RE: Questions about Interval VEE rules

Just to contribute what I can on this split hair, I agree that the power
outage is a valid data point.  After the outage, it would be more
appropriate in many cases to use the adjacent hours in interpolating
gaps (even if they were the periods during the outage), because for
non-residential customers the effects of an outage (even a sort one, for
some customers) can last for several hours before their operations are
back to normal.  In other words, the hour of the outage could provide a
better measure for the hour after the outage than would the same hour of
day from the customer's normal day.

Of course, this reasoning does not apply to gaps BEFORE the outage, for
which a normal day's usage would be the better estimate.  Maybe we need
to distinguish hours before vs. after outages.  (Sorry for more
splitting of hairs, but there is a difference.)

On a separate issue, it seems that it is already understood that the day
with the outage should not be used in estimating gaps on other days.

---
Jim Price, ORA, jep@cpuc.ca.gov

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Valerie Nibler [SMTP:valerie@energyinteractive.com]
> Sent:	Friday, July 24, 1998 9:35 AM
> To:	Vanderlinde, H. John
> Cc:	kathy.smith@USTRA.mail.abb.com;  - (052)estradam(a)sce.com;
> Roome, Jane;  - (052)MSL6(a)pge.com;  - (052)hillrm(a)sce.com;  -
> (052)garciah1(a)sce.com;  - (052)colwella(a)sce.com;  -
> (052)JECo(a)pge.com;  - (052)diane.rihn(a)lgeenergy.com;  -
> (052)dciruli(a)energyinteractive.com;  -
> (052)tom.lofgren(a)cellnet.com;  - (052)VJM3(a)pge.com;  -
> (052)dirksjd(a)sce.com;  - (052)ddc2(a)pge.com;  -
> (052)pswg3web(a)dra1.cpuc.ca.gov;  - (052)pswg(a)dra1.cpuc.ca.gov;
> Sabin, Leslie
> Subject:	Re: Questions about Interval VEE rules
> 
> I agree with John that we are splitting hairs.  Whichever method we
> choose,
> given that it is only two hours of usage, will make very little
> difference in a
> monthly bill.  Since I started this, I feel compelled to defend my
> hair
> splitting:  we need ONE consistent interpretation so that people who
> are
> building software will not have to rewrite their code when someone
> comes up with
> a new interpretation.  I like the original interpretation that treats
> power
> outages as valid data because it is simple, unambiguous, and
> consistent with our
> general treatment of power outages.  Returning to the original
> interpretation
> would also be consistent with the following sentiments expressed in
> the VEE
> report:
> *   Solutions must fit the magnitude of the problem - when evaluating
> solutions,
> the costs must be considered against the frequency of occurrence and
> the quality
> of the data.
> *   Modifications to the rules should typically be required when they
> result in
> a significant improvement in the data quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
.