Add Q4 CEMS data

[e-belfer]

Overview

Closes #3315

What problem does this address?
Adds Q4 2023 CEMS data.

What did you change?
Added Q4 data to extraction, updated docs.

Testing

How did you make sure this worked? How can a reviewer verify this?
Materialize the EPA CEMS dagster assets.

To-do list

Edit tasklist title

Beta Give feedback Tasklist To-do list, more options

• Rename
• Copy markdown
• Delete tasklist

Delete tasklist

Delete tasklist block?

Are you sure? All relationships in this tasklist will be removed.

Cancel Delete

1. Ensure docs build, unit & integration tests, and test coverage pass locally with `make pytest-coverage` (otherwise the merge queue may reject your PR)

   Ensure docs build, unit & integration tests, and test coverage pass locally with make pytest-coverage (otherwise the merge queue may reject your PR)
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
2. Update the [release notes](../docs/release_notes.rst): reference the PR and related issues.

   Update the release notes: reference the PR and related issues.
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove
3. Review the PR yourself and call out any questions or issues you have

   Review the PR yourself and call out any questions or issues you have
   Options

   • Convert to issue
   • Toggle completion
   • Rename
   • Remove

Add item to To-do list

[aesharpe]

Do we want to update the etl_fast.yml file to say cems year_quarters: ["2023q4"] instead of year_quarters: ["2022q1"]?

[e-belfer]

Do we want to update the etl_fast.yml file to say cems year_quarters: ["2023q4"] instead of year_quarters: ["2022q1"]?

I think we need to match the same year of CEMS and 860 so the plants are all matched, so I was deferring to comparing CEMS to the full year of EPA data rather than just the 860M data?

[aesharpe]

I was deferring to comparing CEMS to the full year of EPA data rather than just the 860M data?

Ok that's probably a good idea.

[aesharpe]

Everything looks good - I wanted to try running it locally to be sure, but it's taking a long time, so I'm going to approve! If you've loaded it locally / checked the tables to make sure everything is there as expected, I think you can go ahead and add it to the queue.