Policy Case Studiesfor North America

Bart CroesChief, Research Division

California Air Resources Board

NERAM V

Strategic Policy Directions for Air Quality Risk Management

October 16-18, 2006

Case Studies

3

Ambient Air Quality Standards

0

100

200

µg

/m3

Ozone1h

Ozone8h

PM2.524h

PM2.5annual

PM1024h

PM10annual

Canada Mexico United States California

• Lead, SO2, NO2 and CO standards generally met• PM, ozone and air toxics (in that order) are currently the

main health drivers for control programs• Incorporating exposure and toxicity considerations into

PM and air toxic control programs

4

Example of Exposure WeightingExample of Exposure Weighting

Selected Fraction Estimated Rank Order PM2.5 of PM2.5 Intake Fraction of SourcesSources Total Multipliers* by Exposure

Road dust 21 2 4Waste burning 15 5 6Home wood burning 13 500 1Wildfires 11 12 5Windblown dust 8 1 7Diesel vehicles 1.2 300 2Passenger cars 1.2 300 3

*Intake Fraction = total mass inhaled / total mass emitted x 106

5

Scientific Input to Policy

• U.S. National Academy of Sciences reports

• NARSTO assessments• Major air quality field and

modeling studies in many airsheds

• Over $50 M per year in research funding

• Scientific advisors

6

Significant PM2.5 Variation

Source: NARSTO PM Assessment

7

Air Quality Management Instruments

• Performance-based standards with demonstrated feasibility– Aftertreatment effective but source turnover can be slow– Retrofits and repowering also beneficial– Fuel improvements provide immediate benefits

• Market-based programs– SO2 and NOX emission trading for large sources– Congestion pricing, feebates and others have not been tried

• Limited use of land use and transport management• Other principles

– Target multiple pollutants from the same sources– Public workshops and stakeholder meetings– Verify the emission inventory– Enforce the controls

8

Technology-based Regulations

• Mobile Sources (99% reduction)– Aftertreatment (3-way catalysts, diesel traps)– Technology (closed loop systems, OBD)– Cleaner fuels (sulfur, aromatic and olefin removal)

• Stationary Sources (90% reduction)– Low-NOX burners– Selective catalytic reduction– Cleaner fuels (CNG)

• Area Sources (>75% reduction)– Vapor recovery– Low-VOC coatings and solvents

9

Success: Heavy-duty Diesel Vehicle PM Reduction

• On-road evidence• 2007 trap technology,

90%+ reduction

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1970 1980 1990 2000

PA

RT

ICU

LA

TE

EM

ISS

ION

S, g

/km

Source: Harley, Caldecott Tunnel results

10

Challenge: Heavy-duty Diesel Vehicle NOX reduction

• On-road emissions greater than emission standards• NOX versus fuel economy trade-off• 2010 standards require 90% reduction

– Urea-based selective catalytic reduction

Average NOx Emissions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pre-1975(1)

1975-76(1)

1977-79(2)

1980-83(2)

1984-86(5)

1987-90(5)

1991-93(7)

1994-97(6)

1998 (6) 1999-02(8)

2003+ (4)

Model year group

NO

x e

mis

sio

ns

- g

/mil

e

Transient

UDDS

Cruise

11

Inspection/Maintenance Programs

• California (Singer and Wenzel, ES&T, 2003)– CO -34%– HC -26%

– NOX -14%

• Mexico City (Schifter et al., ES&T, 2003)– CO -4%– HC +9%

– NOX +8%

12

Los Angeles and Mexico City (MCMA) Ozone and PM10 Trends

Source: Molina et al., JAWMA, 2004

13

Environmental Justice

• Local “hot spots” exist, especially near roadways

• Microscale CO levels have declined at about the same rate as regional levels (Eisenger et al., JAWMA, 2002)

• California has recommended buffer zones for land use guidance – www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm

• Targeted diesel enforcement, retrofit and replacement programs in California

• Need screening tools for air quality monitoring

14

Costs of California Control Measures

On-RdMotorcycle

EnhancedVapor

Recovery

OBD 2

InboardMarine

Transit BusFuelContainer

OutboardMarine

2007HDDE

Off-RdCI

NTE & ESC Test2.4g HDDE

Off-CycleLDTMed. Duty

Truck

Off-Rd Motorcycle

Off-Rd Diesel

4-Stroke LawnLEV

2-Stroke Lawn

OBD 1

0.25 HC LDV

5g HDD

RFG 2

0.4 NOx LDV

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Board Hearing Year

Do

llars

pe

r P

ou

nd

of

Ozo

ne

Pre

cu

rso

r

Cost of regulations, 1986-2004

(dollars per pound of ozone precursor emissions)

15

Total Costs

• United States– $88 B annual control costs– $4 health benefits for every $1 spent on control– Air pollution control industry generates $27 B

each year and employs 178,000

• California– $10 B annual control costs– $3 health benefits for every $1 spent on control– Air pollution control industry generates $6.2 B

each year and employs 32,000

16

Unintended Consequences

• Mexico City– Lead reduction (and increase in gasoline aromatics) may

have increased ozone– “No Driving Day” program may have increased pollution

• United States– MTBE groundwater contamination– Ethanol permeation and commingling increased VOC

• Los Angeles– SOX reductions led to nitrate increases– Unanticipated PAN reductions (~60 ppb to 3-5 ppb)– Weekend ozone effect – less improvement on weekends

• Diesel Retrofits– More NO2 and nitro-PAH? What about ash disposal?

Major Challenges

18

Indoor air quality unregulated in North America

• “A typical pollutant release indoors is 1000 times as effective in causing human exposures as the same release to urban outdoor air” - Kirk Smith, UC Berkeley

• Indoor sources of PM: cooking, smoking, vacuuming, wood-burning, reactions of terpenes and ozone

• Indoor sources of VOC: building materials, office equipment, consumer products

• Indoor source reduction or removal is the most effective strategy

• California $45 billion annual health impact*• No agencies have comprehensive regulatory authority

*Based on indoor sources, does not include PM.*Based on indoor sources, does not include PM.

19

Particle number emissions increasing for in-use gasoline and diesel vehicles

PM2.5 Emission Factors in

Caldecott Tunnel

0

1

2

3

Bore 1 - mixed HDV, LDV Bore 2 - LDV only

PM

2.5

[g/k

g f

uel

]

Kirchstetter et al. (9/1997)

Geller et al. (9/2004)

Particle number Emission Factors in Caldecott Tunnel

1.E+13

1.E+14

1.E+15

1.E+16

Bore 1 - mixed HDV,LDV

Bore 2 - LDV only

#/kg

fu

el

Kirchstetter et al. (9/1997)

Geller et al. (9/2004)

PM emission factors for 1997 and 2004 from Caldecott Tunnel in San Francisco

PM2.5 mass emissions are decreasing, but

Particle number emission rates have increased by a factor of 5.4 for gasoline vehicles and by 1.3 for diesel vehicles

Geller et al., ES&T (2005)

20

Background ozone levels increasing

Observed trends in background ozone levels in California (Jaffe et al., 2003)

Historical, current, and projected range of surface annual background ozone concentrations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1880 2000 2100

Ozo

ne

(pp

b)

Background ozone levels in the Northern Hemisphere (Vingarzan et al., 2004)

21

Climate change increases the difficulty of meeting ozone targets

Base-case episode features September 9, 1993Elevated temperature inversionWarm nights, hot days

Sensitivity study1. Increase temperature by +2oC

(+3.6oF), constant RH2. Does not account for future controls,

background air quality, or the effect of temperature on emissions.

Results+30 ppb (~10%) increase in peak

ozone

Source: Kleeman et al., 2005

+30 ppb

22

And PM2.5 targets

Base-case episode features September 25, 1996Elevated temperature inversionCool nights, warm days

Sensitivity study1. Increase background ozone to

60 ppb2. Increase temperature by +2oC

(+3.6oF), constant RH3. Does not account for future

controls or the effect of temperature on emissions.

Results+34 μg/m3 (~20%) increase in daily

peak PM2.5

Source: Kleeman et al., 2005 +34 μg/m3

23

North America is a major emitter of greenhouse gases

Sources: Oak Ridge National Lab & The Tellus Institute

1. USA…………..5,661…………….…..19 2. China…………2,795………….……... 23. Russia………..1,437………….……..104. Japan…………1,186………….………95. India…………..1,073……….…………16. Germany…….….787……….……….107. UK………….……569……….…………98. Canada…….…...437……….……….139. California….…...430……….…….....1210. Italy………….…..429………….….…...711. South Korea…....428………….….…...912. Mexico……...….425………….….......4

2000 Emissions Per Capita(Mt CO2)

Emissions

24

Governor’s Executive Order

• Greenhouse gas reduction targets– By 2010, reduce to 2000 levels*– By 2020, reduce to 1990 levels**– By 2050, reduce to 80% below 1990 levels

* Equals about 60 million tons emission reduction, 11% below business as usual

** Equals about 174 million tons emission reduction, 30% below BAU

25

ARB GHG Program Timeline

• 1/1/07: ARB maintains statewide inventory• 6/30/07: List of discrete early actions• 1/1/08: Mandatory reporting of emissions

Adopt 1990 baseline/2020 target• 1/1/09: Scoping plan of reduction strategies• 1/1/10: Regulations to implement early

action items• 1/1/11: Regulations to implement scoping

plan

26

27

California Air Pollution History

• 1943 – First recognized episodes of smog. Visibility is three blocks; reports of burning eyes, respiratory discomfort, nausea, and vomiting.

• 1945 – The City of Los Angeles establishes Bureau of Smoke Control in Health Department.

• 1947 – Governor Earl Warren signs Air Pollution Control Act, authorizing Air Pollution Control Districts in every county.

• 1959 – Legislation requires Department of Public Health to establish air quality standards and necessary controls for motor vehicles.

• 1966 – State adopts auto emission standards for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Highway Patrol begins random roadside inspections of vehicle smog control devices.

• 1969 – Air Resources Board created with authority to set air quality standards, control motor vehicles, and conduct health and air quality research. First state Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for TSP, O3, SO2, NO2 and CO.

• 1976 – Catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline.• 1983 – “Inhalable Particle” AAQS - PM10.• 1986 – 3-way catalyst and “closed loop” controls.• 1990 – Cleaner Burning Fuels; Low- & Zero Emission Vehicles.• 1999 – Consumer products rules cut VOCs from 2,500 common household products.• 2002 – AAQS for PM2.5; revised AAQS for PM10• 2004 – Adopt greenhouse gas regulation for cars and light trucks beginning in 2009 MY.

28

U.S. Clean Air Acts

• 1963: air quality criteria• 1965: emission standards for motor vehicles• 1967: air quality standards• 1967: federal preemption of motor vehicles standards,

except California• 1970: Clean Air Act (Muskie)

– Enforceable air quality standards

– State implementation plans (SIPs)

– Motor vehicle emission standards

– Air toxics program

– Citizen right to sue

29

Regulatory Structure

• U.S. EPA– Sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards– Reviews, approves, enforces State Implementation Plans (SIPs)

• California Air Resources Board– Regulates mobile sources (except ships, aircraft, trains)– Sets consumer products emission limits– Establishes air toxics risk reduction

• Bureau of Automotive Repair– Runs smog check

• Air quality management districts– Control stationary point sources– Control stationary area sources