air quality & economic development in the san joaquin valley november, 2005
TRANSCRIPT
Air Quality & Economic Development in the San Joaquin Valley
November, 2005
Valley CarryingCapacity
2005 Emissions 2013 No GrowthScenario
2013 GrowthScenario
Po
lluti
on
Gap
The San Joaquin ValleyAir Pollution Challenge
Framing the Issue
Why care? What is the problem? What is the cause? What is the regulatory scheme? What does all this mean for the Valley? What are the possible solutions?
Why Care?Air pollution linked to: lung cancer heart attacks strokes
high blood pressure congenital heart defects asthma and even brain damage
Who is at risk? Diabetics Asthma patients Those with congenital heart failure Children playing outdoors are at increased risk
The most talented knowledge workers have choices….will they locate their families in high pollution environments?
Key Question:
How do we accommodate our population and economic growth when we already grossly exceed the SJ Valley’s carrying capacity for pollution?
Answer: We must make strategic decisions based on sustainable economic development.
SJ Valley = Growth
Among fastest growing regions in U.S.
1980 – 2000: Population = 60% Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled = 150%
By 2040: Population = 100% (Total = over 7 million) Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled = ??
Figure 1: U.S. Ozone Violations 2000-2002
Ozone: SJ Valley v. South Coast
Population & DensitySouth Coast: 16.0M - 2,450 persons/ sq. mileSJ Valley: 3.4M - 137 persons/ sq.
mile.
South Coast = 18 times greater population density—but pollution levels are essentially the same as the Valley.
Key = SJ Valley’s Low “Carrying Capacity”
Why?
Low Dispersion Rates (Mountains → Restrict Air Currents)
Temperature (Daytime Heating + Sunlight Intensity = Perfect for Smog and Ozone)
Thermal Inversions (Occur during evenings and wintertime →concentrate pollutants as the height and volume of the dispersion layer are reduced)
Imported Pollution (From Neighboring Air Basins Trapped in the Valley)
Figure 2: Winter in the San Joaquin Valley
SJV’s Carrying Capacity is Oversubscribed
SJV: “Non-attainment” under U.S. and CA Law: Ozone: 1-hr Ozone: 8-hr PM10: 24 hour PM10: annual PM2.5: 24 hour PM2.5: Annual
Trends: Federal Standards
8-hr Ozone: (No material change since 1980)
24-hr PM 10: 1990 = 55 days 2002 = 12 days 2005 = 0 days since 2002
24-hr PM 2.5: ? (Insufficient data to show trend)
Focus: Federal 8-hr Ozone Standard Since 1999: SJV = Most 8-hr ozone violations in
U.S.
Today = “serious non-attainment”
2007: Plan Due
2013: Attainment Date (currently projected shortfall:50-80%)
Number of Days Above the Federal Eight Hour NAAQS of 0.08 ppm of Ozone
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Nu
mb
er
of
Ex
ce
ed
an
ce
s
SC SJV
South Coast 2003 Design Value .131 ppm
San Joaquin Valley 2003 Design Value .115 ppm
2004 Data is preliminary
Air Pollution: Causes
Ozone is a chemical reaction between: Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)
42%
16%
12%
4%
1%
2%
7%
4%
12% On-Road Mobile
Other Mobile
Ag - Mobile
Ag - Other
Area - Other
Food Processing
Manufacturing & Industrial
Oil & Gas
Other Stationary
2005 Estimated Annual Average Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen
(2004 Estimated Annual Average Inventory – 2005 Almanac)
492 Tons NOx/day
Mobile Sources
Ranking of NOx Emissions (%)2005 2015
Total Tons/Day NOx 492 335
Mobile Sources
On-Road 42% 30%
Off-Road 16% 16%
Ag 12% 10%
Total Mobile 70% 56%
Stationary
Manufacturing/Industrial 7% 12%
Other Stationary 12% 17%
Dairy Emissions use the new emission factor.
413 Tons ROG/day
Mobile Sources
2005 Estimated Annual Average Emissions of Reactive Organic Gases
(2004 Estimated Annual Average Inventory – 2005 Almanac)
21%
11%
2%
18%14%
4%
9%
3%
11%
7% On-Road Mobile
Other Mobile
Ag - Mobile
Ag - Other
Dairy
Area - Other
Area - Solvents
Food Processing
Oil & Gas
Other Stationary
Ranking of ROG Emissions (%)2005 2015
Total Tons/Day ROG 413 335
Mobile Sources
On-Road 21% 11%
Other Mobile 13% 10%
Total Mobile 34% 21%
Stationary
Ag 18% 19%
Dairy 14% 21%
Oil & Gas 11% 11%
Trucks: Estimated Average Annual Daily
1998 2020
“On Road Mobile” NOx Sources
Diesel trucks = Most Significant Source 2 to 4% of “on-road vehicles,” but over 40% of NOx Approx. 50% of trucks from outside the Valley 22% last fueled outside CA 80% of all diesel engines in CA are over 10 yrs old
“Gross Polluters” = A Significant Source 10% of cars cause more than 50% pollution from
light passenger vehicles
What is the Regulatory Scheme?
Federal Statute: Clean Air Act (CAA) Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Nat’l engine and fuel standards
State California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Regional San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) Only regulates emissions from stationary sources.
Federal Penalties:Implications for the Valley
Failure to meet CAA: in billions of federal road dollars in regulatory requirements
Result? A downward spiral…
Limited Carrying Capacity means more complex policy choices Should SJV population and economic growth be
constrained? Should H-99 and I-5 as corridors of commerce be
constrained? What areas of economic activity, if any, should be
curtailed? How can we accelerate technology adoption
without crippling economic activity? What is the proper balance between regulation,
incentives and assistance? How do we avoid the unintended consequences?
1.59
5.58
9.04
1.06
6.94
2.59
12.21
6.37
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
PetroleumProd. /
Marketing
FoodProcessing
Farming Ops.w/o Dairy
Dairy
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Re
gio
na
l To
tal
% Total SJV Payroll
% Total SJV ROG + NOx
Comparison of Regional Payroll and Pollution Contribution by Sector
(California Employment Development Department and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District)
Ex: Food Processing Industry
Rule 4306 – “Large Boiler Rule” Cost of compliance: $78k to $522k per ton NOx/yr
Proposed Rule 4694 – “Wine Fermentation” Cost of compliance: $120k to $250k per ton NOx/yr
Proposed Rule 4309 – “Dehydrators” Cost of Compliance: $281k to 562k per ton NOx/yr
Valley CarryingCapacity
2005 Emissions 2013 No GrowthScenario
2013 GrowthScenario
Po
lluti
on
Gap
The San Joaquin ValleyAir Pollution Challenge
Recommendation:A Comprehensive, Integrated Plan
California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley convene a working group (e.g., SJVAPCD, CARB, the EPA, local government, industry, environmental community and academia).
Develop a comprehensive, integrated plan that includes all stationary and mobile sources
Delegate plan monitoring and coordination to a single agency.
Comprehensive Plan: The Goals
Meet EPA standards and reduce pollution-related health problems to national averages. 2010 : Significant Objective Progress 2013: Attainment
Create plan (regulation, incentives and assistance) that considers the Valley’s limited carrying capacity
Achieve sustainable economic development
Involve everyone in the solution
AQ Public education/constituency development
1. Criteria to prioritize emission sources to be addressed? Clean Air Act compliance Cost/benefit per ton of pollutants removed Health Impacts Impact on jobs. Proven technology Timeliness relative to 2013 compliance requirements Relevance to projected population growth Relevance to projected economic development goals Political feasibility Other?
2. Given these criteria, what are the highest payoff issues to address?
Mobile Sources Gross Polluting Vehicles North-South goods movement
infrastructure Sprawl Traffic Synchronization Truck and bus fleets
2. Given these criteria, what are the highest payoff issues to address?
Stationary Sources Dairies Non-Dairy ag production Manufacturing Other stationary sources Other?
3. What strategic actions will have highest impact by 2010 – 2013? Accelerate expansion of H 99 Accelerate removal of GPV’s (use sensors to identify) Accelerate replacement/renovation of truck and bus
fleets Flexibility to use grant funds for compliance assistance Improved rail transportation Increased regulation of ag & dairy emissions Indirect Source Rule Intermodal service facilities Market-based emissions trading
3. What strategic actions will have highest impact by 2010-2013 (cont’d)? Modified eligibility criteria for Carl Moyer Program National Fuel Standards New mass transit systems Public education campaign Regional Land Use and Transportation Authority Responsibility for coordination and monitoring of SJV Air
Quality Plan to a single government entity Short sea shipping between L.A. and the Bay Area Urban traffic synchronization Zoning requirements to encourage walkable communities Other?
5. What new funding mechanisms should be considered? Air Quality Empowerment & Enterprise Zone Alternative use of funds from eliminated smog check
program Emission-based truck toll fees Federal and State grants for technology & best practices
research Federal and State incentives for clean energy
development & use Goods Movement funding. Increased funding for Carl Moyer program. Other?
Valley CarryingCapacity
2005 Emissions 2013 No GrowthScenario
2013 GrowthScenario
Po
lluti
on
The San Joaquin ValleyAir Pollution Challenge
ComprehensiComprehensive Planve Plan
Summary of Key Points The Valley has limited pollution carrying capacity…. ….and a huge challenge to achieve 2013 targets Deferral is not a good option Mobile sources are the biggest contributor…. ….but all sources must be addressed Technology is available….the issue is affordability A comprehensive plan is required that balances
regulation, incentives and assistance…. ...and allows for sustainable economic development Plan monitoring and coordination responsibility must
be assigned to one entity
Break-outs