LADCO EGU Inventory Development

LADCO EGU Inventory
Development
Mark Janssen – LADCO
janssen@ladco.org
Information Development & Flow
Growth Data:
EIA/AEO, NERC
FY Hourly Unit Level Activity
Projections (HI, Gload, NOx, SO2)
Hourly BY Unit Data: CAMD,
state staff
Virginia CO2
Postprocessor
FY Controls, Fuel Switches,
Retirements, New Units: State
staff (primary); input from
industry, other stakeholders
(secondary)
OTC SMOKE
Postprocessor
Enhanced Postprocessor for Annual Comparisons:
IPM, State Inventory Data, NEI
2
Annual SO2 (Tons): Coal, State
FUEL_TYPE
450,000
Sum of ERTAC_SO2
(tons) Sum of IPM_SO2 (Tons)
Values
Sum of ERTAC_SO2 (tons)
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
IPM and ERTAC show large differences
in SO2 emissions in many states.
In most cases, ERTAC showed higher SO2 emissions although it is not
always true.
Sum of IPM_SO2 (Tons)
2x-5x
Higher
SO2
emission
rates
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
AL
AR
AZ
CA
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
0
ST
3
LADCO/ERTAC EGU Timeline
• March 2015 – LAST ERTAC Comment period.
• LADCO builds 2.4L with updates from states, Used to respond to
Transport rule – December 2015
• March 4th – MATS Updates Due. LADCO Creates 2.4Lv2 with Updated
Growth rates to reflect current conditions.
• March 2016 – LADCO delivers early inventory for Ohio PM SIP.
• April 15th, ERTAC Comment period closes for stakeholders.
• ERTAC group releases milestone version 2.5 May 2016.
• Summer 2016. Version 2.6 of ERTAC released.
Near Term ERTAC Plans
• Summer Comment Period for Version 2.6
• July 20th call with stakeholders with early August Due Date for comments
• August 3rd States call with early September due date
• Gives more time for states to respond to stakeholder comments,
ERTAC will not include stakeholder comments until states approve.
• October/November release date of 2.6
• Include new AEO growth rates
• New source code(Inter-regional swaps, fewer Demand Deficit units)
• Add CSAPR budgets. That could be challenging in some states.
MATS Compliance Modeling
• EPA has assumed units will comply with MATS by meeting .20
LB/MMBTU SO2
• ERTAC has used less aggressive assumptions in past. This has included
20% reduction in SO2 rate for units where direct control data does
not exist.
• ERTAC asking for States/stakeholders to fill in attached sheet to clarify.
• Fill in last 3 columns with MATS Compliance status.
• Provide control information in column AK if data in AD does not
reflect compliance level. Show expected actual rate not permit limit.
• Email to janssen@ladco.org by March 4th.
MATS Compliance Spreadsheet(Ohio Example)
28376
Eastlake
OH oil
480
34
0.0037 0.0057 416
15,360
1,717
24,038
diesel oil
2836CT10 Avon Lake Power Plant OH oil
685
57
0.0005 0.0002 112
3,068
86
1,029
diesel oil
OH coal 729
1/1/19
50
1/1/19
73
1/1/19
50
1/1/19
75
1/1/19
68
1/1/20304
0.5000 5
0.5000
9
1/1/20304
0.5000 6
0.5000
11
1/1/20301
0.5001 0
0.5001
1
1/1/2030297 0.7945 346
0.7945
113
1/1/2030591 2.6541 669
2.6541
78
29179
Hamilton Municipal
Power Plant
69
0.1169 0.1362 70,796
746,565
82,510
870,092
coal
283610
Avon Lake Power Plant OH coal 1,131 89
0.0450 0.0508 35,093
445,649
39,669
503,757
coal
28781
Bay Shore
OH coal 1,880 147
