Plant Name Mismatch in EIA-860 Dataset #4043
Description
Describe the bug
There is a discrepancy between some of the plant names (plant_name_eia fields) from the tables out_eia__yearly_plants, _out_eia__yearly_generators, and out_eia860__yearly_ownership. Most of the names are consistent, but some of the plant names in PUDL associated with the latest EIA 860 report (2023) do not match the names actually reported. Other tables may have these discrepancies too, but I haven't explored them. This mismatch has caused issues for me in post-processing the PUDL data for my application.
Bug Severity
How badly is this bug affecting you?
- Low: The bug isn't causing me problems, but something's still wrong here.
To Reproduce
Here's a table of the data we've found with the discrepancy, from our analysis of generators in the SOCO balancing area (by no means exhaustive of the full database):
| PUDL plant_name_eia | EIA 860 Plant Name |
|---|---|
| Autaugaville | E B Harris Electric Generating Plant |
| Duke Energy Murray LLC | Thomas A Smith Energy Facility |
| Goat Rock CC | H Allen Franklin Combined Cycle |
| Kemper County | Ratcliffe |
| Rabun Gap Cogen | Multitrade Rabun Gap, LLC |
| Superior | Superior Landfill Gas Recovery |
| Tenaska Central Alabama | Tenaska Lindsay Hill Generating Station |
| West Georgia | Edward L. Addison Generating Plant |
The right hand column is what the correct names should be to match with the latest EIA 860 naming for the 2023 release.
Expected behavior
I expect that the plant_name_eia fields would match the names from the Plant Name column in the actual EIA 860 data.
Software Environment?
- Operating System: Windows 11
- Python version and distribution: Anaconda Python 3.12.8
- How did you install PUDL? I downloaded the PUDL database directly to my laptop on 01/10/25, and used the Kaggle Jupyter notebook examples as a code template for setting up the PUDL engine and reading form the SQLite DB.
Additional context
N/A