Here's our org in a single Tweet: M:d: Customer energy data is theirs. Utilities as stewards have an obligation to serve the public by facilitating data portability Utilities: No. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, so...<running down clock> M:d: See you at the hearing!

Competitive neutrality between utility offerings and the market: California edition Here's PG&E revealing that their program is the least arduous due to their captive customer base. Regulators need to enforce neutrality, or else ban utilities from selling such services.

At today's Iowa hearing on aggregations and data sharing, public interest stakeholders point out that customers are already paying for smart meters, yet they can't use their meter information to participate at MISO.

Here is our application for rehearing, the last step before a court appeal. Let's hope @californiapuc decides to follow the law this time: https://t.co/JZao0wCqiM

Besides the due process violation, who is adversely affected? Consumers and energy management firms, who shut down their DR and flexibility offerings in SDG&E's territory due to business uncertainty. This is outrageous amidst an affordability crisis.

CPUC can change its policies, but it cannot do so without following § 1708:

Our pleadings since have sought to reaffirm the LENGTHY and CONSISTENT support for real-time data CPUC ordered in 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2017. From our application for rehearing:

But tucked away in a little-noticed budget application in 2022, SDG&E asked CPUC to deactivate this feature. CPUC agreed, but -- and this is critical -- without following any of the due process requirements required by law.

$652 million of ratepayer money was spent on smart meters by SDG&E, approved in 2009. CPUC's approval was "predicated" (their words) on real-time data to support dynamic rates and load flexibility. Firms like Rainforest provide inexpensive HAN gateways: https://t.co/SrQDvdkb3d

Yesterday, we asked @californiapuc to rehear their illegal order that allows SDG&E to deactivate real-time data sharing. Here's what happened:

Regulators outmaneuvered by utilities, NJ edition: When selling AMI, PSE&G cheerfully agrees to provide 15-minute usage data. But when it comes time to deliver, PSE&G says many of its meters can't do it, and it would cost a small fortune. This is why we can't have VPPs!

Today's decision isn't perfect by any means, but we're excited to finally have some recognition of Xcel's failures. We kicked off the Green Button Scorecard last year, and we'll continue to rank utilities on data portability and hold them accountable: https://t.co/VyAOZOkFiN

Third, the PUC declined to make a tariff for GBC. This is a dereliction of their responsibility to prevent the overreach of monopolies under their authority. Xcel invented its own terms for data recipients, disclaiming warranties for accuracy! So, it's all random numbers??

Second, the PUC declined to require RE-certification of Green Button. Utterly baffling. If they agreed that the GBC has problems, why not spend a meager $3,200 and pretend like you'll do the bare minimum to ensure interoperability moving forward? https://t.co/nnPw1613ql

The PUC won't do penalize Xcel for false statements under oath. Xcel said that natural gas data was part of Green Button, when in fact it isn't. We exposed that, and Xcel admitted it. What is it with Democrats and their meek, Strongly Worded Letters? https://t.co/2HXxnnAe2G

The good news: the PUC verbally ordered improvements within 6 months. Discussion begins 4:43:00. The bad news is..... https://t.co/9uiKypeRFP

Also, the data recipient only receives "raw" usage data that isn't settlement-quality. Good luck settling that transaction! We compared it to selling gold to a pawnbroker who tips the scale in their favor:

...at the end of which the data "recipient" can manually, by hand, download one person's usage data. If the customer even gets that far! We found solar customers for whom this never worked at all. Instead, they got the "loading" wheel of death

So the only alternative is a 9-step that's very buggy, like this:

...an authorization request URL that never worked:

The problem? Numerous serious defects that rendered GBC inoperable for automated data-sharing.... Error messages like this: