Federal Advisory Committee Act Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee (MSTRS) MOVES Review Work Group: Meeting Summary April 10, 2019 U.S. EPA Office of Transportation & Air Quality 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Welcome from the Chairs Dr. Matthew Barth and Ms. Megan Beardsley welcomed the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC), Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee (MSTRS) MOVES Review Work Group to the meeting. Ms. Beardsley presented the meeting agenda (see Table 1). Table 1. MOVES Review Work Group Meeting Agenda: April 10, 2019 (2 pm to 4 pm) Topic Welcome from the Chairs Member Roll Call General Announcements Presentations: • Updates to EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) - Highlights from CRC Real World Emissions Workshop • Updates to "High-Power" Emission Rates and Start Deterioration for Light- Duty Vehicles Update: Revising Start/Soak Relationships for Light-Duty Gaseous Emissions • Updates to MOVES Heavy-Duty Running Exhaust Rates: Diesel, Gasoline, and Natural Gas • Modeling of Gliders in MOVES Future Meetings/Wrap-up Member Roll Call Ms. Beardsley conducted a Work Group member roll call. A list of Work Group members and others in attendance is presented in an Attachment to these meeting minutes. ------- General Announcements Dr. Sarah Roberts made general announcements regarding meeting procedures, including how participants should signal when they had questions (i.e., by using the raised hand feature in Adobe Connect). Dr. Roberts stated that the meeting minutes will be submitted to the Work Group members for review before posting to the website and that any additional questions about the technical content of today's presentations should be sent to her at her e-mail address: Roberts.Sarah@epa.gov. Presentation: Updates to EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) - Highlights from CRC Real World Emissions Workshop - Presented by Megan Beardsley, U.S. EPA The next major version of MOVES will include new data, newer rules, improved functionality and performance and additional features. The next version release data is still to be determined but will be in 2020 at the earliest. Activity improvements for the next MOVES version include updated user inputs for starts and hoteling and user inputs for off-network idle, which allows users to input total idle fraction by vehicle type, month or day. Other vehicle population and activity updates include historical and projection data for national VMT and vehicle populations, national age distribution, vehicle weights and other vehicle characteristics. There are several major changes planned for both light-duty and heavy-duty on-road vehicles, some of which are expected to increase the model's estimates of emissions and some of which are expected to decrease the model's estimates of emissions. There is also continuing work on a comprehensive update to the Nonroad portion of the model. The initial focus is on diesel engines—including updating population and activity data—and also redesigning the model structure. In addition, more real-world activity data is being gathered for inclusion in the Nonroad model. Presentation: Updates to "High-Power" Emission Rates and Start Deterioration for Light-Duty Vehicles- Presented by Claudia Toro, ORISE participant & James Warila, U.S. EPA Part 1 - Updates to "High-Power" Running Emission Rates As part of the EPA's ongoing effort to validate the MOVES model, they have evaluated default model inputs using newer data or assumptions. This presentation focuses on these efforts for high-power light-duty running emission rates and light-duty start emissions. Previous NOx evaluation efforts have shown that MOVES compares well with remote sensing (RS) data when modeled at the project scale using location-specific inputs, but MOVES overestimates emissions modeled at the national scale using inputs from the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). One of the reasons for this outcome was that the NEI includes higher power operating modes than represented in the RS data, and so the EPA focused on evaluating high power operating mode emission rates. To evaluate power trends, they used data collected in two studies using portable emissions measurement systems (PEMS), with the goal of reassessing the shapes of vehicle- 2 ------- specific power (VSP) trends from low to high power. In comparing the MOVES estimated emissions with the PEMS data, the MOVES NOx-VSP and other gaseous pollutant-VSP trends were steeper than the PEMS data for cars and trucks, with the difference being more pronounced for trucks. As a result of this study, the EPA plans to scale rates uniformly across the VSP trend to more accurately estimate emissions at high power rates. This change will affect all gaseous pollutants representing vehicles under National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV), Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards (model years 2001 and later, inclusive). Part 2 - Updates to Deterioration Trends for Start Emission Rates There is currently only sparse data regarding whether light duty vehicle start emissions increase with increasing vehicle age (i.e., start deterioration). One relevant data source is the In-Use Verification Program (IUVP) run by manufacturers that aims to verify that following sale, vehicles continue to meet standards during their regulatory useful lives. In this program, vehicles are recruited from the public, and emissions are measured on certification cycles (including FTP and US06), and FTP data, by phase, can be used to estimate start deterioration. Based on this data, it appears that deterioration occurs for both starts and running. In MOVES, the deterioration for NOx starts is based on the deterioration trend for running emissions. Based on the study of the IUVP data, which shows that starts do deteriorate, but at a lower relative rate than running emissions, the EPA plans to apply a reduced deterioration trend to NOx start emissions. This will apply passenger cars, light-duty trucks and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles in all model years. Part 3 - Emissions