1,113,66
0.8651 0.9000 7
14,247,334
1,158,64 14,822,70 petroleum
3
8
coke
1/1/19
55
2,57
1/1/20306 0.3617 2,681
0.3617
265
28281
Cardinal
OH coal 5,650 645
2,878,15
0.5096 0.5392 7
25,221,082
3,045,49 26,687,48
9
4
coal
1/1/19
67
3,16
1/1/20305 0.2510 3,349
0.2510
344
60312
Killen Station
OH coal 5,953 673
4,333,32
0.7346 0.9000 5
38,307,102
5,308,78 46,930,29
7
8
coal
1/1/19
82
7,72
1/1/20301 0.4031 9,459
0.4031
1,697
283612
Avon Lake Power Plant OH coal 6,040 731
2,655,69
0.4146 0.4810 9
21,935,452
3,081,12 25,449,39
7
0
coal
1/1/19
50
31,4
1/1/203049 2.8674 36,487 2.8674
2,609
Yes
MATS HCl Compliance
by Stack Test
State Recommended Update to 2018
SO2 Emission Rate (optional)
diesel oil
State Comment (optional)
18,604
State Supplied Information: Is Unit
Compliant? (Y/N)
930
FY OS NOx (tons)
16,679
FY Average Annual SO2 Rate
(lbs/mmbtu)
0.0034 0.0038 954
FY Annual SO2 (tons)
28
BY Average Annual SO2 Rate
(lbs/mmbtu)
561
BY Annual SO2 (tons)
OH oil
Retirement Date
Niles
Unit_Online_Start_date
Primary_Fuel_Type
Future year heat input (mmbtu)
Future year generation (MW-hrs)
Base year heat input (mmbtu)
Base year generation (MW-hrs)
FY Utilization fraction
BY Utilization fraction
Generation capacity (MW)
Maximum hourly heat input (mmbtu)
Fuel/Unit Type Bin
State
Facility
Unit ID
ORIS
2861CTA
Shutdowns in IPM/Transport Rule VS ERTAC
45000000
40000000
35000000
30000000
25000000
20000000
Sum of 2014 Ozone Season Heat Input (mmBtu)
Sum of ERTAC 2018 Heat Input
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
Sum of IPM 2018 Heat Input
Understanding the Difference Between IPM
and ERTAC
• IPM is a least cost economic model. It is attempting to find the least
cost solution for future year generation. It is important for EPA to
understand the future economic costs of control measures.
• ERTAC is a pattern duplicating projection tool that is designed to
create an emissions conservative projection of future year emissions
ready for CTM Models and State SIPS. It is important for states to be
able to justify controls and shutdowns they use in their SIPS.
• Those differences in approach largely explain the differences in
results.
Why do we care about differences?
• In the past EPA has defined budgets for transport rules based
current methods.
• Those budgets can result in “winners” and “losers” in
budgets where some states have a disproportionately
difficult budget.
• States still must meet those budgets regardless of equity.
• Cost to operate the models vary significantly, Proprietary pay per run vs maintain a standing committee. Would states
do this without ERTAC, It is likely that states would need last
minute runs for last minute changes.
#1 Transport Effects and 2023 Intercomparison of the using the different models.
• What do these differences say about use of the models in SIPS.
• Description of the differences
•
•
•
•
•
Emissions Mass
Air Quality
Location
Contribution Differences
Temporal Differences
• Questions:
• Are they likely to change contributions (i.e., “linkages”)
• Are they likely to change the DVs such that a monitor is no longer a receptor.
• Would the differences make it more or less likely a receptor could be resolved at a
lower cost threshold with fewer emission reductions?
