Perhaps it would be better to introduce a new property: "is_political_green_energy".

Do we even want to say anything about what's green? Maybe only specify the sources?

I don't think we say that Nuclear is green. See also the definition of [is_green_energy] in the EnergyMix class: "is_green_energy Boolean, 1, True if 100% from regenerative sources. (CO2 and nuclear waste is zero)" So as long as there is nuclear waste, we do not consider it to be green, and you can add the percentage of nuclear in the energy mix.

In my opinion the current description "True if 100% from regenerative sources. (CO2 and nuclear waste is zero)" is much more precise than "is green". Green is a color and leaves much room for interpretation.

We could make it more precise to specify the exact emissions of the energy mix. We had these discussions when adding this field but concluded that the current implementation is the only one feasible for the CPOs. Has this changed?

I don't think we say that Nuclear is green. See also the definition of [is_green_energy] in the EnergyMix class: "is_green_energy Boolean, 1, True if 100% from regenerative sources. (CO2 and nuclear waste is zero)" So as long as there is nuclear waste, we do not consider it to be green, and you can add the percentage of nuclear in the energy mix.

Because we are extracting energy from wind and sun by “magic” without waste?

This is not a political discussion here. It's about implementation. OCPI is used globally. We have to find a way that suits all needs. I would (and have always) vote for reflecting the actual information in the energy mix and remove the opinionated flag. It's up to the dates consumer how to interpret and display the data.

This is not a political discussion here. It's about implementation. OCPI is used globally. We have to find a way that suits all needs. I would (and have always) vote for reflecting the actual information in the energy mix and remove the opinionated flag. It's up to the dates consumer how to interpret and display the data.

You are perfectly right, and your proposition is excellent.
Making things declarative let people making their own choices and implementations to give exactitude to users.

@simonschllng It is not that OCPI is involved in political discussion, but as some regulations demand to give info if energy is green and/or the exact energy mix, both is part of OCPI. Nevertheless, sometimes you can't prevent that sometimes protocols or the related implementation guides are touching discussions as guidance is sometimes needed and required. In this specific case it is all open and possible. You can add if it is green, or just add the energy mix and then leave it up to the parties and users to interpret it. OCPI supports it.

@mbayings Right. And we are almost there. The is_green_energy boolean is mandatory and redundant information to the energy_sources and environ_impact property. Depending on the interpretation of the later two the mandatory boolean will reflect wrong information. Why not leave the interpretation if "green" to the consumer?

Currently it is up to the CPO/MSP. They have full freedom here. They can put their energy mix or state that according to them it is fully green. If we change something I suggest to only change the description and remove the last part "(CO2 and nuclear waste is zero)". That is easiest and then if there are questions about the "true" for this, it is up to the CPO to explain. There are many debates going on if Nuclear or Gas or other things are green or not. And different parts in the world can have different definitions. So if we leave it here as it is, and only removing a part of the description, we can all deal with it.