Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Policy Case Studies for North America Bart Croes Chief, Research Division California Air Resources Board NERAM V Strategic Policy Directions for Air Quality.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Policy Case Studies for North America Bart Croes Chief, Research Division California Air Resources Board NERAM V Strategic Policy Directions for Air Quality."— Presentation transcript:

1 Policy Case Studies for North America Bart Croes Chief, Research Division California Air Resources Board NERAM V Strategic Policy Directions for Air Quality Risk Management October 16-18, 2006

2 Case Studies

3 3 Ambient Air Quality Standards Lead, SO 2, NO 2 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 4 Example of Exposure Weighting Selected Fraction Estimated Rank Order PM2.5 of PM2.5 Intake Fraction of Sources Sources Total Multipliers* by Exposure Road dust 21 24 Waste burning 15 56 Home wood burning 13 500 1 Wildfires 11 12 5 Windblown dust 8 1 7 Dieselvehicles 1.2 300 2 Passenger cars 1.2 300 3 *Intake Fraction = total mass inhaled / total mass emitted x 10 6

5 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 6 Significant PM2.5 Variation Source: NARSTO PM Assessment

7 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 –SO 2 and NO X 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 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-NO X burners –Selective catalytic reduction –Cleaner fuels (CNG) Area Sources (>75% reduction) –Vapor recovery –Low-VOC coatings and solvents

9 9 Success: Heavy-duty Diesel Vehicle PM Reduction On-road evidence 2007 trap technology, 90%+ reduction Source: Harley, Caldecott Tunnel results

10 10 Challenge: Heavy-duty Diesel Vehicle NO X reduction On-road emissions greater than emission standards NO X versus fuel economy trade-off 2010 standards require 90% reduction –Urea-based selective catalytic reduction

11 11 Inspection/Maintenance Programs California (Singer and Wenzel, ES&T, 2003) –CO-34% –HC-26% –NO X -14% Mexico City (Schifter et al., ES&T, 2003) –CO-4% –HC+9% –NO X +8%

12 12 Los Angeles and Mexico City (MCMA) Ozone and PM10 Trends Source: Molina et al., JAWMA, 2004

13 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 – Targeted diesel enforcement, retrofit and replacement programs in California Need screening tools for air quality monitoring

14 14 Costs of California Control Measures Cost of regulations, 1986-2004 (dollars per pound of ozone precursor emissions)

15 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 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 –SO X reductions led to nitrate increases –Unanticipated PAN reductions (~60 ppb to 3-5 ppb) –Weekend ozone effect – less improvement on weekends Diesel Retrofits –More NO 2 and nitro-PAH? What about ash disposal?

17 Major Challenges

18 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.

19 19 Particle number emissions increasing for in-use gasoline and diesel vehicles 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 20 Background ozone levels increasing Observed trends in background ozone levels in California (Jaffe et al., 2003) Background ozone levels in the Northern Hemisphere (Vingarzan et al., 2004)

21 21 Climate change increases the difficulty of meeting ozone targets Base-case episode features September 9, 1993 Elevated temperature inversion Warm nights, hot days Sensitivity study 1. Increase temperature by +2 o C (+3.6 o F), constant RH 2. 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 22 And PM2.5 targets Base-case episode features September 25, 1996 Elevated temperature inversion Cool nights, warm days Sensitivity study 1. Increase background ozone to 60 ppb 2. Increase temperature by +2 o C (+3.6 o F), constant RH 3. Does not account for future controls or the effect of temperature on emissions. Results +34 μg/m 3 (~20%) increase in daily peak PM2.5 Source: Kleeman et al., 2005 +34 μ g/m 3

23 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………….……... 2 3. Russia………..1,437………….……..10 4. Japan…………1,186………….………9 5. India…………..1,073……….…………1 6. Germany…….….787……….……….10 7. UK………….……569……….…………9 8. Canada…….…...437……….……….13 9. California….…...430……….…….....12 10. Italy………….…..429………….….…...7 11. South Korea…....428………….….…...9 12. Mexico……...….425………….….......4 2000 Emissions Per Capita (Mt CO 2 ) Emissions

24 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 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 26

27 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, O 3, SO 2, NO 2 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 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 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

Download ppt "Policy Case Studies for North America Bart Croes Chief, Research Division California Air Resources Board NERAM V Strategic Policy Directions for Air Quality."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google