A proposed order from an Illinois ALJ would deny a proposed warrant process for non-Retail Electric Supplier (RES) third-parties to access customer Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) interval meter data.

Specifically, the proposed order would deny the Joint Process Proposal (JPP) filed by ComEd and Ameren and supported by parties including CUB and Mission:data, which as noted by the proposed order, is not a true 'warrant' process.

In brief, under the JPP, third parties would obtain customer consent for AMI data and then submit a request to access the date to the utility. The utility will send a notification to the customer to confirm the customer has authorized the release of their interval energy usage data to the third-party identified in the request and is directing the utility to share the interval usage data with the third-party. Customers must affirmatively respond by one of the methods described above to approve the data sharing within 15 days or the request expires.

The proposed order would deny the proposed JPP, finding that it has not been shown that the JPP would increase data sharing, while imposing a cost on ratepayers

"The proponents of the JPP assert that it will increase data sharing, but with the length of time and multiple steps involved, the Commission is not convinced that it will. As earlier rounds of comments made clear, the utilities would not agree to any process that did not involve direct customer to utility authorization. The resulting process, while meeting this demand, is not ideal and the record does not show that it will increase third-party registration or customer usage," the proposed order states

"The Commission notes the AG’s observation that the JPP requires that customers remain engaged in the authorization process over an extended period of time throughout the process: 1) starting with their initial engagement with the third-party vendor; 2) the subsequent communication between the third-party and the utility; 3) the utility’s verification of the authenticity of identifying information provided by the third-party; and 4) the subsequent email exchange between utility and customer for purposes of verification, or, as would be the case for at least some customers, the utility’s attempt(s) to contact the customer by U.S. mail to verify their authorization and the customer’s response to the utility, also by U.S. mail. The Commission agrees with the AG that this is a much longer implementation period than any Green Button Connect registration would entail," the proposed order states

"As further noted by the AG, the JPP shifts the burden of obtaining authorization to the utility at ratepayer expense with recovery through the utilities’ rates. Because the Commission is not convinced that the JPP will increase customer usage of AMI data, it cannot authorize recovery of these expenses through the utilities’ rates. It is not at all clear that the espoused benefits will materialize. In this case, it is evident that the JPP does not provide a benefit for all ratepayers, and indeed, may only provide a benefit for very few ratepayers," the proposed order states

The proposed order rejects arguments that the JPP is needed because Green Button Connect (whose functionality is already offered) is only viable for customers who have internet access

"Staff points out that Green Button Connect allows customers to provide authorization via a wet signature on a printed authorization form or via recorded phone call to the utilities. Docket No. 15-0073, Order at 16. In other words, an online utility account is not necessary with Green Button Connect. The hypothetical customer that wants to purchase energy efficiency products or to invest in solar, but is not internet savvy, can still share their AMI data. The JPP is not necessary to address the concerns of this hypothetical customer," the proposed order states

The proposed order observes that it appears only implementation costs for JPP were provided, and not ongoing costs. "The Commission notes that JPP does not resolve this [ongoing costs] issue, perhaps because the number of users is unknown. It appears that it will cost over $1.2 million just to implement the JPP. For the reasons stated above, the record does not support adopting this program, especially in light of the implementation costs and unknown cost per use," the proposed order states

While the draft order would deny the JPP, the proposed order does address the issue of whether such a mechanism is appropriate, and whether ICC oversight of third parties is required for adoption

"With direct customer authorization, the Commission does not agree that Commission authority over third-parties is necessary. First, pursuant to the JPP, third-parties will have to register with the utility to participate. So, if complaints to the utility, AG, or Commission make it clear that a participating third-party is a bad actor, the utility can cease sharing data with the third-party. Also, customers must have choice and some responsibility over who they share their information with. The JPP is not approved, but not because of concern regarding authority over non-RES third-parties," the proposed order states

Docket 17-0123