Minutes – 11 Mar 2020

Data Standards Advisory Committee, Meeting Minutes

Date: Wednesday 11 March 2020
Location: Data61, Level 5, 13 Garden Street, Eveleigh
Time: 10:00 to 12:00
Meeting: Committee Meeting No: 4

Download meeting minutes (PDF 432KB)

 

    • Andrew Stevens, DSB Chair
    • Peter Giles, CHOICE
    • Melinda Green, Energy Australia
    • Joanna Gurry, NBN Co (via WebEx)
    • David Havyatt, ECA (via WebEx)
    • Ben Johnson, ERM Power (via WebEx)
    •  Joe Locandro, AEMO (via WEbEx)

    • Jan Prichard, Origin
    • Frank Restuccia, Finder
    • Lisa Schutz, Verifier (via WebEx)
    • Aakash Sembey, Simply Energy
    • Ed Shaw, Ausgrid
    • Lauren Solomon, CPRC (via WebEx)
    • Dayle Stevens, AGL

    • Barry Thomas, Data61
    • James Bligh, Data61 (via WebEx)
    • Rob Hanson, Data61 (via WebEx)
    • Terri McLachlan, Data61
    • Michael Palmyre, Data61
    • Mark Staples, Data61
    • Bruce Cooper, ACCC
    • Paul Franklin, ACCC (via WebEx)

    • Michelle Looi, ACCC
    • Jodi Ross, ACCC (via WebEx)
    • Fiona Walker, ACCC (via WebEx)
    • Athena Jayaratnam, OAIC (via WebEx)
    • Scott Farrell
    • Aaron Lester, Treasury
    • Andrew Hooker, AEMO (via WebEx)
    • Luke Wines, AEMO (via WebEx)

    • Van Le, Xinja

 

Chair Introduction

The Chair of the Data Standards Body (DSB) opened the meeting and thanked all committee members and observers for attending meeting no 4.

The Chair noted that there is general anxiety in the community around the COVID-19 virus and one of the things that he will consider, which is in line with CSIRO’s Data61 position as they are hosting us, is to hold the next couple of meetings remotely using WebEx.

The Chair noted that there has been a lot of activity since the last meeting.  Along with Advisory Committee Members Lisa Schutz, Aakash Sembey & Jamie Twiss (Banking), he was on a panel at the Gartner Data & Analytics summit in February to help the audience better understand the business implications of the regime and to share the learnings from the banking regime.  The Chair also attended the 2nd Consumer Data Right Board on the 3 March 2020 with the next one scheduled for 2 April 2020.  This meeting was to monitor the development and implementation of the regime.

The Chair noted that Barry Thomas and Mark Staples attended the Senate Select Committee on Financial and Regulatory Technology Public Hearing which was chaired by Senator Andrew Bragg on the 28 February 2020.

The Chair noted that he has been invited to the OECD Expert Workshop on Data Portability in Paris on the 17 April 2020 to participate in the session on “The Scope of different data portability initiatives across jurisdictions and sectors”.  It was noted that with the developing COVID-19 situation this workshop will more than likely be held remotely.

The Chair noted that the DSB have engaged the Consumer Policy Research Centre (CPRC) to provide research and engagement services to capture feedback from the community sector and provide the latest advice to the DSB on consumer risks and opportunities associated with the development of the DSB standards.  It was noted that the DSB have limited capacity and CPRC are well positioned to do the work.

The Chair requested that members reach out to the DSB directly if they would like further information on this.

The Chair noted that we have an Engagement & Support Manager joining the team at the end of the month as we transition much more to operations and ongoing maintenance and support of the standards.

The Chair would like to introduce Melinda Green, the Head of Customer Value Management at Energy Australia who is replacing Spiz Dimopoulos on the Advisory Committee. The Chair extends his thanks to Spiz for his contributions since the formation of the Committee and we look forward to working with Melinda.

The Chair welcomed Scott Farrell from King & Wood Mallesons (KWM) who led the Open Banking inquiry that recommended an economy wide Consumer Data Right.  He has also been engaged to do a Version 2.0 of that work which will be looking at future options and advising the government in relation as to how the CDR should progress.

Scott Farrell noted that the new inquiry, which he is leading for the Australian Government, is not an inquiry into what we are doing, the current implementation or even which sectors which will be added next.  It was noted that the Issues Paper on the “Inquiry into Future Directions for the Consumer Data Right” which was published on the Friday 6 March highlights the things that will be covered.  It was noted that the scope of the inquiry is how the CDR needs to connect and help be the foundation for elements of Australia’s digital economy. It is not an inquiry into Australia’s digital economy as such because Scott has to produce recommendations that can be implemented as opposed to recommendations just for policy thinking.  It was noted that some of the recommendations relate to how write access could be implemented.

Scott Farrell noted that when he refers to write access, it is not payment initiation in the same way as it is done in open banking in the UK.  Write access in banking is more than payment initiation and is not limited to banking, it is write access across the CDR and that gives rise to all sorts of issues.  It was noted that we will quickly run into the method we use to authenticate a real person to a digital person.

Scott Farrell noted that there is a strong theme in his Terms of Reference (TOR) about what this can do for people as opposed to what would be theoretically nice.  One of the elements is looking at expanding the functionality of the CDR which would allow people to change service providers more easily.

Scott Farrell noted that another element in his TOR is working out how we connect with equivalent work in other jurisdictions.  He noted that in the period between the reviews he has been working with three or four different governments around the world as they implement their systems.  It was noted that if we are going to expand the functionality of the CDR and its role in our economy we need to make that fit in with what’s happening in other jurisdictions where Australian consumers and businesses also interact.

Scott Farrell noted that one critical element of the TOR is how we use things that we have created for the CDR, for example the accreditation regime and the Advisory Committee, and could that functionality be used in other elements in the digital economy.  It was noted that he has been asked to provide recommendations for a workable solution which is competitively neutral and also doesn’t result in an overall increase in risk of the system.

Scott Farrell noted that there will be a formal consultation but he also invites members and observers to reach out informally if they would like to discuss directly.

The Chair noted that the Energy Advisory Committee have expressed a strong level of concern that this is open banking for energy rather than it being CDR.  It was noted that it is reassuring to hear that your door and phone lines are truly open and notes that members of this committee will no doubt approach you in regards to this matter.

Scott Farrell noted that in performing this role, it is in a personal capacity and he is not speaking as a partner of KWM.

The Chair asked the committee & observers to provide a brief introduction so that Scott Farrell can get a feel of the configuration of the Advisory Committee.  Introductions were provided.

The Chair noted there is a much higher consumer value orientation in the energy Advisory Committee compared to the banking Advisory Committee and the particular foci of the members on consumer experience is very high.  He noted that Lisa Schutz and Lauren Solomon are members of both committees which provides a link to ensure we are working on a CDR economy rather than just banking and energy separately.

One member asked what the timing was for submissions for the Issues Paper.  Scott Farrell noted that they would like submissions by the 23 April 2020 as they need to report to the Treasurer by September 2020.  He also noted that the Issues Paper is available at the Treasury website and if you wanted to contact him personally, you will find his details on the KWM website.

The Chair noted that the DSB will circulate the links to the Issue Paper and contact details to members.

ACTION:  DSB to circulate links to the Issue Paper and Scott Farrell’s contact details to members and observers

One member noted that a lot of overseas governments are looking at what we are doing and was interested in Scott Farrell’s thoughts on that.

Scott Farrell noted that he circulated the Issues Paper to his international Government contacts and they all noted the reference to international context in the paper.  They are looking at this as an opportunity to have some level of consistency and some overseas governments are deeply impressed with Australia’s progress.

The member noted that this is very exciting as they think there is a very significant export opportunity here.

Minutes

Minutes

The Chair thanked the Committee Members for their comments and feedback on the Minutes from the 12 February 2020 Advisory Committee meeting.  The Minutes were taken as read and formally accepted.

Action Items

The Chair noted that the Action Items were ongoing and others completed.

Working Group Update

A further updated was provided on the Technical work stream by James Bligh as follows:

The DSB noted that the first consultation for the electricity standards has been posted on GitHub and they encourage everyone to reach out to their organisations and networks for feedback.  This consultation is around API End Points for the electricity sector based on the in-principle data sets that were published by Treasury which are being considered for the Designation Instrument (DI).  DSB noted that they have worked very closely with AEMO to look at the data sets they have, and to better understand the energy market, and also worked with ACCC & Treasury to come up with a set of end points that could be a hypothesis for moving forward with the standards.  It was noted that the DSB want to move quickly and there will be a bunch of consultations happening over the next six weeks to flush out those payloads rapidly.

The Chair noted that to date we have had over 700 individual contributors from all corners of the globe providing feedback in relation to the consultations and decision proposals.  He encouraged everyone to reach out their networks to make a contribution.

The Chair asked the DSB to provide a summary of how the Decision Proposal cadence will work.

The DSB noted that the process that has been established with the first sector is that a proposal (which provides clarity of exactly what the ask is) is posted to GitHub and given a particular time in which to respond.  The DSB then summarises the feedback and turns it into a Decision Proposal which is provided to the Advisory Committee for a final review (2 days). The recommendation is then sent to the Chair for a final decision which is advertised.  The final decision is then incorporated into the standards documentation.

The DSB noted that for the electricity sector, until we have a Designation Instrument (DI) and finalised rules, any decisions are dependent on those assets as the standards are derived from the DI and the rules.  It was noted that the standards are evolving and changes will be made in response to any new information until they are declared to be binding.

The Chair noted that the normal cadence cycle is to issue the Decision Proposal to the Advisory Committee on a Wednesday with feedback required by the Friday and that there could be a number on foot at any one point in time.

The ACCC noted that they are working closely with AEMO, Treasury and the DSB and if anybody has a sense that the consultations are not quite aligned, to reach out to them sooner rather than later.

The ACCC also noted that they are better placed in energy with the consumer research than they were with banking.

The DSB noted that AEMO have been very helpful, particularly with the data sets around metering data which they have intimate insight into, but we do have data sets that the market operator hasn’t been exposed to like billing information and customer records and they need the retailers to be commenting on these moving forward.

One member asked how many consultations will be running concurrently.  The DSB noted that they tend to do as much as they can to move forward and if people sense they are being inundated the DSB can pause which they have done so in the past.

The DSB noted that the process is aggressively open and everything that contributes to a decision is made public.

One member noted that the Decision Proposal is the first DSB technical document he has been asked to comment on and he is trying to work out how to translate to English.  The DSB recommended that they post their queries on GitHub and they will respond so all the community can see the clarifications.

The Chair noted that the DSB will send out the GitHub link to members.

ACTION:  DSB to circulate the GitHub link to committee members

One member noted in terms of payloads, there are different sets of data held by different kinds of stakeholders.  They find it interesting that AEMO doesn’t normally see billing and customer records and asked whether this is something that the DSB are looking at, at a technical orchestration level.

The DSB noted that that consultation is happening in conjunction with ACCC & AEMO and noted that the ACCC have been leading the gateway model, and that will be subject to the rules. It was noted that the standards will be within the boundaries that the rules set.

One member asked whether AEMO will have billing data.  Another member noted that the whole idea of the gateway model was that AEMO would not be the data holder of everything.  It was noted that AEMO would be a data holder for three data sets, being data relating to standing metering data fields, electricity usage, metering data and the distributed energy resources register.  It was noted that there will be one data set held by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) which is the generic tariff data and the other three data sets which are tariff data, billing information and customer details will have to come from the retailer.

The DSB noted that there is a mailing list for the Technical Working Group and a separate one for the CX Working Group and noted that if you sign up to one of these you will receive notifications when new consultations are going out.

ACTION:  DSB to provide links to the Working Group mailing lists.

The DSB noted that in regards to the concurrent consent consultation there has been extensive consultation on concurrent consent outside banking – mainly from security groups.  It was noted that there is not anything specifically for electricity, telecommunications or banking, it is a pure OAuth style question.

The Chair noted that if members wanted to see what a consultation looks like this is a good one to look at as it in GitHub as it has generated a lot of interest internationally.  In regards to the international context and how we are working our way, given the rules, to leverage global open standards wherever possible this is another example of some of the issues and how we are approaching them.

A further updated was provided on the User Experience work stream by Michel Palmyre as follows:

The DSB noted that they are working through the first round of research findings and putting together a comprehensive report from round one and two.  The report covers some interesting things around what exactly increases propensity to share, things that may cause aversion and how effectively to move towards getting those people more willing to share their data to address their concerns.

The Chair noted that the CX Report will be added as an agenda item to the next meeting

ACTION:  DSB to add the CX Report findings as an agenda item to the April meeting.

The DSB noted the findings showed that there was a very high level of trust with ACCC and their involvement in CDR.  Accreditation, regulation and agency involvement was definitely something that was conducive to trust.  They also noted that increasing control transparency is something that the CDR are addressing which increases the propensity to share and trust in the ecosystem.

The DSB noted that the one thing that continues to stand out is there is some concern around bits of data that are seen to be sensitive.  It was noted that there are facts and then perception, and the latter is what influences the propensity to share and engage with the CDR.  It was noted that it comes down to the value proposition provided by the ADR and whether it is compelling.

One member asked in regards to the “data being sensitive and facts vs perception comment”, can the DSB give them a sense about that?  The DSB noted that an example is hardship & concession details.  This was seen by some as a good thing as they could get a discount, but others viewed it as it could be used against them.  Another example was My Health Records and the perception of a data breach clearly influences peoples trust in CDR.

One member noted that in their experience it is very hard to get customers engaged around areas of hardship and vulnerability because it is confronting to share. They noted that they are interested as to what extent their concerns around consumption, especially as you start to move to smart metering environments.  The DSB noted that the participants were alive to that and there was a perception that it could be used for surveillance purposes.

One member noted that it would be worthwhile for members to get some insights and a copy of the CX report.  They also noted that the need for testing of the hypothesis around the sensitivity of data, because although there is anecdotal evidence, they will probably need to have some type of process to actually test those hypotheses.

The Chair noted that the report will be finalised and made publicly available.  It was also noted that this will be an agenda item at the next meeting and the report will be circulated to committee members prior to that.

ACTION:  CX Report to be circulated to the Advisory Committee prior to the next meeting.

One member asked if there was any concern raised about surveillance by government bodies.  The DSB noted that this was raised in relation to the Newstart Allowance and one of the ways they try to assuage that concern is to clearly state what won’t happen.

One member noted that the energy department thinks there needs to be some changes in the law and rules to provide for CDR, but at the same time are contemplating making some changes to the energy rules in law for a project of theirs called National Energy Analytics Research (NEAR) which is run by CSIRO in Newcastle.  The member noted they have some concerns that they are planning on making all the data that AEMO holds available to CSIRO as part of this legislation.  They suggested that if we have some information about consumers concerns around government it might be worth sharing with the Department of Energy sooner rather than later.

The ACCC noted that one of the areas they need to solve in energy first, because there is no ubiquitous usage of electronic log on to energy providers, is whether there is interoperability framework for digital identity that can be deployed in a market so you don’t necessary have to rely on energy providers, Telcos or anyone else to identify your customers.  It was noted that there are a couple of models, the Digital Transformation Agency and also the Australian Payments Council and a few parties in the market who are looking to deploy some sort of ubiquitous digital identity.  It was noted that they don’t necessary want to solve it just for the CDR, it would be preferable for them to just provide the use case and let the model emerge.

ACCC Update

Michelle Looi from the ACCC provided an update on the minimum viable product (MVP) including what they are currently considering for the scope of the CDR in energy implementation on day 1.

ACCC noted that the purpose of this is to introduce what the MVP is, some of the issues they are considering and to provide a sense of the direction.  It was noted that this is high level and the details will be provided in the Rules Framework consultation and there will be an opportunity to provide feedback via the usual consultation process.

ACCC noted that the timing of the consultation is to be confirmed, but it will occur after Treasury publishes the draft Designation Instrument (DI) for consultation and after they have had a chance to factor in the detail of the DI into their thinking which will be around 4-8 weeks after publication of the draft DI, depending on its complexity and detail.

ACCC noted that the work on the MVP to date is based on what they think will be in the DI and the DI is a key contingency for them as it sets the bounds of what they can do in the energy CDR.

ACCC noted that based on the outcome of Treasury’s consultation, they know in a general sense what data sets will be included. It was noted that the DI will focus on electricity data sets only and will not include data sets outside of the NEM (i.e. will exclude WA, NT and isolated networks) and data sets for customers in embedded networks.

Treasury clarified that they think it might include everything for constitutional reasons which they are still looking to, but the intention is the rules would only apply to the NEM initially.

One member asked if this included gas and Treasury confirmed that this was not included at this time.

ACCC noted that some of the other assumptions they are working on are that AEMO will be the designated data holder for metering data, NMI standing data and distributed energy resources data. Retailers will be designated data holders for customer provided data, billing data and tailored tariff data (or the tariff that the customer is currently contracted for with their retailer).  AEMO will be a gateway for these data sets and retailers will be designated holders of generic tariff data and that Energy Made Easy and Victoria Energy Compare may be gateways for this data.

ACCC noted that the DI will set the bounds of the data sets for the energy CDR. They noted that for the MVP they are looking at the specifications of that data and whether the scope of the data sets should be narrowed for day 1.

ACCC noted that ideally they want to be able to accommodate all the of the use cases they are aware of e.g. comparison use cases, solar/battery investment decision use cases & energy usage insights cases.  It was noted that they are continuing to meet with energy techs on potential use cases.

ACCC highlighted a couple of issues they are considering.  For metering data, they are aware the DI will likely designate data from type 4-6 meters and exclude data from type 1, 2, 3 and 7 meters, and meters in embedded networks. They also understand that the DI will also accommodate requests for historical metering data for at least 12 months of data which will be required for key use cases.

ACCC noted that one of the issues they are thinking about is what is the most recent point of metering data that the data should flow from.  They noted that at this stage they think that it should flow from the last meter read that has been used for billing purposes. It was noted that real time metering data would not be mandated, as this data is not collected as part of the minimum specification for metering services.

ACCC noted that they are also thinking about how metering data requests can be accommodated if there has been a change in the retailer. It was noted that the resolution for this issue is tied to the work on authentication models.

ACCC noted for NMI standing data, they propose that only mandatory NMI standing data fields be included which includes average daily load, metering installation type and network tariff code.

ACCC are also thinking about changes to the Financially Responsible Market Participant (FRMP) for a historical period should be part of NMI standing data and whether there are any use cases to support this.

ACCC noted that for customer provided data, which is information about the customer to which electricity is being supplied, they are considering whether hardship details and concessions should form part of the data set. ACCC are keen to consult on this particularly for hardship data as they are aware of the risk of negative profiling but also want to consider whether this information is helpful in ensuring hardship customers get the help they’re entitled to. It was noted that this issue will be a key consideration in the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) process that they are conducting jointly with Treasury.

ACCC noted that there will be many more issues that they encounter when they start to get into the detail of the data sets, especially for data sets where there is no precedent for standardisation, such as customer provided data and billing data. They noted that they will work with the DSB on this.

ACCC noted that only ‘eligible’ consumers are able to make consumer data requests under the rules. It was noted for the banking sector, a consumer is ‘eligible’ if they are 18 years or older and have an open account with the bank as a data holder, and the account has been set up in such a way that is can be accessed online.

One member noted that they have customers who are not over 18.  It was noted that customers under 18 may not be eligible but this is still to be decided.

ACCC are considering whether the most logical starting point for the eligible consumer is a consumer who is the account holder with an electricity retailer, with the data sharing to occur at the premises or NMI level. It was noted that this means you could only get data for the premises that you are linked to as the account holder for your current electricity contract and your data doesn’t follow you if you move house.

ACCC noted that if the eligible consumer is the account holder, this means that a consumer would be able to request to share data irrespective of whether they occupy the premises. It was noted that there are protections in the CDR rules that limit the use of the data in these situations to protect the privacy of the occupant of the premises.

ACCC noted that they are also exploring the extent to which joint accounts and authorised representatives should be included as eligible consumers and whether this should be included in the MVP for Day 1.

ACCC noted on joint accounts, this is the situation where the account might be in two peoples’ names and both have full authority to act on the account.  For authorised representatives, this is where multiple people have been nominated by the account holder with some ability to transact on the account should be eligible to make consumer data requests.  It was noted for both of these situations, it requires a resolution of the authentication approach.  It was noted that a lot of work is happening in this space in banking and they intend to align their approach where appropriate.

ACCC are considering the approach to offline customers. It was noted that the banking approach is very much focussed on customers who have online accounts with their bank. ACCC recognise that this is often not the case in energy, and they would ideally like to see as many consumers as possible use the CDR in energy, irrespective of whether a consumer has an online account with their retailer. ACCC noted that it needs to be determined whether this is for day 1, or a later version of the energy CDR.  It was noted that their main considerations are how dashboards and authentication would work in an offline scenario.

ACCC noted in regards to phasing, they are considering what an MVP would look like if they adopted a phased approach to implementation similar to the approach taken in banking. It was noted that there would be two aspects to this being, i) approach to phasing of retailers, and ii) approach to phasing of data sets.

ACCC noted that in regards to retailers, given AEMO will be a designated data holder for metering data, NMI standing data and DER data, a phased approach to implementing retailers would impact the extent to which consumers will be able to request sharing of billing, customer provided and tailored product data to an ADR.

ACCC noted that the rationale for considering a phased approach is that there is a significant variance in size of the retailers which may result in a difference in their ability to manage the CDR obligations.

The Chair asked whether ACCC have spoken to the smaller retailers in regards to phasing.  ACCC confirm that they haven’t yet as they are typically hard to engage.  The Chair noted that there was a range of views amongst the second-tier banks.

ACCC noted that one of the ways they dealt with this in banking is to have a mandatory date and an optional date that pre-dates that so people can come in if they want to in the lead up. They noted that they could look at a similar approach for energy.

One member noted that we should talk to AEMO about the representative for small retailers who is on the Information Exchange Committee about this.

ACCC noted they are looking at whether it could be the big three + local incumbents, or the 10 largest retailers by customer numbers.  It was noted that beyond day one, they are considering whether retailers with customer numbers above a certain threshold should be in a second tranche and whether it is appropriate to exempt the very small retailers until such time as they reach adequate scale or elect to come on board voluntarily.

ACCC noted that in regards to data sets, they are thinking of the ordering of bringing in online customer data sets (i.e. metering, NMI standing data, etc.) and product reference data sets (i.e. generic tariff data).  It was noted that given PRD already exists in the form of what is being provided to EME/VEC, generic product reference data is a good candidate for bringing online early, with the rest of the data sets to follow.

ACCC noted that in regards to direct to customer access to data, this might not be part of the initial MVP. It was noted that the NERR and NER contain a detailed regime for consumers to access their metering and billing data, with similar arrangements under Victorian regulation.  They noted that any approach to direct consumer access would need to be worked through with the Commonwealth Energy Department due to the impact on pre-existing energy regulation.

The Chaired asked what the timing will be for the draft rules framework for energy CDR.  ACCC noted that potentially it will be May but it depends on the draft DI.  Treasury noted that they are still aiming for early April for the draft DI for consultation.

Treasury Update

Aaron Lester from Treasury provided an update as follows:

Treasury noted that they are aiming to have the draft DI out by early April.

Treasury noted in regards to the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA). This will be underway shortly with the intention of it being finalised in mid-May with a draft made available on the 27th of April.

Treasury noted that they are still working through the issues on the external dispute resolution.  It was noted that there was divergent views in Treasury on the best approach.

The Chair asked whether they envisage the need for any legislative change or is it just a DI at this point.  Treasury confirmed that it is just the DI.

Foundational Relationship Map Update

Joe Locandro, Andrew Hooker & Luke Wines from AEMO provided an update on the relationship of the data between the retail side and the networks and who actually holds the data.

