1 / 20

Midwest Ozone Group Discussion on Good Neighbor SIP’s

Midwest Ozone Group Discussion on Good Neighbor SIP’s. Rob Kaleel Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium October 24, 2014. Overview. Background Model: CAMx V6.10 Modeling Period: June 17 to Sept 26 Meteorology: EPA 2011 (version II) Emissions : EPA 2011 & 2018 (version I)

brianm
Download Presentation

Midwest Ozone Group Discussion on Good Neighbor SIP’s

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Midwest Ozone Group Discussion on Good Neighbor SIP’s Rob Kaleel Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium October 24, 2014

  2. Overview • Background • Model: CAMx V6.10 • Modeling Period: June 17 to Sept 26 • Meteorology: EPA 2011 (version II) • Emissions: EPA 2011 & 2018 (version I) • Canada and Mexico emissions from 2008 NEI • EPA 2018: IPM, Tier 3 NPRM (not MOVES2014), State/Federal On-the-books • Scenarios • 2018 Attainment Test • IPM (CAIR) • ERTAC (version 2.2) - On-the-Books • Model Sensitivity - 0.10 lb/mmbtu “emissions cap” for EGU’s w/ SCR’s

  3. Emission Trends and Projections VOC SO2 NOx 2002-2011 emissions from NEI; 2018 emissions from EPA Modeling Platform

  4. Modeled Attainment Test (MATS)

  5. Attributes of ERTAC and IPM • Starting point: Base Year CEM data by unit • Future year growth rate by region and fuel type • Future unit utilization based on historic (base year) activity • Future emission rate based on historic (base year) emission rate (absent new controls or new emission limits) • Starting point: Base Year CEM data by unit • Future year growth rate based on generation nationally; regional growth and fuel use based on cost model • Future unit utilization based on cost model • Future emission rate projected based on control type and fuel (actual and assumed) ERTAC IPM

  6. 2018 Modeled Ozone Design ValuesEPA (IPM) vs ERTAC 2.2 EPA (IPM) ERTAC

  7. 2018 Design Value DifferenceERTAC 2.2 – EPA (IPM)

  8. OSAT Region Map

  9. Edgewood, MD 75 ppb O3 threshold

  10. Edgewood, MD 75 ppb O3 threshold IPM ERTAC2.2

  11. Louisville, KY 75 ppb O3 threshold

  12. Louisville, KY 75 ppb O3 threshold IPM ERTAC2.2

  13. St. Louis, MO 75 ppb O3 threshold

  14. St. Louis, MO 75 ppb O3 threshold IPM ERTAC2.2

  15. SCR’s Exceeding 0.10 lb/mmbtu – ERTAC 2.2(2011 base projected to 2018)

  16. 2018 Ozone ImprovementSCR Units 0.10 lb/mmbtu emissions cap

  17. 2018 Ozone Modeled Attainment Test

More Related