ERTAC Electric Generation Units (EGU) Emissions Tool. Susan Wierman, Julie McDill, Susan McCusker MARAMA

Transcription

1 ERTAC Electric Generation Units (EGU) Emissions Tool Susan Wierman, Julie McDill, Susan McCusker MARAMA

2 Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee (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 Committee convened in 2009 Goal: Build a model to project future EGU emissions suited to state air quality planning Utility representatives provided guidance on model design and inputs 2

3 Why was ERTAC Needed? EGU emissions are important States often disagreed with EPA s EGU emissions forecast States needed a workable, affordable alternative to EPA s method 3

4 Source: EIA AEO 2006 EIA AEO 2017, Table 8 4

5 Source: EIA AEO 2006 EIA AEO 2017, Table 8 5

6 Challenges in Predicting EGU Emissions Fuel prices change, making coal or natural gas more economical Demand for electricity can change Economic growth v. downturn Energy conservation Power plants can be shut down or built in different locations Regional/state level constraints may differ from national trends 6

7 EPA Uses IPM to Model Future EGU Emissions Integrated Planning Model (IPM) Developed by ICF Consulting, Inc. A multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the U.S. electric power sector Provides forecasts of least-cost Capacity expansion Electricity dispatch Emission control strategies Meeting energy demand Environmental, transmission, dispatch, and reliability constraints 7

8 Past IPM Model Uses Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 2005 CSAPR Transport Rule (2011) and CSAPR Update (2016) Climate Change Legislative Proposals Multi-Pollutant Legislative Proposals Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) SIPs (EPA modeling for state use in the absence of other approvable modeling) 8

9 Reality Check: CAMD 2010 vs IPM CAIR 2010 New Jersey - SO2 Units Operating > 50% (2007) CAMD SO2 IPM SO , ,564 7,577 1,937 10,954 4,704 1, ,482 1, Tons/Yr Mercer B L England Hudson Deepwater Carneys Point Logan Linden Cogen Bergen Montclair Cogen 1,

10 Reality Check: CAMD 2010 vs IPM CAIR 2010 Virginia SO2 Units Operating >50% (2007) 35,000 32,440 CAMD IPM 30,000 25,000 27,700 25,050 20,000 19,932 21,259 17,902 Tons/Yr 15,000 14,210 10,000 11,288 10,274 7,741 8,418 6,765 5, ,346 3,157 1,075 1,951 1,219 1, ,374 2,559 1,702 2, , , , Chesterfield Clover Chesapeake Cogentrix Richmond Potomac River Yorktown Bremo Glen Lyn Mecklenburg Cogen Clinch River Cogentrix Hopewell Cogentrix Portsmouth LG&E Southampton SEI Birchwood LG&E Altavista LG&E Hopewell Possum Point 10

11 7,000 6,000 IPM Projection vs Reality in New York City 6,616 IPM CAMD (Reality) 5,000 4,000 Tons/Yr 3,000 2,000 1,306 1, NOx 0 SO2 11

12 Observations Regionally, IPM 2010 projections correlate well to EPA Clean Air Market Division s (CAMD s) 2010 actual emissions State by state and source by source, actual v. IPM predicted emissions vary significantly IPM tendencies Turned off most of the combustion turbines (per the NOx graphs) Mostly located in high ozone areas For NJ, these sources run 100% in peak ozone season (Jun-Aug) In NY, these units are essential for meeting peak demand Shut down residual oil units e.g., Possum Point and Yorktown in VA Roseton in NY Duel fuel units show gas-only operations, ignoring reliability rules Continued operating some units which actually did shut down 12

13 States Seek an IPM Alternative IPM doesn t accurately capture emissions actually occurring Location of emissions is very important in modeling/ attainment demonstration process IPM is not sensitive to local and episodic conditions IPM projections can be reasonable at the national level but not state-by-state and source-by-source level IPM is not transparent or reproducible IPM is a black box Does not provide the required level of clarity for CAA submittals IPM is proprietary software with a high price tag ~$15,000 per run MARAMA spent $68,000 for four runs used in previous regional haze and ozone planning IPM runs have a long turnaround time (months per run) 13

14 ERTAC Process as a Solution It s purpose is to coordinate emissions inventories needed for air quality modeling, and provide a technical- (not policy-) driven process for developing and improving emissions inventories Includes states, industry, and Independent System Operators Organizations (ISOs) ERTAC EGU Growth Committee depends on active participation from states for data collection 14

15 How Does ERTAC Work? Starting point: Base Year Hourly Continuous Emissions Monitor (CEM) data by region 2007 and 2011 CEM data developed as base years by ERTAC team from EPA data States provide info: new units, controls & other changes Regional growth rates Base (annual) US Energy Information Administration (EIA) report called Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) Peak North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Future hourly estimates based on base year activity Temporal profile matches meteorology 15

16 Peak GR = 1.07 Annual GR = 0.95 Growth Rates (GR) Transition hours of 200 & 2,000 Non Peak GR = (calculated) 16

17 Unit Level Hypothetical Example Coal Fired Existing Unit, 800 MW Growth in Generation Base Future 7000 MmBtu/hr Variations in growth rate CEM Hourly Base Year Data Calendar Hours 17

18 Hypothetical Unit Level Example Coal Fired Existing Unit, 800 MW SO2 Control Base Future Base Year lbs/hr Future Year lbs/hr Calendar Hours 18

19 How Does the ERTAC EGU Tool Work? Starting Points Base Year (BY) hourly continuous emissions monitor (CEM) data BY & FY unit activity matches meteorology More realistic SIP modeling Regional growth rates (GRs) EIA & NERC Information Supplied By States New units & retirements Controls, fuel-switches, other ERTAC EGU Tool Generates FY Hourly Estimates Regional unit capacity never exceeded Unmet demand applied to other units Generation deficit units (GDUs) created if demand exceeds system capacity Emissions Converted to SMOKE Format for Air Quality Modeling 19

20 ERTAC Forecast Updated Periodically Current projection - ERTAC EGU V 2.5L2 based on: 2011 base year inputs Known shutdowns/controls/new units as of August 2016 AEO 2015 High Oil and Gas & NERC 2014 Version 1.01 ERTAC EGU projection code Projections to multiple future years, including 2017, 2023 ERTAC EGU v2.5l2 posted on MARAMA website at 20

21 Implications for SIPs EPA accepts IPM forecasts States must document reasonableness of other methods EPA has not provided blanket approval of ERTAC ERTAC leadership briefs EPA (Clean Air Markets Division) and has made progress NY/NJ/CT SIPs for ozone will include documentation ERTAC depends on state participation and input! 21

22 Any questions or comments? 22