Impact The updated start deterioration trend is expected reduce estimated emissions across all calendar years. The revised high-power emissions rates are expected to reduce emissions more in future years because the high-power emissions were a larger fraction of total emissions for future vehicles. The updates are expected to result in lower emission inventories for gaseous criteria pollutants across all years. Discussion Ms. Julie McDill asked whether the rate mode was displayed in the presentation, particularly regarding the information for MOVES compared to RS data for NOx emissions. It was clarified that rate mode was not displayed, but that the national scale and project scale results were shown. Ms. McDill commented that it would be helpful to also see the rate mode results. Ms. Susan Collett remarked that a study evaluated emissions in two tunnels and was published recently, measurements from the Hong Kong study agreed well with the MOVES model results. However, the Baltimore tunnel showed a large discrepancy in results compared to MOVES. Post Meeting correction: The study is available on the HEIwebpage, here: https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/real-world-vehicle-emissions-characterization-shing- mun-tunnel-hong-kong-and-fort. The researchers compared the California Air Resources Board vehicle emissions model, EMFAC, to the ShingMun Tunnel in Hong Kong, and to the Fort McHenry Tunnel in Baltimore to the MOVES model. 3 ------- Dr. Barth noted that the MOVES to PEMS comparison was using a single PEMS study done in North Carolina. He suggested that additional PEMs data could be used to validate or correct the entire model. Dr. Chris Frey commented that additional data could be used to verify the North Carolina data. He noted that the North Carolina dataset was used for MOVES because it is the largest dataset that is publicly available. Ms. McDill mentioned that she would be interested to know what the data sources were for prior MOVES versions. Dr. Frey asked whether MOVES was predicting the mean or median of emissions for deterioration. Mr. James Warila replied they did a log-linear fit to passenger cars and each truck class and tested for differences in log-linear slope. Since the differences were not significant, a uniform slope was used for all truck classes. Also, since a uniform variance was estimated across the entire trend, comparisons at the mean would be equivalent to those at the median (geometric mean). Dr. Frey asked whether additional review was planned. Mr. Warila replied that the underlying analyses are described in the report for light-duty rates used in the model. Mr. Frey noted that Tier 2 vehicles were included in the analysis and asked whether the vehicles with more stringent standards had higher deterioration rates. Mr. Warila replied that it the opposite seemed to be the case- that similarity in log-linear trends among vehicles under various standards implies that trends in absolute emission rates became more gradual, not steeper. Mr. Frey commented that some studies have concluded that MOVES overpredicts NOx emissions, and he asked whether the planned revisions to MOVES bring the model-predicted emissions in line with what those studies have claimed are the actual emissions levels. Mr. Warila replied that the revisions discussed in the current presentation do result in reductions in NOx emissions. However, these updates do not provide a definitive resolution to this issue raised by Dr. Frey, and the EPA is still looking for other causes of the potential overprediction of emissions. Presentation: Updates to MOVES Heavy-Duty Running Exhaust Rates: Diesel, Gasoline, and Natural Gas - Presented by Gurdas Sandhu, ORISE participant This presentation focuses on running exhaust emission rates for model year 2010 and newer diesel, gasoline, and compressed natural gas (CNG) heavy-duty vehicles and the resulting impact on the emissions inventory. The initial part of the presentation covered recent changes to the scaling factor (fscaie), which is used in the scaled tractive power (STP) equation to arrive at operating mode (OpMode) based rates. The diesel and CNG emission rates are based on the manufacturer-run heavy-duty in-use testing (HDIUT) data. The gasoline emission rates are based on data from a study conducted at the EPA labs in Ann Arbor. Emission rates for nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and Total Hydrocarbons (THC) were presented on a gram/mile basis for calendar year 2035, showing the effect of age on model years 2035 back to 2010. The gram/mile comparison of new rates versus base rates in MOVES vary significantly based on fuel type, vehicle class, and pollutant. Further, 4 ------- the impact of the new rates on the emissions inventory varies based on the "domain" defined by a combination of fuel type, process type, and vehicle type. The emissions impact presented here are for only the rates update covered in this presentation and do not reflect the effect of other updates to the MOVES model. For diesel, the emission rates vary between model years 2010 to 2015 based on the production volume mix between engines with varying emissions levels. Overall, when comparing at the total onroad emissions level, the new diesel rates lead to large increase in future NOx emissions, moderate decrease in PM2.5 emissions, insignificant changes to CO2 emissions, moderate increase in CO emissions, and small decrease in THC emissions. For heavy-duty gasoline vehicles, at the total onroad emissions level, the new rates lead to small decreases in future NOx and PM2.5 emissions and small increases in future CO2, CO, and THC emissions. For heavy-duty natural gas vehicles, the new g/mile NOx rates are lower, CO2 rates are comparable, and PM2.5, CO, and THC rates are significantly higher. Discussion In response to a question about why there are drops or jumps in emissions in certain years, Dr. Gurdas Sandhu explained that there is a jump in NOx emissions around 2010 due to the MOVES update, whereas pre-2010 emissions were not updated. There is variability in the rates between model years 2010 and 2015 due to differences in engine production volumes. For CO2, there are further reductions in rates due to the Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Phase 1 and Phase 2 rulemakings. Mr. Jeremy Heiken asked whether there was any update to the heavy-duty peer review. Ms. Beardsley responded that there was not an update yet, but the EPA plans to have further peer review conducted. Mr. Heiken commented, regarding NOx emissions, that the loss in NOx control effectiveness is related to the location of the vehicles. He noted that there is more loss in urban areas where there is greater stop and start activity and lower-speed travel. Dr. Sandhu noted that this effect is being captured through the operating mode rates. Mr. Heiken replied that a vehicle could be in one operating mode bin, but that vehicle would have different emissions over time in an urban versus a rural setting due to the stop and go nature of urban travel. Ms. Beardsley noted that the emission rates in MOVES capture a real-world mix of urban and rural driving at each vehicle speed. Mr. Andrew Eilbert suggested that in-use data for previous model years could be reviewed to determine whether the "jump" in emissions in 2010 is real is or just an artifact from the update. Dr. Sandhu remarked that this had been considered, but due to current resource availability, there is currently not a plan to do an analysis. 5 ------- Mr. Andy Burnham asked whether the THC emissions from CNG trucks was speciated and whether methane data was collected for the vehicles. Dr. Sandhu replied that these activities have not been conducted yet. Mr. Andrew Eilbert asked whether the CNG rates for vehicle regulatory classes other than heavy-heavy-duty (HHD) had been included. Dr. Sandhu responded that the only data available was for the HHD classes, and they will be using the rates for HHD and applying those rates to the other classes. Mr. Eilbert asked whether the pre-2010 rates for compressed natural gas (CNG) buses were based on direct second-by-second measurement of CNG or gasoline medium-heavy duty vehicles. Dr. Sandhu replied that MOVES2014 does not have any rates based on direct second- by-second data from CNG vehicle measurements, and all the CNG rates are based on initial rates from gasoline vehicles that are scaled using cycle average emissions of CNG vehicles and CNG engine certification data. He noted that the June 2017 presentation given to the MOVES Review Work Group explains how the EPA plans to group the CNG vehicles. Presentation: Modeling of Gliders in MOVES - Presented by Jaehoon Han, U.S. EPA Glider vehicles are vehicles with an old powertrain (engine, transmission and/or rear axle) combined with a new chassis and cab assembly. Most gliders are Class 8 heavy-duty vehicles and typically use remanufactured engines from before 2001. Currently MOVES does not account for gliders, and the EPA is planning on including them in the next version of MOVES. To add them in, a new regulatory class was created (ID:49) within sources types 61 and 62. Based on comparison of MOVES rates to EPA glider testing data, the exhaust emission rates for THC, CO, NOx and PM are set to be equal to the MY2000 HHD rates. Glider vehicle characteristics are assumed to be the same as the new (non-glider) HHD fleet. Glider sales are estimated based on the production data received from manufacturers. The fraction of diesel trucks that are gliders is less than 2% for all calendar years. The contribution from gliders to the emissions inventory is dependent on planned MOVES updates for heavy-duty emission rates, populations and activity as well as the potential reconsideration of the glider rule. Discussion Mr. Joe Jakuta asked whether gliders would be included in MOVES as a new source type. Mr. Jaehoon Han clarified that these would not be a new source type but are included as a new regulatory class (ID:49) for the existing sourcetypes 61 and 62. Mr. Chris Frey commented that he has seen estimates that say if gliders were 3% of the heavy- duty population, they would contribute 5% to all NOx emissions. He asked if anyone else had seen data suggesting similar contributions to emissions. Mr. Han replied that it was a bit too early to quantify glider emissions and their relative contributions to emissions, but the EPA will soon be performing that analysis. 6 ------- Dr. Barth asked about the source of the data for gliders. Mr. Han responded that the EPA has population data from the manufacturers, and the estimated emission rates are based on the EPA's glider testing data. Wrap-Up In closing, Dr. Roberts informed the meeting attendees that the next meeting will likely be in September, but a specific date has not yet been set. Dr. Roberts also noted that Work Group members are invited to give presentations that might help the EPA shape the MOVES model. Anyone interested in presenting at the next meeting should submit an abstract and title to Dr. Roberts. Ms. Beardsley thanked the meeting attendees for their participation. A full list of participants is provided as an attachment to this summary. Copies of the presentations given during this meeting will be available at https://www.epa.gov/moves/moves- model -revi ew-work- group. 7 ------- Attachment - Work Group Meeting Attendance List April 2019 MOVES Review Work Group: Member Attendees Name Home Organization Representing Organization Giedrius Ambrozaitis Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Matt Barth Megan Beardsley Susan Collet David D'Onofrio Chris Frey Mike Geller Gil Grodzinsky Cecilia Ho Britt Holmen Mark Janssen Chris Kite Jim Kliesch David Lax Lubna Shoaib Chris Voigt Dale Wells Chris Wolfe Wei Zhang University of California, Riverside (CE-CERT) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toyota Atlanta Regional Commission North Carolina State University Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) Georgia Department of Natural Resources Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) University of Vermont Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Honda American Petroleum Institute (API) East-West Gateway Council of Governments Virginia Department of Transportation Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers University of California, Riverside (CE-CERT), Work