130 likes | 273 Views
ERTAC EGU Growth Model Executive Summary. September 2012. Origins and Methods of ERTAC. ERTAC ad-hoc group convened to solve specific inventory problems. Membership: states, MJOs.
E N D
ERTAC EGU Growth ModelExecutive Summary September 2012
Origins and Methods of ERTAC • ERTAC ad-hoc group convened to solve specific inventory problems. • Membership: states, MJOs. • ERTAC EGU project goal: Build a low cost, stable/stiff, fast, and transparent alternative to the IPM model to project future EGU emissions. • Model development started 2 years ago.
Attributes of ERTAC Model • Conservative predictions – No big swings in generation. • Data intensive – needs substantial state-supplied data. • Regional and fuel modularity. • Calculates future hourly estimates based on base year activity. • Test hourly reserve capacity. • Can quickly evaluate various scenarios; e.g., retirement, growth, and control
Project Timeline • Fall 2012 – completion of first version of model and production of an “East of the Mississippi” run with 2007 base year and 2010 AEO growth rates. • November 2012 – presentation of the model to EPA and then to interested stakeholders. • 2013 – continued development of the model (next version) and production of 2011 base run with updated policy and growth inputs.
Example: Coal Fired Existing Unit, 800 MWAnnual GR=1.018, Peak GR=1.056, Nonpeak GR=1.012
Example: Coal Fired Existing Unit, 800 MW (zoom in view)Annual GR=1.018, Peak GR=1.056, Nonpeak GR=1.01248 hour depiction for an individual unit Inefficient hour in base year, 11,232 BTU/KW, FY uses standard heat rate.
NORTHEAST 2007 AND 2020 SO2 Controls plus clean new units NOx Shutdowns w/ new clean units From state and generic units HI AEO2010 says growth in coal
GA multi-polluttant rule. SOUTHEAST 2007 AND 2020 SO2 Near 100% Scrubbed NOx HI
MIDWEST 2007 AND 2020 SO2 SOUTH EAST USA 2007 AND 2020 NOx HI
Future challenges for ERTAC • Development of this model is a work in progress. • How to deal with growth rates where the current system will not handle the load. • Ensuring that input variables and model settings are reasonable. • Selection of controls by the model is not easily automated – requires manual inputs. • Updating input files is time-consuming. • Converting output files to model-ready files.
ERTAC Summary • Model is built and running well. • Results are stable using historic data. • Transparency allows a deep evaluation of model results. • Execution of the model by 5 eastern region groups is giving consistent results. • Ongoing input data improvement is needed.
ERTAC Summary • The initial version of the model has been completed. • The model is running well and results are stable. • Transparency allows a deep evaluation of model results. • 5 different groups in eastern regions are running the model with consistent results. • Ongoing input data improvement is needed.
ERTAC Contact Information • LADCO • Mark Janssen- janssen@ladco.org • John Welch - jwelch@idem.in.gov • Robert Lopez - robert.lopez@wisconsin.gov • MARAMA/OTC • Julie McDill – jmcdill@marama.org • Joe Jakuta - jjakuta@otcair.org • Danny Wong – danny.wong@dpe.state.nj.us • Metro 4/SESARM • Doris Mcleod – doris.mcleod@deq.virginia.gov • Lin Jin-sheng – jin-sheng.lin@deq.virginia.gov • Beyong Kim – byeong.kim@gaepd.org