- 1. Members
- 2. EGU Workgroup Meetings
Adel Alsharafi (MO), Leon Ashford (OK), Marie Barnes (NY), Deb Basnight (GA), Carla Bedenbaugh (SC), Chris Beekman (OH), Molly Birnbaum (AK), Randy Bordner (PA), Hassan Bouchareb (MN), George Bowker (EPA), Emily Bull (MD), Yu-Lien Chu (WI), Rory Davis (IL), Barry Exum (TX), Alison Eyth (EPA), Caroline Farkas (EPA), Paula Hemmer (NC), Craig Henrikson (MT), Roslyn Higgin (NM), Anne Jackson (MN), Wendy Jacobs (CT), Mark Jones (NM), Serpil Kayin (EPA), Byeong-Uk Kim (GA), Steve Lachance (MI), Adam Lewis (NJ), Jon Loftus (WI), Doris McLeod (VA), Jeremy Neustifter (CO), Ona Papageorgiou (NY), Leslie Poff (KY), Andy Russo (IL), Ken Santlal (MA), Tom Shanley (MI), Eric Svingen (EPA), Curtis Taipale (CO), Sylvia Vanderspek (CA), John Welch (IN), Anna Wood (AL), Ming Xie (NC) Alanna Keller (WV)
Held the 4th Thursday of the month at 2:00 p.m. Eastern.
Registration URL: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/8065226041339649027
EGU workgroup charge: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SiR5UVt_8xIeNl5J42PDeQg0a6lBpVSmVbMDG0gOwX8/
1. Update on retirement date comparison:
- Wendy gave an update that NV had given some feedback on retirement dates which were incorporated into the RedYellowBlueLavERPAERTACRetatfeedkback4.xlsx spreadsheet posted here: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/v1/reports/EGU/RedYellowBlueLavEPAERTACRetstatfeedback4.xlsx
- Jeremy said that EPA incorporated many of the updated dates into the IPM modeling after
checkingwith other data sources (e.g. EIA 860). Jeremy updated version 2 of the spreadsheet with EPA feedback. A few updates were received since the v2. These are being reviewed now for consideration in a future of NEEDS/IPM. For more info, see ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/v1/reports/EGU/RedYellowBlueLavEPAERTACRetstatfeedback2%20with%20EPA%20action&responses.xlsx
- Southeast growth update run is available and will be provided to the collaborative site. A group is working on developing ERTAC training for sometime in June and later dates.
- Julie and Alison are working on how to provide the ERTAC inventories for use in the platform. More on this next month.
3. EPA Update
- Alison reminded folks that any comments on the beta platform are due by May 31. For EGUs this could be emissions updates (base or future), CEMS / NEEDS matches, or temporal profile assignments.
- EPA is working on the May 2019 reference case that incorporates recent updates from retirements, a new NEEDS, and a new PM postprocessing methodology
- EPA plans to post this reference case on the power sector modeling web site including unit-level results for 2023 and 2030 in June: https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/clean-air-markets-power-sector-modeling
- Current IPM 2030 year is more reflective of 2028 to facilitate use for regional haze. Any retirements after 2028 pushed to later model output year after 2030. Note that IPM doesn't run every year and multiple actual years are mapped to specific IPM output years.
- PM methodology updates: found some gaps in the emission factors used in IPM vs actual base year data. The method has been updated to make PM emissions more in sync with the base year.
- Updates to NEEDS: 16GW retirements mostly by 2022; 35GW of new committed capacity; added back unretired inputs
- Updated scrubbed coal units with FGDs and SO2 removal efficiencies
- Implemented storage mandates by CA, MA, and NY
- Modeled the recent NJ ZEC bill.
- Results: Slightly lower SO2 and NOx nationally; remaining coal capacity is lower; NG, solar and wind higher but state by state results vary
1. EPA Update (Alison)
We reviewed the fact that CEMS data are not necessarily the same as what is in the inventory file. The modeling will use the CEMS data over the inventory. A summary of the CEMS units vs the 2016 inventory data are available here: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/beta/reports/EGU/2016b_cems_egu_comparison_11apr2019.xlsx If a unit is known to be a partial year reporter, the difference between the inventory and the total of CEMS data is computed and those emissions are allocated to months in which the CEMS are not reporting.
