|
|
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
| | | | |
| | There is a three-step consultation process with three deadlines ("milestones"). Openmod-i plans to submitt comments and recommendations in each of the steps. | | There is a three-step consultation process with three deadlines ("milestones"). Openmod-i plans to submitt comments and recommendations in each of the steps. |
| | + | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| Line 55: |
Line 56: |
| | [3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2]<br/><br/> | | [3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2]<br/><br/> |
| | | | |
| − | '''Subject:''' Beitrag zum 1. Meilenstein der Konsultation zum <span style="font-size: 13.6000003814697px; line-height: 20.4000015258789px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Marktstammdatenregister </span><br/> | + | '''Subject:''' Beitrag zum 1. Meilenstein der Konsultation zum <span style="line-height: 20.4px; font-size: 13.6px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Marktstammdatenregister </span><br/> |
| | | | |
| | '''Message''':<br/> | | '''Message''':<br/> |
| Line 67: |
Line 68: |
| | Carsten Matke | | Carsten Matke |
| | | | |
| − | für die <span style="font-size: 13.6000003814697px; line-height: 20.4000015258789px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Open Energy Modelling Initiative </span> | + | für die <span style="line-height: 20.4px; font-size: 13.6px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Open Energy Modelling Initiative </span> |
| | | | |
| | -- | | -- |
| Line 75: |
Line 76: |
| | We are a grass root initiative of modellers from various universities and research institutes across Europe [1]. <br/> | | We are a grass root initiative of modellers from various universities and research institutes across Europe [1]. <br/> |
| | | | |
| − | First of all, and most importantly, '''we support the idea of the Marktstammdatenregister''' (MaStR). A central register facilitates research and analysis, improving future policy and investment decisions. <span style="font-size: 13.6000003814697px; line-height: 20.4000015258789px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We believe that o</span><span style="font-size: 13.6000003814697px; line-height: 20.4000015258789px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">pen models and open data will advance knowledge and lead to better energy policies. Open up energy models improves quality, transparency, and credibility, leading to better research and policy advice.</span> | + | First of all, and most importantly, '''we support the idea of the Marktstammdatenregister''' (MaStR). A central register facilitates research and analysis, improving future policy and investment decisions. <span style="line-height: 20.4px; font-size: 13.6px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We believe that o</span><span style="line-height: 20.4px; font-size: 13.6px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">pen models and open data will advance knowledge and lead to better energy policies. Open up energy models improves quality, transparency, and credibility, leading to better research and policy advice.</span> |
| | | | |
| | We recommend to publish the register under an '''open license''', e.g. Open Database License [2] or Creative Commons 4.0 [3]. An open license reduces legal uncertainty and allows for-profit as well as not-for-profit organisations to fully utilize the information contained in the register, to the benefit of society.<br/> | | We recommend to publish the register under an '''open license''', e.g. Open Database License [2] or Creative Commons 4.0 [3]. An open license reduces legal uncertainty and allows for-profit as well as not-for-profit organisations to fully utilize the information contained in the register, to the benefit of society.<br/> |
| | | | |
| − | In our opinion, '''the MaStR already proposes a very good identifation numbering scheme'''. The numbering scheme seems to be flexible to deal with future changes in the energy sectors, market players, etc. without being forced to introduce a new numbering system. We strongly support the idea to establish the proposed MaStR numbering scheme. However, the numbering system can be improved by adding the country code, e.g. using ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 (two letters - at the beginning). Adding these two letters as a country code at the beginning would pave the way establishing the MaStR numbering scheme in other countries than Germany. The country code should only depend on the exact geographical information. We also support the idea to link already existing numbering schemes (e.g., identifiers of the "Kraftwerksliste" [4], EU ETS [5] and E-PRTR [6] installation identifiers) to the proposed numbering system. And finally, we recommend that exact geographical information (at least more precise than postal code) are used. Thus, the country code becomes clear.<br/> | + | In our opinion, '''the MaStR already proposes a very good identification numbering scheme'''. The numbering scheme seems to be flexible to deal with future changes in the energy sectors, market players, etc. without being forced to introduce a new numbering system. We strongly support the idea to establish the proposed MaStR numbering scheme. However, the numbering system can be improved by adding the country code, e.g. using ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 (two letters - at the beginning). Adding these two letters as a country code at the beginning would pave the way establishing the MaStR numbering scheme in other countries than Germany. The country code should only depend on the exact geographical information. We also support the idea to link already existing numbering schemes (e.g., identifiers of the "Kraftwerksliste" [4], EU ETS [5] and E-PRTR [6] installation identifiers) to the proposed numbering system. And finally, we recommend that exact geographical coordinates (at least more precise than postal code) are used for facilities, power plants etc. Thus, the country code becomes clear.<br/> |
| | | | |
| | We hope that the above mentioned suggestion for a European MaStR numbering scheme meets your aims as well.<br/> | | We hope that the above mentioned suggestion for a European MaStR numbering scheme meets your aims as well.<br/> |
| Line 89: |
Line 90: |
| | Carsten Matke | | Carsten Matke |
| | | | |
| − | for the <span style="font-size: 13.6000003814697px; line-height: 20.4000015258789px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Open Energy Modelling Initiative </span> | + | for the <span style="line-height: 20.4px; font-size: 13.6px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Open Energy Modelling Initiative </span> |
| | | | |
| | <br/> | | <br/> |
Revision as of 14:21, 25 August 2015
Context
Germany (BMWi, BNetzA) plans to to develop a register of power plant data that covers all plants (“starting from 0 kW”) that supersedes the current “EEG Stammdatenbank” and the “BNetzA Kraftwerksliste”.
- geographic scope: Germany
- content: capacity, technical characteristics, detailed information such as hub height of wind turbines (“master data”)
- detail: individual blocks
- go-live: early 2017
- not included: time series of any sort; yearly generation data
- license: BMWi and BNetzA has not thought about a license yet
http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/ElektrizitaetundGas/Unternehmen_Institutionen/DatenaustauschundMonitoring/MaStR/Datendefinitionen/mastr_datendefinitionen-node.html
There is a three-step consultation process with three deadlines ("milestones"). Openmod-i plans to submitt comments and recommendations in each of the steps.
Milestone 1 (deadline: 31 August 2015)
TARGET: Determine who should be listed in the register (Marktstammdatenregister) and what numbering scheme should be used. Suggestion should be added to the excel spread sheet Proposed Numbering Scheme and sended to: mastr@bnetza.de
General points
- We support the idea of a register
- We support the idea to establish a new numbering system as proposed, where each identifier starts with 3 characters for the market player, power plant, transmission grid operator etc. and followed by 10 digits plus a last check digit (according to the EAN (European Article Number))
- We support the idea to link already existing numbering schemes (e.g., identifiers of the "Kraftwerksliste") to the new numbering system.
- This may also include the EU ETS installation identifier and the E-PRTR Facility ID (see Kraftwerk Schkopau [1][2])
- Should include exact geographical information (more precise than post code)
- Should be published under an open license. (suggesting ODbL ?, which is used by OpenStreetMap)
- The register should “think” European by adding country code using ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 - two letters - at the beginning [3].
Specific points
- There are > 1 million PV installations - will these be included?
- Does Stromerzeugungsanlagen (EAS) distinguish between generators and boilers? @JCR: possible identifiers for plant sites would make sense to mark several generators and boilers as belonging to the same plant?
- Are market roles and functions linked? Or would we have to deduplicate things by hand? Also, what about companies that may have a joint partnership in a power plant? Or subsidiaries? Relations that change over time? Mergers & split
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ets/oha.do?form=oha&languageCode=en&account.registryCodes=DE&accountHolder=&installationIdentifier=1376&installationName=&permitIdentifier=&mainActivityType=-1&search=Search&searchType=oha¤tSortSettings=
[2] http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/FacilityDetails.aspx?FacilityId=46848&ReportingYear=2013
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2
Subject: Beitrag zum 1. Meilenstein der Konsultation zum Marktstammdatenregister
Message:
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
die Open Energy Modelling Initiative (http://openmod-initiative.org/) ist eine internationale Initiative zur Föderung von Transparenz in der Energiesystemmodellierung. Sie besteht aus gut 100 Forschern aus ganz Europa, weshalb der Beitrag zur Konsultation auf Englisch verfasst ist.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Carsten Matke
für die Open Energy Modelling Initiative
--
Dear Sir or Madam,
We are a grass root initiative of modellers from various universities and research institutes across Europe [1].
First of all, and most importantly, we support the idea of the Marktstammdatenregister (MaStR). A central register facilitates research and analysis, improving future policy and investment decisions. We believe that open models and open data will advance knowledge and lead to better energy policies. Open up energy models improves quality, transparency, and credibility, leading to better research and policy advice.
We recommend to publish the register under an open license, e.g. Open Database License [2] or Creative Commons 4.0 [3]. An open license reduces legal uncertainty and allows for-profit as well as not-for-profit organisations to fully utilize the information contained in the register, to the benefit of society.
In our opinion, the MaStR already proposes a very good identification numbering scheme. The numbering scheme seems to be flexible to deal with future changes in the energy sectors, market players, etc. without being forced to introduce a new numbering system. We strongly support the idea to establish the proposed MaStR numbering scheme. However, the numbering system can be improved by adding the country code, e.g. using ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 (two letters - at the beginning). Adding these two letters as a country code at the beginning would pave the way establishing the MaStR numbering scheme in other countries than Germany. The country code should only depend on the exact geographical information. We also support the idea to link already existing numbering schemes (e.g., identifiers of the "Kraftwerksliste" [4], EU ETS [5] and E-PRTR [6] installation identifiers) to the proposed numbering system. And finally, we recommend that exact geographical coordinates (at least more precise than postal code) are used for facilities, power plants etc. Thus, the country code becomes clear.
We hope that the above mentioned suggestion for a European MaStR numbering scheme meets your aims as well.
Best regards,
Carsten Matke
for the Open Energy Modelling Initiative
[1] http://www.openmod-initiative.org/
[2] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
[3] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
[4] http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/ElektrizitaetundGas/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Versorgungssicherheit/Erzeugungskapazitaeten/Kraftwerksliste/kraftwerksliste-node.html
[5] http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/emissions-trading-viewer
[6] http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/pgAbout.aspx
Milestone 2 (deadline: 31 October 2015)
TARGET: How and which data should be represented in the Marktstammdaten register. Which data are public, sensitive, anonymized, etc.
It might be useful to suggest and collect use cases for the data to help ensure that what is being gathered can help to answer real research problems.
General points
- Repeat the general points of milestone 1 (support idea, open license, think EU, ...)
Specific points
- Ability to track changes on a power plant site e.g., a wind farm may be built in stages, generators may be decommissed, upgraded, etc. or primary fuel used may change as well. An idea to solve the task is to provide time-stamped datasets or diff-files that provide information about changes from one point in time to another one.
- What format will the data be published in? Will it be machine-readable? The BNetzA xls database is mostly ok in this regard, but columns like Spezifizierung "Mehrere Energieträger" und "Sonstige Energieträger" - "Hauptbrennstoff" are difficult to parse consistently.
- Best would be to provide data in different formats: Georeferenced database table (online accessible and downloadable dump) and Spreadsheet. To keep costs low, spreadsheet should be derived from database table.
=> Relational DB (related tables for plants, operators etc.) to model structure including change history
- Plants could be linked to power network (at least IDs?) to be on target for a possible future power grid database (i.e. grid conection point to medium-voltage power grid)
=> General question: Should we consider interfaces to other potential DBs?
- e.g. "be able to sum up all CO2 emissions for all facilities owned by company X and all its subsidiaries" - for this to be answered, the data structures need to provide links both between organizations and from organizations to their facilities. In other words, through this exercise we're mapping out what types of data should ideally be linked to what other types of data. This isn't just about putting data in tables, it's about if we can link data spread across multiple tables.
- Include spatial data
- Best longitude and latitude, adress data are OK
- Anonymisation of very small (private) EAS => assignment to (unique) grid conection point / local grid ?
- Why not include time-series or annual generation data?
- The coverage of the data should become clear (e.g., "X% of all capacity is included; most missing capacity is small-scale gas-fired plants")
- EIA documentation might help [1]
- Form EIA-923 & Form EIA-860 are excellent examples of how to manage data on the power sector
- A good overview of the data coverage can be found in the Layout*.xlsx files for Form EIA-860. This gives a comprehensive overview of the data properties recorded and which spreadsheets contain those.
[1] http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/technotes.pdf
Milestone 3 (deadline: 31 May 2016)
General points
Specific points
</div>
