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
Review EGU workgroup charge: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SiR5UVt_8xIeNl5J42PDeQg0a6lBpVSmVbMDG0gOwX8/
Next meeting. Agenda to be posted later
- 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.
- 2016 beta, include all small EGUs for temporal allocation
createa spreadsheet that illustrates how EGUs are classified and temporally allocated (peaking, non-peaking, flat)
completeoutreach 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