Air Quality

1
Air Quality Economic Development in the San
Joaquin Valley

• November, 2005

2
The San Joaquin ValleyAir Pollution Challenge
Gap
3
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?

4
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?

5
Key Question

• How do we accommodate our population and economic
  growth when we already grossly exceed the SJ
  Valleys carrying capacity for pollution?
• Answer We must make strategic decisions based
  on sustainable economic development.

6
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 ??

7
Figure 1 U.S. Ozone Violations 2000-2002
8
Ozone SJ Valley v. South Coast

• Population Density
• South Coast 16.0M - 2,450 persons/ sq. mile
• SJ Valley 3.4M - 137 persons/ sq.
  mile.
• South Coast 18 times greater population
  densitybut pollution levels are essentially the
  same as the Valley.

9
Key SJ Valleys 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)

10
Figure 2 Winter in the San Joaquin Valley
11
SJVs 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

12
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)

13
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
  shortfall50-80)

14
2004 Data is preliminary
South Coast 2003 Design Value .131 ppm
San Joaquin Valley 2003 Design Value .115 ppm
15
Air Pollution Causes

• Ozone is a chemical reaction between
• Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
• Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)

16
2005 Estimated Annual Average Emissions of Oxides
of Nitrogen(2004 Estimated Annual Average
Inventory 2005 Almanac)
Mobile Sources
492 Tons NOx/day
17
Ranking of NOx Emissions ()
18
2005 Estimated Annual Average Emissions of
Reactive Organic Gases(2004 Estimated Annual
Average Inventory 2005 Almanac)
Mobile Sources
413 Tons ROG/day
Dairy Emissions use the new emission factor.
19
Ranking of ROG Emissions ()
20
Trucks Estimated Average Annual Daily
1998
2020
21
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

22
What is the Regulatory Scheme?

• Federal
• Statute Clean Air Act (CAA)
• Agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Natl 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.

23
Federal PenaltiesImplications for the Valley

• Failure to meet CAA
• ? in billions of federal road dollars
• ? in regulatory requirements
• Result? A downward spiral

24
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?

25
Comparison of Regional Payroll and Pollution
Contribution by Sector(California Employment
Development Department and San Joaquin Valley
Air Pollution Control District)
26
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

27
The San Joaquin ValleyAir Pollution Challenge
Gap
28
RecommendationA 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.

29
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 Valleys limited
  carrying capacity
• Achieve sustainable economic development
• Involve everyone in the solution
• AQ Public education/constituency development

30
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?

31
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

32
2. Given these criteria, what are the highest
payoff issues to address?

• Stationary Sources
• Dairies
• Non-Dairy ag production
• Manufacturing
• Other stationary sources
• Other?

33
3. What strategic actions will have highest
impact by 2010 2013?

• Accelerate expansion of H 99
• Accelerate removal of GPVs (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

34
3. What strategic actions will have highest
impact by 2010-2013 (contd)?

• 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?

35
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?

36
The San Joaquin ValleyAir Pollution Challenge
Comprehensive Plan
37
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

38
Break-outs