1. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Market Operations Engagement Group Customer Data August 9, 2016 Presentation material does not represent the views of the Joint Utilities Engagement Group as the group is still in discussion on these topics. Please do not redistribute this deck.

2. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 2 Agenda TimeTopic

3. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 3 Market Ops - Near term schedule (subject to revision) 7/18 Advisory Group Customer Data (Tuesday mornings) DER Sourcing (Tuesday afternoons) Granular Pricing EVSE 8/8 8/1 7/25 8/15 August 10 NYC July 26 Albany Aggregation of Usage Data August 9 NYC Additional Data Needs July 19 (By Phone*) Review 7/13 Stakeholder Comments *Additional phone sessions will be held as needed 8/22 July 26 Albany Dependencies With Other REV and Related Proceedings August 9 NYC Potential Refinements to NWA Procurement Approach 8/29 9/5 9/12 August 16 NYC Current State; Opportunities for Utility Collaboration Sept. 12 Albany Forecasting Methodologies August 30 Albany Principles for Utility Involvement September 7 NYC August 18 NYC: Granular Pricing, Customer Data, Hosting Capacity, Monitoring & Control Stakeholder Engagement Technical Conferences September 13 Albany: Cyber Security, ISO/DSP Roles, DER and Demand Forecasting, Load Flow Analysis, Probabilistic Planning July 27 (webinar): NWA Suitability, System Data August 18 NYC (conference) August 23 (By Phone*) TBD Sept. 6 (By Phone*) TBD

4. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 4 Customer Data Engagement Group Charter Purpose: Explore the Joint Utilities' approaches for facilitating market mechanisms that effectively support and encourage the adoption of Distributed Energy Resources while meeting customers’ needs and complying with the DSIP Guidance Order Topics and Scope: Customer Data Customer Data Data Collection, Reporting Frequency and Availability of Usage Data o Discuss how often usage data might be collected by the utility, how often it would be made available to customers/authorized agents, and at what quality level o Discuss customer data platform-related sensitivities (e.g. AMI versus non-AMI systems) Aggregation of Usage Data o Discuss standardized aggregated data offerings (e.g. kW and kWh by rate class, tax district, zip code) o Discuss utility-sided aggregated data system automation efforts and reporting methods o Discuss standards for anonymizing aggregated data to protect individual customer privacy (e.g. 15/15 rule) Additional Data Needs o Explore and identify additional useful customer information beyond usage data o Note: pricing for Basic and Value-Added data is a Track Two matter

5. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 5 Customer Data Topic Description Customer Data may identify the person or entity to which it applies Customer information may include usage data, account/profile data, end-use and other qualitative data, and results from customer-specific analyses Customer usage data is a subset of customer information and contains a customer's usage or production of energy o The Commission’s REV Track 2 Order defined Basic Data as "the usage for each applicable rate element, including usage bands specified in the applicable tariff. This is the level of data necessary to render, reconstruct and understand the customer's bill" o Usage data can be shared with authorized third parties, or aggregated by various groupings for use by third parties

6. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 6 Customer Usage Data – Definitions Basic Data examples include: o Non-interval - Cumulative kWh, net or accumulated kWh, max recorded kW (if a demand meter is present). If a customer is on a TOU rate, summed usage in TOU periods is also basic data. o Interval - Energy use (kWh, net or accumulated kWh, kW, kVar) at program intervals specific to the customer's meter, as well as cumulative kWh, min/max kW, kVar. If a customer is on a TOU rate, summed usage in TOU periods is also basic data. To be deemed as Value-Added Data, one or more of the following criteria must be met : o Is not routinely developed or shared o Has been transformed or analyzed in a customized way  Aggregated data falls into this bucket o Is delivered more on an ad-hoc basis or more frequently than basic data Value-Added Data may be created and/or provided by the utility with a charge to the requestor. According to the Track Two Order, bill-quality basic data should be made available to customers and third parties of their choosing within 24 hours, at no incremental cost.

7. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 7 Guidance Requirements To Address Supplemental DSIP Include plans to phase in the ability to provide ESCOs with access to daily, hourly, and eventually, close to real-time access to customer usage information, including budgets and timelines (Att. 1 – Page 21 – SDSIP – 2.F) Track Two Order Each utility should continue to work with NYSERDA and should provide aggregated data updates for the Community Energy Reports and the Utility Energy Registry (UER). (p. 149) Once the utilities automate their systems, Staff should reexamine the adoption of the UER portal to make aggregated community-level usage data accessible to all municipalities and developers. (p. 150) Each utility, or the utilities jointly, should file a progress report regarding automation efforts September 1, 2016 (p. 151) At this time, utilities should follow their current internal policies in addressing the anonymity issue for ensuring that aggregated data is sufficiently anonymous. In order to make these policies transparent and enforceable, utilities should develop standardized policy statements in the context of the UER development process and each utility should file its policy as a tariff amendment. (p. 153)

8. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 8 Recap of 7/26 EG Session

9. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 9 Background & Purpose The Joint Utilities (JU) convened a meeting with stakeholders on the topic of Customer Data on July 26, 2016 at NYISO in Albany The discussion topic was Aggregation of Usage Data This document is intended to capture the main discussion points and serve as a basis for discussion. It is not intended to serve as meeting minutes The JU invite and appreciate stakeholder review and feedback on these observations, with the objective of clarifying any points or identifying anything that may have been missed.

10. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 10 Customer Data – Key Takeaways from 7/26 Session Charging for Aggregated Customer Usage Data Stakeholders expressed concern regarding the JU proposal that third parties would have to pay for aggregated data, even when used for the purpose of complying with existing laws and/or supporting public interest projects o Stakeholders identified compliance with Local Law 84 and supporting GHG inventories as two important use cases o Stakeholders noted that whole-building aggregated data is provided without additional charge by utilities elsewhere in the country o Stakeholders commented that fees for aggregated whole-building data will be especially problematic for small building owners and may be a barrier for compliance o Stakeholders inquired if customers with buildings in multiple utility service territories would be subject to paying fees to each utility o JU responded that fees by individual utilities would likely be appropriate The JU will address pricing in individual tariff filings. The JU note that charging for aggregated data is consistent with REV objectives and principles. The utilities create value by providing aggregated data, and will assess fees, platform-based or otherwise, for their services to capture a share of that value. Ultimately the revenues earned may be shared with customers to offset the costs associated with providing the data; this will allow all customers to benefit from the expansion of the REV-driven marketplace.

11. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 11 Customer Data – Key Takeaways from 7/26 Session Customer Data and System Data Stakeholders noted that the Standard aggregated data set would likely be useful or necessary to include in NWA solicitations o The JU commented that there will likely be a standard set of system data included in NWA solicitations. The Market Operations working group is capturing and coordinating Stakeholder feedback on this issue with the Grid Operations working group Stakeholders commented that some of the elements in the Non-standard aggregated data set, e.g. circuit-level peak load data, may be useful for DER developers responding to NWA solicitation opportunities or evaluating other DER deployment opportunities o The JU commented that circuit-level data would be considered a Non-standard request, and that this working group is focused on aggregated customer meter data, rather than data measured at the system level. o The JU also noted that some custom aggregations may be limited by the capability of each utility’s information systems and related data. For example, customer accounts may not be tied to a specific feeder identifier for some utilities. Stakeholders observed that DER providers may eventually be able to obtain data access authorizations from individual customers in a given area and create their own aggregations The JU appreciate this feedback and are jointly taking it under consideration with the Grid Operations working group

12. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 12 Customer Data – Key Takeaways from 7/26 Session Use Cases The JU presented three use cases for data aggregation Stakeholders identified several additional use cases for aggregated data o Basic metrics for water and energy consumption used by policymakers and academics o Building energy use metrics o Helps tenants evaluate building efficiency as part of a rental decision o Supports decision-making for commercial real estate purchases or other transactions o Enables targeted Energy Efficiency program opportunities o Developing dynamic GHG inventories, progress assessment and target-setting o Support for correlating and quantifying weather impacts on GHG emissions o Whole-building or other aggregations in support of Master Plans developed by other New York cities The JU appreciate Stakeholder comments and suggestions for using aggregated usage data. The proposed Standard and Non-Standard aggregation approaches appear to be capable of supporting these additional use cases

13. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 13 Customer Data – Key Takeaways from 7/26 Session Anonymization Stakeholders strongly urged the JU against adopting the 15/15 standard on the grounds that it is overly- restrictive and will prevent many entities, particularly small building owners, from complying with existing laws o Stakeholders cited two recent studies that indicate relatively few buildings today meet the 15/15 threshold: 1.Pacific Northwest National Laboratory study: http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-23786.pdf http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-23786.pdf 2.ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager study: https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/tools/Web_Services_Fact_Sheet_02042016_508_0.pdf https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/tools/Web_Services_Fact_Sheet_02042016_508_0.pdf o Stakeholders offered an alternative two-to-five meter threshold approach o Some stakeholders inquired if the utilities had done any preliminary analysis to determine how many circuits would not meet the 15/15 anonymity threshold for aggregated data o The JU responded that circuit-level anonymization analysis had not been performed. If circuit- level data is segmented (i.e., by rate class), some circuits may not pass the 15/15 standard. There is less likelihood of anonymization failure if the data is provided at a system level. The JU appreciates Stakeholder concern and suggestions and will take them under consideration. The JU emphasize that they propose starting with a conservative standard and will revisit it over time as the market matures. The JU will develop exception processes to support compliance with existing laws (e.g. NYC Local Law 84)

14. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 14 Customer Data – Key Takeaways from 7/26 Session Aggregation Request Process and Tracking Stakeholders suggested a standard portal for a third-party aggregator, rather than going to each utility separately Stakeholders inquired if a program exists or is planned that lays out a procedure for tracking requests for aggregated data, as well as standards for who may seek information about these requests o Staff commented that this is being addressed in the DER Oversight proceeding. The utilities internally track this data to varying degrees. The JU appreciates Stakeholder comments and suggestions in this area. As the market evolves, the JU will consider developing new processes and/or systems to manage and respond to requests for aggregated data. Some solutions and timing may be utility-specific and are dependent upon current system capabilities, along with the plans for evolving these systems and processes

15. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 15 JU Presentation: Additional Data Needs

16. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 16 Agenda Green Button Connect Implementation Limitations and Benchmarking Additional Data Considerations

17. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 17 Green Button Connect Implementation Green Button Download (existing) Customers can authorize third parties and providers to receive direct access to the customer usage data Green Button Connect (new) Customers manually download usage data from utility website Green Button Connect My Data planned functionality includes: Automated delivery of metered usage data Standardized data format, adopted nationwide Transfer of anonymized usage data Customer authorization for third party data access Third party application process for access to customer usage data AMI

18. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 18 Limitations and Benchmarking Green Button Connect does not share bill cost data, tariff data, account information, bill component data, or customer information o The UCAIug OpenADE working group is in the process of adding elements for billing and transaction data to the Green Button Connect standard. To understand how other utilities are addressing third party requests, the JU has initiated benchmarking with PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, ComEd, and the Green Button Alliance

19. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 19 Limitations and Benchmarking Data Available to Third Parties at Other Utilities:

20. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 20 Limitations and Benchmarking Best Practices A phased approach to implementing additional datasets is preferable for two main reasons: o Providing multiple datasets requires the synchronization of many systems  Can be taxing and complicated  Implementing a phased approach alleviates complications with making multiple data sets available, and  Allows for usage data to be available at a sooner date, satisfying third party needs more quickly o The Green Button standard is still evolving  By implementing many data sets at once, the Joint Utilities and third parties risk building out data sharing capabilities that may be inconsistent with future functionality of the Green Button standard

21. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 21 Additional Data Considerations GOVERNANCE: Define governance structure for additional data sharing New data sets will require new systems to gather, store, and transmit the additional data TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT: STANDARD: Create a common data sharing standard for New York State Increase liability for parties handling more sensitive data and utility indemnification LIABILITY: Balance privacy risk and added value PRIVACY: Fund expanded capabilities COST:

22. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 22 NYS standard Governance Data privacy Liability Technical Cost Requested Data: Bill cost data Tariff data Account info Bill component data Customer info Additional Data Evaluation Process Monitor Green Button Alliance capabilities Engagement with stakeholders in DSIP process Aim to implement additional data sets Include bill cost data as a starting point Work w/ Joint Utilities to develop a standard approach Collaboration Results Key Considerations Implementation Plan Next Steps

23. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 23 Break

24. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 24 Stakeholder Presentations

25. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 25 Stakeholder Engagement Conference – August 18 th WHEN: Thursday, August 18 th 9:00a – 4:00p EDT WHAT: Joint Utilities of New York Stakeholder Engagement Conference WHERE: The Con Edison Learning Center 48-82 Vernon Boulevard Long Island City, NY 11101 If you are unable to attend the conference in-person, please register here or through jointutilitiesofny.orgherejointutilitiesofny.org RSVP: Please email info@jointutilitiesofny.org or Annie.Howley@icfi.com as soon as possible if you will be attending the conference in person.info@jointutilitiesofny.orgAnnie.Howley@icfi.com Agenda for July 27 th 9:00 – 9:15 Introductions 9:15 – 10:00 Granular Pricing & Q/A* 10:00 – 10:20 Customer Data & Q/A* 11:30 – 12:30 Lunch Break 10:20 – 2:00 Monitoring & Control & Q/A* 2:00 – 3:30 Hosting Capacity & Q/A* 3:30 – 4:00 Summary & Next Steps *The Q/A portion of the conference will address the questions received in advance plus those received during the session. If you have questions to pose now or additional questions that are not covered during the conference, please email info@jointutilitiesofny.org.info@jointutilitiesofny.org

26. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 26 Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 26 Thank you for joining us! Please contact info@jointutilitiesofny.orginfo@jointutilitiesofny.org or visit our website www.jointutilitiesofny.org for more informationwww.jointutilitiesofny.org

27. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 27 Appendix

28. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 28 Engagement Group Ground Rules* All stakeholder engagement (advisory group and engagement group) meetings, webinars and information exchange are designed solely to provide an open forum or means for the expression of various points of view in compliance with antitrust laws. Under no circumstances shall stakeholder engagement activities be used as a means for competing companies to reach any understanding, expressed or implied, which tends to restrict competition, or in any way, to impair the ability of participating members to exercise independent business judgment regarding matters affecting competition or regulatory positions. Proprietary information shall not be disclosed by any participant during any stakeholder engagement meeting or its subgroups. In addition, no information of a secret or proprietary nature shall be made available to stakeholder engagement members. All proprietary information which may nonetheless be publicly disclosed by any participant during any stakeholder engagement meeting or its subgroups shall be deemed to have been disclosed on a non-confidential basis, without any restrictions on use by anyone, except that no valid copyright or patent right shall be deemed to have been waived by such disclosure. AG & EG discussions will be open forums without attribution and no public documents by the AG or EG will be produced unless publication is agreed upon by the group. *Ground Rules adapted from the JU Advisory Group

29. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 29 Overall Engagement Group Purpose & Objectives Purpose The Market Operations Stakeholder Engagement Group (EG) is an open forum for stakeholders who are actively engaged in the REV process and the Distributed System Implementation Plan (DSIP) filings to provide input to, and exchange ideas with, the Joint Utilities of New York (JU) on topics related to grid operations as identified by the Joint Utilities Stakeholder Advisory Group (AG). Objectives The AG will advise the JU on the sequence and priorities of topics that Engagement Groups should discuss. The AG will also provide input on Engagement Group members, discussion scope, and any output documents that would advance greater shared understanding. The Engagement Groups will hold discussions on identified topics in order to achieve greater shared understanding of issues covered in the DSIP filings, and to build toward common ground through iterative discussion and feedback.

30. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 30 Engagement Process Overview *Initial DSIP engagements dates based on individual JU workshop schedule during this period. **ITWG beginning in March, EG begins in May. *** Stakeholder technical conferences to engage a wider set of participants to inform technical discussions and share Engagement Group results, as needed and in consultation with the Advisory Group Source: Plan for stakeholder engagement process as reflected in May 5 th DSIP filing Stakeholder Engagement Schedule FebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec Distribution Planning** 2017 Grid Operations Market Operations Advisory Group Mtgs Supplemental DSIP Engagement Groups DSIP Final GuidanceInitial DSIP FilingsSupplemental DSIP Filing Stakeholder Conferences*** Jan 2016 Initial DSIP Stakeholder Engagement*

31. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 31 Advisory Group Members ContactOrganizationTitle NY DPS Tammy MitchellDept. of Public Service Chief, Electric Distribution Systems DER Provider Carlos GonzalezSolarCity Director, Grid Engineering Solutions DER Provider Pete FullerNRG VP, Market & Regulatory Affairs DER Provider Bill AckerNY-BEST Executive Director DER Provider Greg GellerEnerNoc Director, Regulatory & Government Affairs Large Customer Mike MagerCouch White, LLP Partner Large Customer Anthony FioreCity of NY Director, Office of Energy Small Customers & Consumer Groups Erin Hogan Dept. of State Utility Intervention Unit (UIU) Senior Project Manager at NYSERDA State/Public power Maryam SharifNYPA Program Manager, Clean Energy Technology Environmental Miles FarmerNRDC Legal Fellow Environmental Rory ChristianEDF Director, NY Clean Energy Marketers Chris KallaherDirect Energy Director, Government & Regulatory Affairs Wholesale market Mike DeSocioNYISO Senior Manager, Market Design at NYISO NYSERDA John SaintcrossNYSERDA Assistant Director, Smart Grid Research IPPNY Chris WentlentExelon VP, Energy Policy Joint Utilities Tom MimnaghConEdison Department Manager Joint Utilities Damian ScianoConEdison Director, Distributed Resource Integration Joint Utilities John LeanaNational Grid Director, Strategy Joint Utilities Lori ColeAVANGRID Manager, Regulatory & Tariffs Joint Utilities John BorchertCentral Hudson Senior Director of Energy Policy and Transmission Development Facilitator Paul De MartiniICF International AG Facilitator

32. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 32 Supplemental DSIP Topics—Based on Final Order Distribution System Planning Topics Engagement Groups Probabilistic Planning Load Flow Analysis NWA Suitability Interconnection Technical Working Group Grid OperationsMarket Operations DER Forecasting Demand Forecasting Hosting Capacity Interconnection ISO/DSP Roles, Responsibilities, Interaction Cyber Security Monitoring & Control System Data Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment DER Sourcing - Procurement Customer Data Granular Pricing Currently scheduled Engagement Group topics Currently scheduled Advisory Group topics