Re: Questions about Interval VEE rules

I agree with Kathy's response to Question 2, but I believe that there is still some
ambiguity with respect to my first question.  I have developed some examples of what
we could do when there is a power outage adjacent to the period requiring
estimation.  They are shown in the attached Word document (saved in Word 6.0, but
let me know if you cannot read it).

Having now given some thought about how to approach implementation, I would argue
for dropping the statement "Intervals containing a power failure cannot be used as
end points for interpolation" from the rules.  The genesis of this statement was our
agreement not to use days with power outages as reference days for creating average
profiles for estimation.  I think it makes sense not to use days with power outages
as reference days for estimation because those days may not represent typical
usage.  But not using these intervals for interpolation suggests that the usage
during the power outage does not represent actual usage, which is not consistent
with our treatment of power outages in the remaining data.

Since the goal here is one interpretation of the rules, I would appreciate knowing
how others are implementing this rule.

Thanks,
Valerie Nibler
Energy Interactive
510-704-8777
valerie@energyinteractive.com

kathy.smith@USTRA.mail.abb.com wrote:

> Valerie Nibler sent me the following questions regarding interval VEE rules.
> I've attached my thoughts to her questions.  Please let me know if you agree or
> have a different interpretation by COB Friday, 7/31.  I assume we can
> disseminate the clarifications through the UDC/MDMA and MUG groups.....thanks!
> (No, the VEE work never finishes!)
>
> Kathy Smith, ABB
> 919-250-5429
> kathy.smith@ustra.mail.abb.com
>
> Questions:
> 1)  Regarding the statement:  "Intervals containing a power failure
> cannot be used as end points for interpolation."  What intervals should
> be used as the first and second points for interpolation in the case
> where there is a power failure adjacent to the period needing
> estimation?
>
> Proposed answer:
> My understanding is that an interval with a power failure would be
> treated the same way as an interval that isn't valid.  You would find the
> closest valid interval that is not a power failure to use as the end point.
>
> 2)  Point of clarification on estimating holidays.  It is my
> understanding that you should look for holidays in the current and
> historical periods, and if you do not find three holidays, you should
> look for as many additional Sundays as required to supplement the
> holidays.  Average the holidays and the Sundays (a total of three days)
> to create the average profile.   A contrasting interpretation is:  look
> for holidays first, if you find only one, use that as the "average", but
> if you don't find any, then look for Sundays.
>
> Proposed answer:
> I think you should always try for three days.  This may end up being a
> combination of holidays and Sundays, and current period and historical.  I
> think the priority should be:
> 1.  Holidays in current period
> 2.  Holidays in historical data
> 3.  Sundays in current period
> 4.  Sundays in historical data
> If you can't find three holidays or Sundays after all this, then you would
> back off to two days or one day, depending on what you can find.
>
> For example, if the current billing period had no holidays, and historical data
> had one holiday - use the holiday from historical data, and the two Sundays from
> the current billing period that are closest chronologically to the day needing
> estimation.  (Assumes all the reference days are "good" data.)

PowerOut.doc

References: