# Report from MSTRS MOVES Review Workgroup Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Meeting

January 12, 2011 John Koupal Director, Air Quality & Modeling Center U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality

# What is MOVES?  

# Motor Vehicle E mission S imulator  

# Estimates emissions & energy use from all on - road sources over multiple scales Replaces MOBILE6.2 as EPA’s official on 2 

##  

# Replaces MOBILE6.2 as EPA’s official on road emissions model for SIP and conformity determinations

# Why Does EPA Develop Models ?  

## Mandated by Clean Air Act  

### Must maintain & update emission factors every 3 years  

### EPA must provide tools for state and local air agencies  

## Analyses required for new rules  

### Quantify emission baseline & reductions

3  

### Quantify emission baseline & reductions  

### Provide input for air quality, cost/benefit analyses  

## “What- If” analyses  

### Understand mobile source emission trends and their contribution to overall inventory  

### Evaluate potential for new national, regional and local policies  

## Repository of emissions and activity information

# Why did EPA develop MOVES?  

# MOBILE series of models obsolete and increasingly difficult to maintain  

# Needed platform that allowed easier updates with new emissions, fleet and activity data

4 

##  

# Wanted to develop platform that could include all mobile sources  

# U.S. National Research Council recommendations

# Why MOVES? continued  

## In “Modeling Mobile Source Emissions” (2000), National Research Council made several recommendations to EPA to improve modeling:  

### Support for smaller-scale (project level) analysis  

### Improved characterization of high emitters, heavyduty vehicles and nonroad sources

5 

### duty vehicles and nonroad sources  

### Improved characterization of particulate matter and toxics  

### Improved model evaluation and uncertainty analysis  

### Improved ability to interface with other models  

## These recommendations became the primary objectives for MOVES

# Pollutants in MOVES  

## HC (THC, NMHC, NMOG, TOG, VOC)  

## CO  

## NOx 

## (NO, NO 2 

## )  

## NH 3

6 

###  

## NH 3 

###  

## SO 2 

###  

## PM 10,2.5 

## (OC, EC, sulfate, brake, tire)  

## GHG ( CO 2 

## , CH 4 

## , N 2 

## O)  

## Toxics  

## Energy (total, petroleum, fossil)

# Emissions Processes in MOVES  

## Running  

## Start  

## Extended Idle (“ hoteling ”)  

## Evaporative Permeation, Vapor Venting, Liquid Leaks

7  

## Permeation, Vapor Venting, Liquid Leaks  

## Refueling  

## Vapor loss, Spillage  

## Crankcase  

## Tire Wear  

## Brake Wear

# MOVES is Based on Latest Data  

## EPA reviewed data from hundreds of thousands of cars and light trucks  

## Inspection/Maintenance, RSD, historical lab data  

## Landmark study of gasoline PM in Kansas City

8 

###  

## Landmark study of gasoline PM in Kansas City  

## First use of portable emission measurement systems (PEMS) to capture on - road heavyduty truck emissions  

## New data drives updated emission estimates

### Example NO x 

### Results

(MOVES2009)  On - road data on heavy trucks shows higher emissions than MOBILE6 estimated from cert data  Extended idle emissions become significant share of heavy-duty inventory in future Fu lton C ou nty (Atla nta) - NOx

0 10, 000 20, 000 30, 000 40, 000

2008 2015 2020Annual Tons MOVES MOVES MOVES

M6 M6 M6 HD HD
LD LD Extended Idle=34%

Sal t La ke Co unty- N Ox

0 5, 000 10, 000 15, 000 20, 000 25, 000

2008 2015 2020Annual Tons MOVES MOVES MOVES

M6 M6 M6 HD HD

LD LD Cook Cou nty (Ch icag o) - NOx

0 20, 000 40, 000 60, 000 80, 000 100, 000

2008 2015 2020Annual Tons MOVES MOVES MOVES

M6 M6 M6 HD HD

LD LD Kansas City program found high gas PM emissions esp. at cold temps  New data on heavy trucks shows higher deterioration than MOBILE6  MOVES accounts for impact of vehicle speed – MOBILE did not Fulton County - PM2.5