AEMO noted that in regards to what makes up a customer’s energy data, you have a ‘customer’, a ‘retailer’ and the ‘Network’. It was noted on the retail side, you have an account (which includes a bill and payment) and typically a service agreement.  In was noted that on the network side, you have a service point, the premise and the meter.

AEMO noted as part of that there are a number of different relationships between the data as part of the ‘retail’ side of the customer.  The customers can create joint accounts, the account has a service agreement on the retail side, the account is typically invoiced and the invoice is paid in association with the account.

AEMO noted that on the ‘network’ side of the customer, as part of that service agreement, there is an agreement with the network and that is actually tied to the service point. It was noted that a service point and meters are attached to a premise and data is recorded on the meter and a method of reading is applied.

One member asked whether we are proposing to exclude unmetered supplies.  The Chair noted that this is a rules question, rather than a gateway question.

AEMO noted that a common configuration on the network side is a grid which is connected up to the actual service point (NMI) and attached to that is the actual premise which holds the address information.  Then there is the meter which has a unique meter(s) which is attached to the premise, which can be read remotely or manually, and then the data streams and the recording of the meter data at its very raw level.  It was noted a very common configuration is that you will have an export channel to extract energy from the grid and an import channel for solar or generation.  AEMO noted that this shows you the hierarchy and the relationship between data entities.

The Chair asked if AEMO were happy for DSB to include the slides with the minutes and make them available publicly.  AEMO confirmed that they would be happy with that.

ACTION:  DSB to include the slide pack as part of the minutes for public consumption.

One member noted there are a range of configurations available like parent/child relationship or subtractive metering in the market etc. AEMO noted that the instruction wasn’t to comment around embedded networks and those configurations but it is their understanding that it is not included in the CDR.

The member noted that they will reach out to AEMO out of session to discuss a range of scenarios particularly in NSW to flesh this out.

ACTION:  Member to reach out to AEMO to discuss a range of common configuration scenarios.

The DSB noted that the assumptions that have been discussed are embedded in the End Point paper and if there are consideration scenarios that are not accommodated by those assumptions they would love to get that feedback on GitHub.

License Conditions Update

Ed Shaw from Ausgrid provided an update on the license conditions as follows:

Ausgrid noted that there are two types of license conditions and a third condition if you are going through an acquisition, when they advise the Treasurer of that acquisition.

Ausgrid noted that what they are seeing, as with the Alinta case, that they are mirroring the license conditions that we have part of our distribution business.  It was noted that within the NSW Ministerially imposed license conditions there is a ‘Critical Infrastructure License Condition’ and within that there is a section on ‘substantial presence with Australia’ and ‘data security”.  In was noted that in regards to the ‘substantial presence in Australia’ this is about having people that are Australian that are qualified etc.

Ausgrid noted in regards to ‘data security’ element around the load data and personal data there is a lot of restrictions as the data cannot go overseas or be accessed from overseas locations.  This is audited.

One member noted that the distribution networks are not being contemplated as a data holder for any of the data sets so they are not in scope.  It was noted that the license grid relates to how Ausgrid maintains its data, and Ausgrid is otherwise bound by Australian law, and Australian law trumps your license conditions. It was noted that the Australian law says that under the CDR you will provide the data if you are a designated data holder.

Meeting Schedule

The Chair advised that the next meeting will be held on Wednesday 8 April 2020 from 10 am to 12pm at Simply Energy’s office in Melbourne.  It was noted that he will consider the best way to hold this meeting, and we will advise back.

The Chair asked the committee members to review the proposed dates for Advisory Committee meetings for the second half of 2020 and advise the DSB of any issues.

ACTION:  Committee Members to advise DSB of any issues with the proposed dates for meetings

Other Business

One observer asked dependant on the timetable and progress, can we keep under review whether monthly meetings are necessary.

The Chair noted that we will keep this under review and thinks that the first step might be to continue them virtually and if we find we can’t fill the two hours we will review again.

The Chair thanked Scott Farrell for attending the meeting and noted that the invitation is open to attend future meetings.

Closing and Next Steps

The Chair thanked the Committee Members and Observers for attending the meeting.

Meeting closed at 12:05