Agenda Alamo Area Council of Governments Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Wednesday, December 9, 2015 – 8:30 a.m. Marriott Plaza , La Villita Ballroom C 555 S. Alamo Street San Antonio, TX 78205

1. Meeting Called to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Public Comments

4. Consider and Act upon Approval of the Sept. 30th, 2015 Minutes

5. Current Ozone Status

6. Consider and act upon resolution in support of Federal Legislation Enabling Early Action Compacts

7. AIR Committee Reports

A. Consider and act upon Air Quality Mission Statement

B. ERG’s Inspection and Maintenance Program Benefits Analysis for the CAPCOG region

8. Clean Cities Report

A. December 2nd CATEE (Clean Air Through Energy Efficiency) Conference

B. November 19th 2015 State of Natural Gas in Central Event

9. Other Items

A. Consider and act upon Meeting Schedule for 2016

B. Status Report on Commitments from Other Jurisdictions

C. Alamo Cement and Capitol Cement permit applications for new cement kilns in Bexar County

10. Next Meeting, January 15th, 2016 (San Marcos)

11. Adjournment

This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. The accessible entrance is located at the front entrance of 8700 Tesoro Drive. Accessible parking spaces are also available. Please contact AACOG for auxiliary aids and services for the hearing impaired, including interpreters for the deaf, at (210) 362-5200 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or by calling Texas Relay at 7-1-1 for assistance. DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Sept. 30, 2015 minutes.

Minutes of the Alamo Area Council of Governments Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Meeting Wednesday Sept. 30, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. Al J. Notzon III Board Room 8700 Tesoro Drive, Suite 100 San Antonio, Texas 78217-6228

Present Committee Members Guests Councilman Ron Nirenberg, Chair, COSA Joshua Hass, San Antonio Airport Mayor Chris Riley, Vice Chair, Leon Valley Olga Salinas, Alamo Cement Erin Lowe for Judge Nelson Wolff, Bexar County Randy Waclawczyk Mayor John Williams, Universal City Steven Southers, City of San Antonio Commissioner Jim Wolverton, Guadalupe County Ryan Weber Judge Sherman Krause, Comal County Kimberly Dennis, CEMEX Lee Cover, CEMEX Vincent Nathan, COSA Present Ex-officio Committee Members Andy Quittner, City of Sequin AirTech/Air Advisory Members Dean Word, Dean Word Construction Co. Russell Seal, Sierra Club Peter Bella AACOG Staff Daine Rath, AACOG Executive Director Tim Treviño, Senior Director of Strategic Planning Agency Communications Brenda Williams, Interim Director of Natural Resources Steve Smeltzer, Environmental Manager Dr. Annette Prosterman, Transportation Coordinator Parviz Nazem, Environmental Modeler Nic Jones, Clean City Coordinator Maricela Diaz-Wells Lyle Hufstetler

1. Meeting called to order Councilman Ron Nirenberg called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. 2. Roll call A quorum was achieved. 3. Citizens to be heard Mr. Peter Bella was the citizen to be heard. He briefly explained that based on the latest photochemical modeling, on high ozone days, a large portion of ozone or ozone precursors are transported to the area on which the San Antonio region has no control. He stated while San Antonio region has reduced NOX emissions from 400 tons a day in 1999 to about 190 tons per a

Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 1 Sept. 30, 2015 DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Sept. 30, 2015 minutes. day in 2012, and is willing to proactively approach the problem, it is prudent that the Committee would consider attaining cooperation of the EPA and TCEQ and together find ways for tackling the problem of transported pollution, as reducing more NOX emissions locally does not guarantee meeting the ozone air quality standard. 4. Approval of Minutes Mayor John Williams made a motion to approve the minutes of July 22nd, 2015 and Commissioner Jim Wolverton seconded the motion. The motion carried and the minutes were approved unanimously. 5. Ozone Status a. Revision to the Ozone Standard

Mr. Smeltzer gave a summary report on status of San Antonio’s ozone levels. He stated that the 4th highest ozone level for 2015 at CMAS58 has been recorded at 80 ppb, which causes the 3 year average at that monitor to exceed the current 75 ppb and any future standards. He mentioned if the future standard is set to 70 ppb, the CAMS58 must not exceed 60 ppb in 2016 in order to remain in attainment of the new ozone standard. He then showed a bar chart that compared San Antonio’s design values with other Texas metropolitan areas from 2012 to 2015, during which time the San Antonio’s design values continuously remained higher than that of Austin. The yearly average 8-hr ozone, which he showed in another bar chart, indicated that on average the San Antonio and Austin have recorded the same level of ozone annually. According to Mr. Smeltzer this sounded odd and in his view must be studied in detail to find out what causes San Antonio to have higher design value as compared to Austin when on average they look the same. He then discussed the AQI table, which is an index based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for reporting daily quality of the air in terms of how clean or how polluted it is. He said there is a confusion about the scales and what AQI basically means and bringing the AQI to the attention of Committee members is an attempt to clarify when is a good or when is a bad air quality day. A bad day could have low ozone but very high particulate matter or other regulated pollution levels. TCEQ uses the EPA-developed index whereby each regulated pollutant has a separate AQI scale, with an AQI rating of 100 corresponding to the concentration of the Federal Standard for that pollutant. Mayor Riley asked why the numbers recorded at CAMS59 at Calaveras Lake are so favorable as compared to the others, to which Mr. Smeltzer answered, “Generally the local sources do not contribute to the Calaveras Lake monitor; the monitor is below the dam and the large point sources there do not contribute to ozone there. On rare occasions the wind coming from north takes the pollution to the east of San Antonio and then turns south and causes the Calaveras Lake monitor show high ozone values and that is another indication we are getting a lot of transport to our region.” Mr. Russell Seal in regards to the AQI moderate level had a question and was wondering if 51- 100 which equates to 60-75 ppb ozone threshold would change. Mr. Smeltzer answered, “The way it is set it points to the 75 ppb which is the standard for ozone and when the standard changes, it no longer equates to 75 ppb and might be revised but I do not have any information on that”. Mr. Russell Seal responded, “So we should wait and see.” 6. Air Quality Public Education Committee Report

Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 2 Sept. 30, 2015 DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Sept. 30, 2015 minutes.

a. Consider and act upon letter requesting physicians’ assistance with informing patients of potential risks of ground level ozone exposure and available notification services

Dr. Annette Prosterman, AACOG’s Natural Resources Transportation Coordinator, reported on recent public outreach activities as a follow up to her previous report to the Air Executive Committee. She said, “a team consisting of Russell Seal of the Sierra Club, Chris Ashcraft of STEER, and Brenda Williams, AACOG’s Natural Resources Director, have made air quality presentations, each lasting over an hour, to 7 meteorologists from KSAT, WOAI, KABB, and KMYS TV stations. The meteorologists were open to idea of including more air quality content during their weather reports. An immediate outcome was a very informative story by meteorologist Justin Horne aired September 7th on KSAT 12, featuring Brenda Williams.” She also said that the AACOG’s air quality press releases have had coverage by the San Antonio Current, San Antonio Express News, Bandera County Currier, Time Warner Cable News, Radio stations KSTX, KGNB, KTSA, and WOAI, and KENS 5 TV during the past few months, and the “Make Every Friday a Fresh Air Friday Campaign” continues with its weekly challenges for the public, largely through social media and outreach events, and air quality programs have been featured at AACOG Roadshows in Guadalupe, Kendall, and Atascosa counties. There is a coordinated plan with City of San Antonio to produce unified brand and toolkit of materials, including basic elements such as a logo and tagline related to improving air quality and other plans to help military bases use VIA Vanpool service, Enterprise Rideshare and V-Ride Metro and register those interested with NuRide carpool matching and/or VIA vanpool or V-ride, Metro Austin’s vanpool services. The JBSA (military bases) project is planned to launch on October 6th. Dr. Annette Prosterman asked for nominating agencies and entities for Annual Air Quality Stewardship Awards and said, ”We will soon be sending you all an email message with a link through which you can nominate an organization or project for this award, and we would appreciate your individual participation in the nomination process.” She also asked for approval of the letter which will be sent to the local physicians requesting informing patients of potential risks of ground level ozone exposure and available notification services. This letter will be sent out through the electronic newsletter of the Bexar County Medical Society. Mayor Riley asked if it was possible to send all the air quality alerts to the suburban cities so that they could post them on their websites and Dr. Annette Prosterman answered, “Yes, we can do that. I think that’s an excellent idea.” Mayor John Williams agreed with the suggestion made by Mayor Riley. Mr. Russell Seal asked of Dr. Annette Prosterman what this Committee can do to make the local meteorologists report the high ozone levels on bad days now that we know the EPA only deals with the Weather Channel for its national coverage and the States deal with their own local TV channels. Dr. Annette Prosterman pointed out that the Commute Solution funding does not allow that kind of activity. Councilman Ron Nirenberg responded that based on his experience we should not tell media practitioners what to say on media outlets, but as a suggestion we could write a letter to them and emphasize the health effects of these ozone events on sensitive groups. He said, “I like the fact that you have had these one-on-one meetings and I think if we pursue our group to have a roundtable with them, we can have them looking at each other talking about best practices for themselves as a unit, and maybe we can suggest that form as well.” In this regards furthermore Ms. Brenda Williams added that the meteorologists will take the matter more seriously if the information is given to them through multiple sources and entities and Mr. Bella suggested the “Weather Channel” can be linked to

Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 3 Sept. 30, 2015 DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Sept. 30, 2015 minutes. the local meteorologists so when “Weather Channel” is informed by the EPA, simultaneously the local TV stations are informed too. Councilman Ron Nirenberg asked of Dr. Annette Prosterman as to how the “Roadshows” and their contents have been perceived by other counties. Dr. Prosterman responded “generally speaking the attendance during the last Roadshows have been very low”. She said maybe the fact that these events are done during weekdays has to do with low attendance and so there are talks to move them to Saturdays. Councilman Ron Nirenberg suggested sharing resources with other entities to inform people better and make better impacts on the audience in the future. Commissioner Jim Wolverton made a motion to approve the letter to physicians and Mayor John Williams seconded the motion. The motion carried and the minutes were approved unanimously. Commissioner Jim Wolverton asked about how the Roadshows are advertized for and how the people are encouraged to attend; Mr. Tim Treviño, AACOG’s Senior Director said, “for Guadalupe event the local radio station and newspaper were contacted and we put it on our website; we always contact counties and local municipalities for these events and we have 15 other partners that participate in these Roadshows; we have very good working relationship with local editors from representing local newspapers, so we have increased that outreach.” 7. Clean Cities Report A. Potential Natural Gas Grants B. Status of TERP Grants C. Consider and act upon letter to fleet owners Mr. Nic Jones, Clean City Coordinator, distributed a list of available grants for natural gas vehicles and pointed out that two grants were open for application but the rest will be available within the next coming months and the timing of outreach letter to fleet owners seems to be right. Mayor Riley asked if these grants are available to applicants in San Antonio only or suburban municipalities can also apply. Mr. Nic Jones answered, “For the fleet owner outreach these grants are available to all of them.” Mr. Nic Jones said for the letter to fleet owners instead of going to the top 50 fleet operators will be sent to the top 100 fleet owners; the letter has been modified to reflect concerns of those fleet owners that might be affected by the anti idling ordinance, and the date will be moved to either Oct. 14th or Oct. 16th so that there won’t be any overlap with Manufactures Environmental Seminar on Oct. 15th. Mayor John Williams made a motion to approve the content of the letter as it read. The motion was seconded by Mayor Riley. The letter was approved unanimously and motion carried. Mr. Russell Seal asked if the VW diesel cars which are now known to defy the EPA emission standards can have any impacts on the AACOG air quality forecasts. Mr. Smeltzer answered the numbers of diesel personal vehicles are so few and it is not expected to have any noticeable impacts on our forecasts and emission inventories. Mr. Russell Seal asked if giving rebate has been considered for electric cars by CPS Energy. Mr. Nic Jones answered, “I know other cities have done that, and it remains a possibility for our area too, especially in the light of the fact that CPS Energy is planning to add electric vehicles to its fleet.”

8. AIR Advisory and AIR Technical Committee Reports

A. Status update on ENVIRON’s Control Strategies

Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 4 Sept. 30, 2015 DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Sept. 30, 2015 minutes.

B. Consider and act upon a letter in support of the City of San Antonio’s control measures

C. Regional Air Quality Strategic Plan

D. Consider and act upon a resolution in support of the regional strategic plan

E. Austin’s Control Measures

F. List of Potential Additional Control Measures

Ms. Liza Meyer gave a presentation on the City-adopted control strategies and other control strategies above and beyond the existing ones. She stated that based on the surveys conducted by the City people are concerned about the air quality and City is adopting control strategies such as traffic signal synchronization, no idling at the airport, adopting international energy codes for buildings, VIA’s pass for use by the City’s employees, and STEP program to clean the air in San Antonio region.

