1. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only Market Operations Engagement Group Customer Data Recap of the July 26, 2016 Meeting 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 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 2 matter

3. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 3 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.

4. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 4 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.

5. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 5 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

6. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 6 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

7. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 7 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 One Stakeholder offered a very strong endorsement of the JU’s proposed use of the 15/15 standard as appropriate in protecting customer privacy, particularly for those customers that consider energy use data as proprietary, confidential and competitive information. 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)

8. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 8 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

9. Draft for Discussion Purposes Only 9 9 Thank you for joining us! Please contact info@jointutilitiesofny.orginfo@jointutilitiesofny.org or visit our website www.jointutilitiesofny.org for more informationwww.jointutilitiesofny.org