item : DD to provide briefing paper to the NSSC/RWG about the discussion regarding entry criteria to industry testing. Action Item leave open with the following further action: DD to set up a meeting between Romy Gutbier (Vic AMI), Linda Brackenbury and Matthew Parker regarding Quality Center capabilities. Action Item : DD to invite Henry Lepsi and Romy Gutbier to the next Melbourne TFWG Workshop, to provide a status update from the Vic AMI Program. 3. Workshop Inputs Refer to the NSMP website, Testing Framework Working Group (TFWG) webpage: - TFWG Workshop 06 - Agenda - 20 Apr 2010.pdf - TFWG workshop 05 - workshop summary 18 March 2010 v0.6.pdf - NSMP Testing Framework Processes and Procedures - Document Template v0.1.dot - NSMP Testing Process and Procedures Documents List v0.2changemarked.pdf - NSMP Testing Process and Procedures Documents List v0.2clean.pdf - TFWG workshop 05 outcome - Testing Framework Testing Strategy V0.11 changemarked.pdf - TFWG workshop 05 outcome - Testing Framework Testing Strategy V0.11 clean.pdf - TFWG Review Comments sheet_ NSMP Testing Framework Testing Strategy v0.6 - Testing Framework Processes and Procedures - Risk Mgt v0.2_changemarked.pdf - Testing Framework Processes and Procedures - Risk Mgt v0.2_clean.pdf - Review Comments sheet - Risk Management Process v0.2.xls - NSMP TFWG Document Structure Figure 1_V0.4.pdf - Victorian AMI referenced documents zip files Page 2 of 7

3 4. NSMP Update - B2B referenced documents zip file - AMEC Gas Certification documents zip file Harry Koller (HK) gave a brief status update of the NSMP by work stream o Business Requirements Work Stream: The vendors RFI review was planned for end April 2010 to end May Letters of invitation were issued to vendors on 1 April Fourteen parties have registered to participate out of twenty seven invitations. The BRWG was unable to complete the work on specifying infrastructure performance levels on 12/13 April 2010 for a number of reasons. A revise timetable is proposed by the BRWG for NSSC approval on 21 April It now planned to commence the RFI at end May 2010 and complete it with a SMI F.S. change control report to the NSSC for their August meeting. o Business Processes and Procedures Work Stream: Draft ICFs are on track for review by NSSC on 26 May The NSSC Draft Resolution on an appropriate governance model for changes to the NEM Procedures has been sent to the Chair of the IEC and the Chair of the RMEC for inclusion as an Agenda item on their 11 March 2010 meeting. A verbal presentation on the outcome of that meeting will be provided to the NSSC at its 17 March 2010 meeting. The IEC and RMEC were informed on 1 April 2010 that the NSSC had endorsed their draft resolution. It is anticipated that the IEC and RMEC will approve that resolution at their next scheduled meeting in May The finalisation of the role of the NSSC / BPPWG in the Part 1 process will not delay the presentation of the draft ICFs to the NSSC in May o Regulation Work Stream: The NSSC met on 31 March 2010 to discuss the policy issues impacting the draft of NER Chapter 7 (e.g. exclusivity versus contestability and responsible person framework.) The NSSC has agreed to meet again on 21 April 2010 to finalise the drafting of the proposed policy principles for the mandate, post mandate, and non-mandate situations. SCO has been requested to provide advice on whether a number of matters if they are to be regulated, would be regulated in the National Energy Consumer Framework (NECF) rather than the NER. This advice will be provided by 20 April Work Program for 14 and 29 April 2010 Workshops: Draft of NER Ch 7 changes for smart metering infrastructure minimum capabilities (from SMI F.S. version 0.25) Definition of smart metering services in the NER as required under the NEL: Stakeholder submissions on the proposed definitions and level of discretion given to a Jurisdictional Minister have been requested from the SMWG, Retailers, and the BRWG. Page 3 of 7

4 Regulation of SMI Performance levels evaluation criteria: No submissions on the draft criteria were received by 19 March 2010 from the RWG. The current criteria will be discussed again and provided to the NSSC in May o Pilots and Trials Work Stream: Meter installation type paper evaluation criteria: The RWG will be asked to consider a recommendation to defer the meter installation type issue until May 2011 when the draft consultation packs should be completed. The NSSC would then have better information to make an assessment. The Technology Acceptance Framework, Consumer Impact Reporting Framework, and Pilots and Trials Status report will be submitted to NSSC out of session for their approval by end April Stage 1 Testing Strategy, review of updated wording and comments log DD took the TFWG members through the comments received from EnergyAustralia - changed regulatory obligations to voluntary obligations in a mandated jurisdictional roll out Linda Brackenbury (EnergyAustralia) was concerned that, through the entry criteria, testing is being forced (no longer voluntary), so these words are not valid. HK explained that a participant needs to test only if they will offer those services. Each customer will have a suite of different smart metering services therefore participants should not have to test for all these services if they are not offering them. Peter van Loon (AEMO) thought this has gone to the RWG. HK explained that the issue was bounced back to the TFWG because they didn t understand how the testing framework was going to be implemented. Currently there is an obligation for all new market entrants to self-certify. Need to ensure that re-certification is required when there is a significant market change (for example, B2B transactions). PvL (AEMO) stated that there is no such obligation in the gas certification documents. At the time industry agreed on what testing would look like but there was no obligation. Similar thing happened in VIC AMI. DD noted that there is nothing in chapter 7 of the rules to require testing to be performed. PvL (AEMO) explained that IEC/RMEC can write a procedure, if asked, obligating testing, then all participants must comply with procedures according to the rules. It was also mentioned that the National Testing Framework is on the IEC/RMEC agenda. HK explained that there are 2 questions to be resolved: 1. Do we obligate testing? 2. How do we obligate? Through procedures or rules? - NSSC to answer first question before start thinking about the process. DD then took the group through the comment sheet of the testing framework. Testing strategy timeline: Page 4 of 7