2. ERTAC Update
Wendy Jacobs has been collecting state comments on the units that showed differences between IPM and ERTAC in terms of retirement dates. Her latest version as of May 1 is here: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/beta/reports/EGU/RedYellowBlueLavEPAERTACRetstatfeedback3.xlsx
1. EPA Update (Alison and Serpil)
a. EPA has updated its Power Sector Modeling Website with the latest IPM projections (IPM v6 November 2018 Reference Case). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/clean-air-markets-power-sector-modeling
b. EPA will be giving an IPM v6 November 2018 Reference Case Webinar on 04/04/2019 2:00 PM Join webinar: https://epawebconferencing.acms.com/ipmv6webinar/
c. Data gap filling and temporal allocation work - see slides at ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/beta/reports/EGU/2016%20EGU%20call_032819.pptx
Also, see these additional products related to EGU temporal profiles:
- Spreadsheet by state and county and plots of all IPM summer EGU emissions by state: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/beta/reports/EGU/2016beta_EGU_summer_emissions.zip
- Spreadsheet by state and county plus plots of IPM non-CEMS emissions by state and how they are mapped to the various profiles by fuel and peaking / non-peaking: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/beta/reports/EGU/2016beta_EGU_noncems_summer_emissions.zip
- IPM Units remapped to use region fuel-specific profiles (these can be peaking or non-peaking): ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/beta/reports/EGU/2030_IPM_EGUs_Over_Historic_Max_ss_and_plots.zip
2. ERTAC Update (Julie & Emily & Wendy)
a. Plans for v16.0 and v16.1 and timing:
Currently working on minor revisions to SE growth factors, base and future year runs to be finalized Summer 2019 for the Collaborative v1 platform release.
v16.1: development in Summer/Fall 2019, will include all updated growth factors, shutdowns, and controls and a state outreach.
b. ERTAC EGU training:
Planning is underway to develop a series of training webinars for the current version of the ERTAC EGU tool. The series will cover installing and running the tool and reviewing and troubleshooting results, as well as detailed background information on developing inputs, including growth factor calculations.
c. Analysis showed retirement date differences between ERTAC EGU and IPM – workgroup will coordinate to come to a common understanding of what is retiring when.
3. Ongoing Work:
Splitting the EGU/nonEGU point source inventory to support use of ERTAC EGU and reviewing the sources: Since the universe of IPM and ERTAC EGU sources are not identical, work is being done to re-categorize some point sources for inclusion in the ERTAC EGU version of the 2016 v1 platform. The affected sectors are egucems, egunoncems, and nonegu, which are mapped to ERTAC EGU, small EGU and nonegu (ERTAC EGU platform). The draft split is complete and the chart below summarizes the mapping between the two platforms. Questions remain about the possibility of double counting emissions from noncems/small EGU sources that may also be reflected in the nonpoint sector, and a further review of these sources is suggested.
1. EPA status update (Alison)
2. ERTAC Status update (Julie)
3. IPM v6 results presentation] and ERTAC/IPM projection comparisons (Serpil & Jeremy):
4. Temporalization & Spilt (Emily and Susan)
5. Work to be done and topics for the Next Call (3/28)
1. EPA status update (Alison)
EPA has been working on:
- Documentation of 2016 inventory and temporal profiles - to be included with the beta platform release
- Filling in missing pollutants for new types of sources output from IPM (e.g., MWCs)
- Working on developing temporal profile approach for future years
More information on filling in of pollutants and temporal profiles will be shared on the March call.
2. Presentation IPM v6 results and ERTAC/IPM comparisons (Serpil and Jeremy)
- Spreadsheet: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/Air/emismod/2016/beta/reports/EGU/egu_2016_2023_2030_ertac_28feb2019.xlsx
- Result viewer: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/beta/reports/EGU/Multi_Model_Viewer_IPMv6_Nov_2018_Ref_ERTACv16_0.xlsm
- The presentation shows some of the key drivers impacting the IPM results and changes to generation in IPM v6. The original v6 information is here: https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/results-using-epas-power-sector-modeling-platform-v6
- New information has been incorporated since the May version (e.g., Tax reform bill, emissions updates in CA)
- Information on projected consumption and generation is included
- High-level comparisons of base year 2016, IPM, and ERTAC are shown. ERTAC emissions are higher than IPM.
- Serpil gave a high-level review of the spreadsheet mentioned in the agenda: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/Air/emismod/2016/beta/reports/EGU/egu_2016_2023_2030_ertac_28feb2019.xlsx For example, units running in IPM and not in ERTAC, units running in ERTAC and not in IPM, the state total emissions, the county pivot, and the detailed data tab
- Jeremy showed results from the results viewer to help compare the IPM and ERTAC scenarios at various levels of detail. Some states are much closer between the models than others - shown both as a chart and on a map for generation and emissions.