She said the City is looking at adopting measures to encourage tree planting, non-motorized transportation, reduced commercial building energy consumption, and electric vehicles for use by the City’s employees; and anti idling ordinance will be developed and practiced first within our own work place by October 2015 and then given to the city council for adoption in first week of December. The second part of the City’s strategy is to allow the health department inspects small businesses for inspecting emissions from these businesses. She stated that the City will work with AACOG to model the effects of these adopted control strategies and will stay in touch with TCEQ for consultation and selection of other control strategies. Ms. Liza Meyer added that the letter of support which should be approved by this Committee was really important for the City.

Mr. Bella asked, “What are the dates for implementation of these strategies and under the best scenario case, what NOX reduction level on a daily or annually basis would they have?” Ms. Liza Meyer answered, “They have the potential to have 1000 tons of reduction, just for the City of San Antonio.” Mr. Bella asked, “Annually?” and Ms. Meyer responded “Yes, but we do have an aggressive timeline for presenting them to the Council; I cannot tell you what that timeline is until we have the Council meeting.” Councilman Nirenberg added “My hope is, and I am speaking for myself, that we can get this approved and begin implementation by the end of this year.”

Dean Word reported on behalf of the Air Advisory Committee and said, ”One thing we have discussed in AirAdvisory group was the need for the City to have an ordinance for idling restriction and how that would be enforced and how aggressively the City would move to implement that one.” Councilman Nirenberg added “We do not expect tremendous amount of controversy within the San Antonio’s political arm, and it’s all now about how to communicate with the public, and begin implementation.”

Mr. Bella asked if there were any provision to make the City’s model of control strategies a model that other municipalities in the MSA could follow and imitate. Councilman Nirenberg added “Yes, and vice versa, that is the intend of this letter, which is to show to cities and counties in the area that San Antonio is beginning to basically put its money where its mouth is on air quality, and we are beginning to do our efforts the same, and you may notice that the resolution, which we are about to take up, sort of puts this goal in writing.”

Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 5 Sept. 30, 2015 DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Sept. 30, 2015 minutes.

Mr. Russell Seal asked if the City has done anything to improve public acceptance of these control strategies and Ms. Liza Meyer answered that these letters that are presented today are our way of publicizing our efforts and serve as a start of our community outreach. Mr. Russell Seal asked if there has been any money set aside for outreach to a larger public and Ms. Liza Meyer answered there will be a request made to the City Council to approve such budget item.

Councilman Nirenberg then asked for action on the letters in support of the City of San Antonio’s control measures. Mayor John Williams made a motion to approve the letters to Scully, the City Manager, Judge Wolf, Doug Melnick the Sustainability Director, and Mayor Taylor with revision of the October 1th date if the letters were not sent out today, the day of this current meeting. Commissioner Jim Wolverton seconded the motion. The motion carried and the letters were approved unanimously.

Next, Ms. Brenda Williams gave a summary description of the proposed Regional Air Quality Strategic Plan. She said that the document will guide the region to achieve acceptable air quality by promoting actions that ensure the Alamo Region meets federal clean air standards as a living document that would allow us examine our decisions leading us to a healthy community. She said the difference between this document and the existing Path Forward, which is our plan under the EPA’s Ozone Advance program and focuses on what we are doing now is that the Regional Strategic Plan will be forward oriented and goes beyond providing a list of who is doing what. It sets goals and objectives and analyzes the best strategies for this region and includes mechanism that if we failed, it would set us back on the right track. This Plan will lead us to have vision, strategy design, strategic goals and objectives, and helps us measure our success. She said she would like to see that this plan is reviewed by the members of AirExec Committee for its contents and approach to make sure that it will help the Region to meet its needs. She asked for comments and inputs from the Committee members.

Councilman Nirenberg then asked for action on the resolution in support of the regional strategic plan. Mr. Dean Word, who spoke on behalf of the Air Advisory Committee affirmed the support of members of his committee for the regional strategic plan, which includes elected officials and representatives from: Atascosa County; Bandera County, Bexar County, Comal County, Guadalupe County, Kendall County, Medina County, Wilson County, City of Bandera, City of Boerne, City of Floresville, City of Hondo, City of New Braunfels, City of Pleasanton, City of San Antonio, City of Seguin, Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG), Alamo Regional Rural Planning Organization, Greater Bexar County Council of Cities (GBCCC), and San Antonio / Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The resolution documents that these jurisdictions and planning organizations are partnered together in a region-wide strategy to attain NAAQS for ground-level ozone through the recommendation of air quality control measures and all actions to maintain the NAAQS standards will be with a unified voice throughout the San Antonio-New Braunfels Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).

Mayor John Williams made a motion to approve the resolution with revision to the second WHEREAS, which did not specify an exact date on which the EPA planned to announce change the standard. Judge Sherman Krause seconded the motion. The motion carried and the resolution was approved unanimously.

Mr. Smeltzer next gave a quick presentation on control strategies devised for specific emission source that could be considered by entities within the region for reducing their emissions. Of these control strategies were Transportation Emission Reduction Measures including bicycle and pedestrian mobility where bicycle paths are connected to transit network and work places,

Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 6 Sept. 30, 2015 DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Sept. 30, 2015 minutes. and telecommuting for employees of city, state, and regional organization. He offered a series of measures such as I/M programs, anti-idling policies, expansion of pedestrian and bicycling roadways, as well as promoting transit trips, carpool and rideshare programs, use of NOX control devices and alternative fuels for point sources, locomotive anti idling, and expansion of TERP money, development of mixed land use areas to create denser populated zones, use of energy efficient homes and appliances, truck lanes, and increased public education/outreach.

He reported that there is a desire among elected official to control ozone in the region and presented a list of additional control strategies that could help guide us achieving that goal. This list included measures such as:

 Zoning regulations to encourage mix-use development and high population densities  Increase tree canopy cover to reduce heat  Promote use of alternative energy source  Weatherization of existing building to reduce energy use  Residential solar panels  White Roofs and Garden Tops to effect ambient urban air temperatures  Promote energy efficient homes and appliances  Increase public outreach (including at schools)

He encouraged the committee members to review the list of control strategies and suggest their own additional controls if they could think of any.

