Air Quality & Economic Development in the San Joaquin Valley

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? • high blood pressure • congenital heart defects • asthma and even brain damage Air pollution linked to: • lung cancer • heart attacks • strokes • 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 Valley’s 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 density—but pollution levels are essentially the same as the Valley.

9. 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)

10. Figure 2: Winter in the San Joaquin Valley

11. SJV’s Carrying Capacity isOversubscribed 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 shortfall:50-80%)

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) • 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.

23. Federal Penalties:Implications for the Valley • Failure to meet CAA: •  in billions of federal road dollars •  in regulatory requirements • Result? A downward spiral…

24. Limited CarryingCapacity 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. 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.

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 Valley’s 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 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

34. 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?

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