Re: Comment on 4-15 Meeting Notes
Again, I agree with Chris' viewpoint. I wasn't aware that I was supposed to
also look at a more stringent standard. The only issue I was planning to
address concerned testing meters after a portable watthour test standard's
accuracy was found to be out of tolerance. If this is different than what
you believe the scope is, please let me know.
----------
> From: Chris King <chrisk@cellnet.com>
> To: Michele Wynne <mwynne@uoc.com>
> Cc: pswg@dradmin.cpuc.ca.gov; pswg4web@dradmin.cpuc.ca.gov
> Subject: Comment on 4-15 Meeting Notes
> Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 5:59 PM
>
> Michele,
>
> In your notes, Item 11 says:
>
> 11. Applied Metering Technologies will revise II.E.9 with a look at using
> +/-0.05%.
>
> What is the reason for looking at using a standard so stringent in
> comparison with the figure the Joint Parties already agreed to? (ten
times
> more stringent) If there is a valid market need, then we support it by
all
> means. Otherwise, a more stringent standard will certainly add costs, so
we
> need to understand the benefits. In short, we are against a more
stringent
> standard unless it can be shown that the benefits outweigh the costs.
>
> Chris
>
> At 05:27 AM 4/8/98 -0700, Michele Wynne wrote:
> >Attached is draft version 2 of Sections 1 and 2 of the Metering
> >Installation... information that will be used as the basis for drafting
our
> >report.
> >
> >Send either send me (mwynne@uoc.com), the web exploder, or the Group 4
web
> >site, any comments, additions or corrections by close of business
Friday,
> >April 10. A revised version, if needed, will be posted on Monday, April
13.
> >
> >Michele Wynne
> >Attachment Converted: "C:\EUDORA\Attach\G412-2.doc"
> >
> >Attachment Converted: "C:\EUDORA\Attach\G412-2.rtf"
> >
>
.