Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Regional Development, Population Trend, and Technology Change Impacts on Future Air Pollution Emissions in the San Joaquin Valley
EPA Grant Number: R831842Title: Regional Development, Population Trend, and Technology Change Impacts on Future Air Pollution Emissions in the San Joaquin Valley
Investigators: Kleeman, Michael J. , Lund, Jay , Niemeier, Deb , Handy, Susan
Institution: University of California - Davis
EPA Project Officer: Chung, Serena
Project Period: October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2007 (Extended to September 30, 2010)
Project Amount: $680,000
RFA: Regional Development, Population Trend, and Technology Change Impacts on Future Air Pollution Emissions (2004) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Air , Climate Change
Conclusions:
Future base-case emissions inventories were projected for California in the years 2030 and 2050 using projected population growth and existing air pollution regulations as a starting point. Four unique scenarios that employed different levels of population density were explored for the SJV in the year 2030. A coupled land use, transportation, area source, and point source emissions model was used to project the emissions for each population density scenario. The air quality outcomes of all changes to emissions were analyzed using a reactive chemical transport model applied over different spatial and temporal scales.
Emissions scenarios were also developed for the entire state of California to analyze the co-benefits of energy emissions changes under two different mitigation strategies for climate change. The measures needed to implement California Assembly Bill (AB) 32 were analyzed for the year 2030 and the scenarios needed to meet the objectives of California Governor’s Executive Order (CGEO) S-3-05 were analyzed for the year 2050. The air quality outcomes associated with all changes were analyzed using detailed reactive chemical transport models under representative spatial and temporal scales.
Table ES1: Cross comparison of future criteria pollutant emissions inventories created during the current project.
| Target Issue | Smart Growth Impact on PM2.5 | Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) Impact on PM2.5 | California Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05 Impact on PM2.5 |
| Year | 2030 | 2030 | 2050 |
| Area or Region | San Joaquin Valley | California statewide | California statewide |
| Population density | Growth only, compact, business as usual, sparse | Business as usual | Business as usual |
| Land Development | No change, compact, business as usual, sparse | Business as usual | Business as usual |
| On-road Transportation Sources | No change, compact, as planned, sparse | GHG vehicular standards, efficiency measures, advanced vehicles, drayage truck emission standards | Hydrogen, biofuel, electric, efficient, vehicles, or public mass transit |
| Other Transportation Sources | High speed rail | Ship electrification, green ships, high speed rail | Farming vehicular, aircraft, farming equipment inc in biofuel scenarios |
| Electricity and Residential Sources | As planned electrical emissions, landuse based changes for residential | Energy efficiency, renewable, efficient building appliance standards, water related energy consumption reductions | Inc electricity consumption for electric vehicles |
| Industrial Sources | As planned | Energy efficiency audits to specific manufacturers, refinery and petroleum measures | Increased biorefineries for biofuel scenarios |
| Agricultural Sources | No change, reduced dairy, reduced dust, increased dairy, increased dust, as planned | Renewable dairy digester biogas energy generation | No change |
Future scenarios in the SJV that employ higher population density reduce transportation emissions of criteria pollutants and GHG by an amount up to 20%. These regional benefits do not necessarily translate into reduced exposure to airborne particulate matter. Scenarios that specify redevelopment of historical downtown cores with high density housing lead to increased population-weighted concentrations of primary PM components such as elemental carbon and organic compounds. This trend partly reflects the fact that historical downtown cores in the SJV are located close to major transportation corridors that are dominated by goods-movement rather than commuter trips. Several levels of emissions controls must be implemented before high density population growth reduces PM exposure relative to low density growth. Emissions from residential wood combustion must be eliminated, and emissions from food cooking operations and diesel engines must be reduced by 90% before the “as-planned” population density reduces population-weighted PM concentrations relative to a “sparse” density scenario during a simulated severe future air pollution episode.
Figure ES1: Impact of population density (D1=low, D2=medium, D3=high) and emissions control level (C0-C4) on population-weighted PM2.5 concentrations in the SJV. Units are (µg m-3) averaged over the three week study period.
GHG mitigation strategies planned for California will have air quality co-benefits through reduced activity and/or new technologies associated with energy consumption that lead to lower emissions of criteria pollutants. AB32 measures are predicted to reduce state-wide population-weighted concentrations by ~6% during a future extreme air pollution event. Projected PM reductions are only 3% in the SJV due to the use of methane capture and combustion units to generate electricity from major dairies.
a) California-wide
Figure ES2: Population weighted average percent changes for the 12 day episode, for each AB32 implementation level across the state or air basin.
The different choices for transportation technology and fuels needed to comply with CGEO S-3-05 also provide co-benefits through reduced criteria pollutant emissions and PM2.5 concentrations. Two “mixed approach” strategies (Scenarios 6 and 7 in figure ES3) that employ (1) biofuels & hybrid electric vehicles and (2) hydrogen fuel cells & electric vehicles, respectively, both reduce population weighted PM2.5 concentrations by approximately 9% in California during a simulated future wintertime air pollution episode. Reductions in the SJV are generally similar to those across the entire state due to the uniform application of each strategy across all regions.
Figure ES3: Change in population-weighted PM2.5 concentrations during a 12-day stagnation episode in 2050. Results are shown for (a) California state-wide average, and (b) SJV average. The error bars represent the standard deviation due to daily variation in the episode.
Expected Results:
The air quality benefits of “smart growth” community planning, compact building designs with mixed residential / commercial land use in downtown urban cores, must be considered carefully in the SJV. The proximity of traditional downtown cores next to major transportation corridors for goods movement and other sources that do not scale with population density leads to increased PM exposure under high population density scenarios unless rigorous emissions control programs are implemented simultaneously. “Smart growth” should not be viewed as a method to reduce public exposure to airborne particulate matter in the SJV.
Journal Articles on this Report : 4 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
| Other project views: | All 9 publications | 4 publications in selected types | All 4 journal articles |
|---|
| Type | Citation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Hixson M, Mahmud A, Hu J, Bai S, Niemeier DA, Handy SL, Gao S, Lund JR, Sullivan DC, Kleeman MJ. Influence of regional development policies and clean technology adoption on future air pollution exposure. Atmospheric Environment 2010;44(4):552-562. |
R831842 (2009) R831842 (Final) |
Exit Exit Exit |
|
|
Hixson M, Mahmud A, Hu J, Kleeman MJ. Resolving the interactions between population density and air pollution emissions controls in the San Joaquin Valley, USA. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2012;62(5):566-575. |
R831842 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
|
|
Kleeman MJ, Zapata C, Stilley J, Hixson M. PM2.5 co-benefits of climate change legislation part 2: California governor's executive order S-3-05 applied to the transportation sector. Climatic Change 2013;117(1-2):399-414. |
R831842 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
|
|
Zapata C, Muller N, Kleeman MJ. PM2.5 co-benefits of climate change legislation part 1: California's AB 32. Climatic Change 2013;117(1-2):377-397. |
R831842 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
Supplemental Keywords:
RFA, Air, Scientific Discipline, Ecological Risk Assessment, Urban and Regional Planning, Atmosphere, Air Pollution Effects, climate change, Environmental Monitoring, air quality, ecosystem impacts, ecosystem models, Global Climate Change, economic models, climate models, climate variability, demographics, emissions impact, human activities, urban growth, atmospheric carbon dioxide, land use, VOCsProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.