acquire data within 48 hours of daily meter reads. Commission review of this document will occur at a public meeting. The outcome of this proceeding will likely determine the direction of this issue. at 62. Id. The ALJ asserted that ideally, the scrutiny of this matter will Commission’s result in are the appropriate way to implement a In the Id. regulations, “which statute.” meantime, the ALJ stated, PPL will be expected to comply with whatever outcome the Commission approves in the Thus, the ALJ recommended that WPWG Proceeding. parties that wish to be involved in the development of a solution regarding access to customer data via the supplier portal should look to that proceeding, and PPL should develop a plan in accordance with the resulting Commission guidelines. Id. 3. Exceptions and Replies In its Exception No. 1, PPLICA asserts that the ALJ erred in her finding that the privacy issues it raised regarding the supplier portal would be better addressed in the than in the instant proceeding. PPLICA argues that while the WPWG Proceeding may address data privacy issues to a limited degree, its primary focus WPWG Proceeding is on the adoption of technical standards for EDC web portals, and will not speak to the specific concerns raised by PPLICA in this proceeding. PPLICA avers that it will participate in the and file comments to the Tentative WPWG Proceeding Commission’s Order in that proceeding, but contends that the Commission must rule on supplier PPL’s portal in the instant proceeding, and should address concerns. PPLICA Exc. PPLICA’s at 2-5. In reply, PPL asserts that it is completely reasonable for the Commission to address data privacy issues in the generic because such issues can WPWG Proceeding
acquire data within 48 hours of daily meter reads. Commission review of this document will occur at a public meeting. The outcome of this proceeding will likely determine the direction of this issue. Id. at 62. The ALJ asserted that ideally, the Commission’s scrutiny of this matter will result in regulations, “which are the appropriate way to implement a statute.” Id. In the meantime, the ALJ stated, PPL will be expected to comply with whatever outcome the Commission approves in the WPWG Proceeding. Thus, the ALJ recommended that parties that wish to be involved in the development of a solution regarding access to customer data via the supplier portal should look to that proceeding, and PPL should develop a plan in accordance with the resulting Commission guidelines. Id. 3. Exceptions and Replies In its Exception No. 1, PPLICA asserts that the ALJ erred in her finding that the privacy issues it raised regarding the supplier portal would be better addressed in the WPWG Proceeding than in the instant proceeding. PPLICA argues that while the WPWG Proceeding may address data privacy issues to a limited degree, its primary focus is on the adoption of technical standards for EDC web portals, and will not speak to the specific concerns raised by PPLICA in this proceeding. PPLICA avers that it will participate in the WPWG Proceeding and file comments to the Commission’s Tentative Order in that proceeding, but contends that the Commission must rule on PPL’s supplier portal in the instant proceeding, and should address PPLICA’s concerns. PPLICA Exc. at 2-5. In reply, PPL asserts that it is completely reasonable for the Commission to address data privacy issues in the generic WPWG Proceeding because such issues can
1380515.docx