Deregulation data

[smetraux]

Hi,

Can anyone help me understanding the way we can use the deregulation data in terms of billing ?

I'm mainly interested in better understanding the impacts of the following fields:

- "Invoicing service provider" (EVER-INVOICING_PARTY) and "Payment class" (EVER-SERVPROV_PAY) defined on the contract

- "Bank payment method" (FKKOP-ETHPPM), Payment frequency" (FKKOP-PAYFREQID), "Invoicing service provider" (FKKOP-INVOICING_PARTY) defined on the FI-CA document

How to deal with those fields in a:

- one-contract model ?

- two-contract model ?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Sébastien

[Former Member]

hi sebastien

In deregulated scenario there will be third party service providers or companies who will be just involved in billing and invoicing a customer for the consumption for the particular month.they are not compulsorily a supplier or a distributor but just a service provider who bills or acts as a billing engine.this is the answre for ur 1st question

for SERVPROV_PAY itS

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

hi sebastien

In deregulated scenario there will be third party service providers or companies who will be just involved in billing and invoicing a customer for the consumption for the particular month.they are not compulsorily a supplier or a distributor but just a service provider who bills or acts as a billing engine.this is the answre for ur 1st question

for SERVPROV_PAY its the payment class from the table,i hope it will be the payment objective for a particlyar service provider for providing hos service..

a meter reading service provider will have hs own payment class,a settlement unit service provider wil have his own payment class and so..

for ETHPPM ,its in table as Payment Process for Billing on Behalf of Third Parties.as the description u can know that its the payment process for third party billing service providers

for Payment Frequency its the subsequent time span taken for the next payment

for INVOICING_PARTY its again the 3 party service providerss who just incoices and send it to the supplier or distributor or directly 2 customer even..

i would like to know vat actually u mean by 1 contract model and 2 contract model

do u mean a buisness partner having two contracts and a similiar contract exsting to anoither partner also???

let me know

kr

raj

[smetraux]

Hi Raj,

Thanks a lot for your answer.

Did you already implement IS-U for a deregulated market ?

i would like to know vat actually u mean by 1 contract model and 2 contract model

do u mean a buisness partner having two contracts and a similiar contract exsting to anoither partner also???

No, the 2-contract model refers to a scenario where you have both distributor AND supplier working in the same system and having a contract with same customer, one for the distribution network maintenance and the other one for the energy.

With such a scenario, I'd like to better understand :

- how to deal with the INVOICING_PARTY defined on the contracts (any impact on the billing procedure?)

- how to deal with the ETHPPM "Bank payment method" that you can find on the FI-CA document ? In other words, I'm looking for some documentation/experience linked to the usage of the table EPAYFRQ_METHOD, EPAYTHP, etc..

Best regards,

Sébastien

[Former Member]

hi sebastien

ya i have worked i a project in germany.so u mean the dual contract structure existing between the supplier and distributor..

now coming ur questions..

INVOICING_PARTY ---u need to understand from ur system who is the invoicing party ,either the supoplier or the distributor..

ETHPPM :Payment Process for Billing on Behalf of Third Parties

its nothing but the payment means adopted in the bank for the collection of amount from the customer..either in cash or check or online transfer

EPAYFRQ_METHOD : here u need to decide the payment method on behalf of the 3rd party agency..i found a good help for this in f1

am pasting it here

In deregulated markets, it can be the case that a service provider receives a bill for customer services from another service provider, or a service provider takes over the bill creation for another service provider.

In these cases, the service provider responsible for the customer bill (for example, the supplier), must make payments to the other service providers (for example, distributors).

There are the following payment methods for this:

Customer payment

Advance payment

Sole provider

Payment after bill receipt, directly by FI. In this case the payment is not processed by FI-CA. The billing party declares all its customer receivables as revenues.

In IS-U, different processes are implemented depending upon the payment method. The payment method is determined for each contract indirectly by the payment class.

The sole provider payment method is typically mapped by a one-contract model, whilst a two-contract model is proposed for advance payment and customer payment. The reason for this is the necessity to divide payments to third parties in the G/L by different company codes

and at last

epaythp is fully involved in data exchange process...

after u create the bill its to be transfered to the supplier or distributor if eithor of the2 acts as a billing engine..

kr

raj