You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now we assume that each eia_code in the respondent_id_ferc714 table is associated with either a balancing authority or a utility, across all the years for which there is data. However, we could also categorize them differently on a per-year basis, since over the last 14 years it's possible that some of the entities have gone from reporting as utilities to BAs or vice versa.
It's unclear whether this is necessary, or if it would improve our overall ability to accurately re-allocate demand geographically.
The planning_area_description_ferc714 table might be helpful in figuring this out, as it lists the names of all the utilities which are associated with each value of respondent_id_ferc714 -- it seems like the respondents that are themselves utilities ought to just be associated with... themselves?
We can also compare our categorizations against the ones which were done by hand in Auffhammer et al., at least in outline.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
zaneselvans
added
glue
PUDL specific structures & metadata. Stuff that connects datasets together.
ferc714
Anything having to do with FERC Form 714
labels
Jul 9, 2020
Right now we assume that each
eia_code
in therespondent_id_ferc714
table is associated with either a balancing authority or a utility, across all the years for which there is data. However, we could also categorize them differently on a per-year basis, since over the last 14 years it's possible that some of the entities have gone from reporting as utilities to BAs or vice versa.It's unclear whether this is necessary, or if it would improve our overall ability to accurately re-allocate demand geographically.
The
planning_area_description_ferc714
table might be helpful in figuring this out, as it lists the names of all the utilities which are associated with each value ofrespondent_id_ferc714
-- it seems like the respondents that are themselves utilities ought to just be associated with... themselves?We can also compare our categorizations against the ones which were done by hand in Auffhammer et al., at least in outline.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: