---------------------- Forwarded by Matthew Lenhart/HOU/ECT on 07/05/2000 
04:43 PM ---------------------------


TIM HEIZENRADER
07/05/2000 03:18 PM
To: Matthew Lenhart/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:  

Subject: Re:  

We've never used the CEMS data, so I don't know anything about its level of 
accuracy. As far as use of the WSCC data goes, I noticed that you've got 
table entries and are showing '0' values for a  lot of plants that have never 
reported reliably, such as Hermiston, Gadsby, Priest Rapids, Wanapum, etc.-- 
I'd leave those out until we see some plausible data reported. Also, we don't 
use data from plants where better numbers are available from other sources, 
e.g. most Pacific Northwest federal hydro.

Also, are you doing anything to filter out bad hours? There are intermittent 
periods where series of zeros or series of identical readings are erroneously 
reported due to telemetry failures. If you're computing totals or averages 
from the WSCC data that are consistently smaller than known, accurate 
reports, then this might be the cause.

Tim




Matthew Lenhart
07/05/2000 01:59 PM
To: Tim Belden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tim Heizenrader/PDX/ECT@ECT, Cooper 
Richey/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:  

Subject: 

Enclosed is a copy of the generation reports we put together using your 
generation database.  Please look them over and make sure that they are in 
the correct order an make sense.  Some of the monthly averages in the report 
do not match the CEMS database number.  I wanted to know if I should fill in 
the historicals with the CEMS numbers or keep these.  If you could just look 
these over and let me know if they make sense I would appriciate it.

Matt Lenhart