John

You wrote:
Enron wants a daily report of all interval data received from meters that we monitor. The data will be made available to Enron in a manner to be specified.
	If the data has been VEE'd (validated, edited, and estimated) the fields should be marked as actual or estimated - This should not be an issue on a daily basis because the data is not put through the VEE process until the end of the billing cycle when it is passed to MDMA.
	It is understood by Enron that there may be missing data in this report (i.e. missed meters, missed time periods). They do not require that they be notified of this missing data, with the understanding that all such missing data appears is an later report.
This report should include all data received by MV90 for each meter that day.

Enron asks that an initial report be generated containing the output for part of a day and sent to the Requestor for evaluation and determination of final data field need. The requestor will respond following receipt of this file with any changes in data fields required.

A second test file(s) would then be forwarded containing several days output in order to allow the Requestor to gauge daily information and volume. The requestor will respond following receipt of this second file(s) with final approval to complete the project.

I have one concern with the wording above.  It seems to confuse normal estimation requirements, which is partly designed to fill in "missing observations" (like a couple of hours), with data missing due to a downed phone line or no meter answer (which would be "backfilled" in subsequent files as you note).  Also, while we may choose to duplicate CSC's process of implementing required VEE rules, we need to understand what is required to do so.  Is it to our benefit to do so?  I have sent you separately the link to a site where you can review just what CSC is supposedly doing to comply with CAISO rules.  Would an issue arise of consistency between the VEE rules applications by CSC if different than EWS?  I never realized that VEE was applied only at the end by the MV90 system.  Are you sure?
mrf


   
	Enron Energy Services  From:  John Rutledge                           07/27/2001 12:01 PM	
		


To:	Chris Stokley/ENRON@enronXgate, Michael Frazier/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Miller/HOU/EES@EES, Maurice Winter/HOU/EES@EES, Kenny Ha/HOU/EES@EES, Steven Gullion/HOU/EES@EES, Robert D Gresch/HOU/EES@EES
cc:	 
Subject:	Re: WIP for MV-90 data

All--

Please take a brief moment to review the contents of the WIP and make sure you agree with the wording of the "Project Description" section. I will enter myself (John Rutledge) as Lead Requestor, and Kenny Ha as Alternate Requestor. If this is not acceptable to anyone please reply with subsitutes.

Chris--

Who do I put down for VP-level sponsor?

--John

 

---------------------- Forwarded by John Rutledge/HOU/EES on 07/27/2001 11:53 AM ---------------------------


swalker2@csc.com on 07/27/2001 11:40:24 AM
To:	"John Rutledge" <jrutledg@enron.com>
cc:	"Chris Stokley" <Chris_Stokley.enronXgate@enron.com>, "Michael Frazier" <mfrazier@enron.com>, "Richard Miller" <rmiller8@enron.com>, "Maurice Winter" <mwinter@enron.com>, "Kenny Ha" <kha@enron.com>, "Steven Gullion" <sgullion@enron.com>, rgresch@enron.com, tcarrol6@csc.com 
Subject:	Re: WIP for MV-90 data


John-

I have attached a copy of the Work Request for this effort. Please review
it to be sure that it accurately reflects your need.

Everywhere on the form where you find 3 questions marks (???), you need to
supply the data. If there is no information to be filled in, feel free to
leave the field blank. The only fields that are REQUIRED are the fields for
Lead requestor (the person who can answer questions related to this
request), the Alternate requestor (someone who can answer questions in the
lead's absence) and the Business sponsor (the person who can authorize
spending for this effort if it approved -- must be VP level or above)

When you have filled in those fields, please forward this form to Jackie
Jackson (jjackson@enron.com) for submission to CSC in Dublin. (They are
aware of this request, but need the official request from Enron.)

Please let me know if you have any questions.

--Steve




"John Rutledge" <jrutledg@enron.com> on 07/26/2001 11:26:59 AM

To:   "Chris Stokley" <Chris_Stokley.enronXgate@enron.com>
cc:   "Michael Frazier" <mfrazier@enron.com>, "Richard Miller"
      <rmiller8@enron.com>, "Maurice Winter" <mwinter@enron.com>, "Kenny
      Ha" <kha@enron.com>, "Steven Gullion" <sgullion@enron.com>, Stephen
      Walker/TMG/CSC@CSC

Subject:  WIP for MV-90 data




Chris--

To clarify what I meant regarding prioritization:

CSC handles multiple, often independent, requests from ENA as well as EES,
many
of which are of the "we need this as soon as possible" variety. What they
want
from us (not just EES, but Enron as a whole) is a prioritization of *all*
of
these outstanding requests, not just what our group might have asked of
them.

Sorry about the confusion,

--John



---------------------- Forwarded by John Rutledge/HOU/EES on 07/26/2001
11:16 AM
---------------------------


 (Embedded     Enron Energy Services
 image moved
 to file:      From:  John Rutledge
 pic10437.pcx) 07/26/2001 10:42 AM






To:   swalker2@csc.com, Chris Stokley/ENRON@enronXgate, Michael
      Frazier/HOU/EES@EES
cc:   Richard Miller/HOU/EES@EES, Maurice Winter/HOU/EES@EES, Kenny
      Ha/HOU/EES@EES, Steven Gullion/HOU/EES@EES
Subject:  WIP for MV-90 data

Steve--

Here's a quick synopsis of what we need:

   Users want actual historical metered data. If they can't get the data
before
   it has been EEV'd (?) by MV-90, they need to know, for each value,
whether it
   is the actual metered amount or an estimated value.
   Users understand that there may be missing data, but do not require the
   meta-data detailing this. However, this is with the understanding that
the
   back-fill data will eventually arrive at some later date.
   We want any account- and meter-descriptive data as well as the
associated
   volumetric data.
   A  test file to see what kind of data are available and a few
consecutive
   days worth of data to get a feel for volumes are needed.
   If data is received from 12 - 6 a.m., how soon after 6 a.m. can we get a
   file?

Please do not "burn in" this process just yet because data and timing
requirements may change.


Chris--

With the bullets above, Steve has promised to turn around the completed WIP
by
COB today or tomorrow morning. Hopefully this will at least get the ball
rolling. It is then up to the business to determine whether to proceed and
how
to prioritze it. There must be concerted effort from the business to
prioritize
requests to CSC. Steve gave me Richard Miller's name as the EES coordinator
for
these requests. Please contact him and let me know what you find out.

Going forward we MUST establish who is responsible for filling these things
out
and keeping track of them. I've heard different things from different
people,
and I don't want to end up (nor should anyone else) being the person who
fields
random and anonymous lobs from the other side of the fence.

Cheers,

--John



(See attached file: pic10437.pcx)


 - pic10437.pcx