2011168
2011170
2011172
2011174
2011176
2011178
2011180
2011182
2011184
2011186
2011188
2011190
2011192
2011194
2011196
2011198
2011200
2011202
2011204
2011206
2011208
2011210
2011212
2011214
2011216
2011218
2011220
2011222
2011224
2011226
2011228
2011230
2011232
2011234
2011236
2011238
2011240
2011242
2011244
2011246
2011248
2011250
2011252
2011254
2011256
2011258
2011260
2011262
2011264
2011266
2011268
NOX (moles/day)
Comparing IPM and ERTAC
1.20E+08
1.00E+08
8.00E+07
6.00E+07
IPM_TOTAL
ERTAC_TOTAL
4.00E+07
2.00E+07
0.00E+00
Julian Date
O3 Episode: July 16-20
O3 (ppm)
O3 Difference (ppm)
ERTAC
ERTAC - IPM
2011 - 2018 Reference Case
EPA with IPM
3
MARAMA with ERTAC
2011 & 2018 Reference Case Design Values (July
Only)
EPA with IPM
MARAMA with ERTAC
DV 2011 DV 2018
County
Site
Anne Arundel
Davidsonville
83
72.3
Baltimore
Padonia
79
70.8
Baltimore
Essex
80.7
74.3
Calvert
Calvert
79.7
72.3
66.8
Carroll
South Carroll
76.3
68.3
83
70
Cecil
Fair Hill
83
74.6
S.Maryland
79
66.9
Calvert
S.Maryland
79
70.4
Cambridge
Blackwater
75
65.1
Cambridge
Blackwater
75
67.3
Frederick
Frederick Airport
76.3
66.9
Frederick
Frederick Airport
76.3
68.1
Garrett
Piney Run
72
61.7
Harford
Edgewood
90
82.1
Harford
Aldino
79.3
70.7
Kent
Millington
78.7
70.5
Montgomery
Rockville
75.7
66.5
PG
HU-Beltsville
79
68.4
DV 2011 DV 2018
County
Site
Anne Arundel
Davidsonville
83
68.9
Baltimore
Padonia
79
68.2
Baltimore
Essex
80.7
69.4
Calvert
Calvert
79.7
68.8
Carroll
South Carroll
76.3
Cecil
Fair Hill
Calvert
Garrett
Piney Run
72
59.7
Harford
Edgewood
90
76
Harford
Aldino
79.3
66.1
Kent
Millington
78.7
65.7
Montgomery
Rockville
75.7
64.5
PG
HU-Beltsville
79
65.8
PG
PG Equest.
82.3
68.6
PG
PG Equest.
82.3
71.8
PG
Beltsville
80
66.4
PG
Beltsville
80
69.6
Washington
Hagerstown
72.7
63.1
Washington
Hagerstown
72.7
Baltimore City
Furley
73.7
63.5
Baltimore City
Furley
73.7
15
64.3
67.5
#2 Use of IPM and ERTAC in SIPS
• Clarify Existing Guidance and Documentation Requirements
• Background Material
• Model Inputs
• Standardized reports
• What should be done about unexpected Shutdowns/Controls in state SIPS.
• Rerun IPM?
• How can states/MJOs discuss problematic SIP requirements from Regions.
• Operational Constraints of using the two models, Run costs with IPM, Staff
training and costs with ERTAC.
• SIP impacts of optimistic or conservative results.
• How to model trading program “Budgets” (actual budget level, equalized
fuel/rate level, assurance levels, or ??)
#3 Modeling Controls Beyond OTB.
• How do both models include control scenarios
• How should CSAPR Budgets be modeled/evaluated
• Shutdowns that don’t happen?
• Controls that are not built.
• Trades and trading limits
• Attribute differences between control scenarios with ERTAC and IPM.
• How do economics change results of strategy modeling?
• Controls that force shutdowns
• Economies that reduce dependency on certain units, fuels, or states.
How the models include control scenarios
• IPM -
Control
Costs
• ERTAC
Generation
Costs
Economic
Model
Control
Scenario
Control
Requirements
Translated into
Economic/Budg
etary Terms
Control
Logic
MATS
Control
Logic
CSAPR
Control
Logic
SCR
Operation
External
Logic Tools
UAF
or
ERTAC
Control
ERTAC
Model
Control
Scenario
#4 Using models to build budgets
• What are the problems of creating budgets with the two tools.
• How do we minimize discontinuity and inequity in budgets.
• What are the elements of existing budgetary methodologies that
cause problems and how to minimize them.
• Critique the process before future budgets are released because after
release conversation is pitting winners against losers in the economic
simulation that resulted in that budget.