9. Potential Cost of Non-Attainment Mr. Smeltzer next discussed potential cost of non-attainment designation for the area referencing the latest analysis published by Austin MSA. He said the cost has been estimated to be a value between 24 to 41 billion dollars between 2018 and 2046 for the 5-county Austin and Round Rock MSA. On annual basis, that would be 0.9 to 1.4 billion dollars per year. These estimates are based on the assumptions that the standards will be lowered to 65 ppb, the area will not meet the standard by 2019 and will be classified as “Moderate”. He emphasized that the San Antonio region has a higher ozone design value; therefore the costs are anticipated to be higher, however this report should give an overall view of how much a nonattainment can cost San Antonio region. Mr. Bella made a comment as to with clear impact from outside (transportation) and with 80 ppb ozone design value for San Antonio as opposed to 69 ppb for Austin, and Austin estimation for cost of lowering their emission so high, one can only say reducing the design value locally without engaging other regions such as Austin will be “a hack of a row to hoe locally”. Mr. Dean Word asked how Austin quantified the cost and if they have used consultant to calculate the cost for them or they did it within the COG. Mr. Smeltzer answered, “They did it within the COG; TCEQ approved an amendment to released the fund to do this study.” He added that AACOG too now has the funding to do the same study for the San Antonio region. Councilman Nirenberg stated concerns as to how to make these numbers palatable to the local folks and nevertheless 41 billion dollars over 30 years is lot of money. Mr. Russell Seal responded with saying that one cannot assume that these costs will hamper the industries and businesses as in the past, despite their complain about the EPA’s rules, they have “always continued to stay in business and continued to be the leaders of the world in economic development, even though they have to abide by the new and stronger regulation.” Mr. Dean Word in response to Mr. Seal’s comment said, “I would take some exception to your generality. As a mid-sized business we have always evaluated potential impact, cost wise, of

Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 7 Sept. 30, 2015 DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Sept. 30, 2015 minutes. new government regulations on our bottom lines, some of them internally and some them through various trade association, and ultimately we as business men we have to make decisions based on our bottom lines.” He added some of smaller businesses in his line of work have left the industry based on the burdensome and over reaching regulations that we see. Mr. Smeltzer also in response to Mr. Seal’s comments said that as you noticed in Austin’s report the loss of business to other counties is also a concern and if businesses did not feel comfortable in a nonattainment area, history has shown they will move to other counties that are designated as attainment areas; as power generation companies have done in Houston area, for example. Mr. Peter Bella expressed his concern for lack of participation by representatives from peripheral counties in the past and wanted to remind AACOG’s employee to do their best to encourage these counties elected officials to participate in air quality meetings and other efforts regarding the air quality issues.

10. Next Meeting Councilman Ron Nirenberg reminded everybody that meetings are now on a bimonthly schedule rather than quarterly, and based on that, the Committee will meet on December 9th, 2015. 11. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m.

Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 8 Sept. 30, 2015 5. Current Ozone Status

Ozone Report Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Dec. 9th, 2015

Description of ozone standard promulgated in 2008: The annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years, measured at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.070 ppm.1 Table 1 describes current status of San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA in this regards.

During 2015 as the Table 1 indicates, CAMS58 at Camp Bullis recorded an 8-hour average ozone level of 80 ppb. If this number is averaged with the fourth-highest values recorded at the monitor for 2013 and 2015 when these readings are confirmed by TCEQ, then the San Antonio region will have exceeded the 8-hour average ozone standard.

Based on the ozone levels recorded for 2015, the maximum allowable 4th highest values for 2016 are calculated and shown in Table 2.

Table 1: Compliance Status with 75 ppb 8-Hour Ozone Standard, San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA2

4th Highest Reading, ppb Current* 3 Year Monitor Site 2013 2014 2015* Average Camp Bullis C58 83 72 80 78 San Antonio NW C23 76 69 79 74 Calaveras Lake C59 69 63 68 66 * Denotes as of 11/13/2015

Table 2: Compliance Status with 70 ppb 8-Hour Ozone Standard, San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA

4th Highest Reading, ppb 2016 maximum allowable 4th Monitor Site highest when standard is 70 ppb 2014 2015* Camp Bullis C58 72 80 60 San Antonio NW C23 69 79 64 Calaveras Lake C59 63 67 82 * Denotes as of 11/13/2015

Based on the 3 year average shown in table 2 and recent ozone standard, “Marginal” non-attainment designation for certain counties in San Antonio_ New Braunfels MSA could be expected. The TCEQ-developed potential classification ranges for non-attainment designation are shown in the following page.

1 Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/26/2015-26594/national-ambient-air-quality- standards-for-ozone 2 Available online: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/8hr_attainment.pl

Page 1 of 3 5. Current Ozone Status

Source: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

EPA’s Proposed Ozone Standard Timeline

Oct. 1, 2015: EPA issues a final 70 ppb 8-hour ozone standard Oct. 1, 2016: Implementation Guidance for the ozone standard could be released by the EPA Oct. 2016: State Designation Recommendations due to the EPA (based on 2013, 2014, and 2015 3-year average) June 2017: EPA sends letter to states with proposed nonattainment area designations Oct. 1, 2017: EPA determination of attainment or non-attainment for affected areas (maybe based on 2014, 2015, and 2016 3-year average) Oct. 1 2020: SIP elements for non-attainment areas are due Dec. 31, 2020: Attainment deadline for “Marginal” areas Dec. 31, 2023: Attainment deadline for “Moderate” areas

Note: The timeline could change depending on potential ligation 2009 2010

Page 2 of 3

5. Current Ozone Status

Particulate Matter Report

Some particles, known as primary particles, are emitted directly from a source, such as construction sites, unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks or fires. Others form in complicated reactions in the atmosphere of chemicals such as sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides that are emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles. These particles, known as secondary particles, make up most of the fine particle pollution in the country. Fine particulates (PM-2.5) are generally emitted from activities such as industrial and residential combustion and from vehicle exhaust3.

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate Matter of 10 microns or less4 Averaging Period Standards

PM 10 Standard: Not to be above 150 µg/m3 on more than once per year on average 24-hour over three years with daily sampling for both primary and secondary particles PM 2.5 Standard: The three-year average of the annual 98th percentile for each 24-hour population-oriented monitor within an area is not to be at or above 35 µg/m3 for both primary and secondary particles

PM 2.5 Standard: 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean concentrations is not to Annual 3 3 be above 12 µg/m level for primary particles and 15 µg/m level secondary particles

Status of PM2.5 at CAMS 59 (Calaveras Lake) Annual Averages Highest 24-Hour Averages Compare to 12 µg/m3 Compare to 35 µg/m3 2007: 9.38 2011: 9.64 2007: 27.77 2011: 38.14 2008: 9.59 2012: 9.25 2008: 30.76 2012: 26.23 2009: 9.48 2013: 8.34 2009: 39.00 2013: 28.1 2010: 8.80 2014: 8.81 2010: 24.18 2014: 25.8 2015 Monthly Average (µg/m3) Highest 24 Hour Average, in given month (µg/m3) January 6.1 February 7.1 March 5.8 April 9.1 May 12.2 June 8.8 July 13.8 28.3 August 9.9 17.7 September 8.0 27.8 October 7.9 25.9 November (as of 11/13/15) 5.5 19.4 December Av. Months to Date 8.56

3 TCEQ, Current PM2.5 Levels, online: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/cgi- bin/compliance/monops/texas_pm25.pl#whatis 4 EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards page: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

Page 3 of 3 Air Improvement Resources Committee 8700 Tesoro Drive, Suite 700, San Antonio, Texas 78217 p: (210) 362-5200 f: (210) 225-5937

Hon. Ron Nirenberg Resolution in Support of Federal Legislation Chair, Enabling Early Action Compacts AIR Executive Committee City of San Antonio, Councilman WHEREAS, On September 24, 2015 Senators Hatch and McCaskill introduced Senate Bill 2072 to require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Hon. Chris Riley establish an “Early Action Compact” (EAC) program that would protect areas Vice-Chair, from being designated for the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard AIR Executive Committee Alamo Area MPO, (NAAQS); City of Leon Valley, Mayor WHEREAS, on October 1, 2015, the EPA lowered the level of ozone NAAQS from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb, with compliance based on the three-year Hon. Richard L. Jackson averages of the fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour ozone averages; Wilson County, Judge WHEREAS, fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone averages at 2 regulatory monitors in the San Antonio-New Braunfels Metropolitan Statistical Area Hon. Sherman Krause Comal County, (SA-NB MSA) were well above 70 ppb in 2015, while 3-year averages for Judge those same monitors were also above 70 ppb;

Hon. Nelson Wolff WHEREAS, due to the SA-NB MSA’s current ozone levels, the areas projected Bexar County, population growth, and potential contributions to ozone levels from outside Judge the MSA, the region is at risk for being designated in nonattainment within the next 10 years under the new ozone NAAQS; Hon. Robert L. Hurley Atascosa County, WHEREAS, under S.2072, an EAC would be an agreement between the EPA, the state, Judge and local governments to voluntarily implement emission reduction Hon. John H. Williams measures with measurable milestones to ensure progress and accountability Greater Bexar County and to provide public information on air quality; Council of Cities, Universal City, WHEREAS, an area’s participation in the EAC program would prevent the EPA from Mayor designating the area as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS for up to 10 years even if the EPA lowered the level of the ozone standard in 2020; Hon. Mike Fincke AACOG Board of Directors, WHEREAS, the Alamo Area Air Improvement Resources (AIR) Executive Committee has Kendall County, Commissioner participated in several voluntary ozone programs since 2002, including the original EAC program; and Hon. Darrel L. Lux Kendall County, WHEREAS, the AIR Executive Committee desires to continue conducting voluntary air Judge quality planning to achieve the health benefits of clean air while ensuring sustainable economic growth; Hon. Jim Wolverton Guadalupe County NOW, THEREFORE the AIR Executive Committee hereby supports S.2072 and encourages Commissioner Congress and the President to enact S.2072 as soon as possible to support voluntary air quality planning efforts as a means to ensure continued local Hon. George Green control over regional air quality planning and provide cost-effective City of New Braunfels, Councilman attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.

PASSED and APPROVED this ninth day of December, 2015.

Signed,

Councilman Ron Nirenberg, City of San Antonio Mayor Chris Riley, City of Leon Valley Chair, AIR Executive Committee Vice-Chair, AIR Executive Committee

Air Improvement Resources Mission Statement for Developing Air Quality Control Strategies

Mission The AIR Committee is dedicated to attaining the federal air quality standards and developing a comprehensive emission reduction plan for the San Antonio-New Braunfels Metropolitan Statistical Area to protect human health.

Goals and Objectives  We are committed to developing a list of clean air strategies and policies which will achieve attainment within the required time frame; and we will work directly with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on technical analysis and control strategy development, including preparation and approval of the State Implementation Plan for our region.  We are committed to provide information to the public and seek public input relating to current and future air quality measures.  We are committed to a sustainable future and to improving the social, economic and environmental well being of the community.  We will improve the air quality of the place we live in by working with area businesses, local governments, community groups and our neighbors.

Objectives  We acknowledge that our region has violated the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the time period of 2013-2015 and committed to determine what sources of emissions are affecting the region and how much emission reduction must be achieved in order to remain in attainment of 70 ppb 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  We acknowledge that air quality models have indicated that approximately 25% of current anthropogenic

NOX emissions from all sources within the MSA must be eliminated in order to achieve attainment of the 70 ppb 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the year 2018.  We acknowledge that emissions from the San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA contributed 32% to the peak hourly ozone on high ozone on days > 70 ppb and local controls can be effective in reducing ozone readings at the monitors.  We acknowledge that point sources and on-road sources had the largest contribution to ozone on days > 70 ppb. Local non-road/off-road emissions and area sources also contributed to high ozone readings.

 We acknowledge that our air quality models have indicated that the removal of NOX emissions from sources such as point, on-road, area, non-road, and off-road from the model inputs results in the greatest reductions in local ambient ozone.  We also acknowledge it would be difficult for the San Antonio-New Braunfels region to meet ozone attainment goals without additional regional controls

Signed,

Councilman Ron Nirenberg, City of San Antonio Mayor Chris Riley, City of Leon Valley Chair, AIR Executive Committee Vice-Chair, AIR Executive Committee

7. AIR Committee Reports B. ERG’s Inspection and Maintenance Program Benefits Analysis for the CAPCOG region

Evaluation of Austin’s I/M program

ERG, consultant firm, produced a report on air quality benefits of gasoline vehicle Inspection and Maintenance program implemented in Travis and Williamson counties. ERG used EPA’s MOVES2014 model for calculating emissions benefits along with local input data for these counties. According to this ERG report, there were 397 counties with I/M programs in the 2011 National Emission Inventory, testing emissions from passenger cars, passenger trucks, and light commercial trucks. The tests in the Austin area included two-speed idle (TSI) and gas cap for light- duty vehicles, applicable to pre-1996 model year vehicles and on-board diagnostic (OBD) exhaust and evaporative system checks applicable to 1996+ model years.

