-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 903
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add test case to verify that all zones in geometries are in zones.json #3817
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we also remove US-SW-DEAA from EIA.py?
Good catch, removed it |
I would not remove that zone since it's still in use. There are times where there's no generation reported (like right now). This zone consists of only one generating station, the Arlington Valley natural gas power plant. As you see on this site it is normal that they don't generate electricity in some months. Another option which is probably better: |
Interesting! Would you have a mapping of all of these zones by any chance? If yes, then let's make a subsequent PR where we add the generation only zones to the bigger grids they feed into. Otherwise the idea behind deleting some of these zones is that they don't currently "really" exist on the map. They are simply too small to display correctly on the map. |
Here is a map of all the zones we have for the USA. The yellow dots are "generation-only" zones. The ones connecting to only one "consumption and generating zone" could be included quite easily (don't mind their coloring fo all the consumption and generating zones, this just shows if the consumption is increasing or decreasing). However, there are some which interconnect to multiple zones. Those are more difficult to split up. To be more specific, this is a list of which zones I'd include into other ones:
Then there's US-NW-GRID which makes things more complicated. Wind generation is only transmitted to US-SW-PNM but it's not clear where solar, coal and gas really go, either to US-SW-SRP or US-NW-BPAT. I agree, that less small zones make the map easier to understand. Also it would make things more transparent since some emissionfactors could change quite a bit. You can doubble check all the information here and if something is unclear, reach out to me again. |
Great! Thanks for the details, will include these in a following commit |
Would be good to wrap this up - let me know if we should take over on it :) |
Might be worth taking a look (and possibly closing #3359) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Alright, I've tried to update with latest changes, and it seems to look good so lets get it in :)
yihouuuuu |
[Post merge comment]
I've created a subsequent issue to handle other small US zones #4173 |
Reviewing should be done commit per commit
This PR adds a test case to verify that all zones with geometries are defined in
zones.json
.Figured out that we should delete the following zones:
NZ-NZN
andNZ-NZS
, deprecated since last NZ updateAUS-ACT
not usedUS-NW-SCL
andUS-SW-DEAA
small US zones whose geometries were deleted in the geography improvement processUS-NW-AVRN
other small US zone that has never "existed" geographicallyAnd replace
US-MIDW-EEI
withUS-MIDW-GLHB
.Note that for the US zones, all parsers are EIA so backfilling would be possible if we revert some decision.