<p> EDEWG Change Request #004 1999 This EDEWG Change Request can be found on the PUC website at http://puc.paonline.com/electric/edi</p><p>Requester’s Name: EDC/EGS Name: Phone # : Kim Wall 610-774-4850 Date of Request: EDI Transaction Set #: E-Mail Address: 8/31/99 248, 814E, 814R, 824, 867MU, 810 [email protected] Requested Priority Requested Implementation Date: Status: Implemented 11/4/99 (emergency/high/low): LOW Asap</p><p>Explain request in detail: </p><p>Cleanup: 1. 248 IG – In Notes section, add verbiage to state that this is a one-to-one customer account per transaction 2. Reorder the Rejection Reason Codes alphabetically 3. 814E IG – Historical Usage Response Examples - s/b "11" not "13" 4. 814E IG – Meter Information Response Examples - s/b "11" not "13" 5. 814E IG – Special Meter Read Example - s/b "021", not "029" on multiple request 6. 814E IG – AMT*DP provided in Multiple Response Example (and should not be) 7. 814E IG – Correct the examples to show ASI as 021 for Special Meter Read (not 029). 8. 814R IG – Missing AMT*DP and REF*RBs on Rate Ready Request Example 9. 814R IG – Included REF*RBs on Bill Ready Request Example (should not be there) 10. 814R IG – Must remove the N103 and N104 (Customer Reference Number) on all examples from ESP to LDC 11. 824 IG – We use "FRG" as an error code against the 810, but it is not in the standard 12. 824 IG – OTI Transaction Example is incorrect Page 19 : OTI*TR*TN*1999010100001*867 Correct : OTI*TR*TN*1999010100001*******867 13. 824 IG – PER in Example is incorrect Exists: PER*TECHNICAL CONTACT*TE*8005551212*EM*[email protected] Should be: PER*IC*TECHNICAL CONTACT*TE*8005551212*EM*[email protected] 14. 867MU IG – Examples missing REF*BLT and REF*PC 15. 867MU IG – Examples missing MEA06 16. 867MU IG – Example 4 still has DTM06/07 for DTM*649 17. 867MU IG – Second last example shows QTY*QD*256*KH in BB loop... s/b QTY*D1*256*KH 18. 810 DD – correct Field #8 Related EDI qualifier to BIG08 = 01 or 17 (17 replaced 08) 19. 810 DD - Item 21 – Due Date incorrectly shows Data Type to be 9(6). Should be 9(8) per Implementation Guide. 20. 810 DD - Item 28 – Category of Charge incorrectly shows RATE in description. Should be ACCOUNT. Also, Data type of this field is shown as X(5), but ACCOUNT is greater than the 5 character limit. Change to X(7)</p><p>Reason for Request (Explain why this change is needed. For business or technical purposes?): </p><p>Cleanup</p><p>What is the impact on the current EDEWG standards: (what EDEWG standards need to be changed?) </p><p>Re-release the IGs and DDs for 248, 814E, 814R, 824, 867MU, 810</p><p>Please submit this form via e-mail to both the PUC at [email protected] and to Kim Wall at [email protected]</p><p>Your request will be evaluated and prioritized at an upcoming EDEWG meeting or conference call. You will be notified when this issue will be addressed so please plan to attend this discussion. Thank you.</p><p>1</p>