The report discusses suitable compliance factors (CF) for Austin area and suggests use of empirical data as opposed to the MOVES model default CFs. These factors are based on recent data including measured participation rates and observed likely cases of fraud in Austin from the ERG study, and Austin-specific waiver rates from the Gordon-Darby database, which generally are smaller than those of MOVES’ default values. ERG ran MOVES2014 for Travis and Williamson counties for a 2012 and 2018 summer weekday to estimate emissions under three scenarios of CFs for light-duty vehicle. The Austin area’s I/M program requires participation from heavy-duty gasoline vehicles as well. Nearly 28,000 HDGVs in the Austin area participated in I/M testing in 2012.

The tables below are extracted from ERG report and show estimates of LDGV and HDGV emissions reduction benefits in the Austin area for 2018. The LDGV benefits are from empirical CF scenario and the total on-road inventory data are from zero CF scenario or no I/M program. As shown, the benefits for LDGV are substantially larger due to their prevalence within the local fleet.

Table 1: 2018 Emission Benefits from Austin’s Three I/M Program Scenarios, Light Duty Total On-road Pollutant Compliance Scenario Williamson Travis Reduction Emission Zero CF 15.08 4.53 10.55 n/a VOC Empirical CF 13.38 4.02 9.36 1.70 (tpd) MOVES2010 Default CF 13.26 3.98 9.27 1.82 Zero CF 184.58 53.94 130.63 n/a CO (tpd) Empirical CF 161.17 47.15 114.02 23.41 MOVES2010 Default CF 159.40 46.65 112.75 25.18 Zero CF 22.56 6.85 15.71 n/a NOx (tpd) Empirical CF 21.15 6.43 14.72 1.41 MOVES2010 Default CF 21.05 6.41 14.64 1.51

Table 2: 2018 Benefits from Austin’s I/M Program, Light Duty & Heavy Duty Gasoline On-road LDG Benefit HDG Benefit % HDG Pollutant A B % LDG Benefit Emissions (tpd) (tpd) (tpd) Benefit VOC 15.08 1.70 11.27% 0.12 0.86% CO 184.58 23.41 12.68% 3.10 1.68% NOX 22.56 1.41 6.25% 0.20 0.89%

A Emissions from “Zero CF” Scenario B Emissions from “Empirical CF” Scenario

Inspection and Maintenance Program Benefits Analysis

Report

Prepared for:

Capital Area Council of Governments

Prepared by:

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

September 21, 2015

ERG No. 3948.00.004.001 CAPCOG ERG Contract 2014-2015 Work Order No. 4

Inspection and Maintenance Program Benefit Analysis

Report

Prepared for:

Andrew Hoekzema Air Quality Program Manager Capital Area Council of Governments 6800 Burleson Rd. Suite 165 Austin, Texas 78744

Prepared by:

Allison DenBleyker Cindy Palacios Jim Lindner Sandeep Kishan Eastern Research Group, Inc. 3508 Far West Blvd., Suite210 Austin, TX 78731

September 21, 2015

Executive Summary

This report documents an investigation of the emissions benefits of the Texas Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program in the Austin area using the MOVES model and local data specific to Travis and Williamson counties. Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) performed this evaluation for the Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) using the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data, the Texas Information Management System (TIMS) database (also known as the “Gordon-Darby database”), remote sensing data from Eastern Research Group’s (ERG) recent I/M Program Evaluation for the Austin area, U.S. EPA’s MOVES2014 model, and MOVES inputs developed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

The emissions benefits of an I/M program depend in part on the compliance of the vehicle fleet. In MOVES, this is quantified through an input variable termed the compliance factor (CF), a percent of the vehicle population between 0% (none) and 100% (full compliance). This is a statistic that includes three components: a compliance rate, a waiver rate, and a regulatory class adjustment factor.  The compliance rate reflects the percentage of vehicles that have complied with the requirement to pass an annual inspection.  The waiver rate reflects the percentage of vehicles that failed an emissions test but received a waiver from needing to repair the vehicle.  The regulatory class adjustment factor represents the percentage of a certain type of vehicle that would be subject to program requirements and would receive an emission reduction benefit from the program.

EPA documentation for the use of MOVES2014 to prepare emission inventories for SIPs and transportation conformity1 includes guidance on preparing I/M program inputs. The guidance specifically addresses all three components of the compliance factor. First, the guidance states that the compliance rate should be determined by “sticker surveys, license plate surveys, or a comparison of the number of final tests to the number of vehicles subject to the I/M requirement.” In addition, the guidance states that “actual historical waiver rates should be used as the basis for estimating future waiver rates.” EPA provides default regulatory class adjustment factors, but allows alternate factors to be used in a SIP with proper supporting documentation that shows how the adjustments were derived. The MOVES2014 guidance does not provide a default compliance rate, but the MOVES2010 guidance2 stated that a compliance rate of 96% is appropriate for “an area planning to implement an I/M program using a registration denial system that automatically generates compliance documents that uniquely identify the complying vehicle and that are serially numbered and accounted for, and that relies on a centralized processing by government clerks with management oversight.” EPA’s stated use of the 96% compliance rate applies only until the program begins implementation, after which the compliance rate should reflect the program data. EPA’s performance standards for

1 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420b15007.pdf 2 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/420b10023.pdf

iii

new I/M programs in 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or above include a compliance rate of 96% and waiver rate of 3%, meaning that new I/M programs must perform at least as well as these parameter values.

The current compliance factors for Travis and Williamson counties were calculated directly from a compliance rate of 96%, the waiver rate of 3%, and default MOVES2010 regulatory class adjustment factors that differ by vehicle type (100%, 94%, and 88% for passenger cars, passenger trucks, and light commercial trucks, respectively). In MOVES2014, the regulatory class adjustment factors became 100%, 98%, and 93% for these source types3. This study updates both the compliance rate and the waiver rate using local data. This study also estimates the emission reductions from heavy-duty gasoline vehicles. Unlike the data available in MOVES2014 for light-duty gasoline vehicles, there are no emission rates in MOVES2014 that account for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles subject to I/M programs, even though I/M programs in many counties throughout the country, including Travis and Williamson Counties, apply I/M program requirements to such vehicles. This estimate accounts for the 2% of passenger trucks, 7% of light commercial trucks, and all of the other vehicle source use types with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of greater than 8,500 pounds.

