Issues resolution process application manual

Electricity sector

Issued by

Electricity Process Advisory Committee

August 16, 2005

Revised

April 7, 2015

Table of contents

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of the Electricity Process Advisory Committee's (EPAC) Issues Resolution Process Application Manual is to describe in detail the methodology to be used for successful resolution of issues raised by Measurement Canada (MC) and electricity stakeholders. The manual describes the triggering mechanism and the application of the three different levels of approach developed to resolve issues based on their impact. Each level of the process and the various impact analysis methods are described in detail.

2.0 Implementation guidelines

The Standards Council of Canada's (SCC) National Standards System (NSS) style process that is being applied (see appendix A) has a number of key design components including:

  • a decision filter to steer the project proposal either towards the NSS style process or away from it; and
  • an alternative to the NSS style process that would allow MC to proceed with minor regulatory changes to specifications and policy, but would allow for changes to be developed in a transparent manner, with input from stakeholders only when needed, and on a less resource intensive basis.

To fulfil all of these parameters, a multi-path process is used with an initial impact filter that includes a scoring methodology to determine the relative order of magnitude of the project in terms of the impact on the consumer, the industry and the regulator. In addition, the filter results stream the project toward one of three of the following paths, thereby involving stakeholders at a level of either high involvement, medium involvement, or as an informed, but non-participatory party:

  1. The high level (high impact) path is designated the NSS style resolution process.
  2. The medium level (medium impact) path is an NSS style consultative approach for the purposes of joint feedback.
  3. The low level (low impact) path is a process involving information updating only on an informal and courtesy basis.

It is expected that in the majority of cases, MC personnel will raise the issues. Project initiators would normally complete the Initial Impact Filter (see Appendix B) using information available from the marketplace monitoring program and input from stakeholders as required. The model is designed in such a way that if the project was incorrectly assessed during the initial impact stage, there is flexibility to change the project review path. In those instances where there are industry-initiated issues, completed filters should be forwarded to the stakeholder representative for disposition. To be successfully implemented, the NSS style process joint consultative approach requires that all participants agree to and abide by a code of conduct referenced in detail in section 3.

The EPAC is responsible for the administration of the NSS style process. The primary role of this committee is to administer and coordinate the process and approve recommendations forwarded from the joint working groups and project leaders. (Refer to section 6.1 for a detailed description.) The EPAC is also responsible for the establishment of terms of reference associated with standards and specifications development and maintenance activities. Terms of reference are developed and administered jointly to ensure that issues are being prioritised appropriately and to maximize the efficient use of limited resources. Where possible, the projects should be balanced in terms of the number of projects being reviewed annually through the high, medium and low level paths. The number of projects in each category should be consistent with the resources available. The EPAC will submit projects and its terms of reference to MC senior management for their approval.

Intervention implementation process

The long description is located below the image
Description of Figure 1
  • Complete Initial Impact Filter
    • High Impact
      • Refer to NSS Style Process
        • Approve JWG
          • Apply NSS Style Process
        • Refer to Medium
    • Medium Impact
      • Consult with Stakeholder Rep
        • Assign Resources
          • Apply Consultative Process
            • Complete
            • No resolution Refer NSS Style Process
        • Refer to Low
    • Low Impact
      • Communicate with Stakeholder Rep
  • The initial impact filter assesses all standards/policy type issues. If the issue is determined to be of a low impact type, the sponsor reviews the issue independently while keeping the stakeholder informed. This establishes an informed methodology.
  • If the issue is of a medium impact type, the sponsor would interface with the stakeholder representative who identifies an industry spokesperson to work with the sponsor to resolve the issue. This establishes a consultative methodology.
  • If the issue is of a high impact type, it is referred to the NSS Style Process Advisory Committee for administrative resolution and a detailed cost-benefit/impact analysis is to be completed. If the EPAC disagrees with the impact rating, it refers the matter to the medium or low process streams. If the EPAC agrees with the impact rating, the issue is prioritized and the establishment of a joint working group (JWG) is approved to address the issue with an NSS style process.
  • All issues being addressed, whether they are low, medium or high, are copied to the EPAC through the normal reporting channels. The EPAC makes decisions regarding potential areas of commonality or conflict as required.
  • For industry-initiated issues, completed filters shall be forwarded to the stakeholder representative for disposition.

3.0 Code of conduct considerations

A code of conduct is to be established and administered for all JWGs and communications pursuant to this process. The following basic tenets are offered for consideration:

  1. individuals are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner that is consistent with NSS guidelines;
  2. provide input which is beneficial to the committee mandate and related to the sector or, where appropriate, the larger trade measurement context;
  3. there is a responsibility to participate and all input should be considered;
  4. treat as confidential and commercially sensitive information discussed with or distributed to EPAC or JWG members. Members are not to disclose any such information without prior approval, except to the extent that the information is already in the public domain;
  5. all code of conduct issues or concerns should be communicated to the EPAC.

4.0 Process overview

The EPAC comprises two senior representatives from MC (the Manager, Utility Metering Division (UMD) and an electricity program officer) plus industry representatives selected by the Canadian Electricity Association Distribution Council. The industry representatives should be at the director level or equivalent in their home organization to ensure they bring the necessary skill sets to the task.

In terms of tenure, the position of manager, UMD will be considered as a permanent position. The term for the other EPAC members should be for a minimum of three years where possible and designates should commit to that responsibility. To ensure that an adequate level of continuity is maintained, replacement members should be nominated a minimum of a year in advance and encouraged to attend meetings as non-participating observers or guests.

The EPAC will review high level projects that are defined by the Initial Impact Filter. If it agrees with the initial assessment, it will prioritize the task and update the work plan. When appropriate, the EPAC will approve the constituting and membership of a JWG to review the issue. When the JWG has completed its task, a final report detailing the solution shall be submitted to the EPAC for preliminary approval prior to forwarding it to Measurement Canada management for implementation. It is anticipated that occasionally, the JWG will require direction to facilitate the completion of the task. When that is apparent, the EPAC shall become a steering committee for that purpose. The process organization can be summarized in the following chart:

Process organizational chart

The long description is located below the image
Description of Figure 1
  • Process Advisory Committee
    • Joint Working Group # 1
      • Sub-committee Working Group # 1
    • Joint Working Group # 2
      • Sub-committee Working Group # 2
    • Medium and Low Level Projects

5.0 Performance-based standards and requirements

Based upon information presented by stakeholders and the Electricity Trade Sector Review recommendations approved by MC's Senior Management Committee (SMC), it is clear that strategically, there is close alignment between the regulator and the stakeholders on the issue of performance-based standards. However, it is recognized that standards, specifications and regulations, by their very nature, have to be prescriptive to some degree. This suggests that a criteria and rationale statement to promote an appropriate balance of prescriptive versus performance-based requirements is to be established. The following guidelines have been developed to support this balance:

  • Where both prescriptive and performance-based approaches can be implemented in satisfaction of a particular requirement, both shall be presented and compliance with either option shall be considered as being satisfactory. Performance-based requirements shall not be implemented where conformity assessment methodologies have not been established. Performance-based standards and specifications should be used when:
    • appropriate performance measures can be readily established; and
    • key performance indicators can be established to allow for the monitoring of the effectiveness of the performance measures over the life of the standard.

6.0 Process guidelines

6.1 Electricity process advisory committee responsibilities

6.1.1 General

The EPAC shall be responsible for:

  1. developing and maintaining the Intervention Implementation Program, subject to confirmation by the Vice-President, Program Delivery Directorate;
  2. reviewing all new standards activities;
  3. preparing and/or approving terms of reference for JWGs;
  4. reviewing and recommending appropriate action with regard to any area of conflict or dispute that may arise with a JWG;
  5. administering the scope of work, project timelines and milestones of JWGs;
  6. providing direction to JWGs as required;
  7. directing JWGs to fully document issues and make recommendations;
  8. developing, maintaining and implementing the guidelines for the organization of committees and for the development of MC standards;
  9. evaluating the effectiveness of the standards development process;
  10. administering the issue resolution process; and
  11. performing such other duties as may be assigned to it by MC senior management.

