do the retired generators need to be removed from the master unit list?

[cmgosnell]

If a generator is retired but has similar identifiers (fuel type, prime mover etc.), currently it will get lumped together with existing generators. The master unit list records that contain retired generators will incorporate their attributes (such as capacity).

A simple solution to this would be to just remove the retired generators altogether (for the years after their retirement date). Would this cause downstream ramifications for mapping to the depreciation data or to FERC?

A less simple solution for this would be to zero out many of the generator attributes so they exist in the group of generators that make up a plant-part but are not contributing to the data columns.

[cmgosnell]

I've implemented a first pass solution to this so I'm going to close this issue for now.

In this version, I am only including the operational generators in the master unit list. This includes both the "existing" generators and the generators that retired mid-year. With this I also included an end of year capacity, which zero's out the EOY capacity for those mid-year retiring generators.

A few options for future iterations:

• Do we want to keep the retired generators, but just keep them separate? It could be useful to keep the retired generators for whatever reason, but they should not be incorporated into any "operating" totals. This could be done by generating a MUL-specific operational_status column with which we can group these existing and mid-year retirees and by incorporating this new column into the ID columns that we are using to aggregate generators into various plant-parts.
• Do we want to keep the proposed generators, but just keep them separate? Same as above.