Collection of thoughts regarding modelling ENTSOE TP reports

[areleu]

Eventually I will convert these to their own issues, this is more of an unstructured documentation of thoughts.

I am currently working on structuring the data coming from the ENTSOE Transparency platform and the ontology is falling short to describe some aspects of it. I will add a section for each aspect.

Actual Load

The model considered by the ENTSOE corresponds to: https://transparencyplatform.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/16647979768084-Actual-Total-Load-Day-ahead-Per-Bidding-Zone-6-1-A-6-1-B

Which in place points to the article 6 of the ENTSOE Transparency regulation: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0543

In the regulation total load is defined in relation to other quantities:

including losses without power used for energy
storage, means a load equal to generation and any imports
deducting any exports and power used for energy storage

There is also vertical load

means the total amount of power flowing
out of the transmission network to the distribution
networks, to directly connected final customers or to the
consuming part of generation;

but is not used in any of the regulations requirements.

TenneT publishes vertical load: https://netztransparenz.tennet.eu/electricity-market/transparency-pages/transparency-germany/network-figures/vertical-grid-load so we have to assume that both quantities may appear in a knowledge base.

The regulation stablishes the load reporting for control areas which unintuitively are defined as:

means a coherent part of the interconnected
system, operated by a single system operator and shall
include connected physical loads and/or generation units
if any;

which to me sounds like the mereological sum of all the material artifacts that consume or produce electricity connected to some electrical power system. This sum may be part of our already defined power system.

Fortunately this is already in the ontology. Now, These material artifacts MAY be associated to some spatial region. But the spatial region is not the definitive aspect that defines these entities.

HOWEVER, in the same reporting there is the possiblity to report on Bidding Zones and countries. Which are defined by spatial regions to some degree. At least in the context of the regulation.

So we need a spatial region that can be associated to the control area so we can offer a consistent design pattern that covers all three of these.

Proposal

1. Import Operational Area from CCO, or implement it ourselves.
2. Implement Control Area Area (the name is silly because the original name of the entity is silly, alternative: Control Area Region)
   • Control Area Region: A two-dimensional spatial region/operational area which spatially contains the artifacts connected to a control area.
3. Implement something to sum all the power consuming elements of a power system. And use the chance to implement something to represent all generators.

• power consumption system: A system comprising of only the consumers of a power system.
• power generation system: A system comprising of only the generators of a power system.

4. Implement Load, Vertical Load and ENTSOE Total Load
   • Load: An energy use of some power consumption system
   • Vertical Load: A process attribute of some load which quantifies the amount of power flowing from a transmission grid to a distribution grid.
   • ENTSOE Total Load: A process attribute of some load calculated based on the instructions of the EU Regulation 543/2013

[areleu]

Now thinking about it, control area is a really missleading label. I think it should be an alternative label of something more concrete. something along the lines of system operator supply grid

system operator supply grid: A supply grid managed by a system operator.

Additionally I think we should import the tree below https://www.commoncoreontologies.org/ont00000300 and implement TSO and DSO to include the axioms of this entity.