Accepted Methodology/Data Providers For Marginal Carbon Intensity

[will-iamalpine]

I can think of five data providers for location-based marginal carbon intensity. This opens up some questions:

• How do we account for discrepancies?
• Is it in scope of the SCI to define acceptable sources fo for this information?
• Do we require these data sources meet a given standard that someone else has defined? (e.g. World Resources Institute, RMI, GHG)

Data providers:

1. WattTime ( @Henry-WattTime) has validated through RMI (also WRI certified?), which can be found on our website on this page at the Methodology and Validation section
2. ElectricityMap (WRI certified?)
3. REsurety models transmission constraints to get a locational marginal emissions intensity figure per building.
4. WeDeex by CSN Energy tracks carbon intensity of grid
5. e2Intel uses LEEM (Location Emission Estimation Methodology) - Liang Downey (MSFT) is trying to join GSF and bring LEEM into the discussion

[jawache]

This is a great question, in terms of specific language in the SCI we should only provide the requirements and constraints of the data source, and we should also ensure I think that our requirements and constraints allow a free source of data, to implement the SCI shouldn't require purchasing data otherwise it greatly limits adoption and might be seen as a commercial play.

• So one requirement is that it's marginal.
• Another requirement might be that it uses at least yearly regional averages.
• The certification is a good point, I'm in agreement with adding that as a requirement as long as there is a free data source of at least yearly regional averages that are certified, we can specify a list of approved certification authorities.

We should avoid listing a set of organisations that provide paid for services in this area, that feels like we are stepping into the anti-trust territory. We can have ancillary docs parralel to this one about how to implement the SCI which talks about that, but in the SCI itself, I think that's something we should avoid.