Closed Henry-WattTime closed 1 year ago
@ciril-emaps does this begin to address your concerns around the fact that the marginal signal should include both short run and long run effects? Would it make sense for the guidance document to include detailed information about what signals might be appropriate to achieve these outcomes?
This PR starts to incorporate these discussions/issues:
Thank you very much for the additions Henry. While this goes in the right direction, it does not address the core concerns. We will revert back with our thoughts in the standards WG this Thursday!
@Henry-WattTime thanks again for this proposal. As highlighted above, this change does not address the core concerns we highlight in this pull request and it goes against the changes we propose in the aforementioned pull request. There is a serious risk to prescribe marginal emission factors as the only signal.
@Henry-WattTime @ciril-emaps did a way forward emerge from the discussion in this week's SWG meeting?
@atg-abhishek we had an extensive discussion around the topic of appropriateness of stating marginal in the specification, as well as requiring marginal as the single metric. In case you are interested in detailed concerns, please see the comments and commits in this PR.
From my perspective, there seem to be two levels of discussions that need to take place
@Henry-WattTime, @dschien and I are currently trying to set up a call for a technical discussion. Any WG member is very welcome to join!
@Henry-WattTime I would appreciate any further comments you have on this, in case there are any.
Sounds good @ciril-emaps - I think the technical discussion could be had as a part of the SWG since it would be something that the entire group should participate and contribute in? cc @Henry-WattTime
WG approved pull request https://github.com/Green-Software-Foundation/sci/pull/358 which addresses this.
Included a section that the marginal emissions rate should include long run and short run effects.