---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Stokley/HOU/ECT on 04/19/2001 09:13 AM ---------------------------


"Almeida, Keoni" <KAlmeida@caiso.com> on 04/19/2001 08:40:29 AM
To:	"Emmert, Caroline" <caroline.emmert@enron.com>, "Stokley, Chris" <chris.stokley@enron.com>
cc:	 
Subject:	FW: Question about Instructed/Uninstructed Energy Data Usage


I had to leave early yesterday, but I was able to get in touch with John to
follow-up with your page.  See response below and feel free to provide a
specific example for us to research.  Thanks

Keoni Almeida
California Independent System Operator
phone: 916/608-7053
pager:  916/814-7352
alpha page:  9169812000.1151268@pagenet.net
e-mail:  <mailto:kalmeida@caiso.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ng, Chi-Pui
> Sent:	Wednesday, April 18, 2001 5:45 PM
> To:	Goodin, John
> Cc:	Almeida, Keoni; Kondragunta, Vijayakumar
> Subject:	RE: Question about Instructed/Uninstructed Energy Data Usage
>
> UE is UD less any Unavailable Capacity due to No Pay Condition.  Thus, UE
> is always less than or equal to UD.  Unavailable Capacity only applies to
> generators.  As a result, the UD and UE may show a difference for
> generators, but not for the loads or interties.
>
> Uninstructed Energy charge is calculated by Region.  The sum of the UEs in
> a region should equal to the billable quantity in CT 407.  If Caroline
> provides the specific trade date for her example, we can check further.
> C.P.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Goodin, John
> Sent:	Wednesday, April 18, 2001 5:00 PM
> To:	Kondragunta, Vijayakumar; Ng, Chi-Pui
> Cc:	Almeida, Keoni
> Subject:	FW: Question about Instructed/Uninstructed Energy Data Usage
>
> CP/VJ-
>
> Enron is struggling with the UD and UE columns in their
> instructed/uninstructed energy detail file.  The specifics of their
> questions are below.  Could you please review and respond to their
> questions below.
>
> Thank  you,
>
> John Goodin
> California ISO
> (916) 608-7056 Phone
> (916) 608-7074 FAX
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Chris.Stokley@enron.com [mailto:Chris.Stokley@enron.com]
> <mailto:[mailto:Chris.Stokley@enron.com]>
> Sent:	Wednesday, April 18, 2001 4:40 PM
> To:	jgoodin@caiso.com
> Subject:	Question about Instructed/Uninstructed Energy Data Usage
>
>
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Chris Stokley/HOU/ECT on 04/18/2001
> 04:47 PM ---------------------------
>
> Caroline Emmert
> 04/18/2001 04:05 PM
>
> To:	Chris Stokley/HOU/ECT@ECT
> cc:
> Subject:	Question about Instructed/Uninstructed Energy Data Usage
>
>
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Caroline Emmert/HOU/ECT on 04/18/2001
> 04:13 PM ---------------------------
>
> Caroline Emmert
> 04/18/2001 03:56 PM
>
> To:	kalmeida@caiso.com
> cc:	Donna Johnson/PDX/ECT@ECT
> Subject:	Question about Instructed/Uninstructed Energy Data Usage
>
> Keoni,
> We are, still, struggling to fully understand the Instructed/Uninstructed
> Energy data (IE), specifically the two columns that report Uninstructed
> Deviation and Uninstructed Energy.
> The volumetric totals in one of these two columns is supposed to match the
> volume in the Settlement Detail file for Charge Type 407.  However, I have
> discovered a couple of (annoying) things in September:
> In comparing the two columns within the table -
> For LocationTypes L and C, there is no volumetric difference between the
> two columns.
> For LocationType G, there is a volumetric difference of 153.15 (more in
> the Deviation column than in the Energy column)
> In comparing IE to the Settlement Statement data -
> When I use the volumes in the Uninstructed Energy column for all
> LocationTypes, I have a volumetric difference of 10.52 (less in the IE
> data).
> However, when I use the Uninst Energy column for L and C, and the
> Deviation column for G, I then have a volumetric difference of 142.63
> (less in the Settlement Statement Detail data).
> My question is two- or several-fold:
> What causes the volumes in the two columns to be different for the G type?
> I could find no discernable value to make it change anywhere in the data.
> Which column has the values that the ISO uses in determining the total net
> position for EPMI?
> Why don't the two sets of volumes match (IE to Settlement)?
> I really need to understand this, as we are required to tie all of our
> customer's volumes back to the Settlement Statement file, and, again, when
> the backup file doesn't match or is inconsistent, that makes our goals
> that much harder to achieve.
> Caroline
>
>
>