- Byeong mentions that AEO 2019 is out. It would be interesting to look at it. Serpil says they briefly looked at it and doesn't seem much different - Julie confirmed especially wrt to the high oil and gas from AEO 2018.
3. ERTAC updates (Julie)
- Julie says they plan to use the existing results in beta and v1.
- Susan - Emily worked on splits and Susan applied these. Small EGUs came from the EGU non-cems file; some others went to non-EGU and small EGU. ERTAC units came from EGU-CEMS. There is a diagram showing how the point sources are split in the EPA platform vs the ERTAC platform.
- ERTAC platform sectors will be used in place of IPM sectors when modeling with ERTAC. Some documentation on how to model with ERTAC will be provided in the ERTAC document.
- The ERTAC SMOKE-ready files are here: https://marama.sharefile.com/d-s9020554daa149ea9
4. Base Year Temporalization
- Emily provided a spreadsheet, every source in both egu and nonegu point files, added
a. a column for EPA file – egu CEMS / egu nonCEM / nonegu
b. a column for ERTAC - ERTAC / small egu/ point nonegu
Susan used a database query to split the actual inventory files. Compared small EGU with Alison’s temporalization sheet. Most were in Alison’s temporalization (only 50 that were not there)
- Will be working on some updates for 2016v1. Beta is already finished.
5. How to follow up on units that differ?
- Maybe a small group can review the units in the two lists - e.g., the oil units in northeast
6. Outreach for CAMD data collaboration
- Serpil had asked for volunteers with a new effort to review their data systems and received many. Thank you for your participation.
- Comparisons/summaries of IPM & ERTAC results (Jeremy)
- Create new outputs from additional source categories in the FF10 files (Alison)
- Check with management on IPM results outreach (Serpil)
- Look at AEO2019 & update growth as needed (growth workgroup)
Inventory splitting (Alison, Emily, Susan)
- Match 270 ERTAC units that couldn’t be matched by EIS
- Tag units as ERTAC and/or IPM, cems/non-cems, small EGU
- Use ERTAC EGU annual unit output summary file (sent by Doris) to find ERTAC units
- Note that nonEGUs in the file report to CAMD but states choose not to temporalize as EGUs
Small EGU temporalization
MDE developed temporal profiles for 2011 platform and worked with EPA in Fall 2018 to update the profiles for the 2016 inventory
- Make additional (expect minor) updates to temporal profiles from Fall 2018
- Compare updated MDE/EPA profiles to profiles developed for an OTC modeling effort (Joseph)
- Circulate temporalizations for State comment (Done for Midwest? Need to do for Northeast. Other regions?)
The group met to discuss the status of IPM, ERTAC, and cross referencing. The team reviewed how peaking non-CEMS units were defined. ERTAC has been run for 2020, 2023, and 2028 and results are being reviewed. ERTAC will host outreach sessions in late January. IPM has been run and parsed for 2023 and 2030. Temporal profiles have been developed and applied for the base year modeling.
- Review temporal profiles to be used for EGU sources without CEMS: annual to day of year, diurnal, co-gens and MWCs
- Status of projections with ERTAC
- Status of projections with IPM
0. The issue of EGU temporal profiles for Alaska (and other non-ConUS areas) was raised. Currently EGUs in these areas would receive default profiles according to their SCCs. It's unclear exactly what type of profiles would be appropriate. It would be possible to create national average profiles, but the weather and daylight differences in the non-ConUS areas may not make those profiles appropriate for use in the outlying areas. More work on this is needed.
1. Alison reviewed the method used to derive and apply peaking and non-peaking temporal profiles. Documentation is here: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/beta/reports/EGU/2016beta_EGU_temporal_approach102518.pdf
In short, peaking and non-peaking daily and diurnal temporal profiles were derived for coal, gas, oil, and other fuel types for eight regions across the continental U.S.. The thresholds for splitting out peaking units were the same as specified in previous MARAMA and EPA documentation. The profiles were assigned to EGUs without CEMS which were split into peaking and non-peaking according to SCC and NAICS. The specific assignments can be seen in the spreadsheet within the zip file located here: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/beta/reports/EGU/smallegu_2016_profile_assignments_18oct2018.zip
To use the zip file, download it and unzip it to you local hard drive. A spreadsheet is included that has a list of units without CEMS data and links to the profiles currently assigned to those units according to the method described in the documentation. Mark Janssen raised some concerns about peaking coal profiles being assigned to sources that operate most of the year to provide steam to cities and will catch up with his states to remedy those. It was suggested that if operating hours are > 1750 then the unit should not be classified as peaking.
