-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Review Pricing Model & Time Zone attributes within Account Detail Payload #439
Comments
Given this change request was raised late during the iteration, the DSB proposes it be carried over to the next maintenance iteration. |
@priyaH-OriginEnergy, could you provide an example use case or scenario that can help understand the problem. It will help work through solution options. |
To help facilitate discussion, the DSB would like to summarise our understanding of the problem:
If the above understanding is correct, the current structure should allow representation of point 1 within the EnergyPlanTariffPeriod schema using the ‘type’ attribute to specify the charge type (e.g. ENVIRONMENTAL) and specifying rateBlockUType as timeOfUseRates. The second point can be addressed by including an optional ‘timeZone’ attribute within EnergyPlanTariffPeriod so charge specific time zones can be provided. If absent, contract level timezone would be assumed. |
Hi DSB, The above statement is correct for first point and agree with the solution proposed. Regards, |
This change was incorporated into release v1.17.0. Refer to ConsumerDataStandardsAustralia/standards#237 for further details. |
Description
Pricing Model & Time Zone should be represented at the charge level not at the plan level
Area Affected
Energy APIs - Account Detail API
Change Proposed
Pricing Model (such as TOU, Single Rate etc.) and Time Zone for C&I customers are specific to charge categories such as usage, environmental, metering etc. and can therefore vary. These attributes are currently defined at the plan level within the Account Detail API, these should instead be defined at a charge category level
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: