Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 353–367 | Cite as

Did the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 really improve air quality?

  • Winston Harrington
  • Richard Morgenstern
  • Jhih-Shyang Shih
  • Michelle L. Bell


The degree to which federal policies, such as the Clean Air Act (CAA), actually improve air quality is not fully understood. We investigate what portion of reductions in ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) that occurred 1999–2005 can be attributed to sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions reductions from implementation of title IV, phase 2, of the 1990 CAA Amendments. A detailed statistical model links sources and receptors over time and space to estimate the relationship between changes in emissions and observed improvements in air quality. We employ relatively transparent statistical methods incorporating uncertainty bounds to complement point estimates of the complex physico-chemical fate and transport models commonly used to estimate source-receptor relationships associated with long-range emissions transport. Monitor-specific estimates of changes in PM2.5 from changes in emissions from individual power plants are highly significant and mostly of the expected relative magnitudes for distance and direction from sources; and the model performs well on out-of-sample forecasts. Although we observe substantial model uncertainty, using our preferred specification, we estimate that the title IV, phase II emissions reduction policy implemented 1999–2005 reduced PM2.5 in the eastern USA by an average of 1.07 μg/m3, roughly 8 % (standard deviation, 0.11 μg/m3) versus a counterfactual of no change in emission rates per unit of energy input. On a population-weighted basis, the comparable reduction in PM2.5 is 0.89 μg/m3, roughly 6 %. This model presents a practical tool that can be used for policy analysis of air quality.


Clean air act Air pollution Accountability Source receptor 

Supplementary material

11869_2012_176_MOESM1_ESM.docx (120 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 120 kb)


  1. Burtraw D, Palmer K (2004) SO2 Cap-and-Trade Program in the United States: a “Living Legend” of market effectiveness. In: Harrington W, Morgenstern RD, Sterner T (eds) Choosing environmental policy: comparing instruments and outcomes in the United States and Europe. Resources for the Future Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Byun, DW and JKS Ching (Eds) (1999) Science Algorithms of the EPA Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-99/030Google Scholar
  3. Byun D, Schere KL (2006) Review of the governing equations, computational algorithms, and other components of the models-3 community multiscale air quality (CMAQ) modeling system. Appl Mech Rev 59:51–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chay KY, Greenstone M (2003) The impact of air pollution on infant mortality: evidence from geographic variation in pollution shocks induced by a recession. Quarter J Econ 118:1121–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chay KY, Dobkin C, Greenstone M (2003) The Clean Air Act of 1970 and adult mortality. J Risk Uncertain 27:279–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clancy L, Goodman P, Sinclair H, Dockery DW (2002) Effect of air pollution control on death rates in Dublin, Ireland: an intervention study. Lancet 360:1210–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Friedman MS, Powell KE, Hutwagner L, Graham LM, Teague WG (2001) Impact of changes in transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma. J Am Med Assoc 285(7):897–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hedley AJ, McGhee SM, Barron B, Chau P, Chau J, Thach TQ, Wong T-W, Loh C, Wong C-M (2008) Air pollution: costs and paths to a solution in Hong Kong—understanding the connections among visibility, air pollution, and health costs in pursuit of accountability, environmental justice, and health protection. J Toxic Environ Health 71:544–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee J-T, Son J-Y, Cho Y-S (2007) Benefits of mitigated ambient air quality due to transportation control on childhood asthma hospitalization during the 2002 Summer Asian Games in Busan, Korea. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 57:1047–2389Google Scholar
  10. Lin C (2010) A spatial econometric approach to measuring air pollution externalities. J Reg Anal Pol 40(1):1–19Google Scholar
  11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1997) The benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act 1970–1990. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2011) The benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act 1990–2020. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. U.S. EPA (2005) Technical support document for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule: air quality modeling. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (March). Available from: Accessed October 2005
  14. Wu S, Deng F, Niu J, Huang Q, Liu Y, Guo X (2010) Association of heart rate variability in taxi drivers with marked changes in particulate air pollution in Beijing in 2008. Environ Health Perspect 118:87–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Winston Harrington
    • 1
  • Richard Morgenstern
    • 1
  • Jhih-Shyang Shih
    • 1
  • Michelle L. Bell
    • 2
  1. 1.Resources for the FutureWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations