ERTAC EGU Growth ModelExecutive Summary

September 2012

1

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.

2

Attributes of ERTAC ModelConservative 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 3

Project TimelineFall 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.

4

Example: Coal Fired Existing Unit, 800 MWAnnual GR=1.018, Peak GR=1.056, Nonpeak GR=1.012

5

Example: Coal Fired Existing Unit, 800 MW (zoom in view)Annual GR=1.018, Peak GR=1.056, Nonpeak GR=1.012

48 hour depiction for an individual unit

6

Inefficient hour in base year, 11,232 BTU/KW, FY uses standard heat rate.

NORTHEAST2007 AND

2020SO2

NOx

HI

7

Shutdowns w/ new clean units From state and generic units

Controls plus clean new units

AEO2010 says growth in coal

HI

SOUTHEAST2007 AND

2020SO2

NOx

8

GA multi-polluttant rule.

Near 100% Scrubbed

SOUTH EAST USA2007 AND 2020

NOx

MIDWEST2007 AND

2020SO2

HI

9

Future challenges for ERTACDevelopment 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.

10

ERTAC SummaryModel 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.

11

ERTAC SummaryThe 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.

12

ERTAC Contact InformationLADCO

◦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

13