The isp-trace-parser mapped AEMO (2024) trace names to be consistent with the (2024) IASR, which need to be updated for the 2026 data. A new (or separate) map yaml is probably best (to be discussed).
For the 2026 version, there appears to be a many-to-one relation between the IASR names and the trace names, for some of the generators (i.e. Existing Committed Anticipated Additional , ECAA in IASR language). This is easier to manage compared to the 2024 version, which had many-to-many relationship.
Specifically, the following relationships seem to exist:
Solar
(trace name --> IASR names)
- 'New_England`: [NEWENSF1, NEWENSF2, New England Solar Farm 2]
- `Walla_Walla`: [WARWSF1, WARWSF2]
- `Warrick`: [WARWSF1, WARWSF2]
Wind
(trace name --> IASR names)
- `Golden_Plains_East`: ['GPWFEST1','GPWFEST2','GPWFEST3']
- `BRYB1WF1`: [BRYB1WF1, BRYB2WF2]
The above mappings are my best guess and make sense to me - but can't be entirely certain how AEMO might have used these, or dealt with this generators.
Somewhat related, I think the Mount_Hope should be mapped to 'Valley of the Winds Wind Farm` (that is also a best guess from me)
The
isp-trace-parsermapped AEMO (2024) trace names to be consistent with the (2024) IASR, which need to be updated for the 2026 data. A new (or separate) map yaml is probably best (to be discussed).For the 2026 version, there appears to be a many-to-one relation between the IASR names and the trace names, for some of the generators (i.e.
Existing Committed Anticipated Additional, ECAA in IASR language). This is easier to manage compared to the 2024 version, which had many-to-many relationship.Specifically, the following relationships seem to exist:
Solar
(trace name --> IASR names)
Wind
(trace name --> IASR names)
The above mappings are my best guess and make sense to me - but can't be entirely certain how AEMO might have used these, or dealt with this generators.
Somewhat related, I think the
Mount_Hopeshould be mapped to 'Valley of the Winds Wind Farm` (that is also a best guess from me)