PM2.5 co-benefits of climate change legislation part 1: California’s AB 32

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Christina Zapata (1)
  Nicholas Muller (2)
  Michael J. Kleeman (1)
  
• 刊名：Climatic Change
• 出版年：2013
• 出版时间：2 - March 2013
• 年：2013
• 卷：117
• 期：1
• 页码：377-397
• 全文大小：1253KB
• 参考文献：1. Annual Statistics: Appliance and Housing Data (2011) American Gas Association. http://www.aga.org/Kc/Research/statistics/annualstats/appliance/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 27 January 2011
  2. Assembly Bill No. 32 Chapter 488 (2006). Health and Safety Code, vol 25.5
  3. Bollen J, Guay B, Jamet S, Corfee-Morlot J (2009 ) Co-benefits of Climate Change Mitigation Policies: Literature Review and New Results. Economics Department Working Papers No. 693. Report No. ECO/WKP(2009)34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France
  4. California Air Resources Board (2006a) Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in California. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  5. California Air Resources Board (2006b) Proposed Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in California. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  6. California Air Resources Board (2007a) Air Resources Board’s Proposed State Strategy fo California's 2007 State Implementation Plan: Appendix A. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  7. California Air Resources Board (2007b) Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking. Proposed Regulation for Drayage Trucks. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  8. California Air Resources Board (2008a) Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan: Public Health Analysis Supplement. Attachment A - Public Health and Environmental Benefits of Draft Scoping Plan Measures. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  9. California Air Resources Board (2008b) Climate Change Scoping Plan Appendices: Volume I: Supporting Documents and Measure Detail, vol I. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  10. California Air Resources Board (2008c) Climate Change Scoping Plan Appendices: Volume II: Analysis and Documentation, vol II. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  11. California Air Resources Board (2008d) Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework For Change. Pursuant to AB 32 The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  12. California Air Resources Board (2008e) Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions Under CAFE Standards and ARB Regulations Adopted Persuant to AB1493. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  13. California Air Resources Board (2009a) Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Vol I. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  14. California Air Resources Board (2009b) Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Vol II. Appendices. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  15. California Air Resources Board (2009c) Public Workshop to Discuss Proposed Regulation for Energy Efficiency and Co-Benefits Audits for Large Industrial Facilities. Presentation. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  16. California Air Resources Board (2010a) Drayage Truck Regulation. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  17. California Air Resources Board (2010b) Scoping Plan Measures Implementation Timeline. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  18. California Air Resources Board (2010c) Status Report: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts of the Renewable Electricity Standard. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
  19. California Department of Finance (2007) Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-050, by Age, Gender and Race/Ethnicity. Sacramento, CA
  20. California Department of Transportation Division of Transportation System Information (2009) 2008 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel, and Fuel Forecast. Sacramento, CA
  21. California Department of Water Resources (2003) Water Recycling 2030: Recommendations of California's Recycled Water Task Force. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA
  22. California Energy Commission (2005) Options for energy efficiency in existing buildings. In: Commission, C. E. (ed)
  23. California Energy Commission (2009a). 2009 integrated energy policy report. In: CEC (ed)
  24. California High Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration (2005) California High-Speed Train Final Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the Proposed California High-Speed Train System Volume I: Report. Sacramento, CA and Washington, D.C.
  25. California Water Resources Control Board (2008) Proposed WETCAT Strategies and Measures. Sacramento, CA
  26. Coito F, Worrell E, Price L, Masanet E, Rufo M (2005) California industrial energy efficiency potential. In: DIVISION, E. E. T (ed) ACEEE 2005 summer study on energy efficiency in industry. ACEEE, Berkeley, pp 1-4
  27. Electric Power Group L, and Consortium of Electric Reliability Technology Solutions (2004) California's Electricity Generation and Transmission Interconnection Needs Under Alternative Scenarios: Assessment of Resources, Demand, Need For Transmission Interconnections, Policy Issues and Recommendations For Long Term Transmission. Report No. 700-04-003. Contract No. 150-99-003. Prepared for California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA by Electric Power Group, LLC and Consortium of Electric Reliability Technology Solutions
  28. Environmental Protection Agency (2011) United States Environmental Protection Agency Interactive Conversion Tool. Landfill Methane Outreach Program. jects-candidates/interactive.html">www.epa.gov/lmop/projects-candidates/interactive.html. Accessed 30 March 2010
  29. Fann N, Fulcher CM, Hubbell BJ (2009) The influence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Qual Atmos Health 2:169-76 CrossRef
  30. Flex Your Power (2007) Natural gas: collective annual savings [Online]. Available: www.fypower.org/res/naturalgas/calculations.html [Accessed]
  31. Friel S, Dangour AD, Garnett T, Lock K, Chalabi Z, Roberts I, Butler A, Butler CD, Waage J, McMichael AJ, Haines A (2009) Health and Climate Change 4 Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture. Lancet 374:2016-025 CrossRef
  32. Garrison N, Wilkinson RC, Horner R (2009) A Clear Blue Future: How Greening California Cities Can Address Water Resources and Climate Challenges in the 21st Century. National Resources Defense Council, New York, NY
  33. Gleick PH, Cooley H, Groves D (2005) California Water 2030: An Efficient Future. Report No EPA-430-B-97-015. Contract No. 68-D4-0088, GS-10F-0036K. Pacific Institute, Oakland, CA
  34. Haines A, McMichael AJ, Smith KR, Roberts I, Woodcock J, Markandya A, Armstrong BG, Campbell-Lendrum D, Dangour AD, Davies M, Bruce N, Tonne C, Barrett M, Wilkinson P (2009) Health and Climate Change 6 Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makers. Lancet 374:2104-114 CrossRef
  35. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdon and New York, NY, USA
  36. Jacobson MZ (2005) A solution to the problem of nonequilibrium acid/base gas-particle transfer at long time step. Aerosol Sci Technol 39:92-03 CrossRef
  37. Jacobson MZ (2010) Enhancement of local air pollution by urban CO2 domes. Environ Sci Technol 44:2497-502 CrossRef
  38. Kavalec C, Gorin T (2009) California Energy Demand 2010-2020, Adopted Forecast. Report No. CEC-200-2009-012-CMF. California Energy Comission, Sacramento, CA
  39. Klein G (2005) California's Water–Energy Relationship. Report No. CEC-700-2005-011-SF. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA
  40. Laden F, Schwartz J, Speizer FE et al (2006) Reduction in fine particulate air pollution and mortality: extended follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 173:667-72 CrossRef
  41. Mahmud A, Hixson M, Hu J, Zhao Z, Chen SH, Kleeman MJ (2010) Climate impact on airborne particulate matter concentrations in California using seven year analysis periods. Atmos Chem Phys 10:11097-1114 CrossRef
  42. Markandya A, Armstrong BG, Hales S, Chiabai A, Criqui P, Mima S, Tonne C, Wilkinson P (2009) Health and climate change 3 Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: low-carbon electricity generation. Lancet 374:2006-015 CrossRef
  43. Nemet GF, Holloway T, Meier P (2010) Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environ Res Lett 5:014007 CrossRef
  44. Nenes A, Pandis SN, Pilinis C (1998) ISORROPIA: a new thermodynamic equilibrium model for multiphase multicomponent inorganic aerosols. Aquat Geochem 4:123-52 CrossRef
  45. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2009) Co-benefits of Climate Policy. Report # 500116005. In: Bollen J, Brink C, Eerens H, Manders T (eds). Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven
  46. Pope C, Burnett RT, Thun MJ et al (2002) Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. J Am Med Assoc 287:1132-141 jama.287.9.1132">CrossRef
  47. Roman HA, Walker KD, Walsh TL, Conner L, Richmond HM, Hubbell BJ, Kinney PL (2008) Expert judgment assessment of the mortality impact of changes in ambient fine particulate matter in the U.S. Environ Sci Technol 42:2268-274 CrossRef
  48. R.W. Beck Inc. and Cascadia Consulting Group (2006) Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Characterization and Quantification of Residuals from Materials Recovery Facilities. Report No. 341-06-005 Contract No. IWM-03027. Prepared for California Integrated Waste Management Board., Sacramento, CA, by R.W. Beck Inc. and Cascadia Consulting Group
  49. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (2009) BACT Clearinghouse. Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 3.1.13. . 3.3.13 Waste Gas Fired IC Engine - > 50 hp. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Modesto, CA
  50. Shaw SL, Mitloehner FM, Jackson W, Depeters EJ, Fadel JG, Robinson PH, Holzinger R, Goldstein AH (2007) Volatile organic compound emissions from dairy cows and their waste as measured by proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol 41:1310-316 CrossRef
  51. Smith KR, Jerrett M, Anderson HR, Burnett RT, Stone V, Derwent R, Atkinson RW, Cohen A, Shonkoff SB, Krewski D, Pope CA III, Thun MJ, Thurston G (2009) Health and Climate Change 5 Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: health implications of short-lived greenhouse pollutants. Lancet 374:2091-103 CrossRef
  52. United States Census Bureau (2011) 2010 Census Summary File 1: 2010 Census of Population and Housing. http://factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed 16 Dec 2011
  53. United States Department of Agriculture (2009) 2007 Census of Agriculture: California State and County Data. vol 1. Report Number AC-07-A-5. USDA, Washington, D.C
  54. United States Department of Health and Human Services (US DHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) (2012) Compressed Mortality File (CMF) on CDC WONDER Online Database. The current release for years 1999 - 2009 is compiled from: CMF 1999-2009, Series 20, No. 2O, 2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). http://wonder.cdc.gov/cmf-icd10.html. Accessed 23 Feb 2011
  55. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2004) AgSTAR Handbook: A Manual For Developing Biogas Systems at Commercial Farms in the United States. 2nd edn. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
  56. Viscusi W, Aldy J (2003) The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertain 27:5-6 CrossRef
  57. Western United Resource Development Inc. (2009) Dairy Power Production Program: Dairy Methane Digester System Program Evaluation Report. Report No. CEC-500-2009-009. Contract No. 400-01-001. Prepared for California Energy Comission, Sacramento, CA by Western United Resource Development Inc.
  58. Wilkinson P, Smith KR, Davies M, Adair H, Armstrong BG, Barrett M, Bruce N, Haines A, Hamilton I, Oreszczyn T, Ridley I, Tonne C, Chalabi Z (2009) Health and Climate Change 1 Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: household energy. Lancet 374:1917-929 CrossRef
  59. Woodcock J, Edwards P, Tonne C, Armstrong BG, Ashiru O, Banister D, Beevers S, Chalabi Z, Chowdhury Z, Cohen A, Franco OH, Haines A, Hickman R, Lindsay G, Mittal I, Mohan D, Tiwari G, Woodward A, Roberts I (2009) Health and Climate Change 2 Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport. Lancet 374:1917-929 CrossRef
  60. Worrell E, Galitsky C (2005) Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities For Petroleum Refineries. Report Number LBNL-56183. Contract No.DE-AC02-05CH11231. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA CrossRef
  61. Worrell E, Galitsky C (2008) Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities for Cement Making. Report No. LBNL-54036-Revision. Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA CrossRef
  62. Xenergy Inc (2001) California industrial energy efficiency market characterization study. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Oakland
  63. Ying Q, Fraser MP, Griffin RJ, Chen JJ, Kleeman MJ (2007) Verification of a source-oriented externally mixed air quality model during a severe photochemical smog episode. Atmos Environ 41:1521-538 j.atmosenv.2006.10.004">CrossRef
  64. Ying Q, Lu J, Allen P, Livingstone P, Kaduwela A, Kleeman M (2008) Modeling air quality during the California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS) using the UCD/CIT source-oriented air quality model—part I. Base case model results. Atmos Environ 42:8954-966 j.atmosenv.2008.05.064">CrossRef
  65. Zhao Z, Chen S-H, Kleeman MJ, Mahmud A (2011a) The Impact of Climate Change on Air Quality–Related Meteorological Conditions in California. Part II: Present versus Future Time Simulation Analysis. Journal of Climate 24(13):3362-376. doi:10.1175/2010jcli3850.1 CrossRef
  66. Zhao Z, Chen S-H, Kleeman MJ, Tyree M, Cayan D (2011b) The Impact of Climate Change on Air Quality–Related Meteorological Conditions in California. Part I: Present Time Simulation Analysis. Journal of Climate 24(13):3344-361. doi:10.1175/2011jcli3849.1 CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Christina Zapata (1)
  Nicholas Muller (2)
  Michael J. Kleeman (1)
  
