chriswmackey
commented
1 year ago @rawadelkontar ,
Have you gotten the chance to look into this at all? I have just been telling everyone to refrain from using the historical scenarios for the time being until we have some explanation for why there's a gap here that's roughly equal to the conversion factor between pounds and kg.
I have been using the add_ems_emissions_reporting measure and one thing that I noticed is that almost all locations in the US seem to have a huge gap between the historical annual emissions and the future annual emissions.
To cite an example for a district in New York City, the carbon intensity of electricity has dropped by over 50% between 2019 (historical) and 2020 (future). As far as I know, there wasn't a major restructuring of the New York electric grid that happened between 2019 and 2020.
I am tempted to think that there's some unit conversion error happening somewhere since the historical 2019 values seem to consistently be a little more than twice of the future 2020 values, which is roughly the conversion factor between pounds of CO2 and kilograms of CO2. If I had to guess which of the two is the "right" one, the future emissions seem to be more in-line with values that I see on the EIA website and it's the historical values that are roughly double what they should be.
I know @rawadelkontar maintains this measure and it would be good if he could confirm whether this is a bug or just a misunderstanding on my part.