grgmiller
commented
2 years ago There's also a few plants in Alaska (6292, 7376, 55966, 6283, and 57206) that are assigned a ba name of Chugash Electric Association, but are actually operated by Homer Electric. (see https://www.homerelectric.com/my-cooperative/power-generation/).
It seems that at least in some of these cases, the plants were originally owned by Chugash but sold to Homer over a decade ago (https://www.homerelectric.com/my-cooperative/power-generation/bernice-lake-combustion-turbine-plant/).
This seems to suggest that perhaps plants_entity_eia is grabbing information from older EIA forms and not updating it?
There are certain plants in the plants_entity_eia table that are missing balancing authority codes, even though a BA code is provided for the plant in both EIA-860 and EIA-923, and they have an incorrect balancing authority name assigned
Specific example: plant with
plant_id_eia == 57698(The Aerojet II solar plant in Sacramento) has a "None" value for the balancing_authority_code_eia column in plants_entity_eia, and the balancing_authority_name_eia is listed as "California Independent System Operator". However if you look up this plant in the raw EIA-860 plant file and the EIA-923 plant frame table, it reports the BA code as "BANC" (or the Balancing Authority of Northern California).Another example: plant 7966 is assigned a code of None and a name of MISO in plants_entity_eia, but both EIA forms list it as being in SWPP.
I can't quite find where this table is created in the pudl source code, so I'm unable to see where/why this information might be dropped, and why an incorrect BA name is being assigned to these plants.
Steps to recreate: I am loading plants_entity_eia from the pudl sqlite file downloaded from https://zenodo.org/record/6349861#.YlsSwtPMJhG I am cross referencing the raw EIA 923 and 860 files from 2020