This study assesses the modeled emission reductions from the vehicle emissions I/M program in Travis and Williamson Counties in four tasks. The first examines the distribution of CFs for vehicles in other I/M program areas across the U.S. (Section2.0). The second task presents the development of empirical I/M compliance factors that can be used as input to the MOVES model (Section 3.0). The empirically-based factors are based on Austin area data and include the effects of I/M test fraud. The third task presents results of MOVES2014 modeling of three I/M compliance scenarios in Austin, including (1) zero CF, (2) empirical CFs, and (3) TTI’s MOVES2010-based default CFs (Section 4.0). While Section 4.0 examines modeled benefits for light-duty vehicles, the fourth task estimates emission reduction benefits for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (Section 5.0), which the MOVES2014 model cannot directly model. The key findings of each task of the study are presented below.

Comparison of Austin CFs with other areas of the U.S. The 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) provides a dataset of MOVES input data CFs used in EPA modeling for I/M program areas across the country. There were 397 counties with I/M programs in the 2011 NEI, 78% of which were state-submitted data and 22% were MOVES2010 defaults. In addition, a portion of submitted data was the EPA default CF derived from the use of a 96% compliance rate, a 3% waiver rate, and regulatory class coverage adjustments of 100%, 94% and 88% for passenger cars, passenger trucks, and light commercial trucks, respectively. In the NEI data for the tests applicable to pre-1996 model year vehicles in the Austin area, the two-speed idle (TSI) and gas cap only have CFs ranging from 82 to 98 percent for light-duty vehicles. The on-board diagnostic (OBD) exhaust and evaporative system checks applicable to 1996+ model years show a much wider range in the NEI data of 17 to 99 percent. The range in compliance was wide, but most of the data fell at the high end; the mode

3 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420b15007.pdf

iv

of the OBD CF was 82 to 95 percent depending on vehicle class. The light-duty vehicle CFs used in the 2011 NEI were a mix of in-program data, EPA default values, and, although rare, CFs of 100%. Over two-thirds of the NEI data light-duty CFs, however, were neither a default nor 100% value, suggesting that many other areas of the country are calculating CFs based on their local I/M data, unlike Texas.

New empirically based CFs for Austin

ERG calculated new compliance factors for the Austin area based on findings from a previous evaluation of Austin’s I/M program for the TCEQ4 and waiver data from the Gordon- Darby5 database provided by CAPCOG. The recommended new compliance factors for Travis and Williamson Counties are shown below, alongside the somewhat higher default MOVES2010-based default compliance factors used by TCEQ in their year 2012 and 2018 emissions inventories using the MOVES2014 model6. For comparison, the MOVES2014-based default compliance factors are also shown because these will be used in the near future for on- road MOVES modeling in Texas, replacing the MOVES2010-based version. The new recommended compliance factors account for recent data including measured participation rates and observed likely cases of fraud in Austin from the ERG study, and Austin-specific waiver rates from the Gordon-Darby database.

Exhaust OBD test empirical compliance factors. Difference MOVES2014 Difference New MOVES2010 MOVES from Default from Recommended Default Source MOVES2010 Compliance MOVES2014 Compliance Compliance Type (New – Factor (New – Factor Factor Previous) Previous) Passenger 85.19% 93.12% -7.93% 93.12% -7.93% Car Passenger 83.48% 87.53% -4.05% 91.26% -7.78% Truck Light Commercial 79.22% 81.95% -2.73% 86.60% -7.38% Truck

4 http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/ms/IM/IMProgEval2015-ARR.pdf 5 http://www.gordon-darby.com/#Home 6ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/Statewide/mvs/reports/mvs14_att_tex_06_12_18_technical_report_fin al_dec_2014.pdf

v

TSI and evaporative tests’ empirical compliance factors. Difference MOVES2014 Difference New MOVES2010 MOVES from Default from Recommended Default Source MOVES2010 Compliance MOVES2014 Compliance Compliance Type (New – Factor (New – Factor Factor Previous) Previous) Passenger 85.95% 93.12% -7.17% 93.12% -7.17% Car Passenger 84.23% 87.53% -3.30% 91.26% -7.03% Truck Light Commercial 79.93% 81.95% -2.02% 86.60% -6.67% Truck

MOVES2014 modeling of light-duty vehicle I/M emission reductions After developing the new compliance factors, ERG ran MOVES2014 for Travis and Williamson counties for a 2012 and 2018 summer weekday to estimate emissions under three scenarios of light-duty vehicle CFs. The scenarios included a zero CF, the empirical CF (“New Recommended Compliance Factor” from above tables), and the current TCEQ CF (“MOVES2014 Default Compliance Factor” from above tables). In spite of large changes in CF identified in the empirical CF analysis from the MOVES2010 default CFs, the reductions in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen oxides (NOX) relative to a zero CF scenario were similar, as shown below. Additional results can be found in Section 4.0.

2012 On-Road Emissions in the Austin Area for Three I/M Program Scenarios Compliance Scenario Travis Williamson Total Reduction VOC (tpd) Zero CF 16.52 6.74 23.26 n/a Empirical CF 14.81 6.04 20.85 2.41 MOVES2010 Default CF 14.68 5.99 20.68 2.58 CO (tpd) Zero CF 174.02 69.17 243.19 n/a Empirical CF 154.29 61.43 215.72 27.47 MOVES2010 Default CF 152.82 60.87 213.69 29.50 NOx (tpd) Zero CF 33.55 13.62 47.17 n/a Empirical CF 31.38 12.76 44.14 3.03 MOVES2010 Default CF 31.22 12.70 43.92 3.25

vi

2018 On-Road Emissions in the Austin Area for Three I/M Program Scenarios Compliance Scenario Travis Williamson Total Reduction VOC (tpd) Zero CF 10.55 4.53 15.08 n/a Empirical CF 9.36 4.02 13.38 1.70 MOVES2010 Default CF 9.27 3.98 13.26 1.82 CO (tpd) Zero CF 130.63 53.94 184.58 n/a Empirical CF 114.02 47.15 161.17 23.41 MOVES2010 Default CF 112.75 46.65 159.40 25.18 NOx (tpd) Zero CF 15.71 6.85 22.56 n/a Empirical CF 14.72 6.43 21.15 1.41 MOVES2010 Default CF 14.64 6.41 21.05 1.51

