1. 1 Summary of LADCO’s Regional Modeling in the Eastern U.S.: Preliminary Results April 27, 2009 MWAQC TAC June 15, 2009

2. 2 Background

3. 3 Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires SIPs to… “… contain adequate provisions – (i) prohibiting…any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will – (I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any (NAAQS)…, or (II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility…” Note: EGU measures alone are not expected to eliminate significant contribution

4. 4 Air Quality Modeling 36 km Model: CAMx Domain/Grid: Eastern U.S. (36 km-PM 2.5, 12 km-O 3 ) Base Year: 2005 Meteorology: 2005 (and 2002) Future Years: 2009,2012,2018 (existing control programs) 12 km

5. 5 Scenario C-Years 2009, 2012, and 2018 Emissions Base: 2007 CEM emissions data, not IPM Growth: Growth factors based on EIA data by NERC region and by fuel type Control: All legally enforceable controls identified by states plus other controls expected for compliance with CAIR (i.e., EPA’s NEEDS list)

6. 6 Model Results

7. 7 PM 2.5 Annual Concentrations 2009 20122018 DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT Based on 2005 meteorology

8. 8 PM 2.5 Daily Concentrations 2009 20122018 DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT Based on 2005 meteorology

9. 9 Ozone 8-Hour Concentrations 2009 20122018 DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT Based on 2005 meteorology

10. 10 EGU Control Strategies Scenario E Scenario F (2012) (2018) NOx0.125 lb/MMBTU 0.07 SO 2 0.25 0.10 Reference: “Options for EGU Controls in the Eastern U.S.: White Paper”, October 3, 2008, State Collaborative Technical Workgroup NOx SO 2 2005 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C 2012-E 2018-F 2005 2007 2009-C 2012-C 2018-C 2012-E 2018-F Eastern U.S. Annual EGU Emissions (TPY)

11. 11 Average Improvement: PM 2.5 Annual = 1.0 ug/m3 (Scen. E); 1.1 ug/m3 (Scen. F) Scenario E (2012)Scenario F (2018) v. Scenario C (2012) v. Scenario C (2018) PM 2.5 Annual: Air Quality Improvement (relative to Scenario C) DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT Based on 2005 meteorology

12. 12 Average Improvement: PM 2.5 Daily = 1.1 ug/m3 (Scen. E); 1.3 ug/m3 (Scen. F) PM 2.5 Daily: Air Quality Improvement (relative to Scenario C) DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT Based on 2005 meteorology Scenario E (2012)Scenario F (2018) v. Scenario C (2012) v. Scenario C (2018)

13. 13 Average Improvement: Ozone = 1.6 ppb (Scen. E); 2.4 ppb (Scen. F) Ozone: Air Quality Improvement (relative to Scenario C) DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT Based on 2005 meteorology Scenario E (2012)Scenario F (2018) v. Scenario C (2012) v. Scenario C (2018)

14. 14 Model Results Source Apportionment

15. 15 Ozone Source Apportionment Results: Source Sectors (2005 base) Holland, MI Atlanta, GA New York, NY Key Finding: Contributions dominated by mobile sources (at least 60%) DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT

16. 16 Ozone Source Apportionment Results: Source Regions (2005 base) Holland, MI Atlanta, GA New York, NY Key Finding: Contributions dominated by “home” state and neighboring states DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT Based on 2005 meteorology 55%

17. 17 PM 2.5 Annual Source Apportionment Results: Source Sectors (2012 Scenario C) New York, NY Key Findings: All source categories are important contributors Relative amount of contribution varies by area DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT Based on 2005 meteorology Detroit MI Atlanta, GA

18. 18 PM 2.5 Daily Source Apportionment Results: Source Sectors (2012 Scenario C) DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT Based on 2005 meteorology Detroit MI Atlanta, GA New York, NY Key Findings: All source categories are important contributors Relative amount of contribution varies by area

19. 19 PM 2.5 Annual Source Apportionment Results: Source Regions (2012 Scenario C) Detroit MI Atlanta, GA New York, NY Key Finding: Contributions dominated by “home” state and neighboring states DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT Based on 2005 meteorology 54% 12% 55% 13% 45%

20. 20 PM 2.5 Daily Source Apportionment Results: Source Regions (2012 Scenario C) Detroit MI Atlanta, GA New York, NY Key Finding: Contributions dominated by “home” state and neighboring states DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT Based on 2005 meteorology 50% 14% 49% 18% 38%

21. 21 Example DC Results DRAFT

22. 22 Example DC Results DRAFT

23. 23 Example DC Results DRAFT

24. 24 Example DC Results DRAFT

25. 25 Key Findings Model Performance –PM2.5: Generally reasonable, although organic carbon substantially underestimated, (summer) sulfate underestimated, and (winter) nitrate slightly overestimated –Ozone: Generally reasonable (mostly within +15%) Attainment –Only a few areas not meeting PM2.5 and 85 ppb ozone standards; lots of areas not meeting for 75 ppb ozone standard –Additional EGU emission reductions effective in lowering PM2.5 and ozone Source Apportionment –Source Regions: “Home” state generally has the largest impact; neighbor states generally have next largest impact (i.e., impacts decrease with distance) –Source Sectors: Mobile sources dominate for ozone, point/mobile/area all important for PM2.5 –Similar "linkages" with either a relative or absolute metric, and a lower significance threshold brings in more states Other: –Despite differences in meteorology, 2002 and 2005 meteorology produce similar results (with higher concentrations for 2002)