0 300 600 900 1200 1500

2008 2015 2020Annual Tons MOVES MOVES MOVES

M6 M6 M6 HD HD
LD LD 

### Example PM 2.5 

### Results (MOVES2009)

Sal t Lake C ounty - PM 2.5

0 150 300 450 600

2008 2015 2020Annual Tons MOVES MOVES MOVES

M6 M6 M6 HD HD
LD LD Co ok C ounty- PM 2. 5

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

2008 2015 2020Annual Tons MOVES MOVES MOVES

M6 M6 M6 HD HD
LD LD

# Modal “Binning” Approach  

# Advancement required to meet emerging analysis needs  

# Any driving pattern can be modeled  

### Adds major flexibility compared to MOBILE

11 

##  

# Allows direct use of data from many sources  

### Laboratory, I/M programs, RSD 

##  

# Independent validation has shown good results even for macroscale applicationsHC Emission Rates ByBin Source Bin: LDV Gasoline / 1996 MY

10 100HC Mean Emission Rate (g/hr) 0-3 year old 4-5 year old

< 25 m ph 25 -50 m ph > 50 m ph

0 1 braking id le < 0 0- 3 3- 6 6- 9 9- 12 > 12 < 0 0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12- 18 18- 2424- 30 >30 < 6 6-

12 12-18 18-24 24-30 >30 VSP ( KW/tonne)HC Mean Emission Rate (g/hr)Distribution of Operating T ime byBin Light-DutyCars and Trucks

0.20 0.25 0.30Fraction of Operating Time Rural Freeway Urban Freeway Rural Arterial Urban Arterial < 25 m ph 25 -50 m ph > 50 m ph

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 braking id le < 0 0- 3 3- 6 6- 9 9- 12 > 12 < 0 0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12- 18 18- 24 24- 30 >30 < 6 6-

12 12-18 18-24

24-30 >30 VSP ( KW/tonne)Fraction of Operating Time500.00

550.00 600.00 650.00 700.00CO2 (g/mile) Transient driving Smooth driving 

# CO 2 

# Impact of Traffic Smoothing

200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 average speed bin (mph)CO2 (g/mile) Transient Driving Smooth Driving

# MOVES History 2000 - NRC recommends complete overhaul of EP A mobile source models 2001 - EP

A publishes wh ite paper on MOVES for stakeholder and peer review

- EP A begins developing design wi th input from stakeholder wo rking group 2002 - MOVES “shootout” identifies best practices for modal modeling “shootout” identifies best practices for modal modeling 2005 - First version of MOVES released – focused on energy a nd GHG only

- Kansas City

P M study

completed 2007 - Demonstration version of full on -road MOVES released

- Established newFACA wo rkgroup to reviewc riteria/toxic emission inputs 2009 - Draft (MOVES2009) released in Ap ril

- Final (MOVES 2010) released in December 2010 - MOVES2010a (reflects 2012 -2016 LD GHG rule)

# MOVES Review Workgroup  

## Formed by MSTRS to provide input to EPA on MOVES development  

## 15 meetings 2007 -2010  

## Workgroup members represented wide range of stakeholders

16 

###  

## Reviewed and provided comments on MOVES inputs and algorithms  

### Recommendations were incorporated in subsequent versions of MOVES  

## MSTRS voted to forward to CAAAC

# Workgroup Final Comments &

Recommendations (1 of 2) 

##  

# MOVES overall structure is solid  

### Provides good deal of flexibility 

##  

# MOVES validation and corroboration work has been helpful and should continue

17 

# has been helpful and should continue  

### EPA has compared MOVES results to a variety of independent datasets; recommends other organizations undertake this as well  

### EPA should budget funds for ongoing improvement 

##  

# Continue to obtain feedback from a variety of users, and incorporate this feedback into model

# Workgroup Final Comments &

Recommendations (2 of 2) 

##  

# EPA needs to continue model updates  

### Emission rates, activity profiles, as well as features  

### New rules (e.g. 2012 -2016 LD GHG)  

### Expanded air toxics

18  

### Expanded air toxics  

### Reduce model run time 

##  

# EPA needs long -term data collection plan  

### EPA needs to budget and plan for continued data collection  

### EPA needs to seek data from other sources as well  

### Focus on known uncertainties in the model

# How EPA is addressing workgroup comments: Model Validation  

# Comparison of MOVES fuel consumption results vs. fuel tax data  

### Direct check of GHG emissions  

### Provides top down check on model fleet, activity data

19 

### that applies to criteria as well 

##  

# Comparison of emission rates vs. independent data  

### Multiple cities – RSD, I/M, dyno data  

### Report to be published 

##  

# Air quality/dispersion studies in progressNational Fuel Consumption Comparison



### 80 120 160Billion Gallons 

### Tax Data Fi na l MOV ES

Gasoline


### 0 40 80 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Ye arBillion Gallons
Diesel

## LDV NOx Fuel - Based Emission Rates by Age

MOVES vs. Chicago RSD (2004)

8 10 12 14NOx (g/kg fuel) Chicago RSD MOVES 2010

0 2 4 6 8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23NOx (g/kg fuel)

Ag e

## LDV NOx Fuel - Based Emission Rates by Age

MOVES vs. Atlanta RSD (2008)

20 25 30NOx (g/kg fuel) Atlanta RSD MOVES 2010

0 5 10 15

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30NOx (g/kg fuel)

Ag eMOVES C al en da r Year 2005 H DD NOx vs. Speed inde pe nde ntverificationvs. C RC E-5 5 res ults

80 100 120 140NOx [g/mile] DR AFT MOV ES E5 5 HHD 5 6000 lb FinalMOV ES

0 20 40 60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Av erage spe ed[m ph]NOx [g/mile]

# How EPA is addressing workgroup

comments: Model Updates  

# Database approach facilitates faster updates in response to new data  

# Updates requires careful consideration of

24 

###  

# Updates requires careful consideration of the policy implications and technical justification for a model change.  

# EPA will coordinate official releases taking into account the timing needs of SIP analyses

# How EPA is addressing workgroup comments: Long Term Data Collection  

### Rolling out new advancements in capturing real -world emissions  

### Evaporative Leak Detection Study (2008 - 10)  Method developed to detect high evap vehicles using RSD  Confirmed using portable SHED

25  Confirmed using portable SHED  Developing way to apply to much larger RSD datasets  

### Houston Port Drayage Study (2009 - 10)  First to implement hybrid of RSD and PEMS  

### Tier 2 PEMS Study (2010+)  RSD conducted at 6 sites around Metro Detroit (~80,000 hits)  PEMS testing planned on Tier 2s selected based on RSD  Considering additional cities for 2011/2012• Evaporative vapor emissions either contained, or leaking • In collaboration with CRC and Colorado, developing groundbreaking approach to quantifying frequency of evap 

# Evaporative “Leaker” Field Study
quantifying frequency of evap leakers • Developed method to find evap leakers using roadside remote sensing • Verified using portable SHEDRS D equipment 

# Houston Port HD Drayage Study

• ~ 4,000 RSD hits on 1,900 trucks entering port • PEMS testing on sample of these, stratified by emission level

27

# PEMS Vehicle Example

MY 1994 Freightliner Exhaust System PM Proportional Sampler System Semtech_DS PM Filters

28On - Road NOx Data – Ro undtrip from Port of Houston

29

# Visit the MOVES website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/moves.htm

 Software, technical documentation, conference and meeting presentations, and other helpful background materials