Re: VEE for Interval Data

>
>From: Kathy Smith, ABB
>
>Sorry about the mix up on the date mentioned below - I need responses by
MARCH
>23, not April 23.  (Thanks Dan for catching it!)
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>From: Kathy Smith, ABB
>
>CHRIS KING - please forward this message to the MUG mailing list.  Thanks!
>PG&E - as host of the last UDC/MDMA meeting, if you have an email list for
the
>meeting please forward this memo to the UDC/MDMA list as well.  Thanks!
>
>I'm working with both the Joint UDC/MDMA meetings, the MUG, and the PSWG
>regarding VEE rules, and am trying to collect open issues, areas in the rules
>that need clarification, etc.  A few people at the meetings last week
expressed
>that there were problems with the existing rules for interval data.  Please
>send me your questions, areas that you believe require clarification, etc, by
>MONDAY, APRIL 23.  I will distribute to the VEE experts at the UDCs and
anyone
>else who is interested, and set up a conference call to try to get resolution
>to these items.   The document will be updated and redistributed and
reposted.
>If you are interested in participating in the conference call (this will be
>VERY detailed and technical), let me know and I'll make sure you're notified.
>Once we have the interval data issues resolved, we'll move on to VEE rules
for
>monthly data.
>
>If you need a copy of the existing rules, they are posted on the web site at
>http://162.15.5.2:80/wk-group/dai/dai3/    - the date is 12/17/97, and it was
>posted by Tom Lofgren as Final VEE Document.
>
>These are the open items requiring clarification for the rules for interval
>data that were brought up at the MUG meeting 2/23/98:
>
>1.  If interval data passes sum check after manual analysis, rules say
that the
>data should be marked as verified.  By the rules, this data does not have
to be
>spike checked, etc.  However, the verified in this case only means that the
>data has been verified as passing the sum check.  This data should still be
>passed through the other checks.  Document needs to be clarified.
>
>2.  VEE Estimation for partial days: Can you use intervals in partial days
for
>historical estimation?
>Yes.  This needs to be added to the next version of the document.
>
>3.  How should "estimation" be done when you discover a meter was programmed
>for a different interval than required for settlement or UDC/ESP tariffs?
>There are four cases:
>a.  The meter is programmed to collect data at a smaller interval than the
MDMA
>Server expects, and the meter's interval evenly divides into the MDMA
Server's
>interval - for example, the meter was programmed to collect 5 minute data,
and
>the MDMA Server requires 15 minute data.  The proposed solution - sum the 5
>minute intervals into 15 minute intervals.  The data would be marked as
either
>validated or verified (assuming it passed all the other VEE tests).
>
>b.  The meter is programmed to collect data at a larger interval than the
MDMA
>Server requires, but consistent with the UDC tariff.  For example, the
meter is
>programmed to collect 60 minute intervals, the MDMA Server requires 15 minute
>intervals, and the tariff requires hourly intervals.  This data would not be
>marked as estimated (per the CPUC decision).
>
>c.  The meter is programmed to collect data at a larger interval than the
MDMA
>Server and meter's tariff require.  For example, the meter is programmed to
>collect 60 minute intervals, but the MDMA Server and tariff require 15 minute
>intervals.
>
>d.  The meter is programmed to collect data at a smaller interval than the
MDMA
>Server requires, but it doesn't evenly divide into the MDMA Server interval
>size.  (This is the least likely of the three to occur.)  For example, the
>meter is programmed to collect 10 minute intervals, and the MDMA Server
>requires 15 minute intervals. This would be estimated through simple
>interpolation and would be marked estimated.
>
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>


.