  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis. 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616, USA
  2. Department of Economics, Environmental Studies Program, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT, 05770, USA
  
• ISSN：1573-1480

文摘

The Scoping Plan for compliance with California Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006; AB 32) proposes a substantial reduction in 2020 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from all economic sectors through energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other technological measures. Most of the AB 32 Scoping Plan measures will simultaneously reduce emissions of traditional criteria pollutants along with GHGs leading to a co-benefit of improved air quality in California. The present study quantifies the airborne particulate matter (PM2.5) co-benefits of AB 32 by comparing future air quality under a Business as Usual (BAU) scenario (without AB 32) to AB 32 implementation by sector. AB 32 measures were divided into five levels defined by sector as follows: 1) industrial sources, 2) electric utility and natural gas sources, 3) agricultural sources, 4) on-road mobile sources and 5) other mobile sources. Air quality throughout California was simulated using the UCD source-oriented air quality model during 12?days of severe air pollution and over 108?days of typical meteorology representing an annual average period in the year 2030 (10?years after the AB 32 adoption deadline). The net effect of all AB 32 measures reduced statewide primary PM and NOx emissions by ~1?% and ~15?%, respectively. Air quality simulations predict that these emissions reductions lower population-weighted PM2.5 concentrations by ~6?% for California. The South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) experienced the greatest reductions in PM2.5 concentrations due to the AB 32 transportation measures while the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) experiences the smallest reductions or even slight increases in PM2.5 concentrations due to the AB 32 measures that called for increased use of dairy biogas for electricity generation. The ~6?% reduction in PM2.5 exposure associated with AB 32 predicted in the current study reduced air pollution mortality in California by 6.2?%, avoiding 880 (560-100) premature deaths per year for the conditions in 2030. The monetary benefit from this avoided mortality was estimated at $5.4B/yr with a weighted average benefit per tonne of $35?k/tonne ($23?k/tonne-45?k/tonne) of PM, NOx, SOx, and NH3 emissions reduction.