Estimate of emission reduction benefits for heavy-duty vehicles The Austin area’s I/M program requires participation from heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HDGVs), defined as gasoline-fueled vehicles weighing over 8500 lbs. However, MOVES does not have the ability to account for I/M benefits of HDGVs. Therefore, ERG estimated the benefit by borrowing the I/M benefits from the heaviest regulatory class available in MOVES (regulatory class 30 or 40) and applying the benefits to all HDGVs by model year, I/M test type, pollutant (VOC, CO, and NOX) and emission process (start exhaust, running exhaust, and evaporative vapor venting). The HDGV population in Travis and Williamson counties participating in the Austin area’s I/M program was determined from the TIMS database filtered for vehicle weights that exceeded 8,500 lbs. According to the TIMS, nearly 28,000 HDGVs in the Austin area participate in I/M testing, a population number much greater than the TCEQ inventory data suggest operate in Austin (4,800 vehicles). While this discrepancy was not reconcilable under the scope of this work, we proceeded with using the larger population of HDGVs in the TIMS dataset. The tables below provide an estimate of HDGV emissions reduction benefits in the Austin area for 2012 and 2018. For context, the light-duty benefits (empirical CF scenario) and the total on-road inventory (zero CF scenario) are also shown. While these calculations showed a benefit for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles where no benefit had previously been assumed, the benefits for light-duty vehicles are substantially larger due to their prevalence within the local fleet.

vii

2012 Summer Weekday Emissions of VOC, CO, and NOX, Light-Duty I/M Emission Benefits, and Estimated HDGV I/M Emission Benefits Light-Duty Heavy-Duty Total On-road Gasoline (LDG) LDG Gasoline (HDG) HDGV Pollutant Emissions (tpd)A Benefit (tpd)B Benefit Benefit (tpd) Benefit VOC 21.29 2.41 11.32% 0.25 1.17% CO 243.19 27.47 11.30% 5.59 2.30%

NOX 47.17 3.04 6.44% 0.67 1.42% A Emissions from Section 4.0 “Zero CF” Scenario B Emissions from Section 4.0 “Empirical CF” Scenario

2018 Summer Weekday Emissions of VOC, CO, and NOX, Light-Duty I/M Emission Benefits, and Estimated HDGV I/M Emission Benefits Light-Duty Heavy-Duty Total On-road Gasoline (LDG) LDG Gasoline (HDG) HDGV Pollutant Emissions (tpd)A Benefit (tpd)B Benefit Benefit (tpd) Benefit VOC 13.90 1.70 12.23% 0.12 0.86% CO 184.58 23.41 12.68% 3.10 1.68%

NOX 22.56 1.41 6.25% 0.20 0.89% A Emissions from Section 4.0 “Zero CF” Scenario B Emissions from Section 4.0 “Empirical CF” Scenario

When the emission reductions estimated for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles are added to the estimated emission reductions from light-duty vehicles using the new empirical compliance factor, the total estimated emission reductions attributable to the I/M program actually exceed the estimated reductions that were estimated using the default MOVES2010 compliance factors, as shown in the table below. Comparison of I/M Program Emission Reduction Benefit Estimates 2018 I/M 2012 I/M Benefit 2018 I/M Benefit 2012 I/M Benefit Benefit Using Using Empirical CF Using Empirical CF Pollutant Using MOVES2010 MOVES2010 and HDGV and HDGV Default CF (tpd) Default CF Estimate (tpd) Estimate (tpd) (tpd) VOC 2.58 2.66 1.82 1.82 CO 29.50 33.06 25.18 26.51

NOX 3.25 3.71 1.51 1.61

viii

7. Other Items A. Consider and act upon Meeting Schedule for 2016

2016 Calendar AIR Committee Meetings

All Air Improvement Resources (AIR) Committee meetings for 2016 are planned to convene in the Al J. Notzon III Board Room, 8700 Tesoro Drive, San Antonio, 78217.

AIR Executive AACOG Board Committee (Same AIR Advisory AIR Technical Month Of Directors Date as AACOG Committee Committee (DRAFT) Board) 10:00 AM, 8:30 AM, 1:30 PM, 1:30 PM,

Wednesday Wednesday Thursday Monday Jan. Jan. 27 Jan. 15 (tentatively) January 21 January 11 Feb. Feb. 24 ------March March 23 March 23 March 17 March 7 April April 27 ------May May 25 May 25 May 19 May 9 June June 22 ------July July 27 July 27 July 21 July 11 Aug. August 24 ------Sept. September 28 September 28 Sept. 22 September 12 Oct. October 26 October 26 -- -- Nov. -- -- Nov. 17 November 7 Dec. December 7 December 7 -- --

9. Other Items C. Alamo Cement and Capitol Cement permit applications for new cement kilns in Bexar County

Alamo Cement and Capitol Cement permit applications for new cement kilns in Bexar County

Alamo Cement Company and Capitol Cement Company have filed permit applications for operation of new kilns at their existing sites. These plants are located on the north east of San Antonio. Alamo Cement sent a permit application to TCEQ on 08/31/2015 and Capitol Cement sent a permit application on 10/30/2015. Portland cement manufacturing is an energy-intensive process that grinds and heats a mixture of raw materials such as limestone, clay, sand and iron ore in a rotary kiln. That product, called clinker, is cooled, ground and then mixed with a small amount of gypsum to produce concrete1.

Alamo Cement Company, located north of FM 1604, plans to operate Kiln No. 1 and 2 as separate cement production. Capitol Cement located at north of Wurzbach Parkway at Wetmore Road, has submitted a permit application to combine the 2 kilns it plans to operate. Kilns commencing construction after June 16, 2008, are required to meet a limit of 1.50 pounds of NOX per ton of clinker on a 30- operating day rolling average. A search of the EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) for NOX emissions from cement kilns returned 13 cement kilns permitted in the past 10 years. The NOX Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations for these kilns ranged from 1.5 to 2.65 lb ton clinker produced 30 day rolling average.

Table 1: Current Cement Companies Emissions Reported to TCEQ, 2013, Tons per Year ACCOUNT COMPANY SITE CO TPY NOX TPY VOC TPY BG0045E Capitol Aggregates Inc Wetmore 734.25 576.58 96.35 BG0259G Alamo Cement Company 1604 Plant 746.88 2246.6 35.63

Figure 1: Locations of Cement Plants as compared to Regulatory Monitors in San Antonio Area

1 EPA, Standards for Portland Cement Manufacturing, 2010, online: http://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/pcem/pcem_fs_080910.pdf

Page 1 of 1