RE: Questions about Interval VEE rules

I agree with Valerie.

> ----------
> From: 	Valerie Nibler[SMTP:valerie@energyinteractive.com]
> Sent: 	Friday, July 24, 1998 9:34 AM
> To: 	Vanderlinde, H. John
> Cc: 	kathy.smith@USTRA.mail.abb.com;  - (052)estradam(a)sce.com; Roome,
> Jane;  - (052)MSL6(a)pge.com; Hill, Robert M; Garcia, Henry  ; Colwell,
> Larry A;  - (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; Dirks, James D;  - (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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
.