ertac egu growth model executive summary september 2012 1
TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
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
2020
SO2
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
2020
SO2
NOx
8
GA multi-polluttant rule.
Near 100% Scrubbed
SOUTH EAST USA2007 AND 2020
NOx
MIDWEST2007 AND
2020
SO2
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 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.
11
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.
12
ERTAC Contact InformationLADCO
◦Mark Janssen- [email protected]◦ John Welch - [email protected] ◦Robert Lopez - [email protected]
MARAMA/OTC◦ Julie McDill – [email protected]◦ Joe Jakuta - [email protected]◦Danny Wong – [email protected]
Metro 4/SESARM◦Doris Mcleod – [email protected]◦Lin Jin-sheng – [email protected]◦Beyong Kim – [email protected]
13