SlideShare a Scribd company logo
DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE YEAR MEXICO EMISSIONS
Martinus E. Wolf and Gopi K. Manne
Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG)
8950 Cal Center Drive, Suite 325
Sacramento, CA 95829
marty.wolf@erg.com
Alison Eyth and Lee Tooly
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
C339-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
eyth.alison@epa.gov
ABSTRACT
T
he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) previously developed an air quality modeling
platform for the year 2011 based on the 2011 National Emissions Inventory, version 1
(2011NEIv1). This modeling platform included all emissions inventories and ancillary data
files used for emissions modeling for the 48 contiguous states, as well as portions of Canada and
Mexico. The Mexico emissions data used in this modeling platform were 1999 year emissions data
that were projected forward to 2012.
Improved Mexico projected inventories were developed based upon the latest Mexico-specific
emissions inventory – the Mexico Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources’ (SEMARNAT)
2008 Mexico National Emissions Inventory (INEM). Prior to projecting the 2008 INEM, the
inventory was quality assured and improvements were made.
The 2008 base year inventory was then projected forward to the future years of 2018, 2025,
and 2030. The future year projections were based upon publicly available surrogates including:
population projections, fuel use projections, gross domestic product (GDP) forecasts, and historical
agricultural statistics. The resulting inventory projections data were then provided in a .csv type
format that can be read by SMOKE and have been incorporated into the latest version of the
2011-based Modeling Platform (2011v6.2).
SCOPE
BASE YEAR INVENTORY
–	 2008 Mexico National Emissions Inventory
(Inventario Nacional de Emisiones de México – INEM) (see Table 1)1
FUTURE YEAR INVENTORIES
–	 2018, 2025, and 2030
MEXICO
–	 32 Federal entities – 31 states and the Federal District
–	 2,457 municipalities (as of 2014) – equivalent to U.S. counties
INVENTORY POLLUTANTS
–	 NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3, pyrolytic elemental carbon (PEC) (i.e., black carbon)
INVENTORY SOURCE TYPES
Point sources
–	 Federal or state jurisdiction; not based on emissions threshold
–	 Federal jurisdiction (2,867 facilities with 20,028 stacks)
–	 State jurisdiction (4,686 facilities with 8,961 stacks)
Area sources
–	 Fuel combustion (industrial, commercial, residential, agricultural)
–	 Solvent evaporation (coatings, degreasing, graphic arts, dry cleaning, asphalt paving, consumer
solvents)
–	 Fuel distribution (gasoline and LPG)
–	 Agricultural (fertilizer application, pesticide application, agricultural burning, tilling, cattle
feedlots)
–	 Other (construction, bakeries, charbroiling, domestic ammonia, treated and untreated municipal
wastewater, structure fires, forest fires, hospital sterilization operations, border crossings, bus
terminals)
–	 Excluded (paved and unpaved road dust, area source coal combustion, area source oil and gas,
open burning, landfills, prescribed burning, brick kilns)
On-Road Motor Vehicles
–	 Light- and heavy-duty vehicles
–	 Gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and LPG
Nonroad Mobile Sources
–	 Commercial marine vessels, locomotives, aircraft, airport ground support equipment (GSE),
diesel-powered construction and agricultural equipment
Biogenic and other natural sources not inventoried
NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3 PEC
Point 606,442 2,393,790 290,676 694,173 233,158 160,911 31,569 19,683
Area 500,469 26,088 3,893,738 3,203,066 635,540 459,286 869,744 53,316
Onroad 2,209,776 29,265 2,864,968 32,639,825 19,152 13,754 68,537 NE
Nonroad 250,417 21,501 32,049 146,495 31,295 30,273 17 NE
TOTAL 3,567,104 2,470,644 7,081,431 36,683,559 919,145 664,224 969,867 72,999
NE = not estimated
^_
!(
#*
!(
#*
!(
!(
!(
Juárez
Tijuana Mexicali
Chihuahua
Monterrey
Hermosillo
Guadalajara
Mexico City
08
26
05
10
20
28
14
02
32
03
07
30
19
12
24
16
25
04
23
31
21
11
18
27
15
13
22
01
06
17
2909
01	Aguascalientes
02	 Baja California
03	 Baja California Sur
04	Campeche
05	Coahuila
06	Colima
07	Chiapas
08	Chihuahua
09	 Distrito Federal
10	Durango
11	Guanajuato
12	Guerrero
13	Hidalgo
14	Jalisco
15	México
16	Michoacán
17	Morelos
18	Nayarit
19	 Nuevo León
20	Oaxaca
21	Puebla
22	Querétaro
23	 Quintana Roo
24	 San Luis Potosí
25	Sinaloa
26	Sonora
27	Tabasco
28	Tamaulipas
29	Tlaxcala
30	Veracruz
31	Yucatán
32	Zacatecas
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO PROJECTIONS
GENERAL
–	 Three new municipalities created since 2008 base year inventory
POINT SOURCES
–	 Gap filled missing point source stack data using SCC defaults
–	 Standardized and gap filled required point source data fields
– Emissions and stack parameters converted from metric to U.S. units
– Emission unit IDs assigned as process IDs
– FIPS codes assigned
–	 Excluded 151 records with blank emissions
–	 Excluded 101 duplicate records
–	 Corrected 331 records where PM2.5 > PM10; PM2.5 set equal to PM10
–	 Adjusted incorrect point source stack locations (coordinates compared to
reported states and municipalities) (see Figures 2-3)
AREA SOURCES
–	 Assigned area source SCCs based on source category description
ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES
–	 Assigned on-road motor vehicle SCCs based on source category description
–	 Corrected 140 records where PM2.5 > PM10; PM2.5 set equal to PM10
–	 Adjusted on-road motor vehicle emissions for Baja California, Michoacán, and
Nuevo León – per capita emissions were “suspiciously” high (see Figures 4-6)
NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES
–	 Assigned nonroad mobile source SCCs based on source category description
–	 Deleted 1 record with negative emissions
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
Imperial
San Diego
Ensenada
Mexicali
TecateTijuana
Playas de Rosarito
San Diego
Imperial
Ensenada
TecateTijuana
Playas de Rosarito
IDENTIFICATION AND
ADJUSTMENT OF POTENTIALLY
HIGH ON-ROAD MOTOR
VEHICLE EMISSIONS
–	 2008 Baja California NOx emissions identified as “outliers”
	 Emissions approximately twice as much as Los Angeles
	 Per capita emissions 1 order of magnitude larger than Los Angeles
–	 Gridded 2008 Baja California NOx emissions show highest values in
Tijuana and Mexicali (see Figure 4)
–	 Satellite images show high NOx quantities in Los Angeles, but not in
Baja California (see Figure 5)
–	 State-level on-road motor vehicle per capita emissions were examined
(see Figure 6)
–	 Baja California, Michoacán, and Nuevo León had significantly higher per
capita emissions for all pollutants. Adjustment factors calculated using
29-state (i.e., all states but Baja California, Michoacán, and Nuevo
León) average pollutant-specific per capita emission rates.
–	 Some other states (e.g., Jalisco, Puebla, Zacatecas, etc.) had high per
capita emissions for some, but not all, pollutants. Adjustment factors
were not calculated for these states.
PROJECTIONS METHODOLOGY
BASIC PROJECTIONS METHODOLOGY (for point sources, area sources, and nonroad mobile sources)
Efy,s = E2008,s x Pfy,s
Where:	Efy,s	 =	projected emissions for future year fy for source s;
	E2008,s	=	estimated base year emissions for 2008 for source s; and
	Pfy,s	 =	projection factor for future year fy for source s.
Projection factor > 1.0 – increasing emissions
Projection factor < 1.0 – decreasing emissions
Projection factor = 1.0 – no growth
MEXICO SURROGATE DATA USED FOR PROJECTION FACTORS
–	 Fuel consumption and production projections
–	 National fuel balance
–	 Population censuses
–	 Population projections
–	 Gross domestic product (GDP) projections
–	 Long-term agricultural acreage
–	 Long-term sugarcane production
ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE PROJECTIONS METHODOLOGY
–	 Based on information from original 1999 INEM and earlier projections for 2008, 2012, and 20305,6
–	 Combined projection factor
	Increased demand of motor vehicle fuels
	Changes in vehicle technologies and emission due to anticipated turnover of the Mexican vehicle fleet –
estimated using MOBILE6-Mexico model7
	Linear interpolation of previous fleet turnover factors
	Original assumptions regarding fuel and vehicle standards, as well as implementation schedule,
were maintained
State NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3 PEC
Aguascalientes 13,819 3,051 29,699 42,677 5,294 2,715 11,341 119
Baja California 87,854 11,329 134,461 503,315 14,320 9,189 16,533 501
Baja California Sur 10,625 4,400 17,686 32,784 2,494 1,185 4,533 55
Campeche 74,304 638,516 50,513 104,259 14,289 11,968 9,876 1,167
Coahuila 285,941 251,351 163,806 1,080,967 36,697 27,808 27,364 701
Colima 28,721 76,981 39,947 201,948 10,115 5,870 5,397 664
Chiapas 36,447 78,218 362,535 440,408 59,401 51,937 41,050 7,248
Chihuahua 85,187 25,142 129,501 209,696 34,652 19,547 39,732 1,398
Distrito Federal 123,726 2,309 251,836 764,556 5,499 3,585 22,068 66
Durango 57,478 23,267 84,036 310,625 21,340 14,134 33,882 1,128
Guanajuato 102,776 46,431 233,036 1,051,853 32,758 19,629 48,568 1,601
Guerrero 65,425 125,997 252,443 735,777 38,711 34,165 36,468 3,593
Hidalgo 68,231 161,375 138,616 306,845 32,452 24,939 28,163 2,105
Jalisco 220,631 37,716 573,013 3,549,964 44,847 28,206 96,219 3,269
México 221,184 11,496 626,768 2,414,224 47,050 37,468 57,429 3,938
Michoacán 92,295 20,335 241,922 811,330 38,421 27,884 42,021 3,289
Morelos 35,464 14,711 82,998 401,476 10,744 7,496 9,098 1,178
Nayarit 41,105 1,104 79,693 542,490 13,247 8,934 15,115 1,274
Nuevo León 124,587 46,403 176,327 710,438 26,884 17,342 21,332 1,015
Oaxaca 33,237 144,828 287,333 498,363 57,085 46,735 43,293 5,978
Puebla 161,120 7,796 339,571 786,140 46,155 37,644 64,499 4,740
Querétaro 34,730 6,814 73,747 118,322 8,916 6,982 17,501 646
Quintana Roo 10,767 2,713 61,351 132,939 14,409 11,063 5,902 1,405
San Luis Potosí 61,101 81,805 138,784 209,259 41,152 29,824 25,692 4,413
Sinaloa 53,134 19,930 103,491 221,124 31,837 17,347 31,238 1,997
Sonora 52,510 13,874 88,421 165,414 23,953 12,920 42,904 723
Tabasco 47,117 20,107 128,705 177,409 22,397 18,702 16,389 2,749
Tamaulipas 103,593 57,950 134,398 266,801 42,964 23,640 24,527 1,293
Tlaxcala 10,420 2,386 40,132 44,362 6,954 4,487 10,245 462
Veracruz 207,597 154,593 606,798 1,943,945 129,174 98,685 87,369 15,652
Yucatán 23,779 16,479 137,467 169,310 18,801 16,869 16,507 2,019
Zacatecas 77,330 2,254 102,964 837,529 19,495 9,384 28,962 632
TOTAL 2,652,235 2,111,661 5,911,998 19,786,547 952,506 688,284 981,216 77,016
References
1.	Inventario Nacional de Emisiones de México, 2008 (detailed municipality-level emission files), Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) (Secretariat of the Environment
and Natural Resources), Mexico City, Mexico, 2014.
2.	Catálogo Único de Claves de Áreas Geoestadísticas Estatales, Municipales y Localidades. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (National Institute of Statistics and Geography),
Aguascalientes, Mexico, 2014.
3.	Eyth, A. 2014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, personal communication.
4.	Wolf, M. and Manne, G., “Adjustment of Mexico On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions”, Technical Memorandum; Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Eastern Research Group, Inc.
(ERG), Sacramento, CA, 2014.
5.	Mexico National Emissions Inventory, 1999: Final. Prepared for SEMARNAT and INE by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), Sacramento, CA, 2006.
6.	Development of Mexico National Emissions Inventory Projections for 2008, 2012, and 2030. Prepared for the National Institute of Ecology of Mexico and the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), Sacramento, CA, 2009.
7.	MOBILE6-Mexico. Prepared for the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), Austin, TX, 2003.
	= Mexico City Metropolitan Area (>20,000,000 people)
	= Major Metropolitan Area (>4,000,000 people)
	= Other Metropolitan Area (>750,000 people) located in border state
2018 NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3 PEC
Point 696,080 2,048,888 364,136 810,376 266,315 184,684 39,229 23,700
Area 500,469 26,088 3,893,738 3,203,066 635,540 459,286 869,744 53,316
Onroad 1,179,129 10,598 1,620,208 15,615,087 18,161 12,904 72,225 NE
Nonroad 276,556 26,088 33,916 158,018 32,489 31,410 18 NE
TOTAL 2,652,235 2,111,661 5,911,998 19,786,547 952,506 688,284 981,216 77,016
2025 NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3 PEC
Point 807,379 2,128,701 453,260 975,723 320,435 221,446 47,711 29,274
Area 522,210 26,445 4,198,304 3,374,341 660,491 481,787 880,101 56,197
Onroad 813,521 7,166 1,454,176 16,128,939 21,775 15,368 93,347 NE
Nonroad 313,319 32,136 36,458 172,267 34,451 33,281 18 NE
TOTAL 2,456,429 2,194,448 6,142,197 20,651,270 1,037,153 751,882 1,021,178 85,471
2030 NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3 PEC
Point 909,161 2,217,323 524,752 1,024,912 367,442 253,619 54,794 34,174
Area 530,627 26,648 4,408,598 3,482,983 676,561 496,271 886,619 58,079
Onroad 348,834 2,801 1,104,212 14,720,733 23,369 16,452 104,906 NE
Nonroad 339,071 36,398 38,340 183,124 35,820 34,587 19 NE
TOTAL 2,127,694 2,283,170 6,075,902 19,411,752 1,103,192 800,929 1,046,338 92,254
NE = not estimated
Table 1. 2008 Mexico National Emissions Inventory (tons/year)
Figure 1. Mexico Federal Entities and Selected Metropolitan Areas
Figure 2. Unadjusted Baja California
Point Source Locations
Figure 3. Adjusted Baja California
Point Source Locations
	= U.S. Counties
	= Mexican Municipalities
	= U.S. Counties
	= Mexican Municipalities
= Incorrect point source locations = Corrected point source locations
	 (Urban locality coordinates)
Figure 4. Spatial Allocation of Unadjusted
2008 Mexico NEI On-Road NOx Emissions3
Figure 5. Satellite Measurements of NOx in
the Western United States and Northern Mexico3
Figure 6. 2008 INEM State-Level Per Capita NOx Emissions4
(kg/person-year)
Table 2. Projected 2018 State-Level Emissions (tons/year)
Table 3. Projected 2018, 2025, and 2030 Mexico Emissions (tons/year)
Figure 7. Distribution of Projected
2018 NOX Emissions (% of total)
Figure 8. Distribution of Projected
2018 SO2 Emissions (% of total)
Figure 9. Distribution of Projected
2018 VOC Emissions (% of total)
Coahuila
México
Jalisco
Veracruz
Puebla
Nuevo León
Distrito Federal
Tamaulipas
Guanajuato
Michoacán
All Others
Campeche
Coahuila
Hidalgo
Veracruz
Oaxaca
Guerrero
San Luis Potosí
Chiapas
Colima
Tamaulipas
All Others
México
Veracruz
Jalisco
Chiapas
Puebla
Oaxaca
Guerrero
Distrito Federal
Michoacán
Guanajuato
All Others
10.8%
30.2%
10.6%
8.3%
11.9%
10.3%
8.3%
7.6%
9.7%
7.8%
7.3%
6.1%
6.1% 6.9% 5.7%
3.9%
3.7%
4.3%3.9%
3.6%
4.1%
3.5%
2.7%
3.9%
38.0%
16.1%
36.1%
4.7%
3.9%
4.3%4.7% 4.9%
6.0%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
AGU
BCN
BCS
CAM
COA
COL
CHP
CHH
DIF
DUR
GUA
GRO
HID
JAL
MEX
MIC
MOR
NAY
NLE
OAX
PUE
QUE
ROO
SLP
SIN
SON
TAB
TAM
TLA
VER
YUC
ZAC
Work performed under EPA Contract No. EP-D-11-006, Work Assignment 4-09.
IDENTIFICATION AND
ADJUSTMENT OF
INCORRECT POINT
SOURCE LOCATIONS
–	 Approximately 18 percent of the point source
facility coordinates were identified as incorrect (i.e.,
coordinates did not lie within the boundaries of the
reported municipality) (see Figure 2)
–	 Assumed that the reported states and municipalities
were correct and the reported coordinates were
incorrect
–	 All incorrect location coordinates were replaced by
locality coordinates for each municipality’s respective
municipal seat2
(see Figure 3)

More Related Content

Featured

2024 State of Marketing Report – by Hubspot
2024 State of Marketing Report – by Hubspot2024 State of Marketing Report – by Hubspot
2024 State of Marketing Report – by Hubspot
Marius Sescu
 
Everything You Need To Know About ChatGPT
Everything You Need To Know About ChatGPTEverything You Need To Know About ChatGPT
Everything You Need To Know About ChatGPT
Expeed Software
 
Product Design Trends in 2024 | Teenage Engineerings
Product Design Trends in 2024 | Teenage EngineeringsProduct Design Trends in 2024 | Teenage Engineerings
Product Design Trends in 2024 | Teenage Engineerings
Pixeldarts
 
How Race, Age and Gender Shape Attitudes Towards Mental Health
How Race, Age and Gender Shape Attitudes Towards Mental HealthHow Race, Age and Gender Shape Attitudes Towards Mental Health
How Race, Age and Gender Shape Attitudes Towards Mental Health
ThinkNow
 
AI Trends in Creative Operations 2024 by Artwork Flow.pdf
AI Trends in Creative Operations 2024 by Artwork Flow.pdfAI Trends in Creative Operations 2024 by Artwork Flow.pdf
AI Trends in Creative Operations 2024 by Artwork Flow.pdf
marketingartwork
 
Skeleton Culture Code
Skeleton Culture CodeSkeleton Culture Code
Skeleton Culture Code
Skeleton Technologies
 
PEPSICO Presentation to CAGNY Conference Feb 2024
PEPSICO Presentation to CAGNY Conference Feb 2024PEPSICO Presentation to CAGNY Conference Feb 2024
PEPSICO Presentation to CAGNY Conference Feb 2024
Neil Kimberley
 
Content Methodology: A Best Practices Report (Webinar)
Content Methodology: A Best Practices Report (Webinar)Content Methodology: A Best Practices Report (Webinar)
Content Methodology: A Best Practices Report (Webinar)
contently
 
How to Prepare For a Successful Job Search for 2024
How to Prepare For a Successful Job Search for 2024How to Prepare For a Successful Job Search for 2024
How to Prepare For a Successful Job Search for 2024
Albert Qian
 
Social Media Marketing Trends 2024 // The Global Indie Insights
Social Media Marketing Trends 2024 // The Global Indie InsightsSocial Media Marketing Trends 2024 // The Global Indie Insights
Social Media Marketing Trends 2024 // The Global Indie Insights
Kurio // The Social Media Age(ncy)
 
Trends In Paid Search: Navigating The Digital Landscape In 2024
Trends In Paid Search: Navigating The Digital Landscape In 2024Trends In Paid Search: Navigating The Digital Landscape In 2024
Trends In Paid Search: Navigating The Digital Landscape In 2024
Search Engine Journal
 
5 Public speaking tips from TED - Visualized summary
5 Public speaking tips from TED - Visualized summary5 Public speaking tips from TED - Visualized summary
5 Public speaking tips from TED - Visualized summary
SpeakerHub
 
ChatGPT and the Future of Work - Clark Boyd
ChatGPT and the Future of Work - Clark Boyd ChatGPT and the Future of Work - Clark Boyd
ChatGPT and the Future of Work - Clark Boyd
Clark Boyd
 
Getting into the tech field. what next
Getting into the tech field. what next Getting into the tech field. what next
Getting into the tech field. what next
Tessa Mero
 
Google's Just Not That Into You: Understanding Core Updates & Search Intent
Google's Just Not That Into You: Understanding Core Updates & Search IntentGoogle's Just Not That Into You: Understanding Core Updates & Search Intent
Google's Just Not That Into You: Understanding Core Updates & Search Intent
Lily Ray
 
How to have difficult conversations
How to have difficult conversations How to have difficult conversations
How to have difficult conversations
Rajiv Jayarajah, MAppComm, ACC
 
Introduction to Data Science
Introduction to Data ScienceIntroduction to Data Science
Introduction to Data Science
Christy Abraham Joy
 
Time Management & Productivity - Best Practices
Time Management & Productivity -  Best PracticesTime Management & Productivity -  Best Practices
Time Management & Productivity - Best Practices
Vit Horky
 
The six step guide to practical project management
The six step guide to practical project managementThe six step guide to practical project management
The six step guide to practical project management
MindGenius
 
Beginners Guide to TikTok for Search - Rachel Pearson - We are Tilt __ Bright...
Beginners Guide to TikTok for Search - Rachel Pearson - We are Tilt __ Bright...Beginners Guide to TikTok for Search - Rachel Pearson - We are Tilt __ Bright...
Beginners Guide to TikTok for Search - Rachel Pearson - We are Tilt __ Bright...
RachelPearson36
 

Featured (20)

2024 State of Marketing Report – by Hubspot
2024 State of Marketing Report – by Hubspot2024 State of Marketing Report – by Hubspot
2024 State of Marketing Report – by Hubspot
 
Everything You Need To Know About ChatGPT
Everything You Need To Know About ChatGPTEverything You Need To Know About ChatGPT
Everything You Need To Know About ChatGPT
 
Product Design Trends in 2024 | Teenage Engineerings
Product Design Trends in 2024 | Teenage EngineeringsProduct Design Trends in 2024 | Teenage Engineerings
Product Design Trends in 2024 | Teenage Engineerings
 
How Race, Age and Gender Shape Attitudes Towards Mental Health
How Race, Age and Gender Shape Attitudes Towards Mental HealthHow Race, Age and Gender Shape Attitudes Towards Mental Health
How Race, Age and Gender Shape Attitudes Towards Mental Health
 
AI Trends in Creative Operations 2024 by Artwork Flow.pdf
AI Trends in Creative Operations 2024 by Artwork Flow.pdfAI Trends in Creative Operations 2024 by Artwork Flow.pdf
AI Trends in Creative Operations 2024 by Artwork Flow.pdf
 
Skeleton Culture Code
Skeleton Culture CodeSkeleton Culture Code
Skeleton Culture Code
 
PEPSICO Presentation to CAGNY Conference Feb 2024
PEPSICO Presentation to CAGNY Conference Feb 2024PEPSICO Presentation to CAGNY Conference Feb 2024
PEPSICO Presentation to CAGNY Conference Feb 2024
 
Content Methodology: A Best Practices Report (Webinar)
Content Methodology: A Best Practices Report (Webinar)Content Methodology: A Best Practices Report (Webinar)
Content Methodology: A Best Practices Report (Webinar)
 
How to Prepare For a Successful Job Search for 2024
How to Prepare For a Successful Job Search for 2024How to Prepare For a Successful Job Search for 2024
How to Prepare For a Successful Job Search for 2024
 
Social Media Marketing Trends 2024 // The Global Indie Insights
Social Media Marketing Trends 2024 // The Global Indie InsightsSocial Media Marketing Trends 2024 // The Global Indie Insights
Social Media Marketing Trends 2024 // The Global Indie Insights
 
Trends In Paid Search: Navigating The Digital Landscape In 2024
Trends In Paid Search: Navigating The Digital Landscape In 2024Trends In Paid Search: Navigating The Digital Landscape In 2024
Trends In Paid Search: Navigating The Digital Landscape In 2024
 
5 Public speaking tips from TED - Visualized summary
5 Public speaking tips from TED - Visualized summary5 Public speaking tips from TED - Visualized summary
5 Public speaking tips from TED - Visualized summary
 
ChatGPT and the Future of Work - Clark Boyd
ChatGPT and the Future of Work - Clark Boyd ChatGPT and the Future of Work - Clark Boyd
ChatGPT and the Future of Work - Clark Boyd
 
Getting into the tech field. what next
Getting into the tech field. what next Getting into the tech field. what next
Getting into the tech field. what next
 
Google's Just Not That Into You: Understanding Core Updates & Search Intent
Google's Just Not That Into You: Understanding Core Updates & Search IntentGoogle's Just Not That Into You: Understanding Core Updates & Search Intent
Google's Just Not That Into You: Understanding Core Updates & Search Intent
 
How to have difficult conversations
How to have difficult conversations How to have difficult conversations
How to have difficult conversations
 
Introduction to Data Science
Introduction to Data ScienceIntroduction to Data Science
Introduction to Data Science
 
Time Management & Productivity - Best Practices
Time Management & Productivity -  Best PracticesTime Management & Productivity -  Best Practices
Time Management & Productivity - Best Practices
 
The six step guide to practical project management
The six step guide to practical project managementThe six step guide to practical project management
The six step guide to practical project management
 
Beginners Guide to TikTok for Search - Rachel Pearson - We are Tilt __ Bright...
Beginners Guide to TikTok for Search - Rachel Pearson - We are Tilt __ Bright...Beginners Guide to TikTok for Search - Rachel Pearson - We are Tilt __ Bright...
Beginners Guide to TikTok for Search - Rachel Pearson - We are Tilt __ Bright...
 

Marty 7565 mexico emissions map

  • 1. DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE YEAR MEXICO EMISSIONS Martinus E. Wolf and Gopi K. Manne Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) 8950 Cal Center Drive, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95829 marty.wolf@erg.com Alison Eyth and Lee Tooly U.S. Environmental Protection Agency C339-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 eyth.alison@epa.gov ABSTRACT T he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) previously developed an air quality modeling platform for the year 2011 based on the 2011 National Emissions Inventory, version 1 (2011NEIv1). This modeling platform included all emissions inventories and ancillary data files used for emissions modeling for the 48 contiguous states, as well as portions of Canada and Mexico. The Mexico emissions data used in this modeling platform were 1999 year emissions data that were projected forward to 2012. Improved Mexico projected inventories were developed based upon the latest Mexico-specific emissions inventory – the Mexico Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources’ (SEMARNAT) 2008 Mexico National Emissions Inventory (INEM). Prior to projecting the 2008 INEM, the inventory was quality assured and improvements were made. The 2008 base year inventory was then projected forward to the future years of 2018, 2025, and 2030. The future year projections were based upon publicly available surrogates including: population projections, fuel use projections, gross domestic product (GDP) forecasts, and historical agricultural statistics. The resulting inventory projections data were then provided in a .csv type format that can be read by SMOKE and have been incorporated into the latest version of the 2011-based Modeling Platform (2011v6.2). SCOPE BASE YEAR INVENTORY – 2008 Mexico National Emissions Inventory (Inventario Nacional de Emisiones de México – INEM) (see Table 1)1 FUTURE YEAR INVENTORIES – 2018, 2025, and 2030 MEXICO – 32 Federal entities – 31 states and the Federal District – 2,457 municipalities (as of 2014) – equivalent to U.S. counties INVENTORY POLLUTANTS – NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NH3, pyrolytic elemental carbon (PEC) (i.e., black carbon) INVENTORY SOURCE TYPES Point sources – Federal or state jurisdiction; not based on emissions threshold – Federal jurisdiction (2,867 facilities with 20,028 stacks) – State jurisdiction (4,686 facilities with 8,961 stacks) Area sources – Fuel combustion (industrial, commercial, residential, agricultural) – Solvent evaporation (coatings, degreasing, graphic arts, dry cleaning, asphalt paving, consumer solvents) – Fuel distribution (gasoline and LPG) – Agricultural (fertilizer application, pesticide application, agricultural burning, tilling, cattle feedlots) – Other (construction, bakeries, charbroiling, domestic ammonia, treated and untreated municipal wastewater, structure fires, forest fires, hospital sterilization operations, border crossings, bus terminals) – Excluded (paved and unpaved road dust, area source coal combustion, area source oil and gas, open burning, landfills, prescribed burning, brick kilns) On-Road Motor Vehicles – Light- and heavy-duty vehicles – Gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and LPG Nonroad Mobile Sources – Commercial marine vessels, locomotives, aircraft, airport ground support equipment (GSE), diesel-powered construction and agricultural equipment Biogenic and other natural sources not inventoried NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3 PEC Point 606,442 2,393,790 290,676 694,173 233,158 160,911 31,569 19,683 Area 500,469 26,088 3,893,738 3,203,066 635,540 459,286 869,744 53,316 Onroad 2,209,776 29,265 2,864,968 32,639,825 19,152 13,754 68,537 NE Nonroad 250,417 21,501 32,049 146,495 31,295 30,273 17 NE TOTAL 3,567,104 2,470,644 7,081,431 36,683,559 919,145 664,224 969,867 72,999 NE = not estimated ^_ !( #* !( #* !( !( !( Juárez Tijuana Mexicali Chihuahua Monterrey Hermosillo Guadalajara Mexico City 08 26 05 10 20 28 14 02 32 03 07 30 19 12 24 16 25 04 23 31 21 11 18 27 15 13 22 01 06 17 2909 01 Aguascalientes 02 Baja California 03 Baja California Sur 04 Campeche 05 Coahuila 06 Colima 07 Chiapas 08 Chihuahua 09 Distrito Federal 10 Durango 11 Guanajuato 12 Guerrero 13 Hidalgo 14 Jalisco 15 México 16 Michoacán 17 Morelos 18 Nayarit 19 Nuevo León 20 Oaxaca 21 Puebla 22 Querétaro 23 Quintana Roo 24 San Luis Potosí 25 Sinaloa 26 Sonora 27 Tabasco 28 Tamaulipas 29 Tlaxcala 30 Veracruz 31 Yucatán 32 Zacatecas QUALITY ASSURANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO PROJECTIONS GENERAL – Three new municipalities created since 2008 base year inventory POINT SOURCES – Gap filled missing point source stack data using SCC defaults – Standardized and gap filled required point source data fields – Emissions and stack parameters converted from metric to U.S. units – Emission unit IDs assigned as process IDs – FIPS codes assigned – Excluded 151 records with blank emissions – Excluded 101 duplicate records – Corrected 331 records where PM2.5 > PM10; PM2.5 set equal to PM10 – Adjusted incorrect point source stack locations (coordinates compared to reported states and municipalities) (see Figures 2-3) AREA SOURCES – Assigned area source SCCs based on source category description ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES – Assigned on-road motor vehicle SCCs based on source category description – Corrected 140 records where PM2.5 > PM10; PM2.5 set equal to PM10 – Adjusted on-road motor vehicle emissions for Baja California, Michoacán, and Nuevo León – per capita emissions were “suspiciously” high (see Figures 4-6) NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES – Assigned nonroad mobile source SCCs based on source category description – Deleted 1 record with negative emissions !.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!. !.!.!. !.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!. Imperial San Diego Ensenada Mexicali TecateTijuana Playas de Rosarito San Diego Imperial Ensenada TecateTijuana Playas de Rosarito IDENTIFICATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF POTENTIALLY HIGH ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS – 2008 Baja California NOx emissions identified as “outliers” Emissions approximately twice as much as Los Angeles Per capita emissions 1 order of magnitude larger than Los Angeles – Gridded 2008 Baja California NOx emissions show highest values in Tijuana and Mexicali (see Figure 4) – Satellite images show high NOx quantities in Los Angeles, but not in Baja California (see Figure 5) – State-level on-road motor vehicle per capita emissions were examined (see Figure 6) – Baja California, Michoacán, and Nuevo León had significantly higher per capita emissions for all pollutants. Adjustment factors calculated using 29-state (i.e., all states but Baja California, Michoacán, and Nuevo León) average pollutant-specific per capita emission rates. – Some other states (e.g., Jalisco, Puebla, Zacatecas, etc.) had high per capita emissions for some, but not all, pollutants. Adjustment factors were not calculated for these states. PROJECTIONS METHODOLOGY BASIC PROJECTIONS METHODOLOGY (for point sources, area sources, and nonroad mobile sources) Efy,s = E2008,s x Pfy,s Where: Efy,s = projected emissions for future year fy for source s; E2008,s = estimated base year emissions for 2008 for source s; and Pfy,s = projection factor for future year fy for source s. Projection factor > 1.0 – increasing emissions Projection factor < 1.0 – decreasing emissions Projection factor = 1.0 – no growth MEXICO SURROGATE DATA USED FOR PROJECTION FACTORS – Fuel consumption and production projections – National fuel balance – Population censuses – Population projections – Gross domestic product (GDP) projections – Long-term agricultural acreage – Long-term sugarcane production ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLE PROJECTIONS METHODOLOGY – Based on information from original 1999 INEM and earlier projections for 2008, 2012, and 20305,6 – Combined projection factor Increased demand of motor vehicle fuels Changes in vehicle technologies and emission due to anticipated turnover of the Mexican vehicle fleet – estimated using MOBILE6-Mexico model7 Linear interpolation of previous fleet turnover factors Original assumptions regarding fuel and vehicle standards, as well as implementation schedule, were maintained State NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3 PEC Aguascalientes 13,819 3,051 29,699 42,677 5,294 2,715 11,341 119 Baja California 87,854 11,329 134,461 503,315 14,320 9,189 16,533 501 Baja California Sur 10,625 4,400 17,686 32,784 2,494 1,185 4,533 55 Campeche 74,304 638,516 50,513 104,259 14,289 11,968 9,876 1,167 Coahuila 285,941 251,351 163,806 1,080,967 36,697 27,808 27,364 701 Colima 28,721 76,981 39,947 201,948 10,115 5,870 5,397 664 Chiapas 36,447 78,218 362,535 440,408 59,401 51,937 41,050 7,248 Chihuahua 85,187 25,142 129,501 209,696 34,652 19,547 39,732 1,398 Distrito Federal 123,726 2,309 251,836 764,556 5,499 3,585 22,068 66 Durango 57,478 23,267 84,036 310,625 21,340 14,134 33,882 1,128 Guanajuato 102,776 46,431 233,036 1,051,853 32,758 19,629 48,568 1,601 Guerrero 65,425 125,997 252,443 735,777 38,711 34,165 36,468 3,593 Hidalgo 68,231 161,375 138,616 306,845 32,452 24,939 28,163 2,105 Jalisco 220,631 37,716 573,013 3,549,964 44,847 28,206 96,219 3,269 México 221,184 11,496 626,768 2,414,224 47,050 37,468 57,429 3,938 Michoacán 92,295 20,335 241,922 811,330 38,421 27,884 42,021 3,289 Morelos 35,464 14,711 82,998 401,476 10,744 7,496 9,098 1,178 Nayarit 41,105 1,104 79,693 542,490 13,247 8,934 15,115 1,274 Nuevo León 124,587 46,403 176,327 710,438 26,884 17,342 21,332 1,015 Oaxaca 33,237 144,828 287,333 498,363 57,085 46,735 43,293 5,978 Puebla 161,120 7,796 339,571 786,140 46,155 37,644 64,499 4,740 Querétaro 34,730 6,814 73,747 118,322 8,916 6,982 17,501 646 Quintana Roo 10,767 2,713 61,351 132,939 14,409 11,063 5,902 1,405 San Luis Potosí 61,101 81,805 138,784 209,259 41,152 29,824 25,692 4,413 Sinaloa 53,134 19,930 103,491 221,124 31,837 17,347 31,238 1,997 Sonora 52,510 13,874 88,421 165,414 23,953 12,920 42,904 723 Tabasco 47,117 20,107 128,705 177,409 22,397 18,702 16,389 2,749 Tamaulipas 103,593 57,950 134,398 266,801 42,964 23,640 24,527 1,293 Tlaxcala 10,420 2,386 40,132 44,362 6,954 4,487 10,245 462 Veracruz 207,597 154,593 606,798 1,943,945 129,174 98,685 87,369 15,652 Yucatán 23,779 16,479 137,467 169,310 18,801 16,869 16,507 2,019 Zacatecas 77,330 2,254 102,964 837,529 19,495 9,384 28,962 632 TOTAL 2,652,235 2,111,661 5,911,998 19,786,547 952,506 688,284 981,216 77,016 References 1. Inventario Nacional de Emisiones de México, 2008 (detailed municipality-level emission files), Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) (Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources), Mexico City, Mexico, 2014. 2. Catálogo Único de Claves de Áreas Geoestadísticas Estatales, Municipales y Localidades. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (National Institute of Statistics and Geography), Aguascalientes, Mexico, 2014. 3. Eyth, A. 2014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, personal communication. 4. Wolf, M. and Manne, G., “Adjustment of Mexico On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions”, Technical Memorandum; Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), Sacramento, CA, 2014. 5. Mexico National Emissions Inventory, 1999: Final. Prepared for SEMARNAT and INE by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), Sacramento, CA, 2006. 6. Development of Mexico National Emissions Inventory Projections for 2008, 2012, and 2030. Prepared for the National Institute of Ecology of Mexico and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), Sacramento, CA, 2009. 7. MOBILE6-Mexico. Prepared for the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), Austin, TX, 2003. = Mexico City Metropolitan Area (>20,000,000 people) = Major Metropolitan Area (>4,000,000 people) = Other Metropolitan Area (>750,000 people) located in border state 2018 NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3 PEC Point 696,080 2,048,888 364,136 810,376 266,315 184,684 39,229 23,700 Area 500,469 26,088 3,893,738 3,203,066 635,540 459,286 869,744 53,316 Onroad 1,179,129 10,598 1,620,208 15,615,087 18,161 12,904 72,225 NE Nonroad 276,556 26,088 33,916 158,018 32,489 31,410 18 NE TOTAL 2,652,235 2,111,661 5,911,998 19,786,547 952,506 688,284 981,216 77,016 2025 NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3 PEC Point 807,379 2,128,701 453,260 975,723 320,435 221,446 47,711 29,274 Area 522,210 26,445 4,198,304 3,374,341 660,491 481,787 880,101 56,197 Onroad 813,521 7,166 1,454,176 16,128,939 21,775 15,368 93,347 NE Nonroad 313,319 32,136 36,458 172,267 34,451 33,281 18 NE TOTAL 2,456,429 2,194,448 6,142,197 20,651,270 1,037,153 751,882 1,021,178 85,471 2030 NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5 NH3 PEC Point 909,161 2,217,323 524,752 1,024,912 367,442 253,619 54,794 34,174 Area 530,627 26,648 4,408,598 3,482,983 676,561 496,271 886,619 58,079 Onroad 348,834 2,801 1,104,212 14,720,733 23,369 16,452 104,906 NE Nonroad 339,071 36,398 38,340 183,124 35,820 34,587 19 NE TOTAL 2,127,694 2,283,170 6,075,902 19,411,752 1,103,192 800,929 1,046,338 92,254 NE = not estimated Table 1. 2008 Mexico National Emissions Inventory (tons/year) Figure 1. Mexico Federal Entities and Selected Metropolitan Areas Figure 2. Unadjusted Baja California Point Source Locations Figure 3. Adjusted Baja California Point Source Locations = U.S. Counties = Mexican Municipalities = U.S. Counties = Mexican Municipalities = Incorrect point source locations = Corrected point source locations (Urban locality coordinates) Figure 4. Spatial Allocation of Unadjusted 2008 Mexico NEI On-Road NOx Emissions3 Figure 5. Satellite Measurements of NOx in the Western United States and Northern Mexico3 Figure 6. 2008 INEM State-Level Per Capita NOx Emissions4 (kg/person-year) Table 2. Projected 2018 State-Level Emissions (tons/year) Table 3. Projected 2018, 2025, and 2030 Mexico Emissions (tons/year) Figure 7. Distribution of Projected 2018 NOX Emissions (% of total) Figure 8. Distribution of Projected 2018 SO2 Emissions (% of total) Figure 9. Distribution of Projected 2018 VOC Emissions (% of total) Coahuila México Jalisco Veracruz Puebla Nuevo León Distrito Federal Tamaulipas Guanajuato Michoacán All Others Campeche Coahuila Hidalgo Veracruz Oaxaca Guerrero San Luis Potosí Chiapas Colima Tamaulipas All Others México Veracruz Jalisco Chiapas Puebla Oaxaca Guerrero Distrito Federal Michoacán Guanajuato All Others 10.8% 30.2% 10.6% 8.3% 11.9% 10.3% 8.3% 7.6% 9.7% 7.8% 7.3% 6.1% 6.1% 6.9% 5.7% 3.9% 3.7% 4.3%3.9% 3.6% 4.1% 3.5% 2.7% 3.9% 38.0% 16.1% 36.1% 4.7% 3.9% 4.3%4.7% 4.9% 6.0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 AGU BCN BCS CAM COA COL CHP CHH DIF DUR GUA GRO HID JAL MEX MIC MOR NAY NLE OAX PUE QUE ROO SLP SIN SON TAB TAM TLA VER YUC ZAC Work performed under EPA Contract No. EP-D-11-006, Work Assignment 4-09. IDENTIFICATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF INCORRECT POINT SOURCE LOCATIONS – Approximately 18 percent of the point source facility coordinates were identified as incorrect (i.e., coordinates did not lie within the boundaries of the reported municipality) (see Figure 2) – Assumed that the reported states and municipalities were correct and the reported coordinates were incorrect – All incorrect location coordinates were replaced by locality coordinates for each municipality’s respective municipal seat2 (see Figure 3)