College of Engineering Update for Agilent Impacts of Emission Changes on Air Quality and Acute Health Effects in the Southeast, 1993 – 2012 Lucas Henneman Georgia Institute of Technology A&WMA SS Conference Callaway Gardens, Georgia 20 August, 2015

Georgia Tech Student Chapter Genesis: Spring 2014 Activities: – Monthly perspective dinners Guest speaker at every meeting We are now looking for speakers for this academic year! – Student/young professionals socials – AWMA national conference – Student social events (e.g. Atlanta Beltline walking tour) Would love to collaborate with other student chapters in the region Thanks to the Southern Regional and Georgia Chapter for their help with logistics and funding

A&WMA Annual Conference Raleigh, NC June 2015 Our chapter sent 8 members Thank you to all our sponsors – Regional and State A&WMA Chapters – Yamaha Motor Manufacturing – Georgia Power – Shaw Industries – R2T Inc.

GT Student Chapter: beyond the first year The big test: a change in leadership – Survived one so far Needed: speakers, sponsors, events, etc. Wanted: other student groups in the region to collaborate with ACE 2016: New Orleans

HEI Project Genesis Growing focus on assessing effectiveness of specific control programs–“Accountability” The Health Effects Institute has funded a number of studies in this domain Goal: quantify effects of individual regulatory actions on both air quality and public health Project is in its 3 rd year This material is based upon work supported by Health Effects Institute and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE

Air Pollution Accountability Health Effects Institute. (2003). Assessing the Health Impact of Air Quality Regulations: Concepts and Methods for Accountability Research 6 Measurements made at each link in the chain lead to improved regulations This project investigates relationships between each link

Counterfactual Health Outcomes Approach Reduction Estimates Meteorological Detrending Detrended Concentrations Raw Concentrations Counterfactual Emissions Emissions Estimates Counterfactual Concentrations *S: Sensitivity *

Atlanta, GA: Heavily impacted by mobile and power plant sources JST Annual Standard 75ppb 24-hr Standard 35µgm -3 Annual Standard 12µgm -3

Detrended ambient concentrations in Atlanta, GA Annual averages relatively insensitive Primary pollutants decreasing Ozone distribution shrinking (lows increasing, highs decreasing) See Henneman et al. (2015), Atmospheric Environment 9 Sulfate PM 2.5 Ozone NO x SeasonTrend SummerWinterSTM RemovedObserved

Pollution control policies Vehicular sources Inspection and Maintenance (1993 – present) Georgia Gasoline ( ) Tier II Gasoline standards (2006 – present) Heavy Duty Highway Rule (2007 – present) Power plants Acid Rain Program (1995 – present) Georgia multipollutant rule (2000 – present) CAIR (2008 – present) Fuel switching (all years) All sources within non-attainment area National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Modeled Mobile Emissions 11 Model: EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010b) Since 2000, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased 12% Modeled emissions have decreased 50-70% Counterfactuals calculated assuming 1993 emissions rates for all post-1993 vehicles Actual Counterfactual

Electricity Generating Unit (EGU) Emissions 12 Measured emissions have decreased for all pollutants since 1995 Counterfactuals calculated using 1995 emissions factors and heat input Reductions traced to fuel changes, controls, and others (e.g. increased efficiency) Actual Counterfactual

Emissions Reductions by Program Actual NO x emissions (measured CEM data in the Atlanta NAA) Acid Rain Program, Georgia rule yy† NO x SIP Call*, Summertime NO x controls (Georgia rule jjj†) Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Georgia Multipollutant Control Rule (Georgia rule sss†), natural gas economics *Georgia not included in NO x SIP Call†Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control

Counterfactual Health Outcomes Approach Reduction Estimates Meteorological Detrending Detrended Concentrations Raw Concentrations Counterfactual Emissions Emissions Estimates Counterfactual Concentrations *S: Sensitivity *

Pollutant Sensitivities Sensitivities: relationship between observed concentration and emission derived using linear regression ∆C: difference between observed and counterfactual ∆C added to original observed to return counterfactual 15

Empirical sensitivities capture temporal trend from mobile and EGU emissions Mobile emissions dominate contribution to ozone Care must be taken in interpretation – mobile emissions of many species (NO x and VOCs) vary together Mobile and EGU Sensitivities: Ozone TotalMobileEGU 16

EGU emissions follow seasonal trend due to contribution of SO 2 emissions to SO 4 2- Mobile emissions have little seasonal pattern (different species contribute depending on season) Care must be taken in interpretation – mobile emissions of many species (NO x and VOCs) vary together Mobile and EGU Sensitivities: PM 2.5 TotalMobileEGU 17

Ozone sensitivities vs Ozone concentrations Positive response to NO x controls (ozone goes down) Negative response to NO x controls (ozone goes up) Range of proposed standard Relatively insensitive Negative response 18

Counterfactual Ozone Concentrations Counterfactual concentrations assume no added emissions controls since 1995 (EGU) and 1993 (mobile) Statistical method captures daily variability and lag structure present in observations Reductions in peak values Increases in lowest values due to decreased NO x titration Small effect on median ozone 19 Counterfactual Concentrations

Counterfactual PM 2.5 Concentrations Counterfactual concentrations assume no added emissions controls since 1995 (EGU) and 1993 (mobile) Statistical method captures daily variability and lag structure present in observations Reductions both in medians and annual distribution 20 Counterfactual Concentrations

Conclusions Meteorological Detrending – Measured and detrended primary pollutants follow trends of utility and mobile emissions – Detrended ozone does not match decreasing emissions trends, but shows decreasing highs and increasing lows Emissions – Reductions attributed to specific regulations, but care must be taken Sensitivities Analysis – Ozone more sensitive to mobile emissions – PM 2.5 sensitivities to EGU vary by season, and sensitivities to MOB do not Counterfactual Concentrations – Ozone: median counterfactual remain constant, annual distribution increases – PM 2.5 : Both annual distributions and medians have decreased 21

Extra Slides

EGU load (demand) categorized by controls and fuel types NO x Control Fuel Type Source: EPA Air Markets Database 23 Controls documented in Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) data Challenges in estimating avoided emissions -Controls installed for various reasons -Fuel types changes for various reasons None Other SCR* None Coal Oil Natural Gas * Selective Catalytic Reduction

Periods of NO x controls Comparison between CEM emissions and counterfactual yields multiple periods of different control measures A few time periods stand out (do not follow trends linked with controls

Calculating Ozone Sensitivities PS*: Atmospheric photochemical state 25