5 Already endorsed in principle by the NSSC (December 2009). DD to go back to the RWG. The RWG briefing paper will cover 2 questions: 1. Entry Criteria 2. Obligations to participate in industry testing Action Item : DD to provide a progress report to the NSSC in May Review of Stage 2 documentation development progress, changes and schedule Discussion about what amendments were needed for the template, as follows: o Add an audience section o Add paragraph numbering, as per AEMO CATS Procedures document o Add a Reference ID column to the table so that documents can be referred to by number within the document o Add an example table o Add table of figures and table of tables to the table of contents Action Item : DD to update the TFWG documentation template according to the discussions at the TFWG meeting on 20 Apr10. It was agreed by the TFWG that the Appendix A, Glossary, would be made document specific for each document, as the glossary takes up many pages in what can be very small documents (seen as wasteful by the group). Action Item : DD to request that Quality Center be added to the NSMP Glossary. It was agreed that if process flows are used in the Stage 2 documents then the flows need to be standardised. Action Item : LB (EnergyAustralia) to send an example of a suitable flowchart to be used by the group for Stage 2 documents if necessary. Testing processes and procedures documents: It was agreed that the Stage 2 documents need an identifying unique number to refer to them. Action Item : DD to devise a document numbering system for the NSMP Testing Framework documents and update the Testing Processes and Procedures documents list with the number. The TFWG agreed to keep Issue with Risk Management and use QC for both (if possible) Action Item : DD to investigate whether Quality Center defect tracking can accommodate Defects, Issues and Change Requests, allowing easier management of each. TFWG members provided a status update on the progress of the documents Agreed that the first draft will be sent to the NSSC Secretariat by 14 May 2010 for distribution to the group for review by the May 2010 meeting. Page 5 of 7

6 Agreed to use common testing terminology in the documents (common definitions for all documents). Test management tools and test management tool users guide documents MP (Integral Energy) to draft by June Some documents not allocated a due date for the first draft as yet. These will be allocated based upon the workload of the group. 7. Review of NSMP Testing Framework Processes and Procedures Risk Management, including comments log Discussion about sensitive risk information - Agreed that risks will be raised by the risk manager and will only be communicated to the risk manager. - Risk manager to make sure that risk raiser is not identified in sensitive situations and appropriately generalised/desensitised. Discussion about risk levels (matrix) PvL (AEMO) and MH (AGL) did not agree with the unacceptable risk level as nothing is technically unacceptable. Participant can accept this level of risk if they want to. Agreed to take the risk matrix (including likelihoods and consequences) from the VIC AMI documents use what VIC AMI have developed. Action Item : DD to go back to the VIC AMI documents and look at the risk matrix information provided. Action Item : DD to add an appendix that contains the VIC AMI risk list Action Item : DD to add Contingency Planning to section of document. Post meeting note: The logistics of reviewing all documents is very large. Therefore suggestion by LB (EnergyAustralia) to have reviewers for each document (buddy system). Action Item : DD to allocate buddies and notify the group. Workshop Actions - Refer to Actions Log: NSMP TFWG Actions Log v1.0.pdf Next Workshop Date - Tuesday 25 May 2010, PwC Sydney Page 6 of 7

7 Workshop Attendees: Testing Framework Working Group - 20 April 2010 # Persons Name Organisation Position in Organisation/Title Stakeholder Group/Organisation 1 Daniel Kearney Origin Energy Electricity Retail Company 2 Douglas Miles ENERGEX Ltd Manager Meter Data Agency Electricity Distribution Company 3 Linda Brackenbury EnergyAustralia Business Analyst SMI Electricity Distribution Company 4 Matthew Parker Integral Energy Metering Information Systems Manager Electricity Distribution Company 5 Scott Sutton TRUenergy Senior Business Analyst Electricity Retail Company 6 Marcus Hankey AGL Electricity Retail Company 7 Debbie Dodd Workstream Leader 8 Harry Koller NSSC Secretariat Program Director 9 Marissa Papas NSSC Secretariat Program Officer 10 Peter Van Loon AEMO Market operator Page 7 of 7