Closed CDR-API-Stream closed 2 weeks ago
When implementing the change associated with CR 627, AGL identified a problem in sharing C&I customer plans that may not have any daily supply charge. The description of dailySupplyChargeType
states that the default value is SINGLE if field not provided and as a result requires dailySupplyCharge
to be provided. This creates an issue for sharing C&I (or other) plans that do not any daily supply charge.
There are two potential options to consider for this:
dailySupplyCharge
:In this option, the retailer can provide a 0 value for dailySupplyCharge
field for plans with no daily supply charge.
This option requires no standards change and is considered non-breaking.
dailySupplyChargeType
:This option involves updating the description of dailySupplyChargeType
from:
Specifies if daily supply charge is single or banded. Default value is SINGLE if field not provided
to: Specifies if daily supply charge is single or banded. If absent, it implies there is no daily supply charge for the plan
This is considered non-breaking.
Feedback on the above options is welcome.
For the sake of clarity: the issue is not that some C&I plans have no daily supply charges at all, but that sometimes the equivalent of a daily charge is combined within network pass-through charges. So issuing a value of zero might potentially be misconstrued as meaning the business is not subject to daily supply charges of any kind, which isn't true.
As per MI call we are supportive of @AGL-CDR's statement and suggest Option 2 but omit the absent component, i.e. Specifies if daily supply charge is single or banded.
During the MI call on August 7, participants supported option 2 of updating the description of dailySupplyChargeType
noting that "If absent, it implies there is no daily supply charge for the plan" should be removed from the proposal as it misrepresents the problem clarified by @AGL-CDR in this comment
The revised proposal is to update the description of dailySupplyChargeType
from:
Specifies if daily supply charge is single or banded. Default value is SINGLE if field not provided
to:
Specifies if daily supply charge is single or banded.
The feedback also noted that this would be a breaking change, resulting in version increment of following APIs:
As a result, the DSB is proposing a 6 month FDO of March 17 2025 as per the obligation date schedule. Given that this is a minor change, the DSB is seeking feedback on if the FDO can be brought forward.
As discussed on MI, while we agree that incrementing the version is the right default proposal in this case we don't think an endpoint version bump here is the easiest/lowest cost for participants.
Reasons are as follows:
This looks like maybe a concept of "V4 Errata 1" where eligibility is based on time horizon prior to an FDO (>8 weeks?).
The AER also support option 2. As we are still in the process of developing Get Generic Plan Detail v3, we would also prefer this change to be included as an errata for v3 instead of a version increment. Jacqui (AER)
DEECA can support either options and will be able to incorporate the changes as part of Get Generic Plan Detail v3
Thank you all for your feedback.
As noted above and discussed in the MI call on 4th September, the change can be accommodated within existing FDO of 11th Nov 2024 for the following APIs without needing a version increment:
The change has been staged for review.
Incorporated into Standards v1.32.0.
Description
This issue is being raised to track and resolve the concern raised by @AGL-CDR as part of https://github.com/ConsumerDataStandardsAustralia/standards-maintenance/issues/627#issuecomment-2177322734
DSB Proposal
The current DSB proposal for this issue is in https://github.com/ConsumerDataStandardsAustralia/standards-maintenance/issues/653#issuecomment-2272758738