Clean Air, Clean Energy, Clean Transportation, Making the Connections

404 views

Published on

Peter Greenwald; SCAQMD

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
404
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Clean Air, Clean Energy, Clean Transportation, Making the Connections

  1. 1. Agenda No. xx Clean Air  Clean Energy  Cl E Clean Transportation Making the Connections Peter Greenwald ld Sr. Policy Advisor South Coast Air Quality Management District May 2010 Cleaning the Air That We Breathe…
  2. 2. Presentation• The Big Picture . . .  Where we’ve  been and where we need to go been and where we need to go• Is getting there really possible? g g yp• Making it happen: SCAQMD’s role  and strategies  and strategies 2
  3. 3. • The Big Picture:  Where we’ve  been and where we need to go been and where we need to go 3
  4. 4. South Coast Air asin South Coast Air Basin Key Air Pollutants Key Air Pollutants• Ozone (“Smog”) – Forms from emissions of nitrogen  oxides and hydrocarbons oxides and hydrocarbons – Federal attainment deadline: 2023• Fine Particulates (PM2 5) ( 2.5 – Forms from emissions of particulates, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides – Federal attainment deadlines: 2014 (annual avg), 2019 (24 hr avg)• Air Toxics – Most significant: Diesel particulates (carcinogenic) – No ambient standards or attainment deadlines No ambient standards or attainment deadlines 4
  5. 5. Annual Days Exceeding Ozone Standards250200150100 50 0 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 Former 1-Hour Federal Ozone Standard 1997 8-Hour Federal Ozone Standard (0.08 ppm) 2008 8-Hour Federal Ozone Standard (0.075 ppm) 5
  6. 6. Health Consequences Health Consequences Annual Impacts in South Coast Basin Based on 2004 – 2006 Monitored Pollutant Concentrations Based on 2004 – • >6,500 premature deaths  • 4,100 hospital admissions • 100,000 asthma cases & other respiratory symptoms • 8,400 cases acute bronchitis • 660,000 lost workdays • 5,200,000 restricted activity daysSource:  CARB. Based on 2004 – 2006 Monitored Concentrations 6
  7. 7. Modeled Cancer Risk 2005  7
  8. 8. History: Air Quality Progress With History: Air Quality Progress With GrowthHistory: Air Quality Progress With Growth Key Reason: Technology Key Reason: Technology Demographic Projections and – AQMD policy  Ozone Air Quality Trend g generally growth  yg 180% 300 accommodating pulation and O3 8-Hour 160% 140% Design Value 250 – Sources generally  ppb) controlled over 90% controlled over 90%Perce Increase in Pop 120% 200 Design Value (p Activities 100% 150 80% – Technical challenges  60% 100 increasing  ent 40% 50 20% 0% 0 – Increasing marginal  1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR 2005 2010 2015 2020 control costs . . .  population VMT Housing Unit O3 Design Value diminishing  marginal returns marginal returns 8
  9. 9. Baseline NOx Emissions and  Baseline NOx Emissions and Federal 1997 Ozone Standard Carrying Capacity Federal 1997 Ozone Standard Carrying Capacity Data from 2007 AQMP I l di b fit f l d t d t 2007 Including benefits of rules adopted to 2007 1000 900 800 700 ayTons per da 600 500 Black Box 400 231 300 200 Carrying  100 Capacity 0 115 2005 2014 2023 9
  10. 10. 2030 Ozone: Source Contributions Background + Ships + Aircraft + Locomotives = 72 ppb (With majority Tier 4 Locomotives; Approx 75% Tier 3 Ships)  130 120 Current SCAQMD  Ambient Ozone:  110 120 ppb 100 90 Current Fed Ozone  80 Ozone Standard:  75 ppb  70ppb O Proposed Fed Ozone                                      60 Standard: 60 ‐70 ppb  Oceangoing Ships, Aircraft, Locomotives (24) 50 40 30 20 10 Natural Background (48) g ( ) 0 10
  11. 11. Needed: 75 – 90 percent additional NOx reduction 75 – 90 percent additional Timeframe: 2023 ‐ 2030 Timeframe: 2023 ‐ Requires broad  deployment of zero‐emission  deployment of zero‐ technologies, e.g. electric “Combustion Out” 11
  12. 12. • Is getting there possible? 12
  13. 13. Top 15 AQMP NOx Categories in 2023 T h l i lP Technological Potential for Electrification / Zero‐E i l f El ifi i / Z Technological Potential for Electrification / Zero‐E  * Oceangoing Vessels Oceangoing Vessels Off‐Road Equipment Heavy‐Duty Diesel Trucks Aircraft ( RECLAIM (Large Stationary) ) Light‐Duty Trucks Locomotives Recreational Boats Light‐Duty Cars High Potential      Heavy‐Duty Gasoline Trucks Some Potential        Residential Fuel Combustion Low Potential Commercial Boats Commercial Boats Medium‐Duty Trucks Heavy‐Duty Buses Service/Commercial 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 tons per day*    Preliminary emissions estimates;  based on IMO Tier 1 – 3 for ocean vessels; EPA 2008 rule for locomotives; 2007 AQMP short‐term measures for other. Range for oceangoing vessels based on varying deployment assumptions for IMO Tier 3 vessels.
  14. 14. • Electric / Zero‐Emission  – On‐Road (with hybrid transition) ( y ) Key Sources: – Rail A – Ships at Berth – ResidentialTechnology h l • Substantial Hybrid‐Electric  – Off‐Road Path – Harbor Craft  • Electric / Zero‐Emission Where Possible – Industrial/Commercial • 80% NOx Control – Ocean Vessel Main Engines • Substantial Renewable Energy 14
  15. 15. Is such a path ppossible in the real worldpossible in the real world What s already been achieved . . . What’s already been achieved 15
  16. 16. Combustion Out 100 Years Ago: g Electric Local Rail Transit Los Angeles Pacific Electric Railway Depot, circa 1910 16
  17. 17. Combustion Out 1944:   Electric Regional Rail Transit Four CountiesFour Counties        1,150 Track Miles         900 Cars         109 Million Passengers 1 150 Track Miles 900 Cars 109 Million Passengers 17
  18. 18. Combustion Out 1948:Electric Transit Buses  Los Angeles Transit Lines ‐ The Trolley Bus;  One of the final 30 delivered to Los Angeles in 1948 18
  19. 19. Combustion InCombustion In 19
  20. 20. Combustion Out Today:Combustion Out Today: Light Rail 20
  21. 21. Combustion Out Today: yCars and Light/Medium‐Duty TrucksCars and Light/Medium‐ 21
  22. 22. Combustion Out Today: Heavy‐Heavy‐Duty Trucks 22
  23. 23. Combustion Out Today: y Residential 23
  24. 24. Combustion Out Today:Combustion Out Today: Ships at Berth 24
  25. 25. Combustion Out Today: y Cargo Handling Equipmenthttp://www.bnsf.com/employees/communications/bnsf_today/2007/06/2007‐06‐28‐e.html 25
  26. 26. Combustion Out Today: Freight Rail Worldwide . . . but not in United StatesWorldwide . . . but not in United States 26
  27. 27. Combustion Out Today: Combustion Out Today:  Electricity Generation80 kW Solar Expansion; Stationary Fuel Cells; 2 x 250 kW in Fontana; 3 x 5 kW in Irvine 27
  28. 28. Combustion Sources Today: y Oceangoing VesselsMarch 2010:   IMO requires lower sulfur fuel, and 80% NOx control for new vessels used in U.S. waters beginning 2016 28
  29. 29. • Making it happen, SCAQMD’s  roles and strategies and strategies  29
  30. 30. Reassessing  Reassessing Roles & Strategies• Authority spread among many entities• Need emphasis on — Need emphasis on — – planning & analysis  – commenting advocacy public information commenting, advocacy, public information,  – funding – collaborative solutions 30
  31. 31. Region’s Leadership Opportunity R i ’ L d hi O i What the nation will need in 2050,South Coast will need in 2023 –South Coast will need in 2023 – 2030 31
  32. 32. General Policies for the Future 32
  33. 33. Eliminate the Black Box• Served purpose, but as  attainment deadlines approach, – could hinder planning & tech development • e.g. long lead‐time infrastructure – creates business uncertainty b• Specify at least generally what region needs  in long‐term, and from what sources g , – air plan can include options 33
