Policy case studies for north america
1 / 29

Policy Case Studies for North America - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

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

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Policy Case Studies for North America' - reilly

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Policy case studies for north america


Strategic Policy Directions for Air Quality Risk Management

October 16-18, 2006

Policy Case Studies

for North America

Bart Croes

Chief, Research Division

California Air Resources Board

Ambient air quality standards
Ambient Air Quality Standards

  • 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

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 2 4

Waste burning 15 5 6

Home wood burning 13 500 1

Wildfires 11 12 5

Windblown dust 8 1 7

Diesel vehicles 1.2 300 2

Passenger cars 1.2 300 3

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

Scientific input to policy
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

Significant PM2.5 Variation

Source: NARSTO PM Assessment

Air quality management instruments
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

Technology based regulations
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

Success heavy duty diesel vehicle pm reduction
Success: Heavy-duty Diesel Vehicle PM Reduction

  • On-road evidence

  • 2007 trap technology, 90%+ reduction

Source: Harley, Caldecott Tunnel results

Challenge heavy duty diesel vehicle no x reduction
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

Inspection maintenance programs
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%

Environmental justice
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

Costs of california control measures
Costs of California Control Measures

Cost of regulations, 1986-2004

(dollars per pound of ozone precursor emissions)

Total costs
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

Unintended consequences
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

    • SOXreductions 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?

Indoor air quality unregulated in north america
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.

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

Background ozone levels increasing
Background ozone levels increasing diesel vehicles

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

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

Climate change increases the difficulty of meeting ozone targets
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 +2oC (+3.6oF), constant RH

2. Does not account for future controls, background air quality, or the effect of temperature on emissions.


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

Source: Kleeman et al., 2005

+30 ppb

And pm2 5 targets
And PM2.5 targets 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 +2oC (+3.6oF), constant RH

3. Does not account for future controls or the effect of temperature on emissions.


+34 μg/m3 (~20%) increase in daily peak PM2.5

Source: Kleeman et al., 2005

+34 μg/m3

North america is a major emitter of greenhouse gases
North America is a major emitter of greenhouse gases targets

2000 Emissions Per Capita

(Mt CO2) Emissions

  • USA…………..5,661…………….…..19

  • China…………2,795………….……... 2

  • Russia………..1,437………….……..10

  • Japan…………1,186………….………9

  • India…………..1,073……….…………1

  • Germany…….….787……….……….10

  • UK………….……569……….…………9

  • Canada…….…...437……….……….13

  • California….…...430……….…….....12

  • Italy………….…..429………….….…...7

  • South Korea…....428………….….…...9

  • Mexico……...….425………….….......4

Sources: Oak Ridge National Lab & The Tellus Institute

Governor s executive order
Governor’s Executive Order targets

  • 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

Arb ghg program timeline
ARB GHG Program Timeline targets

  • 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

California air pollution history
California Air Pollution History targets

  • 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.

U s clean air acts
U.S. Clean Air Acts targets

  • 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

Regulatory structure
Regulatory Structure targets

  • 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