Not logged in - Login
< back

EGU Task Force

Contents [hide]

2022 Emissions Modeling Platform Wiki Main Page

Projections page

EGU Task Force / National Workgroup

Co-leads: Susan McCusker, Alison Eyth

Resources

Meetings

National EGU Meeting 12/14/2023

Note ERTAC call will happen tomorrow 12/15

File structure for point sources

  • EGU: part75EGU, ptEGUother – is there a data element that would make the disaggregation easier? A: there ORIS_BOILER is filled in for one and not the other
  • nonEGU: part75nonEGU, ptnonEGU – would need to coordinate more closely on the matching of the sources for non-EGUs

Cemconvert

  • Includes tool to fetch the new format CEMS
  • Can prepare analytic year inventories for use in SMOKE
  • There were a few lingering issues with the FY temporal profiles and plotting that are external to the tool. Temporal profile generation tools are not part of the package.
  • Fully incorporates functions of CEMCorrect
  • Available with examples on github: https://github.com/USEPA/CEMConvert
  • The ERTAC team found some good things on these – hourly values replace what’s in the FF10
  • this may cause discrepancies with the NEI data and this will need to be discussed – check for 2021
  • The QA spreadsheet and log files will be useful
  • Could we add an output to CEMConvert? this would help for ERTAC integration – see Jin’s slides for more info on the format.
    • A: Yes we should be able to. Jin will send example file.
  • Noting that a year-specific FF10 is needed to try CEMConvert – what if you don’t have the whole year? They want to be able to run CEMConvert to get the log file, but don’t need the output in the FF10 formats (sort of like running CEMCorrect standalone)
  • An option is to use a prior year annual data file instead of the specific year – this ignores units that weren’t in the annual file. This helps if there isn’t a new FF10 available for the year you are trying to model.

Latitude and Longitude – how to make them consistent between CAMD and EIS

  • CAMD also has a set of location data – can be differences up to 50km – there are lat-lons reported by the facilities; [Michael Cohen] It is possible to ask them to contact the utility to update it. Have been checked in Google Earth by an intern at some point.
  • For IPM, they use the file that OAQPS provides (not the CAMD lat-lons from facilities)
  • When might be a good time to review these data? A: Once the draft 2022 file is available – early February

NonEGU CEMS

  • There initially were some matching issues that got resolved. I think that mostly it got pushed back in favor of other priorities.
  • See e-mail from March that points to plots of 2020 nonEGU CEMS. The profiles in general did not have a very smooth shape.
  • nonEGU inventories can be created using CEMConvert. That is one of the reasons the tool was developed.
  • See MEADVACO – may have retired – EPA used a flat profile and ERTAC had preserved those. Some units only report during summer months. They get the base year heat input from states, subtract out the heat input from the reported data and allocates it as appropriate for the reporting period then uniformly distributes the data to the rest of the year in a flat way.
  • Westrock-Covington are ‘non-EGUs’ although they can occasionally supply power to the grid.
  • EPA did an early analysis of these data – Alison showed a few example plots.
  • VA crafts mills – take units down for maintenance for 2-4 weeks every 2 years or so.
  • ERTAC group already includes non-EGU CEMS in their modeling results [a difference between the methods]
  • Next step: EPA will attempt to use the non-EGU CEMS in 2021 platform as a trial run and report back after we’ve done this

Temporal patterns changing between base and analytic years

  • e.g. peaking units vs other - noting that the peaking unit aspect is preserved by ERTAC. Germantown WI #6253 is the example. Some units get switched in EPA platform to use the regional profiles for peaking or non-peaking.

Crosswalk

  • There are many to one and one to many matches
  • Would be helpful to confirm / update the crosswalk with the latest 2022 and latest NEEDS – the ERTAC tool uses the ORIS IDs from CAMD
  • George notes that they’ve been working to match up with EGrid lat-lons – they were able to identify some lat-lon for all facilities with a hierarchy for the source of the lat-lon
  • There is a CAMD ID to connect to boiler (in NEEDS) for combined cycles / CTs it’s more complex. Start with what NEEDS had.
  • eGrid has EIA lat-lon at facility-level
  • https://www.epa.gov/power-sector/power-sector-data-crosswalk
  • https://www.epa.gov/egrid/egrid-related-materials#eGRID%20PM2.5
  • Next step: review this once we have the draft point file in early February – and hopefully the winter 2024 version of NEEDS

Partial year reporters

  • Nothing is done with them at this time, the last couple of times we did the analysis (2018 and 2019) no units met the criteria of:
    • (Annual inventory NOx – Annual CEMS NOx) > 50 tons
    • CEMS Summer NOx > 0
    • CEMS Winter NOx = 0
    • Total months reported to CAMD
  • Most units that matched some of the criteria were either EIS/ORIS multi-matches or units that shut down partway through the year
  • Some non-EGU sources are partial-year reporters – need to consider how temporal profiles differ between the systems.

CAMD data updates

  • Data can be updated on CAMD website at most any time – ask CAMD about the policies on next EGU call
  • EPA should record the pull date / data used for v1

ERTAC is planning an outreach at end of January for participating states

  • This could be shared with EPA, although we may not have time to wade through in detail, it will be helpful to know about significant updates

Q: how will we handle emissions projections for non-EGUs subject to the good neighbor FIP?

  • Will states be able to tell ERTAC / EPA about how units are expected to respond?
  • Maybe ERTAC could ask for all information? Is there anything in ERTAC outreach that could help facilitate data sharing
  • They will be definitely asking about expected changes for units included in the ERTAC tool – although there will be others
  • Not sure the best way to get the information for other FIP units – e.g. list of applicable units (EIS unit ID) – ozone season NOx reduction, possibly a percent reduction from 2022 emissions levels
  • Note that for 2038 – states need to work on regional haze SIPs – the four factor analyses take a long time, so even the current schedule is tight

Quotes in comment field? – does SMOKE care if there are semicolons or ampersands? Could double quotes and elipses (…) were causing problems – when there is a quotation within the text is a problem

Kickoff Meeting 11/30/2023

Agenda

  • Identify scope of this task force vs National EGU WG
  • Review methods for 2022 inventory development
    • EGU with CEMS hourly data
    • EGUs without CEMS data (small or other EGUs)
    • Non-EGUs with CEMS - these have hourly data but haven't been used in EPA platforms
  • Discuss file structure to accommodate EPA ptegu and ERTAC ptertac platform choice
  • Discuss methods for projecting 2022 to the analytic years
    • EGUs with CEMS, EGUs without CEMS data, nonEGUs with CEMS [with ERTAC and IPM]
  • How can we manage / warehouse review materials
  • Recommend topics for this task force vs EGU workgroup
  • Schedule standing monthly calls [or use existing EGU workgroup calls 4th Thursday at 2 Eastern?]

Notes

1. Identify scope of this vs national WG

Monthly calls would be helpful to coordinate with ERTAC group, could be on 4th Thursday 2 Eastern regular EGU WG meeting.

Are municipal waste combustors (MWCs) covered in this? YES

2. Current methods for EGU emissions modeling

Non-EGUs with CEMS: Plan to discuss at the next EGU WG call – will discuss at this call how EPA has been handling vs how ERTAC has handled

ACTION: Crosswalk between NEEDS, NEI, ERTAC (uses ORIS = CAMD IDs) needs to be updated for 2022 platform

EGUs without CEMS – consider how these are projected and temporally allocated / assigned to peaking and non-peaking profiles – good to circle back to this

3. File structure to accommodate EPA ptegu and ERTAC ptertac platform choice

File structure for EPA / ERTAC platform choices – ERTAC universe of units is mostly the same as ptegu but not exactly the same. Doris suggested a structure that has EGU / non-EGU + reporting to CAMD / not reporting to CAMD. Perhaps ptegu_other, and ptnonegu

  • ERTAC modelers would like to remove projection data done by IPM and replace with ERTAC data

  • It would help them if the file structure is a bit more granular – this would be easier when there are units that use general profiles

  • They would like to see a file that has the part 75 reporters all together [but we treat them as non-EGUs]

  • They will share the mapping chart and we can consider how to refine the platform

4. Managing review materials

We will use a Wiki.

5. Methods for projecting to analytic years

Parsed outputs files for IPM are useful.

How to handle carrying forward data from earlier years and retirements of those?

  • Make sure you look at the latest NEEDS which is updated quarterly. Also see the comparisons across multiple years.

  • It would help to have a summary for states how sources that are permitted but not yet running are reflected.

  • Many new units are renewables

  • Some projects are ‘for sure’ and some are ‘potential’ – can be sorted from EIA 860 data.

At a future meeting, it would be helpful to share how ERTAC tool handles new units – both in the base year and in the analytic year

6. Next meetings

Serpil will add anyone on invitation list for this task force into the December call and next year’s calls

  1. EGU WG 12/14 @ 11 Eastern: We can discuss Part 75 sources – non-traditional discussion at this call “industrial units”
  2. Next call Jan 25th at 2 Eastern (4th Thursday at 2 Eastern)