Group Co-chair EPA; Work Group Co-Chair Coordinating Research Council (CRC) Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) North Carolina State University Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) University of Vermont Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA) Honda API Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) Amer. Assoc. of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) NACAA A-l ------- April 2019 MOVES Review Work Group: Other Attendees Name Home Organization Representing Organization Marc Bennett Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Charles Bernhard Iowa Department of Transportation Iowa Department of Transportation Molly Birnbaum Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Daniel Bizer-Cox U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Kevin Black Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) And Bollman North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Chris Bovee Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Chris Boyd Shelby County Health Department Shelby County Health Department Jim Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources Georgia Department of Natural Resources Kevin Briggs Andy Burnham Argonne National Laboratory Argonne National Laboratory Craig Butler Yuli Chew New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection David Choi U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ying-Tzu Chung Michael Baker International Michael Baker International Marc Corrigan Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Susanne Cotty Pima Association of Governments Pima Association of Governments Angela Cullen U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Robert d'Abadie Michael Baker International Michael Baker International Tom Darlington Air Improvement Resource, Inc. Air Improvement Resource, Inc. Matt Davis North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Laurel Driver U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tom Dvorak New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Andrew Eilbert U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Alison Eyth U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Sara Forestieri California Air Resources Board (CARB) California Air Resources Board (CARB) Janice Godfrey U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jaehoon Han U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tom Hanf Michigan Department of Transportation Michigan Department of Transportation Jeremy Heiken Oak Leaf Environmental Oak Leaf Environmental A-2 ------- Name April 2019 MOVES Review Work Group: Home Organization Other Attendees Representing Organization Joe Jakuta Dennis Kahlbaum David Kail Miles Kemp Byeong-Uk Kim Dorian Kvale Steve Lachance Sonya Lewis-Cheatham KJ Liao Natalie Liljenwall Jin-Sheng Lin Deborah Liu Jeff Long Julie McDill Hyunsoo Noh Jinchul Park Jane Posey Steve Potter Ivan Racic Vikram Ravi Brian Rivera Sarah Roberts Gurdas Sandhu Ken Santlal Jolyon Shelton Kira Shonkwiler James Smith Collin Smythe DC Department of Energy and Environment Air Improvement Resource, Inc. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Georgia Department of Transportation Georgia Environmental Protection Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Georgia Environmental Protection Division Oregon Department of Transportation Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Shelby County Health Department California Air Resources Board (CARB) Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association Pima County Association of Governments Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Arizona Department of Transportation Washington State University U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ORISE Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation DC Department of Energy and Environment Air Improvement Resource, Inc. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Georgia Department of Transportation Georgia Environmental Protection Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Georgia Environmental Protection Division Oregon Department of Transportation Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Shelby County Health Department California Air Resources Board (CARB) Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association Pima County Association of Governments Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Arizona Department of Transportation Washington State University U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ORISE Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation A-3 ------- Name April 2019 MOVES Review Work Group: Home Organization Other Attendees Representing Organization Matt Solomon Darrell Sonntag Glade Sowards Lesley Stobert Brian Sullins Vivek Thimmavajjhala Ted Thrasher Brian Timin Claudia Toro Chris Trostle Brian Trowbridge Marcus Tutt Steven VanderGriend Shaun Vozar James Warila Debbie Wilson Craig Woleader Michael Woodman Tao Zeng Wei Zhang Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Utah Department of Environmental Quality SC&A, Inc. Alabama Department of Environmental Management North Central Texas Council of Governments U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ORISE Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Urban Air Initiative Allegheny County Health Department U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mid-Atlantic Air Management Association (MARAMA) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Maryland Department of the Environment Georgia Environmental Protection Division Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Utah Department of Environmental Quality EPA Contractor Alabama Department of Environmental Management North Central Texas Council of Governments U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Urban Air Initiative Allegheny County Health Department U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mid-Atlantic Air Management Association (MARAMA) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Maryland Department of the Environment Georgia Environmental Protection Division Idaho Department of Environmental Quality A-4 ------- |