1. ERTAC EGU Growth Model Executive Summary September 2012 1

2. Origins and Methods of ERTAC ERTAC ad-hoc group convened to solve specific inventory problems. Membership: states, MJOs. ERTAC EGU project goal: Build a low cost, stable/stiff, fast, and transparent alternative to the IPM model to project future EGU emissions. Model development started 2 years ago. 2

3. Attributes of ERTAC Model Conservative predictions – No big swings in generation. Data intensive – needs substantial state-supplied data. Regional and fuel modularity. Calculates future hourly estimates based on base year activity. Test hourly reserve capacity. Can quickly evaluate various scenarios; e.g., retirement, growth, and control 3

4. Project Timeline Fall 2012 – completion of first version of model and production of an “East of the Mississippi” run with 2007 base year and 2010 AEO growth rates. November 2012 – presentation of the model to EPA and then to interested stakeholders. 2013 – continued development of the model (next version) and production of 2011 base run with updated policy and growth inputs. 4

5. Example: Coal Fired Existing Unit, 800 MW Annual GR=1.018, Peak GR=1.056, Nonpeak GR=1.012 5

6. Example: Coal Fired Existing Unit, 800 MW (zoom in view) Annual GR=1.018, Peak GR=1.056, Nonpeak GR=1.012 48 hour depiction for an individual unit 6 Inefficient hour in base year, 11,232 BTU/KW, FY uses standard heat rate.

7. NORTHEAST 2007 AND 2020 SO 2 NO x HI 7 Shutdowns w/ new clean units From state and generic units Controls plus clean new units AEO2010 says growth in coal

8. HI SOUTHEAST 2007 AND 2020 SO 2 NO x 8 GA multi- polluttant rule. Near 100% Scrubbed

9. SOUTH EAST USA 2007 AND 2020 NO x MIDWEST 2007 AND 2020 SO 2 HI 9

10. Future challenges for ERTAC Development of this model is a work in progress. How to deal with growth rates where the current system will not handle the load. Ensuring that input variables and model settings are reasonable. Selection of controls by the model is not easily automated – requires manual inputs. Updating input files is time-consuming. Converting output files to model-ready files. 10

11. ERTAC Summary Model is built and running well. Results are stable using historic data. Transparency allows a deep evaluation of model results. Execution of the model by 5 eastern region groups is giving consistent results. Ongoing input data improvement is needed. 11

12. ERTAC Summary The initial version of the model has been completed. The model is running well and results are stable. Transparency allows a deep evaluation of model results. 5 different groups in eastern regions are running the model with consistent results. Ongoing input data improvement is needed. 12

13. ERTAC Contact Information LADCO ◦ Mark Janssen- janssen@ladco.orgjanssen@ladco.org ◦ John Welch - jwelch@idem.in.govjwelch@idem.in.gov ◦ Robert Lopez - robert.lopez@wisconsin.govrobert.lopez@wisconsin.gov MARAMA/OTC ◦ Julie McDill – jmcdill@marama.orgjmcdill@marama.org ◦ Joe Jakuta - jjakuta@otcair.orgjjakuta@otcair.org ◦ Danny Wong – danny.wong@dpe.state.nj.usdanny.wong@dpe.state.nj.us Metro 4/SESARM ◦ Doris Mcleod – doris.mcleod@deq.virginia.govdoris.mcleod@deq.virginia.gov ◦ Lin Jin-sheng – jin-sheng.lin@deq.virginia.govjin-sheng.lin@deq.virginia.gov ◦ Beyong Kim – byeong.kim@gaepd.orgbyeong.kim@gaepd.org 13