  34. 34. Leapfrog Technologies• Wherever possible, consistent with need to maintain interim  progress, – seek emissions control technology needed for long‐term d df l t – seek consensus for long‐term control by providing  finality & certainty finality & certainty 34
  35. 35. Use “Convergence” to Build Consensus  U “C ” t B ild C• Convergence: Zero emission technology can Convergence:  Zero‐emission technology can  be part of solution to multiple needs: – energy security – efficiency  – climate – mobility – jobs  35
  36. 36. Use “Convergence” to Build Consensus, cont d Use  Convergence to Build Consensus cont’d• Seek design of fed, state, local actions to provide  g , , p air quality co‐benefits – E.g. energy, transportation, regulatory  – More bang for buck; broader support – Reduce overlapping regulatory burdens• Develop local air strategies that also serve  Develop local air strategies that also serve national priorities  – E.g. energy security • Seek federal funding & support  – Lead in coordinated solutions 36
  37. 37. Strategies: Specific Examples 37
  38. 38. Define a Freight Transport System that  Define a Freight Transport System that Meets Region’s Long‐Term Needs  Meets Region’s Long‐• Work with transportation  agencies and stakeholders• Seek federal funding for  consensus system 38
  39. 39. Example: ChicagoChi 39
  40. 40. Define a Freight Transport System that Define a Freight Transport System that  Meets Region’s Long‐Term Needs, cont’d Meets Region’s Long‐• Potential elements: – Zero‐emission port container  p transport & cargo handling  (in the works now) – Electrified truck lanes on key Electrified truck lanes on key  corridors  (in the works now)  – Rail electrification 40
  41. 41. Example: I‐710 D di t d Z ‐E i i Truck Lanes? Dedicated Zero‐ Dedicated Zero Emission T k L ?• Key corridor Key corridor• Benefits – safety – congestion – railyard risk – p public support pp despite cargo growth• Possible tech – overhead catenary – electromagnetic – battery  b tt 41
  42. 42. Achieving Consensus Achieving Consensuson Freight Transport – Global  competitiveness + – Local Local  quality of life – A world class  transport system  42
  43. 43. Light Duty Vehicles Li ht‐D t V hi l Light‐• CARB authority• AQMD  – Support infrastructure for electricity  and hydrogen (e.g. charging) – Support development and transfer  of technologies, e.g.  – batteries – alternative fuel hybrids 43
  44. 44. Rail Electrification R il El t ifi ti• Alameda Corridor:  designed to  accommodate  accommodate electrification• Dual‐mode  locomotives, New York City• Funding opportunities  F di t iti in energy/climate,  transportation bills? http://www.acta.org/newsroom/photo_gallery.asp 44
  45. 45. Oceangoing Vessels  Oceangoing Vessels• Problem: Nothing requires Tier 3 NOx vessels to Problem:  Nothing requires Tier 3 NOx vessels to  be built or routed to U.S. waters – Controlling this enormous NOx source is left to  vagaries of global commercial decisions i f l b l i ld i i• AQMD Proposals: – Requirements or  incentive/disincentive  programs to spur  g routing of clean vessels – Preferably nationwide 45
  46. 46. Foster Renewable Energy Foster Renewable Energy• Incentives, planning, etc . . . Incentives planning etc Find the renewable power! 46
  47. 47. Technology Advancement T h l Ad t• Two key non‐road needs: – Aircraft • Federal/international authority • Opportunity: build on climate & fuel efficiency measures fuel efficiency measures – Vessel main engine PM • Largest source of port cancer risk g p • EPA authority 47
  48. 48. Conclusion: Key Action Items• Transportation: infrastructure planning,  funding, projects funding projects• Legislation: transportation, energy &  climate, etc li• Regulatory: SIP, emissions standards, etc• Technology: funding advancement,  deployment
  49. 49. Thank You! Thank You! Thank You! 49

×