If states have concerns with any of the assignments and would prefer alternative assignments to be used in the beta version, comments need to be received by November 7, 2019. Comments received after that would be incorporated into version 1.0 of the platform. States should place alternative daily profiles to use in Column AC and alternative diurnal profiles in column AD of the 2016beta tab. Please do not fill in profiles in cells for which you are not changing the current assignment.
2. Julie gave an update that they are working on a new 2020 output from ERTAC, but that 2023 and 2028 are looking good. Data should be available by mid-November.
3. Serpil gave an update that EPA is working on a run, but outputs will need to be reviewed before they can be released. The timing for the release is unclear. Julie would like to compare IPM outputs to ERTAC once the results are available. Serpil will send Julie the list of recent retirements so that Julie can double check that they are accounted for in ERTAC.
- Review status of cross reference to support splits in base year and future year modeling with ERTAC and IPM
- Review temporal profiles to be used for EGU sources without CEMS: annual to day of year, diurnal, co-gens and MWCs
- Status of projections with ERTAC
- Status of projections with IPM
1. Alison reviewed the status of the cross reference. The EPA and ERTAC versions have been finalized. The latest global cross reference is here: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/beta/reports/needs_xref_2016_24Sep2018.xlsx
2. Alison covered that IPM projections are being worked on and should be made available for beta, but exact timing is uncertain. The EPA slides are here.
3. Julie mentioned that future year ERTAC emissions for 2023 and 2028 should be available for the beta by November, and there may be a 2020 inventory developed for 2016 platform version 1. ERTAC group will provide EPA a list of units in each of their sectors for splitting out from the full point inventory. Units in these sectors are similar to but not the same as those in the EPA EGU-CEMS, EGU-noCEMS, pt_oilgas (this is the same in both platforms), and pt_nonipm sectors.
4. Hannah described efforts to derive temporal profiles for EGUs without CEMS data. The covered slides are here.
Their goal is to create hourly emissions in flat files. To do this, they created 2016 daily profiles based on CEMS data from peaking units. Peaking EGUs were identified in the 2016 platform using the definition from the 2011v6.1 platform.
Create profiles for MANE-VU+VA, LADCO, SESARM, CenSARA,and WESTAR. Included WESTAR this time, where last time it was excluded due to being outside the domain. The number of peaking units in each region / fuel bin was shown. Saw different behavior for 2016 as compared to 2011. For 2011, had gotten data from 30 units for 2011 for comparison to profiles.
For hourly emissions, MARAMA used operation 10AM-8PM but EPA used profiles derived from behavior of non-peaking EGUs. MDE units showed they only operated for short periods so would be inappropriate for allocation to nighttime hours. EPA sent 2016 profiles derived for the same RPO-based regions (see Hannah's presentation). The difference in treatment of peaking between EPA and MARAMA modeling was noted (EPA excluded the peaking type units while MARAMA used only peaking). In the future, we might instead want to include all units or we may want three profile types: peaking, non-peaking, and flat.
Note that in EPA's profiles the "other" category includes various types of sources - we may want to look instead at what the unit really does to derive the profile since if it's a co-gen could have different profiles (although EPA specifically assigns cogens to use flat profiles). Not many co-gens have CEMS to include in derived profiles. We may also want to consider NAICS code and reported hours per year.
Mark Janssen suggested a spreadsheet with the most critical ones to get right get feedback from states on these. Basically ask if the provided profiles are appropriate for the units and if not, what would be. For example: send out a full list of units, and a feedback form for states, but do this after the beta version. For example, aluminum foundries in Indiana that sell power to grid - stop making on hot days and send to grid [would have flat emission profils and peaking in terms of power sold to grid] NAICS could would likely be aluminum foundry. Note that MARAMA only included units with NAICS codes for EGUs that were not matched to CAMD CEMS.
A small list of small units do report to CAMD in NYC. Note that peaking units are a f(weather) and were used a lot in summer 2011. State confirmation of small EGUs is key - they may be small on an annual basis, but run on hot days. MDE included unconfirmed units identified based on NAICS and SCCs. Some of these have larger emisisons.
- For 2016 beta, determine temporal allocation for small EGUs
- Create a spreadsheet that illustrates how EGUs are classified and temporally allocated (peaking, non-peaking, flat)
- Complete outreach prior to next call
The August EGU workgroup call is cancelled due to schedule conflicts.
Notes in lieu of meeting
- EPA prepared a global cross reference between NEI, ERTAC, and NEEDS IDs along with other fields about temporal allocation and plant type. Versions were delivered August 3 and August 27
- Some additional updates to cross reference are expected in September
- In mid-August, MDE sent some additional matches that would need to be folded in to EIS and the global cross reference
- MDE also reviewed small EGUs that used peaking profiles in the 2011 platform as compared to the new platform; EPA is reviewing the larger sources on this list to determine updates from 2011-2016 such as closures, etc
- A small group is working on inventory matching and temporal allocation for sources with non-EGUs. This group will have another call in early September.
- MWCs and co-gens have flat temporal allocation in the EPA platform
- ERTAC and EPA are working on future year emissions for 2023 and 2028
The July EGU workgroup call is Cancelled.
A small technical group will meet to discuss finalization of the NEEDS-NEI-ERTAC crosswalk and how to facilitate modeling with both ERTAC and IPM based on the same point source inventory, along with methods for temporal allocation of small EGUs regardless of which EGU model is used. The group will report back to the larger EGU workgroup at a future meeting.
1. Status update on the National Inventory Collaborative & development 2016 point source inventory
- The June point emissions by state are posted along with facility-level comparisons of various inventory versions, an EGU fuel use summary, and a spreadsheet of EGU SCCs in the non-EGU inventory: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/Air/emismod/2016/beta/draft_emissions/point/
- Data is also available for review in EIS.
- Any final updates for the beta version base year inventory should be provided by the end of July
- EPA will work on a NEEDS to NEI parameter crosswalk needed to prepare flat files from IPM, and it will also contain information about modeled ERTAC units. A technical group will meet a about the application of this crosswalk in late July.
2. EPA’s Power Sector Modeling with IPM v6 cases —Serpil
3. Update from MD on development of 2016 crosswalk
- The matching is over 99% complete. Emily sent a version of the ERTAC list of units in mid-June. It is expected that matching will be finalized by the end of July.
4. Update on ERTAC EGU development – outreach webinars were held on June 26 & 27 (identical sessions)
1. Status update on the National Inventory Collaborative
2. Update from Ron Ryan concerning development 2016 point source inventory - Edits from S/Ls received as of Thurs 5/17 and are ahead of schedule to produce a final 2016 point inventory in EIS for your review or use likely by June 6.
3. Update from MD on development of 2016 crosswalk: MD is down to the last 50 or so matches. These are ones where we didn't have entries in our crosswalk, but Ron Ryan did.
4. Issues with 2016 point source FF10s – Differences between CEM and state reported NOX and SO2 emissions. Additional plans for QA? Will this be corrected by Ron Ryan’s revised point sources or are there additional QA steps needed?
5. Update on ERTAC EGU development.
6. Timeline for 2016 EGU and projections development
- EPA QA of 2016 pt emissions
- MD crosswalk development
- The crosswalk does not require state review or feedback.
- ERTAC EGU – State Outreach in June, New version in Sep/Oct.
7. This workgroup meets monthly on the 4th Thursday @ 2PM Eastern / 1PM Cen / Noon Mtn / 11AM PAC. Upcoming sessions:
- Thu, Jun 28, 2018 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM EDT
- Thu, Jul 26, 2018 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM EDT
3. Update from MD on development of 2016 crosswalk:
• MD is down to the last 50 or so matches. These are ones where we didn't have entries in our crosswalk, but Ron Ryan did. It's been taking a really long time to do these (mind you I started with 530 of them) because I want to make sure we're assigning the right EIS IDs from Ron's crosswalk to the units in ours. I've been comparing NOx from multiple NEI years to make sure we've got the right ones. Anyone that doesn't match within +/-10% confidence needs additional data points before I would say they're matched. I've been doing that by comparing addresses/coordinates or anything else I can find. So far, I've been able to accept most of Ron's entries. But I have a handful where he has the right facility ID, but the wrong unit ID. I also have some where the EIS ID's he's provided don't match any NEI entry, nor does a NEI search of that facility produce any results. If we don't get these matched, they will be double counted (once in ERTAC or IPM and once in SmallEGU/nonEGU when they do the split - because they don't match).
• Once I finish these last 100 matches, I'll fold the changes into our crosswalk and then send the list of problematic units back to Ron/Alison to help figure out. – Probably 2 weeks or more.
1. Updated from MD and Ron Ryan (EPA) of development of 2016 crosswalk
2. Discussion of source groupings (ERTAC EGU leadership)
3. Timeline for 2016 EGU sector
4. Small EGU temporalization for 2011 platform - MD Click here for Presentation
5. Power sector modeling workshop (Serpil)
Item 1. Update on crosswalk development.
Once complete the crosswalk will allow us to convert: From: EPA system: IPM / NonIPM EGU / NonEGU Pt To: ERTAC system: ERTAC EGU / Small EGU / NonEGU Pt.
Sectorized files (EGU, non-EGU, pt_oilgas) by state are here and should load into Excel at: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/alpha/2016fd/emissions/point/
Summary files to help categorize sources into sectors are here: ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2016/alpha/2016fd/reports/point/
Item 2. Discussion of source groupings (ERTAC EGU leadership)
Here are some flags for discussion that might be useful in the inventory to facilitate the use of alternative growth methodologies like ERTAC or the application of temporal profiles.
- ERTAC EGU units-units grown and temporalized using ERTAC EGU tool.
- Small EGUs- units that do not report to CAMD and are not grown by the ERTAC EGU tool but the application of a load following temporal profile may be appropriate. Concept based on MDE's work.
- NonEGU CAMD units: A. NBTP units: these units report to CAMD for at least the ozone season but are not EGUs (> 250 mmbtu/hr fossil fuel fired units under the NBTP, for example). Modelers may want to use a temporal profile during the summer months based on reported activity or emissions in 2016. (Example - large steam providers at kraft mills, pharmaceutical companies, etc) B. Units converted from coal to biomass: These units report to CAMD but burn biomass, and therefore the ERTAC EGU tool does not currently have the ability to project these units. However, states may wish to use the BY temporal profile from CAMD 2016 data in the FY for modeling purposes as these units are generally load following and the data is readily available.
- Municipal solid waste combustion-these units, when classified as "large," have CEMs but do not report to CAMD. These units burn primarily MSW. While their profiles may not be typically load following, CEM data may allow states or regions to assign specific or regional profiles appropriate for the category. They sometimes have significant emissions.
- IPM- for those units that could be projected using IPM, in a situation where a region or state wishes to rely on those data.
Note: if you want to use EPA inputs, you will need to use IPM, you cannot mix and match
1. Status update on the National Inventory Collaborative
2. Generating Flat File Reports for Specific Regions in the Emissions Inventory System
3. Discussion of frame work for developing a cross-walk between various EGU inventories
4. Charge/plan for work for the next few weeks
5. Next call
Adel Alsharafi, Leon Ashford, Marie Barnes, Christopher Beekman, Molly Birnbaum, James Boylan, Teri Buck, Emily Bull, Alexandra Caluseriu, Yu-Lien Chu, Rory Davis, Robyn DeYoung, Erich Eschmann, Barry Exum, Alison Eyth, Paula Hemmer, Craig Henrikson, Roslyn Higgin, John Hornback, Stephanie Huber, Anne Jackson, Wendy Jacobs, Mark Janssen, Mark Jones, Serpil Kayin, Byeong-Uk Kim, Steve Lachance, Jeremy Mark, Doris Mcleod, Tom Moore, Jeremy Neustifter, Leslie Poff, Tom Richardson, Ken Santlal, Tom Shanley, Eric Svingen, Mark Wert, John Welch, Anna Wood, Carla Bedenbaugh, Randy Bordner, Ron Ryan, Ming Xie, Deborah Basnight, George Bowker, Caroline Farkas, Joseph Jakuta, Ona Papageorgiou, Curtis Taipale, Andrew Russo
1. Overview of 2016 platform process - Alison
2. Development of 2016 base year emissions – Alison
3. Crosswalk & Redistribution of point sources to accommodate use of either EPA or ERTAC EGU files – Julie
4. Use of 2016 data in EPA projections - Serpil
5. Introduction to ERTAC EGU inventory development - Julie
6. Outline of proposed plan/next steps for 2016 EGU emissions
- Alison Eyth (EPA OAQPS) presented on The 2016 platform process, 2016 point sources, and EGU temporal allocation
- Serpil Kayin (EPA OAP) presented on recent and upcoming approaches to EPA's power sector projections
- Julie McDill gave an Introduction to ERTAC EGU
- Members should review the EGU Workgroup Charge
- Co-leads to develop a plan for members to review the crosswalk needed to separate EGUs from non-EGUs
- EPA to develop the draft 2016 point inventory by the end of March, 2018
Next Call: March 22, 2018 2PM Eastern