Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Status of ERTAC EGU Growth Committee
September 16th 2013
Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC)
ERTAC convenes ad-hoc groups to solve specific inventory problems
Collaboration:– States - NE, Mid-Atlantic, Southern, and Lake Michigan– Multi-jurisdictional organizations– Industry
ERTAC EGU growth convened 3 years agoGoal: Build a low cost, stable/stiff, fast, and transparent model to project
future EGU emissionsUtility representatives provided guidance on model design and inputs
• AEP – Dave Long• AMEREN - Ken Anderson• RRI – John Shimshock• NY Energy – Roger Caiazza
2
ERTAC EGU Subcommittees & Co-Chairs
Committee Co-chairsLaura Mae Crowder, WV DEP Bob Lopez, WI DE Danny Wong, NJ DEP
Subcommittees and LeadsImplementation/Doris McLeod VA, Mark Janssen, LADCO
Create logic for software
Growth/Bob Lopez, WI & Laura Mae Crowder, WVRegional specific growth rates for peak and off peak
Renewables & Conservation Programs/Danny Wong, NJCharacterize programs not already included in growth factors
Data Tracking/Wendy Jacobs, CTImprove default data to reflect state specific information
3
Attributes of ERTAC Projection Tool• Region specific growth rates for peak/off-peak• Unit-specific fossil fuels (e.g., coal, gas, oil)– RE/EE and nuclear considered in growth factors
• Calculates future hourly estimates on unit-specific basis.
• Tests hourly reserve capacity. • Quickly evaluates various scenarios (e.g., unit
retirements, demand growth, fuel switching, and control measures)
• Data intensive – depends on state-supplied data. 4
Attributes - continued
• Code is not proprietary; available at no cost.
• Currently, states in MW, NE, and SE regions are running the model.
• Additionally, the following organizations are (or will) be testing:– EPA/CAMD– Texas
5
How does it work? Starting point: Base Year CEM data by region States provide info: new units, controls & other changes
Regional Lead coordinate state review of model and inputsState Lead QA their state filesReview input & output to provide guidanceIf future year (FY) emission goals are not met with known controls, states
select the strategy to meet the goal
Regional growth ratesBase – Department of Energy (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)Peak – North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
Future hourly estimates based on base year activityTemporal profile matches meteorology
6
Growth Rates (GR)• Peak GR = 1.07• Annual GR = 0.95
• Transition hours of 200 & 2,000• Non Peak GR = 0.9328 (calculated)
7
EIA EMM(NEMS) Map – 2011, 2012, 2013& Update to ERTAC Core Regions - 2013
Unit Level Example: Coal Fired Existing Unit, 800 MW
DRAFT - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 9
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Base Future
Mm
btu/
hr
Calendar Hours
Variations in growth rate
CEM Hourly Base Year Data
Unit Level Example: Coal Fired Existing Unit, 800 MW – SO2 Control
10
Base Future
Base
Yea
r lbs
/hr
Calendar Hours
Futu
re Y
ear l
bs/h
r
Benefits of Using the ERTAC Projection Tool
• Conservative predictions– No big swings in generation– No unexpected unit shutdowns
• Inputs are completely transparent• Software is not proprietary• Output files are hourly and reflect base year
meteorology• Quickly evaluates various scenarios– Regional and fuel modularity– Can test retirements, fuel switches, growth, and controls
11
Committee Disposition
• Committee participation has promoted critical review and deep skepticism in modeling results followed by data and methodological improvement and self correction.
• This might give the short term impression that the model has “problems” but this is just symptomatic of an aggressive transparent committee structure
• We are asking: “How does our model act in the most difficult 0.1% of hours.”
Project Status
• Completed run with 2007 & 2011 base years and 2013 AEO growth rates.
• Code complete to convert ERTAC EGU output to SMOKE inputs and NY/MD running through SMOKE.
• OTC is using ERTAC EGU V1.7 projection to 2018 & 2020 in CMAQ modeling.
13
Next Steps for ERTAC• Planned activities:– Compare to IPM– Conduct sensitivity tests:• High/low gas and coal assumptions• MATS• Aggressive unit shut-downs
• Provide continued support, documentation, and training to other states and stakeholders.
• Documentation at: ertac.us/eguhttp://marama.org/2013-ertac-egu-forecasting-tool-documentation 14
Review of Version 2.0 2011 base
• Pivot Tables• Unit Level Activity Enhanced
AL AR AZ CO CT DE FL GA IA IL IN KS KY LA MA
MD MI
MN
MO MS
MT
NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK
OR PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WA WI
WV
WY
coal
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000 2.0 - 2017 - Sum of BY OS NOx (tons)
2.0 - 2017 - Sum of FY OS NOx (tons)
2.0 - 2018 - Sum of BY OS NOx (tons)
2.0 - 2018 - Sum of FY OS NOx (tons)
2.0 - 2020 - Sum of BY OS NOx (tons)
2.0 - 2020 - Sum of FY OS NOx (tons)
boiler gas coal combined cycle gas oil simple cycle gas0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
2.0 - 2017 - Sum of BY OS NOx (tons)2.0 - 2017 - Sum of FY OS NOx (tons)2.0 - 2018 - Sum of BY OS NOx (tons)2.0 - 2018 - Sum of FY OS NOx (tons)2.0 - 2020 - Sum of BY OS NOx (tons)2.0 - 2020 - Sum of FY OS NOx (tons)
DE MD NJ PA VA MI IL IN KY MD MI OH PA VA WI WVRFCE RFCM RFCW
coal
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
2018 - Sum of BY OS NOx (tons)2018 - Sum of FY OS NOx (tons)
5 MATS SensitivitiesScenari
o #Scenario
NameScenario Description
1 Flat rate option
This scenario applies a 0.2 lbs/mmbtu SO2 emission rate to any coal fired unit that will operate in the
future year above that rate.2 Capacity
optionThis scenario applies 90% or 98% control to any unit that will not meet 0.2 lbs/mmbtu in the FY and that has a capacity of at least 400 MW. Smaller units with non-compliant FY emission rates will have their emission rates reduced to 0.2 lbs/mmbtu SO2.
3 Emission rate option
This scenario applies 90% or 98% control to any unit that will not meet 0.2 lbs/mmbtu in the FY and has an emission rate of more than 1.0 lbs/mmbtu SO2 in the FY. Units with an emission rate less than or
equal to 1.0 lbs/mmbtu SO2 in the FY will have 0.2 lbs/mmbtu SO2 applied if they do not already meet
that standard.4 Retirement
optionThis scenario retires any unit with a capacity of less than 350 MW that does not meet 0.2 lbs/mmbtu in the FY. Coal units with a capacity of at least 350 MW and not meeting 0.2 lbs/mmbtu in the FY will have a 30% reduction in SO2 applied in the FY. The 30% reduction in SO2 accounts for co-benefits
from HCl control strategies.5 Fuel switch
optionThis scenario switches any coal unit with a capacity of less than 350 MW that does not meet 0.2 lbs/mmbtu in the FY to natural gas. Units with a capacity of at least 350 MW and not meeting 0.2 lbs/mmbtu in the FY will have a 30% reduction in SO2 applied in the FY.
Base Year 2011
CONUS 2.0 2020
MATS 1 MATS 2 MATS 3 MATS 4 MATS 5 -
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
79,
681
52,
894
10,
698
8,1
59
9,5
02
36,
574
36,
577
17,
195
10,
159
10,
159
10,
159
10,
159
8,5
08
8,8
53
Facility Emissions
Facility SO2 Emissions Facility NOx Emissions
Tons
Per
Yea
r Of E
mis
sion
s
2011 BY
FY CONUS2.0MATS 1
MATS 2MATS 3
MATS4MATS5
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000
160,000,000
217,991
186,818
74,503
53,757
72,100
104,860
104,860
219,451 187,617
75,302
54,556
72,898
105,659
105,688
105,989
106,162
106,162
106,162
106,162
96,386
96,386
113,685
114,148
114,148
114,148
114,148
104,373
106,951
MATS and Reference Case Comparisons, One Region
Coal SO2, tons SO2, tons Coal NOx, tons NOx, tons Coal Gen, MW-hrs Gen, MW-hrs
Tons
of E
miss
ions
Gene
ratio
n in
MW
-hrs
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
billi
on k
ilow
attho
urs
Electricity Generation - Reliability First Corporation / EastAEO2013 Reference Case
Coal Petroleum
Natural Gas Nuclear
Pumped Storage/Other Renewables
Distributed Generation
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
billi
on k
ilow
attho
urs
Electricity Generation - Reliability First Corporation / EastAEO2013 Low Oil and Gas Resource
Coal Petroleum
Natural Gas Nuclear
Pumped Storage/Other Renewables
Distributed Generation
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
billi
on k
ilow
attho
urs
Electricity Generation - Reliability First Corporation / EastAEO2013 High Oil and Gas Resource
Coal Petroleum
Natural Gas Nuclear
Pumped Storage/Other Renewables
Distributed Generation
High Low Gas Growth Rate Sensitivity
• Compare potential future growth scenarios to see how emissions may differ between alternate growth in the exploration and development of natural gas.
• White Paper Available• Results Available in October