6.1.2 Membership

The EPAC shall comprise three to five members. Two members will be appointed by MC (the Manager, UMD and an electricity program officer). The representation from industry will be from accredited organizations, electricity contractors and/or their advocacy groups or associations. In terms of tenure, the position of manager, UMD will be considered as a permanent position. The term for the other two or three EPAC members should be for a minimum of three years where possible and designates should commit to that responsibility. To ensure that an adequate level of continuity is maintained, replacement members shall be nominated a minimum of a year in advance and encouraged to attend meetings as non-participatory observers or guests. A chairperson shall be designated with a term to be reviewed annually by the membership. Nominated new members may be assigned tasks as required by the chairperson.

6.1.3 Establishing Joint Working Groups

The EPAC shall be responsible for the establishment of JWGs in fields of standards development consistent with both the policies of MC senior management and MC resources. The EPAC shall also be responsible for the following:

  1. the approval of the terms of reference, including scope of work;
  2. the appointment of the chairperson and facilitator if required;
  3. ensuring that the committee membership matrix is balanced and consistent with the approved matrix where possible; and
  4. a review of activities on at least a semi-annual basis for all JWGs.

6.1.4 Assigning new standards activities

The EPAC shall be responsible, in consultation with the MC senior management, for the establishment of project work plans, priority lists and the assignment of a standards activity not otherwise covered by the terms of reference of an existing JWG. Depending upon the activity:

  1. the standard may be assigned to an existing standards JWG; or
  2. a new JWG may be organized.

6.1.5 Frequency of meetings

The EPAC shall meet at least two times annually using means and methods agreeable to all parties. Such means may include face-to-face meetings, video conferencing or conference calls.

6.1.6 Notice of meeting

A notice of meeting and the agenda shall be circulated at least three weeks in advance of the meeting.

Note: Meeting agendas should be structured to ensure that items requiring decisions precede information items.

6.1.7 Attendance

Meetings of the EPAC shall normally be open only to members of the EPAC. However, on request from the EPAC, alternates, visitors or observers may be permitted to attend. MC senior management may attend as required. Each committee member will be responsible for travel and related costs incurred as a result of participation in the EPAC.

6.1.8 Quorum

One industry and one MC member of the EPAC shall constitute a quorum.

6.1.9 Consensus

Consensus includes an attempt to resolve all objections and implies much more than the concept of a simple majority, but not necessarily unanimity.

6.1.10 Reports

All reports, documentation and meeting minutes shall be written in a manner suitable for public viewing and be made available through MC upon request. The EPAC chairperson or UMD Manager shall submit the final minutes of EPAC meetings to MC senior management, or as directed, identify any issues that need to be specifically brought to their attention. The industry committee representative shall forward a copy of the final minutes to their applicable committee. Meeting minutes shall be distributed no later than four weeks after a meeting.

6.2 Dispute resolution process

6.2.1 General

Under normal circumstances, it is the responsibility of the JWG to resolve issues and develop consensus-based recommendations. In the event that consensus cannot be met, the JWG chairperson shall communicate the need to initiate the Dispute Resolution Process to the chairperson of the PAC. For situations where the PAC is unable to resolve an issue, the Measurement Canada Vice-President, Program Development and the Canadian Electricity Association Vice-President, Policy Development, shall augment the PAC.

It is the responsibility of the JWG to fully document any areas of dispute that cannot be resolved at committee level. The documentation shall include discussion papers, resolution options and recommendations being considered.

6.3 Joint Working Groups

6.3.1 General

A JWG shall be established, under the authority of the EPAC, where there is a demonstrated need and consistent with available resources. A JWG shall be responsible for completing the scope of work and tasks assigned to them by the EPAC. That includes completing reports, drafting specifications and standards, fully documenting all decisions, maintaining a project file, and meeting all process requirements.

6.3.2 Administration

Under normal circumstances the EPAC shall also be responsible for the administration of JWGs.

6.3.3 Chairpersons

Each JWG shall have a chairperson who is responsible for the following:

  1. Providing direction and leadership for the JWG members and ensure they maintain a focussed and active role in the meetings.
  2. Ensures that all members of the JWG have an equal opportunity to present points for discussion.
  3. Ensures that MC mandate, role and non-negotiables are considered in all JWG discussions, analysis, and decisions.

In the absence of any unforeseen circumstance, this appointment shall be for the term of the assignment.

In the event a new chairperson is required on a temporary or permanent basis, the person shall be knowledgeable in the subject concerned; familiar with standardization policies, procedures, and processes; and prepared to devote the time necessary to meet the requirements of the project.

6.3.4 Facilitator

A JWG may be assigned a Facilitator depending on the nature and/or complexity of the assignment. Facilitators shall be knowledgeable in the subject concerned, be familiar with standardization policies, procedures, and processes, and be prepared to devote the time necessary to meet the requirements of the project. The facilitator is a full member of this JWG.

The facilitator shall assist the chairperson in maintaining focus, active participation, and clarity of communication among members of the JWG. The facilitator shall also assist the chairperson in the handling and resolution of disputes within the JWG, as needed.

6.3.5 Membership

The Process Advisory Committee shall appoint the JWG members. An attempt shall be made to achieve a balanced membership that is consistent with the approved matrix for JWGs. JWG members are expected to communicate and contribute in a professional manner in support of WG goals and deliverables.

JWG members shall review materials, agenda and background information prior to meetings and be prepared to discuss materials at meetings.

6.3.6 Dispute resolution

The JWG shall make every effort to achieve consensus-based agreement. However, if a dispute cannot be resolved, it shall be referred to the Process Advisory Committee for resolution. Note that it shall be the responsibility of the JWG to fully document all areas of dispute and submit discussion papers, resolution options and recommendations to the Process Advisory Committee, for their review and disposition. Such documentation will become part of the project record.

6.3.7 Meetings frequency

The JWG shall meet on an as required basis or at the call of the chairperson.

6.3.8 Notice of meeting

A notice of meeting and the agenda shall be circulated at least three weeks in advance of the meeting.

Note: Meeting agendas should be structured to ensure that items requiring decisions precede information items.

6.3.9 Attendance

Meetings of the JWG shall normally be open only to members of the Panel. However, on specific request, visitors or observers may be permitted to attend.

6.3.10 Quorum

Two-thirds membership with a minimum of one MC and one industry representative shall constitute a quorum.

6.3.11 Consensus

Consensus includes an attempt to resolve all objections and implies much more than the concept of a simple majority, but not necessarily unanimity.

6.3.12 Key deliverables

6.3.12.1 The JWG shall develop consensus-based recommendations pertaining to items identified within the established scope, in consideration of the following:

  1. Performance-based standards and approaches shall be used to the greatest extent possible for any attendant specifications or requirements to the recommendations.
  2. The JWG will promote the review of international standards and recommendations where appropriate.
  3. All conclusions and recommendations shall be documented, and supporting rationales shall be identified.

6.3.12.2 The JWG shall identify and document any existing infrastructure and legal limitations or other impediments which may impact on concluded recommendations in such a manner that they may not conform to these deliverables.

6.3.13 Reports

All reports, documentation and meeting minutes shall be written in a manner suitable for public viewing and be made available through MC upon request. The EPAC chairperson or UMD manager shall submit the final minutes of EPAC meetings to MC senior management, or as directed, identify any issues that need to be specifically brought to their attention. The industry committee representative shall forward a copy of the final minutes to their applicable committee. Meeting minutes shall be distributed no later than four weeks after a meeting. Refer to Appendix E for an example.

Appendix A – Process foundation considerations

The NSS style process used is based on the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) guidelines and specifically the reference, Standards Systems: A Guide for Canadian Regulators. Some key elements identified below form the basis and rationale for using the NSS style process. The key elements include the following:

  • Development of standards through a consensus-based multi-stakeholder process.
  • Standards stipulating requirements that a product, process or service must meet.
  • Some standards can be mandated by regulations and enforced through the regulatory process.
  • A standard should be reviewed at least every five years as per ISO guidelines and, if no longer needed, should be withdrawn. If the standard is still needed, a complete review should be made to ensure that the requirements reflect current needs, references remain valid, it has performed adequately and any difficulties found in its application have been resolved. The EPAC administers this element.
  • Federal regulations are subject to Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) requirements. Common themes for good regulatory management include the following:
    • The need for a clear definition of the problem to be addressed.
    • Opportunity for stakeholders to present their views.
    • Identification of the benefits and costs of the proposed action.
    • Obligation to respect international agreements.
    • Need to conform with legal requirements.
    • Use of clear comprehensible language.
    • Need for the resulting rules to be accessible.
  • Strive for balanced representation with committees.
  • The SCC requires that practitioners examine whether international standards are available that can be adopted or adjusted to meet Canadian needs.
  • Consensus-based decision-making is used to develop standards. As defined by the SCC, consensus does not mean that the committee has to unanimously agree. Instead, it means that the group has attempted to reach substantial agreement and to resolve all objections. Consensus includes an attempt to resolve all objections and implies much more than the concept of a simple majority, but not necessarily unanimity.
  • In a formal NSS process, committee members vote on issues. The developers of this process unanimously agreed that it is impractical to use a voting methodology for regulations being administered by MC.
  • Benefits and costs of action must be considered. This requires that project sponsors and JWGs demonstrate that they have assessed the benefits of the regulatory action being developed as well as confirmed that the benefits of the standard outweigh its direct costs and its application will be cost effective. (See Appendix A, B and C.)
  • The RIAS is an impact assessment tool used as a reference guide to develop the more practical filters for project impact assessment. The RIAS includes the following key elements:
    • Issue: A brief statement to describe the issues or problems that the regulation will address and why government intervention is needed.
    • Description: A brief description of the proposed regulation.
    • Cost-benefit statement: A statement of the total costs, including a statement on the impacts on competition and consumers if applicable, and a short statement of what the benefits would be to protect and advance the public interest in health, safety and security, the quality of the environment, and the social and economic well-being of Canadians. Include the total estimated costs, benefits (if applicable) and net benefits Footnote 1 of the proposal or, if not available, a statement of how the proposed option maximizes net benefits.
    • "One-for-One" Rule and small business lens: A statement on whether the "One-for-One" Rule applies and a statement on the total administrative cost increase (if considered an "in" under the "One-for-One" Rule) or decrease (if considered an "out"). Also include a statement on whether the small business lens applies and the total cost savings for small business if the lens applies and flexibility is provided.
    • Domestic and international coordination and cooperation (if applicable): A statement on domestic and international coordination and cooperation, including trade impacts. When specific Canadian requirements are proposed, include a statement of the rationale for the Canadian approach.

Appendix B – Initial impact filter – A template to assist in prioritising efforts to identify, investigate and evaluate new standards and specifications

The goal of this filter is to assist in the initial assessment process for the evaluation of new proposed standards and specifications, or for the ongoing maintenance of existing standards and specifications. The filter is designed to be part of the initial impact assessment under the National Standards System (NSS) process. The filter will provide an initial assessment that will give an indication of the appropriate level of stakeholder review recommended to resolve the issue. Refer to the following page for rationale examples for each question.

Brief description of issue
Impact question Impact assessment H=3, M=2, L=1 Weighting Score
What is the risk level of the regulatory concern? - X4 -
What percentage of a specific device population is affected or potentially affected? - X4 -
What is the likelihood of an inequity risk level? - X4 -
What is the operating cost impact level? - X4 -
Is this a national, regional or local issue? - - -
What is the level of documentation change required? - - -
What is the relative workforce impact to both industry and MC? - - -
What is the capital cost impact level? - - -
What is the level of urgency? - - -
What is the likelihood the proposed change will facilitate the advancement of new technology? - - -
Totals: (number of key impact high scores) (maximum score out of 66) - - -

Review process determination

  1. A score of less than 33 and no High rankings on any of the key drivers would result in the "informed" or Low Impact Process.
  2. A score between 34 and 49 or High rankings for up to 2 of the 4 key drivers would result in the "consultative" or Medium Impact Process.
  3. A score greater than 50 or High rankings for 3 or more key drivers would result in the issue being addressed by the High Impact Process.

Questions used to determine the impact rating

Note:

  • Questions 1 – 4 that are written in bold have been designated "key impact questions".
  • All High scores are designated impact level 3, Medium scores are designated impact level 2 and Low scores are designated impact level 1. The scores for the four key impact questions must be multiplied by the x4-weighting factor.
  1. What is the risk level of regulatory concern?
    1. High – existing specification is not providing adequate levels of control, a new specification is required and there may be significant implementation issues
    2. Medium – existing specification is inadequate or out of date resulting in inconsistencies and there may be moderate implementation issues
    3. Low – there are potential interpretation or application concerns
  2. What percentage of a specific device population is affected or potentially affected?
    1. High – greater than 50% of the device population
    2. Medium – greater than 10% but less than 50%
    3. Low – less than 10%
  3. What is the likelihood of an inequity risk level?
    1. High – systems to mitigate a risk of inequity are limited or outdated
    2. Medium – some systems are in place to mitigate a risk of inequity
    3. Low – significant systems are in place and an inequity risk is improbable
  4. What is the operating cost impact level?
    1. High – likely to cause a significant increase or decrease in operating costs to the owners and/or the customers/consumers
    2. Medium – likely to cause a nominal increase or decrease in operating costs to the owners and/or the customers/consumers
    3. Low – no operating cost impact is anticipated
  5. Is this a national, regional or local issue? (Consider source of concern plus potential impact)
    1. High – a national issue
    2. Medium – a regional issue
    3. Low – a local issue
  6. What is the level of documentation change required?
    1. High – a policy change or requirement for a new specification
    2. Medium – a change to an existing specification is required
    3. Low – a minor revision or bulletin is required
  7. What is the relative workforce impact to both industry and MC from an implementation perspective?
    1. High – any projected increase in staffing levels
    2. Medium – a nominal incremental increase in activity only is required
    3. Low – no increase or decrease in staffing levels
  8. What is the capital cost impact level?
    1. High – likely to cause a significant increase or decrease in capital costs to the owners and rate base
    2. Medium – likely to cause a nominal increase or decrease in capital costs to the owners and rate base
    3. Low – no capital cost impact is anticipated

Appendix C – Impact analysis methodology

By definition, an impact analysis should be based on available evidence and provide an objective assessment. To be practical and effective, the impact analysis should:

  • Attempt to quantify likely impacts from proposed specifications or changes.
  • Provide a consultation mechanism for input from affected parties.
  • Demonstrate a critical thought process and indicate alternatives considered.
  • Indicate how compliance could be achieved and possible enforcement actions.

It is also recognized that for a performance-based specification, an impact and cost-benefit analysis needs to include the following:

  • Cost to the customers, device owners and regulator.
  • Benefits to be derived by which parties and to what magnitude.

The impact and cost-benefit analysis must also be practical in application.

In addition, it is recognized that information to make informed decisions and perform a factual-based analysis would have to include information from both MC and the industry.

Key drivers when designing the model

Due to the wide scope of activities that MC is responsible for, the drivers are generic in nature and have a broad range of applications. These drivers include:

  • What is driving the need for a new specification or change to existing policy?
  • Does the issue fit the MC strategic direction?
  • Impact issues (who, how, magnitude)?
  • Will the change be beneficial (who, how, magnitude)?
  • Could the change be detrimental (who, how, magnitude)?
  • Will the cost/ benefit be neutral, negative, or positive?
  • What are the financial costs to the parties most impacted?
  • What are the financial benefits to parties most impacted?
  • Will it have a social or culture impact?
  • Does this impact a specific market segment and if so, can the change be construed as discriminatory or selective?
  • Is it a regional or national issue?
  • What is the risk, if any, associated with implementing the change?
  • What is the risk of not implementing the change?
  • Can the risk be quantified, qualified, controlled or mitigated?
  • Are resources available to complete the assessment?
  • Is the issue time sensitive?
  • What action plans and decisions will be required, and when?

The development of the assessment process is based on these key elements and evolved into the Initial Impact Filter template found in Appendix D.

Appendix D – Initial impact filter template

The goal of this more detailed filter is to assist joint working groups (JWGs) in the assessment process for the evaluation of new proposed standards and specifications, or for the ongoing maintenance of existing standards and specifications. The filter is designed to be part of the impact assessment under the National Standards System (NSS) process. The intent is that the filter template will assist JWGs, project sponsors and the Process Advisory Committee High Level Project administrator to provide justification for proceeding and identify the key areas and critical success factors that should be addressed for most issues. The template is generic in nature and therefore not all of the categories and questions listed below will be applicable to every initiative.

Project description

What is the issue, who is the sponsor or initiator (regulator, industry representative or other stakeholder), what is the customer need or concern, what market segments are impacted, what options were considered and what differentiates the recommended approach from others considered? Note that all industry-initiated projects should be routed through the stakeholder representative for disposition.

Impact analysis

The following ten questions are a repeat of the Initial Impact Filter. The process is repeated by the JWG to ensure the group has a consistent understanding of the issue and impact drivers.

  1. What is the risk level of regulatory concern?
    • High – existing specification is not providing adequate levels of control, a new specification is required and there may be significant implementation issues
    • Medium – existing specification is inadequate or out of date resulting in inconsistencies and there may be moderate implementation issues
    • Low – there are potential interpretation or application concerns
  2. What percentage of a specific device population is affected or potentially affected?
    • High – greater than 50% of the device population
    • Medium – greater than 10% but less than 50%
    • Low – less than 10%
  3. What is the likelihood of an inequity risk level?
    • High – systems to mitigate a risk of inequity are limited or outdated
    • Medium – some systems are in place to mitigate a risk of inequity
    • Low – significant systems are in place and an inequity risk is improbable
  4. What is the operating cost impact level?
    • High – likely to cause a significant increase or decrease in operating costs to the owners and/or the customers/consumers
    • Medium – likely to cause a nominal increase or decrease in operating costs to the owners and/or the customers/consumers
    • Low – no operating cost impact is anticipated
  5. Is this a national, regional or local issue? (Consider source of concern plus potential impact)
    • High – a national issue
    • Medium – a regional issue
    • Low – a local issue
  6. What is the level of documentation change required?
    • High – a policy change or requirement for a new specification
    • Medium – a change to an existing specification is required
    • Low – a minor revision or bulletin is required
  7. What is the relative workforce impact to both industry and MC from an implementation perspective?
    • High – any projected increase in staffing levels
    • Medium – a nominal incremental increase in activity only is required
    • Low – no increase or decrease in staffing levels
  8. What is the capital cost impact level?
    • High – likely to cause a significant increase or decrease in capital costs to the owners and rate base
    • Medium – likely to cause a nominal increase or decrease in capital costs to the owners and rate base
    • Low – no capital cost impact is anticipated
  9. What is the level of urgency?
    • High –an immediate response is required
    • Medium – there are possible timing implications
    • Low – no time constraints are anticipated
  10. What is the likelihood the proposed change will facilitate the advancement of new technology?
    • High – there is a strong likelihood
    • Medium – there is a possibility
    • Low – it is unlikely the change will impact technology development or application

Cost-benefit, technical and market impact analysis

  • Is there market competition and how strong are the competitive forces? Are there market drivers from other jurisdictions that are driving the concern (e.g. barriers to entry for new entrants, threat of substitution, bargaining power of suppliers, bargaining power of buyers, rivalry among competing sellers)?
  • What are the market parameters, what segment of the market is being impacted and in what way? What are the confidence levels in the data populating the model and have the appropriate stakeholders provided input? Is the market volatile and will the issue require periodic reassessment?
  • From the assessment, can specific mitigation options be identified and what differentiates the options being considered?
  • What are the expected or anticipated economic drivers associated with the issue? These drivers must include a valuation methodology to assess the impact of the potential risk, plus the estimated cost of mitigation. It must be emphasized that the full cost of mitigation will be passed through to the end-use customer. The valuation methodology may include but shall not be limited to the following criteria:
    • Commodity value and full delivery costs.
    • Future risk, cost and valuation estimates should be calculated on a net present value discounted rate.
    • Where possible, implementation costs should be categorized as either operating or capital. If the latter, at what write-off period?
  • To what extent is the expected value/cost information used in the model sensitive to changes in forecasts or to changes in the major assumptions underlying the assessment model?

Operating strategy

  • Has the pre-assessment filter been completed and what were the findings? If the review process is changed from the pre-assessment filter recommendation, the rationale must be documented.
  • Have the applicable measures from the Measurement Canada independent marketplace-monitoring program and the key performance indicator databases been reviewed?
  • Can the proposed regulatory process be administered in a worst-case scenario that is cost neutral to the impacted customer or market segment?
  • Are all regulatory issues, concerns and obligations being satisfied?
  • Does the risk profile for the issue compare with other existing risk profiles for that customer or market segment?
  • What are the potential risk mitigation strategies?

Project administration and resource requirements

  • Are internal or third party capabilities to execute the initiative accessible or will they have to be developed?
  • What internal resources are required to investigate, manage and administer the regulatory concern associated with the issue (i.e. who and how many)?
  • What third party or external costs, if any, would be required?
  • What are the details of the structure, ownership responsibility and control of the specific issue?
  • What is the recommended make-up of the proposed JWG or technical committee to resolve the issue, if required?

Recommended approval process

  • The Process Advisory Committee Decision must be documented.
  • Approve project for NSS style process; or
  • Refer issue to the "Medium" Policy Change Process.

Appendix E – Joint Working Group meeting agenda and minutes example

  1. Review of the last meeting minutes from February XX, 20XX.
    "Paste past meeting minutes"
  2. Review of action items. Refer to the meeting minutes from February XX, 20XX, which includes listing of outstanding action items.
  3. Review suggested change to "Terms of Reference" as per Electricity Process Advisory Committee.
  4. Update of S-S-05 interim sampling to qualify meters for unconditional 10-year initial re-verification period.
  5. Update on sampling projects.
  6. Update on LUM and VA.
  7. Review new template for workgroup meeting minutes.
  8. Date and location of the next meeting.
  9. New business?
Meeting minute template

"Name of" joint working group

Meeting minutes

"Month day, year, time"

Meeting minutes status and date

"Month, day, year – draft or final"

Meeting location

"Office name"

"Address"

Members present

"Name, company, position title (Chairperson (as applicable))"

Guests

"Name, company, position title, guest"

1.0 Introduction

Thanks to "company" for hosting the meeting.

2.0 Review meeting agenda

3.0 Review and approve minutes of previous meeting

Minutes were reviewed and changes were identified.

Action: Chairperson to revise as noted.

4.0 Review action items from previous meeting

Refer to previous minutes and Appendix A.

5.0 New information

  • Identify any new information, data, questions, communications, etc. which the group or member of the group has obtained and submitted.

6.0 Issues or topics

"For each topic discussed include:"

  • a brief summary of the issue
  • the objective of the final resolution
  • the actions that will be taken to resolve the issue
  • who is responsible to complete the actions
  • the time frame for completion of the action item

This is to ensure that all parties are aware of and agree with the objective, the intent of any action and should determine if the actions taken meet the objective.

7.0 Conclusions

8.0 Next meeting

The next meeting is scheduled for "date and location".

9.0 New business

Meeting adjourned at "time".

Appendix (Example)

Date modified: